A Lesson for the FBI and the CIA?

So, the second in command at the FBI was Deep Throat! This should be a lesson to those at the FBI and the CIA. If the government is out of control, as W.Mark Felt felt, then the bureaucrats and operatives who know this have a patriotic duty to come forth. Otherwise the Republic is endangered.

Where are those patriotic bureaucrats and operatives today?

JMHO!

Have you Signed this Letter Yet?

Rep. Conyers wants the Administration to answer questions raised by the “Downing Street Memo” which was exposed in the Sunday Times on May 1^st. I believe that every patriotic American should sign this letter to promote Freedom and Democracy in the United States.

United States Representative John Conyers, Jr., a Detroit Democrat, was re-elected in November 2002 to his nineteenth term in the U. S. House of Representatives, winning 93 percent of the vote in Michigan's Fourteenth Congressional District. The district covers all of Highland Park and Hamtramck, as well as large portions of Detroit and Dearborn. In addition, due to recent Congressional redistricting, the Down River communities of Melvindale, Allen Park, Southgate, Riverview, Trenton, Gibraltar, and Grosse Ile Township are also part of the 14^th District.

Here is the letter and the link to sign on to the quest for answers as to why the United States invaded another sovereign country on what appears to be fabricated intelligence:

Letter to Pres Bush Concerning "Downing Street Memo"

---

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. President:

We the undersigned write to you because of our concern regarding recent disclosures of a “Downing Street Memo” in the London Times, comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. These minutes indicate that the United States and Great Britain agreed to by the summer of 2002 to attack Iraq, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war.

Among other things, the British government document quotes a high-ranking British official as stating that by July, 2002, “Bush had made up his mind to take military action.” Yet, a month later, the you stated you were still willing to “look at all options” and that there was “no timetable” for war. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, flatly stated that “[t]he president has made no such determination that we should go to war with Iraq.”

In addition, the origins of the false contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction remains a serious and lingering question about the lead up to the war. There is an ongoing debate about whether this was the result of a “massive intelligence failure,” in other words a mistake, or the result of intentional and deliberate manipulation of intelligence to justify the case for war. The memo appears to resolve that debate as well, quoting the head of British intelligence as indicating that in the United States “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

As a result of these concerns, we would ask that you respond to the following questions:
1) Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain’’s commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to “fix” the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

These are the same questions 89 Members of Congress, led by Rep. John Conyers, Jr., submitted to you on May 5, 2005. As citizens and taxpayers, we believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government and our commander in chief when you make representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war. As a result, we would ask that you publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Here is the link: http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={0F1B03E0-080B-4100-B143-36A5985EF1E3}

For those of you haven't yet read the actual memo here is the link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

It is not a pretty picture of the United States of America's Administration and Newsweek had nothing to do with it.

Why aren't the American public outraged?

Are We a Healthy Nation?

I know that this is a serious subject but I can’t help but think every time I see a picture of John Bolton, the wildly inappropriate nominee to the U. S. Ambassador to the U.N,: Got Milk!

These days, you really do have to get your snark or laughs where you can get them.

I apologize.

Well sort of…

Senate Betrayal Diverted!

Okay, so this deal isn’t exactly fabulous. But, it does keep the teetering balance between the Executive, the Congress and the Courts intact.

I still cannot understand why any Senator would have voted to give his/her power to the Executive. But, it seems that there were many who would. Why any Senator would give over the power of the Senate, which was designed to protect the minority, to the President/Executive is beyond my ken. Why they would hand the Executive any confirmation with only 50 votes is mind-boggling. It would seem to me that any appointee to a lifetime appointment should be able to garner at least 60 votes. It seems to me that any Senator who would agree to that shift of power (and lack of accountability) should not, and would not, want to be a member of the Senate that he/she cares so little about, not to mention the U.S. Constitution and the founding father's design for our form of liberal democracy.

So, luckily, our republican form of liberal democracy lives for another day. The executive will not be able to get his way with only 50 votes in the Senate.

And, by the way, the minority, whose rights that have been preserved for another day, is a minority that represents more Americans than the majority. That’s right, the 45 Democrats actually represent more folks than the 55 Republicans. That is what the Senate is all about, the protection of the Minority!

To quote the NYTimes:

There is absolutely nothing unfair about allowing a minority that actually represents more American people to veto lifetime appointments of judges who are far outside the mainstream of American thinking.

The rest we can argue, and we will, later.

Lies and the Lying Liars!

Not that most informed folks didn’t know, but it is now incontrovertible, the only place to find the Iraqi connection to terrorism and the WMD was in the heads of G.W. Bush, the NeoCons, and the media spin (especially Judith Miller). This gives a whole new meaning to NeoCon: we were conned.

Well, okay those who weren’t paying attention to the Weapons Inspectors, various Former Administration Members, and the VIPS, etc., were conned. That would of course mean the U.S. Congress, the Main Stream Media and a huge portion of the U.S. citizenry. In June 2003 Ray McGovern, of the VIPS, did an interview that laid it all out. Both Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill said that this administration was geared toward regime change in Iraq before 9/11.

Was no one listening?

Now, the Sunday Times of London has broken the story with the leaked transcript of a meeting with Tony Blair and his Foreign Service cabal regarding the head of MI-6's recent meeting with the U.S. counterpart on the impending Iraqi War.

This brings me to the MSM. Since the breaking news, I did a little search of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the L. A. Times, those liberal bastions, and guess what I found? I could not find an article about the “U.K. Bombshell Memo” which lays out the Bush Administrations plans for the Iraq War in July of 2002. I did find, however, one article by Knight Ridder ( addendum: today a rather bland, and 11 days later article by the LATimes).

The memo of July 23, 2002 states:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

And folks this isn't the worst of it. Check out the whole memo linked above. Especially the part that the whole campaign was geared to the midterm elections. Deplorable.

Now how can this possibly be? The Right-Wing constantly screams that the media is so Liberal and that the “real story” never gets out. Well, here is the “real story” that is not getting out and the Liberal media isn’t telling it. And it is a story that the RIGHT wouldn’t want out. So, how legitimate is this claim that the U. S. has a liberal media.

Not too legitimate it seems to me.

This is one of the biggest stories of the last five years. The U. S. government according to the U.K. government transcript planned to invade and declare war against a country on fabricated evidence. That strikes me as BIG NEWS!

Yet, our “Liberal Media” isn’t covering it.

HMMMM!

Here is the email I sent to the New York Times:

Dear Folks:

Maybe I missed the articles on the UK Memo transcription about the meeting with Blair and his foreign policy circle regarding the impending Invasion of Iraq. The memo was from July 2002. Here is a link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1533385,00.html

If I missed the articles, please let me know where I can find them.

However, a search of the site leaves me with no articles. Why do you suppose this bombshell hasn't appeared in the NY Times? Is it because of the "Liberal Bias?"

The fact that the U.S. Administration conspired with the U.K. to make the facts fit the policy is "News." The fact that you are not reporting it makes you appear to be part of the problem. Your new credibility project is being undermined as you employ it.

Why aren't you reporting the news? It appears that you are merely the scribes of this administration. Your job is to speak truth to power.

Not reporting the news is what is making you irrelevant!

I am appalled.

Tuli Taylor

This is of course what the whole Bolton debacle is about. We have an administration operative who is bullying intelligence analysts to come up with the “right” intelligence, or else.

So it is not surprising that the Bush administration would want Bolton and see him as the right man to represent this administration at the United Nations.

He is one of theirs. He knows how it is done and does it, no matter what the facts or legalities. The policy of this administration is to “Fix” the intelligence to “Fit” the policy. Ray McGovern has written a cogent piece on what this policy is doing to our intelligence services. It isn’t a pretty picture.

As for the "Bombshell Memo", “A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.”

So, folks, we have all been lied to so that this country could engage in an illegal war. The troubling part is that the Main Stream Media doesn’t seem to find this NEWS, and therefore the American Public is uninformed as to what their Leaders are/and have lead us into.

What are we to do?

Eighty-eight House of Representative members have written to the President requesting answers to questions raised by these events. If the past is any indication of this administration's actions, there will be no response.

Once again, I am bereft.

An Impeachable Offense?

Seriously folks, Mr. Bush is running around the country saying that the Social Security Trust Fund is merely IOU’s. He is implying that the U.S. Government doesn’t have to honor that debt.

Well, the Social Security Trust Fund is made up of U.S. Treasury Obligations. Now, it is contrary to the U.S. Constitution to say that U.S. Government debts will not be honored.

That’s right, what Mr. Bush is doing is unconstitutional. Not that the Straussian NeoCons are particularly into the U.S. Constitution, which they refer to as a mere “parchment regime.” All you have to do is note, the Gonzales memo stating that the President is above both domestic and international law during the “time of war.” Then, of course, there are those pesky U.S. laws against torture and the Geneva Conventions, which this administration believes it is above, and the abuse scandals, with memos exposing the DOD’s intentions, which show they really mean to disregard the domestic and international laws.

So, I guess it is no surprise that this administration, in their desire to dismantle the New Deal, would make assertions that directly contradict the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and may in fact be illegal statements.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section IV and V states:

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In fact, in the Press Conference on April 28, 2005, just last Thursday, the President made his point again.

He said:

Now, it's very important for our fellow citizens to understand there is not a bank account here in Washington, D.C., where we take your payroll taxes and hold it for you and then give it back to you when you retire. Our system here is called pay-as-you-go. You pay into the system through your payroll taxes, and the government spends it. It spends the money on the current retirees, and with the money left over, it funds other government programs. And all that's left behind is file cabinets full of IOUs.

That’s right, just measly old IOU’s in a file cabinet. Now it is quite possible that he doesn’t know what a U. S. Treasury obligation is, but that seems unlikely as earlier in the press conference he said:

The money from a voluntary personal retirement account would supplement the check one receives from Social Security. In a reformed Social Security system, voluntary personal retirement accounts would offer workers a number of investment options that are simple and easy to understand. I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

So, the Social Security Trust Fund is merely IOU’s, but his privatized accounts which are invested in U.S. Treasury obligations would be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. HMMMM! That seems to completely contradict the filing cabinet senario.

This leads me to believe that just like the Weapons of Mass Destruction, which never existed, this administration will say anything in its “Bamboozlepalooza” to get what it wants. Truth be damned!

Well, this is one time that the lie just might be really against the law of the land. There is an obscure case decided in 1935 that deals with this problem. The case is Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330. This cases deals with the redemption of a bond and the desire of the government to redeem it on terms different from those when it was issued. The bond was issued under the Act of September 24, 1917, which “authorized the moneys to be borrowed, and the bonds to be issued, 'on the credit of the United States,' in order to meet expenditures needed 'for the national security and defense and other public purposes authorized by law.’ ” Sounds a lot like those bonds that are sitting in that file cabinet in W. Virginia, doesn’t it?

In this case the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the government’s position and decided that:

The binding quality of the obligations of the government was considered in the Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700, 718 , 719 S.. The question before the Court in those cases was whether certain action was warranted by a reservation to the Congress of the right to amend the charter of a railroad company. While the particular action was sustained under this right of amendment, the Court took occasion to state emphatically the obligatory character of the contracts of the United States. The Court said: 'The United States are as much bound by their contracts as are individuals. If they repudiate their obligations, it is as much repudiation, with all the wrong and reproach that term implies, as it would be if the repudiator had been a State or a municipality or a citizen.' 2 [294 U.S. 330, 352] When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. There is no difference, said the Court in United States v. Bank of the Metropolis, 15 Pet. 377, 392, except that the United States cannot be sued without its consent. See, also, The Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. 666, 675; Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389 , 396. In Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 580 , 54 S.Ct. 840, 844, with respect to an attempted abrogation by the Act of March 20, 1933, 17, 48 Stat. 8, 11 (38 USCA 717), of certain outstanding war risk insurance policies, which were contracts of the United States, the Court quoted with approval the statement in the Sinking Fund Cases, supra, and said: 'Punctilious fulfillment of contractual obligations is essential to the maintenance of the credit of public as well as private debtors. No doubt there was in March, 1933, great need of economy. In the administration of all government business economy had become urgent because of lessened revenues and the heavy obligations to be issued in the hope of relieving widespread distress. Congress was free to reduce gratuities deemed excessive. But Congress was without power to reduce expenditures by abrogating contractual obligations of the United States. To abrogate contracts, in the attempt to lessen government expenditure, would [294 U.S. 330, 353] be not the practice of economy, but an act of repudiation.'

Furthermore:

The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law , ... shall not be questioned.' While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.

That seems pretty clear to me. The policy reasons for this are evident as well. If the U.S. Government were to disavow its obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund, it would make it very difficult to convince the Japanese and Chinese to continue to fund our deficits. This could lead to an International Crisis of major proportions, to put it mildly!

Now, it seems highly unlikely that the U.S. Congress, controlled by the Republicans, would even consider acting on this unconstitutional behavior. Though the recent roll back of the Ethics Rules strikes me, the eternal optimist, that they are getting nervous.

So far the media has pretty much ignored this and Bush’s contradictions.

The question is whether the U.S. Citizenry which has been burned by the WMD lies, will learn its lesson, or will continue to be bamboozled? The recent polls seem to suggest the former.

We can only hope!

Addendum: For more on the Bamboozle check out this Billmon post.