http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/445529.stm

Yeltsin was the president, but Pootie was the spy chiel (aka, Russia’s version of Dick Cheney). 93 dead Russians and a suspected “terrorist” villian. No proof, but enough proof to launch an all out attack on Chetchins. (Spell Chetchin as you like.) In the aftermath, dead women, children and men. None armed. None in any way implicated.

Blackwater would have had a field day.

Pootie blamed it on the Chetchins and used it as a cause celebre to attack and destroy Chetchins.

No evidence was ever produced that Chetchins were responsible. No evidence was ever produced that the bombing was anything but an inside job designed to justify a devestating retalitory strike on an innocent people.

Hmmm.

Saudi’s strike the World Trade Center, cause celebre, we attack IRAQ??

Lessons Bush learned from Pootie.

it is about time we find out why the shooter started spying on people in the US 6 months before their glorious terrorist revolution. For those of you that are stupid as toast, it means they were spying and blackmailing their political opponents in an attempt to control the government from day one.

why do so many dems cave? because their dirty laundry is being hung out to dry. Not yet in the open air, but it’s ready to be shown to a eager press as soon as a dem shows spine.

now it is clear that was to create a fascist state. Wise the hell up my fellow American, democracy is gone, get used to it or take it back

and i’d bet that JOSEPH W. ADAMS is a lonely guy in Berkeley…
i’m sure his ideas are, at least…

Representatives will posture and preen over this, but when it comes down to the voting, I am afraid they will fold and then try to claim again that they “just din’t have the votes” once again.

Cheers,

stalin? … try PUTIN…

i always figured dubya was getting more than
a look into putie’s soul…
…

The issue of Presidential powers will have to be decided in court. Hopefully not in front of anyone hand picked by the administration or it’s agents.

This royal presidency that we have been ’subject’ to recently must surely be struck down using the Constitution, but the urge of both parties to quietly keep as much power as possible for future presidents has to be checked.

If Bush is proven to have initiated illegal wiretapping prior to 9/11, that will destroy a large part of their argument.

So far they’ve been allowed to continue their refusal to submit relevant documents, and so thwart attempts to reveal illegal acts committed by them. They stacked the deck so much in their favor with the politicization of the justice dept. and others so well that only when honest men and women retake control of these areas of our government will anything get done.

It’s a daunting challenge. I wonder if our representatives have the courage and character to accomplish it.

What Bush expects Congress to say to him (and what Congress says all too often): “Baaaaaaaaa! Baaaaaaaaaaaa! Baaaaaaaaa!

Let’s get some non-sheep in those seats in November 2008.

While Qwest’s refusal appears noble, what if it is smoke and mirrors. Qwest was a tool for Bush’s underhanded ops. If Qwest were to reveal who called who, the admin could be in deep sh**. Cheney did spend an extraordinary amount of time in Denver during the time that Nacchio was being called upon to leave. He was so reluctant and Cheney was here during the entire time that he balked. What’s going on?

Probably nothing noble. No, just a matter of “We made a deal. We trusted the security of your phone systems. We traded security on the promise that you would skate on your insider trading/fraud trial in exchange for your assurance that you would not allow wire-tapping – letting you, and us, escape and smell like a rose.”

******************************­*****************

Is lying to Congress an impeachable offense? Let us consider the words of Founding Father and later Supreme Court Justice James Iredell at the North Carolina Constitutional Convention.

The topic was impeachable offenses:

“The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them,”

This perfectly describes how false information was provided to Congress by Bush and Cheney in order to convince them to approve the use of military force in Iraq.

Now let us consider the second crime, going “outside the law in terms of the collection of information”. Pelosi was undoubtedly referring to Bush’s admitted violation of the FISA law against warrantless wiretaps. Bush cannot argue that he simply needed to wiretap terror suspects because the FISA law allows him to do that at any time and then seek approval from the FISA court within 72 hours. There is concern that Bush was actually gathering information on American citizens who were not criminals or terror suspects.

This violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

As soon as Joe left, so did Dick.

As Dick told Nixon, no memos. Once the admin wanted to tap phones, no phones. Just up close and personal.

Sue Joe. He’s beholden to no-one. Thru discovery, Joe will unveil Dick.

These are not feelings that our representatives should engender. We have a long way to go to fix what this government has become, but we must. To do that will take strong leaders, and the cards are stacked against that happening.

As with criminal trials, sometimes this is necessary when you want to get the most complete story possible and you’re dealing with a ‘reluctant’ witness (or in this case companies).

Personally, I think companies like AT&T need to pay for their complicity (and Quest should be protected).

but then

neither do i trust senate whip dick durbin.

note this:

durbin did not say,

“there will be no blanket immunity for the telecos.”

he said,

“there will be no blanket immunity for the telecos UNTIL we understand , blah, blah, blah..”

look for durbin to weasel out of this public “pledge” in a short while.

durbin’s playing the LARRY CRAIG GAMBIT with the american public –

make public promises you do not intend to keep when you’re in hot water and the light of media attention is shining on you.

then, once the media’s attention has shifted and the pressure diminished,

renege on your promise.