posted January 23, 2008 11:47 AM            

By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

->On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
->In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
->In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
->On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
->On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
->On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."
The false statements dramatically increased
in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

More here: http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

posted January 23, 2008 01:55 PM            

Three (3) separate and independent US commissions have examined all the facts and statemtnes made by Bush and others in the Administration and found there was no fudging facts, no pressure on the CIA to produce a specific finding favorable to war...and NO LYING on the part of Bush to lead America to war.

In addition to that, there was a British panel which examined the Blair government..and the Bush administration as to what they said and were claiming. The distinguished British jurist...Lord Butler concluded in his report...The Butler Report that the statement made by Bush in the State of the Union address were "Well Founded". In legal speak, that means there was sufficient facts and evidence for Bush to have come to his conclusions and made the statement(s).

Still, leftist continue to moan, groan, wheeze, whine and wet themselves over something which never happened. Leftists don't seem to have the intelligence to determine the difference between a lie and statements based on faulty information supplied by others.

For instance:

"It's a slam dunk Mr. President, Saddam has WDM, (weapons of mass destruction).

That information was delivered to Bush by the then DCI, George Tenet...a holdover from the administration of Commander Corruption..aka, Bill Clinton.

Some people just have a one track mind. Too bad they're off the tracks.

posted January 24, 2008 05:30 PM            

But what makes you say its the democrats who came up with that?

Are the authors Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith democrats?

posted January 24, 2008 06:40 PM            

quote:

---

WASHINGTON: The United States is paying around $ 100 million a month for the deployment of 80,000 Pakistani troops on its border with Afghanistan ostensibly for the war on terrorism, a key US official revealed on Thursday.

The money is meant to be "reimbursements" to Pakistan "for stationing troops and moving them around, and gasoline, and bullets, and training and other costs that they incur as part of the war on terror," US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, told a Congressional panel.

"That's a lot of money," Boucher admitted before the panel about what amounts to a $ 1.2 billion per year reimbursement. "I don't know if it comes to the whole amount of their expenses, but we support their expenses, yes."

In all, US aid to Pakistan is now close to $ 2 billion a year, according to figures provided by Boucher, the top U S diplomat for South Asia.

Besides, the $ 1.2 billion reimbursements, Washington also gave Pakistan an addition $ 738 million in 2006 in assistance programs, including $ 300 million in separate military aid.

The overall figure would put Pakistan on par with Israel and Egypt -- with a higher component ($ 1.5 billion) in overall military assistance -- as the top three recipients of US aid.

The Pakistan allocations are being met with deep misgivings and scepticism in Congress and strategic circles where there are growing demands on the Bush administration to tie aid for Islamabad's military to its performance and delivery in the war on terror.

"There are far more jihadists, extremist madrassas, Al Qaida operatives, Taliban safe havens and international terrorist training camps than Pakistani government officials are willing to admit. Is our current aid package, one in which we are providing at least 10 times more for military aid than for basic education assistance, in the best long-term interest of United States national security?" asked Congressman John Tierney, who chaired the hearing that for focused exclusively on the Pakistan question.

"And how do we in Congress justify to the American people writing checks for billions of dollars to a regime that may not be the partner against terrorism the United States needs it to be, but may actually be hurting national security interests of the United States and our allies?" added Congressman Christopher Shays, after some of his colleagues pointed out that Pakistan was host to the world's most wanted men like Osama bin Laden and A.Q.Khan.

Boucher maintained that the money was well spent and there was some accountability involved.

"Some of our money that we give Pakistan is reimbursements and so there is, you know, conditions that we pay for things," he said, later elaborating that "Pentagon is in charge of getting receipts and making sure they know how that money is being spent in the right places."

"If they didn't have the 85,000 troops in the border area, God knows what would be going on out there -- not anything we could deal with ourselves, I'm sure," Boucher added.

Still, law-makers remained sceptical of the Bush administration's Pakistan policy, even as the White House reviewed the situation in a special meeting on Thursday. Tierney urged the administration to ensure that the military support money went towards supplying equipment to fight terrorism, as opposed to bombers and submarines aimed at India.

But Boucher bluntly told the committee "we do try to do both...help Pakistan with legitimate defensive needs, with its ability to patrol in the Arabian Sea," and finance equipment and reimburse expenses for the war on terror.

---

Stop this nuisanse Bush.
Accept you were wrong in this war.

posted January 26, 2008 01:04 PM            

What is it you don't understand about the difference between a lie, (false statement} and mistake of fact?

Are you really so dense you don't understand that the President has advisors and agency heads who routinely brief him on different matters? Do you not understand that the President is not a CIA intelligence gatherer or analyzer?

What the hell would you have had Bush do when his Director of Central Intelligence came into the White House, slammed his hand down on the table and said: "It's a slam dunk Mr. President, Saddam Hussein HAS weapons of mass destruction.

Now Mannu, according to you and the rest of your rabid Bush hating friends; Bush was supposed to pick Tenet up by his collar, take him to the side door of the White House and heave his Director of Central Intelligence out into Pennsylvania Ave....and say...'and don't you ever come back in here again and lie through your teeth about such a nice fellow as Saddam Hussein'.

Let me tell you something else you won't want to hear Mannu. Virtually all the morons in Congress who are now ripping Bush over the no WMD found issue were.....screaming at the top of their lungs that Saddam indeed DOES have WMD and he needed to be taken out. This BEFORE Bush ever moved one US soldier towards Iraq.

Count among those:

Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
Madam Halfbright
Sandy Burglar
Harry Reid
Nancy Pee-losi
Dick Durbin
John Edwards
Chuck Hagel
John Warner
Jay Rockefeller
Nancy Harmon
and a cast of thousands of Washington insiders from the demoscat side.

posted January 26, 2008 02:09 PM            

Reagan was great because he was willing to negotiate. Cold war was won because of negotiations not guns. I also don't understand, why this Bush could not rectify his mistakes in his long 2 terms?

Agreed that we just can't pull troops as General Hillary suggests
It will make Iraq vulnerable to international and domestic terrorists.

posted January 28, 2008 12:14 PM            

For your information, there was a Joint Resolution of Congress authorizing the use of military force to remove Saddam..which stated the reasons for doing so. I've posted them before...many times for those who have ADD or are just too lazy to look it up for themselves.

Weapons of mass destruction was only 1 (one) of the reasons stated.

posted January 28, 2008 12:56 PM            

Sorry.

A prez is commander in chief of navy/army/air. What has congress got to do with how this jerk used his facts?

posted January 29, 2008 12:42 PM            

The most basic responsibility of any President is to protect the nation and it's citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic.

posted January 29, 2008 01:47 PM            

There were several terrorist attacks post 911 but they were all foiled. Thanks due not to the president, but the people for being alert.

posted January 30, 2008 01:28 PM            

Intent doesn't count. Conspiracy to commit terrorist attacks don't count. Only terrorist attacks foiled in their actual commission count. Meaning Mannu that terrorists were on the scene of their intended attack site...with the implements to attack and were nabbed at the site before they could start their attack.

Gee Mannu it seems to me that the decision by Bush to have the NSA monitor terrorist conversations and terrorist cell phones...to hear what they were planning had a lot to do with stopping actual attacks here.

It also seems to me Mannu that tying up terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq where they were and still are being killed or captured takes their manpower and resources out of play for attacking the US and US citizens.

posted February 02, 2008 01:13 PM            

However, it is interesting how this report you cite naming Bush misdeeds came into being, who the players are and who the hell funded the study.

As is usual, we find a leftist source of both the study and the funding behind the lying.

In this case, the funding came from George Soros, the far left moron and convicted felon who sometimes thinks he's god..his words...and whose greatest ambition is to lessen the influence of the United States in world affairs...again, his words...among other far left moron backers.

This leftist moron also provides the money for those of the clinically insane..Move On Dot Org and Media Matters...among others.

The War Card
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com
Friday, February 01, 2008

The New York Times now tells us that a new study entitled “The War Card” has determined authoritatively that during the months leading up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, top officials in the Bush administration—including the president himself—made “hundreds of claims, mostly discredited since then, linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda or warning that he possessed forbidden weapons.” The Times did not report that the study had been conducted by an organization that received more than $1.62 million from George Soros in the last few years alone. Having failed to purchase the 2004 election despite spending tens of millions of his own money, Soros is now dedicating his hefty checkbook to undoing the results of that election and humiliating its victor. And the media continue to portray this process as nonpartisan.

The co-authors of the study, Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, say they have documented “at least 935 false statements” that were made on approximately 532 occasions. Their investigation asserts, in its final analysis, that these alleged pre-war lies “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

Remarkably, the Times did not mention that this research was sponsored jointly by two organizations whose long history of political partisanship clearly underpins its disingenuous and unsupportable conclusions.

But before we even examine who those two organizations are, we cannot help but notice that the Times report entirely ignores the very salient fact that, prior to the March, 2003, U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there was not a single country whose intelligence agency doubted that Saddam was in the process of developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and/or that he already possessed them.

Likewise, the most prominent members of the Democratic Party were uniformly confident in that same assessment. Examples of their pre-war pronouncements in this regard abound. Here are just a few of the things they said during the weeks and months immediately preceding the invasion:

John Kerry, noting that “Saddam Hussein [could] not account for all the Weapons of Mass Destruction which UNSCOM identified,” stated: “People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction.” “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real,” added Kerry, “…[and] he has continued to build those weapons.”

Hillary Clinton declared unequivocally: “In the four years since the inspectors left [Iraq], intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear…that if left unchecked, [he] will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” These claims constituted a seamless transition from the claims made by Hillary’s husband, Bill Clinton, during the latter years of his presidency in 1998 and 1999.

According to former Vice President Al Gore, “We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country…Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Senator Ted Kennedy concurred: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction…There is no doubt that [his] regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”

In John Edwards’ estimation, “Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies…We know that he has chemical and biological weapons…We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”

Senator Robert Byrd professed, “We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons....”

Senator Jay Rockefeller was among the most passionate of all believers: “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years…Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States ... Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now…And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which … could…unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly…I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk…September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism…There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated…To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot! The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks…we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat.”

The Conductors of the Current Research

The newly published “War Card” study that accuses the Bush administration of having “lied” about its pre-war intelligence on hundreds of occasions, was sponsored jointly by the Center for Public Integrity, which the New York Times identifies as “a research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy,” and the Fund for Independence in Journalism, which professes “to protect, defend and foster independent, high quality investigative journalism.”

It may strike you as strange that two organizations purportedly committed to “integrity” and “quality” would neglect, in such a highly publicized report, to point out that the Bush administration’s pre-war intelligence squared perfectly with the beliefs not only of the aforementioned Democrats, but also of virtually every other major Democratic figure in the United States. Yet the present study contains not a single word referencing any Democrat’s pre-invasion warnings about the threat posed by Saddam.

To understand why the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism would so selectively reserve their accusations for the Bush White House (while giving the Democrats a free pass for whatever errors they may have made in assessing Saddam’s threat), we need only to follow the money.

Consider the Center for Public Integrity, which is headed by Bill Buzenberg, who formerly worked as an editor for Minnesota Public Radio and National Public Radio. Buzenberg is also the author of the forthcoming book (slated for release in August 2008, three months before the next presidential election), The Buying of the President: How—and Why—the Race for the Nation’s Highest Office Has Moved from the Voting Booth to the Auction Block. According to Buzenberg, his Center for Public Integrity is both “incredibly nonpartisan” and “incredibly independent.”

Casting doubt on that claim is the fact that one of his organization’s largest financial backers is none other than George Soros’s Open Society Institute. According to the Foundation Center, in 2002 and 2003 alone, the institute gave more than $1.62 million to the Center for Public Integrity.

Each year, the Open Society Institute donates millions of dollars to a host of leftist organizations that share George Soros’s major social and political agendas. These agendas can be summarized as follows:

[b]promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation
promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States
opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act
depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral
promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws

promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes

promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens

posted February 02, 2008 01:16 PM            

advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending

opposing the death penalty in all circumstances

promoting socialized medicine in the United States

promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is “not clean air and clean water, [but] rather ... the demolition of technological/industrial civilization”
bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations

promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike
Soros in 2004 spent some $26 million of his own money trying, unsuccessfully, to derail President Bush’s reelection bid, a task Soros called “the central focus of my life” and “a matter of life and death.” He has likened Republicans generally, and the Bush administration in particular, to “the Nazi and communist regimes” in the sense that they are “all engaged in the politics of fear.” “Indeed,” he wrote in 2006, “the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines by drawing on the innovations of the advertising and marketing industries.” Soros elaborated on this theme at the January 2007 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he told reporters: “America needs to . . . go through a certain de-Nazification process.”

In one of his most significant and effective efforts to reshape the American political landscape, Soros was the prime mover in the creation of the so-called “Shadow Democratic Party,” or “Shadow Party,” in 2003. This term refers to a nationwide network of unions, activist groups, and think tanks engaged in campaigning for Democrats. The network’s modus operandi includes such activities as fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes—all identified with the Democratic Party’s left wing. Other key players included several members of the Bill Clinton White House.

Soros is a longtime supporter of Hillary Clinton, who, in turn, has long admired Soros and shares many of his agendas. Committed to ousting what he considers the Nazi-like Republicans from the White House, Soros will support Hillary if she wins the Democratic nomination for the presidency. But the multi-billionaire isn’t putting all his eggs in any single candidate’s basket. In January 2007 the New York Daily News reported that Soros planned initially to throw his financial weight behind Barack Obama. While many interpreted Soros’s decision as a repudiation of Clinton, Soros pledged that he absolutely would support the New York Senator were she to beat Obama in the Democratic primaries.

Because its bread is buttered, in large measure, by cash infusions from the Open Society Institute, the Center for Public Integrity can be considered neither nonpartisan nor independent. Rather, it has an immense financial incentive to produce studies exactly like “The War Card,” whose findings support the Open Society Institute’s views and political agendas—most notably the depiction of American military actions as unnecessary and immoral, and the promotion of leftist political candidates at every level of government.

Not only is the Open Society Institute strongly pro-Democrat, but it is also a key constituent of the Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG), an association of individual philanthropists and foundations that give money to leftist anti-war causes. PSFG’s members direct their funding toward organizations that seek to address the “root causes” of war and violence—causes which PSFG identifies as: competition for natural resources, ethnic and religious differences, poverty, and social injustices.

Much of PSFG’s support is also earmarked for groups that oppose the Patriot Act and the general “overreach of intelligence agencies,” and groups that oppose America’s development of a missile defense system. These priorities—which are consistent with Soros’s view that “the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions”—make it clear that opposition to the war is a prerequisite for any organization hoping to receive Open Society Institute funding. On this count, the Center for Public Integrity clearly has been compliant.

Additional Leftwing Funders of the Center for Public Integrity

The Ford Foundation: Another key funder of the Center for Public Integrity is the Ford Foundation, which is, like the Open Society Institute, a key constituent of the Peace and Security Funders Group. Between 2002 and 2006 Ford gave the Center some $3.25 million in grants. The Foundation’s major objectives and perspectives include: the weakening of America’s homeland security and anti-terrorism measures on the theory that they constitute unacceptable assaults on civil liberties; the dissolution of American borders, coupled with the promotion of mass, unchecked immigration to the United States; the large-scale redistribution of wealth; the blaming of America for virtually every conceivable international dispute; the weakening of American military capabilities; a devotion to the principle of preferences based on race, ethnicity, gender, and a host of other demographic attributes; the condemnation of the U.S. as a racist, sexist nation that discriminates against minorities and women; the characterization of America as an unrepentant polluter whose industrial pursuits cause immense harm to the natural environment; the portrayal of the U.S. as a violator of human rights both at home and abroad; the depiction of America as an aggressively militaristic nation; and support for taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand as an inalienable right for all women.

The Arca Foundation: In 2002 this foundation, which is also a member organization of the Peace and Security Funders Group, made a $20,000 grant to the Center for Public Integrity. In recent times, Arca’s website has featured high praise for such leftist icons as Michael Moore and Howard Dean.

The Carnegie Corporation of New York: Between 2002 and 2007, this foundation gave some $1.59 million to the Center for Public Integrity. Carnegie condemns American national security measures such as the Patriot Act, which it says has “provoked fear and confusion in immigrant communities … disproportionately affecting those who are Muslim, Sikh and/or of Middle Eastern descent, including those who are U.S. citizens.”

The Nathan Cummings Foundation: In 2002-2003, this foundation made $55,000 in grants to the Center for Public Integrity. Viewing the United States as a nation rife with inequities against minorities, Cummings aims “to build a socially and economically just society” characterized by the redistribution of wealth, and promotes “humane health care” for all—meaning socialized medicine.

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation: Between 2004 and 2006, Hewlett gave the Center for Public Integrity some $515,000 in grants.

The JEHT Foundation: In 2005 this Foundation gave the Center for Public Integrity $316,000 in grant money. JEHT’s “International Justice Program” (IJP) calls on America to subject itself and its citizens to the rulings of the International Criminal Court, rather than to prosecute its own war criminals. IJP also opposed America’s withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that was signed with the now-nonexistent Soviet Union. In JEHT’s view, unilateral military action by the U.S. is invariably unjustified.

The Joyce Foundation: Between 2002 and 2004, this foundation funneled $350,000 in grants to the Center for Public Integrity. A notable recent member of the Joyce Foundation’s Board of Directors was Barack Obama.

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation: In 2003 alone, the MacArthur Foundation gave the Center for Public Integrity fully $3.6 million in grant money. A member organization of the Peace and Security Funders Group, MacArthur ranks as one of the largest private philanthropic foundations in the United States and supports hundreds of leftist organizations, particularly environmentalist groups. The MacArthur Foundation favors redistributive economic policies that can avert “costly conflicts between haves and have-nots.” Such policies are typically at odds with military spending, which is viewed as a drain on supposedly vital social welfare programs.

The Pew Charitable Trusts: In 2003-2004, Pew gave the Center for Public Integrity $1 million in grants. Pew supports myriad organizations that are passionately anti-corporate and anti-capitalist, while it simultaneously holds enormous investments in major corporations. For instance, while Pew invests in Exxon-Mobil, it gives money to Greenpeace, the Ruckus Society, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Public Citizen, Global Exchange, the EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, the World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund, the Wilderness Society, the Environmental Defense Fund, Trust for Public Land, the Environmental Working Group, the Rainforest Alliance, the Izaak Walton League of America, the Rainforest Action Network, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy, and a host of other environmentalist groups that view Exxon-Mobil as an ecological menace.***Yes, the Pew organization...including it's polling operation is a far left group.***

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF):A member organization of the Peace and Security Funders Group, from 2004-2006 this Foundation gave the Center for Public Integrity $150,000 in grants. RBF’s “Peace and Security Program” seeks to foster “greater understanding between Muslim and Western Societies.” Placing responsibility for the current inter-cultural disharmony largely on the United States, RBF says that America must increase its “efforts to ensure that [its] policies and behaviors reflect an understanding of the complexity and diversity of Muslim societies and contribute to mutually respectful, productive relations with those societies.” No mention is made of Muslim nations’ responsibility to reciprocate in kind; nor is there any reference to the radical Islamic movements that have declared open war against the West.

The Scherman Foundation: From 2002-2004, this Foundation, which is a member organization of the Peace and Security Funders Group, gave $45,000 in grants to the Center for Public Integrity. The Foundation’s president, Sandra Silverman, has in recent years contributed money personally to the political campaigns of John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy.

The Schumann Center for Media and Democracy: In 2005 the Schumann Center, whose stated purpose is “to renew the democratic process through cooperative acts of citizenship,” gave $500,000 to the Center for Public Integrity. Schumann’s grant-making is directed heavily toward organizations whose values are anti-corporate, anti-free market, and anti-capitalist. The Schumann Center is headed by PBS icon Bill Moyers, whose son John is the Executive Director of the Florence Fund, which is funded by donors of the Schumann Foundation. The Florence Fund has close ties to anti-war groups like the Win Without War coalition.

The Town Creek Foundation: In 2004 the Town Creek Foundation gave $40,000 to the Center for Public Integrity. A member organization of the Peace and Security Funders Group, Town Creek supports initiatives that “challenge and critique the military budget”; “encourage greater public debate and deliberation about national budget priorities”; and “promote the elimination of nuclear weapons and testing, strengthen arms control programs, or seek responsible weapons disposal programs.” Perhaps the most notable beneficiary of Town Creek’s philanthropy is the massive anti-war coalition United For Peace and Justice, led by Leslie Cagan, a longtime committed socialist who proudly aligns her politics with those of Fidel Castro’s Communist Cuba.
Like the Center for Public Integrity, the Fund for Independence in Journalism (FIJ) has received financial support from the aforementioned Nathan Cummings Foundation and the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy. Other notable donors to FIJ’s cause include the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Streisand Foundation.

The foundations named in this article as funders of the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism, are among the world’s most prolific financiers of leftwing causes. They support many hundreds of far-left organizations, including: the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, the NAACP, the American Friends Service Committee, the National Council of La Raza, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Lawyers Guild, Fenton Communications, ACORN, Global Exchange, Human Rights Watch, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the William J. Brennan Center for Justice, Veterans for Peace, Media Matters for America, The Nation Institute, the Ruckus Society, the Institute for Policy Studies, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Institute for Public Accuracy, Sojourners, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Mother Jones, and the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee.

These funders and their beneficiaries perceive the United States as a nation whose allegedly aggressive and militaristic nature—manifested in premature, ill-advised, unjustified rushes to war—is the chief source of Western conflict with the Muslim world today. They aim to mend these alleged flaws by means of a radical societal transformation, beginning with the election of more far-left Democrats to positions of political influence.

posted February 02, 2008 10:10 PM            

The one terrorist plot that was immediate concern to me was this incident below that happened in new york. Fortunately I was flying from Newark NJ that day.

quote:

---

June 2007,JFK Airport Plot.Four men charged with plotting to blow up jet fuel in residential neighborhoods near John F.Kennedy International Airport in New York City.

---

They were caught right in the act. Where were you

Heres a list of other occurrences. Some are charges/conspiracy - so you may ignore them if you wish.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/am-foiledplots0603,0,7211 531.story?coll=ny-main-breakingnewslinks

And heres another news that shows how so many Osamas will spring up all over the world because of an ill war. This is quoted from TOI news just yerterday. Mind it that I am not saying people are looking for causes. Its difficult to find causes even for a pscyhologist. Remember Hansen the infamous American FBI director who got arrested for leaking info to the soviets? What makes any one do such a thing? He certainly didn't do it for the money. Its not easy to arrive at an answer.

quote:

---

DAVANAGERE: Suspected terrorist Riyazuddin Nasir alias Mohammed Ghouse wanted to visit the United States and spread terror there, he has told interrogators.

Since it was difficult to gain entry into the US, Ghouse had twice pleaded with terrorist leaders to at least send him to Iraq to work as a fidayeen — an extremist who equips himself with arms and ammunition and strikes a target, causing mass destruction.

However, the terrorist leaders persuaded him to drop the idea as they thought "there is so much to do in India".
Ghouse, who was well informed about post-9/11 incidents, grudged the American invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Investigations have revealed that Ghouse visited Mecca thrice for umrah (a pilgrimage undertaken during the non-Haj season), on a family passport that had a validity of 10 years up to December 2006.

He first visited Mecca as a child in 1996. In 2005, during his second trip, he met Abdul Samad, brother of South India's most wanted terrorist, Shahid Bilal, and reportedly expressed his willingness to go to Iraq as a fidayee to fight American forces.

However, his plan did not materialize. In 2006, Samad got Ghouse a fake passport and sent him to Pakistan. While undergoing training there, Ghouse again expressed his keenness to go to Iraq. But Bilal stopped him.

After Ghouse completed his training in Pakistan — from May 2006 to January 2007 — he was sent to India through the Nepal border with a mission: indulge in subversion and disturb peace.

Besides use of arms and explosives, Ghouse was trained in operating computers, reading and drawing maps, sketching and horse riding. "He has a graphic memory and is very quick in drawing maps," a police officer says.

Eastern range IGP H N Satyanaraya Rao says the local police have had a tough time extracting information from him. "He is a good catch, but a tough nut to crack. To question a terrorist, we need specialized agencies. The limited expertise of the local police has become a limitation. To extract one bit of information from him, we have to ask him 100 questions."

Ghouse had planned to blast the Andhra Pradesh police headquarters in Hyderabad. The arrest of his father and brother, and the case booked against him by the Hyderabad police, made a teenage Ghouse drop out of college and take the path of jihad.

A senior IPS officer narrates an argument he had with Ghouse on jihad. When the officer pointed out that Islam shuns violence, Ghouse is supposed to have said: "Jihad is a holy struggle in the name of Allah." The officer says: "After half an hour, I gave up because I realized it would be impossible to convince him."

Ghouse and his associate Asadullah Abubaker, who were arrested in Davanagere district on charges of terrorism, are in police custody.

---

posted February 02, 2008 10:25 PM            

So I am not sure if I must believe everything I read.

I still have to hear what Obama says his debate arguments against Cain or Romney will be. The good cop in me says "Well he was practising a peaceful religion once" The bad cop in me says "Wll he is siding with his islam brothers" . Am I watching too much hollywood movies - hehehe.

I can understand Hillary's reasoning and I too would have voted for the Iraq war given her reasoning. A yes vote means giving authority to the president to lauch the war. There is no "ifs and buts". USA didn't cleanly finish the Afghanistan war and now Bush is jumping to Iraq. USA does not have the resources to launch multiple attacks without compromising on civilian safety. Point is that the left is not all about welfare. Who do you think started the Vietnam war? Wasn't it the democrats. Forgive me if I am wrong - I am naive American LOL. Hillary is a former first lady and I remember that Bill did have information (not conclusive) that could have made USA chase Saddams butt.

And I also don't agree that because WMD's were not found, it does not exists. I heard Saddam say he made up the story to project Iraqis as a strong nation. To intimidate its enemies. I am not the CEO of the USA to make judgements. What an arduous job that must be.

posted February 02, 2008 11:28 PM            

I don't think Bush will ever say sorry for his actions in Iraq. Perhaps out of National interest. He may be selfish like the other republicans (Cain for example) who wants a stable Iraq. To secure a constant and economical supply of oil. War is just a smoking gun. If Cain becomes the President, he is willing to make the Americans stay for 100 years in Iraq.

CIAs are good in mind control of the Americans. Or perhaps I should dismiss that thought as conspiracy theory. After all, I am seeing a colored person and a woman running for the presidency. It has happened in my life time LOL

I am sure by now the victim American's psyche is at peace by seeing the blood spill of the iraqis and afghanistanis. Well ,now its time to think with a clear head.
Well whatever be the the reasoning, we all have to collectively think what is best for Iraqi people and for the peace of the world. We were careless entering the war and we can't be carelss exiting the war.

posted February 04, 2008 02:08 PM            

All the others were "planned" attacks which were not stopped in progress but before they could be carried out.

"December 2001: Richard Reid, a British citizen and self-described follower of Osama bin Laden, foiled an attempt to blow up a Paris-to-Miami flight with explosives hidden in his shoes. He pleaded guilty in 2002.
"

So Mannu, people like you continue to biaatch, moan, screech, howl and shriek about Bush...but no one has fired an RPG up your sorry butt or any one elses OR managed to carry out any further attacks in the US since Bush implemented the additional security...including monitoring terrorist cell phone conversations and email.

posted February 09, 2008 11:51 PM            

quote:

---

Besides, the $ 1.2 billion reimbursements, Washington also gave Pakistan an addition $ 738 million in 2006 in assistance programs, including $ 300 million in separate military aid.

---

quote:

---

What the hell would you have had Bush do when his Director of Central Intelligence came into the White House, slammed his hand down on the table and said: "It's a slam dunk Mr. President, Saddam Hussein HAS weapons of mass destruction.

---

quote:

---

A prez is commander in chief of navy/army/air. What has congress got to do with how this jerk used his facts?

---

quote:

---

The most basic responsibility of any President is to protect the nation and it's citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic.

---

quote:

---

Mannu, please name those post 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States proper...and provide some substantiation for your statement.

---

posted February 11, 2008 03:20 PM            

In any event, it's telling that you think only 1 out of one thousand conspiracies might actually be true.

Thanks for supplying the stats that your statements and your sourced articles are 99.9% pure bullshiiit. That's a pretty rich seam Mannu. Perhaps you should contact Bandini. They're always in the market for bullshiiit.

posted February 11, 2008 05:14 PM            

You only seem to hear what you want to listen and see what your eyes want to see

Though bull$hit is good. i can use to thatch my roof in the absence of cement. use it as a clean energy resource in the event of catastrophe. And so many uses.

You simple can't stand the leftist because you are a rightist. If you inherited rightist from whatever g0ddamn source, you would have sucked up to them and attacked leftist. You are so predictable.

posted February 13, 2008 03:15 PM            

I'm simply allergic to bullshiiit from any source.

I do notice however mannu...that you have yet to prove or even come close to proving a single one of the allegations you've lodged here.

Perhaps it's different where you're from mannu but most Americans want some proof with their doses of allegations.