White House Using Pakistan As War Crimes Smokescreen

This President continues his war crimes litigation diversion.

Everything this President is accusing of Pakistan are things this President refused to do, violated, or did not do as lawfully required: [Finding ].

The American Congress is being distracted from the President's war crimes, violations of the US Constitution, and other illegal activity. The information below supports the conclusions in the following:

Ref Case Study: Hypothetical "Saturn Invasion Plan" To Showcase Defective US Government Resource Constraint Assessment Planning -– The President ignores constraints; reality is merely the messenger of the President’s incompetence.

Ref Case Study: Bush Defeat Doctrine Applied to Pakistan -- Defeat Assured When Feedback Ignored, Requirements Shifted to Others.

What You Can Do: Share this news -- States making progress. [Whose side is Lockheed Martin on in New Mexico?]

* * *

Summary

America's focus on Pakistan is a deliberate ruse. All standards the US is applying to Pakistan are things the GOP Executive Branch personnel need to be openly challenged for having not done.

Claims that the US has SIGINT from Pakistan identifying specific AlQueda are not credible. Each of the electronic data intercepts which the US supposedly has needs to be traced to find out why the US was willing to abuse American civilians in violations of FISA; but the US is not willing to use that information on top of the AUMF in the combat theater.

The entire chain of events, story, and things related to the US disclosures on Pakistan are wholly inconsistent.

The President and Vice President are not concerned with new developments in Pakistan. They are only moving to pretend to impose standards on Pakistan that this Congress should be imposing on this Republican Party, Senate, and Executive Branch.

It is a problem for the Republican Party, Senate, and President to explain their sudden interests in things they have openly defied in America: US government stability, and the possibly of a backlash against the GOP.

The backlash occurred November 2006. The GOP remains in denial. Everything this President is saving about Pakistan are really things the American public can legally challenge this President for not having done.

* * *

Details

Ref Out of the blue, the US is shifting focus from the White House to Pakistan. How convenient.

* * *

As you read the material about Pakistan, we neither accept as true or false the information. We're only focusing on the inconsistencies; and what is more likely or less likely to be true.

There are some problems. Let's consider a couple of things.

1. Assertion 1: CIA has electronic intercepts of something

No, CIA doesn't intercept, NSA does.

2. Assertion 2: Intercepts are electronic

Problem: US supposedly is "unable" to do things because of theLack of electronic use of communication.

___ How did the US get the contact information to monitor these people, whoever they are

___ With "electronic signatures" what is preventing the US from physically going to the location where the electronic data moves through, and monitoring their movements

___ How does the US explain [a] it’s' ability to know which electronic systems to monitor; but [b] the US is unable to trace between (1) the electronic connections and (2) the physical location where these people are.

* * *

The Ruse Limitations

Contrast the two:

1. Ref This argument suggests that the US is above the law, and can ignore Congress.

2. Ref This suggests the opposite: The US is following Pakistani laws; and/or that the US cannot ignore Pakistan.

. . .

Then the US president -- that ignores Congress -- wants Pakistan to be "scared" that Congress -- which the US president ignores -- might cut funding.

See the shift:

[a] The US President is ignoring Congress;

[b] US President is following Pakistan rules;

[c] US President suggests that Pakistan should pay attention to Congress which the US president doesn't listen to [a]

* * *

Things are not adding up.

1. The US is pretending that the AUMF from 9-11 is the "basis" to expand FISA surveillance against US civilians; never mind that the illegal surveillance started prior to Sept 2001.

2. Despite the AUMF from 9-11, the US is backing away from Afghanistan -- as evidence by the emphasis on Iraq.

3. Despite the setbacks in Afghanistan, the US is blaming [a] Pakistan; [b] Congress -- which the US President has ignored.

* * *

Issues For Discussion

___ Why is the US pointing to "electronic data" that it supposedly has, but not able to independently identify the physical location where these people are?

___ Why is the US "concerned" about Pakistani leaders' "constraints" and "excuses" not to be able to fully support the US; but the US President has no respect for Congress on the same constraints?

This doesn't add up.

* * *

Judgments

The US has no bonafide electronic data. If there were intercepts, the US would not advertise them, but independently target, and pre-empt the planning.

The US is not serious about what Pakistan is or is not doing.

The US is not concerned bout constraints in Pakistan any more than it is concerned with Congressional constraints.

The US has ignored the Congress and US Statutes; there is no basis to be more concerned with other nations' leadership's stability.

The US President is using this issue with Pakistan to divert Congressional attention from [a] the failure to implement the AUMF of Sept 2001 in Afghanistan; [b] the illegal activity in Iraq; [c] the diversions in Iran; and [d] the US defiance of American law; and [e] the lack of real explanation for not using the supposed electronic data from Pakistan to take action; and [e] the Problem of the US, having illegally used data to support rendition, has been unable to link (1) evidence gleaned from interrogations to (2) Lawful actions or (3) successful combat results

* * *

The US has lied about evidence in US Federal District Court. The Americans have fabricated evidence of Iraq WMD to support war crimes.

IT means nothing for the US to provide fabricated evidence to Pakistan, yet fail to explain why the US cannot physically locate these people who, the US says, have been [implicitly] "connected to the electronic ground stations."

* * *

The US President, not Pakistan, is in denial about what he failed to do. It makes no sense to argue about what the Sept 2001 AUMF does or doesn't do relative to the FISA-NSA violations; but then not point to that same AUMF to show the US fully asserted all options and power to defeat the supposed 9-11 enemies.

This President is the one who is ignoring evidence.

NATO Commanders have briefed the US leadership of problems with equipment. This President is the one, not Pakistan, who is ignoring information and advice from the Commanders.

It appears that every valid argument and accusation leveled against this President -- recklessness, ignoring the law, not facing reality -- has been transferred to Pakistan.

Whether the Charges are or are not true is less important than the issue of: If the US "has all this info" that Pakistan was or wasn’t doing something and is upset, what is to be said of the US President and Iraq:

___ Where is the evidence of the US President not doing what he should;

___ When are the electronic intercepts -- showing US leaders not doing their jobs -- going to be presented to Members of Congress to get them to explain:" Where were they, why were they doing nothing

___ Where is the evidence of the JAGs, Joint Staff, and Combatant Commanders who have forcefully opposed this reckless President; and how were these Military commander concerns shrugged aside

___ Once the White House counsel, DoJ Staff, and President-Vice President learned of this information, what did they or didn't they do?

It's all fine and good to pretend that Pakistan is or isn't doing something. But the Sept 2001 AUMF doesn’t "authorize" the Pakistani President to do or not do something; the AUMF was the supposed "authority" which the US President relied on towage illegal warfare, expand combat to Iraq, and conduct illegal activity.

* * *

This "concern" the US has with Pakistan is non-sense. The US Congress is being led to believe that the US is "doing" something.

NO way. The right focus is to put the same "concern" with these issues -- as they supposedly related to Pakistan -- back onto Congress, the GOP, Senate, and President. Let's start over:

___ What is the President’s explanation for not having ground-contact in Pakistan

___ If the NSA has intercepted things, why isn't the US taking action?

___ What's stopping the US from secretly dong things based on authority Congress has delegated?

___ Why is the President "more concerned" with Pakistani leadership "stability' than he is with the US government foundation?

* * *

Refocusing the Legal Issues

Start over at the beginning with the article and reconsider what is supposedly happening:

___ When is the US Attorney going to personally meet with the Speaker to "personally present" evidence of "compelling" DoJ evidence of the President's resurgence against the US Constitution?

___ When is the US Attorney and Speaker going to have a "surprise showdown meeting" with the Vice President and President?

___ When does the GHCQ and US Attorney plan to exchange information and present the electronic data showing the President has committed war crimes?

___ When is there going to be a challenge to the President -- he said he was relying on the AUMF to violate FISA; why isn't the same AUMF being used to do the same in Pakistan?

___ Why is the President less concerned with US law and US Constitutional governance that with the Pakistanis leadership?

* * *

This President, despite "hard cold laws" doesn't move. Despite facts, he ignores what was going on in Afghanistan.

This non-sense about what the Pakistani leadership is or isn't doing is meaningless; and the charges say more about what the White House hopes to divert Members of Congress attention from examining, openly discussing, and contrasting.

There may be training camps in Pakistan. This isn't news. The news is why is the President -- despite all the evidence that he's done exactly what he's accusing Pakistan -- suddenly worried enough to throw this smokescreen?

It’s not news that the US has failed. This "Development" in Afghanistan isn't anything new.

* * *

The problem is this Congress is in denial about what it faces -- it's won power, and it had a job to do: Lawfully confront the President. If the US Congress needs assistance, it needs to say so: "We need help."

However, if the Members of Congress and staff counsel are going to "sit around" and "get distracted" by the President, they have a problem: The US congress needs to use what the President and vice President are saying about Pakistan; ad the US Congress needs to tailor those arguments to throw them back at the President.

___ Why is he ignore the US laws?

___ What level of evidence -- other than illegal warfare -- does the President and Attorney General require compelling them to accept: They started an unlawful confrontation with the US Constitution?

___ How much information has the President ignored from US military commanders?

* * *

It is contemptible for the President to have ignored US laws; pretended that the AUMF "covered" his illegal activity; but then revises himself and would have us believe that Pakistani "concern" trumps the Congress; or that the AUMF was not used to fully assert himself in Afghanistan.

This President has had since 2001 to develop, implement, and execute a plan. It doesn't matter if the Executive Orders are or note effectual -- the President has no excuse. He's openly said the laws do not apply, even though they do. The constraints aren’t the problem -- the issue is this President is picking and choosing from reality to explain away accountability, recklessness, and buffoonery. The world was with him, even Iran.

This is bungling of epic proportions.

* * *

I will not accept the mantra of, "We can' look at the past." Incorrect. It is the US President's arrogance which this Congress refuses to challenge which We the People rejected November 2006.

The House and Senate Foreign Relations committees need to take the broad view of the US President's approaches to Pakistan:

___ How much of the President’s statements are really about what the President failed to do;

___ Why, despite the US laws which the President ignores, does the President suddenly have a concern with another government’s requirements?

The US President doesn't care about Pakistan. He doesn't care about the United States citizens. He says whatever is needed -- in his mind -- to avoid a war crimes trial and keep him out of jail.

* * *

Had We the People been fed more non-sense, and we did not dare challenge these buffoons working in PNAC, the Republican Party, and the Executive Branch, this President would still be expanding non-sense media propaganda to expand illegal warfare.

The US leadership doesn’t care about Congress; it does care about the rebuke we sent in November: The Party is over.

The question is whether this Congress will comprehend the non-sense this President is spewing forth; and accept:

___ The statements this President and Vice President are saying about Pakistan are wholly inconsistent with their true concerns with similar issues in the United States;

___ Everything this President is imposing as a standard on Pakistan is evidence that this leadership can -- if prompted -- develop a plan to respond; yet this President absurdly says, "We can't have a plan to lead the GOP." Utter non-sense.

This leadership shows it will plan when Pressed. Time for the State Department, RNC, Joint Staff, Republicans, and White House staffers to get called before Congress and give some straight answers on planning:

1. This leadership shows it can execute a plan to diver attention and make smokescreens. Why isn't that planning used to implement in the US the same standards this Government says Pakistan should follow?

2. This government shows it is willing to fabricate evidence. There is nothing before us suggesting the US cannot use electronic data to target people. Why should we believe the US "intercepts" about AlQueda are real; and why hasn't the US -- as it illegally did with the FISA intercepts -- not targeted the people for Rendition?

3. How does the US explain the abuse of Geneva in Guantanamo and Eastern Europe; but suddenly when it comes to acting on the AUMF and "real intelligence" -- the US government would have use believe "their hands are tied"? What a load of baloney.

4. This President was given the AUMF to succeed in Afghanistan. Yet, the AUMF was perverted to wage illegal warfare in Iraq; and conduct illegal surveillance. Yet, the combat results suggest the US was not getting any valuable information. Why should we believe the same system that won’t do anything suddenly has "better" information about people who supposedly aren't connected to any physical space and have no electricity?

5. How does the White House, DOJ Staff, DoD, and Executive Branch personnel assigned to the GOP explain the reckless approach to the AUMF: Using it as blanket authority to violate US laws; but then pretending that the AUMF was a "problem", "limiting" US Actions in another country?

6. The US doesn't area about Canadian or American civilian human rights. Even formerly assigned White House counsel Brad Berenson has openly admitted that the US was working with unsavory countries allegedly complicity with illegal abuse. Yet, suddenly, the same crew that knew there was illegal activity or nasty things, won't take action against people the AUMF authorized and where are "known" bad people? Get real.