Muslim in Suffer

Bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem. Assalamu\’alaikum Warohmatullahi Wabarokatuh!

Archive for May 31st, 2008

Anti-Islam Zioganda: Unbelieveable

Posted by musliminsuffer on May 31, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Anti-Islam Zioganda: Unbelieveable

this kind of hate reveals an underlying fear and a disturbingly transparent inferiority complex

By: atheo on: 29.05.2008 [18:57 ] (70 reads)

Greetings All,

PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD AND SIGN THE PETITION on the following, on what I conclude to be a truly FAKE article on Muslims which has started to filter into the headlines worldwide. The article in question details how a Muslim lady divorced her husband because he lifted her veil after 30 or so years, seeing her face for the very first time. If one only looks at the nature of this story, one can see it is fake, and yet when one does simple research it is easy to see how it is simply unfettered nonsense.

The offending newspapers in London which carried the article without ANY DUE corroboration were the London Metro and the Daily Mail. The Metro’s link is as follows:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/world/article.html?in_article_id=148742&in_page_id=64

Simple investigation reveals the following – the Metro carried the story on May 21st , the Daily Mail on May 19th – right wing racist websites were running the story (the content of which were identical) BEFORE May 19th (no other ‘reputable’ medium were running it before then)! This shows the TRUE source of this story.

Now have a look at the following. The story first surfaced on the right wing Islam Watch website on May 14th, by someone using the fake name “Ibn Misr” (one can see how fake this name is):

http://www.islam-watch.org/Misr/Saudi-Woman-Divorce-for-Lifting-Veil.htm

The same “Ibn Misr”, using the same and differing aliases then contributed to hosts of other right-wing online mediums:

http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org/2008/05/
http://arabiguitar.blogspot.com/
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/page/2/

The unforgivable part is that the Metro didn’t even bother to change the wording of the article, and picked it up WORD FOR WORD when it first appeared in the ‘Islam Watch’ site, thus showing the truly horrendous nature of its editorial process (copying and pasting from a right wing website).

We ask that you spread the word to ALL, so that everyone becomes aware of this fake article, and that you sign the following petition to protest against the Daily Mail, Metro and other mediums for carrying this story without any authentication, and censor the Metro especially for picking this up word for word from a recognized racist website.

PETITION LINK (PLEASE SIGN, AND SPREAD THE WORD TO ALL):

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=4868899647&topic=4485

We hope that by highlighting this issue, we can help the global media portray the true image (of) Islam, rather than the right wing/ militant/ ignorant images which seem to be manifesting from these racist sites such as Islam Watch. This is what citizen journalism is all about !

Kindest Regards,

FJ Team

from:
http://www.ForgottenJournalist.com

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Iraqis claim Marines are pushing Christianity in Fallujah

Posted by musliminsuffer on May 31, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Iraqis claim Marines are pushing Christianity in Fallujah

Jamal Naji and Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers

May 29, 2008 07:07:49 AM

FALLUJAH, Iraq ­ At the western entrance to the Iraqi city of Fallujah Tuesday, Muamar Anad handed his residence badge to the U.S. Marines guarding the city. They checked to be sure that he was a city resident, and when they were done, Anad said, a Marine slipped a coin out of his pocket and put it in his hand.

Out of fear, he accepted it, Anad said. When he was inside the city, the college student said, he looked at one side of the coin. “Where will you spend eternity?” it asked.

He flipped it over, and on the other side it read, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16.”

“They are trying to convert us to Christianity,” said Anad, a Sunni Muslim like most residents of this city in Anbar province. At home, he told his story, and his relatives echoed their disapproval: They’d been given the coins, too, he said.

Fallujah, the scene of a bloody U.S. offensive against Sunni insurgents in 2004, has calmed and grown less hostile to American troops since residents turned against al Qaida in Iraq, which had tried to force its brand of Islamist extremism on the population.

Now residents of the city are abuzz that some Americans whom they consider occupiers are also acting as Christian missionaries. Residents said some Marines at the western entrance to their city have been passing out the coins for two days in what they call a “humiliating” attempt to convert them to Christianity.

In the markets, people crowded around men with the coins, passing them to each other and asking in surprise, “Have you seen this?”

The head of the Sunni endowment in Fallujah, the organization that oversees Sunni places of worship and other religious establishments, demanded that the Marines stop.

“We say to the occupiers to stop this,” said Sheikh Mohammed Amin Abdel Hadi. “This can cause strife between the Iraqis and especially between Muslim and Christians . … Please stop these things and leave our homes because we are Muslims and we live in our homes in peace with other religions.”

A spokesman said the U.S. military is investigating.

“Multi-National Force-Iraq is investigating a report that U.S. military personnel in Fallujah handed-out material that is religious and evangelical in nature,” the spokesman, Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll, said in a statement e-mailed to McClatchy. “Local commanders are investigating since the military prohibits proselytizing any religion, faith or practices.”

Multi-National Force-Iraq is the formal name for coalition forces in Iraq.

In interviews, residents of Fallujah repeated two words ­ “humiliation” and “weakness”.

“Because we are weak this is happening,” said a shop owner who gave his name as Abu Abdullah. “Passing Christianity this way is disrespectful.”

“The occupier is repeatedly trespassing on God and his religion,” said Omar Delli, 23. “Now the occupier is planting seeds of strife between the Muslims and Christians. We demand the government in Fallujah have a new demonstration to let the occupier know that these things are humiliating Islam and the Quran.”

The controversy over the coins that Iraqis said some Marines are passing out comes on the heels of a tempest triggered by a U.S. sniper who used the Quran, Islam’s holy book, for target practice. The sniper was pulled out of Iraq after Iraqi police on May 11 found a Quran with 14 bullet holes and graffiti on the pages.

In Islam, the holy book is never to touch the floor, let alone be defaced. Iraqi leaders condemned the actions, U.S. generals apologized and President Bush offered a personal apology to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

In Fallujah, Mohammed Jaber saw one of the coins and said he thought of the bullets lodged in the Quran, the torture of Iraqi men at the Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 and the rape of a 14-year-old girl and her murder and that of her family in Mahmoudiya.

“Now we have this missionary way by these coins,” he said. “We feel the Muslims are weak and we hope that we will reach a point when we are strong to let them know what is wrong and what is right. ”

Naji is a McClatchy special correspondent in Fallujah.

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

source: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m44441&hd=&size=1&l=e

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Merkel’s Germany wants to take in Iraqi refugees, but ONLY Christians

Posted by musliminsuffer on May 31, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Merkel’s Germany wants to take in Iraqi refugees, but ONLY Christians

Der Spiegel

28ref0-1020-1194343-00.jpg
If the CDU has its way, Iraqi Christians like this family may soon be on their way to Germany.

ONLY CHRISTIANS, PLEASE
Germany’s CDU Interested in Accepting Refugees from Iraq

May 29, 2008

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats on Wednesday said they would like to see Germany take on thousands of refugees from Iraq. The hitch? They only want the Christians.

If the CDU has its way, Iraqi Christians like this family may soon be on their way to Germany.
For months, ethnic violence has been on the ebb in war-torn Iraq. But that has done little to ease the pressure of over 2 million refugees seeking shelter in neighboring Syria and Jordan. Indeed, for many of them — particularly those once part of Iraq’s Christian minority — going back may never be an option.

On Wednesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party said it would like to see Germany do its part to help out. At a press conference in Berlin, parliamentarian Erika Steinbach, the CDU’s human rights spokeswoman, said her party wanted to see Germany accept thousands of Iraqi refugees. In particular, she said, the CDU wants to extend its welcoming hand to Iraqis who have suffered religious persecution in Iraq. In particular, that means the Christians.

“One would be doing a good thing were a long-term solution to be found,” Steinbach said.

According to Steinbach, the CDU envisions bringing a large group (possibly as many as 10,000) of non-Muslim refugees to Germany with the understanding that they would not be treated as asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work in Germany, and Steinbach said that it is unrealistic to think that Christian refugees from Iraq would ever be able to return. For this reason, their ultimate integration in Germany should be supported.

Members of Yazidis and Mandaean religious minorities would also be among those allowed in, according to the party’s proposal. The CDU argues that, in contrast to Muslim refugees from Iraq, religious persecution makes it unlikely that Christians, Yazidis and Mandaeans would ever by able to return.

Whether the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR would agree to the CDU plan, however, is unclear. As a rule, the UNHCR is unwilling to divide up refugees for resettlement based on their religious beliefs. Deputy CDU floor leader Arnold Vaatz, though, said on Wednesday that he would like to see the UNHCR take the issue of possible return into consideration. Such a criterion could open the door for Germany to accept a group of refugees that was overwhelmingly non-Muslim.

The CDU’s coalition partners, the Social Democrats, have yet to commit to the plan. The final decision on accepting refugees from Iraq would be made by interior ministers from Germany’s 16 federal states.

The CDU is hoping that other countries in Europe will show a willingness to accept more refugees from Iraq at an EU meeting of interior and justice ministers next week. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will be in Stockholm on Thursday for a UN conference on the Iraqi refugee crisis. Sweden has long shouldered (more…) more than its share of the refugee burden in Europe and has long asked other EU countries to up the numbers they accepted.

“Sweden has done very much of the job and less has been done by others, and I think that basically that’s wrong,” Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt told the AP on Tuesday.

cgh

source: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m44444&hd=&size=1&l=e

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

McClellan First Noticed Bush’s Habit of Lying during Campaign Flap over Cocaine Use

Posted by musliminsuffer on May 31, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

McClellan First Noticed Bush’s Habit of Lying during Campaign Flap over Cocaine Use

McClellan’s book offers another indication that George Bush used cocaine over a period of at least 20 years

Jon Ponder | May. 28, 2008

In his new tell-all book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs), former Bush flack Scott McClellan says the first time he caught George Bush lying was during the 2000 campaign when Bush was being accused of having used cocaine:
Bush Drunk at Wedding in 1992
UNDER THE INFLUENCE
An amateur wedding video shows George Bush obviously quite high in 1992, years after he was supposedly clean and sober.

McClellan tracks Bush’s penchant for self-deception back to an overheard incident on the campaign trail in 1999 when the then-governor was dogged by reports of possible cocaine use in his younger days.

The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite “somewhere in the Midwest.” Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.

“‘The media won’t let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,’ I heard Bush say. ‘You know, the truth is I honestly don’t remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don’t remember.’”

“I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?” McClellan wrote. “How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn’t make a lot of sense.”

Bush, according to McClellan, “isn’t the kind of person to flat-out lie.”

“So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It’s the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true,” McClellan wrote. “And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience.”

In the years that followed, McClellan “would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment.” McClellan likened it to a witness who resorts to “I do not recall.”

“Bush, similarly, has a way of falling back on the hazy memory to protect himself from potential political embarrassment,” McClellan wrote, adding, “In other words, being evasive is not the same as lying in Bush’s mind.”

And McClellan linked the tactic to the decision to invade Iraq, a decision based on flawed intelligence.

“It would not be the last time Bush mishandled potential controversy,” he said of the cocaine rumors. “But the cases to come would involve the public trust, and the failure to deal with them early, directly and head-on would lead to far greater suspicion and far more destructive partisan warfare,” he wrote.

In 2004, Eric Boehlert, writing in Salon.com, reported on allegations that Bush was restricted from flying during his time in the Texas Air National Guard because of cocaine use:

One of the persistent riddles surrounding President Bush’s disappearance from the Texas Air National Guard during 1972 and 1973 is the question of why he walked away. Bush was a fully trained pilot who had undergone a rigorous two-year flight training program that cost the Pentagon nearly $1 million. And he has told reporters how important it was to follow in his father’s footsteps and to become a fighter pilot. Yet in April 1972, George W. Bush climbed out of a military cockpit for the last time. He still had two more years to serve, but Bush’s own discharge papers suggest he may have walked away from the Guard for good…

McClellan’s revelation is just the latest confirmation that George Bush was a habitual cocaine user for at least 20 years — a fact that is becoming harder for Bush, the GOP and the mainstream media to ignore.
[Skeptics] have speculated that Bush might have dropped out to avoid being tested for drugs. Which is where Air Force Regulation 160-23, also known as the Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, comes in. The new drug-testing effort was officially launched by the Air Force on April 21, 1972, following a Jan. 11, 1972, directive issued by the Department of Defense. That initiative, in response to increased drug use among soldiers in Vietnam, instructed the military branches to “establish the requirement for a systematic drug abuse testing program of all military personnel on active duty, effective 1 July 1972.”

…During the early stages of his 2000 campaign for president, Bush was dogged by questions of whether he ever used cocaine or any other illegal substance when he was younger. Bush refused to fully answer the question, but in 1999 he did issue a blanket denial insisting he had not used any illegal drugs during the previous 25 years, or since 1974. Bush refused to specify what “mistakes” he had made before 1974.

Perhaps realizing that explanation pointed reporters toward possible drug use during his time as a guardsman, Bush insisted he hadn’t taken any drugs while serving in the Texas Air National Guard, between 1968 and 1974. “I never would have done anything to jeopardize myself. I got airborne and I got on the ground very successfully,” he told reporters on Aug. 19, 1999. But today we know that for his last 18 months in the Guard, from April ‘72 to late ‘73, Bush didn’t have to get airborne, because he simply quit flying. Moreover, if Bush in fact took no drugs at all after 1968, that would mean his drug use, if any, stopped at age 22 — an unusual age to swear off recreational substances for someone with the partying reputation Bush had at that time.

Unanswered questions continue to swirl around Bush’s Guard service in part because he refuses to release the full contents of his military records.

But Bush’s cocaine use may have continued well beyond the 1970s. In 2004, Kitty Kelley wrote in, “The Family,” her book on the Bush dynasty, that George Bush’s former sister-in-law claimed she’d seen Bush do cocaine at Camp David when his father was president — so sometime between 1988 and 1992. Sharon Bush quickly denied the story, but Kelley insisted Sharon had told her otherwise in 2003:

…Sharon Bush, who is divorced from the president’s brother Neil, said in a statement: “I categorically deny that I ever told Kitty Kelley that George W. Bush used cocaine at Camp David or that I ever saw him use cocaine at Camp David. When Kitty Kelley raised drug use at Camp David, I responded by saying something along the lines of, ‘Who would say such a thing?’

“Although there have been tensions between me and various members of the Bush family, I cannot allow this falsehood to go unchallenged.”

Doubleday, Kelley’s publisher, was quick to dispute her account.

“Doubleday stands fully behind the accuracy of Ms. Kelley’s reporting and believes that everything she attributes to Sharon Bush in her book is an accurate account of their discussions,” said Associate Publisher Suzanne Herz. “Ms. Kelley met with Sharon Bush over the course of a four-hour lunch on April 1, 2003, at the Chelsea Bistro in Manhattan.”

The next day, Herz said, Kelley had a 90-minute phone conversation with Bush in the presence of Peter Gethers, her Doubleday editor. Gethers confirmed the accuracy of the statement yesterday.

Kelley “has notes to corroborate both these conversations,” Herz said, and Bush “understood that anything she said could be used for publication.”

The conflicting accounts will undoubtedly become fodder in the emerging debate over “The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.” White House and Republican Party spokesmen have denounced the book as “garbage” and “fiction.” Publication day is set for Monday, when Kelley will begin three days of “Today” show interviews, but some of the allegations have already leaked to a British newspaper.

McClellan’s revelation is just the latest confirmation that George Bush was a habitual cocaine user for at least 20 years — a fact that is becoming harder for Bush, the GOP and the mainstream media to ignore.

source: http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/05/28/mcclellan-first-noticed-bush-lies-in-1999-cocaine-flap/

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Rice says Iraq war was right thing to do

Posted by musliminsuffer on May 31, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Rice says Iraq war was right thing to do

Posted May 29, 2008 11:06 AM PST
Category: COVER-UP/DECEPTIONS
, Category: IRAQ

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended on Thursday the Bush administration’s record in Iraq after sharp criticism of the war in a new book by a former White House spokesman.

“We did some things well, some things not so well,” said Rice, who was national security adviser when the Iraq war began in 2003. “The one thing that I am certain was not a mistake was to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein.”

COMMENT :

I am certain that from the point of view of the war-mongers, all wars are “the right thing to do.” That is not the question. The question is whether those who thought the war was the right thing to do lied to the rest of us to trick us into their little war.
As for Rice’s comments on the upside of the war, let us take a closer look.

Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000, Study Says

The US tortured a bunch of Iraqis.

The US wrecked Iraq’s health-care system

… and their electrical system
So, Ms. Secretary, outside of your personal stock portfolio, tell us exactly WHY this war was such a good idea?
… and why we should not tar and feather anyone and everyone in government who dares lie to the people for any reason whatsoever?

source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

McCain Reacts To McClellan: ‘Every Intelligence Agency In The World And Every Assessment’ Said Iraq Had WMD

Posted by musliminsuffer on May 31, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

McCain Reacts To McClellan: ‘Every Intelligence Agency In The World And Every Assessment’ Said Iraq Had WMD

Posted May 29, 2008 02:25 PM PST
Category: COVER-UP/DECEPTIONS

Asked about the book today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) defended the administration’s actions in the run-up to the war, suggesting there was no manipulation involved. McCain claimed “every intelligence agency in the world” thought Hussein had WMD

COMMENT :

Every claim that Saddam had WMD all came from one source only.
And at least British Intelligence knew there were no WMDs before the invasion started.
Scott Ritter said there were no Iraqi WMDs.

Hans Blix said there were no Iraqi WMDs.

Canada’s analysts said there were no Iraqi WMDs.
And Paul Wolfowotz is on record admitting that the WMD issue was a ‘bureaucratic reason’ for war.
I need you to copy these stories off and send them to every single media outlet you can, and post them on every blog where McCain’s claim that “every” Intelligence Agency thought that Saddam had WMDs, because that is flat out not true.
Time to burn his lying ass.

source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq

Posted by musliminsuffer on May 31, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer

28/05/08 “Washington Post” — -Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated “political propaganda campaign” led by President Bush and aimed at “manipulating sources of public opinion” and “downplaying the major reason for going to war.”

McClellan includes the charges in a 341-page book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” that delivers a harsh look at the White House and the man he served for close to a decade. He describes Bush as demonstrating a “lack of inquisitiveness,” says the White House operated in “permanent campaign” mode, and admits to having been deceived by some in the president’s inner circle about the leak of a CIA operative’s name.

The book, coming from a man who was a tight-lipped defender of administration aides and policy, is certain to give fuel to critics of the administration, and McClellan has harsh words for many of his past colleagues. He accuses former White House adviser Karl Rove of misleading him about his role in the CIA case. He describes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as being deft at deflecting blame, and he calls Vice President Cheney “the magic man” who steered policy behind the scenes while leaving no fingerprints.

McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not “employing out-and-out deception” to make their case for war in 2002.

But in a chapter titled “Selling the War,” he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush “managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.”

“Over that summer of 2002,” he writes, “top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president’s advantage.”

McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, “What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

McClellan resigned from the White House on April 19, 2006, after nearly three years as Bush’s press secretary. The departure was part of a shake-up engineered by new Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten that also resulted in Rove surrendering his policy-management duties.

A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on the book, some contents of which were first disclosed by Politico.com. The Washington Post acquired a copy of the book yesterday, in advance of its official release Monday.

Responding to a request for comment, McClellan wrote in an e-mail: “Like many Americans, I am concerned about the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. I wanted to take readers inside the White House and provide them an open and honest look at how things went off course and what can be learned from it. Hopefully in some small way it will contribute to changing Washington for the better and move us beyond the hyper-partisan environment that has permeated Washington over the past 15 years.”

The criticism of Bush in the book is striking, given that it comes from a man who followed him to Washington from Texas.

Bush is depicted as an out-of-touch leader, operating in a political bubble, who has stubbornly refused to admit mistakes. McClellan defends the president’s intellect — “Bush is plenty smart enough to be president,” he writes — but casts him as unwilling or unable to be reflective about his job.

“A more self-confident executive would be willing to acknowledge failure, to trust people’s ability to forgive those who seek redemption for mistakes and show a readiness to change,” he writes.

In another section, McClellan describes Bush as able to convince himself of his own spin and relates a phone call he overheard Bush having during the 2000 campaign, in which he said he could not remember whether he had used cocaine. “I remember thinking to myself, ‘How can that be?’ ” he writes.

The former aide describes Bush as a willing participant in treating his presidency as a permanent political campaign, run in large part by his top political adviser, Rove.

“The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office,” he writes. “And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned.”

McClellan has some kind words for Bush, calling him “a man of personal charm, wit and enormous political skill.” He writes that the president “did not consciously set out to engage in these destructive practices. But like others before him, he chose to play the Washington game the way he found it, rather than changing the culture as he vowed to do at the outset of his campaign for the presidency.”

McClellan charges that the campaign-style focus affected Bush’s entire presidency. The ill-fated Air Force One flyover of New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina struck the city, was conceived of by Rove, who was “thinking about the political perceptions” but ended up making Bush look “out of touch,” he writes.

He says the White House’s reaction to Katrina was more than just a public relations disaster, calling it “a failure of imagination and initiative” and the result of an administration that “let events control us.” He adds: “It was a costly blunder.”

McClellan admits to letting himself be deceived about the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, which resulted in his relentless pounding by the White House press corps over the activities of Rove and of Cheney aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in the matter.

“I could feel something fall out of me into the abyss as each reporter took a turn whacking me,” he writes of the withering criticism he received as the story played out. “It was my reputation crumbling away, bit by bit.” He also suggests that Rove and Libby may have worked behind closed doors to coordinate their stories about the Plame leak. Late last year, McClellan’s publisher released an excerpt of the book that suggested Bush had knowledge of the leak, something that won McClellan no friends in the administration.

As McClellan departed the White House, he said: “Change can be helpful, and this is a good time and good position to help bring about change. I am ready to move on.”

He choked up as he told Bush on the South Lawn, “I have given it my all, sir, and I have given you my all.”

Bush responded at the time: “He handled his assignments with class, integrity. He really represents the best of his family, our state and our country. It’s going to be hard to replace Scott.”

Staff writer Michael Abramowitz contributed to this report.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703679_pf.html

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

They told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but they’ve found none.

Posted by musliminsuffer on May 31, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

No Weapons in Iraq? We’ll Find Them in Iran

They told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but they’ve found none. Were they lying?

by Neil Mackay

THE spooks are on the offensive. In their eyes, it still remains to be seen whether Tony Blair lied to the British public by claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but as the Prime Minister’s own intelligence officers now say, Parliament was misled and subjected to spin, exaggeration and bare-faced flim-flammery.

The best Humint (human intelligence) on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq.
French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD program That’s why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there — and so did Blair and Bush as that’s what the French told them directly.
British intelligence source

It is now seven weeks since the war in Iraq ground to a confused, stuttering halt and still not one WMD has been found. A couple of possible mobile bio-weapons labs have been located, but a close examination showed they hadn’t seen so much as a speck of anthrax or nerve gas. Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made clear before the invasion that the UK was entering the war to disarm Saddam. We were specifically told this was not a battle about regime change, but a battle to ‘eradicate the threat of weapons of mass destruction’.

Ironically, it was the ultra-hawkish US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who let the cat out of the bag when he said on Wednesday: ‘It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy (WMDs) prior to the conflict.’ If that was true then Saddam had fulfilled the criteria of UN resolution 1441 and there was absolutely no legal right for the US and UK to go to war. Rumsfeld’s claim that Iraq might have destroyed its weapons makes a mockery of the way the US treated the UN’s chief weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix. The US effectively told him he wasn’t up to the job and the Iraqis had fooled him .

To add to Blair’s woes, Paul Wolfowitz, US deputy Defense secretary and the man credited with being the architect of the Iraqi war, told American magazine Vanity Fair last week that the Bush administration only focused on alleged WMDs because it was a politically convenient means of justifying the removal of Saddam. ‘For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction,’ the leading neo-conservative hawk said, ‘because it was the one reason everyone could agree on’.

Then to cap it all, a secret transcript of a discussion between US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw came to light on Friday showing that, even while they were telling the world that Saddam was armed and dangerous, the pair were worried that the claims about Iraq’s WMD program couldn’t be proved. Powell reportedly told Straw he hoped that when the facts came out they wouldn’t ‘explode in their faces’.

So how on earth did the British people come to believe Saddam was sitting in one of his palaces with an itchy trigger finger poised above a button marked ‘WMD’? And if there were no WMDs, then why did we fight the war? The answer lies with Rumsfeld.

With September 11 as his ideological backdrop, Rumsfeld decided in autumn 2001 to establish a new intelligence agency, independent of the CIA and the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP). He put his deputy, Wolfowitz, in charge. The pair were dissatisfied with the failure of the CIA among others to provide firm proof of both Saddam’s alleged WMD arsenal and links to al-Qaeda.

Regime change in Iraq had been a long-term goal of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Even before Bush took over the presidency in September 2000 the pair were planning ‘regime change’ in Iraq. As founders of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), one of the USA’s most extreme neo-con think-tanks, the pair were behind what has been described as the ‘blueprint’ for US global domination — a document called Rebuilding America’s Defenses.

Other founders of the PNAC include: Vice-President Dick Cheney; Bush’s younger brother Jeb; and Lewis Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff. The Rebuilding America’s Defenses. document stated: ‘The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.’

The PNAC document supports a ‘blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great-power rival and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests’.

It also calls for America to ‘fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars’ and describes US armed forces as ‘the calvary on the new American frontier’. The UN is sidelined as well, with the PNAC saying that peace-keeping missions demand ‘American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations’.

That was the policy blueprint, but to deliver it Rumsfeld turned to the Office of Special Plans. Put simply, the OSP was told to come up with the evidence of WMD to give credence to US military intervention.

But what do conventional intelligence experts make of the OSP? Colonel Patrick Lang is a former chief of human intelligence for the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the 1990s. He was also the DIA’s chief of Middle East intelligence and was regularly in Iraq. He said of the OSP : ‘This office had a great deal of influence in a number of places in Washington in a way that seemed to me to be excessive and rather ill-advised.

‘The regular organizations of the intelligence community have very rigorous rules for how you evaluate information and resources, and tend to take a conservative view of analytic positions because they’re going to dictate government decisions.

‘That wasn’t satisfactory in Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pentagon so he set up a separate office to review this data, and the people in this office, although they’re described as intelligence people, are by and large congressional staffers. They seemed to me not to have deceived intentionally but to have seen in the data what they believe is true. I think it’s a very risky thing to do.’

Most of the OSP intelligence was based on debriefings with Iraqi exiles — a tactic, says Lang, which is highly questionable as the exiles have clear, personal agendas that might taint their claims. But even if the US was using selective intelligence to justify war against Iraq, does that mean that Tony Blair was also being briefed with OSP intelligence ? According to Melvin Goodman, veteran CIA analyst and current professor of national security at the National War College in Washington, the answer is an unequivocal ‘yes’. Goodman says that there is ‘no question’ that Blair was ‘brought along at the highest level’ by Bush and Rumsfeld, adding that the Prime Minister was ‘vulnerable because of his own evangelical bent’ over bringing democracy to the Middle East.

That US view has been corroborated by British intelligence sources who have confirmed to the Sunday Herald that the UK government was being influenced by the selective intelligence emanating from the OSP. Senior UK intelligence sources representing a range of views from across all the spying services said: ‘There was absolute skepticism among British intelligence over the invasion of Iraq. The intelligence we were working on was basically of a technical nature coming from satellite surveillance and eavesdropping. The only real Humint (human intelligence from agents) that we had was from Iraqi exiles and we were skeptical of their motives.’

It was this ‘tainted’ information which was used to compile the crucial dossier on Iraq which Blair presented to MPs last September. The most sensational part of the dossier claimed that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes — a claim based on one single Iraqi defector. A British intelligence source said: ‘The information had been lying around for ages. The problem was we didn’t really trust the defectors as they were working in their own self-interest and really doing their master’s bidding — by that I mean us, the UK. They also had one eye to the future and their role in any new Iraqi government.’

The British intelligence source said the best Humint on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq.

‘French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD program That’s why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there — and so did Blair and Bush as that’s what the French told them directly. Blair ignored what the French told us and instead listened to the Americans.’

Another source — an official involved in preparing the Iraqi dossier for Blair — told the BBC: ‘Most people in intelligence weren’t happy with [the dossier] as it didn’t reflect the considered view they were putting forward.’ Other sources said they accepted there was a ‘small WMD program in Iraq, but not one that would either threaten the West or even Saddam’s neighbors. Another said they were ‘very unhappy’ with the dossier, others said they were ‘pissed off’ and one described the claim that WMDs could be ready in 45 minutes as ‘complete and utter bollocks’.

The Sunday Herald was told: ‘The spooks were being asked to write this stuff. The dossier had been lying around for about six months. When it came time for publication Downing Street said it wasn’t exciting or convincing enough. The message was that it didn’t cut the mustard in terms of PR as there wasn’t much more in it than a discerning newspaper reader would know.

‘The intelligence services were asked if there was anything else that could be added into it. Intelligence told Downing Street that the 45-minute claim hadn’t been added in as it only came from one source who was thought to be wrong.

‘The intelligence services were asked to go back and do a rewrite even though Downing Street was told the 45 minute claim was unconvincing.’

Another intelligence source was quoted as telling the BBC that they had been asked to rewrite the dossier as well to make it ‘sexier’. The intelligence source said the dossier had been ‘transformed’ a week before publication. Blair has rejected each and every one of these claims as ‘completely absurd’.

In a further curious twist, an intelligence source claimed the real ‘over-arching strategic reason’ for the war was the road map to peace, designed to settle the running sore of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The source said: ‘I believe that Britain and America see the road map as fundamental. They were being told by Ariel Sharon’s government that Israel would not play ball until Saddam was out of the picture. That was the condition. So he had to go.’

Meanwhile, the blame game is now well and truly under way and someone is going to end up carrying the can. Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said: ‘This could conceivably be the greatest intelligence hoax of all time … It was the moral justification for war. I think the world is owed an accounting.’

CIA director George Tenet has just over a month to get his act together before the House and Senate Intelligence committees start hearings into the nature of intelligence and the Iraq war. Like Downing Street, the Pentagon strongly denies it manipulated information.

Here in the UK, more than 70 MPs have signed an early day motion calling on the government to justify its case for war by publishing the intelligence on which it was based. Labour rebels are threatening to report Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for the cardinal sin of misleading Parliament. This would force Blair to answer emergency questions in the Commons.

The government, however, has hit back by starting to spin against its own intelligence agencies — a potentially deadly tactic. One senior minister was quoted as saying anonymously: ‘If we don’t find weapons of mass destruction, it will be Britain’s biggest ever intelligence failure. We would have to look at the whole set up of how we gather intelligence in the future. It would have serious consequences.’

Peter Kilfoyle, the former Defense minister who is organizing the backbench protests, said: ‘The only cogent reason that was offered for the war was weapons of mass destruction, which the government said could be utilized within 45 minutes. It seems to me that, at the very least, evidence was used selectively from intelligence reports to fit the case.’ He added that failure to prove the case for war was built on solid ground would ‘shatter trust’ in the government. ‘Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon are all barristers,’ Kilfoyle said. ‘They know very well a case based on this sort of information would be laughed out of court.’

Five steps to the world according to Bush

1. PNAC

The ultra-hawkish neo-conservative think-tank, the Project for the New American Century, was set up in 1997 by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush (George W’s brother) and Paul Wolfowitz. Its over-arching aim is the establishment of a ‘global Pax Americana’ — a re-ordered world squarely under the control of the USA. To achieve this grand strategic goal, the PNAC says these steps must be achieved: Saddam deposed Afghanistan invaded Arafat isolated Syria cowed UN sidelined Iran punished

As the world has seen, nearly all of these aims have been achieved.

2. The Office of Special Plans

This new intelligence agency was set up in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks by US Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Frustrated by the failure of conventional spying organizations such as the CIA to come up with proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Osama bin Laden, the OSP cherry-picked intelligence from mountains of raw data to build the intelligence picture its political masters required. 3. Bush and Blair

With Bush fully briefed by Rumsfeld using intelligence from the OSP, the US was convinced it had a case to prosecute a war against Iraq. But could America take its allies with it? Blair was briefed at length by Bush and other leading members of the US administration using OSP information. The British intelligence services were not coming up with the same sort of information that the OSP were collating. Nevertheless, Blair threw his lot in with Bush, banking on the OSP intelligence.

4. Troops and conflict

With Afghanistan under US control after the first major battle in the seemingly endless war on terror, Bush and Blair were able to topple Saddam using the OSP intelligence to take the public with them. With Iraq occupied, the hawks have turned their attentions to Iran, with claims that the ‘Mullahcracy’, in the words of the neo-conservatives, had a weapons of mass destruction program and was tied to al-Qaeda. Sound familiar?

5. Pax Americana

This is the ultimate aim of the neo-conservatives now running the United States. America stands as the world’s policeman, the US has no powerful rivals and global capitalism flourishes: the PNAC’s project is complete.

source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0601-02.htm

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »