On Bush, Cheney Crimes: Seek Truth and Accountability

There will never be reconciliation without accountability!

posted by John Nichols on 03/04/2009 (The Nation)

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, deserves credit for pressing ahead with his modest proposal to establish a truth and reconciliation commission to review the assaults on the Constitution and general lawlessness of the Bush-Cheney administration.

As Leahy said at the opening of Wednesday's Judiciary Committee hearing on "Getting To The Truth Through A Nonpartisan Commission Of Inquiry":

Nothing has done more to damage America's place in the world than the revelation that this Nation stretched the law and the bounds of executive power to authorize torture and cruel treatment. The Bush administration chose this course, but tried to keep its policies and actions secret, knowing that they could not withstand scrutiny in the light of day. How many times did President Bush go before the world and say that we did not torture and that we acted in accordance with law?

There are some who resist any effort to look back at all, while others are fixated on prosecution, even if it takes all of the next eight years, or more, and further divides this country.

Over the last month, I have suggested a middle ground to get to the truth of what went on during the last several years, in a way that invites cooperation. I believe that that might best be accomplished though a nonpartisan commission of inquiry. I would like to see this done in a manner removed from partisan politics. Such a commission of inquiry would shed light on what mistakes were made so that we can learn from these errors and not repeat them.

That is a reasoned and responsible stance, of the sort we have come to expect from Leahy.

There is no question that the chairman is pushing further into the constitutional thicket than President Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder seem to be willing to go. And there is certainly some merit in borrowing from the wise experiments in accountability initiated by other countries -- especially South Africa, which used the truth-and-reconciliation-commission model to get those responsible for Apartheid-era crimes to acknowledge where the bodies were buried in return for the promise of immunity.

Unfortunately, Leahy's proposal to remove from the table the prospect of prosecution of officials who have committed crimes goes against the fundamental American precept that the rule of law must apply to all of us -- even presidents, vice presidents, attorneys general and White House aides.

Justice Anthony Kennedy was correct when he observed in the Supreme Court decision restoring the writ of habeas corpus that was undermined by the Bush administration and its congressional amen corner, that the Constitution is not something an administration is able "to switch... on and off at will."

Even Leahy admits that: "We must not be afraid to look at what we have done, to hold ourselves accountable as we do other nations who make mistakes. We must understand that national security means protecting our country by advancing our laws and values, not discarding them."

Unfortunately, the chairman's proposal for a commission switches off the rule of law by suggesting that the prospect of legal prosecution even in cases of extreme lawlessness -- and congressional action to address gross assaults on the Constitution -- in favor of "developing a process to reach a mutual understanding of what went wrong and learn from it."

The chairman of the Constitution subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, suggests that it is unwise to simply give up on the prospect of prosecuting lawbreakers.

While Feingold compliments Leahy's initiative and says that "getting all the facts out about what happened over the last eight years is a crucial part of restoring the rule of law," the Senate's most outspoken defender of the Constitution warned today against going too far in surrendering the essential tools of the accountability process.

"On the question of immunity, I think we should tread carefully," told Wednesday's hearing. "There are cases that may require prosecution, and I wouldn't want a commission of inquiry to preclude that. Those who clearly violated the law and can be prosecuted should be prosecuted. On the other hand, the country will really benefit from having as complete a telling of this story as possible, so the ability of the commission to seek immunity for lower level participants certainly needs to be considered. How to do this is one of the complex questions that I hope can be explored in this hearing."

The American Civil Liberties Union agrees with Feingold's view that prosecutions should not be ruled out. The group is urging Holder and the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation and, if warranted by the facts, to bring criminal charges against members of the Bush-Cheney administration who broke the law.

Additionally, the ACLU is calling for the creation of a congressional Select Committee that would work in conjunction with Leahy's truth and reconciliation commission. "(The)combination of both committees would be an effective format for congressional review of Bush administration policies," explains an ACLU statement on the issue, which recalls the important work of a committee headed by Idaho Senator Frank Church that investigated executive abuses in the 1970s. "The Select Committee would have the ability to allocate the necessary time and resources outside of the day-to-day demands of the standing committee structure. It would also bring together members from the relevant committees with jurisdiction over the relevant issues to share their expertise concerning the programs under review."

Says ACLU Washington Legislative Office director Caroline Fredrickson: "Americans' faith in government has been deeply. While a truth commission is a valid and admirable suggestion, Congress must go further. Congress' complacent approach to oversight has done our country irreparable harm and legitimized illegal and counter-productive intelligence programs. It's time for Congress to step up in a very real way and assert its role of oversight."

Leahy is not a bad player here.

He understands that there must be a measure of accountability if we are going to renew this country's commitment to the rule of law and to constitutional governance.

The Vermonter is asking the right questions: "(How) did we get to a point where we were holding a legal U.S. resident for more than five years in a military brig without ever bringing charges against him? How did we get to a point where Abu Ghraib happened? How did we get to a point where the United States Government tried to make Guantanamo Bay a law-free zone, in order to try to deny accountability for our actions? How did we get to a point where our premier intelligence agency, the CIA, destroyed nearly 100 videotapes with evidence of how detainees were being interrogated? How do we make sure it never happens, again?"

But the answer to those questions must, necessarily, be bolder.

It will take a greater measure of accountability than just Leahy's truth commission to "make sure it never happens again."

The ACLU's Fredrickson is right when she says: "The truth commission is a beginning for Congress to reassert its power, but it must go further."

Let The Sun Shine In......

Nationalize the Damn Banks...

...And Get It Over With!

Paul Krugman: The Big Dither - NYTimes (Complete article)

Last month, in his big speech to Congress, President Obama argued for bold steps to fix America’s dysfunctional banks. The reality is that when it comes to dealing with the banks, the Obama administration is dithering. Policy is stuck in a holding pattern. Why do administration officials keep offering plans that informed commentators [don't] find credible? Because somehow, top officials in the Obama administration and at the Federal Reserve have convinced themselves that troubled assets are really worth much more than anyone is actually willing to pay for them — and that if these assets were properly priced, the ills of all our major financial institutions would [be] cured.

So why has this zombie idea -- “zombies” [being] financial institutions that are effectively bankrupt but are being kept alive by government aid -- taken such a powerful grip?

The answer is that officials still aren’t willing to face up to the dire state of major financial institutions because it’s very hard to rescue an essentially insolvent bank without, at least temporarily, taking it over. And temporary nationalization is still, apparently, considered unthinkable. But this refusal to face the facts means, in practice, an absence of action. And I share the president’s fears: inaction could result in an economy that sputters along, not for months or years, but for a decade or more.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Lifting Bush's Shroud

During his confirmation hearings in January, Eric Holder promised that if he became attorney general, he would increase the Justice Department's transparency. Specifically, he pledged to make public controversial memos the Bush administration fought to keep secret. Earlier this week, Holder made good on his promise, releasing nine Bush-era memos that formed the basis for the previous administration's policies on issues such as torture, wiretapping, and the suppression of free speech. Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch said the memos "read like a how-to document on how to evade the rule of law." "Americans deserve a government that operates with transparency and openness," read a statement by Holder, underscoring the clean break with the Bush administration. "It is my goal to make OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinions available when possible while still protecting national security information and ensuring robust internal executive branch debate and decision-making." Also this week, the Obama administration revealed in court documents that the CIA destroyed 92 tapes showing interrogations of detainees -- far more than the Bush administration was willing to admit. In December 2007, the New York Times reported that the CIA had destroyed at least two videotapes documenting suspected al Qaeda operatives being subjected to "severe interrogation techniques."

WHAT THESE MEMOS REVEAL: Some of the memos were released in response to a lawsuit against former OLC attorney John Yoo, by Jose Padilla, whom the United States held for years as an enemy combatant. The Obama administration concluded that there was no classified information in these documents; this admission was a stunning contrast to the Bush era, when officials attempted to maximize government secrecy by increasing the classification of government documents. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) praised Holder's quick release of the memos, saying that they finally "provide details of some of the Bush administration's misguided national security policies." The picture they end up painting is of an administration that believed "the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights," as the Associated Press reported. Furthermore, several of the memos -- including ones on extraordinary rendition and First Amendment rights -- were eventually rescinded, reflecting the "major legal errors committed by Bush administration lawyers during the formulation of its early counterterrorism policies."

CREATING A DICTATORSHIP: A memo written by Yoo on Oct. 23, 2001, contained one of the most surprising revelations: the Bush administration considered suspending First Amendment rights. "Freedom of speech is integral to a free society," President Bush said in May 2008. However, seven years earlier, Yoo wrote, "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully. ... The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically." After reading the memos, Harpers' Scott Horton wrote, "We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship." In fact, Yoo's memo was too much even for Steven Bradbury, the man who failed to gain Senate confirmation to head the OLC because of his extreme views on torture. On Oct. 6, 2008, Bradbury wrote a memo saying that Yoo's suggestions to ignore free speech were "overbroad" and "not sufficiently grounded."

A BLANK CHECK: Yoo's October 2001 memo also dismissed the Fourth Amendment, claiming that protections against unwarranted searches and seizures could be subordinated in the war on terrorism. Yoo similarly proposed invading Americans' privacy in a Sept. 25, 2001 memo, advocating "warrantless searches for national security reasons." The Associated Press noted that the document "did not specifically attempt to justify the government's warrantless wiretapping program, but it provided part of the foundation." In fact, one of the most controversial memos from the Bush era that many lawmakers have been asking to be released is one explicitly justifying the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping. Another major focus of the memos is the treatment of detainees. A March 13, 2002 memo written by then-assistant attorney general in the OLC Jay Bybee argued that the president had the authority to transfer detainees to other countries, whether or not they may be tortured there. Recognizing his controversial proposals, Bybee provided ways for the Bush administration to avoid being held legally liable. "So long as the United States doe[s] not intend for a detainee to be tortured post-transfer, however, no criminal liability will attach to a transfer even if the foreign country receiving the detainee does torture him," he wrote. "These memos were meant to provide the president with a blank check with respect to the rights of not only prisoners overseas but people in the United States as well," concluded the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer.

FINDING THE TRUTH: The release of these memos came as Congress determines how to investigate -- and perhaps even prosecute -- the Bush administration's misdeeds. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the creation of a "truth commission" to investigate these wrongdoings. Leahy initially hinted at providing "blanket immunity" to Bush officials willing to testify, but both Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have warned against this approach. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has also put together a report looking at whether Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury "knowingly signed off on an unreasonable interpretation of the law to provide legal cover for a program sought by Bush White House officials." Whitehouse and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) have called on the Justice Department to release this report.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Memos Provide Blueprint for Police State

What amazes the hell out of me is that this seems so surprising to the so-called journalists of the ACNM, when we were screaming bloody murder years ago. These legal rationalizations could have easily been used against dissenters and activists and may very well have been. Knowing what we knew years ago, the Bush administration was using the threat to intimidate anyone who disagreed with them.

Seven newly released memos from the Bush Justice Department reveal a concerted strategy to cloak the President with power to override the Constitution. The memos provide “legal” rationales for the President to suspend freedom of speech and press; order warrantless searches and seizures, including wiretaps of U.S. citizens; lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely in the United States without criminal charges; send suspected terrorists to other countries where they will likely be tortured; and unilaterally abrogate treaties. According to the reasoning in the memos, Congress has no role to check and balance the executive. That is the definition of a police state.

Who wrote these memos? All but one were crafted in whole or in part by the infamous John Yoo and Jay Bybee, authors of the so-called “torture memos” that redefined torture much more narrowly than the U.S. definition of torture, and counseled the President how to torture and get away with it. In one memo, Yoo said the Justice Department would not enforce U.S. laws against torture, assault, maiming and stalking, in the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants.

What does the federal maiming statute prohibit? It makes it a crime for someone "with the intent to torture, maim, or disfigure" to "cut, bite, or slit the nose, ear or lip, or cut out or disable the tongue, or put out or destroy an eye, or cut off or disable a limb or any member of another person." It further prohibits individuals from "throwing or pouring upon another person any scalding water, corrosive acid, or caustic substance" with like intent.

The two torture memos were later withdrawn after they became public because their legal reasoning was clearly defective. But they remained in effect long enough to authorize the torture and abuse of many prisoners in U.S. custody.

The seven memos just made public were also eventually disavowed, several years after they were written. Steven Bradbury, the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in Bush’s Department of Justice, issued two disclaimer memos – on October 6, 2008 and January 15, 2009 – that said the assertions in those seven memos did “not reflect the current views of this Office.” Why Bradbury waited until Bush was almost out of office to issue the disclaimers remains a mystery. Some speculate that Bradbury, knowing the new administration would likely release the memos, was trying to cover his backside.

Indeed, Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury are the three former Justice Department lawyers that the Office of Professional Responsibility singled out for criticism in its still unreleased report. The OPR could refer these lawyers for state bar discipline or even recommend criminal charges against them.

The DOJ had damned wll better refer them for prosecution, if they expect anyone to have any respect for the law in the future.

In his memos, Yoo justified giving unchecked authority to the President because the United States was in a “state of armed conflict.” Yoo wrote, “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” Yoo made the preposterous argument that since deadly force could legitimately be used in self-defense in criminal cases, the President could suspend the Fourth Amendment because privacy rights are less serious than protection from the use of deadly force.

Bybee wrote in one of the memos that nothing can stop the President from sending al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured overseas to third countries, as long as he doesn’t intend for them to be tortured. But the Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a party, says that no country can expel, return or extradite a person to another country “where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” Bybee claimed the Torture Convention didn’t apply extraterritorially, a proposition roundly debunked by reputable scholars. The Bush administration reportedly engaged in this practice of extraordinary rendition 100 to 150 times as of March 2005.

The same day that Attorney General Eric Holder released the memos, the government revealed that the CIA had destroyed 92 videotapes of harsh interrogations of Abu Zubaida and Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, both of whom were subjected to waterboarding. The memo that authorized the CIA to waterboard, written the same day as one of Yoo/Bybee’s torture memos, has not yet been released.

Bush insisted that Zubaida was a dangerous terrorist, in spite of the contention of one of the FBI’s leading al Qaeda experts that Zubaida was schizophrenic, a bit player in the organization. Under torture, Zubaida admitted to everything under the sun – his information was virtually worthless.

There are more memos yet to be released. They will invariably implicate Bush officials and lawyers in the commission of torture, illegal surveillance, extraordinary rendition, and other violations of the law.

Meanwhile, John Yoo remains on the faculty of Berkeley Law School and Jay Bybee is a federal judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. These men, who advised Bush on how to create a police state, should be investigated, prosecuted, and disbarred. Yoo should be fired and Bybee impeached.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Lying To Congress Is a Crime; Perjury

with or without an oath.

Blogged by Brad Friedman on 3/5/2009 2:49PM

Federal law already 'makes it a crime to lie to Congress, regardless of oath,' source clarifies to The BRAD BLOG

'It's a non-issue'...

Given the questions concerning whether or not Karl Rove and Harriet Miers will be required to testify under oath as part of their agreement to give "transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury" concerning the U.S. Attorney purge scandal, as announced yesterday by House Judiciary chairman John Conyers, we thought we'd seek some clarification.

We asked a senior source on the U.S. House Judiciary team whether or not taking an oath before testifying would be required, or whether the agreement requires Rove and Miers not be placed under oath. Writes our source in reply:

NO oath is required for congressional testimony. 18 USC 1001 (copied below) make it a crime to lie to congress, regardless of whether there is an oath. Penalties are the same as traditional perjury, where an oath is given (as in a court of law). There is no difference. When oaths are given in congress, it is generally for the cameras or to remind the witness of his obligations. On the latter point, the same can be accomplished by reminding about a witness's obligations under 18 usc 1001. This is a non issue.

See the copy of 18 USC, Sec. 1001, as sent by the House Judiciary source below...

18 USC Sec. 1001 01/03/2007

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

-HEAD-
Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

-STATUTE-
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

Subjecton

(a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(b) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Iran in the Crosshairs

Please, no more knee-jerk support for Israel, no matter how illegal their actions.

By Gareth Porter and Ray McGovern
March 4, 2009

Last year, the Middle East dodged the danger of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and the inevitable spread of hostilities.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen was sent to tell the Israelis that the United States would not support such an attack, and after the fiasco in Georgia, the Russians too sent stern warnings to Tel Aviv.

But now the specter of an Israeli strike has reappeared. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s incoming prime minister, is far more committed to an attack on Iran than his predecessors.

Remember when Joe Biden told supporters of Barack Obama last October that Obama would be tested in his first six months in office?

There is good reason to believe he was referring to the likelihood that Netanyahu would become prime minister after the February 2009 Israeli election, and that he would waste little time finding a pretext to attack Iran.

Netanyahu has been laying the groundwork for such an attack for years, constantly repeating that Tehran is “preparing another Holocaust” a la Germany in the Thirties.

He keeps hammering home the “existential” threat that would be posed to Israel (with its 200-300 nuclear weapons) if Iran had just one.

Netanyahu has made no bones about the fact that his preferred solution to the problem is a massive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and other military targets, and that he would not wait for any evidence that Iran had actually manufactured a weapon before doing so.

It would be, you see, a Bush-type "preventive" war. Netanyahu would fully expect Iranian retaliation of some kind and knee-jerk U.S. intervention on Israel's side.

(Netanyahu would be ill-advised to expect the kind of knee-jerk U.S.(meaning the people of the U.S.) support he might have gotten before and during the appalling Bush administration and their followers, the crusading crackpots of the christian-right. It is the unanimous view of the Pelican Independent Group that if Israel, who has more nukes than any other nation on earth, besides the U.S. and Russia, attacks Iran in a Bush-style pre-emptive strike, they should be on their own and that the U.S. should stay out of it, as should every other Western nation, including Russia. Netanyahu has been in cahoots with the crusading crackpots for years, which makes him either an idiot or a man who is using idiots. What the Bush administration did in Iraq was a war crime)

If such adventurism were to prevail, it would be a tragedy not only for Iran and the United States but for Israel as well. And it would bring to Israel more serious risk than at any time since its implantation in Palestine.

It is also completely unnecessary. There has never been a shred of evidence that Iran has any intention of committing suicide by attacking Israel.Nor is it clear that Iran has irrevocably decided to seek nuclear weapons.

The U.S. intelligence community determined unanimously in its most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, completed in November 2007, that Iran had abandoned the nuclear weaponization part of its nuclear development program in 2003 and had not resumed such work.

Largely forgotten is the fact that this estimate also concluded that Iran would extend the halt to its nuclear weapons program if the United States were to offer "credible" opportunities for Iran to achieve its "security, prestige and goals for regional influence."

In other words, the way to avoid an Iranian nuclear weapon is not the threat of an attack – which is very likely to have the opposite effect – but to give Iran additional reason to continue the halt in weaponization.

Unfortunately, it is far from clear that President Obama understands that he must draw a hard line against an Israeli attack. Some of his old-think advisers believe the threat of an attack should be part of his overall strategy.

The President's adviser on proliferation, Gary Samore, declared last September, “We…want the Iranians to believe that if they actually try to make nuclear weapons, or if they build secret facilities that we detect, they run the risk of being attacked.”

What needs to happen: President Obama needs to order an update of the 2007 intelligence estimate on Iran.

Then he should ask for a briefing by intelligence analysts able to think outside the box, including the ones who concluded in 2007 that Iran needs positive incentives to continue to forego work on nuclear weapons.

Obama should encourage his diplomats to pursue talks at a senior level with their Iranian counterparts, with the objective of reaching agreements that will give Iran just the kind of incentives the intelligence analysts had in mind.

And he must tell Netanyahu that the U.S. will not support an Israeli attack on Iran. Indeed, the U.S. will not tolerate it.

Amen To That, Brother

Gareth Porter is an investigative journalist and historian and the author of Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam. Ray McGovern was an Army Intelligence Officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 years and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Let The Sun Shine In......

From 9/11 Widows: An Open Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy

We could not agree more!

If the Bush crimes are to be investigated, let the investigation be done by real criminal investigators, not the infamous "whitewashers" who were involved in the 9/11 commission and, furthermore, let the investigation begin where and when the the crimes began; NYC, D.C. on 9/11/01.

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 03/04/2009 - 12:50pm. Alerts

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

Dear Senator Leahy,

We felt compelled to write to you regarding your recent call for the formation of a "Truth Commission." According to your press comments, this Commission is supposed to look at the following:

* the politicization of prosecution in the Justice Department
* the wiretapping of U.S. citizens
* the flawed intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq
* the use of torture at Guantanamo and so-called black sites abroad

These are serious allegations of criminal activity by certain members of the Bush Administration. While we applaud your initiative in looking into these matters, we feel this approach is wrong.

As the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you already have the responsibility and legal authority to investigate matters relating to federal criminal law without having to form a special commission. You are also bound by your oath of office to support and uphold the Constitution by ensuring that those who govern also abide by the rule of law.

Furthermore, a "Truth Commission" will not fix the real problems that our country faces, nor will it guarantee that we will get to the truth. The 9/11 Commission, which you want to model your commission after, is a perfect example of that flawed process.

The 9/11 Commission was mandated to follow the facts surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 to wherever they might lead and make national security recommendations based upon those facts. Sadly, prior to even beginning their investigation, like you, the 9/11 Commissioners agreed amongst themselves that their role was to fact find, not fault find.

This decision resulted in individuals not being held accountable for their specific failures. These people were shown to be incompetent in the 9/11 Commission's Final Report but were left in their positions, or worse, promoted. No one should be allowed to make this compromise on behalf of the American people. How can any agency be deemed fixed or reformed if the people working there are inept? How can anyone feel safer?

At the 9/11 Commission hearings, little actual evidence was ever produced. Many individuals were not sworn in, critical witnesses were either not called to testify or were permitted to dictate the parameters of their own questioning, pertinent questions were omitted and there was little follow-up. Whistleblower testimony was suppressed or avoided all together. The National Security Agency, an intelligence agency that is responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign intelligence, was barely investigated at all.

With the narrative of the 9/11 Commission's final report predetermined and with the preexisting intention to never hold anyone accountable in place, the 9/11 Commission was doomed to fail as a real investigation. The end result of the 9/11 Commission's work was that some of the recommendations that they produced were in fact, based on distortions and omissions. Since their mandate of a complete accounting was ignored, the recommendations were incomplete at best.

There was clearly no desire on the part of Congress to force the Commission to meet its legislative mandate. Accordingly, there were no repercussions for the fact that the investigation and its recommendations were incomplete. It could be surmised that holding no one accountable was more important than uncovering and disclosing the truth. This could compromise the future safety of American citizens. Why then would you want to model another Commission after it? Why would you want another Commission at all?

Senator Leahy, in light of the fact that the 9/11 Commission's worst offense was not fully investigating the September 11th attacks, completing that investigation should also be included on your list of matters to be examined.

America's founding fathers, prescient in their fears of unrestrained power, created three separate but equal branches of government. They had hoped to maintain and enforce the limits of the Executive Branch.

The Bush Administration was allowed to circumvent too many Constitutional restrictions effectively undermining America's system of justice, our nation's integrity and commitment to the rule of law. The Bush Administration's seizing of power proves the adage that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The days of no fault government must end; and where there is clear criminal activity, people must be prosecuted. The law must be upheld without exception before we can be assured of the safety of the nation. These duties cannot be ignored for the sake of expediency.

Senator Leahy, our nation needs you to investigate and, if warranted, refer the cases for criminal prosecution in transparent trials. We do not need another meaningless commission resulting in no accountability at the taxpayers' expense. Show all Americans that you have the courage to uphold the law, bring accountability to those who abuse their positions of power and prevent such abuses from happening again.

The November 2008 elections proved that Americans want the rule of law restored for those in Washington who are elected to represent us. You, Senator Leahy, are in the position to lead the way and work toward the change we were promised.

Sincerely,

September 11th Advocates
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

Let The Sun Shine In......

Why are Democrats criticizing Obama's CIA pick?

Next Time, Call First

Mark Hosenball

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Barack Obama's aides have been phoning key members of Congress to apologize for not letting them know in advance that the president-elect had picked Leon Panetta as CIA director.

After news of the Panetta nomination leaked Monday afternoon, two Democratic senators deeply involved in intelligence issues indicated they were angry that the nomination had not been vetted with them. The incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Diane Feinstein of California, appeared particularly irate. "I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," said Feinstein in a press statement. She added that in her view, "the agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time." Panetta, a former congressman from California, served as Bill Clinton's chief of staff. An aide to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Intelligence Committee's current chair, said Rockefeller was likewise irked by Obama's failure to consult Congress and was concerned about the absence of espionage expertise in Panetta's background.

Not all Democrats on the intelligence panel expressed reservations about Panetta. Sen. Ron Wyden, a senior committee member from Oregon, said Panetta is "a smart, savvy D.C. veteran and a strong choice to lead the CIA." Wyden said he planned to work with Panetta "to declassify much of the story of what went wrong at the CIA these last eight years, so that we can both take steps to make Americans safer and protect the values that define us as Americans."

That's a good enough reason for us. Let the whole truth come out, from 9/11 til Jan 20,2009.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, offered his support in a statement released Tuesday afternoon: "I have known and worked with Leon Panetta and believe his selection would be a sensible choice that would provide strong leadership and effective management to the Central Intelligence Agency."

Republicans appeared to enjoy a moment of schadenfreude as Democrats squabbled over the CIA pick. Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, the intel committee's top Republican, declared: "While I will reserve final judgment on President-elect Obama's nomination for the leader of our terror-fighting agency, I will be looking hard at Panetta's intelligence expertise and qualifications."

By Tuesday morning, people close to the controversy said that Obama aides had made efforts to apologize to both Sens. Feinstein and Rockefeller for failing to consult with them. "There are a lot of phone calls being made this morning," said one Democratic official, who, like others quoted in this story, asked for anonymity when discussing politically sensitive discussions. Tuesday afternoon, Feinstein issued a statement saying that both Obama and Vice-President elect Joe Biden had contacted her to explain why they believed Panetta was a good choice. Early indications were that the Obama camp's belated outreach appeared to be having an effect.

Funny, Feinstein and Rockefeller didn't seem so hurt when they were briefed by the Bush administration on all sorts of crimes and made to keep their mouths shut with threats of "treason," or so they say.

"Expressing concern [about Panetta's lack of intelligence experience] and opposing the nominee are two different things," said a Democratic official, who believes that most Democrats will eventually come around to supporting the nomination. Another Democratic official conceded that the criticism of Panetta has as much to do with pride and hurt feelings as it does real concerns about his abilities to do the job. This official says Feinstein and Rockefeller likely would have kept their reservations about Panetta to themselves had Obama done them the courtesy of consulting them first.

Obama is believed to have chosen an outsider to run the CIA in part because most other potential candidates with recent intelligence experience were in some way involved with controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, including the warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens or the use of aggressive and legally dubious interrogation techniques. Initially, Obama hoped to appoint John Brennan, his top transition adviser on intelligence, to the job. But Brennan was a top aide to CIA director George Tenet and then headed an inter-agency counter-terrorism center. After bloggers flogged him for publicly defending agency officials who worked on interrogation cases, Brennan withdrew his name from consideration.

Some Democrats on Capitol Hill—including Feinstein—were nonetheless urging Obama to name a veteran intelligence official to head the CIA. One name floated by some Capitol Hill Democrats: Steve Kappes, the agency's current deputy director. An experienced field operative, Kappes was purged from the agency when another Capitol Hill veteran, former House Intelligence Committee chairman Porter Goss, took over as director in 2004. But when Goss was driven out of the agency in 2006 after a rocky tenure, Kappes was brought back to Langley to help restore morale. Obama's team was apparently concerned, however, that Kappes's involvement in post-9/11 counter-terrorism operations could have exposed him to the same kind of Bush-related controversies that dogged Brennan.

Goss's tenure as CIA director—generally regarded as unsuccessful if not disastrous—is cited by Panetta's critics as a cautionary example of why it could be unwise to appoint a political type to run the agency. The CIA is a clannish, esoteric bureaucracy in which dissembling, deception and deviousness are prized. Outsiders unfamiliar with the institution's culture can find themselves outmaneuvered by career officials.

Goss's tenure was particularly blighted by his decision to bring in a team of political operatives who had worked for him on Capitol Hill. Goss and his henchmen purged the agency's top management and installed bureaucrats they regarded as loyal or at least malleable. But Goss's power began to crumble shortly after the FBI raided the office of one of Goss's top aides, No. 3 ranked agency official Dusty Foggo, as part of a corruption probe. (Foggo recently pleaded guilty to federal wire fraud in the case and is slated to sentenced this month). Even critics of the Panetta nomination, who worry that his learning curve in the knives-out espionage world could be steep, say he is unlikely to repeat the kind of mistakes that sullied Goss's reign at Langley.

Let The Sun Shine In......

All 41 Senate Republicans Seek Veto Power Over Obama's Federal Judicial Appointments.

Republicans are the worst hypocrites in the world, bar none. Who cares what they think, by this time.

Stop the Obstruction; End the Filibuster.

Submitted by meg on Tue, 03/03/2009 - 1:31pm. Alerts

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
by Meg White

A letter signed by all 41 Senate Republicans was sent to the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy yesterday in which the GOP demanded inclusion in, and ultimately veto power over, the confirmation of the president's judicial nominees.

The demand was a sharp turn-around for Republicans, who had for the past eight years been calling for the swift confirmation of then-President George W. Bush's appointees.

The letter is couched in historical language, which notes that "our Democratic colleagues have emphasized [senate involvement in appointments] for several years" and "the principle of senatorial consultation (or senatorial courtesy) is rooted in this special responsibility, and its application dates to the Administration of George Washington." But the GOP's request for veto power of nominees before the judiciary even debates a particular appointment is far from the norm.

The letter gives lip service to themes of bipartisanship, saying they "look forward to working with" the president and that "the judicial appointments process has become needlessly acrimonious." However, what they demand is nothing short of minority control. The letter states that if Republicans "are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states" they will "not support moving forward," presumably threatening a filibuster.

(They are the ones who introduced the "Nuclear option, if they didn't get their way on Supresme court justices. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say.)

The phrase "senatorial courtesy" may sound better than "threat of filibuster," but as Politico points out, "the letter is an opening salvo in what could be a partisan battle in the Obama years." The public perception of the use of filibusters is perhaps reflected in this language of bipartisanship that insists upon senatorial courtesy "regardless of party affiliation." The letter emphasizes the idea of working together, when the true intent is more threat than peace offering.

(The Goopers are so full of it, it's hard to believe.)

The GOP's determination to oppose Obama's judicial appointments became clear a little more than a week after the 44th president was elected. As we reported back in November, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) pledged to get his colleagues on-board an aggressive filibuster campaign against what he termed "radical leftist" nominees he feared would come out of this new White House.

Yet, back in 2005, Kyl was firmly on the opposite side of this argument:

"This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people."

(This should be read back on the senate floor along with all the other blabber about nuclear options and such.)

In fact, the recent past offers many instances in which conservatives attempted to shame Democrats into abandoning filibuster rights in judicial appointments. The "senatorial consultation" referred to in the letter, also known as the "advice and consent" clause in the Constitution, was argued by supporters of Bush to mean that the Senate's role was to confirm or deny appointees, not offer advice. For a comprehensive run-down on the hypocrisy of GOP lawmakers and activists regarding this argument, see this blog entry at Right Wing Watch.

It appears White House Counsel Gregory Craig has begun his outreach to Republicans in the Senate over judicial appointees, but it is unclear whether the plan outlined in the GOP Conference letter will affect the nomination process.

Josh Glasstetter, communications manager for People For the American Way, told BuzzFlash that the White House has been in contact with his organization over this issue, but that he didn't think they'd want to go on the record about the letter.

"I don't think they're taking this very seriously, but it could certainly be a problem," he said.

Further, the striking of a bipartisan pose when it comes to the American judicial system is a new idea for Republicans. As Michael Greco, past president of the American Bar Association, and Patricia Wald, a former chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, pointed out in an October 2008 op-ed:

The Bush presidency has produced a right-wing judicial imbalance... Barack Obama has a different view of the role of judges from that of Bush and McCain. Obama, a Constitutional scholar, would likely appoint judges who respect the Constitution as he does -- particularly its core values of liberty and equality. Unlike Bush -- who dangerously has used "presidential signing statements" to decline to enforce new laws he does not like, thereby unconstitutionally usurping power from both Congress and courts -- Obama would ensure that courts safeguard the freedom of all citizens, independent from political influence of the executive branch and Congress.

A request for a comment from Leahy's office was not returned by press time. However, he released this statement in 2004 addressing Republican complaints over Democrats' supposed unwillingness to confirm controversial Bush appointees:

To put it charitably, these crocodile tears about judicial nominations are a tad disingenuous.

Let's review the record.

The earlier Democratic-led Senate confirmed more Bush judicial nominees than the Republican-led Senate has. In all, Democrats have joined in confirming 173 Bush judicial nominees -- 100 of them during the Democratic-led Senate.

So 173 have been confirmed. Six controversial nominees have been blocked. Two of them have been unilaterally appointed by the President during Senate recesses. One has withdrawn to rejoin a lucrative job with a law firm. That leaves three who have been blocked. One-hundred-seventy-three confirmed, to three blocked. Compare that to the more than 60 Clinton judicial nominees who Republicans blocked from even getting hearings, let alone votes.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

Christine Bowman contributed to this report.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Obama's 'Seven Days in May' Moment

By Robert Parry
February 20, 2009

Only one month into his presidency, Barack Obama is finding himself confronting not only George W. Bush’s left-behind crises but an array of influential enemies in the military, financial circles, the political world and the media – determined to thwart Obama’s agenda for “change.”

Though Obama has maintained his trademark equanimity in the face of this resistance, he appears to be sensing the rising tide of dangers around him. After his failed gestures of bipartisanship on the economic stimulus bill, he pointedly took his case to the country in campaign-style town meetings.

“You know, I am an eternal optimist,” Obama told a group of columnists about his rebuffed outreach to Republicans. “That doesn’t mean I’m a sap.”

Yet even if he’s no “sap,” Obama must find within himself the toughness of extraordinary leadership and the resourcefulness to defeat or neutralize powerful enemies if he is to succeed. His initial hopes of a “post-partisan” era already have been shown to be naïve, even dangerously so.

(Not so sure that Obama is all that naive. He is beginning his administration by fulfilling promises he made during the campaign. If others do no wish to join him (and us) in the unity it will take to see us through the nightmare, surely to get worse, that the Bush administration intentionally left us, ordinary Americans will see it for what it is...sabotage.

Obama faces near-unanimous Republican opposition to his strategy for salvaging the U.S. economy (and a GOP readiness to use the Senate filibuster at every turn); right-wing talk radio and cable-TV personalities are stoking a populist anger against him; Wall Street executives are miffed at limits on their compensation; and key military commanders are resisting his promised draw-down in Iraq.

In addition, former Bush administration officials are making clear that they will fight any effort to hold them accountable for torture and other war crimes, denouncing it as a “witch-hunt” that will be met with an aggressive counterattack accusing Obama of endangering American security.

It is not entirely inconceivable that Obama’s powerful enemies could coalesce into a kind of “Seven Days in May” moment, the novel and movie about an incipient coup aimed at a President who was perceived as going too far against the country’s political-military power structure.

Far more likely, however, Obama’s fate could parallel Jimmy Carter’s, a President whose reelection bid in 1980 was opposed by a phalanx of powerful enemies at home and abroad, including disgruntled CIA officers, angry Cold Warriors, and young neoconservatives allied with Israel’s right-wing Likud leaders furious over Carter’s Middle East peace initiatives.

Carter little understood the breadth, depth and clout of the opposition he faced – and the full story of how his presidency was sabotaged has never been told. [For the most detailed account, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

(There is, however, a huge difference in Carter's days in office and today. That difference is the information we have access to today that no one even dreamed of back then. Certainly, wherever there is information there is disinformation. Americans, as well as other citizens of planet earth, must learn to recognize the difference between b.s and transparency.)

Hobbling Obama

The current Republican strategy appears to be to hobble the Obama administration out of the gate, have it stumble forward through a deteriorating economy and collapse before the 2010 and 2012 elections, enabling the GOP to retake control of the government.

However, Obama is not without resources of his own. A brilliant orator and clever politician, he won a decisive electoral victory in November and drew 1.8 million to his Inauguration on a frigid day in Washington on Jan. 20. The Democrats also have sizable majorities in the House and Senate.

There also are some media voices – like Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow – and much of the “Net roots” urging Obama to resist the pressures and stick to his guns.

But most of the U.S. news media continues to tilt to the Right – from the Washington Post’s neoconservative editorialists and CNBC’s millionaire commentators to the right-wing ideologues of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal.

How this right-wing media infrastructure (we would call it fascist) can stoke a sudden brushfire was displayed Thursday when CNBC reporter Rick Santelli – on the trading floor of the Chicago commodities exchange – fumed about Obama’s plan to help up to nine million Americans avoid foreclosure.

Santelli suggested that Obama set up a Web site to get public feedback on whether “we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages.” Then, gesturing to the wealthy traders in the pit, Santelli declared, “this is America” and asked “how many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills, raise their hand.”

Amid a cacophony of boos aimed at Obama’s housing plan, Santelli turned back to the camera and said, “President Obama, are you listening?”

(Whether Obama was listening or not, we were, Mr. Santelli, and we, independents, consider you to be a disgrace to your profession, whatever that is, as well as expendable....you know, like the soldiers who were sent into a senseless quagmire of a war for the protection of the energy corporations you worship.)

Though Santelli’s behavior in a different context – say, a denunciation of George W. Bush near the start of his presidency – would surely have resulted in a suspension or firing, Santelli’s anti-Obama rant was hailed as “the Chicago tea party,” made Santelli an instant hero across right-wing talk radio, and was featured proudly on NBC’s Nightly News.

One can only imagine the future reaction from CNBC’s commentators – and Santelli’s rich traders – if Obama decides to nationalize some of America’s giant insolvent banks or if his administration imposes stricter limits on Wall Street’s executive compensation.

(Who cares what his reaction will be? He isn't the Lord of the Rings or anything else for that matter. The only reason he received any attention at all is because he behaved like an on=air psychotic. People don't usually get to see that kind of behavior unless they work on a locked ward.)

Military Opposition

But Obama’s dilemma is not just that he is offending the plutocrats of the U.S. financial sector, or that he faces Republican resistance in Congress, or that he’s running headlong into the Right’s potent media machine.

Obama also will have to take on key leaders of the U.S. military. Part of this is his own fault for listening to centrist Democrats who urged him to retain President Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates, one of Obama’s high-profile gestures of bipartisanship.

(I'm not so sure about Robert's analysis here:

I'm not so sure that Obama's decisions were born out of a futile wish for bipartinship. Take a careful look at the cabinet positions he offered Republicans. DOD and Transportation, for example.

Nevermind Judd Gregg. According to my sources, Mr. Gregg had a few more problems than just "philoshophical" disagreements with any Democrat; disagreements he must have had before he agreed to take the job and then bailed.

If there is a hit on U.S. soil, early on in the Obama administration, it's a good thing to have Republicans in those positions that will surely be blamed.

Look at who George W. Bush/Dick Cheney kept on from the, supposedly, much hated Clinton administration: Tenet at the CIA and Mineta at Transportation, the two agencies that took the biggest hit in terms of blame for 9/11. Of course, Junior remained "grandly loyal" to them both, keeping them on after the worst attack on American soil since the war of 1812. After that, they owed him big time. Just about everyone blamed the CIA and Transportation, after it became public knowledge that we had been warned, time and time again, that just such an attack was not only possible but imminent.

After that, the DOT was asked to beef up security (meaning harrass the American flying public so we would all feel safe, LOL. Tenet was asked to take the blame for the "bad Intel." that supposedly led us into a war of aggression and eventually had to fall on his sword to save Bush and Cheney from the gallows. For this he received the Medal of Freedom or some damn thing, which now means nothing to anyone but an award for silence.)

Though well-liked in Washington power circles – and possessing a disarming style – Gates has a history as a hawkish policymaker who will undercut a President he sees as going soft. As a young CIA officer, Gates was linked to the behind-the-scenes sabotage of Carter in 1980. [See Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege, or Consortiumnews.com’s “The Secret World of Robert Gates.”]

Gates had better be careful. This nation is in too dire a straights for him to be messing with a duly elected president and those who elected him.

When Bush nominated Gates to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in November 2006, Official Washington (and many Democrats) assumed that the move meant that Bush was adopting a more pragmatic approach to Iraq and would soon begin a phased withdrawal.

What Washington insiders misunderstood was that Rumsfeld had become a relative dove on Iraq and opposed a troop “surge.” Meanwhile, Gates – both as a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and in a meeting with Bush in Crawford, Texas – was supporting an escalation of troops in Iraq.

(Did official Washington really misunderstand, or were they simply happy that Poppy's man was in and a Nixon/Cheney man was out? For some reason, D.C. insiders still have respect for the old man)

As Bush told Bob Woodward in an interview for the book, The War Within, Gates “said he thought that [a troop increase] would be a good idea.” Bush added: “In November [2006], I’m beginning to think about not fewer troops, but more troops. And, interestingly enough, the man I’m talking to in Crawford feels the same way.”

To open the door for the “surge” of about 30,000 additional U.S. troops, Bush also ousted his two field commanders, Gens. John Abizaid and George Casey, replacing them with pro-surge generals, David Petraeus and Ray Odierno, who remain the top two commanders today.

Although Obama ran for President on a platform calling for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 16 months, his decision to retain Gates – announced in late November 2008 – apparently sent a message to Petraeus and Odierno that the incoming President could be persuaded to slow the withdrawal pace and possibly agree to a permanent U.S. military presence.

Instead of taking Obama’s 16-month timetable seriously, Petraeus and Odierno began outlining a scheme for a modest withdrawal of about 7,000 to 8,000 troops in the first six months of 2009 – bringing the total down to levels that still might be higher than those before the surge two years ago – and then keeping the numbers there until at least June 2009 when additional judgments would be made, according to a New York Times report in mid-December 2008.

There was an article in the Houston chronicle a couple of years ago all about Bush friends visiting the W.H. and coming home with real concerns about Junior's mental health. They said that Junior had advised them that nobody should be concerned about any president who followed him having free reign in Iraq...that he was busy setting a trap for the next occupant of the W.H. that would make it impossible for him/her to exit Iraq any time soon, if ever. As Babs Bush once said, her son is crazy like a fox. Meanwhile, the U.S. is rapidly swirling down the toilet as a result of the trap Junior mentioned regarding Iraq and, I would bet, traps haiving to do with the economy, Afghanistan and more.

The Bush/Cheney administration, along with their enablers in Congress, on Wall Street, right-wing media and in Neoconservative "think"tanks, are surely trying their dead-level best to re-write the criminal history of the last administration. We must not let them!

‘Stay the Course’

Rather than “change you can believe in,” the generals seemed to have in mind something closer to Bush’s “stay the course.” They also appeared to have little respect for the “status of forces agreement” signed with the Iraqi government, calling for U.S. military withdrawal from the cities by June 30, 2009, and a complete American pullout by the end of 2011.

Odierno, top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said American combat troops will remain in Iraqi cities after June 30, 2009, though called “transition teams” advising Iraqi forces. Col. James Hutton, a spokesman for Odierno, later amplified on the general’s comments, characterizing U.S. troops staying behind in the cities as “enablers to Iraqi security forces.”

Iraqi critics of the status-of-forces agreement took note of these American word games of redefining U.S. troops as “transition teams” and “enablers.”

“This confirmed our view that U.S. forces will never withdraw from the cities next summer, and they will never leave Iraq by the end of 2011,” said Ahmed al-Masoudi, a spokesman for a Shiite parliamentary bloc close to radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

As for the final pullout deadline of Dec. 31, 2011, Odierno observed that it, too, could be waived. “Three years is a very long time,” he told reporters.

Washington Post military writer Thomas E. Ricks picked up a similar message from Odierno and other military leaders during interviews for Ricks’s new book, The Gamble.

In an Outlook piece for the Post, Ricks wrote: “The widespread expectation inside the U.S. military is that we will have tens of thousands of troops [in Iraq] for years to come. Indeed, in his last interview with me last November, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told me that he would like to see about 30,000 troops still there in 2014 or 2015.”

Reflecting this consensus within the U.S. military, Ricks wrote, “I worry now that we are once again failing to imagine what we have gotten ourselves into and how much more we will have to pay in blood, treasure, prestige and credibility. I don't think the Iraq war is over, and I worry that there is more to come than any of us suspect.”

Ricks quoted Col. Peter Mansoor, a top aide to Gen. Petraeus, as saying: “This is not a campaign that can be won in one or two years. … The United States has got to be willing to underwrite this effort for many, many years to come. I can't put it in any brighter colors than that."

Resistance to Obama

In other words, some top U.S. field commanders took the measure of the incoming Commander in Chief and concluded that they could roll him. When Petraeus and Gates met with Obama on Jan. 21, they reportedly were surprised when he insisted that they submit a plan that would phase out U.S. combat forces in 16 months.

Citing two sources familiar with the meeting, investigative reporter Gareth Porter wrote that the Pentagon brass was upset with Obama's refusal to back down, but they still saw the meeting as essentially an opening skirmish in the battle to reverse the 16-month withdrawal pledge.

“The decision to override Petraeus's recommendation [for a longer stay in Iraq] has not ended the conflict between the President and senior military officers over troop withdrawal,” Porter wrote. “There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

“A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public opinion against Obama's decision.”

According to Porter, that group includes retired Gen. Jack Keane, who was a leading proponent of the Iraq troop “surge” and a longtime friend of Petraeus.

Obama also can expect fierce resistance from the Right if he pushes ahead with plans to rein in Pentagon spending. Already, Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan, a prominent neocon, has written a column entitled, “No Time to Cut Defense.”

Yep, God only knows how many financial portfolios, hidden from public view in private investment groups, will sink if Obama cuts spending for the "the Beast." Just look at how long the "peace dividend" lasted after the Berlin Wall came tumbling down during GHWB's one term. It seemed like a mere blink of the eye before we were blasting Baghdad and surrounding parts of Iraq, a military intervention which eventually brought us to the current nightmare; a military intervention that was also based on quite a few lies and double dealing.

And the defenders of the Bush administration are gearing up for a full-scale political war if Obama’s Justice Department moves forward on criminal investigations relating to Bush’s authorization of torture and other crimes committed under the umbrella of the “war on terror.”

(We can only hope that the war they plan on waging is "political." from what we hear and read, the war may come to much more than that.)

So, just one month into his presidency, Obama finds himself surrounded by a growing A-list of powerful enemies.

This may not become his “Seven Days in May” moment, but he can be sure that his adversaries want him – like Jimmy Carter – to be a one-term President.

....and we, U.S. unaligned independents, may be the least powerful people in the industrialized world, until election day in the U.S., as a general rule. We are generally moderate, leaning slightly left or right depending on what's happening in the nation. We are free thinkers, tied to no ideology but believers in democratic principles of governance, like majority rule with protection for the minority, but tyranny by neither. Rather, we believe, it is better when politicians put the nation's interests above the interest of their own party or their own political careers and, therefore, seek consensus where and when it can be found.

That being said, we will not tolerate attempts to sabotage of the president we elected, nor his administration, as long as he is doing his best to make the changes we elected him to make and given the horrible mess he inherited.

Independent, unaligned voters, unlike many liberals, believe there is a ver good reason for the second amendment, especially when the first amendment is threatened, and don't have a problem with responsible gun-ownership or ownership of other means of self-protection. Unlike the type of conservatives we see today, we are horrified by the hate speech coming from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly and others who make up the Right-wing media and the very obvious obstructionism by right-wing politicians, both in and out of D.C..

We are sick and tired of it! We support our president and we will do whatever it takes to help him and protect him from those who wish to cancel out our votes and continue with the criminal policies of George W. Bush and his administration.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Extraordinary Measures (or crimes?)

A new memo shows just how far the Bush administration considered going in fighting the war on terror. (or was it the war on their real "enemies" as they saw it and still do; "Libruls"

Michael Isikoff

Newsweek Web Exclusive

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department secretly gave the green light for the U.S. military to attack apartment buildings and office complexes inside the United States, deploy high-tech surveillance against U.S. citizens and potentially suspend First Amendment freedom-of-the-press rights in order to combat the terror threat, according to a memo released Monday.

Many of the actions discussed in the Oct. 23, 2001, memo to then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's chief lawyer, William Haynes, were never actually taken.

But the memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel—along with others made public for the first time Monday—illustrates with new details the extraordinary post-9/11 powers asserted by Bush administration lawyers. Those assertions ultimately led to such controversial policies as allowing the waterboarding of terror suspects and permitting warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens—steps that remain the subject of ongoing investigations by Congress and the Justice Department. The memo was co-written by John Yoo, at the time a deputy attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel. Yoo, now a professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, has emerged as one of the central figures in those ongoing investigations.

In perhaps the most surprising assertion, the Oct. 23, 2001, memo suggested the president could even suspend press freedoms if he concluded it was necessary to wage the war on terror. "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Yoo wrote in the memo entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activity Within the United States."

This claim was viewed as so extreme that it was essentially (and secretly) revoked—but not until October of last year, seven years after the memo was written and with barely three and a half months left in the Bush administration.

At that time, Steven Bradbury, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel throughout Bush's second term, concluded that Yoo's statements about overriding First Amendment freedoms were "unnecessary" and "overbroad and in general and not sufficiently grounded in the particular circumstance of a concrete scenario," according to a memo from Bradbury also made public Monday.

Kate Martin, the director for the Center for National Security Studies, a Washington think tank, said the newly disclosed memo by Yoo and Robert Delahunty, another OLC lawyer, was part of a broader legal reasoning that gave President Bush essentially unfettered powers in the war on terrorism. "In October 2001, they were trying to construct a legal regime that would basically have allowed for the imposition of martial law," said Martin. (Yoo, also a visiting scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, did not respond to a request for comment. Gonzales's lawyer, George Terwilliger, said he had not yet had a chance to review the newly released memo and also declined to comment.)

On Jan. 15, 2009—with only five days left before Bush left office—Bradbury also rescinded three other legal memos written during the president's first term that claimed broad powers to unilaterally suspend treaties, bypass restrictions on domestic surveillance and take other actions to combat terrorism without the approval of Congress. Bradbury said in a separate legal memo that the claims made in these earlier memos were based on unsound legal reasoning and should not be viewed as "authoritative." But he offered no explanation for why he waited until the waning days of Bush's presidency to withdraw them.

(I imagine most of us can figure out why, don't you?) It is the opinion of those independents, who belong to the Pelican Group, that George W. Bush and his legal team should be arrested and held over for trial for violations of the Constitution.)

The most controversial, and best known, of Yoo's legal opinions was his Aug. 1, 2002, memo that effectively approved the president's right to disregard a federal law banning torture in ordering the interrogation of terror suspects. An accompanying (and still unreleased) memo from the same day approved the CIA's authority to use "waterboarding" (or simulated drowning) against terror suspects.

In a related matter, the CIA acknowledged in a legal filing Monday that it has destroyed 92 interrogation tapes of two suspects who were subjected to waterboarding. While it was previously known that the agency had destroyed some tapes, the number of destroyed tapes was far more "systemic" than had previously been known, according to Amrit Singh, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been seeking records about the destroyed evidence under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

A U.S. government official familiar with the matter said all of the destruction took place in November 2005 and mostly involved the interrogations and detention of Abu Zubaydah, a "high-value" detainee who was captured in March 2002 and remains today at the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. A small number of the destroyed tapes also involved the interrogation and detention of another suspect, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, an alleged architect of the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Justice Department special counsel John Durham, who is investigating the destruction of the tapes, previously said he planned to finish his interviews by the end of February, but has given no indication of whether he plans to charge anybody involved with a crime.

The newly disclosed Oct. 23, 2001, memo was in response to a request from Gonzales, at the time President Bush's top lawyer, and Haynes, who was chief counsel at the Pentagon, to determine if there were any restrictions on the use of the U.S. military inside the country in targeting terror suspects. The Yoo memo essentially concluded there were none. The country, he argued, was in a "state of armed conflict." The scale of violence, he argued, was unprecedented and "legal and constitutional rules" governing law enforcement—such as the Fourth Amendment prohibition on "unreasonable" searches and seizures—did not apply.

(What's the point in having a constitution if, at any time, it cane be simply ignored without the knowledge of the people?)

At one point, the memo says, the U.S. military could be used for "targeting and destroying" a hijacked airline or "attacking civilian targets, such as apartment buildings, offices or ships where suspected terrorists were thought to be." At another point, the memo advices: "Military action might encompass making arrests, seizing documents or other property, searching persons or places or keeping them under surveillance, intercepting electronic or wireless communications, setting up roadblocks, interviewing witnesses or searching for suspects."

Let The Sun Shine In......

The American Corpoate Media Did Themsevles In....

Seems they care more about their insider status and their 6 figure (or more) incomes than they do the country or its people.

It time they paid the price, one way or the other!

By Robert Parry
March 2, 2009

It’s widely agreed that there are a number of factors dragging down American newspapers, including the economic recession and the impact of the Internet, but a reason rarely mentioned is that the national news media failed in its most important job – to serve as a watchdog for the people.

As Americans look out over the wreckage of the past three decades – and especially the last eight years – there have been too many times when the constitutionally protected U.S. news media didn’t raise the alarm or even joined in spreading misinformation that advanced the disastrous mismanagement of the U.S. economy and government.

Not that anyone should derive pleasure from watching once formidable institutions like the New York Times and the Washington Post fade into pale shadows of their former selves.

But it also must be acknowledged that decisions by senior management of those and other top news organizations contributed to their own decline, especially the failure to stand up to the Right’s increasingly effective propaganda that emerged in the late 1970s in the wake of Richard Nixon’s Watergate debacle and the American defeat in Vietnam.

The Right was determined to prevent “another Watergate” and “another Vietnam.” So, key Republican strategists, such as former Treasury Secretary William Simon, went to work building their own media infrastructure, which included special groups to attack mainstream reporters who got in the way.

Rather than standing up to this pressure and defending the kind of aggressive journalism that exposed Nixon’s criminality and the lies behind the Vietnam War, many major news organizations consciously retreated from that watchdog tradition. [See Robert Parry’s Lost History.]

At the New York Times, neoconservative executive editor Abe Rosenthal talked about moving his newspaper “back to the center,” by which he meant to the right. Washington Post chairwoman Katharine Graham also was uncomfortable with the adversarial position of her newspaper and sidled up to President Ronald Reagan when he came to power in 1981.

When I was hired at Washington Post-owned Newsweek in 1987 – supposedly to pursue the Iran-Contra scandal that I had helped expose while at the Associated Press – I was surprised to find senior Newsweek executives fretting about the possibility that Iran-Contra could become another Watergate.

The very company (the Washington Post), which was credited with blowing the whistle on Nixon’s Watergate crimes, seemed not to want “another Watergate,” in part because it might damage the generally friendly dinner-party relationships that had developed with the Reagan insiders, which in turn might upset Mrs. Graham.

I ran into this corporate reality when I pressed ahead with an investigation showing that the Iran-Contra scandal was not a rogue operation run by White House aide Oliver North and a few men of zeal – but rather was authorized and directed by President Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush with the active support of the CIA.

I encountered hostility from Newsweek’s top brass in New York and little support from my immediate superiors in Washington. The message was that the Iran-Contra scandal should be wrapped up quickly, that it should not go any higher, and that additional digging would not be “good for the country.”

It was known inside Newsweek that executive editor Maynard Parker was cozy with key neoconservatives and the CIA, while Washington bureau chief Evan Thomas was a great admirer of the neocon writers at The New Republic. It soon became clear that battling to tell Iran-Contra truths was not a route to career advancement.

Changing Journalism

More broadly, the character of journalism was changing, too.

Instead of the Watergate/Pentagon Papers image of scrappy reporters and hardened editors standing up to the powers-that-be, star journalists and well-paid executives were partaking in the riches and comforts of a then-booming industry with extra money to be made on TV pundit shows – if you stayed safely within the bounds of Washington’s “conventional wisdom.”

In short, many people in the news business stopped being outsiders keeping an eye on the insiders for the American public, but rather they became insiders themselves.

And the fastest way to lose your lucrative insider status was to offend the Right, which was building a vast media infrastructure that could easily pick off the few reporters and editors who resisted this new paradigm.

By the time I left Newsweek in 1990, I was convinced that the mainstream U.S. news media had moved beyond a point where it could be reformed. It was becoming incapable of examining complex cases of wrongdoing either by the government or the private sector.

Yet, when I approached liberal foundations with my first-hand insights – and my recommendation that they must begin investing aggressively in a counter-media infrastructure – the reaction I received was usually one of bemusement. “We don’t do media” went one typical reaction.

So, the downward media spiral continued, accelerated by the emergence of right-wing talk radio (which hammered even mildly center-left politicians like Bill Clinton) and cable news (which obsessed 24/7 on sensational crime stories, such as the O.J. Simpson case).

One of the reasons I founded Consortiumnews.com in 1995 was that the market for well-documented stories about the serious wrongdoing of the Reagan-Bush-41 years had disappeared. That information was considered too historical as well as too risky.

By then, top media commentators also had bought into the insiders’ faith in globalization and deregulation as well as the value of a “tough-guy” foreign policy and a dismissive attitude toward tree-hugging environmentalists.

You could safely protect your future as a big-name media star if you parroted Bob Woodward's view that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was a “maestro,” if you followed the foreign policy lead of neocons like Charles Krauthammer and Fred Hiatt, or if you echoed Gregg Easterbrook’s critique of environmental extremists.

In Campaign 2000, the Washington press corps sank to its junior-high worst when it ganged up on nerd Al Gore and fairly swooned at the feet of big-man-on-campus George W. Bush.

Not only was there no warning about the danger of putting an unqualified dauphin like Bush in charge of the federal government, the major U.S. news media – led by the New York Times and the Washington Post – paved the way by treating Gore as a delusional braggart. [For details, see Neck Deep.]

The Bush-43 Era

Then, with Bush in place, the U.S. news media spent the crucial summer of 2001 obsessed with one of many white-girl-goes-missing stories – about Washington intern Chandra Levy who had had an affair with a Democratic congressman, Gary Condit.

Almost no attention was paid to the growing alarm inside the U.S. intelligence community about the prospects of a terrorist attack from Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization. And once the attack took place on 9/11, the news media lined up unquestioningly behind Bush, who then mounted a public relations campaign to justify invading Iraq.

Besides failing to ask tough questions of Bush, the major U.S. news media joined in cheerleading for the go-go financial era, offering little or no substantive criticism of the dangers from a deregulated global economy. Indeed, any commentator who dared challenge the conventional wisdom about “free markets” and “free trade” almost surely would get drummed out of the media insider club.

The Washington Post became a prime example of all these trends – and did so in contradiction to the political views of much of its community, one of the most liberal in the country. Though facing competition only from two right-wing newspapers (the Washington Times and the Examiner), the Post charted a neocon editorial direction that often insulted its more liberal readers.

A typical day in the life of the Post’s editorial section offers up the writings of neocons like Krauthammer, William Kristol, Robert Kagan and editorial page editor Hiatt. (Hiatt oversaw an ugly campaign to discredit Iraq War critic Joseph Wilson, whose wife, covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, was exposed by senior officials in the Bush administration.)

Besides the neocons, you might find more traditional conservatives like George Will and Kathleen Parker, plus laissez-faire economic writer Robert Samuelson and pro-Iraq War “insiders” like David Ignatius, Jim Hoagland and Richard Cohen.

Liberals, such as E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson, are almost always in a distinct minority.

So, when the Washington Post complains about its 77 percent drop in fourth-quarter earnings, its loss of advertising during the economic downturn, its three rounds of staff buyouts, or its circulation struggles in the face of Internet competition, many Washingtonians may be inclined to say simply, “it’s your own damn fault.”

(And they would be dead-on,)

Liberal Failings

But blame for America’s media mess also must fall on wealthy liberals and progressives who have largely stayed on the sidelines as the right-wing juggernaut rolled over honest reporters during the past three decades and thus made the fabrication of a false national narrative much easier.

The Left’s failure to engage on media also represents possibly the biggest threat to the young Obama presidency and to its ambitious reform agenda, which includes broader availability to health care, stronger environmental protections, more resources for education, help to unions, and investments in the national infrastructure.

George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California-Berkeley, described this problem in a HuffingtonPost article on Feb. 24 entitled The Obama Code. Though the article focuses on how Obama frames his rhetorical arguments, Lakoff adds near the end:

“The conservative message machine is huge and still going. There are dozens of conservative think tanks, many with very large communications budgets. … About 80 percent of the talking heads on TV are conservatives.

“Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are as strong as ever. There are now progressive voices on MSNBC, Comedy Central, and Air America, but they are still overwhelmed by [the] Right's enormous megaphone.

“Republicans in Congress can count on overwhelming message support in their home districts and homes states. That is one reason why they were able to stonewall on the President's stimulus package. They had no serious media competition at home pounding out the Obama vision day after day.

“Such national, day-by-day media competition is necessary. Democrats need to build it. … The President and his administration cannot build such a communication system, nor can the Democrats in Congress. The DNC does not have the resources.

“It will be up to supporters of the Obama values, not just supporters on the issues, to put such a system in place. Despite all the organizing strength of Obama supporters, no such organizing effort is now going on.

“If none is put together, the movement conservatives will face few challenges of fundamental values in their home constituencies and will be able to go on stonewalling with impunity. That will make the President's vision that much harder to carry out.”

So, while it is undeniably true that the mainstream news media has failed the American people – and that the nation is paying a terrible price for that failure – it’s also true that liberals and progressives have contributed to the problem by seeing media as someone else’s responsibility.

Combined with the Right’s disinformation and the cowardice of the mainstream, the Left’s media blindness – the “we-don’t-do-media” syndrome – has enabled the unfolding American political/economic disaster, which has now carried the country and the world to the brink of a global depression.

It is way past time for people of goodwill to respond.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

Let The Sun Shine In......