This text of what I wrote in 2007:
The current Right-wing Republican leadership uses the government and laws against the individuals to protect the corporations and businesses. As a committee chairman Tom Davis is part of that leadership.
It is my personal believe that the government must protect the individual and the individual’s rights from corporations, bad government and bad laws.
The American dream of providing a better life for your children than what you had is not part of the Right-wing Republican leadership agenda. What is on their agenda is to roll back all the gains your fathers, mothers, grandfathers and great grandfathers worked and died for you to have and enjoy. The freedoms we hold so dearly are the values we want to past onto our next generation of Americans. Americans have worked harder and smarter most of the world. These same values are now in doubt of being passed on to the next generation. The corporate world has lost their moral compass again. The Right-wing Republican leadership and corporate leaders have teamed up to destroy all the progress we Americans have made over last 100 years.
Since the 1970s they have been attacking all the social fabricate of America. Not many Americans remember that in the 1970s Americans could not borrow money. Why? Because the corporate bankers decided it was more profitable to make loans to other countries than to American citizens. Why was it more profitable? Because the bankers knew that the debts of countries are never paid off, but they could make a lot on the interest payments. The government essential gave the bankers a guarantee that the loans would not be defaulted. Americans were subjected to interest rates on loans as high as 23% or higher. The American banking corporations were charging Americans these high interest rates because there were too few dollars available to Americans, bankers had after all loaned them to the third world countries, and the banks could increase their profits by charging the American citizens and businesses these high interest rates.
- the 1980s rolled around huge tax cuts were made. Federal Government programs sent to the states. State governments had revenues dried up as most were pegged to the Federal Income Tax. A recession hit the American economy really hard. Since the economy was so bad Wall Street when on a binge of mergers. Corporations with assets in pensions funds were acquired, employees laid-off, their pension funds raided, and then the striped corporation sent on it way without its employees or pension fund assets. Federal revenues dry up just as the state revenues did. While the Federal deficits exploded, the American taxpayers were hit with government’s guarantees of banker’s loans. As if that was not enough the Savings and Loans scandals came to light. Again the American taxpayers paid for the excises of the rich. The S&L industry was saved but at a high cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Huge mergers of the all kinds and the unemployment rates that had not been seen since the Great Depression in the 1930s wrecked havoc with American families.
Most economists during the 1990s have called the 1980s the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of world from the middle class to the rich. What the economists did not know was that Right-wing Republicans would abandon all conservative principles that had been the bedrock of the Republican Party. Today the rich and corporations befit from shifting the tax burden even more to the working Americans, while they outsource American jobs and hire illegal aliens.
The outsourcing of American jobs and hiring of illegal aliens is not a Republican Party principle. It is the greed of the Right-wing leadership for power. To gain that power they have chosen to support the corporate greed. Corporate greed is responsible for creating the California Energy Crisis, Enron, Worldcom, MCI, Tyco, United, Arthur Anderson, illegal stock trades, insider trading, and all the other scandal ridden corporate activities. Corporate executives give themselves the huge bonuses, options, and rich retirements for life, while at the same time out worker pay and benefits.
Every year more Americans loose healthcare coverage. If you do have coverage and get sick the system you are in may be rigged such that you are required pay more for continued coverage. You may be force out of the plan because of the costs of the coverage. Now that the Right-wing leadership has changed the bankruptcy laws and you get sick your family looses and the banking corporations win. However, if the corporation you work for files for bankruptcy your pensions and retirement benefits that may have been promised in lieu of higher wages are no longer the corporation’s responsibility to fulfill.
One of the principles of the Republican Party has always been less government in the affairs of the individual. The Right-wing Republican leadership has throw that Republican principle out in favor of having the Government make decisions for individuals. Decisions that are very personal and private are now being decided by Right-wing Republicans with agendas not to minimize Government intrusions into an individual’s daily life but to maximize Government control over an individual’s daily life. At the same time the Right-wing Republican leadership wants to minimize Government control over corporations.
This leadership jumped at the chance to get involved in the Terri Schiavo tragedy. Every family value they said they hold dear were discarded so as to please the extreme right-wing lust for power. For political gain they passed a law that was clearly unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court running was made they attacked the courts and judges for not bowing to Congress’s wishes. The Right-wing leadership can not stand activist judges expect when judges act according to the Right-wing Republican leadership agenda.
Right-wing Republican leadership and their supporting corporations and organizations may use the same words as us in the working class. But they have an entirely different meaning for each word and phase. Just look at the facts that this leadership has done for us over past several years. Here are some of the myths from the far right:
U.S. Constitution
The U.S. Constitution is not a conservative document by conservatives. It was written by the founding fathers of this country to provide the means for a federal government to operate while preserving the rights of the states and the individual citizens. The Bill of Rights was added to constitution to ensure that individuals’ rights were guarantied or the document would not have been adopted as the United States Constitution. The idea that the U.S. Constitution is some conservative document that needs protection from the evil liberal enemies of Constitution is an out and out lie. If the Bill of Rights was not added there would not be a U.S. Constitution and then there would not a United States. Liberals created the U.S. Constitution and formed the United States. Men and women of liberal ideals fought for our nation’s independence. The conservative of the day wanted to stay with England as a colony but the liberals wanted independence.
Conservative Religious Moral Guidance
The right-wing Republican leadership do not practice Christ’s teachings and they certainly do not show any morality. They use religion against their political enemies just as they used to use race. True Republican beliefs never used religion as a weapon or political tool. Where is the moral value in denouncing a follow American choice of religion beliefs?
Have any of the right-wing conservative leaders really read Christ’s Sermon on the Mount? Christ was not a conservative. Christ was a liberal. Christ taught God’s love for mankind and how one should treat one another as they want to be treated. Christ did not teach that God was about punishment but love. Did not Paul say that the New Testament was for Gentles and the Old Testament was for the Jews? Gentles did not have to follow Jewish laws and customs to be Christians. It was not enough to follow the Ten Commandments, but that they only had to believe in Christ and follow his teachings.
Have they read the U.S. Constitution? Have they read the history of United States before we won our independence from England? Our founding Fathers wanted to ensure that each man and woman could practice the religion of their choice. They want to ensure that they were free from the state ran religion imposed on them, but also to prevent the state from banding any religion as was the practice in Europe.
9/11
The Republican Leadership has repeatedly used the 9/11 tragedy for political gains. They have opposed all criticisms of their agenda and goals as unpatriotic. Not one of the victims on 9/11 was asked, “Which political party they were?” before being murdered. Not one was asked, “They were citizens of what country?” before they were murdered. Yet this leadership wants everyone to see all the victims on that day as Republicans because they died and only patriotic Republican Americans died that day. And as all good Republicans know Democrats are patriotic.
Rove Criticizes Liberals on 9/11[1](made on June 23, 2005)
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.
Below is a URL to Kristen Breitweiser response to Karl Rove. Mrs. Breitweiser was made a widow on 9/11. She is a member of the Jersey Girls who are responsible for getting the independent 9/11 commission created when the Bush administration was against its creation. Her direct response from the heart and should be read by all. As she has stated she is a Republican.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/kristen-breitweiser/karl-roves-understandin_3103.html
Mr. Rove, the first thing that I would like to address is Afghanistan - the place that anyone with a true “understanding of 9/11” knows is a nation that actually has a connection to the 9/11 attacks. One month after 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, took down the Taliban, and left without capturing Usama Bin Laden - the alleged perpetrator of the September 11th attacks.
More to the point, Karl when you say, “Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war,” what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't.[2]
Right to Bear Arms
Republican leadership and their organizations don’t support the second amendment because of any noble ideals. How many innocent men, women, and children are murdered or injured each year, each day for that matter, verses how many crimes were prevented by a gun owner? How can gun owners make claims that owning a hand gun or an automatic weapon protect us from our government from becoming oppressive? How can they make statements that this right protects American’s freedoms? Why must Americans live in fear of being shot in their homes, in their cars, of being carjacked or worst at any time of their daily lives? They just want to be able to sell you guns. It is all business nothing more. We and our children face death or the total destruction of our lives so the gun businesses can sell guns!
Law and Order
This is where there is an obscene twisting of words. For the right-wing Republicans “Law and Order” really means “Law and Order applies to everyone but me.”
Here are some oaths of office every official holding that office must take and honor:
The President’s Oath of Office:[3]
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees): [4]
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The Oath of Office (for officers): [5]
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
The FBI:[6]
MISSION
The mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners. The organization with these responsibilities has not always been called the FBI.
CORE VALUES
The FBI will strive for excellence in all aspects of its missions. In pursuing these missions and vision, the FBI and its employees will be true to, and exemplify, the following core values:
- Adherence to the rule of law and the rights conferred to all under the United States Constitution;
- Integrity through everyday ethical behavior;
- Accountability by accepting responsibility for our actions and decisions and the consequences of our actions and decisions;
- Fairness in dealing with people; and,
- Leadership through example, both at work and in our communities.
So what has been the Republican leadership track record? Where can we start? The current Republican leadership, both the Bush administration and Congress, have repeatedly demonstrated complete abandonment of American principles. Not just American principles but Republican principles as well have been twisted.
But has been the history of the Republican leadership in criminal activities before this current administration? They do have a long and traceable history of ignoring the laws of this country. The American media is filled with ex-cons of previous Republican Administrations that violated the law. Now that “Deep Throat” has been reveled ex-cons are sounding-off their indignation of an FBI official talking to the Washington Post reporters. They are truly astounding G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Charles Colsen, and others. Here are a few of the past act ivies:
Watergate Casualties and Convictions[7]
The Watergate Burglars[9]
There were 5 burglars arrested on June 17, 1972 at the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee:
- Bernard L. Barker- a realtor from Miami, Florida. Former Central Intelligence Agency operative. Barker was said to have been involved in the Bay of Pigs incident in 1962.
- Virgilio R. Gonzales- a locksmith from Miami, Florida. Gonzalez was a refugee from Cuba, following Castro's takeover.
- James W. McCord- a security co-ordinator for the Republican National Committee and the Committee for the Re-election of the President. McCord was also a former FBI and CIA agent. He was dismissed from his RNC and CREEP positions the day after the break-in.
- Eugenio R. Martinez- worked for Barker's Miami real estate firm. He had CIA connections and was an anti-Castro Cuban exile. Click hereto read Martinez's account of the burglary.
- Frank A. Sturgis- another associate of Barker from Miami, he also had CIA connections and involvement in anti-Castro activities.
The five men were charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other communications.
The burglars were indicted by a Grand Jury on September 15, as were:
Iran-Contra:[10]
Like an overdue reminder notice of an unpaid debt, the scandal exposed in 1986 revealed that US executive lawlessness remains, unresolved after Watergate. The following summary is drawn entirely from the account presented by the joint Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, itself published by the US Government the following year. In November 1986 a bizarre story broke: through revelations published in a Beirut weekly, Al-Shiraa, and subsequent statements by the US Attorney-General, it emerged that the Reagan Administration had been secretly and illegally selling arms to Iran in the 1980s, in an attempt to secure the release of American hostages in Lebanon. Senior White House figures had been siphoning off profits from these sales – which had proved lucrative irrespective of hostages – to provide illegal military funding to the Contras in Nicaragua. The Select Committees convened by a horrified Congress unearthed much more, involving President Reagan himself, two of his National Security Advisers (Robert C. McFarlane and Vice-Admiral John M. Poindexter), an NSC staff member (Lt. Col. Oliver North), and – allegedly – the Director of the CIA, William Casey, who died before his testimony could be heard. The Committees discovered that President Reagan had personally violated the law, setting in motion an international covert agenda without notifying Congress or providing written authorisation. His servants had gone much further, not only secretly selling missiles to Teheran, but pouring the profits into a private organisation (melodramatically christened "the Enterprise") under a retired US Air Force Major General, Richard V. Secord. Possessing its own aircraft, pilots, operatives, airfield, ship, secure communications technology and millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts, the Enterprise was created by these officials to enable the White House to engage privately in world-wide covert operations using non-appropriated funds, in secret defiance of Congress and its laws. Abroad the Enterprise gave lethal support to the Contras; at home it engaged in pro-Contra "white propaganda" to defeat hostile Congressmen. The Congressional Committees drew up a list of the laws violated by the White House in this affair: among others, section 501 of theNational Security Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the Boland Amendments (forbidding military interference in Nicaragua) and the Appropriations Clause of the US Constitution itself. Also violated by senior White House staff were 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 (the statute concerning the making of false and fraudulent statements to Congress, a criminal offence) and the Presidential Records Act(for their falsification and shredding of official records). The joint Report bleakly concluded that "beyond doubt... fundamental processes of governance were disregarded and the rule of law subverted".
Iraq War:
The American public has been feed lies from this Bush Administration since 9/11 about Iraq. The neocons in this administration lied and distorted practically every of information to support their decision to attack Iraq.
Memorable quotes of Bush Administration can be found at this URL: http://lunaville.com/wmd/billmon.aspx. It has links to articles documenting the statements. It is a nice site to visit and make up your own opinion on the statements made.
An abbreviated timeline of Bush Administration lies to the American Public about the run-up to war:
AMBASSADOR JOSEPH WILSON:In February 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency sends Ambassador Wilson to Africa to find out the facts to answer the questions that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had about a particular intelligence report.
Ambassador Wilson reports that there was no supporting evidence that Iraq did sought any nuclear materials in Africa.
Cheney sees “gathering danger in Iraq”, DETROIT, June 20 (Reuters) :Iraqi President Saddam Hussein represents a "gathering danger" to the United States, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Thursday, while warning that Washington will act preemptively against threats of terrorism.
"We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction," said Cheney. "In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons," he said.
"A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction," the vice president added, referring to Saddam and the Iraqi forces he fought as defense minister under President George W. Bush's father during the Gulf War in 1991.
Cheney, who spoke at a political fund-raiser here, stopped short of saying there were any established ties between Baghdad and the al Qaeda network, or the Sept. 11 attacks that took about 3,000 U.S. lives.
But he said the possibility of such links was too great to ignore, especially in light of Saddam's defiance of U.N. weapons inspection programs and international oversight.
"This gathering danger requires the most urgent, deliberate and decisive response," he said.
"It is very clear that our enemies are determined to do further significant damage to the American people," Cheney said, citing recent intelligence reports.
"Wars are not won on the defensive," he added. "We must take the battle to the enemy anywhere necessary, to preempt greater stress to our country," he said. Nampa-Reuters[11]
The secret Downing Street memo, 23 July 2002:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.[12]
Remarks by the Vice President to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention, Press Release August 26, 2002 (Excerpts): There is a full agenda for the fall, and beyond. Yet the President and I never for a moment forget our number one responsibility: to protect the American people against further attack, and to win the war that began last September 11th.
As we face this prospect, old doctrines of security do not apply. In the days of the Cold War, we were able to manage the threat with strategies of deterrence and containment. But it's a lot tougher to deter enemies who have no country to defend. And containment is not possible when dictators obtain weapons of mass destruction, and are prepared to share them with terrorists who intend to inflict catastrophic casualties on the United States.
The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts. …
But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors -- including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.
As always in America's armed forces, the single most important asset we have is the man or woman who steps forward and puts on the uniform of this great nation. Much has been asked of our military this past year, and more will be asked in the months and the years ahead. Those who serve are entitled to expect many things from us in return. They deserve the very best weapons, the best equipment, the best support, and the best training we can possibly provide them. And under President Bush they will have them all.
America in the year 2002 must ask careful questions, not merely about our past, but also about our future. The elected leaders of this country have a responsibility to consider all of the available options. And we are doing so. What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness. We will not simply look away, hope for the best, and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve. As President Bush has said, time is not on our side. Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action.
Another argument holds that opposing Saddam Hussein would cause even greater troubles in that part of the world, and interfere with the larger war against terror. I believe the opposite is true. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab "street," the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are "sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans." Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.[13]
Cheney: Saddam working on nuclear weapons (09/09/2002):Cheney said in the interview, broadcast Monday. "We know he has worked to and has succeeded in improving his biological weapons capability. And we're confident that he has also begun, once again, to try to acquire a nuclear weapon."
"We have to be concerned now about the possibility that we're vulnerable to an attack the likes of which we did not experience prior to last September 11 -- with a far more deadly weapon," Cheney said. "We have to worry about the possible marriage, if you will, of a rogue state like Saddam Hussein's Iraq with a terrorist organization like al Qaeda." [14]
Saddam ‘is months away from a nuclear bomb’, 09/09/2002: President Bush, speaking during his summit with Tony Blair, said that Saddam was just six months away from going nuclear.
He said the prediction came from the IAEA but a spokesman for the agency said: "We don't know where he got that figure from."
The IAEA also said that its revelation last week of new construction work at an Iraqi nuclear site, which it did not identify, did not amount to evidence that Iraq had resumed an illicit nuclear programme.
But Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser, said: "We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon."
She added: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."[15]
Marketing Iraq: Why now?, 09/12/2002:Some people are asking, is President Bush's Iraq offensive being driven by the fall election? An idea the vice president calls ``reprehensible.''
"The suggestion that I find reprehensible is the notion that somehow, you know, we saved this and now we've sprung it on them for political reasons," Vice President Dick Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last week.
Even the White House has hinted at a political strategy. As long ago as last January, Bush strategist Karl Rove said, "We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military and thereby protecting America."
Why did the Administration wait until September to make its case against Iraq? White House chief of staff Andrew Card told The New York Times last week, ``From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'' [16]
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH (2003 State of the Union Address):“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”[17]
3/21/2003 Iraq War: Some media recordings during “Stock and AWE” on the third day of war. http://www.here-now.org/shows/2003/03/20030321.asp.[18]
An article in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh, 03/31/2003: Plan 1003 was repeatedly updated and presented to Rumsfeld, and each time, according to the planner, Rumsfeld said, “ ‘You’ve got too much ground force—go back and do it again.’ ” In the planner’s view, Rumsfeld had two goals: to demonstrate the efficacy of precision bombing and to “do the war on the cheap.” Rumsfeld and his two main deputies for war planning, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, “were so enamored of ‘shock and awe’ that victory seemed assured,” the planner said. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1.[19]
AMBASSADOR JOSEPH WILSON (07/06/2003):In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.[20]
America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested.[21]
Meet the Press, Cheney Interview, 9/11/2003:
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: America remembers September 11, 2001. In Iraq, six months ago, the war began with shock and awe. Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on MEET THE PRESS:
(Videotape, March 16, 2003):
VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.
(Live 9/11/2003)
VICE PRES. CHENEY: The level of resistance continues out there, obviously, but I think we’re making major progress against it, and I think it’s important not to let anecdotal reporting on individual resistance conflicts somehow color or lead us to make misjudgments about the total scope of the effort.
The fact is that most of Iraq today is relatively stable and quiet. There are still ongoing incidents, attacks on coalition forces or on others, on the Jordanian Embassy, on the U.N. delegation, on the Shia clerics in Najaf, from ones of—two sources, I believe: either from the remnants of the old regime, the Ba’athists, the Fedayeen Saddam, or terrorists, al-Qaeda types, many of whom were in Iraq before the war, some of whom have arrived since the war. Those are the main two sources that we’ve got to deal with. We are dealing with them. The actual number of incidents, according to General Abizaid, this month is significantly below what it was last month on a daily basis. So we just have to keep working the problem, and we’re doing that.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: …This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it’s very, very important we get it right. If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what’s at stake here. That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.
MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed everything.[22]
Iraq: Shock and Awe II: Good News, Bad News and President Bush's 'Filter',A month ago, President Bush was on a crusade against the media "filter" that he believed was stopping the American people getting the good news on Iraq. Now, it appears, the President himself has been the victim of a "filter" — in the form of Vice President Cheney and the Rumsfeld crowd at the Pentagon who have kept the bad news from Iraq off his desk. Indeed, it was to make an end-run around that particular "filter" that a bleak CIA assessment of U.S. operations in Iraqwas leaked to the media. The analysis, written by the CIA's Baghdad station chief from reports compiled by some 270 operatives on the ground, makes nonsense of the administration's sunny attempts to measure progress by schools rebuilt and electricity supplies, and also of its tendency to characterize the escalating insurgency as the last hurrah of Baathist "dead-enders," al-Qaeda carpetbaggers and other assorted losers.
The CIA warns that a growing number of Iraqis see the insurgency as legitimate resistance to occupation, and is coming to believe that the U.S. can be driven out by the guerrilla campaign. The insurgency, they say, is growing, and the Iraqi Governing Council on which the U.S. had relied to represent Iraqis has no support among them.[23]
Troops put thorny questions to Rumsfeld (Dec 9, 2004):One soldier, identified by The Associated Press as Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, a Tennessee National Guard outfit, asked Rumsfeld why more military combat vehicles were not reinforced for battle conditions.
"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.
The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in the large hangar to hear Rumsfeld deliver a pep talk at what the Pentagon called a town hall meeting.
Rumsfeld said armored military vehicles have been brought to the region "from all over the world, from where they're not needed to a place they're needed."
In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said about 450 armored Humvees are being produced each month. This is up from August 2003 when only 15 per month were made.
That's about the time commanders in Iraq started asking for them because of the increased use of roadside bombs by insurgents.
"It's essentially a matter of physics, not a matter of money," Rumsfeld said. "It's a matter of production and the capability of doing it."
In April, the Pentagon said it was spending $400 million to replace the Army's thin-skinned Humvees in Iraq with the so-called "uparmored" reinforced versions.
"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said.
He added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."[24]
Lawyers are hired not to protect the corporations and keep it within the law, but rather to know the laws and how to break them without getting caught.
How many executives have gone to prison for destroying people’s lives? People loose their savings and the corporate executives get to keep their huge bonus, their huge homes, and all their goodies. The executives get their pensions while the works loose most or all of theirs.
Laws are passed to protect the rich and the corporations. Individuals are prosecuted
Republicans support large defense budgets yet National Security and large national defense budgets are not the same.
National Security is a sound and effective U.S. Military, but includes the Border Patrol, FBI, IRS, INS, local police, fire fighters, NSA, CIA and other intelligence organizations with personnel in numbers that we capture and imprison or deport all illegal aliens.
It is not in our national security to let illegal aliens remain inside our borders. They do not have the rights to court hearings or appeals. Their children who are born within our borders are not legal citizens, and should never be used to justify illegal aliens a means to become U.S. citizens.
That is enough lies Mr. Bush, Americans deserve better from you!
When you hear all the reasons for arming all Americans with hand guns and automatic weapons what do you think about? Protecting your home and family from invasion?
When you lose your job, health care, home, your school, unemployment benefits, and kids need your help, you can use your AK-47 to shot a squirrel for dinner.
[3]http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html
[4]http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step08_swearing_in,,00.html
[5]http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step08_swearing_in,,00.html
[6]http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/priorities.htm
[7]http://www.watergate.info
[9]http://www.watergate.info
[10]http://www.sovereignpeople.com/Watergate.html
[11]http://www.namibian.com.na/2002/june/world/026AE664D1.html
[13]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html
[15]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/09/wirq109.xml
[22]http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/default.htm
[24]http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/