Top CIA Official Blasts Bush and Co. on Iraq Intel, Bush to be Impeached

[freak6]

While Democrats claimed that Bush was using the information about the allegedly foiled plot as political tool to try and rally support for the domestic eavesdropping program, a former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East from 2000 until last year accused the administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq.

According to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, the administration selectively used intelligence to justify the already-settled decision to go to war in Iraq. The Washington Post reported that Pillar said the administration additionally ignored warnings that the country could easily be gripped by violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Pillar admitted that the intelligence agencies made mistakes in concluding that Hussein had obtained weapons of mass destruction, but that those misjudgments didn't drive the decision to invade the country (see "Democrats Shut Down Senate For Rare Closed-Door Session On Iraq Intelligence").

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he said, the administration "went to war without requesting — and evidently without being influenced by — any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq. It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized."

It is the first time that such a senior intelligence officer — Pillar was considered the CIA's leading counterterrorism analyst — has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence, according to the paper.

In the Foreign Affairs article, Pillar writes that the Bush Administration "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention." He also writes that pre-war assessments by the intelligence community indicated that a post-war Iraq "would not provide fertile ground for democracy" and that officials predicted the sectarian fighting between Sunnis and Shiites over power.

[freak6]

Smear campaign should be coming on soon. This is huge news. Finally a top CIA official tells what those of us informed already knew.

[Old Dude]

surprise

[Boobs McGee]

finally, someone with some balls AND some pull is gonna set us free

[Spider]

finally, someone with some balls AND some pull is gonna set us free
doubt it ...... after all the evidence doesnt fit on a bumper sticker , most of the republicans here will ignore this or defend Bush to the hilt

[loborugger]

finally, someone with some balls AND some pull is gonna set us free

Set us free??? Where are we going? What is he freeing us from. The truth may come out... but setting us free?

Oh, and I am not so sure that former gov't officials have much pull, but time will tell.

The only thing new here is the speaker, not the message. In the last 3 years, it has become painfully obvious that the current regime use what it wanted while ignoring what it had to for its case in Iraq.

[defenseman]

There has been plenty of rhetoric from various sources, not just the CIA, and the jury is still out. Get the "no-kidding" evidence together, prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I'm right there with you. It's not a matter of supporting the president, it's a matter of factual and solid information being provided to no kidding shut the lid on an issue, OR blowing the lid off of a real problem. Facts and follow through, vice just tossing accusations across the board, is what is required. If the CIA agent has the evidence, put it on the table. And I do mean evidence. If he's guilty, then go after him. But, better to have your ducks in a row before you take on ANY president. Mr. Clinton dodged a bullet, because various individuals DID NOT have their ducks in a row...dman

[freak6]

Well I was kidding about the impeachment, which is long overdue anyway. The point is that Bush misused, and misrepresented the evidence, (in the USMC we call that LIEING and we demote you for it, or kick you out) they picked and choose the info they wanted, set up thier own intel division within the whitehouse to do so. Then they would spout off whatever BS intel they got ahold of, whether it had been screened by analysts or not. It was raw intel. All you have to do DMAN is look at the State of the Union. The niger uranium, yellowcake...well the CIA told the administration no less that 4 times NOT to include that in the State of the Union, he did anyway.

Also, that intel more than likely was derived from bogus paperwork created by the CIA themselves as a hoax to shake the hell out of the fools at the whitehouse that they were using BS intelligence evidence, and saying it was factual. They made that paperwork with every fault that a basic analyst would be able to discern immediately as fake. The sadly funny part is that the WH didn't get it, and clinged to this document as real. The CIA was to embarrassed to admit that they created it though. Ugh. This is all from reports from inside analysts as reported in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh who broke every story on Iraq from the bad intel to Abu Ghraib well before the photos appeared. Anyway DMAN, the State of the Union is blatant evidence, as is the speach and the Univ. of Cincy, the mushroom cloud talk. etc...

Saddam was so far from building a nuke, what a joke.

[freak6]

LIES

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

<b>"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

[freak6]

TRUTH

They thus knew, he wrote, that senior policymakers "would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision. . . . [They] felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction. The desire to bend with such a wind is natural and strong, even if unconscious."

Pillar wrote that the prewar intelligence asserted Hussein's "weapons capacities," but he said the "broad view" within the United States and overseas "was that Saddam was being kept 'in his box' " by U.N. sanctions, and that the best way to deal with him was through "an aggressive inspections program to supplement sanctions already in place."

"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication," Pillar wrote, "it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."

Pillar describes for the first time that the intelligence community did assessments before the invasion that, he wrote, indicated a postwar Iraq "would not provide fertile ground for democracy" and would need "a Marshall Plan-type effort" to restore its economy despite its oil revenue. It also foresaw Sunnis and Shiites fighting for power.

Pillar wrote that the intelligence community "anticipated that a foreign occupying force would itself be the target of resentment and attacks -- including guerrilla warfare -- unless it established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity in the first few weeks or months after the fall of Saddam."

<b> Now compare that to what Cheney and Co. said about how we would be greated in Iraq. Look at the lack of planning that went into this invasion, compared to what was needed. They fkd up even the most basic thing! TROOP STRENGTH.

We take a town, but we don't have the troops to hold it, then we loose that town, and more Marines die because we have go back in and retake it. That is the by far the most dangerous type of combat, house to house. But the lack of troop strength makes my Marine brothers and sisters, and soldiers too, risk thier lives day after day, with the IEDS all over too.

The Generals that said we needed more troops were all ignored, fired, and forced into retirement. One Marine general resigned right as we started Fallujah because the White House was playing politics with his troops!!!

BLATANT EVIDENCE RIGHT THERE how incompetent they are.

[Rascal]

I've said this before, but being wrong is not lying until evidence supports that they knew what they were saying was wrong at the time. And being wrong is not grounds for impeachment.

[freak6]

I've said this before, but being wrong is not lying until evidence supports that they knew what they were saying was wrong at the time. And being wrong is not grounds for impeachment.

State of the UNION!!! The CIA said do NOT use the yellowcake evidence, over and over they told them, but they did, that is LYING!!!!!!!

The Top Intelligence Officer of the CI FKN A just said it. What is it gonna take to get through to you people!!! We got suckered into a BS war, and my friends just got blown up because of it!!!!!!!!

[freak6]

http://www.lifeisajoke.com/videos8.htm

CLICK HERE!!!!!

[freak6]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

It's a slaughter on the Administration right here folks. Click and watch!!!

How is he still in office??

How could anyone vote for him!?!?!

Ignorance of the truth.I serioiusly deserve my own TV show. I want to go head to head with Hannity, the loofa man Orielly, Race Limbaugh, Bush, Rummy, any of them.

I'd just say 'roll the tape'...


the August 6th PDB Bush received -

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May sayingthat a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives".

Bush "I wasn't on point, <b>I DIDNT FEEL A SENSE OF URGENCY"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I've said this before, but being wrong is not lying until evidence supports that they knew what they were saying was wrong at the time.

The evidence is plain for all to see.

The question is: will you look at it?

Downing Street Minutes, July 23, 2002
Also known as the Downing Street Memo
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/1

All Eight Leaked Downing Street Documents
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/833

Iraq Options Paper, March 8, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/834

Legal Background Paper, March 8, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/835

David Manning Memo, March 14, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/836

Christopher Meyer Letter, March 18, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/837

Peter Ricketts Letter, March 22, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/838

Jack Straw Memo, March 25, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/839

Cabinet Office Briefing Paper, July 21, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/189

Downing Street Minutes, July 23, 2002
Also known as the Downing Street Memo
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/1

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/wilkerson-apology.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Career CIA Analyst Says BushCo Cherry-Picked Intelligence..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060210/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

[baja]

What has amazed me through this experience in the theater of the absurd over these last several years is the Bush handlers operated with the confidence that the majority of the American people would be either too stupid or too apathetic to put up any real resistance to the tainting and possible ruining of United States of America.

So very sad that they are correct in their calculation.

[Spider]

What has amazed me through this experience in the theater of the absurd over these last several years is the Bush handlers operated with the confidence that the majority of the American people would be either too stupid or too apathetic to put up any real resistance to the tainting and possible ruining of United States of America.

So very sad that they are correct in their calculation.
LOL , and whats even better is Bush isnt a conservative , he is a neo con , and these people that defend him dont understand the difference .......some people would let this country go to hell as long as their party was driving , we see signs of that now , the Denver 3 , the guy in wisconsin that went to jail for flipping off Bush , loyalty oaths ,wire tapping , Patriot act , etc..... These people will sit idle , and give bush the powers of a dictator and claim to be more American then anyone else , These are the same people you hear say , we support the troops , yet will have a flipping heart attack if their taxes get raised to support a war effort .....
These are the same people that will ridicule Cindy Sheehan , and let a Republican get by with being a nut case , it doesnt matter if you agree with Cindy or not , a gold star mother deserves more respect , even if you disagree with her ......
Lets look at some #'s here .... 44 million Americans without health insurence , so you know , alot of republicans dont have health care , yet these people will look you in the face and say they dont use welfare , just mind boggling .. if someone else has to pick up your tab on anything , you are taking welfare , but to raise taxes to pay for this , these same people will get their panties in a wad .......

[enjolras]

LOL , and whats even better is Bush isnt a conservative , he is a neo con , and these people that defend him dont understand the difference.

He's actually a neo-liberal.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[Jesterhole]

I can't believe this story is getting no attention. All anyone can talk about is The Dick shooting someone.

If this story goes by without any fanfare from the press, I'm going to lose all hope in mainstream media. Not that I have a lot to start with mind you, but at least people like KO as MSNBC are trying to keep 'em honest.

[Spider]

He's actually a neo-liberal.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
hmmm...

[Spider]

I can't believe this story is getting no attention. All anyone can talk about is The Dick shooting someone.

If this story goes by without any fanfare from the press, I'm going to lose all hope in mainstream media. Not that I have a lot to start with mind you, but at least people like KO as MSNBC are trying to keep 'em honest.
It will .....

[baja]

Why do you think so?

[Spider]

Why do you think so?
2006 elections comming alot of vets running ,guys with backbone , they will bring this up ......

[footstepsfrom#27]

I've come to the conclusion that the main reason Bush has not been the subject of a serious impeachment effort to this point is because the sheer volume of information coming out from multiple directions at once probably precludes people being able to focus for long on any one issue. Unlike the Clinton administration, which created scandal around one primary issue that galvanized conservatives, this is like trying to catch a waterfall in a thimble.

Short of running Hillary in the 2008 election, I can't see any way the Democrats don't win the White House the next time around.

[Rascal]

If it is anybody but Kerry, Gore, Hillary, or somebody similar the democrats will probably get my vote.

They haven't had a good leader in years, say what you will about Clinton republicans but they guy had his stuff and they miss his leadership.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Short of running Hillary in the 2008 election, I can't see any way the Democrats don't win the White House the next time around.

Don't worry - they'll find a way to lose, I'm sure.

If not, then they still have to contend with the voting machines and the usual dirty tricks. Things have only gotten worse in the electoral integrity department (particularly in Ohio) since '04.

[baja]

I've come to the conclusion that the main reason Bush has not been the subject of a serious impeachment effort to this point is because the sheer volume of information coming out from multiple directions at once probably precludes people being able to focus for long on any one issue. Unlike the Clinton administration, which created scandal around one primary issue that galvanized conservatives, this is like trying to catch a waterfall in a thimble.

Short of running Hillary in the 2008 election, I can't see any way the Democrats don't win the White House the next time around.

I believe Bush has not been impeached because the resulting investigation would do more damage than good in other words we as a nation could not handle the truth. Our nation would be torn apart and most likely sent into an economic tail spin
that would take decades to recover from but we may be decades recovering from the Bush era anyway.... More shall be revealed later, as they say.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Don't worry - they'll find a way to lose, I'm sure.

If not, then they still have to contend with the voting machines and the usual dirty tricks. Things have only gotten worse in the electoral integrity department (particularly in Ohio) since '04.
Cheney obviously isn't going to run, and I can't see the GOP stretching the envelope far enough to run Condi Rice either. That leaves...who? I don't see a significant GOP candidate anywhere on the horrizon, let alone one that can both distance from the current administration and continue to hold onto the primary GOP constituent base, white evangelicals. For that reason, I think the Dems win this one. Presidential elections are cyclical, and the GOP has won 5 of the last 8 elections, with the only Democratic winners following scandal (Carter in '76 following Watergate) and Clinton in the early '90's following a percieved economic downturn (and winning partly because of the Perot impact). The only 12 year stretch where the GOP controlled the Whtie House included Reagan's 2 terms when he won handily and Bush 41 rode his coat tails in the '88 election to a one term presidency. There are no GOP coat tails this time around, and no candidate who looks capable of galvanizing a fractured party. Even if such a candidate existed, they would probably prefer to wait 4 years and ride out the expected backlash of voter anger in the 2008 election. Why take your best shot following on the heels of a scandal ridden administration when you can wait a while and put it in the rear view mirror?

Couple all this with what I anticipate will be a much higher turnout of black and young voters, and I can't imagine we see anything but a Democratic President in '08.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I believe Bush has not been impeached because the resulting investigation would do more damage than good in other words we as a nation could not handle the truth. Our nation would be torn apart and most likely sent into an economic tail spin
that would take decades to recover from but we may be decades recovering from the Bush era anyway.... More shall be revealed later, as they say.
I would tend to agree with this except I've seen precious little to convince me either party has the interests of the nation ahead of partisan politics. I can't imagine the left holding back if they could knock GW out of office, or for that matter, even take a shot at it. They're simply to disorganized to make a serious run at him IMO.

[baja]

Lets say that it is proven in undeniable fashion that Bush let 9/11 happen or even helped it along what do you think that would do to this nation internally and globally? Information of this magnitude could very well destroy the economy of the world, when you think of the shiit storm it would set off it becomes clear it i best to let Bush be revealed for the idiot that he is and let his crimes die with his presidency..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Couple all this with what I anticipate will be a much higher turnout of black and young voters, and I can't imagine we see anything but a Democratic President in '08.

That's a much more optimistic outlook than I can muster at the moment.

I believe the Dems are in for a major shock when they see how much lower the voter turnout is - thanks to their consistent alienation of their base.

Their "get along, go along" track record of the past couple years has caused quite the exodus from the party, it would seem.

Maybe they don't want to rule. Maybe they know the republic is going to hell in a handbasket and that it's too late to stop it.

[baja]

That's a much more optimistic outlook than I can muster at the moment.

I believe the Dems are in for a major shock when they see how much lower the voter turnout is - thanks to their consistent alienation of their base.

Their "get along, go along" track record of the past couple years has caused quite the exodus from the party, it would seem.

Maybe they don't want to rule. Maybe they know the republic is going to hell in a handbasket and that it's too late to stop it.

Bingo. I suggest you buy land in a foreign country preferably a warm country with at least two growing seasons, be set up off the grid and have a supply of seed and farm hand tools.

There is a storm coming and you will need to be self sufficient for at least 6 months.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Lets say that it is proven in undeniable fashion that Bush let 9/11 happen or even helped it along what do you think that would do to this nation internally and globally? Information of this magnitude could very well destroy the economy of the world, when you think of the shiit storm it would set off it becomes clear it i best to let Bush be revealed for the idiot that he is and let his crimes die with his presidency..
I don't think it would take exposing a 911 conspiracy to depose Bush. That would be far to complicated for the average lethargic citizen to comprehend anyway. There are several dozen smaller brush fires, all of them considerably more serious than Slicks BJ in the oval office, yet despite publicity, the show rolls right along. I would have thought the Katrina allegations alone would have enough oomph to at least launch a potential impeachment attempt. Teflon's been redefined with this guy, and I doubt theres enough time left before the next election season gears up anyway. Barring some sort of truly insane revelation that's proven, GW rides it out to the end and the next GOP candidate gets sacrificed in his place by the voters...that's how I see it anyway.

[footstepsfrom#27]

That's a much more optimistic outlook than I can muster at the moment.

I believe the Dems are in for a major shock when they see how much lower the voter turnout is - thanks to their consistent alienation of their base.

Their "get along, go along" track record of the past couple years has caused quite the exodus from the party, it would seem.

Maybe they don't want to rule. Maybe they know the republic is going to hell in a handbasket and that it's too late to stop it.
What we're seeing are two punch drunk fighters staggering into the 15th round and it's a question of who falls first. At the end of the day, the GOP depends more heavily on getting their constituents to the polls, and I don't see a lot of them showing up this time around. Again...a 12 year run has happened only with the highly popular Reagan carrying the first 8 years. Nobldy is confusing GW with Reagan, and if I were a GOP candidate, I wouldn't even want the nomination in '08...better to wait one term.

[baja]

I don't think it would take exposing a 911 conspiracy to depose Bush. That would be far to complicated for the average lethargic citizen to comprehend anyway. <b> There are several dozen smaller brush fires,</b> all of them considerably more serious than Slicks BJ in the oval office, yet despite publicity, the show rolls right along. I would have thought the Katrina allegations alone would have enough oomph to at least launch a potential impeachment attempt. Teflon's been redefined with this guy, and I doubt theres enough time left before the next election season gears up anyway. Barring some sort of truly insane revelation that's proven, GW rides it out to the end and the next GOP candidate gets sacrificed in his place by the voters...that's how I see it anyway.

Yes but once the flood gates were opened too much truth would come out. No pun intended.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Yes but once the flood gates were opened too much truth would come out. No pun intended.
That's my whole point though. There's to much for people to get their heads around. By the time you think you understand one story, another pops up to take it's place. People get numb to things after a while. With Nixon and Clinton there was just one main focal point...here you have to many to count.

[baja]

That's my whole point though. There's to much for people to get their heads around. By the time you think you understand one story, another pops up to take it's place. People get numb to things after a while. With Nixon and Clinton there was just one main focal point...here you have to many to count.

Well it's starting to look like it's going to all come pouring out anyway, it's going to be an interesting two years...

[baja]

Where are all the Bush defenders anyway?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Well it's starting to look like it's going to all come pouring out anyway, it's going to be an interesting two years...
This is the nastiest Bush scandal you've never heard of.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/1999-07-22/news/feature.html


This story only touches the tip of the iceberg. It was buried by the Dallas media. As I noted on the other thread, I did the legal research on this thing at the time it happened. Disgusting doesn't describe what I found.

[baja]

This is the nastiest Bush scandal you've never heard of.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/1999-07-22/news/feature.html


This story only touches the tip of the iceberg. It was buried by the Dallas media. As I noted on the other thread, I did the legal research on this thing at the time it happened. Disgusting doesn't describe what I found.

Is this the story that you made mention of on the old DPO that you felt would cause you trouble if you disclosed it?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Is this the story that you made mention of on the old DPO that you felt would cause you trouble if you disclosed it?
Good memory. Yes...but this story only touches the hem of the garmet. It's HUGE if anyone had really looked at it.

[baja]

maybe this would be a good time to bring it to light.

[footstepsfrom#27]

maybe this would be a good time to bring it to light.
In the current scadal ridden environment, it wouldn't even catch a passing glance. It's to involved and complicated and there are to many trails you have to go down to understand what's happening. Some day perhaps...

This story is not really about education though. It only looks like it is.

[baja]

In the current scadal ridden environment, it wouldn't even catch a passing glance. It's to involved and complicated and there are to many trails you have to go down to understand what's happening. Some day perhaps...

This story is not really about education though. It only looks like it is.

It's about money and power right, it's always about money and power.

[footstepsfrom#27]

It's about money and power, it's always about money and power.
Bingo. But this is about money and the ABUSE of power at the highest levels. There are people who have either suffered greatly or been richly rewarded in this thing. Follow the bread crumbs starting here if you're interested:

Deborah Lott cared. In fact, she cared so much about the students attending the neglected and nauseating Arlington branch campus of Renaissance Charter School that she nearly broke down in tears while speaking to the Board of Education in May.

"You really have to excuse me," she said after her voice began to crack, "because I'm really upset about all of this, and it's been very traumatic for all of us. But no child, not anywhere, regardless of who they are, should ever have to try to be educated under these circumstances."

Lott was the principal of the Arlington school. Or is she still the principal? She's not sure.

"I have no idea what my status is," she said recently. "They are not cooperating with me."

"They" is basically one man: Renaissance CEO Don Jones, a gray-haired philosopher with a professorial moustache, beard, and pot belly. Jones talks about the "paradigm shift in public education" that led to the birth of Renaissance in 1996. He talks about the need that exists to "think outside the box." He talks about how the Irving Independent School District where he worked as a teacher for 14 years was neglecting its middle class of students and how all the attention was paid to jocks and cheerleaders and troublemakers, leaving "the forgotten half," well, forgotten.

Those are the students Renaissance has tried to attract. The middle. The branch campus in Arlington, however, was bottom-feeding. As a result, it never quite fit in.

Operating inside a sharp, 55,000-square-foot former office complex on North Belt Line Road in Irving, Renaissance's reputation as a top-notch charter school came despite many shortcuts to make financial ends meet. The school purchased a $250,000 computer data network to link the school's four campuses to the Internet, but the tricky system is run by a baby-faced guy who looks as if he should be in high school. Actually, he and his three full-time assistants range in age from 19 to 24, and Jones admits the salaries he pays them take their ages into account.

"That's part of it -- bringing in people who cost less," he says. Renaissance may well be the most resourceful school in Texas -- for better or worse. Instead of buying triple-beam balance scales, the school had students make some from scratch out of drinking straws, a small plastic cup, and a wooden base. Jones reasons that the students understand more about the science by building the instrument. "We cannot provide the same levels of educational opportunity that a traditional school has. What we lack in that, we make up in depth of understanding."

He calls that the "constructionist view of education."

In another effort to cut costs, the school has its students bring sack lunches rather than feeding them a hot meal. Jones says the school meets federal requirements of providing a free meal to underprivileged students by serving breakfast instead of lunch. He maintains that no student goes hungry at lunch as the Renaissance family will pitch in to provide a free meal.

Also to save money, Renaissance opted to ditch school buses in favor of providing kids a reduced-price bus pass with Irving's city transit. Jones says few kids take advantage of the option, choosing instead to drive to school themselves, carpool with friends, or commute with their parents, some of whom work in nearby Las Colinas.

Renaissance's annual budget is more than $4 million, Jones says. The school receives about $300,000 in federal grants and $150,000 in corporate donations a year. He says corporations are hard-sells because they prefer to give to traditional public schools, where their benevolence is rewarded with greater visibility.

Traditional public schools have other financial advantages. They can pay for their facilities through voter-approved bonds, while charter schools must pay for them out of their operating budgets. Jones says 18 percent of Renaissance's budget is for rent payments.

"Running a charter school is a tremendous, tremendous -- and I underline tremendous -- financial challenge," he says.

Sometimes resourcefulness in the face of financial challenge leads to questionable tactics. Renaissance operates on a four-hour school day at its XLR8 Learning Center, a branch campus for high school students who have fallen behind in their studies. One group of students attends in the morning and another in the afternoon. That means only one shift of teachers needs to be hired for two shifts of students. It's a cost-saver.

"The idea is that I can have two shifts of students in there and therefore double our income," Jones says. He is oblivious to the fact that the strategy is repulsive to charter school operators like YES' Barbic, whose students attend school for nine and a half hours each day.

[footstepsfrom#27]

continued from above...

Beginning next month, Renaissance will operate four Irving campuses inside nearly 100,000 square feet of building space. In addition to the main campus and XLR8, it has an elementary school and a fine arts academy. During Renaissance's first three months of operation in 1996, students sat on donated chairs and at the cheapest folding tables Jones could buy at Sam's Club.

In spite of the modest beginnings, word of Renaissance spread so fast that student attendance leaped from about 300 its first year to 950 last year. Jones projects enrollment at 1,200 this coming year.

But like any business that grows too fast, Renaissance experienced pains. The first mistake was a decision to open the branch campus in Arlington. Charter schools must operate within specified geographic boundaries, and Arlington falls outside the legal limit for Renaissance. Jones says that Renaissance officials thought TEA had approved expanded boundaries and that the school only realized its mistake in March.

That was about the same time the Arlington students were writing their letters to TEA. At the Board of Education meeting in May, Jones said he was unaware of the dire conditions. Lott says he is lying.

"Don Jones was fully aware of what was going on, because I was in constant contact with him letting him know what the status was," she says.

Although Jones denies he knew of the problem, he is accepting responsibility for it. "This is the most significant problem we've had. The problem should not reflect on Renaissance as a whole, but instead it identifies the weakness in my ability to carry out my duties effectively."

Still, he has an explanation that sounds a lot like plausible deniability.

Jones says the Renaissance board wanted to close the Arlington school a few months after it opened because enrollment was less than half of what was projected as necessary for the venture to be cost-effective. In addition, the school was housed temporarily at Tarrant County College and was about to get uprooted. Jones says, however, that the passions of Lott, her staff, and the parents of the students persuaded him to keep the school open. He says he told them to find a new building where the school could operate for the remainder of the year.

"We really believed those additional students were going to appear," Jones says. "We were gambling. We were running a risk. We were investing in a hope that things would work out." Lott says the Arlington campus would have met enrollment projections had parents not pulled students from the school, frustrated because it had no permanent home.

As students hopped from building to building, a parent came across the vacant, gray stucco office building on East Abram Street, about two miles south of the Ballpark in Arlington. Jones says he left it up to Lott and the parents to work out a lease. During that time, the landlord did not provide heat or plumbing.

Lott says Jones took every opportunity during the school year to make sure a lease never was signed for an Arlington campus. Another of his cost-saving measures, she figures.

"We would find locations and get the kids in there," Lott says. "People were kind enough to let us move in expecting that a contract would be signed, and then Don didn't sign it."

Lott says she has concluded that Renaissance viewed the Arlington campus as a cash cow since the state paid Renaissance Charter School for the 40 or so Arlington students and none of the money was invested in the branch campus. Now that TEA has discovered that the Arlington campus operated outside the school's boundaries and therefore illegally, it is taking back every cent it gave Renaissance to educate those students. Justice, according to Lott.

"The only reason Don Jones kept us was so he could collect funds from the state," she believes.

Lott says the Arlington school hopes to operate next year under a new charter holder. "I have to commend these young people," she says. "They have strong characters, and they want to come back in September."

Lott, a community activist in Arlington since the mid-1980s, broke her public silence about the plight of her students at the Board of Education meeting in May, an instinctive reaction to the claim by Jones that he knew nothing of the wretched conditions. After the meeting, Lott returned to silence. A call from the Observer caught her off-guard, she said.

"I want people to understand that charter schools are a positive alternative solution to education," she says. "I think the concept is excellent. My only concern is that persons who are allowed to run charter schools should be scrutinized very, very closely. That's why I kept so quiet about this for so long. I didn't want to damage the reputation of charter schools in general. I guess it comes to the point now where it's good we are talking about it. Maybe the State Board of Education can take some kind of measures to make sure something like this doesn't happen again."

[freak6]

Ah, my thread is dieing. BUMP.

<img src="http://www.undergroundactionalliance.org/images/news/gwb2.gif">

There is no defense to this. The Top man at the CIA on the Middle East, just came out and said Bush lied us into this idiotic war.

[freak6]

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202-p20/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

The intelligence community never offered any analysis that supported the notion of an alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda. Yet it was drawn into a public effort to support that notion.

The best-known example was the assertion by President George W. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was purchasing uranium ore in Africa. U.S. intelligence analysts had questioned the credibility of the report making this claim, had kept it out of their own unclassified products, and had advised the White House not to use it publicly. But the administration put the claim into the speech anyway, referring to it as information from British sources in order to make the point without explicitly vouching for the intelligence.
But the greatest discrepancy between the administration's public statements and the intelligence community's judgments concerned not WMD (there was indeed a broad consensus that such programs existed), but the relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. The enormous attention devoted to this subject did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the "alliance" the administration said existed. The reason the connection got so much attention was that the administration wanted to hitch the Iraq expedition to the "war on terror" and the threat the American public feared most, thereby capitalizing on the country's militant post-9/11 mood.

[baja]

bump