Saturday, June 14, 2008

The Blood on Bush's hands

Bush's Official Conspiracy Theory of 911 Defies the Laws of Physics. If an airliner of some 100 tons had crashed into the Pentagon, some 100 tons of debris would have been recovered. It wasn't recovered because it wasn't there! Not even Bush's kiss ups have dared make such a claim!

The question then is not 'where is the airliner', but 'where is the debris'? Until Bush can come up with a better cover story, his 'theories' are not credible. Stories inconsistent with demonstrable physics are --bluntly --bald-faced lies. Odds are good that whomever is most motivated to lie about 911 is guilty of it!

The 'official conspiracy theory' of 911 is just such a lie. Bush's official conspiracy theory requires a complete rewrite of the laws of physics going back to Galileo, Newton, and perhaps even Aristotle. It is more reasonable to conclude that Bush is a part of a murderous plot to seize dictatorial powers than to conclude that Galileo, Newton and Einstein were just wrong about matter, motion, and the conservation of both matter and energy. I don't they were wrong. Rather --I think Bush is a goddamn liar!

Certainly, Einsteinian physics proposed an equation that describes the conversion of matter into energy: E = mc2. But E = mc2 cannot explain what happened at the Pentagon unless one is willing to posit that a nuclear device was exploded there. Had that happened, the Pentagon and perhaps much of DC would not have been left standing. That we are expected to believe that a 100 ton airliner simply vanished is the most absurd violation of Occam's Razor that I've encountered in my lifetime. It's stupid! Needless to say --no one exploded a thermonuclear device; neither did an airliner exceed the speed of light and thus pop into another dimension.

Absurd theories by Bush partisans and paid liars simply create more problems for themselves than they can explain scientifically. If Bush had been innocent he would have insisted upon a thorough and complete investigation. Instead, he tried to cover it up and interfered with the 911 commission which he opposed.

Let's re-examine the physics that proves Bush a liar.
When a piece of copper metal is heated in air, it comes together with oxygen in the air. Then if it is weighed, it is found to have a greater mass that the original piece of metal. If however the mass of the oxygen of the air that combines with the metal is taken into consideration, it can be shown that the mass of the product is within the limits of accuracy of any weighing instrument, equal to the sum of the masses of the copper and oxygen that combine. This behavior of matter is in accord with what is called the Law of Conservation of Matter: During an ordinary chemical change, there is no detectable increase or decrease in the quantity of matter.

Conversion of one type of matter into another are always accompanied by the conversion of one form of energy into another. Usually heat is leveled or absorbed, but sometimes the conversion involves light or electrical energy instead of, or in addition to heat. Many transformations of energy, of course, do not involve chemical changes. Electrical energy can be changed into either mechanical, light, heat or potential energy without chemical changes. Mechanical energy is converted into electrical energy in a generator. Potential and kinetic energy can be converted into one another. Many other conversions are possible, but all of the energy involved in any change always appears in some form after the change is completed.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.

The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

-- Science > Chemistry > General Chemistry > Energy > Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy
And from another source:
Our very stoichiometry depends upon conservation of mass (indeed atoms!), and our thermal and spectral toys are predicated upon the conservation of energy in its many forms. But that image above is a niggling reminder that Einstein would have us conserve matter+energy instead of either alone. The picture is of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Reactor near Glen Rose, Texas, southwest of Fort Worth. [Click on it and your browser will get you an enlargement, but don't forget to click your "BACK" button to return here to the notes.]

In the reactor, unstable nuclei radiodecay into their fission products the mass of which falls short of the starting nucleus. We're not disturbed that mass isn't conserved; indeed, TU Electric (the donor of the image) is ecstatic with the failure of mass conservation since they make a profit off the resulting failure of energy conservation! And we're comfortable since we recall that Einstein found the conversion factor between mass and energy, namely, the square of the speed of light!

Surely the world's most recognized scientific equation isn't Newton's F=ma but rather Einstein's

E=moc2, however, wasn't satisfactory since it only accommodated matter at rest (that's the meaning of the subscript "o"). If matter is in motion, it has the property of motion called momentum, p=mv (mass times velocity), which, in the absence of forces, is itself a conserved quantity.

More to the point, one important component of the energy Einstein needs to conserve is kinetic energy given by the expression,
K = ½ mv2 = p2/2m.

So the expression Einstein actually used for this matter/energy conservation equation was one incorporating momentum appropriately. And it turned out to be something a bit more complex:

E = [ mo2c4 + p2c2 ] ½

Clearly, when p=0, we recover what we expect, but, when it's not, the rest may look foreign to chemists. It isn't. They may not know that they know it yet, but it draws together things chemists take for granted in an interesting way.

--Einstein's Conservation Law
Bush may believe himself to be a dictator! Even if he were, he cannot decree that the laws of physics be repealed. Anyone with a working brain cell knows by now that Bush lied through his teeth about 911. He actively quashed investigations and interfered with the 911 commission, the creation of which he opposed. Only someone with a 'stake' in our believing his lies would have gone to such extraordinary lengths!

Bush had such a 'stake'. Bush is up to his neck in 911. He either participated in planning 911 or he knew about it and assisted. Qui bono? Bush! Within days, Bush lied about 911 to the American people. We know that Bush has committed capital offenses abroad, violation of US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441. His bloodlust is demonstrable, a matter of public record.

Bush himself --his lies, his record, his obsession with death and destruction --is probable cause to arrest and charge George W. Bush for the mass murder of Americans in connection with the events now known collectively as '911'. Bush's record of lies with regard to 911 is probable cause to begin a real investigation --not a 911 Commission white wash! Let's put Bush in front of Federal Grand Jury under oath! There is a case to be made now that George W. Bush committed capital crimes --not just in Iraq against Iraqis but in America against Americans.
After watching the following two videos I thought it would be worth while reposting the information on why the conspirators who orchestrated 911 must be brought to trial and how it is possible that the governments of Italy and Japan can question 911 but our children are forbidden from doing so.

In the meantime --the most outlandish and idiotic conspiracy theory ever:
According to the ever truth-telling government of the US and the ever accurate US media, the 9/11 attacks were planned by a sickly man hiding in a cave who just so happened to be a "former" CIA employee.

The attacks were then carried out by 19 Arab hijackers who, just by chance, lived next door to the Israeli Mossad and magically some how at least 7 of them remained alive after crashing planes into buildings.

This is, of course, because each of the living hijackers had eaten those little green 1up mushrooms from Super Mario brothers and upon their death they just came back to life on earth as extra men. Claiming that these men could not possibly have carried out the attacks just because a few of them are alive is absurd. The magical 1up mushrooms explains everything perfectly

--The other 911 theory

Bush's cover up of 911 and related skullduggery by the war criminal in the Oval Office:

Friday, June 13, 2008

Gore Vidal: Gore Vidal’s Article of Impeachment

On June 9, 2008, a counterrevolution began on the floor of the House of Representatives against the gas and oil crooks who had seized control of the federal government. This counterrevolution began in the exact place which had slumbered during the all-out assault on our liberties and the Constitution itself.

I wish to draw the attention of the blog world to Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment presented to the House in order that two faithless public servants be removed from office for crimes against the American people. As I listened to Rep. Kucinich invoke the great engine of impeachment—he listed some 35 crimes by these two faithless officials—we heard, like great bells tolling, the voice of the Constitution itself speak out ringingly against those who had tried to destroy it.

Although this is the most important motion made in Congress in the 21st century, it was also the most significant plea for a restoration of the republic, which had been swept to one side by the mad antics of a president bent on great crime. And as I listened with awe to Kucinich, I realized that no newspaper in the U.S., no broadcast or cable network, would pay much notice to the fact that a highly respected member of Congress was asking for the president and vice president to be tried for crimes which were carefully listed by Kucinich in his articles requesting impeachment.

But then I have known for a long time that the media of the U.S. and too many of its elected officials give not a flying fuck for the welfare of this republic, and so I turned, as I often do, to the foreign press for a clear report of what has been going on in Congress. We all know how the self-described “war hero,” Mr. John McCain, likes to snigger at France, while the notion that he is a hero of any kind is what we should be sniggering at. It is Le Monde, a French newspaper, that told a story the next day hardly touched by The New York Times or The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal or, in fact, any other major American media outlet.

As for TV? Well, there wasn’t much—you see, we dare not be divisive because it upsets our masters who know that this is a perfect country, and the fact that so many in it don’t like it means that they have been terribly spoiled by the greatest health service on Earth, the greatest justice system, the greatest number of occupied prisons—two and a half million Americans are prisoners—what a great tribute to our penal passions!

Naturally, I do not want to sound hard, but let me point out that even a banana Republican would be distressed to discover how much of our nation’s treasury has been siphoned off by our vice president in the interest of his Cosa Nostra company, Halliburton, the lawless gang of mercenaries set loose by his administration in the Middle East.

But there it was on the first page of Le Monde. The House of Representatives, which was intended to be the democratic chamber, at last was alert to its function, and the bravest of its members set in motion the articles of impeachment of the most dangerous president in our history. Rep Kucinich listed some 30-odd articles describing impeachable offenses committed by the president and vice president, neither of whom had ever been the clear choice of our sleeping polity for any office.

Some months ago, Kucinich had made the case against Dick Cheney. Now he had the principal malefactor in his view under the title “Articles of Impeachment for President George W. Bush”! “Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.” The purpose of the resolve is that he be duly tried by the Senate, and if found guilty, be removed from office. At this point, Rep. Kucinich presented his 35 articles detailing various high crimes and misdemeanors for which removal from office was demanded by the framers of the Constitution.

Update: On Wednesday, the House voted by 251 to 166 to send Rep. Kucinich’s articles of impeachment to a committee which probably won’t get to the matter before Bush leaves office, a strategy that is “often used to kill legislation,” as the Associated Press noted later that day.

--Gore Vidal’s Article of Impeachment


Truthdig Dig

Limits to Growth and the Inevitable End of Capitalism

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It's been over 35 years since the "Club of Rome" shook up the world with a computer model that predicted the collapse of life on Earth. A startling book, "The Limits to Growth" was not the work of cultists or fanatics. It was the work of known, respected scientists and computer experts.
Our conclusions are
  • If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.
  • It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential

--The Limits to Growth, Abstract established by Eduard Pestel. A Report to The Club of Rome (1972), Donella H. Meadows, Dennis l. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, William W. Behrens III
The issues raised are more relevant now than ever. 'Capitalism' is premised upon unlimited growth. It follows, therefore, that if we have come to the limits of growth we have come to the limits of capitalism. The absolute end of growth is the absolute end of capitalism. Reality mandates NON-IDEOLOGICAL thinking. Ideologues will never grasp that! They cannot 'handle the truth'.
All historical eras are shaped by the material and environmental realities of their time. Our own reflects the adjustments society and nature have made to accommodate the unprecedented 6.7 billion human beings now alive. And those changes are dramatic. The planet is warming dangerously as a result of the heat-trapping byproducts of our daily lives. Half of the primeval forests that existed at the end of the last ice age are gone. A mist of mercury and other toxic metals from coal combustion falls continuously on land and ocean, and to eat fish is to absorb these metals yourself. Half of us are now urban, rarely if ever meeting up with creatures wilder than crows, cockroaches, and, in some cities, packs of feral dogs....

What dominates our experience in the first decade of the third millennium are the technologies and institutions we have invented, disseminated, tinkered with, and improved over thousands of years to make human life on such scales possible. We've done well. Not only are more people alive than ever, but most of us live longer than our ancestors did. Quite a few of us spend our entire lives in comfort and with tools and toys that those ancestors never could have imagined.

--Population: What to Do When There Are Too Many of Us
It's impossible to imagine unfettered growth continuing forever on a planet of finite resources. Unless the human race escapes the earthly sphere, it may not mine the resources of the Solar System. It may not be simply assumed that such 'exploitation' will ever be practical or feasible economically. Exploration for the sake of exploration is costly. It will have to be shown that going 'where no man has gone before' is profitble before it becomes reality. Thus it is not only the 'limits to growth' that are at issue but the 'limits' to the very practicality of limiting human horizons to that which is profitable.
"In 1990 the nonrenewable resources remaining in the ground would have lasted 110 years at the 1990 consumption rates. No serious resource limits were in evidence. But by 2020 the remaining resources constituted only a 30-year supply. Why did this shortage arise so fast? Because exponential growth increases consumption and lowers resources. Between 1990 and 2020 population increases by 50% and industrial output grows by 85%. The nonrenewable resource use rate doubles. During the first two decades of the simulated twenty-first century, the rising population and industrial plant in Scenario 1 use as many nonrenewable resources as the global economy used in the entire century before. So many resources are used that much more capital and energy are required to find, extract, and refine what remains.

"As both food and nonrenewable resources become harder to obtain in this simulated world, capital is diverted to producing more of them. That leaves less output to be invested in basic capital growth.

"Finally investment cannot keep up with depreciation (this is physical investment and depreciation, not monetary). The economy cannot stop putting its capital into the agriculture and resource sectors; if it did the scarcity of food, materials, and fuels would restrict production still more. So the industrial capital plant begins to decline, taking with it the service and agricultural sectors, which have become dependent upon industrial inputs. For a short time the situation is especially serious, because the population keeps rising, due to the lags inherent in the age structure and in the process of social adjustment. Finally population too begins to decrease, as the death rate is driven upward by lack of food and health services."

ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS, Tom Tietenberg; Harper Collins [p.p.132-134]
It was not so long ago that the European exploration of the 'new world' was motivated by greed and empire. At the 'limits of growth', 'greed and empire', indeed 'capitalism' of any sort may be obsolete. Thus 'global warming' is denied in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is real. Any fact will likewise be denied if it should challenge unquestioned dogma, especially the dogma of capitalism or any economic system premised upon the infinite exploitation of finite resources.

The 'Club of Rome' addressed five basic elements of life on earth --population, food production, and our consumption of nonrenewable natural resources. All are increasing at exponential rates. It should be clear that not only are there limits to exponential growth, assumptions that such growth is infinitely sustainable are not supported by fact, theory or observation. I don't have an animated demonstration of exponential growth as it relates to 'population' growth specifically, but I do have the late physicist Phillip Morrison narrating a dramatic visual representation of the 'powers of ten', the effect of adding one to an exponent.

In wake of SCOTUS, Bush should just put up or shut up!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

At last --the US Supreme Court is on the right side of a 5-4 decision. Not surprisingly, George W. Bush has failed to give the decision the support which the decision --now the law of the land --warrants and demands! Bush has but one sworn duty and that is to execute, uphold and defend the laws of the land. Nevertheless, his mealy mouth statement following the high court's decision recognizing the right of Guantanamo detainess to challenge their detentions in civilian courts does not inspire confidence in a regime that has never deserved or inspired confidence.

Video: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gitmo Detainees

The Bush administration claims Sheikh Mohammed is the 'master mind' of 911.
We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It ...deeply divided court. uhhhh...I strongly agree with those who dissented.

--Bush, Mastermind behind the US terrorist attack and invasion of Iraq

My response to George W. Bush, the master mind behind US imperial terrorism throughout the world, is simply this: put up or shut the fuck up you stupid, criminal son of a bitch! Bush, if you have a case against the Sheikh, MAKE IT! Otherwise, resign the office you have disgraced and just shut up!

A final shot: the court, Bush says, was 'deeply divided' on this issue. But, are we to believe, that the court was not 'deeply divided' when Antonin Scalia and four other right wing ideologues handed down Bush v Gore, a disingenuous decision that made no law, the very worst SCOTUS decision since Dred-Scott?

At last, Scalia is not only not 'intellectually challenged', he is 'intellectually dishonest'. Scalia will look for convincing if fallacious rationalizations to support his prejudiced point of view. Scalia has disgraced the court. If the US survives the wave of right wing hysteria that has attacked it and its institutions, it may take generations to right the wrongs of the 'right'!

Scalia claims that the majority decision will cause 'more Americans to be killed'!


It's hard to see how any more Americans could possibly be killed than have died already as the direct result of Bush's order to attack and invade Iraq --a nation which not even Bush dares try to connect with 911 or with 'terrorism'. Scalia is no judge --he's a propagandist! And not a good one.

The idiot Scalia dare not try to make the case that any detainee from either Afghanistan or Iraq have had anything to do with terrorism of any kind at any time. Why, then, are they detained? Only liars, Bush and Scalia primarily, are threatened by granting these 'detainees' their day in court.

How can Antonin Scalia write with a straight face that by recognizing the 'universal human right' to habeas corpus, the right to defend ones' self against charges that, by right, should be made formally and within a reasonable amount of time are the lives of Americans endangered in any way?

Scalias' argument is sophomoric, intellectually challenged, without supporting precedent of any kind in western jurisprudence, without supporting precedent over some 400 years of Anglo/American common law. It is most certainly abhorrent to those principles affirmed and made law in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Scalia's ideas are, in fact, repugnant, fascist and un-American! Scalia is a traitor to the ideals of our revolution and our history. Scalia is unfit to sit upon the high court. His continued presence disgraces the court and undermines its credibility.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Liberty Betrayed!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Et tu, Democratic Party?

The American people have now suffered what must surely be the ultimate betrayal! Those elected to represent and serve their interests in Congress have 'winked and nodded' to Bush's heinous crimes, abuses, usurpations of unconstitutional power, aggressive war and villainy. Democrats in Congress have quashed a move by Dennis Kucinich to impeach the usurper who still occupies the White House.

In a single act of cowardice and betrayal, if not treason, the US congress has 'scuttled' the Articles of Impeachment drawn up and carefully researched by Dennis Kucinich. The US government, therefore, may no longer assert or claim legitimacy. By turning a blind eye to the numerous specific crimes that Kucinich outlined and proved in some 35 Article of Impeachment, the people are left adrift. There is no rule of law!
WASHINGTON - Democrats in the House of Representatives yesterday scuttled a colleague's proposal to impeach President Bush on a wide range of charges, including lying to the American public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, torturing war captives, and misleading Congress in an attempt to destroy Medicare.
By a 251-166 vote, the House sent the 35-count articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, which is expected to let it die without further action. While the vote technically forces the measure to the committee for consideration, it also means the full House will avoid having to debate and vote on impeaching the 43d president.
--Democrats scuttle proposal to impeach Bush
According to Boston. com "no Democrats [sic] voted against the resolution to send the measure to certain death in the Judiciary Committee, but 166 Republicans voted no - a tactic designed to force Democrats to address the measure publicly." The desires, needs and aspirations of the vast majority of people had long ago been betrayed by the GOP. Now --the Democrats have simply twisted the knife in the wound.

Thomas Jefferson would have had this to say:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
Clearly --as Dennis Kucinich proved conclusively and persuasively in some 35 Articles of Impeachment --the government of George W. Bush, his enablers, toadies, and the financial support that he enjoys has 'broken the peace' with the American people. The US Constitution is a covenant between the people and those elected to serve them. Bush has broken that covenant, thumbed his nose at it and disdained it, calling the Constitution ' ...just a goddamned piece of paper!" The case against Bush, indeed this government was documented and proven in Kucinich's 35 Articles of Impeachment.
America, your government has betrayed you!
When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law; peace is considered already broken.
--Guerrilla Warfare, Ernesto "Che" Guevara
What will you do without freedom? What will you do about the yoke of tyranny imposed by the war criminal and usurper who now occupies the White House illegally? The Courts have abandoned you. The 'Presidency' is lost, perhaps forever to the forces of totalitarianism, greed and villainy.

Americans' last hope --the Democratic majority in Congress --has, in fact, told you to 'fuggetaboutit'! The US government is no longer legitimate! Like Bush, your government no longer 'cares what you think!"

ADDENDUM: I was in the process of annotating Kucinich's 'Articles' when I learned of the Democrats betrayal. Here are the very few that I had assembled:
  1. Senate Finds Pre-War Bush Claims Exaggerated, False
    Proof Bush Fixed The Facts
    Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War
    False Pretenses
    Study: Bush Led US To War on ‘False Pretenses’
  2. The Nation: Bush's Lies About Iraq
    BBC: Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link
    Bush Falsely Claims He Never Linked Hussein To September 11»
    Ex-Bush aides conflate 9/11, Iraq in pro-war ad campaign
    9/11 Linked To Iraq, In Politics if Not in Fact
    Mother Jones: The Lie Factory
    Pro War Ads Falsely Link 9/11 To Iraq
    Bush Misled America about the Threat from Iraq
    Buzzflash: Did George W. Bush Invade Iraq by Lying?
  3. A History Of Lies: WMD, Who Said What and When
    President Delivers "State of the Union" (2003)
    Iraq WMD Lies: The Words of Mass Deception
  4. Nuremberg Principles:
Principle I
Any person who commitsan act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the personwho committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsibleGovernment official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that aperson acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility underinternational law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
War of Aggression = War Crime
Bush Officials Charged with War Crimes: Crimes within the Court’s Jurisdiction:
  • The crime of genocide
  • Crimes against humanity
  • The crime of aggression
  • Crimes against United Nations and associated personnel

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

How Much Was Fox Paid to Shill Bush's War Crime in Iraq?

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The many lies told by Fox and Bill O'Reilly are probable cause to suspect Fox of criminal complicity with the Bush regime. It is reasonable to suspect that Fox is called Bush's "propaganda ministry" because it is Bush's propaganda ministry. Bush may yet stand trial for war crimes and mass murder. But what of his enablers inside his 'propaganda ministry'? It is reasonable to ask how many members of the Fox board, how many executives, how many on-camera shills share Bush's guilt for having perpetrated a murderous lie upon the American people and the world.

It boils down to a legal term: quid pro quo --the word given a 'transaction', an agreement that an item or a service is returned for something of value. Certainly, throughout Bush's war of aggression against Iraq, a war crime in which some 4000 US service personnel were sacrificed upon a bald faced lie, the relationship between Fox and Bush has been symbiotic and conspiratorial. Fox is thus motivated to convince you that 'conspiracies' do not exist though most US case law and SCOTUS decisions have to do with conspiracies of one sort or another.

There is probable cause to suspect, that Bush and Fox achieved agreement upon a quid pro quo! Fox is Bush's propaganda ministry and, if so, the members of the board of directors and key executives may be considered war criminals just as Goebbels was so considered during the Third Reich.

To be fair, FOX has not confined its venal reporting to a decade that will be recalled as the era of Bush atrocities and war crimes! Fox was under investigation by the ITC (Independent Television Commission) back in the 90s, specifically nine complaints by viewers of Sky Digital satellite, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, the evil godfather of Fox! Fox's jingoistic support of Bush's war crime in Iraq, however, cries out to be investigated by a federal panel with powers to subpoena.

Fox does not merely slant the news; it makes it up! Keith Olbermann and Robert Greenwald expose the truth about Fox lies. Fair and balanced? I have a better slogan for FOX. BUNKUM AND BULLSHIT!

If I were on a Federal Grand Jury investigating Bush's capital war crimes, I would insist that 'we' issue subpoenas to Fox execs, perhaps Murdoch himself! In support, I would argue that no investigation of Bush's war crimes could possibly be complete unless the propaganda matrix that made it all possible is likewise investigated thoroughly. We would want to ask them --while they are under oath --just what is in it for Fox to make up news favorable to Bush?

What, for example, was Fox paid to orchestrate billions of dollars in 'free' publicity in support of Bush's war crimes in Iraq? To what 'quid pro quo' did Fox agree for its support of an oil war known to be obscenely profitable for the Military/Industrial complex? We know how the armaments manufacturers 'get paid' for supporting wars of aggression and other war crimes! I want to know how media whores and parasites get their share of the kill!

I want to ask Rupert Murdoch --while he is under oath --how he benefits personally by presiding over a news organization that makes up the news.

A timely subpoena might cough up thousands of emails revealing how Fox conspired with Bush to defraud Americans and the world. There is a bigger story here than a single memo. What is Murdoch's specific connection to the Bush crime syndicate? Who got paid? When? And how much? How? What was the quid pro quo?

Murdoch-owned Fox wants you to think its cover 'patriotic' --but it's not. Lies told to enable a traitor are treasonous. There is nothing patriotic about lying to the American people and the world in support of and on behalf of war criminals! There is nothing patriotic about conspiring to grease the wheels for Bushco's theft of Iraqi oil! There is nothing patriotic about sending US troops to die for Bush's vainglorious visions of conquest and oil theft. There is nothing patriotic about Fox's support of Bush's disdain for the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, documents that Bush was sworn to uphold and did not! Bush, in fact, put his hand on the black book and lied through his teeth.

At market rates for network air time, Fox has most certainly supported Bush to the tune of $billions$. FOX's foray into NFL football came at a price --almost 2 billion dollars. The move made upstart Fox a major player with CBS, ABC and NBC. Are we to believe now that Murdoch has simply given away valuable network air time to the likes of war criminals? Murdoch is not suspected of having compunctions. The point is --Murdoch is in it for the bucks.

Media is now 'unfair' because the 'Fairness Doctrine' came under attack during the Reagan years. By 1990, the FCC had abandoned many rules and procedures that might have prevented broadcasters from using their stations in service to blatant propaganda or ideology. This Reagam-era mania for 'de-regulation' made it possible for Murdoch to build an entire network around outright lies!

The objective of the 'Fairness Doctrine' was, rather, the preservation of all points of view, a requirement enforced by an FCC mandate. De-regulation, however, eliminated guidelines for non-entertainment programming. The FCC justified it all with bureaucrat-speak. Fox was thus 'set free' to propagandize and brainwash! The era of the 'media whore' was ushered in.

Bill O'Reilly stated: 'Flat out lies should be confronted.' 'Confronted' is surely O'Reilly-speak for 'embraced'. 'O brave new world, that hath such people in it'!
Since the Iraq conflict began on March 20, Fox News has been on a mission to legitimize it. One problem for Fox's protracted apologia is that despite promises of evidence of current weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Bush Administration, the evidence has been ambiguous at best. Unfortunately for the network, I’ve been keeping a scratch diary of their reports since the war began.

Keep in mind that in the first three weeks of March, before the bombs started officially dropping, Fox was spreading all sorts of Pentagon propaganda. Iraq had "drones" that it could quickly dispatch to major U.S. metropolitan areas to spread biological agents. Saddam was handing out chemical weapons to the Republican guard to use against coalition troops in a last-ditch red-zone ring around Baghdad. Given what we now know about Iraq, these reports seem to be laughable fantasies, but they were effective in securing public backing for the war. The following is a short chronicle of lies, propagation of lies, exaggerations, distortions, spin, and conjecture presented as fact. My comments are in brackets [ ]s.

March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage.

March 19: Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker [!!] and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns."

[After my last article, one sniveling neocon after another wrote me to tell me I was unqualified to assess defense matters because I wasn't a "defense analyst" (never mind that the article wasn't on the war, and the "real" defense experts made one wrong prediction after another on this war). It's interesting how these sniveling Frumsters cheer on the college-uneducated Hannity and Limbaugh when they make defense analyses supporting the neocon view. I do know enough to say that the informed Bevelacqua's suggestion that a MOAB would be used on a bunker was puzzling to say the least (given the reports of less-than-dazzling performance of daisy cutters outside caves in Tora Bora). Anyway, later reports confirmed that GBU-28 bunker busters were used during The Decapitation That Apparently Failed.]

March 23: The network begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a 100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical weapons plant. Much is made about the fact that it was booby trapped. A former UN weapons inspector interviewed on camera over the phone downplays the WMD allegations and says that booby-trapping is common. His points are ignored as unequivocal charges of a chemical weapons facility are made on Fox for yet another day (March 24). Only weeks later is it briefly conceded that the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were pesticides.

[Jennifer Eccleston has to be the worst reporter employed by any network. She began one segment with a "Hi there!" – in no response to any segue from the relaying anchor at Fox headquarters in New York. Her bangs are long and constantly blowing in her face in the wind. Her head wobbles from side to side with her nose tracing out a figure 8 all the while arbitrarily syncopating a monotone voice with overemphasis on the last syllables of different words (e.g., Bagh-DAD’). The old, white-haired flag-waving yahoos like her not for her professionalism – she has none – but because of her innocent Britney Spearsesque beauty; i.e., she's a typical young piece of meat which dirty old men with too much time on their hands fantasize about.]


"... stating that "marketplace solutions can be consistent with public interest concerns," [FN100] that "significant amounts of nonentertainment programming of a variety of types will continue on radio," [FN101] and that "stations will continue to present such programming as a response to market forces." [FN102] In the same proceeding, the Commission eliminated the requirement that stations conduct ascertainment studies to determine the problems and needs of their communities. [FN103] It dismissed concerns that free market competition would tend to limit broadcasters in their assessment of community problems to those of the economically significant segments of the community, [FN104] and left the methods of assessing community problems and needs to broadcasters' "good faith discretion." [FN105] In this proceeding, the Commission also eliminated its commercial guidelines, [FN106] stating that marketplace forces would more effectively curb excessive advertising [FN107] and that "[n]o government regulation should continue unless it achieves some public interest objective that cannot be achieved without the regulation." [FN108] [Pace University School of Law, Summer, 1990. Marc Sophos] Also [Deregulation] [Fairness Doctrine] [Fox Bias]

The independent television commission is investigating nine complaints by viewers of the channel, broadcast on Sky Digital satellite, also controlled by Rupert Murdoch.

Dale Steinreich, Fibbing It Up at Fox
Admittedly, I did not follow the following 'non' story. But, as I am writing about Fox, it may be appropriate here.
NEW YORK - Fox News dropped its lawsuit against Al Franken on Monday, three days after a federal judge refused to block the liberal humorist from using the Fox slogan "Fair and Balanced" on the cover of his latest book. ...

"It's time to return Al Franken to the obscurity that he's normally accustomed to," Fox News spokeswoman Irena Steffen said.

-- Fox News Drops Lawsuit Against Al Franken
Hey, Fox! I am using two perfectly good English words that you 'claim' belong to you. Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced!

So ---sue me!

Fox has a 'blog' (wink, wink) called 'Embed producers'. It proves that Psychopaths Rule the World. I wonder -- How Much Was Fox Paid to Shill Bush's War Crime in Iraq?. Embed Producers is not a blog! It's idiots paid by Fox to write bullshit! What a career!

'George W. Bush has gotten away with murder'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Since former LA prosecutor Vince Bugliosi charged that Bush was guilty of the crime of mass murder, allegations by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan have simply 'buttoned up' Bugliosi's already open and shut case. Bugliosi now has a material witness.

Bugliosi has much more than 'probable cause' to bring charges against Bush and his inner circle. He has the smoking gun, the open and shut case, the verifiable, indisputable fact that Bush knew Saddam did not have WMD but sent some 4,000 Americans to their deaths in Iraq anyway. I want to see McClellan on the witness stand spilling his guts about how Bush planned to hoax the world for the benefit of Dick Cheney's Halliburton!

Bugliosi's book hit the stores just recently and since then the capital murder case against Bush has been made open and shut with a material witness to the crime: Scott McClellan. McClellan's 'smoking gun' is his recent confirmation that Bush and co-conspirators inside the White House deliberately planned the US attack and invasion of Iraq knowing full well: 1) that Saddam did not pose a threat and, 2) Saddam did not have WMD. It's open and shut. Let Bush's murder trial begin.

Not mentioned by Bugliosi in the video is the fact that because the US attack and invasion of Iraq was a fraud, Bush may be held accountable in the International Court, as well, for the deaths of every Iraqi at the hands of US troops. This is not merely a matter for the International Court however. It is the subject of federal law, US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441, which makes George Bush subject to the death penalty under US federal law.

The timeline of events, a matter of public record, and the testimony of Scott McClellan who supports the charge that Iraq was but a fraud upon the entire world, is the case that must be made against Bush in court.

As we know --Colin Powell's presentation to the UN consisted of ten year old, obsolete black and white satellite photos, a plagiarized student paper (cited as authoritative), and other bogus so-called 'evidence'. Events have proven all of these deliberate fabrications to be bald faced lies. Saddam never had WMD, in fact, few weapons but those provided him by the US.
As a critic of US foreign policy in the Middle East, especially when unsubstantiated allegations of weapons of mass destruction are used to sell a war, I am no stranger to the concept of questioning authority, especially in times of war. I am from the Teddy Roosevelt school of American citizenship, adhering to the principle that “to announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.”


As a weapons inspector, I was very much driven by what the facts said, not what the rhetoric implied. I maintain this standard to this day in assessing and evaluating American policy in the Middle East. It was the core approach which governed my own personal questioning of the Bush administration’s case for confronting Iraq in the lead-up to the war in 2002 and 2003. I am saddened at the vindication of my position in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not because of what I did, but rather what the transcripts of every media interview I conducted at the time demonstrates: The media were not interested in reporting the facts, but rather furthering a fiction.

--Investigate This, Scott Ritter
The Washington Post is now trying to re-write history in favor of Bush's latest 'counter-offensive'. By his own accounts, Bush did not lie about WMD though we were told repeatedly of Saddam's chemical and nuclear programs. Bush now claims that his 'war like talk' was a mistake. This latest round of revisionism is beginning to look like a 'full court press' to salvage a few shreds of credibility. Notably, the Washington Post is wasting ink with its latest efforts to rewrite the history according to George W. Bush.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

--Fred Hiatt, 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple
It is that simple, Fred. Like Bush earlier, Fred has cherry picked the report and plays word games to support his bogus claims. Specifically, Fred, just where was or is the 'Iraqi nuclear program' that was 'substantiated'? Just where --exactly --are the chemical weapons? Where, precisely, may one find any 'weapons of mass destruction' whatsoever'? The conclusion of the report --in fact --stated that Saddam was not an imminent threat! Now, had there been any reason to believe that there had been a nuclear weapons program, a chemical weapons program, indeed, any program consisting of 'weapons of mass destruction' whatever, the report received by Bush six days prior to his speech would not have concluded that Iraq (Saddam) posed no imminent threat! Fred --I have news for you! The report does NOT support your 'case'.

Let's look at that 'intelligence' again. It was on October 7, 2002 that Bush told the world that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US and the American people. It was the first time that Bush had made that case in a speech. Bush called Saddam a 'homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction!' That was probably his administration's first use of that term!

Bush pressed his case, claiming that '...Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.' Bush stated that an attack by Saddam on American soil could happen '...on any given day'.

But, in fact, on October 1st, six days prior to his speech, the CIA had provided Bush its 2002 assessment entitled 'Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction'. It was not the pretext Bush needed to attack and invade Iraq without making himself subject to prosecution for war crimes. Six days before Bush's 'Saddam is a threat speech', the CIA had told Bush that it was the consensus of 16 federal, intelligence agencies that 'Saddam was not an imminent threat to the security of this country'.

With the words 'not an imminent threat to the security' of the US, the CIA has made Bush, who ignored them, culpable for the numerous war crimes that he has perpetrated upon the people of Iraq.

It cannot be claimed with any credibility that Bush merely misspoke. By claiming the possibility of an imminent attack, Bush was already laying the groundwork for his legal 'defense' against war crimes charges. Only 'imminent threats' or actual attacks may, under international law, excuse the attack by one country upon another.

But as was stated in the intelligence report Bush received six days prior to his war speech, there was NO such imminent threat. Therefore, Bush is a war criminal. There is simply no reasonable doubt about it.

Bush must surely have known that he was guilty of violating specific provisions of federal law --else he would not have assigned Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo the task of trying to make it all legal but only after he had already perpetrated the crime. No one else committing mass murder gets to rewrite the laws after they've committed the crime. And neither should that person whose only swore duty is to defend and uphold the Constitution, which Bush called a "Goddamned piece of paper"!

By law, any Federal Grand Jury now convened for any reason or charge may, upon its own volition, subpoena Scott McClellan and, by doing so, begin an investigation of George W. Bush for the crime of murder. Specifically, the deaths of over 4,000 US soldiers sent to their deaths by Bush upon a bald-faced lie. Bugliosi, a legendary prosecutor, is absolutely correct with respect to the letter of the law and the incontrovertible evidence against Bush. I urge any member of a Federal Grand Jury reading this to begin by subpoenaing McClellan now.

Bush's inner circle of Cheney, Rice, Rummie et al are GUILTY of murder under US laws and should be indicted and tried and sentenced. Additionally, the theft of billions should be investigated by a Federal Grand Jury now.
A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president's Democrat opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run-up to the invasion one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth seven billion that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company, which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

-- BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
Impeachment --of course! Followed by Federal Grand Jury indictments against Bush and his inner circle. The case is lately made that the corporate heads of FOX are likewise complicit having eagerly disseminated Bush's lies for war. What kind of deal had been struck between Fox brass, perhaps Rupert himself, and Bush's criminal junta?

An investigation of Fox's role as Bush's 'propaganda ministry should begin with the Fox board and executives throughout the Fox news organization. Subpoena every frickin' email. I want to know who got orders to write what and when! I want to know how many times news directors, bureau chiefs, or assignment editors were coerced, ordered or simply 'influenced' or bribed. I want to know why Fox conducted a campaign of bald faced lies, distortions and slanted news stories. Why did Fox slant the news in favor of the Bush campaign of lies in the run up to wars of naked aggression?

Bring the lot of them to trial for war crimes [See US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441], grand larceny and mass murder. Indict the FOX board of directors. Clearly, they are complicit in Bush's conspiracy to conduct the capital crimes of mass murder and aggressive war. Both are violations of US Codes.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

by Vincent Bugliosi

There is direct evidence that President George W. Bush did not honorably lead this nation, but deliberately misled it into a war he wanted. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress and to the American public — lies that have cost the lives of more than 4,000 young American soldiers and close to $1 trillion.

A Monumental Lie

In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.

On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the US This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other US intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

According to the October 1, 2002 NIE, “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.” The report concluded that Hussein was not planning to use any weapons of mass destruction; further, Hussein would only use weapons of mass destruction he was believed to have if he were first attacked, that is, he would only use them in self-defense.

Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and ominous.

In the original NIE report, members of the US intelligence community vigorously disagreed with the CIA’s bloated and inaccurate conclusions. All such opposing commentary was eliminated from the declassified White Paper prepared for Congress and the American people.

The Manning Memo

On January 31, 2003, Bush met in the Oval Office with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a memo summarizing the meeting discussion, Blair’s chief foreign policy advisor David Manning wrote that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would ever be found in Iraq, and that there was tension between Bush and Blair over finding some justification for the war that would be acceptable to other nations. Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN inspectors to find hard evidence against Hussein that he talked about three possible ways, Manning wrote, to “provoke a confrontation” with Hussein. One way, Bush said, was to fly “U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach” of UN resolutions and that would justify war. Bush was calculating to create a war, not prevent one.

Denying Blix’s Findings

Hans Blix, the United Nation’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq, in his March 7, 2003, address to the UN Security Council, said that as of that date, less than 3 weeks before Bush invaded Iraq, that Iraq had capitulated to all demands for professional, no-notice weapons inspections all over Iraq and agreed to increased aerial surveillance by the US over the “no-fly” zones. Iraq had directed the UN inspectors to sites where illicit weapons had been destroyed and had begun to demolish its Al Samoud 2 missiles, as requested by the UN. Blix added that “no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found” by his inspectors and “no underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.” He said that for his inspectors to absolutely confirm that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) “will not take years, nor weeks, but months.”

Mohamed El Baradei, the chief UN nuclear inspector in Iraq and director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the UN Security Council that, “we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.”

The UN inspectors were making substantial progress and Hussein was giving them unlimited access. Why was Bush in such an incredible rush to go to war?

Hussein Disarms, so Bush … Goes to War

When it became clear that the whole purpose of Bush’s prewar campaign — to get Hussein to disarm — was being (or already had been) met, Bush and his people came up with a demand they had never once made before — that Hussein resign and leave Iraq. On March 17, 2003, Bush said in a speech to the nation that, “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.” Military conflict — the lives of thousands of young Americans on the line — because Bush trumped up a new line in the sand?

The Niger Allegation

One of the most notorious instances of the Bush administration using thoroughly discredited information to frighten the American public was the 16 words in Bush’s January 28, 2003 State of the Union speech: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The Niger allegation was false, and the Bush administration knew it was false.

Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador to Iraq, was sent to Niger by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate a supposed memo that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake (a form of lightly processed ore) to Iraq by Niger in the late 1990s. Wilson reported back to the CIA that it was “highly doubtful” such a transaction had ever taken place.

On March 7, 2003, Mohamed El Baradei told the UN Security Council that “based on thorough analysis” his agency concluded that the “documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic.” Indeed, author Craig Unger uncovered at least 14 instances prior to the 2003 State of the Union address in which analysts at the CIA, the State Department, or other government agencies that had examined the Niger documents “raised serious doubts about their legitimacy — only to be rebuffed by Bush administration officials who wanted to use them.”

On October 5 and 6, 2002, the CIA sent memos to the National Security Council, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and to the White House Situation Room stating that the Niger information was no good.

On January 24, 2003, four days before the president’s State of the Union address, the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, which oversees all federal agencies that deal with intelligence, sent a memo to the White House stating that “the Niger story is baseless and should be laid to rest.”

The 9/11 Lie

The Bush administration put undue pressure on US intelligence agencies to provide it with conclusions that would help them in their quest for war. Bush’s former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, said that on September 12, 2001, one day after 9/11, “The President in a very intimidating way left us — me and my staff — with the clear indication that he wanted us to come back with the word that there was an Iraqi hand behind 9/11.”

Bush said on October 7, 2002, “We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high level contacts that go back a decade,” and that “Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.” Of Hussein, he said on November 1, 2002, “We know he’s got ties with Al Qaeda.”

Even after Bush admitted on September 17, 2003, that he had “no evidence” that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, he audaciously continued, in the months and years that followed, to clearly suggest, without stating it outright, that Hussein was involved in 9/11.

On March 20, 2006, Bush said, “I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on America.”

--The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
See also:

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Kucinich Moves to Impeach Bush

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced 35 articles of impeachment George W. Bush. At the top of a list of "impeachable offenses" is "Article I: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq."

Representative Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, just finished reading on the House floor a 35-count impeachment resolution against President George W. Bush. Kucinich's lengthy and detailed indictment of this wayward president is the most thorough and powerful case made to date. He outlined a litany of high crimes and misdemeanors and showed without a shadow of a doubt that George W. Bush deserves to be impeached and removed from office. Kucinich made clear that Bush has violated his oath of office and his Constitutional duty that the laws be "faithfully executed."

--Dennis Kucinich Makes History Again - Impeach Bush!
Kucinich and others, including Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), charge that Bush and Cheney have lied to the Congress and the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq. It's a fact. They didn't just lie, they pulled off a criminal fraud upon the Congress and the American people. It was an elaborate conspiracy supervised by the White House. Bush presided over plagiarism, the fabrication of evidence against Saddam Hussein, and an elaborate pack of lies that were told to the UN. Bush was, in fact, the "deceiver of nations". This impeachable offense enabled the commission of war crimes punishable by death under US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441.

That Bush has tried repeatedly to make his actions legal (but only after he had already committed the crime) is evidence in itself that should be brought against him when he is impeached and, later, when he is tried for capital crimes. I would add that the entire 'war on terrorism' is, likewise, a criminal fraud for which Bush, Cheney and most high ranking members of his administration are culpable. It's round up time.

Back in 2007, the subject of the impeachment of George W. Bush came up when the Houston City Council was urged to adopt a resolution support his impeachment.

And of course we know that politicians NEVER, EVER go anywhere just because cameras are present.

No clapping, no hissing, no booing!! What a joke! I have sat through more Houston City Council sessions than I care to count. It seems that it is only when the impeachment of George W. Bush comes up that decorum becomes an objective. I remember a session in which clowns (not the clowns on council) were running amok --whooping like Curly Joe --throwing bags of peanuts to the people in the audience. At least Nero provided 'bread' and 'circuses'. In Houston, the city council is the circus and they residents get a lousy bag of stale peanuts.

Sadly, Houston is economically dependent upon the oil industry, the world and national headquarters for these lying, ruthless robber barons. The oil industry long ago partnered with terrorists and puppet states (like Saddam) to loot the resources of the Middle East.

If I may paraphrase an astronaut: "Houston, you ARE a problem!"

A short message to those living in Houston who have sold their souls for high paying, executive positions with oil companies: when you're done kissing George Bush's ass, get up off your knees and get a real job.

The following update from Crooks and Liars: BREAKING: Judiciary Committee Officially Requests McClellan Testimony- UPDATED
Judiciary Committee Officially Requests Scott McClellan Testimony for Friday, June 20
Wexler Plans Tough Questions About Possible Obstruction of Justice By Cheney, Rove, and Libby

(Washington, DC) Today Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) applauded the decision by Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to invite former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to testify under oath about the shocking revelations and possible illegal actions by members of the Bush Administration that he detailed in his book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.

Immediately following the book’s release, Congressman Wexler called for Congress to investigate the charges made by McClellan regarding the Bush Administration’s campaign to go to war with Iraq and efforts by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby to possibly obstruct justice during the Valerie Plame matter.

The earth-shattering admissions made by Scott McClellan in his new book warrant a sober and thorough hearing in the House Judiciary Committee and he should immediately accept the Committee’s request for his testimony,” said Congressman Wexler. “The allegations made by McClellan that Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and possibly even Vice President Dick Cheney, together conspired to obstruct justice by lying about their role in the Plame case relates directly to the core of US executive power and the Constitution. If true, the allegations made by McClellan could amount to an obstruction of justice charge for Scooter Libby and Karl Rove.

“Scott McClellan must appear before Congress and tell the American people, under oath, how the Bush Administration not only obstructed justice during the Valerie Plame investigation but orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to sell an unnecessary war in Iraq to the American people.

“Any efforts by the White House to claim executive privilege and thereby prevent McClellan from testifying would be ludicrous due to the fact that McClellan has already spoken at length about many of these matters both in his book and on numerous television interviews.”