posted on July 12, 2003 02:00:00 PM new
HE IS A LIAR, CAN YOU SAY LIAR, I CAN SAY LIAR, HEY YOU RIGHT WING B##TARDS, WHAT DO YOU SAY NOW ??? LIAR LIAR LIAR, CROOK, IMPEACH THE BAS##RD NOW, IMPEACH BUSH AND HIS CRONIES NOW, WAKE UP AMERICA AND LOOK, YOU JUST BEEN HOODWINKED, YOUR CHILDREN ARE BEING MURDERED FOR OIL, LIAR LIAR LIAR, that said, i feel better, knowing that i did not protect and stand by a LIAR and a MURDERER, like some right wing idiots who did....
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 11 July 2003
There was a picture on the front page of the New York Times on Tuesday, July 8. It showed several American soldiers in Iraq sitting in utter dejection as they were informed by their battalion commander that none of them were going home anytime soon, and no one knew exactly when they were going home at all. PFC Harrison Grimes sat in the center of this photo with his chin in his hand, staring at ground that was thousands of miles from his family and friends. A soldier caught in the picture just over PFC Grimes' shoulder had a look on his face that could break rocks.
212 of PFC Grimes' fellow soldiers have died in Iraq, and 1,044 more have been wounded. The war created chaos in the cities, and it seems clear now that very little in the way of preparation was made to address the fact that invasion leads to social bedlam, not to mention a lot of shooting. Last Sunday, CNN's Judy Woodruff showed a clip of a Sergeant Charles Pollard, who said, "All we are here is potential people to be killed and sitting ducks."
According to the numbers, almost two thirds of the soldiers killed in Iraq since May 1 died in "non-combat related" mishaps like accidental weapons discharges, accidental detonations of unexploded ordnance, and questionable car crashes. There are some in the world who might take comfort from the fact that only one third of the dead since May came from snipers or bombs or rocket-propelled grenades. Dead is dead, however. There is no comforting them.
A significant portion of the dead and wounded came after Bush performed his triumphant swagger across the deck of an aircraft carrier that was parked just outside San Diego bay. Those dead and wounded came because the Bush administration's shoddy planning for this whole event left the troopers on the firing line wide open to the slow and debilitating bloodletting they have endured. A significant portion of the dead and wounded came after Bush stuck his beady chin out on national television and said, "Bring 'em on!"
When a leader sends troops out into the field of battle, they become his responsibility. When his war planning is revealed to be profoundly faulty, flawed in ways that are getting men killed, he should not stick his banty rooster chest out to the cameras and speak with the hollow bravado of a man who knows he is several time zones away from the violence and bloodshed.
Such behavior is demonstrably criminal from a moral standpoint. The events that led to this reprehensible display were criminal in a far more literal sense.
Bush and the White House told the American people over and over again that Iraq was in possession of vast stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Bush and the White House said over and over again that this was a direct threat to the United States. Bush and the White House told the American people over and over again that Iraq was directly connected to al Qaeda terrorism, and would hand those terrible weapons over to the terrorists the first chance they got. Bush and the White House told Congress the same thing. Very deliberately, Bush and the White House tied a war in Iraq to the attack of September 11.
It was all a lie. All of it.
When George W. Bush delivered his constitutionally-mandated State of the Union Address in January 2003, he stated flatly that Iraq was attempting to develop a nuclear weapons program. "The British government has learned," said Bush in his speech, "that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa." He delivered this proclamation on the basis of intelligence reports which claimed that Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger.
Vice President Cheney got the Niger ball rolling in a speech delivered August 26, 2002 when he said Saddam Hussein had "resumed his effort to acquire nuclear weapons." As the data clearly shows, Mr. Cheney was a central player in the promulgation of the claim that Iraq was grubbing for uranium in Africa. This statement was the opening salvo.
CIA Director George Tenet made this same claim in a briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee on September 24, 2002. This briefing was the deciding factor for a number of Senatorial fence-sitters unsure about voting for war. Bush, in a speech delivered on the eve of the Congressional vote for war on Iraq, referenced the Niger uranium claims again when he raised the specter of a "mushroom cloud" just three sentences after evoking "The horror of September 11."
That sealed the deal. Congress voted for war, and a clear majority of the people supported the President.
In the last week, a blizzard of revelations from high-ranking members of the intelligence community has turned these Bush administration claims inside out. It began with a New York Times editorial by Joseph Wilson, former US ambassador to several African nations. Wilson was dispatched in February of 2002 at the behest of Dick Cheney to investigate the veracity of the Niger evidence. Wilson spent eight days digging through the data, and concluded that the evidence was completely worthless. The documents in question which purportedly indicated Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium were crude forgeries.
Upon his return in February of 2002, Ambassador Wilson reported back to the people who sent him on his errand. According to his editorial, the CIA, the State Department, the National Security Council and the Vice President's office were all informed that the Niger documents were forged. "That information was erroneous, and they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the British white paper and the president's State of the Union address," said Wilson in a 'Meet the Press' interview last Sunday.
"I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat," Wilson wrote in his Times editorial. "A legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses." He elaborated further in a Washington Post interview, saying, "It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs the question, what else are they lying about?"
Ambassador Wilson's claims are not easily dismissed. Wilson is a 23-year veteran of the foreign service who was the top diplomat in Baghdad before the first Gulf War. In 1990, he was lauded by the first President Bush for his work. "What you are doing day in and day out under the most trying conditions is truly inspiring," cabled Bush Sr. "Keep fighting the good fight."
A great hue and cry has been raised as to the timing of the data delivery to the policy-makers. Don Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice have both claimed they knew nothing of the forged Niger evidence, claiming the information was buried in the "bowels" of the intelligence services. Vice President Cheney's office has made similar demurrals. Obviously, the administration is attempting to scapegoat the CIA.
Given the nature of Wilson's claims, and given who he is, and given the fact that he was sent to Niger at the behest of Dick Cheney, it is absurd to believe the administration was never given the data they specifically asked for over a year before the war began, and eleven months before Bush's fateful State of the Union Address.
27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern, writing in a recent editorial, described a conversation he had with a senior official who recently served at the National Security Council. "The fact that Cheney's office had originally asked that the Iraq-Niger report be checked out," said the official, "makes it inconceivable that his office would not have been informed of the results."
Wilson is not alone. Greg Thielmann served as Director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research until his retirement in September. Mr. Thielmann has come forward recently to join Ambassador Wilson in denouncing the Bush administration's justifications for war in Iraq.
"I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq," said Thielmann on Wednesday. During his press conference, Mr. Thielmann said that, as of the commencement of military operations in March of 2003, "Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States". Mr. Thielmann also dismissed the oft-repeated claims of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude," he said.
Thielmann could have saved his breath, and Wilson could have saved himself a trip, if the Bush administration had bothered to pay any attention to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA's chief spokesman, Mark Gwozdecky, said on September 26, 2002 that no such evidence existed to support claims of a nascent Iraqi nuclear program.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer on July 8 stood before the press corps and said the President's statements during the State of the Union address had been "incorrect."
Let us look at the timeline of this and consider the definition of "incorrect":
· February 2002: Ambassador Joseph Wilson is dispatched by Cheney to Niger to investigate Iraq-uranium claims. Eight days later, he reports back that the documentary evidence was a forgery;
· August 26, 2002: Dick Cheney claims Iraq is developing a nuclear program;
· September 24, 2002: CIA Director Tenet briefs the Senate Intelligence Committee on the reported Iraqi nuclear threat, using the Niger evidence to back his claims;
· September 26, 2002: The IAEA vigorously denies that any such nuclear program exists in Iraq;
· October 6, 2002: George W. Bush addresses the nation and threatens the American people with "mushroom clouds" delivered by Iraq, using the same Niger evidence;
· October 10, 2002: Congress votes for war in Iraq, based on the data delivered by Tenet and by the nuclear rhetoric from Bush four days prior;
· January 2003: George W. Bush, in his State of the Union Address, says, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa."
· March-April 2003: War in Iraq kills thousands of civilians and destabilizes the nation;
· April-July 2003: No evidence whatsoever of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons can be found in Iraq. 212 American soldiers have died, and 1,044 more have been wounded, as a guerilla war is undertaken by Iraqi insurgents;
· July 2003: Amid accusations from former intelligence officials, the Bush administration denies ever having known the Niger evidence was fake.
The Bush administration knew full well that their evidence was worthless, and still stood before the American people and told them it was fact. Bush sent the Director of the CIA to the Senate under orders to use the same worthless evidence to cajole that body into war.
That is not being "incorrect." That is lying. In the context of Bush's position as President, and surrounded by hundreds of dead American soldiers piled alongside thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, that is a crime.
They know it, too.
A report hit the Reuters wires late Tuesday night announcing the arrest of an Iraqi intelligence official named Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. An unnamed "US official" claimed al-Ani had reportedly met with 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta in Prague just months before the attack. The old saw about Iraq working fist in glove with al Qaeda to bring about September 11 was back in the news.
According to the story, neither the CIA or the FBI could confirm this meeting had taken place. In fact, a Newsweek report from June 9 entitled "Where are the WMDs?" shows the FBI was completely sure such a meeting had never taken place. The snippet below is from the Newsweek article; the 'Cabal' statement refers to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his coterie of hawks who have been all-out for war on Iraq since 1997:
"The Cabal was eager to find a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, especially proof that Saddam played a role in the 9-11 attacks. The hard-liners at Defense seized on a report that Muhammad Atta, the chief hijacker, met in Prague in early April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence official. Only one problem with that story, the FBI pointed out. Atta was traveling at the time between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va. (The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts.)"
Amid the accusations that have exploded surrounding the revelations of Wilson, Thielmann and other high-ranking intelligence officials, comes now again reports of the infamous Iraq-al Qaeda connection, an administration claim meant to justify the war. As with the Niger forgery, however, it is too easily revealed to be utterly phony.
It reeks of desperation. This administration is learning a lesson that came to Presidents Nixon and Johnson with bitter tears: Scapegoat the CIA at your mortal peril.
There are many who believe that blaming George W. Bush for the errors and gross behavior of his administration is tantamount to blaming Mickey Mouse for mistakes made by Disney. There is a great deal of truth to this. Groups like Rumsfeld's 'Cabal,' and the right-wing think tanks so closely associated to the creation of administration foreign policy, are very much more in control of matters than Bush.
Yet Bush knew the facts of the matter. He allowed CIA Director Tenet to lie to Congress with his bare face hanging out in order to get that body to vote for war. He knew the facts and lied himself, on countless occasions, to an American people who have been loyally supporting him, even as he beats them over the head with the image of collapsing towers and massive death to stoke their fear and dread for his own purposes. In doing these things, he consigned 212 American soldiers to death, along with thousands of innocent bystanders in Iraq. Given the current circumstances, there will be more dead to come.
There is no "The President wasn't told" justification available here, no Iran/Contra loophole. He knew. He lied. His people knew. They lied.
Death knows no political affiliation, and a bloody lie is a bloody lie is a bloody lie. The time has come for Congress to fulfill their constitutional duties in this matter, to defend the nation and the soldiers who live and die in her service. The definition of 'is' has flown right out the window. This 'is' a crime. George W. Bush lied to the people, and lied to Congress. There are a lot of people dead because of it.
One Congresswoman, Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, released a statement on July 8 that cuts right to the heart of the matter:
"After months of denials, President Bush has finally admitted that he misled the American public during his State of the Union address when he claimed that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium in Africa. That is why we need an independent commission to determine the veracity of the other so-called evidence used to convince the American people that war with Iraq was unavoidable.
"It is not enough for the White House to issue a statement saying that President Bush should not have used that piece of intelligence in his State of the Union address at a time when he was trying to convince the American people that invading Iraq was in our national security interests. Did the president know then what he says he only knows now? If not, why not, since that information was available at the highest level.
"What else did the Bush Administration lie about? What other faulty information did Administration officials, including President Bush, tell the American people and the world? Did the Bush Administration knowingly deceive us and manufacture intelligence in order to build public support for the invasion of Iraq? Did Iraq really pose an imminent threat to our nation? These questions must be answered. The American people deserve to know the full truth."
The voice of Rep. Schakowsky must be followed by others both within and without the majority. If nothing is done about this, American justice is a sad, sorry, feeble joke.
-------
William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org. He is a New York Times best-selling author of two books - "War On Iraq" available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," now available from Pluto Press at www.SilenceIsSedition.com.
posted on July 12, 2003 02:06:35 PM new
Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False
CBS News
Thursday 10 July 2003
Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President's mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.
Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
CIA officials warned members of the President's National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.
The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: "Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that's how it was delivered.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Mr. Bush said.
The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.
Today at a press conference during the President's trip to Africa, Secretary of State Colin Powell portrayed it as an honest mistake.
"There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people," said Powell.
But eight days after the State of the Union, when Powell addressed the U.N., he deliberately left out any reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa.
"I didn't use the uranium at that point because I didn't think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world," Powell said.
That is exactly what CIA officials told the White House before the State of the Union. The top CIA official, Director George Tenet, was not involved in those discussions and apparently never warned the President he was on thin ice.
Secretary Powell said today he read the State of the Union speech before it was delivered and understood it had been seen and cleared by the intelligence community. But intelligence officials say the director of the CIA never saw the final draft.
posted on July 12, 2003 02:25:46 PM new
Our President is a Criminal
By Daniel Patrick Welch
07/12/03: It's well past time to say it. Despite the weaseling and finger-pointing--in fact, because of it--the Forged Niger letter is indeed the smoking gun, and the chips have yet to stop falling. Who wrote the damn thing, and on whose orders? Who cares whether Tenet, his job on the line, acquiesced to including a literal truth that actually amounts to one of the great frauds of the century? The sheer audacity and cynicism of this coterie of hacks and hustlers is simply astounding. As a teacher, I won't let six-year-olds get away with such transparent sophistry. The bottom line is that Bush knew the information was bogus, and used it anyway to convince millions to go along with his phony war.
For that alone, for the memory of the thousands of dead Iraqis and Americans, he deserves the il Duce treatment (figuratively speaking, Mr. Ashcroft-no need to start tapping my phone or putting me on no-fly lists). The criminal enterprise called the Bush administration is (Helen Thomas was right) the worst ever. Their campaign in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud the public into buying the Iraq war is one of the the most cynical abuses of power in U.S. history. It deserves to be treated as such.
Alarmist? You bet. This guy already thinks (and occasionally tells foreign leaders) that he gets his orders from God. If these radical extremists can get away with this, then the dumbing down of America will be complete, and the stage will be set for the next wave of the nascent fascism. La Cosa Bush (apologies to the mafia) is, like all crime families, violent, arrogant, and beyond the reach of the law--so far. Bush's handlers no longer even have the decency, courage or self-restraint to prevent his criminally stupid comments from wreaking havoc around the globe. Was last week's pseudo-macho invitation to "Bring 'em on" even a mistake? Or was it another calculated ploy to make him look "tough" to the American people, playing to the ugliest side of the American psyche while once again enraging thinking people the world over. No matter--he must be stopped. This cabal has been lying, cheating, and manipulating national tragedy to force their right wing agenda down our throats long enough.
And half-measures won't do any more. None of this vague safe rhetoric about "misleading" or cautious calls for those who "know who they are" to step down. WE know who they are, the junta that has hijacked our government and our national agenda. The cartel must go: Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle should all resign, be fired or impeached immediately, before their conspiracy of lies and their mutual pact of self-protection is allowed to further endanger the country and the world. Cornered criminals, especially stupid ones, are a dangerous lot, and there is no telling to what lengths they will go to cover their own behinds.
On a mission from God, installed by a viciously partisan Supreme Court, the skids are greased for a further slide into misadventure, bankruptcy and ruin. With the addition of Congress on their side, they are acting with particularly reckless abandon--and impeachment is not in the cards as long as the GOP circles the wagons. None will have the courage or integrity Goldwater showed when he told Nixon the jig was up. Power corrupts, and the Republicans are so drunk with it they won't turn on their Lord Fauntleroy until he robs a bank on camera in broad daylight.
But that is no reason not to tell the truth: whatever their chances, some of the braver souls in congress should introduce impeachment legislation immediately: Conyers, Kucinich, Lee, Paul? The media has already shown they will not help; moneyed interests overwhelmingly favor the right. A campaign based on the old game of raising oodles of money and buying ads is a sure failure. The only thing that can save us now is a grassroots, velvet revolution, the principled, impassioned movement calling for these people's head on a spike.
And maybe, just maybe, this one isn't an impeachable offense, but I'm just plain getting sick of Rumsfeld's smug, arrogant grin on the tube. What the hell is he smiling at all the time? Is it funny, somehow, that thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead after his "precision" bombing? It is ironic, admittedly, another fraud, to be sure-but hardly amusing. Maybe it's just part of what you do when you think you can get away with anything.
Senate Intelligence Chair Pat Roberts foreshadowed just how twisted the logic is going to get when he said that what concerns him most "is what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the CIA in an effort to discredit the president," Yeah, right. The black bag set, whose penchant for secrecy and service verges on pathology, are the real problem here--not the curious fact that even some of them have finally decided that things are so bad that someone, somewhere has to speak out.
It's time to close the curtain on this Bizarro World. Saddam loyalists--not nationalist resistance to occupation--are the real problem in Iraq. Protesters are terrorists, but we are fighting for our freedoms. Bush's popularity remains robust, yet huge shows of force and repressive rules on free speech are needed to keep the viewing public from seeing that he is dogged by prostest at every turn. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and some animals are more equal than others. The lies won't stop until we fire the liars.
posted on July 12, 2003 02:52:40 PM new
Skylite & Helen
Now that's hitting the nail right square on the head! He should be impeached and he should stand trial for war crimes. But, what do you want to bet that will never happen?
posted on July 12, 2003 03:39:38 PM new
Hey, NativeAmerican...Keep cheering!
Cheryl,
Betraying the country with manufactured evidence in order to start a war doesn't seem to be sufficient reason to impeach. We need someone on the scene with a red dress. Are you going to volunteer? LOL!
posted on July 12, 2003 06:56:35 PM new
Boy, I don't think I'd touch that man if he were the last one on Earth. I was never one to play up to someone I couldn't stand. I'd make a lousy hooker. However, I do know of a person or two who could do the job. Get it? Job? Ha, ha, ha. Boy, I have 'em rolling in the aisles today.
If you haven't guessed, we had company for dinner tonight and I had a few too many glasses of wine.
WASHINGTON (AP) As President Bush works to quiet a controversy over his
discredited claim of Iraqi uranium shopping in Africa, another of his prewar assertions
is coming under fire: the alleged link between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida.
Before the war, Bush and members of his cabinet said Saddam was harboring top al-
Qaida operatives and suggested Iraq could slip the terrorist network chemical,
biological or even nuclear weapons.
Critics attacked those assertions from the beginning for being counter to the
ideologies of Saddam and al-Qaida and short on corroborating evidence. Now, two
former Bush administration intelligence officials say the evidence linking Saddam to
the group responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was never more than sketchy at best.
''There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaida
terrorist operation,'' former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann said
this week.
posted on July 13, 2003 01:47:08 PM new
You seem to forget about that cylinder and gyroscope thingy that was found under the rose bush. There's a possibilty that these parts could maybe be possible nuclear bomb components maybe. Give Bush a chance!
posted on July 13, 2003 02:19:44 PM new
The parts found under the rose bush were discounted several weeks ago.
It wasn't a weapon of mass destruction. It wasn't even a complete centrifuge - but parts of a centrifuge. It would take 2,500 working centrifuges, large scale facilities and fissile material to produce enough uranium to make enough material to go into one bomb. To produce a nuclear bomb with a delivery system would take several years.
I'm surprised, Kraftdinner that you want to give Bush a chance. That's uncharacteristic of you, based on my reading of your political opinions.
posted on July 13, 2003 02:44:17 PM new
Oh, kraft, you little devil you. You probably got 12 and all them every excited by your comment just to shoot them back down. I think we should put you in a little red dress.
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jul 13, 2003 02:44 PM ]
posted on July 13, 2003 04:08:17 PM new
I know Cheryl! What a tease, eh? Maybe that's the problem with Twelve and his "jokes". He's so mixed up he can't think normally.
P.S. I think Helen should wear the red dress for not catching on to my sarcasm.
posted on July 13, 2003 06:08:22 PM new
A few minutes???? Ahahahahahahahahaha!!! That's assuming Bush has had a previous job. Can you imagine how goofy he'd act after?
[ edited by kraftdinner on Jul 13, 2003 06:14 PM ]
posted on July 14, 2003 07:48:54 AM new
twelvepeople said: Last confirmed liar of the white house was who? come one you know the name.... CLINTON!
hey you forgot to mention old man Bush,and Reagan,and oh yea, good old Nixon, do me a favour armchair warrior, buy yourself a one way ticket to Iraq, because then I'll know you will not be coming back, oh I forgot,no guts,just yap, got children, and if so are they there now, and another thing, will you and your like minded cronies be paying the huge multi trillion dollar bill for this ? Naw, your kind sees profit, goes into a country, f##ks it up, makes a mess, like a cancer, and then begs, and threatens, everyone to clean it up. The good old Republican way, and you know the bast##ds you seem to like to protect, will scr#w you in a minute if they saw oppertunity to make profit, another lemming you are, running to the edge of the cliff, thank the stars and heavens, you kind dies off eventually.
posted on July 14, 2003 07:59:10 AM new
Twelvepole,
That biggrin smile at the end of your post leads me to believe that you are not serious about your comments.
Surely, in this enlightened age, you can't believe that a lie about sex takes precedence over a lie that leads to the death of THOUSANDS of people.
Take a look at the "end" on which you are focused. A man, Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. This leader of a sovereign country had no weapons of mass destruction or means to disperse such weapons and more importantly, he was a man who presented no danger to the United States or to his neighbors.
While this man's rag tag followers continue the defense of their country on land, U.S. and allied troops are being endangered, killed and wounded daily. Today, we learn that even more U.S. troops will be required -- just to maintain the status quo of quagmire.
posted on July 14, 2003 11:42:29 AM new
Last year, for example, the administration stopped issuing a monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics report, known as the Mass Layoff Statistics program, that tracked factory closings throughout the country.
The Bush administration claimed the report was a victim of budget cuts ........until the Washington Post caught this effort at data suppression and had it reinstated.
posted on July 14, 2003 12:43:00 PM new
Helenjw said : And before Lindsey was made to take a dive, he predicted that the war in Iraq could cost upwards of $200 billion,
helen my dear, try a trillion dollars before it's all over, and that's just Iraq, and monies they are using as bribes to other countries to back the US and wait till they attack another country, could be a couple of trillion dollars, which our kids will never see, only Bush and his cronies will get that money, that's what this is all about, HISTORY'S BIGGEST THEFT FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD.
RIGHT ON ALL 
However, I do know of a person or two who could do the job. Get it? Job? Ha, ha, ha. Boy, I have 'em rolling in the aisles today.
