Several people quietly protested, I among them, and the N.S.A spent billions on having it pulled off the market as a “hoax”.

That is the bigger problem of Cheney… His big, braggart mouth which actually revealed certain nuclear secrets that are better left unsaid.

Now, radioactive acetone nicely emulsifies with red mercury….. and can be made by the well established gas centrifuge process. (Developed by German and Austrian nuclear physicists…. p.o.w. in Stalinist prison camps after W.W. II.)

In the fifties, we hung the Rosenbergs for giving away secrets to the S.Union. Under the Bush II administration, chicken hawks can brag about nuclear developments without the slightest slap on the wrist.

Of course, if you read the Bushite stuff right , radioactive acetone was never even produced in Tennessee for whatever purposes, and never
subjected to “microwave – sonoluminescence.”

Remember how the F.B.I. told the world`s terrorists how to make a quick bomb after the McVeigh attack on the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The same formula is used around the world every day these days.

And other chicken hawks equally as careless came pretty close to telling the world about the construction of the current generation of compact w.m.d. devices.

The first rule in counter terrorism is not telling terrorists how to make b bombs. And the U.S. government has been amazingly lax in consistently breaking that very rule.

Have a nice day. I am concerned about nuclear non-proliferation. The key is not bombing Iran, but rather by putting gags on the chicken hawk mouths like the Shrub`s short Dick.

Kent

Sorry, but you are in your own parallel universe, and have everything wrong. You see, the facts matter, and now that you can access so many of the Libby trial documents, you too can discover that you simply misleading people (as if you didn’t know).

This should be good. *chuckle*

The Libby timeline shows that Libby was making inquiries, and spreading the word, while Armitage did NOT know.

Yes, Libby was making inquiries as to who the ambassador was. And? What information do you have to base your claim that Armitage did not know? In fact, Armitage was interviewed by Woodward in mid-June, when he dropped the info about Plame to him. So…. You’re a bit wrong there, my friend. Marc Grossman was the one who found out for Libby, Armitage was Grossman’s immediate superior. Figure it out.

But there’s the weird logic problem you keep ignoring: even if Armitage’s disclosure was innocent, and early, it does not magically legalize disclosure by anyone, anywhere, as you seem to think!

Why was Armitage’s disclosure innocent, but no one else’s was? Why was Libby’s disclosure not innocent, while Armitage’s was? Can you explain this double standard?

The apparent (from evidence from the trial) concerted effort from the VP’s office to get their version of Plame out in May and June, and Libby’s fabrications, all indicate a criminal intent to leak classified information through reporters, and there was a partisan CYA motive to do so.

Now you’re fudging, my friend. There is no evidence from the trial suggesting that there was a concerted effort to do anything about Plame. There was a concerted effort to find out who was leaking to the press (Wilson), and why he was claiming what he was claiming (lies). There was absolutely no need to bring Wilson’s wife into the matter, as they had talking points to rebut every single allegation that Wilson was making anonymously through the press. Read Cathie Martin’s talking points: Plame is absent. She was irrelevant.

True, no one has YET been charged with leaking Plame’s occupation, but the fact that it happened triggered the investigation by the FBI and grand jury, which was hampered or obstructed by Libby’s fabrications.

I’m sure you mean “alleged fabrications”, well, if you believe in the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty, that is. Maybe you don’t. Meet back up with me 2 years from now and we’ll see how many have been charged with leaking Plame’s job. Mk? I hope for your sake that you don’t wager any money on this.

Fitz has used similar slow methodical processes to bring down intricate criminal rackets, and the Libby trial is the brush-clearing before he can bring charges, probably against Cheney.

Except that there has not been presented ANY evidence that Cheney did anything criminal. But sure, we’ll just keep waiting. Just like we’re still waiting for Karl Rove’s indictment to be revealed. Any day now.

When you claim “None of these people talking about Mrs. Wilson knew of any classified or covert position” you are simply ignoring the corroborated testimony in the Libby trial.

Fitzgerald has stated himself that he does not intend to produce any evidence that anyone knew Plame’s status was protected. So… I’m not ignoring anything at all, you are just making things up out of thin air.

When do YOU think Cheney knew of Plame’s covert status?

Since I operate on evidence and facts, the answer to that question is: I don’t know whether Cheney ever knew that Plame was covert, because I don’t know whether Plame actually was covert, and if she were, I have no information to suggest Cheney knew she was.

Happy reading.
———-
May 29

* Scooter Libby asks Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman for information about the unnamed ambassador’s trip. Grossman does not know about it and sets to find out. He first asks Richard Armitage, who has not heard either. Grossman then emails Carl Ford and Walter H. Kansteiner, both of whom know about Wilson and who inform Grossman of details of the trip. Grossman informs Armitage. Grossman calls Joe Wilson, who he knows from the foreign service. Grossman calls Libby and tells him that Wilson is the unnamed ambassador.

Right here it states that Grossman told Armitage BEFORE Libby. Hell, Grossman even called Wilson and told him they knew before he told Libby.

You just debunked yourself. Good job.

No, see, now you’ve misunderstood. Probably purposefully.

The Left claims that Cheney instructed his minions to out Plame as revenge against Wilson. Richard Armitage was not a minion of Cheney’s. He does not fit that narrative one bit. That he was the one who got Plame’s name into the media by blabbing about it to at least two reporters… well… that doesn’t fit the storyline the Left has created, created without any evidence, I might add.

None of these people talking about Mrs. Wilson knew of any classified or covert position. Her employment at the CIA was casually included in a memo from INR to the State Department.

No one has been charged with the leaking of Plame’s occupation. Think about it. Thanks.

Sorry, but you are in your own parallel universe, and have everything wrong. You see, the facts matter, and now that you can access so many of the Libby trial documents, you too can discover that you simply misleading people (as if you didn’t know).

The Libby timeline shows that Libby was making inquiries, and spreading the word, while Armitage did NOT know. But there’s the weird logic problem you keep ignoring: even if Armitage’s disclosure was innocent, and early, it does not magically legalize disclosure by anyone, anywhere, as you seem to think! The apparent (from evidence from the trial) concerted effort from the VP’s office to get their version of Plame out in May and June, and Libby’s fabrications, all indicate a criminal intent to leak classified information through reporters, and there was a partisan CYA motive to do so.

True, no one has YET been charged with leaking Plame’s occupation, but the fact that it happened triggered the investigation by the FBI and grand jury, which was hampered or obstructed by Libby’s fabrications. Fitz has to show this in court, of course, in order to proceed, with Libby’s testimony worthless if he is a convicted perjurer. Fitz has used similar slow methodical processes to bring down intricate criminal rackets, and the Libby trial is the brush-clearing before he can bring charges, probably against Cheney.

When you claim “None of these people talking about Mrs. Wilson knew of any classified or covert position” you are simply ignoring the corroborated testimony in the Libby trial. I think you are being selective and biased. The timeline I linked to above will show you, and it includes links to the trial evidence PDFs.

When do YOU think Cheney knew of Plame’s covert status?

Happy reading.
———-
May 29

* Scooter Libby asks Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman for information about the unnamed ambassador’s trip. Grossman does not know about it and sets to find out. He first asks Richard Armitage, who has not heard either. Grossman then emails Carl Ford and Walter H. Kansteiner, both of whom know about Wilson and who inform Grossman of details of the trip. Grossman informs Armitage. Grossman calls Joe Wilson, who he knows from the foreign service. Grossman calls Libby and tells him that Wilson is the unnamed ambassador. (Grossman testimony; Hearing transcript, pdf p. 6; Libby indictment)

…on the one hand you deride and criticize:

“You can continue to believe the simplistic “war for oil” slogan…a shallow simplistic farce of a notion.”

…THEN you contradict your own critique:

“Oil played a part in this war”

It’s only a contradiction to you, because you believe there is only one possible part for oil to play in this war. Which is exactly what my point was. Swooooosh. That was my point going far above your head, apparently.

Virginia Legislators Vote to Apologize for Slavery (1:46 am)

Larry O’Dell for AP reports:
RICHMOND, Va. — Meeting on the grounds of the former Confederate Capitol, the Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously Saturday to express “profound regret” for the state’s role in slavery.

Sponsors of the resolution say they know of no other state that has apologized for slavery, although Missouri lawmakers are considering such a measure. The resolution does not carry the weight of law but sends an important symbolic message, supporters said.
——————————————————
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×234561

How the U.S. military would remove Bush-Cheney

There’s a term for when the military replaces its Commander-In-Chief – coup d’etat — but there are lesser practical steps that have been taken by Pentagon brass several times in modern American history to deal with Presidents viewed as incompetent to carry out their duties as CIC. Here’s how it works in practice.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have developed a range of options to deal with domestic political crises. These contingencies include major military or terrorist attacks, natural catastrophies, insurrections, civil disturbances, and the partial or complete cessation of civilian goverment. By far, the most difficult for the national command staff is confronting and managing the threat posed by a manifestly imcompetent or incapacitated CIC who issues launch orders without proper procedures. Under no circumstances short of actual hostilities or a confirmed threat of attack, could the military carry out launch orders committing the military to war on the sole authority of the President. George W. Bush can not just pick up the phone in the middle of the night and begin a nuclear strike. That order has to be countersigned by others within the chain of command.

The Pentagon carries out strategic planning for all possible contingencies. The staff of Joint Chiefs and the combat commands attempt to prepare reponses to all possible threats or orders they may receive. Somewhere in a locked file in the D-Ring of the Pentagon, the JCS staff have developed contingency planning for how top military commanders would respond to manifestly illegal or irresponsible orders issed by a deranged President. These responses would always involve consultation with civilian agency and Congressional leaders and range up to and include plans for the use of troops to forcible remove the President from the White House, depending upon the circumstances.

Political Containment

One doesn’t contemplate the involuntary removal of elected civilian leadership lightly. Civilian control over the military is the cornerstone of the American constitutional system, and all actions must serve that end. Therefore, the military brass will not act independently and will seek out responsible elected and appointed officials for any action prior to removal of a President. Prior to any direct intervention in the political process, Pentagon commanders would have to be convinced that all normal procedural and political options, including Impeachment or succession under the 25th Amendment, had been exhausted or were futile.

An active plan of containment by civilian political institutions is the preferred means to deal with a dangerously unstable CIC. If normal political checks and balances break down, however, then top military commanders face a series of more difficult choices that must be made in order to uphold their oaths to protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution.

Removal in Place

Romoval in Place is an option to forcible removal of the incumbent from office, or may be employed as an intervening step pending the resignation or involuntary removal of the President.

Removal in place has been seen in “figurehead” presidents in the past, employed due to illness or temporary physical or mental impairment during the terms of Presidents Wilson, Nixon, and Reagan. Historically, this option has been carried out more or less informally by measures such as confinement to hospital of the President, the removal of the CIC’s access to the nuclear “football” containing launch codes, and the heavy medication and close supervision of the President by aides.

The removal in place option requires the cooperation of key figures within the White House inner-circle along with civilian agencies to effectively keep the President from exercising undesirable command decisions of consequence. The effective maintenance of this option ultimately depends upon at least the passive acquiesance of the CIC and his immediate staff and family.

This option has the advantage of maintaining the public appearance of normalcy, avoiding open conflict between civilian and military authorities, and the attendant political and economic crises that open, formal, involuntary removal would entail.

Involuntary Removal

When it becomes apparent that an incompetent or psychologically impaired President can not be countered by normal political means or contained in place, military and civilian leaders must cooperate to insure that the CIC is disconnected from the mechanisms by which he might be able to issue launch orders to the national command system.

This option is a matter of last resort exercised only when by the consensus of the Joint Chiefs, after consultation with civilian heads of agencies and Congressional leaders, that the incumbent President presents extreme danger to the national security that can not be contained by alternatives, including those outlined above. The proper procedure would then be for alternate civilian leadership within the Line of Succession to invoke the 25th Amendment declaring the incumbent President incapable of carrying out his duties. If the Vice President is also judged incapable of carrying out succession duties in a responsible manner, he too is also subject to immediate removal under the 25th Amendment.

Involuntary removal may only be considered as a last resort in the face of grave, imminent threat to national security, such as to prevent the exercise of unlawful orders committing U.S. forces to hostilities. An example of unlawful launch orders would be issuance of a preemptive nuclear strike orders against a foreign state or power that poses no realistic, imminent, and grave threat to American forces or interests. Of particular concern would a launch order issued without Congressional consultation or approval initiating a conflict that foreseeably holds a high potential for large-scale U.S. military casualties or retaliatory attacks on civilian targets within the United States that can not be effectively defended against.

Given the escalating tensions in the region, and the vital U.S. interests at stake in South Asia, the top military commanders have forcefuly articulated their positon on various options. They have opposed implementation of plans for a preemptive attack on Iran. If the President were to issue a launch order for a preemptive attack on Iran without first obtaining a Congressional resolution of war, that action — in effect, an illegal order — would require the national command authority and civilian leadership to implement plans to contravene such an order, sever the CIC’s command authority, pending the removal the President and Vice President under the 25th Amendment.

Do not be deceived by the rhetoric and sabre-rattling. The United States will not go to war with Iran just because George W. Bush or Dick Cheney order it.
——————————————————

Seixon, research the phrase “knowingly or unknowingly”.

IF you are claiming they didn’t know, then why are you pleading their defense HERE?

Save it for the judge. Whether or not they knowingly outed Brewster Jennings is moot to the criminal act itself.

• Failing to guard Al-Qaqaa’s 380 metric tons of (previously under seal) high explosives — in effect handing it out to hostiles — is either gross criminal negligence or treason.

• Outing Brewster Jennings knowingly or unknowingly is STILL treason, as the Constitution notes:

Section. 3.: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Giving the enemies of our troops a mountain of high-explosives — that’s aid. While Bush AND YOU have been attacking his critics as unpatriotic, the plain evidence is that Bush and Rumsfeld FAILED to guard those munitions, and by their illegal invasion of Iraq released them to the enemies of the United States.

• Informing our enemies that the persons who have gone into Brewster Jennings offices around the world WERE DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CIA is again, aid to our enemies.

Both are counts of treason. These could be gross criminal negligence crimes as well, but they both qualify as giving aid to our enemies in ways SO much more damaging than any citizen criticism that your stance is bizarrely unpatriotic to say the least.

• Failing to capture and bring to justice Osama Bin Laden by gross underdeployment of US troops to Tora Bora (1,500 troops, not enough for an intramural squash tournament, much less to capture Bin Laden) was also an act of giving aid to our enemies.

Gross criminal negligence in the crime of treason is still treason.

————————————————————————-

College Republicans Apology letter

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to express my sincere and deepest regret to Dean of Seaver College, Dr. David Baird, Professor Dan Caldwell, Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else who was affected by a recent Facebook message that was sent to members of the Facebook group “College Republicans.” I would also like to make clear that I was not speaking for the Pepperdine College Republicans club, but on my own. The message was careless and inexcusable and I humbly ask for forgiveness from anyone who was hurt by my words.

Specifically, I’d like to apologize for the following actions:

1. A statement about “chastising” the Dean of Seaver College, Dr. David Baird. If I had it to do over, I would have made clear that I was suggesting to our officers and members that they contact Dr. Baird and respectfully recommend speakers that share our beliefs. I now understand that my words were disrespectful to the Dean and I am very sorry.

2. My comment about making John Kerry feel “unwelcome.” Although I do not agree with Senator Kerry politically, he is entitled to respectful treatment at all times and I do not condone any kind of disruptive or disrespectful behavior. I realize now that someone could use my statement to justify improper behavior and I sincerely apologize for not choosing my words more carefully.

3. Insinuating that John Kerry is a traitor. Just because someone has a different opinion does not make them a traitor and I am sorry for using that label.

4. My use of implied profanity. I understand that this is not consistent with the Christian mission of Pepperdine University.

While I wrote a good deal of the message in a joking and non-serious manner, I realize that not everyone viewed it in the same light. I have definitely learned from this experience. It is important to always speak and act professionally and respectfully, especially in correspondence that can enter the public forum. I will not make these same mistakes again and I am truly sorry for the way I came across online.

Sincerely,

Ben Seale

Submitted 09-07-2006

Comment by Seixon #109

Sickson,

…on the one hand you deride and criticize:

“You can continue to believe the simplistic “war for oil” slogan…a shallow simplistic farce of a notion.”

…THEN you contradict your own critique:

“Oil played a part in this war”

…and for your information…

…seems like we’re all guilty of seeing/hearing ONLY what we want to see/hear from time-to-time…

Comment by Vincennes — February 24, 2007 @ 6:42 pm

You didn’t finish the end of the history lesson. “As a result, they were tried, convicted and hung as traitors themselves because they failed to uphold their vow to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, while providing aid and comfort to the “enemy within.”

No, see, now you’ve misunderstood. Probably purposefully.

The Left claims that Cheney instructed his minions to out Plame as revenge against Wilson. Richard Armitage was not a minion of Cheney’s. He does not fit that narrative one bit. That he was the one who got Plame’s name into the media by blabbing about it to at least two reporters… well… that doesn’t fit the storyline the Left has created, created without any evidence, I might add.

None of these people talking about Mrs. Wilson knew of any classified or covert position. Her employment at the CIA was casually included in a memo from INR to the State Department.

No one has been charged with the leaking of Plame’s occupation. Think about it. Thanks.

Cheney was acting PRIOR to publication of Wilson’s op-ed, to discredit Wilson. As I understand it- tubino.

You do not understand it. Correct your timeline and refer to #7

Comment by Your Conscience — February 24, 2007

Okay, I looked it all up. I’m right, and you’re wrong. Wilson’s op-ed was published July 6, 2003, but Cheney’s gang started after Joe in May, 2 months earlier. And the evidence from Libby’s trial showed just HOW hard they went after him in June.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Plame_Leak_timeline

One of my favorite wingnut Plame stories is that since Armitage leaked the info about Plame + CIA, then anyone else revealing classified information, even PRIOR to Armitage, is automatically innocent! It’s magic! It’s rightwing! It’s stupid beyond belief!

And that’s their best card.

I completely believe that there is so much more to the 911 story that implicates our own government’s knowledge of what was coming, and that it was allowed to happen. It justified so much of what followed, in their minds and the propaganda that continued. These so-called “conspiracy theories” are the only ones that are really beginning to make sense, when you start following those dots. This is an incredibly dirty business, and on the part of the U.S., it mostly revolves around oil…pipelines, ports, etc. For the Israelis, it’s their conception of survival, and it’s obvious they are willing to take the whole planet down, if necessary, to survive. These are NOT the Jews of the Holocaust that we are talking about here. The U.S. failed those people many years ago when we had a chance to do so prior to WWII. And they are also not the ancient people that Moses supposedly led out of Egypt. These are a modern, and extremely militarily well-equipped nation, with a very aggressive government. A government that has inordinate influence in Washington, D.C.

Anyone who posts such drivel at 2AM is certifiably insane. The CIA had it right, the Cheney administration chose to ignore it.

Eh. You’ve read the October 2002 NIE, yeah? Please say no, because otherwise you need to call your dentist as you just blew out some teeth by trying to push a big whopper of a lie through them. I guess this the Larry Johnson School of Cover Your Former Employer’s Ass. I cannot believe, in 2007, that there are still people who believe that the CIA got it right on Iraq. The sheer insanity of it. Astounding.

big papa,

I’m seriously not joking around. And yes, they chose to attack Iraq precisely because Saddam was a pushover. You’re absolutely correct. That’s one of the reasons why Iraq was the target and not Million Man North Korea or Quagmire in the Mountains Iran. Among others. You can continue to believe the simplistic “war for oil” slogan, but that’s what it is, a shallow simplistic farce of a notion. Oil played a part in this war, but not quite what the simpletons believe. This thing is a bit more complicated than all of that. Of course, having to sit down and think of something complicated is too much to ask of most Americans, or other citizens of the world, these days, so there it is.

It’s simple as pie to see the fighting between the CIA and the Bush administration on who gets the blame for the intelligence failure, but in the end, those who are wiser know that the CIA has been around far longer than the Bush administration, and their intelligence on Iraq had been around longer than the Bush administration, and they were the ones who came up with it, not the Bush administration.

Only suckers like you fall for their psy-ops using progressive alternative media.

…methinkst me struck a nerve…

Comment by Seixon #103

I would personally kill and eat the hearts of my loved ones for my gods…

-Seixon (the faithful Bushite disciple)-

Comment by Seixon #102

Sickson,

…I DO hope this helps…

1. Yes. Removing Saddam Hussein was the key. Read some Gore.

2. No, I’m trying to teach you that the whole “Plame worked on Iran” was a lie sold to you by the Leopold Front Company LLC. Plame was working on Iraq, which, surprise surprise, was why she was involved with meetings relating to issues concerning Iraq and uranium back in 2002. Bush was promoting CIA’s WMD meme, not the other way around. The sooner you figure this out, the better.

You may now realize that the CIA, and former agents thereof, have been playing a game ever since the WMD story went up in smoke to put the blame on the Bush administration instead of on the ones who screwed it up – the intelligence agencies, specifically the CIA.

3. The assertion is from David Corn, not me. Give it a rest.

4. It did not prove anything, because it has already been proven that Wilson and his cohorts have lied numerous times. Jason Leopold was working the pro-Wilson storyline for Larry Johnson. Remember?