Those of us that are political junkies have known since before this invasion that it was bogus, since that time there has been one piece of evidence after another validating the claims made that this administration war-mongered us into an totally unnecessary war. And in the face of all this, when out so-called representatives should be doing everything in their power to end this tragedy and hold those that got us into this mess accountable, they are instead doing just the opposite.

I just finished getting off the line with Conyers office informing them of this article and asked what Conyers was doing about the many ignored subpoenas, and movement to hold anyone accountable for the seeming many abuses of power? And that because of the inaction to date there is a growing perception that either Conyers was inept or worse. 

I was told I was not a "creditable source" and hung-up on.

They now treat us with total disdain. Apparently if you don't call to praise them, you're not a "creditable source".

It's over folks. Our government hides behind police barricades and stooges and are increasingly removed from a populace they not only do not represent or listen to, but regard with total indifference and lack of respect.

The wars will continue, our economy will collapse, more false-flag attacks will occur, we'll continue to slide rapidly into tyranny unless we have a revolution - an election simply won't cut it.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:45:15 AM

  (0+)

MrM, outstanding.  That's what they need, their employers giving them a grilling.  I'd like to have heard that.  Nothing like the truth shoved in their face.  I liked the July 25th hearing by Conyers but clearly he's been shoved down by the hapless and factually challenged Pelosi, herself a candidate for complicity at the highest levels.

Bugliosi's book hit me like a jolt of lightening.  I knew much of the argument, but to read a brief for murder charges by the best prosecutor anyone can name was the key.  Then ... this comes out.  

The implication, I believe, is that the July 2002 White Paper was the road map for the intel effort that yielded the NIE of 10/1/2002.  The subsequent White Paper closely match the July version.  But, of course it would.

But then, as if by an act of benevolent fate, the intel community put in those lines aobut jusg one scenario where Saddam was a threat - if we attack.  Taking that out is one of the great crimes of all time in the United States.  There are few, if any points, where the legal and ethical evlauation are outlined in better terms.

Accountability preceeds progress.  If this isn't investigated and prosecuted, there is little meaning to our future.  

by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:14:26 PM

  (0+)

Michael, I really cannot believe this article received so few comments. Just astounding!

Gotta go, I think my phone is being bugged.

Actually it is being tapped.  Remember, either you are with "us" or you are with "the terrorists."  And ta think this is happening here, in "America."

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:09:25 PM

  (0+)

People are convention focused.  That's OK.  This is when it was published and its an auspicious moon, I'm told;)  The good news is it's getting beau coup hits at a bunch of sites.  Wait for the sequel, I'll tape it and it will just show up.

The sequel will be stir the pot a bit, I suspect.

by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:02:43 AM

  (0+)

Okay, I must be reading this wrong. Please correct me because this sounds like bad news to me. (Bad news for Bugliosi's case that is.) Didn't Bugliosi say that the white paper was created after the intelligence report, and that the intelligence was removed? If the white paper was created first, then maybe they are saying they just gave to congress an old and outdated report? Couldn't they just say it was an ignorant mistake in that case?

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:14:05 AM

  (0+)

The White Paper was supposed to be a declassified version of the latest intelligence. If it were written before the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, not after, that begs the question of what possible intelligence could it have been based on when it was written? Or was it written absent the latest intelligence which would make it completely bogus?

by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:28:43 AM

  (0+)

Written in July 2002 means that the formal process of determining the threat level to the nation was not complete.  Producing it at that time is an even more massive distortion of intel data, absolute might be the term.  If it wasn't absolute, it became that when they removed only threat scenario to the U.S. in the Oct. 1 NIE.  Stunning isn't it?

by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:55:41 AM

  (0+)

The overriding charge is murder.  The details that preceeded don't have to be known precisely in order to make the charge.  This shows that there was a premeditated effort to make a case absent the requisite intelligence data. 

You can't just start a war by saying, "Write up a phony intel summary."  That was done earlier than suspected, July 2002, without any intel analysis.  When it did arrive, the intel data was ignored and there was a "slight" modification in quantitative terms but huge in terms of distorted meaning.  A critical sentence in the NIE of Oct. 1, 2002, as indicated at the end of the article.  The NIE stated that the scenario where the U.S. gets attacked requires a U.S. attack on Hussein threatening his survival.  That was deleted. 

Just think about it - to protect the nation from immient danger, one would be expected to avoid an attack on the U.S. (which was hypothesized based on incorrect WMD claims).  They did just the opposite.  Therefore, the war was no based on imminent danger to the nation.  Byt the terms of WH analysis, the war placed the nation in imminent danger.

This takes the charges to an entirely new level of premeditation and cynicism.

by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:51:53 AM

  (0+)

Yes, the charge is murder. Bugliosi's key piece of evidence was that the Administration had the intelligence report (Saddam was not an imminent threat) and created the white paper from it. Bugliosi's key evidence suggested that the evidence that Saddam was not an imminent threat was removed, ommitted from the white paper. This shows intent to deceive.

With this new revelation that the white paper was created first, it gives the administration the opportunity to say they created the white paper from a preliminary or incomplete investigation (that perhaps failed to show Saddam was not an imminent threat while it was incomplete) and the administration failed to bring the white paper up-to-date when the investigation was complete. It turns 'intent to deceive' to 'the work of bumbling fools" and jeopardizes this case.

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:41:35 PM

  (0+)

Can you get a copy of this to Vincent Bugliosi? I think I found some contact information for his agent off the Internet.

Vincent Bugliosi's AGENT: Peter Miller at PMA Literary and Film Management in New York City.

PMA Literary & Film Management, Inc.
45 West 21st Street
Suite 4SW
New York, NY 10010

Phone: 212-929-1222
Fax: 212-206-0238

General information and queries
Queries@pmalitfilm.com

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:56:18 PM

  (0+)

But it stretches credulity to believe that the administration didn't re-read the White Paper and compare it to the NIE before handing it over to Congress and the public. After all, it was supposed to be a declassified version of the NIE itself.

The "bumbling fools" argument really doesn't pass the smell test. Taken into account with the latest allegations from Ron Suskind and Sidney Blumental, it is just another piece of an overwhelming circumstantial case.

by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:30:44 PM

  (0+)

Nothing they do passes the smell test and nothing has stopped them from stretching credulity before. It is their M.O.

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:01:40 PM

  (0+)

Even if it might hurt more than it helps, we certainly need to know about these things and the sooner the better. Good sleuthing.

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:22:40 AM

  (0+)