Janet's Conner

This Blog tell the Truth and will never not tell the Truth. Impeach Bush

Friday, August 04, 2006


Muslim leaders demanded an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah yesterday at an emergency meeting in Malaysia, where Iran's hard-line president said the solution was the obliteration of the Jewish state.

Key leaders in the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference, including Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey, warned that Israel's warfare would stoke Muslim radicalism and breed new terrorists, and sought a UN investigation into possible Israeli human rights violations in Lebanese and Palestinian territories.

The Organization voiced solidarity with the Lebanese people "in their legitimate and heroic resistance against the Israeli aggression," in a declaration issued after the summit.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the meeting that Israel "is an illegitimate regime" without a legal basis for existence.

Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

In their declaration, the leaders demanded the UN Security Council "fulfill its responsibility...without any further delay be deciding on and enforcing an immediate and unconditional comprehensive cease-fire."

"We hold Israel responsible for the loss of lives and suffering...and demand that Israel compensate (Lebanon) and its people for the losses sustained resulting from Israeli aggression," the declaration said.

Malaysia, which chairs the OIC, rallied presidents, prime ministers and policy-makers of 17 key Muslim nations for the one-day meeting to articulate their opposition to Israel's attacks.

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off "without the existinence of the Zionist regime." He said Israel was trying to "plunder the wealth in the region in order to dominate."

He accused the U.S. of trying to use Israel to conrol the Middle East and its oil wealth, saying the attacks in Lebanon were "a pre-planned program."

"Today the Americans are after the greater Middle East," Ahmadinejad said. "The Zionist regime is used to reach this objective. The sole existence of this regime is for invasion and attack."

In Jerusalem, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev noted the ties between Ahmadinejad's regime and Hezbollah.

"Our operation in Lebanon is designed to neutralize one of the long arms of Iran---Hezbollah," Regev said. "Hezbollah is their proxy, being used as an instrument of Tehran to advance their extremist agenda, and a blow to Hezbollah is a blow to Iranian interests and a blow to all extremist jihadist forces in the region."

Other Muslim leaders at the meeting did not echo Ahmadinejad's call, or comment on his speech directly.

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the fighting has caused OIC countries to "fear a new wave of angry people might join the ranks of terrorists," and called for a UN-backed force to stabilize the situation.

Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who leads the world's most populous Muslim nation, said the turmoil could bring the international community "just one step away to that ultimate nightmare: a clash of civilizations."

"This war must stop, or it will radicalize the Muslim world, even those of us who are moderate today," he warned.



More than a third of the American people suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

By: Thomas Hargrove and Guido H. Stempel III
Augist 3, 2006

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54% saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appear to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job"---the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet---quickly have become as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.

Seventy percent of the people who give credence to these theories also say they've become angrier with the federal government than they used to be.

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

"One out of three sounds high, but that might very well be right," said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Committee on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 Commission). His congressionally appointed investigation concluded that federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not participate in, the attacks by al-Qaeda five years ago.

"A lot of people I've encountered believe the U.S. government was involved," Hamilton said.

"Many said the government planned the whole thing," he said. "Of course, we don't think the evidence leads that way at all."

The poll also found that 16% of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

Conspiracy groups for at least two years have also questioned why the World Trade Center collapsed when fires that heavily damaged similar skyscrapers around the world did not cause such destrucion. Sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings."

Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.

University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster, author of the book "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture," said the poll's findings reflect public anger at the unpopular Iraq War, realization that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and growing doubts of the veracity of the Bush administration.

"What has amazed me is not that there are conspiracy theories, but that they didn't seem to be getting any purchase among the American public until the last year or so," Fenster said. "Although the Iraq war was not directly related to the 9/11 attacks, people are now looking back at 9/11 with much more skepticism than they used to."

The Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University has tracked the level of resentment people feel toward the federal government since 1995, starting shortly after Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Forty-seven percent then said they, personally, feel "more angry at the federal government" than they used to. That percentage dropped to 42 percent in 1997, 34 percent in 1998 and only 12 percent shortly after 9/11 during the groundswell of patriotism and support for the government after the attacks.

But the new survey found that 77 percent say their friends and acquaintances have become angrier with the government recently and 54% say they, have become angrier---both record levels.

The survey found that people who regularly use the Internet but do not regularly use so-called "mainstream" media are significantly more likely to believe in 9/11 conspiracies. People who regularly read daily newspapers or listen to radio newscasts were especially unlikely to believe in the conspiracies.

"We know that there are a lot of people now asking questions," said Janice Matthews, executive director off 911 Truth. org, one of the most sophisticated Internet sites raising doubts about official explanations of the attacks. "We didn't have the Internet after Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Kennedy assassination. But we live in different times now."

The survey was conducted by telephone from July 6-24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.


If you are one one those who cringes when you hear assertions such as that "we are descending into fascism," then read the following and please tell us why this is not a factual assessment of the Bush Administration play for Stalin-style absolute powers.

***On this blog it is called "WHITE HOUSE PROPOSAL WOULD EXPAND AUTHORITY OF MILITARY COURTS," dated 08/02/06.

"The White House is seeking legislation that would allow people not affiliated with terrorism to be prosecuted in military commissions---with far fewer rights than afforded civilians."

This is a proposal that should send shivers down the spine of anyone who values freedom and justice.

The notion that the Bush Administration was implementing a draconian amputation of our Constitution on behalf of fighting terrorism has long been revealed as something quite different. They are using terrorism and fear to amass unprecedented authoritorian powers compatible with a dictatorship and antiethical to the very concept of democracy.

Let us tell you more about this latest incremental power grab to implement a Pinochet/Stalin/Franco style authoritorian rule, where the individual is subject to the whims of dictatorship: "A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such 'commissions' to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not al Qaeda members or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal plan."

And there's more about the effort to undue the American revolution and restore a tyrannical Monarchy: "Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors."

The Bush Administration continues to offer America only two choices: the risks of freedom or the despotic rule of tyranny. Neither of them offers us absolute security, and the latter almost ensures long-term wars and deaths, as well as the suspension of our Constitution.

We are now down to the raw basics of a complete power grab by a clique of thuggish rulers who cannot govern or provide basic security. All they can do is excel at using fear to accumulate the powers of a despotic and merciless government.

Those too timid to fight for liberty in Congress should get out of the way.

It's dusk in America---and we only have a few twilight hours to save democracy and our Constitution.

***If anybody reading this does not contact their representatives in Washington, you will be just as responsible for what is going to happen to this country, as those who are doing it. Try explaining what happened to America to your children and grandchildren. You have a choice to either tell them that you were to lazy to make an effort to save their freedom, or you can proudly tell them that you got on the back of your representative in Washington the minute that you read this article! If you continue to vote Republicans into office, American, as we know it is gone! The only ones that will be safe will be the upper 1% who get the tax-cuts! It's my opinion now, that all of these records being stolen is the work of our own government to see who the dissenters are, especially the veterans who are working so hard to get the Republicans removed from office, since they have taken away all of their benefits.

Other comments:

I have been trying to tell you people this since 1999.....If you still doubt Bushco's ability to descend to new moral lows, just take a close look at their family's activities since the 1850's. If you want a quicker study, check into what they were doing during the 1930s and 40s. They loved the Nazis so much they actually helped them get to power. Prescott Bush was a good little buddy to Nazis and got caught violating the trading with the enemy act in October 1942. So treason is NOT NEW TO THEM. KL Lovell

Bush family's Dream of a Nazi Regime State in the U.S......Not only did Prescott Bush help finance Hitler's war through helping Fritz Thyssen, the most wealthiest man in Germany, but with the help of J.P. Morgan, the Remington and DuPont families, they even went so far as to "enlist" the honorable, and true American hero, and 2 time Congressional Medal of Honor General, Smedley D. Butler to conspire to assassinate Pres. FRD; overthrow the American government, and install a Nazi-style government!


Lucky for us, Gen. Butler was a true patriot; infiltrated long enough to find out who the players were, and turned around and informed Congress about this conspiracy.

The Bush family started their wealth with Nazi money.

What I can't understand is, HOW IN THE HELL could Congress NOT convict these people of TREASON, since they still are openly doing business in the U.S. today?!!!

Is it any wonder why America is fast becoming a Nazi-style country, where the President sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution is quoted saying: "it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" ?????

No. Dubya wants to realize his grandfather's vision of a Nazi state; a fourth Reich, and is well on his way in doing it too.

"The people who cast the votes, decide nothing. The people who count the votes, decide everyting."-----Joseph Stalin

Trials for non-terrorists.....If Bush is able to pass this legisaltion NO American will be safe. Anyone of us could be picked up merely for speaking out against this administration. Tie this legislation in with all the detention camps being build around the country and the whole idea should scare us all!

A Buzzflash Editorial
August 3, 2006


Earlier this year, experts said the war and aftermath in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a fact the White House refused to acknowledge as valid, even going so far as to fire Lawrence Lindsey for his realistic projections. In September, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz, even told the Senate "no one said we would know anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long by implication, it could be very expensive." Here's a record of what the administration in fact, said:


On Spetember 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion. [Source: WSJ, "Bush Economic Aide Says Cost Of Iraq War May Top $100 Billion," Davis 9/16/02; NYT, "Estimated Cost of Iraq War Reduced," Bumiller, 12/31/02; Reuters News, "Daniels sees U.S. Iraq war costs below $200 billion," 09/18/02]

"When a reporter aked Daniels yesterday whether the administration was preparing to ask other countries to help defray possible Iraq war costs, as the United States did for the 1991 war, the budget director said he knew of no such plans. Other countries are having economic downturns of their own, he said." [Source: Pittsburgh Post Gazette, "Byrd attacks cost of possible Iraq War, McFeatters, 9/25/02]

"There's just no reason that this can't be an affordable endeavor." [Source: Reuters, "U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs," Entous, 4/11/03]

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid." [Source: Washington Post, 4/21/03]


"Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up, come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question." [Source: Media Stakeout, 1/19/03]

"I don't know that there is much reconstruction to do." [Source: Reuters, "U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs," Entous, 4/11/03]


"I think it's necessary to preserve some ambiguity of exactly where the numbers are." [Source: House Budget Committee, 2/27/03]


"Costs of any such intervention would be very small." [Source: CNBC, 10/4/02]


"We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for the balance of this year. [Source: Congressional Testimony, 7/29/03]

The Bush administration promised reconstruction of Iraq could be financed through oil revenue, which they said would provide tens of billions of dollars. However, according to the New York Times, devastated and decrepid production systems leave the country "unable to make any significant contribution."

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: "Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very---an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanastan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction." [Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "This is not Afghanastan...When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it's obvious, it's oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year...$10, $15, even $18 billion... this is not a broke country." [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people...and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years...We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "If you worry about just the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanastan...Iraq has oil. They have financial resources." [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]

State Department Official Alan Larson: "On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq...and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund." [Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 6/4/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "I don't believe that the United States has the responsibilty for reconstruction, in a sense...[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

Source: Rep. Schakowsky
Iraq quotes
August 3, 2006