- "This country has nothing to fear from the crooked
man who fails. We put him in jail. It is the crooked man who succeeds
who is a threat to this country." -- President Theodore
Roosevelt
-
- It would be accurate to put in the past tense the crimes
that the Bush criminal regime has committed, but our present administration's
crimes continue to mushroom and multiply by the minute.
-
- Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has succinctly itemized an astonishing
laundry list of Bush crimes in his piece, "Are We Experiencing The
Last Days of Constitutional Rule?" Roberts offers: "The administration's
offenses against US law, the US Constitution, civil liberties, human rights,
and the Geneva Conventions, its lies to Congress and the American people,
its vote-rigging scandals, its sweetheart no-bid contracts to favored firms,
its political firing of Republican US Attorneys, its practice of kidnapping
and torturing people in foreign hellholes, and its persecution of whistleblowers
are altogether so vast that it is a major undertaking just to list them
all."
-
- But if it is "a major undertaking just to list them
all," then there should be no dearth of either evidence or principles
that can be employed against these federal gangsters to impeach them, try
them, and send them to jail as President Teddy Roosevelt pointed out.
And in spite of all their crimes and the resultant mass murders and deaths,
Nancy Pelosi and her despicable Democrats indicate that "impeachment
is off the table." It's obvious that these despicable parasites don't
even need the table. We should break off the legs and use them as clubs
to drive these power lenders out of our House!
-
- Roberts asks rhetorically: "What explains Bush-Cheney
invulnerability to accountability? Perhaps the answer is that Bush has
desensitized us." I disagree! The majority wants out of Iraq, does
not want to attack Iran, and wants funding stopped for both. Who holds
the complete opposite view to that attributable to a now-probable majority
of 80 percent of the American people? It is AIPAC, ISRAEL, and their ZIONIST
PRESS!
-
- When Democratic Congressman John Conyers attempted to
publicize the Downing Street Memo, the criminals, the GOP [Gangsters of
Politics] banished Conyers and his panel to the basement of the people's
House. And Zionist traitor, "journalist" Dana Milbank of the
treasonous Washington Post, mocked the Conyers inquiry and then smeared
Conyers as being "anti-Semitic." Instead of supporting an investigation
in to the criminal activities of the Bush regime, the "newspaper"
of Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee pimped for Bush.
-
- Think of those in our military who died and were maimed
because of the treason committed by the Washington Post and The New York
Times. The "official" death toll of our military at the time
Downing was aired then stood at 1,700. Could a free and independent press
have started to turn things around beginning back then such that many lives
and limbs could have been saved?
-
- In his commentary of March 18, "Domestic Spying
Revelations Make Impeachment Now Imperative," Dr. Roberts addresses
the current Alberto Gonzales debacle; and please let's not forget that
Roberts, like me, had Republican beginnings. Roberts writes, "While
serving as President Bush's White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzales advised
Bush that the president's war time powers permitted Bush to ignore the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and to use the National Security
Agency (NSA) to spy on US citizens without obtaining warrants from the
FISA court as required by law. Under an order signed by Bush in 2002,
NSA illegally spied on Americans without warrants."
-
- An "order signed by Bush?" Is this godammed
piece of paper still around somewhere? And if it is, how come Congress
doesn't know about it?
-
- Why is impeachment off the table?
-
- Roberts again: "By spying on Americans without obtaining
warrants, Bush committed felonies under FISA. Moreover, there is strong,
indeed overwhelming, evidence that justice was obstructed when Bush and
Gonzales blocked a 2006 Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales
acted properly as Attorney General in approving and overseeing the Bush
administration's program of spying on US citizens. Also at issue is whether
Gonzales acted properly in advising Bush to kill an investigation of Gonzales'
professional actions with regard to the NSA spy program."
-
- Roberts has continually pointed out the vast criminal
activities of the Bush regime, and as his earlier quote related, the detailing
of the laundry list of Bush crimes is indeed a daunting task. Roberts
gets to the point faster than most commentators, and understands the implications
of his subject matter: "We are faced with almost certain fact that
the two highest law enforcement officials of the United States are criminals."
-
- I will go further than "almost certain." I
am totally positive that both are heavily armed and extremely dangerous
criminals, to US and the whole world as well. These gangsters have
taken it upon themselves to write law, which they are not authorized to
do, rescind and/or ignore laws they are supposed to obey, and then judge
the legality of their actions based upon their own views. Who can possibly
challenge them? Governmentally, what higher authority exists? If you
or I had such power, wouldn't we damn well do as we please?
-
- Roberts continues: The evidence that Bush and Gonzales
have obstructed justice comes from internal Justice Department memos and
exchanges of letters between the Justice Department's Office of Professional
Responsibility (OPR), an investigative office, and members of Congress.
-
- "Justice Department memos?" "Exchanged
letters between Justice and Congress?" Letters and memos and Congress.
Oh my! Letters and memos and Congress. Oh my! Aren't these godammed
pieces of paper rock solid evidence? As Roberts points out, these documents
WERE LEAKED to the National Journal and reported by America's only true
investigative journalist, Murray Waas. And Roberts assures US that Waas
backed up this information with actual interviews as well. Oh my!
-
- Actual evidence exists proving that Bush and Gonzales
obstructed justice, and is now in the hands of the Democratic-controlled
Congress that received a mandate, even from a Republican such as I formerly
was, to do something quickly about Bush before he ignites World War III
via his unauthorized and illegal planned attack on Iran. But now I must
revise "unauthorized" to "authorized," thanks to Democrat
Nancy Pelosi and her handlers at AIPAC.
-
- Why is impeachment off the table?
-
- Why is Iran on the table?
-
- In his excellent article for National Journal, America's
sole investigative reporter, Murray Waas, gets beneath the layers of secrecy
and propaganda created by the Zionist media to protect the criminal Bush
regime as it sacrifices America fore Israel. His March 15th article entitled,
"Internal Affairs Aborted DOJ Probe Probably Would Have Targeted
Gonzales," lays out precisely how the Bush crime machine and its rogue
Department of Justice operate. The DOJ is a rogue Bush outfit precisely
because of the firings of federal attorneys whose mission it was to provide
oversight of Department activities to ensure compliance with constitutional
law and due process. And any organized criminal activities perpetrated
by the Bush gang simply cannot tolerate either the light of day or the
obstructive burdens of truth and justice.
-
- But how and why did this all start? As Roberts had pointed
out, letters were indeed exchanged between Congress and Justice, but this
all started more than a year ago. Waas reports: "[H. Marshall Jarrett,
head of OPR] undertook his investigation [of the illegal Bush/NSA spying
on Americans program] after receiving a request on January 9, 2006, from
Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and three other House Democrats." Waas
goes on to explain that, "OPR did not have a mandate to determine
whether the eavesdropping program itself was illegal or unconstitutional.
Rather, the office was to investigate 'allegations of misconduct involving
department attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to
investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice,' according to the office's
policies and procedures."
-
- The Office of Professional Responsibility itself has
complimentary overseers: one was a Jack Goldsmith, formerly an assistant
attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, and another was James
A. Baker, the counsel for Justice's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review.
Waas relates: "Both men had raised questions about the propriety
and legality of various aspects of the eavesdropping program, which was
undertaken after September 11 as an anti-terrorism tool." This
last observation continues to reinforce my belief that 9/11 was an inside
job deliberately planned and executed by the criminal Bush regime.
-
- But how do we get from the NSA spy flap to the attorney
firings now so current and of such staggering and dangerous potential to
Bush and his Zionist press? Waas explains: "Baker, the counsel
for Justice's intelligence office and the second official whom OPR
investigators were eager to interview had warned the presiding judge
of the FISA court that authorities improperly used information from the
program to obtain surveillance warrants submitted to the court, Justice
officials recalled in interviews."
-
- Waas emphasizes: "If the Justice inquiry had been
allowed to continue, Baker would almost certainly have been asked about
any discussions he had with Gonzales and his top aides regarding these
issues, according to officials close to the inquiry." This is because
the natural course of the inquiry, had it been allowed to proceed unhampered
by underhanded politics, would have had to challenge not only the illogical
and unjust origins of Bush's NSA "spying on America program,"
but the relationship between the creator of such "laws" as well
as the "enforcer" of such laws. And Gonzales was both!
-
- As White House lawyer, he advised Bush that he could
break any laws and restrictions upon his authority by virtue of a totally
new dimension to government; namely the "war on terror" conveniently
created by 9/11. Then, as Attorney General, guess who got to enforce the
very same illegal laws he created. It was the function of OPR, even in
its indirect analysis of attorney procedures and Justice Department protocol,
to begin the inquiry via this approach. And of course, Gonzales found
out about this aspect of the investigation.
-
- It is this dual role on the part of Gonzales that triggered
the current flap. But the real issue is this: in order for the OPR investigation
to begin, issues of "national security" are a concern. In order
for OPR attorneys to proceed, one of the underlying basic steps is that
of obtaining security clearances. And it was in this seemingly uncontroversial
area where the President of the United States of America, one George W.
Bush, got directly involved. Remember, these are United States attorneys
that were already required to take an oath of office and in all likelihood
sign a federal Certificate of Disclosure.
-
- Bush ordered that the OPR attorneys' required security
clearances be denied!
-
- This constituted DIRECT INVOLVEMENT in stopping an investigation!
-
- And remember, the investigation was only coincidental
as regards Gonzales' role. The OPR attorneys might simply have advised
Gonzales that portions of the "law," or certain Justice procedures,
might simply have to be changed. But is this the issue now? No, of course
it isn't! It's Bush stopping a Justice Department investigation into the
"legality" procedure-wise of an administration practice. The
NSA spying on Americans without a warrant is a blatant violation of FISA. And
Bush's direct involvement is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
-
- Why is impeachment off the table?
-
- Waas points out that Gonzales spoke to Bush about the
OPR investigation. There is existing evidence [godammed pieces of paper]
PROVING that Gonzales notified Bush, and that after that, Bush took action
to stifle approval of OPR's clearances. Of course, the Bush apologists,
protectors, propagandists and other unsavory characters immediately offered
the following pap for public consumption: White House spokesperson, Dana
Perino, quoted in Waas' article offered: "The Office of Professional
Responsibility was not the proper venue for conducting that." Waas
relates that White House press secretary Tony Snow offered that the security
clearance denials were warranted because "'in the case of a highly
classified program, you need to keep the number of people to it tight for
reasons of national security.'"
-
- But that national security program is illegal! And Perino's
contention that the "terrorist surveillance program" is a "highly
classified national security" to fight GWOT is also nonsense."
Our Constitution is now null and void because of GWOT? The Magna Carta
and habeas corpus are now null and void because of the 9/11 terror act
that Saddam and Iraq had no part in? All the lives, limbs and sacrifices
of all our military in all our wars since 1776 are meaningless now because
we, the nation on record as having created the greatest acts of terrorism
in the world, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden, must cow in horror and give
up all our freedoms to Bush, and Cheney, and Snow and Perino.
-
- But here's the real kicker delivered by Waas: "In
contrast, Jarrett noted, the administration PROMPTLY APPROVED 'the Criminal
Division's request for the same security clearances for a large team of
attorneys and FBI agents that was investigating who initially leaked details
of the NSA eavesdropping program to The New York Times.'" [Emphasis
added.] If this isn't selective enforcement of the laws of this land,
then I don't know what is.
-
- Why is impeachment off the table?
-
- And if all of this isn't bad enough, check out this tidbit
from Waas: "Hinchey and other Democratic House members asked Jarrett
why he was unable to obtain the necessary clearances; Jarrett's superiors,
according to government records and to interviews, instructed him NOT TO
INFORM CONGRESS that PRESIDENT BUSH [himself] HAD MADE THE DECISION."
[Emphasis added.]
-
- These are the events that immediately preceded the attorney
firings that are now coming to light and will shortly be dropped by the
mass media. The public has a short memory and our "free and independent
press" always counts on that. Clear and unavoidably proven evidence
shows the Gonzales and Bush obstructed justice. The attorney flap was
launched over a year ago and has been smoldering since the NSA story broke.
It would be interesting to find out why it was reported by the Times,
Bush's number one mass media protector and enabler. But I believe NY Times
columnist James Risen's book [State of War] was part of the airing of Bush's
criminal agenda. The March 6th conviction of "Scooter" Libby
on four of five counts definitely shook up the District of Criminals' notorious
notables, while at the same time, putting a focus on the value of hard
working and honest US attorneys and true and loyal public servants. And
the comment of juror Denis Collins, expressing his sympathy for railroaded
Bush-Cheney scapegoat Libby, queried, "Where's Rove?"
-
- On March 9th, Glenn A. Fine, inspector general for the
Justice Department, presented a 130-page report to the House Judiciary
Committee exposing FBI abuses under the Bush-Gonzales USA PATRIOT Act that
Congress passed without even reading. And now they are shocked, shocked
I tell ya, to find out our torturing and mass murdering lying monkey abused
the powers of his exalted station. What is now irrefutable evidence of
wrongdoing is described by the Bushniks as merely "privileged"
and "private" conversations between a president and his advisors.
Nonsense! They are proof, backed up by hard evidence in the form
of godammed pieces of paper and other written documents, proving that Bush
and Gonzales obstructed, and are continuing to obstruct, justice. And
remember that latter precious characteristic of a government of, by and
for the people as articulated in our Constitution's Preamble?
-
- The President is merely the most important among a large
number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to
the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency
or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to
the nation as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there
should be liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that
it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him
when he does right. Any other attitude is both base and servile. To announce
that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand
by the President, right or wrong, is not only patriotic and servile, but
is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should
be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell
the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else.
- - President Theodore Roosevelt
-
-
- Why is impeachment off the table?
-
- Theodore E. Lang
-
- © THEODORE E. LANG 3/24/07 All rights reserved
- Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
|