Which speaks to the fact that the media (we no longer HAVE a Press.) either spun or did not cover those who already figured it out,nor gave any 'dissenting' voices much coverage. Portland is not the USA. While we have KBOO and the Portland Alliance,and many other sources of news and opinion, much of the Country gets infotainment in the form of NOOZ. Which comes as no surprise when a large chunk of the Country hasn't a clue, nor will ever have a chance to figure it out for themselves. I wonder when General Shelton figured it out for himself?

The cloud of Iraq still hangs over our heads. It's about to get worse.

For years we have used WMD's / Iraq as a metaphor for Cryptsporidium and the EPA LT2 regulation we are now faced with as a community and a nation. It also has been "tanatmount to intentionally deceiving the American people." Time has shown this EPA mandate was scientifically incorrect from the beginning, filled with wasteful spending, while putting public health at risk with unneccessary added treatments and covering our reservoirs, for a public health problem that does not exist. Unless the community demands Congressional action now, our health and pocket books will be at risk in the years to come. The similarities are remarkable.

Be real nice to have a trial!

"There isn't going to be any trial."

--- Captain John Book, Witness

I am glad that the good general has spoken out on this issue, but it might have been better had he and others raised their hands before sinking the American military and National Guard up to the knees in warrantless occupations.

Maureen Dowd today quoted a CNN poll that says about half the American public thinks the Obama presidency is worse than the Bush presidency.

Talk about the power of money over truth.

If only we could muster a fraction of the public outrage over this as we do over some schlump who tries to buy booze with food stamps (see the "Chèvre: Portland's Velveeta" thread for some really hateful examples), Bush and Cheney would be in deep, deep trouble.

Amen to you both. I liken it to Will Durst's great line about hearing the speeches at the Nixon funeral and thinking "They must be talking about someone else" and "Me, I still want to dig him up and impeach him."

UU Phillips used to say "The most radical thing in America is a long memory." May we have more of them.

Really...this old meme again? OK, we were "lied" into war by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. And we should take them to trial. Would be the most fascinating litigation ever put before a jury. With the defense calling such witnesses as the Tony Blair, Vladimar Putin, and numerous other Heads of State and leaders of the UN who supported the fact/theory that Iraq was a threat.

Don't you think that with how poorly the Obama Administration is perceived by the public right now that if there was ANY meat to this meme, he would have Eric Holder jumping all over it by now? Naw...its because he's shown himself to be such a 'uniter'.

Speak of the devil.

Don't you think that with how poorly the Obama Administration is perceived by the public right now that if there was ANY meat to this meme, he would have Eric Holder jumping all over it by now?

The reason this investigation was never going to go anywhere was because too many of the top Democratic establishment was complicit in the fear-mongering that led to the Iraq war. The Democrats actually (barely) controlled the Senate at the time of the Iraq AUMF, and while a majority of the Democrats in the House voted against it by a 3:2 ratio, that was reversed for the senators. Majorities of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees (the ones who had the most access to classified information) voted against the AUMF. But every senator who ran for President in 2004 or 2008 who was in office at the time of the vote gave Bush the go-ahead: Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Dodd, Lieberman, Edwards, and seventeen others joined almost every Republican to pass the AUMF.

That's why you'll never see the Obama administration take that issue on.

"Talk about the power of money over truth."
===

So very true...

And darrelplant writes:
"The reason this investigation was never going to go anywhere was because too many of the top Democratic establishment was complicit in the fear-mongering that led to the Iraq war. The Democrats actually (barely) controlled the Senate at the time of the Iraq AUMF,..."
===

Thanks, darrel for reminding me of that truth. I vaguely remember that the AUMF was very contentious, like the Obamacare vote, but was more of a bipartisan vote. Evidently the power of money had clouded my memory.

Don't confuse me with facts. My mene's made up.

Anybody here remember how the much-reviled Ron Wyden voted? I didn't think so.

Bill's memory isn't quite as good as you think. General Shelton retired as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff on September 30, 2001. http://www.ncsu.edu/extension/sheltonleadership/about/

He was not "the general in charge of the [Iraq] war" and I'm pretty sure there weren't any pictures of him standing by Rumsfeld during the war.

As to whether or not he was a Bush-hater, I don't know, but he was an advisor to Senator Edwards in his presidential run in 2003-04 and endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2008.

Bob Wiggins

In the Senate, Wyden, twenty other Democrats, Republican Lincoln Chaffee and by-then Independent Jim Jeffords voted against the AUMF. The official vote tally is here.

I have no doubt Wyden would have faced a primary contest in 2004 if he'd voted for the AUMF. At the very least he would have lost a lot of base support and opened the door to a general election challenge. A number of the Democrats who voted for the AUMF lost their seats in the next couple of cycles. None of those who opposed it lost elections.

General Shelton, isn't he the guy who for President Bill launched Operation Desert Fox to attack and erode Iraq's military capability and ability to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? This guy is weaving a pretty tangled web.

I apologize for the factual errors in my email. My memory was fooled by the picture of Shelton standing next to Rumsfeld in the piece. I do stand by my opinion of the Iraq War.
The other "tired old meme" I'm reading here is that Congress had the same intelligence as the White House. That's not true. The White House cherry-picked and removed the caveats from intelligence the Hill saw.
The main evidence that Bush and Cheney knowingly lied us into Iraq can be found in the highly nuanced speeches Bush gave about the intelligence knowing he may have to defend himself if there was a trial later, and there should have been a trial later.
As far as Cheney, he would appear on the Sunday TV shows saying, "I saw something this morning in the New York Times..." Later we learned he and his office were feeding the fake stories to the New York Times.

Look, I have no problem understanding why defenders of the war - the water-carrying supporters of the Bush administration - will go on disputing what happened for as long as they live, even though it is a historical fact that duplicity and deception were used to market this tragic fiasco to the American People. I had people on my blog sticking by things even after W. himself had acknowledged they were wrong.
So I get why there will always be a lot of noise from the Bush faithful. I wouldn't want that on my conscience either.
Once again, though, I apologize for my misunderstanding of when Shelton retired.

Fact: Army military judge Col. Stephen Henley suppressed evidence in a GITMO case against Mohammed Jawad because he concluded the evidence was obtained through "torture." This is a military judge that was hand-picked to be the sitting judge in a terrorism trial and not some liberal patsy extending the definition of torture to include child's play. This is but one of many examples where senior government officials or US federal judges have officially concluded that US agents engaged in torture since 9/11.

Fact: The Convention against Torture, signed and ratified by the US, requires mandatory investigations and prosecutions when any government has knowledge that one of its officers or officials engaged in torture.

So, if this country cannot even seriously investigate, not to mention prosecute, those who orchestrated torture policies and those who carried out the torture, when there is a no ambiguity that this is required by our domestic law, then what makes anyone think that the federal government will investigate the policies leading up to invading Iraq--which decision by the president was specifically approved by Congress and is specifically a constitutional power?

Zero. There will no accountability.

Sorry Bill, if you want to meet for a beer and bitch with me, then I'm up for it. But other than our bitching, nothing will be done on the Iraq score.

How about when they would pass legislation that immunized them from previous war crimes? Wasn't that an admission of guilt?
Vincent Bugliosi, the famous prosecutor, had a profound take on all this. He said mere impeachment and removal from office would be going too easy on President Bush. He acknowledged that it wouldn't be feasible to try him in our courts for the Iraqi deaths, but that any DA in a district where a slain American soldier was from - slain in Iraq - could try President Bush for murder based on the crimes that went into marketing Iraq to America.
It's one thing to see these comments on the Internet, but when a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says, "President Bush and his team got us enmeshed in Iraq based on extraordinarily poor intelligence and a series of lies purporting that we had to protect American from Saddam's evil empire because it posed such a threat to our national security", that is shocking to me. I guess I've still got a little idealism left because I still find that to be shocking.

If there's any good news about this, it's that the groundbreaking ceremony for the George W. Bush Presidential Library at Southern Methodist University is scheduled for next week. This is significant because (a) most of the big contributors for the Library are in serious financial holes because of the financial and real estate crashes, and (b) protesters are likely to outnumber celebrants. You won't see the "free speech zones" set up for protesters because the city of Highland Park (which is to Dallas what Beverly Hills is to Los Angeles) won't spend the money on them, the cops won't enforce them, and much of the Library property abuts private property. Knowing how badly Shrub's supporters screwed over the previous owners of the land now allocated for the Library, I suspect those neighbors will be selling refreshments.

Oh, it's been damn entertaining watching Dubya's return to Dallas. Tom Hicks, one of his biggest campaign finance organizers, is being forced to sell the Texas Rangers and the Liverpool United football team to pay his outstanding debts, and Hicks can't understand why he won't be allowed to run the teams after he sells. SMU just broke out of a deal where it would pay the owners of a strip plaza abutting the Library for the rent the owners would lose over a 20-year period, years after the school announced that it would just appropriate that space and the owners took the school to court. (SMU's reputation is now so foul that the university is literally paying law firms to "test-drive" law graduate for three months, and its marketing, advertising, and journalism grads have been international bad jokes for years.) Shrub himself is rarely seen anywhere but at Texas Rangers games, and he's been asked not to stump for GOP candidates who are in office solely because of his efforts as President. (Even Pete Sessions, my former Representative and a man whose lips were firmly attached to Shrub's rectum in 2006, has begged off.) Oh, it's fun times around here.

Heh...Putin was there because he wanted carte blanche to kick the ship outta the Chechnyans. He got it. Now, when some nascent republic kicks up dust in the Russian sphere of influence, they just claim "terrorists!" and the US, UN, and everybody stands back.

Blair was along "to keep the US from going 'over the top'." Or so he said....He failed. Obviously, he has yet to man up and own his glaring failure, as a leader and a man.

Actually, I'd say that Blair should be standing trial at Den Haag for crimes against humanity and war crimes, right alongside Rummy, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the neo-con cabal surrounding W. in the White House.

If we were going to exume any long-dead for excoriation, I'd nominate Scoop Jackson, just for the insanity he released upon the world with the neo-cons.

I'm still waiting for somebody to exume Dick Cheney and drive a stake through his heart (assuming he actually has one). And, if anybody can extract Dick's arm from up W's rectal orifice where it has been for years (so as to control the movement of W's lips), then the evil dummy should be strapped across the flare end of any nearby oil rig's natural gas flare stack. It's obvious that Friedman ate his brain years before.

There's still the matter of the five Supreme Court justices who violated the US Constitution, and their own stated judicial principles, to elect W as president, 5 votes to 4, in the 2000 Gore vs. Bush case.

I believe that there is no statute of limitations on treason, right?

Time will tell.

Travis,
Thanks for the invite, but I set a strict limit of only drinking one hundred thousand beers in this lifetime - unfortunately, I got there back in the '80s.

"I apologize for the factual errors in my email."

Hillarious, Bill. You mean, you apologize that the central premise of your entire e-mail was complete BS pulled out of whole cloth?:

"Well, here -- years later when it is safe -- is the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh Shelton III echoing our sentiments. Not some lefty or Bush-hater."

I have yet to hear ANYONE offer an explanation as to why it was Bush/Cheney lying to us about WMD, but Bill Clinton, Blair, Putin, and a whole litany of other world leaders and US Senators and Congressmen and UN ambassadors were not when they said exactly the same thing. Care to comment? After all, if it were common knowledge, or even uncommon knowledge that there were no WMD, then why did we allow the UN sanctions to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

And your assertion that Congress wasn't privy to the same intel that the WH was is garbage. All the House and Senage intel committees had to do was ask for it. But that would have required them actually doing some work for a change.

Butch,
Okay, I had some factual errors, but let's not get crazy. The central premise that Bush and Cheney lied us into Iraq was proven before and this only adds ammunition.
Yes, I screwed up some facts. But I made the right call on this at the time and I did everything I could think of to get my opinion out.
You, on the other hand, are stuck on the wrong side of history as even the conservatives in the GOP have kissed off your heroes Bush and Cheney.
At least you're consistent. I do give you credit for that.
Your account will no doubt be supported in Bush's new book coming out after the elections. He was going to publish it before but the GOP begged him to hold off, so that the American People wouldn't be reminded of this fiasco.
You'll probably be camped outside the bookstore to be the first to buy the revisionist history that Rove, Bush and Cheney are now selling. Look, I understand your struggle. Just say these simple words and you'll feel a lot better: "Bill, I was wrong about Iraq and I wish I could apologize to the thousands of dead or wounded American soldiers who never should have been sent there." Try it. You'll feel better, Butch. The tone of your comment indicates an internal struggle with a lot of guilt. Butch, you don't need to carry that baggage around.
I apologize for thinking Shelton was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Iraq War. That was my mistake.
But I've had my facts corrected on national TV before - after that experience I can get over this.

Holy backtrack, Batman! Bill, your obvious core premise was that a 'former Bush loyalist' has now turned on his former boss....which was BS.

And you attempt to justify your FUBAR of a post (or e-mail...whatever) by saying that, in paraphrase, "I was right on WMD! I was right on WMD!" is stupid. I'm not disputing that, nor is anyone else here. That was just a WEAK dodge. Now answer this:

Were Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Tony Blair, Vladimer Putin, Sandy Berger, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Madeline Albright, Bob Grahm, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Jay Rockefeller,Colon Powell and a host of other World leaders and UN representatives LYING about Iraq and WMD?

If not, then why were Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld? They said nothing different. Do you want all of them on trial as well? Sure you do, because you are so politically consistent and non-partisan.

The intel was flawed. I don't fault Bush et al for acting on what they felt was best for the country based upon intel that was an agreed upon consensus.

PS- I don't read political books....and trust me, I have no "internal struggles" - relating to this topic anyway. But thanks for caring about my well-being ;)

PSS- thanks Bill (and Jack for not banning me yet). I was nostalgic for 'good ol' days'.

Butch,
We did have a few good vents during the Bush years, didn't we? I got to say, you won this round. I'm blaming it on faulty intelligence - but at least I didn't deliberately lie like Bush and Cheney.
P.S. I'm sorry I referred to you as a pompous sc**mbag. I had no idea you were still reading these things.

Bill,

Since you conceded this round, I will freely concede I am a pompus sc**bag....and probably would have even if you hadn't.

Been fun having a back and forth with you again. I would more often, but it tends to lead me to having my posting privaleges on this site rescinded so I tend to 'read only'.

Hope all else is well with you.

Bill, I don't know if my comments about Democratic complicity in the Iraq debacle were what you referred to above as a "tired old meme" but the fact that so many prominent Democrats were involved in green-lighting the war in 2002 and 2003 is most assuredly the reason that -- even if he were inclined to do so, which I don't believe -- Obama would never push for an investigation into the lies of the Bush/Cheney administration.

And frankly, I've never seen any Democrat who voted for the war explain what evidence they saw that convinced them that there was a credible threat to the US from Saddam Hussein. Sure, the administration might have kept exculpatory evidence from them, but majorities of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees still voted against the AUMF. The chairmen of those committees voted against the AUMF. If there was any real evidence of a threat, do you think that's how the vote would have gone down?

All we've ever heard about since the invasion is the same bogus claims that were floated before the war. Nobody's ever come forward and said that there was some sort of documentary evidence of a nuclear threat or that they saw pictures of drone fleets or some other manufactured intel. There'd be no reason now to claim that those kinds of revelations were a breach of security because that stuff never existed.

I'm sorry, but authorizing force to people like Cheney and Bush without any hard evidence was just an idiotic move. And it's pretty clear eight years after the AUMF vote (the anniversary of which was Monday) no hard evidence ever existed.

Butch -- Not trying to get in the way of your reunion with Bill Mc., but I actually don't think either Clinton or Bush were "lying". But out of all those you mentioned, only Bush and Cheney actually took us to war over the misinformation. And only Bush and Cheney willfully ignored counter-evidence that should have, at the very least, given them pause. That puts them on a whole other level of hell than the guys who just said it. The wasted blood of American soldiers is on their hands alone.

Then again, from Gen. Shelton's newly-released book, there's this little nugget from the Clinton era top story of the HuffPo right now:

Justin Elliot of Salon is reading a new book by General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during parts of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. And apparently Shelton describes how in 1997, someone in the Clinton cabinet--from the way it's written, probably Madeleine Albright--suggested that the U.S. let a plane get shot down in order to provide a pretext to invade Iraq:

...one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, "Hugh, I know I shouldn't even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event -- something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough -- and slow enough -- so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?"

The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, "Of course we can ..." which prompted a big smile on the official's face.
"You can?" was the excited reply.

"Why, of course we can," I countered. "Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go."

And let's not forget that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was manufactured and sold to the American public by a Democratic administration as well. The truth is, the people who operate in the defense and foreign policy circles have long careers and there's a lot of overlap in their thought. That's why we keep getting more or less the same results for decades at a time, despite who controls the administration or Congress.

Read it and weep, folks - especially the part where Bush said our national security was at risk from Iraq, and also that last sentence where Bush ties Iraq to 9/11:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2003

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Aaaaand it comes full circle to complete the joke (via Glenn Greenwald at Salon):

A political culture free of accountability

Associated Press, today:

Obama, Rice huddle on arms treaty, other issues

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is meeting with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to talk about a pending arms treaty with Russia and other issues .

A White House official said Rice and Obama have a "cordial relationship," and the president looks forward to Friday's meeting covering "a range of foreign policy topics."

In other words: Prosecute Bush officials who broke the law and instituted a worldwide torture regime? Please. I'm doing the opposite: I'm going to select some of them to occupy the highest positions in my administration and then meet with others in order to drink from the well of their wisdom on a wide range of foreign policy matters.

Miles,

More people died as a result of both Saddam Hussein and the UN Sanctions than were killed in the war. I don't think you can remove that from the equation as to whether it was worth the price to get murdering dictator out of Iraq.

Butch,
You don't get to start history where you want to. The United States has made a number of incredible blunders in the Middle East - for example, we're still paying for our complicity in overthrowing the government of Iran back in the 1950s.
If you want to talk about Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Ladin, don't forget they were once our guys. We supported Saddam partly to keep Iran in check, and now we're kicking around the idea of attacking there too.

I believe you can only ask a young American soldier to give his or her life in a war of necessity to protect the national security of the United States. The war in Iraq was not that kind of war. It was a preemptive strike supposedly based on the possibility of a future threat.
You jumped through all kinds of hoops on my blog, trying to say Iraq was a clear and present danger, but that was because you bought the story - even when Bush described the preemptive nature of what he was doing. He even named it, "the Bush Doctrine" - also known as the "Law of the Jungle."

As far as the UN Sanctions and Saddam's murderous ways, your sudden concern for the people of Iraq is very touching. Phony beyond belief, but touching nonetheless.

More people died as a result of both Saddam Hussein and the UN Sanctions than were killed in the war.

Considering that the US military has steadfastly refused to count Iraqi casualties during this war, that seems a little difficult to substantiate. Various estimates are out there, ranging from the low hundreds of thousands to over a million. Hussein killed a lot of people but I don't know if he would have killed a million more in the years between 2003 and 2010. He probably wouldn't have done anything to destroy major portions of Baghdad or flattened Fallujah. He didn't have the kind of ordnance for that.

I guess what you're trying to say is that we're no worse than Saddam, but that seems a pretty low bar.

And he probably couldn't have created millions of refugees like the war did. There are huge numbers of Iraqis living in awful conditions within Iraq because their homes were destroyed or their neighborhoods are no longer safe for them, and there are a couple million living in neighboring countries like Syria and Jordan that were already stretched for resources from Palestinians. The US certainly hasn't stepped up to either take those people in or provide for them after ruining their country (which was already unpleasant enough).

Darrelplant,
Don't forget the tons of depleted uranium we used in Iraq. The stuff has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and will go on deforming Iraqi babies and killing others outright for as long as there are people living there.
Ironically, we used nuclear weapons on them, one shell at a time.
Oh, and I wouldn't look at the pictures of babies being born in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq. It's why parents there don't ask if it's a boy or girl. They just ask if it's normal.
All brought to you by a godly administration that surrounded itself in religious sanctimony including the rights of the unborn. Once again: Ironic, no?

No, Bill, do NOT 'let it go' and you neither, Jack.

'It' is just getting bigger and more and more people are joining you pulling the strands in the fabric of 'whole cloth' which the Big Lie is made out of.

The major touch-points in the whole cloth are these:
1) After Bush Sinister was criticized (by his facist 'base') because he stopped at the limit of his U.N. and Congress's 'Gulf War' permission to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, (and did not invade Iraq and 'go after Saddam' because he had NO permission that far), he determined to 'get' Saddam and steal Iraq's oil for his Saudi Royal patrons who own Bushes and most of the military-industrial complex as their proxy so Saudi fingerprints are not on war crimes, but U.S. fingerprints are, (Iraq oil is NOT going to the U.S.; it is going to Saudis who then sell it to the U.S.), then
2) thru the '90s the intention and plans to 'get' Iraq oil grew louder, blatant, and more brazen, then
3) Bush Jughead was installed as president to provide cover-up for crimes being planned, by Bush Sinister and his gang, then
4) Nine-Eleven Op was staged as Bush Sinister had planned, then
5) 'Intelligence was fixed around the politics' and Americans were LIED to, deliberately, pre-meditated with malice aforethought, for the war crimes of invading Iraq, then
6) it continues today, illegal military occupation of Iraq, and so on.

Each of these points involves murder, (and treason against America), for which there is NO limit in statutes of prosecution. Pulling on any one of the points can unravel the entire fabric of all of it.

The number is increasing of concerned citizens joining the Movement to prosecute for murder and treason up to and including Bush Sinister. Bill, Jack, lead your supporters -- do NOT 'let it go.'

Tomorrow's news:
WikiLeaks' Biggest Document Dump Yet Coming Monday: What to Expect, By David Knowles, Information Clearing House .INFO, October 16, 2010

On Monday, the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks will release nearly 400,000 pages worth of classified U.S. Army documents on the war in Iraq, making it the single largest military leak in U.S. history. The number of documents will dwarf the 77,000 pages of sensitive material on the war in Afghanistan that WikiLeaks released in July.

... the US military has set up a 120-person task force to begin reviewing a cache of classified documents it believes might be found .... "all incidents reported to Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) through daily Significant Activity Reports." ... A source also told Newsweek that some of the documents detail the involvement of U.S. forces in what was described as a "bloodbath." ... In addition to being made available on WikiLeaks' website, the classified material will also be released by The New York Times, The Guardian (U.K.), Der Spiegel (Germany) and Newsweek.

So the Movement is expanding, momentum is developing. Re-visit this topic, Bill, and Jack -- do NOT 'let it go.'

And now, tearing at a different corner of the cover-up fabric, for the non-readers in the audience having trouble with the Big Words and Big Picture principle concepts (such as Justice for all) needed to understand the political bipartisan BIG LIE, a video:

Mike Shoen 911 Truth Ben Quayle CD 3, MikeShoenForCongress.

May this thread spring back to life.