[cia-drugs] Re: Fwd: Founding Fathers Discussed How to Handle a President Like Bush
--- In cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, mark urban [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is all great, Kris. But who is this statesman who can get the corporations to back off? Bush and Cheney are sock puppets for some really nasty guys who ain't going down without a fight. Their sock puppets are expendable, as long as their other sock puppets get to hang the fake opposition. Maybe they backed off when liability for Agent Orange cancer and birth defects was looming. If so, are there really any DU birth defects or cancer from Iraq and Afghanistan? Think like a corporation. Think pump and dump. --- In cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, RoadsEnd roadsend@ wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: DasGOAT@ Date: July 3, 2007 3:35:25 PM PDT To: RoadsEnd@ Cc: EMael0@, jim6263@, JusB@ Subject: Founding Fathers Discussed How to Handle a President Like Bush Obstruction of Justice, Continued By Dan Froomkin Washington Post, July 3, 2007; 3:22 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/03/ BL2007070301366.html?hpid=moreheadlines During the course of I. Lewis Scooter Libby's trial for obstruction of justice and perjury, we learned a lot about his bosses. Incremental discoveries that didn't garner major headlines nevertheless added to what we know -- and can reasonably surmise - - about Vice President Cheney and President Bush's role in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, which was revealed during the course of the administration's defense of its decision to go to war in Iraq. We know, for instance, that Cheney was the first person to tell Libby about Plame's identity. We know that Cheney told Libby to leak Plame's identity to the New York Times in an attempt to discredit her husband, who had accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence. We know that Cheney wrote talking points that may have encouraged Libby and others to mention Plame to reporters. We know that Cheney once talked to Bush about Libby's assignment, and got permission from the president for Libby to leak hitherto classified information to the Times. We don't know why Libby decided to lie to federal investigators about his role in the leak. But it's reasonable to conclude -- or at least strongly suspect -- that he was doing it to protect Cheney, and maybe even Bush himself. ... Bush's decision yesterday to commute Libby's prison sentence isn't just a matter of unequal justice. It is also a potentially self-serving and corrupt act. Was there a quid pro quo at work? Was Libby being repaid for falling on his sword and protecting his bosses from further scrutiny? Alternately, was he being repaid for his defense team's abrupt decision in mid-trial not to drag Cheney into court, where he would have faced cross-examination by Fitzgerald? Bush and Press Secretary Tony Snow this morning continued to stonewall when it comes to any of the important questions about this case, Cheney and Bush's involvement, and the commutation itself. Bush said he wouldn't rule out a future pardon for Libby -- but didn't have much else new to say. Snow was simply ducking questions while asserting repeatedly that the president is entitled to exercise his clemency power however he sees fit. It's true that the Constitution grants the president unlimited clemency and pardon power. But presidents have generally used that power to show mercy or, in rare cases, make political amends -- not to protect themselves from exposure. The Framers, ever sensitive to the need for checks and balances, recognized the potential for abuse of the pardon power. According to a Judiciary Committee report drafted in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis: In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded: 'If the President be connected, in ANY SUSPICIOUS MANNER, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can IMPEACH him; they can remove him if found guilty.' Madison went on to [say] that the President could be suspended [from office] WHEN[EVER] SUSPECTED, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended [from office] until impeached and convicted, IF HE WERE ALSO SUSPECTED. See what's free at AOL.com.
[cia-drugs] Re: Fwd: Founding Fathers Discussed How to Handle a President Like Bush
Impeachment has only been used by War Colonialism, not against it. Limited hangout, in-house investigation, controlled opposition pulling punches. Voters gave a clear mandate to end the war in Iraq, and included was a mandate to impeach for Iraq WMD and 911 lies that got us into the war. Warren Commission, Iran-Contra hearings, 911 Committee, 911 Commission, more due foxcoop process. The Church Committee must be the only investigation that worked in the slightest way, but hardly slowed the privatization of the problem. I'm glad impeachment was not deleted by the Patriot Acts. --- In cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, RoadsEnd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ../../../../post?postID=YvmQXpx0dg57fXqVTLK88_6HXHW7i7hltnpd49pn17klR-H\ LTeZeaq8YxRFxKjhK6TvPJwYq2_wl Date: July 3, 2007 3:35:25 PM PDTTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ../../../../post?postID=b2mb7ATK7wojTi__lhSTdvps75d_yNKrSDgnisTxDD6qmZi\ DQTTCzQSWVfkUfNoD8TyeF3arndT0vM0 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ../../../../post?postID=FxDL-cvV9cKh9ioarPPpRzcz9zkTpnIR8UXKYzOgpkyDcRd\ 0eGPstI6uvUyBZjh8O0rNEzI , [EMAIL PROTECTED] ../../../../post?postID=xaBzFeXSJwyes55kPjvrviKjMUhfSwAHRDHmEy9MGIYdDlY\ e4tZApAvrFCngJ754KW5AYN28o6JyE3Q , [EMAIL PROTECTED] ../../../../post?postID=wBeQbukuFakRVGxmtmoHHrzB-mmZKzU7aIMXbcR1Ts2oefp\ a18yVANI80vZAOxS1todrKe8 Subject: Founding Fathers Discussed How to Handle a President Like Bush Obstruction of Justice, Continued By Dan Froomkin http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/dan+froomkin/ Washington Post, July 3, 2007; 3:22 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/03/BL200707030\ 1366.html?hpid=moreheadlines http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/03/BL20070703\ 01366.html?hpid=moreheadlines During the course of I. Lewis Scooter Libby's trial for obstruction of justice and perjury, we learned a lot about his bosses. Incremental discoveries that didn't garner major headlines nevertheless added to what we know -- and can reasonably surmise -- about Vice President Cheney and President Bush's role in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, which was revealed during the course of the administration's defense of its decision to go to war in Iraq. We know, for instance, that Cheney was the first person to tell Libby about Plame's identity. We know that Cheney told Libby to leak Plame's identity to the New York Times in an attempt to discredit her husband, who had accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence. We know that Cheney wrote talking points that may have encouraged Libby and others to mention Plame to reporters. We know that Cheney once talked to Bush about Libby's assignment, and got permission from the president for Libby to leak hitherto classified information to the Times. We don't know why Libby decided to lie to federal investigators about his role in the leak. But it's reasonable to conclude -- or at least strongly suspect -- that he was doing it to protect Cheney, and maybe even Bush himself. ... Bush's decision yesterday to commute Libby's prison sentence isn't just a matter of unequal justice. It is also a potentially self-serving and corrupt act. Was there a quid pro quo at work? Was Libby being repaid for falling on his sword and protecting his bosses from further scrutiny? Alternately, was he being repaid for his defense team's abrupt decision in mid-trial not to drag Cheney into court, where he would have faced cross-examination by Fitzgerald? Bush http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070703-3.html and Press Secretary Tony Snow this morning continued to stonewall when it comes to any of the important questions about this case, Cheney and Bush's involvement, and the commutation itself. Bush said he wouldn't rule out a future pardon for Libby -- but didn't have much else new to say. Snow was simply ducking questions while asserting repeatedly that the president is entitled to exercise his clemency power however he sees fit. It's true that the Constitution grants the president unlimited clemency and pardon power. But presidents have generally used that power to show mercy or, in rare cases, make political amends -- not to protect themselves from exposure. The Framers, ever sensitive to the need for checks and balances, recognized the potential for abuse of the pardon power. According to a Judiciary Committee report http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/w\ atergatedoc_3.htm drafted in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis: In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded: 'If the President be connected, in ANY SUSPICIOUS MANNER, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can IMPEACH him; they can remove him if found guilty.' Madison
[cia-drugs] The 26th edition is finally ready for you to read.
The Spring edition is finally ready for you to read. I have been without my computer for 8 weeks with the exception of 1 week after a software crash had been repaired by a friend in another country and returned to me, then the Hard drive crashed necessitating my taking my Mac to the Apple retailer, which still has it now. This is why I am forced to send this to you with your Email address in the To line unless you have specifically requested that I send mail to you in Bcc. Please forgive me especially the new people who have provided me with their Email address recently. Along those lines, I'd like to welcome all of the new people who appreciate the truth. They are in Greece, Turkey, Algeria, Canada, Norway, Sweden, England, and Egypt, and also take this opportunity to say Hi to all of those who I have been so fortunate to have met while I had to be away from where I managed to return. You are like diamonds in my life because you have graced me with your Email address, and I so appreciate it because the truth is being increasingly hard to come by these days. The Journal of History (La verdad sobre la democracia) is completely free now. No password is needed. Just click on the Magazine icon and read away. Also, I wanted to get this edition out to you because the very last America's Concerns is very timely. In fact it may be too late now to do anything about it, but maybe not. So if you're an American voter, please go straight to the last America's Concerns and do what it asks because it is very timely. It has to do with the music that soothes my soul, so thank you in advance if you will take care of that. Peace, Arlene Johnson Publisher/Author http://www.truedemocracy.net
[cia-drugs] The 26th edition is finally ready for you to read.
The Spring edition is finally ready for you to read. I have been without my computer for 8 weeks with the exception of 1 week after a software crash had been repaired by a friend in another country and returned to me, then the Hard drive crashed necessitating my taking my Mac to the Apple retailer, which still has it now. This is why I am forced to send this to you with your Email address in the To line unless you have specifically requested that I send mail to you in Bcc. Please forgive me especially the new people who have provided me with their Email address recently. Along those lines, I'd like to welcome all of the new people who appreciate the truth. They are in Greece, Turkey, Algeria, Canada, Norway, Sweden, England, and Egypt, and also take this opportunity to say Hi to all of those who I have been so fortunate to have met while I had to be away from where I managed to return. You are like diamonds in my life because you have graced me with your Email address, and I so appreciate it because the truth is being increasingly hard to come by these days. The Journal of History (La verdad sobre la democracia) is completely free now. No password is needed. Just click on the Magazine icon and read away. Also, I wanted to get this edition out to you because the very last America's Concerns is very timely. In fact it may be too late now to do anything about it, but maybe not. So if you're an American voter, please go straight to the last America's Concerns and do what it asks because it is very timely. It has to do with the music that soothes my soul, so thank you in advance if you will take care of that. Peace, Arlene Johnson Publisher/Author http://www.truedemocracy.net
[cia-drugs] Richard Pipe's Team B/created by then CIA director George Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pipes EXCERPT: Team B Further information: Team B Pipes was head of the 1976 Team B, comprised of civilian experts and retired military officers and created by then CIA director George Bush as a competitive analysis exercise. Team B was created as antagonist force to a group of CIA intelligence officials, known as Team A, and argued that the National Intelligence Estimate on the Soviet Union, generated yearly by the CIA, underestimated Soviet military power and misinterpreted Soviet strategic intentions. A top CIA analyst called it a kangaroo court of outside critics all picked from one point of view.[3] Team B also came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several new weapons, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current technology.[4] This information was later proven to be false. According to Dr. Anne Cahn in 2004 (Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-1980) I would say that all of it was fantasy... if you go through most of Team B's specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong.[5][6] Pipes himself emphasises the other aspects of Team B's conclusions which were probably better founded: We dealt with one problem only: What is the Soviet strategy for nuclear weapons? Team B was appointed to look at the evidence and to see if we could conclude that the actual Soviet strategy is different from ours. It's now demonstrated totally, completely, that it was, he said, using the example that documents in Polish archives that show the Soviets planning to use nuclear weapons in the event of war. For example, in a Commentary article, he argued that the A team was subject to 'mirror-imaging' [thinking that the other side necessarily thought the same as your side]; in particular he argued that Team B showed Soviet development of high-yield, accurate MIRV'ed warheads for ICBMs was inconsistent with city-hostage principles of MAD, implying Soviet first-strike plans. [3] In 1986 Pipes said that history shows that Team B overall contributed to creating more realistic estimates.[7]
