Sunday, May 29, 2005

Letter to Bush "Downing Street Memo"

Letter to Pres Bush Concerning "Downing Street Memo"

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. President:

We the undersigned write to you because of our concern regarding recent disclosures of a “Downing Street Memo” in the London Times, comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. These minutes indicate that the United States and Great Britain agreed to by the summer of 2002 to attack Iraq, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war.
Among other things, the British government document quotes a high-ranking British official as stating that by July 2002, “Bush had made up his mind to take military action.” Yet, a month later, you stated you were still willing to “look at all options” and that there was “no timetable” for war. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, flatly stated, “[t] he president has made no such determination that we should go to war with Iraq.”
In addition, the origins of the false contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction remains a serious and lingering question about the lead up to the war. There is an ongoing debate about whether this was the result of a “massive intelligence failure,” in other words a mistake, or the result of intentional and deliberate manipulation of intelligence to justify the case for war. The memo appears to resolve that debate as well, quoting the head of British intelligence as indicating that in the United States “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
As a result of these concerns, we would ask that you respond to the following questions:
1) Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain’’s commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to “fix” the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?
These are the same questions 89 Members of Congress, led by Rep. John Conyers, Jr., submitted to you on May 5, 2005. As citizens and taxpayers, we believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government and our commander in chief when you make representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war. As a result, we would ask that you publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,

Responce to Norm Colman "Oil for Food PSI"

Response to Norm Coleman, OIL for FOOD PSI

5/29/05

Norm Your right you didn’t arrive at your decision easily, I believe you looked very hard at what you could investigate, that would put your committee, PSI on the map if you will, all to stake out your position, and round out, and show case, if you will, your Senatorial work, as an "Persecutor," and you thought your skills would shine, but so far you’ve shown only that you were not prepared to do battle, and your showing at your committee was abysmal at best.

You say, you requested Kofi Annan resign, for what! you’ve come up with nothing so far, as I can see, and America and the world see only trumped up, and possibly some forged papers, with the testimonies of some deposed heads of state. Not one SMOKING GUN did you produce, not one, you sat there and postured in front of the whole world as if you had some real evidence, but you showed and spoke of circumstantial evidence at best, and we waited for the shoe to drop, but none dropped, tell me you have more, please tell you’ve not fired your shotgun, both barrels.

In your opening you had the unmitigated gull, to pronounce the nobility, of the reasons for the UN OIL for FOOD program as a great reasoned idea for the Iraq people, when you knew you had to deal with the same man, who turned his back on deals with the US, and it’s businesses, long before the UN along with the USA came up with this great humanitarian ideal, and if your trying to sell to me, that your investigation is trying to get justice for the Iraq people, your lame… and it won’t fly with the American people, as well as the world.

I know for fact, that American money, tax payers monies, went to no-bid contracts, and to repatriated Iraqi’s, and the OIL, the US lead Coalition was suppose to protect went out of Iraq, for well over 14 months. During the time the OIL for FOOD program was up and running, both of these went hand in hand with the UN sanctions, and who got hurt the most, the Iraq children, your vaunted program to get food and medicine to Iraq’s children, don’t make me laugh, reporters told you the children weren’t getting the food, or the money, and the only ones who didn’t care were the US, and the UN members who were getting paid. No mystery here, millions of people were telling you this didn’t work from day one, but everyone involved, stayed the course, until Saddam made his move with the tacit approval of the US into Kuwait.

And even then the Coalition only went as far as the Mandate would allow, so the President says.

We sell Saddam gun, enriched uranium, strategic maps, and Satellite imagery. More weapons and the training to use them, we sell him the chemicals to create bio weapons, along with Germany, France, Russia, and several other countries, many members of the UN. And the US, and many others signed contract based on loop holes, that allowed them to write these contract on the future, when sanctions would be lifted, and Russia, and France who had a contract to develop the OIL fields, from 1927, got back doored, and back stabbed by the US and the Coalition, Russia lost billions, on future OIL contracts, Germany like the US lost Millions, on weapons delivered, and on enriched uranium, and France lost there long term contract to develope the OIL, and the money owed for nuclear tecnology.

And when you couldn't prove Kofi Annan was involved, but not involved in the OIL for Food scam, and you can’t just say he should of known, and you haven’t proved his son or Kofi knew about it. Kofi’s son may have had something to do with Oil for food, but that has not been proved either. His son's debacle is not the point, and you will not get him to step down until he’s ready.

Overwhelming evidence… don’t look now but half of America is laughing, along with the world, You embarrass a lot of people, and I pray you make a clear case in the near future. BAYOIL made close to or over 30 plus Billion dollars, over the years of the OIL for FOOD program, there is the real fraud, go after them an expose there complicity, and there profits, you can find the smoking gun, right here in America, and you can trace the money trail, all around the word. And Mr. Volcker, with no subpoena power will make you look bad, and partisan if you don’t go after BAYOIL.

I’ll be praying for you.

by Bruce H, Scroggins

Not Creditable

Not Creditable

by: Bruce H, Scroggins

5/29/05

Norm Coleman proved nothing, today, and he made a fool of himself, and he made the Senate look bad, inquestioning George.

Money given to the mans charity, doesn’t prove the money came from Iraq OIL for Food program, by way of Soddam Hussein, and to imply because his name was on papers found in Iraq, is not creditable.

No one receiving a donation, unless it was from Al Capone would question the gift; most people don’t ask where did you make this money your giving me, or my charity. Mr. Coleman doesn’t ask Tom Delay, from which particular lobbyist, or which business did you get this money your giving me.

And if you, or I found the money trail, we would confront the person trying to give us tainted money. Donations come from Israel, and Jews hear in America, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and from individuals who made there money, or some of there money out side the main stream, and out side the tax code.

Buying influence is not new, but accusing someone just because you attached and captured the heads of the state, and they told you, or showed you some papers, that you as of yet, cannot prove, and you have found no paper trail, to confirm there participation, not a dollar, not a page. I’ll just smear his name based on captured prisoners testimonies, and some papers of people who happened to hate you, and your country.

You keep saying the documents Mr. Coleman, I have… did he sign his name, “NO,” is it his signature on them, “NO,” is his picture on it “NO,” is there any creditable shred of evidence to tie this man to what you’ve decided to accuse him of, are there any bank accounts with traceable OIL money in it, “NO,” is there any smoking gun “NO.”

And to say hearsay testimonies is as strong as first hand testimonies, is laughable, and I can hear law school professors, turning there heads, an saying you need an awful lot of hear say, to make a strong case, and if you have no hard evidence, at least a shred, hear says mountain wil be pretty tall.

I’ll say it again Senator Coleman, you were not creditable, and hears the big story hear in America, the complete involvement of American OIL companies, yes I said AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES, Mr. Coleman you glossed over this most important point, and you have not told, or investigated this connection, which is tied to many over sea’s. Here there is a story, a story of long time corruption, and theft on a large scale, but Coleman is not accusing the American Companies, who he has hard proof of their involvement, he wants to bloody all the others he believes are involved, an call for My Annan to step down, he’s doing a hatchet job on everyone he can before bringing out the American Companies involved, and there are more involved than others, in this scandal, but if he focused in the American companies, people should be telling him to deal with your yard, before trying to tell the world there grass is too long.

Creditable you say, I think your not very creditable My Coleman. For once in your prosecutor life, will you look around in your own neighborhoods? First make sure your yard is cleaned up, before accusing the world of being dirty, and you will get all the creditability you deserve. You have to be creditable to say some one else is not, and your not.