NSA Hearing: Fact Check the Federal Government Leadership Failures
The states are prepared. The Federal government is running out of time. This is an issue of legitimacy.
Today’s lovely news: More confirmation the Federal government has failed. If you simply look at the President’s assertions – about a 2002 “plot” against Los Angeles – and examine the facts, you’ll find the President is in a worse situation.
By fatally asserting – that in 2002 there was a supposed plot – Bush cannot explain why, despite this “big scary plot by terrorists” he subsequently ordered US military forces to move away from Afghanistan.
Indeed, if the “big scary plot in 2002” is real, Bush and Gonzalez cannot explain why – as the Attorney General fatally admitted – it took two years for Gonzalez to have a conversation about going to Congress.
If the “big scary plot of 2002” is real, then Bush can’t explain why he failed to mobilize the US population, and go after the “big scary enemy.” He did the opposite:
Indeed, if the “big scary plot” the analysts told him about is true, Bush can’t explain why he ignored the analysts over issues of Iraq. He did the opposite.
[ For your convenience, there is an NSA Hearing Archive; Click here to read other content in the NSA Hearing Archive.]
The real story is this President has committed crimes, did violate the law, and was doing so before 9-11 in 2001. Today, five years later in 2006, we suddenly find out “the big story” that Bush “should have” used to focus on the “big scary threat.” No matter how you look at it, nothing Bush says in 2006 can be believed; nor is what he’s saying consistent with what actually happened.
But the problem doesn’t rest just with the President. It lands squarely on Congress. Congress has known about the many issues over the Iraq war: Downing Street Memo, Plame, Ambassador Wilson, no WMD, and the made up yellow cake. This Congress has known there was no legal foundation for war. Indeed, despite revelations the US started bombing Iraq in 2002 -- before the UN discussed the matter -- the Congress has yet to order an investigation.
Yet, in 2006 suddenly there’s a call for a review of the legal matter. OK, I’ll call it what it is: Congress has yet to wake up, and it has taken Congress four years to do something.
Let’s put the issue of Congress’ failure on the bank burner for the moment, and deal squarely with this non-sense the President has offered us today. What’s going on is the RNC has lost control, and they’ve whipped together a plan – a story, excuse, fabrication – that is poorly sourced, and makes no sense. If the story were true, it should shore up the President. Indeed, if it was true, this story should have been blared high and low at the time that there was a problem and this is what was needed. But we have the opposite: Silence about “good things” and a delay – conveniently – after Gonzalez gives us a load of non-sense before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thank you very much Senator Feingold for your speech.
If this story were true, the President would not be in a worse position. He is in a worse position. And given that the President is in a worse position it means the RNC has no other option but to continue to spew forth non-sense on the assumption that this non-sense will not get challenged. They have no choice but to make additional statements; no matter what they say or do, they cannot change history. All statements they make are without merit; and every word they state highlights a simple problem: They have no clean story, because their hands are not clean.
Make no mistake. The voters know. The voters have a strange way of figuring out when the leadership in Congress and the White House is giving them a load of non-sense. Today is no different. The voters know they have a simple option: To issue state proclamations and compel the House to act. But before we do that, let’s discuss the self-evident problem facing the Federal Government: You have a legitimacy problem. You have failed.
The purpose of this discussion is to make it clear – in no uncertain terms – that even the most stupid citizen can see what is going on: You have failed, you only offer excuses, and nothing you say makes sense. It is time for you to leave the political stage and let the most naive citizen do what you have not done: Read your oath of office and assert it.
The big news is the RNC, DNC, and White House now the voters can solve this problem without the Federal government. Local voters are the catalyst for action and results, not the Federal government.
Both the elected and non-elected officials have failed in all three branches. The voters see the story is the same: Excuses and non-sense. The facts – as measured by simple actions – are at odds with what a reasonable leader should have done.
This is a leadership failure. Washington has a legitimacy crisis. The state proclamations will make this self-evident, even for the comatose in Washington.
You have wished for this.
Before we get into the nitty gritty, for those of you who are wondering “What can I do”? – that is simple. You can contact your state and local officials and ask them to discuss the issue of Presidential impeachment. It’s that simple. Then report the reaction so the blogosphere can learn from your progress or lessons of who is not interested in the Constitution.
There’s a link to sample letters [Bulldog], a mailing list of e-mails, and even a link to a site where you can find your state officials. [Contact information, sample letter]
We have a voting guide that will show you the types of issues that you might want to bring up when discussing this issue with your friends and state legislators. [Voting Guide]
You can read about how this state proclamation process will work, and how the RNC controlled Congress cannot bury this in the committee. [Arbortender]
You can look at the 2006 election plan. [Feline]
And you can use this plan to see how the State proclamations will turn the entire RNC-Rove plan upside down. [Voters See]
For those of you who are lost, they key issue to be raised: What has been doing on; and how bad does this have to get? [ Progress ]
Today’s revelations should be clear. And this news should invite fact checking. Accountability means exhausting legal options and using all failures as a catalyst for new ideas. This self-evidently is lost in the muck called the District of Columbia.
Congress has a duty – a solemn vow – to assert the rule of law and check power. That’s all. Their job is to show a genuine concern with the issue of the Constitution. Our job is to monitor whether their concern is genuine, or whether they give us lip service. It is 2006, four years after the 2002 Iraq-planned-bombing. That’s the same amount of time it took to start US combat operations in WWII, and defeat the enemy on two major fronts. Today, we have the curious “big scary story about LA” combined with a belated attempt to investigate. Get real. We have no leaders, we have poodles.
Congress also has the responsibility to draw the line. Our job is to examine whether they really draw the line, or talk about it. This Congress – despite the Chine water torture of evidence over the unlawful Iraq Congress – seems to feel inconvenienced by the evidence, and doesn’t look at the law or accountability. Rather, it is the job of the states to impose that deadline, and compel the Federal government to face its lawful responsibilities – the real ones, at home.
Congress also has the responsibility to assert power against tyranny. Our job is to examine whether Congress is serious about that and does something, or whether we are threatened with loss of liberty if we use those rights. Today, it is clear this nation’s leadership wants us to embrace more non-sense, all the while not responding to the implications of their statements and actions. If the “big scary story about 2002” is true, this president cannot explain why he didn’t use that event as a catalyst to go to Congress, get changes to FISA, then mobilize. Indeed, despite the evidence of war crimes, this Congress for three years since 2003 has failed to do what must be done: Compel compliance with the laws of war.
If you would like to fact check the above, feel free to check one simple fact: It is 2006, this government failed in 2000.
There are two broad criteria for evaluating leadership: Do they mobilize resources to support lawful action; and do they drive action to achieve progress and results. This is called solving problems.
Here’s the detailed fact check: The current catalyst for a special prosecutor to review the 2002 Iraq-related-war crimes is untimely. We have no explanation from Congress why this was not reviewed when it was first known. Ambassador Wilson has been clear. We know there is no WMD.
Fact check: 2002 Iraq operations start
Fact check: The Downing Street Memo confirms pre-combat planning progressing
Fact check: The President in 2006 asks us to believe that he was “concerned” with a “big scary plot to attack in LA”, but despite this “big scary plot” combat operations were planned, diverting resources from the “big scary terrorists” in Afghanistan, to the “things this President knew were unrelated to 9-11 and big scary terrorists”.
Fact check: 2005 the Downing Street Memo revealed
Fact check: 2003 questions not answered in January 2003 about the war
Fact check: 2003 court case rebuffed; but no follow-up on the frauds committed before the court in light of the false WMD claims
Fact check: 2003-25: We have a mounting pile of evidence showing there were war crimes, but no Congressional leadership to get the Executive Branch to assent to the rule of law.
Fact check: 2003-2005: The Goldsmith memos reveal the Legal advisors to the British Prime minister asserted this war in Iraq is unlawful.
Fact check: There is no WMD in Iraq to justify an attack, in violation of the laws of war, but Congress fails to assert the rule of law and compel the Executive Branch to cease all unlawful combat operations.
Fact check: The mounting evidence -- Laws of war violated in Guantanamo, torture, Gonzalez memo, 5100.77, National Security letter, Patriot Act, Plame, and the Yoo – does not spark a serious Congressional review of the matters over issues of war crimes or unlawful war.
Fact check: 2003 pre invasion concerns rebuffed
Fact check: 2006 White House public relations effort to diver attention from war crimes and FISA violations
Fact check: 2006 White House claims there was a “big scary story” in 2002 in Los Angeles.
Nothing adds up. Once the court rejected the claims over Iraq, and the other information surfaced, nothing prevented anyone from addressing the issues of war crimes. Nothing stopped Congress from saying what we’ve known: This President has violated the laws of war and should be impeached.
The states will have to act. Your federal government does not move unless the weather is favorable. The weather is favorable. The voters can see. This federal government moves without regard to the laws of war, and does not exercise leadership. It is defective.
Fact check: What does this "big scary story about Los Angeles” have to do with Iraq and 2002? Nothing. If the story were true, then the US would not have invaded Iraq – and diverted resources from the “big scary enemy” – and focused on the “big scary enemy.” This government did not do that. Thus, a reasonable person would conclude that the “big scary story” is made up.
Fact check: Nothing adds up.
This government wants us to believe that we are going to believe that we should wait – from 2002 until 2006, four years – for us to wade through their non-sense, and lap up another non-sense story of excuses.
If the “big scary story” is true, the President fails to show how the “big scary story” triggered a national mobilization against the “big scary enemy.” Rather, we have the opposite: A massive demobilization in Afghanistan, and a conscious choice in 2002 to commit war crimes in Iraq. Fact check that.
We have no mobilization We have a mobilization of excuses and war crimes, with the added absurdity of a White House belief they can organize ruse questions from the House Judiciary Committee to spew forth more non-sense.
The voters know.
If this “big scary story” is true, where was the commitment – after the President “knew” about the “big scary story” – to do what we did in WWII: Mobilize, stay focused on the objective, and prevail. Yet, despite the “big scary story”, this White House and Congress assented to a diversion into Iraq, removed combat forces from the “big scary enemy,” and freely assented to wage war in violation of the laws of war.
The news is: The Congress now admits in 2006 – four years after they were told of the lies – that they had doubts, were unable to do things. Well, that should’ve been the headline in 2002, not 2006. WWII has come and gone, but we’ve got people in Congress who really believe the voters are idiots. Fact check the state proclamation efforts in all 50 states.
So, let’s presume the “big scary story” in Los Angeles is true. Why the big distraction of Iraq; why the demobilization of forces? Again, the same failed federal government wants us to believe two fictions.
At the same time that the analysts were getting ignored – over NSA knowledge here was no WMD; and CIA analyst reports that the planning for Iraq was at odds with the real risks – this Government wants us to believe that the US was paying to the analysts who were telling us about the “big scary story.”
Yet, think back to pre-9-11. We know the foreign governments were sending information saying there was a problem. This apparently triggered unlawful NSA monitoring, but nothing was done during 9-11. So why are we to believe that the “same foreign information that was ignored prior to 9-11” suddenly got attention in 2002 over the “big scary story”? There’s no reason because the “big scary story” is not credible.
It is a lie, just like Yellow cake, Iraq WMD, and the Nigerian papers. Just like the non-sense Gonzalez gave us. Just like the lies about warrants and wiretaps.
More lies. They lied in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and the lies continue into 2006. We have enough to justify lawfully removing this man and this Congress. The more they speak, the worse it gets.
But let’s not let this drop that easily. Let’s really drive this home. Look at what they did over the “big scary story” in Los Angeles. If it was true, NSA should have picked up intercepts; and then that information should have been presented to the Congress and intelligence Community to say – These FISA changes -- we agreed to -- are really working.
But that did not happen. Rather than be specific and precise, the White House gave – and the Congress and Courts assented to – imprecision.
If the “big scary story is true” we would have had closure in 2002, not the mess we have: A big mess, no credible explanation for the delays, and a shifting argument.
This is a leadership problem. This crew has failed. It is time to lawfully remove the CEO, Board of Directors and the auditors: The President, Congress, and the officials in the judicial system who have failed to credibly adjudicate based on facts. Clearly, they’ve assented to non-sense. Their ruling are in question. Today, they contradict themselves. They have one goal: To save their personal reputation because their institution has no credible reputation.
It is too late.
Fact check: It is 2006.
That was the introduction. Now let’s get into the details. Look at what they did, not what they say.
After the “big scary story” supposedly occurred, was this information used in 2002 to get changes to FISA?
Fact check: Gonzalez in 2006 tells us he waited two years after the “big scary story” to even bother to think about going to Congress. Alas, perhaps the “big scary story” wasn’t enough to clear the weather in DC. Indeed, the excuses exist.
Fact check: Gonzalez, despite the “big scary story” that he should have known – had he been breathing inside the White House as General Counsel – should have been in a position to know about the “big scary story” and have discussed this matter with the White House and Congress: Hay, we really need some new tools. But he waited.
Fact check: Waiting two years after a “big scary story” shows us they have no intention of doing what they have taken an oath to do – Assert Article IV Section 4 lawful powers to protect this nation. Rather, they did the opposite – spews forth non-sense, and move forces out of Afghanistan, and engage in conduct that the CIA said would increase the risks to the nation.
Put aside the issue of whether this “big scary story” from 2002 is true. Simply look at the calendar. TH Downing Street Memo tells us the preparations to invade Iraq were well underway. This leadership was moving to remove combat forces from a known/asserted enemy to one that was less related to the “big scary story”. That defies their oath to protect the citizens of this nation from threats, invasions, and actual rebellions. Rather, that is a rebellion against the rule of law.
Indeed, if the 2002 “big scary story” were true, then we should have had a crisis meeting to say, “Hay, we were planning to go to Iraq, but because of our oaths to protect the nation from attack, we really ought to mobilize, preserve our resources, and ensure that we are going to focus our efforts on “the big scary story enemies” we were already fighting in Afghanistan.
What did the Joint Staff do? Despite the “big scary story,” they spewed forth a line of non-sense – which the troops lapped up like poodles – to move combat forces out of Iraq, and invade a country that the NSA confirmed did not have WMD.
SO the Joint Staff has three problems: Not only did they  “fail to focus on the big scary story” but they  moved combat forces away form the “big scary enemy” and  focused on committing war crimes in Iraq. But that’s not the end of it. This Congress has known since 2002 that the combat operations were ongoing, and draining resources from the “big scary story.”
So the problem this government has is simple: If this “big scary story was true” – and “should have” been well known within Congress – why did you vote to engage in war crimes in Iraq, and divert resources from the “big scary story”? This Congress has no answer because they cannot explain why they succumbed to non-sense.
Fact check: You’ve had four  years since the 2002 Iraq bombing to assert the rule of law, call for the President to be impeached, and demand an end to these war crimes.
Fact check: It is 2006. The States are ready to lead. This Federal Government has failed.
But the problem isn’t isolated to Congress or the White House. There’s another bigger issue, at the heart of the “big scary story.” If the “big scary story” were true, then the Wall Street Investment bankers would have put pressure on the White House to do something. What did they do?
Fact check: DoD stocks, in the wake of the Downing Street Memo, upticked. This means that the Wall Street Bankers knew the “big scary story” was non-existent and that the “big scary story about terrorism” would not keep the US focused on Afghanistan, but divert resources to the “non big scary story enemies.”
Fact check: Congress, the White House and Wall Street have known this “big scary story” did not exist until 2006, and the RNC found it was in a no-win situation over Gonzalez. All the actions since 2002 have been related to asserting the PNAC agenda, is disconnected from any “big scary story”, and the conduct is not linked with any bonafide desire to protect this nation from “big scary stories.”
If this “big scary story” were true, NSA would have revealed this, and the entire “excuses to do nothing that we hear in 2006” would have fallen away. We would have a Congress that well understood why the FISA was not updated: “Oh, we have a big scary story.”
But that never happened. There is no “big scary story.” There is a “big scary non-sense story” getting thrown around.
Just like WMD in Iraq, Yellow cake, and the Ambassador Wilson information – the facts are at odds with the “big scary story.”
Fact check: Troops were moved away from the “big scary story” in Afghanistan, and moved to a “big scary story of lies” related to non-existent evidence. Yet, despite this well known war crime, it’s 2006 and suddenly someone decides we need to look at things. Brilliant. Four years, and someone decided to wake up.
Fact check: Nothing adds up.
If this 2002 attack on LA was real, it should have been a catalyst for FISA changes, consultations with Congress, and a big meeting to say they need help. But Gonzalez didn’t do that, but wandered around the White House “wondering what to do,” been suddenly – two years later after the “big scary story” – decides in 2004 to have a discussion, “Uh, do you think we should go to Congress. . . “
Fact check: After 2002 “big scary story” we had the Downing Street Memo, the unlawful invasion, and then the revelations that there was no WMD, and by 2004 we knew the entire story in Iraq was a sham. Then, in 2004 – after all this bad news about war crimes and Guantanamo violations – Gonzalez has an after thought, “Wow, we just had a big scary story 2 years ago, maybe we should talk to Congress about changing FISA.”
Too late. Doesn’t wash. No credibility. Even the most stupid voter knows this is a line of non-sense.
Gonzalez and the Congress cannot explain why – despite the “big scary story of 2002” – why US troops were moved from Afghanistan; yet at the same time the Downing Street Memo and 2002 combat operations were in full swing against the non-big-scary-story-enemy.
Congress should’ve known that the forces in Afghanistan were getting watered down; and that the information they were getting wasn’t answering questions. At the same time, the FISA court also knew the same thing – things weren’t adding up.
Small problem – now a big problem – all the players knew the “big scary story” made no sense, but there was no line in the sand saying, “Enough.”
Rather, we continue to have the same non-sense in 2006.
It is time for this to end.
Fact check: This “big scary story” is not credible. If it was true it is an untimely assertion that the US failed in 2002 to do what ought to have been done: Remain focused in Afghanistan, not diver resources to Iraq, and seek FISA approvals.
Fact check: This story – if true – puts the White House and RNC interests at risk.
If this “big scary story” were true, it should have been the catalyst to go to Congress, get changes, and discuss the matter. But that did not happen until Gonzalez realized he was bumping into the walls inside the White House and thoughts, “Wow, let’s talk to someone.”
If the “big scary story” were true, there would have been training in DoD facilities, and an aggressive move at Ft. Leavenworth to ensure the lessons learned were institutionalized; and the Joint Staff pressed to redouble the efforts on the “big scary story” that were supposedly on the run. But the facts prove otherwise: The Joint Staff in 2002 wasn’t focused on the “big scary enemy in Afghanistan” they were planning to unlawfully invade Iraq and as the Downing Street Memo and Goldsmith memos tell us – the planning was at odds with what the White House wants us to believe in 2006.
This makes no sense.
Fact check: The Joint Staff is in rebellion against the Constitution; they failed to honor their oath; if this “big scary story is true” then the Joint Staff have violated their oath and taken action that would materially undermine confidence that the Joint Staff was serious about protecting this nation from another “big scary story.”
Either the event is true and they failed to honor their oath – and the White House is in a worse situation than we dreamed – or this story is false. You cannot have it both ways. Either way, the White House is willing to concede they have failed in their oath, in order to distract attention from something far worse. That “far worse” story is at the heart of what is going on inside the NSA: A massive effort to gather information in a manner that the Congress and FISA court suspect, but have not aggressively pursued: A huge data mining operation that violates the Constitution. A reasonable leader in Congress and the Judicial Branch would take this “big scary story” for what it is – a fatal admission that there is a bigger disaster hiding in the basement.
But we don’t have to find the facts before issuing a state proclamation. We don’t have to have a “big investigation” or get a ‘special persecutor” to look at this issue. The facts are clear.
Fact check: This president is unfit for office.
This “big scary story” -- if it were true --should’ve triggered immediate White House, Congressional, and Joint Staff consultations to redouble efforts, get funding for Afghanistan, and plow down the “big scary enemies.”
That did not happen. The Congress went along with the non-sense, and assented to moving combat troops “away from the big scary story” to somewhere else. Nothing this White House and Congress has done warrants belief or confidence.
This entire “big scary story” is non-sense. If it is true, then the Federal Government has to admit they have failed. Rather, the only reason this non-sense story is getting battered around is because there is a bigger problem which none of the three branches has faced: The fitness of this President to remain in office.
The RNC is spewing for this “big scary story” – despite it being absurd – because they have no other option. They’ve had four [4 ] years – since the time of this “big scary story” – to do something. But Gonzalez fatal admission – that he waited until 2004 to discuss the issue, much less think of going to Congress – is all we need to know that the “big scary story” is without merit.
The problem the RNC has is simple. The voters know. The RNC has a big problem: This “big scary story” dhows the RNC cannot think. Nobody in the White House or the RNC bothered to think, “will this story backfire” or “if the story backfires, will that buy us time to hide the bigger problems”?
This story makes no sense. It is at odds with what is known: There was no deal over Afghanistan; they did choose to move combat forces from Afghanistan to Iraq; they were chasing ghosts in Guantanamo; and this White House waited two years until 2004 to ask for the “needed” changes to FISA that would allow them to “combat” similar “big scary stories.”
Fact check: this story is not credible. They’ve waited four  years to announce the “needed news” to justify the government conduct. In reality, it’s taken them a few days to dream up this story, and it would never have surfaced had there been no NYT discussion on the NSA unlawful conduct.
This is a classic Rumsfeld-Rove approach to a problem: Throw something into the crowd, and let them argue over the non-sense.
It is time to throw it back. But this time, in the form of an impeachment. Enough is enough. This story is at odds with what a reasonable person should have done in 2002; not waited until 2004 to think about going to Congress.
Fact check: Why is the RNC and Congress acting in 2005 on information they “knew” in 2002? No answer is defensible.
Fact check: The NSA monitoring before 9-11 shows the President did not act on what he knew and was told by foreign intelligence; who there’s no credible reason that the “big scary story of 2002” – that supposedly is related to foreign action – would have generated a different response than what we had prior to 9-11: Inaction.
Yet, we are asked to believe despite “this big scary story” somehow they did something. Last time I checked, a delay between 2002 – the time of the “big scary story” – and 2004 – the time that Gonzalez bumped into another wall and had a thought – is simple math.
Let’s do this together. Look at the Calendar: 2004. That has a four. Count them on your right hand: 1, 2, 3, 4. Very good.
Now look at 2002. Count that on your left hand: 1, 2. Very good.
Now put your hands together. Your right hand has 4. And your left hand has 2. DO you see that there is a difference?
Very good. Now how many does it take to make them equal? Right! Two!
That means that it took two  years for the “big scary story” to translate into a reaction, and Gonzalez to say, “Wow, that was a big scary story two years ago, I’m going to talk to someone about that big scary story.”
Fact check: It’s 2006. That means there are four-fingers between 2002 and 2006. Got that?
Four years since we’ve known about the “big scary story,” but the Joint Staff has been running around committing war crimes.
Four years, and in 2006 suddenly Congress says – like Gonzalez – wow, we ought to look at this.
Fact check: That makes no sense.
It’s four years after the “big scary story.” Here are a couple of questions, if the weather isn’t too unfavorable.
This makes absolutely no sense. It is not credible to believe that the US was celebrating foreign government information in 2002, while it rebuffed foreign information over 9-11, and the Iraq WMD. Just as we’ve seen with Gonzalez’ many arguments, all that’s going on is picking and choosing to argue a point.
But it doesn’t add up for one reason: This President is in rebellion against the Constitution, and should lawfully be removed from office. He knows it, the world knows it, Congress knows it, and the States are ready to force a vote.
Fact check: The 2002 planning for Iraq was bungled. Why should we believe the planning related to this ‘big scary story” had a better “planning outcome”. The same system has consistently bungled real efforts; but with this “big scary story” we’re asked to believe there was a huge victory.
Far too convenient. And the results – if true – then raise serious doubts as to why Gonzalez took two years to stop drooling on himself and think about talking to Congress.
But it gets worse. The US was ignore the NSA and CIA over the Iraq WMD; yet in 2006 we’re asked to believe the opposite: That the CIA is to be believed. Again, that doesn’t add up. The issue isn’t the CIA; the issue is what changed to warrant a belief that the White House would listen in 2002 to an agency they openly ignored when it came to trivial matters like reality.
There is no reason to believe either the President or the Congress. They’ve shown a pattern of inaction. They show they do not listen. It is not credible they listened in 2002. This is made up.
If this story is true, the RNC – four years after this “big scary story” supposedly occurred – cannot explain or resolve the longer list of problems it has failed to address: Chasing bogus enemies and threats in Iraq; ignoring real “big scary stories” in Afghanistan; or how the intelligence in Iraq was at odds with what was known in Afghanistan – one location had real “big scary stories” and the other location had “no evidence of big scary stories.”
Let’s narrow the view onto Iraq, Congress, and the President.
Fact check: The NYT revelations over the NSA unlawful conduct is a catalyst for the RNC to realize they are in a now win situation and will lose power.
Fact check: This “big scary story” should have been the catalyst for action – but the information is old and non0sense – so why suddenly reveal it now?
Fat check: Is there any new information here? No. It’s the same information. We already know the leadership cooperated, there was no WMD, and the leadership took action in defiance of the laws of war. That should have been enough – in 2003 after Ambassador Wilson shared the news about the fabricated Nigerian Yellow cake – to prompt Congress to call for a war crimes trial.
Not this crew. Whether there is or is not a memo confirming what we already know – that Bush and Blair met and cooperated to invade without WMD – is obvious from the self-evidently conduct.
Fact check: We have a Downing Street Memo
Fact check: We have two nations agreeing, through their joint military action, to invade a sovereign country
Fact check: There was no imminent threat, and the US and UK committed war crimes by invading Iraq.
Fact check: This was known in 2002, confirmed in 2003 before ht4e invasion, and the Congress even went to court to prevent the unlawful activity.
Fact check: It is 2006, four  years after the Downing Street memo, and the “big scary story.”
Here’s the big question: Where’s the “big charges” against the President on the House floor? Representative Alberto Gonzalez, from Texas, did this numerous time against Reagan. What’s stopping this crew?
Oh, but we have more of the whining, “But the – whimper, whimper – the RNC controls Congress.”
Well, if that’s true, why are you bothering request an appointment of any special counsels? The answer is for one reason – which the rare leader in Congress has stated eloquently – to demand accountability. Even if you have no hope of victory – the simple demand for a vote or a response will tell us something.
And that is what this House must do. It must go to the well of the House and formally charge this President with crimes. Until that is done, the public should have every reason to believe this Congress has no intention of asserting the lawful duty it took an oath to do: Protect this nation’s states against rebellion and ensure they have a constitutional system. Read Article IV Section 4.
Fact check: There has been no charge filed against this president.
Fact check: It is 2006
Fact check: It has been four years since the Downing Street Memo.
Fact check: This is all the voters need to know to realize that the Federal government’s system of checks and balances is a sham. A new crew is needed.
In the absence of facts, and facing an uncooperative President who is in rebellion, it is easy to do one thing: Make adverse inferences.
This means making assumptions about the underlying fraud, and unlawful activities that the defendant has done nothing to dissuade you from concluding. In fact, if the opposite were true – we would have overwhelming evidence that there was no fraud.
But we have the opposite: The FISA statute is clear, explicitly; and the legal defenses for this unlawful NSA activity is wholly devoid of any legal foundation.
It is prudent to make adverse inferences about the competence, fitness of officials to hold office and claim leadership positions.
Fact check: what else do you know?
Either you do have something else unrelated FISA; or there is nothing else. You cannot claim that there is a space between FISA where the conduct is permissible, but the information cannot be gleaned. That is a non-existent reality.
It is 2006. There is one story: Whether this President shall be lawfully removed from office, and this is unrelated to whether the FISA is or is not followed. Clearly, Gonzalez tells us that despite the “big scary story” of 2002, the White House can’t figure out what is going on for two years. Self-evidently, that is a leadership failure. This President and his Cabinet are unfit to call themselves leaders, as is the Joint Staff which wages unlawful war and issues unlawful orders.
Topic 2: Oaths of office.
The crew in DC has one job: It is to assert their oath of office. However, they appear to have forgotten what this means. No matter, the States can step in an do what they have failed to do: Force action and lawfully start the process to find out which members of Congress are for the President’s rebellion; and which ones are asserting their oath.
The time for accountability never left. The willingness to do so is at hand.
The oath of office is clear: You are to protect these states from rebellion and invasion. Article IV Section 4 says that. That is your job. Your job is to make that happen; and if someone or some thing gets in the way of fact finding, then your job is to bring attention to that.
Your job as a leader is to use the bully pulpit of the House and Senate wells to call attention to matters. I you are not getting the support you need to assert your oath, your job is to mobilize your voters – the people who, by a majority – put you into office. So there’s no excuse for you to say, “I can’t get people motivated.” You already have the scale tipped in your favor.
Self-evidently, by the fact that you are a winner – means you will win in at least one location: Your home district. But that’s not the end of it. If you are stopped, or blocked, or given nonsense, you have another duty – as a private citizen of your home state – to talk to your elected officials in your state legislature and meet with them.
Your job is to be what you are: A citizen, with the right to go to the government when your Federal government fails you.
Where are the members of Congress in their willingness to write letters, go to their local municipal leaders where they live, and talk to their citizens to mobilize them.
Yet, this crew in DC would have it otherwise. They expect the citizens to do the legal work. Yet, why is the Congress – the individual Senator and Representative – unwilling to go into the well, appear on C-Span and look directly in the camera and say the truth: “We have a problem, this Federal government has failed, and I want you – my friends – to write your local leaders and get this issue of a state proclamation started. We have no other choice. You, my friends, can help.”
But we haven’t had that. All we’ve heard are excuses why “nothing can be done.” What a lad of non-sense.
In just a matter of two short weeks, a lone blogger has mobilized a new way of looking at the “impossible problem”. Suddenly, the skies are clear. Suddenly, the voters realize that they can force Congress to act.
This power has always been with the leadership in the Congress, but the Congress wants the public to do the work. It would be far easier if the Congress used the power of their office to mobilize the public, but the citizens are the ones who are going to have to do the difficult task: Provide leadership.
So this is the simple statement to the named individuals in Congress – those who call yourself Senators and Representatives – do you plan to assert your oath during this session, or do you require the state citizens in your home district to do what you refuse to do?
All you have to do is walk to the well and make the charge. The difficult way is for the state citizens to put this in writing, have the state legislature vote on it, and then force you to do it.
Either way, it is going to happen.
Your job is to decide whether you want to work on your schedule – one that will not work – or our schedule: One that will force a vote and let the voters see: Who is with or against the President’s rebellion.
Again, the easy answer is for you to assert your oath and do this. You are elected to do this. We do no send you to Washington so you can ignore us, or make the “simple matter of doing what must be done” difficult. You are not part of the solution. You are part of the problem.
But we have found a way to get around you. Thus, you are not needed. So you should resign, go home and let real leaders do what is easy, so that the citizens can get on with their lives and not do your job for you.
But, you require us to badger you and compel you to act. Those days are over. We will do the talking, and your job is to get out of the way.
Keep in mind the issue: Oaths of office. Let’s consider the NSA unlawful domestic spying programs.
The NSA war monitoring before 9-11. This is at odds with the story we’ve been told, “There were no people to translate the information.” Sibel Edmonds tells us – despite the “big scary story” that prompted the NSA to increase the already unlawful monitoring – that the White House failed to ensure that there were translators. This was before and after 9-11.
Indeed, if the White House “knew enough” to increase NSA monitoring before 9-11, the White House cannot explain why it did not have enough translators. That makes no sense. We judge the real purpose of the NSA effort is to detect whether the pre-9-11 preparations were or were not detected. Many people inside the NSA and CIA know and have discussed this problem in terms of their oaths of office. Now the states know and are about to lawfully start the process to remove this President. It is February, and we have nine  months to watch you squirm. Yes, it is going to get worse.
Let’s consider the events prior to 2002 – the time of this “big scary story”. Think about the oaths again. Where are the US forces speaking about war crimes? At this time, just after the “big scary story” the US was ramping up combat operations – in 2002 – in Iraq. Where are the stories and concerns from the military personnel over war crimes; and how were these concerns resolved by military commanders?
Again, there’s a line of evidence that exists, but congress has not looked into. IF these troops knew there was a problem with unlawful conduct – but despite their oath – continued to wage unlawful war – then it really doesn’t matter whether you do or do not have 5100.77 and a ‘really neat” NSA-Joint Staff classified communication system that can send NSA messages worldwide within seconds. Self-evidently, despite the “information that should have been transmitted in a timely manner” – using the Joint Staff classified alerting system – there would have been quick confirmation, based on NSA intercepts – that the proposed actions were unlawful, and that the Joint Staff was going to adjust their plans.
But that didn’t happen. Rather, despite knowing through NSA that there was no WMD, and that the imminent combat operations in 2002 were unrelated to the “big scary story” this Joint Staff knowingly issued unlawful orders; and rebuffed all concerns about war crimes. That is the problem.
This military has an oath to only wage war based on real threats, not imagined ones. The problem is despite the oaths and the doubts – this military continued to wage unlawful war despite knowing there was no evidence.
Congress and the Judicial Branch have not wrestled with this issue. Article 1 Section 8 gives the power to Congress to regulate the troops. Yet, despite the “no WMD” and “lack of imminent threat” it’s 2006 and we have calls for investigation.
Get real. The time for the bigger review is arrived: Why should we believe that the military personnel’s “oath of office” or “training on laws of war” means anything if they are willing to wage war – knowing there was no WMD – and then not go to Congress or the IG for resolution?
The states aren’t going to “wait” for Congress to figure this out. The answer is to compel Congress to face your oath. How you vote – either up or down – will tell all voters whether you are for or against the Constitution. It is that simple.
Once you vote on this proclamation – we will understand why the military personnel do or do not face any prospect of discipline for waging unlawful war despite oaths to assent to the rule of law and the UCMJ which Congress crafts to regulate conduct during combat.
We see nothing before us to suggest that there is a “new spirit” of leadership in the Judicial Branch. There’s no public speech – as a private citizen – by the Justices on behalf of what they know or have discussed over the FISA issue. The Justices have not decided to do what “must be done” to assert their oath, act on what they know, and mobilize the voters in their community to do what must be done
Nobody is asking you to use your official office for political gain. Rather, you have the power to use your office and access – or in this case, non-access to information – to choose what you will do. You have the right to write a letter, talk to your neighbors, and remind them that you are only speaking as a private citizen. But you still have the right to act on what you know: The system of checks and balances has failed, and the states must act.
Yet, we see no line in the Sand. We simply have a resignation or two. That is the right thing. The Justices and Court officers will have to explain why – despite your oaths to the contrary – you have sat silently while this nation marched to war, there was no WMD, and the leadership assented to non-sense.
These are not political matters. They are issues of Constitutional law which you in the Judicial Branch know far too well. You have let down the country. The states realize that it is only through the random bumping into case law, and a casual reading of the House rules that we realize that the leadership in Washington, the Congress, and the courts is not there.
This is up to the States. And we will soon move. Your job is to know that we know you are part of the problem. And your job is to decide, come clean, and decide if you are going to support this unlawful rebellion against the Constitution – or you are going to do your job and assert your oaths.
Clearly, because of the unfavorable weather – it is clear this has been difficult. But your oath and whether you want to follow it is not a question of discretion or convenience, but one of a promise. That is what the states have learned: Your promise is meaningless.
So the states will act. As is fitting when the federal officials, both appointed and elected have failed to protect, preserve, and defend this constitution from the domestic rebellion. It is time for you to choose: Are you with the Constitution; or are you with the rebellion.
Choose wisely. The states can bring charges of impeachment against anyone in Federal office.
Fact check: Why the resistance to let Congress have an NSA-like capability to monitor the executive branch?
Fact check: Where is the intelligence committee admitting: We have no confidence in the information the White House, DoD, and DoJ have provided us, and we know the information is incomplete.
It’s time for the congressional leadership to decide: Do you want to be leaders, or do you want to be followers. The states are leading. You are following. You are not needed.
The Congress must work with the IG’s to develop a better oversight system. It has been far too long for this Congress – since 2002 and the “big scary story” to explain why so many resources have been diverted away from the “big scary story” onto unlawful things. The IGs have known, or they should know there is a problem. The job of the Congress is to solve this.
In the meantime, the states are prepared to force a vote. The voters know that a simple solution to this problem is to make the Congress use an NSA-like capability to monitor the Executive branch. That will take time. It is the job of the Congress to decide how you’re going to get this information – related to the NSA’s real activities – using other sources.
Again if the “big scary story” from LA is true, then the President should have no problem with the US discussing matters with other nations – namely, for the US to discuss with foreign powers over methods to “figure out” what the NSA is doing, and exchanging information about the NSA.
Either the President’s “big scary story about LA’ is true – and the US does talk with foreign nations who can assist; or the story is false, and Congress will have to figure out another way to find out “what the NSA is really doing>” either way: The NSA isn’t cooperating, and the Congress is left in the dark – but there is no plan by this Congress to force a decision.
The states are prepared to force Congress to face its responsibilities. A credible system of oversight is needed – as it has always been – otherwise this county has no right to preach to anyone about the ‘benefits” of democracy, wile at the same time it feigns shock when people democratically decide to take action to rock the boat in already stormy seas.
Fact check: The Congressional records. Article 1 Section 5 gives the Congress the power, right, duty, responsibility, and requirement to provide a record of its proceedings; and also gives the Congress the right to keep things secret. There are rules. If Congress violates these rules, the Congress can vote to expel a member.
There is no leadership.
Where in the Congressional record is there any record of charges against the President? None. This Congress whines in private, but will not force a vote. The states will act.
Where is there any record that the Congress has voted to expel a member for leaking classified information? If it exists, this memory is lost and the DoJ claims the Congress leaks. Well make a rule that if there are leaks – related to real issues – then the Congress will act to expel that member.
But the unfavorable weather has been uncooperative. Rather than look to the heavens, perhaps you should look to your oath: What is the solution to the self-evident “lack of full disclosure”-problem from the White House.” Until we hear a peep resembling a credible solution, the states should remind the leadership that there are alternatives and that the Congress could have an NSA-like program to check the unreliable ones in the White House, DoJ, and DoD.
Even if the RNC controls congress, why isn’t the Congress – the individual representative and senator – using that refusal to assert the rule o law – as a catalyst to go to the states and say what is self-evident: The federal government has failed – we need a state proclamation.”
That has not happened. But the states will assert that function and fill the void where Congress seeks the air of wisdom – the breath of life is your oath, only if you assert it when it is defunct, not simply when it is easy or the skies are clear. Rather, these “leaders” expect citizens to do the job of leading. This Congress relinquishes its right to be treated as leaders, but poodles.
Fact check: Congressional oversight.
Let’s review where we are. It is 2006. Four years after the unlawful air bombing in Iraq.
Once the court concluded – on the basis of false information – that the unlawful military action would go unstopped, there needs to be a showing of what happened to the Congressional leadership to follow-up. The facts have surfaced. It is clear what has happened. There is no WMD. This war is without legal foundation.
It is time to review and get straight answers. What has Congress done – or failed to do – that it should have done in the wake of the reality over Iraq and the war crimes.
It is fitting to find facts. It is not fitting to find facts based on a failure to assert your oath, or reluctantly assert what should have been asserted. You may have legislative immunity, but you are not immune to facts.
This request for a special prosecutor is not broad, nor linked with new information. Rather, it is related to one thing: The realization that something that should have long ago been done – should have been done. The cries of “it is fitting to get accountability” are crocodile tears: True accountability would compel all the Representatives to go to the well and make the charge. But this Congress will only move when the momentum is high, not when the danger is self-evident.
You must choose. You are either a leader and will compel this Congress to commit on their oath; or you are a follower, and you will wait until the States compel you to act. Either way, you are going to vote. Either on your schedule – one that is untimely – or on the States schedule – one that is devoid of Congressional leadership but merely linked with a trifle known as the rule of law.
The question is clear. Is there any real and specific sign that any prosecutor has been rebuffed, denied, blocked, or other wise interfered with over issues of War crimes in Iraq? If so, this must be understood; if not, then there is no reason to have waited this long.
Rather, it is reasonable to suspect that the only catalyst for oversight has been the real prospect you will lose the power to engage in oversight: That you might lose your office with a November defeat. All of you. That is not inspiring – but plain to see – that your oath has meant nothing; and it was only the potential loss of power that awoke you. Go back to sleep. You have yet to imagine the turmoil that is about to unfold, thanks to your inaction. Yes, it is going to get far worse. The states’ tongues are rather sharp.
Be clear – the issue is whether there is a method to account for war crimes in Iraq. This Congress has chosen to remain silent and not compel action to assert the rule of law on the Joint Staff which violates the laws of war.
Fact check: The war in Iraq started in 2003, and we knew in 2003 there was no WMD. Wilson confirmed the delusion, and we still have nothing since 2003 to draw any other conclusion: This war is more than a lie, it is a crime.
What happened in since 2003? Either:
[a] Someone has requested a special prosecutor over the war and has been rebuffed; or
[b] the request for a special prosecutor was made, but buried – but no all was made to the states requesting support to solve the mess Congress cannot resolve; or
[c] there is a secret special prosecutor looking at the war, but is not advertise; or
[d] despite the long train of abuses – well known since 2003 – there has been no Congressional interest to assert Article 1 Section 8, and ensure the laws of war are followed, not explained away – as has been the practice, albeit unlawful custom.
Again, nobody stopped any of you from going to the well and making the charge: This President has waged unlawful war. There is no record.
But the states will force you to face what you have not asked: Why is this man fit to remain in office.
You have wished for this.
Fact check: Congressional representatives and Senators are citizens and can appeal to any Senator to speak on any issue.
Is congress capable of a solution?
Where is the speech: “We can’ solve this in Congress; Senators need to speak out to state citizens to write their legislators for help. Congress cannot solve this.” That did not happen.
And some wonder why extended debate is “worth the trouble.” It’s only your job – to compel action when your peers are reluctant to assert their oath.
The states will force you to commit: Are you with the President’s rebellion; or are you with the Constitution. You cannot escape this. But we have nothing from the Congress by way of a plea for assistance.
This Congress is so lost it doesn’t know to ask for help.
Fact check: We know about the Downing Street Memo.
It remains to be understood what requests if any were made to review the Iraq war crimes as the downing Street memo and fats that there was no WMD surfaced. The Congressional leadership knows the problem: The US has engaged in war crimes. This leadership assented to this activity. This will not go away.
But the evidence of the crime keep surfacing: Plame, yellow cake, Goldsmith, Hutton Inquiry, and no WMD.
The catalyst for this “big concern” and the “revelations about the big story” has nothing to do with your oath, but a desire to distract attention from your failure to assert you oath.
A special prosecutor needs to examine who got in the way of Congress checking the President; why the congress – despite the evidence to the contrary, and no action – voted to use force against an enemy that had no connection with the “big scary story.”
Ah, legislative immunity. But you are not immune the voters. Nor the states. The voters know. And the voters know that there’s been no serious review of the war crimes.
This Federal Government has failed, and refuses to face what is well known.
The states know and they will force the Congress to act.
Topic 3: leadership failure.
Fact check: You are elected to lead.
Where are the leaders, those who paint the vision, and mobilize the world to achieve that outcome? Nothing stops a member of congress from following up on the 2002/3 information about the war crimes; nor is there anything stopping Congress from raising the point with their state officials back home – we have Plame, Downing Street Memo, and war crimes, but congress will not act. “I need your help.”
The issue is whether the voters have sent leaders or rebels to Congress. It is time to find out what the laws are, and who is in charge, and who is complicit.
The “big scary story” makes no sense. But why believe the Congress will challenge it now. They’ve gone along on this masquerade party – pretending to be leaders – all the while the world has known, as do the voters: There is no leadership, there is rebellion against the Constitution.
Nothing stopped any Congressional member – either in the Senate or the House – from going to the well and making a speech to the citizens to call for a proclamation. You are live on C-Span. People listen.
Nothing stopped the Senate from inviting President Carter or President Clinton to address the Senate. This is permitted.
But this is not done.
If you are leaders, then you will lead, not whine. You will find solutions, not give up. You will assert your oath, not whimper at the responsibility.
You freely took the oath.
But more important, you freely ran for office. It is not an easy task. Rather, it’s nearly impossible to do what you have done: Win the right to be called a member of congress. But you did the nearly impossible.
But what has that given us? We have excuses, not solutions; and we have tales about the “big scary story” without any merit.
There is one answer: This President must be lawfully removed from office, and your oath compels you to force your peers to commit whether they are with the rebellion against the Constitution; or whether they are with you in your decision to put your oath before all things.
Even if you choose to do nothing. The states are poised to compel you to do what you refuse to do: To assert your oath. You will either freely do so, or you shall be compelled through the lawful use of state action.
It is about to happen.
Nothing has stopped any member of Congress from saying to you fellow citizens – as a fellow citizen – Congress as it is structured cannot do what it has the responsibility to do. Your job is to discuss this problem and find a solution. If you fail, the States will compel you to act and remove the President lawfully from office. There is no other way.
Where are the records of those Congressional delegates who have discussed these issues – the problems with war crimes, NSA spying, and the violation of the law – these issues compel the leaders to drop all matters, and continue to work to solve this problem.
But where you have failed, the states will act. An extended debate is warranted, but some are confused what debate might achieve. And you call yourself a member of Congress. Debate and dialog gives us Hamas.
Fact check: This President is unfit for office, and we have no plan in Congress to remedy this self-evident problem.
It is time for voters and citizens to do what must be done: Compel your local officials to discuss this issue. Find out where the impeachment resolutions are.
Where is the vote on that resolution.
Find out whether your state legislators are moving on a proclamation. It only takes one; but the more the better: A clear signal that the states know they have to lead when the Federal officials have failed.
The real impeachment effort has already started. It is not speculative, nor does it point to dark clouds.
Rather, it is simply making progress, and forcing Congress and the White House realize one thing: We know.
It is clear what is happening. American voters and citizens know they can do what this Congress has refused to do: Assert leadership, and compel all to assent to the rule of law; otherwise you will be found in rebellion. And you will lose our right and claim to power.
The issue is simple: Who is worthy of your vote. The November 2006 election is about one thing: Whether the rule of law or the rebellion will prevail.
This Congress knows it has only one option. The question is whether they freely choose to act, or are compelled through the force of lawful state action.
It is well known: The problem is clear, the solution obvious. This President must lawfully be removed from office, or the United States cannot claim to be a Democracy or a nation of laws.
We need leaders, not people who talk about “big scary stories” but do nothing for years.
American expects the rule of law – not excuses – to prevail.
And so it shall.
You have wished for this.
Constant: The purpose of this discussion is to make it clear – in no
uncertain terms – that even the most stupid citizen can
see what is going on: You [Congress] have failed, you only
offer excuses, and nothing you say makes sense. It is time
for you to leave the political stage and let the most
naive citizen do what you have not done: Read your oath of
office and assert it.
RainbowSally: How do you say "amen" in Constitution-ese?
Added 10 Feb 2006 -- [Check Comment #25: rainbowsally said on 2/10/06 @ 3:19am ET Click ]
ConyersBlog reader: Let Feline know she has a message for her here. Notes to Feline: Feel free to ask questions in Conyers Blog. I may find them if they're near a link to this site. [Click: See Comment 11]
As to questions about GCHQ communication -- GCHQ is the UK's Government Communications Headquarters, they are one of the five Echelon allies, which includes US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Bolton confirms the GCHQ intercepts domestic US communications, then provides this information to US government officials. [ Click ] GCHQ can intercept anything in the US, and keep files outside the American's control. [GCHQ's Gunn, memo confirming domestic spying: Click ]
As to what is going on with the White House and the line of evidence, the goal is to get the White House to commit to a line of evidence contrary to what is already in the files. They're being set up. For example, GCHQ intercepts confirm the conversations between Libby's lawyer and the DoJ special counsel's office over matters related to the FBI I-drive. Here are the details on the July 2005 intercepts on Libby's lawyer over the FBI I-drive and the concerns about the NSA-GCHQ resources being targeted at Libby. [ Click ]
If you read closely at the Special Counsel's news release, you'll see that there is a communication system in place, evidence and information is being provided, but the US Attorney is not revealing the sources. It is likely they're getting information from GCHQ -- people who have a greater loyalty to the rule of law, than the White House -- and this is used to direct the FBI agents during their interviews. [ Click ]
The reason for the issue is that NSA cannot detect how their NSA files have been compromised; nor who in the GCHQ is providing information. This is causing concern inside NSA, the National Security Council, White House, and NSA's Q2 -- their internal intelligence security system. The problem the NSA and White House has is that they're unsure how the information in these backup files is getting accessed, who has access to them, and how the information is being used to provide guidance and "investigative leads" to the US Attorney's office. They're using a system which NSA cannot detect, and is unable to decrypt.