Wednesday, July 18, 2007

A GOP chorus warns of impending attacks on US citizens, a rogue "President" claims he has the authority to wage war on US citizens. Connect the dots!

It's time to connect the dots. Is George W. Bush looking for an opportunity to invoke National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51? This directive places all governmental powers in Bush's hands should "predictions" by Chertoff, Ron Paul et al come to pass.

A single phrase --unitary executive --makes of George W. Bush an absolute dictator in the event of a "national emergency", say, a terrorist attack which only GOPPERS have, of late, been predicting amid much salivation and thinly disguised glee.

This extremist, radical right wing interpretation of the powers of the presidency makes of a dumbass an absolute dictator! It should alarm you that this concept is championed by the conservative Federalist Society. It puts into Bush's hands all the powers of the Presidency, the legislature and, most significantly, the judiciary. The law becomes what Bush says it is. Terrorism is what Bush says it is. Let me make this clear: you will no longer have the right to plead not guilty to any crime should Bush decide that you are a "terrorist".

Given the "noise", the flack, the numerous oddly placed predictions and gut feelings, I believe that this criminal administration is at work planning the absolute dictatorship that George W. Bush so obviously covets and has so obviously planned since stealing his first election.
This would be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship...heh heh heh long as I'm the dictator!

--George W. Bush

Recently --A flurry of ominous, numerous warnings about imminent terrorist attacks by al Qaeda on US soil and, at the same time, we get irrefutable confirmation of my thesis: terrorism is always worse during GOP administrations even as Bush claims the authority to wage war on US citizens! I have the FBI stats to prove my case and, most recently, a US State Department report that worldwide terrorism is up 30% since Bush attacked Iraq.

Paul Craig Roberts: A Wake-up Call

This is a wake-up call that we are about to have another 9/11-WMD experience. The wake-up call is unlikely to be effective, because the American attitude toward government changed fundamentally seventy-odd years ago. Prior to the 1930s, Americans were suspicious of government, but with the arrival of the Great Depression, Tojo, and Hitler, President Franklin D. Roosevelt convinced Americans that government existed to protect them from rapacious private interests and foreign threats. Today, Americans are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to government than they are to family members, friends, and those who would warn them about the government’s protection....
The latest warning is from the State Department.

ABC News: Secret Document: US Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned

Significantly, ABC reports states that the "reports" resemble "warnings and intelligence" received by the Bush administration just before 911.

Rick Santorum predicts some unfortunate events will give Americans a very different view of this war

Yesterday, on the Hugh Hewitt show, former PA Senator Rick Santorum made references to learning the lessons of 9-11 and the recent 'attacks' in England. Then when asked by Hewitt whether he felt the leading Republican Presidential candidates were speaking with enough "seriousness" about the war, Santorum proceeded to say that a lot was going to change in the next year.
And yet another:

'something's in the works' to trigger a police state

Muriel Kane
Published: Thursday July 19, 2007

Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.

He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts -- a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War -- by quoting the "strong words" which open Roberts' latest column: "Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."

"I don't actually think they're very strong," said Roberts of his words. "I get a lot of flak that they're understated and the situation is worse than I say. ... When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order] ... there's no check to it. It doesn't have to be ratified by Congress. The people who bear the brunt of these dictatorial police state actions have no recourse to the judiciary. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule. ... The American people don't really understand the danger that they face." ...
The old 911 magic may be gone forever as a method of pulling Bush's sorry fat out of the fire. I would hope that the planners of state sponsored terrorism would keep that fact in mind. It is because Bush has never been more reviled and less popular that he is coiled to strike back at a people whom he says he has a right war against i.e. the American people.

It was in those early days of Bush's failed occupancy, as you may recall, that Bush boasted: "Lucky me! I just won the trifecta". 911 propelled Bush to the heights of public approval amid promises that he would smoke out Bin Laden and bring him to justice. He would treat the nations who nurture terrorism as terrorists themselves. Empty promises from a proven liar! Bush did none of those things. It was all empty GOP rhetoric that must not work again.

[See: the FBI has recently stated that there was never hard evidence that Bin Laden had anything to do with the events of 911 anyway; Google search: NO HARD EVIDENCE] We should also add that there is also no hard evidence whatsoever in support of Bush's official conspiracy theories of 911.

What are we to make of Homeland Security Chief getting a "gut feeling" that the US will be attacked "this summer" because, as he says of al Qaeda "Summertime seems to be appealing to them"? What a very odd thing to say!

Chertoff bases warning of terror risk on 'gut feeling'

Homeland chief says he's offering an assessment, not a prediction
By E.A. TORRIEROMcClatchy-Tribune

CHICAGO — Fearing complacency among the American people over possible terror threats, US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in Chicago on Tuesday that the nation faces a heightened chance of an attack this summer.

"I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk," Chertoff told the Chicago Tribune's editorial board in an unusually blunt and frank assessment of America's terror threat level.

"Summertime seems to be appealing to them," he said of al-Qaeda. "We do worry that they are rebuilding their activities."
Wait a minute! Didn't the liars of the Bush administration continue to deny that there were warnings until they were forced to admit and release the August PDB [President's Daily Briefing] entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US"? To this day, we would not have known about that briefing if the liars of the Bush administration had not been forced to cough it up by the 911 Commission.

I am highly suspicious of Chertoff's timing coming as it does when the Bush administration is the only entity to benefit from such an attack, when Bush has claimed that he has the authority to wage war on US citizens, when Bush seems itching to sign Directive 51 which makes him an absolute dictator.

Assume for a moment that al Qaeda is involved in some way with the misnamed "insurgency" in Iraq. What would it have to gain by attacking the US now when the US is bogged down in a killing field. Such an attack makes no sense. Bona fide terrorists have Bush where "they" want him --bogged down in swamp just as the French cavalry was bogged down at Agincourt and, later, at Crecy.

Chertoff's remarks also remind one of the Anthrax attacks on Congressional Democrats. As you may recall, Sens Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy were "obstructing" the passage of Bush's "Patriot" Act which would give him near dictatorial powers. In the current case, Chertoff himself criticized Congress' recent failure to pass an immigration bill. He claims it has negative repercussions for homeland security and will lead to continued federal crackdowns on illegal immigrants.

Coupled with a warning from the "gut", it all sounds like a threat to the very rule of law!

Chertoff alone might not be taken seriously but for two ominous factors:
  • He speaks for an administration that cannot be otherwise believed.
  • His "gut feeling" comes closely just days before a similar warning by an eminent Republican seeking the Oval Office, Congressman Ron Paul.

Ron Paul warns of a staged terror attack

Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, said the country is in "great danger" of the US government staging a terrorist attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation, as the war in Iraq continues to deteriorate.

The Texas congressman offered no specifics nor mentioned President Bush by name, but he clearly insinuated that the administration would not be above staging an incident to revive flagging support.

"We're in danger in many ways," Paul said on the Alex Jones radio show. "The attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."

Paul was asked to respond to comments by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan that the US is in danger of a staged terror attack or a provocation of an enemy similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 before the Vietnam War.

During the radio interview, Paul said the government was conducting "an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq."

Amid this abnormally high level of GOP faux hysteria, we get proof that terrorism is always worse under GOP regimes and even more so because of Bush's quagmire in Iraq.

US State Department admits: Terrorist attacks have increased 29%

An increase of almost 30 percent is reported worldwide since 2006. US officials say the increase is due to growing violence in Afghanistan and Iraq --two nations attacked by Bush who claimed he was waging a war on terrorism.

Thanks to the GOP, US claims to empire ring hollow. Ronald Reagan's was a failed regime which "tripled the national deficit and doubled the bureaucracy. The US has been a debtor nation since. Thanks to Ronald Reagan's, the US no longer leads the world in automotive or steel manufacture. Reagan waged a war on porn but another on labor itself. The porn war he lost, the war on labor, he won. He hollowed out the nation's industrial base at a time of conspicuous consumption the likes of which the world had not seen since the last days of the Roman Empire. And, like Rome, the gaudy spectable was confined to the uppper one percent of the nation. If the GOP elite consumes like there is no tomorrow, there may, indeed, be no tommorrow.

Surviving with an internationally propped up dollar, the GOP exports the only thing its good at: industrialized murder on a scale not seen since Adolph Hitler partnered with I.G. Farben and Prescott Bush, the Shrub's grandfather.

I believe in freedom of speech and the right to dissent. But the GOP has repeatedly crossed the line between politics and organized crime, between protest and assault and battery. There is probable cause to investigate the GOP leadership. It is no longer a political party; it's a crime syndicate. There is reason to believe that his criminal organization is up to something that will make the Florida election theft look like a high school prank, though it was, in fact, a felony described by US Criminal Codes. It's called "seditious conspiracy".

I am increasingly concerned that a desperate Bush, a desperate GOP will attack US citizens and blame an increase in terrorism clearly caused by GOP imperialism, stupidity, incompetence and just ordinary run-o-the-mill treachery! I am not alone in my concern. Just recently, GOP Presidential hopeful Ron Paul, with whom I have very little in common politically, fears the government itself will strike US citizens and blame terrorists.

Report warns of Iraq-based terrorist strike in US

WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda is still plotting a major attack on the United States and will "probably" use its Iraqi affiliate, a combat-tested terrorist group that sprang up after the 2003 US-led invasion, to carry it out, a new US intelligence report warned Tuesday.

The National Intelligence Estimate made it clear that Osama bin Laden's militant Islamic network, bolstered by the Iraq war and growing anti-US anger in the Muslim world, remains a potent danger nearly six years after President Bush launched his "Global War on Terror" in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The United States faces "a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years," said the NIE, an authoritative analysis representing the consensus of all 16 US intelligence agencies.
Who is going to believe that prostrate Iraq, occupied by the world's "lone superpower" is going to mount an attack against the US unassisted by the liar George W. Bush? Certainly, we must put the previous story in context, beside the statements made recently by a candidate for the office of President:

Secret Document: US Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned

A secret US law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.

"This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001," the official told

US officials have kept the information secret, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that the United States did not have "have any specific credible evidence that there's an attack focused on the United States at this point."


Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff declined to comment specifically on the report today, but said "everything that we get is shared virtually instantaneously with our counterparts in Britain and vice versa."
If war is waged on US citizens this summer, it will be because a delusional, rogue "President" has arrogated unto himself the "authority" to do it.

Do you really think that this megalomaniacal egoist of no talent and less intelligence is kidding?

Do you really think the GOP has mounted a full court press because they have seen the errors of their evil ways and are demanding that the US give Iraq back to the Iraqis?

Do you really think that the GOP having gambled sold their souls and gambled their entire lives by throwing in with a war criminal will go quietly into that good night amid the emerging truth about how the GOP conspired with Bush and big oil to trash the Constitution and the rule of law?

Do you really believe that the GOP will suddenly embrace the light when all is dark and getting darker?

As Mr "T" used to say: "I pity the fool...."

Conspiracy To Defraud the United States

Misrepresenting the Truth in Order to Sell a War is A “High Crime”

by Elizabeth de la Vega

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than twenty years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in The Nation, the Los Angeles Times and Salon.

The U.S. Constitution provides for impeachment of any President or Vice President who commits “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This applies to any serious abuses of power, whether or not they are actually crimes, but President Bush and Vice President Cheney have clearly committed numerous specific federal crimes while in office. This article focuses on a Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371).

What is a conspiracy to defraud the United States?

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States is a specific federal crime prohibited by Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. Put simply, it is an agreement to use deceit and misrepresentation to “obstruct or impair” the normal functioning of government. It has been charged numerous times, including against defendants in the Watergate case and the Iran/contra scandal.

How do you prove a criminal conspiracy?

A criminal conspiracy is defined in the law as simply an agreement to commit a crime, but you don’t have to show that people wrote out an agreement or even explicitly said, “let’s do this criminal act…” Conspiracies are proved by evidence of what people do and say, both publicly and behind the scenes.

Isn’t that “circumstantial evidence?”

Yes it is and, as judges tell juries in courtrooms around the country every day, circumstantial evidence is just as important as direct evidence.

What does it mean “to defraud?”

To defraud means to attempt to influence people to go along with your proposal by using deceit. The attempt does not actually have to succeed. The crime is complete once a person uses misrepresentation with the intent to provide a false picture. “Fraud” includes deliberate misrepresentations, outright lies, half-truths and statements made with reckless disregard for the truth. Bush and Cheney used all of these methods to convince the public and Congress to agree to their plan to invade Iraq.

What are some examples of Bush’s and Cheney’s misrepresentations?

Bush, Cheney and their top aides made hundreds of misrepresentations to deceitfully convince people to accept their plan. Here are a few examples:

  1. Deliberate Misrepresentation- The linking of Iraq and 9/11

    A deliberate misrepresentation is a statement or set of statements that might not be false in and of themselves, but are presented so as to give a false impression. In the case of the Bush/Cheney conspiracy to defraud, the best example of this is their repeated linking of Saddam or Iraq to the “lessons of 9/11.” The Bush administration used this device so often that it’s clear that it was a calculated and deliberate effort to provide a false impression that the two were linked -- even though, as Bush has admitted, they knew there was no link. It is no defense to a charge of fraud based on deliberate misrepresentation that the person’s statement was not literally false.
  2. Outright Lie- “Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in.”

    Before the war, and as recently as March 21, 2006, President Bush said we invaded Iraq because “Saddam would not let the UN inspectors in.” That is an outright lie. The UN inspectors reported to the Security Council on March 7, 2003 that, although the process was not perfect, Saddam Hussein was cooperating with the inspections, the UN team thought the process was working, and they wanted to complete it. President Bush told the UN inspectors to leave within 48 hours on March 16, 2003.
  3. Half-truth- “Saddam’s son-in-law told us about biological and chemical Weapons.”

    One of the half-truths most often repeated by Cheney, in particular, was that “we” (the U.S.) knew there were biological and chemical weapons, because Saddam’s son-in-law, Kamel Hussein, told U.S. agents about them when he defected. Apart from the fact that Kamel made these statements in 1995, so they proved nothing about the existence of weapons in 2003, Cheney only told half the story. The other half was that Kamel had said that they had destroyed the weapons, a fact confirmed by U.N. and U.S. inspectors.
  4. Reckless Disregard - “Iraq is a Grave and Gathering Danger”

    In criminal law, statements made with reckless disregard as to whether they are true or false are considered fraudulent. In other words, the law imposes a duty upon people who are trying to influence others to make important life decisions -- such as investments, large purchases, medical decisions, or, of course, agreeing to a war -- to make assertions only if they are actually backed up by facts, especially when the people speaking are seen as authority figures, such as the President and Vice President. So every time Bush and Cheney made statements such as “Iraq is a grave and gathering danger” or “We know there are weapons of mass destruction,” they were speaking with reckless disregard for the truth. If they had done their due diligence and examined the reports of our own intelligence community, they would have known that these statements were seriously in question, if not outright false. If they did not complete any due diligence before making the statements, they were speaking with reckless disregard for the truth. Either way it’s fraud.

Does it Matter Whether Bush and Cheney actually believed there were WMD?

No, in criminal law it is not a defense to fraud that a person subjectively, that is, in his own mind, believed that the scheme would all work out, if he makes fraudulent misrepresentations in order to get people to go along with it. In other words, you can’t trick people into going along with your ideas, just because you think the ideas are good.

How was government “impaired and obstructed?”

Bush and Cheney’s fraudulent misrepresentations about the true state of affairs in Iraq was designed to convince the public to believe that Iraq presented an imminent threat. They needed to convince the public that there was a dire emergency in order to convince Congress to authorize funds for the war. This scheme of misrepresentation obstructed the workings of government in a critical way -- it caused the most serious of governmental decisions to be made upon false information.

Doesn’t Congress have an obligation to question the president?

Congress does have an obligation to question the president, but that is a political issue. Congress’ inadequate response to the president’s fraud does not get the Bush administration off the hook for purposes of deciding whether they committed a crime. Courts always tell juries that persons charged with fraud cannot claim that their victims were too gullible, or should have known better.

See Also

Additional resources

Why Conservatives Hate America

Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine
Post a Comment