<\/p>\r\n
http:\/\/www.CopvCIA.com <\/p>\r\n
=========================================================<\/p>\r\n
7\/1\/03<\/strong><\/span> July 1, 2003 - PART I<\/u><\/strong> - The anatomy of\r\nthe coup against Bush. How it is being set-up as a form of damage control. How\r\nthe press is building to a climax that may break even after Bush has won (bought\r\nor stolen) re-election. How the CIA is hanging Bush out to dry.<\/p>\r\n Coming in mid-July - PART II<\/strong> - The real\r\nstate of the world and why the coup is necessary for Wall Street and the power\r\nbrokers. How Bush's options in Iraq and everywhere else are being closed off by\r\nAmerican power brokers. FTW<\/strong><\/em> will question\r\nspokespersons for every Democratic challenger to provide you with a detailed\r\nanalysis of who they are and what they stand for. We'll also talk about how\r\ntheir campaigns are being influenced, guided and controlled. Don't get your\r\nhopes up. The one chance for real change is to use the energy of the coup to\r\ndrag the secrets of 9\/11 out into the open. <\/p>\r\n http:\/\/www.fromthewilderness.com\/free\/ww3\/070103_beyond_bush_1.html\r\n<\/p>\r\n BEYOND BUSH - Part I<\/strong><\/p>\r\n by <\/span>Michael\r\nC. Ruppert<\/span><\/p>\r\n © Copyright 2003,\r\nFrom The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. May be\r\nreprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes\r\nonly.<\/span><\/b><\/p>\r\n There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush\r\nadministration officials deceived us into war. The key question now is why so\r\nmany influential people are in denial, unwilling to admit the obvious...But even\r\npeople who aren't partisan<\/span> Republicans shy away from\r\nconfronting the administration's dishonest case for war, because they don't want\r\nto face the implications...<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n After all, suppose a politician - or a journalist -\r\nadmits to himself that Mr. Bush bamboozled the nation into war. Well, launching\r\na war on false pretenses is, to say the least a breach of trust. So if you admit\r\nto yourself that such a thing happened, you have a moral obligation to demand\r\naccountability - and to do so in the face not only of a powerful, ruthless\r\npolitical machine but in the face of a country not yet ready to believe that its\r\nleaders have exploited 9\/11 for political gain. It's a scary prospect.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n Yet, if we can't find people willing to take the risk -\r\nto face the truth and act on it - what will happen to our democracy?<\/i><\/span> \r\n-- Paul Krugman, The<\/span> New York Times, June\r\n24, 2003<\/span><\/u><\/p>\r\n July 1, 2003 1600 PDT (FTW<\/i>) -- <\/span>L<\/span>et's\r\njust suppose for a moment that George W. Bush was removed from the White House.\r\nCheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and Rove too. What would that\r\nleave us with? It would leave us stuck in hugely expensive, Vietnam-like\r\nguerrilla wars in <\/span>\r\nIraq<\/span>\r\n and <\/span>\r\nAfghanistan<\/span>\r\n. It would leave us with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and Total\r\nInformation Awareness snooping into every detail of our lives. It would leave us\r\nwith a government in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th,\r\n6th and 8th Amendments to the Constitution. It would leave\r\nus with a massive cover-up of <\/span>\r\nUS<\/span>\r\n complicity in the attacks of 9\/11 that, if fully admitted, would show not\r\nintelligence \"failures\" but intelligence crimes<\/i>, approved and\r\nordered by the most powerful people in the country. It would leave us with a\r\ngovernment that now has the power to compel mass vaccinations on pain of\r\nimprisonment or fine, and with no legal ability to sue the vaccine makers who\r\nkilled our friends or our children. It would leave us with two and half million\r\nunemployed; the largest budget deficits in history; more than $3.3 trillion\r\nmissing from the Department of Defense; and state and local governments broke to\r\nthe point of having to cut back essential services like sewers, police, and\r\nfire. It would leave us with a federal government that had hit the debt ceiling\r\nand was unable to borrow any more money. And we would still be facing a looming\r\nnatural gas crisis of unimagined proportions, and living on a planet that is\r\nslowly realizing that it is running out of oil with no \"Plan B\". Our\r\nairports however, would be very safe, and shares of Halliburton, Lockheed and\r\nDynCorp would be paying excellent dividends.<\/span><\/p>\r\n This is not good management.<\/span><\/p>\r\n Leaving all of these issues unaddressed is\r\nnot good management either.<\/span><\/p>\r\n And this is why, as I will demonstrate in\r\nthis article, the decision has already been made by corporate and financial\r\npowers to remove George W. Bush, whether he wants to leave or not, and whether\r\nhe steals the next election or not. Before you start cheering, ask yourself\r\nthree questions: \"If there is someone or something that can decide that\r\nBush will not return, nor remain for long, what is it? And if that thing is\r\npowerful enough to remove Bush, was it not also powerful enough to have put him\r\nthere in the first place? And if that is the case, then isn't that what's really\r\nresponsible for the state of things? George W. Bush is just a hired CEO who is\r\nabout to be removed by the \"Board of Directors\". Who are they? Are\r\nthey going to choose his replacement? Are you going to help them?<\/span><\/p>\r\n What can change this Board of Directors and\r\nthe way the \"Corporation\" protects its interests? These are the only\r\nissues that matter.<\/span><\/p>\r\n So now the honest question about the 2004\r\nPresidential campaign is, \"What do you really want out of it?\" Do you\r\nwant the illusion that everything is a little better while it really gets worse?\r\nOr are you ready yet to roll up your sleeves and make some very unpleasant but\r\nnecessary fixes?<\/span><\/p>\r\n The greatest test of the 2004 presidential\r\nelection campaign is not with the candidates. It is with the people. There are\r\nstrong signs that presidential election issues on the Democratic side are\r\nalready being manipulated by corporate and financial interests. And some naïve\r\nand well-intentioned (and some not-so-naïve and not-so-well intentioned)\r\nactivists are already playing right into the Board's hands. There are many\r\ndisturbing signs that the only choice offered to the American people will be no\r\nchoice at all. Under the psychological rationale, \"This is the way it has\r\nto be done\", campaign debates will likely address only half-truths and fail\r\nto come to grips with - or even acknowledge - the most important issues that I\r\njust described. In fact, only the least important issues will likely be\r\naddressed in campaign 2004 at the usual expense of future generations who are\r\nrapidly realizing that they are about to become the victims of the biggest\r\nHolocaust in mankind's history. The final platforms for Election 2004 will\r\nlikely be manifestos of madness unless we dictate differently.<\/span><\/p>\r\n It is amazing to see such words of honesty\r\ncoming from The New York Times<\/i> as those of Paul Krugman. I am not\r\nreferring to the recent scandals over falsified stories that brought down a\r\nreporter and two editors at the Times<\/i>. That particular drama was\r\noverplayed by CNN, Fox and The Washington Post<\/i> as punishment for the Times'<\/i>\r\nopposition to the invasion of <\/span>\r\nIraq<\/span>\r\n. The most vicious dogs of war are sometimes armed with sharpened,\r\nsaliva-drenched keyboards. No, Paul Krugman's words represent the essence of\r\nwhat From The<\/span> Wilderness<\/i> has stood for since\r\nits very first issue. Unless people find the will to address scandals, lies, and\r\nbetrayals of trust that, by their very existence, reveal that the system itself\r\nis corrupt and that the people controlling it - both in government, and in\r\nAmerica's corporations and financial institutions -- are criminals, there is no\r\nchance to make anything better, only an absolute certainty that things will get\r\nworse.<\/span><\/p>\r\n Already we can see the early signs of\r\ndelusional and dishonest behavior that is being willingly embraced by equally\r\ndelusional activists who have begun a sterile debate about which candidate to\r\nsupport and why it is better to become involved on the side of one Democratic\r\nParty candidate or another or why a vote for a Green Party candidate instead of\r\na Democrat is tantamount to treason. The Republicans, of course, are sharpening\r\nup a campaign that will portray George W. Bush as the \"Hero of 9\/11\",\r\n\"The Protector of the American Economy\", \"The Savior of the Free\r\nWorld\", \"A Man Who Loves God\", and \"The Man Who Cut\r\nTaxes\". Electroshock therapy might be useful for these people.<\/span><\/p>\r\n But is it any less warranted for people who\r\nbelieve that everything will be fine if there is better theme music in the\r\nbackground, while none of the real offenses of the past two years are addressed\r\nor undone?<\/span><\/p>\r\n Short Memories<\/span><\/b><\/p>\r\n Some on the Democratic side are already\r\npositioning themselves to co-opt and control what happened on 9\/11 into a\r\nsofter, less disturbing \"Better this than nothing\" strategy. This\r\nattitude, that the only thing that matters is finding an electable Democrat, is\r\nnothing more than a rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Has everyone\r\nsuddenly forgotten that the 2000 election was stolen: first by using software\r\nand political machinery to disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible voters,\r\nthen by open interference at polling places, and finally by an absolutely\r\nillegal Supreme Court decision? Do these people believe that such a crime,\r\nabsolutely successful the first time, will never be attempted again?<\/span><\/p>\r\n And has everyone also forgotten that in the\r\n2002 midterm elections the proprietary voting software, in many cases owned by\r\nthose affiliated with the Republican Party or - as in the case of Senator Chuck\r\nHagel of Nebraska - the candidates themselves, has been ruled by the Supreme\r\nCourt to be immune from public inspection. (Hagel won by a lopsided 83%\r\nmajority). Throughout the <\/span>\r\nUnited States<\/span>\r\n in 2002 there was abundant evidence that the so-called\r\n\"solution\" to hanging chads did nothing more than enshrine the ability\r\nto steal elections with immunity and also much less fuss afterwards? Who in\r\ntheir right mind would trust such a system? Why have none of the candidates\r\nmentioned it?<\/span><\/p>\r\n And, if all else fails, we can have more\r\nWellstone plane crashes. It has worked with three Democratic Senate candidates\r\nin key races over the last thirty years. Maybe that's why no one in Congress is\r\ntalking about the election process. Plane crashes are part of that process too.<\/span><\/p>\r\n This is the process in which some are\r\nurging us to place our trust? My publication, which recently ran a full-page ad\r\nin The Washington Post,<\/i> and is about to unleash a national ad campaign,\r\nhas already been unofficially approached by people from two Democratic\r\nchallengers seeking an endorsement. I have made it clear that FTW<\/i> will\r\nnot endorse any candidate who does not make the life-and-death issues facing\r\nmankind his or her number-one priority and address them openly.<\/span><\/p>\r\n Is the 2004 election already being rolled,\r\nlike soft cookie dough, away from the issues? Already there are signs that some\r\ncandidates who speak the truth are having their campaigns infiltrated by expert\r\nmanagers who might dilute the message. There are signs that others, looked upon\r\nas likely winners with strong progressive credentials, may be nothing more than\r\ndifferent dogs from the same kennel that brought us the Bush Wolf Pack.<\/span><\/p>\r\n But first let me convince you that the Bush\r\nmanagement team is actually on its way out and that this is not a reason to\r\nbreathe a sigh of relief. Don't get me wrong, I'll be glad to see the\r\nmean-spirited and dishonest bastards go. I'll also acknowledge their healthy\r\nseverance package and I'll worry about the bastards that will likely replace\r\nthem who might be much harder to identify.<\/span><\/p>\r\n BUMPING BUSH<\/span><\/b><\/p>\r\n There is only one difference between the\r\nevidence showing the Bush administration's criminal culpability in and\r\nforeknowledge of the attacks of 9\/11, and the evidence showing that the\r\nadministration deceived the American public about the threat posed by Saddam\r\nHussein. Both sets of evidence are thoroughly documented. They are irrefutable\r\nand based upon government records and official statements and actions shown to\r\nbe false, misleading or dishonest. And both sets of evidence are unimpeachable.\r\nThe difference is that the evidence showing the Iraqi deception is being\r\nseriously and widely investigated by the mainstream press, and actively by an\r\never-increasing number of elected representatives. That's it.<\/span><\/p>\r\n It is the hard record of official\r\nstatements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell on <\/span>\r\nIraq<\/span>\r\n that will sink the administration, either before or after the election.\r\nThese guys are horrible managers and they have really botched things up, big\r\ntime - exactly as I said they would. There is no amount of spin anywhere that\r\ncan neutralize this record. As FTW<\/i> predicted back in March, the biggest\r\nand most obvious criminal action of the administration, a knowing lie (one of\r\nmany) used to deceive a nation into war, was the administration's assertion that\r\n<\/span>\r\nIraq<\/span>\r\n had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and had recently attempted\r\nto purchase uranium from the African country of <\/span>\r\nNiger<\/span>\r\n.<\/span><\/p>\r\n Just before the March 2003 Iraqi\r\ninvasion in our two-part series titled The Perfect Storm<\/i> we wrote:<\/span><\/p>\r\n There are serious signs of a major\r\npolitical revolt brewing in the <\/span><\/i>\r\nUnited States<\/span><\/i>\r\n - one that could end the Bush Presidency - George W. Bush still has\r\nhis finger on the trigger and he knows that his only hope for survival is to\r\npull it. <\/span><\/i>\r\nU.S.<\/span><\/i>\r\n and British intelligence agencies are leaking documents left and right\r\ndisputing White House \"evidence\" against <\/span><\/i>\r\nIraq<\/span><\/i>\r\n that has repeatedly been shown to be falsified, plagiarized and\r\nforged. Quiet meetings are being held in Washington between members of Congress\r\nand attorneys like Ramsey Clark discussing Bush's impeachment. Leaders of the\r\nWorld Trade Organization (WTO), as reported in a March 15 story in the\r\nInternational Herald Tribune have said, \"All international institutions\r\nwould suffer a loss of credibility if the one superpower appeared to be choosing\r\nwhich rules to obey and which to ignore.\" And a Rockefeller has called for\r\nan investigation of a Bush. On March 14, the Associated Press reported that W.\r\nVa. Senator Jay Rockefeller has asked the FBI to investigate forged documents\r\nwhich were presented first by <\/span><\/i>\r\nBritain<\/span><\/i>\r\n and then the <\/span><\/i>\r\nUnited States<\/span><\/i>\r\n showing that <\/span><\/i>\r\nIraq<\/span><\/i>\r\n had been trying to purchase uranium from the African country of <\/span><\/i>\r\nNiger<\/span><\/i>\r\n for its weapons program. Of all the glaring falsehoods told by the\r\nadministration, the fact that these forgeries were noted by a Rockefeller may\r\nmake them the second-rate Watergate burglary of the 21st century...<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n There are few things more closely\r\nconnected to or identified with Bush family power than globalization and the\r\nRockefellers. He has most likely failed both of them and both have the power to\r\nremove him...<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n In the meantime, there are increasing signs that the <\/span><\/i>\r\nU.S.<\/span><\/i>\r\n political and economic elites are laying the groundwork to make the\r\nBush administration, specifically Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Perle and\r\nWolfowitz, sacrificial scapegoats for a failed policy in time to consolidate\r\npost 9-11 gains, regroup and move forward.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n That prophecy is coming true with a\r\nvengeance.<\/span><\/p>\r\n The Bush administration's gamble is that,\r\nbecause it can raise more money than all the Democratic challengers put\r\ntogether, it can still manage to re-elect itself in 2004. No doubt, the\r\nadministration will put up a good fight. But an impeachment, long sought after\r\nby many - including University of <\/span>Illinois\r\nlaw Professor Francis Boyle -- will be waiting after the second inauguration\r\njust as surely as it was for Richard Nixon in 1973.<\/span><\/p>\r\n My certainty is based upon a record that is\r\nutterly damning and penetrates to almost every assertion made by the Bush\r\nadministration in its pursuit of Iraqi oil. Rather than digress into a lengthy\r\ndiscussion of the offenses let me refer the reader to two examples that\r\nexemplify how strong the case is and that it is being pursued.<\/span><\/p>\r\n Hard Work from the House<\/span><\/b><\/p>\r\n The legal groundwork for the <\/span>Clinton<\/span>\r\nimpeachment of 1998-9 was laid out quietly over a period of many months. The\r\nsame holds true now.<\/span><\/p>\r\n The foundation of the impeachment - or the\r\nscandal that will prompt a regime change - was laid in a March 17 letter written\r\nby California Congressman Henry Waxman who has been dogging the Bush\r\nadministration on its violations of law since it took office. Waxman's first\r\nbattle was over the refusal of the administration to release the mostly\r\nstill-secret records of Vice President Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force. It is\r\nthere that some of the biggest secrets of 9\/11 lay buried. With respect to the\r\nIraqi invasion -- using the record of official statements made by Bush, Cheney,\r\nRumsfeld and Powel -- Waxman has already laid out and won the prima facie case\r\nthat the administration has lied, deceived the public and broken the public\r\ntrust. There can be no defense against this record once it gets into a legal\r\nproceeding.<\/span><\/p>\r\n To read the full text of Waxman's March letter\r\nplease visit: This web page details Waxman's meticulous\r\ncompilation of evidence and - from a legal, as opposed to political standpoint -\r\nis no doubt the core of any future impeachment case against Bush. It is damning\r\nand Waxman has diligently continued to build, brick by brick, the wall into\r\nwhich the administration could soon crash. An important historical novelty here\r\nis that Waxman's compilation of irrefutable criminal activity also guarantees\r\nthat if Bush goes, so do Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell. What then?<\/span><\/p>\r\n Rebellion From Inside the Beltway<\/span><\/b><\/p>\r\n On June 26, a twenty-seven-year CIA veteran\r\nanalyst tied the pieces together and made it clear that, Bush is fighting a\r\nbattle he cannot win. Just as it was with Nixon, the intelligence agencies have\r\nturned against him. Ray McGovern, affiliated with the watchdog group Veteran\r\nIntelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), has been out front with criticisms\r\nof the Bush administration's abuse of intelligence procedures for some time.\r\nHowever, in his interview with William Rivers Pitt, writing for Truthout.org,\r\nMcGovern took Waxman's work several steps further. He was also critical of CIA\r\nDirector George Tenet's endorsements of intelligence abuses by Powell, Cheney\r\nand Bush, yet he did not mention that Tenet had left a paper record showing that\r\nthe CIA had never trusted the forged <\/span>\r\nNiger<\/span>\r\n documents that the administration still - even after warnings -- sold to\r\nthe public and to the world as authentic.<\/span><\/p>\r\n McGovern also let Tenet off the hook for the biggest crime of the\r\nadministration, allowing and facilitating the attacks of 9\/11, saying, \"My\r\nanalysis is that George Bush had no option but to keep George Tenet on as\r\nDirector, because George Tenet had warned Bush repeatedly, for months and months\r\nbefore September 11, that something very bad was about to happen\". Even\r\nstill McGovern let the Bush administration know that its conduct before the\r\nattacks was a sword of Damocles hanging over Bush's head.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \"On August 6, the title of the [Presidential] briefing was, ‘Bin\r\nLaden Determined to Strike in the <\/span>\r\nUS<\/span>\r\n,' and that briefing had the word ‘Hijacking' in it. That's all I know\r\nabout it, but that's quite enough. In September, Bush had to make a decision. Is\r\nit feasible to let go of Tenet, whose agency flubbed the dub on this one? And\r\nthe answer was no, because Tenet knows too much about what Bush knew, and Bush\r\ndidn't know what to do about it. That's the bottom line for me.\"<\/span><\/p>\r\n I disagree with McGovern---there is a record showing that the CIA knew\r\nabout 9\/11---but otherwise McGovern's analysis matched perfectly with FTW's<\/i>\r\nof three months ago. Here are some excerpts:<\/span><\/p>\r\n In the coming weeks, we're going to be seeing folks coming out and\r\ncoming forth with what they know, and it is going to be very embarrassing for\r\nthe Bush administration.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n To be quite complete on this, it encourages me that the analysts at\r\nthe Defense Intelligence Agency - who share this ethic of trying to tell the\r\ntruth, even though they are under much greater pressure and have much less\r\ncareer protection because they work for Rumsfeld - to their great credit, in\r\nSeptember of last year they put out a memo saying there is no reliable evidence\r\nto suggest that the Iraqis have biological or chemical weapons, or that they are\r\nproducing them...<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n They looked around after Labor Day and said, \"OK, if we're\r\ngoing to have this war, we really need to persuade Congress to vote for it. How\r\nare we going to do that? Well, let's do the al Qaeda-Iraq connection. That's the\r\ntraumatic one. 9\/11 is still a traumatic thing for most Americans. Let's do\r\nthat.\"<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n But then they said, \"Oh damn, those folks at CIA don't buy\r\nthat, they say there's no evidence, and we can't bring them around. We've tried\r\nevery which way and they won't relent. That won't work, because if we try that,\r\nCongress is going to have these CIA wimps come down, and the next day they'll\r\nundercut us. How about these chemical and biological weapons? We know they don't\r\nhave any nuclear weapons, so how about the chemical and biological stuff? Well,\r\ndamn. We have these other wimps at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and dammit<\/span>,\r\nthey won't come around either. They say there's no reliable evidence of that, so\r\nif we go up to Congress with that, the next day they'll call the DIA folks in,\r\nand the DIA folks will undercut us.\"<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n So they said, \"What have we got? We've got those aluminum\r\ntubes!\" The aluminum tubes, you will remember, were something that came out\r\nin late September, the 24th of September. The British and we front-paged it.\r\nThese were aluminum tubes that were said by Condoleezza Rice as soon as the\r\nreport came out to be only suitable for use in a nuclear application. This is\r\nhardware that they had the dimensions of. So they got that report, and the\r\nBritish played it up, and we played it up. It was front page in the New York\r\nTimes. Condoleezza Rice said, \"Ah ha! These aluminum tubes are suitable\r\nonly for uranium-enrichment centrifuges.\"<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n Then they gave the tubes to the Department of Energy labs, and to a\r\nperson, each one of those nuclear scientists and engineers said, \"Well, if\r\nIraq thinks it can use these dimensions and these specifications of aluminum\r\ntubes to build a nuclear program, let ‘em<\/span> do it!\r\nLet ‘em<\/span> do<\/span> it. It'll\r\nnever work, and we can't believe they are so stupid. These must be for\r\nconventional rockets.\"<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n And, of course, that's what they were for, and that's what the UN\r\ndetermined they were for. So, after Condoleezza Rice's initial foray into this\r\nscientific area, they knew that they couldn't make that stick, either. So what\r\nelse did they have?<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n Well, somebody said, \"How about those reports earlier this year\r\nthat <\/span><\/i>\r\nIraq<\/span><\/i>\r\n was trying to get Uranium from <\/span><\/i>\r\nNiger<\/span><\/i>\r\n? Yeah...that was pretty good.\" But of course if George Tenet were\r\nthere, he would have said, \"But we looked at the evidence, and they're\r\nforgeries, they stink to high heaven.\" So the question became, \"How\r\nlong would it take for someone to find out they were forgeries?\" The answer\r\nwas about a day or two. The next question was, \"When do we have to show\r\npeople this stuff?\" The answer was that the IAEA had been after us for a\r\ncouple of months now to give it to them, but we can probably put them off for\r\nthree or four months.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n So there it was. \"What's the problem? We'll take these reports,<\/span>\r\nwe'll use them to brief Congress and to raise the specter of a mushroom cloud.\r\nYou'll recall that the President on the 7th of October said, \"Our smoking\r\ngun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.\" Condoleezza Rice said\r\nexactly the same thing the next day. Victoria Clarke said exactly the same thing\r\non the 9th of October, and of course the vote came on the 11th of October...<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n The most important and clear-cut scandal, of course, has to do with\r\nthe forgery of those <\/span><\/i>\r\nNiger<\/span><\/i>\r\n nuclear documents that were used as proof. The very cold calculation\r\nwas that Congress could be deceived, we could have our war, we could win it, and\r\nthen no one would care that part of the evidence for war was forged. That may\r\nstill prove to be the case, but the most encouraging thing I've seen over the\r\nlast four weeks now is that the <\/span><\/i>\r\nUS<\/span><\/i>\r\n press has sort of woken from its slumber and is interested. I've asked\r\npeople in the press how they account for their lack of interest before the war,\r\nand now they seem to be interested. I guess the simple answer is that they don't\r\nlike to be lied to...<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n I think the real difference is that no one knew, or very few people\r\nknew, before the war that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in <\/span><\/i>\r\nIraq<\/span><\/i>\r\n. Now they know. It's an unavoidable fact. No one likes to be conned,\r\nno one likes to be lied to, and no one particularly likes that 190 <\/span><\/i>\r\nUS<\/span><\/i>\r\n servicemen and women have been killed in this effort, not to mention\r\nthe five or six thousand Iraqi civilians.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n There's a difference in tone. If the press does not succumb to the\r\nargument put out by folks like Tom Friedman, who says it doesn't really matter\r\nthat there are no weapons in Iraq, if it does become a quagmire which I believe\r\nit will be, and we have a few servicemen killed every week, then there is a\r\nprospect that the American people will wake up and say, \"Tell me again why\r\nmy son was killed? Why did we have to make this war on <\/span><\/i>\r\nIraq<\/span><\/i>\r\n?\"<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n So I do think that there is some hope now that the truth will come\r\nout. It won't come out through the Congressional committees. That's really a\r\njoke, a sick joke...<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n
\r\n<\/strong><\/span>BEYOND BUSH<\/strong><\/span>
\r\nPowers above the White House are deciding that it's time for\r\nthe Bush gang to go. As a Watergate-style take down is being meticulously put\r\ninto place, the question is not whether the Bush Administration will be removed\r\nbefore or after the 2004 election. The important questions are whether Bush's\r\nsuccessor will address 9\/11, Peak Oil, civil liberties, or any of the critical\r\nissues. What is being done even now to control the challengers in the\r\nPresidential election? A clandestine drama is unfolding and we'll help you\r\nunderstand it. This special free series is a must-read going into 2004.<\/span><\/p>\r\n
\r\n=========================================================<\/span><\/p>\r\n
\r\nhttp:\/\/www.house.gov\/reform\/min\/inves_admin\/admin_nuclear_evidence.htm<\/span><\/p>\r\n