...They went to the Office of Legal Counsel, the Department's internal legal advisor, for the go-ahead. And they got it...

Just a bit of whimsy, since it's never going to happen, but wouldn't it be fun to ask the OLC, under oath: What didn't you okay?

Code: smile

absolute power corrupts absolutly

Keep scrutinizing the relationship between the DOJ Civil Rights section, the American Center for Voting Rights and the Free Enterprise Coalition. Maybe the RNC will stop screwing around with elections if it gets hit with RICO charges or something like them.

Except ICE career prosecutors remain prosecutors once they get on the bench. So immigrants in this country can choose between a hack for a judge or a prosecutor for a judge....

"i am very, very curious to know what OTHER cookie jars the doj political leadership has their hands into that we don't know about - YET..."

Perhaps turning the United States Trustees Office (a unit of DOJ) into a patronage dispenser, bleeding bankruptcy estates so as to provide sinecures for ex-Attorney Generals and out of work assistants.
http://www.onepaper.com/stthomasvi/?v=d&i=&s=News:Local&p=1176611342

Bush apologist Jonah Goldberg wrote last week that the recent revelations that Ashcroft resisted the bald-faced political maneuverings of Gonzo & Co. when AG John was woozy from hospital drugs after his appendectomy, redeemed him as not a far-right authoritarian but a defender of the Constitution and its prescribed rights, and that maybe someday Bush will be redeemed in a similar fashion. Or something like that. Good luck with that, Jonah.
Anyway, apparently politicization of the DOJ started before Ashcroft stepped down. Gonzo shifted it into high gear.
It's sad that Ashcroft looks like a moderate after the excesses of Gonzales, McNulty and Goodling. Ashcroft was as much into the hoped-for 30-year GOP Reich as the rest of the Bush/Rove/Cheney gang.

Goodling kept mentioning something about "waivers on the hiring freeze" as part of her testimony...hmmm, what about it? It was important enough for her to mention it at least twice.

ORAL OPINIONS SUGGEST WH-DOJ RETROACTIVE POLICY TO RUBBER STAMP KNOWN CRIMINAL PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT, BUT CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF LEGALITY

There are three quotes on the OLC policies that do not appear to reconcile:

1. "That _oral opinion_ provided the basis for two years of political hiring, resulting in the appointment of perhaps dozens of unexperienced, political loyalists."

2. Berenson on PBS, suggesting the OLC memorandum-policy-opinions were well documented: "the White House wanted comfort that what we were proposing to do was lawful. And in that instance, we would turn to the Department of Justice and ask the Office of Legal Counsel'"

3. "According to a statement by Monica Goodling's lawyer, Kyle Sampson got an _oral opinion_ from the then-head of the OLC that it was legal."

Perhaps the issue is: There is, in fact, a written record of the opinion which Sampson created, and Goodling reviewed later. Recall, Goodling asked people to delete messages because (presumably) she had "better" information.

A. How did Goodling have confidence that she had better information warranting data destruction/updating, yet there's supposedly no written document of the original opinion?

B. If there was, in fact, no written policy-memorandum-opinion, despite Berenson's assurances that OLC-WH were well coordinating, who prompted the change from the "written" policy-making; the the "oral policy making"; how was this change discussed; and are there other examples where important OLC policies were not documented; or is the issue that _important_ OLC written policies were deleted and all agreed that there was no written record?
Recall the US Attorney-firing e-mails related to speech coordination, simple messages, and updates: For fairly benign things, there are short e-mails throwing things around. Yet, suddenly, this disappears with the OLC coordination -- that makes no sense. Rather, if there is communication to discuss an oral opinion, then there had to have been some initial commutation to _request_ that opinion; some research done; then some sort of note in a log that an opinion was issued; and then another DOJ OLC staffer would have, at some point, reviewed that memorandum/opinion to ensure they were or were not dong the right thing.

Enter DOJ OPR. What did DOJ OPR find by way of OLC memorandum and opinions; were there gaps; and how did DOJ OPR do audits on memroandum and opinions which were not written; how did the DOJ OPR reconcile the OLC policy on written opinions with the practices, and how was this finding forwarded to DOJ IG and the AG; or did the President shut this line of inquiry down when he put the kabosh on the DOJ OPR review of the NSA surveillance?
Enter DOJ Secretariat and the work flows. DOJ has a tasking tracking system where every paper document, opinion, and correspondence is tracked: Meetings, finished/complied, and signed. This is not a minor task. Yet, we're asked to believe that the OLC policy on legal opinions, as opposed to the oral opinions, is something that doesn't track to the work flows: These "oral" opinions we are asked to believe don't track to a written opinion. But there must have been a subsequent and precedent work flow which discussed the general policy; and delegated to someone the decision whether a policy and opinion could be oral or written. Either there is a work flow showing this delegation; or the OLC "oral opinion memorandum" is an illusory policy, not connected with any work flow. If this "oral opinion policy" is real, then DOJ AG needs to share all workflows associated with the discussion, development, and oversight of this change in LC policy; and then track that to changes in the DOJ OPR auditing; and a certification by the AG that he has understood how the Generally Accepted Auditing Standers [management procedures] would or would not be Incorporated after this change in OLC memorandum/opinion occurred.
the problem: DoJ Staff counsel weren't doing this, but they were doing non-official tasks unrelated to official business. Even the AG had poor oversight of the terrorist monitoring systems, and personnel inside DOJ didn't have time to process the warrants; but he wants us to believe they have a "formal-informal" policy-work flow to transition from written opinions to oral ones. Huh? that's non-sense.

There was no discussion on an official change in policy; rather, it appears more likely that the required paper work to "implement" this change in policy from "only written" to 'sometimes oral" would require too many steps in the work flows, then complicate DOJ OPR reviews, then make it a mess to oversee whether the policy was or was not being followed correctly. But let's pretend they had a _formal_ policy to be _informal_ [unlikely]:

1. Where is the policy to be informal;
2. When was this change in policy discussed: that of moving from all written to 'some" oral;
3. How did AG coordinate on the DOJ OPR review procedures;
4. What evidence does DOJ IG have that the AG concurred through a work flow with the required DOJ IG check sheets to audit compliance with the "new"policy of "informal/non-commented/oral opinions".

It appears what's most likely:
A. The "oral opinion"-argument, as with FISA excuses, has been retroactively created;
B. There are insufficient conforming/supporting documents in the DOJ Work flows to believe this was a real policy, or one that was managed
C. DoJ IG and DOJ OPR do not appear to have enough guidance on this vague "sometimes we have oral opinions and sometimes not"-policy: It is too vague;
D. Someone knew that there was a policy-decision being made, but rather than assert something in writing -- which did not exist -- it looks as though someone in the WH has, a friend of Kyle, introduced the idea of an "oral" opinion to cover what seems to have been a _White House_-drive decision, but one that OLC was asked to retroactively rubber stamp, as appears to be the case with FISA, prisoner abuse, and the illegal warrantless surveillance.

In sum, I doubt the assertion that there was a real oral opinion; or that there as any system in place to track these oral opinions. Rather, given the lack of DOJ OPR and DOJ IG ability to monitor this, much less track the work flows related to this change in policy and the oral opinions themselves, on top of the inability to respond to questions or make reliable updates as Goodling did, it does not appear this was real, but retroactively created by Sampson-Rove to cover the WH decision to do something, then get a "OLC legal cover" for something that was dubious.

OLC wasn't _providing_ banafide legal _advise_ before a decision, but was a mechanism to _rubber stamp_ decision Rove, GOP, and the President working with Cheney and Addington had _made_. OLC looks as though they twisted the law, reality, and facts to justify supporting what was illegal.

How many OLC opinions were backdated to support something that the press dug up, and the President could not bury through threats to the NYT? Check the workflows, and see if there's a way: An oral opinion would be a way to go around this work flow documentation. Where there is no evidence, an adverse inference is that the decision was made, and OLC twisted the law, facts, and reality as an attempt to cover the President's war crimes; and the complicity of WH counsel who knew or should have known that the violations of Geneva were not lawful.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Retroactive Evidence Creation: Unlawful EOP-WH-DOJ Pratices

There are methods in place inside EOP and WH counsel to deal with unplanned disclosures of memorandum. These include asserting there are oral agreements; however, these oral agreements are not consistent with written policies and signed directives.

2. WH-DoJ OLC Legal COunsel Failure to fully assert Article 82, in contravention with attorney legal duties and DC Bar Standards of Conduct

There is evidence that the JAGs were marginalized using unlawful methods which contradict duties of Attorneys under Article 82 of the Conventions: that of requiring attorneys -- regardless their benign in or out of the JAGs -- to fully enforce Geneva.

3. Unreasonable, illegal attorney conduct not reported to DOJ OPR as required

No reasonable attorney could conclude that the planned treatment was lawful. The Supreme Court fund the treatment did not meet Geneva.

4. Retroactive Opinions on Illegal Activity, No Noisy Withdrawal as required under DC Bar rules

POTUS and WH counsel are complicit in unlawful war crimes planning; and WH counsel and DOJ OLC did not fully assert their oath, nor correctly provide legal guidance to ensure compliance with Geneva. There appears to be a basis to ask whether Presidential Orders were issued, then retroactively "legalized" by OLC-WH counsel after the policy was disclosed to be illegal.

5. False Executive Branch, DOJ Evidence in re War Crimes

Work flows and correspondence longs inside WH and DoJ have been retroactively alternated to make it appear orders followed legal guidance. In truth, illegal policies were put into effect, and WH counsel and OLC were brought into the nexus to legalize the policies only after the public learned of the war crimes.

Where documents could not be changed-created retroactively, the default position was the "oral opinion": Equally untraceable.

6. Basis for Grand Jury Indictment, Evidence Preservation in re war crimes

Then-WH Counsel appears complicit with war crimes planning, and counsel knew or should have known that the planned activity, rendition, prisoner treatment was not lawful; and does not appear to have fully met its legal obligations under statute, treaty, or attorney standards of conduct. Remains to be seen whether conduct amounts to attorney recklessness, actionable war ccrimes for adjudication as war crimes by legal counsel. [Nuremburg Precedent: Justice Trial prosecuted staff counsel for failing to fully enforce Geneva. No mitivations. Adjuciated with death penalty.]

RECOMMENDATION: Forward to Grand Jury for war crimes review and indictments.

Your hyped pseudo-legal use of the word "fatally" is annoying. And innuendo based upon unsuported presumption.

"Most likely, there are other written memorandum that were referenced in the RNC e-mails sent between Berenson and GOP/WH and DOJ OLC on to-be-revealed memorandum. It's likely OLC, WH, and outside counsel at Sidley Austin still share this information: Berenson changed his tune on rendition, suggestion that there had been some sort of official memorandum issue by the WH/OLC to formerly assigned WH counsel."

The plural is "memorand_A_".

"A. Illusory Problems With OLC: Retroactively Devised, At Odds With Original, Subsequent WH Reliance on DOJ OLC

If WH attempts to pawn this problem of the US Atty e-mails to the DoJ OLC, then they've got a bigger problem: All the other memorandum would also be suspect. Question: "When did the WH know that the OLC guidance was suspect; what reforms were made; how were these problems handled; and why no public firings?""

"I-F" is the biggest word in the English language -- because so often falsely intended as proof of something other than supported presumption.

Stop pretending you know how to do law and investigations related thereto.

"C. Rendition Memorandum and Berenson's Presence

Recall, John You was assigned to OLC."

The spelling is "Y_O-O_".

"Posted by:
Date: May 30, 2007 12:00 AM"

SC = sound. As in, what is the sound of no hand clapping?

WH INSTRUCTIONS: APPARENT WIDELY DISSEMINATED CRITERIA TO IGNORE CONSTITUTION

"Goodling kept mentioning something about 'waivers on the hiring freeze' as part of her testimony...hmmm, what about it? It was important enough for her to mention it at least twice."

Posted by: Karen Johnson
Date: May 30, 2007 12:22 AM

---------
Good catch, well noted. These are issues of violating the Constitution, circumventing the attorney duty to defend the Constitution.

"Interim US Attorney" sounds like a work around the Senate: they were really permanent positions, intended to fill a position that had not been filled -- as required _before_ being vacated -- by a Senate-confirmed appointee.

As a reminder, Goodling testified: "In cases of extraordinary need, however, the Department would sometimes grant a limited waiver to the hiring freeze in order to enable an interim or Acting U.S. Attorney to staff a crucial position. I reviewed a number of these waiver requests during my tenure in EUOUSA and the Attorney General’s office. While in EOUSA, I referred significant waiver requests to Mr. Sampson. When I moved to the Office of the Attorney General, my position in EOUSA was left vacant, so I continued to oversee these waiver requests."

What does "extraordinary" need mean; and where was that defined in a policy, memo, or some sort of discussion?

When was this limited waiver _not_ granted, despite a request?

Who in the Senate knew what Goodling was doing; and what were their communications to the White House on the non-involvement of the Senate?

1. POTUS Approved Criteria to Ignore Constitution, Presumably Concurred by DOJ OLC

First question that comes to mind: How does the President get a "'waiver" to judicial appointments on immigration and US Attorney hirings. The Constitution is clear. Exactly what was Goodling "waiving" -- the clauses in the Constitution requiring Senate involvement; or was there a set of DOJ guidance documents that justified why the Constitution could be ignored so long as specific criteria were defined and met.

What were the criteria DoJ staff counsel were using to "approve" ignoring the Constitution; and where were these "factors to ignore the Constitution" promulgated not just on US Attorney firings, but FISA, prisoner abuse, NSA surveillance, FISA court bypassing, DOJ OPR blocking.

2. Funding

Congress has to agree with the waiver by not stopping it but continuing to fund the positions, regardless where they are. Congress could deny the funds to any position -- except the President -- an effectively get staff fired. Put that aside.

3. DoJ Workflows vs. Goodling Assertions On Waiver Policy Formality

Let's presume, for the moment, Goodling's assertion is true, there were waivers: We keep hearing WH Counsel works with OLC, so this brings the DOJ work flows into the picture. -- There should be a DOJ work flow to support her assertion and a waiver process discussed, formalized, documented, decided, and a formal work flow letter signed and filed. If there isn't this line of evidence, then she has another problem: An asserted wavier without documentation; and nothing traceable to a delegation letter.

Yet, If she's telling the truth, and there is a delegation letter for the waivers, AG cannot credibly explain his inconsistencies: He's had time to review his workflows -- they're his documents, delegations, and things he supposedly did. BTW: He was there, and only one reality happened.

Most likely: The decision -- and attached requirement to ignore something -- was from the WH, and DOJ Staff was brought in after the US Attorney e-mail disclosures to put bandaids on this. It's not working. The lines of evidence, time lines, and asserted decisions are not consistent with what's required to have documented these supposed decisions. Goodling can't justify deleting records with "updates" when she's relying on a non-documented "oral" opinion. That makes no sense.

A 'waiver" appears to have been the OLC-WH counsel attempt to explain away what the President had a legal requirement to do: Work with Congress as the Constitution provides, not get a waiver that sounds like a self-issued waiver he issued in re FISA warrants. Who approved the waiver; and did the President self-issue the waiver on something that he could not waive?

EVIDENCE REVIEW

1. Work flow Summary: Process to Ignore Constitution

Where is a single diagram of the work flows required to support the original decision on waivers; who was involved; and how was this work flow coordinated with AG Gonzalez?

2. Subpoenas

Has this work flow-related data on waivers as outlined in 1 been disclosed in full to Congress; if not, why not.

3. Criteria to Violate Constitution With POTUS Concurrence, Senate Silence

What criteria was used to "approve" the waiver; and how was this coordinated with POTUS, WH, Rove, and WH public affairs office?

4. Application of criteria to other POTUS illegal activity

How was the criteria used to approve a waiver, and confirm that it met the President's objectives -- that of ignoring the Senate and Constitution -- applied in other areas related to FISA violations, circumventing FISA court, prisoner abuse, rendition, illegal interrogations?

Where were these criteria used, contained, developed in conjunction with Cheney and Addington?

How were the criteria used by DOD GC Haynes and DoD Stimson [Not DoJ Sampson] in reviewing (or not reviewing) DOD illegalities at Guantanamo?

What can we say about the timing of the development of this criteria; WH Counsel Berenson's knowledge of the activity; and his departure: DiD Berenson timely withdraw as required from WH Counsel; or did he knew about this criteria, but did not remove himself?

How was a perceived-asserted "non compliance" with this "criteria to ignore the Constitution"" used as a basis to target someone? [Plame]

Were there checklists and guidance created after problems surfaced [disclosures of the illegal activity]; or was as we saw with the NYT disclosures on NSA violations no ready response/approach to create evidence to new disclosures?

To what extent was this "criteria to justify ignoring the Constitution" used as an incentive to keep internal communications hidden inside EOP-RNC e-mails; and/or drive unreasonable expectations that documents would not be disclosed?

When Spike Bowman [formely with DOJ/NAVY] reviewed the illegal/abusive Guantanamo activities, was he aware of this criteria to "ignore the Constitution"; if not, why the reluctance to permit disclosure that NAVY IG document formats were provided to the Joint Staff in 2002 on the prisoner abuse; was there something EOP did to the NAVY to induce them to strip the identifying information from the NAVY IG report; or did NAVY IG not timely act to mitigate known violations of Geneva in re poisoner abuse in 2001-2 when first occurred?

Don't Believe The Hype: The "War On Terror" Is Actually A War OF Terror, On YOU:

"As a close look at his emerging schedule shows, "Big Time" Cheney's influence is vast, his portfolio unprecedented--just the way his boss wants it to be." - Time February 4th, 2001

Time magazines adulatory pre-9/11 prose aside, Bush is not in fact Cheney's boss and never was. It's exactly the other way around.

"This is an old science which has been perpetuated down through the ages, right down to the exploitation of religions, including what has been dubbed the "New Age", which is just the old age stuff rehashed. Those attempting to subvert freedom understand that people look for escapist philosophies. The next phase of Cheney and Bush's agenda for their globalist corporatist masters is for people to start getting picked up and "disappeared" right out of their homes, "thanks" to government and government policies. Initially neighbors are expected to say, "well they must have done something wrong because the government wouldn't have done it otherwise," until the neighbors begin to see too many getting picked up, and it might even be themselves you see, and then we'll all be in the same little cell as Winston Smith was in Orwell's 1984, with his next door neighbor, and his next door neighbor will say, "Stay away Winston. They caught me. I'm a thought criminal. I didn't know it myself. It was my daughter that found it. Thank goodness you caught me before I got worse."

Bush is attempting to secretly test for "psychological problems" amongst the general population, and this is straight out of Orwell's "1984." Then, the government will attempt to use these "results" to "prevent" you, and everyone potentially, under the law, in the name of "safety". But law enforcement can only take everyone to the same stage eventually, they are supposed to keep everybody safe. Under this vile scheme, we can have no rights whatsoever, obviously, because we're all "designated" under some "law" or another. So there's to be
a law about everything, as it pretty well is already. So, we're hemmed in by laws and compliance with laws and the ritual of showing that we're complying with laws which takes away
all rights. All decision making in fact goes out the window under the pretense of "keeping you safe", and that's what is taught in law enforcement. Since this whole system is designed
to enslave us, it can't go in any other direction, it's only natural for control freaks, and the main control freaks get to the top. You see other departments using it from the military right through to the dogcatcher, and then they all go on a roll to cash in because they think it's a free-for-all, where they can pass any kind of law they want and get their way, which they
do for a while. That's a standard tactic as well in repression throughout history. This is done until there's so much chaos with all their cross laws and different departments standing
on each others toes, that eventually it starts crumbling and falling apart, and then of course trying to deal with that creates even more synthetic terror, which feeds the protection racket, rather than taking a good look at themselves causing 99.9% of the problems in the first place. Why should they? They are rolling in your cash. During the Inquisition, the church was a big powerful force. The Roman Catholic Church then went on the rampage. Entire villages were called out when the Inquisition arrived, and you were given a chance to "confess" as a whole village. They'd say, "we know there are people here who have been thinking about or doing Magic, so if you tell us right now we'll go easy with you. If you don't, we'll have to torture it out of you." Under the new game, you will be a thought criminal for thinking about terrorism. The "beauty" of this scheme for the sociopathic psycopaths advocating eugenics while running the asylum is that they themselves repeat the concept of terrorism constantly in our media, all while actually creating terrorism through numerous policys paid for with our own money." - from Alan Watt

Conspiracy? Bigtime.

Not stovepiping, not intelligence failure: they just made stuff up: THE HAGUE, 23/05/07 - Foreign Minister Verhagen said in a letter to parliament that Vlemmo NV does not exist as far as he knows. But the actually defunct company was named by US authorities as a link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. On or around 25 July 2002, the OUSDP of the US, Douglas Feith's operation, gave a briefing entitled 'Assessing the Relationship Between Iraq and al-Qaida'. The report said Bin Laden's al-Hijra Company had contacts with the Netherlands-based company Vlemmo NV, which was allegedly involved in the purchase by Iraq of military equipment, Verhagen confirmed. But "the company Vlemmo is unknown in the Netherlands,""The company has never been registered with the Chamber of Commerce in the Netherlands and is also not known to the tax service. That the company may have served as a front for illegal arms trade with Iraq is equally unknown to me." Feith was one of several neocon Republicans who cooked up now-discredited lies linking Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. One of the purported links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda Feith attempted to point to involved Vlemmo. Although the Dutch government announced that they'd found no evidence whatsoever that any such company had ever existed in the Netherlands, and Feith was obviously embroidering certain connections, it seemed doubtful he'd make up an entire company, as that would be too easy to discredit. A Google search shows that a company called Vlemmo NV operated out of Antwerp, Belgium at least as early as 1997 until it went bankrupt in 2004. Documents indicate a bureaucratic register in which a Vlemmo shareholders meeting is discussed, and a ruling of an Antwerp bankruptcy court, declaring Vlemmo officially bankrupt. Alan Foley, head of WINPAC led the CIA's analysis of Iraq's purported WMD, is also at the very center of what happened. There were strong indications that Alan Foley all along was toeing a line he did not believe. Several days after Bush's State of the Union speech, Alan Foley briefed student officers at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, DC. Melvin Goodman, who had retired from the CIA and was then on the university's faculty, brought Alan Foley into the secure communications area of the Fort McNair compound, thanked Alan Foley for addressing the students and asked him what weapons of mass destruction he believed would be found after the invasion. "Not much, if anything," Goodman recalled Foley responding at that time.

So why, then, would Foley at WINPAC and Feith at OUSDP report that Iraq had WMD? One day in December 2002, Alan Foley called his senior production managers to his office. He had a clear message for the men and women who controlled the output of the center's analysts: "If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so." The directive was a strong suggestion that cherry-picking and slanting not only would be tolerated, but might even be rewarded. This event has also appeared "Pretext for War" by James Bamford: "...within a few months [after the September 11 attacks], many [at the CIA] began getting pressure to come up with Saddam Hussein's fingerprints on 9/11 and Al Qaeda. One of those who felt the pressure was a DO case officer who spent years running agents overseas, but who had been reassigned to the unit charged with finding WMD's in Iraq... According to the official, the group never found any indications of WMD in Iraq. "Where I was working, I never saw anything-no one else there did either," the officer said. Nevertheless, there was a great deal of pressure to find a reason to go to war with Iraq. The pressure was not just subtle; it was blatant. At one point in January 2003, the officers boss called a meeting and gave them their marching orders. "And he said, 'You know what-if Bush wants to go to war, it's your job to give him a reason to do so'... He said it at the weekly office meeting. And I just remember saying, 'This is something that the American public, if they ever knew, would be outraged'. And Lindsay Moran writes: "During my short tenure in Iraqi Operations, I met one woman who had covered Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program for more than a decade. She admitted to me, unequivocally, that the CIA had no definitive evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed WMD, or that Iraq presented anything close to an imminent threat to the United States. Another CIA analyst, whose opinion I’d solicited about the connection between Al-Qa’ida and Iraq, looked at me almost shamefacedly, shrugged, and said, "They both have the letter q?" And a colleague who worked in the office covering Iraqi counterproliferation reported to me that her mealy-mouthed pen pusher of a boss had gathered together his minions and announced, "Let’s face it. The president wants us to go to war, and our job is to give him a reason to do it." Any serious Congressional strategy to end this war would include nationally televised hearings about this and all the other lies that got us into Iraq. The seriousness of our Congress and Senate can be judged by such hearings' existance or non-existence. - from an article by Jonathan Schwarz

Feith, whom Gen. Tommy Franks called "the stupidest guy on the face of the earth", in his zeal to establish the links Cheney and Bush so strongly suggested through their dutiful minions would be rewarded, apparently got confused by who founded Vlemmo, much less whether both Hussein and Bin Laden were linked to it. Both were rich. Hussein had investments in numerous American companies, just as Cheney and Bush had or have foreign holdings. Feith's entire job was to splice together connections with the slightest threads. That he and OSP could never really come up with much shows just how unrelated Bin Laden and Hussein were. Then, of course there's the well-established and well known fact that Bin Laden completely despised secular Arab governments. But never underestimate the ability of the traitorous Cheney and Bush to sucessfully capitalize on the old arabic saying that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Today, after Cheney and Bush lied America into these wars, Iraq has become yet another breeding-ground for terrorists, just as the GOP under Reagan itself managed in Afghanistan to grow Al Qaeda from a small handful to hundreds of thousands by printing up and distributing $51 million dollars worth of Jihadist texbooks glorifying terrorism, and distributing them to hundreds of madrassas which they also funded and even built. Why? Becuase the oil and weapons manufacturers backing Cheney and Bush make trillions of dollars by creating endless wars against the terrorism they create, driving up the price of oil for which they then gouge Americans every day at the pump, now at well over $3.00 per gallon, compared to the .90 cents per gallon during President Clinton's two far more peaceful and prosperous terms in office, when very few American Servicepeople lost their lives in any conflict. But Cheney and Bush are also seeking to assist the establishment of a "New World Order", and all of these wars and their human and financial drains against America are part of that plan.

According to USAToday, "U.S. Taxpayers are now "on the hook" for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined. Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest. This hidden debt is the amount taxpayers would have to pay immediately to cover government's financial obligations. Like a mortgage, it will cost more to repay the debt over time. Every U.S. household would have to pay about $31,000 a year to do so in 75 years. The Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board, which sets federal accounting standards, is considering requiring the government to adopt accounting rules similar to those for corporations. The change would move Social Security and Medicare onto the government's income statement and balance sheet, instead of keeping them separate. The White House and the Congressional Budget Office oppose the change, arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them. Chad Stone, chief economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says it can be misleading to focus on the government's unfunded liabilities because Medicare's financial problems overwhelm the analysis. "There is a shortfall in Medicare and Medicaid that is potentially explosive, but that is related to overall trends in health care spending," he says." Lies, Lies, and More Lies. These people make it up as they go along, changing the rules by the minute to suit themselves by
stealing our wealth to pay for our enslavement.

Walter Burien, who has devoted years to the study of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, has shown that in 1999 ALONE, by investing OUR tax monies, OUR government EARNED a total of 8.5 TRILLION Dollars, AFTER expenses. That's 8.5 TRILLION THEY earned in ONE year on OUR MONEY. Mr. Burien: "Keep in mind, Government only wants you to see one side of the picture; The DEBT. This is so that you will turn your back to the debt in fear or disgust and look the other way. Now, look at how much money OUR Government has to employ, buy off, and CONTROL; the BEST Marketers, Psychologists, Strategists, Takeover Specialists, Entertainment Propagandists, etc. etc. etc. Could it be that OUR very own Government over the last several decades has been promoting to those fortune 500 companies, MANY of which our Government OWNS, through Bond - Loan investment / stock ownership [EXAMPLES: 82% stock ownership of Microsoft Corporation, Disney 61%, AOL - Time Warner 58%, EXXON 72%]

that they should manufacture abroad, so that Government would realize greater returns on their investments of OUR money, at the direct expense of WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE in terms of JOBS and OUR OWN wealth retention,

thus ACCOMPLISHING the laying of the groundwork for "balancing" world wealth, which is the primary foundation block of nothing other than the NEW WORLD ORDER? OUR Government wouldn't do that for a few extra trillions of NON-TAX-INCOME dollars right? Well, sorry to have to break it to you but you're WRONG. In the 60's, most government investment funds were restricted to a cap of 5% to a maximum of 10% invested outside of the USA. By 2000, that restriction has been increased in many a case to over 45% and in some cases no restriction at all per percent of International investments held. Guess who, or should I say "what" made the big overall profit from 911?"

Funny Mr. Burien should ask, since the Dresser company was found legally liable for all Asbestos-related claims, and the Bush family owned large blocks of Dresser stock, but Cheney bailed them out when his company, Halliburton (moving, now, to Dubai to avoid U.S. tax and regulatory obligations) aquired Dresser. Ultimately, the asbestos health liabilitys caused Cheney's Halliburton Co. stock to plummet in value, due to the billions of dollars of asbestos-related lawsuits Halliburton incurred as a result of that aquisition. The WTC Twin Towers were loaded with Asbestos, but GOP appointee Christine Todd Whitman, as head of our U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, deliberately lied about this, allowing the recovery workers at the WTC to continue breathing toxic asbestos-filled air, many of whom have now died from related diseases as a result. The WTC would have cost Halliburton $15 billion to mitigate its asbestos problem in conformity with law. Bush instead touted tort "reform" in a State of The Union speech, specifically singling out the need to eliminate the "Frivolous asbestos lawsuits", just as he forced "reform" of our U.S. Statute Of Limitations for Medical Malpractice actions, thereby reducing the time limitation from 7 years down to 3, effectively stealing millions of Americans current and future health, safety, welfare and well-being, Americans who were or who may be disabled due to malpractice, preventing them from recovering anything, and thus bestowing yet another trillions of dollars gift upon the insurance interests, while disincentivising the Medical profession from responsibility to their own performance. Cheney and Bush thus effectively sold our very American health itself, as if that were something they obtained a legal right to steal along with everything else in our land when they stole our elections.

And yet again, our American health is merely small change to Cheney and Bush and their backers. Simultaneously, budgets for virtually all benefits, public assistance and healthcare were slashed, deliberately convoluted regulations and arbitrary "policys" were promulgated designed to exclude and prevent numerous intentionally marginalized groups from obtaining numerous wage and health insurance coverages both private and public which they had earned and paid for, while obstructions have been emplaced in the form of an ever-growing hydra-headed beurocratic "system", deliberately imposing all manner of virtually impossible to navigate paperwork and "eligibility" "requirements" foisted on the very individuals who by definition are at the very time when they need it most, least able to manage these phenomenally byzantine, intentionally unreasonable and inaccessible "rules" "overseen" by an exploding class of "administrators", who themselves in virtually every case do get the full benefits and insurances which they are quite well-paid to deny the same public they endlessly talk in media promotional material, interminable meetings, and elsewhere of "serving". Here one cannot help but recall Rod Serling's Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man", in which it turns out that hideous Aliens mean by that phrase to literally "Serve Man", on a platter.

The Halliburton windfall and theft of millions of votes, as you may gather, were of course not nearly enough, and like a canape merely whet these honest workmen's appetite, these often not unphotogenic creatures who mildly, almost off-handedly represent themselves as nothing less than paragons of virtue, abstemiousness, family values, selfless public service, charity, probity, prudence and independent small government protectors of patriotic righteousness, despite their penchant for crossdressing, pedophilia, and mind-boggling numbers of zeros after the double, triple, quadruple and quintuple digits of their payoffs, bribes, no-bid contracts, defecits, and of course, body counts, so in addition, WTC Building Number 7, which was not hit by any airplanes in the 9/11 attacks, and which contained thousands if not millions of records relating to Enron, WorldCom and other SEC/DOJ investigations into numerous felony-level corporate frauds ongoing at that time, was also destroyed on 9/11.

Walter Burien again: "You now know the primary reason why Gorbechev went democratic, more money = more control. We showed Gorbachev the blueprint for true communism. In Russia's past, the state openly owned everything. In the USA the state truly owns everything, but through walls of well-masked corporate veils created over the decades. The US Government now has more control over more wealth amassed from the people then old Russia ever thought was possible or ever dreamed about." For the Hegelian ochestrators of our "free" America and world, the function of a Parliament or a Congress is purely psychological; merely to "allow" individuals to feel that their opinions have some value, and to allow government to take advantage of whatever wisdom the 'peasant' may accidentally demonstrate. As their patron saint Hegel put it: "By virtue of this participation, subjective liberty and conceit, with their general opinion, (individuals) can show themselves palpably efficacious and enjoy the satisfaction of feeling themselves to count for something." War, the organized conflict of nations for Hegelians, is merely "the visible outcome of the clash between ideas". Following the outbreak of war in 1939, Social Creditor C.H. Douglas said, "The international money marketeers care no more for the immolation of the peoples of a continent that for the death of a sparrow"; and "Unfortunately the world is in the grasp of theorists to whom misery and death of millions is a grain of sand beside the working out of their designs".

As John Dewey, the Hegelian darling of the modern educational system, expressed this sociopathic view of human beings and life itself: "War is the most effective preacher of the vanity of all merely finite interests, it puts an end to that selfish egoism of the individual by which he would claim his life and his property as his own or as his family's." And here you thought you were so lucky to enjoy free enterprise and own property. Above all, the Hegelian doctrine is the divine right of States as opposed to the mere rights of you or I. The State for these criminals is God on earth: "The march of God in history is the cause of the existence of states, their foundation is the power of Reason realizing itself as will. Every state, whatever it be, participates in the Divine essence. The State is not the work of human art, only Reason could produce it." For Hegel the individual is nothing, the individual has no rights, morality consists solely in following a leader. To psychopathic elitists like The Order in the USA, The Group in the UK, Illuminati in Germany, and the Politburo in Russia, the State is supreme, and a self-appointed elite running the State acting as God on earth. Hence, none other than Monica Goodling.

Have you noticed that on every phone call to every nameless faceless entity, each time we speak to a different stranger who accesses all of our information, yet we know nothing at all about them? But first, we are assured in the most condescending and unctious tones possible that we are being recorded and "may be monitored" to assure us of excellent service and the very highest standard of customer care. And that is exactly what we get: the recorded message, informing us that we are being recorded, and nothing more. No actual excellence. No actual service. No actual standard let alone the highest. And no care, customer or otherwise. The thinktanks have figured out that reality doesn't matter in the least. Just say the word Excellent, get as much information as possible, do nothing, then turn around and market yet again to us, otherwise rip us off, or sell our info to some other pal's outfit. Now that's inspired patriotic American leadership.

Horrendously illegal plans include the already begun widespread human dental and brain implantation of radio-controlled microchips, advanced technological manipulation of earth's natural weather systems and biosphere through electromagnetic HAARP technologys, genetic modification of all food, and control of all governments and populations through a central U.N. administration, which in the very near future plans to turn America into MexAmeriCanada, erasing our borders and imposing the despicably unamerican notion of ID requirements. What's your name? Show us your papers. Take him away. Oh, and by the way, Bush has just aquired his official Dictator license in the event of any emergency. What constitutes an emergency, you ask? Silly goose, that's up to Bush. These are not conspiracy 'theories", these are actual ongoing international conspiracys which threaten the freedom and sovereignty of all individuals, of America, of our world, and of Humanity itself. There are thousands of illegitimate forms of technological and financial control and coercion being perpetrated against you at the whim of millions of petty tyrannical psycopaths involved in these activities all the time whether or not you are aware of this, or take the time to educate yourself to be aware of these facts. If you have no problem with the existence of this type of activity, then as Benjamin Franklin stated: "Those Who Would Trade Freedom For Security Deserve Neither". TV is rife with maliciously designed mind-control, as is most advertising and a vast preponderance of our supposedly "Free" press.

It's a serious enough offense, both legally and morally, to enact an undisclosed deleterious agenda, against all right, but insidious matters of public corruption and conspiracy to cloak a demonstrably pernicious agenda under any guise, all professions or claims to "impartiality", "public good", "legality", "service" or "utility" notwithstanding, and cloaking such actions and processes in the color of law, is an abuse of every American and international right of Equal Protection and Due Process, and constitutes a form of essentially institutionalized barratry. For the vast majority of Americans for decades now, obtaining anything like justice under our legal system has become like everything else: a matter of cash. This is the basic definition of Fascism. The DOJ proceedings go a long way towards explaining why this has been the case, but fixing it remains a genuine problem. Meanwhile, the thinktanks have seen to it that we have numerous other problems to deal with.

Information on the historical roots and exact mechanisms of these profound depradations of human and American freedom are at CuttingThroughTheMatrix.net, arguably one of the only sources of unvarnished truth in cogent terms available online. By turns brilliant and charmingly disaffected, Canadian hermit (for lack of a better word) and phenomenally knowledgable Alan Watt authors CTTMDC, giving a chilling glimpse into the reality of a current and planned dystopia which makes Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World look like respective episodes of "Father Knows Best". Watt claims to earn solely from sales of his material, and his site carries no advertising, which makes it almost unique among a number of other sites which do carry ads, and which do not present this material with anything like the authorative analysis and finely-sifted content Watt brings to bear on subjects much of the general public hear very little or nothing about. Watt has many free audio "Blurbs"; mini-dissertations posted for downloading in MP3 format, along with transcripts and numerous downloads of appearances on a growing number of radio shows. There is more truth at CTTMDC than most ever learn. You may wish to listen sitting down, however, as certain portions of Watt's exposition may produce fantods, pique, and feelings of betrayal normally associated only with events such as receiving a Medical Bill for a 10-minute checkup with diagnostics in an amount that would suffice to pay for an Ultra Deluxe month in sunny Biarritz, plus round trip airfare. For two.

Cheney and Bush, along with their enablers have thus, and, one is regrettably forced to assume, in numerous other ways arrogated a vast portion of American wealth to activate nothing less than a profoundly illegal, unequal and unamerican social engineering juggernaut, and have further used our money to pay for a war which they manifestly lied us into, against a country having nothing to do with the nonetheless puppet creature Bin Laden. Then, Halliburton's stock soared on no-bid contracts for that very same war, from which numerous American Armed Forces Servicemen's And Servicewomen's votes were despicably "purged" in Karl Rove's "Caging" scheme, uncovered by Greg Palast when Rove inadvertently emailed his "Caging Lists" to the investigative journalist. It gives no American any pleasure to document the depth of corruption in which this country has been mired by the Republican machine, except insofar as doing so may provide some means of reversing these phenomenally unjust, illegal and actually uneccessary set of problems intentionally foisted on us by nothing less than a very, very large conspiracy. Democrats, to be sure, are not exempt from some portion of responsibility; but for the most part that has been allowing the GOP to have their way at all, when all reason, right and law plainly indicated that most GOP policys and particularly their philosophies at least since the time of Joe McCarthy, and actually since 1750, and even quite substantially before that, one realizes, after the level of violation of everything one has been taught one's entire life one's Nation represents becomes such that research into the actual causes of what has been and is actually going on becomes a prime condition of retaining one's belief merely in one's own senses.

These criminals, for there is no other word, have continuously operated to rapaciously devour our American freedoms, rights, laws, customs and wealth like some radioactive species of pirahnya in "Dr. No" might enjoy a choice fillet mignon; that is to say reflexively, instinctually and without even the slightest consideration of choice, or even any extant possibility of remorse. Even Piranyah, with their speck-sized brains, show more regard for the life of their own than these murderous traitorous cowardly election theives, swindlers and instigators of terror and subsequent phony "terror" protection rackets, ALL of which they steal our money to pay for. WTC Owner Larry Silverstein admitted on television to having specifically given orders to "pull" WTC 7, which is a reference to controlled demolition. The BBC aired a live report that WTC Building #7 had "collapsed" 23 minutes before the actual event occured in honest-to-goodness real life. Incredibly, WTC 7 was actually shown still standing perfectly intact in the background of that very same live report, while BBC reporter Jane Stanley nonetheless had either the premeditated audacity and guile, the hapless misfortunate gullibility, the plain witlessness, or some unimaginable combination thereof to deliver with a straight face her report that WTC 7 had in fact "collapsed", as it stood there right behind her the whole time. The only thing which could possibly have been more through the roof, as it were, would to have then seen #7 actually go down in real time behind her after Stanley delivered the news, and who knows, some enterprising studio whizkid may in fact have that mindblower stashed somewhere. Look for it on eBay in a few parsecs. The tragic video of 9/11, WTC#7 and numerous documentary accounts of all this and much, much more is all publicly available for everyone to see free of charge, both on YouTube and on Google Video. That is one nice thing about the truth. It's still free. But not so fast, partner; sure as shooting the Cabal now wants to split up the internet, originally developed by DARPA as an unbreakable communications network in the event of The Big One, and already paid for by our tax dollars, natch, along "tiers", so your average schmuck will have to get his info slower than your premium swell.

An exposition of the precursors to the present situation, written in the 1960's by the scholarly Ferdinand Lundberg is the classic "The Rich And The Super Rich", still available in many well-stocked used paperback outlets, if you actually do know what paperbacks are, as it is somewhat doubtful that Ms. Goodling and many of her generation, judging by this Monica's testimony in the uber-corrupt DOJ embroglio, have anything to do with words if they can at all help it, other than to delete emails from Karl Rove, Kyle Samson, Tim Griffin and Alberto Gonzales, in between deleting emails from Clairol, Nieman Marcus, and Messiah Alumni. Kids these days. It is remarkable to note how little, really, has changed in the 30-odd years since Lundberg penned his treatise on these mechanisms which have unerringly operated to undermine the very values which, with nary a blush, trace of irony, or nanoseconds hesitation the GOP unceasingly purports to uphold with nothing so much as a profoundly manifest and self-evident legitimacy. And they do care so for the widows and orphans and puppydogs.

"Throughout its tenure, the Cheney-Bush administration has been systematically dismantling every governmental agency -- Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety Health Administration, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Department of State, United States Agency for International Development, Department of Energy, National Institute of Health, Department of Justice, Federal Drug Administration, Department of Education, Smithsonian Institute, Federal Emergency Management Administration, Forest Service, Department of Homeland Security. All have been staffed with political appointees whose primary qualifications and sole mandate has been to undermine the very charters of the organization they are supposed to lead. Even the core principles of democratic governance have been consistently, systematically and deliberately weakened: rule by law -- transparency and accountability -- checks and balances -- the public good. This administration's contempt for international law is only exceeded by its dismissal of habeas corps and its aspiration for an imperial presidency as evidenced in Bush's "signing statements" that he claims gives him the right to disobey over 750 laws.

Cheney, Bush, and their corporatist globalist backers are a clear and present danger to America and to the world. They are conducting the most radical, systematic, and regressive attack on our government and our world by any party in our nations history." - J.H. Clippinger

Substantial evidence exists and numerous technical experts state that WTC 7 imploded in a controlled demolition, which means that the building had to have been prepared over a period of at least several days prior to 9/11. Controlled demolitions by definition cannot occur without preparation. Since our Congress and Senate have repeatedly refused to follow the will of fully 90% of the American public by count of several recent polls, there is no longer any excuse for the American legal community not to prosecute Cheney, Bush and their numerous accomplices, outside of our U.S. Constitutional Impeachment process, which must still be enforced if our American honor, integrity, Republic, Constitutional democracy or Rule Of Law are ever to be restored, renewed, and continued. Halliburton has recently built a number of prison camps on American soil, and several all-new state-of-the art prisons have a number of remaining vacancies. In view of such thoughtfully provided facilities, no American worthy of the name can help but feel at least a tiny twinge of simple unbidden Patriotic pride, along with a whole heaping helping of honest neighborly obligation to do one's civic duty by enforcing that most basic of good old homespun plain-spoken hardworking heartland Republican virtues: the Swift Administration of Equal Justice Under The Law, Regardless of Race, Creed, Color, National Origin, Political, Financial, or Any Other Affiliation. - incorporating comments from Digby's Hullabaloo

" Well Mr Troll & other members of your "Internets" Disinformation machine - let us now speak plainly in Standard American English - FEAR THIS - all the Investigative Committees already have the goods on BushCo -soup to nuts - abuses at Gitmo to Cheney outting Plame. My personal belief is that every question the Hill Staffers are asking particularly regarding criminal wrong doing - well they already have the answers to these questions.

Posted by: Al in Austex
Date: May 30, 2007 04:15 AM

That's it Al. And I like Mrs. Pastreppon's notion of fighting them over here. Hang on to your seats folks, the curtain has to be pulled back and there are going to be some ugly scenes. Unless you liked the movie "Gladiator"

JNagarya-Might I suggest you employ the traditional written form? As far as one can tell, you’re desperately in search of a flame war, but it’s not going to happen for you when all your posts are gibberish.

So, we're going to fire the Republican hacks that were appointed to judgeships through a corrupt process, right?

Those conservatives sure do love their affirmative action, don't they? As long as the people being helped out are rich white males, affirmative action is perfectly fine.

Here is anteresting article by Carol Rosenberg, on July 14, 2002

http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/recounttroopslandplumdcjobs.htm

Hooray for Mr. Guadalupe Gonzalez! Sue those bitches and get this stuff revealed.

As an attorney in a big federal bureaucracy the "oral advice" bit doesn't make sense. The reason to ask for advice from our counsel's office is to cover our collective butts if and when the S@#T ever hits the fan. An oral opinion just doesn't provide much in the way of coverage for the requesting office, or for that matter, protection from the counsel's office providing the advice since an oral opinion may be misconstrued.