Hasta Luego, Alberto

The highest ranking government law enforcement official ... lies to Congress under oath and to the people of the nation.

Alberto Gonzales claimed he had no knowledge about the firings of the US attorneys. No meetings. No discussion. No participation in the decision. But voila! Documents released from the DOJ put the lie to his mealy-mouthed denials.

Yet again, one of GW Bush's closest has been proven to have obstructed justice. What a fucking sad irony that this man is (and hopefully soon WAS) the head of the Department of Justice.

Nearly every single department of our government now stands for its OPPOSITE. Justice? ROFL! Can you say lies and injustice? Interior now stands for finding ways to let the polluters pollute. State now stands for siding with Israel, to hell with Palestinians, suck up to Korea now that we know they have a nuclear bomb, threaten and posture Iran because we KNOW they don't... yet.

Why has no one stepped up yet to IMPEACH this president and vice-president? I swear to God, had any previous president been as outrageous and duplicitous and low-down and scurrilous... he'd have been outta here long ago.

Lying Under Oath Used to be Illegal

The firing or forcing out of at least 8 US Attorneys is a hot topic these days, and rightly so. There is abundant evidence suggesting that loyalty -- nay, fealty -- to the Bush administration was a primary factor in drawing up the list of which USA's to get rid of.

It's obvious the folks at the AG's office and the White House shared concern over how these firings would be perceived. From the e-mails published 3-19-2007 at the House Judiciary Committee Web site, we can see that a good deal of effort went into concealing the political motivation for these firings. And then we have AG Gonzales himself, under oath and in front of the cameras, protesting that, "I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it."

Let's see, what is the meaning of "I think I would never..." ? Does he mean he would not do it again? Or does he mean he would not do it if he thought he'd be caught at it? Or perhaps he means that he personally wouldn't do it, but would have no hesitation to okay such a thing for a subordinate to do?

To listen to the damage control squad including WH Press Secretary Tony Snow, all of Fox News and a bevy of other paid propagandists, you'd think this sort of thing is not illegal at all. Firing the attorneys that is. They'll tell you that every President cleans house at the beginning of the term. It's only natural! Well, if it is justifiable and routine, why protest so loudly? Oh, I know. To distract from what IS illegal and unethical. Lying under oath.

I remember well that lying under oath (about a private sexual dalliance) was enough to start the impeachment ball rolling. How about lying under oath about turning the Justice Department into an army of personal yes-men for a unitary executive with a god complex?

Is it any wonder that the Bushies are fighting tooth and nail to testify under oath about what they knew and when they knew it? Do they really think we are buying the line that if we want the "truth" we'd do well to take what they tell us behind closed doors, without a record and not under oath?

Since when is the "truth" so fearful of being overheard or repeated or sworn to?

Does Bush Deserve Benefit of the Doubt?

Question: Does the Bush Administration deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore, on anything?

Think back to the secreted interview with Bush and Cheney holding hands before the 9-11 Commission (hint: whitewash, and we WILL uncover it). Think back to the Bush Administration's assertions that Saddam Hussein and his imagined WMDs were an immediate threat to the US (hint: intentional misrepresentation). Think back to W's protestation that no citizen in our country was being wiretapped without the FISA court approval (hint: LIE). Think back to W's declaration that we do not torture anyone (well, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, and a host of other abominable practices excluded, and therefore, a LIE). Think back to the White House Press Secretary insisting that Karl Rove didn't know nuthin' about the Valerie Plame leak, and W's phony promise that anyone in the White House who participated in this egregious leak would no longer have employment there (hint: another flat-out lie).

Enough? Have you had enough yet?

Answer: No, the Bush Administration does not deserve to respond to Congressional inquiries behind closed doors, not sworn in, and with no transcript provided. If the firing of the US attorneys was all okay and up front and legit, there is NO reason in hell not to testify, sworn in, and have statements recorded.

I found it most difficult to listen to Tony Snow today, trying to paint Karl Rove et al as honorable people. Don't you?

Why They Outed Valerie

The current wisdom is that the reason Ms. Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a covert agent of the CIA was exposed has everything to do with trying to discredit Joe Wilson's assertion that OUR government was falsifying evidence to push a rationale for invading sovereign Iraq.

I suspect an even more despicable motive. Ms. Plame Wilson was involved in a division of the CIA dedicated to intelligence discovery regarding Iraq's WMD. Doesn't this ring any bells for anyone? Valerie is running a very covert op posing as someone else, in the effort to gather intel regarding Iraq's WMD for God's sake!

What better message to send to the CIA than "BACK THE F*** OFF" besides outing one of its premier assets involved in exactly the task of finding out IF Saddam really had WMD? I mean, do you recall.... please say you remember..!!! that the main REASONS we were given for the impetuous invasion and occupation of Iraq had everything to do with that nation's ability to create, distribute and deliver smoking mushroom clouds!!

So.. not only attempt to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson's honest but naked-making op-ed, but at the same time send a message to those in the CIA, who are trying to do a good job, by exposing one of the main channels of intelligence... honest intelligence... we had concerning Iraq!

Bastards. I hope their limbs are slowly eaten away in Hell.

How Many Conspiracists Does it Take to ...

Why is one conspiracy any more believable than another?

To read forums and blog comments, some people believe that 19 incredibly lucky Arabs with boxcutters pulled off the total destruction of the entire World Trade Center complex, plus the destruction of a plane with passengers and crew in Shanksville, PA, plus heavy damage all the way through several rings on one side of the Pentagon.

I'd say that's fairly outlandish.

But if you suggest there's more to the story, or a different story, all of a sudden it's impossible because it would take the assent, aid and continuing silence of thousands of people!


This, my friends, is a straw man argument. There is no mainstream 9/11 Truth theory that calls for a cast of thousands.

I mean, if all it took was 19 mostly Saudi Arabs, then surely another group of 19 could do it too. Especially if the event was planned in advance and the mechanisms put in place over time.

I do not believe now, nor have I ever taken seriously, the motive ascribed to Osama bin Laden and his followers, that, "they hate our freedoms." Did Osama benefit? Did Islam benefit? Did the Taliban benefit? Just who did benefit? And who might have had the means and a motive?

If we are looking for motive, we find one right here -- the implementation of the PNAC's hegemonic plan simply could not have happened absent our "new Pearl Harbor." The neo-cons seem to have been ready for 9/11/2001.

[Tunick photo found here, fair use]

Run to the Rock: IMPEACH

This powerful video says it well.

To the United States House of Representatives: it's past time you listened. We know your game. Either do the people's work or share the blame earned by the corrupt Bush administration and the prior rubber-stamp Republican Congress.

911 CONSPIRACY MOVES TO MAINSTREAM MEDIA VIA AL JAZEERA

911 conspiracy theories just became mainstream news. if you don`t think AL jajeera is mainstream media you better check their audience. it is bigger than the Washington post and new york times combined. conspiracy theories and theorist are sure to change names and categories very soon and become conspiracy TRUTHS and TRUTH REPORTERS.



read more | digg story

Why the BBC Video is Important

"9/11 Changed Everything"

Can you remember when and who first spoke the phrase, "9/11 Changed Everything"? Within a day or two of 9-11-2001, pundits began this curious chant. The phrase persisted through the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report where, on page 328, you'll find:

However, the attacks of 9/11 changed everything. Less than one week after September 11, an early version of what was to become the Patriot Act (officially, the USA PATRIOT Act) began to take shape.

But who seeded that phrase into media consciousness? I surely thought it odd at the time. 9/11 didn't change everything for me.

Someone Planted a Story for the Media

Who seeded the media with the notion that WTC7 collapsed because of fire and damage? The same entity responsible for releasing the soon-to-be news a tad too early, that's who. That's why the recently unearthed BBC video is so important. You know, the footage where Jane Standley reports that the Salomon building (aka WTC7) has collapsed, only it is quite uncollapsed in the view out the window behind her.

At about 5:10 in the video linked above, Jane makes a rather honest observation: "It looks like the aftermath of a huge Atom bomb or something..."

How Perceptions are Formed

This video is called The911Solution. Watch how the news was massaged from the very beginning. After all, if we see it on TV, it must be true, right?

To All the Debunkers...

...who suggest that it would be perfectly ridiculous for bad guys to pre-announce their dirty deeds: you must not be astute or educated enough to grasp the fact that the television is a tool to brainwash the masses. The purpose of the news feed that made it on air too early was not to pre-announce a crime. Its purpose was to provide an explanation (fire and damage) for WTC7's collapse to replace the only other conclusion people could have reached had they been left to their own observations (that WTC7 was imploded in some sort of pre-planned demolition).

Part of the Conspiracy? (2)

Richard Porter, head of news for BBC World, continues to explain away the "9/11 foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse" broadcast, the missing BBC tapes, and all in all, how reasonable and easy to explain the whole thing is, after all. He ends his blurb with, "There's no story here." I don't think he understands that he doesn't get to decide that.



read more | digg story