Ron Paul Exposes New World Order & Bush Snr.

Says American empire in trouble, dollar plunging

Jones Report
Sunday May 20, 2007

Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) was asked a question about the New World Order's agenda for a one-world government during a campaign stop in Austin, Texas on Saturday, amidst tremendous turnout and support.

Ron Paul responded, "The first President Bush said the New World Order was in tune-- and that's what they were working for. The U.N. is part of that government. They're working right now very significantly towards a North American Union. That's why there's a lot of people in Washington right now who don't care too much about our borders. They have a philosophical belief that national sovereignty is not important. It's also the reason I've made the very strong suggestion the U.S. need not be in the U.N. for national security reasons."

Rep. Davis pushes for no confidence vote on attorney general

AP
Saturday May 19, 2007

Rep. Artur Davis, a Democrat from Birmingham, said Friday he is pushing for a "no confidence" vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Davis and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., both former federal prosecutors, said they would introduce the symbolic resolution urging Gonzales' resignation on Monday. Two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, said earlier this week they would offer a similar resolution stating that Gonzales was too weakened to remain on the job.

"(Gonzales) has failed to adequately and properly manage the Department of Justice and faithfully execute the duties of his office," Davis and Schiff wrote in a letter circulated to colleagues on Friday.

Earlier in the day, the White House called the Senate measure a "political stunt."

President Bush's support for his longtime ally and friend will not waver, said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

The department is embroiled in probes of the firings of prosecutors and accusations that it has become too politicized. A growing number of Republican lawmakers have joined in the call for Gonzales to resign, while others have expressed only lukwarm support.

Gonzales support eroded further this week with the revelation that as White House counsel in 2004, he went to the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and pressured him to certify the legality of Bush's controversial eavesdropping program while Ashcroft lay in intensive care.

Ashcroft had reservations about the program's legality and refused, according to Senate testimony by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey.

Carter attacks Blair for 'blind' support of US in Iraq

AFP
Saturday May 19, 2007

Former US president Jimmy Carter on Saturday attacked outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair for his "blind" support of the Iraq war, describing it as a "major tragedy for the world".
In an interview with BBC radio, Carter was asked how he would describe Blair's attitude to US President George W. Bush. He replied: "Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient.

"I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world."

Blair, who arrived in Baghdad Saturday on an unannounced visit, has suffered politically and personally since declaring his support for Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

His backing of the war despite massive public opposition divided his governing Labour Party while the absence of weapons of mass destruction -- the basis for war -- and apparent manipulation of intelligence eroded trust.

There was further discontent last year when he joined Bush in refusing to back international calls on Israel to stop its bombing of Lebanon.

Carter, US president from 1977 to 1981, suggested Blair could have made a crucial difference to US political and public opinion by distancing himself during the build-up to the March 2003 invasion.

Football fans silent at Madeleine film

By Martina Smit
Daily Telegraph
Last Updated: 6:22pm BST 19/05/2007

Video: Don't forget Maddy

Ninety thousand FA Cup fans fell silent today as haunting images of missing Madeleine McCann were broadcast on a big screen.

A two-minute film asking for help to find the four-year-old, who was abducted from her parents' holiday apartment in Portugal 16 days ago, was shown before kick-off and at half time.

The appeal reached far beyond the grounds of the new Wembley Stadium, as an estimated 450 million people in 160 countries worldwide watched the match between Chelsea and Manchester United.

Madeleine's face, with her distinctive right eye, dominated the screens at either end of the pitch - each one the size of 600 domestic TV sets.

The little girl's right pupil merges into her iris - the one part of her appearance that whoever took her cannot change.

The video, set to the soundtrack of the Simple Minds hit Don't You Forget About Me, received a round of applause from fans.

Both football teams have close ties to Portugal. Chelsea captain John Terry and team-mate Paulo Ferreira have recorded appeals in the search for Madeleine, as has Manchester United star Cristiano Ronaldo.

The Find Madeleine film, which was also shown at the Uefa Cup final last Wednesday, is the latest part of what has snowballed into an international appeal for the missing girl from Rothley, Leicestershire.

More than 75 million people have visited a special website set up by the McCann family.

A fighting fund set up on Wednesday already totals £73,505, bankers said. The amount includes £50,000 from Portsmouth Football Club, but not money collected by banks and cheques yet to clear.

Multinational companies are helping to spread Madeleine's image across Europe. BP, Esso, Texaco, Shell and Total will put up posters of her in their petrol stations, and O2, Vodafone and Spain's Telefonica are running a mobile phone text campaign.

Coach operator National Express promised to place appeal posters in bus stations in 27 countries served by its Eurolines network, while Budget, British Airways and BAA will do the same in car hire offices, flights and airports.

Portuguese police are investigating several possible sightings, including one in Morocco last week, but officers said nothing has come of it yet.

Marie Olli, a Norwegian woman who lives in Fuengirola on the Costa del Sol, said yesterday she was "very sure" she saw Madeleine in Marrakech on May 9.

While stopped at a petrol station she saw a "sad" young blonde girl who initially appeared to be standing on her own.

Then an "anonymous-looking" man in his late 30s came over and the girl asked him: "Can I see mummy soon?"

One Portuguese officer travelled to Britain to liaise with the incident room set up near Madeleine's home, a spokesman of Leicestershire Police said. "His visit has not been generated by any specific development."

There were no plans for searches in Britain or for more Portuguese officers to be sent over, the spokesman added.

Private Eye Front Cover

Ron Paul gains support in second GOP debate

By Michael Hampton
Homeland Stupidity
May 16, 2007

For those who doubted that Rep. Ron Paul was a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, the debate Tuesday night in South Carolina put all doubts to rest. Paul stirred up a firestorm of controversy for suggesting that the Department of Homeland Security made national security even more inefficient after September 11 than before, and especially for his assertion that U.S. foreign policy over the past several decades contributed to the rise of Islamic terrorism.

But viewers at home responded, putting Ron Paul in second place in FOX’s own tamper-proof viewer poll.

As opposed to the largely conservative FOX viewers, MSNBC’s interactive post-debate poll, with more moderate viewers, puts Ron Paul squarely at the top of the heap among that network’s viewers.

And his assertions are not without merit.

Last week, the Government Accountability Office reported (PDF) that DHS “lacks a comprehensive integration strategy with overall goals, a timeline, appropriate responsibility and accountability determinations, and a dedicated team to support its efforts.” DHS still doesn’t have a plan to “deal with its many management challenges . . . could have serious consequences for our homeland security.”

Paul said during the debate that we had all the dots to put together the 9/11 plot and stop the attackers, but the bureaucracy was too inefficient to connect the dots. So in response, the government created even more inefficient bureaucracy.

Indeed, sharing of intelligence even between federal agencies, let alone with state and local agencies, still hasn’t improved that much since 9/11. Another GAO audit (PDF) last week found that the Homeland Security Information Network, meant to share intelligence with state and local officials, is doing a poor job and is largely redundant, since states and localities have already set up information-sharing networks, which DHS has failed to plug into. We’re little closer to being able to connect the dots, and all we have is a new “giant bureaucracy” eating up billions of taxpayer dollars to show for it.

That’s right, instead of real security, we’ve gotten real incompetence.

Citing the Central Intelligence Agency’s “blowback” principle, Paul explained that U.S. intervention in Middle Eastern affairs over the past several decades contributed to anti-American sentiment and helped create enemies, some of whom are today’s terrorists. This didn’t go over too well with Rudy Giuliani, who seems to know little about U.S. foreign policy for someone who supposedly led his city through the worst international terrorist attack in U.S. history.

“They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. … We’ve been in the Middle East,” Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq. “Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.

“They are delighted that we’re over there because Usama bin Laden has said, ‘I’m glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time they’ve killed 3,400 of our men and I don’t think it was necessary,” he continued.

“That’s really an extraordinary statement,” Giuliani said, interrupting FOX News panelist Wendell Goler. “That’s really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.” — FOX News

It goes back far before Desert Storm, as Paul pointed out, citing Reagan sending the Marines into Lebanon in 1983, saying “I will never turn tail and run,” and then pulling them back out after realizing just how “irrational” they are over there.

The only people who really reacted negatively to this were the handpicked debate audience, who applauded Giuliani for his ridiculous outburst and poor understanding of just what it is we’re up against.

While I rarely write about it, I follow the war in Iraq and other U.S. counterterrorism activities very closely. Ronald Reagan was right when he called them “irrational,” and so is Ron Paul. Indulge me for a moment while I quote from possibly the greatest military strategist of all time:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. — Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Sound familiar? The reason we’re suffering so badly in Iraq is that we’ve failed to know and truly understand our enemy. We failed in 1967, we failed in 1983, we failed in 2001, and we have failed today. The party line is that the Islamic jihadists hate us and our freedom and want to establish a global Islamic caliphate, dominating the world under Sharia law. Some people in this country claim that every Muslim wants this. (This is kind of like saying that the Church of Scientology represents all of Christendom.) The reality is quite a bit more complex than that.

Speaking of which, it’s probably more accurate to think of Al Qaeda and their associated jihadists as a religious cult. This is, after all, exactly how they act. We already know how to deal with religious cults, and it doesn’t involve long, protracted wars in the desert halfway around the world.

One last thing Ron Paul has been at pains to point out is that it’s left-leaning Democrats who have gotten us into the vast majority of conflicts in the last century, and conservative Republicans who have gotten us out of the vast majority of them. We must certainly be ready to defend ourselves from those who would attack us and have attacked us. If I’m around when somebody starts shooting people in a shopping mall, he’s getting two to the chest and one to the head. But we should not be picking fights, especially with people we don’t understand. We should instead open commerce and trade and let other countries sort out their own problems. That’s been the American way since the beginning, and it’s about time conservatives started being conservative again.

I’m apparently not the only person who thinks so; Ron Paul gained 25% of the vote in FOX’s more secure viewer poll of largely conservative viewers, coming in just behind Mitt Romney at 29% and far ahead of Guiliani at 19%. Supposed first tier candidate John McCain has fallen to the back of the pack with the rest of the second-tier candidates. It’s going to be much more difficult for the mainstream media to keep up their blissful, deliberate ignorance now.

Blair has "no regrets" about backing Bush

David Byers
Times Online
May 17, 2007

Tony Blair declared today that he had no regrets in supporting President Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan and would do it all again, as he spoke about his close relationship with a man he called "unyielding, unflinching and determined".

In their last joint press conference in the White House rose garden before Mr Blair stands down as Prime Minister, he heaped praise on the President's policies since September 11, 2001.

Standing beside him in the sunshine, the US leader was equally gushing about Mr Blair, calling him a "respected man in the international arena" and a true friend, and even defended him from questions asking whether talking to Mr Blair, who will soon be leaving office, was a waste of time.

The two leaders appeared relaxed and Mr Bush seemed emotional during the press conference, which came after they held a private meeting discussing aid to Africa, the Iranian nuclear crisis, the violence in Gaza and climate change.

Speaking about his relationship with the President, Mr Blair - who is on a virtual farewell tour before leaving office on June 27 - said he was "proud" of the decisions taken after the World Trade Centre attacks on September 11, 2001.

"Thank you for the strength of your leadership over the past few years. You have been a strong leader at a time when the world needed strong leadership. You have been unyielding and unflinching and determined in the fight we face together and I thank you for that."

Mr Blair acknowledged that the alliance with the US was sometimes controversial, "at least in my country," but he added: "I believe that the relationship between the United States of America and Britain is a relationship that is in the interests of our two countries and in the interests of the peace and stability of the wider world. I’ve never doubted its importance.

"I’ve never doubted that it is based on principle, on shared values and on a shared purpose which is to make our world a better, more free and more just place in which people of all nations and all faiths can live.

"I would like to thank you for the strength of that relationship over the past few years."

He added that he had no regrets about his alliance with the President. “I have taken the view that Britain should stand shoulder to shoulder with America after September 11. I do not regret that, I’m proud of the relationship between our two countries," he said.

“Sometimes in politics there are issues where you can negotiate and compromise, but when it comes to fundamental questions of security you should do what is right, and I believe that is what he has done as well - and I would take the same position of alliance with America again. Yes, I would.”

Detroit City Council votes to impeach Bush and Cheney

Raw Story
Thursday May 17, 2007

The Detroit City Council, led by Monica Conyers, wife of Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), today unanimously passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by the US House of Representatives.

Detroit joins a growing list of cities, and the state of Vermont, which have passed resolutions urging the impeachment of the president and vice president.

The full text of the bill the Detroit City Council passed follows:

Resolution to Impeach President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard B. Cheney

Introduced by Council President Pro Tempore Monica Conyers and Council Member JoAnn Watson

Passed in the Name of the Full Council, Wednesday, May 16, 2007

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United States of America by intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land"; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney acted to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law; and

WHEREAS, In all of this George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as President and Vice President, subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the City of Detroit and of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, Petitions from the country at large may be presented by the Speaker of the House according to Clause 3 of House Rule XII;

Be it resolved that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States;

Be it resolved further by the City of Detroit, that our senators and representatives in the United States Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to cause to be instituted in the Congress of the United States proper proceedings for the investigation of the activities of the George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, to the end that they may be impeached and removed from such office.

Be it resolved further, that the Clerk of the City of Detroit be, and is hereby, instructed to certify to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, under the seal of the City of Detroit, a copy of this resolution and its adoption by the City of Detroit, as a petition, and request that this petition be delivered to the Office of the Clerk and entered in the United States Congressional Journal. The copies shall be marked with the word "Petition" at the top of the document and contain the original authorizing signature of the City Clerk, Janice M. Winfrey.

Plame Takes Cheney, Libby Back To Court In Suit Over CIA Leak

Associated Press | MATT APUZZO | May 17, 2007 at 10:32 AM

The legal fallout from the 2003 CIA leak scandal continues as lawyers seek dismissal of a lawsuit against members of the Bush administration.

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame contends the administration violated her constitutional rights by leaking her identity to reporters in 2003. She is demanding compensation from Vice President Dick Cheney; one of his former aides, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; White House political adviser Karl Rove; and former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage.

Their lawyers were scheduled to argue Thursday that a judge should throw out the case.

Plame's lawyers say the case could reveal more about the inner workings of the Bush White House than surfaced during Libby's monthlong perjury trial, but Thursday's arguments were to focus on technical matters of law.

Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, say the administration violated their free speech, due process and privacy rights.

To succeed, their lawyers must show that Cheney and the other defendants are not immune from such suits because they clearly violated the Constitution.

The Justice Department has asked a judge to drop an invasion of privacy count because government officials cannot be sued personally for such claims when acting in their official capacity.

Several administration officials, including Armitage and Rove, disclosed Plame's identity to reporters in 2003 after Wilson began criticizing prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Nobody was charged with the leak, which would have been a crime only if someone knowingly gave our information about someone covered by a specific law protecting the identities of covert agents.

Libby was convicted in March of obstructing the leak investigation and lying about how he learned about Plame.

Libby is to be sentenced June 5.

READ WHOLE STORY

IRAQ -- ACTIVE DUTY GENERALS WILL "REVOLT" AGAINST BUSH IF HE MAINTAINS ESCALATION INTO 2008

by Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney, Amanda Terkel,
Satyam Khanna, and Matt Corley / Under the Radar

5/14/07 American Progress Report

Appearing on NBC's Chris Matthews Show yesterday, Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker reveals that sources within the military are warning of "a revolt from active-duty generals if September rolls around and the president is sticking with the surge into '08.'"

Noting that retired generals such as Gen. John Batiste have already begun voicing their discontent with the President's strategy in Iraq, Tucker added that the generals "don't want to fall by the wayside like the generals in Vietnam did, kept pushing a war that they knew was lost."

When President Bush vetoed the Iraq timeline legislation earlier this month, he claimed that "the measure would 'impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat' by forcing them to 'take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, DC." But despite past claims that "the right force level" will be determined by "the sober judgment of our military leaders," the Bush administration has a proven track record of disregarding the advice of military leaders.

As recently as last December, when the White House was first pushing its escalation plan, the administration explicitly ignored "the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

If Tucker's sources are correct, it appears the commanders on the ground in Iraq are getting tired of "taking fighting directions" from the politician "6,000 miles away" in the White House. And they might not stay quiet for long.

TUCKER: Look for a revolt from active-duty generals if September rolls around and the president is sticking with the surge into ‘08. We’ve already heard from retired generals. But my Atlanta Journal-Constitution colleague Jay Bookman has lots of sources among currently serving military officers who don’t want to fall by the wayside like the generals in Vietnam did, kept pushing a war that they knew was lost.

Al Fayed in astonishing bid to force Queen to give evidence at Diana inquest

Andy Sullivan
UK Daily Mail
Tuesday May 15, 2007

Mohamed Al Fayed wants the Queen to be questioned as part of the Princess Diana inquest, it has emerged.

The Harrods owner has already demanded that Prince Charles and Prince Philip give evidence to the full inquest, which starts in October.

Now he wants the Queen to be "directly approached" and questioned over her private conversations with Diana's butler, Paul Burrell.

Mr Al Fayed, whose son Dodi died alongside the princess in the Paris car crash in 1997, believes they were murdered in an establishment conspiracy.

His lawyers made their request in the High Court, in the final preliminary hearing with Baroness Butler-Sloss as coroner.

In 2002, evidence from the monarch helped clear Mr Burrell of the theft of scores of the princess's personal treasures.

While he was on trial at the Old Bailey, the Queen remembered a conversation they had a few weeks after the crash, in which he told her he had taken some papers for safekeeping.

She confided in Prince Charles, who informed the police, and the trial collapsed. Mr Burrell subsequently claimed the Queen had told him: "There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge."

The Al Fayed legal team received 11,000 pages of evidence last week from Lord Stevens's Operation Paget inquiry into the deaths.

But Mr Al Fayed's barrister Michael Mansfield QC told the coroner that any references to Mr Burrell and "any conversations with Her Majesty in various statements" had been edited.

He said: "No one appears to have approached Her Majesty about the contents of these conversations.

"The inquiries which we suggest should be made...is Her Majesty being directly approached to see if there was evidence of conversations as alleged by Mr Burrell."

Baroness Butler-Sloss said she had ordered all references to the Queen to be blacked out. She told the hearing:

"So far as Her Majesty is concerned I don't know what the protocol is and I think that it is important that whatever the protocol may be should be observed.

"Therefore I have redacted the conversation that Her Majesty is supposed to have said. Her Majesty to be approached - I think that is probably unheard of.

"I think we have to tread very carefully in relation to the sovereign because she is going to be in a different position from everyone else."

The decision on which witnesses will be called will be made by her successor, Lord Justice Scott Baker.

Lady Butler-Sloss's appearance ended on a sour note, as she accused Mr Mansfield and other lawyers of dictating terms of the inquest.

She also complained of "adversarial and quite aggressive letters" she had received from solicitors for the Harrods boss, the Ritz hotel and Henri Paul, the driver of Diana and Dodi's limousine, who also died in the crash.

"I do feel a little bit as if I am the one in the dock," she told Mr Mansfield.

The 73-year-old, the former head of the High Court's family division, stood down because she felt she was not up to the task of handling the case.

There are fears this could further hamper the much delayed inquest.

Note: Paul Burrell, Princess Diana’s butler, was tried for the theft some of the Princess’s possessions. He claimed that he had been given these by the Princess for safekeeping for her sons. Before he was charged, his house was raided by police.

Towards the end of the trial, in which millions of pounds had been spent, the Queen, so the story goes, suddenly remembered that she had indeed had a conversation with Mr Burrell in which he told her that he had in his possession some of Diana’s effects. The Queen told Prince Charles, who told the Police, and, after millions of pounds had been spent, the charges against Burrell were dropped.

Following the trial, there was much speculation over whether Mr Burrell iwas in possession of what Diana called “the crown jewels” - a mahogany box containing a series of letters from Prince Philip, a signet ring belonging to James Hewitt and a tape recording of a Royal valet, George Smith, in which he alleges he was raped by a trusted Royal aide.

Mr Smith also claims on the tape that he witnessed an incident at a palace between a member of the Royal Family and a servant - an allegation he has said would cause irreparable damage to the monarchy.

The butler has always denied he knows the whereabouts of the contents of the mahogany box, which mysteriously disappeared after Diana’s death in 1997.

My question is this: Was that what the police were really after when they raided Burrell’s home? Why did Burrell’s lawyers not present Burrell’s claims relating to a conversation to the Queen as part of Burrell’s defence at the beginning of the trial? What was it that suddenly jolted her majesty’s memory, leading to the trial’ collapse?

Wolfowitz to Resign This Afternoon?

ABC
May 16, 2007 12:42 PM

Brian Ross and Kirit Radia Report:

World Bank officials say the bank's board is completing an "exit strategy" that will allow World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz to resign this afternoon and "still save some face" over the issue of his efforts to seek a promotion and pay raise for his girlfriend at the bank.

The officials say the bank's board will accept Wolfowitz's resignation but will also acknowledge that the World Bank's Ethics Committee bears "some responsibility" for giving him bad advice on the issue of his girlfriend.

The decision is likely today, officials say, because Wolfowitz had been scheduled to leave tonight for a European trip.

German Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul said yesterday, "He would do the bank and himself a great service if he resigned." The German said Wolfowitz would not be welcome at an Africa forum the bank is holding next week in Berlin should he refuse to resign.

Wolfowitz made an impassioned plea to the board last night to clear his name before leaving.

He said the inquiry into his conduct "has the potential to do greater long-term damage to the institution than the alleged underlying ethics issue that was, in point of fact, put to rest over a year ago."

Full Coverage

Whatever happened to Ahmed Chalabi? (the man whose lies about WMDs took us to war)

He is the great survivor of Iraqi politics, still flexing his muscles in the wreckage of Baghdad despite the infamous part he played in the ill-fated US invasion. Patrick Cockburn caught up with him

London Independent
Wednesday May 16, 2007

Extract:

Ahmed Chalabi was one of the key figures in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq as a leading Iraqi exile in Washington, where he lobbied the US government to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He supplied intelligence from Iraqi exiles and defectors to his backers in the Pentagon and the White House - and to The New York Times - on Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal of WMDs which was later proved to be unreliable. He was also accused of working for Iranian intelligence. Backed by the Pentagon as a future leader of Iraq, he returned home after the 2003 invasion at the head of a small fighting force in hopes of building political legitimacy.

Full Story

Bolton: We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb

Toby Harnden
London Telegraph
Wednesday May 16, 2007

Iran should be attacked before it develops nuclear weapons, America's former ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday.

John Bolton, who still has close links to the Bush administration, told The Daily Telegraph that the European Union had to "get more serious" about Iran and recognise that its diplomatic attempts to halt Iran's enrichment programme had failed.

Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", he said. Economic sanctions "with pain" had to be the next step, followed by attempting to overthrow the theocratic regime and, ultimately, military action to destroy nuclear sites.

Mr Bolton's stark warning appeared to be borne out yesterday by leaks about an inspection by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of Iran's main nuclear installation at Natanz on Sunday.

The experts found that Iran's scientists were operating 1,312 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium. If Iran can install 3,000, it will need about one year to produce enough weapons grade uranium for one nuclear bomb.

Experts had judged that Iran would need perhaps two years to master the technical feat of enriching uranium using centrifuges - and then another two years to produce enough material to build a weapon.

But the IAEA found that Iran has already managed to enrich uranium to the four per cent purity needed for power stations. Weapons-grade uranium must reach a threshold of 84 per cent purity.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA's head, said the West's goal of halting the enrichment programme had been "overtaken by events". Iran had probably mastered this process and "the focus now should be to stop them from going to industrial scale production".

Mr Bolton said: "It's been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear programme. So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure.

"If we can't get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we've got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that's the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it's safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force."

Perle Turns on Bush in Harsh Terms

NICHOLAS WAPSHOTT
NY Sun
Wednesday May 16, 2007

The Bush administration is beginning to appease rather than confront America's enemies, a former chairman of the Defense Policy Board and leading neoconservative thinker said yesterday, describing the president as "a failure" who is proving powerless to impose his views on his administration.

Richard Perle offered a withering assessment of the president's impotence at a meeting of the Hudson Institute in New York, saying American foreign policy is being applied by an out-of-control State Department.

Although Mr. Perle said he no longer has access to the president, he said his conversations with those close to the White House led him to a pessimistic view of how foreign policy is currently conducted, with a profound disconnect between President Bush's wishes and how the administration carries out policies in his name.

"We have already seen a change in policy towards Iran," he said. "It is now firmly back in the hands of the Department of State."
Mr. Perle's assessment is recognized by an expert on defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute, Thomas Donnelly, who said Mr. Bush is routinely frustrated by "establishment" thinking within Washington and that the failure to respond to the president's more radical thinking has harmed American policy in Iraq.

But the characterization of a divided administration frustrating the president's wishes is inaccurate, according the director of the foreign policy program at the New America Foundation, Steven Clemons, who said he thinks Mr. Bush is allowing Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Rice to play good cop, bad cop with the Iranians.

Mr. Perle said the president has failed to control his administration from the start and that bad appointments have ensured that he is isolated from the rest of the government, aside from close allies such as Ms. Rice and Mr. Cheney.

The president's failure to get his own way stems from his general inexperience in foreign affairs and his ignorance of the way Washington works, Mr. Perle suggested. "He came ill-equipped for the job and has failed to master it," he said. "I do not meet the president, but from the people I meet who are close to him and from his speeches, I believe the gap between the president and his administration is without precedent."

Continued

FBI's Mueller: Bin Laden Wants to Strike U.S. Cities with Nuclear Weapons

Note: This story is, of course, utter and total BS/misinformation! If Bin Laden is still alive, he is probably not in some cave in Afghanistan masterminding the next terrorist attack against America, but in a US military hospital in Dubai or Pakistan. Bush probably sends him a birthday card and flowers every year on his birthday. The ultimate patsy!

But it does, horrifyingly, give us some idea of what the next "false flag" operation might be in the neo-con/PNAC drive is to world domination and tyrannical repression at home.

The tragedy is that despite the 9/11 truth movement, most Americans will swallow the official story when this eventually happens.

Ronald Kessler
Newsmax
Tuesday May 15, 2007

Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group desperately want to obtain nuclear devices and explode them in American cities, especially New York and Washington, D.C., FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III tells NewsMax.

In a wide-ranging and exclusive interview, Mueller also acknowledged that bin Laden is still active, though isolated. The Director revealed the Bureau believes the terrorist leader continues to communicate with al-Qaida cells, some of which remain in the U.S.

Mueller declined to say how often bin Laden communicates or to elaborate on the substance of his communications.

Other intelligence sources tell NewsMax that U.S. security efforts have forced bin Laden to return to "horse-and-buggy days" -- avoiding electronic communications in favor of using trusted couriers.

But Mueller says though hemmed in, Al-Qaida's paramount goal is clear: to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.

In contrast to homegrown terrorists, al-Qaida is far more likely to be able to pull off such an attack.

Mueller admits the nuclear threat is so real he sometimes wakes up in the middle of the night worrying about that possibility.

"I think it would be very difficult to wipe out the United States, but you'd have hundreds of thousands of casualties from a nuclear device, depending on the size of that nuclear device," Mueller tells NewsMax.

A Lust for Destruction

Al-Qaida could obtain such a device in one of two ways.

"One is to obtain a nuclear device that's already been constructed from one of the former Iron Curtain countries, and the other way is to put together the fissile material and the expertise and do an improvised nuclear device," Mueller says.

"And there's no doubt that al-Qaida, if it had the capability, would go down either route to get a nuclear device."

Mueller also has little doubt as to Al-Qaida's likely targets.

"It would be someplace in the United States, in most likely Washington and or New York, depending on how many devices they have. Or both cities," Mueller says.

Because the U.S. has not been attacked in almost six years, Mueller worries that "we are in danger of becoming complacent."

"Al-Qaida is tremendously patient and thinks nothing about taking years to infiltrate persons in and finding the right personnel and opportunity to undertake an attack.

"And we cannot become complacent, because you look around the world, and whether it's London or Madrid or Bali or recently Casablanca or Algiers, attacks are taking place."

Mueller adds the U.S. must remain vigilant. He says our security efforts must "adapt to the new threat landscape."

He then adds: "We are going to be hit at some point. It's just a question of when and to what extent."

The Real Robert Mueller

In the conference room adjoining his seventh floor office at FBI headquarters, Mueller sits down for this interview in his shirt sleeves, a G-man-white oxford cloth with a subdued Brooks Brothers tie. When he appears on television, the camera gives his face an angular look. In person, his features are softer.

Handsome with silvery hair that he smooths down thoughtfully as he speaks, Mueller captivates his guests with his commanding presence. He has the demeanor of a square-jawed FBI agent combined with a tough talking prosecutor, which he once was.

Clearly, the enormous responsibility he carries shows in dark circles under his heavy-lidded brown eyes.

When he utters the words "nuclear device," he knits his brow and clenches his teeth.

However, Mueller is far more relaxed now than when I interviewed him a few months after Sept. 11, 2001. At the time, he was preoccupied trying to prevent a feared "second wave" of attacks on the West Coast.

Back then, Mueller declined to describe why, when he was in the Marines during the Vietnam War, he was awarded both the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. A man who hates to talk about himself or use the word "I," he said only that he "got into some firefights."

Recently, I obtained from the Marine Corps the citation that went with the Bronze Star. It says that on Dec. 11, 1968, the platoon that Mueller commanded came under a heavy volume of small arms, automatic weapons, and grenade launcher fire from a North Vietnamese Army company.

"Quietly establishing a defensive perimeter, Second Lieutenant Mueller fearlessly moved from one position to another, directing the accurate counterfire of his men and shouting words of encouragement to them," the citation says.

Disregarding his own safety, Mueller then "skillfully supervised the evacuation of casualties from the hazardous area and, on one occasion, personally led a fire team across the fire-swept terrain to recover a mortally wounded Marine who had fallen in a position forward of the friendly lines," the citation adds.

Sitting in his conference room, Mueller commands the head of a long conference table. Against one of the room's walls stands a wooden sign. The gold lettering reads: "Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation." The sign used to stand outside the director's office when the Bureau was located in the Department of Justice across the street on Pennsylvania Avenue.

That was a more innocent time, when anyone could walk into the building without a security check. Now the director's office is in a secure wing, sealed off behind electronic doors with security cam and a keypad with a code. Even most Bureau execs — who must have a top secret clearance to enter the building in the first place — don't have access.

A New View of Terrorism

The FBI is changing the way it looks at terrorism, Mueller explains.

Documents about Diana's death 'being withheld'

Caroline Davies
London Telegraph
Tuesday May 15, 2007

Lawyers for Mohamed Fayed, the owner of Harrods, will today claim they are being denied access to crucial documents relating to the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed.

They claim that despite asking for all the records referred to in Lord Stevens's Operation Paget report into the tragedy, what they have been given so far is incomplete and with many omissions - including notes relating to Prince Charles's statement to police.

Some items have been withheld from them by coroner Baroness Butler-Sloss, presumably either because she feels they are not relevant, or because they are too sensitive, it is understood.

Mr Fayed's legal team, headed by Michael Mansfield QC, has already demanded documents relating to all the interviews and statements given to Lord Stevens, including any notes by detectives who approached Prince Charles in connection with the inquiry into Diana's death.

Lord Stevens recorded in his report that the prince had no knowledge of the circumstances leading up to the tragedy. Prince Philip was also approached but declined to comment to the Operation Paget inquiry.

Mr Fayed's lawyers also want any police notes in connection with that. Mr Fayed has always claimed that his son and the princess were murdered as part of an Establishment and Secret Service conspiracy masterminded by Prince Philip.

At a pre-inquest hearing in the High Court today, Mr Fayed's lawyers will claim that the haphazard and incomplete way in which the documents have been given to them is causing such confusion that it threatens the whole timetable of the controversial inquests, which are due to be re-opened in October.


They will also claim that, despite requests, no venue has yet been set for the hearings, which could cause another set-back.

Today's hearing will be the last presided over by Lady Butler-Sloss, 73, a retired senior judge.

She has stepped down as coroner for the sensitive inquests claiming she feels she lacks the experience to deal with an inquest jury.

She had intended to hear the inquests without a jury, but Mr Fayed challenged her decision and won in the appeal court.

She is due to hand over to Mr Justice Scott Baker, next month. He will be the third coroner to be in charge of the inquests since they were opened three years ago, and the fourth since the couple died in a Paris car crash 10 years ago.

Tenet to cooperate with panel’s investigation

Klaus Marre
The Hill
Monday, May 14, 2007

Former CIA Director George Tenet has agreed to cooperate with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as the panel investigates the Bush administration’s pre-war claims about Iraq’s efforts to acquire uranium.

Tenet will testify before the panel and has agreed to provide a deposition prior to his appearance, according to a committee release.

Waxman’s staff also announced Monday that a hearing with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been pushed back to June 19 from Tuesday. Rice has been subpoenaed to appear but has indicated that she will not comply.

According to a committee release, however, Waxman still expects Rice to testify on the issue of whether the White House overstated Iraq’s attempts to acquire uranium from Niger.

The committee also asked current National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to be deposed voluntarily.

JFK Conspirator Wanted Every Kennedy Dead

E. Howard Hunt wanted to "finish the job" by killing Senator Ted Kennedy, greeted news of RFK's assassination with satisfaction

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, May 15, 2007


JFK assassination conspirator E. Howard Hunt wanted to "finish the job" by killing Senator Ted Kennedy and greeted news of Robert Kennedy's murder with satisfaction , according to his son Saint John Hunt.

E. Howard Hunt was a former veteran CIA agent and one of the infamous Watergate plumbers, he died in January 2007.

Saint John Hunt recently went public with an audio tape containing his father's deathbed admission that he was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK that was orchestrated by Lyndon Baines Johnson. Hunt agreed that others above LBJ were involved in the plot.

Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Hunt dropped new bombshell revelations about his father's role in the murder of JFK as well as intriguing insights into his attitude as a whole towards the Kennedy family.

General Eaton: If Pres. Bush Won't Listen, Congress Must

Former second commander in Iraq, Major General (ret.) Paul D. Eaton declares that the President did not listen to his commanders, and is still not listening, when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Bloomberg readying for a run at White House

Toby Harnden
London Telegraph
Saturday May 12, 2007

Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire businessman and mayor of New York, is building the foundations for an audacious third-party presidential candidacy that would transform the 2008 race for the White House.

The Daily Telegraph has established that a senior aide to Mr Bloomberg has held three lunch meetings with officials from the Independence Party, during which detailed discussions took place as to how a third-party bid could be launched.

Kevin Sheekey, Mr Bloomberg's special adviser and chief political strategist, first met Frank MacKay, the New York chairman of the Independence Party, for talks in November at Manhattan's Four Seasons hotel.

Two further lunch meetings took place in quick succession early last month over steak and seafood at the city's well-known Bobby Van's restaurant.

Mr MacKay declined to confirm or deny whether the meetings had happened but said that he thought Mr Bloomberg would make an "excellent candidate".

Meanwhile, a source closely connected to the New York mayor's inner circle said: "He thinks he could be a great president. Mike Bloomberg has got $500 million to spend and he is supremely confident."

Mr Bloomberg, 65, would be likely to run as a social liberal and fiscal conservative with signature issues such as environmentalism and gun control.

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, Q.C., : 'Good Riddance ...'

Don't break out the champagne just yet, he still has time to drag the country into another bloodbath...



by Felicity Arbuthnot
Global Research, May 12, 2007

Prime Minister Blair's long goodbye - don't break out the champagne just yet, he still has time to drag the country into another bloodbath, he doesn't actually go until 27th June - was typically stage managed. Only the supinely faithful were allowed in to Trimdon Labour Club in his Sedgefield constituency. Sightings of Blair in this, his fiefdom, are as rare as total eclipses of the sun. His constituency work is done by his agent, John Burton. The centre of Sedgefield is the picture postcard English village and for photo-ops, unbeatable.

In 2004 pictures of Blair and Bush having a casual pint in the ancient, beautiful Duncow Inn, with flowers cascading its honey coloured walls, under a cloudless sky, went around the world. As ever, with Blair, reality told a different story. Sleepy Sedgefield, in the wilds of northern County Durham, had been under siege by US security operatives for weeks. They had searched 16th century listed buildings and social housing alike, for weapons, sealed all the manhole covers, interrogated locals having a lazy pint in local pubs. When the great day came, those who had not left their homes before 8 a.m., had to stay there. One regular drinker at the welcoming Inn on the Green, opposite the church which has withstood even Cromwell's civil war, said he had to get there before breakfast, or be housebound. (To be fair, there could be worse tragedies.) At the other end of the day, a manual worker said he had returned home exhausted, to find his road sealed by US personnel. He had to wait, allowed to go nowhere else, for several hours, before gaining access to his own home.

Back at the Duncow Inn, whose food and hospitality is exemplary, the Chef had been dismissed for the day, said locals - and the President's chef took over the kitchen for the 'casual' Blair and Bush sojourn in Blair's 'local'. He has not become known as 'phony Tony' for nothing.

Note: This is part of a long article which is worth reading in its entirety.

De Menezes family Police 'have got away with murder'

CHARLOTTE GILL
UK Daily Mail
Saturday May 12, 2007

The family of Jean Charles de Menezes reacted with fury as it was announced eleven officers involved in his death will not face disciplinary action.

They said they were "gravely disappointed" that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had exonerated them and accused the Metropolitan police of "getting away with murder".

The IPCC said just one surveillance officer out of the eleven will be given "management advice" over action he took after the shooting.

The cleared officers include the two from Scotland Yard's elite firearms unit CO19 who shot the young Brazilian seven times in the head at Stockwell tube station after he was mistaken for a suicide bomber.

The fate of police chief Cressida Dick, who authorised the shoot-to-kill policy, and three other senior officers is yet to be decided.

Mr de Menezes' family believe criminal charges for manslaughter through gross negligence can still be brought against the four senior officers and said yesterday's announcement could prejudice the case.

A spokeswoman said:

"We can see no advantage in making this early announcement, other than to provide relief to the officers facing potential disciplinary charges.

"Whilst the officers are spared that ongoing anxiety, the family are given no relief to their own agony, grief and anxiety caused by their lack of access to all the evidence surrounding the shooting of their loved one.

"We hope ultimately that all the officers about whom evidence emerges of wrongdoing that led to this wrongful death are ultimately rendered fully accountable."

The innocent 27-year-old electrician was killed a day after failed London bombings on July 21 2005.

His death came in the wake of the 7/7 bombings in London in which 52 people were murdered and nearly 1,000 injured.

Police believed that Mr Menezes was Ethiopian Hussain Osman, one of the alleged July 21 bombers currently on trial, and followed him from his flat in South West London to the station.

He was killed as he boarded a train.

Note: Menezes was shot dead in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings which, according to the official account, was carried out by three Muslim suicide bombers. Unfortunately, there were too many things with 7/7 that, like the official account of 9/11, simply did up.

The 7/7 London Bombings: How to Set Up a Patsy

7/7 London Bombings Final Word: Her Majesty's Terrorist Network

The London Metropolitan Police's response to the unfortunate shooting of an innocent man bore all the hallmarks of a cover-up.

The article below, by Gavin Gatenby, of the Possum News Network,makes a lot more sense of what was really behind the shooting.

Taking down the wrong man at Stockwell tube
Was the “armed team” ordered to kill Hussain Osman because he knew too much?

Reward grows for return of missing British girl

Sun May 13, 2007 8:04AM EDT

By Peter Griffiths

LONDON (Reuters) - British celebrities and business leaders have put up a 1.5 million British pound ($2.97 million) reward to help find Madeleine McCann, a four-year-old who disappeared from a Portuguese holiday resort 10 days ago.

Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, Virgin boss Richard Branson and Topshop chief Philip Green are among a host of public figures to have offered money.

"We are praying for Madeleine's safe return," Green said in a statement released by the News of the World, which itself offered 250,000 pounds.

Madeleine, who turned four on Saturday, is feared kidnapped after she vanished from her bed in the Praia da Luz holiday resort on the Algarve on May 3.

The new pledges brought the total to $2.6 million offered in reward to find Madeleine after Scottish health spa owner Stephen Winyard put up one million pounds and a family friend offered 100,000 pounds after her disappearance.

At a church service on Saturday, Madeleine's father said her disappearance had unleashed a "tidal wave" of devastation on the family.

"Today we should be celebrating the fourth birthday of our daughter Madeleine," he said. "Instead we have had to remember what a normal, beautiful, vivacious, funny, courageous and loving little girl that we are missing today."

Prayers for Missing Madeleine

Video

Paedophile abducted Madeleine police say

Note: Maddy comes from the village of Rothley, in Leicestershire, which is situated about five miles from where I live. Please spare a thought or, if like me you are that way inclined, a prayer for this little girl.

Police in the UK know that when a child goes missing, if that child is not found within 24 hours, the chances of that child being found alive are slim. And when a child does go missing, it usually means only one thing: that that child has caught the attention of a paedophile and, as the only witness to the crime, the child usually ends up dead.

Last Fall, I followed with keen interest Patty Wetterling’s efforts to get elected to the House of Representatives for Minnesota’s Sixth District for the Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party. As the mother of a missing child, I felt she would work hard to get other mothers’ sons and daughters home from Iraq. Sadly she failed.

Following her son's abduction, she founded the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to education about child safety.

The Democrats and the Impeachment Clause

Dave Lindorff
Counterpunch
Saturday May 12, 2007

What is it about impeachment that has the Democratic Party leadership so frightened?

Talking with members of Congress, one hears the same refrain: "I know Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable crimes, but impeachment is a bad idea."

The rationales offered are many, but all are either specious or based upon flawed reasoning. Let's consider them separately:

Excuse one, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that impeachment would be a diversion from Democrats' main goals of ending the Iraq War, and passing important legislation. The reality, of course, is that many of the administration's impeachable acts relate directly to the war, so hearings would only build support for ending it. Meanwhile, with the slim majorities in both houses, Democrats cannot pass any significant progressive legislation that could survive a veto (or a presidential signing statement) and the record shows it.

Excuse two is that impeachment is divisive. This seems the height of absurdity. When voters handed Congress to the Democrats, they knew they were setting the stage for divided government. That was the whole point. Moreover, divisiveness in Washington has largely emanated from the White House, not from Congress. Anyhow, given administration intransigence on all the issues that matter to Democrats, they have no alternative but to take a stand.

Excuse three is a claim that the public opposes impeachment. This is simply wrong. The few straightforward scientific polls done on impeachment, such as one published by Newsweek last October, show a majority of Americans to want it. Furthermore, if Bush has committed impeachable acts, it is inappropriate for House members, all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, not to act.

Excuse four is that old canard that impeaching Bush would mean making Cheney president-a deliberately scary prospect but one which any politician in Washington knows is garbage. Firstly, if Cheney were to become president because of a Bush impeachment or resignation, it would only be for a few months, and given his stunning lack of support among the public-currently about 9 percent and falling-he would be the lamest of lame ducks, unable to do anything. But more importantly, his own party would be certain to remove him before any removal of Bush, and for exactly that reason-they would not want to be going into the 2008 election with Cheney as party leader. This is exactly what happened to Spiro Agnew, whom a Republican attorney general managed to indict and remove before the collapse of Nixon's presidency. The same thing can be expected to happen to Cheney, who would surely face either a sudden health crisis, or an indictment for corruption.

Finally, excuse five is that the president's crimes and abuses of power need to be proven before any impeachment bill. This is completely backwards. An impeachment bill can be filed by any member of Congress who believes the president has violated the Constitution. At that point, it is up to the House Judiciary Committee to consider the bill's merits and decide whether to ask the full House to authorize impeachment hearings. It is at an impeachment hearing where investigations should proceed. After all, only after the Judiciary Committee votes out an impeachment article can the full House consider whether to actually impeach. Calling for investigations before an impeachment hearing is like asking for an investigation before a grand jury investigation. It's redundant, simply a dodge.

Besides, some of this president's high crimes are self-evident. Take the case of Bush's ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans' communications without a warrant. A federal judge has already labeled this violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act a felony. There is no denying this felony occurred, or that Bush is responsible. The only question the House needs to vote on is whether the felony is a "high crime" warranting impeachment.

The same applies Bush's refusal to enact over 1200 laws or parts of laws duly passed by Congress. Bush doesn't deny that he has usurped the power of the Congress, as laid down in Article I of the Constitution. Rather, he asserts-with no basis in the wording of that document-that as commander in chief in the war on terror, he has the "unitary executive" authority to ignore acts of Congress. Again, there is no need for an "investigation" to establish whether this happened. What Congress must do is decide whether this usurpation of its Constitutional role is an impeachable abuse of power.

Likewise the president's authorization of kidnap and torture. We know the president okayed torture. We know too, that he used his "unitary executive" claim to refuse to accept a law passed overwhelmingly by the last Congress outlawing torture. Finally, we know the president did not, as required by US and international law, act to halt torture and punish those up the chain of command who oversaw systematic, widespread torture.

There are many impeachable crimes by this president (and vice president), such as obstruction of justice in the Valeria Plame outing case, conspiracy (or treason) in the Niger "yellowcake" document forgery scandal, conspiracy to engage in election fraud, lying to Congress, criminal negligence in responding to the Katrina disaster, bribery and war profiteering, etc., which would require Judiciary Committee investigations.

In the meantime, though, Democrats need to step up to their responsibility.

If this president is not to be impeached, Congress may as well the Constitution to remove the impeachment clause. It will, in that case, have become as much an anachronism as prohibition.

New World Order elites: Bildeberg Group to Meet in Istanbul

Open letter to Turkish Prime Minister

by Timuçin Leflef
Global Research, May 11, 2007

Communique sent to the Turkish Prime Minister re Bilderberg 2007 8th May 2007

Dear Prime Minister,

I am a Turkish filmmaker living in Ireland. It has come to my attention that the Bilderberg Group are holding their next meeting in Istanbul this year, between May 31 and June 3rd.(1) I have known about this group since 1993 and have been following their activities over the past 14 years. According to many sources, since its inception in 1954 by former Nazi S.S. Officer Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands, the Bilderberg Group have been covertly continuing the Nazi policy of creating a New World Order (a global totalitarian dictatorship). (2)

Likely to attend this year's meeting are Paul Wolfowitz, Dr. Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld:

o As U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz was one of the major architects of the Iraqi War (3) and is still a member of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). PNAC is a neo-conservative think-tank which called for a "catalyzing event" for their policies "like a New Pearl Harbour" exactly a year before 9/11.(4) Mr. Wolfowitz is currently being questioned on charges of corruption and has been asked to resign as head of the World Bank.

o As member of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group, Dr. Henry Kissinger is also likely to attend. According to many sources, Dr. Kissinger is a mass murderer who implemented and defended the decision to run 600 illegal bombing missions in Cambodia ("Operation Menu"), causing the deaths of over 500,000 Cambodians between 1969 and 1973. Under the U.S. constitution, this secret bombing campaign was illegal without U.S. Congressional approval. (5)

Two months after striking a peace accord with North Vietnam in October 1972, he authorised 129 B-52 bombers to bomb North Vietnam for 11 days in a "demonstration bombing" as a public relations exercise to appease South Vietnam (called "The Christmas Bombing").

Former U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia David Newsom, and a Senior CIA Officer both confirm that on December 5th 1975, Dr. Kissinger, along with President Ford, held a meeting in Indonesia with President Suharto. Transcripts of this meeting prove that he gave the greenlight to the subsequent Indonesian Invasion of East Timor. This lead to the massacre of over 100,000 Timoreans and violated the U.S. law on arms trade. (6)

Recently, a French judge subpoened Dr. Kissinger about U.S. involvement with mass-killings in Chile, Operation Condor and General Augusto Pinochet. He still hasn't attended the hearing and has been evading the subpoena ever since.(7)

o Bilderberg member Donald Rumsfeld is also another PNAC member and was the main architect of the Iraqi War. As he is a regular Bilderberg attendee, there is a possibility that he may attend this year's meeting in Istanbul.(8)

My main concerns and therefore my questions to you are:

(a) Why are war-mongers the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld being allowed to hold a secret meeting in Turkey this year, without the Turkish people's knowledge or approval?

(b) Why are the Turkish newspapers not discussing this event which will be taking place in Istanbul?

(c) It is obvious that a secret meeting of elite minds and warmongers like these is likely to result in the manufacture of another war for profit. I would therefore like to know whether they will be holding this meeting to plan the next stages of an upcoming war with Iran? Will they be using Turkey as a chess-piece in this next war? Also, as Dr. Kissinger wrote the book "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy" and admits that he is not averse to using nuclear weapons in a war situation, will they be involving us in a nuclear one?

One journalist who has been invited to this year's meeting is Mr. Cengiz Çandar. However, in my opinion, he will be providing a complete whitewash on this year's event. Being a former lecturer at the Istanbul Bilgi (American) University (9), and a good friend of Paul Wolfowitz during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, it is obvious in my opinion that Mr. Çandar has been invited to attend the conferences due to his loyalty to Bilderberg, and will most definitely be writing pro-Bilderberg articles. (10) Therefore, it is my belief not to trust him to make an accurate appraisal of this year's meeting and I ask that independent Turkish journalists attend this year, so that the Turkish people know exactly what is taking place in their own country.

I am completely appalled by the total lack of discussion in Turkish newspapers about the upcoming Bilderberg meeting, by the huge level of secrecy and denial surrounding it, the total lack of transparency of these meetings, and by the high level of ignorance Turkish people are showing about the Bilderberg Group. A secret meeting is being held by the world's most influential warmongers, right under our noses! This is an outrage.

As a Turkish citizen, I am deeply offended that my own government would allow this secret meeting to take place on Turkish soil without our knowledge or approval. I therefore ask you that there be complete journalistic transparency at the upcoming Bilderberg meeting in Istanbul this year. If the Bilderberg Group have nothing to hide, then we must be allowed a full transcript of their meeting. Therefore, the Independent Turkish Press must attend the meeting this year. If this is not possible, I ask that you, as a servant of the Turkish people, not allow the upcoming Bilderberg meeting to take place in Turkey.

As a public servant, I expect your reply within 10 working days of receiving this Open Letter.

Yours sincerely,

Timuçin Leflef

A very concerned Turkish Citizen

Brown Announces Candidacy: "I Want To Lead A Government Humble Enough To Know Its Place"

D'ARCY DORAN
AP
Posted May 11, 2007 10:28 AM

Gordon Brown launched his campaign to become Britain's next prime minister on Friday, pledging to learn from the mistakes of the Iraq war while honoring "our obligations to the Iraqi people." Brown, who faces no serious opposition after waiting more than a decade for his chance to lead the country, said there needed to be a stronger emphasis on political reconciliation and economic development in Iraq.

"And obviously we've got to more to win the battle of hearts and minds against al-Qaida terrorism."

Read Whole Story

Blair backs Brown leadership bid
CNN

As British premier, Brown has careful balancing act ahead with U.S.
SouthCoastToday.com

Tony Blair's likely successor as British prime minister gives few clues on Iraq direction
Huffington Post

Ties With US Could Shift Under Blair's Expected Successor
CNSNews.com

Former Powell aide says Bush, Cheney guilty of 'high crimes'

Nick Juliano
The Raw Story
Published: Thursday May 10, 2007

A former top State Department aide to Colin Powell said today that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are more deserving of impeachment than was Bill Clinton.

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, said on the public radio program On Point Thursday that "Bill Clinton's peccadilloes ... pale in significance" when compared to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" of Bush and Cheney.

Wilkerson did not directly call on Congress to begin impeachment hearings, and he brought up impeachment in response to a caller's question. Early in the show, however, he observed, "This administration doesn't know how to effect accountability, in my opinion."

Wilkerson's comments were first reported by pro-impeachment Web site AfterDowningStreet.org.

"The language in [the Constitution] about impeachment is nice and precise -– it's high crimes and misdemeanors," he said. "You compare Bill Clinton's peccadilloes for which he was impeached to George Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors or Dick Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors, and I think they pale in significance."

Taking a historical view of impeachment, Wilkerson said he believed the Founding Fathers would be surprised that more presidents had not been impeached.

"I do believe that they would have thought had they been asked by you or whomever at the time of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia 'Do you think this will be exercised?' they would have said 'Of course it will, every generation they'll have to throw some bastard out.'"Wilkerson said. "That's a form of accountability too. It's ultimate accountability."

Asked about the high crimes of the current administration, Wilkerson said the American public was duped into supporting a war in Iraq.

"I think we went into this war for specious reasons," he said. "I think we went into this war not too much unlike the way we went into the Spanish American War with the Hearst press essentially goading the American people and the leadership into war. That was a different time in a different culture, in a different America. We're in a very different place today and I think we essentially got goaded into the war through some of the same means."

Bush orders contingency plans for attack on U.S.

L.A. Times
Thursday, May 10, 2007

WASHINGTON — President Bush issued a formal national security directive Wednesday ordering agencies to prepare contingency plans for a surprise, "decapitating" attack on the federal government, and assigned responsibility for coordinating such plans to the White House.

The prospect of a nuclear bomb being detonated in Washington without warning, whether smuggled in by terrorists or a foreign government, has been cited by many security analysts as a rising concern since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The order makes explicit that the focus of federal worst-case planning involves a covert nuclear attack against the capital, in contrast with Cold War beliefs that a long-range strike would be preceded by a notice of minutes or hours as missiles were fueled and launched.

"As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received," states the 72-paragraph order.

The statement added, "Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions."

After the 2001 attacks, Bush assigned about 100 senior civilian managers to secretly rotate to locations outside of Washington for weeks or months at a time to ensure the nation's survival, a shadow government that evolved based on long-standing "continuity of operations plans."

Since then, other agencies including the Pentagon, the office of the Director of National Intelligence and CIA have taken steps to relocate facilities or key functions outside of Washington, citing factors such as economics or the importance of avoiding Beltway "group-think."