PLAME INDICTMENTS #14 -High Crimes & Misdemeanors -"The Tip Of The Iceberg

The Waterman Paper

(as published on the Home Page of Democratic Underground July 24, 2004)

The Waterman Paper July 24, 2004
By H2O Man


This paper examines the possibility that Vice President Dick Cheney orchestrated the "leaking" of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the news media in the summer of 2003, in order to accomplish three goals.

These include (1) to punish Joseph Wilson for challenging "16 words" in President Bush's 1-28-03 State of the Union address; and (2) to intimidate other sources from publicly challenging the White House's version of events involving the "war on terrorism" and the US invasion of Iraq. Both of these goals are well-known from numerous reports on this White House scandal.

The other, (3) is that VP Cheney was attempting to derail an investigation that Plame may have been involved in at the time that her identity was exposed. This third potential goal has not been the subject of any major media attention.
The author of this paper put it forward on an internet forum, the Democratic Underground, in early July, 2004. The resulting eleven DU "threads," which consist of over 3,000 posts from interested citizens across the country, is the only known forum debating this theory.

Besides the eleven DU "Plame Indictment" threads, the information in this paper comes from the following four sources: The Politics of Truth, by Joseph Wilson; Worse Than Watergate, by John Dean; Don't Tread on Joseph Wilson, NYT book review by John Dean on 5-23-04; and Plenty to Swear About, by Joe Klein, Time, 7-5-04.

Time Line

While the case involving Wilson's investigation in Niger, and the White House's efforts to expose Plame is long and complicated, this paper will focus on a "time line" established by Wilson in his book.

1. Jan '02: The first reports of a Niger-Iraq uranium connection surface in the White House.

2. Feb '02: Wilson is asked to investigate by the CIA.

3. March '02: Wilson returns from Niger and briefs the CIA on the investigation. His conclusion supports those of two others that there was no Niger-Iraq connection.

4. Jan '03: Bush includes the "16 words" in his State of the Union address.

5. On or about March 5, '03: the CIA gives VP Cheney an oral report, informing him of Wilson's conclusions.

6. March 7, '03: the IAEA announces the US's documents on Niger-Iraq are forgeries.

7. March 8, '03: (a) a State Department spokesperson admits, "We fell for it" in regard to the forged document; (b) Wilson tells CNN that the State Department has more information on the subject; and (c) a workshop meeting is held in VP Cheney's office. It is attended by top republican officials, possibly including Cheney, Scooter Libby, and Newt Gingrich. The group discusses ways to discredit Wilson.

8. June 8, '03: Condoleeza Rice denies knowledge of the weakness of the Niger uranium claim on Meet The Press. She states, "Maybe someone down in the bowels of the Agency knew about this, but nobody in my circles."

9. July 6, '03: Wilson's NYT op-ed is published. By the following day, two senior White House officials began contacting at least six reporters, informing them of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative.

10. July 8, '03: Reporter Robert Novak tells a complete stranger on a Washington street: "Wilson's an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him." In the following days, Novak would ask the CIA for confirmation of Plame's identity. He was asked not to print her name or identity in any article regarding Wilson.

11. July 14, '03: Novak's article exposes Plame.

12. July 20, '03: NBC's Andrea Mitchell tells Wilson that senior White House officials told her that the "real story" was not the 16 words, but was Wilson and his wife.

13. July 21, '03: NBC's Chris Matthews tells Wilson that Karl Rove called him and said," Wilson's wife is fair game." Matthews said he would confirm that if asked.

This time line indicates that while the exposing of Plame's identity was a result of Wilson's op-ed, it was also part of a larger strategy that had been planned in VP Cheney's office since March 8. It clearly confirms goal #1: by exposing Plame, and putting her safety at risk, the White House had severely punished Joseph Wilson.
It also supports goal #2: the White House had a strategy to intimidate any other potential intelligence operatives from exposing the administration for distorting information regarding Iraq.

Likewise, the exposing of Plame supports goal #3: exposing Plame put an immediate end to any activities that Plame was participating in at the time. This is supported by Wilson (pg 345): "She immediately began to prepare a checklist of things she needed to do to minimize the fall-out to the projects she was working on."

Also, Wilson notes: "Compromising the officer means compromising a career, a network, and every person with who the officer might have ever worked. Slips of the tongue cost people their lives." (pg 13)

The Leakers' Identities

Robert Novak sourced his story to two senior White House officials. Other reporters, including Andrea Mitchell, made mention of the two unidentified senior White House officials. These two are among the at least six reporters contacted by these two officials.
Chris Matthew's call identifies Karl Rove as being involved in the efforts to make "Wilson's wife ... fair game." This call took place after the calls from the senior officials to the six reporters.
Wilson's book indicates a belief that the two senior officials were Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Eliot Abrams. Abrams is no stranger to White House disgrace, having been convicted on two charges during the Iran-Contra scandal.

There is evidence the three were operating with the knowledge of, and perhaps under the direction of VP Cheney. The March 8 "workshop" in VP Cheney's office indicates that this was a long-standing, well-organized effort to discredit Wilson. As Wilson notes (pg 387) : "... a plan to attack me had been formed before the moment. It was cocked and ready to fire .... an organized smear campaign directed from the highest reaches of the White House."

Cheney and Pre-War Intelligence

Those involved in the "workshop" to discredit Wilson were also active in efforts to influence pre-war intelligence reports. On page 6, Wilson discusses "leaks" that Cheney, Libby, and Newt Gingrich pressured the intelligence community "to skew intelligence analysists" to fit their own needs.

On page 338, Wilson notes that these three reportedly intimidated analysts by implying, "if you do a 'Wilson' on us, we will do worse to you."

Wilson notes (pg 434) that VP Cheney runs a "parallel national security office," which has no congressional oversight, and hence can "circumvent long-standing and accepted reporting structures and to skew decision-making practices."

As a result, as reported by Joe Klein in Time (7-5-04) "the intelligence community is at war with the White House." Klein notes that "multiple intelligence sources" indicated to him their belief that Cheny strong-armed out-going CIA Director George Tenet, to make him support Cheney and Rumsfeld's positions on Iraq.

Cheney, Niger, and Wilson's Trip

Wilson notes a report on a possible Niger-Iraq yellow cake uranium transaction had "aroused the interests of Vice President Dick Cheney." (pg 14) Cheney's office "had tasked the CIA to determine if there was any truth to the report." (pg 14)

It is clear that Cheney was aware of the Niger report, and had directed his office to have the CIA do an investigation of it. There is evidence that on March 5, the CIA gave VP Cheney an oral report on Wilson's findings. This was three days before the State Department spokesperson told the media, "We fell for it," and that Wilson told CNN that the State Department had more information on that subject. March 8 was also the day that the "workshop" to discredit Wilson was held in Cheney's office.

"What I Didn't Find" vs "16 Words"

The White House retracted President Bush's infamous 16 words immediately after Wilson's op-ed appeared in the New York Times.
On 7-13-03, Condi Rice told Fox News Sunday that, "It is ludicrous to suggest that the president of the United States went to war on the question of whether Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa."
On 7-14-03, Robert Novak exposed Valerie Plame's identity. It is important to recognize that Novak was aware that Plame was an operative who specialized in WMDs, and that he had been asked by the CIA not to reveal her identity, or even print her name, in an article on Wilson.

The White House continued to engage in efforts to discredit Wilson, including sending three identical e-mails of "talking points" to Keith Olbermann when Wilson was appearing on MSNBC's Countdown.
1982 Intelligence Identity Protection Act

Wilson notes that the administration had already acknowledged the Niger-Iraq link was unsubstantiated, and that logically, they should have focused attention on how the 16 words made their way into the president's State of the Union address. The effort to expose Plame's identity made little sense. (pg 7)

Later, he continues with, "The White House gained nothing by publicizing Valerie's name..." (pg 7)
"Then it struck me that the attack by Rove and the administration on my wife had little to do with her, but a lot to do with others who might be tempted to speak out." (pgs 5-6)
"The decision of the president's people to come after me .... arose from no concerns over the emergence of secrets from my mission -- there weren't any." (pg 339)
"However offensive, there was a certain logic to it. If you have something to hide, one way to keep it secret is to threaten anyone who might expose it. But it was too late to silence me." (pg 338)


Goal #3: Why Cheney Exposed Plame

Wilson notes that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor, pointed out that since the Bush people had never backed down before, the fact that they had been "so quick to admit their error this time meant they must have something more important to protect." (pg 4)

In Worse Than Watergate, John Dean calls the exposing of Plame the "Dirtiest of Dirty Tricks." He writes that "revealing her identity damaged the national security and her career, and resulted in the loss of a valuable government asset." He called this action "literally life-threatening." (pgs 170-171)

What could have possibly been so important to VP Cheney that he oversaw the violating of the 1982 IIPA, and risked a White House scandal? The answer clearly can not be found in goals #1 or #2.
The answer, which supports goal #3, appears in Klein's article: "Furthermore, there is intense anger over the White House's revealing the identity of Plame, who may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components. ..... 'Only a very high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge that Plame was on the payroll' of the CIA, an intelligence source told me."

And that very high-ranking official may have known through his parallel national security office about the activities that Plame was involved with at that time. The answer to goal #3 likely is to be found in the checklist of things Valerie Plame did to mitigate the damage done by Novak's article immediately after she read it.

Conclusions

This paper presents direct evidence that the intelligence group that operates out of VP Cheney's office orchestrated the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, in order to realize goal #1, the "punishing" of Joseph Wilson for publicly challenging President Bush.

It includes both direct and circumstantial evidence from sources including Wilson, Dean, Klein, and others, that indicates they also had goal #2 in mind: to intimidate any other potential sources that could challenge their reasons for invading Iraq, as well as other measures in their "war on terorism."

Yet these two goals alone do not explain why VP Cheney would (1) take part in a measure that would violate a federal law against exposing a CIA operative, or (2) risk a serious scandal for the Bush Administration.

The possibility that VP Cheney was hoping to derail a sting operation involving Valerie Plame, which is our identified goal #3, does explain why VP Cheney would condone the breaking of the federal law, and risk the most serious scandal that this administration faces.

Further research by an ad hoc DU "think tank" has identified possible connections between businesses connected to VP Cheney that may be associated with the sale of WMD components to countries in the Middle East. It is our belief that this theory and the evidence that supports it needs a more in-depth investigation.
At the time of publishing, the most recent message board thread on this subject can be found here:



PLAME INDICTMENTS - "HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS- THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG"


These links seem to work better if you open them in "Open In New Window"

Plame Indictments Thread 1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame Indictments Thread 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame Indictments Thread 3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame Indictments Thread 4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame Indictments Thread 5
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame Indictments Thread 6
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame Indictments Thread 7
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame Indictments Thread 8
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame Indictments Thread 9
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame Indictments Thread 10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame Indictments Thread 11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame Indictments Thread 12
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame Indictments Thread 13
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

1 (800) 839 - 5276 - TOLL FREE TO CAPITOL HILL


and

www.congress.org - for a directory to ANYBODY on the Hill, AND their local/regional offices.

www.congress.org - for a directory to ANYBODY on the Hill, AND their

local/regional offices.

All 12 can be found here as MSWord ".doc"s:

http://www.aeschatech.com/dumpster/plame /

Jul-25-04


The Revolutionary Presidency vs The Bill of Rights


1) Introduction

This paper will examine the dangers to constitutional democracy posed by the Bush Administration. It will review the concepts of separation of federal powers, the practice of the balancing of those powers, and scrutinize several areas where Bush/Cheney have corrupted this constitutional system that our democracy is based upon.

This paper will focus primarily on how the growing menace of an Imperial Presidency of the Nixon era has become the threatening reality of the Revolutionary Presidency today.

2) The Balance of Powers

A- The theories behind the constitutional democracy of the United States are the "distinctive American contribution(s) to the art of government." (The Imperial Presidency; Schelsinger; pg vii)

The idea of the 13 Colonies forming a confederate federal state came directly from meetings between Founding Fathers, primarily Ben Franklin, and the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. Jefferson was influenced by the Iroquois' concepts of the freedoms of individuals; these, along with the contributions of progressive European thought (found primarily in France), led to the Bill of Rights.

However, in European history, governments had assumed a unified authority that allowed them to control, and deny, basic human rights to citizens of the state. Jefferson and Madison and others created the more perfect union, which allowed citizens to control the government through a series of checks and balances implied in the separation of powers on the federal level.

B- The three branches of the federal government are the executive, legislative, and judiciary. These three are intended to form a balanced triangle. The separation of powers is not intended to make all three to be locked into an equal status; rather, it offers checks and balances that creates an inertia that keeps any one branch from assuming unlimited powers. The goal, according to Justice Brandis (Myers v US 1926) is "not to promote efficiency, but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power."

The executive, or the office of the president, has the implied power to provide leadership in emergency situations. In our early history, from the Revolutionary to the Civil War, this power was used only to respond to threats to the safety of citizens ( re: pirate attacks, which generally came from Tripoli, and which share important parallels with today's situation) and wars with foreign nations.

In these cases, these emergency powers were onlyintended for a brief period, before congressional controls took over. The Senate is the seat of the actual war powers. Further, according to Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, "The House of Representatives ... forms the grand inquest of the state. They will dilegently inquire into grievences, arising both from men and things." (Grand Inquest; New York; 1961; pgs 22-30)

C- The history of democracy has been imperfect in the United States. The most basic rights have been denied to both groups and individuals, based upon their sex, age, race, and religion. Issues including gay marriage show that we still have a long way to go.

Yet, for all of its faults, our constitutional democracy has shown the greatest of promise. The efforts of each generation of Americans has brought us closer to providing the rights of free people to a larger, more inclusive population. This is a great nation.

From the Revolutionary to the Civil War was known as the "Golden Age" of the congress.Also, the sequence of presidents, and the series of federal courts moved the nation towards the promise of the Founding Fathers, found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The reasons were found not only in those great documents, but in that separation and balance of powers at the federal level. These insured the Bill of Rights was a living entity. In fact, while many today note that President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil war, there "was no effective censorship, no Sedition Act, no Espiionage Act." (Schlesinger; pg 335)

However, after the Civil War, changes in the economy which were a result of the change from an agrarian to industrial national base, led directly to unprecedented influence of business on the national politics. This new level of extreme corruption led Mark Twain to refer to the phenomenon as the "Gilded Age" of politics.

It is important to note that all of industry would be connected, either directly or indirectly, to the production of oil. By 1870, all of the economies of the industrialized nations were based on oil. The significance of this is explored in greater detail in the book, "Farewell America."

D- Business interest rapidly became central to the decision-making processes of (1) citizens electing officials to the legislative and executive branches; and (2) the domestic and foreign policies of those elected officials in both branches. While the federal courts are defined as the branch that is supposed to "do the least harm to democracy," the changes in the executive and legislative branches created changes in the judiciary, just as surely as the pulling of two sides of a triangular mobile suspende above the crib of democracy.

Thus: (1) the president begins to increasingly dominate the legislative process; (2) the congress increasingly delegates its authority to the president; and (3) the federal courts tend to become "activist" to offset congressional impotence. And despite the best of intentions, and while acknowledging the value of many progressive decisions, the federal courts should not be "activist," as the dangers posed by current federal courts demonstrate.

3) Threats to our Constitutional Democracy

The deteriorative influences of business interests on the separation of federal powers accelerated during WW2. If we examine the relationship of the competition of the world economy on American political life, we can note a progression in the executive branch (including FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, & LBJ) moving towards the Imperial Presidency of the Nixon Era. The two areas where this threat to our constitutional democracy were concentrated were (a) the war powers, and (b) secrecy. (Schlesinger)

The history of the war powers in terms of the president responding to a threat to the nation's security evolved significantly after WW2. This was due to the influence of the military industrial complex. All American foreign policy, with the exception of some initial attempts by JFK which ended on 11-22-1963, equated the access to foreign resources with national security, and domestic security with bureaucratic secrecy.

This was in opposition to the 64th Federalist Paper, in which John Jay interpreted the Constitution to recognize but two needs for federal secrecy: (1) diplomatic negotiations, and (2) intelligence.

Democracy by its very nature demands the disclosure of information by all three branches of government. Even among the widely varying opinions of the Founding Fathers, there was complete agreement that the free diffusion of information was vital to insure a stable federal government.

Yet as the executive branch created an elastic definition of "national security," the presidents began a more undemocratic relationship with the bureaucracies of the military indistrial complex. And the instinct of bureaucracy is "to increase the superiority of the professionally informed by keeping their knowledge and intentions secret." (Max Weber: Essays in Sociology; Grath & Mills; New York; 1946)

4) External Threats to our Constitutional Democracy

The external threats to the USA from WW2 to the prsent tend to fit into three groups: the Nazi/ Axis powers; the communist menace; and the Islamic terrorist/"axis of evil" group of today. With the exceptions of Pearl Harbor and 9-11, all defined threats to our national interest tended to be defined as occuring in other countries, either to American business interests, or to trading partners. The cultural implications of Pearl Harbor and 9-11 are obvious.

Another external threat to our national security has become known to a large segment of our population through a cultural phenomenon, Michael Moore's movie "F 9-11." The threat is posed by foreign investments going beyond a few acres of land, or shares in a corporate stock. F 9-11 demonstrates clearly that a significant segment of our economy is controlled by foreign governments. One, for example, is Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family shows no appreciation for constitutional democracy.

Moore's movie demonstrates that the Saudi royal family is able to compromise the balance of powers in our federal government. Their influence with the Bush administration has stopped a serious investigation into what role they played in the 9-11 attack on the USA; allows them to manipulate what information becomes known to the American public; and interferes with the legal system, when James Baker represents the Saudis in a court action filed by the families of 9-11 victims.

5) The Revolutionary Presidency

The danger to our constitutional democracy could be measured in 2003 by the following: (a) the Bush administration was comprised almost exclusively by people with ties to business that define "conflicts of interest;" (b) both houses of congress, if not impotent, had at least agreed to a legislative abstinence of duty; the only elected representitives who attempted to stand up to the executive were from "minority" populations; and (c) the US Supreme Court had disgraced the judicial institution with its 2000 selection of Bush for president, based entirely upon political and economic interests.

The dangers of an imperial presidency pales in comparison to the current threat posed by the revolutionary presidency. Consider that: (a) George Bush has become the most absolute monarch of any world power in today's world. Add to that the fact that VP Cheney has more concentrated power than any dictator in world history, including Mao Tse-tung; (b)the congress is divided and weakened. The Senate has lost any control over the White House urge for increased war-making, and the House of Representatives no longer enquires into grievences, unless they concern issues such as oral sex rather than Enron, 9-11, the Plame exposure, or the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of black citizens in Florida; and (c) the idea of 13 Colonies demanding freedom of speech is disgraced by 13 states having "libel" laws making it illegal to express concerns about food farms, or the safety of related "agro-business" food products. (Crimes Against Nature; Robery Kennedy, Jr)

6) You Reap What You Sow

The Bush administration rules through fear, the "threats" to national security that they define, through manipulating the 9-11 national emergency, and through secrecy. Their policies pose a threat to individual liberties in order to benefit business interests, and they are the greatest threat to constitutional democracy today. The extent of this threat is exposed by a series of books associated with John Dean, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Robery Kennedy, Jr., and many others. It is also exposed to grass-roots America by the movie "F 9-11."

The reaction of the administration is to attempt to discredit the individuals involved in exposing the political corruption of this administration. This is not a new tactic. Before the FBI focused on Martin Luther King's sex life, before the COINTELPRO operations of the 1960s and '70s, we remember the efforts of two congressional leaders in the mid-50s. Senator Thomas Hennings, Jr. and Rep. John Moss questioned the bureaucratic secrecy that threatened the democratic system, by discussing why the government labled a Pentagon study of the bow & arrow ("Silent Flashless Weapons") as "top secret."
They were accused of threatening national security.

This administration and its corporate sponsors, including the news media, are involved in a similar campaign to discredit critics. This campaign includes Ambassador Joseph Wilson. (see Plame Indictment Threads #1-12)

An unintended consequence of the high level of bureaucratic secrecy is that it leads to no respect for individual secrecy. This is evident from a reading of the Patriot Act: things like medical and library records, which should be protected by the US Constitution, are no longer private.

Further, the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative stands as the moststark example of the administration's contempt for the rights to privacy implied by the Constitution.

7) Conclusion

At the time of the American Revolution, the "founding fathers" met in secret. They were almost exclusively from the "upper class," and needed to keep their actions secret from King George. While they may have spoken more openly as individuals, their group efforts were not known to the upper class, including the newspapers of the day.

However, the middle class and the poor spread the word. They were aware of King George's spies, so they spread the word on a democratic underground. It took root -- and grass roots democracy has been the most important part of the foundation for this country ever since. The grass roots are more powerful than those three branches of the federal government.

We're in similar circumstances today. Our president is no more in favor of democracy than old King George was. We have two chances of kicking him out of power. The most obvious is the election in November. But there's also the Plame Indictments.

If there is any life breath in the balance of powers, the legislative and judiciary must do their jobs. This is a criminal outfit. There are now numerous "upper class" people organizing to hold this administration liable for their crimes. It's not just democrats hoping to reclaim the presidency in 2004. It's a wide range of citizens who know that Bush and Cheney intend to fully destroy the constitutional democracy we should enjoy.

You and I aren't meeting in their secret get-togethers. We're that grass-roots democratic power. Our primary job is to continue to educate the public, register voters, and increase participation in those treasures defined by the Bill of Rights. Please work to spread the message about the Plame Indictments. We've seen a preview of the administration's late summer counter-offensive.

Let's expose them as totally offensive.

Thank you,
H2O Man

robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-25-04 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #52

55. RECAP-PALLAS THEORY OF WHY PLAME>CHENEY>HALLLIBURTON


3. A THEORY ON THE WHY - Plame -> Cheney->Halliburton


repost

A THEORY ON THE WHY - Plame -> Cheney->Halliburton

On my way home today, as I thought about the why the outing of Valerie Plame was necessary, I was so engrossed I drove 4 exits past my exit.

Here's what we know:

1) Valerie Plame was "active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of Weapons of Mass Destruction components"" when her identity was exposed by the White House. It also said" Only a high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge" that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent.

2) Vice President Cheney since 1995 as CEO of Halliburton was fined 1.2 milion dollars for illegal sales of components to Libya which could be used for nuclear purposes. Shortly before becoming Vice President he bitterly assailed US policy against selling such components to Syrria and Iran, which apparently hurt Halliburton's bottom line.

3) There is an investigation of Vice President Cheney in other countries for illegal bribery and various other offenses connected to Halliburton as well as paying amounts to secret Swiss bank accounts

4)The Atomic Energy Commission has said a North American company is one of 20 being investigated for black market sales of WMD materials.

Here's the theory:

Valerie Plame was stopped in her tracks and the biggest treasonous taboo of revealing a CIA sting operation was done because she/it was coming close to discovering even more serious violations of the laws against trading nuclear materials with certain countries by our own Vice President and the Hallibuton company he has awarded billions of US taxpayer dollars to in non-bid contracts after he became VP.

Recently Libya was accused of having WMD components and the US threat
ened to invade unless Quaddaffi gave the WMD components to the US.
Bush 2 was seen on TV this week inspecting the cases of returned materials from Iraq triumphantly. The fact that Quaddafi received these illegal shipments of components from Cheney/Halliburton was not
mentioned in the victory video.

Dick Cheney, even after the Senate Intel Committee, The Atomic Commission and numerous other agencies have said no WMD exist in Iraq,
insists Iraq has WMD even in the last week.

Why? Because Dick Cheney knows he, through an offshore Halliburton company with a PO Box, at some time in the past sold Saddam Hussein WMD or components of WMD. In the same way "they" under Bush 1 adminstration sold Hussein lethal gas which he used, and then attacked him for using it saying he was a threat to the community.

Why do Cheney and Bush insist they must attack Syrria and Iran as the next step in making the world safe and that Syrria and Iran have
WMD? Cheney-Halliburton know that Syrria and Iran have WMD components because Cheney illegally sold the WMD components to Syrria and Iran.

Why did Bush Cheney know that North Korea had WMD and where did they gget the components?

Why were Pakistan and India able to test and develop nuclear weapons undetected by the CIA's "big eye in the sky" or any agency's seismic
discovery? And where did India and Pakistan purchase the components
for WMD which were illegal for any company to sell them?

What was Valerie Plame investigating?


good spooks vs the bad spooks in the FBI and CIA becomes very confusing to most, I think.



Not to add confusion to my "theory " above, but I also thought:

When Saudi Arabia asked Junior and Company to get out of Saudi Arabia
afer we had built a monstrous and expensive base armed with the newest weaponry - one might call it a home base -why would they do that, when they had wanted US to protect them and their oil fields for years???

The reason given for asking us to vacate was to calm the anti-American element. Hmmm. But if they needed our protection from that very element, WHY would they ask their protector to leave.
BECAUSE they "likely" also received WMD from certain parties.

So now, we can guess, the entire Middle East is armed with illegal components of WMD...supplied by whom?hmmm

And I agree with you ROBERTPAULSEN- it's a great racket. Supply them
with the components, collect payment. Shuttle back and forth between
private employment and government employment, selling WMD for your company's bottom line while a private CEO, earning large bonuses and
deferred "payment" plus increased stock option value, go back into government, create a war on those countries who have the WMD you have sold them, then you have created a situation where your company and the other companies you hold stock in, or which belong to your other associates, can supply the army with munitions, destroy the country you have sold WMD to, and then the very same companies who supplied the munitions for destruction, go in and rebuild the country.


So. Now how many times have you profiteered?
1) illegal selling of WMD
2) earn bonus, increase value of stock options
3) Supply Army Munitions on no bid contracts
4) Rebuild the country on no bid contracts



Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top



robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-25-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #55

56. PALLAS THEORY - WHY BRIT INTEL WONT SHOW THEIR EVIDENCE


everyone is assuming that the Brit Intel is the same Intel that the
CIA had. (on yellowcake)

You're right about one thing...the intel agencies all share their info.BUT you are forgetting that the French have been investigating CHeney Halliburton illegalities for some time, and Cheney Halliburton
did not sell yellowcake (to our knowledge), they sold equipment that could be used for dual use - and one of the uses was for a nuklar bomb.

So there is nothing to say that the Brit Intel was the same Niger info.In fact it may not be.

WHY would they not share with the world what information they had about Iraq having WMD? And why have they suddenly changed their mindsagain saying it was bogus after all - after insisting for 1 1/2 years they had separate proof of Iraq having WMD?

Theory: because it would cause a great deal of embarrassment to "he who calls himself president of VICE ! !! a-ha!

Could be one of Halliburton's subsidiaries or offshores, whose name and connection was not recognized immediately was in the hands of Brit Intel so they said they had separate verifying proof of WMD in Iraq - only to realize the proof traced back to a company named Halliburton or Brown Root - and so they shut up. (TOP SECRET - CANNOT BE REVEALED, of course while every intel agency in the world knows, but the general public date not know becaue we would hang the perpetrator)

Highly plausible . First they say they have proof of WMD in Iraq.but refuse to show it.......now they suddenly say the proof is bogus - and still refuse to reveal it.



Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top



robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-25-04 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #56

57. H20 THEORY - RECAP


H2O Man (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-17-04 02:01 PM




We know that Valerie Plame was involved in a sting operation involving the components for WMDs. This is verfied in J. Klein's article in Time, 7-5-04. Remember also that when Novak called CI for confirmation of Plame's status -- and Robert NoFacts had told a total stranger on a public street on the day afterWilson's NYT op-ed article that she was a WMD specialist -- the CIA requested that he not only should NOT mention Wilson's wife was an operative with the Agency, but that her name should not ever be printed.

One of the things to keep in mind is that by revealing Plame's identity, it insured that at very least, a half-dozen operatives (American and other-wise) were exposed to the last people on earth that they should have been exposed to. Let's just say, for example, that there was a person who was working in the Pakistan area ... and he had worked in deep cover for over a decade, and was very, very close to accessing information on the sale of not only technology, but also components, that went to Iran .... and he had a known link to Plame .... then he would be dead 24 hours after Novak's article was printed. Further, no one in the USA would be at liberty to discuss the fact that he existed.

You will recall that I've referred to this as high stakes chess. A board game where the removal of one player compromises the safety and value of several others.

Listen: if they wanted to call Wilson's conclusions into question, they could create confusion with a series of bullshit documents from England, etc. They could have said that his was one of three US reports, and that there were the British papers that were still open to question, considering that Wilson had not viewed them. They could have even said, yes, we tend to agree with Wilson.

But they didn't. They had been waiting to reveal information on Plame for some time. The fact that Iran is sharing he focus in the recent days, along with Wilson, is a clue .... a big clue.



Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top



robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-25-04 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #57

58. CALIMARY THEORY RECAP


Pallas180 (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-17-04 05:43 PM


71. I am convinced Valerie Plame was the target, & they thought
they would do a 'Rosenberg' on them. Two for the price of one.
Set them up.Traitors to the country, electric chair, the whole bit.




calimary (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-17-04 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #71

143. That would fit in conveniently with the message they evidently wanted to put out to the intel community: the "do not cheney with us" message. Wilson has, many times, mentioned that what happened to his wife, whether to her directly or indirectly to him, was to seriously discourage others from getting "out of line." Wouldn't that just be the decisive little coup de grace - to "Rosenberg" one or both of them, to put a chill on anybody else who might be getting too dangerously close? If they knew they were not only going to be ruined, but they also faced the electric chair or some other kind of EXTREMELY final punishment, there'd be icicles hanging off all of them before you could say "BOO!"

And for awhile, they've seemed invincible, haven't they? So who would dare...

But things are a lot stickier and more complicated now. Their anticipated free ride is starting to get seriously mucked up as more people know, and talk, and spread out, and start asking questions, and some guy like Fitzgerald gets involved (who couldn't be counted on to be a "good" republi-CON after all. And, as someone else mentioned either here or on Thread 8 - they misunderestimated the internet. They thought we'd all just shut up and go to our corner and suck our thumbs and mope and cower and give up, didn't they? They didn't know we'd (literally, here) go underground...

As Martha Stewart would say - it's a VERY good thing. And it's gaining traction.

Which is what our efforts in all these arenas should do, as well. GAIN TRACTION.






Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top



robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-25-04 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #58

60. ROBERTPAULSEN THEORY HALLI>KHAN-OBL>PLAME>CHENEY


robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-19-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #216

234. WHOA!!! Could this be circumstantial evidence of a Khan/Plame link?!


When I first read this article, I decided to post it here because of the dirt it has on a Musharraf/Khan/Bin Laden connection.

A. Q. KHAN & OSAMA BIN LADEN

snip
These accounts of three of the travels of Dr.A.Q.Khan establish conclusively the following facts:

He had kept the Pakistani Foreign Office informed of his travels. The Foreign Office had instructed the Pakistani diplomatic missions in the countries visited by him to accord the due honours of protocol to him.
In all the countries, he was received by officers of the Pakistani diplomatic missions and entertained by the heads of missions.
In Sudan, he was accorded the honours of protocol generally given to a member of the Cabinet and called on the President of the country.
He was accompanied by senior serving scientists of Pakistan's nuclear establishment, who were among those responsible for Pakistan's military nuclear development. They could not have gone abroad and remained absent for days without the knowledge and clearance of the Government.
At least one Lt.Gen. belonging to the Pakistan Army's Medical Corps, who had headed it, and two Brigadiers had accompanied him. They could not have gone and remained away from the country without the knowledge and clearance of the Military Headquarters.
The uranium enriched at KRL, Kahuta, used to come from Africa, mainly Niger. This partly explains the frequent travels of A.Q.Khan to Africa. From the accounts given by the Pakistani author, two intriguing questions arise:

Why did Khan consider it necessary to visit the site of a factory in Sudan, which became the target of US Cruise missile attacks after the explosions outside the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam by Al Qaeda in August 1998? The Americans had alleged at that time that this factory belonged to Osama bin Laden and was producing chemicals for weaponisation purposes. Denying this, the Sudanese authorities had claimed that it was producing anti-malaria drugs.
Why was he visiting frequently Timbuktu, which has apparently no importance from the nuclear point of view? Pakistani officials have alleged that he had illegally constructed a hotel there ( Hotel La Colombe?) in the name of his wife. If he was going there to supervise the construction of the hotel, he should have been accompanied by experts in building construction and the hotel industry. No such person accompanied him. He was always accompanied by scientists and Army officers associated with KRL and Tahir Mian, who was helping him in the procurement of centrifuges.
It is reliably learnt from well-placed observers that it also came out during the recent interrogation of the associates of Khan in Pakistan's nuclear establishment that after Osama bin Laden shifted from Khartoum to Afghanistan in 1996, Dr.Khan was also looking after bin Laden's extensive investments in the mining industry in many African countries and that the money invested in the Timbuktu hotel had come from these investments of bin Laden. The Pakistani authorities have reportedly suppressed this information and not shared it with the US.

http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/khanandbin ...

Sooooo....

Khan, with the assistance of the Pakistani government and military, looked after bin Laden investments in Africa. Pretty bad on its own merits. But then this sentence caught my eye.


The uranium enriched at KRL, Kahuta, used to come from Africa, mainly Niger. This partly explains the frequent travels of A.Q.Khan to Africa.


What a coincidence. The enriched uranium that Khan had access to came mainly from NIGER!

Now, when Cheney sent Wilson to Niger, wasn't he aware of Plame's WMD "sting operation" in the Middle East?!

No wonder Musharraf had this reaction:

"In one of his statements, he has even blamed the US intelligence agencies for not uncovering this network earlier than October last year and asserted that if they had done so, he would have acted against it even earlier."

I know this is not direct proof of a smoking gun, but I think this information could be an extremely important piece of the puzzle. If the WMD trafficking that Plame's "sting operation" covered is linked to Khan, who got his enriched uranium mainly from Niger, and we can verify Cheney had access to this intelligence, then we are getting even closer to H20 Man and Prouty's big question: why?



Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top



robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-25-04 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #60

62. ROBERTPAULSEN - CHENEY/KHAN TIE: MOTIVE TO OUT PLAME


We all know about the $1.2 million fine Cheney got for selling dual-use components. Going back over some of my old posts, here's another bit of dirt we should all remember:

Cheney helped cover-up Pakistani nuclear proliferation in '89 so US could sell country fighter jets

Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
Jason Leopold
When Pakistan's clandestine program involving its top nuclear scientist selling rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea, blueprints for building an atomic bomb was uncovered last month, the world's leaders waited, with baited breath to see what type of punishment George W. Bush would inflict upon Pakistan's President Pervez Musharaff. Bush has, after all, spent his entire term in office talking tough about countries and dictators that conceal weapons of mass destruction and even tougher on individuals who supply rogue nations and terrorists with the means to build WMD. For all intents and purposes, Pakistan and Musharraf fit that description.

Remember, Bush accused Iraq of harboring a cache of WMD, which was the primary reason he gave for the United States launching a preemptive strike on that country a year ago, and also claimed that Iraq may have given its WMD to al-Qaeda terrorists and/or Syria, weapons that, Bush said, could be used to attack the U.S. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and top members of the administration reacted with shock when they found out that Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, spent the past 15 years selling outlaw nations nuclear technology and equipment. So it was sort of a surprise when Bush, upon finding out about Khan's proliferation of nuclear technology, let Pakistan off with a slap on the wrist. But it was all an act. In fact, it was actually a coverup designed to shield Cheney because he knew about the proliferation for more than a decade and did nothing to stop it.

Like the terrorist attacks on 9-11, the Bush administration had mountains of evidence on Pakistan's sales of nuclear technology and equipment to nations vilified by the U.S.?nations that are considered much more of a threat than Iraq?but turned a blind eye to the threat and allowed it to happen. In 1989, the year Khan first started selling nuclear secrets on the black-market; Richard Barlow, a young intelligence analyst working for the Pentagon prepared a shocking report for Cheney, who was then secretary of defense under the Bush I administration: Pakistan built an atomic bomb and was selling its nuclear equipment to countries the U.S. said was sponsoring terrorism. But Barlow's findings, as reported in a January 2002 story in Mother Jones magazine, were "politically inconvenient."

"A finding that Pakistan possessed a nuclear bomb would have triggered a congressionally mandated cutoff of aid to the country, a key ally in the CIA's efforts to support Afghan rebels fighting a pro-Soviet government. It also would have killed a $1.4-billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad," Mother Jones reported. Ironically, Pakistan, critics say, was let off the hook last month so the U.S. could use its borders to hunt for al-Qaeda leader and alleged 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden. Cheney dismissed Barlow's report because he desperately wanted to sell Pakistan the F-16 fighter planes. Several months later, a Pentagon official was told by Cheney to downplay Pakistan's nuclear capabilities when he testified on the threat before Congress. Barlow complained to his bosses at the Pentagon and was fired.

http://www.pakistan-facts.com/article.php/2004031621042 ...

That got me thinking about other facts surrounding the Plame scandal. Like the "sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components". When Khan's operation was exposed, everyone in the loop was caught with their pants down. Musharraf had to pardon Khan because as the father of the Pakistani atomic bomb, he is a national hero. Do you buy that as the real reason? That's like accepting the Bush misadministration's silence over the pardon because Pakistan is our ally in the War on Terror. Right. Reminds me of Michael Corleone in Godfather Part II: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer".

My theory is that the sting operation Plame was involved in brought down A.Q. Khan. As far as "trafficking of WMD components" goes, Khan was a pretty huge player. My fear is that Khan was just the tip of the iceberg and that when Plame's operation was derailed, it allowed even bigger fish to swim away where Middle East WMD trafficking is concerned. Remember this about Musharraf:

"His repeatedly-asserted contention has been that after the interception by the intelligence agencies of the US and the UK of a ship in October last year which was found carrying to Libya a clandestine consignment of centrifuges for uranium enrichment got manufactured at the instance of A.Q.Khan by a company in Malaysia with the assistance of a Sri Lankan Muslim, he became aware of the extensive non-proliferation activities of the A.Q.Khan group and immediately acted against them.

According to Musharraf, details of the clandestine travels and proliferation network of A.Q. Khan came to notice during the subsequent investigation. In one of his statements, he has even blamed the US intelligence agencies for not uncovering this network earlier than October last year and asserted that if they had done so, he would have acted against it even earlier

http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/khanandbin ...

If Plame was in on this sting, Musharraf certainly had a reason to voice disdain for the US intelligence agencies, and Cheney certainly had a reason to out Plame.



Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top



robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-25-04 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #62

63. Nuclear Walmart: Little Doubt that OBL has dirty bomb -


if you read Robert's post above carefully, you see that
Pakistani scientist Khan was running a Nuclear Walmart.

1)He sold the secrets of the nuclear bomb world wide. This is fact.
2)He had access to yellow cake by his trips to Africa/Niger
3)He was OBL's overseer of finances and properties, with the help
of the secret service ISI of Pakistan.

The ISI of Pakistan was also the supporter and installer of the TAliban in Afghanistan (and current protector/hider of OBL)

When Khan was exposed as the merchant of death ofa ring selling nuclear materials world wide, he was immediately pardoned by
Musharaf, PM of of Pakistan. Pardoned so fast that none of the US
Intel agencies would be able to question him.

WHY? H20 always tells us to ask WHY? Why was Khan immediately pardoned? Because to try him for criminality would have exposed
who gave him nuclear components, what corporations sold illegally,
what country and high officials were involved.

WHERE did Khan get the components which are necessary to set off
a nuclear device?

WHO? do we know who has illegally been selling nuclear dual components?

Some of these answers go back to the administration in 1988 when it
was known that administration gave other countries the miniaturized
nuke W88. Hmmmm. What current officials were in the same administration?

What was the name of the President at the time?



Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top



robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-25-04 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #63

64. Why go to the elaborate scenarios? to stop WMD investigations:


Subject: Why go to the elaborate scenarios: to stop investigations into WMD sales
Message:
Pallas180 (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-18-04 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #59

71. They're not called the Mayberry Machiavellis for nothing - I think

in a way it was the other way around, they weren't after Wilson, they were after Plame. Two for the price of one. Rosenberg them.

Cheney has been in govt since Nixon, that we know of, then Ford.
He's been around a long time with access to top security items.
To recap, we also knew he made at least 10 trips to CI HQ and would
have, could have, pinpointed who was working blackmarket WMD which
would have been of great interest to him. He would also have access
to CI files, would know of or remember Ambassador Wilson. Bingo -
the plot is hatched.

Ask her would her husband be interested in helping? Of course.
Discredit him, expose/discredit her operation and put a stop to her work and the work of the entire spy group/cell she had set up worldwide which MAY have been hot on the trail of Halliburton/Brown Root/et al illegal black market sales of components which could be used for WMD, which as we all know was Valerie's job.

He figures he's home free, no more fines, no discovery of the double dealing, but the Mayberrys call Novak and committ a treasonous act which leads right back to the WH and darth vader.

___________________________________________________________________


Pallas180 (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-18-04 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #102

117. If Pappy gave the mini nuke W88 to China,as widely reported, there is nothing to say Pappy and darth vader didn't give the same or similar components to Khan. And your theory sounds just about right - Khan would have had to be pardoned immediately because not to pardon him, the good FBI would be over there asking him where he got the WMD and the arrow would point right back to the 1988 administration # 1 and/or the current WH.

Another reason why junior sealed Pappy's records.

Nice, huh. It still sounds like treason to me at the highest levels
__________________________________________________________

robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-18-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #117

138. Glad you agree!
The extent of treason is pretty scary. Gives me nightmares sometimes. I woke up this morning with the memory of seeing a news report: "Bush prepares for upcoming Iran invasion". That's one nightmare I'm afraid might come true.

But I take comfort in knowing we're all on the side of righteousness in this struggle

Additional edit for this thread: These theories are all different, but as far as I can see, they all fit into a pattern, like different pieces of the same jigsaw puzzle. I look forward to reading more research into these theories, as well as new theories that could give us a fresh perspective on the nature of this crime.


Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top



shraby (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-27-04 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #55

185. There is one more aspect


to the 1-2-3-4

5. Enter government from time to time and make sure laws and regulations are such that you can be most profitable while you're in the private sector.

stay tuned.

The information gathered from all over the internet is being
assembled into an understandable and simplified format.

for putting it together on a new thread...once again.

Sunday, Jun. 27, 2004
Plenty More to Swear About
By JOE KLEIN
The Vulcans — a campaign 2000 nickname for George W. Bush's hawkish national security team — went Krakatoa last week. Dick Cheney erupted on the Senate floor, deploying the F word against Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, who had been belaboring the Vice President over the no-bid deals that Cheney's old company, Halliburton, had scored in Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz suffered a meltdown in a House Armed Services Committee hearing, blasting the press for "sitting in Baghdad" and "printing rumors." (He later apologized.) And the White House was forced to acknowledge that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had approved, at least for a while, the use of dogs, nudity, stress positions — that is, torture — against enemy combatants. Indeed, Rumsfeld, who works at a stand-up desk, indicated a desire for at least one more strenuous stress position: "I stand 8-10 hours a day," he scrawled on a memo. "Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

Presumably the Secretary of Defense doesn't do his standing naked, continuously, in the middle of the night, surrounded by hostile guards and attack dogs. But then, Rumsfeld's blustery testosteronics are at the heart of what has gone wrong with the Bush foreign policy — and last week the assorted temper tantrums appeared to be a leading indicator of a gathering summer storm confronting this presidency.


The torture investigation is one of four major defensive battles the Administration is facing. In the weeks to come, the White House will also have to deal with the 9/11 commission's final report, the congressional investigations into the CIA's bungled assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and a special prosecutor's hunt for the White House leakers who blew the cover of CIA secret operative Valerie Plame. Not only is the Administration defending itself against the Democrats, the investigators and the media. Two other serious, surreptitious — and quite possibly unprecedented — battles are going on: the intelligence community is at war with the White House, and the uniformed military is at war with the civilian leadership of the Pentagon. The first conflict went public last week with news of the impending publication of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terrorism, a book by an anonymous author who is known to be a senior CIA official and former chief of the agency's Osama bin Laden station. The invasion of Iraq was "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," the author writes. "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq."

Michael Moore couldn't have said it any better — and this book was vetted by CIA censors. In fact, the views of Anonymous are an accurate reflection of the opinions I've heard from multiple intelligence sources. The spooks seem to believe that outgoing CIA Director George Tenet was strong-armed by Cheney and Rumsfeld into overassessing Iraq's WMD capacity. This may or may not be true, but it is the conventional wisdom in the intelligence community. Furthermore, there is intense anger over the White House's revealing the identity of Plame, who may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components. Plame was outed in a White House attempt to discredit the finding of her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that there was no evidence that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. "Only a very high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge that Plame was on the payroll" of the CIA, an intelligence source told me.

more...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,11010 ...

I reprint this article that we have been referencing since the first thread because the knowledge of this "sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components" provides us with clues for a MOTIVE to blow Valerie Plame's cover. Exploring the reasons "why" gives us a clearer understanding of the scope of this treasonous act and leads to the next logical query in any criminal investigation: who benefited?


Here's the $1.2 million link


Maybe RebelYell could send this along with Cheney speech link to Robert Palast. He'd laugh his ass off and spread the word!

A Halliburton Primer
Thursday, July 11, 2002


Following President Bush's demand for more corporate accountability, public interest group Judicial Watch, Inc., filed suit against Vice President Cheney and the Halliburton Company, alleging accounting fraud during Cheney's stewardship of Halliburton in the 1990s. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is also investigating Halliburton's accounting practices.


Judicial Watch Sues Cheney, Halliburton (AP, July 10, 2002)

Following is a brief explanation of Cheney's involvment with Halliburton and the pending lawsuit and SEC investigation.

What is Halliburton Co.?

The Dallas-based Halliburton Company provides products and services to the petroleum and energy industries to aid in the exploration, development and production of natural resources. Halliburton KBR, the company's engineering and construction division, designs, builds and provides additional services for the energy industry, governments and civil infrastructure. Halliburton employs 85,000 people in over 100 countries.

Halliburton came under fire in the early '90s for supplying Libya and Iraq with oil drilling equipment which could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. Halliburton Logging Services, a former subsidiary, was charged with shipping six pulse neutron generators through Italy to Libya. In 1995, the company pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya. Halliburton was fined $1.2 million and will pay $2.61 million in civil penalties.

During his chairmanship of Halliburton, Cheney criticized U.S. sanctions against "rogue" nations such as Iran and Libya in a 1998 speech. According to a July 26, 2000, Washington Post story, Cheney complained the sanctions "are nearly always motivated by domestic political pressure, the need for Congress to appeal to some domestic constituency."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/article ...

Thank you Pallas180, H2O Man and everyone else at DU!

Fantastic work !

I know I took up a lot of your time asking questions that were probably not very relevant so again I thank you.

H20 and you have done an awesome job as have others.

do read thread #13 - I think you'll be very excited by what
is uncovered.

I see you read that disruptor thread.

Keep up the good work.

I've started copying important info from these threads and have passed it around my work and left about 10 copies on the local subway.

Time will tell if Bushco can get away with all of this even though it's starting to see the light of day.

If just one new visitor reads this thread the kick was worthwhile.

again in a new thread.

and get to work! Why isn't North Carolina excited about John Edwards?

You gotta get them energized Dem!

There are many of us trying desperately to win this state, we will not give up easily.

Long article and I'm not certain I either understand or agree with all that is being said. For example, he calls 9/11 an 'intelligence failure' and I'm not so sure of that. In any case, I believe it is worth a read:


The CIA's DI Disgrace

By Robert Parry
July 13, 2004

/snipping most of the article to conclusion/:

While Tenet and other CIA officials also have noted that they objected to some bogus administration claims, such as the assertion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, those protests were mostly half-hearted and made behind closed doors. Bush was only forced to back off the yellowcake claim, which he had cited in his State of the Union address in January 2003, after the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that the supporting documentation was "not authentic."

In its July 9, 2004, report, the Senate Intelligence Committee broadly condemned the CIA’s analysis of the military threat posed by Iraq, blaming analytical “group think” that led the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies into a pattern of errors on Iraq’s WMD program and other issues.

“A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of intelligence,” the committee said in a 511-page report. “Most of the major key judgments either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting.”

While the results of the CIA's "group think" are now apparent – in the nearly 900 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and in the deepening anti-U.S. sentiment around the world – the start of this path that led to the CIA's humiliation can be found in those early days of the Reagan-Bush administration when ideology became more important than fact.

http://consortiumnews.com/2004/071304.html

that lacks objective research capabilities. Bu$hCo can't be trusted.

under Douglas Feith had the most to do with the bad intell. They relied on Chalabi and friends.

"In the same UPI article, Kapisthalam mentions how funding for Pakistan's nuclear program came from the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. One need only look at BCCI's history to confirm the role of the CIA in the ISI's affairs.

Various articles by Kapisthalam point to the duplicitous role of Pakistan as both US ally and terror sponsor, but the most obvious conclusion is ignored like so much good intelligence. As if the CIA's past support for Al-Qaeda, the Contras and Generals Pinochet and Soeharto weren't enough."

more-

http://www.crikey.com.au/yoursay/2004/05/21-0003.html

Eckenrode, who was until recently in charge of the FBI's investigation into the Plame leak is moving to Philadelphia's FBI office.

Could this mean they don't need him anymore because things are wrapping up?

Link:
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/9251273....

Not only that, we're hoping the indictments are a'coming too.

thanks for the info.

"Our principles do not change. Justice is always justice; freedom is always freedom. Great principles are constant. And so what they call the "old way" is nothing more than principles. And they say you can't go back to the old way -- which means you can't go back to justice, you can't go back to equality, you can't go back to what is right and wrong. Principles are how you exist above and beyond the emotions that you feel; to control and have discipline of one's self. Self-discipline, not people making you behave, but discipline where you don't need police. That is how our people lived. There were no police. There were no jails. There were basic laws -- you don't lie and steal. Tell the truth. Be strong. Look out for your brothers and sisters. Look out for the ones just underneath you. Look out for the elders. Use your strength on behalf of the nation, on behalf of the people. Conduct yourself in a proper manner."

-- Oren Lyons; Onondaga Nation Council of Chiefs

"To those who stubbornly argue 'it's against human nature,' we can only patiently reply that you must know your own nature before you can say this. Those who have gone into their own natures deeply have, for several thousand years now, been reporting that we have nothing to fear if we are willing to train ourselves, to open up, explore and grow."

--"Earth House Hold," by Gary Snyder; New Directions; 1968

"There should be truth in thought, truth in speech, and truth in action. Devotion to truth is the sole justification of our existence. It is impossible for us to realize perfect truth so long as we are imprisoned in this mortal frame."

--Gandhi

"I SAW A SOCIETY YEARNING TO BE CONVINCED ABOUT THE ESSENCE OF

CONVICTION. I SAW A SOCIETY WHERE THERE WAS A VACCUUM. I SAW A

SOCIETY THAT REQUIRED MORE SACRIFICE AND UNDERSTANDING. THERE IS

A UNIVERSAL CONTEST BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL AND I BELIEVE EVENTUALLY

GOOD WILL TRIUMPH OVER EVIL. BUT GOOD CANNOT TRIUMPH OVER EVIL

BY RETREATING FROM EVIL- GOOD MUST CONFRONT EVIL"


" You are not motivated because you are a decent person, no. Sometimes it is a calling. And when there is a calling, there is no explanation for what motivates you. There is no explanation for your action, or what propels you. It has to be a vocation. Every one of us has been born into this world with a mission. It has to be fulfilled. Whether I like it or not God intended to use me in society in this way. I hold no malice against anyone. I believe hatred blurs the human sensibilities and diminishes the spirit. Those who hate me, criticize me, and vilify me, purify my conviction and strengthen my courage."

"We all live in different societies. We all have to face our different circumstances and challenges. But we must find our common ground. We must work together. And I think we can all make this world a better place. .. this is my favorite quote by Etienne de Grellet:

"I know I shall pass this way but once. And if there is anything I can do, any kindness I show, any good thing I can do, let me do it now, for I shall not pass this way again."


quote from Founding director of the foremost human rights organization in Liberia, the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission, Sam Woods

Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.

and

A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.

So then, what is our mission? Have yesterday's revelations changed that mission?

If we are to have truth in action, what is our action going to be?

that we consider that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee has mentioned in a recent op-ed piece that the House should be investigating the Plame incident ..... and that the committee chair Thomas Davis III had a typical republican knee-jerk reaction, in his Washington Post op-ed response to Waxman ..... I would suggest that we focus letters etc to Waxman.

I think we also had a general agreement that Sy H. is the reporter with the greatest ability to go after this story.

The Waterman Paper seems a good introduction to our work. The research has shown strong ties between cheney and weapon trade. The question remains: what specifically would the White House have needed to derail? The information we have found is powerful, but was most of it already known before last 7-14?

Our search is simply not going to be able to identify the "missing piece" of the puzzle. We can come close. I think that in particular, the information regarding Pakistan is key. I believe that there is a connection between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the ill-identified groups of Islamic militants that have indeed declared war against American interests.

I would suggest that we consider writing the body of evidence that you researchers have found. Keep it in a format that is not too complex for the average person. Have an index of other related resources. And make it available to other grass-roots groups, and urge people to continue to lobby with the selected journalist and elected official(s).

will take more than a bit of time -

as you know we'll come to you for some final editing when we have
it in some shape.

My idea is to make a flow chart similar to a geneology chart for
readily recognizable and simplification of connections.

I know that the research staff is doing the hard work. You folks are far ahead of schedule. Don't slow down, of course. But I understand what research is, in terms of work. Remember my story about page 100556.

The fact that the grand jury was extended changed the schedule. But we're doing great.

but what we find is funnelled to RP for consolidation into some
kind of cohesiveness..

and he deserves a lot of, an awful lot of credit.

It prolly would be easier if we could all sit in a room
with him and point at -" put this in here and that there"
but this is really something new - to us anyway.

and it would be great to be around a table together. Somehow I think we'd know who is who without introductions.

But along with that I think our different situations bring a wider focus than would be possible if we knew each other socially or professionally. After our work is done we should get together, perhaps on a park bench somewhere!

I'm halfway through these Plame threads and starting to form an outline. I really appreciate your encouragement.

That would be great to sit around a table hashing this out. It would be an all night, maybe even all weekend session where we all wouldn't sleep a wink and have the time of our lives! It's been great bonding with everyone here who cares about the future of our country.

I'll keep up with the research today and check in here occasionally. Looks like there's some interesting posts below, anything with Bildeburg Kissinger is worth looking into.

But haven't come up with anything. The New Yorker doesn't have any easy way and google hasn't turned up anything either. Any of you sleuths have any ideas?

I think sending care of The New Yorker would be an option.

beacon of light through all this, and the main force behind WHATEVER efforts there have been, in the House of Reps, to hold these bastards accountable for - well, for ANYTHING. He's spent a LOT of time focusing on the many misdeeds and sneaky doings of dick cheney. His staff is VERY well-informed and up-to-speed, and VERY receptive to ideas, suggestions, tips on websites or online articles to check out, and, unlike the staffers at more conservative offices, they don't laugh and scoff when you try to bring something to their attention.

I know this because I'm a constituent. I have called his office probably a couple of thousand times by now. They're all of like mind with him, and therefore also, with me. They will give you an open ear, an open mind, and a fair hearing if you call them with some of this.

You guys know what to do. The usual polite, respectful call, don't come off as some crazy, just a concerned voter.

Those of you here in California can say that while you may not necessarily live in his district, you DO care, deeply, about what our California delegation in Congress is up to, and you appreciate his strong, courageous, and unrelenting leadership in trying to hold our government accountable.

If you live outside California, you can appeal to him by saying either that 1) you've already contacted your own rep about this and demanded that he/she give Waxman support; or 2) you've already contacted your rep and have gotten nowhere, so you've been FORCED to reach out, much farther away, for help.

By the way, on that second point, MANY DUers here have posted, repeatedly, about less-than-desirable experiences contacting reluctant or pig-headed representatives who accept everything bush says as thought it were engraved into the tablets of Moses. NEVER MIND! How's that again? NEVER MIND!!!!! I mean it. Even if you have a republi-CON representative, YOU STILL NEED TO CALL. YOU STILL NEED TO CALL. They still need to know that YOU want this. And who are YOU, to begin with? You are a loyal, patriotic American, a voter, and a taxpayer whose taxes fund YOUR REPRESENTATIVE'S SALARY and that of everyone on their staff, and THEY WORK FOR YOU! THEY ARE YOUR EMPLOYEES. Since YOU are among their constituency, they ignore your interests at their peril, because they also have to answer to YOU on election day, whether they like it or not. They NEED to know that their constituents have OTHER directives for them. It is good, and fitting, and COMPLETELY RED-WHITE-AND-BLUE AMERICAN to remind them of this, because, especially in the circles of power where the republi-CONS all are (for now), they tend to lose sight of that. Particularly if they're used to basking in the glory of their sun-god from Crawford.

CALL THEM ANYWAY. Remember this: what made Richard Nixon finally throw in the towel and resign? People of HIS OWN PARTY had finally had enough, probably because they'd caught nonstop hell about him and their "loyalty" to him from their constituents, and told him it was time to give it up because he was a lost cause. It was OTHER REPUBLI-CONS who finally did it. The Democrats had been onboard long before this. It took the republi-CONS to be the final lever that pushed him out of the White House. Eventually, they couldn't help it. They HAD TO CAVE TO PUBLIC OPINION. THAT'S what we have to do here. Because it CAN happen again.

www.congress.org - is the all time best directory on the net for ANY rep or senator. They're away from Washington right now because they're on a break. But it's been a contentious break, with LOTS of unfinished business they've left behind, and they are WELL AWARE OF THAT, already. Believe me, they won't be far from their offices, and they won't have turned off their cell phones. So it is STILL fair and reasonable and wise to write, OR call (TOLL FREE, see my sig line).

All the specific directory stuff, in the VERY MOST RECENT UPDATES, can be found in the Activism/Events forum here, if you need any of that. But you have to do it. You have to push aside the doubts and fears and dreads that your knuckle-dragger congressperson won't even pay attention to you, and just turn back around and continue the bush-worship. That will CERTAINLY happen if you don't speak up. If you DO speak up, however, you're apt to find that you are not the only one. They may ignore a single complaint. But if they start getting dozens of them, or better yet hundreds (or more), they will be FORCED to start taking notice. That's a big block of potential voters they can't afford to piss off, even in districts that they may still consider safe.

NOTHING'S safe anymore. EVERYTHING is fair game. And EVERY ONE OF US has to jump in there and play it.

Web Site: www.house.gov/waxman
E-mail: Contact Via 'Write Your Rep.'

Washington Office:
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0530
Phone: (202) 225-3976
Fax: (202) 225-4099

Main District Office:
8436 W. 3rd St., #600
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Phone: (323) 651-1040
Fax: (323) 655-0502

sens and reps? I remember seeing it somewhere but my short term
memory stinks! Like waht's your name again?

is it on Ben & Jerry's organization?

or ACLU?

if you can post it , that would be great.

and do you mind if I repost this on the bottom of the thread?

You should also repost it as a new thread in General Discussion --
people have to know there's something they can do.

What a bright and glorious day !

According to Capital Hill Blue. As if we couldn't tell!. Maybe the fear of indictments has finally gotten to him!

www.capitalhillblue.com/

maybe we should be sending him Waterman's Paper
and our disccoveries.

? ?

maybe we should be sending him Waterman's Paper
and our disccoveries.

? ?

http://www.ourfuture.org/press/convention/pr20040727.cf ...

SNIP..."AREA HOTEL FORCED TO SHUT DOORS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
Democratic Convention Delegates, Progressives Pushed Away
Elected Officials, Labor Leaders Restrained from Entry

CAMBRIDGE, MASS. – Thousands of delegates and area residents today were forced out of a hotel across the bridge from the Democratic convention when about one hundred law enforcement officials couldn't contain the excitement around a progressive rally organized by the Campaign for America's Future. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., Los Angeles City Councilmember Antonio Villaraigosa and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney were barred from entering the building where thousands of progressives gathered to outline their alternative to right-wing policies that are not working in America.

Former Governor Howard Dean, D-Vt., filmmaker Michael Moore, former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and Campaign for America's Future Co-director Robert Borosage were among the headliners at the event held at the Royal Sonesta Hotel in Cambridge. Event organizers created a second rally site on the hotel lawn to capture the energy of those who couldn't get in. Moore and Dean spoke on both stages.

Today:
"The Campaign for America's Future plans to hold a debate between former Senator Gary Hart, D-Colo., Amb. Joe Wilson, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel at the same location tomorrow afternoon. Event organizers are looking into how to expand the size of the venue."

Dean speaks to overflow crowd from balcony:

I had the most interesting discussion with a young man last night. I was attending the local court, (not as a defendant!) and there was a fellow of about the age 20, waiting for a pre-trial hearing. He was loud, and seemed rather anxious, as he asked no one in particular and everyone in general if they had viewed "F 9-11"? Several people had. He said that it proved bush was a criminal, that the war in Iraq was wrong, and that people needed to see Moore's movie to be aware of the dangers the administration posed to America. I listened quietly as a few people exchanged opinions. The young man then said he had signed up with a military recruiter. I asked if I heard him correctly? He said that yes, he had. He wanted to sign up before there was a draft. In fact, if there was a draft, he'd go to Canada. But signing up was his own choice, not a draft, and he knew that he couldn't find a job. Also, he thought it would help him keep a clean driver's license.

I think that America needs to listen closer to the young people. When we talk to them, they appear to "get it," but I'd suggest that this young man is proof that not everyone does.

another way out. If he had had some guidance, perhaps from
an elder, some suggestions might have been made to him of
other alternatives.

He knows the truth, yet in personal matters was overwhelmed, is
the way I see it. Remembering being that young.

I'm excited to be getting back to this! Thank you for reprinting and condensing the theories, Pallas. We are definitely on the right track!

I'll re-read all the goodies on thread 13 and start going over previous threads to start putting the letter together. Also, I've been thinking since we uncovered dirt on Cheney and Rumsfeld, both very prominent members of the PNAC, perhaps we should look into other prominent members like Perle and Wolfowitz to see if they have any compromising connections with the Nuclear Walmart. Just a thought.

is the second most dangerous man in the administration. Perle is very close behind.

Wolfowitz's extortion violates U.S. law

By Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writer

December 16, 2003—On December 5, the rodent-like Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz threw down the Bush regime's latest gauntlet to the rest of the world. A charter-member of the chickenhawk neoconservatives, Wolfowitz, whose arrogance has no limit, named 61 countries eligible for Iraqi reconstruction projects. It is apparent that Wolfowitz had no problem violating the 1977 U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by promising prime contracts for countries that, in return, send troops to Iraq.

However, if the Justice Department were on the ball, it would be opening up a criminal investigation of Wolfowitz's actions (not likely, considering the Justice Department is headed by another ethically-tainted neoconservative, John Ashcroft). The FCPA states that it is "a crime for U.S. companies to bribe a foreign government official for the specified corrupt purposes. Companies violating the criminal prohibitions face maximum fines of $500,000. Individuals acting on behalf of such companies face a maximum fine of $10,000 and 5 years in jail." The law also covers payments made to foreign officials for the purposes of obtaining business.

Now, here's the rub. Although Wolfowitz is not acting as a "company," he clearly has a questionable relationship with people like Richard Perle, who has, according to Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, attempted to extort contracts from Saudi Arabia for his Trireme Partners. It is noteworthy that Saudi Arabia (the birthplace of 15 of the 19 alleged September 11 hijackers) is eligible for Iraqi prime contracts while Canada and Mexico are not. Vice President Dick Cheney, who also has a questionable relationship with Wolfowitz through a parallel and unofficial intelligence organization, continues to collect a deferred salary from Halliburton, a company that is reaping billions from Iraqi reconstruction contracts.

Considering the close relationship of Wolfowitz to Trireme and Halliburton, the Justice Department could argue that as a result of these obvious conflicts of interest, Wolfowitz is acting as an "individual acting on behalf" of companies engaged in bribery and extortion.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/121603Mads...

Ain't rounding up criminals fun?

AMERICAN JUDAS: Selling the Security of America and the World For 30 Pieces of Silver

is being shown giving speech " If terrorists get their hands
on that deadly technology"......lying dick.

"In a speech in The Hague at the end of May, John Ashcroft, the U.S. Attorney General, said. "We must come to a recognition. Personally and culturally, that corruption is not just a violation of the taw. not just an economic disadvantage,and not merely a political problem,but that it is morally wrong." It should be "no longer seen as an accepted cost of doing business," he went on. "It is now widely recognized that the consequences of corruption can be devastating:devastating to economies, devastating to the poor. devastating to the legitimacy and stability of government and devastating to the moral fabric of society."

From an article by Sy Hersh " The Price Of Oil"


http://iicas.org/english/Krsten_05_07_01.htm

Plenty More to Swear About - a focus on the question: why?


Sunday, Jun. 27, 2004
Plenty More to Swear About
By JOE KLEIN
The Vulcans — a campaign 2000 nickname for George W. Bush's hawkish national security team — went Krakatoa last week. Dick Cheney erupted on the Senate floor, deploying the F word against Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, who had been belaboring the Vice President over the no-bid deals that Cheney's old company, Halliburton, had scored in Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz suffered a meltdown in a House Armed Services Committee hearing, blasting the press for "sitting in Baghdad" and "printing rumors." (He later apologized.) And the White House was forced to acknowledge that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had approved, at least for a while, the use of dogs, nudity, stress positions — that is, torture — against enemy combatants. Indeed, Rumsfeld, who works at a stand-up desk, indicated a desire for at least one more strenuous stress position: "I stand 8-10 hours a day," he scrawled on a memo. "Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

Presumably the Secretary of Defense doesn't do his standing naked, continuously, in the middle of the night, surrounded by hostile guards and attack dogs. But then, Rumsfeld's blustery testosteronics are at the heart of what has gone wrong with the Bush foreign policy — and last week the assorted temper tantrums appeared to be a leading indicator of a gathering summer storm confronting this presidency.


The torture investigation is one of four major defensive battles the Administration is facing. In the weeks to come, the White House will also have to deal with the 9/11 commission's final report, the congressional investigations into the CIA's bungled assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and a special prosecutor's hunt for the White House leakers who blew the cover of CIA secret operative Valerie Plame. Not only is the Administration defending itself against the Democrats, the investigators and the media. Two other serious, surreptitious — and quite possibly unprecedented — battles are going on: the intelligence community is at war with the White House, and the uniformed military is at war with the civilian leadership of the Pentagon. The first conflict went public last week with news of the impending publication of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terrorism, a book by an anonymous author who is known to be a senior CIA official and former chief of the agency's Osama bin Laden station. The invasion of Iraq was "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," the author writes. "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq."

Michael Moore couldn't have said it any better — and this book was vetted by CIA censors. In fact, the views of Anonymous are an accurate reflection of the opinions I've heard from multiple intelligence sources. The spooks seem to believe that outgoing CIA Director George Tenet was strong-armed by Cheney and Rumsfeld into overassessing Iraq's WMD capacity. This may or may not be true, but it is the conventional wisdom in the intelligence community. Furthermore, there is intense anger over the White House's revealing the identity of Plame, who may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components. Plame was outed in a White House attempt to discredit the finding of her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that there was no evidence that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. "Only a very high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge that Plame was on the payroll" of the CIA, an intelligence source told me.

more...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,11010...

I reprint this article that we have been referencing since the first thread because the knowledge of this "sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components" provides us with clues for a MOTIVE to blow Valerie Plame's cover. Exploring the reasons "why" gives us a clearer understanding of the scope of this treasonous act and leads to the next logical query in any criminal investigation: who benefited?


Here's the $1.2 million link


Maybe RebelYell could send this along with Cheney speech link to Robert Palast. He'd laugh his ass off and spread the word!

A Halliburton Primer
Thursday, July 11, 2002


Following President Bush's demand for more corporate accountability, public interest group Judicial Watch, Inc., filed suit against Vice President Cheney and the Halliburton Company, alleging accounting fraud during Cheney's stewardship of Halliburton in the 1990s. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is also investigating Halliburton's accounting practices.


Judicial Watch Sues Cheney, Halliburton (AP, July 10, 2002)

Following is a brief explanation of Cheney's involvment with Halliburton and the pending lawsuit and SEC investigation.

What is Halliburton Co.?

The Dallas-based Halliburton Company provides products and services to the petroleum and energy industries to aid in the exploration, development and production of natural resources. Halliburton KBR, the company's engineering and construction division, designs, builds and provides additional services for the energy industry, governments and civil infrastructure. Halliburton employs 85,000 people in over 100 countries.

Halliburton came under fire in the early '90s for supplying Libya and Iraq with oil drilling equipment which could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. Halliburton Logging Services, a former subsidiary, was charged with shipping six pulse neutron generators through Italy to Libya. In 1995, the company pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya. Halliburton was fined $1.2 million and will pay $2.61 million in civil penalties.

During his chairmanship of Halliburton, Cheney criticized U.S. sanctions against "rogue" nations such as Iran and Libya in a 1998 speech. According to a July 26, 2000, Washington Post story, Cheney complained the sanctions "are nearly always motivated by domestic political pressure, the need for Congress to appeal to some domestic constituency."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/article...

Stay tuned - hopefully we will find out more from William Pitt.

http://www.truthout.org/dnc04.shtml

William Pitt will write about his speech and hopefully can interview him afterwards.

even at his first and only appearance, what he had to say about
the dimson family, it was reported, was censored.

We are the jury. And we have a right to hear the FULL testimony.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=144677...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fukuyama Withdraws Bush Support
Foreign News Services - Istanbul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Famous academic Francis Fukuyama, one of the founding fathers of the neo-conservative movement that underlies the policies of US President George W. Bush's administration, said on July 13 that he would not vote for the incumbent in the November 2 US Presidential election.

In addition to distancing himself from the current administration, Fukuyama told TIME magazine that his old friend, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, should resign.

In 1997, Fukuyama together with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush, signed a declaration entitled 'The New American Century Project'. That declaration set the groundwork for the neo-conservative movement.

I think that a wide range of conservatives/republicans are going to withdraw their support from this administration. And that's a good thing.

from Me's article:



Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
By TERESA HAMPTON
Editor, Capitol Hill Blue
Jul 28, 2004, 08:09
Email this article
Printer friendly page


President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.

The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President’s mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” says one aide. “We can’t have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally.”


Angry Bush walked away from reporter's questions.
Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.

“Keep those motherfuckers away from me,” he screamed at an aide backstage. “If you can’t, I’ll find someone who can.”

Bush’s mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President’s wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.

Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a “paranoid meglomaniac” and “untreated alcoholic” whose “lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad” showcase Bush’s instabilities.

“I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed,” Dr. Frank said. “He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.”

Dr. Frank’s conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.

The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President.

“President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies,” Dr. Frank adds.

The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article.

Although the exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known, White House sources say they are “powerful medications” designed to bring his erratic actions under control. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the President’s annual physical, details of the President’s health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by the secretive cadre of aides that surround the President.

Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush’s health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan’s second term when aides managed to conceal the President’s increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer’s Disease.

It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon’s final days when the soon-to-resign President wondered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn’t emerge until after Nixon left office.

One long-time GOP political consultant who – for obvious reasons – asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.

“We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes,” he says sadly. “That’s not good for my candidates, it’s not good for the party and it’s certainly not good for the country.”

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4...

How reliable is CHB? I age=ree that he seems more erratic than ususal. Falling off his bike, looking flushed, speaking almost incoherently. Notice how short his sentences have gotten and the sinple vocabulary he struggles to find.

All signs of something going on.

and indictments against people in the white house come down, plus the investigation into the Iran communications leak opens up, will he be competent enough to handle the assault? It might be enough to make him crack wide open. Plus he'll have the Republican convention to deal with. Not going to be purty.

his physician is always with him too which indicates to me that something isn't right.

I'm familiar enough with Dr. Frank to say he likely would not throw out a term like, "paranoid meglomaniac," which sounds like: (1) someone who heard part of Justin Frank's most recent tv discussion on C-Span, but missed the important parts; or (2) someone who heard the terms "paranoid" and "meglomania" somewhere else, and thought they'd fit well.

But for anyone who has listened closely to Dr. Frank, this is nonsense.

And Bush shows no evidence of being medicated. Perhaps one could make a strong argument in favor of a couple prescriptions, but there are no medications for what ails the guy.

Thus, the story should be on one of those nice newspapers with stories about Elvis sightings and the UFOs that kidnapped Laci.

medication described as "sleeping aids" which later came out
in court cases to be responsible for murders?

Forget which one it was, but I do remember the uproar when it
was connected to abberant behavior in others.

Additionally junior is looking very paunchy - side effect of
medication?

Course, we can't tell if he's more nuts than he was cause we've always thought he was sadistically nuts.