Move On and Hysteria In Wingnuttia

The Flag is Falling.....the Flag is Falling!!!!!

As usual, we, the independent people, didn't pay much attention to this hoo-hah, at first. When it did get our attention, we did a little research and found that General Petraeus had, indeed, been the mouth-piece for quite a bit of disinformation, including the infamous announcement by Junior that we had found WMD...the bioweapons labs in trailers. None of it true, of course, but there are people who still believe it to this day.

Anyone who continues to believe anything that comes out the mouth of Bush or Cheney should be the ones being condemned by the Senate, for abject stupidity.

Hard Lessons from MoveOn Fiasco

By Robert Parry
September 22, 2007

The furor over MoveOn.org’s silly “General Betray Us” ad – which led to a bipartisan Senate condemnation of MoveOn after Republicans blocked a move to include right-wing smears against military veterans like Democrats Max Cleland and John Kerry – carries a bitter lesson for the American Left.

Simply put: This is what happens when one side of American politics – the Right – spends three decades and many billions of dollars building a sophisticated and powerful media apparatus and the other side – the Left – does next to nothing on media infrastructure.

Yes, it’s true that many Democratic senators behaved spinelessly, but a leading reason for their political cowardice is the Republicans’ extraordinary ability to whip up national frenzies over anything that can be portrayed as an affront to them or their allies.

The Right’s powerful ideological media – stretching from newspapers, magazine and book publishing to talk radio, TV networks and the Internet – is arguably the most intimidating force in modern American politics. There is nothing remotely comparable – in size, reach or funding – on the Left.

Indeed, this asymmetry in U.S. media not only has contributed mightily to the existence of George W. Bush’s presidency and the Iraq War, but may be viewed by future historians as a key factor in what doomed the American Republic, as propaganda, fear-mongering and intimidation substituted for fact, reason and balanced debate.

Any misstep by Democrats or the Left is amplified through the Right’s giant echo chamber, resonating to all corners of the country and whipping up public outrage. In contrast, mistakes or abuses by Republicans and the Right get far less attention and often are ignored entirely (assuming the offense isn’t tapping for gay sex in a men’s bathroom).

After the Right starts one of its cascading campaigns of outrage, the mainstream news media sees little choice but to report on what’s already so widely disseminated that it’s crossed a threshold of “what’s news.” Indeed, mainstream journalists risk being accused of “liberal bias” if they don’t start writing about what the Right has gotten everyone talking about.

So, the MoveOn fiasco becomes a front-page story pushing aside more significant information about brutal ethnic cleansing in Iraq occurring under the eyes of Gen. Petraeus's forces [see the lower half of this article in the Sept. 22 edition of the New York Times] or evidence that President Bush is transforming U.S. Special Forces units into “death squads.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “George W. Bush’s Thug Nation.”]

Illiberal Press

Although the Right has long denounced the mainstream corporate media as “liberal,” the reality is quite different.

Many of the publishers and media moguls are personally right-wing or neoconservative, while their hired news executives know that their careers can be sidetracked or destroyed if they get labeled “liberal” by the Right’s attack apparatus. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's "The Bush Rule of Journalism."]

At times, mainstream journalists even will act preemptively to prove they're “not liberal,” creating stories that will look good to the Right.

For instance, after Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992, some senior editors at major news organizations vowed to be tougher on a Democrat than they were on any Republican.

What followed was the merging of interests between the growing right-wing media and the mainstream press. Everyone piled on.

The green-lighting of this “prove-we’re-not-liberal” pattern carried over to Campaign 2000 during which the New York Times and the Washington Post led the way in demeaning Vice President Al Gore for his choice of clothing and his supposedly dishonest boasting.

In reality, many of the accusations against Gore were based on inaccurate reporting, fabricated quotes and tendentious interpretations of his words. But the biased journalism brought no known punishments to the reporters who were responsible.

By contrast, George W. Bush and his running mate, Dick Cheney, were free to play fast and loose with facts and face almost no challenge to their honesty. Careerist journalists sensed intuitively that Al Gore had become a kind of political free-fire zone but Bush/Cheney could fire back and hurt you if you got on their wrong side.

[For more on how this imbalanced reporting came to pass, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege or our new book, Neck Deep.]

Unforced Error

The MoveOn ad, a pun on Gen. David Petraeus’s name, represented a classic case of an unforced error by a left-of-center group. MoveOn and its ad agency, Fenton Communications, should have recognized that mocking someone’s name is both juvenile and offensive. It can be viewed as an insult to a person’s ethnic heritage.

Republicans and pundits – from right-wing bloggers to Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen – then needled the word “betray” to claim that MoveOn was accusing Petraeus of “treason,” even though “betray” has many lesser meanings, such as betraying a trust or betraying one’s friends.

Many puffed-up chests later, the Republicans were branding Democrats as “puppets” of “extremist” groups like MoveOn, and Democrats were scurrying around desperately seeking cover.

At a Sept. 20 news conference, President Bush called the ad “disgusting” and charged that “most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, then brought an amendment to the Senate floor and asserted, “For MoveOn.org and their left-wing allies to brand General Petraeus a traitor and a liar crossed a historic line of decency. It was a despicable political attack by a radical left-wing interest group.”

Before passing Cornyn’s amendment, the Republicans blocked a substitute amendment by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, which would have “strongly condemned attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.”

The Boxer substitute pointedly would have covered the Republican ad campaign in 2002 that likened triple-amputee war veteran Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden and the dishonest “Swift boat” attacks that took aim in 2004 at John Kerry’s decorated service in Vietnam. But the Republicans weren’t going to let their clear shot at MoveOn be muddled.

So, after preventing the Boxer substitute from getting the 60 votes it needed for consideration, GOP senators pushed through a resolution “to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org.”

In the 72-25 vote, 22 Democrats joined a solid phalanx of Republicans denouncing MoveOn by name, an extraordinary act by the Senate in singling out a group of American citizens for criticizing a government official during an important public debate.

By contrast, one only needs to contemplate what would happen if Democrats dared sponsor a resolution denouncing abrasive right-wing commentators by name for bandying about the actual charge of “treason” against Iraq War critics, including people such as Scott Ritter who served in the military.

The Republicans and the Right’s media machine surely would howl about censorship and the importance of the First Amendment. But the maintenance of this double standard is guaranteed by the remarkable power of the Right's media infrastructure versus the virtual absence of one on the Left.

Today, the Right’s media machine already is busily spinning the nay vote from presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the “not present” from Barack Obama as a way to spread the MoveOn fiasco into Campaign 2008.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Anzar Transcript: Bush Lies

Of course this is nothing we didn't already know, from the PNAC docs. and the Downing Street Memos. The Bushites had been planning this war since long before they stole election 2000. Still, it is another nail in the coffin of this presidency.

Transcript Reveals Impeachable Offenses by Bush Re: Iraq War

El Pais published a transcript of the conversation between George W. Bush, Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, and Condoleeza Rice held at Crawford before the Iraq War. Bush is typically bullheaded, impatient, conspiratorial, bullying, arrogant, ill-informed and way over-optimistic. The transcript shows the true colors of the man-- a sort of thuggish, ignorant Mafia don-- who destroyed the United States and destroyed Iraq. (The introductory El Pais article is translated here.)

At one point Aznar prophetically says, "The thing that worries me is your optimism."

The transcript, it seems to me, provides a whole rack of smoking guns that could be a basis for impeaching George W. Bush. The transcript shows that Bush consciously intended to go to war without a United Nations Security Council resolution. The United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a treaty signatory (so that it has the force of American law), forbids any nation to launch an aggressive war on another country. The only two legal mechanisms for war are either that it came in response to a direct attack or that the attacker gained a UNSC authorization. The transcript shows Bush actively plotting to sidestep the UNSC if he could not, gangster-like, threaten its members into compliance.

The second grounds for impeachment is that Bush rejected out of hand a deal brokered by the Egyptians whereby Saddam Hussein would leave the country with a billion dollars and some documents about his WMD program. Reuters reports:

'The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1 billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction," Bush was quoted as saying at the meeting one month before the U.S.-led invasion.'

The transcript in Spanish then says (my translation):

'Aznar: Is it certain that any possibility exists that Saddam Hussein will go into exile?

Bush: The possibility exists, including that he will be assassinated.

Aznar: Exile with a guarantee?

Bush: No guarantee! He is a thug, a terrorist, a war criminal.

Bush goes on to say, "Saddam won't change and he'll keep on playing games. The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is. We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

In other words, Bush could have sent Saddam off to exile in Saudi Arabia and avoided the whole war, but refused to do so because of the family vendetta between the Bushes and the Tikritis. Nearly 4,000 US soldiers have died and thousands have been wounded because Bush would not take the deal Saddam offered him. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, and millions displaced.

Going to war unnecessarily is an impeachable offense.

The whole immense catastrophe could have been avoided.

There is more evidence of thuggery in the transcript:

Excerpts courtesy Harper's:

' Bush to American Allies: support war or starve

[Condoleezza Rice has just described the diplomatic situation to Bush and Aznar, explaining that Iraq is continuing to insist that it has no weapons of mass destruction.]

Bush: This is like Chinese water torture. We have to put an end to it.

Aznar: I agree, but it would be best to have as much support as possible. Have a little patience.

Bush: My patience has ended. I’m not thinking of waiting beyond mid-March.

Aznar: I’m not asking that you have endless patience. Simply that everything is done to [have maximum international support].

Bush: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola, and Cameroon should know that what’s at stake is the security of the United States . . . [Chilean President Ricardo] Lagos should know that the Free Trade Accord with Chile is awaiting Senate confirmation and a negative attitude about this could put ratification in danger. Angola is receiving Millennium Account funds [to help alleviate poverty] and that could be jeopardized also if he’s not supportive…

Aznar: Tony [Blair] wants to wait until March 14.

Bush: I prefer the 10th. This is like a good cop, bad cop routine. I don’t care if I’m the bad cop and he’s the good cop.


Bush on Iraq: the future is bright

“We’re developing a very strong package of humanitarian aid. We can win [the war] without much destruction. We’re planning for a post-Saddam Iraq and believe there is a strong base to build a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and relatively strong civil society.”

Bush on French President Chirac: Mister Arab

“Chirac knows perfectly well the reality. His intelligence services have explained. The Arab countries are sending Chirac a clear message: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac thinks he’s Mister Arab and is making life impossible.” '

Reuters has more:

' In case the war endangered energy supplies, "the Saudis would help us and put all the oil necessary into the market," said Bush, who considered Europeans to be complacent about Saddam.

"Maybe it's because he's dark-skinned, far away and Muslim, lots of Europeans think everything's okay with him," he said. . . '

He was accusing the Europeans of racism! He!

posted by Juan Cole

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

What The Left, and the Rest Of Us, Should Learn

From The:

The MoveOn Fiasco

by Robert Parry

consortiumnews.com

Excerpt:
The furor over MoveOn.org’s silly “General Betray Us” ad – which led to a bipartisan Senate condemnation
of MoveOn after Republicans blocked a move to include right-wing smears against military veterans like
Democrats Max Cleland and John Kerry – carries a bitter lesson for the American Left.

How can the Republicans block everything they don't like
when the Democrats were powerless to block anything - ever?

Simply put: This is what happens when one side of American politics – the Right – spends three decades
and many billions of dollars building a sophisticated and powerful media apparatus and the other side
– the Left – does next to nothing on media infrastructure.

Yes, it’s true that many Democratic senators behaved spinelessly, but a leading reason for their political
cowardice is the Republicans’ extraordinary ability to whip up national frenzies over anything that can be portrayed as an affront to them or their allies.

The Right’s powerful ideological media – stretching from newspapers, magazine and book publishing to talk radio, TV networks and the Internet – is arguably the most intimidating force in modern American politics.

There is nothing remotely comparable – in size, reach or funding – on the Left.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Damn! Glad None of Us Said This...

"I think Jesus Christ and Hitler had a lot in common, and that was they could both look you in the eye and say, 'I`ve got an answer for you, follow me.' "
--Glenn Beck, Link

But Beck will get away with it. He always does.

Why is it no one seems to be offended by prattle like this, but who completely lose their damn senses over a breast?


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Rudy and 9/11

Rudy, the madman, Giuliani will make Bush and Cheney seem like amateurs

Can this guy get anymore disgusting, trying to make more money and gain more power over the dead bodies of Americans, not to mention the citizens of other nations who died that day in that senseless tragedy? Something tells me that he can and will, especially if he wins the nomination of his party. Can the infamous psycho-Rudy be far behind when he really comes under scrutiny?

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Completion of The Coup

Someone wrote, and I wish I could remember who it was, several years back that in order for the world to make any sense at all, he had to get up each morning, look into his reflection in the mirror and say, "There has been a coup in America and George Bush is trying to kill us all."

It seemed to me, at the time, an exaggeration for purposes of humor. Today? Not so much.

There has been a coup. There is no longer any doubt in my mind about that. This administration has, from day one (that day would be, 9/11/01, as the legitimacy of the presidency of George W. Bush was seriously questionable and was being questioned until those towers came crashing down) sought to destroy all that was left of our Constitution at that date.

George Bush doesn't care enough about any of us to kill or protect us, unless it is convenient for him and/or furthers his goals; goals he shares with the people around him and certain sections of corporate America for sure and others who are in Congress, the Judiciary or people who have never held any elected office. I do not believe that George W Bush has anything but contempt for the American people as a whole. Bushes never forget a slight or what they view as betrayal and we, the people, betrayed the entire Bush family when we voted Bill Clinton into office, thus robbing George H. W. Bush of his second term.

I took the same oath that Mr. Elsberg took; the oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and Domestic. The greatest threat to our Constitution at this moment in history is Domestic.

We must continue to do all we can do to bring about regime change in America and to restore the Constitution. Of course, that begins with putting pressure on Congress...the kind of pressure this Congress, and probably no other, has ever seen. We cannot assume that anyone in D.C. is on the side of the people. Very few of them are acting like it. It is time for them to have to take a stand. This is not a time for politics as usual. To continue with business as usual in times such as these is a lie of omission to the American people, a betrayal of our trust.

I hope, indeed, that our elected officials, at least, will trust us enough to tell the truth and demand honest answers from the liars among them.

That hope extends to the military; officers, rank and file. In a Democratic Republic, such as ours was intended to be, the military belongs to the people. That is why it is run by civilians.

To everyone who has ever taken the oath and to those who have never taken it formally, it is time to remember it and to take it seriously.

These are the times that do, indeed, try men's (and women's) souls.

'A Coup Has Occurred'

By Daniel Ellsberg
September 26, 2007 (Text of a speech delivered September 20, 2007)

Editor’s Note: Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, offered insights into the looming war with Iran and the loss of liberty in the United States at an American University symposium on Sept. 20.

Below is an edited transcript of Ellsberg’s remarkable speech:

I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state.

If there’s another 9/11 under this regime … it means that they switch on, to full extent, all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and is known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth.

Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? … They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if they’re not now they will be after another 9/11.

And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran – an escalation – which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps.

It’s a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran’s reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law. …

This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans. [But] I think that the successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on the Constitution. They will take advantage of it, they will exploit it.

Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don’t think so.

Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a radical change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in – and there’s no move to do this at this point – unless that happens I don’t see it happening under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic.

The Next Coup

Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It’s not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That’s the next coup, that completes the first.

The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, … what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world – in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.

There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans.

I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution.

I think that none of these presidents with all their violations, which were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in nearly every case their violations were not found out until they were out of office so we didn’t have the exact challenge that we have today.

That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable, they weren’t found out in time, but I think it was not their intention to in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government.

It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 70s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but have believed in Executive government, single-branch government under an Executive president – elected or not – with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint.

When I say this I’m not saying they are traitors. I don’t think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country – but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country and Constitution thought.

They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we’re getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says “I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate.”

It’s [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the Executive Branch, essentially of the president. A concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely what the Founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution.

Founders Had It Right

Now I’m appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right.

It’s not just “our way of doing things” – it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody including Americans. On procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under control because the alternative was what we have just seen, wars like Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars like the one coming.

That brings me to the second point. This Executive Branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran which even by imperialist standards, standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places. That is consensual in our establishment. …

But even by those standards, an attack on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly, I don’t mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it’s not only aggression and a violation of international law, a supreme international crime, but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms of the consequences.

Does that make it impossible? No, it obviously doesn’t, it doesn’t even make it unlikely.

That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress – Democrats and Republicans – and the public and the media, we have freed the White House – the president and the vice president – from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts, media, public, whatever.

And on the other hand, the people who have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely, but they have crazy beliefs.

And the question is what then, what can we do about this? We are heading towards an insane operation. It is not certain. It is likely. … I want to try to be realistic myself here, to encourage us to do what we must do, what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is impossible.

What I’m talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable, more likely than not, that in the next 15, 16 months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably. Whatever we do.

And … we will not succeed in moving Congress probably, and Congress probably will not stop the president from doing this. And that’s where we’re heading. That’s a very ugly, ugly prospect.

However, I think it’s up to us to work to increase that small perhaps – anyway not large – possibility and probability to avert this within the next 15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest of our lives.

Restoring the Republic

Getting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don’t get started now, it won’t be started under the next administration.

Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a 9/11, another attack, is for right now, it can’t be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have seen very little…

We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience, of people who have in fact changed their lives, changed their position, lost their friends to a large extent, risked and experienced being called terrible names, “traitor,” “weak on terrorism” – names that politicians will do anything to avoid being called.

How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example? What kinds of pressures, what kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn’t just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths of office.

I took an oath many times, an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant, as an official in the Defense Department, as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath of office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in the United States armed services.

And that oath is not to a Commander in Chief, which is not mentioned. It is not to a fuehrer. It is not even to superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it when I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq, as they are being lied into war in Iran.

I knew that I had the documents that proved it, and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath which I eventually came to do.

I’ve often said that Lt. Ehren Watada – who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war – is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously in upholding his oath.

The president is clearly violating that oath, of course. Everybody under him who understands what is going on and there are myriad, are violating their oaths. And that’s the standard that I think we should be asking of people.

Congressional Courage

On the Democratic side, on the political side, I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate – and frankly of the Republicans – that it is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid can be in the Senate, or to increase that majority.

I’m not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that, or that they should do something else entirely, or that they should not worry about that.

Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs, but they’re acting like it’s their sole concern. Which is business as usual. “We have a majority, let’s not lose it, let’s keep it. Let’s keep those chairmanships.” Exactly what have those chairmanships done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years?

I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we … get back habeas corpus. The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution.

We need some way, and Ann Wright has one way, of sitting in, in Conyers office and getting arrested. Ray McGovern has been getting arrested, pushed out the other day for saying the simple words “swear him in” when it came to testimony.

I think we’ve got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling for in part because it’s only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect the world from mad men in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran.

And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves – they might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree.

That has to change. And it’s the example of people like those up here who somehow brought home to our representatives that they as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you.

Daniel Ellsberg is author of Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Much Ado....

This whole Petraeus/ Betrayus mess is nothing but a distraction from what is really important; the lies, the damnable lies that got us into this Mes-o-Potamia and are keeping us there. Move On simply tried to point out what is true, General Petraeus has been, on more than one occasion, part of the Bush disinformation campaign directed at the American people.

When General Petraeus chose to become a policy advocate, especially for this administration of known liars, instead of a soldier who is merely executing policy, he gave up the right to not have his integrity and/or his credibility questioned. He is no longer a troop, but a co-conspirator in one of the worst crimes ever committed against his country, not to mention Iraq.

Mark @ 4:11 pm

Chilling Effects: Betraying Freedom Of The Press

Last week the U.S. Senate voted to condemn the New York Times for running an ad that was critical of the administration and it’s lackey, Gen. David Petraeus. The inevitable consequences of this government imposition of approved thought are already becoming manifest.

The Times itself is slamming its ad sales group for accepting the ad from MoveOn.org and offering them a rate reserved for stand-by advertisers. Public Editor Clark Hoyt enumerated the list of grievances from opponents of the ad. They include:

• More than 4,000 e-mail messages with words like “despicable,” “disgrace” and “treason.”
• George W. Bush called the ad “disgusting.”
• Dick Cheney said the charges in the ad were “an outrage.”
• Thomas Davis III, (R-VA) demanded a House investigation.
• The American Conservative Union filed a complaint with the FEC against MoveOn.org and the Times.
• FreedomsWatch asked the Times to investigate.

And what did this flurry of hard-core conservative pressure yield? Well, the so-called liberal Times caved in to the rightists and proved the effectiveness of shouting down lawful dissent. Hoyt argued that the Times violated it’s advertising policy which states that they, “do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” But criticizing Petraeus’ intention to go before Congress and parrot the views of the White House is not a personal attack. It is a substantive expression of a viewpoint that is shared by millions of Americans. What’s more, Hoyt didn’t bother to level the same complaint against rebuttal ads by Rudy Giuliani or FreedomsWatch. Hoyt went even further in defining the lengths to which he would go to muzzle free speech saying…

“…I’d have demanded changes to eliminate ‘Betray Us,’ a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.”

Had Hoyt been in a position to do so, he would have forced a private advocacy group to alter the message they wished to convey. And as justification, he implies that a general, who is being used as a political prop by the White House, cannot be called to account for abandoning the American people in favor of his boss, the President. Submission accomplished, Mr. Hoyt.

Another example of the fallout from this campaign of suppression is the refusal of the New York Metro to run an ad from the anti-war group, World Can’t Wait. The Metro deemed the ad “too inflammatory” for its criticism of Bush’s thinly veiled threats against Iran. WCW has a right to be disturbed by this rejection and they succinctly explain what’s at stake for our nation’s coveted rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution:

“One of the few avenues to get the truth into the major media - buying advocacy ads - will be in effect closed down if publishers are afraid to sell space. The White House will be the strong-arm arbiter of what is acceptable in terms of political criticism.”

(Visit World Can’t Wait for more info about the ad and how to contact the Metro).

The dominoes are falling. It began with an orchestrated assault on free speech by right-wingers in response to MoveOn’s ad. Then the Senate capitulates and condemns said speech. Then newspapers, feeling the heat, reject ads by independent groups of citizens seeking to engage the public. What’s next? An Official Doctrine of Acceptable Speech?

Finally, MoveOn responded to the Times’ assertion that the stand-by rate they were charged was a mistake by volunteering to pay the $77,508 difference. Will MoveOn’s critics, who so vociferously complained about the discount, acknowledge that gesture? Will Rudy Giuliani and FreedomsWatch, two of the most clamorous complainants, who themselves received an equivalent discount, pay back the difference they were afforded? If they do not, they should hear about it, and since the Conventional Media probably won’t do it, it’s up to the blogosphere, again.

Update: Lane Hudson at News For The Left has filed a complaint with the FEC against Giuliani. Good luck Lane.

Also, Giuliani is refusing to pay the difference between the stand-by rate he received and the full rate, as MoveOn did. His spokeswoman said that the ad “was placed at the standby rate with no commitment it would run on a specific date.” But she is contradicting her boss who you can listen to here for yourself.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Coverups, Coverups, Coverups

The most appallingly corrupt administration we have ever seen in the U.S. Seems like nothing will ever be done about it either, at least not officially.


Lawmaker: State Dept. Muzzling Officials
The Associated Press

Tuesday 25 September 2007

Washington - A House lawmaker on Tuesday complained to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the alleged muzzling of State Department officials in inquiries involving Blackwater USA and Iraq's government.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the State Department had informed the committee that State employees could not discuss potential corruption in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki unless the information was treated as a national security secret.

Blackwater USA, the North Carolina-based security contractor involved in the deaths of civilians in Iraq this month, has also claimed that the State Department had banned company communication with Waxman's investigators, the lawmaker said.

"I urge you to reconsider the unusual positions you are taking," Waxman wrote to Rice. "You are wrong to interfere with the committee's inquiry."

The State Department said it was cooperating with the committee and is providing the information requested.

"Blackwater has been informed that the State Department has no objection to it providing information to the committee," said Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman. "We have offered to make available for testimony those officials in the best position to respond to the specific issues the committee has raised."

Waxman said his staff was told Monday that State Department officials with what he called "direct knowledge of corruption within the Maliki government" were barred from giving the committee "assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance," or Baghdad's ability to address corruption, unless the material was withheld from the public.

In the Blackwater matter, Waxman said the company claimed that the State Department insisted on reviewing and approving any documents the company gave to the committee. He also said Rice has refused to testify before his committee about the status of political reconciliation in Iraq, potential corruption or the Blackwater incident.

Rice has ordered a review of security practices for U.S. diplomats in Iraq following the killing of 11 Iraqis this month while Blackwater guards were protecting a U.S. Embassy convoy.

Waxman and Rice tangled earlier this year when she refused to appear in person to answer questions about the Bush administration's prewar intelligence. Rice said she already has addressed claims that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger.

---

Go to Original

Chairman Waxman Writes to Secretary Rice on State Department Stonewalling
The Gavel

Tuesday 25 September 2007

Today Chairman Henry Waxman of the Oversight Committee wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about three extraordinary communications the Committee has received from the State Department regarding corruption within the Iraqi government, the operations of Blackwater USA, and the status of political reconciliation in Iraq. The State Department has instructed its officials that they cannot communicate with the Committee about corruption in the Maliki government unless the Committee agrees to treat all information, including "broad statements/assessments," as national security secrets. Other points of growing contention between the Committee and the State Department include Blackwater's assertion that the State Department has instructed the company to withhold information from the Committee and the refusal of Secretary Rice to testify.

Letter From Blackwater's Attorney (pdf)

Letter From Department of State to Blackwater (pdf)

Full letter to Secretary Rice (pdf):

September 25, 2007 The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary
US Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520 Dear Madam Secretary: I am writing about three extraordinary communications the Committee has received from the State Department regarding corruption within the Iraqi government, the operations of Blackwater USA, and the status of political reconciliation in Iraq. First, Committee staff were informed yesterday that State Department officials with direct knowledge of corruption within the Maliki government would not be allowed to provide the Committee with "assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability/determination of the Iraqi government to deal with corruption" unless the Committee agreed to treat this information as classified and withhold it from the public. Second, Blackwater has informed the Committee that a State Department official directed Blackwater not to provide documents relevant to the Committee's investigation into the company's activities in Iraq without the prior written approval of the State Department. Third, the Committee staff were informed that you have refused to testify at any hearing called by this Committee to examine the progress of political reconciliation in Iraq, the impact of corruption in Iraq, and the Blackwater incident. I urge you to reconsider the unusual positions you are taking. Congress has a constitutional prerogative to examine the impacts that corruption within the Iraqi ministries and the activities of Blackwater may have on the prospects for political reconciliation in Iraq. You are wrong to interfere with the Committee's inquiry. The Corruption Investigation As part of the Committee's investigation into corruption in Iraq, I sent you a letter on September 10, 2007, requesting interviews with State Department officials knowledgeable about reports of corruption within the Iraqi ministries and seeking copies of State Department reports on the status of anti-corruption efforts in Iraq. Initially, the State Department refused to allow the Committee to speak with two officials, Vincent Foulk and Christopher Griffith, who worked in the State Department Office of Accountability and Transparency, which is responsible for monitoring corruption within the Iraqi ministries. As a result, the Committee issued subpoenas on September 20 for the deposition of these individuals. Now the State Department is taking the position that investigators for the Committee may speak with these individuals, but that the investigators may not ask them questions that could embarrass the Maliki government unless the Committee agrees to refrain from any public discussion of their answers. State Department officials explained that any information about corruption within the Maliki government must be treated as classified because public discussions could undermine U.S. relations with the Maliki government. This absurd position was confirmed in an e-mail sent to Committee staff last night at 6:55 p.m. In the e-mail, the State Department provided a description of the "redlines" that its employees may not cross in unclassified interviews scheduled for today. According to the State Department, the following information is now classified:

Broad statements/assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability/determination of the Iraqi government to deal with corruption, including allegations that investigations were thwarted/stifled for political reasons; Statements/allegations concerning actions by specific individuals, such as the Prime Minister or other GOI officials, or regarding investigations of such officials.

The scope of this prohibition is breathtaking. On its face, it means that unless the Committee agrees to keep the information secret from the public, the Committee cannot obtain information from officials in the Office of Accountability and Transparency about whether there is corruption within the Iraqi ministries, how extensive the corruption is, or whether the corruption is funding the insurgency and undermining public confidence in the Iraqi government. The Committee also cannot obtain information about whether Mr. Maliki himself has been involved in corruption or has intervened to block corruption investigations of Iraqi officials close to Mr. Maliki. The scope of the restrictions is so broad that my staff inquired yesterday whether Ambassador Ryan Crocker violated these restrictions when he testified to Congress earlier this month about the functioning of the Iraqi ministries. State Department officials responded that those statements were not classified because they would not complicate the State Department's relationship with the Maliki government. This morning, Committee staff conducted a transcribed telephone interview with Mr. Foulk. Because of the restrictions placed on Mr. Foulk by the State Department, the interview was virtually worthless. The State Department officials participating on the call would not let Mr. Foulk answer whether there is large-scale corruption in Iraq, whether Iraqi ministers are blocking corruption probes, or whether corruption in Iraq is undermining U.S. efforts. Mr. Foulk stated that he was informed of these new restrictions just this morning and that he had never heard of them before. At one point, Mr. Foulk was read a statement that you made in October 2006, in which you praised Prime Minister Maliki's efforts to combat corruption at the Interior Ministry. In this statement, you said:

I think he's a very good and strong prime minister. And you know, they're really starting to take actions.... [W]e've said many times that the Interior Ministry in the prior government before the permanent government was put in place was not active enough in really rooting out potential corruption and potential violence within the Ministry itself, or of the Ministry forces. And so they are starting to really take some actions of that kind. So I think this is a strong prime minister.

Mr. Foulk was asked whether he agreed or disagreed with this public statement. He said he could not answer this question under the ground rules established by the State Department because his opinion would be considered classified. In effect, your position seems to be that positive information about the Maliki government may be disseminated publicly, but any criticism of the government must be treated as a national security secret. I suppose this would be an effective way for the Bush Administration to control the facts and debate about Iraq, but it has no place in our democracy. The State Department has also refused to turn over to the Committee official reports on corruption in Iraqi ministries. The Committee requested these reports after reading press accounts that assert that the reports depict extensive corruption within the Iraqi ministries. The State Department initially informed Committee staff that the reports were designated "sensitive but unclassified." After receiving the Committee's inquiry, however, the State Department retroactively classified the documents and refused to provide them voluntarily to the Committee. The Committee subpoenaed the documents last week, but they still have not been provided to the Committee in either classified or unclassified form. Obviously, the State Department's position on this matter is ludicrous. Over 3,790 American soldiers have been killed in the Iraq War and another 28,000 have been wounded. The American people have already spent $450 billion on the war. If there is widespread corruption within the Maliki government, this is information that both Congress and the public are entitled to know. The Blackwater Investigation The Committee is also investigating the recent incidents involving Blackwater and as part of this investigation made a request to the company for relevant documents last week. This morning, however, the Committee received a letter from Blackwater stating that the company has received a letter from the State Department that "directs Blackwater USA not to disclose any information concerning the contract without DOS pre-authorization in writing." Blackwater attached a copy of the letter it received from the State Department. In this letter, the State Department contracting officer writes: "I hereby direct Blackwater to make no disclosure of the documents or information" sought by the Committee without written authorization from the State Department. Earlier today, my staff contacted a member of your legislative affairs staff, who agreed to look into this matter and attempt to reverse the position taken by the contracting officer. This should happen without delay. Any interference with the Committee's documents request would be wholly inappropriate. Unless the President is prepared to make an assertion of executive privilege over the Blackwater documents, the State Department has no authority to prevent their transmission to Congress. Testimony Before the Committee As Secretary of State, you have a preeminent role in fostering political reconciliation in Iraq. Although much attention has been paid to the role of the U.S. military in Iraq, most military leaders agree that the key to success in Iraq is political progress rather than military victories. As General Petraeus has stated:

There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient. There needs to be a political aspect. Similarly, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated: [T]his is not going to be solved by the military. It has to involve political reconciliation in Iraq among Iraqis. We're basically buying them time. That's the whole purpose of this strategy.

You have recognized the significance of your role. As you stated in October 2006:

I'm really here and more on the political side because obviously the political side and the security side are linked. The ability to get a national reconciliation plan, to get everybody to understand precisely how their interests are going to be represented and how their interests are going to be served in this political process, to pull more people into the political process and out of the insurgency, more people into the political process and out of connections with militias, that's why the political process is so central. So I'm really more focused on the political process.

Because of your responsibility for promoting political reconciliation, I asked my staff to work with your staff to arrange a mutually agreeable date for you to testify before the Committee regarding these matters. In numerous telephone calls and e-mails, my staff offered a host of possible dates to accommodate your schedule. Last night, however, your staff informed the Committee that you are "unavailable" for such a hearing. The only rationale offered by your staff was some unspecified "other interest" in having you testify elsewhere on Capitol Hill. I appreciate that you may not want to answer questions about political reconciliation, corruption in Iraq, and Blackwater. But that is not a legitimate basis for refusing to appear before the principal oversight committee in the House about matters within your purview as Secretary of State. Conclusion I urge you to give these matters your immediate attention, to direct your staff to cooperate with the Committee's inquiry, to instruct Blackwater to comply with the Committee's document request, and to arrange a mutually convenient time in October for your testimony before the Committee. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman
Chairman cc: Tom Davis
Ranking Minority Member

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Bush Administration, DOJ Blocking Iraq Fraud Suits
By Matt Renner
t r u t h o u t | Report

Wednesday 26 September 2007

Peter Keisler, the acting US attorney general, covered up evidence of alleged widespread contracting fraud in Iraq by preventing whistleblowers' complaints from being investigated, according to a prominent fraud attorney.

Alan Grayson, an attorney who has represented scores of whistleblowers in suits against companies that were awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts related to Iraq reconstruction, blamed the Bush administration for the lack of government action on Iraq fraud.

In an interview with Truthout, Grayson said Keisler has purposely delayed investigations into Iraq contractor fraud because of Keisler's political allegiance to the Bush administration. Keisler has refused to prosecute whistle-blower lawsuits because Bush "does not want more bad news coming out of Iraq," Grayson said, adding "to have an entire class of cases treated this way is truly unprecedented. I've been doing this for 20 years and I've never seen it before."

Keisler was appointed by President Bush to serve as the acting attorney general after Alberto Gonzales resigned in September. In July 2003, Keisler, became the assistant attorney general in charge of the civil division, roughly three months after the invasion of Iraq. Among its responsibilities, the civil division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is tasked with enforcing contract fraud laws and investigating whistle-blower complaints. A former law clerk for Judge Robert Bork and former Regan administration lawyer, Keisler is a co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society.

During his time at DOJ, Keisler led the Bush administration's successful legal fight to deny habeas corpus rights for prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Keisler recently resigned his post as assistant attorney general, saying he planned to spend time with his family. Keisler was nominated by the Bush administration to serve as a Federal Judge on the Washington DC Court of Appeals in 2006, but the Senate has not yet taken up his confirmation. He has failed to be confirmed by the Senate in two previous appointment attempts by Bush.

At a Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing September 21 on Iraq war contractors, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N. Dakota) said there "has been a staggering amount of contract abuse, the worst in our history."

In a hearing last week, Congressman Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Iraq contractor fraud remains a serious issue. "As has been reported in the press, the Inspector General and the Army have uncovered a cluster of fraud and corruption problems arising out of a series of support contracts, many of which were let from an office in Kuwait. As of August 28, the Army reported that it had 76 cases of fraud and corruption under investigation, had obtained 20 indictments, and had uncovered over $15 million in bribes. The people involved ranged from civilians and enlisted military personnel to relatively senior officers," Skelton said.

Yet, under Keisler's leadership, the DOJ civil division has refused to join any whistle-blower suits against Iraq war contractors. DOJ work on behalf of whistle-blower lawsuits against companies in other sectors has continued unabated.

The DOJ did not return calls for comment.

Keisler apparently took responsibility for the lack of Iraq fraud prosecutions in a keynote speech to the Taxpayers Against Fraud watchdog organization. The speech, however, was "off the record" and a transcript has not been made publicly available.

During his appearance before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, Grayson said "Under the False Claims Act, the Attorney General is supposed to join with whistle-blowers to prosecute and punish war profiteers. The sad truth is that the Bush Administration has not even tried to do this. On the contrary, it has done all it could to prevent this." The DOJ has not joined a single Iraq contracting fraud case brought by a whistle-blower to date.

Under the False Claims Act, established by President Lincoln as a result of fraud and war profiteering during the civil war, any citizen has the ability to sue a company for fraud on behalf of the US government. In what is known as a qui tam action, a whistleblower can recoup legal fees and a percentage of the money the lawsuit recovers for the government. When a qui tam action is brought by a whistleblower, it is placed under seal to allow the government to review the case and to investigate the accused company in secret.

The DOJ has refused to join 12 such cases and an estimated 50-70 cases remain under seal. By delaying their decision on whether or not to join these cases, the DOJ has kept whistleblowers and their lawyers from going public with their fraud accusations and has kept the accused companies out of court.

Despite a rejection from the government, Grayson has decided to move forward with five of his pending cases against Iraq war contractors, three against the Halliburton Company and two against Custer Battles LLC.

Beth Daley, the director of the Project on Government Oversight, described the DOJ's lack of action on Iraq fraud cases as "breathtaking," and as "a travesty of justice." According to Daley, "When you see what has happened with the Iraq fraud cases, you have to wonder if the DOJ has succumbed to political partisan interests rather than fighting corruption, which is their mission. This has huge implications for our democracy; to lose the most important corruption fighting agency to political agendas would be quite sad. It means that corruption has been allowed to fester."

According to Patrick Burns, a spokesman for Taxpayers Against Fraud, the DOJ has suffered from a lack of staff and resources. Burns says the DOJ has a huge waiting list for fraud cases filed by whistleblowers. Burns added, "the DOJ civil division is a-political. Keisler is as straight a stick as you will get. He is a good lawyer and I have never felt the slightest subterfuge from him."

Previously, Burns told The Associated Press, "Basically, they [the US government] have done nothing, and it is hard to explain what is going on there, other than direct orders from the very top of government," Burns continued, "It can no longer be explained by incompetence alone."

---

Matt Renner is an assistant editor and Washington reporter for Truthout.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Bush Administration: A Terrorist Organization?

Keith finally says what we have all known for years. Bogus Intel. is being used to frighten the Americans people an Congress whenever it looks like the little emperor won't get his way.

It all began with Anthrax, which as real, and the imploding towers, which were real.

Nothing has been real since. Nothing had to be.

Tuesday 25 September 2007

Keith Olbermann has been tracking the Bush Administration's use of trumped up terror alerts to manipulate the American people for the past two years, but in this latest Nexus of Politics & Terror report on Countdown, it appears the president stooped to a new low by using a bogus terror threat that specifically targeted Capitol Hill to manipulate members of Congress just hours before a crucial vote on the FISA bill last August.

According to Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Chairwoman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Terrorism Risk Assessment, the Bush administration knowingly used bogus intelligence to make lawmakers believe there was the chance of an imminent attack on the U.S. Capitol, thus frightening them into passing the temporary expansion of his powers to spy on Americans under the FISA act. Keith talks with former Reagan administration official and chairman of the American Freedom Agenda Bruce Fein, who has called for the impeachment of both Dick Cheney and George Bush about Bush's unconstitutional power grabs and how the Democrats can exert their powers as a co-equal branch of government by refusing to fund any spending mandated in future FISA bills.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Leahy Hammers McConnell's Credibility

Leahy Challenges Spy Chief's Credibility
By Thomas Ferraro
Reuters

Wednesday 26 September 2007

Washington - A top U.S. senator on Tuesday joined a list of Democrats challenging the credibility of spy chief Michael McConnell, and accused the national intelligence director of unfairly criticizing lawmakers.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy blasted McConnell for suggesting some members of the Democratic-led Congress fail to appreciate the threat of attack. Leahy also criticized McConnell for telling Congress earlier this month that open debate about U.S. surveillance endangered lives.

"I hope we will not hear anymore irresponsible rhetoric about congressional inquiries risking Americans' safety," Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, told McConnell at a hearing. "Our job is to protect Americans' security and Americans' rights."

Congress last month passed a law to expand for six months the power of the government to conduct surveillance without court approval while tracking suspected enemy targets.

The White House wants to make the law permanent, but critics argue the measure must be revised to protect the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens.

Some congressional Democrats, including Reps. Rush Holt of New Jersey and Anna Eshoo of California, have complained that misstatements by McConnell have eroded his credibility, particularly regarding the expanded surveillance power.

McConnell drew Leahy's ire for declaring in a prepared opening statement, "I heard a number of individuals - some from within the government, some from outside - assert that there really was no substantial threat to our nation justifying this authority."

"I have been accused of exaggerating the threats," McConnell said. "Allow me to dispel that notion. The threats we face are real, and they are serious."

Leahy, referring to McConnell's earlier appearances before other committees, told him, "I have concerns about some of the statements you made."

He said McConnell had suggested the new law had helped expose a suspected German bomb plot, but later was forced to clarify he was referring to the overall spy program, based on the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Leahy also said McConnell earlier offered conflicting estimates of how much intelligence-gathering capability would be lost without the new law.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.