The Method and the Madness of King George

Recently, with his pet poodle Tony Blair in tow, Bush said he regretted having said "Bring it on!" He called it "tough talk". Is this mere alcoholic's remorse publicly confessed until he can spin and sin again? It is more accurately described as "misdirection". He is publicly contrite to disarm opponents while he spoils for a showdown that will have the effect of consolidating power already claimed for himself.

A raid on congress, for example, is not a "big deal" if you buy Bushco's logic that the executive can routinely raid an independent and equal branch of government. A raid on congress is not a "big deal" —if one buys the Bush/Gonazales re-write of the Fourth Amendment. It is a "big deal", if you don't.

I don't buy the Bush rewrite of both history and Constitution; and I deny that Bush, Gonzales and Hayden have the authority to rewrite the Bill of Rights. The standard is "probable cause" —not "reasonableness". I don't care what Gonzales or Hayden may say to the contrary. They are either wrong or lying or both. There is no excuse for Hayden's not having read the Fourth Amendment and his ignorance of it should have disqualified him from heading the CIA where his pig-headed ignorance will further harm the nation.

What Bush has really done is to throw down the gauntlet. The range of issues taken together makes a sinister mosaic.

• Bush has apparently completed what many of the right wing have desired: an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress' sole authority to wage war:
  

The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.

—James Madison

• Bush has both defended and denied a campaign of wide spread domestic surveillance;
• The Bush administration is most certainly continuing —amid world wide outrage —a policy of outsourced torture —called "rendition" in our Orwellian world. Contrary to administration obfuscation, lies, and spin, this program thumbs its nose at international principles that the United States itself insisted upon at the end of World War II;
  
• And, at last, Presidential "signing statements" —Bush's way of reminding Congress and the nation that it matters little what Congress has done; the law is what Emperor Bush says it is.
  

It all takes on the appearance of a well-organized plan. Bush is spoiling for a judicial showdown —but only because he thinks the fix is in! "Rendition" seems to be the only issue to have surfaced prominently prior to the confirmation of Alito.

My memories of Bush v Gore are too vivid to desire a resolution of this issue in a court that I no longer trust to rule upon the Constitution but upon a Bush/Scalia/Gonazales perversion of it. Certainly, the GOP seems eager to get the recent raid on Congress to SCOTUS.

Too eager!

There is little downside risk for Bush. The worst that could happen is that SCOTUS slaps his limp wrist and tells him to make nice-nice with Congress. On the other hand, Bush is willing to gamble that he will come away with a novel NeoCon friendly interpretation of the Fourth Amendment that only Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft or Michael Hayden could love. There is a reason the right wing wanted to pack the court.

Like Ashcroft, Gonzales favors greater executive branch secrecy. Like Ashcroft, Gonzales favors the centralization of presidential power -- as well as its expansion. Indeed, Gonzales provided the legal arguments used to claim that the president has the power, under the Constitution, to order torture, despite the fact that torture violates the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements the United States has ratified and implemented.

Indeed, Gonzales deemed international law -- which becomes the law of the United States, under our Constitution, when properly ratified by the Senate -- to be "quaint" and outdated when applied to the war on terrorism. To say this, is to say, in effect that the Constitution itself is quaint and outdated.

Unsurprisingly, Gonzales -- like Ashcroft -- has been a strong supporter of the Patriot Act, and the president's recent calls to renew its key provisions which are set to sunset next year. And Gonzales, like Ashcroft, has been a proponent of the administration's policy of detaining any person it labeled an "enemy combatant" without giving them access to the courts to make an effective determination of their status.

According to Gonzales -- and to Ashcroft before him -- even judicial review to determine whether the facts support the "enemy combatant" designation should not occur. Gonzales, like Ashcroft, believes that the president's -- and attorney general's -- kingly power trumps even some of the most prized of American's basic rights, the rights to physical liberty, and to due process of law.

—CNN: Alberto Gonzales, a gentler(?) Ashcroft

The two words —probable cause —seem more precious than ever when they are so ominously threatened. A favorable ruling for Bush could all but consolidate his dictatorship. Just two words —probable cause —now stand between us and tyranny.

There are some interesting comments on this article at the Smirking Chimp.

Bush Administration’s Lies About Iraq: A Compendium
The Existentialist Cowboy
Iraq
Bush
War
Democrats

---

The Existentialist Cowboy

A Constitutional showdown looms —but not the one we expected

At stake is a system of checks and balances established by the founders in 1787! Will it fall victim to the Bushco train wreck? For the first time in American history, armed federal agents of the executive branch of the government executed a raid on Congress and spent hours "rifling through papers" and removing materials that they alone deemed necessary to an investigation.

This time even Republicans are alarmed. House speaker Dennis Hastert —no friend of the Constitution —denounced the assault on the checks and balances; House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio predicted the issue would be decided by the Supreme Court.

The target of their investigation is Rep. William Jefferson, D-La, himself little defended by either party. The condemnation of the raid, however, comes from both sides of the aisle. Rarely have the GOP so boldly defended the Constitution as when Hastert reportedly told George W. Bush that the raid violated the U.S. Constitution, the separation of powers, and the "Speech and Debate" clause specifically.

"[Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same, and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

—Speech and Debate Clause

The raid smacks of Oliver Cromwell and his armed troops storming into the long parliament and dismissing them at the end of a long and thunderous harangue: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing! Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

I will not defend the "target" just because he's a Democrat. If the allegations against him have substance, he must be investigated —but not at the expense of what little remains of the rule of law. The allegations against him must not become the pretext by which the last vestige of Constitutional law is jettisoned on Bush's watch.

I am also slow to applaud Hastert in the role of "good" Republican for denouncing the raid. Hastert himself is so compromised that FOX News made it a point to report that Hastert himself was NOT under investigation. It is a sign of immoral times when headlines trumpet that someone is not facing indictment. Surely, we are living in the end game —when Bush will either consolidate his dictatorial rule or he will fail and be removed precipitously.

Charles Dickens was prescient. Mr. Bumble, in David Copperfield, could very have been describing contemporary life in the United States: “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass —a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience —by experience.”

Congress would be well-advised to begin its impeachment investigation of Bush now —while there is still a Congress. The downside risks are not insignificant. In a showdown —Rumsfeld will take his orders from Bush who would not hesitate to order the arrest and detentions of those members of Congress organizing to impeach and remove.

The harm Bush has done to the Constitution will outlive his administration but the GOP will not have to wait for retribution. A popular firestorm will sweep through Washington like a Kansas tornado through a trailer park. Republicans —Bush fanatics, in particular —have argued that Bush could be trusted with increased executive power. To their everlasting chagrin they have been proven wrong, and many —Hastert among them —are giving evidence that they regret having thrown in with a gang of crooks and usurpers.

The GOP must surely realize that saving Bush will be the end of the American republic —but also the end of the Republican party. Surely the GOP must realize that Bush "ain't" worth it. The alternatives to Congressional action are simply too terrible to contemplate —the end of the Constitution, the end of the republic, the end of the rule of law, the end of the separation of powers, the end of due process of law, the end of the United States.

Some updates: A Register-Guard Editorial asks some tought questions of a Congress that has too often just rolled over for the would-be emperor:

Where, pray tell, was Congress' outrage and determination to defend the Constitution when the Bush administration:

• Assumed unilateral executive authority over any and all questions of war and peace, and brazenly manipulated intelligence reports to justify its prior decision to invade Iraq?

• Declared that the president has the power to ignore federal statutes and international treaties governing the treatment of enemy prisoners?

• Assumed the power to designate American citizens as "enemy combatants" and lock them up without charges or any semblance of due process for the duration of an amorphous "war on terror" that has no end in sight?

• Claimed that the president has the inherent power as commander in chief to order the secret surveillance of the international e-mail and telephone conversations of U.S. citizens - and to obtain their phone re- cords to create vast databanks?

• Issued more than 750 presidential signing statements, far more than any other chief executive in history, reserving the right to interpret new laws on his own terms? Examples include a congressional ban on torture of prisoners, a prohibition on the military keeping illegally gathered intelligence on American citizens, and a requirement that the Justice Department keep Congress informed on how the Patriot Act is being used to search the private homes of citizens.

Bush's Garroting of Democracy

By Robert Parry

May 24, 2006

The Bush administration’s steady garroting of American liberties – already strangling the right to a fair trial and protections against warrantless searches – is now tightening its chokehold around the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press and respect for Congress as a co-equal branch of government.

Over the past weekend, George W. Bush and his Justice Department signaled to the U.S. press corps and Congress that they are not beyond the reach of Bush’s “plenary” – or unlimited – powers as Commander in Chief or his authority as “unitary executive,” deciding what laws to enforce and how.

On May 21, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told ABC’s “This Week” that news organizations like the New York Times could be prosecuted for publishing classified information about the “war on terror,” such as the disclosure of Bush’s secret program of warrantless wiretapping inside the United States.

The night before that TV interview, the FBI conducted an extraordinary raid on the Capitol Hill office of Democratic Rep. William J. Jefferson of Louisiana as part of a bribery investigation, raising bipartisan concerns about the Executive Branch trampling congressional rights and intimidating members of Congress.

“The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in a statement.

“Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night crossing this Separations of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by members of Congress,” Hastert said. [Washington Post, May 23, 2006] ...

Bush orders FBI-Congress documents sealed

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush stepped into the Justice Department's constitutional confrontation with Congress on Thursday and ordered that documents seized in an FBI raid on a congressman's office be sealed for 45 days.

The president directed that no one involved in the investigation have access to the documents under seal and that they remain in the custody of the solicitor general. ...

Hastert lashes out at Justice Dept.

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Dennis Hastert accused the Justice Department Thursday of trying to intimidate him in retaliation for criticizing the
FBI's weekend raid on a congressman's office, escalating a searing battle between the executive and legislative branches of government.

"This is one of the leaks that come out to try to, you know, intimidate people," Hastert said on WGN radio Thursday morning. "We're just not going to be intimidated on it."

Additional resources:

• The Nation: Checks, Balances & an FBI Raid on Congress
  
• Rowan Wolf: A Slow Motion Coup
  
• Robert Parry: Bush's Garroting of Democracy
• Jim Hightower: Inside Donnie Rumsfeld's Orwellian Pentagon

---

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission
If You Don't Want to Return to a Cave of Bushevik Propaganda, Help Save the Internet Now!
HOME

How to know when you're living in a police state: telling the truth becomes a crime!

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says he may start prosecuting journalists for telling the truth. He may call it espionage. I call it paranoia. I say it is a defining characteristic of a police state.

There are some statutes on the books which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility. That's a policy judgement by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation. We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected.

—Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

But, Alberto, the case has not been made by the Bush administration that any journalist has in any way compromised national security. There is, however, a compelling case that Bush's administration —by its lies, fraud, and incompetence —has compromised national security to a far greater extent than any reporter or leaker could possibly have done.

The word treason is hard to avoid when one talks about hoaxing an entire nation in order to wage a war of naked aggression. Now —that has most certainly compromised national security in various ways:

• It has turned friends into enemies;
• It has exposed our military weaknesses to potential enemies;
• It has subverted our credibility among allies.

So —it is Bush who should be investigated and prosectuted. Not working journalists.

Most real news is done by way of leaks. Significantly, leaks are only problematic for criminal regimes like that of George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, or Ronald Reagan. Leaks are only problematic when the executive tries to hide what it's been up to from the people. Leaks are only problematic when an administration insists upon complete secrecy —even as it denies you your right of privacy or due process of law. Leaks are only problematic when the incumbent administration is breaking the law, subverting the constitution or denying you your rights under law.

That crimes are what Bush says they are is absurd. That backward thinking accomplishes what Bush wants it to accomplish, that is, it puts Bush above the law. Crimes are what he says they are. Terrorists are what he says they are. National security is breached when he says it is breached. Bush not only makes the rules, he changes them as he goes along. But this Bush's bizzaro world in which Bush hears only what he wants to hear and defines the law upon a "decree", or in GOPSPEAK: a "signing statement".

Bushco will try to justify this draconian, anti-American measure by claiming that we are at war. That doesn't wash. The war was begun upon a pack of demonmstrable lies, the perpetration of a fraud. Even in the retail trade, fraud nullifies the contract. Sorry, Bush! No sale!

Never fear. The Bush administration has never failed in one important respect. It has never failed to come up with a bogus rationale —ex post facto —whenever there is a danger of truth breaking out. Bush and Gonzales will come through yet again.

A prediction: Bush and/or Gonzales will lie to the American people again —and they will do it sooner than you think. I will put money on this. Any takers?

Bertolt Brecht said: "A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook." Which one is Bush?

Brecht must have had the GOP in mind. However, Bush is something else again. He doesn't know and doesn't want to know —and he doesn't want you to know either.

Even if Bush and Cheney are impeached while Rove and Libby are imprisoned, a new National Convention will have to be convened to repair the damage done to our nation by the three stooges of would-be empire: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld!

Some updates.

FOX Wants Dems to Promise Not to Impeach Bush After Win

FOX News has commandeered a former Democrat Congressman and frequent FOX News commentator to beseech Dem winners in Nov. not to impeach Bush.

These FOX News guys are getting a little panicked!! They are beginning to see the party might be ending…AND what nerve to ask that Bush [or any other jackleg Neocon Chickenhawk GOP SOB] not be brought to justice! I think we ought to turn the wall Congress wants to build on the border into one big, long GOP max-security prison and hire former GITMO prisoners to guard the beleaguered liars.

Step one would be for the Democratic leadership to definitively put to rest any loose talk of impeaching President Bush. They should say in one and two syllable words that impeachment will not happen once they are in the majority and thus take away a potential rallying cry for the beleaguered Republicans….

Democrats Must End Talk of Bush Impeachment

Following is an excerpt from one of Buzzflash's very best editorials.

George W. Bush and his right wing religious zealots have turned their back on the fruits and accomplishments of our academic system, shunned the university world as if it is some sort of plague upon religious belief. Bush is anti-reality, anti-reason and anti-science. His denial of the catastrophic effects of global warming is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Throughout this administration, people have been appointed to the highest positions who simply discard science and reason as a plight upon their absolute faith in literal Christian scripture.

As surely as the Taliban destroyed, a few years back, an internationally centuries-old image of Buddha sculpted into a mountain because it "defiled" Islam, the Busheviks blast away the Age of Enlightenment and Reason as exemplified by our incomparable college system.

—The Taliban Blew Up Centuries-Old Buddhas; Bush Blows Up the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, A Buzzflash Editorial

---

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission
If You Don't Want to Return to a Cave of Bushevik Propaganda, Help Save the Internet Now!
HOME

Why George W. Bush's regime is Anti-American

It has even been opined that Bush deliberately exploited a flaw in the U.S. Constitution, that is, it concentrates military power in the hands of the executive. But, in the longer term, the demise of the American state will be attributed to the fact that Bush is anti-American; Bush is on the wrong side of America's very founding. He's at the other end of the scale with J.S. Mill, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the one end —Hegel, Hitler and Stalin on the other.

For Hegelians, the "state" is "God" —the opposite of the American ideal espoused best by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and James Madison in the Bill of Rights. Arguably, the American republic was but the latest development in a liberal trend that began with the English Civil War. Certainly, Oliver Cromwell dismissed Parliament in a fit of pique; certainly he arrogated unto himself the powers of an absolute dictator but stopped short of taking the title. He was, he said, a Lord Protector. Charles I was most certainly England's last absolute despot in the Hegelian sense of the word.

The U.S. Constitution is but a recent development in this liberal tradition of several hundred years. Bushism, however, flies in the face of the Magna Carta, the English Petition of Right, the Mayflower Compact, The Virginia Declaration of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, The Nuremberg Principles, and every Supreme Court decision that has upheld the right of persons to be secure in their homes.

America might have taken a different road. Alexander Hamilton most certainly favored a strong central government, perhaps a monarchy. But it was the liberals who carried the day —Jefferson, Madison, Mason et al! Because of them, America embraced a different rationale for governmental power. Americans will not tolerate a reversal. Current polls indicate that America will no longer tolerate George W. Bush, a man whose very personality is increasingly disliked. Our founding is at the derivation of the world "liberal" which, significantly, is demonized by the state absolutist minority that makes up Bush's dwindling base.

For State absolutists power trickles down. The individual is not free but literally licensed by the all-powerful state. Freedom in this situation is reduced to whatever the state will allow. The American tradition is quite the opposite; it is a different paradigm. In America, the people are sovereign and, just as Jefferson described so accurately, the government derives its power from the people themselves. Freedom does not trickle down. With the ratification of the Constitution, this principle ceased to be mere theory. It is, in fact, the law! With the Constitution, the “divine rights” of rulers was consigned to the dust bin of history. And so too, should Bush's state absolutism, a mere variation on the tired old theme of absolute state power.

The U.S. Constitution is, in fact, a “contract” between the state and the people. Monarchists, totalitarians, and other state absolutists will never recognize that principle. In our Democracy, the government does not merely tolerate a certain degree of individual liberty; rather, individual liberty is the only reason governments are empowered. The protection and preservation of those rights is the sole duty and responsibility of those in power. To do otherwise, amounts to a breach of contract.

That is why Bush must be impeached. He has broken the contract.
It is a tragic testament to the failure of the American educational system that Bush's choice for CIA chief has demonstrated a shocking, abysmal ignorance of the very Fourth Amendment that would restrain him at either the NSA or the CIA! With his stubborn belligerence —even when confronted with irrefutable evidence of his wrong-headedness —Hayden betrays his contempt for this liberating tide of history that is so eloquently assessed by Simon Schama:

If the Magna Carta is not the birth certificate of Democracy, it is the death certificate of despotism. It spells out for the first time the fundamental principle that the law is not simply the whim of the king. The law is an independent power unto itself. And the King could be brought to book for violating it!"

—Simon Schama, History of Britain

The Constitution itself explicitly establishes the sovereignty of the people. But, if that were not enough to dispel notions of a "state as absolute", a Bill of Rights was insisted upon and ratified by the people. In the 1960's Justice William O. Douglas stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are absolute —beyond the power of Congress or the executive to modify or infringe in any way.

Also in the 60s, the high court expanded the protections given individuals who found themselves accused of crimes; the decisions especially affected the issue of search and seizures (Mapp v. Ohio), confessions (Miranda v. Arizona), and the right to an attorney (Gideon v. Wainwright). Later, Roe v. Wade would uphold a woman's right to privacy.

Bush by advocating doctrines associated with Nazism and Stalinism has found himself an enemy of basic individual rights, most prominently privacy and, by implication, that most basic of American rights: the right of the people to be secure in their homes and in their possessions. Bush has, therefore, found himself to be an anti-American enemy of the people, an enemy of the state.

Let's make it simple. If Bush can spy on you, in secret, without a court order, he can, likewise arrest you in secret, imprison you without charges, and, in other ways, deny you "due process of law". He could even have you executed in secret.

(1) The President is now claiming, and is aggressively exercising, the right to use any and all war powers against American citizens even within the United States, and he insists that neither Congress nor the courts can do anything to stop him or even restrict him.

—Glenn Greenwald: The NSA Fight Begins - Strategies for Moving Forward, The Huffington Post

This is simply intolerable! This scandal, if mere scandal it is, is about nothing if not about the rule of law. It's not merely about whether the President has the right to break the law; it has become about how Bush will use the power that he now claims by fait accompli; it is about whether Bush has the power to harm and even murder U.S. citizens upon his mere decree.

It's about something greater still. It is ultimately about whether or not the American system will survive George W. Bush.

A survey of some of the other blogs that have referenced, linked, or commented on this article.

Mike's Blog Round Up

The Existentialist Cowboy: If Bush can spy on you, in secret, without a court order, he can, likewise arrest you in secret, imprison you without charges, and, in other ways, deny you "due process of law". He could even have you executed in secret. Here are the Top Ten Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State.

From 4&20 blackbirds

That NSA wiretapping? Apparently they’re tracking more than just your phone records…

The Bush administration has been using “state secrets privilege” to keep itself out of the courts. The administration is running amok, and here are the top ten signs of the impending police state. Heck, the administration is downright anti-American! I’m gonna say it…if you support Bush, you are not a patriot.

Also from Crooks and Liars:

Jonathan Turley on Prosecuting Journalists

Turley joined Olbermann on"Countdown" last night and was outraged that Alberto Gonzales is talking about locking up journalists. He thinks they are not just blowing smoke to scare them off and I agree.

Jonathan Turley: We now have a government that has virtually no oversight functioning against the White House. The Congress has gone into a virtual comatose state. The Fourth Estate--the journalists -- are carrying now the entirety of that check and balance. These efforts will eliminate that and it would create, in my view, a very dangerous instability at a very dangerous time, and people have got to look at this quite seriously.

So, we're left with the media to do the oversight on this administration.....(and they're being threatened with jail for doing so...)

---

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission
If You Don't Want to Return to a Cave of Bushevik Propaganda, Help Save the Internet Now!
HOME

Bush has lost the war in Afghanistan and with it —the Middle East

Because we are at war, Bush says, it is necessary for him to assume certain dictatorial powers: widespread domestic surveillance of tens of millions of law abiding American citizens, a power that has previously been the sole domain of the Supreme Court to determine which laws are Constitutional and which are not, and the power to order American troops into war without declarations of war by Congress.

What Bush has not told you is that not only were there no WMD to be found in Iraq, the rationale behind his war on terrorism is false. Afghanistan is also lost.

It begins with that all but forgotten war —once so telegenic. We are losing now in Afghanistan because the Taliban was never really defeated. According to Christopher Langton, a defense expert at the Institute for International Strategic Studies, the Taliban has "... largely recovered from ... initial defeat." It is, he says "...proving a savvy enemy for coalition forces." The Taliban —whose defeat Bush appears to have celebrated prematurely —are encouraged by opposition now faced by several NATO nations now deployed in areas previously patrolled by U.S. forces. Slowly, by striking weak points, the Taliban is regaining control of Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai —a former UNOCAL consultant —is not safe outside Kabul.

Furthermore, The U.S. State Department has never classified the Taliban as a terrorist organization though Bush would clearly have you believe otherwise. That Bush must bear the responsibility for letting bin Laden off the hook when bin Laden was said to have been located in Tora Bora makes no sense within the context of Bush's official rationale [See: U.S. State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations]

It is also increasingly obvious that the United States has lost the war in Afghanistan.

Yet since the Taliban was driven from power in Afghanistan, the group is believed to be behind numerous attacks that have killed workers for nongovernmental organizations, civilians, government officials, policemen, and Pakistani and Afghan soldiers. Christopher Langton, a defense expert at the Institute for International Strategic Studies, says the Taliban "is an insurgent organization that will periodically use terrorism to carry out its operations."

—Council on Foreign Relations, The Taliban Resurgence in Afghanistan,

The events leading to 911 had origins in 1920 —the year that France and Great Britain made of the middle east a vast quilt work of territories dominated by local war lords. It was imagined that these "fiefdoms" would rise above a complex tribal past. That many of these territories had oil only complicated matters as western powers competed for the precious resource upon which the European and American economies depended. Oil, the engine that drives modern economies, thus shapes geopolitics. Hitler might have won WWII by simply supplying Rommel, moving into the Middle East to secure its oil for his Third Reich. [See: What If?: The World's Foremost Historians Imagine What Might Have Been]

Gen. Michael Hayden's comment that "if anyone calls Al Qaeda we want to know" is not only ludicrous and naive, it's Machiavellian. It is premised upon what Bush would like you to believe about Al Qaeda, specifically that bin Laden runs Al Qaeda like a western CEO. That's a myth designed after the fact to justify failed U.S. policies.

In fact, the Taliban has never been listed as a "terrorist" state or organization by the U.S. State Department. If the Taliban were as cozy with bin Laden and thus with Al Qaeda as Bush would have you believe, the Taliban would most surely have appeared on the list.

It is doubtful that Al Qaeda has now or ever had an operational nucleus somewhere, anywhere. It's very name means "The Base" —a name in use when the United States trained and armed mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Two facts must be remembered: the United States and Saudi Arabia spent about $40 billion on the war in Afghanistan, recruiting, supplying, and training nearly 100,000 radical mujahideen from forty Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, and Afghanistan itself.

Among the recruits were Osama bin Laden and his followers. They are still called "the base" i.e. Al Qaeda. Shall I spell it out? Al Qaeda was a creation of the United States, specifically the CIA. That bin Laden was a CIA asset is common knowledge. When did he stop being a CIA agent? Had bin Laden resigned as CIA asset just in time to orchestrate the Bush version of 911?

Al Qaeda, therefore, is not an organization over which one can be CEO. With every Bush/Western blunder, Al Qaeda has become a movement —a loose, worldwide web of common goals and sometimes archaic ideas.

Clearly —Al Qaeda grows stronger whenever Bush's "war on terrorism" takes on racial, ethnic, or religious anti-Islamic overtones. Memories of Saladin and Richard, Cœur de Lion are still fresh everywhere in the Middle East. Bush's war was most surely lost when it was called a "crusade" at the outset. The Bush administration has since displayed an appalling ignorance of the sectarian realities in not only Iraq but throughout the Middle East.

Bush was suckered into playing whack-a-mole in Afghanistan. If there is a "base", it's highly mobile and cannot be defeated militarily. Al Qaeda feeds upon the antipathy of the west.

Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces report frequent clashes with Taliban fighters in the south. According to Kathy Gannon, the former Associated Press bureau chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan, these fighters have at times aligned themselves with al-Qaeda fighters and with mujahadeen (holy warriors) led by the anti-government warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. During the Soviet occupation, Hekmatyar received more support from U.S. and Pakistani agents than any other fighter.

—Council on Foreign Relations, The Taliban Resurgence in Afghanistan,

At the heart of Bush's many failures is the fact that in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush took this nation to war upon lies and cherry-picked intelligence. The nature of Bush's official 911 conspiracy theory is full of holes and remains un-investigated and stonewalled.

The key to exposing Bush's official conspiracy theory are some 26 or 28 pages that were expunged from the released version of the Congressional 911 report. Those pages had to do with connections between the Bush family and the Saudi Royals —who were flown out of the country when every other plane was grounded —and the Taliban, which had been threatened by the U.S. state department in July 2001, prior to 911.

Follow the money; follow the oil. It is increasingly likely that some people very high up in the U.S. government may have participated in the commission of murder and high treason. These people threatened the Taliban on behalf of big American oil companies —most certainly those wishing to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. For their crimes against the people of the United States, Afghanistan and Iraq, they should stand trial.

A very timely update from Deborah Leavy:

THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF BUSH

HUBRIS, meaning pride or arrogance, is a very human flaw that in Greek mythology often led to tragedy.

Daedalus, flying with wings of feathers and wax, thought he could go up to see the heavens, but the wings melted when he flew too close to the sun, and he plunged into the sea. When Arachne boasted that she was just as good a weaver as Athena, the goddess turned her into a spider.

Pride goeth before a fall. It is one of the seven deadly sins. You'd think people would learn, but it gets 'em every time.

Too much pride has been a theme of the Bush administration. After capturing the presidency by judicial decree, they governed as if they had a mandate, running roughshod over those who disagreed with them.

Winning the second time by a clear but narrow margin, Bush declared, "I've got some political capital, and I'm going to spend it."

Spend it he did, and now there's almost nothing left. ...

Some resources:

• Saudi-Al Qaeda Connections: Scholarly Articles
• CNN: Saudi-Al Qaeda Connection
• Saudi Spy Link To Al Qaeda Or 911? - CBS News
• Questionable Ties: Tracking bin Laden's money flow leads back to Midland, Texas
• Complete 911 Timeline
• Jihad: How Academics Have Camouflaged Its Real Meaning
• Terrorism’s Dubious ‘A’ List

---

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission
If You Don't Want to Return to a Cave of Bushevik Propaganda, Help Save the Internet Now!
HOME

Bush's biggest fraud: the phony war on terrorism!

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

The Bush administration counts on Americans having short memories. Since the beginning of the year, the Bush administration has conducted a campaign of lies and misinformation about widespread domestic spying.
Bush has lied about it, denied, acknowledged it, and, most egregiously, Bush has said that if he orders it, it's legal.

Interestingly, none of the various cover stories are consistent with one another. How convenient for Bush should you forget one of his past lies!

But among the numerous and conflicting official cover stories is, not surprisingly, a most pernicious cover story: had there been an NSA domestic spying program in place prior to 911 the attacks might have been prevented. That is, of course, an outrageous, bald-faced lie. The attacks might have been prevented anyway!

Moreover, the measures Bush has taken since then have utterly failed to address the issue of terrorism. But while there has been no war on terrorism, Bush has made the world less safe by playing at war, rattling sabres, disrupting lives and threatening sovereignties. He is a sixty year old adolescent playing at war for ego and glory and the world is nearer to the nuclear brink because of it.

That Bush ignored numerous warnings is heavily documented. And there is yet another new story from AlterNet:

The 9/11 Story That Got Away

By Rory O'Connor and William Scott Malone, AlterNet. Posted May 18, 2006.
In 2001, an anonymous White House source leaked top-secret NSA intelligence to reporter Judith Miller that Al Qaida was planning a major attack on the United States. But the story never made it into the paper. ...

Back in the year 2004, Presidential advisor Richard Clarke was revealed by CBS News to have told Bush that there was no link between Iraq and the attacks of 911. Clarke's admonition had legs, even then. [See: Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes] Saddam's was, after all, a secular regime! But Al Qaida —we were repeatedly told —consisted of raving, militant Islamic fanatics. Even then, Bush's cover story made no sense whatsoever, but even now, you will find among Bush's dwindling faithful a few die hard idiots who still spread the bunkum that Bush's attack on Iraq was but a part of the larger "war on terror".

It's all nonsense! Bush has never waged a "war on terrorism"! Afghanistan —where bin Laden was allowed to escape —was not it! And Iraq —which even Bush concedes had nothing to do with 911 —was not it!

Consider Bush's official conspiracy theory with respect to 911. It goes something like this. Bin Laden sits at the head of a vast and super secret world wide conspiracy the likes of which has not been seen since Smersh.  There are several things wrong with the official conspiracy theory but let's deal with the most obvious ones.

• Bush ignored hard evidence from top intelligence officials between April and September of 2001 about an impending attacks on U.S. soil. Why? If Bush really wanted Bin Laden, he blew SEVERAL opportunities. One of them was in July, prior to 911. The Guardian and the French newspaper Le Figaro reported that bin Laden received dialysis treatment for a period of some 10 days at the American hospital in Dubai, and while there, he was visited by a local CIA agent. It was also about this time that U.S. State Department officials were threatening Afghanistan with carpet bombing if the Taliban didn't come to terms on the proposed Unocal pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush had other opportunities to seize bin Laden but didn't. See: Alexander Cockburn: Bush was offered bin Laden and Blew It.
• Keep in mind, when the CIA was reported to have visited bin Laden in Dubai, 911 had not happened. But, already the Bush State Department was spoiling for war. All it needed was a pretext that the gullible American public would buy! It got it —conveniently, too conveniently —on 911!

Then there is the failed war against Iraq 

Even Bush concedes that Saddam had nothing to do with the events of 911! Then why does Bush continue to cite the war against Iraq as justification for a widespread domestic surveillance program?
Briefly, Bush lied to the nation and the world in order to begin the war on Iraq; "terrorism" had nothing whatsoever to do with it. It was about oil. There were, arguably, no "terrorists" in Iraq before the American attack and invasion and, if terrorists are there now, it's because they are not stupid.
Bush likes to say that we fight them there rather than here.

Rather, Bush took the bait. The terrorists are most surely telling their own constituencies they are killing Americans in Iraq! But how many of what Bush calls "insurgents" are, in fact, terrorists? How many are simply Iraqis defending their own country against an illegal occupation by an aggressor? To that extent, they are protected by International Law. William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, put it this way to Parliament during Britain's occupation of the American colonies:

If I were an American as I am an Englishman, I would never lay down my arms! Never! Never! NEVER!

Now —about the real reasons for war against Iraq. Bush made promises to Dick Cheney's Halliburton, Condo Rice's Exxon-Mobil er al.  It was not promised to them that oil prices would go down upon the American seizure of control over Iraqi oil fields and production! Rather, prices would go up and with them, the profits of big oil. Now —isn't that precisely what has happened? Just keep this in mind: it's hard to go wrong when you realize that nothing that Bush has ever said about anything has ever been in anyway true.

I have reinforcements 

Wiretapping Wouldn't Have Prevented 9/11

History shows that it was secrecy and incompetence that helped the hijackers get on those planes.

The Republican senator tossed Gen. Michael Hayden a big, fat softball of a question: "Do you think that if you had this program [of wiretaps without warrants] in place before Sept. 11th you might have prevented it?"

Gen. Hayden jumped right on it. He said that yes, if he had his secret powers then that he has today, he could have stopped al Qaida's plot.

Then he said, there were two guys in San Diego …

He was referring to Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar. George Bush also talks about them when he wants to justify wiretaps without warrants. The truth is that Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar are the poster boys for missed opportunities. If the NSA, the CIA, the FBI and the White House had not screwed up so royally, mostly by cherishing their secrets, they would have had al Hasmi and al Mihdhar several times over. Here are the facts. ...

UN panel tells America to end torture and close Guantanamo

By Simon Freeman and agencies
A United Nations panel today made the strongest call yet on the United States to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and to disclose the locations of all of its rumoured secret prisons abroad.

The committee said it was "deeply concerned" that detainees were being held at the prison camp in Cuba for protracted periods without proper legal safeguards or reliable judicial justification.

The ten members of the UN Committee Against Torture also called upon President Bush to end the use of torture and cruel treatment in interrogation of detainees, citing sexual humiliation, mock drownings and the use of dogs to induce fear.

In a 11-page report published today, the panel urged the US to reveal the location of any of the secret prisons, believed to be in Egypt, Jordan and Eastern Europe, to which suspects are allegedly transported by special rendition for interview under conditions which violate human rights conventions. ...

Some essential resources:

Is America Becoming a Police State?

The price of perpetual war is a police state, one in which a permanent state of "emergency" – the threat of a terrorist attack – is utilized to break down institutional safeguards, the system of constitutional checks and balances, that protect us from dictatorship.

The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty

by James Madison

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .
[It should be well understood] that the powers proposed to be surrendered [by the Third Congress] to the Executive were those which the Constitution has most jealously appropriated to the Legislature. . . .

The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . . the power of creating offices. . . .

A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments.

The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.

The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them, is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them.

The separation of the power of creating offices from that of filling them, is an essential guard against the temptation to create offices for the sake of gratifying favourites or multiplying dependents.

James Madison was the fourth president of the United States. This is from Letters and Other Writings of James Madison.

Big Brother's Bad Timing

Until recently, George W. Bush could still bludgeon dissenters with the issue of terrorism. But it would appear that the days when Bush could use the issue of terrorism to strike ...uh...well terror into the very hearts of his critics are over! "Terrorism" now is just one more issue in which Bush is pulling up his rear. Jim Malone wrote recently:

In the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, security emerged as perhaps the preeminent political issue in the country. But in recent years, some Americans have grown increasingly concerned that the emphasis on security has weakened civil liberties.

—Jim Malone, Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism

Clearly —many societies may be willing to trade some liberties for safety even in instances in which it may be ill-advised. The issues Malone addresses above are premised upon what had been —until recently —an unquestioned assumption: the authenticity of Bush's so-called war on terrorism.

Bush's timing is lousy. He waited until Iraq was already lost before declaring that he has the authority to monitor international phone conversations involving citizens or legal residents inside the United States. He waited until his failure to capture Bin Laden got headlines. He waited until a growing majority of Americans believe that he lied in order to start the war. It is questionable, indeed, to claim such powers in times of even real war —but Iraq, which had nothing to do with 911? Irag —in which no terrorists resided until Bush attacked and invaded?

Bush waited until his own poll numbers were in the toilet to announce that he would simply enforce those laws he likes and declare "unconstitutional" those he doesn't. 'Scuse me! Isn't that the job of the Supreme Court —however packed it may be these days?

Every totalitarian regime has cited war as justification for rescinding basic liberties and freedoms. That principle was already ancient by the time Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his armies. Cicero lamented, “Our beloved republic is gone forever.”

Much Later, James I of England and Ireland (James VI of Scotland) pioneered a similar principle —a "war on terrorism". Succeeding to the throne following the death of Elizabeth I, James had raised hopes for a cool Britannia in which Catholic and Protestant might "just get along". Elizabeth's promise that she had no desire to create windows into men's souls rang hollow amid the horrible executions of Edmund Campion and the poet Robert Southwell. Elizabeth maintained a perpetual state of fear exploited expertly by spymaster Sir Frances Walsingham.

Many threats against the Queen were real but in the tragic case of Mary, Queen of Scots, the line between terror and state-sponsored terrorism was blurred. Walsingham's network of spies most certainly entrapped Mary, Queen of Scots. Of course Mary coveted Elizabeth's throne —but merely coveting was not a crime. Walsingham would require an agent provocateur to lure Mary into the plot. That is among the real dangers of dictatorship. No one is safe.

James I, like George W. Bush more recently, claimed that God had revealed to him the details of what is now called the "Gunpowder Plot". Sure enough, there was presumably enough gunpowder to blow up Parliament and it was found just where God told James it would be. In a recent BBC series, Michael Woods reported that the gun powder was traced to the government's own stores. "We dinna need the Papists now!", James said. History's first "cool Britannia" came to end as a new era of government repression and surveillance began.

When memories of World War II were still fresh, George Orwell would write 1984 —a story set amid a totalitarian state in which the state spies on its own citizens and, in doing so, wields total control. The spying is justified because the state wages a perpetual war, which may or may not be real. Orwell's work is, of course, a damning indictment of totalitarianism but it could as easily be a blueprint for the designs of an unscrupulous dictator-wannabe!

Perhaps it was.

A valuable resource:

The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office

---

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

America de-hypnotizes itself and the GOP runs scared

Bush is hanging on to majorities in only three of the so-called "Red" States. Clearly —the nation has turned against Bush and with him —the GOP. At least one article I encountered stated that people don't just dislike Bush —they hate him.

The Washington Post still puts Bush's approval rating at 33% but other polls, presumably more recent, put Bush in the upper 20's, his latest low in an overall downward trend. Given his no win position on every important issue and given the public's "wrong track, right track" responses, Bush has no where to go but ever downward.

Republican Leadership Approval Hits All-Time Low

By Richard Morin and Dan Balz

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; 5:36 PM

Public confidence in Republican governance has plunged to the lowest levels of the Bush presidency, with Americans saying they now trust Democrats by wide margins to deal with Iraq, gasoline prices, immigration and more, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll that underscores the fragility of the GOP's grip on power six months before the midterm elections.

Dissatisfaction with the administration's policies in Iraq has overwhelmed other issues as the source of President Bush's and the Republican's problems. The survey suggests that this increasingly pessimistic mood about the direction of the country -- 69 percent said the nation is now off track -- as well as the Republican Party and congressional incumbents have dramatically improved the chances of Democrats to register significant gains in November.

Democrats are now favored to handle all 10 issues measured in the Post-ABC News poll. The survey also shows a clear majority of the public (56 percent) saying they would prefer to see Democrats in control of Congress after the November elections. Only a third want the GOP to remain in the majority. Nearly three times as many Americans say they will use the elections to express opposition to the president (30 percent) than to show support for him (12 percent)...

There is no good news for Bush on the horizon. Already, his deployment of National Guard to Southwest U.S. borders has earned for Bush and his gang the term "Mayberry Machievellis". Consistent with Bush's record, the move is seen to be mere PR. What, after all, are National Guard expected to do? Shoot people? Do we want a border war with Mexico aimed primarily at civilians?

More ominously, there is talk of using "drones" to patrol the U.S./Mexican border. Where will that slippery slope take us? Will drones one day patrol our deteriorating neighborhoods, namely, the ones made poorer by GOP economic policies? Imagine drones patrolling inner cities in search of "drug dealers" or "terrorists" —"terrorists" being whomever disagrees with the Bush or the GOP!

Another issue has figured most prominently in Bush's precipitous downfall: Iraq. Iraq is the tragic story of a country in which hundreds of thousands of civilians died so that Bush —equipped with an obviously phony cod piece —could look "good" landing on an aircraft carrier.

The pulling down of Saddam's statue —now exposed to have been a planned photo-op —was the last good news to come out of Iraq. No good news can ever be expected from that tragic part of the world as long as the U.S. remains there to make "terrorism" worse by inspiring increased resistance to Bush's illegal occupation of that sovereign nation. One wonders: instead of attacking Iraq which had nothing to do with 911, why didn't Bush go after Bin Laden? But, as Alexander Cockburn correctly writes: Bush was offered Bin Laden and Blew It.

According to OpEd News people's poll, Bush is whipped on all the big issues.

2nd OpEdNews/Zogby People's Poll; Censure, Bush Lies, Stolen Election, Nuking Iran, Impeaching Cheney, PA Senate Race

One of the most interesting findings is the fact that some old news is comming back to haunt Bush. That is the opinion of a majority of viewers of every news network except fox: The 2004 Election Was Stolen.

It's not just the fact that the war against Iraq is going badly that is hurting Bush. 52% polled by OpEd News say Bush LIED in order to justify the war.

A growing number of Americans —now up to 50% —are beginning to question Bush's "official conspiracy theory" about the events of 911. This group is clearly unhappy with the lack of investigation and/or Bush efforts to block investigations following the tragic events. This group favors a new investigation.

Additional resources:

• Bush Flips Off the Nation; it's the oil stupid!
• Pigs fly: George Will Opposes Attack On Iran!
• Bush's New PR Offensive: Old Lies Die Hard!

---

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

The quiet before a constitutional storm

Things are eerily quiet amid speculation that the White House may have hoaxed Jason Leopold with regard to the Karl Rove indictment story. I still expect a Rove indictment; Leopold will be vindicated. Obviously, Fitzgerald is not done. This is, after all, a man who differs 180 degrees from the loudmouth demagogue: Kenneth Starr.[ See: Jason Leopold update on Rove Indictment Story ]

In the meantime, I found this in the archives —a blockbuster that has been all but forgotten.

Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal

Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:

Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.

This would explain why Bush spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It would also fundamentally change the dynamics of the scandal.

President Bush could no longer claim he was merely a bystander who wants to “get to the bottom of it.” As Stephanopoulos notes, if Bush played a direct role it could make this scandal completely unmanageable.

UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has the video.

One is tempted to speculate that Fitzgerald may be playing for the trifecta: indictments against Rove, Cheney, and Bush himself.

It would be nothing short of a judicial coup d'etat! Truly historic. Here's a timely update from Savant at TheBrandNewBag.com:

The Perfect Political Storm: Bush-Cheney On The Brink Of Implosion

As the Abramoff, DeLay and Cunningham scandals grind on and the body count of disgraced or indicted Bushites grows, the White House understands that the moment of truth is at hand. They face problems from all directions now. Before Katrina, Bush still held the high ground on those most important of all issues for a President, basic trust and credibility. With every new scandal and all the many examples of incompetence and bad public policy, Bush’s approval ratings have sunk to even lower than the most pessimistic pundits predicted last fall. For the last 2 months the President has been in “free fall.” The immigration speech didn’t help him.

In the meantime, the story of Cheney’s involvement in the outing of Valerie Plame has become stranger and more interesting. Evidence subpoenaed by Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, shows that Cheney wrote cryptic notes on Joseph Wilson’s NYTimes op-ed; asking, “who sent him to Niger?” Was Cheney telling Libby to discredit and “get” Wilson? Or, were his comments just a representation of the Vice President’s random curiosity? In any event, Cheney is now in the position of becoming a key witness in the Libby case. That development means that the case will almost certainly be settled with some kind of plea bargain after the coming November election. Neither Libby nor the White House wants to force Cheney to testify under oath in a criminal trial. It’s the “under oath” part that is problematic for the Vice President: Cheney’s regard for the truth is not the stuff of legend! NO ONE wants him to have to testify in open court.

Then there is Iraq. Everyday is another horror. Everyday more Iraqis die. Everyday more American soldiers and civilian contractors die. There appears to be no path to peace. Add to this mess, the President’s immigration proposal to use the already frazzled and stretched National Guard as a kind of militant logistical force on the border with Mexico, and you have a very grim prospect for increasing the administration’s popularity. Finally, the conduct of foreign policy with Iran is a joke. Unfortunately, it is a dangerous joke. Bill Maher got it right last Friday when he said: “The best thing Bush can do is go to his ranch and stay there. I’d sum it up this way ... Please President Bush, just don’t touch anything!” ...

Some additional resources:

• MSNBC: A Final Word from Karl Rove
• George Bush and Cheney have committed high crimes including treason
• All Hail the Surveillance State
• George Bus's Disorderly Conduct
• NPR: Looking at George Bush and seeing an impostor

---

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

Jason Leopold, writing in OpEdnews.com reports that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half the day Friday with attorneys for Karl Rove. During the meeting, he served the attorneys with indictments charging Rove with perjury and lying to investigators in connection with the famous leak that "outed" CIA NOC, Valerie Plame. Fizgerald has given Rove 24 hours to get his affairs in order —presumably before arrest.

According to various sources, the charges against Rove will include perjury and lying to investigators about "...how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative". The charges are expected to deal with whether or not Rove shared that information with reporters, in effect, blowing Plame's CIA cover. The entire scandal has often been referred to as "treasongate".

Leopold cites sources close to the as saying that Fitzgerald is likely to add obstruction of justice —a more serious charge —to the list of crimes attributed to Rove.

Stay tuned. Rove will sing like a canary. He may even say that he was authorized to leak Plame's name by Bush himself. Bush may even claim that if he authorizes it, it's legal.

With any luck, Bush himself will be indicted. With a bit more luck, we will eventually learn of a conspiracy —cooked up in the White House —to commit treason by subverting the CIA and undermining our national security. Contrary to GOP kool-aid, Plame was a NOC. Outing her for political revenge subverts national security. I submit to this forum that not even the President has that kind of authority. The deliberate subversion of national security, i.e. endangering the lives of American citizens for political revenge, is treason —even if the President does it, even if the President tells himself that's its OK. We don't work for Bush; Bush works for US.

The Bush administration's handling of this case is especially egregious in that Plame would never have been "outed" had not her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, told the truth about the lies Bush told to get us into the quagmire in Iraq.

Europeans and the rest of the world "saw through" Bush from the get go. Americans however, hyponotized by the events of 911, have been longer seeing through the facade of fraud, lies, incompetence, criminality, and now —the very real possibility that a conspiracy to betray the nation was cooked up inside the White House itself.

Bush is increasingly isolated; the following by Mike Whitney in the Italian website, uruknet, has summed it all up succinctly:

Mike Whitney: Starting over when Bush is gone

Big Brother Bush has finally descended into the hell of public scorn and degradation. The once-mighty George 2, the "War President", who towered over the global landscape after 9-11, has slumped into disrepute with the popularity-meter resting on empty.

Oh dear.

There’s no place to hide now. 6 years of demagoguery and deception have smashed the Orwellian façade and fueled the public rage. The country is on tender-hooks; one paltry incident away from a citizen revolt and massive political upheaval.

Don’t believe it? The fury of the masses is silently brewing just below the surface. The specter of violence is quite real.

Bush’s popularity is now somewhere below Nixon’s and just above venereal disease; the perfect spot for a draft-dodging poseur whose bravado cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. ...

---

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

Has Bush crossed the Rubicon?

Is it too late to impeach him?

The issue is pressing. If Bush is not successfully challenged, the consquences are unthinkable. Consider the following remark by Senator Russ Feingold:

If that's the law, then "...the President could even order the assassination of American citizens."

In 49 B.C. Rome found itself at war with itself. Though it was prohibited by the Roman constitution, Caesar crossed the Rubicon and defied the civil authorities. The law was on the side of the Senate and the citizens of Rome but Caesar had the force of arms. Who could oppose him? Though he had violated the constitution, he marched his legions into Rome where he was elected consul and dictator for life. Cicero lamented, “Our beloved republic is gone forever.” He was right.

Over the last two days, it's become apparent that Bush lied to the nation about the extent of his widespread program of domestic surveillance. The revelations have renewed the debate: should Bush be impeached? I wonder if it is too late to impeach Bush. Has he already consolidated dictatorial powers? Has he crossed the Rubicon? Is it possible to know until he is impeached, convicted and refuses to leave the White House?

When Democratic Senator Russ Feingold introduced a resolution to censure Bush, the GOP outcry was hollow and disingenuous. Feingold, however, made a succinct case for impeachment on ABC This Week:

FEINGOLD: Not at all. You know, we’ve had a chance here for three months to look at whether there’s any legal basis for this, and they’re using shifting legal justifications. First they try to argue that somehow, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, they can do this. It’s pretty clear that they can’t. Then there’s the argument that somehow the military authorization for Afghanistan allowed this. This has basically been laughed out of the room in the Congress. So the last resort is to somehow say that the President has inherent authority to ignore the law of the United States of America, and that has the consequence that the President could even order the assassination of American citizens if that’s the law. So there is no sort of independent inherent authority that allows the president to override the laws passed by the Congress of the United States.

Let's assume the Senate found Bush guilty following an impeachment and trial. What would the Senate do if Bush simply refused to leave? The Congress cannot send in the troops; Rumsfeld takes his orders from Bush. When it comes to the military, the Congress has only budgetary control.

President Abraham Lincoln issued a warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney but I know of no incident in which the Senate has issued a warrant for the arrest of the President of the United States. Lincoln's biographer's have notoriously omitted the incident involving Taney but you can find an authoritative account at: Lincoln Crossing the Rubicon.

If the Senate sent Federal Marshalls to the White House, would Bush's secret service officers bar them from entering? Dick Cheney, as I recall, has already turned away process servers and threatened them with arrest if they persisted.

We are rapidly running out of options short of revolution or armed insurrection. Some may have seen my article on OpEd News in which I advocated Ted Rall's idea of a "national recall". But that requires a Constitutional amendment. We don't have that kind of time.

I wrote another article supporting the invocation of Article 5 of the Constitution which provides for the creation of a new National Convention upon a petition by a specified number of state houses. As the late Sen. Sam Irvin said, a new national convention could literally rewrite the constitution, and, in this case, undo the harm done to it by Bush. But again —should such a convention literally write Bush and his cabal out of a job, who would enforce it? Rumsfeld will simply ring the White House with tanks. Washington will look like Tiananmen Square.

A new "government" citing such a new charter would be rounded up —possibly shot even though their every action would be in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of the current Constitution.

We are approaching a dramatic showdown not unlike the Supreme Court order that Nixon release the tapes of his White House conversations. The nation held its breath. Would Nixon refuse? Who would enforce an order of the Supreme Court?

It is my belief that we might yet save the republic. But, if Bush has already crossed the Rubicon, we might not know it until he refuses to leave the White House. If that is the case, it will already be too late to impeach —and sadly, we won't know that until the impeachment resolution is passed. The alternative to success, however, is too terrible to contemplate. As Billie Holiday said "God bless the Child that's got his own".

As Ed Murrow would say: "Good night —and good luck"! We're gonna need all we can get.

• Impeachment is not enough
• Support a National Recall of George W. Bush
• The Founding Fathers' Revenge: How the People Can Fire George W. Bush

Hayden CIA bid hinges on spying role: senators

By Peter Szekely

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden's chances of winning Senate confirmation to head the CIA depend on how he explains his involvement in eavesdropping and data collection programs, two key senators said on Sunday.

President George W. Bush's nominee for CIA director can expect tough questions this week about his role in the administration's controversial domestic spying program while he was head of the National Security Agency.

"There's no question that his confirmation is going to depend upon the answers he gives regarding activities of NSA," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee whom Hayden will face on Thursday. ...

Here's a breaking update:

NSA Whistleblower To Expose More Unlawful Activity: 'People Are Going To Be Shocked'

CongressDaily reports that former NSA staffer Russell Tice will testify to the Senate Armed Services Committee next week that not only do employees at the agency believe the activities they are being asked to perform are unlawful, but that what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg. Tice will tell Congress that former NSA head Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush's nominee to be the next CIA director, oversaw more illegal activity that has yet to be disclosed:

A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said Thursday he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens.

[Tice] said he plans to tell the committee staffers the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens while he was there with the knowledge of Hayden. "I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. It's pretty hard to believe," Tice said. "I hope that they'll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn't exist right now."

Tice said his information is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program that Bush acknowledged in December and from news accounts this week that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of millions of Americans. "It's an angle that you haven't heard about yet," he said. He would not discuss with a reporter the details of his allegations, saying doing so would compromise classified information and put him at risk of going to jail. He said he "will not confirm or deny" if his allegations involve the illegal use of space systems and satellites.

Tice has a history for blowing the whistle on serious misconduct. He was one of the sources that revealed the administration's warrantless domestic spying program to the New York Times.

---

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

A Constitutional crisis in the making

At the very heart of a looming crisis is the lie Bush told about the extent of widespread domestic Surveillance by the NSA. What Bush told us was a program of very limited surveillance is now revealed to have been the warrantless surveillance of tens of millions of Americans. That's bad enough, but it's made worse by the numerous lies Bush has already told about it. That the surveillance was limited is the most egregious lie —and quite possibly criminal.

In what sounds like a chapter out of George Orwell's 1984, every call is now chronicled in what has been called the world's largest database. Even Republican Sen. Arlen Spector has used the term "big brother" to describe the breathtaking extent of Bush's prying into the affairs of innocent American citizens. Contrary to what Bush has said repeatedly, the NSA —under the control and direction of Gen. Michael Hayden —created what has been called "[T]he largest database ever assembled in the world." The goal, according to USA Today, was "...to create a database of every call ever made" inside the United States.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, meanwhile, bristles at suggestions that only Al Qaeda suspects were surveilled. Are we expected to believe, Leahy asks, that tens of millions of Americans were suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda? If that is so, says Leahy, the war on terrorism has failed —as miserably as has the occupant of the Oval Office. The simpler explanation: Bush lied to the Congress and to the American people. It was on January 2, 2006, that Bush lied —statling flatly that the NSA program did not result "...in widespread domestic eavesdropping."

The extent of the spying is almost incomprehensible. Tens of millions of American citizens have been denied due process of law, protections guaranteed them in the U.S. Constitution. It is significant and consistent that Bush is credibly quoted as having said "The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper". If it were not, then Bush will certainly make it so with arrogant, criminal duplicity.

If Gen. Michael Hayden —Bush's choice to replace Porter Goss —is confirmed, Bush and Cheney will have all but consolidated dictatorial powers. All U.S. Intelligence gathering, analysis, and compilation will fall under the control of the Bush junta. Many would call that dictatorship. It is that and tyranny as well.

Bush had co-conspirators —huge American corporations which are now complicit in Bush's deliberate subversions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Two dramatic events now point to a Constitutional crisis in the making.

1. The Bush administration has abruptly ended the investigation into widespread warrantless eavesdropping program. The reason given is that the National Security Agency —under the direction of Gen. Michael Heyden —refused to grant Justice Department lawyers security clearances. How bloody convenient!
   
2. USA Today also reveals that three huge American communications companies —AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth —may very well be complicit with Bush in crimes against the people and the Constitution. If Bush's program is found to be illegal, then it follows that corporations enabling his crime are complicit in Bush's crimes against the constitution and the people.
   

Meanwhile, Democratic U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews joined Sen. Diane Feinstein with warnings of a constitutional crisis —the worst constitutional crisis in the last 30 years. During a two-hour forum at Rutgers University, Andrews urged a "... congressional review of President Bush's approval of warrantless eavesdropping on Americans."

Meanwhile, too much is made of a red herring —the Rumsfeld/Hayden riff over Pentagon vs CIA intelligence. If Bush really wanted to "rein in" Rumsfeld in, he would simply fire him. On the contrary —Rumsfeld is but one piece of the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld triumvirate. Bush doesn't want or need to "rein in" Rumsfeld. It's hard not to conclude that when Hayden takes over the CIA, the triumvirate" will have consolidated its power. If there is any reining in to be done, it'll be Hayden reining in career professionals at the CIA. That was apparently Goss' job and that Goss is gone would tend to indicate a job left undone. Enter Hayden!

There is a word for the actions and policies of George W. Bush. That word is tyranny. Congress has but one duty now. It must end Bush's incompetent tyranny! The alternative —an end to the rule of law —is too terrible to contemplate.

A nation's character is revealed in times of crisis. We will soon learn what Americans are made of. Will America demand of its elected officials that they stand for the rule of law? If they will not, it is time to leave the country. Life is too short and precious to waste it living under the iron boot of a tin horn, crass dictator of limited intelligence and no honor.

Based on some of the email I've gotten in response to this article, I've prepared an addendum. Following is the text of my reply by email:

Sadly, it may be too late to impeach Bush. Let's assume the Senate found him guilty following an impeachment and trial. What would the Senate do if Bush simply refused to leave? There is no sending in the troops; Rumsfeld takes his orders from Bush. If the Senate sent Federal Marshalls to the White House, would Bush's secret service officers bar them from entering? Dick Cheney, as I recall, has already turned away process servers and threatened them with arrest if they persisted.

We are rapidly running out of options short of revolution or armed insurrection. You may have seen my article on OpEd in which I advocated Ted Rall's idea of a "national recall". But that requires a Constitutional amendment. We don't have that kind of time.

I wrote another article supporting the invocation of Article 5 of the Constitution which provides for the creation of a new National Convention upon a petition by a specified number of state houses. As the late Sen. Sam Irvin said, a new national convention could literally rewrite the constitution, and, in this case, undo the harm done to it by Bush. But again —should such a convention literally write Bush and his cabal out of a job, who will enforce it? Rumsfeld will ring the White House with tanks.

A new "government" citing such a new charter would be rounded up ...and possibly shot even though their every action would be in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of the current Constitution.

My thesis was that we have one last chance to save the republic. But —I could be wrong. It may be all over already. And, if that's the case, it's time to make plans to leave the country before being thrown into a FEMA camp.

In the meantime, I recommend throwing as much flack as possible toward Bushco and hope something sticks. The alternative to success is too terrible to contemplate. As Billie Holiday said "God bless the Child that's got his own".

Sound like anybody we know?

On July 31, 1932, Hitler’s Nazi party won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag, making it the majority party, but he was not yet in power. It was several years before Hitler became the cosmically evil war criminal. On January 30, 1933, Hitler was finally sworn in as Chancellor. Historian Alan Bullock describes it:

“Hitler came to office in 1933 as the result, not of any irresistible revolutionary or national movement sweeping him into power, nor even of a popular victory at the polls, but as part of a shoddy political deal with the ‘Old Gang’ whom he had been attacking for months.... Hitler did not seize power; he was jobbed into office by a backstairs intrigue.”

At the time, most Germans couldn’t imagine that Hitler would last long because his bombastic and swaggering manner and his overly simplistic speeches about Germany’s social, economic, and political problems were a “joke.”

Politically sophisticated Germans dismissed Hitler as an inept caricature, but he and his accomplices consolidated their power by passing national security legislation supported by a stacked court. During these critical times of concentrating power, die Schutzstaffeln (SS) made sure that Hitler’s critics and opponents were kept far away and silenced so that it would appear as though he had complete national support and, indeed, a mandate.

Thus peacefully began Nazi totalitarianism.

—Frederick Sweet

Note: Frederick Sweet is Professor of Reproductive Biology in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. You can email your comments to Fred@interventionmag.com

---

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME