Iraq: America's attempt to copy Hitler -- The Blue U2
Updated - 3 Feb 2005 Recommendations
Congratulations, you took the bait. A wise investigator will be judicious in how they apply their investigative resources. A wise prosecutor will go after what is winnable, not what is a curiosity.
A fish under attack will kick sand to divert attention; but a crafty thief will lead the masses to the cliff, then throw the evidence into the sea. The fools will follow. The sharks are ready.
[ For your convenience, there is an NSA Hearing Archive; Click here to read other content in the NSA Hearing Archive.]
Discussion on this topic: Click
Update: 08 Feb 2006 Contast the below analysis with the calls for fact checking: [ Click ] Fact checking is good if you want to find facts; fact checking is bad if you want to do something without looking at whether it is going to get you timely information. I'm all for finding facts; but if you know the answer, need to apply the conclusions when they are going ot have an impact, not look for ways to delay.
Note: Sample Disinformation -- RNC and White House linked to "indepdent" Polling on NSA Click -- How the flawed results were spun to support unlawful conduct.
We consider the following link far more compelling: It is admissible evidence, contary to his later fatal admissions. [Click here]
The President remains in rebellion. If the House does not act by 01 Mar 2006, the States shall move.
Conyers: Hello, feline. Imagine combining these three essays, as a single image of the events between now and 2007:
Then ask: How might the information tip the scale?
The deadline for impeachment is 01 Mar 2006, or the states will act.
With that in mind, let's proceed.
Pre Trial Media Shaping
The nature of the media messages confirms the President’s increasingly unstable hold on power. The current information is designed to shape the Senate Trial, and plant images that this President -- who remains in rebellion against the Constitution -- should remain in office. The facts are at odds with the current media shaping.
The White House has an expert legal defense team. They are framing media messages to shape Bush in favorable terms, and mitigate the chances of removal from office. They hope to undermine confidence in the evidence, and delay the results until after the 2006 election.
Let's hope the House Judiciary Committee does not use partisanship as an excuse to chase red herrings. The issue isn't whether the thief did or didn't commit the crime; but whether you can catch the thief, not chase red herrings.
There is only so much time. We judge this information, although interesting, service one objective: To distract attention from the upcoming NSA hearings at the very time that the White House refuses to cooperate or provide information. Don't lose sleep over this. The NSA and Constitutional issues are far more compelling for the Senate to make a conviction decision.
What may be true is not new. The scale of justice has already tipped over.
The President's rebellion continues to spread. We have additional evidence the President has moved without regard to the laws of the land. The Congress must act swiftly. The Joint Staff is not to be trusted.
We judge information about Iraq is designed to dilute resources from the NSA's Constitutional issues. This is a good sign: The President appears to be using open sources to communicate messages not designed to obstruct, but to confuse. Curious, the President refuses to provide information to the Committee, but the disinformation campaign continues.
We judge the following information is interesting, but does not tip the balance, nor require a "new effort." Rather, what's needed is to remain focused on the NSA issue. This appears to be a red herring designed to distract attention, delay decisions, and create confusion. The goal of this is to reduce the time between when the voters see a resolution -- if ever -- and the election.
We do not recommend viewing this information as a "new development"; but remain open to new information. The information available to date does not change our conclusions: The President remains in rebellion. With respect to "new efforts" hinged to these specific news pieces, we advise: Proceed with caution.
We judge this is a deliberate disinformation campaign to deflect needed focus on the main problem: The President's rebellion against the Constitution. That someone may have lied or crated a story in re Iraq is not new.
The problem with the source is that it doesn't actually produce a physical memo as "new evidence" to see as a single document. It may exist; but even if we see it the prospects of "finding a new gem" are small--that should've already been revealed. Rather, the source is merely a book. It remains to be understood how the timing of this information is related to the publisher's objectives, not with a Congressional investigation into impeachable offenses.
We judge the source provides nothing new; and at worst the information is deliberate distraction. We remain open to other views, but are cautious of this source and relevance of the information. We do not expect the Senate -- during the conviction phase -- to swing in a new direction based on this information. At best, they'll yawn.
We judge the following comment is designed to raise legal eyebrows, but there is a problem: Planning is not the same as a crime:
"Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises... questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law."RefThe issue is that "domestic law and international law" is a buzzword associated with NSA.
That's the point: How does this "new information" address what the US actually did? It doesn't. The key is that this information -- even if it is true -- merely talks about speculative planning; and the "potential" legal implications.
We judge the White House admits the legal case is lost over NSA. Rather than defend itself, it is raising a smoke screen to
Be prudent in chasing this red herring. Even if it is true, it will not provide new information and tip the scale further. The scale has already tipped over despite this "new" information.
The key will be to look at the themes readers are responding to: These are, by design, how the White House perceives their litigation will hinge. Their goal is to frame the debate in these terms, then discredit that line of inquiry; or send it down false allies on the basis of a false assertion.
Again, this is by design. So, take a step back, and think in general terms about the themes that are emerging:
Let's consider the information in this context:
"It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated." RefBluntly, this is pure speculation. Even if connected to a real plan, there remains no WMD.
If you have evidence that this plan was actually carried out that is another story. But we don't have that. Again, we remain open to that possibility but are not gong to chase it.
We judge NSA is carefully studying the message traffic and forming anecdotes consistent with themes emerging in the Grand Jury, public opinion, and inside the Senate leadership. Thus, we conclude the White House has concluded it is going to face a trial. They are in what is known as "pre litigation" or "litigation media relations" whereby the goal of the defendant is to shape the case to their benefit, not assist the prosecution.
The information is old -- what's new is there's an actual memo as evidence confirming what we already knew: War without regard to the laws.
Congressman Conyers had an interesting one about the U2: Provoke an attack, and then justify war. The idea was that the US would paint a U2 UN-blue, and when the Iraqis attacked -- how remains a mystery -- the US would counter attack, claming it was protecting the UN.
Curious, given the US's defiance of the UN Charter. No matter, we'll save that for the war crimes trial.
What came to mind was Hitler's phony Polish Brigade. Before WWII, Hitler wanted to provoke an attack. So he had some Germans dress up as Poles and attack Germany.
The Germans did the same thing. The issue with the US and painting it "UN Blue" to provoke an attack.
Putting aside the issue of whether this claim is true or false for the moment, and look at the core problem. The US was already flying reconnaissance missions over Iraq with the no-fly zone.
It's not clear what would "provoke" Iraq to do something -- or why the US would "take action" based on this attack.
Recall, the US was actually hoping the inspections would fail.
Perhaps this U2 story is true. The curious things is at the time that the US was interfering with the inspectors, the US was hoping to use the UN inspectors --albeit as a blue-U2 in order to do the opposite.
The broad principle in play appears to be that the US was using the inspections not to actually find evidence, but as a bridge to war. Whether the inspectors were used, discredited, or painted with a false flag; or the US painted itself as an inspector didn’t matter.
That’s the key lesson: The US was intent on waging war, regardless whether the facts on the ground or actions were liked with actual actins, real facts, or made up facts.
This goes back to the theme of "fixing facts" -- the facts were fixed -- as a bridge -- to achieve the goal. That's the lesson: They didn't care whether the facts were falser, true, made up, fabricated, or rearranged on the back of a burning Constitution.
This is an example of changing the subject: From the White House rebellion to the messenger. The leaks are occurring because unalwful rebellion spreads. It is our view that the President needs to be removed soley as the needed catalyst to change all management in the departments. Their loyalty is to rebellion and the president, not facts or prudent judgements.
We don't glean reliable information from the new book. Rather, we have the appearance of something new.
The problems with the details and the timing suggest this is a deliberate distraction. Be cautious in that this does not distract attention from the NSA and domestic surveillance issue.
Begin Comments on Linked Article
Other comments: Something isn’t right with the chain of events. We judge the source was somewhat removed from the events.
Concern: We don't have an actual copy of "the memo" they're citing.
Ref: The sourcing on the article warrants better corroboration. We judge here are some problems with the source/author which remain to be understood. Caution is warranted on relying on the data presented.
"Mr. Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare" -- We judge Bush does not know what "internecine" warfare is.
Recommendation: Avoid making a firm commitment on the basis of this article alone. There may be some issues with the article. Monitor the updates on this. It looks like there are some details to be ironed out.
"if anything went wrong with the military campaign," -- suggests Bush had concerns, despite public statements to the contrary: "We're going great," yet the actual risk assessment were ignored.
Curious, he ignored the risk assessments when it came to planning; but paid attention to the risk assessments when it came to issue of an interesting tale. Somehow this doesn't seem consistent.
"expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq" -- delusional thinking. They had US people doing the opposite -- going into Iraq to look, talk -- they found nothing.
Why would they need a defector? Because the 'defectors' tale of doom about WMD" would be "proof" that everyone is lying. We judge the President wanted more lies from the "defectors" because open sources and direct communications failed to provide evidence justifying action.
"a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", -- even if the US had to use the NSA to twist peoples arms to make it happen.
End Comments on Linked Article
Keep in mind what the Senate phase of the trial is about: Is this man fit to remain in office.
Up until now we have been told that the planning was poor. We judge the following is at odds with CIA and State Department
There was also a discussion of what might happen in Iraq after Saddam had been overthrown. President Bush said that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups".RefBluntly, when did the White House ever care, "What happened after . . ." recall, they were saying, "No problem with invasion" so why would they now -- in 2006 -- say there was a "concern" for the "subsequent" events? Answer: This is a ruse. They didn't suddenly care.
We judge the quote is designed to cast Bush as "worthy of being retained as leader" in an effort to give the Senators support in "not convicting him." It remains to be seen whether this is information coordinated with MI6 as was done during operation mass appeal; and to what extent the UK publication of this information is designed to go around the Smith Act and affect the Senate's decision by 2007 to remove the President from office. We judge this quote is designed to give the voters "mental ammunition" to vote for the RNC despite no action, or choosing not to remove someone from office that should be removed.
There's also something else going on. During the conviction phase, the Senate cannot ask questions. they have to sit there. If there is new information introduced -- however unreliable, then this will raise doubts in the minds of the Senators whether the original violations -- however provable -- may not warrant a removal.
In short, the Senators may agree -- as they did with Clinton that there was a crime. The issue is whether the President should be removed.
One approach is to discredit the early information which raised concerns. Again, the issue isn't that the crime has or hasn't been committed. We're only dealing in degrees. Did the burglar steal $100 dollars, or $200 Million?
If the original claims supporting conviction of $200 are discredited -- in the minds of the Senators -- then even if the burglar stole $100 -- the will not convict.
Let's look at an example:
The memo appears to refute claims made in memoirs published by the former UK ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, who has accused Mr. Blair of missing an opportunity to win the US over to a strategy based on a second UN resolution. It now appears Mr. Bush's mind was already made up.
Again, we already knew this. What does this do for the Senate? It makes the "original accusations" against the President seem overblown. But the facts remain -- the war was waged without legal foundation.
If the debate changes from the President's misconduct, to the severity of the accuser’s claims, then this will lesson the likelihood of conviction and removal. This is by design.
We judge the White House has hired a very well organized media relations firm, astute in messaging, monitoring public discourse, and is actively shaping the news to mitigate the chances the Senate calls for the President's removal.
Proceed with caution on the subsequent news disclosures. Think in terms of media messaging, shaping, and how the evidence -- even if true or false -- will undermine the Senate decision. Then think in terms of how the 2006 election will tip either way -- will the voters say, "Oh, the DNC is making a big deal about nothing" and vote RNC, despite the disaster.
We recommend taking the cautious approach: Take the high road, think in terms of the conviction and removal objectives, and remind the voters they need to think in terms of facts, not media messages that generate meaningless momentum.
We judge the White House legal defense team is well aware the direction the public is running. Their objective is to make them overshoot, then blame the DNC for the excessiveness. This is not to say that pressure isn’t needed; rather, the pressure needs to be applied based on fact patterns not themes.
Your legal opponent in this has five goals:
The purpose of this strategy is to dissuade public action, accountability, and raise doubts whether or not other lawful efforts are needed to drive this to timely resolution.
We judge the 01 Mar 2006 deadline is important to emphasize.
Put the above aside for a moment. Just stop what you're doing. Pay attention.
This article floating around.
Small problem. The report says in 2003 -- after the US invaded Iraq -- that they no longer considered the information credible.
Big problem: This makes no sense. The US already had info Before the invasion to make this assessment.
We judge this report in 2003 is part of the "protect the President" plan for one reason: Cheney's visits.
Why would they issue a "finding/report" that was already consistent with what the NSA had told them: there's nothing.
Rather, the report has one goal: To make it appear as though there was [a] a logical process in place to arrive at the opposite conclusion; and [b] then "new information" that changed from (1) bad assessment; to (2) good assessment.
But this is fiction. The original assessments were correct. The original invasion was illegal.
The "new assessment" is not an assessment. It's a wash in order to distract attention from the White House's unlawful orders, and make it appear as though "the issue" is with the intelligence community.
That's the error: CIA and NSA were telling the truth. This President has a problem: He already decided the outcome.
We judge the news article is designed to change the subject. It is interesting to read form a disinformation effort, but is not credible as a reliable retelling of what was actually going on: A plan to change the subject from war crimes/unlawful war to "correction in the intelligence community."
Don't take the bait. The intelligence was right. The only thing that was "wrong" was that George Bush decided to engage in a rebellion against the Constitution, but get you to look somewhere else. If it's not a burning building, he'll get you to look at another nation. Facts are irrelevant. He wants you to look where he wants you to look, even if you backs you to the edge of a cliff.
Back to the Blue U2.
All that we know is in 2000 the US was not in Iraq; and by 2003 the US was in. This was the roadmap. How the US got from the "non invaded Iraq" to the "invaded Iraq" was devoid of planning, leadership, law, facts, evidence, or credible planning for armor, post-war. It was if the US was a machine, rolled overall opposition, and ignored anything that said, "We might want to think about t. . ."'
The only thinking that was going on was:
They didn’t are about the law, facts, reality, planning, risks, or the law.
Most of all they didn't care about their oaths office, checks and balances, or the Constitution. Every action was linked with one objective: Military action.
And that is why the lesson of Poland during WWII is apt. Hitler did the same thing: invaded based on an illusion, as was the Reichstag fire.
We judge the same set of events will surface with this White House, and is what is behind the e-mail deletions: They know they've been caught; they can't change history; but they will attempt to do so.
Their problem is that the harder they try to avoid reality, the more likely their statements will diverge from facts.
Which is easy to say -- because in the beginning there were no facts. LOL
We judge the NSA was a tool of the White House to accomplish this military objective. We judge the NSA was “beefed up” prior to 9-11 because the President knew of an event that warranted that review. But the goal wasn’t to prevent the attack – the goal was to grind down the population.
Pre 9-11 Monitoring appears to be linked more to messaging. This is how it works. Notice what they keep saying about the “warrantless surveillance.” They key saying “we stripped out the identifying information”
That’s they key point. Not only was the conduct illegal – but the purpose of the monitoring before 9-11 was to gather raw words, which would be analyzed to assess the mindset of the people.
They then took those words, created messages to discredit the negative flows – and fueled the favorable ones.
In short, the bigger issue with NSA isn’t just the surveillance, but how the NSA was used to understand the American population as a system: A living, single organism that was to be manipulated to move from where it was in 2000 to the post-invasion in Iraq.
This had one goal: To do it. No reason, no law, but simply to impose raw, brute power and tools on the population to get them to support what was otherwise illegal.
Small problem. They didn’t count on anyone withstanding the brute onslaught. The American people dared to stand up, and say, “This is not acceptable.” At first, the leadership said, “We will do what we want.” Then, the world woke up with the DSM.
Now, we get another wakeup call: The entire period after 2000 has been about one thing: Establishing a military dictatorship that pretends to be something else.
The President remains in rebellion. It is time for the House to order an investigation. If they fail to act the states have to move. If the President defies his oath and threatens the states, then the International community will have to discuss this in the General Assembly. Recall, the Security Council has no say in whether the General assembly does or does not speak.
It is likely the US will use trade deals, and d other agreements to continue. Recall, the EU has publicly said, “we don’t know about rendition,” but we know there are agreements for flyover. It is likely the US has made deals with foreign countries to do nothing in the General Assembly should this matter go to the floor vote.
We judge there is a high likelihood 70% the President will disband Congress. Consider the backup options, and places where the State legislators can lawfully meet without the US interfering.
It is time to get the states to act; plan for a Conational Convention; and let the world know we have a problem and need help. This Joint Staff is in defiance of its oath and has already invaded other countries based on a lie.
The trap the President hopes other fall into is to “work with other nations” to help impose the rule of law. The White House plan is to label those who are attempting to assert the rule of law as being something that they are not.
Rather, the real rebel is the President of the Untied states.
Added 03 Feb 2006: Let's consider the interesting arguments -- why this memo is important.
These Memos are curious Trojan horses – the revelations distract attention and blur focus on the White House and RNC rebellion against the Constitution
The conspiracy is not news – we knew this, and could prove the Conspiracy through their actions and self-evident invasion devoid of imminent threat and imminent facts.
Some argue we need to see the memo. This will lead to more. But why believe that argument—why will this memo and information is different than what we learned with the Downing Street Memo. Yes, the White House and Number 10 were organized and had an agreement – they did invade without UN permission. That we have a memo confirming what is self-evident is interesting, but not new. Nations to do work in harmony unless there is an agreement; but an agreement to violate the law is not news.
Some say we need to see the memo and this will lead to more: Who was involved with the conspiracy. Self-evidently, the memo proves there was a conspiracy to defy the law, but the RNC looks to the heavens and does not respond to the unfavorable weather.
Some argue the RNC must compel the White House to respond and assent to the rule of law; or they will be seen for what they are – not serious about checking power, only checking their honor and oaths at the door of justice. Yet, despite this self-evident problem in the wake of the Downing Street Memo, these memos failed to stop the rebellion. Now, we have monthly rubber stamps on tyranny. That is not accountability, but agreement to rebellion.
Some argue until we have the memo and a Congress willing to assert the rule of law, we have no probative information to tip the Senate’s hand. Yet, even if there was a crime – as we saw with Clinton – the Senate may choose to do nothing. Something new is needed.
Let’s consider the Blue U2. Even if true there are three problems with this story – none of these factors appear to have any bearing on whether the Senate will vote up or down on removal.
We are asked to believe that Bush wanted to paint a US spy plane blue, then induce the Iraqis to shoot at it. Small problem, the Iraqis were already shooting at US planes, but this was insufficient grounds to invade. Second, painting a high altitude US spy plane blue is meaningless--when viewed from the ground as small dot is still a dot whether it is blue or black; nor does the color better attract missiles. Rather, a credible deception would have been to paint a UN plane with US colors, and fly low over the Iraqi gunfire. This did not happen.
If this deception is true, the issue becomes who stopped it, where are they? It is most likely this is from a Rendon-like organization. It is not a crime to leak non-sense information intended to distract attention from the NSA’s war crimes and President’s rebellion.
Some point to the memo – if it exists, and is real -- as it relates to the United Nations. Whether the UN was or was not involved in the calculations is irrelevant. It’s already known at the time of the invasion there was no WMD. This is a war crime. However, whether the UN did or did not assent to this action is irrelevant. Had the UN assented to an invasion, the evidence or imminence would not materialize from the ether. The issue is the two leaders worked together to defy the law. We already know they have engaged in unlawful warfare.
Some argue the issue with this memo is not the news of the memo, but what new crimes can be linked to these memos; and what will the voters notice. Yet, the RNC has already supported the invasion and refused to compel action on the Downing Street Memo.
Indeed, the memo – if it is real -- does not prove anything new. The invasion itself is sufficient to show a pattern of conduct and cooperation; the NSA intercepts is sufficient to show he moves without regard to the laws of the land. As with Rendition, torture, abuse, and detention centers. Then the infinite detentions and trials at odds with the laws.
These are issues of Article 1 Section 8 – Congress has the power to make rules covering US persons. Yet, the RNC refuses to assert the power of the law assenting to this rebellion.
What is new with more memos. We know they invaded unlawfully, but the RNC refuses to assert the law. Why would anyone – who assents to this rebellion – care that the war was or was not sold. They know this. To expect them to admit anything is meaningless – their President openly defies the law, brazenly admitting he defies the Constitution. The Senate and RNC are silent.
We’ve known of the illegal conduct. The Downing Street Memo told us. The issue is: What will be different this time; why will the RNC suddenly move? History is not relevant to the RNC. What is relevant is their imminent loss of power.
The problem is focusing on memos, and shying away from the power and responsibilities the Constitution. The Federal government refuses to assert power. There are curious details at odds with the larger Constitutional issues, and what will tip the RNC to defy the White House’s rebellion. Until the RNC subdues this rebellion, the RNC is part of the problem.
The way forward depends on connecting facts; elements of the crime; proving these claims; and then getting the Senate to vote to remove this man from office. We will never have all facts. If we delay a decision until we have all facts, we will have tyranny. But the Federal government chooses to do what it has always done: Delay, not act, and go onto “other issues.”
The only catalyst will be if the RNC Senate perceives they have no choice but to put their oath and personal power before that of the President and his rebellion. The pressure should be moved from whether this information is or is not important, to whether the RNC will speak with a single voice against this White House and remove him from office; or whether they will remain silent to his rebellion.
This shall soon end. There is a solution. The States. The deadline is 01 March 2006. Close the gates, return these Trojan gifts, and remain focused on the FISA and NSA. The States will soon tip the balance. Then the Senate will know what must be done.
The way forward: [ Click here ]
End Addition 03 Feb 2006
Renewed focus is needed on the NSA Constitutional issues.
Added: 04 Feb 2006
Feline asked some interesting questions that well-articulated the problems with this issue. I've paraphrased feline’s comments.
Constant: Good point. Where's the evidence; and even if we have it -- does it tell us anything new? No, it merely confirms what the self-evident coordinated invasion tells us: They agreed to invade; they knew there was no WMD; and they have agreed to engage in war crimes; and the Downing Street memo is consistent with these conclusions.
Constant: You're assuming that "legal scholar" is the same as "non-connected to a disinformation campaign" or "not a person who the CIA has paid to provide non-sense." We don't know, and that appears to be the goal -- distract attention, spend time on this "trying to figure it out."
Constant: This assumes he's actually writing the book for profit. It is not unknown for MI5/6 and the US CIA to hire writers to create non-sense. Look into something called "MI6 Operation Mass Appeal."
Constant: Good question. Perhaps they'll string the world along, and distract attention from the real issues: NSA's rebellion against the Constitution.
Good question. Without documentation, this is merely a parlor game -- as it appears to be -- a distraction from the Constitutional issues.
Constant: Of course, assuming the Senate decides to stay grounded; and the Senate sees there are real consequences if they do not remove this man from office. Hence, the purpose of the State proclamation is to drive it home: IF Congress after 01 March 2006 does not act, the public will openly debate this issue for 9 months to assess:
1. Is Congress up to the Job
2. Are the current elected officials taking action -- per Article IV Section 4 -- to preserve this system of checks and balances;
3. What is Congress -- if anything -- doing, as they should under Article 1 Section 8 -- to put down this President's rebellion against the Constitution?
4. Is the Senate ignoring the issue, hoping it goes away like Phase II?
5. Do local citizens have a more credible plan to approach this issue?
6. How many state legislators -- seeing that the current DC crew in Congress, House/Senate are not responsive -- will file proclamations calling for those elected officials to be expelled?
7. How many expelled members of the Senate -- in all three classes -- will mean that DNC governors will appoint DNC candidates to fill the RNC vacancies, thereby tipping the balance to the DNC favor?
8. How many Senators -- who the local voters see are ignoring the issues -- are removed from office?
The voters will have 9 months to openly debate this issue, and evaluate whether State officials are serious. This will drive a new round of public-inquiry – not just directed at the Federal level – but for the public to ask:
9. Given the outrage over the Patriot Act in local communities, are the state-level government officials voting in a manner consistent with local voter concerns?
10. Which state-level officials get in the way of these state-level debates on proclamations?
11. How will local voters change their state-level leadership once they see the state officials are working with the RNC and President to spread this rebellion against the Constitution?
12. Once the state-level votes are finalized – and local voters see how the state legislator’s have changed their votes – how will the new state-level legislators push for more proclamations demanding Congressional representatives and Senators be expelled?
In other words, the entire state proclamation isn’t simply a single proclamation, but it’s a barometer that the Voters can use between Feb 2006 and November to assess whether the elected officials are serious about:
If the answer is no, it doesn’t matter what “agenda” a party has. The voters will have the time and the forum – the state-level discussion – to mobilize for changes.
This is 9 months. That’s a long time to discuss, digest, and compel leadership to put their oath first. There is nothing the RNC or DNC can do to avoid the state proclamations or debate. If they fail to timely respond – as is expected – there will be a shakeup.
Bluntly, when Bush is removed – as he most surely is when the Senate realizes if they fail to remove him they’ll lose in the November election – then the voters need to realize their 2006 votes for Congress will likely choose the next President, as was Ford who came from the House to replace Nixon.
Again, the voters have 9 months to decide:
The voters have 9 months to digest what Congress does, find a candidate that puts the oath first, and place someone in Congress who is focused on the rule of law, not the rule of non-sense.
The candidate will have to develop a plan and approach that gives Congress an NSA-like monitoring capability so that Congress can independently monitor the NSA, DoJ, and White House, and DoD over issues of illegal war planning; memos that violate the law.
The President cannot argue that the White House has ‘privilege” – and that he has a “privacy right” -- while at the same time denying that privacy right inherent in the 4th Amendment. NSA’s Alexander has already shown he has no regard for the probable cause requirement in the 4th Amendment – lowering it to an unreasonable search standard; but then ignoring the warrant requirement in the constitutional FISA – which Congress passed lawfully in accordance with its Article 1 Section 8 powers to create rules. Mind you, DoJ in 2002 assented to the FISA rules – never mind they were actually agreeing to illegal NSA monitoring before 9-11 – making the “inherent authority related to the 9-11 use of force”-argument irrelevant. Rather, Bush was already violating the law before Congress “did anything.”
in other words, what the President says about terrorism, 9-11, or 9-11 as an “excuse” to justify he conduct is without merit. The unlawful activity was occurring before these excuses; and to rely on the Congressional authorization is a red herring. Bluntly, the president has no lawful foundation for what he is doing; and is engaged in a rebellion – along with DoD, DoJ, and the NSA and Joint Staff – against the Constitution.
Again, Gonzalez approach on Monday – from what we can gather – is to assert the NSA unlawful activity was only targeted at criminals. How do they know the “people they are targeting are criminals?” Answer: If they know they’re criminals, why aren’t they rounding them up and bringing charges against them?
They have no answer because they’re in rebellion against the Constitution; they’ve been caught; did not expect to get caught; and they can’t explain themselves. The longer this goes on, the more evidence we have of their inconsistencies.
Gonzalez would have us believe that the President is “doing the right thing” because he’s chasing bad people. Well, Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to define the rules related to the capture of Pirates – arguably AlQueda is a pirate clan – therefore, FISA is well within the scope of what Congress intended to be applied to those subject to Congressional rules. However, RNC’s answer is to define “the situation” as something outside the Constitution.
But, if you look at Article 1 Section 8, it’s clear that each of the Congressional powers dovetails exactly with the NSA program, FISA, rendition, and Alqueda:
To suggest that there is a “new standard” in the 4th Amendment – that both  changes the standard of evidence from probable cause to unreasonable suspicion to get a warrant and  ignore that agreed-to warrant requirement – means that the President, NSA, DoJ, DoD and Congress have assented to a change in the US Constitution without a lawful Constitutional Change.
If Bush intended to “do the right thing” – then he cannot explain why the “right things after 9-11” were going on before 9-11: Warrantless NSA spying.
In other words, it doesn’t matter what did or didn’t happen in Iraq: The impeachable offenses occurred before Iraq and 9-11; and the clear admissions of what was contrary to their oaths is well known. The only thing this Congress and President can do – to avoid the voters getting information – is to delay the hearings.
But the State level debates makes the Congressional delays irrelevant. Now, the voters know that they have 9 months to debate – and only one state has to do anything. We already know that the odds are already in the favor of Vermont doing something. The issue becomes: How many other states are going to debate – with full knowledge that there is no excuse for congress not to timely face the issue.
Answer: Everyone knows there’s no excuse for delays, inaction, or non-sense. We already know the NSA defense are frivolous; and tat the unlawful conduct was occurring regardless what Congress did or didn’t saying the wake of 9-11.
In other words, the RNC is in a no-win situation – and the voters have 9 months to watch them squirm. And the RNC knows it has no defense – the very reason they are issuing this non-sense information: Its designed to distract you, waste your time, and keep you focused on things other than the self-evident problems with the President’s ongoing rebellion against the President.
Yes, this entire mess is designed to confuse. Normally, Congress would get slow rolled. No, the State Proclamation trumps all that and puts the debate into 50 different locations – outside DC, and there’s nothing Rove or the RNC can do to reframe the debate or keep the public from discussing the self-evident rebellion.
9 months to watch Gonzalez twist in the wind. We’ve had just over 30 days since the NYT article. Imagine what we’ll discuss over the next 9 months.
In short, the 2006 election is about one thing: Asserting the Constitution over the nation and demanding the leadership assert their oaths, or they’re out of office. The next president will come from the Congress elected in 9 months.