Whistle Ass / George Bush 2004

Gold prices at Highest Rate since before George Bush Sr. left office after he had just sold $10 Billion in U.S. GOLD to foreigners with Saudi connections for only $10,000 (ed: Iran Contra Scandal may still not be over now in 2004)

Bush the Elder’s Scheme to Sell Pardons and Get a Payoff – Where is the Outrage Over a 10 Billion Dollar Taxpayer Ripoff?

By Jock Gill for Democrats.com

 Bill Clinton wasn’t being either bold or creative in his use of the presidential pardon power. Compared to George Bush Senior’s incredible pardon fiasco, Clinton’s pardon scandal is boring.

In his last days as President, Bush Sr. sold U.S. government asset worth $10 billion to a friend for a mere $10 thousand dollars, pardoned his business colleagues, and then went on the company’s payroll for seven years.

At the very end of his presidency Papa Bush gave a sweetheart deal to the Canadian company Barrick Goldstrike. They got the rights to US land worth $10 billion in return for a nominal payment to the treasury of $10,000. But that does not seem to be all they got, or all they paid for either.

The money behind Barrick is from Saudi arms dealer and Bush family friend Adnan Khashoggi, who was identified as conduit in the Iran-Contra conspiracy. In 1986 he was arrested and charged with fraud but failed to be convicted. In one of his last acts as president Bush pardoned Khashoggi's alleged co-conspirators, who were key members of Bush's own cabinet. As a result, no case could be made against Khashoggi – or against Bush himself.

To express its gratitude for these favors Barrick Goldstrike hired Papa right after he left office and donated $148,000 to the Republican Party, at least that is the amount that can be traced. As reported by Gregory Palast this is hugely more consequential for justice than anything presidential pardon before or since, so slowly once again let’s connect the dots:

1] Iran Contra blows up – Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh makes good progress at revealing the players and their deeds.

2] Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi’s role at the center of it all is at risk of being exposed.

3] Bush "sells" $10B in gold rights for $10K to foreigners! -- why would a president accept such a bad deal for his country? This should be dramatic red flag! This incredible amount makes the sellout of the U.S. by some of our spies look like chump change.

4] Bush pardons key players as part of a cover up -- protecting Adnan Khashoggi and others. The obvious question is what was the quid pro quo?

5] Adnan Khashoggi arranges for his puppet, Peter Munk, founder of Barrick Goldstrike, to repay the favor with a lucrative "job" for George Bush.

So Khashoggi gets his cover up, Barrick gets its gold mine, Bush gets a high paying no show job, the Republican Party gets a huge contribution from a foreign company and we the taxpayers and law abiding citizens get the shaft. How much of this "deal" was all pre-arranged, scripted and "in the bag" before the selling of the gold rights and the pardons?

This also helps explain why the current Bush in the White House wants the stink about Clinton’s pardons to go away! It is simply amazing the press has given Bush Inc. a free ride on this! He must be in terror that somebody will connect the dots and his father's culpability in Iran Contra scandal will leak out. How much longer will these ghosts in the Bush closet remain silently out of sight?

Originally published January 11, 2001

Twin Towers excuse for control freaks

Your Letters November 14 2003
Copyright © 2003 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved  

Twin Towers excuse for control freaksYour Letters November 14 2003

...The destruction of the twin towers in New York was the excuse that control freaks with an authoritarian bent needed. Just as the burning of the Reichstag gave rise to the exciting of a state of hysteria and the granting of arbitrary and unlimited police powers under the Reichstag Fire Decree on February 28, 1933, so 9/11 has given politicians lacking the intellectual ability to rule the excuse to intimidate the general population with their constant warnings of threats from bogeymen.

There is one right we should all defend and that is the right of law-abiding citizens to anonymity when they do not wish to volunteer their identity. Non-disclosure of your identity should never be a crime in itself unless a crime has been committed and there is good reason to connect you with that act...
 
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/4558.html

9/11 Panel Issues Subpoena to Pentagon

By PHILIP SHENON

Published: November 8, 2003

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 — The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks stepped up pressure on the Bush administration to cooperate by issuing a subpoena on Friday to the Pentagon.

Members said they were still weighing a subpoena to the administration for Oval Office documents President Bush received in the days before Sept. 11, 2001, although the panel chose not to issue one today.
Advertisement

The 10-member panel said in a statement that it had encountered "serious delays" in obtaining information from the Defense Department. It voted to subpoena the Pentagon for documents, tapes and transcripts involving the actions of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or Norad, on the morning of Sept. 11, as the suicide hijackings were being carried out. The Defense Command is responsible for protecting American airspace.

"In several cases we were assured that all requested records had been produced but we then discovered, through investigation, that these assurances were mistaken," the panel said. "We are especially dismayed by problems in the production of the records of activities of Norad and certain Air Force commands on Sept. 11..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/08/politics/08TERR.html

Bush Backtrack on Saddam/9-11 Link Creates Legal Problem

Wednesday :: Sep 17, 2003
With both Rummy and now Bush walking away from their claims that Saddam was involved in 9-11, it is worthwhile to remind the media what exactly Bush has said in justifying the Iraq invasion.

As I noted in this very blog on the day Bush authorized the invasion under the requirements of the congressional resolution, this is exactly what Bush said in writing to Congress:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

But today, Bush says that:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

The failure to find any imminent WMD threat has now negated Article 1 of the rationale Bush used above. Today he says he has no evidence that Saddam was involved in September 11(when on March 18 he says he did have such evidence), which then negates Article 2 of his legislatively-required justification for war as outlined under PL 107-243.

Excuse me, but doesn’t this mean he lied to comply with the provisions of PL 107-243? And is that not an impeachable offense?

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000563.html

This war on terrorism is bogus

The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Michael Meacher
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

WHY DON'T WE HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE 9/11 QUESTIONS?

1. What did National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice tell President Bush about al Qaeda threats against the United States in a still-secret briefing on Aug. 6, 2001?

2. Why did Attorney General John Ashcroft and some Pentagon officials cancel commercial-airline trips before Sept. 11?

3. Who made a small fortune "shorting" airline and insurance stocks before Sept. 11?

13. Why did the Bush administration lie about dangerously high levels of toxins and hazardous particles after the WTC collapse?

16. What was the role of Pakistan's spy agency in the Sept. 11 attacks and the subsequent murder of U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl?

20. Where is Usama bin Laden?

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/6742902.htm

Dick Cheney: What a liar

...Why do so many Americans believe Saddam hit us on Sept. 11? Simple. Because their elected leaders keep trying to trick them into thinking it might be true.

This Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert asked Vice President Dick Cheney whether he was surprised by that 69 percent statistic.

“No,” said Cheney, “I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.”
When Russert followed up and asked whether such a connection in fact existed, Cheney said: “We don’t know.”

By any reasonable standard, that’s a lie...

http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/091703.aspx

GW: Exploiting the Atrocity

"...The Washington Post pointed out yesterday, in the past six weeks President Bush has invoked 9/11 not just to defend Iraq policy and argue for oil drilling in the Arctic, but in response to questions about tax cuts, unemployment, budget deficits and even campaign finance. Meanwhile, the crudity of the administration's recent propaganda efforts, from dressing the president up in a flight suit to orchestrating the ludicrously glamorized TV movie about Mr. Bush on 9/11, have set even supporters' teeth on edge...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/opinion/12KRUG.html

President Bush's actions on 9/11

-A 9/11 victim's widow reviews sunday's Showtime film about President Bush's actions on and after that fateful morning:

"...It is understandable that so little time is actually devoted to the president's true actions on the morning of 9/11. Because to show the entire 23 minutes from 9:03 to 9:25 a.m., when President Bush, in reality, remained seated and listening to "second grade story-hour" while people like my husband were burning alive inside the World Trade Center towers, would run counter to Karl Rove's art direction and grand vision.

Remember the aircraft carrier photo-op? Bush is a man of action; in fact, he is an action hero. Except, of course, when it really counts, like in those early morning hours when this country was under attack and our Commander in Chief was drinking milk and eating cookies with second graders. Can you imagine one of those second-graders years from now when they are asked where they were on the morning of 9/11? They will simply say, "I was sitting with the President reading him a story."

http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2003/09/08/dc911/index_np.html