Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Galloway spoke of death chamber at Gitmo Concentration and torture camp- above the law? Rumsfeld was eager to see the death chambers in Iraq prisons - soldier thought Rumsfeld's obsession with death was sick.

Colin Powell's Lies to the UN which he now states was the lowest point in his life and he admits to lying to fool the UN, Congress and US Citizens and has cost the lives of more than 2,000 US soldiers, over 100,000 Iraqis and maimed an unknown but huge number of human beings.

Keep Checking Fitzgerald's Website
Patrick J. Fitzgerald Special Counsel Official DOJ (Dept. of Justice) website.
~~ to Rep.

Jerrold Nadler's site, he wants Fitz to handle the Impeachment.

Also go to Rep. Hinchey's site - he sent a letter to Fitz to go where the evidence led him, giving support to Comey's mandate and 40 members of the House also signed.

There are some very brave Congresspersons and we should thank them!

Prosecutor's Progress Is Rare for Leak Inquiries
Published: October 26, 2005

Unlike any of his predecessors, Patrick Fitzgerald, has delved deeply into conversations that government
officials and reporters had every reason to believe would remain confidential.

~~~, October 26, 2005

Today on the Tom-Toms

Just got off the phone with a source who has appeared before Fitzgerald's grand jury who thinks that the Special Counsel is going to "go wide" with indictments -- i.e., a lot of people are going to get nailed. And from what I'm hearing, I agree. Which is why I put so little stock in anyone who's running around saying
"oooh, this just in -- Rove and Libby are going to be indicted! Announcement tomorrow!" That just lights my bullshit meter up like a pinball machine. Man, you are really out on a limb with that prediction, aren't ya?

Also, a grand juror was overheard waving to a reporter and saying "see you Friday" when they left today.

So we may not be quite there yet.

The bottom line in all this is that at this point, I think nobody knows what's going to happen, so take all predictions with a grain of salt, even this one. I hate to throw cold water on everyone's expectations for tomorrow, but even amidst the hearty speculation we like to engage in around here we also like to ground things in reality. And the reality is if Fitzgerald is still pursuing an investigation, he's probably going to want
some time to use that info in his "come to Jesus" talks with the perps.
Update: Lawrence O'Donnell agrees: "Experienced federal prosecutors are saying today that they expect Fitzgerald to extend the term of the grand jury even if he obtains indictments this week."

~~Civil rights violations?

I was intrigued to read one of Fitzgerald's briefs, which makes reference to the leak being "apparent retribution" or "apparent retaliation" for Joe Wilson's public criticism of the Bush administration.

I wonder whether Fitzgerald could include a count of civil rights violations, alleging that the government attempted to silence free speech by punishing Wilson?

Dems Standing Up for US Citizens

I read on AOL news, usual feed from AP that Rove had turned down a deal by Fitzgerald this morning.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler has a very strong condemnation on his official government site of Bushco corruption and he and others in Congress want Fitz to handle the Impeachment probe.

Rep. Hinchey wrote a letter signed by 40 other members of the House of Representatives confirming Comey's mandate for Fitz to go wherever the evidence takes him.

McCain is fighting against weakening the torture bill he introduced by exempting CIA from Human Rights rules.

Please go to the sites of these gentlemen to thank them for standing up for what is right.

Enjoyed your article. Would like to see Rove do jail time but more important to get bush and cheney out ASAP!!

Please mention your disapproval of the US military being ordered to shot and bomb on the borders of Syria and Iran in the past few weeks (months?) to the above Congresspersons.

Thank you

~~~~Meanwhile, a former high level Bush administration official told Political Wire that "people are turning on each other" at the White House. Lawrence Wilkerson is likely just the first of many to come out publicly against the administration.

~Bush will not pardon anyone. If he does, there will be further revolt by Republicans because of the impact on the 2006
elections of headline charges of cronyism and corruption. I think this is the most dangerous course that a moron like Bush may take due to his personal stubborness and loyalty. If he does pardon, I think it would bring on a constitutional crisis that could lead to his resignation.

Aaron Brossard, Jefferson Parrish President, NOLA about the drowning death of an elderly woman incapacitated in nursing home due to FEMA's deliberate delays.

Some Important Live Links that didn't show in earlier posts

Re: Tim Russert's treatment (Rovian smear) of Jeffereson Parrish President Aaron Broussard on the second interview. "You should watch every week. Then e-mail the network about his failures. They will respond very slowly but they will respond eventually. Maybe they will fire him if they get too many complaints."

~Do you have a question, concern or comment for Meet the Press or Tim Russert? Fill in the form below and send us your feedback. We look forward to hearing from you

~Body Armor - Really Support the Troops


Go to 911Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Just a Citizen site to sign petition against gag order so we can learn the truth about 911

Activism items and history at :

Petition for Getting Our Troops Armor They Need

Let's REALLY Thank Our Brave Soldiers...
Restore Bush's Cuts to Veterans Benefits!

Rep. Conyers at Rovegate Hearing

Please Sign Rep. Conyers Letter "NO PARDONS FOR TREASONGATE"

Conyer's Action Items

Conyer's Blog

Monday, October 24, 2005

Action Alert from Rep. John Conyers, Jr.

I wanted to share with you my recent blog post on the Plame leak investigations. Our action item is writing the president. Any help you can provide to encourage your readers to join on this letter would be really helpful.

Thank you for your help and your continued stand for a better democracy.


John Conyers, Jr.

Tell the President: No Pardons for Treasongate!

In July, I wrote to the White House to ask the President to pledge that he will not pardon any Administration official indicted during the course of the Fitzgerald investigation. As some of you may recall, his father, President George H.W. Bush, pardoned officials under indictment in the Iran-Contra scandal. Many of my Republican colleagues, and some of my Democratic colleagues, raised questions about the pardons issued by President Clinton during his last days in office. It would seem to me that this Administration, which promised a higher standard of ethics could, at least, make this pledge.

Sign the Letter to the President to Demand No Pardons for Treasongate

The White House had promised its full cooperation with the investigation, but has clearly done as much as possible to cover-up their role. In fact, thus far, their strategy has been attack, attack, attack -- most significantly on Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, and as I note below, we will soon see attacks by the President's

surrogates on every part of this investigation: the prosecutor, the Central Intelligence Agency and the press. I am afraid, if push comes to shove, a pardon will be a last ditch tactic to evade accountability.

The President has not answered my letter from July (as he has ignored a letter signed by more than 120 of my colleagues about the Downing Street Minutes), but the press has the power to ask this question of the administration directly, and I hope they will.

As the day nears for Fitzgerald to issue indictments, the time is now to put pressure on the President and make him answer the question, will you pardon those indicted in Treasongate?

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Prayer for Peace in Iraq

Go to 911Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Just a Citizen site and sign her petition to remove the DOJ gag order so we can learn the truth about 911

Activism items and history at 7

The Real Reason President Bush lied about the real cost of the war and continues to lie about the cost of occupation and reconstruction

· How 1 day of the true cost of this war and the elimination of Bush’ s $500 billion tax cut would provide Headstart Programs for every eligible child in America.

· How 3 days would provide healthcare for all uninsured US children

· How 4.5 days would create energy independence with clean technology

· How 1 week’s cost of the war would provide basic health and nutrition for all of the world’s poor

Why multi-billion dollar, behind-closed-doors, secret no bid contracts are given to Bush and Cheney’s corporate friends to rebuild Iraq and nothing is being spent on America’s collapsing infrastructure and economy

Look at the devastation and the brutal suffering of tens of millions of Americans because of Bush’s Imperialist obsession with the war. (Remember Bush’s campaign promise he would never get into nation building? I guess he meant America.)

If you think you’re hurting now – Wait until you see how the real cost of the War and Reconstruction will continue to devastate our Economy far beyond anything you’re experiencing now

While television focuses on the unbelievable skill of the troops and high tech weapons of the United States as the greatest power has ever seen, unnoticed by anyone are the negative implications for our future US living standards and influence that are certain to occur.

Not only is the United States the world’s greatest superpower, it is also the world’ s greatest debtor, living way beyond its means, and heavily dependent upon foreign lenders, and all of this at a time the economy is collapsing despite what the spin doctors tell us, and tens of millions of Americans are severely hurting financially.

To the 2.5 million who have lost their job since Bush took office, and are now among the 8 million already unemployed, to those who have seen their 401(K)s and retirement funds wiped out like the couple who had to sell their once $450,000 retirement for $7,000 in order to save their house, to those who are watching their communities close schools and slash desperately needed emergency services (New York City alone had to fire 3,100 cops, and lay off over 10,000 more city workers, close over a dozen fire houses, schools, medical services and sanitation workers at this time of heightened terrorist possibility), to almost all the airlines on the verge of bankruptcy, to the Veterans who are watching the Administration already cut back $24 billion of funding for Veterans (in affluent Santa Barbara alone, over 3,000 veterans were cut off from care) – when you see the real costs of the War, the Occupation and Reconstruction, you will be even further appalled. Cost estimates made by non-partisan, objective, highly reputable economists are that the costs will be $200 billion/year for the War and Occupation, and over a ten-year period will range from $755 billion to over $3 trillion.

Why did the White House adamantly refuse to give any estimate of what the war and occupation would cost to either the American people or the US Senate until March 17 when they “guesstimated” it would cost $90-110 billion, finally asking for $75 billion for six months? Because they knew that if the American people knew the true cost of the war they would be furious, and because they knew that the $75 billion for six months was a joke – it was just for starters, and they’d manipulate the American people to the true cost of the war just ask slickly as they did in manipulating Americans to want to go to war.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Village Voice article Feb 2004 about Kerry's staff shredding information that over 1,000 POWs were seen in eyewitness accounts but Bush Senior wanted to spend the money on major drug trafficking from Vietnam. from Kiss The Boys Good-bye

Kerry Cares?

Petition for Getting Our Troops Armor They Need

To save money, US Army officials order just 50 percent of the ALQ-156 flare-launching systems needed for the Illinois-Iowa National Guard fleet of Chinook helicopters. The flare-launching systems allow helicopters to evade heat-seeking missiles. “A conscious
decision was made not to buy as many as we need,” Lt. Gen. Roger C. Schultz, director of the Army National Guard, later explains
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “It's a decision that has some level of risk with it.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12/27/2003]
People and organizations involved: Roger C. Schultz

Major Clifford E. Day at the Air Command and Staff College in Alabama concludes in a paper that the US military's reliance on soft-skinned Humvees during the operation in Mogadishu, Somalia “needlessly put ... troops in harms way without the proper equipment to successfully complete the mission.” [MSNBC, 4/15/2003 Sources: Critical Analysis on the Defeat of Task Force Ranger]

(January 2003)

The Bush administration's proposed 2004 defense budget would cap raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, which is
significantly below the average raise for military personnel of 4.1 percent. [The Army Times, 6/30/2003]
People and organizations involved: Bush administration


The Illinois-Iowa National Guard is deployed to Iraq. The unit is sent with 14 of its Chinook helicopters. However only two of them are outfitted with aircraft survivability equipment. The remaining helicopters will operate in Iraq unprotected. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12/27/2003]

(Summer 2003-March 2004)

The US Army?s official guidance on the issue of “hardening” soft-skinned Humvees and other lightly-armored vehicles includes a recommendation for soldiers to put sandbags on the floorboards to reduce the impact of explosions. Since the summer, the soldiers' preferred solution to the problem of unprotected vehicles has been to hire local contractors to add steel to the bodies of their vehicles

(see March 2003 and later). [MSNBC, 4/15/2003]

Congressman John B. Larson Tuesday called for an immediate Congressional investigation into the Pentagon’s procurement system that has led to more than a year’s delay in supplying improved body armor to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. As part of that investigation, Larson (CT-1) said that Pentagon officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, should be held liable for any findings of dereliction or wrongdoing.

“These delays are a disgrace,” Larson said. “The administration has repeatedly lapsed in its duty to provide the men and women it sends into war the best equipment possible. After two years and with all the appropriate funding levels, an investigation needs to be done into why this hasn’t been done. Our troops should not have to wait a day, let alone a year. Our men and women need all the protection we can offer them, and their families and the American people need to know that we’re doing everything we can to protect them. If we can spend billions of dollars on the national missile defense program and the nuclear bunker buster program and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, there’s no reason for this to be happening.”

Larson said that action should be taken against Pentagon officials if the investigations yield evidence of willful neglect or incompetence.

If so, those officials should resign or be dismissed, he said.

That wait for upgraded armor is symptomatic of the Pentagon’s failure since the war began to adequately outfit troops with body
protection¸ Larson said. Despite complaints from troops, their family and Congress, the Administration has dragged in acquiring and distributing the armor, he added.

“The Administration has wanted to avoid talking about timetables, but giving our troops safer body armor is one timetable that cannot be put off. It is a top priority that needs to be acted on now. If those in charge aren’t standing up to that responsibility, then we need
leaders who will. ”

A poorly-run procurement system has stalled the replacement of existing armor with thicker ceramic plates that could better protect military personnel from insurgent gunfire. Reports cited that gunfire has killed at least 325 troops, about half the number killed by bombs.

Larson has longstanding concerns about Pentagon’s record of supplying body armor throughout the Iraq war. He introduced an
amendment, passed in the 2004 defense spending bill, requiring the Pentagon to reimburse military personnel and family members who spent their own money for protective gear that the Pentagon had failed to supply.

From the outset, troops were sent to Iraq with a shortage of armor. Larson pushed for the reimbursement measure following a 2003 forum on Iraq in East Hartford. At the forum, an East Hartford mother Pene Palifka said that her son, Bill Palifka of the CT National Guard’s 248th Engineer Co., had been sent to Iraq without the “Interceptor” body armor that American troops were supposed to have been issued. Worried for her son’s safety, she spent about $1,100 to buy it for him.

The measure covered purchases through the end of 2003, since the military assured Congress that in 2004 it would supply upgraded
armor to all troops – the same thicker-plated armor hanging in procurement limbo.

“So far the Pentagon’s assurances have been empty,” Larson said. “Our civilian leaders need to be held to their word.”

Investigate Body Armor Delays for Troops

No matter what side of the aisle you plant your butt on, we can all agree our troops deserve the best equipment in a timely matter.

"Congressman John B. Larson Tuesday called for an immediate Congressional investigation into the Pentagon's procurement system that has led to more than a year's delay in supplying improved body armor to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. As part of that investigation, Larson (CT-1) said that Pentagon officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, should be held liable for any findings of dereliction or wrongdoing. "

I prefer hanging to liable, but I am from Texas.

"From the outset, troops were sent to Iraq with a shortage of armor. Larson pushed for the reimbursement measure following a 2003 forum on Iraq in East Hartford. At the forum, an East Hartford mother Pene Palifka said that her son, Bill Palifka of the CT National Guard's 248th Engineer Co., had been sent to Iraq without the "Interceptor" body armor that American troops were supposed to have been issued. Worried for her son's safety, she spent about $1,100 to buy it for him. "

Our war families should not be doling out money for this. If we got money to build pointless bridges, we should have enough to outfit our men and women with the best we got.

Here's a good exercise in American absurditiy. Since I am in central Mexico, I can't pull this off, but... Can someone call UPS or DHL and see how long it would take to send a package to Baghdad? Then you could easily ask why it only took two days to send your package to the troops, but the Pentagon has dragged their feet on this for over 2 years. Destroy the perfume warrior princes with wit, not anger. Works every time.

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." -- Thomas Paine

Let's REALLY Thank Our Brave Soldiers...
Restore Bush's Cuts to Veterans Benefits!

Body Armor - Really Support the Troops

#1 - Point Blank Body Armor - Chief Operations Officer Sandra Hatfieldmaker of - Interceptor - outer tactical vest ( body armor )
*it failed protection and safety issues, yet was issued to Marines
**let it go through anyway to production and payment
[Program Manager - Lt. Col Gabriel Patricio]
***exposed the shody equipment
[ James MacKiewicz ]

#2 - HumVee Armor Plating protection. O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt in West Chester, Ohio. aka - Armor Holdings of Jacksonville, Fla.
*** exposed the shody equipment

#3 - Armor kits. Stewart & Stevenson of Sealy, Texas
*** exposed the shody equipment

#4 - HumVee vehicles
*** exposed the shody equipment
[ Gary Motsek, director of support operations for Army Materiel Command and former Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki]

Defense analyst Bill Arkin

A - No Yellow Ribbon passiveness on the car, the home window, or around neighborhood trees.
B - No Flag waving excuses, with easy placed flags on car windows, that say nothing.
C - No Opinions without action.
D - Send real support ( the cost taxpayer money, yours and mine ) not just applause.

This is an informational, research, debate, group on what really supporting the troops...IS? This group goes beyond non active yellow ribbons, and lapel pins. It is the intention of this group to expose military equipment makers that endanger our troops. And it ask members to be active and write to their Congressmen and to the shody equipment makers, as well as expose any profiteering and cronyims.

Friday, October 07, 2005

The inquiry has ensnared President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove,

Published on Thursday, October 6, 2005 by Reuters
US Officials Brace for Decisions in CIA Leak Case

The federal prosecutor investigating who leaked the identity of a CIA operative is expected to signal within days whether he intends to bring indictments in the case, legal sources close to the investigation said on Wednesday.

(If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration. US President George W. Bush)

As a first step, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was expected to notify officials by letter if they have become targets, said the lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Fitzgerald could announce plea agreements, bring indictments, or conclude that no crime was committed. By the end of this month he is expected to wrap up his nearly two-year-old investigation into who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

The inquiry has ensnared President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The White House had long maintained that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak but reporters have since named them as sources.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to say whether his client had been contacted by Fitzgerald. In the past, Luskin has said that Rove was assured that he was not a target. Libby's lawyer was not immediately available to comment.

"It's an ongoing investigation and we're fully cooperating," said Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride.The outcome of the investigation could shake up an administration already reeling from criticism over its response to Hurricane Katrina and the indictment of House Republican leader Tom DeLay on a conspiracy charge related to campaign financing.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified to the grand jury on Friday about the conversations she had with Libby. Plame's diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, has accused the administration of leaking her name, damaging her ability to work undercover, to get back at him for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy.

Fitzgerald's agreement to limit the scope of Miller's testimony to her conversations with Libby -- a proposal he rejected a year earlier -- suggested that Libby had become "the focus of interest," said one of the lawyers involved in the case. After initially promising to fire anyone found to have leaked information in the case, Bush in July offered a more qualified pledge: "If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration."

Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited.
~~For Immediate Release October 6, 2005 Contact: Naomi Seligman, 202-588-5565


After delving into Fleitz, I can safely report that he is, at a minimum, a very interesting character.

Arianna -- Any chance you'll investigate the links between PlameGate and the AIPAC spy scandal? From this post at

"Both Fitzgerald and Paul McNulty, the prosecutor in the AIPAC spy case, are targeting the same group of committed neoconservative ideologues. The neocons tried to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson and "outed" CIA agent Valerie Plame because Wilson was an obstacle on the road to war with Iraq. And now they are trying replicate the same scenario in support a military strike at Iran -- the issue at the root of the AIPAC spy scandal. In both instances, their ruthlessness and lawlessness was their ultimate undoing.

Plame-gate + AIPAC-gate = Neocon-gate."

~question: Since Bolton is currently U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., can he be prosecuted if it turns out that he was responsible? Or does he enjoy a level of Diplomatic Immunity? September 21, 2005

I'm not sure which will give me more joy: seeing Rove and Bolton go to jail, or Tom Delay! Neither can happen soon enough. September 21, 2005

I have thought that he probably was the informant for Judith Miller since the confirmation hearings. Who is surprised? ~~Part of this story needs to be made more explicit.Arianna is trying, but just missing. While this is about the cover-up of "lying us into war," the real bottom line is much simpler.

They said (falsely) that we could have mushroom clouds coming in 45 minutes. (Read it again.)Now, who really terrorized the American People? What are you more frightened of? 20 guys with boxcutters or mushroom clouds over our cities with no warning? This is the underlying reality. And the real crime of treason.

~Just maybe, with a little luck and a little skillful politics, The Dems can take back one of the houses next year. Right about that time Plame-gate will be in full throttle. In fact, desire to get at the truth of Katrina failure and Plame-gate might drive the public into Democrats arms. Then the impeachments and indictments will begin in earnest and the cover that the legislature has given the adminisitration will be gone.

God I only hope this comes to pass. It is sad to say, but the loss and sacrifice of New Orleans may be what saves this republic. Without it, what chance would we have?

~~Bolton also appears to be involved in the forgery of the yellow cake memo as an accompolice of
Michael Ledeen both belong to the Jewish Institute for National Security affairs. Seems there are other forces involved in the Bush administration that are engaging in treasoneous acts affecting the USA.

~Will we have a conclusion to this saga in this decade? September 21, 2005

I've suspected it might be Bolton for months. What other explanation could there be for Dubya wanting so badly to have him at the UN? If he has diplomatic status, he could evade prosecution. Of course, that also presumes that Bush knows something about this that he hasn't been telling us.

I'm now hearing that the investigation may be inching closer to never-confirmed UN Ambassador John Bolton.

According to two sources, Bolton's former chief of staff, Fred Fleitz, was at least one of the sources of the classified information about Valerie Plame that flowed through the Bush administration and eventually made its way into Bob Novak's now infamous column.

After delving into Fleitz, I can safely report that he is, at a minimum, a very interesting character. He is a career CIA agent who Bolton handpicked to join him at Foggy Bottom, having gotten to know him during the administration of the first President Bush. While working as Bolton's top aide, Fleitz also continued his work in the CIA's WINPAC division, the group responsible for some of the
worst prewar intelligence on Iraq (they were, among other things, big fans of Curveball and had "high confidence" in the presence of WMD in Iraq).

"I perform liaison function for the [CIA] and Mr. Bolton," Fleitz told the Senate ~~So what does this all mean to the ongoing Plamegate investigation? Well, another source close to Bolton recently described his management style to me as "Very hands on. Nothing goes by him. His staff does what he wants. He's not the kind of guy to have his staffers freelancing." So, if Fleitz was a key source of the Plame info and Bolton is not the kind of guy to have his staffers freelancing… does this mean Bolton was being less than forthcoming when he told people around him that the first time he ever heard Valerie Plame's name was when he read it in the newspaper? Or was he merely sharing talking points with Tim Russert?

So could Ambassador Bolton actually be a target of Pat Fitzgerald's investigation? When considering this question, it's important to keep in mind that he's never been subpoenaed or questioned by the Plamegate grand jury -- and, as a lawyer who does work for the New York Times put it: "The target of a grand jury investigation would not ordinarily be subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury."

So here is what we know: We know that Fleitz was the connection to the CIA, and that Bolton was close to Scooter Libby (and the rest of the neocons, of course) and Judy Miller (for whom he was an important source, although the last time she quoted him by name was in 1999 when he was at the American Enterprise Institute). And here is what we don't know: we don't know the pathway through which Plame's identity got into Novak's column. Did Miller learn about Plame from her old chum Bolton? Did she pass that info on to Libby? Or had Bolton already told Libby? And Rove? Or was it all just passed around and around in a cozy game of neocon phone tag?

span >It makes one wonder more than ever before what Bolton and Miller talked about when he visited her in jail.

More on Fitzgerald Investigation Oct. 6, 2005

When the people clamor to be shielded from reality, when they praise their government for keeping things from them, when they choose to conduct their lives within the limits of whatever fantasy the government supplies, then they are no longer consenting to be governed, they are begging to be ruled.

~Shrubya has said resignation only if they were guilty after saying resignation if involved.

Are the Dems willing to howl now for an independent prosecutor to investigate the use of intelligence in policy making leading to the Iraq debacle?

~Legal sources close to the investigation" may well be leaking to pressure some witnesses for deals, but the higher targets may well have received letters - thus the recent flurry of White House events may be foreshadowing.

~You see, Raw Story also claims to have confirmed a report from AmericaBlog that Rove has been "missing" from recent public events as an apparent step to distance him from Dubya.

Sort of like the old joke about breaking bad news gently, the statement that Fitzgerald is "expected" to send target letters could be a preliminary way of leaking word that Rove has in fact received a target letter.

~The Plame/AIPAC-gate Connection Swopa ( it turns out that the Espionage Act (Death Penalty according to isn't a dead letter after all, and that it can be used to prosecute non-commercial, non-hostile revelations of sensitive information to the press, as opposed to giving secrets to hostile foreign powers.) cites Mark Kleimen on the AIPAC spy scandal -- who points out that Larry Franklin and his cohorts are "simply charged with giving classified information to those without security clearances, in pursuit of a political agenda" -- and makes the Plame-AIPAC-gate connection:

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

There is team of judges that have decided that they are no longer going to tolerate

19 September 2005, 9:27 a.m.

Tom Heneghen reports that a Judge Magistrate named Mark R. Filip is trying to suppress the indictments against Bush-Cheney and other high officials by the Fitzgerald Grand Juries.

Tom Heneghen Reports Movement Within Chicago Federal Court In Upcoming
Indictments Of Bush Administration
by Scott Mowry

Last evening on the "US Intel News" show on the Turner Radio Network, Tom Heneghen gave an update on the progress of the grand juries in Chicago concerning their impending indictments of various members of the Bush administration, both past and present.

Apparently, there is brisk movement within the US Federal Court of Chicago to get these indictments out despite intense pressure from within by a Judge Magistrate named Mark R. Filip, who has thus far suppressed them from being released to the public, according to Heneghen.

"We are heading toward a real showdown in United states of America, and we are heading toward what we might be looking at is a constitutional crisis," stated Heneghen emphatically about the Chicago court situation.

"There is team of judges that have decided that they are no longer going to tolerate this type activity and I believe they are well on their way to try TO FORCE THESE INDICTMENTS OUT rather than keep them sealed. And as I said, a showdown is emerging where Bush and his gang and Clinton and their gang, which are tied together in all of this, are about to be brought to justice."

Heneghen further claimed the newly named "Katrina Fund" disaster relief for the citizens of New Orleans that has been recently sponsored by former Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton "is nothing more than a slush fund through Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates and what it is going to be used to do, once again, is pay off people who need to be shut up."

The impending indictments reportedly name George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Ted Olson, John Ashcroft, Scooter Libby, Condeleezza Rice, among many others, for crimes which include perjury, obstruction of justice and treason for the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, in addition to other charges, all of which have been sitting idle with Judge Filip for several weeks now.

"What is important to note, is that indictments are handed down, vis a vis, what we call the foremen of the grand jury and despite the fact that (Special Prosecutor) Mr. (Patrick) Fitzgerald is in charge of the grand jury, the indictments concerning some of the major players are being held by what they call a "Judge Magistrate." And tonight what we want to do is identify the Judge Magistrate who is currently holding on to these indictments and that gentleman is by the name of Mark Filip. His actual name is ’Fickelstein,’ but he has changed it to Filiip, so that he is disguised, I guess, as something he is not supposed to be," Heneghen added.

Filip is also directly connected to a law firm by the name of Skadden/Arps out of Chicago that also employed the son of Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, who additionally may be indicted as a co-conspirator along with the late Chief Justice William Renquist. Their charges may entail their connection to the fraudulent 2000 Presidential election decision given to Bush which also has links to bribery payoffs from major corporations such as Coca-Cola and the Walt Disney Company, all again according to Heneghen.

From previous reports, Patrick Fitzgerald is overseeing six grand juries while still more grand juries have been convened in Washington, D.C. with testimony supplied by Sibel Edmonds and in New Jersey, which has particularly been investigating the apparent murder of John F. Kennedy, Jr., also linked to the Bush crime family. All of these additional grand juries became necessary to the broadening scope of the investigation which now includes 9/11,the Iraq war, Arab terrorist cells, a large cache of bribery money out of the Philippines, as well as other more extensive criminal

Tom Heneghen was joined on the show by journalist Tom Flocoo, however Stew Webb did not appear on last night’s broadcast as scheduled. A posting on the the Hal Turner web site prior to last night’s broadcast stated that "Stew Webb is fine and as such Stew and Tom are scheduled to do their show from 8-9 PM EDT." More than likely Stew Webb should appear on next Thursday evening’s show which airs over the Turner Network at 8PM EST, 7PM CST, 6PM MST and 5PM PST.

September Tuesday 20th 2005
~Rep. Hinchey, NY, a few days ago sent a letter to Fitzgerald with 40 Congressional signatures, asking Fitzgerald to expand the scope of his investigations into the Bush Regime's crimes. This was on Democratic front page, now archived, go to bottom of page and click for previous pages. Posters speculated that this was a counter move to the Republican Pat Roberts attempt to get Fitzgerald to appear before Congress to justify Fitz's going beyond the original CIA request that he investigate the outing of Valerie Plame.

Since Fitzgerald now has the request to expand his investigation from Congress members that covers his extensive investigaation of bushco crimes beginning with the theft of the 2000 election and bribery of Supreme Court justices.

google Hinchey plus Fitzgerald. I hope Fitzgerald sends the Federal Marshalls to arrest the entire Bush Regime. Rep. Barbara Lee's Resolution of Inquirey based on Downing Street Minutes failed by one vote last week. The Resolution of Inquiry is the first step towards Impeachment and I do not know why the left blogosphere has ignored the importance of a constant pressure of Congress leading up to this vote.

The Resolution can be requested again but I don't know the time frame for it to be introduced again.

There is quite a bit of very practicial informaiton on this close vote for Congress to begin to investigate bush' treason in taking the US to war on a pack of lies. Go to often and help them if you really want this criminal Regime out of office.

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Bush Declared All Out War on Fallujah just before 2004 Election

Mass slaughter using napalm, bombs, clusterbombs, house to house executions of whole families using the excuse of the people of Fallujah in a fury at the Blackwater mercenary hit squads and torture killed 4 BLACKWATER MERCENARIES which the media whores repeated were "innocent contractors". The timing was such that if Kerry objected to the massive election fraud by the Bush mafia, that Kerry and the "liberals" would be endangering national security. So Bush went on a murderous rampage against whole families and children. Like New Orleans, these people were not allowed to leave by armed checkpoints though the whore press said that the people of Fallujah were warned to leave the city - where could they go but the open desert but even that was blocked to them. Kerry knew the name of the game and let his Skull and Bones BLOOD BROTHERS BUSH JUNIOR AND SENIOR commit this atrocity by disappearing for months after conceding BEFORE the votes of the American people were counted.

Features > November 12, 2004
Fallujah 101
A history lesson about the town we are currently destroying.
By Rashid Khalidi

“The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiqués are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster. Our unfortunate troops, Indian and British, under hard conditions of climate and supply are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the willfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad but the responsibility, in this case, is not on the army which has acted only upon the request of the civil authorities.”

T.E. Lawrence, The Sunday Times, August 1920

There is a small City on one of the bends of the Euphrates that sticks out into the great Syrian Desert. It’s on an ancient trade route linking the oasis towns of the Nejd province of what is today Saudi Arabia with the great cities of Aleppo and Mosul to the north. It also is on the desert highway between Baghdad and Amman. This city is a crossroads.

For millennia people have been going up and down that north-south desert highway. The city is like a seaport on that great desert, a place that binds together people in what are today Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Jordan. People in the city are linked by tribe, family or marriage to people in all these places.

The ideas that came out of the eastern part of Saudi Arabia in the late 18th Century, which today we call Wahhabi ideas—those of a man named Muhammad Ibn ’Abd al-Wahhab—took root in this city more than 200 years ago. In other words, it is a place where what we would call fundamentalist salafi, or Wahhabi ideas, have been well implanted for 10 generations.
This town also is the place where in the spring of 1920, before T. E. Lawrence wrote the above passage, the British discerned civil unrest.

The British sent a renowned explorer and a senior colonial officer who had quelled unrest in the corners of their empire, Lt. Col. Gerald Leachman, to master this unruly corner of Iraq. Leachman was killed in an altercation with a local leader named Shaykh Dhari. His death sparked a war that ended up costing the lives of 10,000 Iraqis and more than 1,000 British and Indian troops. To restore Iraq to their control, the British used massive air power, bombing indiscriminately. That city is now called Fallujah.

Shaykh Dhari’s grandson, today a prominent Iraqi cleric, helped to broker the end of the U.S. Marine siege of Fallujah in April of this year. Fallujah thus embodies the interrelated tribal, religious and national aspects of Iraq’s history.

The Bush administration is not creating the world anew in the Middle East. It is waging a war in a place where history really matters.

A change for the worse

The United States has been a major Middle Eastern power since 1933, when a group of U.S. oil companies signed an exploration deal with Saudi Arabia. The United States has been dominant in the Middle East since 1942, when American troops first landed in North Africa and Iran. American troops have not left the region since. In other words, they have been in different parts of the Middle East for 62 years.

The United States was once celebrated as a non-colonial, sometimes anti-colonial, power in the Middle East, renowned for more than a century for its educational, medical and charity efforts. Since the Cold War, however, the United States has intervened increasingly in the region’s internal affairs and conflicts. Things have changed fundamentally for the worse with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, particularly with the revelation that the core pretexts offered by the administration for the invasion were false. And particularly with growing Iraqi dissatisfaction with the occupation and with the images of the hellish chaos broadcast regularly everywhere in the world except in the United States—thanks to the excellent job done by the media in keeping the real human costs of Iraq off our television screens.

The United States is perceived as stepping into the boots of Western colonial occupiers, still bitterly remembered from Morocco to Iran. The Bush administration marched into Iraq proclaiming the very best of intentions while stubbornly refusing to understand that in the eyes of most Iraqis and most others in the Middle East it is actions, not proclaimed intentions, that count. It does not matter what you say you are doing in Fallujah, where U.S. troops just launched an attack after weeks of bombing. What matters is what you are doing in Fallujah—and what people see that you are doing.

Fact-free and faith-basedMost Middle East experts in the United States, both inside and outside the government, have drawn on their knowledge of the cultures, languages, history, politics of the Middle East—and on their experience—to conclude that most Bush administration Middle East policies, whether in Iraq or Palestine, are harmful to the interests of the United States and the peoples of this region. A few of these experts have had the temerity to say so, to the outrage of the Bush administration and its supporters, who are committed to what I would call a fact-free, faith-based approach to Middle East policymaking.

These experts predicted that it would be difficult to occupy a vast, complex country like Iraq, that serious resistance from a major part of the population was likely, and that the invasion and occupation would complicate U.S. relations with other countries in the region. It is clear today that all of these fears were well founded.

After 20 months of occupation, the United States continues to make the important decisions in Iraq. Instead of control being exercised through the Coalition Provisional Authority, it takes place through the largest U.S. embassy in the world and its staff of more than 3,000. You can be sure that should the Iraqis try to end the basing of U.S. troops, or try to tear up the contracts with Halliburton and other U.S. companies, or take any other steps that displease the Bush administration, they would be brought up short by the U.S. viceroy, a.k.a. Ambassador John Negroponte.

We, and even more so the Iraqi government and its people, are trapped in a nightmare with no apparent end, in part because those experts who challenged neoconservative fantasies about U.S. troops being received with rice and flowers simply were not heeded. They warned that it is impossible to impose democracy through force in Iraq. Mao Tse Tung said that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun; he did not say democracy does. And it doesn’t.

The stench of hypocrisy rises when the United States, a nation supposedly com-mit-ted to democratization and reform, does not hesitate to embrace dictatorial, autocratic and undemocratic regimes like those of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia and now even Libya, simply because they act in line with U.S. security concerns or give lucrative contracts to U.S. businesses. The United States claims to be acting in favor of democracy, yet embraces Qaddhafi! People in the Middle East notice this gap between word and deed—even if Americans don’t notice the things being done in our name.

The United States, in fact, has a far from sterling record in promoting democracy in the Middle East. Initially it started off on a better footing. It opposed colonial rule and -promoted self-determination, as in President Wilson’s Fourteen Points after World War I. But when the United States returned to the Middle East after World War II, it soon supported anti-democratic regimes simply because they provided access to oil and military bases.

If you look carefully, what the Bush administration seems to mean by democracy in the Middle East is governments that do what the United States wants.

Conquer and plunderMiddle Eastern economics is another area about which we hear very little in our media. Americans may not be aware of it, but the wholesale theft of the property of the Iraqi people through privatization was prominently reported all over the Middle East. A recent case involved the handover of Iraqi Airways to an investor group headed by a family with close ties to the Saddam Hussein regime. The airline is worth $3 billion, because in addition to valuable landing slots all over Europe and a few tattered airplanes, Iraqi Airways owns the land on which most of the airports are built.

Such cases, and there are many, cause deep anger against the United States, and evoke bitter resistance to pressures for economic liberalization that people in the region interpret as the looting of their country’s assets.

These privatization measures arouse deep suspicion in the Middle East, because of fears that the region’s primary asset, oil, may be next.

Here, too, history is all-important. Since commercial quantities of oil were discovered in the Middle East at the turn of the 20th century, decisions over pricing, control and ownership of these valuable resources were largely in the hands of giant Western oil companies. They decided prices. They decided how much in taxes they would pay. They decided who controlled the local governments. They decided how much oil would be produced. And they decided everything else about oil, including conditions of exploration, production and labor.

In those seven decades the people of the countries where this wealth was located obtained few benefits from it. Only with the rise of OPEC and the nationalization of the Middle East oil industries and the oil price rises in the ’70s did the situation change. Sadly, it was the oligarchs, the kleptocrats and Western companies that benefited most from the increased prices.

Fears that they will lose their resources shape much of the nationalism of the peoples of the Middle East. And events in Iraq only enhance these fears.

By invading, occupying and imposing a new regime on Iraq, the United States may be following, intentionally or not, in the footsteps of the old Western colonial powers—and doing so in a region that within living memory ended a lengthy struggle to expel colonial occupations. They fought from 1830 to 1962 to kick out the French from Algeria. From 1882 to 1956 they fought to get the British out of Egypt. That’s within the lifetime of every person over 45 in the Middle East. Foreign troops on their soil against their will is deeply familiar.

War Crimes

Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies

The complete article is posted here:

Background info on the National Election Reform Conference here:
April 1st - Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies
The report concludes: “ We believe that the absence of any statistically-plausible explanation for the discrepancy between Edison/Mitofsky’s exit poll data and the official presidential vote tally is an unanswered question of vital national importance that needs thorough investigation.”
Complete report:
An executive summary of the report by is available at:

Press release:Scientific Analysis Suggests Presidential Vote Counts May Have Been Altered
“Officially, President Bush won November's election by 2.5%, yet exit polls showed Kerry winning by 3% [1]. According to a report to be released today by a group of university statisticians, the odds of a discrepancy this large between the national exit poll and election results happening by accident are close to 1 in a million.

In other words, by random chance alone, it could not have happened. But it did.”

Related stories:Group says chance of exit polls being so wrong in '04 vote is one-in-959,000By Stephen Dyer - Beacon Journal staff writer

“There's a one-in-959,000 chance that exit polls could have been so wrong in predicting the outcome of the 2004 presidential election, according to a statistical analysis released Thursday.”
“The explanation for the discrepancy that was offered by the exit polling firm -- that Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polling -- is an ``implausible theory,'' according to the report issued Thursday by US Count Votes, a group that claims it's made up of about two dozen statisticians.”

Analysis - Vote Counts May Have Been Altered

“The consortium that conducted the presidential exit polls, Edison/Mitofsky, issued a report in January suggesting that the discrepancy between election results and exit polls occurred because Bush voters were more reticent than Kerry voters in response to pollsters.

The authors of this newly released scientific study "Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Poll Discrepancies" considers this "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis to be highly implausible, based on extensive analysis of Edison/Mitofsky's exit poll data. They conclude, /“The required pattern of exit poll participation by Kerry and Bush voters to satisfy the exit poll data defies empirical experience and common sense under any assumed scenario.”

A state-by-state analysis of the discrepancy between exit polls and official election results shows highly improbable skewing of the election results, overwhelmingly biased towards the President.”
“Ph.D. statisticians in America who have seen this group's preliminary exit poll study have not refuted it. This new study is a much more comprehensive an analysis of the exit poll discrepancies.”