turbonator

Spike wrote:

> As yet, where is the "PROOF" that Bush did anything
> immoral or illegal?


Doing this...

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

....to innocent children in violation of international
law is immoral by anyone's definition

This explains why Bush's terror attack on the People of
Iraq was illegal.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-01.htm

Published on Thursday, September 16, 2004 by the Guardian/UK
Iraq War was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annan
by Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington

"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared
explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war
on Iraq was illegal."


This outlines a few of Bush's many blatant lies.


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm

Published on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 by the Minneapolis City Pages
The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism
Bring 'em On!

by Steve Perry

1) The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward.

Throughout the year leading up to war, the White House publicly
maintained that the U.S. took weapons inspections seriously, that
diplomacy would get its chance, that Saddam had the opportunity to
prevent a U.S. invasion. The most pungent and concise evidence to the
contrary comes from the president's own mouth. According to Time's
March 31 road-to-war story, Bush popped in on national security
adviser Condi Rice one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN
sanctions against Iraq. Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W
peremptorily waved his hand and told her, "**** Saddam. We're taking
him out." Clare Short, Tony Blair's former secretary for international
development, recently lent further credence to the anecdote. She told
the London Guardian that Bush and Blair made a secret pact a few
months afterward, in the summer of 2002, to invade Iraq in either
February or March of this year.

Last fall CBS News obtained meeting notes taken by a Rumsfeld aide at
2:40 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes indicate that
Rumsfeld wanted the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit
S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden]....
Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the Bushmen's leading intellectual
light, has long been rabid on the subject of Iraq. He reportedly told
Vanity Fair writer Sam Tanenhaus off the record that he believes
Saddam was connected not only to bin Laden and 9/11, but the 1995
Oklahoma City bombing.

The Bush administration's foreign policy plan was not based on
September 11, or terrorism; those events only brought to the forefront
a radical plan for U.S. control of the post-Cold War world that had
been taking shape since the closing days of the first Bush presidency.
Back then a small claque of planners, led by Wolfowitz, generated a
draft document known as Defense Planning Guidance, which envisioned a
U.S. that took advantage of its lone-superpower status to consolidate
American control of the world both militarily and economically, to the
point where no other nation could ever reasonably hope to challenge
the U.S. Toward that end it envisioned what we now call "preemptive"
wars waged to reset the geopolitical table.

After a copy of DPG was leaked to the New York Times, subsequent
drafts were rendered a little less frank, but the basic idea never
changed. In 1997 Wolfowitz and his true believers--Richard Perle,
William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld--formed an organization
called Project for the New American Century to carry their cause
forward. And though they all flocked around the Bush administration
from the start, W never really embraced their plan until the events of
September 11 left him casting around for a foreign policy plan.

2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S.,
a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.

Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass
destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The
decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main
justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic
reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right.
But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.

We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They
set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored
everything that contradicted it. In the end, this required that
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. set aside the findings of analysts from
the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (the Pentagon's own spy
bureau) and stake their claim largely on the basis of isolated,
anecdotal testimony from handpicked Iraqi defectors. (See #5, Ahmed
Chalabi.) But the administration did not just listen to the defectors;
it promoted their claims in the press as a means of enlisting public
opinion. The only reason so many Americans thought there was a
connection between Saddam and al Qaeda in the first place was that the
Bushmen trotted out Iraqi defectors making these sorts of claims to
every major media outlet that would listen.

Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently retired head of
the State Department's intelligence office: "I believe the Bush
administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American
people of the military threat posed by Iraq. This administration has
had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the answers, give us
the intelligence to support those answers." Elsewhere he has been
quoted as saying, "The principal reasons that Americans did not
understand the nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure
of senior administration officials to speak honestly about what the
intelligence showed."

3) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger.

Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and distortions, and here
is W's most notorious case in point: Once the administration decided
to issue a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea culpa in the matter of
African uranium, they were obliged to couch it in another, more
perilous lie: that the administration, and quite likely Bush himself,
thought the uranium claim was true when he made it. But former acting
ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times
on July 6 that exploded the claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in
2002 to investigate the uranium claims at the behest of the CIA and
Dick Cheney's office and found them to be groundless, describes what
followed this way: "Although I did not file a written report, there
should be at least four documents in U.S. government archives
confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's
report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the
embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my trip, and a specific answer
from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have
been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I
have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard
operating procedure."

4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program.

The very next sentence of Bush's State of the Union address was just
as egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit cagier in its
formulation. "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has
attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for
nuclear weapons production." This is altogether false in its
implication (that this is the likeliest use for these materials) and
may be untrue in its literal sense as well. As the London Independent
summed it up recently, "The U.S. persistently alleged that Baghdad
tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in
gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally
persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes
were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed
El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes
were not even suitable for centrifuges." [emphasis added]

5) Iraq's WMDs were sent to Syria for hiding.

Or Iran, or.... "They shipped them out!" was a rallying cry for the
administration in the first few nervous weeks of finding no WMDs, but
not a bit of supporting evidence has emerged.

6) The CIA was primarily responsible for any prewar intelligence
errors or distortions regarding Iraq.

Don't be misled by the news that CIA director George Tenet has taken
the fall for Bush's falsehoods in the State of the Uranium address. As
the journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote shortly before the war, "Even as
it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a
second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The
Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to
produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq. ...
Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low,
with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the
push for war."

In short, Tenet fell on his sword when he vetted Bush's State of the
Union yarns. And now he has had to get up and fall on it again.

7) An International Atomic Energy Agency report indicated that Iraq
could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons.

Alas: The claim had to be retracted when the IAEA pointed out that no
such report existed.

8) Saddam was involved with bin Laden and al Qaeda in the plotting of
9/11.

One of the most audacious and well-traveled of the Bushmen's fibs,
this one hangs by two of the slenderest evidentiary threads
imaginable: first, anecdotal testimony by isolated, handpicked Iraqi
defectors that there was an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq, a claim
CIA analysts did not corroborate and that postwar U.S. military
inspectors conceded did not exist; and second, old intelligence
accounts of a 1991 meeting in Baghdad between a bin Laden emissary and
officers from Saddam's intelligence service, which did not lead to any
subsequent contact that U.S. or UK spies have ever managed to turn up.
According to former State Department intelligence chief Gregory
Thielman, the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies well in advance
of the war was that "there was no significant pattern of cooperation
between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation."

9) The U.S. wants democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.

Democracy is the last thing the U.S. can afford in Iraq, as anyone who
has paid attention to the state of Arab popular sentiment already
realizes. Representative government in Iraq would mean the rapid
expulsion of U.S. interests. Rather, the U.S. wants westernized,
secular leadership regimes that will stay in pocket and work to
neutralize the politically ambitious anti-Western religious sects
popping up everywhere. If a little brutality and graft are required to
do the job, it has never troubled the U.S. in the past. Ironically,
these standards describe someone more or less like Saddam Hussein.
Judging from the state of civil affairs in Iraq now, the Bush
administration will no doubt be looking for a strongman again, if and
when they are finally compelled to install anyone at all.

10) Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress are a homegrown
Iraqi political force, not a U.S.-sponsored front.

Chalabi is a more important bit player in the Iraq war than most
people realize, and not because he was the U.S.'s failed choice to
lead a post-Saddam government. It was Chalabi and his INC that
funneled compliant defectors to the Bush administration, where they
attested to everything the Bushmen wanted to believe about Saddam and
Iraq (meaning, mainly, al Qaeda connections and WMD programs). The
administration proceeded to take their dubious word over that of the
combined intelligence of the CIA and DIA, which indicated that Saddam
was not in the business of sponsoring foreign terrorism and posed no
imminent threat to anyone.

Naturally Chalabi is despised nowadays round the halls of Langley, but
it wasn't always so. The CIA built the Iraqi National Congress and
installed Chalabi at the helm back in the days following Gulf War I,
when the thought was to topple Saddam by whipping up and sponsoring an
internal opposition. It didn't work; from the start Iraqis have
disliked and distrusted Chalabi. Moreover, his erratic and duplicitous
ways have alienated practically everyone in the U.S. foreign policy
establishment as well--except for Rumsfeld's Department of Defense,
and therefore the White House.

11) The United States is waging a war on terror.

Practically any school child could recite the terms of the Bush
Doctrine, and may have to before the Ashcroft Justice Department is
finished: The global war on terror is about confronting terrorist
groups and the nations that harbor them. The United States does not
make deals with terrorists or nations where they find safe lodging.

Leave aside the blind eye that the U.S. has always cast toward
Israel's actions in the territories. How are the Bushmen doing
elsewhere vis-à-vis their announced principles? We can start with
their fabrications and manipulations of Iraqi WMD evidence--which, in
the eyes of weapons inspectors, the UN Security Council, American
intelligence analysts, and the world at large, did not pose any
imminent threat.

The events of recent months have underscored a couple more gaping
violations of W's cardinal anti-terror rules. In April the Pentagon
made a cooperation pact with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an
anti-Iranian terrorist group based in Iraq. Prior to the 1979 Iranian
revolution, American intelligence blamed it for the death of several
U.S. nationals in Iran.

Most glaring of all is the Bush administration's remarkable treatment
of Saudi Arabia. Consider: Eleven of the nineteen September 11
hijackers were Saudis. The ruling House of Saud has longstanding and
well-known ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits, which it
funds (read protection money) to keep them from making mischief at
home. The May issue of Atlantic Monthly had a nice piece on the House
of Saud that recounts these connections.

Yet the Bush government has never said boo regarding the Saudis and
international terrorism. In fact, when terror bombers struck Riyadh in
May, hitting compounds that housed American workers as well, Colin
Powell went out of his way to avoid tarring the House of Saud:
"Terrorism strikes everywhere and everyone. It is a threat to the
civilized world. We will commit ourselves again to redouble our
efforts to work closely with our Saudi friends and friends all around
the world to go after al Qaeda." Later it was alleged that the Riyadh
bombers purchased some of their ordnance from the Saudi National
Guard, but neither Powell nor anyone else saw fit to revise their
statements about "our Saudi friends."

Why do the Bushmen give a pass to the Saudi terror hotbed? Because the
House of Saud controls a lot of oil, and they are still (however
tenuously) on our side. And that, not terrorism, is what matters most
in Bush's foreign policy calculus.

While the bomb craters in Riyadh were still smoking, W held a meeting
with Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Speaking publicly
afterward, he outlined a deal for U.S. military aid to the Philippines
in exchange for greater "cooperation" in getting American hands round
the throats of Filipino terrorists. He mentioned in particular the
U.S.'s longtime nemesis Abu Sayyaf--and he also singled out the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front, a small faction based on Mindanao, the
southernmost big island in the Philippine chain.

Of course it's by purest coincidence that Mindanao is the location of
Asia's richest oil reserves.

12) The U.S. has made progress against world terrorist elements, in
particular by crippling al Qaeda.

A resurgent al Qaeda has been making international news since around
the time of the Saudi Arabia bombings in May. The best coverage by far
is that of Asia Times correspondent Syed Saleem Shahzad. According to
Shahzad's detailed accounts, al Qaeda has reorganized itself along
leaner, more diffuse lines, effectively dissolving itself into a
coalition of localized units that mean to strike frequently, on a
small scale, and in multiple locales around the world. Since claiming
responsibility for the May Riyadh bombings, alleged al Qaeda
communiqués have also claimed credit for some of the strikes at U.S.
troops in Iraq.

13) The Bush administration has made Americans safer from terror on
U.S. soil.

Like the Pentagon "plan" for occupying postwar Iraq, the Department of
Homeland Security is mainly a Bush administration PR dirigible
untethered to anything of substance. It's a scandal waiting to happen,
and the only good news for W is that it's near the back of a fairly
long line of scandals waiting to happen.

On May 26 the trade magazine Federal Computer Week published a report
on DHS's first 100 days. At that point the nerve center of Bush's
domestic war on terror had only recently gotten e-mail service. As for
the larger matter of creating a functioning organizational grid and,
more important, a software architecture plan for integrating the
enormous mass of data that DHS is supposed to process--nada. In the
nearly two years since the administration announced its intention to
create a cabinet-level homeland security office, nothing meaningful
has been accomplished. And there are no funds to implement a network
plan if they had one. According to the magazine, "Robert David Steele,
an author and former intelligence officer, points out that there are
at least 30 separate intelligence systems [theoretically feeding into
DHS] and no money to connect them to one another or make them
interoperable. 'There is nothing in the president's homeland security
program that makes America safer,' he said."

14) The Bush administration has nothing to hide concerning the events
of September 11, 2001, or the intelligence evidence collected prior to
that day.

First Dick Cheney personally intervened to scuttle a broad
congressional investigation of the day's events and their origins. And
for the past several months the administration has fought a quiet
rear-guard action culminating in last week's delayed release of
Congress's more modest 9/11 report. The White House even went so far
as to classify after the fact materials that had already been
presented in public hearing.

What were they trying to keep under wraps? The Saudi connection,
mostly, and though 27 pages of the details have been excised from the
public report, there is still plenty of evidence lurking in its
extensively massaged text. (When you see the phrase "foreign nation"
substituted in brackets, it's nearly always Saudi Arabia.) The report
documents repeated signs that there was a major attack in the works
with extensive help from Saudi nationals and apparently also at least
one member of the government. It also suggests that is one reason
intel operatives didn't chase the story harder: Saudi Arabia was by
policy fiat a "friendly" nation and therefore no threat. The report
does not explore the administration's response to the intelligence
briefings it got; its purview is strictly the performance of
intelligence agencies. All other questions now fall to the independent
9/11 commission, whose work is presently being slowed by the White
House's foot-dragging in turning over evidence.

15) U.S. air defenses functioned according to protocols on September
11, 2001.

Old questions abound here. The central mystery, of how U.S. air
defenses could have responded so poorly on that day, is fairly easy to
grasp. A cursory look at that morning's timeline of events is enough.
In very short strokes:

8:13 Flight 11 disobeys air traffic instructions and turns off its
transponder.

8:40 NORAD command center claims first notification of likely Flight
11 hijacking.

8:42 Flight 175 veers off course and shuts down its transponder.

8:43 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight 175 hijacking.

8:46 Flight 11 hits the World Trade Center north tower.

8:46 Flight 77 goes off course.

9:03 Flight 175 hits the WTC south tower.

9:16 Flight 93 goes off course.

9:16 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight 93 hijacking.

9:24 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight 77 hijacking.

9:37 Flight 77 hits the Pentagon.

10:06 Flight 93 crashes in a Pennsylvania field.

The open secret here is that stateside U.S. air defenses had been
reduced to paltry levels since the end of the Cold War. According to a
report by Paul Thompson published at the endlessly informative Center
for Cooperative Research website (www.cooperativeresearch.org),
"[O]nly two air force bases in the Northeast region... were formally
part of NORAD's defensive system. One was Otis Air National Guard
Base, on Massachusetts's Cape Cod peninsula and about 188 miles east
of New York City. The other was Langley Air Force Base near Norfolk,
Virginia, and about 129 miles south of Washington. During the Cold
War, the U.S. had literally thousands of fighters on alert. But as the
Cold War wound down, this number was reduced until it reached only 14
fighters in the continental U.S. by 9/11."

But even an underpowered air defense system on slow-response status
(15 minutes, officially, on 9/11) does not explain the magnitude of
NORAD's apparent failures that day. Start with the discrepancy in the
times at which NORAD commanders claim to have learned of the various
hijackings. By 8:43 a.m., NORAD had been notified of two probable
hijackings in the previous five minutes. If there was such a thing as
a system-wide air defense crisis plan, it should have kicked in at
that moment. Three minutes later, at 8:46, Flight 11 crashed into the
first WTC tower. By then alerts should have been going out to all
regional air traffic centers of apparent coordinated hijackings in
progress. Yet when Flight 77, which eventually crashed into the
Pentagon, was hijacked three minutes later, at 8:46, NORAD claims not
to have learned of it until 9:24, 38 minutes after the fact and just
13 minutes before it crashed into the Pentagon.

The professed lag in reacting to the hijacking of Flight 93 is just as
striking. NORAD acknowledged learning of the hijacking at 9:16, yet
the Pentagon's position is that it had not yet intercepted the plane
when it crashed in a Pennsylvania field just minutes away from
Washington, D.C. at 10:06, a full 50 minutes later.

In fact, there are a couple of other circumstantial details of the
crash, discussed mostly in Pennsylvania newspapers and barely noted in
national wire stories, that suggest Flight 93 may have been shot down
after all. First, officials never disputed reports that there was a
secondary debris field six miles from the main crash site, and a few
press accounts said that it included one of the plane's engines. A
secondary debris field points to an explosion on board, from one of
two probable causes--a terrorist bomb carried on board or an Air Force
missile. And no investigation has ever intimated that any of the four
terror crews were toting explosives. They kept to simple tools like
the box cutters, for ease in passing security. Second, a handful of
eyewitnesses in the rural area around the crash site did report seeing
low-flying U.S. military jets around the time of the crash.

Which only raises another question. Shooting down Flight 93 would have
been incontestably the right thing to do under the circumstances. More
than that, it would have constituted the only evidence of anything
NORAD and the Pentagon had done right that whole morning. So why deny
it? Conversely, if fighter jets really were not on the scene when 93
crashed, why weren't they? How could that possibly be?

16) The Bush administration had a plan for restoring essential
services and rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure after the shooting war
ended.

The question of what the U.S. would do to rebuild Iraq was raised
before the shooting started. I remember reading a press briefing in
which a Pentagon official boasted that at the time, the American
reconstruction team had already spent three weeks planning the postwar
world! The Pentagon's first word was that the essentials of rebuilding
the country would take about $10 billion and three months; this stood
in fairly stark contrast to UN estimates that an aggressive rebuilding
program could cost up to $100 billion a year for a minimum of three
years.

After the shooting stopped it was evident the U.S. had no plan for
keeping order in the streets, much less commencing to rebuild. (They
are upgrading certain oil facilities, but that's another matter.)
There are two ways to read this. The popular version is that it proves
what bumblers Bush and his crew really are. And it's certainly true
that where the details of their grand designs are concerned, the
administration tends to have postures rather than plans. But this
ignores the strategic advantages the U.S. stands to reap by leaving
Iraqi domestic affairs in a chronic state of (managed, they hope)
chaos. Most important, it provides an excuse for the continued
presence of a large U.S. force, which ensures that America will call
the shots in putting Iraqi oil back on the world market and seeing to
it that the Iraqis don't fall in with the wrong sort of oil company
partners. A long military occupation is also a practical means of
accomplishing something the U.S. cannot do officially, which is to
maintain air bases in Iraq indefinitely. (This became necessary after
the U.S. agreed to vacate its bases in Saudi Arabia earlier this year
to try to defuse anti-U.S. political tensions there.)

Meanwhile, the U.S. plans to pay for whatever rebuilding it gets
around to doing with the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales, an enormous cash
box the U.S. will oversee for the good of the Iraqi people.

In other words, "no plan" may have been the plan the Bushmen were
intent on pursuing all along.

17) The U.S. has made a good-faith effort at peacekeeping in Iraq
during the postwar period.

"Some [looters] shot big grins at American soldiers and Marines or put
down their prizes to offer a thumbs-up or a quick finger across the
throat and a whispered word--Saddam--before grabbing their loot and
vanishing."

--Robert Fisk, London Independent, 4/11/03

Despite the many clashes between U.S. troops and Iraqis in the three
months since the heavy artillery fell silent, the postwar performance
of U.S. forces has been more remarkable for the things they have not
done--their failure to intervene in civil chaos or to begin
reestablishing basic civil procedures. It isn't the soldiers' fault.
Traditionally an occupation force is headed up by military police
units schooled to interact with the natives and oversee the
restoration of goods and services. But Rumsfeld has repeatedly
declined advice to rotate out the combat troops sooner rather than
later and replace some of them with an MP force. Lately this has been
a source of escalating criticism within military ranks.

18) Despite vocal international opposition, the U.S. was backed by
most of the world, as evidenced by the 40-plus-member Coalition of the
Willing.

When the whole world opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the outcry was
so loud that it briefly pierced the slumber of the American public,
which poured out its angst in poll numbers that bespoke little taste
for a war without the UN's blessing. So it became necessary to assure
the folks at home that the whole world was in fact for the invasion.
Thus was born the Coalition of the Willing, consisting of the U.S. and
UK, with Australia caddying--and 40-some additional co-champions of
U.S.-style democracy in the Middle East, whose ranks included such
titans of diplomacy and pillars of representative government as
Angola, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Eritrea, and Micronesia. If the American
public noticed the ruse, all was nonetheless forgotten when Baghdad
fell. Everybody loves a winner.

19) This war was notable for its protection of civilians.

This from the Herald of Scotland, May 23: "American guns, bombs, and
missiles killed more civilians in the recent war in Iraq than in any
conflict since Vietnam, according to preliminary assessments carried
out by the UN, international aid agencies, and independent study
groups. Despite U.S. boasts this was the fastest, most clinical
campaign in military history, a first snapshot of 'collateral damage'
indicates that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi non-combatants died in
the course of the hi-tech blitzkrieg."

20) The looting of archaeological and historic sites in Baghdad was
unanticipated.

General Jay Garner himself, then the head man for postwar Iraq, told
the Washington Times that he had put the Iraqi National Museum second
on a list of sites requiring protection after the fall of the Saddam
government, and he had no idea why the recommendation was ignored.
It's also a matter of record that the administration had met in
January with a group of U.S. scholars concerned with the preservation
of Iraq's fabulous Sumerian antiquities. So the war planners were
aware of the riches at stake. According to Scotland's Sunday Herald,
the Pentagon took at least one other meeting as well: "[A] coalition
of antiquities collectors and arts lawyers, calling itself the
American Council for Cultural Policy (ACCP), met with U.S. Defense and
State department officials prior to the start of military action to
offer its assistance.... The group is known to consist of a number of
influential dealers who favor a relaxation of Iraq's tight
restrictions on the ownership and export of antiquities....
[Archaeological Institute of America] president Patty Gerstenblith
said: 'The ACCP's agenda is to encourage the collecting of antiquities
through weakening the laws of archaeologically rich nations and
eliminate national ownership of antiquities to allow for easier export.'"

21) Saddam was planning to provide WMD to terrorist groups.

This is very concisely debunked in Walter Pincus's July 21 Washington
Post story, so I'll quote him: "'Iraq could decide on any given day to
provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or
individual terrorists,' President Bush said in Cincinnati on October
7.... But declassified portions of a still-secret National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show
that at the time of the president's speech the U.S. intelligence
community judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE,
which began circulating October 2, shows the intelligence services
were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda
terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was
collapsing after a military attack by the United States."

22) Saddam was capable of launching a chemical or biological attack in
45 minutes.

Again the WashPost wraps it up nicely: "The 45-minute claim is at the
center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on
Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the
government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was
being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source
of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public
'dossier' on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime
Minister Tony Blair--and against the wishes of British intelligence,
which said the charge was from a single source and was considered
unreliable."

23) The Bush administration is seeking to create a viable Palestinian
state.

The interests of the U.S. toward the Palestinians have not
changed--not yet, at least. Israel's "security needs" are still the
U.S.'s sturdiest pretext for its military role in policing the Middle
East and arming its Israeli proxies. But the U.S.'s immediate needs
have tilted since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the
Bushmen need a fig leaf--to confuse, if not exactly cover, their
designs, and to give shaky pro-U.S. governments in the region some
scrap to hold out to their own restive peoples. Bush's roadmap has
scared the hell out of the Israeli right, but they have little reason
to worry. Press reports in the U.S. and Israel have repeatedly
telegraphed the assurance that Bush won't try to push Ariel Sharon any
further than he's comfortable going.

24) People detained by the U.S. after 9/11 were legitimate terror
suspects.

Quite the contrary, as disclosed officially in last month's critical
report on U.S. detainees from the Justice Department's own Office of
Inspector General. A summary analysis of post-9/11 detentions posted
at the UC-Davis website states, "None of the 1,200 foreigners arrested
and detained in secret after September 11 was charged with an act of
terrorism. Instead, after periods of detention that ranged from weeks
to months, most were deported for violating immigration laws. The
government said that 752 of 1,200 foreigners arrested after September
11 were in custody in May 2002, but only 81 were still in custody in
September 2002."

25) The U.S. is obeying the Geneva conventions in its treatment of
terror-related suspects, prisoners, and detainees.

The entire mumbo-jumbo about "unlawful combatants" was conceived to
skirt the Geneva conventions on treatment of prisoners by making them
out to be something other than POWs. Here is the actual wording of
Donald Rumsfeld's pledge, freighted with enough qualifiers to make it
absolutely meaningless: "We have indicated that we do plan to, for the
most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with
the Geneva conventions to the extent they are appropriate." Meanwhile
the administration has treated its prisoners--many of whom, as we are
now seeing confirmed in legal hearings, have no plausible connection
to terrorist enterprises--in a manner that blatantly violates several
key Geneva provisions regarding humane treatment and housing.

26) Shots rang out from the Palestine hotel, directed at U.S.
soldiers, just before a U.S. tank fired on the hotel, killing two
journalists.

Eyewitnesses to the April 8 attack uniformly denied any gunfire from
the hotel. And just two hours prior to firing on the hotel, U.S.
forces had bombed the Baghdad offices of Al-Jazeera, killing a
Jordanian reporter. Taken together, and considering the timing, they
were deemed a warning to unembedded journalists covering the fall of
Baghdad around them. The day's events seem to have been an extreme
instance of a more surreptitious pattern of hostility demonstrated by
U.S. and UK forces toward foreign journalists and those non-attached
Western reporters who moved around the country at will. (One of them,
Terry Lloyd of Britain's ITN, was shot to death by UK troops at a
checkpoint in late March under circumstances the British government
has refused to disclose.)

Some days after firing on the Palestine Hotel, the U.S. sent in a
commando unit to raid select floors of the hotel that were known to be
occupied by journalists, and the news gatherers were held on the floor
at gunpoint while their rooms were searched. A Centcom spokesman later
explained cryptically that intelligence reports suggested there were
people "not friendly to the U.S." staying at the hotel. Allied forces
also bombed the headquarters of Abu Dhabi TV, injuring several.

27) U.S. troops "rescued" Private Jessica Lynch from an Iraqi hospital.

If I had wanted to run up the tally of administration lies, the Lynch
episode alone could be parsed into several more. Officials claimed
that Lynch and her comrades were taken after a firefight in which
Lynch battled back bravely. Later they announced with great fanfare
that U.S. Special Forces had rescued Lynch from her captors. They
reported that she had been shot and stabbed. Later yet, they reported
that the recuperating Lynch had no memory of the events.

Bit by bit it all proved false. Lynch's injuries occurred when the
vehicle she was riding in crashed. She did not fire on anybody and she
was not shot or stabbed. The Iraqi soldiers who had been holding her
had abandoned the hospital where she was staying the night before U.S.
troops came to get her--a development her "rescuers" were aware of. In
fact her doctor had tried to return her to the Americans the previous
evening after the Iraqi soldiers left. But he was forced to turn back
when U.S. troops fired on the approaching ambulance. As for Lynch's
amnesia, her family has told reporters her memory is perfectly fine.

28) The populace of Baghdad and of Iraq generally turned out en masse
to greet U.S. troops as liberators.

There were indeed scattered expressions of thanks when U.S. divisions
rolled in, but they were neither as extensive nor as enthusiastic as
Bush image-makers pretended. Within a day or two of the Saddam
government's fall, the scene in the Baghdad streets turned to
wholesale ransacking and vandalism. Within the week, large-scale
protests of the U.S. occupation had already begun occurring in every
major Iraqi city.

29) A spontaneous crowd of cheering Iraqis showed up in a Baghdad
square to celebrate the toppling of Saddam's statue.

A long-distance shot of the same scene that was widely posted on the
internet shows that the teeming mob consisted of only one or two
hundred souls, contrary to the impression given by all the close-up TV
news shots of what appeared to be a massive gathering. It was later
reported that members of Ahmed Chalabi's local entourage made up most
of the throng.

30) No major figure in the Bush administration said that the Iraqi
populace would turn out en masse to welcome the U.S. military as
liberators.

When confronted with--oh, call them reality deficits--one habit of the
Bushmen is to deny that they made erroneous or misleading statements
to begin with, secure in the knowledge that the media will rarely
muster the energy to look it up and call them on it. They did it when
their bold prewar WMD predictions failed to pan out (We never said it
would be easy! No, they only implied it), and they did it when the
"jubilant Iraqis" who took to the streets after the fall of Saddam
turned out to be anything but (We never promised they would welcome us
with open arms!).

But they did. March 16, Dick Cheney, Meet the Press: The Iraqis are
desperate "to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as
liberators the United States when we come to do that.... [T]he vast
majority of them would turn on [Saddam] in a minute if, in fact, they
thought they could do so safely").

31) The U.S. achieved its stated objectives in Afghanistan, and
vanquished the Taliban.

According to accounts in the Asia Times of Hong Kong, the U.S. held a
secret meeting earlier this year with Taliban leaders and Pakistani
intelligence officials to offer a deal to the Taliban for inclusion in
the Afghan government. (Main condition: Dump Mullah Omar.) As Michael
Tomasky commented in The American Prospect, "The first thing you may
be wondering: Why is there a possible role for the Taliban in a future
government? Isn't that fellow Hamid Karzai running things, and isn't
it all going basically okay? As it turns out, not really and not at
all.... The reality... is an escalating guerilla war in which 'small
hit-and-run attacks are a daily feature in most parts of the country,
while face-to-face skirmishes are common in the former Taliban
stronghold around Kandahar in the south.'"

32) Careful science demonstrates that depleted uranium is no big risk
to the population.

Pure nonsense. While the government has trotted out expert after
expert to debunk the dangers of depleted uranium, DU has been
implicated in health troubles experienced both by Iraqis and by U.S.
and allied soldiers in the first Gulf War. Unexploded DU shells are
not a grave danger, but detonated ones release particles that
eventually find their way into air, soil, water, and food.

While we're on the subject, the BBC reported a couple of months ago
that recent tests of Afghani civilians have turned up with unusually
high concentrations of non-depleted uranium isotopes in their urine.
International monitors have called it almost conclusive evidence that
the U.S. used a new kind of uranium-laced bomb in the Afghan war.

33) The looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities presented no big risk to
the population.

Commanders on the scene, and Rumsfeld back in Washington, immediately
assured everyone that the looting of a facility where raw uranium
powder (so-called "yellowcake") and several other radioactive isotopes
were stored was no serious danger to the populace--yet the looting of
the facility came to light in part because, as the Washington Times
noted, "U.S. and British newspaper reports have suggested that
residents of the area were suffering from severe ill health after
tipping out yellowcake powder from barrels and using them to store food."

34) U.S. troops were under attack when they fired upon a crowd of
civilian protesters in Mosul.

April 15: U.S. troops fire into a crowd of protesters when it grows
angry at the pro-Western speech being given by the town's new mayor,
Mashaan al-Juburi. Seven are killed and dozens injured. Eyewitness
accounts say the soldiers spirit Juburi away as he is pelted with
objects by the crowd, then take sniper positions and begin firing on
the crowd.

35) U.S. troops were under attack when they fired upon two separate
crowds of civilian protesters in Fallujah.

April 28: American troops fire into a crowd of demonstrators gathered
on Saddam's birthday, killing 13 and injuring 75. U.S. commanders
claim the troops had come under fire, but eyewitnesses contradict the
account, saying the troops started shooting after they were spooked by
warning shots fired over the crowd by one of the Americans' own
Humvees. Two days later U.S. soldiers fired on another crowd in
Fallujah, killing three more.

36) The Iraqis fighting occupation forces consist almost entirely of
"Saddam supporters" or "Ba'ath remnants."

This has been the subject of considerable spin on the Bushmen's part
in the past month, since they launched Operation Sidewinder to capture
or kill remaining opponents of the U.S. occupation. It's true that the
most fierce (but by no means all) of the recent guerrilla opposition
has been concentrated in the Sunni-dominated areas that were Saddam's
stronghold, and there is no question that Saddam partisans are
numerous there. But, perhaps for that reason, many other guerrilla
fighters have flocked there to wage jihad, both from within and
without Iraq. Around the time of the U.S. invasion, some 10,000 or so
foreign fighters had crossed into Iraq, and I've seen no informed
estimate of how many more may have joined them since.

(No room here, but if you check the online version of this story,
there's a footnote regarding one less-than-obvious reason former
Republican Guard personnel may be fighting mad at this point.)

37) The bidding process for Iraq rebuilding contracts displayed no
favoritism toward Bush and Cheney's oil/gas cronies.

Most notoriously, Dick Cheney's former energy-sector employer,
Halliburton, was all over the press dispatches about the first round
of rebuilding contracts. So much so that they were eventually obliged
to bow out of the running for a $1 billion reconstruction contract for
the sake of their own PR profile. But Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg
Brown Root still received the first major plum in the form of a $7
billion contract to tend to oil field fires and (the real purpose) to
do any retooling necessary to get the oil pumping at a decent rate, a
deal that allows them a cool $500 million in profit. The fact that
Dick Cheney's office is still fighting tooth and nail to block any
disclosure of the individuals and companies with whom his energy task
force consulted tells everything you need to know.

38) "We found the WMDs!"

There have been at least half a dozen junctures at which the Bushmen
have breathlessly informed the press that allied troops had found the
WMD smoking gun, including the president himself, who on June 1 told
reporters, "For those who say we haven't found the banned
manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

Shouldn't these quickly falsified statements be counted as errors
rather than lies? Under the circumstances, no. First, there is just
too voluminous a record of the administration going on the media
offensive to tout lines they know to be flimsy. This appears to be
more of same. Second, if the great genius Karl Rove and the rest of
the Bushmen have demonstrated that they understand anything about the
propaganda potential of the historical moment they've inherited, they
surely understand that repetition is everything. Get your message out
regularly, and even if it's false a good many people will believe it.

Finally, we don't have to speculate about whether the administration
would really plant bogus WMD evidence in the American media, because
they have already done it, most visibly in the case of Judith Miller
of the New York Times and the Iraqi defector "scientist" she wrote
about at the military's behest on April 21. Miller did not even get to
speak with the purported scientist, but she graciously passed on
several things American commanders claimed he said: that Iraq only
destroyed its chemical weapons days before the war, that WMD materiel
had been shipped to Syria, and that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda. As
Slate media critic Jack Shafer told WNYC Radio's On the Media program,
"When you... look at [her story], you find that it's gas, it's air.
There's no way to judge the value of her information, because it comes
from an unnamed source that won't let her verify any aspect of it. And
if you dig into the story... you'll find out that the only thing that
Miller has independently observed is a man that the military says is
the scientist, wearing a baseball cap, pointing at mounds in the dirt."

39) "The Iraqi people are now free."

So says the current U.S. administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, in a
recent New York Times op-ed. He failed to add that disagreeing can get
you shot or arrested under the terms of the Pentagon's latest plan for
pacifying Iraq, Operation Sidewinder (see #36), a military op launched
last month to wipe out all remaining Ba'athists and Saddam
partisans--meaning, in practice, anyone who resists the U.S.
occupation too zealously.

40) God told Bush to invade Iraq.

Not long after the September 11 attacks, neoconservative high priest
Norman Podhoretz wrote: "One hears that Bush, who entered the White
House without a clear sense of what he wanted to do there, now feels
there was a purpose behind his election all along; as a born-again
Christian, it is said, he believes he was chosen by God to eradicate
the evil of terrorism from the world."

No, he really believes it, or so he would like us to think. The
Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, told the Israeli newspaper
Ha'aretz that Bush made the following pronouncement during a recent
meeting between the two: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I
struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I
did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

Oddly, it never got much play back home.


-


http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.

"We argued, as did the security services in this country,
that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the
threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners
have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such
warnings." Respect MP George Galloway 7-7-05

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:47:07 -0400, Hank >
wrote:

I won't waste time responding to every point in this obviously biased
attack. It has proven nothing except you own pre-conceived bias. The
very beginning of your post is proof of that, as does your posted
email address. You seem to be one of those who blames the US for the
terrorist attack on 9/11, and ignores the idea that that was an
immoral act of terror even according to the Koran and the majority of
Muslims.

So, I have responded to the first couple of entries in order to reveal
your bias.
>
> http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
>
>...to innocent children in violation of international
>law is immoral by anyone's definition

I see nothing which PROVES when and how this happened. It purports to
be documentation of US action, but could just as well be extremist
action blamed on the US, and as we all know, there has been a lot of
that throughout the middle east. Or were those attacks all generated
by the Bush Administration using Black Ops people?

Would you deny that anyone would have reason to make the US look bad
to the people of the Middle East in particular, and the world in
general. Would you also deny that these photos might have been taken
at any time, in any place in the Middle East.

Note, that this happens in every conflict. Note, too, that there is
no mention that this "war" has had the lowest incidence of "collateral
damage" of any war in modern history.
>
> This explains why Bush's terror attack on the People of
>Iraq was illegal.

Sorry. Dead bodies DO NOT PROVE your position. They do not prove
immorality, not terror directed at the citizens of Iraq. They "may"
prove collateral damage during the conflict. There may be the smell of
burnt cordite in the air, but you have yet to produce the physically
smoking gun. A photo of someone having their brains blown out is
documentary evidence. A picture of a dead body is only proof that a
person is dead.
>
You are not a witness (neither am I). You have only quoted as a third
party. Yet you are willing to accept anything you read or hear as long
as it supports your position. Look at the quote where Bush claims God
told him to go after Al Queda, and then told him to go after Saddam.
Can you prove that God did not give Bush these instructions? I sure
can't. Many of your citations are like this. Easy to say; to allude
to, to allege; but not something which can be proven nor disproved.

You "may" be right about all this in the final analysis, however, at
present, nothing you have offered is proof of anything you claim, in
part because it is rife with bias.

There are many people who have the power, and I am sure they have
sources equal to, and even far superior to yours, and yet it appears
they do not feel there is sufficient substance to anything which has
come their way, to take action against the President. And they are
obviously anti-Bush. Why is it that you are so positive of what you
cite? Can you read what it in the hearts and minds of others? Do you
have ESP?

As stated, bring me PROOF which can be used in a court of law and I'll
stand with you, but, I will not lynch someone based on unsubstantiated
evidence. I will at least acknowledge that I may be wrong, but I will
also, at least, wait for the proof; the cold, hard evidence.

In my mind, too many, on both sides, are quick to take a position and
unwilling to consider even the remotest possibility that they may be
wrong. Too many also judge based upon personal emotions, and not on
evidence. Including ignoring what the "reasonable man" placed in a
similar circumstance might do. The concept of walking a mile in
someone's shoes before making judgment about them rings true.

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

Hey! I have an on topic (at least this topic!) joke.

What's a turbonator?

--
John
ThunderSnake #59

Let's seeeee.... an A-10 Warthog?

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:19:47 -0400, "John"
> wrote:

>Hey! I have an on topic (at least this topic!) joke.
>
>What's a turbonator?

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

Hank wrote:
> Spike wrote:
>
>
>> As yet, where is the "PROOF" that Bush did anything
>>immoral or illegal?
>
>
>
> Doing this...
>


Someone posted a link the last time you came here spewing kookdom,
those pictures are from a suicide bomb attack. Reguardless, war is war.
W is no more guilty than Clinton when he did the same thing. Go back to
AUK where you belong.


--
"Network management is like trying to herd cats."
-- Unknown

"I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges?"
-- TazAmd - Humor Section Gettingtogather.com

John wrote:
> Hey! I have an on topic (at least this topic!) joke.
>
> What's a turbonator?
>


http://www.turbonator.com/

--
"Network management is like trying to herd cats."
-- Unknown

"I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges?"
-- TazAmd - Humor Section Gettingtogather.com

I was thinking a U.S. Marine! Of course, that would be spelled turban-ator.

--
John
ThunderSnake #59

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> Let's seeeee.... an A-10 Warthog?
>
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:19:47 -0400, "John"
> > wrote:
>
>>Hey! I have an on topic (at least this topic!) joke.
>>
>>What's a turbonator?
>
> Spike
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
> 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
> 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
>
> "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
> I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
> -JFK Inaugural Address

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:32:41 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
> wrote:
>
>
>>The proof has been all around you for several years. You obviously
>>choose not to see it.
>>
>>
> Sorry, I must have missed when Bush was tried and convicted for war
> crimes or impeached based upon the "PROOF" you say exists. !
>

What about OJ? Seriously. You believe everything your president says, until
he is impeached? Wow. I've got some real estate to sell you! There is no
need to try and figure out what specific lies are being told to this
country. Just understand you are being lied to on a regular basis. Question
authority.

Great minds thinking along the same M1A1 track....

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 03:29:44 -0400, "John"
> wrote:

>I was thinking a U.S. Marine! Of course, that would be spelled turban-ator.

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

I have yet to say I believe or do not believe.... because I do not
know what the truth is. So, I'm not going to hang someone until the
court case comes to a close, with both the prosecution and defense
having given it their best shot, and it's time to judge base upon the
weight of the evidence. That IS how the law is supposed to work. Not,
the way you indicate; find 'em guilty and hang 'em first and worry
about whether or not they did it later.

As for OJ.... "better that a guilty man go free than one innocent man
be convicted" has been the basis for US law since the beginning of the
nation because the colonists looked back at European countries they
came from for guidance. They decided they did not want a system where
the state could, and would, convict people and even execute them
without just cause; simply because a neighbor made an accusation.

By the way, OJ was not found "not guilty" as so many believe. The jury
found that the prosecution had not proven it's case in chief according
to the law of the State of California as contained in the California
Penal Code.

As an example, for burglary to be proven, the prosecution must prove
that
a) an individual
b) entered a residence, which is defined as
1) a building
2) having a minimum of four walls
3) and a door,
c) that people actually resided there full time (it is not
vacant),
d) and the individual entered the residence for the purpose of
1) taking the property of another, or
2) some other felony, (such as rape, murder, etc)
e) without the permission of the resident.

NOTE: This is not a direct quote from the CPC, so the actual wording
may be different, but the concept is absolute under California law.

If any one of the points or sub-points listed in a law is not proven,
then the law can not be proven to have been broken.

For example: A garage has four walls and a door, but people do not
live there, so the crime of burglary could not be proven.

This is a simple burglary. You can imagine all the points which must
be proven in the case of a murder/homicide... even if there are
witnesses. And it only takes one error with the chain of custody of
the evidence to have a case thrown out. In OJ's case, there were no
witnesses, and the prosecution blew parts of the case.

Now, suppose you were in OJ's place, and you DID NOT kill anyone.
Based upon what was presented in the case, you would want the jury to
find you guilty?

People who have never had to actually work with the law have a hard
time understanding why it is not as simple as they believe it should
be. They do not understand why the case can't be solved and the guilty
convicted just like it happens on television. The simple answer is
that the law is not that simple, and for good reason. We do not want
to send innocent people to the gas chamber when they are not guilty.
And we have seen enough cases to show even that doesn't always work.

That is why I don't judge Bush without having the facts; provable
facts; and not just on what people say about him.

I take it would be perfectly fine with you if I and others started
spreading unsubstantiated information about you... like you are a
child molesting pedophile who is an active member of NAMBLA.... even
worse, you don't drive a Mustang! you drive a ricer! (((my OT point)))
..... and you would want everyone to believed it without question?
Then, the first time something happens to a child in your neck of the
woods, you'd want to be tried and convicted without any evidence being
presented other than people repeating what they had heard or read.

Getting back to OJ; in any case I personally investigated, while I
might suspect someone is guilty, I could not charge them and lock them
up. I had to pursue the case as if they were not...eliminating every
other possibility, until I had enough physical evidence to charge
them, or there was no other possibility that someone else did the
crime. Then they could be charged and locked away UNTIL some really
good defense lawyer found a chink in my case. Look how long Scott
Peterson walked around before he was charged.

If all criminals were to think the law should work as you do it would
be so easy to lock people away on the flimsiest of rumor...
no real evidence required. It sure would have made my job easier.


On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:58:37 -0500, "Brian" > wrote:

>
>"Spike" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:32:41 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The proof has been all around you for several years. You obviously
>>>choose not to see it.
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry, I must have missed when Bush was tried and convicted for war
>> crimes or impeached based upon the "PROOF" you say exists. !
>>
>
>What about OJ? Seriously. You believe everything your president says, until
>he is impeached? Wow. I've got some real estate to sell you! There is no
>need to try and figure out what specific lies are being told to this
>country. Just understand you are being lied to on a regular basis. Question
>authority.
>

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address