The Bush administration is very adept at the technique of interjecting uncertainty, into matters that were cut in stone by former leaders of America. Issues like torture have been allowed to fester, even though the definition of it has been respected and factored into the decision making process by Dem and Repub Presidents, since the Geneva Convention.

As far as scientists are concerned, they're human, with all that implies. Remember when they were pissed about their meager salaries, while those who were less educated made millions? It appears they've found a solution. By customizing their science to edify talking points presented by corporate whores and lobbyists, who have an allegiance to the bottom line and not America, they know the debate will continue long enough for their financial handlers to maximize their profits, as they prepare to utilize the next generation of technology, and dictate the direction of America's alternative energy future.

If BushCo's damage control experts in the DOJ, weren't so politicized, the debate over the politicization of the EPA would probably result in criminal charges. Criminalizing those who refuse to pursue known criminal acts, is the first step in eliminating the fraternaties of organized criminals who have made our legal system such an international laughingstock.

Some things are debatable, such as whether or not the hundreds of pro-environmentalist scientists are correct, or whether or not the hundreds of anti-environmentalist scientists are correct. I've been listening to this debate since the 70's.

Some things ain't, like torture and the politicization of law enforcement in every small town in America.

IMO, the lawlessness in America today, has trickled up from the manner in which business is conducted by educated frat-boys all over America.

Criminalize the Just-Us department first, and remove the perception of uncertainty before attempting to figure out which scientists Adirondack Great Camp was the result of GE, or BP, or clean coal bribes.

Without a functioning DOJ, investigating crooked EPA administrators is a waste of time and money.

At what point does the act of destroying the rank and files' faith in America, and America's science, and America's DOJ, become an impeachable offense?

Throw it on the pile Mr. Conyers.

Does anyone got a spare aspirin?

has taken a new tack. He has ordered the closure of the EPA libraries, too. Thousands of irreplaceable documents are just thrown out. He WANTS us to return to the Dark Ages!

(subtitle: When criminals get away with crimes, they will continue to commit them).

The Washington Post reports: Joint Chief’s Chairman Says US Preparing Military Options Against Iran

“…The nation's top military officer said today that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq…”

“…Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing specifically to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force…”

"..It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," he said at a Pentagon news conference…”

“…Mullen's statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently signal a new rhetorical onslaught by the Bush administration against Iran…”

Coincidentally, on the same day that Mullen rattled the sabers at Iran, this news story broke: US Contracted Ship Fires Toward Boats in the Gulf.

It seems there actually may have been some basis to the quickly dismissed speculation about the real reason behind the “resignation” of Admiral Fallon.

James Wolcott’s points out in his article: “Bomb bomb bomb, Bomb bomb Iran” that:

“…I've been dubious on the prospect of preemptive strikes against Iran, mostly because I didn't believe that the Bush administration would want to risk plunging the American economy into the abyss, a risk carrying an even greater probability today given the implosions in the credit markets, plunging consumer confidence, and foreclosures turning neighborhoods into squatters' havens. But the recklessness of the Bush administration with other people's lives can't be underestimated, and men who fancy themselves on a mission may give military action one last roll of the dice, convinced history will thank them later for their bold decisiveness. They've paid no price for their folly thus far, so why fear any future reckoning?...”

Mr. Chairman, Bush has nothing to lose—no worries about Congress stepping up as a co-equal branch and preventing US military action against Iran—so what’s to stop him? Apparently not the Democratic candidates or leadership. Certainly not the “war hero”, “100 years in Iraq”, “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCain.

Rumor has it John McCain started the fire aboard the Forestall, leading to deaths, injuries and the near loss of the ship.

In nutshell, there is nothing to it.

Here is a vid on U-Tube. It is of poor quality. But this happened 40 years ago. So it should show age. It also show the screen name of the fella that posted it. But the key is in the content.

Conveniently, the clip starts with the launch of the Zuni. The camera pans to chase the missile as it shoots across the deck. The camera shows McCains A-4 already burning when it comes into frame.

The key point is : McCain had nothing to do with the missile launch. His plane was far away, too far for a "Wet Start" and the associated fireball to have had an effect on the missile. Moreover, McCains' A-4 is pointed so as to direct thrust overboard and in a direction away from the F-4 that launched the missile.

Upshot : Not guilty.
Frosted Flake

Postscript : Note that this is NOT G-rated material.

But of course Congressman, you've already known this. In fact you've written a door stopper of a novel. Yet, here we are...

‘Western Leaders Are War Criminals’

Saturday, April 26th, 2008
By Mick Meaney - RINF |

The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, has echoed calls for Western leaders to be charged with war crimes over the invasion of Iraq.

Speaking at Imperial College in London Mahathir, who was in office from 1981 to 2003, singled out US President George Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australia’s former prime minister John Howard as he wants to see them tried “in absence for war crimes committed in Iraq”.

The event was organised by the Ramadhan Foundation which is a leading British Muslim youth organisation working for peaceful co-existence and dialogue between communities.

Mohammed Shafiq, spokesman for the group said: “It was an opportunity for students to put a range of questions about war crimes and the international situation. He said that people have to stop killing each other and use arbitration, negotiation and discussion as an alternative to violence, war and killing.”

Speaking about the Iraq war, Mahathir focused on “the thousands dying, the economic war, the power of oil and how we could utilise some of these tools to have a leverage against the people who commit countries to war”, Shafiq said.

The event was incredibly well attended with over 450 people and 200 more had to be turned away.

Among the mountain of war crimes Western leaders are guilty of include:-

The illegal use of napalm and other chemical weapons

Intentionally torturing and abusing detainees

Blocking aid convoys

Killing unarmed civilians, including shooting into family homes

Western leaders are also guilty of many other violations of the Geneva Convention, the Charter of the United Nations, the Nuremberg Charter, International Law and the Constitution of the United States, including crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.

International law professors have called the attack against Iraq “a fundamental breach of international law (that) would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War.”

Mahathir Mohamad’s statement appears to be valid as the International Criminal Court defines the following as international crimes:

(a) Crimes against Peace:

Namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing:

(b) War Crimes:

Namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity:

(c) Crimes against Humanity:

Namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

(emphasis mine)

But of course, Congressman,
you've already known that YOUR PRESIDENT IS A WAR CRIMINAL...
You just can't quite bring yourself to do a damn thing about it, though...
I must say, one hell of a character tell, if you ask me, Congressman.

==============
I M P E A C H
or R E S I G N!!!

Top 25 Censored Stories for 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

Cheney Lawyer Claims Congress Has No Authority Over Vice-President

By Elana Schor
Published on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 by The Guardian/UK

The lawyer for US vice-president Dick Cheney claimed today that the Congress lacks any authority to examine his behaviour on the job.

The exception claimed by Cheney’s counsel came in response to requests from congressional Democrats that David Addington, the vice-president’s chief of staff, testify about his involvement in the approval of interrogation tactics used at Guantanamo Bay.

Ruling out voluntary cooperation by Addington, Cheney lawyer Kathryn Wheelbarger said Cheney’s conduct is “not within the [congressional] committee’s power of inquiry”.

“Congress lacks the constitutional power to regulate by law what a vice-president communicates in the performance of the vice president’s official duties, or what a vice president recommends that a president communicate,” Wheelbarger wrote to senior aides on Capitol Hill.

The exception claimed by Cheney’s office recalls his attempt last year to evade rules for classified documents by deeming the vice-president’s office a hybrid branch of government - both executive and legislative.

The Democratic congressman who is investigating the legal framework for the violent interrogation of terrorist suspects, John Conyers, has asked Addington and several other top Bush administration lawyers to testify. Thus far all have claimed their deliberations are privileged.

However, Philippe Sands QC, law professor at University College, London, has agreed to appear in Washington and discuss the revelations in Torture Team, his new book on the consequences of the brutal tactics used at Guantanamo.

Excerpts from Torture Team were previewed exclusively by the Guardian earlier this month.

Two witnesses sought by Conyers, former US attorney general John Ashcroft and former US justice department lawyer John Yoo, claimed that their involvement in civil lawsuits related to harsh interrogations allows them to avoid appearing before Congress.

In letters to attorneys representing Ashcroft and Yoo, Conyers shot down their arguments and indicated he would pursue subpoenas if their clients did not testify at his May 6 hearing.

“I am aware of no basis for the remarkable claim that pending civil litigation somehow immunizes an individual from testifying before Congress,” Conyers wrote.

Conyers, who chairs the House of Representatives judiciary committee, also questioned the reasoning of Cheney’s lawyer in a letter to Addington.

“It is hard to know what aspect of the invitation [to you] has given rise to concern that the committee might seek to regulate the vice president’s recommendations to the president,” Conyers wrote.

“Especially since far more obvious potential subjects of legislation are plentiful,” he added, mentioning several: US laws on the use of torture on terrorist suspects, the 15-year-old War Crimes Act, and the rules that allowed the Bush White House to receive legal advice from a specialised office within the justice department.

© 2008 The Guardian

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why don’t you just impeach him and show him how much control Congress has over his office?

Time’s a wasting but it ain’t too late to start…