Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit"I want to know when the Prince of Darkness comes to visit Mr. Cheney," the wife of a colleague said in response to the Vice President's most recent power grab.
The most secretive VP in US history has arbitrarily decided that the Secret Service logs of visitors to his official residence at the Naval Observatory are none of the people's business. In September 2006, Cheney's Counsel, Shannen Coffin, wrote the Secret Service that all logs should be handed over to the Office of the Vice President and that the agency "shall not retain any copy of these documents and information…. If any documents remain in your possession, please return them to OVP as soon as possible."
The letter was written as the Washington Post requested the logs under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) – a watchdog group targeting officials who "sacrifice the common good to special interests" – had sued the Secret Service for access to the records under the FOIA as well. CREW is seeking to identify conservative religious leaders who visited both the White House and Vice President's residence and the Coffin letter was filed by the Justice department in an effort to get the group's lawsuit dismissed.
"The latest filings make clear that the administration has been destroying documents and entering into secret agreements in violation of the law," said Anne Weisman, CREW's chief counsel.
Against Cheney's wishes, the Secret Service has retained copies of the records (though it maintains that these records – despite being "created as part of the Secret Service's performance of its statutorily-mandated function of protecting the President and Vice President" – are not subject to disclosure under the FOIA.) The Bush administration maintains that all of these records are protected under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and it "quietly" signed an agreement to that effect with the Secret Service a year ago as the media sought to investigate Jack Abramoff's White House access.
"The scary thing about this move by the vice president's office is the power grab part of it," Tom Blanton, head of the National Security Archive, told the Associated Press. "We're looking at a huge problem if the White House can reach into any agency and say certain records have something to do with the White House and they are presidential from now on. This White House has been infinitely creative in finding new ways and new forms of government secrecy."
And no one has been more aggressive on this battle against transparency than the Man Who Should Be Impeached (first). From secret meetings with energy executives to craft an energy policy that does nothing to alleviate oil dependence and everything to increase their own profits; to setting up a rogue agency (Office of Special Plans) that cherry-picked intelligence and lied our nation into this catastrophic war; to his close involvement with a parallel Justice Department (Office of Legal Policy – with David Addington and cronies) that sought to justify torture, use Presidential signing statements to ignore laws, and expand Executive powers at the expense of our system of checks and balances under the unitary executive theory. And now the Vice President is using and abusing his power to make secret what is the rightful knowledge of US taxpaying citizens.
What's next?
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
What's next?
With this crew, who knows. One thing for sure, it will be bad news.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/01/2007 @ 4:25pm
"And no one has been more aggressive on this battle against transparency than the Man Who Should Be Impeached (first)."
"should" but won't....Gospel According to Al---
"WASHINGTON: Former US vice president Al Gore, a staunch critic of George W Bush, has said he doesn't agree with calls for impeaching the president due to lack of "time" and "consensus."
Many democrats feel that Bush should be impeached for allegedly misleading the country deliberately in the lead up to the war in Iraq.
"With a year and a half to go in his term and with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition, any realistic analysis of that as a policy option would lead one to question the allocation of time and resources," Gore said during an interview with PBS.
Pressed on whether he believed that impeachment is a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful."
(Wait, here comes HSUBFOOLS to explain Al is just being gracious and offering the "innocent until proven guilty" benefit of the doubt....which means Ms vanden Heuvel ISN'T!)
Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 4:41pm
The WH is going to the Democrat Party in 2009 (corporate interests need to swing the pendulum of court decisions back to keep the peace among the masses). So, who the hell cares about how secret and powerful the Executive Branch gets? The Republican wing of our one party state?...notachance. The Democratic wing of the same party?.....notachance
Posted by freedomplease at 06/01/2007 @ 4:52pm
What's next? Declare Congress and the Supreme court unconstitutional and arrest all Democrats. That's what's next!
Posted by Noodle at 06/01/2007 @ 4:52pm
Frank....yep that's about it. There certainly will not be any REAL accountability for Bush or Cheney...not from corporate owned Repubs/Dems/judicial branch or media.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/01/2007 @ 4:55pm
Noodle,
Why would they mess with a major wing of their own Party (The Democratic wing)?
Posted by freedomplease at 06/01/2007 @ 4:56pm
IF the VP meets at his residence, `sensitive' delegations from Iran, Syria, AQ or wherever, and this is subject to Open Records, well, that will certainly give the conspiracy-mad Left wing media a whole bunch of stuff to speculate, err..., write about!
Yep, that's the ticket to remedy the creative juices drying up!
Posted by Happy at 06/01/2007 @ 5:21pm
Before I head into the weekend, my quick and dirty legal analysis of the Presidential Records Act:
§ 2201 (1)(B) ["Presidential records"] . . . does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552 (e) [1] of title 5, United States Code).
I not 100% certain, but reviewing 5 USC section 552, I think it is strained to argue the Secret Service is not an "agency." Perhaps it is not. However . . .
§ 2204(a) "The President shall specify durations … for which access shall be restricted with respect to information … within one or more of the following categories:
(1)(A) … specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy [and] fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order
(2) relating to appointments to Federal office;
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute …;
(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information …;
(5) confidential communications requesting or submitting advice; or
(6) personnel and medical files …
OK, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are inapplicable, except for isolated cases. And because we are talking only about logs of visitor names, I am not sure how they would apply anyway.
That gives us 1 and 5. A visitor log is not a "communication," so there goes 5. And a log alone relating to national security and foreign policy is a bit of a stretch -- especially if the WH is indeed trying to withhold the log in its entirety.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/01/2007 @ 5:42pm
Eggcellent information madam. Get behind HB 333!
Posted by lewwelge at 06/01/2007 @ 8:10pm
HR= House Resolution. HB="House Bill," a still used term?
Posted by lewwelge at 06/01/2007 @ 8:11pm
"And no one has been more aggressive on this battle against transparency than the Man Who Should Be Impeached (first)."
"should" but won't....Gospel According to Al---
Pressed on whether he believed that impeachment is a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful."
(Wait, here comes HSUBFOOLS to explain Al is just being gracious and offering the "innocent until proven guilty" benefit of the doubt....which means Ms vanden Heuvel ISN'T!)
Posted by MASK 06/01/2007 @ 4:41pm
See I keep saying you just do not grasp simple concepts. And again you misquote the simplist of truths-- it's an ongoing and devolving process with you isn't it.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but your "won't" and Al's "I don't think it would be", have two very different and not so subtle rhetorical meanings. Isn't Al's more tentative as in 'might not' happen, since he qualifies his comment as a process of ongoing 'thinking', while your's is more definitive, as in 'will not' or 'won't' think at all? But we all know it's really 'can't'...
It's as obvious a rhetorical difference as my hsuB/cHeney/Frito 'will' be impeached to Ms vanden Heuvel's 'should be'.
And next time please ask me whether you can be stupid on my behalf before you are. And I never said, 'Al is just being gracious and offering the "innocent until proven guilty" benefit of the doubt.' I said 'you' do not understand it as a concept evolving in time.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 8:21pm
It's as obvious a rhetorical difference as my hsuB/cHeney/Frito 'will' be impeached ....
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/01/2007 @ 8:21pm
They WILL be impeached? I thought Al Gore, our next President, showed us the way ...and gives hsuB/cHeney/Frito a presumption of "innocent until proven guilty"!??!!?!
hehe
Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 8:42pm
Semantics! We agree HR 333 should be co-sponsored and supported by more, n'est ce pas?
Posted by lewwelge at 06/01/2007 @ 8:44pm
KVH - How old are you again??? What a childish title! And to think that you wrote an article several months ago about the name calling and negative tone in politics. Grow up!
Posted by woodyee at 06/01/2007 @ 9:06pm
Gore is about as smart as a bag of hammers.
No offense to hammers.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/01/2007 @ 9:15pm
Gore is about as smart as a bag of hammers.
No offense to hammers.
Posted by USAPRIDE 06/01/2007 @ 9:15pm
interesting you should say that for you need a hammer to get any given conservative to snap out of the hamsterland fantasy.
Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 9:20pm
Off you go to ignore-land Woodye!
Posted by lewwelge at 06/01/2007 @ 9:23pm
Wait. Let me take a breath. Wood, are you taking exception with KVH's use, in discourse, of the Manichean dualist mythos still extant between salvationist heaven(s) and diabolical bedeviled and dastardly deltas of damnation?
Posted by lewwelge at 06/01/2007 @ 9:27pm
Lame analogy Willy.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/01/2007 @ 9:28pm
Lame analogy Willy.
Posted by USAPRIDE 06/01/2007 @ 9:28pm
you would know
Gore is about as smart as a bag of hammers.
Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 9:33pm
but if you said he were as smart as a bag of hamsters....
Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 9:33pm
he might have to find another planet to live on to hide his shame
Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 9:34pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZget a life libszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by davebarlett at 06/01/2007 @ 9:38pm
interesting... typing while woodworking
Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 9:41pm
so cutting edge
Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 9:42pm
I meant the hammer thing in a literal sense.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/01/2007 @ 9:44pm
as did I
Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 9:50pm
They WILL be impeached? I thought Al Gore, our next President, showed us the way ...and gives hsuB/cHeney/Frito a presumption of "innocent until proven guilty"!??!!?!
Posted by MASK 06/01/2007 @ 8:42pm
Unlike the new con synchronized swimming hamster team, a lot of progressive dems and indes actually think for themselves. Ever do that yourself?
Er, I meant successfully
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:09pm
Poor Masky, still doesn't get it...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:10pm
Masky it's about time, it's about space, it's about your ug
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:11pm
Oh wait you don't have one!
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:12pm
Poor Masky, still doesn't get it...
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/01/2007 @ 10:10pm |
Poor HSUBY....Come October, when Gore doesn't run, atleast you can say "Well, Al was right when they didn't go for impeachment!"
and probably not even think it is ironic!
hehe
Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 10:12pm
you are the ditzyiest broad that's ever blogged here mask
Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 10:17pm
Posted by MASK 06/01/2007 @ 10:12pm
Forget about it Masky (tm). It's too late for you to--- save face on this one.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:17pm
Say Masky were you ever in the army?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:20pm
What happened to you when they said "ABOUT FACE"!!!!
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:20pm
What happened to you when they said"ABOUT FACE"!!!!
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/01/2007 @ 10:20pm
she thought it was a class on makeup?
Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 10:22pm
Masky, ever on a 'real' date?
Did you ever get confused when she said--
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:23pm
you weren't just another pretty face?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:23pm
Masky, I suppose your confidence comes from having the benefit of never heven
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:26pm
fallen on your face.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:26pm
Did you ever get confused when she said--
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/01/2007 @ 10:23pm
Are you talking about the hippy chick that she did it with during the LUG phaze of her life or her secret crush on hillary?
Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 10:26pm
or cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:28pm
"I want to know when the Prince of Darkness comes to visit Mr. Cheney," the wife of a colleague said in response to the Vice President's most recent power grab.
NO MYSTERY THERE...
Cheney gets a daily briefing from His Evilness, who is probably also a member of the Saudi Royal Family.
Posted by w_m_bear at 06/01/2007 @ 10:28pm
Masky of course you get all that confrontational skill from never having a
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:31pm
face to face.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:31pm
Masky but I sorry I'm the one that has to tell you this but your major flaw is that you can't:
10. face the facts,
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:41pm
9. face the music,
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:41pm
8. no one can get in your face,
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:41pm
7. you have such a long face,
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:42pm
6. you fear hearing get out of my face,
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:42pm
5. you never know when you have a long face,
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:42pm
4. you have a tendency to fly in the face everything,
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:42pm
3. you can't wipe the smile off your face,
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:43pm
2. you can't face the consequences,
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:43pm
and last but not least--
1. you can't show your face.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:43pm
Lets face it-- you're messed up Masky.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:44pm
and lets not forget that no one has ever asked you to face to your left (or right for that mater) and cough.
Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 10:44pm
I'd like to take you at face value, Masky, but just can't for some reason...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:45pm
But then I don't feel that sorry for you, Masky, as no one's ever been able to laugh in your face.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:47pm
We'll just have to deal with the fact, Masky, that it'll be a while before you vanish off the face of the earth.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:49pm
It must be really annoying, Masky, not being able to tell anyone, especially me to get out of your face.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:52pm
But on the face of it, Masky...
OOooopps
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:54pm
Masky, you just have to put on a brave fac...
OOOooopps
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:55pm
Masky, are you able to keep a straight fa...
OOooppsss
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:56pm
Masky, ok ok, I don't want this to blow up in your f....
OOooppppsssss
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 10:58pm
Masky, I'm getting hungry-- need to go stuff my...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:00pm
Masky, you are ok with this
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:01pm
Face off.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:01pm
Oh just shut your face.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:02pm
OOoopppsss
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:02pm
Who was I typing to? Ma, Mas, what's his face?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:03pm
Oops
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:04pm
Masky, now don't you just come ut and throw this in my fac...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:05pm
Ooops
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:05pm
What's up Masky, can'y show your f
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:06pm
I guess all I've ever been trying to tell you Masky, is that you
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:09pm
wouldn't know something if it hit you in the face.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:10pm
OOooooppppppssss
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:10pm
We'll just have to deal with the fact, Masky, that it'll be a while before you vanish off the face of the earth.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/01/2007 @ 10:49pm | ignore this person
that's the beauty of it all, every 100 years, all new people.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/01/2007 @ 11:47pm
Can't mask that fact.
Oooops
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/01/2007 @ 11:49pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZhsub is on a roll.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by davebarlett at 06/02/2007 @ 01:16am
Dave, sounds like you need a face lift...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 01:58am
What's next?
More of the same. The good cop will look faux-righteous then sheepish, the bad cop will leer, and everyone will shrug and say "sheesh, cops!"*. The dems have already shown their colour on the Iraq war. Why would they tackle Cheney and co over strengthening the powers, secrecy and inviolability of the executive, which they anticipate controlling in 18 months?
* for the metaphorically challenged, good cop = dem, bad cop = rep
(Hsubfools please put Mask and other fascists on your ignore list, or you go on mine, though I have appreciated some of yr comments when on topic.)
Posted by mikecope at 06/02/2007 @ 03:44am
Boy, I must be doing something write....gotten HSUB and WILL in a tizzy.
hehe
Oh, and RESE, want to post that "War of JEWISH Supremacy" thing again...and then deny you're an anti-Semite?
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2007 @ 07:17am
Isn't it a given that Richard Perle has visited the VP residence? He was there all the time working the Feith based intelligence.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2007 @ 10:00am
Incredible how much the neo-cons just don't give a damn about their government.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2007 @ 10:02am
Cheney has things to hide, make sure Americans dont find out the truth, shred the records.
Posted by conshame at 06/02/2007 @ 10:18am
Mask here you are, you understood the votes werent there for ending the war 2 weeks ago, here you're attacking Al Gore for understanding there arent votes for impeachment, unfortunately, today. You make no sense Mask. Plus there is less than 2 years of Bush left and impeachment takes that long when there arent the votes. Mask you make no sense, ever.
Posted by conshame at 06/02/2007 @ 10:26am
Posted by CONSHAME 06/02/2007 @ 10:26am
CS, I'm not attacking Gore. HE's the smart one about impeachment, it's HSUBFOOLS that I'm mocking, as he's BOTH a Gore supporter and a pro-impeacher...and Al just cut the rug out from under him.
Gore's right...there's no public consensus for it (nor will be in the next 5-8 months) and it's a waste of energy.
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2007 @ 10:28am
The letter was written as the Washington Post requested the logs under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) – a watchdog group targeting officials who "sacrifice the common good to special interests" – had sued the Secret Service for access to the records under the FOIA as well. CREW is seeking to identify conservative religious leaders who visited both the White House and Vice President's residence and the Coffin letter was filed by the Justice department in an effort to get the group's lawsuit dismissed.
What's amazing to me is the innumerable ways that liberal interest groups manage to cast their bad faith attempts to damage this Administration in any and all ways possible as 'public interest' crusades. Like inquisition priests and their supporters, I'm sure they believe that their own partisan agenda is 'the public interest'; the interesting question is exactly how many bystanders get taken in by these charades, and how many, like myself, are simply astonished and bemused.
Posted by pontificus at 06/02/2007 @ 10:31am
Thanks Rese for the typically thorough and frightening investigative reporting. As for you, Pons, and your other fellow "critics" of anything other than your cynical "official" story lines, I'll merely remind you of the likely fact that if it looks like waste and smells like manure, it just might be merde.
Posted by lewwelge at 06/02/2007 @ 10:46am
Posted by LEWWELGE 06/02/2007 @ 10:46am
It's one thing to question authority; it's quite another to follow the pathology that anything and everything connected to the Bush Administration is criminal, incompetent, or evil. On the one hand, you have healthy skepticism; on the other, you have a form of insanity. by that measure, most people here are insane. Although I disagree with most of what MASK says, he is clearly not insane; that's what makes him stand out so much.
By the way, I've read a number of your posts which you clearly wrote while you were stoned. I would advise that you stop doing that.
Posted by pontificus at 06/02/2007 @ 10:53am
HB is not the only one here Mask who is pro-impeachment and also pro Al Gore - Al Gore is reaching out to his supporters to stay with the Democratic Party. Al Gore is saying hey supporters, you might not already agree with this but, here's why I think impeachment won't work.
Al Gore is saying don't leave the Democrats when the Democrats lose a battle, or someone from "the left" on a blog insults you. Its about having enough votes, it's about having enough decent people, patriotic people, liberal people - in congress casting good votes - enough good votes and you got it, that's what Al Gore means.
Posted by conshame at 06/02/2007 @ 10:54am
Dick Cheney is a Conservative Republican, Dick Cheney is hiding something.
Why else would he shredding these records?
Posted by conshame at 06/02/2007 @ 10:58am
Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 06/02/2007 @ 10:53am | ignore this person
But if Cheney has nothing to hide, why is he having his visitor log scrubbed. The logs are public information and there are laws against destroying those public documents. What will the historians think?
"And if all others accepted the lie which the (Republican) Party imposed--if all records told the same tale--then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the (Republican) Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" - George Orwell - in 1984 - read it.
itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 06/02/2007 @ 11:44am
LEWWELGE....RESE has CLEARLY demonstrated now that in addition to being an anti-Semite, he's an anti-Catholic (and no, not just "the leaders").
If you want to applaud that...then you're as bad as him.
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2007 @ 11:52am
Posted by CONSHAME 06/02/2007 @ 10:54am
Actually, CS, HSUBFOOLS denies that Gore meant that. According to HF, Gore REALLY MEANS "not right now, but later it'll be okay". According to him, it's "implied"...hehe
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2007 @ 11:54am
We all pretty much agree that Dick Cheney is hiding something and that is why he illegally shreds records.
Posted by conshame at 06/02/2007 @ 12:04pm
Impeachment would take 5 seconds if there were enough votes. It would be wonderful if George Bush and Dick Cheney would get impeached, they should impeach him over Enron.
Posted by conshame at 06/02/2007 @ 12:05pm
Posted by MASK 06/02/2007 @ 10:28am
Posted by CONSHAME 06/02/2007 @ 10:54am
I do believe Mask uses the 'Mask is so dumb thing'; to make a point he couldn't if he were to approach it from a more enlightened and intelligent avenue. Thus he chooses to ignore that "innocent until proven guilty" has ‘at least' too very different eventualities. And until a verdict, they are all true possible eventualities dependant on the presentation of the evidence and/or it's timing. One's inability to see gray, does mess up one's ability to see subtleties of form and time, evolution.
Currently, new cons are hiding, leaving, shredding, losing, as much evidence to their wrong doing as possible. And thus their argument for innocence is-- prove it, but you can't because we won't let you, so prove it, but you can't.... on and on. With the hsuB /cHeney misadmin, it is ever the criminal way.
New con repubs control of congress for 6 years of this hsuB/cHeney misadmin had no ongoing oversight and as such allowed no established path to accessing the required documentation in order to do oversight. Thus the subpoenas and/or ongoing threat of its use and playing catch-up to 6 years of obfuscation by both corrupt congressional repubs and the corrupt hsuB/cHeney misadmin. Dems in congress have an uphill fight and acknowledging dumb attacks on any of their battles, victory or defeat, without context-- as valid, need to be put in the light of day ASAP and shown for the deception that they are.
No, there is every valid reason to visualize cHeney ‘within' a dark and sinister cover-up; all his public pronouncements supporting disastrous policies have a premise he hides. It is the job of congress to know what the basis is for that premise and to evaluate whether it was/is purposeful misdirection and criminal or simply delusional mental incompetence. Either way, they are covering up for a reason. It is slightly more difficult to be convicted of murder, if one cannot find the dead body… but only slightly.
One may argue that there are now hundreds of thousands if not millions of dead bodies. We're just in the process of documenting the forensics.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 12:29pm
Posted by CONSHAME 06/02/2007 @ 10:58am
Dick Cheney is a Conservative Republican, Dick Cheney is hiding something.
Hmmm...let me guess - and the fact that you don't know what it is, PROVES that it's criminal - right?
Why else would he shredding these records?
Why do people shred their credit statements? Why did Sandy Berger steal and destroy records from the National Archives, plead guilty to a felony pled out to a misdemeanor, and then give up his law license to stop a further investigation?
When you only ask questions about one side of the argument, people peg you pretty easily for what you are - a knee-jerk partisan.
Posted by pontificus at 06/02/2007 @ 12:43pm
Posted by CONSHAME 06/02/2007 @ 12:05pm
Impeachment would take 5 seconds if there were enough votes.
That's right, and the Queen would be King if she had balls.
Posted by pontificus at 06/02/2007 @ 12:44pm
Pon Pon Pon
Sad. Where to start. Ever hear of presidential libraries? Know what's in them?
Oh, and by the way Pon, if the Queen had balls, she can still be a Queen.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 12:51pm
CONSHAME's rules of evidence
'There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,' said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; 'this paper has just been picked up.'
'What's in it?' said the Queen.
'I haven't opened it yet,' said the White Rabbit, 'but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to - to somebody.'
'It must have been that,' said the King, 'unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know.'
'Who is it directed to?' said one of the jurymen.
'It isn't directed at all,' said the White Rabbit; 'in fact, there's nothing written on the outside.' He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added 'It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses.'
'Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of they jurymen.
'No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, 'and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)
'He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)
'Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, 'I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'
'If you didn't sign it,' said the King, 'that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'
There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.
'That proves his guilt,' said the Queen.
Posted by pontificus at 06/02/2007 @ 12:56pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/02/2007 @ 12:51pm
SHUB, arguing with you is about as useful as arguing with my knee when the doctor hits it with one of those rubber hammers. That's about as much thought as what goes into your thinking about political issues.
Posted by pontificus at 06/02/2007 @ 1:02pm
arguing with you is about as useful as arguing with my knee
Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/02/2007 @ 1:02pm
Obviously not or you would not keep trying to do it!
That you continually fail in your arguments is your problem. A trick knee perhaps?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 1:10pm
Currently, new cons are hiding, leaving, shredding, losing, as much evidence to their wrong doing as possible. And thus their argument for innocence is-- prove it, but you can't because we won't let you, so prove it, but you can't.... on and on. With the hsuB /cHeney misadmin, it is ever the criminal way.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/02/2007 @ 12:29pm
Is this the "seed" of your future reason for why impeachment isn't forthcoming in October, HSUB?...."They destroyed the evidence!"
I grant, it's a good excuse. Let's you off the hook ("How can they impeach when Bush destroyed the evidence that the hearings NEEDED to impeach him with?!?!?")....Let's the Democrats off the hook as well (same reason)....and "supports" Al Gore's refusal to go along with it in May 2007 ("See! See! Gore was right, he KNEW they'd destroy the evidence and it'd be impossible to get a 'national concensus' for it!"
All of which refuses to grant the Occam's Razor reason....it was NEVER going to happen, Pelosi was NEVER going to "put it back on the table", and the public so flooded with Bush scandals doesn't really care if there's "evidence" or "testimony"...they just don't want to go through the mess.
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2007 @ 1:13pm
The relativism of the Repugnicant undead zombies and their partyline orthodoxy are of such dimensions that had orally-fixated, pouty-lipped Monica sunk to her knees to blow the Cheerleader ... she would have been hailed in the Murdoch Empire as a "precocious but sublime connosieur of semen, able to flush out boquet as she swishes the delicious liquid around her mouth" and would have been swiftly placed on the payroll as a cabinet level "Secretary of Oral Satisfaction". Maybe she would even have been dispatched to address captives to the retarded abstinence curricula as ... a "born again virgin" (actual term coined by born again christians)
Can you feel the relativism?
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/02/2007 @ 1:16pm
Is this the "seed" of your future reason for why impeachment isn't forthcoming in October, HSUB?...."They destroyed the evidence!"
Posted by MASK 06/02/2007 @ 1:13pm
Masky, remember Nixon?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 1:18pm
MASK,
Putting aside questions of legality & destroying evidence: Does Castro shred public documents in a primitive strategy to hide them from the people who hired and pay him? I ask since, by your own lights, the bearded one is the metric of bad governance -- or so it would seem from your all-encompassing day-and-night obsession over him that frankly has me worried. Could this ostenible distaste be the sentry at the door of ... libidinized fascination?
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/02/2007 @ 1:30pm
Is this the "seed" of your future reason for why impeachment isn't forthcoming in October, HSUB?...."They destroyed the evidence!"
Posted by MASK 06/02/2007 @ 1:13pm
Masky, remember Nixon? Ever?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 1:49pm
Or have you selective amnesia, a gray fog covers up that part of your brain? Ooops, you've chosen not to see gray. So then is it anything like your selective dumbness? A manuveur to make a dumb point when a smart one escapes you.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 1:49pm
" Does Castro shred public documents in a primitive strategy to hide them from the people who hired and pay him? "
First,and foremost, Castro has never been hired by anyone,never will, therefore he will never be fired, in fact he does the "firing"....squad like..as far as documents,why would he care about documents? Think he is going to allow any open forum to examine his,ah, rule?
This Castro could be impeached?
Posted by john maasch at 06/02/2007 @ 1:55pm
First,and foremost, Castro has never been hired by anyone,never will...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/02/2007 @ 1:55pm
So isn't Fidel a dictator, their 'decider' and signs off for whatever the country agrees to, right Maasch? So is this just propaganda:
Cuba Signs Energy Agreement With India
Cuba and India have signed a cooperation and technical assistance agreement for the development of renewable energy sources.
A seventh company, whose name Cuban authorities have not revealed for fear that the US might retaliate against it under Washington's economic embargo against the island, also signed an exploration deal.
PetrolWorld 280507
http://www.petrolworld.com/news/latinamerica/
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 2:06pm
Hy, PONTI, did you see that your whole Plame logic was shot out of the water?
Your hero Toesening (?) was dead nuts wrong about Plames status. She was COVERT!!
Any apologies? Want to admit in public that you were wrong?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2007 @ 2:12pm
Hey Maasch what about this:
Cuba signs expansion agreement with Canadian firm SherritPRIVATE
Cuba has signed an agreement with Canadian company Sherrit International, aimed at expanding their joint venture in the nickel industry, official sources reported today.
To meet the increase in production demands, the agreement signed with Sherrit establishes a schedule and process for expanding the program, as well as the conditions and allocation of mineral resources to support the operations of the joint company Moa Niquel over a period of 25 years.
In addition, the agreement establishes the main measures to be applied to project and conserve the environment in areas such as Moa that are linked to the project. (PL)
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/marzo/vier4/1sherrit.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 2:13pm
Want to regurgitate any RNC talking points, again?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2007 @ 2:16pm
Why don't the neo-cons believe in open government? Whine and moan about Castro and Chavez, but completely unwilling to let the public see whats going on in their own guvt. Does this come from the attitude that Daddy knows best? The same Daddy that has been so fundamentally wrong about foreign affairs? The same Daddies that have hired convicted felons to work for them, and had their staff convicted?
Is that how you guys think guvt should operate, outside of public view? With zero oversight? I thought conservatives were into responsibility. But, you guys are neo-cons, a whole new breed of blamers.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2007 @ 2:21pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/02/2007 @ 1:55pm
MAASCH,
Putting aside whether YOU have ever been hired by anyone or just fantasize and confabulate about it ... Is this to say you are exonerating Cheney? Since for all literate people who are not playing dumb like MASKTRO in order to fail to make any kind of point, it is Cheney who is the clear referent of the phrase about shred(ding) public documents in a primitive strategy to hide them from the people who hired and pay him? I am really embarrassed for you if you did not get the reference, pops.
But I will spell it out more as it seems necessary, as in: why don't these actions done in YOUR name concern YOU? Particulary when you go apeshit about (oh let's see) FBI files moved, Foster "assasinations", and other nonsense right on cue like a dog answering the whistle. I also ask since it is a source of wonderment how some people cannot stop popping off about other countries even as their own goes to seed under their noses (accompanied by frantic hand-waving, apologetics, beard-pulling and so on about omnipotent third world islands, etc).
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/02/2007 @ 2:23pm
Think he is going to allow any open forum to examine his,ah, rule?
This Castro could be impeached?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/02/2007 @ 1:55pm
Exactly the point. Is Castro and hsuB the same person? Thus the hsuB/cHeney misadmin as the exec branch of 'our' gov here in the USA, not to be confused with servicing dic'tator philosophy, like Cuba, should be transparent in their dealings in the name of 'we the people'. Thus it is a crime here to make inaccessible, hide, lose, destroy, documentation of said dealings. Thus the hsuB/cHeney misadmin are either criminals and creating a dictatorship like Castro.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 2:24pm
er, Thus the hsuB/cHeney misadmin are either criminals and/or creating a dictatorship like Castro.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 2:27pm
Your hate for all things Bush clouds your judgement and your entire thought process. It is hard to take you seriously.
Posted by john maasch at 06/02/2007 @ 2:32pm
Your hate for all things 'not' Bush clouds your judgement and your entire thought process. It is hard to take you seriously.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/02/2007 @ 2:32pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 2:36pm
Your hate for all things Bush refines and sharpens your judgement and your entire thought process, because it is grounded in reality. But it is hard to take me seriously since I still eagerly sniff the fumes from neoClown anus.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/02/2007 @ 2:32pm
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/02/2007 @ 2:37pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/02/2007 @ 2:36pm
My thoughts, almost exactly!
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/02/2007 @ 2:38pm
Exactly.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 2:42pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/02/2007 @ 2:36pm
My thoughts, almost exactly!
Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/02/2007 @ 2:38pm
Ah, sure. Impressive. Bye.
Posted by john maasch at 06/02/2007 @ 2:43pm
hmm, why should we be cautious about Chimpy, even hating what he goes about?
Wmd's in Iraq?
750 signing statements?
Hiring political flunkies with no experience in the assigned job?
A lengthening list of executive branch employees convicted of anything from shoplifting to lying under oath to graft?
Chimpies disconnect from reality when it comes to Iraq?
His mishandling of 2 wars, relying on Rumsfeld for years?
Signing an executive order hiding his Daddies papers from public viewing within days of taking office?
His 30% approval rating?
His VP's 17% approval rating?
Using "emergency" supplementals for war funding for 4 years?
No bid/cost plus contracting with politically and family connected companies?
His almost complete inability to make an articulate argument?
His illegal use of your tax dollars for propaganda?
His illegal use of the CPB?
His willingness to throw out basic human rights?
He is a liar?
His willingness to throw CIA agents under the tires for political motives?
Really, john, I thought you claim to be a conservative. You of all people should be outraged.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2007 @ 3:09pm
And who was it really that was in charge anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WztB6HzXxI
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 3:32pm
The only reason hsuB/cHeney have yet to be impeached. Just following the script:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3896987481032364173&hl=en
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 3:50pm
Whats this about LUVVY cutting and running?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2007 @ 3:54pm
News: Don't Panic
Has the United States lost the war in Iraq? Your War Questions Answered BY ANDISHEH NOURAEE Published 05.09.07
Goal: Democratize Iraq
Result: Failure
The White House likes to remind the world that, thanks to the U.S. invasion, Iraq has a democratically elected government.
That's two-thirds correct. Iraq's Parliament was democratically elected, but it isn't a government. Iraqis cast their votes for Parliament along ethnic and sectarian lines. The result is a parliament that is as divided as Iraq itself. It hasn't passed any major legislation because no group wants to give anything to any other group.
Even if the Parliament did pass legislation, Iraq's government can't enforce it. The national government has no real authority. The elections the Bush administration brags about so much actually deepened the sectarian and ethnic divides in Iraq. "Be nice to the Americans or they'll punish you with democracy," is how one Iraqi described his government recently to a BBC reporter.
Goal: Alleviate suffering of Iraqis
Result: Failure
Depending on whose numbers you believe, between 70,000 and 600,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. invasion. An estimated 2 million are refugees in neighboring countries. Saddam Hussein's rule was awful, but the U.S. invasion didn't alleviate suffering. Instead of systematic, state-sponsored violence, Iraq now has a sectarian civil war.
Goal: Make the United States safer from foreign terrorism
Result: Failure
The Iraq war diverted resources from the hunt for al-Qaeda, allowing the organization to regroup in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It has also turned Iraq into not just an inspiration, but a training ground for terrorists. The war has overstretched and exhausted the U.S. military and soured the American public on the idea of waging a smart, sustained campaign against militant Islam.
Goal: Oil
Result: Undetermined
Opponents of the war have accused the United States of invading for the purpose of "getting" Iraq's oil, as if Bush and Cheney were to stick it all in a giant Thermos and hide it under the White House. War supporters, on the other hand, refuse to in any way acknowledge oil as a reason to go to war, as if the fact that Iraq sits atop the world's second-largest oil supply is merely a nutty coincidence.
The United States invaded, intending to install a pro-American government that would boost Iraq's oil production, thus reducing the relative petro-power of U.S. rivals. A new Iraq could also act as a backup supplier in the event of unrest or revolution in Saudi Arabia. And of course, U.S. oil companies were poised to make a fortune in the process. But that was just another nutty coincidence, I suppose.
Iraq may yet become the new Saudi Arabia, but so far oil production hasn't increased much. Thanks to Iraq's nonstop violence, oil production is well below the Saddam-era peak.
Goal: Neutralize Iraq's WMD program
Result: Mission Accomplished
Prior to the war, the Bush administration claimed that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States because Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, and was well on its way to building a nuke. How well on its way? Not sure, said Condi Rice in January 2003, "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
It turns out Saddam's WMD threat to the United States did not exist. Iraq's WMD arsenal at the time we invaded consisted largely of useless old chemical artillery shells -- weapons that pose less danger to Americans than someone smoking a cigarette in front of a supermarket shelf stocked with bleach and insecticides.
http://sarasota.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:126086
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 4:09pm
http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/priraqclaimfact1029.htm
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 4:15pm
CLAIM: In response to questions about whether his tenure as CEO of Halliburton had to do with the company winning billions worth of no-bid contracts, VP Cheney said ?I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years.? [ 9/14/03 ]
FACT: Cheney receives up to $1 million a year from Halliburton and a $20 million retirement package from Halliburton. [UK Guardian, NY Times]
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 4:17pm
CLAIM: ?I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again?and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed.? ? Vice President Cheney, [ 9/14/03 ]
FACT: The Wash Times White House officials ?acknowledge that their post-Saddam plan for rebuilding Iraq has been substantially flawed on the security front. Some officials said privately that the plan for security after Baghdad's fall has been an utter failure.? [8/28/03]
FACT: ?A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff blames setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process? in which ?officials, , conceded in recent weeks that the Bush administration failed to predict the guerrilla war against American troops in Iraq.? [W. Times, 9/3/03 ]
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 4:21pm
CLAIM: ?Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.? ?Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02
?Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991? Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.? - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 4:22pm
CLAIM: ?[Saddam] is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.?- VP Cheney, 3/24/02
CLAIM: ?We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.? - VP Cheney, 3/16/03
We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.? - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 4:24pm
FACT: On 7/8/03, the W. Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. ?Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere? made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation [7/20/03]. In fact, ?CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference? removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]
FACT: The UN reported on 9/8/03 that Iraq was not capable of pursuing an active nuclear weapons program after 1991. The report said ?"No indication of post-1991 weaponization activities was uncovered in Iraq.?
FACT: Voice of America reported on 9/16/03 that, ?A senior official in Iraq's new science ministry says the country never revived its nuclear program after inspectors dismantled it in the 1990's.? The scientist, now a member of the U.S.-backed administration in Iraq, ?says Iraqi scientists had no way to re-start the program because the inspectors took away all the necessary resources.?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 4:26pm
CLAIM: There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
FACT: According to documents, "Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda terrorists." [NY Times, 1/15/04]
FACT: "CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." [NY Times, 1/15/04]
FACT: "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]
FACT: ?Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.? [National Journal, 8/9/03]
FACT: Declassified documents ?undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.? [LA Times, 7/19/03].
FACT: ?The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.? [NY Times, 6/27/03]
FACT: "U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.'" [LA Times, 11/4/02]
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 4:29pm
Ah yes, repub oversight-- yeah remember this:
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Page A01
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 4:44pm
Posted by CRABWALK 06/02/2007 @ 2:12pm
Hy, PONTI, did you see that your whole Plame logic was shot out of the water?
Your hero Toesening (?) was dead nuts wrong about Plames status. She was COVERT!!
Oh really????? And how did you come to THAT conclusion? Was someone charged with outing a covert agent? I mean, after all, she WAS OUTED - so if that was a crime, surely someone has alleged so? Oh, they haven't? Oh well.....
Any apologies? Want to admit in public that you were wrong?
Are you ready to admit yet that I was RIGHT? Didn't think so...
Posted by pontificus at 06/02/2007 @ 4:45pm
Pon Pon Pon
Do you know word the word 'delusional' means?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 5:11pm
de·lu·sion n. The act or process of deluding. The state of being deluded. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 5:13pm
er, word, what
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 5:14pm
Pon,
Oh of course, more latin sounding preference-- what about this:
ignis fatuus, noun, An erroneous perception of reality: delusion, hallucination, illusion, mirage, phantasm, phantasma, will-o'-the-wisp.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 5:34pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/02/2007 @ 4:45pm
What were you RIGHT about? You were wrong about a prosecutor being able to pursue a perjury case. You were wrong about Libbys guilt. You were wrong about Plames status.
From the Unclassified Summary of Valerie Wilsons CIA Employment History, a document provided to the court by the Special Prosecurtor hired by John Ashcroft:
" At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilsons employment with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative action to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States"
this matches what the head of the CIA said. Do you know something that the Justice Dept and the CIA don't? Or, could it be that you are an ideologue?
you were wrong. What more proof can there be?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2007 @ 6:15pm
Ponti, you need to get better sources.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2007 @ 6:16pm
Why do people shred their credit statements? Why did Sandy Berger steal and destroy records from the National Archives, plead guilty to a felony pled out to a misdemeanor..... Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 06/02/2007 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person
Silly man. People shred their credit statements in an attempt to prevent the nefarious from getting their information.
But if Cheney has nothing to hide, why is he having his visitor log scrubbed? The logs are public information and there are laws against destroying those public documents. I'm sure you'd agree that if a public official destroys public documents that they are by law required to be kept, they are breaking the law.
Sandy Berger removed 5 copies of documents and had made handwritten notes about other classified documents. After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed. Berger was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.
If Cheney has nothing to hide, why destroy public documents? Destroying public documents is a crime and Cheney should be held to the same standard as Berger. I'd be happy to let Cheney plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge, pay a fine, resign as VP and ride off into the sunset. Ba bye, see ya.
This is all so silly on Cheneys' part, especially if he has nothing to hide. I'm sure you would agree.
"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?" - Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll
Didn't bush say something like that?
itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 06/02/2007 @ 9:27pm
Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 06/02/2007 @ 9:27pm
Sandy Berger removed 5 copies of documents and had made handwritten notes about other classified documents. After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.
Wrong. Berger destroyed copies of memos that had been annotated by Administration staff. That's where the oft-repeated, and always wrong statement that 'no original' material had been destroyed. In fact, several 'original' memos, i.e., copies of memos with handwritten annotations had been destroyed. And since all of these had to do with national security actions undertaken by the Clinton Administration with regard to terrorist threats, there is a lot of speculation that Berger may have been scrubbing the record clean of incriminating data, in preparation for a plum appointment by Hillary Clinton should she be elected (curiously, his suspension from the ability to deal with classified info runs out right about the time she may be elected). But of course, since he destroyed the originals, escaped out of a felony conviction by pleading guilty/paying a fine to a misdemeanor charge, nd surrendered his license to practice law in order to stop an investigation, we'll never know now.
Berger was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.
Yes, and how odd that someone who claimed that he 'inadvertently' destroyed these memos should agree to this kind of penalty. Moreover, his claim that he 'inadvertently' stuffed this information down his pants, dead-dropped them outside in a construction trailer (later picking them up and destroying them at home) is so patently false and deceptive that the fact that he is covering something up is the ONLY logical explanation.
If Cheney has nothing to hide, why destroy public documents? Destroying public documents is a crime and Cheney should be held to the same standard as Berger. I'd be happy to let Cheney plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge, pay a fine, resign as VP and ride off into the sunset. Ba bye, see ya.
The difference here is that there is no reason to believe that Cheney is doing anything wrong, or hiding anything at all. Unlike Berger's actions, his are not criminal. And again, this begs the question of why Berger would perform knowingly criminal actions (i.e., destroying national security documents) if there was nothing to hide? Why would Libby perjure himself if there was no conceivable crime that he even COULD have been covering up?
Posted by pontificus at 06/02/2007 @ 9:46pm
Posted by CRABWALK 06/02/2007 @ 6:15pm
What were you RIGHT about? You were wrong about a prosecutor being able to pursue a perjury case. You were wrong about Libbys guilt. You were wrong about Plames status.
From the Unclassified Summary of Valerie Wilsons CIA Employment History, a document provided to the court by the Special Prosecurtor hired by John Ashcroft:
" At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilsons employment with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative action to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States"
this matches what the head of the CIA said.
Oh is that so? Then how come Fitz never charged Armitage with revealing the info, since he knew at the outset of the investigation that it was Armitage who revealed Plame's status? The fact is, Fitz has been playing coy with this charge all along, knowing that he never would pursue an indictment for revealing a covert agent's identity because he knew it would never stick. He used these little hints just to justify his investigation, which ultimate went nowhere, except to nail Libby for misstatements about a 'crime' that was never even alleged. It's a total abuse of Fitz's power, he should be disciplined himself for prosecutorial misconduct in this witch hunt.
How you can still maintain that Plame was covert when no-one has even been charged for outing her is simply ludicrous. Give it up, already.
Posted by pontificus at 06/02/2007 @ 9:52pm
Posted by CRABWALK 06/02/2007 @ 6:15pm
you were wrong. What more proof can there be?
I really don't get the point of this statement. If Plame was covert (which is a dubious presumtion), why didn't Fitz charge Armitage, the person who 'outed' her, with a crime? Since we all know it was Armitage who outed her, what was this investigation even ABOUT?
Posted by pontificus at 06/02/2007 @ 10:02pm
They're obviously not the brightest bunch on the planet Ponti. It's very kind of you to try to improve them.
However they also seem to have a chronic problem in distinguishing the Prince of Darkness from the Prints of Darkness but if these prints are their therapy then why should we attempt to deprive them of a chance at a little happiness?
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/02/2007 @ 10:41pm
Because they were high.
Pon Pon Pon
They lied about so much that they could only procecute Libby as the 1st liar. Remember Fitzgerald's comment about them new con supporters, sercivers of dic'tator philosophy-- kicking sand in his eyes?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/02/2007 @ 10:43pm
Katrina,
Cheney isn't the "Prince of Darkness." That nickname belongs to Richard Perle. Cheney is "Big Time."
Posted by antiPartisa at 06/02/2007 @ 11:27pm
Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 06/02/2007 @ 9:46pm | ignore this person
Wrong. Berger destroyed copies of memos that had been annotated by Administration staff.....In fact, several 'original' memos, i.e., copies of memos with handwritten annotations had been destroyed.
Interesting! And you know this is fact how? Do you hear it in your car listening to Rush Linbaugh? Why in the world would I take anything you would post as the truth? The lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the very partisan Republican controlled Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.
Now, if you have additional facts regarding this case I suggest you contact the Justice Department Monday morning and and surrender the vital new information as I suspect only you know about it. If you don't go to the Justice Department, well, I guess I'd have to conclude you're just full of s... never mind.
I'm sure we both agree that destroying protected public documents is a crime. If a public official knowingly orders the destruction of protected documents they are guilty of a crime, period, end of story.
The difference here is that there is no reason to believe that Cheney is doing anything wrong, or hiding anything at all. Unlike Berger's actions, his are not criminal.
I'm not going to play games with you about Cheney having nothing to hide. The fact he order the logs scrubbed is so suspect 'and deceptive that the fact that he IS covering something up is the ONLY logical explanation.'
So, the questions here are, who visited Cheney, how many times, what kind of services were performed, and how much did he pay. It wouldn't be surprising if Cheneys' phone number was found among the thousands of phone numbers in Jeane Palfreys', the woman dubbed the "D.C. Madam," phone list. But wait, maybe it wasn't representatives of "Pamela Martin and Associates" escort service, maybe it was Jeff Gannon from hotmilitarystud.com.
BTW, how DID Jeff get into the Whitehouse for over two years using an assumed name? (Real name is James D. Guckert) Why did a gay male prostitute spend many nights in the Whitehouse? Was he sleeping in the famous "Lincoln Bedroom", and with whom? So many questions..... All these stories and no acceptable answers. With Cheney scrubbing the Secret Service Records and you having no reasonable explanation, the fact that he IS covering something up is the ONLY logical explanation.'
"I can't believe THAT!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" said the Queen in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said, "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why sometimes I believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!"
Lewis Carroll - BLATHERIFICUS'S Alter-Ego
itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 06/03/2007 @ 01:11am
Posted by ANTIPARTISA 06/02/2007 @ 11:27pm
It says 'When the Prince of Darkness Visits'-- not that cHeney was the one doing the visiting. We just want to know if that's what's been visiting cHeney.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/03/2007 @ 01:33am
At least you and your uncrazed pal Mask have telling monikers, Pons. I have him ignored. Your self-righteous pomposity and sanctimonious pontification provides decent riposte fodder. Pride goeth before the fall, friend, and please, don't Bogard that joint.
Posted by lewwelge at 06/03/2007 @ 07:25am
Ponti, this has been explained to you ad nauseam . Armitage, a republican, was not charged, and Libby was not charged because intent could not be proven. One reason it can not be proven is that LIBBY LIED about his actions and knowledge. If he is LYING, how does a prosecutor get to the truth a to prove his case?
You have claimed for over a year that Plame was not covert.
the CIa says she was covert.
The Justice Dept says she was covert.
Like Coprogressive says, if you have knowledge these organizations don't, you need to get it out!!!
Please, I am keen to learn how you blow this off:
" At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilsons employment with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative action to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States"
And this:
CUMMINGS: On Wednesday night, I know that Mr. Waxman, our chair, and Congressman Reyes, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, spoke personally with General Hayden, the head of the CIA. And Mr. Waxman told me that Gen. Hayden said clearly and directly, "Ms. Wilson was covert." There was no doubt about it. By the way, the CIA has authorized us to be able to say that. In addition, I understand that Chairman Waxman sent his opening statement over to the CIA to be cleared and to make sure that it was accurate. In it, he said, "Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA." "Ms. Wilson was undercover." The CIA cleared these statements. I emphasize all of this because I know that there are people who are still trying to suggest that what seems absolutely clear isn't really true and that you weren't covert. And I think one of the things we need to do in this hearing is make sure there isn't any ambiguity on this point. Just three more questions, did you hold this covert status at the time of the leak? Did you -- the covert status at the time of the leak?
WILSON: Yes I did, congressman. Yes.
CUMMINGS: Number two, the Identities Protection Act refers to travel outside the United States within the last five years. Let me ask you this question. Again, we don't want classified information, dates, locations, or any other details. During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?
WILSON: Yes I did, congressman.
CUMMINGS: Finally, so as to be clear for the record, you were a covert CIA employee and within the past five years from today, you went on secret missions outside the United States. Is that correct?
WILSON: That is correct, congressman.
CUMMINGS: I want to thank you and I hope this committee now has cleared up the issue of covert, whether Ms. Plame was a covert agent, and I yield back.
I am collecting a beer from another neo-con Monday, he is paying up, because Plame was a COVERT CIA agent whose cover was blown to help Chimpy make false claims about wmd's that did not exist. do you recognize that they were not there, or do you think they are in Syria? This would follow your logic path, believing something with zero proof.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2007 @ 09:37am
How you can still maintain that Plame was covert when no-one has even been charged for outing her is simply ludicrous. Give it up, already.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/02/2007 @ 9:52pm
I can claim this because it is true, verified by the CIA and the United States Justice Dept. Your obtuseness is truly breathtaking. BTW, Clinton and Berger have nothing to do with this or Cheney, so your silly attempts to side step are worthless.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2007 @ 09:42am
I really don;t want to get into your nonsensical ravings again, but... according to YOUR logic Clinton should never have been charged with perjury.
U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ultimately sided with the Clinton's team motion for a "summary judgement" throwing out the case before it could come to trial.
Even if Clinton did make a crude proposition, Wright wrote that it would not constitute sexual assault and that there was no proof Jones was emotionally afflicted or punished in the workplace for rebuffing him.
"There are no genuine issues for trial in this case," she wrote.
Clinton was never charged with anything, so how could he be charged with lying?
simple answer, it is illegal to lie under oath, period!! Why is it illegal to lie under oath? Because it thwarts investigators.
Lets go to tape from Fitzy, a man that just got done bringing dems to justice in Chicago, appointed by republicans to investigate republicans:
Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.
It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.
Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.
FITZGERALD: That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.
And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.
But as important as it is for the grand jury to follow the rules and follow the safeguards to make sure information doesn't get out, it's equally important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth.
It's especially important in the national security area. The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they're not so clear.
And grand jurors and prosecutors making decisions about who should be charged, whether anyone should be charged, what should be charged, need to make fine distinctions about what people knew, why they knew it, what they exactly said, why they said it, what they were trying to do, what appreciation they had for the information and whether it was classified at the time.
FITZGERALD: Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate.
That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began. And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby is the vice president's chief of staff. He's also an assistant to the president and an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs.
FITZGERALD: The focus of the interview was what it that he had known about Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, what he knew about Ms. Wilson, what he said to people, why he said it, and how he learned it.
But I think what we see here today, when a vice president's chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law.
But what we need to also show the world is that we can also apply the same safeguards to all our citizens, including high officials. Much as they must be bound by the law, they must follow the same rules.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2007 @ 10:00am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/02/2007 @ 12:29pm
Given your general idiotic rudeness when posting to this thread, I'm not inclined to take anything you say about anything seriously or consider it worthy of a response. (Mask is being generous, I think.) I would click "ignore this person" on you except that I don't do that on ANYONE just as a matter of policy.
Posted by w_m_bear at 06/03/2007 @ 3:04pm
Bear,
Apparently you take me seriously enough that you feel you have to tell me you don't take me seriously! I suppose you're one not into effeciency?
I suppose you prefer to hear all of some of the truth too... good luck with that.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/03/2007 @ 4:50pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/03/2007 @ 12:46pm
Naw, I think there's still time to impeach the whole lot of them given the grave circumstances. Congress can be self-compelled to move quickly when they have too. I doubt that repubs are no longer interested in getting re-elected as their repub base do react rather negatively to proven or should I say highly publicized corruption and criminality. Considering hsuB/cHeney's low job approval polling, it would not take much to convince us, 'we the people' that impeachment is necessary. I'd say within a month of MSM front page condemnation coverage of the proven hsuB/cHeney misadmin corruption, congress will move.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/03/2007 @ 5:00pm
Bear,
Apparently you take me seriously enough that you feel you have to tell me you don't take me seriously! I suppose you're one not into effeciency?
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/03/2007 @ 4:50pm
How predictable.
Posted by w_m_bear at 06/03/2007 @ 5:08pm
How predictable.
Posted by W_M_BEAR 06/03/2007 @ 5:08pm
How original.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/03/2007 @ 5:37pm
"Prince of Darkness"?
Yeah, right, like Ahmadinejad is gonna visit Cheney. Get real.
Posted by FREIHEIT 06/03/2007 @ 5:18pm
Well, apart from trusting a proven chronic liar, there's only one 'real' way to find out-- now isn't there.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/03/2007 @ 5:39pm
Saint Tom Waits:
"Road to Peace"
It's found his toddlers bottle and a pair of small shoes and they waved them in front of the cameras
But Israel says they did not know that his wife and child were in the car
There are roadblocks everywhere and only suffering on TV
Neither side will ever give up their smallest right along the road to peace
Israel launched it's latest campaign against Hamas on Tuesday
Two days later Hamas shot back and killed five Israeli soldiers
So thousands dead and wounded on both sides most of them middle eastern civilians
They fill the children full of hate to fight an old man's war and die upon the road to peace
"And this is our land we will fight with all our force" say the Palastinians and the Jews
Each side will cut off the hand of anyone who tries to stop the resistance
If the right eye offends thee then you must pluck it out
And Mahmoud Abbas said Sharon had been lost out along the road to peace
Once Kissinger said "we have no friends, America only has interests"
Now our president wants to be seen as a hero and he's hungry for re-election
But Bush is reluctant to risk his future in the fear of his political failures
So he plays chess at his desk and poses for the press 10,000 miles from the road to peace
...And if God is great and God is good why can't he change the hearts of men?
Well maybe God himself is lost and needs help
Maybe God himself he needs all of our help
Maybe God himself is lost and needs help
He's out upon the road to peace
Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2007 @ 8:24pm
Congress won't even hold lyng oil execs to the law, why should we expect them to do anything to Chimpy?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2007 @ 8:26pm
It seems useless to debate any next steps unless there is something DIRECTLY the American public can do.
Whether it's a lack of time, of resources, of will, of ideology, or whatever else tossed on the table to mitigate the tyranny of G.W., Cheney, et al, unless the people can have their voice heard about this NOW -and our current system does not allow for it- then it's business as usual.
Democracy continues it rapid slide down the slope and Mr. Cheney guffaws.
Posted by onearth at 06/03/2007 @ 9:42pm
Well, we respect privacy. However, since Cheney is a public figure now and he did strive for that role, he must give up his penchant for secrecy. Dick, don't tell me who are your friends, I know who you are.
Posted by Helen DAO at 06/03/2007 @ 10:42pm
Cheney's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE extends far beyond the Libby/Plame fiasco. This is the tip of a Titanic-sized iceberg. Follow the trail all the way back to 9/11 - and even prior to 9/11.
GHW Bush, Ken Lay, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld conspired to take back the White House from the Clinton regime. They decided upon using Lay's Enron trading platform to create a FAKE ENERGY CRISIS in California to set the stage for the "oil experts" to seize power in order to implement the PNAC plan in concert with the Neocons. GHW forged this alliance when they conspired to plant Lewinski (a Mossad "Swallow") next to Clinton.
9/11 was part of their plan. Bush, Cheney, and the rest all work for David Rockefeller. It is Rockefeller's globalists strategy (with Israel as its focal popint) that is being slowly revealed - piece by piece.
Was it Cheney who ordered Chertoff to kill the Ptech Investigation??? And Remember "Operation Greenquest?" That investigation was killed too!
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/01/michael-chertoff-and-sabot age-of-ptech.html
A tipster was Indira Singh, who has said she recognizes the separate command and control communications system Mike Ruppert describes Dick Cheney to have been running on September 11th as having "the exact same functionality I was looking for (Ptech)."
The Ptech case turned into an ugly dispute last year when company whistleblowers told Greenquest agents about their own suspicions about the firm's owners. Sources close to the case say those same whistleblowers had first approached FBI agents, but the bureau apparently did little or nothing in response. With backing from the National Security Council, Greenquest agents then mounted a full-scale investigation that culminated in a raid on the company's office last December. After getting wind of the Greenquest probe, the FBI stepped in and unsuccessfully tried to take control of the case.
Whatever the truth, there is no dispute that the case has so far produced no charges and indictments against Al-Qadi or anyone else connected with Ptech.
What role did Dick Cheney play in killing the investigation into Al-Qadi?
Now, how does Chertoff figure in the Ptech story? It goes back to the turf war of two years ago over Operation Greenquest, "the high-profile federal task force set up to target the financiers of Al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups."
Clearly ptech represent some nexus between the government and terorism that must not be revealed, and Chertoff is just the man to cover it up.
Comverse/Ptech CEO, Kobi Alexander, is central to 9/11 along with Dov Zakheim. Alexander, though wanted on federal charges, is in the witness protection program.
Ask Cheney specifically about Kobi Alexander - and the whereabouts of the $7 trillion of DOD funds stolen by Dov Zakheim to pay for the coup.
Posted by plunger at 06/04/2007 @ 06:12am
WILD CORNERED ANIMAL STAGE IS UPON US.
The co-conspirators never expected to find themselves in this position.
WMD were going to be planted in Iraq, but Plame's Brewster Jennings uncovered the plan, and their essential justification for the invasion of Iraq was lost.
They never shifted to a strategy that included VICTORY in Iraq. They had always intended to instigate the Civil War - but their original plan always relied on the justification of WMD.
Now they are stuck - implementing a plan that did not account for the absence of a justified pretext for the war.
Now their backs are to the wall, and they need to bomb Iran soon in order to create yet another distraction.
They are now desperate for a Pretext - the result of which will surely include investigations, arrests, and hanging for treason - if not war crimes trials at the Hague.
WILD CORNERED ANIMALS will do ANYTHING to protect their own skins.
Cheney is plotting a False Flag Terror Attack on US Soil to justify the declaration of Martial Law and the bombing of Iran. Israel and its operatives are doing all they can to help.
ARREST DICK CHENEY on charges of Fraud and Treason.
Posted by plunger at 06/04/2007 @ 06:15am
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200403/mann
The Armageddon Plan
During the Reagan era Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were key players in a clandestine program designed to set aside the legal lines of succession and immediately install a new "President" in the event that a nuclear attack killed the country's leaders. The program helps explain the behavior of the Bush Administration on and after 9/11
by James Mann
.....
A t least once a year during the 1980s Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld vanished. Cheney was working diligently on Capitol Hill, as a congressman rising through the ranks of the Republican leadership. Rumsfeld, who had served as Gerald Ford's Secretary of Defense, was a hard-driving business executive in the Chicago area--where, as the head of G. D. Searle & Co., he dedicated time and energy to the success of such commercial products as Nutra-Sweet, Equal, and Metamucil. Yet for periods of three or four days at a time no one in Congress knew where Cheney was, nor could anyone at Searle locate Rumsfeld. Even their wives were in the dark; they were handed only a mysterious Washington phone number to use in case of emergency.
After leaving their day jobs Cheney and Rumsfeld usually made their way to Andrews Air Force Base, outside Washington. From there, in the middle of the night, each man--joined by a team of forty to sixty federal officials and one member of Ronald Reagan's Cabinet--slipped away to some remote location in the United States, such as a disused military base or an underground bunker.
Posted by plunger at 06/04/2007 @ 06:20am
I could never have dreamed up a more counter-productive foreign policy. Not in a million years.
By: Tommy on September 01, 2006 at 11:41pm
Tommy,
This presupposes that the leaders want peace. It is the PEOPLE that want peace...not the leaders.
The leaders work for the oligarchs, and the oligarchs want territory, resources and control of the masses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_oligarch
Cheney and Rumsfeld are following Ledeen's advice...which calls for nothing less than "TOTAL WAR." Ledeen is the biggest war monger on the planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
Cheney and Rumsfeld are not working for you and me. They have an agenda which you cannot even fathom, which helps to explain your lack of understanding of the path that they are on.
Picture Cheney and Rumsfeld as the heads of a crime syndicate, and assume that all of their goals contradict those of the American people. Study where they have come from and what they have done together in the past. Only then can you see them for what they are.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200403/mann
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/05/far04017.html
http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Articulations/Script-CodeNameArtichoke. html
Rumsfeld had an Israeli Operative named Dov Zakheim positioned as comptroller inside the Pentagon. Rummy announced to the world on the day prior to 9/11 that $2.3 TRILLION was missing from the Pentagon's budget...enough to fund an entire military coup.
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html
In 2001 Dov was CEO of SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor majoring in electronic warfare technologies, including remote-controlled aircraft systems, and the notorious Flight Termination System (FTS) technology that could hijack even a hijacked plane and land or crash it wherever.
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1047.shtml
Reality has been stood on its head by Karl Rove. Your prior writing states emphatically that Bin Laden attacked us on 9/11. You have no evidence of that, because there is none. You accept what you've been told.
If you really hope to understand what is going on, you need to listen to what the media tells you is true, then assume that in fact the opposite is where the truth resides.
One need only look at the titles Rove adopts for various initiatives and programs to comprehend the game.
"Homeland Security" isn't about your security.
"Patriot Act" isn't about Constitutional laws.
"No Child Left Behind" left children behind.
"Prescription Drug Benefit" wasn't.
and so on...
This is OPPOSITE WORLD.
It's time to see with new eyes.
Cheney and Rumsfeld masterminded 9/11 as a False Flag Operation, with elements of Mossad and others. Any good False Flag operation has at its core, the essential element to STRIKE ONE'S SELF in order to divert all attention away from the true culprits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Norm Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission that he personally witnessed Cheney demanding that the plane that struck the Pentagon be allowed to continue on its course unimpeded, despite the numerous coutermeasures at his disposal as he watch it close for 50 miles or more.
http://www.911truthmovement.org/archives/2005/11/post.php
If you really want to know that's going of, wrap your mind around that first.
Posted by plunger at 06/04/2007 @ 06:23am
ASBESTOS & 9/11
The WTC was a $15 billion HALLIBURTON liability.
There's more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.
The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!
In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected "terrorist" attack demolished the buildings completely.
WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-story steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed - exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.
WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20pm
http://wtc7.net http://911review.com
How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:
"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
WOW, WHAT A COINCIDENCE!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=silverste in&hl=en
WOW, WHAT A COINCIDENCE!
As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, "Pull" is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history - including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building's tenant.
Inside WTC 7 was the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.
What a neat, complete, and fortuitous turn of events was 9/11.
Incidentally, it's worth noting that one of Lucky Larry's closest friends - a person with whom it's said he speaks almost daily by phone - is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/07/18306895.php
Posted by plunger at 06/04/2007 @ 06:24am
McCain Says Major Financiers Will Back His 2008 Bid
December 15, 2006
One of the most prominent on the list of finance committee co-chairmen is the head of the New York Stock Exchange, John Thain. Mr. Thain, whose title is CEO of NYSE Group, Inc., previously served as president and CEO of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
A New Jersey-based investment banker deeply involved in fund-raising efforts for the 2004 Republican convention, Lewis Eisenberg, is signing on with Mr. McCain. Mr. Eisenberg is a former Goldman Sachs partner who served as chairman of the Port Authority board at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
WHAT A FUCKING COINCIDENCE!
It was Eisenberg who passed the $15 billion Asbestos Liability represented by the Twin Towers onto Larry Silverstein, the man who confessed publicly to having Building 7 "PULLED" by explosives – despite the fact that no plane struck it:
Rescuer 2: "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0
LISTEN to the firefighters and police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus
Listen to the owner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYaUeGvYYxc
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm
COLLEGE STUDENTS DYING FROM INHALED ASBESTOS:
http://www.bupipedream.com/pipeline_web/display_article.php?id=3259
ALL SO HALLIBURTON COULD REMOVE THE WTC ASBESTOS LIABILITY FROM ITS BOOKS - HALLIBURTON HAD ACQUIRED DRESSER TO SAVE THE BUSH FAMILY FROM THE LOSING POSITION IT WAS STUCK IN…all because of the pending Asbestos law suits
Planning days in advance to bring down WTC7 by planting explosives inside it implies only ONE THING...FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTACK ON 9/11.
Google: "Dancing Israelis"
The Zionists did it. McCain is in their employ. Lieberman is absolutely his running mate. Apparently McCain doesn't realize that once they are "installed" in the White House, his own days on planet earth are numbered by dark forces who will not rest until Israel has installed a Zionist as President in YOUR White House.
Follow the money.
Google: Greenquest
Posted by plunger at 06/04/2007 @ 06:25am
WHY DOES LIEBERMAN FAVOR WAR?
Just follow the trail of the money!
MEL SEMBLER:
Mel Sembler---U.S. Ambassador to Italy, although he can't speak Italian. Election Fraud specialist. Owns the Bay Point School in Florida allegedly used for testing election fraud devices in 1999.
Involved in creating the forged yellowcake documents that led to the War in Iraq. National Finance Chairman Republican Party, head of finance for Bush presidential campaign. Past hon. Pres. Republican Jewish Coalition.
The United States has given Israel over 90 billion dollars in foreign aid. In 2003, Israel received $53.4 Million dollars a day from the traitors in Congress. That's a very solid return on the AIPAC contributions that Israel pays out to U.S. Congressmen.
ISRAEL RECEIVED up to $75 billion as emergency aid, directly connected to the war on Iraq. This amounts to 2500% increase in aid to support Israel in a war that they have claimed they are not involved in. Who is benefiting from the war on Iraq?
Follow the trail of the money!
Iraqi oil flowing to Israel….
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
WHO IS MEL SEMBLER???
WHY IS HE HEADING UP THE SCOOTER LIBBY LEGAL DEFENSE FUND?
HERE'S WHY:
WHEN was he Ambassador to Italy? Does 2002 ring any bells in your head? Well it should-- remember all the secret meetings in Italy involving Ledeen et al, and the forged documents about uranium from Africa that turned up at the US Embassy that October? Yes, THAT October 2002.... So we have Sembler at the scene of the crime related to the crime Scooter is being investigated for.
WHO ELSE HAS RUSHED TO LIBBY'S DEFENSE?
Sounds like a PNAC Picnic roster…
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4299
WHY DID ISRAEL WANT THE US TO INVADE IRAQ, AND INVENT FALSE INTELLIGENCE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN?
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
MEL SEMBLER:
The Washington Post gave him its "Narcissism Run Amok" award for buying a monument to himself.
As a Bush supporter since 1979, Sembler capped nearly 10 years of campaigning on November 8, 1988, when Bush won the bid for the presidency.
In February 1989, President George H.W. Bush appointed Sembler United States Ambassador to Australia and Nauru, where he served for three and a half years
Sembler has been a Republican fundraiser since 1979, raising a record $21.3m at a single dinner in April 2000.
Mel Sembler was appointed by President Bush as Ambassador to Italy and was sworn in by Vice President Cheney on November 16, 2001.
In February 2005 Sembler had an annex to the US Embassy in Rome named after him (the Mel Sembler Building) - an unheard of honour for a sitting diplomat. The naming was due to an amendment by Rep. Bill Young to an appropriations bill.
Bush thought this unusual. "And he said," Young recalled, " 'We don't do that, do we? We don't name buildings for ambassadors where they have served.' And I said, 'Mr. President, I introduced the bill and you signed it.' "
But there was more. If you go, as you should, to the Web site to look at the stunning photo display, you'll come to a gorgeous photo (shown above) of the frescoed ceiling of the C.W. Bill Young Conference Center right there in the Mel Sembler Building. And there are a couple of fine bronze plaques naming the center that go on the walls there.
And so it is only fitting that, despite this being only early March, the coveted In the Loop Narcissism Run Amok Award for 2005 goes to Sembler and Young for their efforts to establish an excellent new trend in American diplomacy.
Sembler is an Honorary Chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5165-2005Mar3.html?sub=AR
http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2005/03/757886.php
His Own Private Abu Ghraib
He created a system to reprogram bad kids. He modeled STRAIGHT after another program, creepily named "The Seed," shut down after the U.S. Congress literally issued a report in 1974 comparing it to "the highly refined 'brainwashing' techniques employed by the North Koreans." Sembler's imitation wasn't shut down until 1993 for illegal child abuse: beatings and sexual humiliation.
Gov. Jeb Bush once named a "Betty Sembler Day" in Florida to honor his wife's ongoing, taxpayer-funded campaigns on behalf of workplace urine tests.
http://media.orkut.com/articles/0145.html
OH, YOU MEAN THAT MEL SEMBLER?
SEMBLER & LIEBERMAN ARE JUST PART OF THE MACHINE THAT RESULTS IN THIS:
Israel has acquired three Dolphin class diesel submarines in 2002 that it is arming with newly designed cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. According to Pentagon and Israeli officials, Israel now has a triad of land-, sea- and air-based nuclear weapons for the first time. Now, Germany has agreed to sell Israel another two Dolphin-class submarines.
THIS STORY WAS SLIPPED OUT INTO THE MEDIA AT THE HEIGHT OF KARL ROVE'S PHONY LONDON LIQUID BOMB TERROR SCARE:
Recently the mainstream media has kept the stories of Ariel Weinmann and Adam Pearlman out of the news. Weinmann was a Navy Petty Officer arrested approximately four months ago for passing extremely sensitive national security information relating to nuclear submarines to the Israelis – ever heard of him? Adam Pearlman is an Al Qaeda terrorist by the name of "Azzam the American." It isn't that the media is keeping Azzam out of the news, hardly, he made the front page, and prime time on every network, but not a single network has mentioned the fact that he's in reality a Californian Jew named Adam Pearlman, whose grandfather was a sitting Board Member on the Anti-Defamation League.
WHO CONTROLS THE MEDIA???
Zionist forces are in control of the United States. When Ariel Sharon said:
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael
it was no idle chatter. He was telling the truth.
Nary a single network has mentioned an Israeli by the name of Asher Karni that was arrested at Denver International airport in January of 2004 for having sold Pakistan nuclear weapon detonators known as "spark gap igniters,"
Not one network has told you about a New York Orthodox Jew named Yehuda Abraham, who was arrested for having sold shoulder fired surface to air missiles to FBI agents posing as Al Qaeda operatives, with the understanding that they were to be used against non-Jewish Americans.
Zionist media seeks to suppress uncomfortable facts, like the indisputable fact that Israel intentionally attacked an American Intelligence ship, the USS Liberty, in 1967 killing more than fifty sailors, and then compelled the United States government to cover that fact up.
The MSM censors any thing to do with the infamous Lavon Affair, where Israeli's attempted to bomb American assets in Egypt in the 1950s and frame the Egyptians for the attack.
The establishment media struggles to keep all [and there is a great deal] of the damning evidence implicating the United States government and the Mossad in the attacks of September 11, 2001
In conclusion the evidence that Israel is behind the invasion on Iraq is more than circumstantial. You just need to look at who stands to gain from all this. Those that can't understand why Dubya is so determined to attack Iraq, probably haven't considered that Israel is running the show. If you just look at who stands to gain from Iraqi oil you see the picture but it doesn't seem to be the whole thing. But when you add the dancing Israelis and Senator Graham's statements about foreign governments involvement in 911 and Sharon's orders on who Bush is to attack next, the whole picture begins to get in focus.
WANT TO UNDERSTAND?
READ THIS SITE:
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
IRAN IS NEXT.
WILL CHENEY NUKE THE US TO PROVIDE THE PRETEXT?
ASK JOE LIEBERMAN.
Posted by plunger at 06/04/2007 @ 06:29am
Closing down our best source of covert intelligence on WMD in the Middle East by making its covert status public - during a time of war - is akin to revealing troop movements and positions to the enemy - during a time of war.
It's TREASON on it's face.
Doing so for POLITICAL reasons is IMPEACHABLE.
BUSH, CHENEY, ROVE & LIBBY all knew that Plame was a covert agent - and a key enemy if their lies were to succeed. Everyone in the WHIG knew. They all conspired to prevent the truth about WMD from being made public
When referring to Wilson, each of them at one time or another referred to him as "a Democrat."
That's POLITICAL.
That's ILLEGAL.
still not a word from these remaining supporters of Bush - the president stood in front of reporters more than once and claimed to have no idea where the leak of information to for example Judith Miller came from. In fact, the president knew, as he stood there, that he had specifically and authorized the exact leak in question, for the purposes of a vendetta with Joe Wilson.
the president hugely abused his authority and powers, wrongfully, and he stood in front of cameras and reporters and lied about it, willfully, repeatedly. he engaged in a willful conspiracy to go after Joe Wilson for debunking the lie about uranium, and he happily burned down a CIA operative and her operations with a LEAK of information. if there was a declassification, it was certainly not recorded or documented or communicated, and, in all likelihood, was made up after the fact once the Fitzgerald investigation got going.
This same president has deployed the NSA and who knows which other components of the national intelligence apparatus against the American people in direct violation of federal law.
he has abused and abused his trust and the power of his office, and it is time for him to leave that office.
.. "I don't know of anyone in my administration who has leaked," Mr. Bush told reporters in Chicago. But, he added, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing."
The president added, "There's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. We've had leaks from the executive branch and leaks from the legislative branch. I want to know who the leakers are." ...
George Bush, lying about his own leak: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/01/national/main575986.shtml...
Donald Rumsfeld on Leakers of Secret Information:
... No, I'll tell you about leaks. When a person takes classified information and gives it to someone who is not cleared for classified information, whether the person's from the Pentagon or any department of government, they're violating federal criminal law. And they ought to go to jail. That's not complicated.
Kalb: What are the laws they are violating? Just --
Rumsfeld: The laws relating to classified information are quite strict as to who may be given access to that information. And so to the extent that people violate the rules with respect to classified information, they are breaking federal criminal law.
Now, they are also potentially putting people's lives at risk, and that's a very -- it's a terrible thing to do ...
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t04102002_t0410sd.html...
Scott McClellan, lying about Bush's leak:
"If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates."
It's the modern Republican way. Commit a crime today; legalize the act tomorrow.
Here is what Scott McClellan had to say on July 18, 2003:
Q: When was it [the NIE Report] actually declassified?
MR. McCLELLAN: It was officially declassified today.
According to Fitzgerald's court paper - Libby disclosed information from the NIE to Judith Miller on July 8, 2003 - ten days earlier.
So, what was the official status of the report for those 10 days? If it was declassified prior to or on July 8, why was it only shared with Judy Miller, and not released "officially" until July 18?
Posted by HMAN23 04/07/2006 @ 4:56pm | ignore this person
When King George begins to form a thought in his mind about the prospect of declassifying information, even if during sex or while sleeping, the Classified Information in question begins to change status. The more he thinks about it, the less Classified the information becomes.
The instant the thought takes form in his mind and manifests itself to the world in words, even if it occurs while he's alone, say, taking a dump or shaving in the morning, at the very moment that he hears himself say the words: "I think I'll declassify that" - the Classified Information comes flying back into the universe as "Officially Declassified."
The King's minions then run frantically to go through the quaint details of preparing the burdensome documentation necessary to create a good cover story for the media about how and when the information changed form, but really it's just window dressing.
"It's good to be King...it's good to be an anus!"
Posted by plunger at 06/04/2007 @ 06:32am
The purported JFK Airport Terror Plot was NOT a threat to anyone.
It was hyped by the government controlled media in the same way the purported "Terror in the skies" London hijacking plot was, and the same way the bogus "Miami Terror Plot" was.
These are each bullshit, small time crazies, with no means and no plan.
Read every word of this, and consider it in the context of what Karl Rove has been trying to accomplish with respect to controlling your fear level:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_timothy__070603_the_media_is_pri ming.htm
The Boy Who Cried Wolf Blitzer.
Posted by plunger at 06/04/2007 @ 08:01am
Posted by CRABWALK 06/03/2007 @ 10:00am
Okay, CRABBIE, I bow to your superior logic. A crime was committed, even though no-one was ever charged with it. This is perfectly consistent with the rules of logic in leftie-land as I understand them; the Bush Administration is criminal, you just haven't figured out what crime they are guilty of yet. Good luck to you.
Posted by pontificus at 06/04/2007 @ 09:08am
Posted by CRABWALK 06/03/2007 @ 8:26pm
Congress won't even hold lyng oil execs to the law, why should we expect them to do anything to Chimpy?
Oh, yeah, here we go again. Laws have been violated in CRABBIE-world, yet somehow the real world stubbornly refuses to conform. Have another glass of koolaid my friend.
Posted by pontificus at 06/04/2007 @ 09:33am
More on the Berger coverup - you want real criminality, you'll find it here. In this case, someone actually WAS charged with a crime (in the real world) as opposed to fevered imaginatinos of the denizens of lefty-world. Of course, since the facts are irrefutable, the article will be 'refuted' by attacking the author, Standard Procedure here at The Nation and lefty-world in general.
June 04, 2007 Sandy Berger and the Clinton Cover-Up - Why It Matters By Ronald A. Cass
On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation's most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.
Berger previously entered a deal with the Department of Justice after he was caught stealing and destroying highly sensitive classified material regarding the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism issues. That deal allowed him to avoid jail time, pay a modest fine, and keep his law license. It also allowed him to avoid full explanation of what he had taken and why he had taken it.
What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for?
Recently, the Board of the DC Bar, which had granted Berger his license, began asking those questions. There was only one way to stop that investigation, to keep from answering questions about what he did and why he did it, to keep the Bar from questioning his colleagues in the Clinton Administration about what had been in the documents Berger destroyed.
Berger took that step, surrendering his license, and stopping the investigation.
Ordinarily, anyone who has spent the time, effort, and money needed to master one of the "learned professions" fights with the utmost determination to keep his license. That is not merely a ticket to practice your chosen profession - it is also a badge of honor and accomplishment. Ask any doctor or lawyer, any architect or CPA, any professional at all, what it means to give that up.
That Berger didn't fight speaks volumes.
*******
President Clinton designated Berger as his representative to the 9/11 Commission and related hearings, which gave Berger special access to highly classified documents in the National Archives relating to the Clinton Administration's handling of al-Qaeda and similar terror threats. Berger got around rules requiring that the documents only be reviewed with Archives' employees present, purposefully stole documents, destroyed them, and lied about it all. When caught, he first blamed Archives employees for misplacing the documents, then admitted having taken them inadvertently (this is the point at which he cut the plea deal), and finally acknowledged what was obvious from the facts that were emerging - he intentionally removed and destroyed documents.
Justice Department officials who investigated the missing documents initially were persuaded that Berger must, as he claimed, have taken documents by mistake and then destroyed them to avoid having sensitive material in his possession. The plea agreement was based on the assumption that Berger was mishandling classified material - not manhandling it.
Now, however, it is clear that there was nothing innocent or inadvertent in Berger's conduct. He has something to hide and, whatever it is, he was terrified that at least some part of it would come out of a non-criminal hearing before the Bar. With no possible criminal charges to face, he could not have claimed a right against self-incrimination. He could no longer get away with saying that he took documents accidentally, took them only to prepare for up-coming hearings (why, then, take five copies of one memo?), or didn't intend to destroy them. He would, in other words, have had to say more than he has so far. *******
We don't know with any certainty what is missing, which papers exactly are gone, or what notes - and whose notes - may have been on them. Berger's lawyer asserted that the 9/11 Commission had copies of all the material Berger stole and destroyed. But if that is so, why would Berger risk so much to destroy it and be so keen today on avoiding any real inquiry into what he did?
Berger had access to Archives documents that could be critical to understanding what information the Clinton Administration had, what options it considered, and what decisions it took on these sensitive subjects. In addition to primary documents, Berger had access to copies, and the only plausible reason for taking five copies of a single memo is that some had original notes on them from key officials, maybe from Berger or President Clinton.
For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us.
The most likely explanation is that the material Berger destroyed points to a terrible mistake by Berger himself, by President Clinton, or by both. In dealing with al-Qaeda, did they overlook a critical piece of information or miss a chance to stop 9/11? Did the Administration's failure to take a more aggressive posture encourage al-Qaeda's later attacks?
When Fox News' Chris Wallace raised the possibility that Clinton's Administration might have done something more to prevent 9/11, Bill Clinton went into an inexplicable rage on national television. Wallace touched a nerve. So did the DC Bar.
Knowing what information Berger destroyed also might alter views of the current Bush Administration. Was the early support from both Bill and Hillary Clinton for going to war against Saddam based on something we don't know yet that was available to insiders in the Clinton Administration? Was it something that could come back to haunt Hillary and ruin her chances of winning Bill's third term?
Whatever it was, it's likely that what Berger destroyed could have helped us understand what led to the most tragic terror attack in our nation's history and perhaps also help us decide what course - and what Chief Executive - will best to protect our future. The fact that Berger has been able to avoid revealing that information is a scandal of its own.
The only person who knows what information was lost is Sandy Berger. And he isn't talking. *******
What is at stake is more than what we think and say about Sandy Berger. It is more than the legacy of Bill Clinton and of George W. Bush. It is more than the prospects for Hillary Clinton becoming the Democrats' presidential nominee and ultimately the President. All of these, of course, are wrapped up in this story.
Our security and vitality of the rule of law in America are at stake as well. That should concern all whose lives and loved ones may be at risk if our nation follows the wrong path, not knowing everything that should inform our judgments. It should concern all who respect the law, all who have labored as lawyers and judges, as honorable government officials and voices for even-handed justice.
Sadly, this story doesn't interest the Justice Department, which disposed of the criminal charges leniently based in part on false information from Berger. When faced with the fact that Berger had access to original documents on two occasions before Archives' employees became suspicious enough to start marking documents, the Justice Department declared with confidence that no documents had been taken - they asked Berger if he had taken anything during those visits, he said no, and they let the matter rest.
The story doesn't interest the Democrats in Congress, who prefer spending time investigating why eight political-level appointees were fired - a misstep by the Bush Justice Department that provides more promising political fodder than one that might point back to the Clintons.
The Sandy Berger story doesn't interest the mainstream news media, probably for the same reason. The media elites, so keen in other settings on the people's right to know, don't want to know about this. Maybe if this story involved a Karl instead of a Sandy . . .
Maybe some day someone will step back and wonder why a successful lawyer like Berger would take so drastic a step as surrendering his law license just to evade questions. Someone will ask what could have been so terrible that it was worth that price to keep it hidden. Someone will decide that it's important to know what Mr. Berger is hiding.
Because, in truth, it could affect us all.
Posted by pontificus at 06/04/2007 @ 09:37am
This one is for MASK, from a report on the Afghan war - more documentatin of our 'unbiased' media:
One of the AP reporters says he believes 9/11 was a Bush administration conspiracy hung on al Qaeda. Slusher gives him hell about it--albeit in a good-natured way. I don't hear the other reporter sound out on the subject, but he never takes off his Che Guevara T-shirt. Maybe these two will provide unbiased footage and commentary notwithstanding their personal views--maybe not.
http://tinyurl.com/2g5unm
Posted by pontificus at 06/04/2007 @ 10:54am
I'm of the idea that Bush-Cheney and Ahmadinejad would get along quite well.
Posted by antiPartisa at 06/04/2007 @ 5:20pm
Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 06/04/2007 @ 09:37am | ignore this person
Thank you for that article. Too bad you can't think for yourself.
Now, to Mr. Cass's piece. First, he offers no facts, none. All Mr. Cass offers are vague innuendo. What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for? That Berger didn't fight speaks volumes. For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us. For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us.
There is nothing there but vague innuendo. As was said in a TV commercial sometime back, "Where's the beef?"
"Someone will decide that it's important to know what Mr. Berger is hiding.
Because, in truth, it could affect us all."
What a lame close.
Second, the only fact I see in Mr. Cass's article confirm what I had posted that no original material was destroyed.
When faced with the fact that Berger had access to original documents on two occasions before Archives' employees became suspicious enough to start marking documents, the Justice Department declared with confidence that no documents had been taken
That should be conclusive enough for any intelligent person to understand. no documents had been taken - no original material was destroyed.
I've never heard of Mr. Cass before, but if he's a lawyer, I wouldn't give him $5 for his time. He has made no case. A jury would laugh his sorry ass out of court.
But Ms. VH's post wasn't about Berger. It was about the most secretive vp this country has ever known. The puppet master of the great shrub, the war-monger, fear-monger, war-profiteer par excellence. Darth Cheney. He is the one that has destroyed protected public documents. It is he who has broken the law. I am appalled by his actions. Our security and vitality of the rule of law in America are at stake as well. That should concern all whose lives and loved ones may be at risk if our nation follows the wrong path, not knowing everything that should inform our judgments. It should concern all who respect the law, all who have labored as lawyers and judges, as honorable government officials and voices for even-handed justice. We want to know what was removed from those Secret Service logs.
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy; the best weapon of a democracy is openness." - Edvard Teller
Impeach Cheney First!
itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 06/05/2007 @ 01:38am