History Forum / General / British History / September 2006

NOVEMBER IS IMPEACHMENT REFERENDUM OF THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY...do your
part to save the USA and mankind.

8/4/2002 TIME Magazine article proves that Kindasleazy Rice is a liar
-- GOP <-- kooks,crooks,War-profiteering Traitors, November is
Impeachment Referendum... SAVE YOURSELF
NOVEMBER IS IMPEACHMENT REFERENDUM OF THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY...do your
part to save the USA and mankind.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/29/193445/904

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:n0QU-xqpkkIJ:www.apfn.org/pdf/DIY.pdf+do+it
+yourself+impeachment&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10
(the above link is the html version of a pdf file... please click on
the pdf link it brings up and download the form that lets you help in
getting Bush impeached... you need Adobe to read and print the pdf
form)

Note there are also clauses in the Constitution by which we can get
impeached all the corrupt judges that the impeached Bush has stacked
the courts with....

Do Not Give Up Hope.

-- Bush Crime Family Is the "Mountain of Corruption" on which all the
other molehills live(dating back to granpappy Prescott Bush's
patnership with Adolph Hitler) ... it is a symbiotic coupling, cut off
the head of the serpent and the culture of corruption surrounding and
supporting Bush Crime Family will fade. NOVEMBER IS A REFERENDUM ON
IMPEACHMENT OF THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY...do your part to save mankind...
vote Democrat (or if the Green Candidate is winning vote Green)

Karl Rove exposed, thus destroying, a legitimate undercover CIA
operation that was protecting the U.S. and the world from black market
nuclear weapons... WHY? because they had proven that Bush was lying
about WMD's in Iraq before the 2004 elections. Karl Rove, one of the
main people who tells Bush what to say(everyone knows Bush is dumb as a
rock) is guilty of TREASON.

===========================================================

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

They Had A Plan

Long before 9/11, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda.
By the time they decided, it was too late. The saga of a lost chance

By Michael Elliott

Posted Sunday, Aug. 4, 2002; 2:31 a.m. EST
Sometimes history is made by the force of arms on battlefields,
sometimes by the fall of an exhausted empire. But often when historians
set about figuring why a nation took one course rather than another,
they are most interested in who said what to whom at a meeting far from
the public eye whose true significance may have been missed even by
those who took part in it.

One such meeting took place in the White House situation room during
the first week of January 2001. The session was part of a program
designed by Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, who
wanted the transition between the Clinton and George W. Bush
administrations to run as smoothly as possible. With some bitterness,
Berger remembered how little he and his colleagues had been helped by
the first Bush Administration in 1992-93. Eager to avoid a repeat of
that experience, he had set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for
his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley.

Berger attended only one of the briefings-the session that dealt with
the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially
by al-Qaeda. "I'm coming to this briefing," he says he told Rice, "to
underscore how important I think this subject is." Later, alone in his
office with Rice, Berger says he told her, "I believe that the Bush
Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on
al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."

The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career
bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen
during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on
terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security
Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive-just the sort
of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the
U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000-an attack that left 17
Americans dead-he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the
fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had
presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on
Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and
let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in
office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative
against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing [the Bush Administration]
a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton
aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to
consider what Clarke had put together.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------------------

The rest of the article can be found at:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

Harry
(see all of Harry Hope's excellent posts as they break, put this link
in your browser, use it, this is a search on google groups, on the
author Harry Hope sorted by date... nothing fancy):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&start=0&scoring=d&enc_author=-nIhFBQAAACtBOUG
AhN9cSve8yYdFJBuOPANdqfI6prRsqjc7uCt1A&

With history moving so fast these days you might also want to sort
Harry Hope's posts by "relevance" particulary if the lies and
misdirection that we are all being sujected to by the extensive Bush
Crime Family Propagand machine are confusing you. Using the "sort by
relevance" option has a way of letting you take in the big picture.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&start=0&enc_author=-nIhFBQAAACtBOUGAhN9cSve8y
YdFJBuOPANdqfI6prRsqjc7uCt1A&