Sometimes the truth surrounds us, overwhelms us but to walk through the little lies that are entangled within the truth make us look away. People take the time to search, read, look something up, if something just does not sound right, look right, smell right then take the time to find out what's going on. These people in Washington really do work for us, although it may not look like it, and they need to be held up to the standards that we are held to, we are to obey the law, well so should they, we are to tell the truth, we are to be just and moral. They spew lies and venom all in the name of God for they are the righteous ones doing his will but remember history people every time man walked that fine line of in the name of God, in the name of Allah in the name of, it all went to hell in a hand basket and we the people were dragged along to.

If fascism ever came to the United States, it would be wrapped in an American flag.
Huey Long




Bush Administration Paradox Explained
by Robert Reich

The White House's strategy to make John Roberts the next chief justice has been the very model of meticulous planning, by contrast to its utter clueless-ness in dealing with Katrina. No White House in modern history has been as adept at politics and as ham-fisted at governing. Why?
With politics, the Bush administration has shown remarkable discipline -- squelching leaks and keeping Cabinet members on message, reaching down into the bureaucracy to bend analyses in directions that supports what it wants to do, imposing its will on congressional leaders and even making a political imprint on state legislatures. No recent president has got re-elected with controlling majorities in both houses of Congress, or been as successful in repositioning the national debate around his ideological view of the world.
With governing, it's been almost criminally incompetent -- failing to act on clear predictions of a terrorist attack like 9/11 or a natural disaster like Katrina, botching intelligence over Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction, failing to secure order after invading Iraq, allowing prisoners of war to be tortured, losing complete control over the federal budget, creating a bizarre Medicare drug benefit from which the elderly are now fleeing, barely responding to the wave of corporate lootings and running the Federal Emergency Management Agency into the ground. Not since the hapless administration of Warren G. Harding has there been one as stunningly inept as this one.
The easy answer to the paradox is that Bush cares about winning elections and putting his ideological stamp on the nation, but doesn't give a hoot about governing the place. But that's no explanation because the two are so obviously connected. An administration can't impose a lasting stamp without being managed well, and a president's party can't keep winning elections if the public thinks it's composed of bumbling idiots.
The real answer is that the same discipline and organization that's made the White House into a hugely effective political machine has hobbled its capacity to govern. Blocking data from lower-level political appointees and civil servants that's inconsistent with what it wants to do or sheds doubt on its wisdom, for example, may be effective politics, in the short term. It keeps the media and the opposition party at bay.
But the same squelching of troublesome information prevents top policy makers from ever getting the data they need. Operatives in the CIA suspected Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction and personnel at the Department of State knew the plan to invade Iraq was seriously flawed, but such judgments were suppressed by a White House that made perfectly clear what it wanted and didn't want to hear. Career professionals at the CIA and the Department of State are now wary of sharing what they know with appointed officials, as are scientists and experts all over the federal government.
Similarly, a White House whose Cabinet officers all deliver the same, positive lines can be a formidable message machine. But this same discipline also discourages internal dissent, for the simple reason that in Washington nothing stays completely private. The predictable result is that Bush officials have become yes-men incapable of sounding alarms. The price of dissent is high. Soon after Glenn Hubbard, then chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, warned that the cost of the Iraqi war would be in the range of $200 billion -- almost exactly what it's cost so far -- he was fired. After Paul O'Neill, his Secretary of the Treasury, worried out loud that federal budget deficits didn't seem to matter any longer -- a prescient concern -- he was fired, too. Can it be any wonder why this president doesn't seem to get it?
Political discipline is also honed when the White House staffs agencies with people loyal to the president, along with loyalists' friends. Joe Allbaugh worked as W's chief of staff when he was Texas governor and his 2000 campaign manager, so it seemed perfectly natural to put Allbaugh's college buddy, Michael Brown, in charge of FEMA even though "Brownie" had no previous experience in disaster management. FEMA's acting deputy director and its acting deputy chief of staff had no relevant experience, either; both had been advance men in the White House. Given this, no one should be surprised that FEMA so badly bungled Katrina. Brownie is gone now, but the administration is still crawling with cronies who know their politics, but don't have a clue what they're supposed to manage.
Politics first, competence last: That's the Bush administration all over. Karl Rove, Bush's brain and deputy chief of staff, is in charge of the political juggernaut that's substituted for effective governance. Presumably, he's now at work on a plan to burnish the image of Republicans as managers of the public's business so they don't the hell beaten out of them in the mid-terms a year from now. But the harder Rove works at spinning what this White House has accomplished, the more likely it is that Americans will see that what it's accomplished is basically spin.




Published on Friday, January 31, 2003 by the New York Times

A War Crime or an Act of War?
by Stephen C. Pelletiere

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent that is, a cyanide-based gas which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.
In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.
We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.
Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.
Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition thanks to United Nations sanctions Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.
Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.
Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."


A TIMELINE OF OIL AND VIOLENCE - II- IRAQ

COLD WAR YEARS: The existence of Middle East oil - a strategic commodity - drove the United States to block Soviet influence in the region via the shifting of its support among several regional dictators, including Saddam Hussein in the 1960s.
During the early 70s, as petroleum's value increased markedly, Iraq moved to nationalize the resource. The US responded by shifting its support away from Hussein in Iraq, concentrating instead on Iran - where the nationalization of oil resources had earlier prompted a CIA backed coup that replaced the offending regime with the Shah of Iran.
With the end of the 1980s' Iran-Iraq war, Iraq found itself deeply in debt. Hussein sought to fund the rebuilding of Iraq (and to prop his regime) with its treasured oil resource, currently estimated at 250 billion barrels. The US, in turn, pushed Kuwait and other Gulf states to increase oil exports, thereby driving down oil prices and drastically reducing Iraq's only means of income.
THE 1990's: Through official and public diplomatic channels, the US State Department signaled Hussein that an attack on Kuwait would not be met with significant reprisal. Immediately following Iraq's attack on Kuwait, however, the US feigned shock, and prodded the UN to act. The ensuing attack severely damaged Iraq's civilian infrastructure - including water purification and electricity generation plants. Thousands of Iraqi troops were killed during the relatively brief battle, and thousands more were killed as Iraqi troops retreated. The Gulf War abruptly ended.
President Bush, Sr. called upon anti-Hussein forces within Iraq to rise, implying US support for their efforts would be forthcoming. A sixty to one-hundred-thousand anti-Hussein militia took up arms; they were completely abandoned by Bush, and were slaughtered by forces loyal to Hussein via the use of helicopters ok'ed for use within the US ceasefire agreement. Hussein thereby acted knowingly, or unknowingly, on the US's behalf by limiting Iraq's militia - the same militia that, a decade later, would have resisted US forces now occupying their country.
What followed was a decade of "sanctions" resulting in a weakened Hussein regime, and the deaths of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqi children - for want of food, of safe drinking water, and of basic medications.
POST 9-11: The final chapter (to date) involved a sudden focus shift away from Osama bin Laden [see: Timeline 1 - Afghanistan] in the immediate post 9/11 months to Saddam Hussein, with the official war drumbeat stating Hussein was preparing to attack his neighbors or the US with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - despite there being no evidence that such weapons or delivery means existed. Following a huge military buildup in the region, a number of UN inspectors were sent into Iraq to seek out chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and/or the vehicles that could be used to deliver those weapons; NONE WERE FOUND. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the UN publicly stated they had found no evidence for the existence of this capability, but that inspections should continue to fully verify the absence of threat.
Without evidence of Iraqi WMDs, without International authority to act in a preemptive manner, and without the required UN Security Council resolution to proceed, the United States and a handful of other governments - a "Coalition of the Willing" - attacked Iraq while the world watched in horror.
Fully 3/4 of the world's oil reserves are now under US control (Caspian reserves via a trans-Afghanistan pipeline, and two-hundred-fifty billion barrels via Iraqi occupation). The US is thus able to control world oil trade and demand that oil be purchased with US dollars as opposed to competing currencies (Euros). Nations of the world are therefore forced to hold hundreds of billions of US dollars in reserve allowing the dollar to remain in demand.



Wash. Post's criticism of sensationalist Katrina coverage focused on CNN, ignored Fox
In an October 5 critique by staff writers Robert E. Pierre and Ann Gerhart, The Washington Post chastised the media for reporting at face value the sensationalist claims of violence and turmoil following the Hurricane Katrina disaster, noting that "federal officials have come to believe that exaggerations of mayhem by officials and rumors repeated uncritically in the news media helped slow the response to the disaster and tarnish the image of many of its victims." The Post's critique, however, focused primarily on CNN's coverage of Katrina and wholly ignored similarly overblown reports and commentary from Fox News Channel personalities.
The October 5 Post media critique noted that "CNN reported repeatedly on Sept. 1, three days after Katrina ravaged New Orleans, that evacuations at the Superdome were suspended because 'someone fired a shot at a helicopter.' But Louisiana National Guard officials on the ground at the time now say that no helicopters came under attack and that evacuations were never stopped because of gunfire." Pierre and Gerhart also wrote that "there turned out to be little evidence to support CNN host Paula Zahn speaking of 'reports' of 'bands of rapists, going block to block.' " The Post quoted Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's press secretary, Denise Bottcher, as saying: "But the National Guardsmen were saying that what we were seeing on CNN was contradictory to what they were seeing. It didn't match up." Lastly, the Post critique noted that "Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/US, said reporting was challenging because official sources -- in particular [Eddie] Compass, the [former New Orleans] police chief -- initially confirmed many of the things reported on the air. As more information has become available, Klein said, the network has corrected the record and highlighted the danger of swirling rumors."
No mention was made, however, of Fox News Channel's sensationalist coverage -- despite Fox News' daily viewership, which is nearly double that of CNN. On the August 31 edition of Hannity & Colmes -- the day before the September 1 remarks by Paula Zahn -- co-hosts Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes both repeated that there had been reports of rapes, and Fox News correspondent David Miller reported:
MILLER: Meanwhile, as for what is taking place in the Superdome, we've talked to a number of people, and they describe the scene inside as nothing less than horrific, although they are getting meals and they are getting water. They say the sanitary conditions are intolerable. They also say that a number of women have been raped. They also say that there have been at least a couple of gunshot incidents taking place in the last day. A number of people actually left the Superdome, Sean, rather than remain inside, saying that they were better off on their own on the streets of New Orleans than remaining in that facility.
On the September 2 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith reported: "And at the Superdome, people have waited in line for four days in squalor, with shootings happening in there and people being raped. That's not -- that's not conjecture. That's not speculation. That happened." Earlier in the same program, host Bill O'Reilly said that Blanco "must make sure those rapists, looters, and assailants get what they deserve." On the September 3 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera reported: "Yesterday the sun set on a scene of terror, chaos, confusion, anarchy, violence, rapes, murders, dead babies, dead people -- I mean, it was -- I could not emphasize how horrible it was 24 hours ago, 24 hours later."
Appearing on Fox News' September 3 special coverage of the Katrina aftermath, Arthel Neville, correspondent for A Current Affair (a syndicated TV program produced by Twentieth Television, which is, like Fox News, a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.), described eyewitness accounts of scenes at the Superdome:
NEVILLE: One guy gets into a scuffle with a National Guardsman, takes the gun and kills the guardsman with the gun. Another guy, this is really sad, if there are any children are watching take them out of a room. A man rapes and kills a 7-year-old girl. About 10 guys, I don't know how many, but a group of guys turn around and beat this guy to death. This is just horrible. I cannot wrap my mind around how -- the human -- a human person can be reduced to such animalistic behavior. I don't understand it.
Posted to the web on Thursday October 6, 2005 at 6:59 PM EST



Miers As Enron's Ken Lay

By Nathan Newman bio
From: House of Labor
One of Miers only qualifications for her nomination is that she was the head of a major corporate law firm, Locke, Liddle & Sappe.
Where under her leadership, the firm had to pay a $22 million settlement for aiding a client in defrauding investors (scroll down to middle of screen):
Locke Liddell & Sapp's agreement to pay $ 22 million to settle a suit alleging it aided a client in defrauding investors is expected to serve as a warning to other firms that they must take action when they learn a client's alleged wrongdoing may be harming third parties. The Dallas-based firm agreed April 14 to settle a suit stemming from its representation of Russell Erxleben, a former University of Texas star football kicker whose foreign currency trading company was allegedly a Ponzi scheme. Erxleben pleaded guilty last November to federal conspiracy and securities-fraud charges and is to be sentenced in May.



Unspinning DeLay
By Ellen Miller bio
From: Auction House
Since Tom DeLay's indictment last week it has bothered me that the press has basically let him get away with the spin that Ronnie Earle's action is nothing but a political vendetta. I'd only seen only a few refutations of the point in the national press in recent days -- The Washington Post had a piece last Thursday -- but there's been no major push back in the media to the Republicans' spin.
So we found a list that sets the record straight, (which is good), courtesy of the Austin American Statesman, but even this thorough listing has a misleading headline (which is bad): "Ronnie Earle's Investigations: District attorney has targeted both Democrats and Republicans." The headline should have been something more like "Ronnie Earle's Record: Democrats 12, Republicans 4."
The list is published below.



PlameGate Update
By Larry Johnson bio
From: Politics
The investigation into who in the Bush Administration leaked the name of CIA non-official cover case officer, Valerie Plame aka Mrs. Joseph Wilson, is winding down. Unfortunately the media is primed to paint the outing of Valerie as a non-issue if no indictments are forthcoming. Regardless of whether anyone in the Bush Administration is indicted, what was done to Valerie Plame Wilson was wrong and morally reprehensible. Rather than hold members of his Administration to the highest ethical and moral standards, President George W. Bush has not only lowered lowered the standard of acceptable conduct by members of his Administration, his actions and inactions have weakened the CIA and its ability to accomplish its various national security missions.
Based on recent discussions with a variety of friends who do not have experience with the intel community and have not followed this case closely, I believe it useful to get some key facts on the record. Again, whether there is or is not an indictment, the Republican spin machine will be out in force spreading lies and it is critical that the citizens of this country have clear facts to judge the truth of the matter.
Here is the timeline with sources:




A true story about Bill Bennett
By Reed Hundt bio
From: Politics
When I was chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (1993-97), I asked Bill Bennett to visit my office so that I could ask him for help in seeking legislation that would pay for internet access in all classrooms and libraries in the country. Eventually Senators Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller, with the White House leadership of President Clinton and Vice President Gore, put that provision in the Telecommunications Law of 1996, and today nearly 90% of all classrooms and libraries do have such access. The schools covered were public and private. So far the federal funding (actually collected from everyone as part of the phone bill) has been matched more or less equally with school district funding to total about $20 billion over the last seven years. More than 90% of all teachers praise the impact of such technology on their work. At any rate, since Mr. Bennett had been Secretary of Education I asked him to support the bill in the crucial stage when we needed Republican allies. He told me he would not help, because he did not want public schools to obtain new funding, new capability, new tools for success. He wanted them, he said, to fail so that they could be replaced with vouchers,charter schools, religious schools, and other forms of private education. Well, I thought, at least he's candid about his true views. The key Senate committee voted almost on party lines on the bill, all D's for and all R's against, except one -- Olympia Snowe. Her support provided the margin of victory. On the House side, Speaker Gingrich made sure the provision was not in the companion bill, but in conference again Senators Snowe and Rockefeller, with White House support, made the difference. The Internet has been the first technology made available to students in poorly funded schools at about the same time and in about the same way as to students in well funded schools.


Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down"

Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such "far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies "would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."
Bennett's remark was apparently inspired by the claim that legalized abortion has reduced crime rates, which was posited in the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005) by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. But Levitt and Dubner argued that aborted fetuses would have been more likely to grow up poor and in single-parent or teenage-parent households and therefore more likely to commit crimes; they did not put forth Bennett's race-based argument.
From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Bill Bennett's Morning in America airs on approximately 115 radio stations with an estimated weekly audience of 1.25 million listeners.


Leaked Secret Documents Confirm Police Lied About De Menezes
ITN News August 17 2005
ITV News has obtained secret documents and photographs that detail why police shot Jean Charles De Menezes dead on the tube.
The Brazilian electrician was killed on 22 July, the day after the series of failed bombings on the tube and bus network.
The crucial mistake that ultimately led to his death was made at 9.30am when Jean Charles left his flat in Scotia Road, South London.
Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.
By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body.
The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter coat, as had previously been claimed.
He was behaving normally, and did not vault the barriers, even stopping to pick up a free newspaper.
He started running when we saw a tube at the platform. Police had agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran.
A document describes CCTV footage, which shows Mr de Menezes entered Stockwell station at a "normal walking pace" and descended slowly on an escalator.
The document said: "At some point near the bottom he is seen to run across the concourse and enter the carriage before sitting in an available seat.
"Almost simultaneously armed officers were provided with positive identification."
A member of the surveillance team is quoted in the report. He said: "I heard shouting which included the word `police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.
"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 officers. I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side.
"I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting. I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage."
The report also said a post mortem examination showed Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, but three other bullets missed, with the casings left lying in the tube carriage.
Police have declined to comment while the mistaken killing is still being investigated.
FLASHBACK: License To Kill: Police Murder In Broad Daylight and Nobody Batters an Eyelid
FLASHBACK: Brazilian's family claim police altered their story
FLASHBACK: London Bombings: Electrical Surge Connected to Menezes Shooting?