Kucinich not stopping with Cheney, plans Bush impeachment resolution too

This is quit curious, the democrats vote against the impeachment resolution and the Republicans vot eto keep the bill on the table. Huh?

Update at bottom: House Republicans vote against Democratic-led motion to end debate on impeachment measure)

Presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who brought an impeachment resolution against Vice President Dick Cheney to the House floor on Tuesday, says he is also planning a similar resolution to impeach President Bush.

The news came during a conference call Kucinich held with supporters Monday evening, although technical problems kept most on the call from being able to hear the congressman.

But activist David Swanson, who spoke directly with Kucinich during the call, summarized the contents of his conversation in an email:

Read more

Author: Bush nominee helped mask FBI’s pre-9/11 failures and kept al Qaeda’s infiltration of US intelligence from view

This article is quit interesting in that it points to the new DOJ nominee Michael B. Mukasey as the Judge who when presiding over the trial of the blind sheik Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman was the alleged mastermind of the first WTC attacks in 1993. What makes it interesting is that the Judge was instrumental in keeping the testimony of Ali A. Mohamed who worked for both Al Qaida and the FBI out of the picture. This article asserts that this was to cover up the incompetence of the FBI and the fact that they were unable to prevent the attacks. This of course is not true. The FBI was actively involved in the attacks and it was Ali A. Mohamed who could testify to that effect. It would also out Ali A. Mohamed as a long term agent of the FBI who was involved in numerous False flag Al Qaida attacks on US property. He is known as the man who trained the Arabs involved in the 911 attacks. He became an FBI operative somewere around ’89-’90. This was when George H> W. Bush was president and Cheney secretary of defence. If the Judge was involved in this cover up than they have found another co-conspirator who will never allow for a new 911 investigation and who will act as Bush’s consigliere.

This is the first of two op/ed exposes by Peter Lance, the best-selling author of Triple Cross, which will be released by HarperCollins in a new edition next month.

In the coverage of Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee to replace Alberto Gonzales, the line in his resume that has resonated the most with the media is his experience presiding over the 1995 terrorism trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.

The blind Sheikh, a top al Qaeda confederate who was cited in the infamous Crawford Texas PDB just weeks before 9/11, was convicted with nine others in the so-called “Day of Terror Plot” to blow up New York’s bridges and tunnels, the U.N. and the FBI’s New York office.

Citing the trial in a Sept. 20 New York Times piece that lionized the ex-judge, reporter Adam Liptak described how Mukasey, with “a few terse, stern and prescient remarks,” sentenced the blind sheik to life in prison:

“Judge Mukasey said he feared the plot could have produced devastation on ‘a scale unknown in this country since the Civil War’ that would make the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, which had left six people dead, ‘almost insignificant by comparison.'”

Liptak was correct in citing the 1993 Twin Towers bombing in his story, but he failed to mention that the “Day of Terror” trial was really a desperate attempt by the FBI’s New York office and prosecutors for the Southern District of New York (Mukasey’s old office) to mop up after their failure to stop the blind Sheikh’s “jihad army” prior to its first two attacks on U.S. soil: the murder of Rabbi Meier Kahane in 1990 and the Trade Center bombing on Feb. 26, 1993.

Read more

Worse, during the 1995 trial, Judge Mukasey helped bury the significance of Ali A, Mohamed, a shadowy figure who was working at the time for both Osama bin Laden and the FBI.

Why Cheney Likes Mukasey for A.G.

In praising George W. Bush’s new choice for Attorney General, Vice President Dick Cheney identified one freedom in particular that retired Judge Michael Mukasey would protect: “the freedom from fear of terrorist attacks.”

The comment spoke volumes about the Bush administration’s priorities, fitting with the President’s oft-repeated claim that the government has no more important duty than to protect the American people.

That this claim goes unchallenged – despite the fact that the oath administered to federal officials demands that they defend the Constitution and says nothing about public safety – has been a leading indicator of how Bush and Cheney have exploited the self-centeredness of many Americans to amass unprecedented executive power.

Read more

Administrative remedy with NIST denied

Personally I would like to see fired USA Iglesias do the criminal 911 investigation, at least he has proven time and again that he has integrity and Cogones. 

September 14, 2007 – A conflict of interest is defined as a real or potential conflict between private / professional / political interests and official responsibilities of a government employee, government agency, and / or sub-contractors under government contract that occurs when a situation arises in which there is a divergence between personal, professional, or political interests and the obligations to the public, such that an impartial observer might reasonably question whether the actions and decisions, or lack of actions and decisions, taken by the government employee, government agency, and / or sub-contractors under government contract related to the situation would be influenced by consideration of the government employees’, government agencies’, and / or sub-contractors’ private, professional, or political interests.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), along with its sub-contractors working on the technical investigation to determine how World Trade Center Building Seven (WTC7) collapsed, has an undeniable, clearly definable, conflict of interest.  This conflict of interest places NIST in violation of the Data Quality Act.

Read more

The 911 Mystery Plane

On September 11 2001, as the eyes of the nation were focused on the gruesome events at the World Trade Center, the networks interrupted their coverage in New York with a breaking story from Washington. A large plane had just been sighted over the White House. Exactly when it first appeared is not certain, but the reports aired at about the time of the pentagon strike, or just before. Witnesses who saw the mystery plane say it circled over Washington. CNN’s Senior White House correspondent John King saw it while standing in Lafayette Park, directly across from the White House. King reported live that “about 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don’t see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky.”[1]

Kate Snow, another CNN correspondent, was standing two blocks from the Capitol when she saw the plane. Snow mentioned it on-air, adding that a security guard told her it was responsible for the decision to evacuate the seat of government.[2] In his book Against All Enemies, counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clark mentions that the decision to evacuate the White House was made after a warning from the Secret Service about the approach of an unidentified aircraft.[3] Was this the mystery plane? ABC, NBC and FOX News picked up the story on 9/11. CNN actually filmed the mysterious plane as it flew over the Capitol, but, unfortunately, it was too far away to identify.

Read more

As Alive as Elvis

Sunday, September 9. 2007

<!– –>

On Saturday morning I found a copy of the full Bin Laden (2007-09-07) video. It is 677 Megs and took over two hours to download. By Saturday evening I had finished analyzing the video, and I completed the audio analysis this morning. (There is also a 3-minute version that is the first 3 minutes from the full video.)

My findings? I strongly believe that Bin Laden is dead.

Let’s see how I did on my Friday prediction…

Read more

Read more

September 11: What You “Ought Not to Know”

by Greg Palast

Watch the BBC Report / Read the Transcript
September 10, 2007- On November 9, 2001, when you could still choke on the dust in the air near Ground Zero, BBC Television received a call in London from a top-level US intelligence agent. He was not happy. Shortly after George W. Bush took office, he told us reluctantly, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the FBI, “were told to back off the Saudis.”

We knew that. In the newsroom, we had a document already in hand, marked, “SECRET” across the top and “” – meaning this was a national security matter.

The secret memo released agents to hunt down two members of the bin Laden family operating a “suspected terrorist organization” in the USA. It was dated September 13, 2001 — two days too late for too many. What the memo indicates, corroborated by other sources, was that the agents had long wanted to question these characters … but could not until after the attack. By that time, these bin Laden birds had flown their American nest.

Back to the high-level agent. I pressed him to tell me exactly which investigations were spiked. None of this interview dance was easy, requiring switching to untraceable phones. Ultimately, the insider said, “Khan Labs.” At the time, our intelligence agencies were on the trail of Pakistan’s Dr. Strangelove, A.Q. Khan, who built Pakistan’s bomb and was selling its secrets to the Libyans. But once Bush and Condoleeza Rice’s team took over, the source told us, agents were forced to let a hot trail go cold. Specifically, there were limits on tracing the Saudi money behind this “Islamic bomb.”

Read more

Enough fear.

I got this from sergeant Kokesh’s site.
If you have the time than it might be good idea to let the folks in Iran know that like a lot of them you also know the truth about 9/11.
Spread the word and make this a huge site.

Go here

‘We Are Moving Rapidly Towards an Abyss’

United Nations chief weapons inspector Mohamed ElBaradei spoke to SPIEGEL about Iran’s last chance to convince the world of the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, his problems with the US government and his fear of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.

SPIEGEL: Mr. ElBaradei, the international community suspects that Iran aims to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies this. Have we now reached the decisive phase in which we will finally get an answer to this central question of world politics?Mohamed ElBaradei: Yes. The next few months will be crucial for the overall situation in the Middle East. Whether we move in the direction of escalation or in the direction of a peaceful solution.

Read more

NORTHCOM Plans 5 Day Martial Law Exercise

By Lee Rogers – Intel Strike Contributing Writer

The United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has just announced plans for an anti-terrorism exercise called Vigilant Shield 08. The exercise which is slated to run from October 15th to October 20th is described as a way to prepare, prevent and respond to any number of national crises. The exercise is simply a test case scenario for the implementation of martial law. Although the description of the exercise is disturbing, USNORTHCOM also announced that they are more prepared for a natural disaster and a terrorist attack after they used their response to Hurricane Katrina as a test laboratory. During Hurricane Katrina, authorities violated the constitutional rights of citizens by stealing people’s firearms and even relocating people against their will. These announcements are incredibly disturbing on a number of levels as the nature of Vigilant Shield 08 and the admission that Hurricane Katrina was used as a test laboratory shows that the government is actively preparing the military and government institutions for martial law.

Read more

When Wishful Thinking Replaces Resistance: Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran

by Prof. Jean Bricmont

Global Research, September 6, 2007
Counterpunch.org
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
Many people in the antiwar movement try to reassure themselves: Bush cannot possibly attack Iran. He does not have the means to do so, or, perhaps, even he is not foolish enough to engage in such an enterprise. Various particular reasons are put forward, such as: If he attacks, the Shiites in Iraq will cut the US supply lines. If he attacks, the Iranians will block the Straits of Ormuz or will unleash dormant terrorist networks worldwide. Russia won’t allow such an attack. China won’t allow it — they will dump the dollar. The Arab world will explode.

All this is doubtful. The Shiites in Iraq are not simply obedient to Iran. If they don’t rise against the United States when their own country is occupied (or if don’t rise very systematically), they are not likely to rise against the US if a neighboring country is attacked. As for blocking the Straits or unleashing terrorism, this will just be another justification for more bombing of Iran. After all, a main casus belli against Iran is, incredibly, that it supposedly helps the resistance against U.S. troops in Iraq, as if those troops were at home there. If that can work as an argument for bombing Iran, then any counter-measure that Iran might take will simply “justify” more bombing, possibly nuclear. Iran is strong in the sense that it cannot be invaded, but there is little it can do against long range bombing, accompanied by nuclear threats.

Read more

Democrat leader sabotaged antiwar candidates election. Complicit in continuation of the war

Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives
    By Matt Renner
    t r u t h o u t | Report    Thursday 06 September 2007

This letter sent from then DCCC Head Rahm Emanuel to Democratic House hopeful Jan Schneider underscores a DCCC policy of remaining “neutral” in primary races. Schneider soon came to doubt the letter’s sincerity.

    It was the day after Christmas 2005 and Christine Cegelis sat alone at her dining room table, trying to figure out how to tell her campaign volunteers that she was going to drop out of the 2006 Democratic primary.

    The next evening she was to meet with friends and colleagues who had organized around her candidacy for the House of Representatives in the 6th District of Illinois. Her volunteers had walked block after block of the suburban district and spent hours making phone calls to solicit donations and promote the campaign. Many of these people had been at Cegelis’s side during her 2004 campaign and witnessed the fruits of their labor when long-time Republican Representative Henry Hyde decided to retire instead of facing Cegelis again in 2006. This was their shot to have a national impact.

    But pressure coming from the national Democratic Party was too great. The Democrats had found a challenger for Cegelis, an Iraq veteran named Tammy Duckworth. Contributions were pouring into the opposing campaign and Duckworth was shuttled into the national media spotlight. Cegelis began receiving calls from Democratic members of Congress informing her that they were planning to support Duckworth.

    Some of Cegelis’s own paid campaign staff implored her to drop out; and she had every reason to listen. She had only $40,000 in the bank, her campaign manager had given up on the campaign and given her office staff two weeks’ paid vacation without Cegelis’ permission, and her media coordinator had recently quit. Rumor had it that Illinois Senator Barack Obama was going to star in television commercials for Duckworth – star power the Cegelis campaign could never match.

    The next day when she sat down in her campaign office with her twelve closest volunteers, Cegelis prepared herself to admit defeat. She laid out the worst-case scenario: The Democratic Party was willing to spend millions of dollars to defeat her in the primary. If she did manage to beat Duckworth, the party would not help her in the general election, leaving the campaign on its own to face a Republican candidate who was hand picked by the national Republican Party.

    Instead of agreeing to quit, every one of her volunteers looked her in the eye and said, “We are here to fight.”

Read more

Update: Commander disciplined for nuclear mistake

If you want to find out more, there is an interesting discussion going on at the pilots for 911 truth forum about this subject.

The Air Force continued handing out disciplinary actions in response to the six nuclear warheads mistakenly flown on a B-52 Stratofortress bomber from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30. The squadron commander in charge of Minot’s munitions crews was relieved of all duties pending the investigation.

It was originally reported that five nuclear warheads were transported, but officers who tipped Military Times to the incident who have asked to remain anonymous since they are not authorized to discuss the incident, have since updated that number to six.

Air Force and defense officials would not confirm the missiles were armed with nuclear warheads Wednesday, citing longstanding policy, but they did confirm the Air Force was “investigating an error made last Thursday during the transfer of munitions” from Minot to Barksdale.

Read more

Staging Nuke for Iran?

By Larry Johnson | bio

Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That’s like getting excited if you see a postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.

So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.

Then he told me something I had not heard before.

Raed more

The Amero and the new world order

New Book Details Cheney Lawyer’s Efforts to Expand Executive Power

 

By Dan Eggen and Peter Baker

Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 5, 2007; Page A01

Vice President Cheney‘s top lawyer pushed relentlessly to expand the powers of the executive branch and repeatedly derailed efforts to obtain congressional approval for aggressive anti-terrorism policies for fear that even a Republican majority might say no, according to a new book written by a former senior Justice Department official.

David S. Addington, who is now Cheney’s chief of staff, viewed both U.S. lawmakers and overseas allies with “hostility” and repeatedly opposed efforts by other administration lawyers to soften counterterrorism policies or seek outside support, according to Jack L. Goldsmith, who frequently clashed with Addington while serving as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004.

The book portrays Alberto R. Gonzales as fairly passive, not an aggressor in counterterror law. (By Chris Graythen — Getty Images) #cheney228 { width: 228px; padding-bottom: 10px; } #cheney228 h3 { font: bold 13px/17px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 2px 0; } #cheney228 p { font: 11px/14px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 0; color: #333; } Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency Dick Cheney is the most influential and powerful man ever to hold the office of vice president. This series examines Cheney’s largely hidden and little-understood role in crafting policies for the War on Terror, the economy and the environment. Read the 4-Part Series » var technorati = new Technorati() ; technorati.setProperty(‘url’,’http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090402292_Technorati.html’) ; technorati.article = new item(‘New Book Details Cheney Lawyer\’s Efforts to Expand Executive Power’,’http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090402292.html’,’Vice President Cheney\’s top lawyer pushed relentlessly to expand the powers of the executive branch and repeatedly derailed efforts to obtain congressional approval for aggressive anti-terrorism policies for fear that even a Republican majority might say no, according to a new book written by a f…’,’Dan Eggen and Peter Baker’) ; document.write( technorati.getDisplaySidebar() );   Who’s Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article. The Chief’s Canon Uncommon Thought Journal opedipus #technorati_link a {color:#339900;} Full List of Blogs (18 links) » Most Blogged About Articles #technorati_link a {color:#339900;} On washingtonpost.com | On the web   Save & Share Article What’s This? Digg Google del.icio.us Yahoo! Reddit Facebook

“We’re going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop,” Addington said at one point, according to Goldsmith.

Addington, who declined comment yesterday through Cheney’s office, is a central player in Goldsmith’s new book, “The Terror Presidency.” It provides an unusual glimpse of fierce internal dissent over the legal opinions behind some of the Bush administration’s most controversial tactics in detaining and interrogating terrorism suspects.

Read more

Dick Cheney’s top aide: “We’re one bomb away” from our goal

In October of 2003, Jack Goldsmith — a right-wing lawyer with radical views of executive power and long-time friend of John Yoo — was named by the Bush administration to head the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, one of the most influential legal positions in the executive branch. During his tenure, he discovered numerous legal positions which the administration had adopted (many created by Yoo) that he found baseless and even unconscionable — from torture to detention powers to illegal surveillance — and he repudiated many of them, thereby repeatedly infuriating the most powerful White House officials, led by Cheney top aide David Addington. As a result, his tenure was extremely brief, and he was gone a mere 9 months after he began.

Read more

Phase III of Bush’s War

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Those who hoped that – with the victory of the antiwar party in 2006, the departure of Rumsfeld and the neocons from the Pentagon, the rise of Condi and the eclipse of Cheney – America was headed out of Iraq got a rude awakening. They are about to get another.

Today, the United States has 30,000 more troops in Iraq than on the day America repudiated the Bush war policy and voted the GOP out of power. And President Bush, self-confidence surging, is now employing against Iran a bellicosity redolent of the days just prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

What gives Bush his new cockiness? The total collapse of the antiwar coalition on Capitol Hill and the breaking of the Congress.

Read more

Reichstag 911 I

Carts Before Horses

Bruce Fein was the republican Lawyer who wrote the impeachment papers for Clinton’s impeachment, let’s hear what he has to say on the subject.

Impeachment inquiry first, ask questions later.

By Bruce Fein
Posted Friday, Aug. 31, 2007, at 4:55 PM ET

Should President George W. Bush face impeachment?
Detractors of an impeachment inquiry by the House judiciary committee into whether President George W. Bush has committed impeachable offenses contend that no questions should be asked until conclusive incriminating evidence is either volunteered up by the suspects themselves or appears before them by spontaneous combustion. In other words, they say, no inquiry should commence until proof of the president’s guilt has been unearthed—proof which would, of course, make the inquiry superfluous! The Watergate investigation that dethroned President Richard M. Nixon would never have been launched under such an Alice in Wonderland standard of proof, because it began with nothing more than two obscure figures, E. Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy, known to have both White House connections and associations with the Watergate burglars.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution stipulates: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article I, Section 2 endows the House of Representatives with “the sole Power of impeachment.” And Article I, Section 3 entrusts the trial of impeachments to the Senate and requires a two-thirds vote for conviction.

Read more