The Raw Story article "Waxman subpoenas FBI transcripts of Bush, Cheney interviews" at
states "House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman is demanding the Justice Department hand over transcripts of FBI interviews with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney conducted during the investigation into who outed former
covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.
The committee on Monday issued subpoenas ordering the Justice Department to hand over the transcript. Of course, if the Bush administration treats this subpoena
like they have virtually every other one issued by Congress, it could take
months or even years of legal wrangling before the issue is resolved."
The article "White House Dismissed Legal Advice On Detainees" at
states "Senior lawyers inside and outside the Bush administration repeatedly warned the White House that it was risking judicial scrutiny of its detention policies in Guantanamo Bay if it did not pursue a more pragmatic legal strategy that considered the likely reaction of the Supreme Court. But such advice, issued periodically over the past six years, was ignored or discounted, according to current and former administration officials familiar with the debates."
W cast away our laws and now the terrorists have taken away all of the parts of our culture that made us the great hope for the world. Big bro 43 made us afraid and lied to us causing us to be terrified-bin laden never could have accomplished as much.
Now Obama is being forced to speak out against mini-me McCain's use of lies about Obama allegedly being a pre-9/11 thinker.
Back in October 20, 2002 U.S. Sen. Bob Graham spoke out against diverting our troops and resources from Afghanistan, and he wasn't alone as the article "Perspective: Graham's opposition to the resolution to wage war" at
makes clear stating "U.S. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was one of the 21 Senate Democrats who recently voted against a resolution authorizing President Bush to wage war against Iraq.
The resolution passed by a vote of 77 to 23. The following is an excerpt from the speech Graham made on the Senate floor explaining his opposition:
This resolution fails to recognize the new reality of the era of terrorism.
And that reality is that war abroad will, without assertive security action, increase the prospects of terrorist attacks here at home. In fact, war on Iraq alone leaves Americans more vulnerable to the threat that is facing us today -- those international terrorist organizations that have the capability to inflict upon us a repeat of the tragedy of Sept. 11. ...
They say that passing this resolution is the equivalent of if the Alllies had declared war on Hitler. I disagree with that assessment of what this lesson of history means. In my judgment, passing this resolution tonight will be the equivalent of declaring war on Italy. That is not what we should be doing. We should not just be declaring war on Mussolini's Italy. We should be declaring war on Hitler's Germany."
The article continues "The CIA has warned us that international terrorist organizations will probably use United States action against Iraq as an indication for striking us here in the homeland....And the event is that international terrorist organizations will use United States actions against Iraq as a justification for striking us here in the homeland.....
Let me read a declassified briefing of the CIA report presented to the Select Committee on Intelligence: "Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamic terrorists in conducting a weapon-of-mass destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
In other words, odds of another strike against the people of the United States by al-Qaida or another international terrorist group goes up when we attack Baghdad.
The president should be in the most advantageous position to protect Americans -- to launch pre-emptive strikes and hack off the heads of these snakes. With the resolution before us, we are denying the president that opportunity. And we are sending confusing signals to our people and to our allies as to the sincerity of our commitment to the war on terrorism.
When our allies gave the president their whole-hearted support for the war on terrorism after Sept. 11, they cheered our efforts against Osama bin Laden and the government of Afghanistan. A year after we commenced that war, action in Afghanistan has ground to a virtual halt, Osama bin Laden remains at large, and we have not moved aggressively beyond Afghanistan to gain knowledge of al-Qaida operatives in other parts of the world. We also know of sanctuaries -- training camps -- where the next generation of terrorists are being trained and they are going unattacked...
Our top targets should be those groups that have the greatest potential to repeat what happened on Sept. 11, killing thousands of Americans.
This timid resolution, I fear, will only increase the chance of Americans being killed, and that is not a burden of probability that I am prepared to take."
Graham was correct.
The article "Afghanistan replacing Iraq as focus of terror war" at
states "With Taliban rebels launching mass jail breaks, threatening a major city and killing more foreign troops than ever, Afghanistan is replacing Iraq as the focus of the "war on terror", analysts say.
The Islamist movement has dealt a series of stunning blows to President Hamid Karzai's fragile government in the past week, causing jitters among Western nations who together have around 70,000 troops in the country."
With Afghanistan worse than Iraq W has us bogged down in two quagmires in the twin theatres of war in his GWOT. Obama echoed Graham as the article continues "Democratic US presidential candidate Barack Obama spelt out his priorities if elected by saying on Monday that the real front of the "war on terror" was now Afghanistan and that the US mission in Iraq had been a disaster.
Further underscoring the instability is the fact that Afghanistan was deadlier for foreign forces than Iraq during the month of May for the first time since the US-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003."
Why, back in 2002 go into Iraq when the work in Afghanistan was progressing? The article continues "Analysts said that quitting Afghanistan was not an option for the US-led coalition and the separate NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, but that they were in a "very difficult position."
"If they abandon this place they are going to get hurt back home," said analyst Waheed Mujda, suggesting failing to wipe out the threat in Afghanistan could increase the likelihood of terror attacks in coalition countries.
"But if they fight for it they need more money and resources than at the beginning when it was easy," added Mujda.
The article "Taliban Seizes Seven Afghan Villages" at
describes the Afghan Pakistan problem as the article states "The prison break and offensive in Arghandab occurred against the backdrop of
renewed tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan over an increasingly active
Islamist insurgency in Pakistan's rugged tribal areas along the Afghan border. A
day after the jailbreak, Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened to send troops
across the border into Pakistan to quash attacks against Afghan and NATO troops.
"When they cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and kill
coalition troops, it exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same," he
said, according to the Associated Press.
Karzai's statement provoked a strong response from Pakistani Foreign Minister
Shah Mahmood Qureshi, who called Karzai's remarks "regrettable" and lodged a
formal complaint with the Afghan Embassy in Islamabad on Monday.
"In my view, the only way to win the war against terrorism and extremism is by
showing full respect to territorial sovereignty and noninterference in each
other's internal affairs," Qureshi said."
In Afghanistan we were going against bin laden. In Iraq we were over Wolfowitz's seas of oil and the big bro 43 backers were ready to make their deals as the article "Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back" at
makes clearing stating "Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over
others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and
India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively
small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage
in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the
best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).