The whole "Terrorist" thing was as phony as a nine dollar bill, as is evidenced by the fact that our Administration thinks so little of it that it has taken NO REAL STEPS against it. The whole "War on Terrorism," is phony, starting with the "False Flag" effort of 9/11, the cooked up PATRIOT Act, and the annoyance visited on the public to keep them aware that the "Gummint" is doing something about terrorism - except anything practical, like safeguarding chemical plants, oil refineries, and nuclear power plants - things that REAL terrorists would consider legitimate targets. Most people know, by now, that 9/11 was phony from beginning to end. The only people who seem to think that nineteen Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four aircraft and flew them here and there are people who do not know any elementary physics or anything about commercial, big box aircraft pilotage. (And a number of the alleged jihadist hijackers are still alive and unharmed in Saudi Arabia!) Also, anyone who has witnessed controlled demolition knows exactly how and why those buildings came down. IF we have some kind of "Terrorist" attack in the next short while that can be "Blamed" on Iran, please see what Dick Cheney and other PNAC members were doing at the time. I firmly believe that Al Qaeda, IF it had anything to do with 9/11, which I sincerely doubt, has succeeded in fulfilling its wildest dreams, having converted the US from an egalitarian, confident, free society into one which is scared of its shadow, and far more worried about what its own government may do than anything a foreign terrorist might accomplish. If bin Laden had anything to do with it, he must be laughing in glee to think that he has absolutely won! He doesn't NEED to do anything else. The US is bankrupt, fearful, and refusing to take any positive measures. WHY, in God's name, should he waste his time messing with US? He's won. His next move will, IF he has any plans at all, probably be against Israel, because Cheney & Bu$h would interpret it as an Iranian move, and give them cause to unleash World War III. I wonder - is bin Laden a CIA asset?

Cherry KoolAid... or?

Seek and ye shall find.

The war on terrorism is a war OF terrorism. Peace is never found during war but only after and sometimes preceding. This generational war conveys to the world and generations to come, that peace will be found in but far and few places on this earth while this philosophy of avoiding the BIG WAR by starting smaller wars, ergo illegal pre-emptive warfare, a well documented war crime, is somehow preferable to the masses.

It's one thing to defend against an enemy, it's far different to go out of one's way to create more enemies by picking fights with them. There is a reason why the "BULLY" get's his name. He seeks out who he feels shall become his enemy and manages to create it through systematic bombardment of the social status of his newly appointed common "enemy". Sometimes it begins with simple name calling and light slander. It then rises to the "my space" policy where even the coat rack isn't a safe place to store one's coat if you are the newly appointed common "enemy". The "BULLY" tends to round up a flock of supporters who eventually gather around at a later date on the playground to protect the "BULLY" and shield him from the watchful eye of the adult observer. Some even prefer to be the silencers of the group who go to extremes to create diversions, obstruct tattle-tellers, or even lie about what was going on or who was involved in the goings on. And then there's another group of kids who mind their space in the sand box and don't look up. They know that getting involved means that they become the next target for either the "BULLY" or his club, least they choose to either succumb to the demands or succumb to the fist.

Why cover for them if only for the cheep KoolAid? Stop drinking it, stop imbibing in it Congressman. In the above scenario, who would you be?

It is immoral to create enemies where there were none just so that you have your way, a war to waste taxpayer money on while providing the "in road" for the investor/entrepreneur of the war capitalist? People are making a killing off of the murder of other people in Iraq.

Again, the incompetence of the Unitary Executive Decider shows itself... "We had no idea that OBL was gonna strike..."

BULLSHIT

But it makes a great lemonade, NO?

IF we are attacked again it won't be because the UED failed. It will be because someone failed to fire his grossly incompetent, negligent, subversive, greedy lying ass when they should have.

I hope Louis Farrakhan inspired you today.

===================================================
You aren't defending, protecting, preserving the Constitution of the USA
When you allow the usurpations of the Constitutional laws of the USA.

The smell of high treason in the morning. Possibly...perhaps?

====================================================
You aren't defending, protecting, preserving the Constitution of the USA
When you allow the usurpations of the Constitutional laws of the USA.

Thank you koryannder and Max for your sensible comments.

Congressman, if you really want to get the whole "terrorism" situation in perspective, then why haven't you investigated the OVP?

Surely you must realize by now that we here at ConyersBlog are influenced by facts - not fear. Kossacks, as well:

CHENEY

REQUIRES

OVERSIGHT

Congressman, why no OVP congressional oversight? WHY?!

Have work to do but will comment tonite, After thinking this over. Not sure if Bin Laden, or Scooter Libby, will be my main topic.

It should be obvious to everyone, including members of Congress, that the Bush Administration will not cease and desist from their violations of the Constitution, or from their continuing to seize power from the Legislative Branch. Nor will they be deterred from their warmongering, despite the fact that they are totally inept in that area-having taken the world,s strongest military to the breaking point in just 6 years. They will continue to obstruct lawful Congressional oversight and will continue to refuse to take counsel from wiser people, who urge diplomatic solutions to world crises.

At what point does it become necessary for Congress to aggressively reassert its oversight duties? It would seem that point not only was reached some time ago, but the situation worsens daily.

The issues raised in Mr. Rich,s and Mr. Hersh,s columns are serious and warrant prompt investigation and swift action by Congress.

It,s time for Congress to address the heart of the matter: When a President/Vice President become unable/unwilling, and/or are totally incompetent to carry out their duties-the duties being to execute the laws passed by Congress-what actions are morally and ethically required of Congress?

IMHO, Congress must act without further delay, to restrict the President and Vice President, who continue to circumvent the Constitutional boundaries placed on their powers. A Congress that continues to put partisan political considerations ahead of the good of the nation, is complicit in enabling the destruction of the Constitution and very possibly in endangering the people of this nation.

Mr. Rich and Mr. Hersh raise serious questions regarding the possible illegal actions of the current Administration. Isn,t it the duty of Congress to issue subpoenas-to get to the truth of these matters and to prevent further damage to this nation, its people and its Constitution?

These vital actions will not happen by themselves. The Administration will not stop its dangerous oppositional defiance without outside intervention by the Congress.

Is Osama bin Laden a CIA asset? The evidence suggests that he may very well be. (I probably should say the lack of evidence.) Construe; during the period after 9/11/01, when ALL aircraft were grounded, the entire bin Laden family (friends of the Bu$he$) was flown clandestinely out of the US. WHY?

Later, bin Laden was cornered in the hills of Tora Bora. The military group that could have had him by the heels was ordered to stand down and allowed him to escape.

I have it on reasonable authority that bin Laden is a victim of compromised kidneys (probably caused by very un-Islamic heavy drinking), and requires frequent dialysis. Since you don't routinely secrete high-tech sophisticated Hospital machinery in a cave somewhere, it is obvious that any dialysis he is getting must be in a well-equipped modern hospital. These places keep records.

It is well-known that the CIA is remarkably good at finding, kidnapping, and "Rendering" suspected (and mostly totally innocent) individuals to remote sites where they can be comfortably tortured for the information they mostly don't possess. It is arguable that the CIA knows very well where bin Laden is at any given moment, and could pick him up any time they might want to - it's difficult to run while hooked up to a dialysis machine by intravenous tubes.

So - the only reasonable conclusion is that bin Laden is being protected y the very forces which are allegedly "Out to get him."

Why? It is arguable that the Bu$h Administration NEEDS him as a boogey-man to keep threatening us with. Of course, his value at the moment may be a trifle threadbare, since he is Wahhabist Sunni, and the Shrubberies are attempting to beat the drums for a preemptive war with Shiite Iran, the Sunnis' direst adversary (they like their fellow Islamists only a trifle better than they like Israelis) but bL is STILL of some value, and is not likely to be deserted soon, even if, as some maintain, he is already dead. After all, what is safer than a dead terrorist of whom you can still spin extravagant scare stories?

Yes - I think it is definitely arguable that Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset, and may be one again, when we need to make pre-emptive war on another ARAB nation. (Iranians, of course, are NOT Arabs, and have small use for their neighbors of Arab persuasion. The only thing they have in common is their religion, both being acolytes of Ali, Mohammed's son-in-law, who hijacked a rather moderste religion and made it militant.)

If we decide we REALLY want bin Laden, the CIA can probably lay their hands on him in a New York minute; but I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of his imminent capture. He's too useful as long as he's a shadowy figure that we can scare the kiddies with.

In addition to continuing to usurp Congress,s authority to declare war, and to continuing to violate the Constitution,
the following article A New Bush Power Grab shows that there seem to be no area of government immune to Bush,s attempt to be the "Decider of Everything":

"…I am referring specifically to a new Executive Order from the White House that collects more power in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in a bid to exert a chokehold on federal agencies.

"…The executive order not only sharply curbs the power of executive agencies-to the benefit of big businesses-but also requires a White House-appointed commissar in every agency to make sure the bureaucrats toe the line. Critics warn this is a direct shot at congressional authority..."

So, the Bush Administration continues to challenge Congressional Authority in every way possible. Congress in the meantime seems to so concerned with and distracted by internal power struggles and campaigning for the 2008 elections -that they fail recognize that their power is being ever more intentionally and aggressively eroded by an Administration that refuses to acknowledge any limits to its authority.

IMHO, there are two courses of action regarding the information reported in these two columns: (1. Rich,s mention of resurgence of Al Qaeda, with what he feels may well be credible threats to the US; 2. Mr. Hersh,s article stating that US Funds are being Secretly Funneled to Violent Al-Qaeda Linked Groups.):

- Course 1: Everyone, including Congress ignores it.

- Course 2: Congress promptly and speedily uses its resources to determine the validity of these reports.

If everyone ignores these reports, or dismisses them as merely a BushCo disinformation campaign, and it turns out that everyone is wrong, and that Mr. Rich & Mr. Hersh are right-what are the consequences?

If Congress uses its resources to check out the validity of these reports and then:

- a: Takes no further action, because the reports are determined not to be credible-what are the Consequences?

- b: Takes appropriate action to prevent any planned Al-Queda attacks, if reports are determined to be credible-what are the consequences?

Sometimes there is wisdom in refraining from acting, other times the wisdom is in taking action. The true wisdom, however, is to be very certain which course is the correct one, and the one with the least catastrophic consequences. The only way to be certain in this case is to find out the facts. Private citizens don,t have the necessary access and resources to determine the truth-Congress does. It is far past time for Congress to get to work and ask the questions about BushCo's whole botched foreign policy efforts--they've gotten a pass for far too long.

...to prevent a repeat of 2000 - 2008.

Not enough support? DO YOUR DAMNED JOB AND START THE INVESTIGATION HEARINGS. You'll soon have all the support you need. You remember Nixon and so do we.

Anything less is a failure.

I could go on but ALS makes typing so hard.

Get to work JC.

--
Those who forget history
Condemn the rest of us to repeat it.

"Cheney Unhurt After Bombing in Afghanistan

By ABDUL WAHEED WAFA
Published: February 27, 2007

KABUL, Afghanistan, Feb. 27 - A suicide bomber blew himself up this morning outside the main gate of the United States military base at Bagram while Vice President Dick Cheney was inside the base. Mr. Cheney was not hurt in the attack.

A man carrying an empty coffin to the blast site at Bagram today.
The explosion killed and wounded a number of American and allied soldiers,Afghan and Pakistani truck drivers and laborers waiting for access at the gate. There were conflicting reports of the number of casualties and deaths.

The incident took place at the outermost security gate of the sprawling base, far from where Mr. Cheney was staying at the time. A few hours after the attack, Mr. Cheney traveled to Kabul to meet with President Hamid Karzai, and later left Afghanistan to fly to Oman. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the bombing and said Mr. Cheney was the target of the attack, news agencies reported. Qari Yousef Ahmadi, who claimed to be a Taliban spokesman, told the Associated Press: "We knew that Dick Cheney would be staying inside the base." He said the bombing was carried out by Mullah Abdul Rahim.

The claim could not immediately be verified. . . . "

Cheney...

You are either for the Constitution of the USA or you are against it...

Sound familiar?

It should...Let's review...

Whoever says Bush is not a criminal is correct because he hasn't been found guilty of any crime. But that does not mean that he has not committed offenses that rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

1/. The Military Commissions Act is a law that was passed violating a basic writ contained within our Constitution; Habeas Corpus and it's suspension for any person suspected to be a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. The President of the USA signed into law this bill with this specific article written into it as per his demands to do so. His Oath of office is to ensure that ALL laws are duly enacted, that he faithfully execute his Oath of Office, and that he uphold the Constitution of the USA. His Oath of Office does not contain any provisions for a time of war, either declared or undeclared by Congress. If Articles of the Constitution are to be rewritten, it must be through a Constitutional Congress and ratified by the States. Basic Rights as granted within the Constitution can not be over written by a bill signed into law.

2/. The President has used his ability to address new legislation and his indifference to it through the use of signing statements. Most notably, the McCain Amendment which illiterates what exactly torture is and what torture is not. Shaky on it's own merits as to our agreed status within the Geneva Conventions pertaining to torture, cruel and unjust treatment of detained prisoners, the President assuredly wrote that he will construe this law as he sees fit and to the degree he deems to be necessary. This is an affront to the wishes and intent of the legislation as passed by Congress by the President of the USA. An assault on Congressional authority to craft law.

3/. The US Supreme Court found that the Administration, TWICE was guilty of detention violations as per Geneva Conventions. This is a direct rebuke not only on the Administration's policy toward indefinite detention and representation, but should have raised alarm bells throughout the Nation that the President's request to hold POW's as he wished was unconstitutional and violated basic human rights.

4/. It is a felony to knowingly lie to Congress. On January 28, 2003 George W. Bush as the sitting President of the United States of America addressed the Joint Session of Congress for his annual State of the Union Address. Within it, he uttered 16 words that were to have been stricken from the transcript because it was already proven that they were fraudulently contrived; "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Later, it was revealed that the documents were known to have been forged months earlier.

5/. Outing of a covert CIA agent is a Federal Crime. This goes to the Office of the Vice President and his aides acting on his orders to attempt to discredit a source of dissent that was also associated with researcher sent to Niger Africa to investigate the original claims made by the White House.

6/. The President engaged in and ordered the wiretapping of domestic phone calls without obtaining necessary warrants. Not only has the President admitted this activity, arguing that he has the inherent ability as Commander in Chief during a war as the Unitary Executive, but the Administration has now stated that they will comply to the FISA law as amended in the Patriot Act II. This, in and of itself is admitting that the violations originally admitted to were unconstitutional on their face value and that the arguments made held no water. Had they held muster, in the courts or public arena, the Administration would not have capitulated their point to the demands of the Constitution, FISA, the US Patriot Act II and the Presidential Oath of Office.

Now, you either are for the rule of law and support the principles contained within the Constitution of the USA or you are a subvert to the rule of law and the principles of the Constitution of the USA.

========================================================
You aren't defending, protecting, preserving the Constitution of the USA
When you allow the usurpations of the Constitutional laws of the USA.

The following was written by Laura Flanders, host of The Laura Flanders Show on Air America Radio, is the author of Bushwomen: Tales of a Cynical Species, and was posted at CommonDreams.org.

Ouch. It hurts to listen to. This was Representative John Conyers, speaking to a troops-out demonstration this past January in Washington DC:

"George Bush has a habit of firing military leaders who tell him the Iraq war is failing. But let me tell you something. He can't fire you. He can't fire us. But we can fire him!"

Many took those words to mean that Conyers, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, was serious about firing this president, meaning, impeaching the man, along with the vice president he rode in on.

But this was Conyers, progressive Democrat of Michigan, speaking recently on Pacifica's Democracy Now, explaining why, although he has the authority, he's not going to initiate impeachment proceedings.

"Impeachments come to the Judiciary Commitee. And, believe me, to tie up this government just as we're trying to stop the war and the clock is running on both the President and the Vice President, I think would be a mistaken strategy. We've got to win the next election which is next year."

Winning the election, he told Democracy Now, is what he meant by "firing" the president. Yeah right. Like firing a senior on the day he graduates. It hurts to listen to because what you're hearing is the sound of consciousness - razing -- as in razor, as in destroy or level or scrape. What you're hearing is the leveling, scraping away of a man's conscience. Probably no one's done more than Representative Conyers and his staff have done to investigate Bush White House crimes, from wiretapping and torture to misleading the country into an illegal war.

Luckily for Rep. Conyers, grassroots activists may save his conscience yet.

This week in Olympia, Washington, more than 800 people packed into a meeting with Elizabeth De La Vega and State Senator Eric Oemig, who is introducing a resolution to petition the US House for impeachements. About half that number worked throughout last weekend to come up with a national strategy on which impeachment activists could unite. A lot is going on on the impeachment front. It's just been hard to see. Different groups have prioritized different grounds for impeachment--there's no shortage-- from Iraq, to Guatánamo to signing statements and illegal wiretapping and gross negligence in hurricane Katrina's wake.

Now a broad array of organizations have launched a new coalition that brings scores of groups together, from the Center for Constitutional Rights to Hip Hop Caucus, to Progressive Democrats of America, Code Pink, After Downing Street, the Green Party of the USA and The World Can't Wait.

Impeach07 has national and local demonstrations planned, along with a national day of action on April 28. Oemig isn't alone. Legislators in three states--New Mexico, Washington and Vermont have made moves towards petitioning the Congress. And no topic provokes more calls to RadioNation on Air America--people want accountability even if their leaders don't.

Laura Flanders, host of The Laura Flanders Show on Air America Radio, is the author of Bushwomen: Tales of a Cynical Species.

In yet another display of their total disengagement from reality, the White House has the audacity to say: Don,t Micromanage War, White House Tells Congress.

Why does no one in Congress seem to have the courage or honesty to tell this truth to Bush: "Someone other than you has to micromanage the War, because it has become obvious--to everyone but you--that, you sir, do not possess the intelligence, skill, or the ability to do so."

"It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't." Will Rogers

if the following proposal actually becomes law?

"The New York Times

February 27, 2007
Iraqis Reach an Accord on Oil Revenues

By EDWARD WONG

BAGHDAD, Feb. 26 - The Iraqi cabinet approved a draft of a law on Monday that would set guidelines for nationwide distribution of oil revenues and foreign investment in the immense oil industry. The endorsement reflected a major agreement among the country,s ethnic and sectarian political blocs on one of Iraq,s most divisive issues.

The draft law approved by the cabinet allows the central government to distribute oil revenues to the provinces or regions based on population, which could lessen the economic concerns of the rebellious Sunni Arabs, who fear being cut out of Iraq,s vast potential oil wealth by the dominant Shiites and Kurds. Most of Iraq,s crude oil reserves lie in the Shiite south and Kurdish north.

The law also grants regional oil companies or governments the power to sign contracts with foreign companies for exploration and development of fields, opening the door for investment by foreign companies in a country whose oil reserves rank among the world,s three largest.

Iraqi officials say dozens of major foreign companies, including ones based in the United States, Russia and China, have expressed strong interest in developing fields or have done some work with the Iraqi industry. The national oil law would allow regions to enter into production-sharing agreements with foreign companies, which some Iraqis say could lead to foreigners reaping too much of the country,s oil wealth. . . . "

Hmmmm, now where to go to next, let us guess!

Iraqis . . .

Some BBC footage was posted on 9/11 blogger last night that deserves a little attention.

How is the BBC reporting on 9/11 that world trade center 7 has collapsed, while behind the reporter in a live shot it still stands?

Some 25 minutes prior to it's collapse the BBC is reporting the sudden collapse of WTC7...

I would not have posted about this but suddenly the BBC decides they need to debunk that they are part of the conspiracy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Interesting they say they no longer have the footage of that day? What kind of news organization doesn't keep a recording of it's own reporting?

Near the end of the clip

Near the end of the clip

So who sent the BBC the news release that the building collapsed before it actually collapsed.

I wish to make several points regarding the military industrial complex, its origins in the National Security Act of 1947, and its impact on the Powers of Congress in the current context of the "war on terror" that has enabled Bush and Cheney to benefit from this economic model.

First of all, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution discussed the potential dangers of allowing a standing army, which is why Congress was granted the constitutional power of military appropriations, to be revisited every 2 years. I imagine that this was based on the assumption that Congress would act with integrity and wisdom in military budget authorizations.

Second, the Constitution grants Congress powers over the Land and Naval Forces; is Congress granted powers over the Airforce and Intelligence in the Constitution? The National Security Act of 1947 introduces authority regarding the Airforce and Intelligence to the National Security Council: the Central Intelligence Agency, the Executive offices, and the State and Defense Departments; the birth of the Pentagon.

The State Department does not mention Congress, does it?

Summary on Wikipedia no mention of role of Congress here, either.

The Act of 1947 discusses the relationship between the Executive and congressional intelligence committees in TITLE V - ACCOUNTABILITY FOR INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.
SEC. 501. [50 U.S.C. 413] (a)(1) The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this title.

So, except for congressional authorization of funding, the Powers of Congress were minimalized by allowing only the congressional intelligence committees to participate under the Act.

Two references to The National Security Act of 1947:

Chalmers Johnson on Democracy Now! today discussed how a nation cannot simultaneously be a domestic democracy and a foreign empire - a nation is either one or the other; by virtue of how the two models operate, they are mutually exclusive. It's an excellent interview, I highly recommend it!

snip:
CHALMERS JOHNSON: Well, yes. Militarism is the -- what the social side has called the "intervening variable," the causative connection. That is to say, to maintain an empire requires a very large standing army, huge expenditures on arms that leads to a military-industrial complex, and generally speaking, a vicious cycle sets up of interests that lead to perpetual series of wars.
end snip

Another interview I stumbled across on PBS from February of 2006,
Lawrence Wilkerson on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence

snip:
LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Oh I think it's come to that. I think we've had some decisions at this administration that were more or less dictates. We've had a decision that the Constitution as read by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and a few other very selected administration lawyers doesn't pertain the way it has pertained for 200-plus years. A very ahistorical reading of the Constitution.

And these people marshal such stellar lights as-- Alexander Hamilton. They haven't even read Federalist Six. I'm sure they haven't. Where Alexander Hamilton lays down his markers about the dangers of a dictate-issuing chief executive. This is not the way America was intended to be run by its founders and it is not the interpretation of the Constitution that any of the founders as far as I read the Federalist Papers and other discussions about their views would have subscribed to. This is an interpretation of the constitution that is outlandish and as I said, clearly ahistorical.
end snip

Wilkerson sums it up with a thought by Ferdinand Eberstadt, "I'd prefer to see the squabble of democracy to the efficiency of dictators."

Congressman Conyers, where is the "squabble of democracy"? What would the founders think about The National Security Act of 1947? What would they have to say about the current situation regarding intelligence-gathering, cover operations, the perpetual "war on terror", the standing armies, the military industrial complex, the apparent lack of congressional oversight? And honestly, what matters more than what The People have to say about it - right now? Not in 2006, not in 2008, but RIGHT NOW.

is causing me to get an error page here and I can't read the comments. Maybe my crappy computer can't handle the video link; Wayne, would you mind please editing your post and just link to the video, rather than put up the video here? Thanks.

As much as I appreciate the video, I can't read the comments section because it boots me out.

Oh, well; next thread, I guess...