Friday, June 27, 2008

An Accurate Summary

Back in 2000... before the Supreme Court intervened without even being asked and gave Bush the presidency, we had a balanced budget, healthy markets, affordable oil and low inflation.

And yet a petty, self righteous, amoral Republican party saw fit to impeach Bill Clinton over a goddamned blow job. We were told Bush was going to restore honor to the White House. Here is a brief review of the facts. For Republicans to ever speak loftily of things like "honor" again and be taken seriously, they have a colossal mess to clean up first. The only good thing to come out of the last eight years is that now just about everyone in this country sees them for what they really are.

Central Scrutinizer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does President Bush lie?

Let Cy Bolton count the memos.
By Cy Bolton
June 27, 2008
» Discuss Article In the face of overwhelming evidence, it's astounding that people such as James Kirchick, in ",” continue to defend the president against accusations that he intentionally misled and outright lied to the American people in making the case for war with Iraq.

Consider first the implications of the famous Downing Street memo from July 23, 2002. Briefing Tony Blair about his recent talks with Washington, Britain's top intelligence officer stated that U.S. "military action was now seen as inevitable. ... But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

A month later, in August 2002, the administration set up the White House Iraq Group, designed solely to sell the public on the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In essence, it was a marketing campaign to sell the war by escalating the rhetoric and misleading the public. And lying.

And boy, did they. Here are statements from the administration in 2002 as they beat the drums for war. Dick Cheney said: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use ... against us." Condoleezza Rice: "We do know that [Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon." Donald Rumsfeld: "[Hussein's] regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons."

These statements were designed to cultivate in Americans fear of Iraq's imminent threat, the keystone of Bush's push to war. They were grossly and intentionally misleading, suggesting that the administration possessed incontrovertible facts on which were drawn these definitive conclusions. In reality, the facts were known to be ambiguous at best. Absolutely no intelligence existed at the time that would allow anyone to reach such concrete conclusions.

And Bush advisors aren't the only ones. His assertion on Oct. 7, 2002, that Iraq posed an imminent threat was beaten into the nation's psyche: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof." Yet the president possessed directly opposing information from the top-secret National Intelligence Estimate, released days earlier. Prepared by the CIA with input from 16 U.S. intelligence agencies: "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional CBW [chemical and biological weapons] against the United States."

The declassified summary of the NIE -- released by the administration for public and media review shortly after the full report -- was another lie in that it was grotesquely altered. The above point was not included. Also missing were several forceful statements from other intelligence agencies disputing the CIA's horribly overblown and inaccurate assessments. Finally, in at least half a dozen instances, conclusions were altered to make Iraq's threat more compelling. Language was added or omitted that changed CIA opinions to incontrovertible facts

Conclusion: The public document was rigged to support the push for war. The president intentionally misled the public. The intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy.

Another example is the now infamous nuclear reference from Bush's 2003 State of the Union address: "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Not only was this refuted twice in early 2002 -- by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and by French intelligence -- but the CIA's National Intelligence Council investigated and told the White House four days before the address that "the Niger [Africa] story is baseless and should be laid to rest." So the administration knew the claim was false, used it anyway and when caught, issued a collective "oops." Although these speeches are vetted by Bush staffers, State, Defense, National Security and the CIA, it just slipped through. Riiiiight.

Two weeks before the war, the president echoed statements made in January's State of the Union: "I've got a good evidence to believe that. [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass destruction," and "Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors." Ah yes, the mobile labs. And your evidence was from whom, sir? Curveball? The now fully discredited Iraqi chemical engineer who defected in 1999 and claimed to have worked in the labs? In 2002, German intelligence -- who debriefed Curveball -- told the CIA that the guy was “crazy” and “a fabricator.”

Yet in his push for war, Bush chose to voice the Iraqi defector's claims over proof offered by U.N. weapons inspectors who, with eyes and ears on the ground, represented the best possible intelligence. From November 2002 to March 2003, they were granted unprecedented freedom and conducted more than 700 no-notice inspections all over Iraq and found nothing. No mobile labs, no underground storage facilities, nothing. This should have been great news, but not for a president looking to go to war. Indeed, U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix flat out accused Bush and Blair of lying when he stated: "The Americans and British created facts where there were no facts at all. ... The Americans needed [to find] weapons of mass destruction to justify war." So Bush was creating facts to justify war.

If there remains any equivocation of Bush's propensity to lie, consider the Jan. 31, 2003, meeting between Bush and Blair. In a summary, Blair foreign policy advisor David Manning wrote that there was tension between the two over finding some justification for the war. In fact, Bush was so concerned about the failure of the weapons inspectors to find WMD that the president floated three possible ways to "provoke a confrontation" with Hussein. So here's your president very publicly using self-defense to sell a war while quite privately discussing how to provoke one -- with an allegedly dangerous foe who poses an imminent threat. Either Bush lied or he put us at grave risk. Or both.

Space constraints don't allow for a refutation of all the lies the president told about Iraq's threat, their weapons and their link to Osama bin Laden. However, consider this final point: Our government spent nearly tens of millions of dollars to try to impeach a president for lying about consensual sex between two adults. Compare that to this abomination: George W. Bush knowingly lied to the American people in selling his case for a war that has directly led to the deaths of more than 4,000 Americans. They are deaths brought about by his lies, deceit and deception. It is an American atrocity of monumental proportion, followed closely by the heinous fact that no one has held him accountable. Where is the outrage?

Cy Bolton is a former news anchor and military affairs reporter. His coverage of defense-related issues and conflicts in the Balkans and the Middle East has appeared on NBC Nightly News, MSNBC, CNN and affiliates across the country.

Blowback is an online forum for full-length responses to our articles, editorials and Op-Ed articles. Click here to read more about Blowback, or submit your own by e-mailing us at opinionla@latimes.com.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Back from the dead.

Hello, yeah it's been awhile.

Well, I was content to let this blog languish forever out here in cyberspace, but lately I've really been feeling the need for a place to post. To post whatever the fuck I want, and this is the only place that fits the bill. It may never get read, but it's not the being read part that's so cathartic, it is the writing part.

When I last posted my case was awaiting the appellate court. Since then, the diocese of San Diego has, as part of it's bankruptcy case (ahem) has paid to settle my case The amount was determined by a judge who had the unenviable task of deciding what each case was worth. The judge, Peter Litchman, lamented afterwards that there wasn't enough money to fairly compensate all of the victims in his view, saying


"There was simply not enough money to compensate all of the high-end victims with a high-end dollar amount"
.

.....
"The range, extent and depth of abuse in the San Diego cases are unlike any that this court has previously seen."

Wow

$198,000,000.....was not enough. Some people will think that that's bullshit I'm sure. .
For those of you out there who consider yourselves good Catholics and think the amounts to be excessive, and that the plaintiffs and their lawyers to be taking advantage of your church, consider this: If the Church had done the right thing in the first place, they would have saved at least $400,000 in my case alone.

The judge awarded my case $500,000 dollars. I took home almost $200,000k. I'm attending college and looking for work after being off for a few months to decompress. I am happy with what I consider a moral victory.

Switching gears, I read that Mahony has told one of his brother bishops not to come speak in LA. The Bishop in question, a Geoffrey Robinson from Australia, has spoken out against the church regarding it's pedophile problem.

www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12688

I think it's great whenever someone dogs the church for enabling and protecting it's pedophiles, I really do. I would especially enjoy seeing bishops fight with rusted swords. But I really don't know what to make of this guy or any other victim / survivor's activist that remains inside the church while advocating for survivors. It seems to me that if they truly saw the church for what it is they would just leave....but they never do leave though, at least no one with any rank does that I have ever heard of. Why is that? Wouldn't you leave? I don't know why this doesn't raise more red flags inside the community of survivors.

Actually, these guys have survivors falling all over them, which also makes me uncomfortable. A couple of years back a RCC bishop, Thomas Gumbleton, a professed survivor, was the keynote speaker at a SNAP conference. Gumbleton has a treasure trove of knowledge in his head that could bring a lot of victims in the Detroit area some justice, but the bishop keeps it all to himself. He also refuses to name his abuser. Yet he was embraced by SNAP like he was Jesus. I don't get it. SNAP tells everyone else to come forward and name their accuser.


I am eternally paranoid when it comes to the good ol RCC.

After six months off work, off the message boards and everything else, I once again have the need to type my thoughts, my rants, and some will undoubtedly say my hateful venom about the problem of pedophiles running rampant in priestly garb and the never ending PR tactics undertaken to protect them and their church. It is good to be back.