Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

Tag Board

sara: Helloo

Please type in the four characters shown in the black box.

Monday, October 16th 2006

3:52 PM

Poll results from CBS News concerning 9-11

Do you think that George W. Bush personally knew before September 11th, 2001 about intelligence reports that warned of possible terrorist attacks against the United States using airplanes, or not? Total Rep Dem Ind May02b
Sep06a Personally knew 57
 39
 68
 60
 41
Did not know 33
 48
 23
 29
 43
DK/NA 19
 13
 9
 11
 16






Was the Bush Administration paying enough or not enough attention to terrorism prior to September 11th, 2001?
Apr04d




Enough 16
 35
 6
 11
 18
Not enough 77
 57
 90
 80
 75






Was the Clinton Administration paying enough or not enough attention to terrorism prior to September 11th, 2001?




Enough 23
 14
 35
 20
 18
Not enough 67
 78
 59
 66
 73






When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001 about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?




Telling the truth 16
 35
 5
 12
 24
Hiding Something 53
 55
 47
 57
 56
Mostly lying 28
 8
 44
 28
 16

So, the crucial figures are that 57% think Bush personally knew of intel suggesting an attack by airplanes was in the works.  The Clinton Administration does better by 10 points in whether they were paying enough attention to terror attacks. 81% think Bush is either hiding something about 9-11 or is outright lying. 
12 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Wednesday, October 4th 2006

1:33 PM

Pre-9/11 warning of 10 July 2001

Seems there wasn't just the 6 August PDB that notified the Bush Administration of the upcoming 9/11 attack.  Secretary of State (Then National Securiy Adviser) Rice, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft were all briefed two months beforehand.  Interestingly, the  then-current Secretary of State, Powell, was not in the briefing.  Also, it's very interesting to note that the 9/11 Commission staff director Philip Zelikov, who was an NSC Deputy serving directly under Rice at the time, "...didn't respond to e-mail and telephone queries from McClatchy Newspapers" concerning why the 9/11 Commission never included this meeting in their report.  

It was relatively easy to dismiss the PDB as a fluke.  One warning, delivered to one person, a person not really known for being all that bright.  But to have the same warning delivered to three principal officials well before the event is a bit harder to explain away.  As DailyKos explains, the evidence that at least Rice was fully aware of the upcoming attack is damningly specific. 

Of course, what Rice, Rumsfeld or Ashcroft DID about the warning remains an open question. 
0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Friday, September 15th 2006

9:00 PM

Geneva Conventions

On 17 April 2003, the Heritage Foundation produced a "fact sheet" on possible Iraqi violations of the Geneva Conventions. They examined 27 Iraqi actions and cited 38 possible violations. The following two items are good examples:

Iraq's Actions

  • On April 1, PFC Jessica Lynch, a member of the 507th maintenance company captured on March 23, was rescued from a hospital in the city of Nasiriyah. She was badly injured, suffering from two broken legs and severe back injuries. PFC Lynch was not allowed to eat for the nine days of her internment.

Violation

If proven upon further investigation, these actions would violate:

  1. Article 26 of the Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

The basic daily food rations shall be sufficient in quantity, quality and variety to keep prisoners of war in good health and to prevent loss of weight or the development of nutritional deficiencies. Account shall also be taken of the habitual diet of the prisoners. Sufficient drinking water shall be supplied to prisoners of war.

Iraq's Actions

  • The International Committee of the Red Cross was blocked by Iraq from seeing American prisoners of war as required by the Geneva Conventions.

Violation

If proven upon further investigation, this action would violate:

  1. Article 126 of the Third Geneva Convention

Representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers shall have permission to go to all places where prisoners of war may be, particularly to places of internment, imprisonment and labour, and shall have access to all premises occupied by prisoners of war; they shall also be allowed to go to the places of departure, passage and arrival of prisoners who are being transferred. They shall be able to interview the prisoners, and in particular the prisoners' representatives, without witnesses, either personally or through an interpreter. Representatives and delegates of the Protecting Powers shall have full liberty to select the places they wish to visit. The duration and frequency of these visits shall not be restricted. Visits may not be prohibited except for reasons of imperative military necessity, and then only as an exceptional and temporary measure. The delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross shall enjoy the same prerogatives. The appointment of such delegates shall be submitted to the approval of the Power detaining the prisoners of war to be visited.




These examples are also quite interesting because President Bush is now claiming that Geneva Conventions rules on treatment of prisoners are unclear. After nearly 50 years, all of the sudden, the rules are considered "unclear." Funny, the Heritage Foundation had absolutely zero difficulty citing these "unclear" rules when it was Saddam Hussein and his Baathist followers who were going to be held accountable to them. Here's President Bush on the rules now:

QUESTION: ... If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea and they were roughed up and those governments said, "Well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions."...

BUSH: My reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you name adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction.

We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.

And let me just repeat: We can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward.

You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish please -- they will not violate the law.

You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward if there's vague standards applied like those in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It's just not going to go forward.

You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.

I agree of course, that the US should not ask intelligence officers to violate the law, but what exactly is it that's unclear about the law? No one prior to President Bush in 2006 appeared to have any trouble understanding the law. I completely agree with the questioner here:

QUESTION: But, sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit, as they see fit, you're saying that you'd be OK with that?

BUSH: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article 3 we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.

As the Heritage Foundation makes clear above, Article 3 and all of the other sections of the Geneva Conventions are already quite clear. If Article 3 needs further clarifying, then clarification needs to be made in the context of international negotiations. To simply "hope" that other countries adopt the standards that the US ultimately adopts seems like an astonishingly naive way to go about changing international rules of conduct. If Article 3 needs further clarifying, then Bush needs to designate people to re-convene at Geneva along with as many other nations as possible, to re-negotiate the Conventions. For the US to arbitrarily and unlaterally decide to reinterpret the Conventions constitutes an open invitation to all the other countries of the world to toss the Conventions into the trash can. The "new standards" are NOT clear and will NOT protect US troops from being abused by our nation's enemies.
0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Monday, September 11th 2006

3:17 PM

Most crime goes down, gun crimes go up

Over the past five years, most categories of crime went down.  Gun crimes, however, went up.  There's been a reduction in police forces, but "Backed by the National Rifle Association, the Bush administration has been cool toward gun control measures."  The article traces a lot of the rise in gun violence to this attitude.
0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Monday, September 4th 2006

5:27 PM

Chart shows national drop in income 1999-2005

This chart from the Detroit Free Press (PDF) shows that American states as a whole have gone through an average 6% decline in income from 1999 to 2005.  Remember that when you go to the voting booth this November and in 2008.
11 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Thursday, August 31st 2006

1:24 PM

MoJo Iraq War Timeline

Mother Jones has published an Iraq War timeline that chronicles the many, many lies that were told to us, the American people  Requires Macromedi Flash Player
0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Wednesday, August 30th 2006

1:44 PM

Iran - how much of a threat?

The short answer from Matthew Yglesias of Talking Points Memo is, not very. 

Essentially, you've got a lot of people running around screaming and yelling "Aagh!  We're all gonna die!" but Iran is spending only $6b a year on its armed forces, compared to $9.6b for Israel and $25.2b for Saudia Arabia.  Plus, it might be a good ida to keep in mind that Iran is surrounded by American friends and American-occupied countries.  
0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Tuesday, August 29th 2006

6:14 PM

Army Retaliation against Sgt. Donald Buswell, the 911 NCO

By Captain Eric H. May 08.29.2006
The US Army has done the only thing it could do in its attempt to undermine the "911 NCO," Sergeant Donald Buswell, who has become a central figure in the 911 Truth Movement by calling for a new 911 investigation -- and being attacked for it. Sergeant Buswell, it turns out, has powerful comrades in the State Department who present a big problem for a military bent on defaming him for his position of principle and his mission of conscience.

Full text

- e-mail:: captainmay@prodigy.net
Homepage:: http://www.ghosttroop.net
0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Sunday, August 20th 2006

8:31 PM

Documentary - On Native Soil

The documentary On Native Soil will show on Court TV and then be available on DVD on August 21st.  It's an examination of the fight to get 9-11 investigated.  
5 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Sunday, August 13th 2006

7:28 PM

Update on planned 9-11 debate

The National 9/11 Debate sought members of the 9-11 Commission and the NIST scientists responsible for putting out the governments official theory as to how 9-11 happened.  As the comissioners and scientists have refused to take part in the debate, the project has now invited all qualified and knowledgeable people who wish to, to take the government's side in the debate. 
Anyone wishing to "silence the critics" can contact Ed Haas today.
0 Comment(s) / Post Comment