ZOGBY POLL: 52% say impeach Bush for wiretaps (and past impeachment polls)

The question:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

The answer:


The poll, commissioned by afterdowningstreet.org, mirrors the results of earlier polls by mainstream pollsters Zogby and IPSOS on whether Bush should be impeached if he lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Ironically, both polls show higher support for impeaching Bush without either party talking about it seriously than the peak of support for impeaching Clinton during the impeachment, which rarely broke 40% and the majority didn't even support hearings on Clinton's lying about sex.

http://www.pollingreport.com/scandal1.htm

Afterdowningstreet.org's links on their impeachment polls:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

The other element this story touches on is emerging evidence that Bush began this practice before 9/11, tearing away the other half of his figleaf for this, the first half being the lie that he needed to act fast to tap terrorists (American ones?) even though they have up to three days AFTER the tap is started to get the warrant.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

If the public wants something, the media ignores it, and Congress waits until the president admits to committing a crime (wiretapping) before investigating or exercising any oversight, what does that say about the quality of our democracy?

Whatever party your representatives are, you must hold their feet to the fire.

When people pay attention to politics and make noise, politicians wet their pants, which is why BOTH parties bend over backwards to be nice to old folks--they vote and notice when they get screwed (which is why Bush's prescription drug scam is going to hurt the GOP more than anything else).

KEY EXCERPTS:

Zogby Poll: Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping
Submitted by Bob Fertik on January 13, 2006
For Release: January 16, 2006

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Recently White House spokesman Scott McClellan cited a Rasmussen poll that found 64% believe the NSA "should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects." Of course, that is exactly what Congress authorized when it created the FISA courts to issue special expedited secret warrants for terrorism suspects. But Bush defied the FISA law and authorized warrantless wiretaps of Americans, which has outraged Americans to the point that a majority believe Congress should consider Bush's impeachment.

"Bush admits he ordered illegal warantless wiretapping, but says it began in response to 9/11 and was limited to a small number of calls to or from Al Qaeda," Fertik said. "But recent reports suggest wiretapping affected a much larger number of Americans, and a report in Friday's Truthout says the wiretapping began before 9/11."

The Truthout article
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

FULL TEXT:

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2


wiretap eavesdrop warrant poll impeach afterdowningstreet.org zogby truthout president george w bush republican GOP conservative professor smartass lies political opinion war on terror public opinion opinion worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard closet gaynazi smartass comments resistance censored news rebel

Republican head of judiciary committee says IMPEACHMENT remedy for Bush

For a Republican leader in Congress to talk about this even in the hypothetical shows some degree of return to sane discourse (though Specter has always been more moderate and even voted against far right Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork).

Democrats are sending only cautious signals on pursuing impeachment because they think it will hurt their chances in the 2006 election, which means the rest of us have to pursue two paths to get Bush and Cheney away from the levers of power:

1) Elect enough Democrats to Congress to get majorities in house and Senate, then bust their balls until they impeach

2) Make Bush such an albatross and embarrassment to the GOP that they see impeaching him as helping their odds or being re-elected rather than harming it. That's a steep hill to climb, but just a handful of Republicans in the House have to feel that way to bring charges.

This article also mentions the non-partisan Congressional Research Service report that found their was no legal basis for Bush to do warrantless searches on American citizens.

Of course they have held two American citizens without warrant for several years even though our courts were perfectly capable of giving the so-called "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh a trial and putting him in prison. The Bushies can't seem to tolerate even show trials for the other two. Either they think their evidence is so flimsy it will be laughed out of court (which is likely since the terrorists are more valuable as shadowy boogey men), or they hold even the pretense of their actions being reviewed in contempt.

On this detention issue, it should be remembered that over a thousand people were detained without warrant, charges, contact with a lawyer, or even contact with their family after 9/11. No terrorist related charges have been brought against any of those people, just immigration violations.

Article on CRS report

(I haven't found the actual report yet. Congressmen and Senators ask for them, but the public can only get them if a member of Congress releases it).


KEY EXCERPTS:

Specter: If Bush Broke The Law With Warrantless Spying, Impeachment Is A Remedy

Today on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) — who plans to hold hearings on Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program — upped the ante. He said that if it is determined that Bush broke the law, both impeachment and criminal prosecution are legitimate remedies:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, if the president did break the law or circumvent the law, what’s the remedy?

SPECTER: Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A president — and I’m not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis, but you’re asking, really, theory, what’s the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price.

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service concluded “that the administration’s justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.”

FULL TEXT:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/15/specter-impeachment/





wiretap eavesdrop fisa arlen specter impeachment judiciary committee
president george w bush republican GOPconservative corruption occupation halliburton political humor professor smartass democrat democracy political opinion george w bush, public opinion, opinion, public relations, worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard closet gay chimp smartass comments resistance censored news rebel

Bush accidentally told the truth about the Iraq War the other day

Bush on debating the Iraq War:

January 11, 2006

President Participates in Discussion on the Global War on Terror

Kentucky International Convention Center
Louisville, Kentucky

What I don't like is when somebody said, he lied. Or, they're in there for oil. Or they're doing it because of Israel. That's the kind of debate that basically says the mission and the sacrifice were based on false premise. It's one thing to have a philosophical difference -- and I can understand people being abhorrent about war. War is terrible. But one way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections, is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/2006011..

Bush claims his critics are saying three things that are false:

• the war is based on lies


• the war is for oil


• the war benefits Israel

A good reporter would follow up on each of these since the first one is proven true, a pile of under-reported evidence exists for the second, and until Bush said it WASN'T to benefit Israel,I wasn't sure if it was a factor. Now I know it is.

The right in Israel obviously wanted to see Saddam deposed, but I think they are regretting how sloppily Bush did it.

The other truth he let slip is that he ties the 2006 election and Iraq in his thinking (or at least in the thinking of the people who tell him what to think).



israel iraq war wmd terrorism oil president george w bush real reasons occupation colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq lies peak oil propaganda corporation fascism political opinion george w bush, war on terror, muslim, public opinion, opinion, public relations, foreign policy, al qaeda false flag cointelpro northwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard closet gay karl rove puppet fascist chimp nazi smartass comments resistance censored news rebel

Bushback Mountin'

I apologize in advance to my gay friends, who I don't mean to smear by association with George W. Bush and a gay prostitute.

But this love story is too tragic and epic to be left untold.

Click to see animation:



LINK:
http://static.flickr.com/38/84921288_4bd7ec1944_o.gif

BACKGROUND ON BUSH & GANNON:
http://mysite.verizon.net/myk15/bushhugsmanho.html


bushback mountain bush back mounting bulldog jeff gannon male prostitute white house reporter homosexual skull and bones closet homosexual hypocrite self-hating gay marriagebrokeback mountain religious right hot button president george w bush cartoon editorial cartoon republican GOPconservative political humor professor smartass propaganda political opinion george w bush,public opinion, opinion, worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard closet gay video humor comedy funny smartass comments resistance censored news rebelanimation

President can torture suspect's CHILD says torture memo author

I thought these guys were losing their ability to shock me, but they did it again.

John Yoo wrote the torture memo for the White House that said it wasn't torture unless it resulted in death, organ failure, or impairment of a major bodily function.

The issue raised in this debate are not hypothetical.

Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker has said he seen tapes of children being raped at Abu Ghraib, and former prisoners and guards have separately told similar stories of children abused there.

http://www.sfbayview.com/072104/hersh072104.shtml



The author of this piece says the true purpose of torture is to terrorize Iraqis into obedience, and more broadly as an example to those who might resist us in the future. That sounds harsh, but think about how Stalin used torture. He grabbed people at random, including the wife and son of one of his closest lieutenants. Stalin personally told the guy of their arrest and that they were on their way to a work camp in Siberia and asked him what he thought about it. He unhesitatingly said, "They must have done something to deserve it." Stalin had them released.

The guy in the famous Abu Ghraib Christ pose photo confirmed the purpose, and his release proves that he was no threat to the occupation. This is from an interview with him:

What did they ask you during the interrogations?

\"They wanted to know if I was fighting against the occupation. But also if I knew people in the area in which I lived: I had the impression that they were searching for someone who would become a collaborator, they wanted information. They wanted me to become \"their eyes\" in the region.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=15727

If they use force and police powers to coerce obedience overseas, it is not hard to see them taking the additional steps to do the same here, and the recent revelations about warrantless wiretaps on Americans shows that they are not restrained by law or morality here either--only by what the American people will take before they say enough and stop it.


KEY EXCERPTS:

http://rwor.org/a/028/john-yoo.html

John Yoo – Presidential Powers Extend to Ordering Torture of Suspect's Child

by Philip Watts

December 30, 2005, posted at revcom.us

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.

***

[relevant portion of the debate]

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

[audio of this exchange: http://rwor.org/downloads/file_info/download1.php?file=yoo_on_torture.mp3 ]

****

This fascist logic has nothing to do with “getting information” as Yoo has argued. The legal theory developed by Yoo and a few others and adopted by the Administration has resulted in thousands being abducted from their homes in Afghanistan, Iraq or other parts of the world, mostly at random. People have been raped, electrocuted, nearly drowned and tortured literally to death in U.S.-run torture centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo Bay. And there is much still to come out. What about the secret centers in Europe or the many still-suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib? What can explain this sadistic, indiscriminate, barbaric brutality except a need to instill widespread fear among people all over the world?

FULL TEXT:

http://rwor.org/a/028/john-yoo.html



iraq war terrorism oil president george w bush republican GOPconservative corruption occupation halliburton colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq lies peak oil propaganda corporation fascism democracy political opinion george w bush, war on terror, muslim, public opinion, opinion, public relations, foreign policy, al qaeda false flag cointelpro northwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard karl rove puppet fascist abu ghraib torture child children crush testicles john yoo Seymour Hersh Doug Cassel torture memo nazi smartass comments resistance censored news rebel

Bush Pilot video

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Smartass hard questions for candidates

NOTE: I originally posted this on democraticunderground.com, but it could apply just as well if not more so to the blogosphere in general. (you can see a poll and the replies to this idea HERE).

DU has over 80,000 members, and probably many of us email news clippings and our opinions to even more people.

I have seen ideas discussed here finally bubble up into the mainstream discussion.

In short, we can shape the political discourse.

One way to do this is to ask questions of candidates so we can either endorse them, post a DU score for them, or at least post their answers. Ideally, this would be on questions that webpages like project vote smart don't cover.

Some possible questions:

WAR

If you voted for the Iraq War Resolution, why did you do so? (please do NOT mention terrorism, WMD, or spreading democracy. DU members are generally not retarded)

How should consistent poll results showing that 60-80% of Iraqis want us to pull out our troops as soon as possible effect our Iraq policy?

Do you think that cancelling Iraq's oil contracts with Russia and France and replacing them with American companies, denationalizing their oil industry and restructuring it to suit the demands of our oil companies is a war crime?

Do you think that doing this and putting Bush stooge Ahmed Chalabi in the oil ministry is likely to increase or decrease animosity toward the US in Iraq and the Middle East?

Do you support using our military to gain hegemony over the world's oil supply?

Would you support prosecuting as war criminals the boards of directors and corporate officers of businesses that successfully lobby Congress and the White House to commit military actions so they can profit?

Which uses of our military to invade or attack other countries in the last 50 years were probably not justifiable in your opinion and why?

In the last 50 years, which uses of our intelligence services to overthrow democratically elected governments were justified, which were not, and why? (you can just give an example of one each if you want)

In the last 50 years, which dictators were we justified in supporting and which do you think were unjustifiable?

Why would a country with a handful of nuclear weapons attack detonate one in the United States or give one to a terrorist group that would do so when they know that doing so would trigger overwhelming retaliation from our arsenal of 10,000 warheads? How do you sift legitimate security concerns against opportunistic scare tactics that have been used against the American public?

Do you support the use of mercenaries to interrogate prisoners and provide security as has been done in Bosnia and now Iraq? How do we hold these people responsible for their actions as we do the military with the UCMJ?

9/11 & TERRORISM

Which of the changes to our intelligence services, military procedures, and civil rights would have prevented 9/11 if they had been in place before the attack? Please be very specific about both changes to policy and the relevant details of the 9/11 attack and planning.

No public statement has been made about who sold stock short before 9/11. Will you demand that those parties be investigated, prosecuted, and the results made public?

Would you support another 9/11 investigation conducted people NOT connected to Wall Street, the defense industry, oil companies, and others who profited from the attack?

In particular, would you support public testimony from NORAD pilots and others on any change in scramble procedures and wargames that were going on the day of 9/11?

Our F-15 and F-16s, can get off the ground with a few minutes notice from a cold start, climb to 50,000 feet in a minute, and travel at up to twice the speed of sound.

The hijacked airliners on 9/11 flew unmolested for nearly two hours in the most densely populated part of the United States and what should be the most heavily guarded areas including Washington, DC.

The only two fighters sent to intercept them were traveling at between 400-500 mph, slower than most commercial airliners fly.

In addition to killing or arresting those who commit acts of terrorism, what can we do to make people less likely to join terrorist groups?

ENERGY

Do you believe that our oil supply is finite, and must be replaced with other forms of energy? If so, which energy alternatives do you support and what concrete steps will you take toward making those happen?

FOREIGN POLICY & TRADE

Do you support neoliberalism (bankrupting Third World countries to make them vulnerable to forced privatization of government services and forcing severe cuts in social services) as a foreign policy? If not, what concrete steps have you taken to oppose it?

What would you do to make our trade agreements more beneficial to American workers and protect the rights of workers and farmers in other countries? How would you structure trade agreements so that they don't negate democracy in the countries affected including ours?


CORPORATIONS vs. PUBLIC GOOD

Would you be willing to anger big pharma and insurance companies in order to control costs and make medical care accessible to all Americans? What would you do to rein in those two industries?

What would you do to counter the trend of businesses, especially corporations, relying on underpaid part time workers and temps who often get no benefits or job security?

How would you reduce the influence of corporate America on our political process or at least balance it with the interest of average Americans?

How will you restructure our tax system to make the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share?

EDUCATION

Do you support smaller class size and better pay for teachers as the bare minimum for beginning to fix our K-12 education system?

If you supported No Child Left behind or other right wing education "reforms" how did you think testing kids endlessly without giving them or their teachers the money to correct problems would work? How did you think demanding higher standards for teachers and micromanaging their work would help when schools are already having a hard time attracting smart, motivated people?

What will you do to make higher education more accessible and affordable?


CORRUPTION

What should be done to stop the revolving door between Congress & the Pentagon and the lobbying firms and corporations they work with?

Do you believe that government agencies should be allowed to hire union busting lawyers and consultants with our tax dollars? What will you do to stop this?

Do you support public financing of political campaigns? If not, what steps would you take to curb the severe corruption of elected officials at all levels of government?

Would you support the GAO or another independent oversight agency analyzing legislation to see which businesses profit from it, who they lobbied, who they donated money to, and whether they actually wrote portions of the legislation?

Would you support mandatory labeling on legislation written by lobbyists, including aides and elected officials who worked as lobbyists?

What would you do to curb the cronyism that occurs at all levels of government in both parties, particularly in the awarding of contracts?


CIVIL RIGHTS

What would you do to make us confident that our votes will be counted accurately, and that no one is unfairly barred from voting?

Do you support paper ballots, hand counted or at least open source, inspectable software for any electronic voting equipment used?

What will you do to restore the due process rights of Americans such as habeas corpus and requiring warrants for wiretaps? What should be done with government officials who violated these?

SECRECY & OPEN GOVERNMENT

What would you do to strengthen enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act?

What would you do to curb the arbitrary use of classifying documents?

Obviously, this is far from exhaustive, and includes some idiosyncratic stuff, but you could add to it.

iraq war wmd terrorism oil cindy sheehan president george w bush osama bin laden real reasons dlc democratic leadership council republican GOPconservative corruption occupation halliburton political humor colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq democrat lies peak oil propaganda corporation fascism democracy political opinion agent provocateur george w bush, war on terror, muslim, public opinion, opinion, public relations, foreign policy, al qaeda false flag cointelpro northwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal neoliberalism chamber of commerce dictator 9/11 homeland security norad scramble intercept time to climb climb rate f-15 f-16 insider trading wall street pharma insurance trade agreements nafta cafta gao freedom of information act foia secrecy cia education no child left behind labor

FRAMING: conflict + honesty = attention getting

I have often complained about the "happy talk" approach many Democrats, and especially the DLC take to presenting their case, and am invariably immediately accused of supporting the lies and personal attack tactics of the GOP.

I think there's a clear difference between stating the facts, including about who is opposing you and why, and lying and smearing your opponents.

People not only need facts, they need a STORY with good guys and bad guys and CONFLICT to get their attention. I didn't event this, it's as old as humanity and outlined by Aristotle, but for some reason, many Democrats stubbornly ignore this and want to pretend we are all one big happy family, and their pitches get about as much attention as those sappy watercolor birthday cards with a duckpond and frilly writing on front.

I'll use global warming as example because while serious, it can easily be presented in a deadly dull way.

A

Scientists agree global warming is a serious problem. We need to do something someday that doesn't offend anyone too much, so the Eskimos and penguins can play happily in their winter wonderland, and Florida continues to exist at high tide as well as low.

B

We need to do x,y, and z about global warming, but my opponents are being paid by some of the largest corporations in the world to pretend it doesn't exist in spite of overwhelming scientific consensus. We have the facts, they have the money and PR agencies. I care about how this will effect you and your family. They care about how fixing it will hurt their corporate donors. If you think your family's health is more important than corporations making a few extra points of profits, I need your support.

C

We know that global warming exists and is intent on destroying our way of life, and will do so within 30 days if we do not act. My opponents willfully drive Hummers to intentionally destroy the ozone. They hope that this will destroy the earth so they can meet Jesus in the sky sooner and the rest of us will be killed in the climate change apocalypse. In spite of their religious agenda, they have sex with farm animals and worship Joseph Stalin's exercise of naked power. Now you must decide, are you with us or on the side of the evil-doers?

VOTE HERE: http://www.bzoink.com/P9928



Iraq is another constructive example.

The DLC and pro-war Democrats are lying by repeating the GOPs happy talk talking points.

But it is not enough to say we must get out. We have to show why some will oppose it and have a vested interest in staying.

You can't win over everyone, but even though you can be honest about who is opposing you, you can still give them room to join you and propose things that are fair to them without harming the rest of us.

Right now, letting oil companies and corporate America drive our foreign policy is like giving the keys to the family car to a drunken teenager. It's bad for everyone. Will you look mean if you don't let them drive the car? Yes, temporarily. Does that mean the kid will hate you for the rest of their life? No. They will respect you more.

The difference with corporate America is they are not that teenager.

They are like the Sopranos with more money, better lawyers who can write the laws to make their crimes legal, and PR firms to convince people to like their crimes.

It is even more dangerous to accomodate the Sopranos without acknowledging the harm they do and monitoring their actions to insure they don't continue to do it.

iraq war wmd terrorism oil president george w bush real reasons dlc democratic leadership council republican GOPconservative corruption occupation halliburton political humor colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq democrat lies peak oil propaganda corporation fascism democracy political opinion agent provocateur george w bush, war on terror, muslim, public opinion, opinion, public relations, foreign policy, al qaeda false flag cointelpro northwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal frame framing bob shrum happy talk talking points george lakoff howard dean the sopranos

The threat of the United States being occupied by a foreign power

It's ironic that these guys who are "strong on defense" have actually harmed our reputation in the world and our military by pursuing wars more motivated by corporate profits than actual threats to our security going back to at least Vietnam, and apart from Korea, World War II, and the Civil War, all of our other military actions were about hostile take overs of country's assets.

Marine Corps General and Medal of Honor winner Smedley Butler said:

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

http://www.hackvan.com/pub/stig/anti-govt/war-is-a-rack...

Our lack of success in occupying Iraq tells us exactly what the threat is of another country invading and successfully occupying the US. China, Russia, and the EU would be the only entities even remotely capable of trying, and they would have supply lines stretching across oceans, and at the end of them would be 290 million well-armed civilians who would make the Iraqis look quakers and Gandhi.

To calculate the odds of someone invading us, consider how gingerly we tiptoe around getting into a land war with China after Korea. In Korea, they were poorly armed and technologically well behind us, but they came close to chasing us off the Korean peninsula, and invading China itself would have been impossible.

We were so chastened by the experience that in Vietnam we didn't send ground troops into the North for fear of triggering another conflict with China.

Hitler and Napoleon had similar experiences with Russia. It was easy to invade and impossible to occupy--and they had the advantage of being able to walk there. If someone tried to invade us, they would have those oceans to contend with. And for what? Our oil supplies are declining, and if they want our coal, I think most countries have plenty of their own. The cost of trying to occupy us would break them if we can't afford to occupy a country the size of California.


The only reason another country would attack us is they perceive us as a threat to them. If communists (a boogie man still pulled out from time to time) or terrorists attacked the US, they would win no sympathy for their ideology, and in the case of terrorists, outright occupation would be impossible anyway. The terrorist threat is at best like a neighbor's rabid chihuahua. It might bite your ankle, but it ain't going to take you down and kill you. No amount of terrorist attacks will take down the US.

And of course, once an attack on the US starts, we would burn the attacking country off the map with our nukes, and still have plenty left over for their allies, neighbors, and the rest of the world, which is why no government would use or give to terrorists they thought even might use, nukes on us. The country using or who gave away the nukes that were used would be incinerated before the mushroom cloud formed here.

Those who are "strong on defense" are more worried about securing and occupying the world's oil reserves, making sure the banana pickers in Central America and the sweatshop workers in Haiti don't demand a living wage, and that all accept the privatization and corporate control of their electricity, water, and probably the hole they shit in. Read a history of our interventions in Central America, South America, and the Middle East, then watch the film THE CORPORATION.

Then look at how we react to a democratically elected president who tries to use his country's wealth to improve the lives of his people like Hugo Chavez. We have already backed a recall and a coup against him, and there's no chance Venezuela is ever going to try to invade the US or even attack us.

I have great respect for the military, their patriotism, and the sacrifices they are willing to make for us. I wish the civilians in charge, who are so eager to use them and profit from their efforts, were as admirable.

They incite fear so they can use our military to make money, and nothing else is going on.

We spend more than enough on the military for defense. For the purpose that it is used though, no amount of money will ever be enough.

intelligence counterpunch.com alternative media iraq war wmd terrorism oilpresident george w bush osama bin laden real reasons dlc democratic leadership council republican GOPconservative corruption leftist analysis occupation halliburtoncolonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq democrat lies peak oil propaganda corporation fascism democracy political opinion agent provocateur george w bush, war on terror, muslim, opinion, public relations, foreign policy, al qaeda false flag cointelpro northwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal pre-war smedley butler war is a racket central america middle east south america privatization haiti hugo chavez venezuela military industrial complex hitler napoleon russia china korean war vietnam war

FACTS that are missing from the Iraq debate

I don't know what the best way to end the war in Iraq is.

Some of the facts I have in mind have been covered in the press on page A13 or further back, but have only been acknowledged by a handful of Democrats, not the leadership, and NO republicans.

I'm willing to listen to any proposals provided they squarely and upfront acknowledge the FACTs. Conversely, the less I hear about these things, the more I suspect the person talking is lying.

OIL

• If we just leave, the consequences could be far more severe than in Vietnam because of the OIL.
  
  
• The world's oil supply has either peaked or is about to, and as it declines, the Middle East will be the last region sucked dry. Those who supported the war thought controlling that oil was important for continued US access and our national security as Colin Powell's chief of staff Col. Wilkerson recently said.
  
  Peak oil & Iraq articles:
  http://www.mymethow.com/~joereid/oil_coup.html
  
  Wilkerson:
  http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2005/11/powell-ai...
  
  Neocons have gone further and said that being in control of the oil spigot gives us an effective veto over the growth of other countries including potential rivals like China.
  
  Oil companies probably wanted Iraq's oil for crasser reasons: stocks are low elsewhere so they need the product, and Iraq's oil will grow exponentially in value as other countries oil reserves dry up. Recent price gouging by oil companies shows how much they care about the rest of us.
  
  Background on oil company machinations regarding Iraq:
  
  http://www.gregpalast.com/iraqmeetingstimeline.html
  
  http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesi...
  
  
• Restructuring Iraq's oil during a military occupation to favor our oil companies is probably a war crime.
  
  http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
  
  The Hague Convention of 1907 (IV) see articles 47, 53, 55
  http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/195?OpenDocument
  
  The Geneva Convention of 1949 (IV) we've broken almost every section of article 147, and Bush has personally broken article 148.
  http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument
  
  We cannot break such fundamental, long-standing treaties such as these and then complain when other countries violate the treaties we like.
  
  
• Because of pressure from the oil companies, failure of the media to cover the issue adequately, and public inertia, we have failed to prepare for declining oil supplies by switchng to other energy sources, or even add them to the mix in a significant way.
  

IRAQIS

• 80% or more of Iraqis want us to leave according to a British intel commissioned poll. That Brit poll found that only 1% of Iraqis feel safer because we are there.
  
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...
  
  This is pretty consistent with the spring 2004 polls by Gallup and the Bush appointed CPA. To Jack Murtha's credit, he actually acknowledged these polls in his floor statement.
  
  
  From the Gallup poll in Spring
  





The rest of the Gallup results:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gall...


Bush appointed CPA poll spring 2004




NOTE: the permanent government this refers to is the one elected in January 2005.

The rest of the CPA poll:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/cpapoll_files/frame.ht...



• Even Iyad Allawi, the thug who used to be an enforcer for Saddam that Bush appointed prime minister of the provisional government recently said the human rights situation in Iraq is at least as bad now as it was under Saddam.
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1651810,00.html
  
  
• At the recent Cairo Conference on Iraq, the Iraqi participants from all factions agreed that while insurgent attacks on civilians were wrong, those on occupation forces are not.
  http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F49E55D0-66B1-43...
  http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/02fb4b61d...
  
  
• We restructured the oil industry in Iraq to make it easier for the oil companies to screw Iraqis out of the income from their oil, and easier for Kurdish and Shi'ite provinces to screw Sunnis out of any oil income.
  
  Screwing Iraqis out of their oil income is so important to the Bushies they fired Gen. Garner, the first colonial governor of Iraq, when he correctly said delaying elections and privatizing oil would inflame resistance to the occupation.
  
  Watch interview with Jay Garner:
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39944000/rm/_39944105...
  
  Story:
  http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=383&row=2
  
  Do you think that might piss people off enough to grab a gun?
  
  
• Israelis and Saudis separately studied our interrogations of foreign fighters captured in Iraq and found that most had no prior connection to al Qaeda and were motivated by our invasion, not religious fundamentalism.
  http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/20... /
  
  
  
• The Iraqis are not apes who just descended from the trees, and can't figure out how to put a military and police force together. Bush fired all the qualified people as soon as we invaded. And the current problem is getting troops and cops to fire on their own people who they know may have a legitimate beef with us being there. Which sounds a hell of a lot like Vietnam. Wasn't that the big plan there? Train the Vietnamese to fight for us in our absence? Altough it was never put that bluntly, that's the real problem. When the perception and reality are we are there to screw them out of their natural resources and kill those who protest too much with either airstrikes or death squads, it's going to be tough to find people to consistently fight for us. Those who do are unlikely to be choir boys, and likely inspire even less love for the puppet government.
  
  

ARAB & WORLD OPINION

• The war in Iraq has INCREASED hatred and distrust of the US according to Zogby polls. 98% of Egyptians now have an unfavorable view of us, and that's a country we give billions of dollars a year in aid.
  
  http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadClips.dbm?ID=9081
  
  The view in other Muslim countries, particularly Iraq's neighbors, and the rest of the world is hardly better, according to Pew polls:
  
  
  
  More from the Pew Poll:
  
  http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=800
  
  

iraq war oil geneva convention hague convention grover norquist george w bush dick cheneycpa iraqis neocon neoconservative gop republican greg palast naomi klein zogby poll gallup poll iyad allawi cairo iraqi resistance al jazeera jack murtha sunni shi'ite kurd iraq war wmd terrorism oil president george w bush osama bin laden real reasons dlc democratic leadership council republican GOPconservative corruption occupation halliburton colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq democrat lies peak oil propaganda corporation fascism democracy political opinion agent provocateur , war on terror, muslim, public opinion, opinion, public relations, foreign policy, al qaeda false flag cointelpro northwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal
war crime hegemony eurasia superpower