why isn't this woman going more public with this stuff? one thing that is irratating, is there has to be ALOT of people who were formally close to what went on and is still going on, but for some reason, choose to remain silent. that's a shirk of patriotic responsibility, also,in my opinion. i know there are good reasons for it, but there are ways. how can these people just sit back and watch our country go down the tubes, and not say anything? tell them to send me the info, and I'LL do it, jeez!

by mike wygant (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 12:00:41 PM

  (0+)

Great interveiw. I agree this needs a wider audience. It needs legs. It would be nice to see such an interveiw on national TV. The legislative branch needs to know that all eyes are on their failure to truly uncover all the cover-ups. Their inaction will result in their removal. Maybe Wesley Clark could bring this out if he truly wants to change our direction. Cheney needs to be impeached first on the evidence availible. It needs to be in the American's dialy diet of revelations and accountability. Our Government needs to become responsive to "WE THE PEOPLE"

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 2:22:21 PM

  (0+)

in David Ray Griffin's "9/11 and American Empire"; if Swanson respects her enough to interview her, he ought to read that piece. Perhaps then he'll start asking the questions that tens of millions of Americans (and growing) are asking, as they find out the official 9/11 story is made of lies and holes. 115 omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission click here The Top 40 click here

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1110 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 11:20:49 PM

  (0+)

Privately even the hawks within the US government lobbying for war acknowledged that President Saddam was no threat to America, according to [former NATO commander Wesley Clark] And they had been arguing for the attack long before September 11, he said. "There are some in the administration who have always felt that military power should be used to eliminate Saddam Hussein. "Secondly, those who favour this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." click here Fmr. Ambassador Joe Wilson - June 14, 2003 "The real agenda in all of this of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum that was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90's which was called, "A Clean Break - A New Strategy for the Realm." And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, some of these governments that are antagonistic to Israel then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions upon the Palestinian people, whatever those terms and conditions might be. In other words, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad and Damascus. Maybe Tehran. And maybe Cairo and maybe Tripoli if these guys actually have their way. Rather than going through Jerusalem." 19:46: click here "On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there's a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon's life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we've had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it's a terribly flawed strategy." 13:33: click here May '04, Gen. Anthony Zinni on 60 Minutes "I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility" Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq. "I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do," says Zinni. "And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested." "I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from." click here Dec '03, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president. _ In the early winter of 2002, a co-worker U.S. Navy captain and I were discussing the service being rendered by Colin Powell at the time, and we were told by the neoconservative political appointee David Schenker that "the best service Powell could offer would be to quit right now." I was present at a staff meeting when Bill Luti called Marine Gen. and former Chief of Central Command Anthony Zinni a "traitor," because Zinni had publicly expressed reservations about the rush to war. click here Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, [NY Times columnist Tom] Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. click here The War Party - BBC click here click here click here

by Buddy Olly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Mar 5, 2007 at 2:30:11 PM

  (0+)

is for brittany spears, or anna nicle smith (she can't now)comeout saying this stuff and maybe the media will make a bigger deal out of it.

by mike wygant (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 6, 2007 at 6:23:33 AM

  (0+)