Bush Is Full Of Shit

Bush: Iran transferring arms to militias in Iraq
Iran Focus

click on Bush when you're done with the blog

London, Apr. 20 – United States President George W. Bush accused Iran on Thursday of transferring arms to outlawed militias inside neighbouring Iraq. He described the Islamic Republic as a “serious problem”.

“Iran is influential inside of Iraq. They are influential by providing advanced weaponry. They are influential by dealing with some militias (#1), tend to be Shia militias, all aiming to create discomfort (#2), all aiming to … create enough discomfort for the United States, but in doing so, they're making it harder for this young democracy to emerge”, Bush told an audience in Tipp City, Ohio.

“Two of the biggest issues we face for the security of this country today and tomorrow is al-Qaeda (#3) and Iran. And yet their influence is being played out in Iraq”, he added.

Bush also touched on Tehran’s nuclear drive. “We believe they would like to have a nuclear weapon. Part of our diplomacy is to prevent them from doing so. If the United States were to leave a chaotic Iraq, not only would the vacuum of our failure there to help this young government enable extremists to move more freely and embolden them, but I also believe it would -- it could cause the Middle East to enter into a nuclear arms race” (#4).

“We have no beef with the Iranian people, which is really important for the people of Iran to understand (#5). We value the history of Iran. We respect the traditions of Iran. It's the Iranian government that is making the decisions that is causing you to be isolated. You're missing an opportunity to be a great nation because your government has made decisions that is causing the world to put economic sanctions on you and to isolate you (#6). I would hope the Iranian government would change their attitude”, he added.

---

(#1) Iran is a "serious problem", says GWB. Iran hasn't started a single war or invaded a country in a thousand years, but the U.S has been involved non-stop in countless wars and covert operations to overthrow legitimate and popular democratically elected governments, to make no mention of the fact that the U.S.A remains the only nation on Earth insane enough to have ever used nuclear weapons.
And what "advanced weaponry" is Iran supplying? Where is the proof of this? Is he talking about these? Next he'll tell us Iraq had WMDs. And who's "dealing with some militias"? Maybe he's talking about the Iranian diplomats they kidnapped to cause shit.

(#2) Wait, who did he say is "aiming to create discomfort" in Iraq? I do believe there's 655 000 dead people that would say that's you, George.

(#3) Oh for fuck's sake, make up your mind, Dubya. Not long ago you said Capturing Bin Laden Is ‘Not A Top Priority Use of American Resources’. Flip flop flip flop.

(#4) Nuclear arms race? What the fuck is he talking about? India, China, Pakistan, Russia, and Israel are all already armed to the teeth with nukes. Even if Iran did start packin' heat, it'd be little more than a piss in the sea. Maybe they just a want a bit of insurance against being wiped out by Israel. According to this report, they've already tried it once but were turned back by US fighters over Iraq.

(#5) Oh, they understand alright. Just like you didn't have a beef with the 655 000 dead Iraqis I just mentioned.

(#6) Decisions like their nuclear program? That's a bit hypocritical isn't it? Iran maintains that it's strictly for civilian purposes, which they've supported by allowing weapons inspectors full access to their facilities. Under international law, Iran's nuclear development program is perfectly legal. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and as such, has thus far abided by it. Inspections have yielded no evidence that Iran's program is being developed to build nuclear weapons, and that being the case, by the treaty it's perfectly legal.

Article IV(1) of the NPT which provides that

Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes...

Article IV(2) goes on to provide that

All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of Non-Nuclear-Weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

You speak a lot o' Bushit, George.


Iran - What the Media Won't Tell You

---

Bush Is An Idiot

American Fascism

They Want Your Soul

The plans for how America will be governed after the next major terrorist event on US soil is being cloaked in secrecy and withheld from members of congress. This has to be the first time in American history that such a thing has happened.

Congressman Denied Access To Post-Attack Continuity Plans

By JEFF KOSSEFF


Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. (Photo by Faith Cathcart)

c.2007 Newhouse News Service

WASHINGTON — Constituents called Rep. Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.


As a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom'' in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.

"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,'' DeFazio said.

Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn't know who did it or why.

"We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America,'' DeFazio said. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee.''

Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn declined to say why DeFazio was denied access: "We do not comment through the press on the process that this access entails. It is important to keep in mind that much of the information related to the continuity of government is highly sensitive.''

Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he ``cannot think of one good reason'' to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee.

"I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House,'' Ornstein said.

This is the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents. DeFazio has asked Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., to help him access the documents.

"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right,'' DeFazio said.

Another recent development is Bush's new executive order, which all but outlaws anti-war protests and deems those that don't support the war to be "undermining" the 'progress' in Iraq.

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004.

Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

One wonders what this new "extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States" actually is.

The BBC reported recently on Prescott Bush's plans for a fascist "Whitehouse coup". Apparently he believed that the US should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini, so it's not surprising that his grandson is fleshing out that reality. Prescott Bush did, after all, help fund the Nazi war machine through Brown Brothers Harriman. Listen to the BBC broadcast here.

Watch this video:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3dAnSMzUlo

Bush signs unconstitutional "power grab" presidential directives NSPD51 and HSPD20, giving him full-dictatorial powers in the event of a loosely defined "catastrophic emergency."

FISA: Bush as Dictator

Legislation was signed on Sunday (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA) that gives the go-ahead for the US government to carry out warrantless wiretapping and whatever other method of surveillance they like, further making a mockery of the constitution. But Bush says he's not finished yet:

"While I appreciate the leadership it took to pass this bill, we must remember that our work is not done. This bill is a temporary, narrowly focused statute to deal with the most immediate shortcomings in the law. When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001."

His use of the word "alleged" is interesting, as pointed out by Professor Jack Balkin on his website:

I particularly love the phrase "alleged to have assisted our Nation." In his letter to Congress the other day Intelligence Director Michael McConnell spoke of "liability protection for those who are alleged to have helped the country stay safe after September 11, 2001." Apparently "allegedly helped us stay safe" is Bush Administration code for telecom companies and government officials who participated in a conspiracy to perform illegal surveillance. Because what they did is illegal, we do not admit that they actually did it, we only say that they are alleged to have done it. Or perhaps the Administration is suggesting that although such parties are alleged to have helped the country stay safe, there's no evidence that their repeated violations of federal law actually did much to promote our security. No, they couldn't mean that.

Think Progress put together a blog showing some examples of some of the editorials coming out in the mainstream news:

Last week, under heavy political pressure from the White House, Congress approved the White House-backed version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which provided expansive spying authority to the Bush administration. The White House had earlier rejected a compromise bill that provided powers sought by the Director of National Intelligence, opting instead to play politics with the issue.

In the past two days, at least nine major newspapers have editorialized against the FISA legislation, with the New York Times today calling it an “unnecessary and dangerous expansion of President Bush’s powers.” Some examples:

USA Today:

A skittish Congress allowed itself to be stampeded last week into granting the president unfettered surveillance power. When it returns to Washington, it should do what it can to make sure that the sun goes down on this flawed measure. [Link]

Washington Post:

To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law — or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions. [Link]

The New York Times:

While serving little purpose, the new law has real dangers. It would allow the government to intercept, without a warrant, every communication into or out of any country, including the United States. Instead of explaining all this to American voters — the minimal benefits and the enormous risks — the Democrats have allowed Mr. Bush and his fear-mongering to dominate all discussions on terrorism and national security. [Link]

The Los Angeles Times:

You know something’s wrong with this Congress when a Democratic champion of privacy rights feels compelled to vote for Republican legislation that compromises those rights. That’s what California Sen. Dianne Feinstein did last week when she joined a stampede to approve a temporary “fix” sought by the Bush administration in a law governing electronic surveillance. [Link]

San Francisco Chronicle:

No-limits spying is on a roll. In rushed votes, both the House and Senate meekly accepted a White House plan to vastly expand phone and e-mail eavesdropping. The changes were sold as a key step in tracking foreign terrorists and their allies on American soil. But the shift guts any semblance of oversight, leaving the picking and choosing of targets to spy agencies. [Link]

The Boston Globe:

The administration maintains that technological changes have created problems with the 1978 law. But never has Bush demonstrated why the terms of that law, which permitted officials to get warrant approvals up to 72 hours after they started a wiretap, are no longer workable. This and other questions could have been answered if Congress had demanded an open debate on the administration’s bill. Its failure to do so is a shameful abdication of its own responsibility. It’s difficult to maintain a system of checks and balances when one branch simply checks out. [Link]

Rocky Mountain News:

Now the authority to approve wiretaps rests with the attorney general - hardly a reassuring prospect given Alberto Gonzales’ performance in that office - and the director of national intelligence. … Given the administration’s expansive view of its own powers, this FISA rewrite could allow much wider eavesdropping, with little outside oversight. [Link]

Sacramento Bee:

After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush did an end run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which prohibits eavesdropping on Americans without judicial oversight. Instead of going to Congress to change the law, Bush decided to simply monitor without warrants the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States. Six years later, the Bush administration belatedly has gone to Congress. But instead of promoting modernization in the law, the administration has ginned up new fears about terrorist attacks and cowed Congress into passing hasty, ill-considered changes. [Link]

Seattle Post Intelligencer:

The redeeming aspect of the political theater involving Americans’ rights to privacy is that Congress wrote itself an option for a better ending in six months. [Link]

– Igor Volsky

UPDATE: More anger from local papers: The Huntsville Times, the Albany Times Union, and OC Register.

Good to know they're at least paying attention while they're stripped of their freedoms.