JFK Assassination: Will We Ever Know the Truth?

November 22, 1963 will always go down in American history as the day the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, was killed in Dallas, Texas. But it will also go down as one of the most mysterious unsolved murders as well. If you know anything about the Kennedy assassination, you know that, first and foremost, no one really knows exactly what happened. And you also know that Lee Harvey Oswald was the “lone killer.” But over the past few months, new evidence has come out about what actually transpired on that fall day in Dallas. The first is the confession by Everett Howard Hunt, a former CIA agent who was involved in both the Bay of Pigs, and in the Watergate break-in. The second is the controversy caused by an ex-FBI scientist about the bullet fragments from the investigation about the assassination.

Many people believe many different things. Some believe that Oswald was in fact the only shooter. Others believe that there was a second shooter, possibly on the grassy knoll. And some people go all the way. They believe that there was a full-fledged conspiracy theory, whether that was related to the mafia, Russia, Cuba, or our own government. And that brings us to the “Last Confession of E. Howard Hunt,” the title of the shocking Rolling Stone article from April. The article explains that E. Howard Hunt, on what he thought was his deathbed at the time, admitted the truth about the JFK assassination. Ex-CIA Hunt explains to his son that the person behind the plot was the Vice-President for Kennedy himself, Lyndon Baines Johnson. And Hunt goes on to tell his son that there was in fact a second shooter on the grassy knoll: a “French gunman,” but does not go on to give a name. Hunt draws out the events and the people involved on a pad of paper. He claims that LBJ moves the site of the Kennedy’s trip from Miami to Dallas, putting the President in the right place at the right time.

So is Hunt’s confession true? We can never be sure just based off his alleged recount of events. However recently, a former FBI scientist said that the government’s analysis of the bullet fragments from the assassination was flawed. Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK” paints a similar picture, saying that there was in fact a second shooter and a conspiracy theory as well. So what do we make of all of this news? Was there a second shooter? Was there a conspiracy theory by the CIA to kill the president? Maybe there was, maybe there wasn’t. We’ll probably never know, and at the end of the day, maybe that’s for the best.

-Benjamin Harris

picture courtesy of: http://www.zeitenschrift.net/magazin/2-jfk.jpg

tags technorati : John F. Kennedy assassination JFK assassination Lee Harvey Oswald E. Howard Hunt Rolling Stone Dallas Texas November 1963 second shooter grassy knoll conspiracy theory LBJ Lyndon Baines Johnson conspiracy CIA FBI The Last Confession of E. Howard Hunt JFK Assassination: Will We Ever Know The Truth? government conspiracy ballotbox2008.com Decision 2008

Iraq Vote: A Sign of Cowardness?

Last week, the Democrats had a chance to show real teeth and guts and vote against a “compromise” that basically funded the vastly unpopular Iraq war with the tag-along of farm subsidies, and a much needed minimum wage increase. Yes, there were benchmarks, but they weren’t tied to funding and attempted to hold the Iraqi government rather then the American occupiers accountable for progress in Iraq. Of course one of the benchmarks was to privatize oil. What was the compromise then? Well, of course the President was happy. He got all he wanted with additional powers to wave benchmarks and some extra dollars to keep the corporate farms in tow. To me this bill is the epitome of big government combined with big business. A libertarian’s nightmare, this bill offered subsidies here at home and policing people abroad.

So who voted against it? Sen. Boxer did. Sen. Feingold did as well. So did Kennedy, Leahy, Sanders, Whitehouse and Wyden. Most surprisingly however was 2008 presidential candidates Clinton, Obama and Dodd as well as 2004 democratic nominee and war veteran Sen. Kerry. Senator Feingold spoke the truth when he said that, “(the American people) don’t want another American service member to die, or lose a limb, while elected representatives put their own political comfort over the wishes of their constituents.” He went on to say that, “if the American people cannot count on the leaders they elect to listen to them, and to act on their demands, then something is seriously wrong with our political institutions - or with the people who currently occupy those institutions.”

Sen. Kerry also voiced the concerns of Americans wondering why congress is sending Bush such a weak bill. “This bill does not provide a strategy worthy of our soldiers’ sacrifice. Instead, it permits more of the same,” he said. He went to elaborate that: “We could show support by bringing our troops home – not with meaningless benchmarks and blank check waivers for this President.” A couple of republican senators also voted against the bill, citing wasteful spending as their reasoning. To some degree I find their vote more principled then that of Senators Levin, Brown, Biden and Majority Leader Reid, all of whom voted for the measure.

The two things that are truly great from this bill are one, that it finally gets the minimum wage increase past the seemingly endless negotiations and onto Bush’s desk and two, that it sets the stage for September, when what little support Bush still has will finally give way. We know this because of numerous statements saying precisely that. Statements not only coming from moderate democrats unsure of their positioning and calculations, but from moderate to conservative republicans beginning to see that Iraq was a drastic mistake that must be fixed by removing our troops and seeking an international peacekeeping force instead.

I personally think it’s a shame the congress couldn’t echo the will of the American people and try something else before surrendering to another spending bill wasting over $100 billion dollars coming from taxpayer’s wallets. Yes, Bush vetoed the timeline when it was included in the spending bill, but they could have capped troops at 100,000, like John Edwards has suggested or they could have de-authorized the war as mentioned by Gov. Richardson of New Mexico. Instead they let it through with minimal benchmarks or accountability and no timetables to withdraw any troops, even those sent since January. Well, let’s hope they can do better with the next major issue coming up before congress. It looks to be global warming, an issue needing to be addressed quickly but accurately as well. Hopefully we’ll get a more enforceable bill then this last one or this administration will never experience anything near a “check” or a “balance”.

-Max Perrey

picture courtesy of: http://messengerandadvocate.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/harry-reid-2.jpg

tags technorati : Iraq War Iraq War spending bill Harry Reid Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Joe Biden Bush administration George Bush pullout timetable farm bill minimum wage Decision 2008 ballotbox2008.com compromise Democrats 2008 presidential election election 2008 Iraq Vote: A Sign of Cowardness?

Al Gore: A Political Celebrity

When former Vice President Al Gore strode onto the stage yesterday in San Rafael, CA to talk about his new book, The Assault on Reason, the 2,000-person audience erupted in screaming applause for a complete minute. Every seat in the room was empty for a few brief moments, as everyone was standing in awe and excitement, looking at what many hoped would become the next President of the United States in 2009.

Gore started his speech slowly, gathering his thoughts, and then began explaining the history of the flow of knowledge and information as we know it today. He explained the overwhelming role that television has in our society, the way that plays into the “marketplace of ideas”, and the concepts that the founding fathers of our nation devised to ensure that our government would be about the people, not the politicians. He articulated that his new book was about the people of this great nation and he showed that our vision was blurred by the gossip news media and the lies and cover-ups in our government today.

The first part of his speech revolved around the formation of the age of knowledge. Then he moved on to how that applies today. He never once stood directly behind the podium; instead he would walk across the stage, contemplating every word as if he was thinking every second of what to say next. There were times when the audience was cheering, laughing, clapping, especially when Gore discussed the crucial errors surrounding the Iraq War and the devastating effect that the Bush administration has had on our country. Then there were times during his speech when the room was dead silent. Gore spoke with a tone as if he were standing right next to you, and bodies leaned forward as if not wanting to miss a single word.

The message of the speech was clear, and reflects the content of his book. The people of this country have been lied to, and over the past few years, he says the American people can feel that something is wrong, something feels not right about the direction in which our nation is headed. But he says that this fall-out of truth, news quality, and reason, cannot be blamed on one person (/administration), rather it is a fundamental problem of the flow of information and the “ecosystem of knowledge” that is moving through our country everyday. Gore explains that you can’t just blame one person for the distortion of information and news in our society.

Never once, did Vice President Gore mention whether or not he would run in 2008. But anyone and everyone could feel the excitement in the audience. After a 50-minute speech that was scheduled to last 15, Gore finally said smiled, said thank you, and left the stage in deafening applause for a brief moment before signing 2,000 books. One man approached Gore to get his book signed and almost broke down in tears, he was so proud that Gore was doing great things for the environment and for our nation. One can only wonder…will he run or not? Frankly, I don’t think Al Gore himself knows the answer.

-Benjamin Harris

picture courtesy of: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/05/24/al_gore/

tags technorati : Al Gore The Assault on Reason 2008 presidential election media news reason lies Bush administration Iraq war candidate election 2008 Decision 2008 ballotbox2008.com Al Gore: A Political Celebrity

Torture—Who Are They Kidding?

This past week, I have been attempting to figure out what stood out at the recent Republican Presidential Debate. Aside from Rep. Paul and Mayor Giuliani’s testy remarks toward each other, I discovered the most astonishing and revolting comments made that evening centered around what the Bush administration calls, “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Sen. McCain was asked if he regarded the techniques as torture and he responded with the truth, when he said, “I do”. So what do the other republican candidates think?

Well unfortunately, the others simply play to people’s fears and came out with outstanding remarks defending such techniques. Giuliani said that, in the hypothetical scenario in which we know there’s going to be another attack and these people know about it, “I would tell the people who were told to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of”. I find this revolting. A man who is considered to have been strong and calming in the wake of 9/11 telling us he is willing to risk what this country stands for. This does not match up with his image as “calming or courageous”; rather it looks as if he is courting the base of an extremely out-of-touch Republican Party. He goes on to say that the interrogation “shouldn’t be torture, but every method they can think of”. When he is interrupted to be asked a simple question of, “Waterboarding?” referring to a horrible method of interrogation most people consider torture, he doesn’t answer, but rather kind of agrees. He says, “Well, every method I can think of and I would support them in doing that”. He would support them in doing what? Waterboarding?

Gov. Romney trying to court the base of the party fed up with his changing positions on social issues, tried to stake out what was supposed to come off as a “strong” position. He said that while, “Some people say we ought to close Guantanamo, I say we ought to double Guantanamo”. According to an ACLU movie, over 850 Guantanamo detainees were proven innocent, yet not released.

This is the epitome of the republican base. Rather then simply condoning torture and calling for diplomacy like most Americans would prefer, these candidates have chosen to play to fears of attack and call on increasing prisoners at Guantanamo prison where people aren’t allowed access to lawyers, courts, treatment and are routinely interrogated using methods such as Waterboarding. So of course it would make sense for Romney to say he wants prisoners to be in Guantamino, “where they don’t get access to lawyers”, and Tancredo is reminiscing about how he would be looking TV series torturers to help him out in light of a terrorist attack. And what does Tancredo want to make the attackers feel? Fearful. This is why they attacked us in the first place.

As Ron Paul has pointed out, anyone who read into the attacks of September 11th knows this is why they attacked us. Because we were over in the Middle East building bases, dropping bombs and making ordinary citizens fearful, not of terrorists, but of the United States, people rebelled against us. I admire McCain for stating the obvious truth that torture does not even work, is inhumane and that this is indeed a war of ideas, not bombs. I just wish the other candidates would step up and stand for humanity, especially Gov. Huckabee, seeing as he’s a Baptist Minister.

-Max Perrey

picture courtesy of: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/05/19/nyregion/19rudy.600.jpg

tags technorati : torture Republican debate Rudy Giuliani John McCain Mitt Romney Guantanamo September 11 interrogation waterboarding Iraq War terrorism policy candidate 2008 presidential elections Decision 2008 Torture--Who Are They Kidding? ballotbox2008.com ballot box 2008 ACLU George Bush Bush administration Ron Paul

The Merits of American Justice

Two American notables were sentenced recently. Paris Hilton is going to jail for driving on a suspended license. And former CIA Director George Tenet is going on all the talk shows to promote his book about the run-up to the Iraq War. A guy I met the other night expressed great happiness that Paris is going to jail – payback, finally, for being a super-famous rich celebrity babe without ever having accomplished anything. Right now I think I prefer Paris’ non-accomplishments to George’s supposed accomplishments.

It’s a sad Greek tragedy: President Bush sent the two men who most doubted the value of going to war with Iraq – Colin Powell and George Tenet – to the United Nations to stand before the world and lie. That those two men followed Bush’s orders is even more heartbreaking. But that’s old news, right? I was supposed to have gotten over that a long time ago and instead should be focused on “moving forward.” In other words: let’s let lying government officials get away with it.

I am not very familiar with the circumstances surrounding Paris’ arrest and conviction. But for all her vacuous celebrity, at least she doesn’t have blood on her hands. She committed a crime, and I suppose it is just that she pay her debt to society however the judge deems fit. But can’t we try George for negligent homicide in the deaths of tens of thousands of American and Iraqi citizens? After all the talk shows, all the book sales, all the pitiful explanations as to why he didn’t have the guts to speak out when it really mattered, waiting instead to cash out with a New York Times bestseller, what should the consequences be? Why is it that Paris is an object of hatred while corruption at the highest level of government is considered just part of the process?

American justice indeed: drive on a suspended license and go to jail; lie to start a war and get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Now who has misplaced values – Hollywood or the President whose demand for loyalty has driven thousands to an early grave? One thing you can say about Paris that you can’t say about a single corrupt Bush Administration official: at least she pleaded no contest.

Yes, George Tenet is to be commended for finally owning up to his complicity in lying to the American public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. And he should absolutely take Paris Hilton’s prison bed when she gets out in 45 days.

-Jason Harris

picture courtesy of: http://www.geocities.com/ifthethunderdontgetya/GeorgeTenetMedal.jpg

tags technorati : George Tenet Paris Hilton jail American justice Iraq War George Bush Medal of Freedom Paris Hilton jail CIA America The Merits of American Justice Decision 2008 ballotbox2008.com

“Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Deserves To Win

The story takes place in the small capital city of Juneau, Alaska, in 2002. The Olympic Torch was making its way through the small city, and as television cameras rolled past Juneau-Douglas High School, 18 year-old senior Joseph Frederick and some of his friends unveiled a huge sign to be displayed on TV. It read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. Shortly after the incident occurred, the principal of the school, Deborah Morse, came across the street from the school rally to punish Frederick. Frederick was eventually suspended for 10 days.

On March 19, 2006, The United States Supreme Court heard the case of Morse v. Frederick. The arguments, stories, and details were all revealed, yet again, in front of the Court. And after a long process of appeals, it was time to settle the matter. However, the Court is not set to come to a decision until June, so for now, we can only speculate what the outcome is likely to be. My belief? Joseph Frederick and his controversial banner deserve to win. He has a right to free speech, especially when off school campus. This case has almost purely revolved around a person’s right to say whatever they want, as stated in the First Amendment.

Lets clear something up first. Free speech has parameters, especially when applying to minors. The First Amendment does not say that you can do or say anything you want. It says you can do or say anything you want with certain exceptions. For instance: you cannot kill someone. In this case, Morse is asserting that the sign “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” was allegedly causing disruption and was violating the schools anti-drug policy. But the truth of the matter is, Joseph Frederick was not even on school property when the sign was displayed, he was on a public sidewalk across the street from the school in front of private property. That is a clear distinction. Furthermore, it is fairly evident that Joseph Frederick raised the sign for it to appear on television, not with the intent of targeting the sign at school officials or students.

But this case goes much farther than “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. This case is about a student’s, a teen’s right to express him or herself. We live in a society today where everything we say is questioned, interpreted, and re-interpreted over again. We live in a society where parents, teachers, and elected officials spend more time worrying about what kids will think when the see a sign about marijuana then what to do about our national education system as a whole. We live in a society where our government seeks to regulate what we think and see.

Now I can understand the arguments made by the principle, Deborah Morse. But when you look toward the totality of circumstances, when you look at the big picture, is this sign really that big of a deal? The founding fathers of our country wanted to create a system where people had the right to say whatever they wanted. They envisioned a system where only acts that would put other people in harms way would warrant a restriction on the right to express oneself through words and actions. “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” may be a provocative sign. It may be a drug reference. But it is certainly no killing machine. Joseph Frederick may not win the case at the Supreme Court, but at least he’s trying. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.

-Benjamin Harris

picture courtesy of: TIME Magazine

tags technorati : Bong Hits 4 Jesus Joseph Frederick Deborah Morse United States Supreme Court Morse v. Frederick Juneau Alaska free speech Constitution marijuana drugs anti-drugSupreme Court first amendment ballotbox2008.com Decision 2008 “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Deserves To Win 2002 Olympic Torch Kenneth Starr

Real Time With Bill Maher: Republican Debate Summary

It is the golden name in the modern Republican Party...



-Benjamin Harris

tags technorati : Republican debate GOP debate John McCain Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Bill Maher Real Time with Bill Maher debate MSNBC The Politico Ronald Reagan Republican Partycandidate 2008 presidential election election 2008 Decision 2008 ballotbox2008.com

Fred Thompson and Al Gore: The Known No-Shows

Fred Thompson and Al Gore are some of the most well known politicians today, and yet both aren’t in the presidential race for 2008. According to a MSNBC poll in late April, Fred Thompson was in third place amongst Republicans, a good five points ahead of Mitt Romney. And a USA Today Poll from mid-April puts Al Gore and John Edwards neck and neck. Why is it that these two former Senators haven’t entered the presidential race if they have so much momentum and confidence from voters?

Truth is, most predict that Fred Thompson IS in fact going to enter the race, and probably in July. And there are many grass-root campaigns to try and get former Vice-President Al Gore to join the race in 2008 as well. Both have been Senator’s from Tennessee, and both also share the presidential like persona. But another question remains, why are voters not satisfied with the presidential field right now? Why are voters turning to others when there are already so many in the race? My guess? --A lack of confidence.

When I look at John McCain, I see a fairly old Senator from Arizona who can’t seem to convey a sense of power over an issue. He sometimes will stutter through sentences and is constantly putting the pressure on an opinion about Iraq that does not represent the views and wishes of the American people. I look towards Rudy Giuliani and see a New York attitude and a person who has so many problems from the past that the news media can’t seem to get them strait. I look at Mitt Romney and see someone who has so much potential, but doesn’t no quite how to translate that in a clear-cut message to voters. So many in the Republican Party have turned to another man. A former Senator named Fred Thompson with a real deep voice and with the true persona of a powerful president. He displays confidence and power in the way he speaks and in the way he acts. And that is pure power in presidential politics.

This phenomenon of craving a different candidate is not as true on the other side of the isle, but many Democrats still yearn for someone with a combination of all strengths. Hillary Clinton acts too much like a politician. Barack Obama is widely popular and is a symbol for change, but many, like I, question his experience and what that will translate into if he becomes President. And John Edwards just spent $400 on a haircut—enough said. So some have turned to former Congressman, Senator, and Vice-President: Al Gore. He lost in 1988, and far more famously in 2000, but Al Gore “3.0” as Rolling Stone put it, is a reinvigorated soul, now that he spread the message about a major global crisis. He has experience, yet seems to project a sense of control and confidence amongst voters. His wry humor is evident in An Inconvenient Truth and his new book is scheduled to come out shortly.

Sure there’s John McCain, or Hillary Clinton, or Mitt Romney, Obama, Edwards, and Giuliani. But this time around, no is satisfied, because no is confident. People want to trust those other guys, the ones that have spent years in Washington and are widely known. Are the American people uncomfortable with such a wide variety of contestants, or do they just want the traditional politicians in the ring? I guess we’ll know soon enough.

-Benjamin Harris

picture at top left courtesy of: http://www.carlcoxphoto.com/images/Thompson_0031.jpg
picture at top right courtesy of: http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/Al_Gore_preaching.jpeg

tags technorati : Fred Thompson Al Gore 2008 Presidential Election Democrat Republicanelection 2008 Decision 2008 ballotbox2008.com Barack Obama Hillary Clinton John EdwardsJohn McCain Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney president election Iraq War Law and Ordercandidate

Conservative Candidate Captures the French Vote

France, facing high unemployment rates and sentiment that change is needed, elected the conservative Interior Minister to the presidency on Sunday. Nicolas Sarkozy, known as being a tough and divisive leader, beat Segolene Royal, a moderate socialist 53% to 47%. The race often centered on the French social system. Known for its five-week vacation and 35-hour workweek, France is often wary of those craving systematic overhauls. But with immigration, crime, unemployment and international influence on the top of everyone’s mind, the French people chose a free market crusader known for being tough on immigrants, and crime and friendly with the U.S.

In order to become the French President, Sarkozy had to first get enough votes in the first round, to advance to the head-to-head race against Royal. Both candidates represented change, although in strikingly different ways. Royal would have become France’s first female President and would have had to run against sexism and the sense that she didn’t have a great grasp on foreign affairs. Sarkozy on the other hand, represented economic and social change and played to voters’ fears of economic protectionism and an inability to have influence in the world. He also had to overcome xenophobia, since he has Hungarian roots. In any case, world leaders are sending letters of congratulations beginning with Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert. Olmert wrote with optimism to Sarkozy, saying that, "I am convinced that cooperation between us will be fruitful and that together we will be able to advance diplomatic activity and peace”.

In reality, regardless of who won, change would have been sought after, only in different ways. Now the world waits as Europe undergoes changes all around? By 2008, the United States and Britain will have new leaders and they will have a new opportunity to reinvigorate the bond between the three allies. Once again, a new chance will be offered to the world with new faces all around. The question that remains however is whether or not they will seize it. If they do, great things could be accomplished. With a new U.S. President, climate negotiations could be developed and turned into enforceable laws and with new leaders in France and Britain, the three countries could inspire United Nations reform to deal with health, security and environmental matters and create a truly representational world body.

-Max Perrey

picture courtesy of: http://www1.wsvn.com/images/news_articles/389x205/france_flag.jpg

tags technorati : France Nicolas Sarkozy Segolene Royal 2008 presidential elections French election conservative United States Decision 2008 ballotbox2008.com Conservative Candidates Captures the French Vote

The Lies At the Center of the Storm

Over the past week, there has been a lot of discussion regarding George Tenet’s recent memoir. This book, titled At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, harshly criticizes the Bush administration for the thought process leading up to, the planning, the execution, and the aftermath of the Iraq war. In the book he said that getting into Iraq had always been a primary objective for the Bush administration, and that they were continuously focused on finding ways to sell the war to the American people, regardless of the truth. As expected, this has become one of the more controversial books of late.

Throughout the memoir, Tenet details the decisions that in “in retrospect,” he says, “look like a slow-motion car crash.” According to Tenet, before the war even began, there was a movement to try and install Ahmed Chalabi as the ruler regardless of what the Iraqi people said. He accuses the Bush administration of having had no real plan to deal with post-war Iraq even after the war was underway. In many ways, this may be one of the most damaging accounts of the Iraq war to the Bush administration.

Tenet’s telling of the Iraq war is more damaging than many other books with similar topics such as Bob Woodward’s State of Denial simply because Bush thought Tenet competent enough and loyal enough to keep on after Bush replaced Clinton. Tenet was one of Bush’s own people; he was the person who gave the famous quote, saying that the case behind WMD's in Iraq was a “slam dunk.” Now, this former ally has turned on the White House, and there is nothing that they can do. They cannot discredit Tenet because Bush gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And they cannot say that it’s a political ploy because they were both on the same team.

Not surprisingly, Tenet is receiving a huge amount of criticism for his publication. The most hurtful blow to the integrity of the memoir is the fact that one conversation could not have taken place, or took place at a different time than is stated in the book. A conversation said to have taken place on September 12, 2001 between Tenet and Richard Perle, a Pentagon Advisor, in which Tenet says Perle told him that “Iraq had to pay for the attack,” could not have happened because Perle was stranded in Paris for three days after the attacks. Despite the fact that this invalidates only one conversation, it throws into question the veracity of the entire book.

More criticism came from all sides of the media, who demanded to know why Tenet waited so long, especially why he waited until after the ’04 and ’06 elections, to release this information. Some are angered by the fact that while Tenet ruthlessly goes after Cheney and Rice for their part in the war, he lays no blame on Bush by implying ‘Innocence by Ignorance’. However, the fast majority of all criticism comes from people who were criticized in the book, such as Condoleezza Rice and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who says that, “The problem with George Tenet is that he doesn’t seem to care to get his facts straight.”
Regardless of its praise and criticism, George Tenet’s memoir paints the Bush administration in a callously revealing and unkind light.

-Adam Berman

Quotes from:
At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA by George Tenet
http://www.dougfeith.com/coverage_6.html

picture courtesy of: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/03/xin_00060103234876322503.jpg

tags technorati : George Tenet At the Center of the Storm At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA Iraq War intelligence CIA lies September 11 9/11 premise for war Decision 2008 ballotbox2008.com George Bush Bush administration Condoleezza Rice Pre-war intelligence WMD weapons of mass destruction Iraq war