Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Iraq: DoD propaganda read by Americans stateside

The revelations by the LA Times/NYT/Bloomberg that DoD has been planning stories is only part of the problem.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."

-- Socrates Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC - 399 BC).
* * *

The real issue: Who picks up these stories?

The way the LA Times and DoD personnel convey the information, it appears that the information hasn't been leaking back to American news media.

However, this is not the case.

China has picked up one of the cited sources; and this made its way back to the Free Republic.

The issue involves Operation Steel Curtain.

* * *

Update: 4 Dec 2005

Interesting links:

2003: US media model in Iraq not free from censorship.

Information dominance: C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance

Iraq contractor list.

Note [See page 15]: SAIC is listed as a subcontractor under Northrop Grumman's Vinnell, to provide training to the new Iraqi army. Apparently this means providing propaganda to make the trainees feel good about themselves, despite reality: Inability to lead combat operations, still need special forces leadership and assistance.

Iraqis must be very stupid: US special forces conduct training on "dummy citizens" in non-combat situations to "learn how to provide training" -- done at a very basic level. Trainees can quickly learn how to do things. It appears the issue with the Iraqis is motivation, interest, focus, and desire, or lack thereof.

It doesn't say much for America when the original objective of the war changes from WMD to "help with Democracy," but the recruits aren't interested in learning. You can't make someone embrace democracy when they refuse or have something else on their mind: Lack of water, power requirements.

  • Why should we believe the "status of Iraqi training reports" when the same firm providing the training also provides the information on "how things are going" by way of media reports/propaganda?

    At best, this is a conflict; and at worst, DoD shows a pattern of denying independent assessments of what is going on -- That happened in Cambodia.

  • What kind of award fees, or contract performance goals/sanctions exist if the SAIC-like firms fail to meet their objectives?

    It appears SAIC has built-in contract incentives to create the impression things are going well; and they have the information-network to provide the illusion that things are going well, despite what appears to be a problem with training.

    The problem we have is when there is a body of knowledge, software system, and a Joint Staff view of "how combat information should be organized and integrated into C3I as C4ISR " under the umbrella of a war fighting doctrine, but the results, despite the massages, fails to justify confidence in that model.

    At best, SAIC has shown that it has a problem translating requirements into software products for DoJ; we fail to see why DoD-related results would be superior. The more things one integrates from the C3I- to C4ISR-models, the greater the complexity; however, the software development efforts, despite the reports, appear to indicate that there has to be quite a bit of monkeying around with the systems to get them to perform, much less achieve ambiguous/transitory/shifting combat objectives.

    Congressional Review Issues

    See page 15

    SAIC, Science Applications International Corporation is listed on page 15 of this "contractor list" as being related to the training the Iraqi army.

    However, this appears to be in conflict with its other role: Providing propaganda, and other information about "how things are going."

    We are concerned in re Statement on Accounting Standard 99 in re "Fraud indicators":

    It appears as though SAIC is in a position to not only train, but "provide favorable information" about the status of that training.

    1. What independent methods does DoD and/or Congress use to ensure the SAIC award fees are based on actual results, and not affected by SAIC-generated propaganda?

    2. Why should Congress, the Public, or Dod believe the "status reports about Iraqi training" given SAIC's apparent ability to [a] financially benefit if the reported results are at odds with reality; and [b] SAIC is in a position to provide favorable media coverage which some in DoD could use to provide award fee inputs to SAIC [sub contractor] and or Northrop Grumman [primes]?

    3. Given SAIC's software performance problems with DoJ/FBI data management [software didn't solve the problem], why should we believe that SAIC's contribution to Northrop Grumman is superior in re DoD and Iraq?

    4. To what extent can SAIC, through its favorable self-assessments of how things are going in Iraq in re training, influence the DoD's award fee inputs to the Fee Determining Official [FDO]?

    End update: 4 Dec 2005

    * * *

    Update: 3 Dec 2005

    DoD announced that if the contractors have failed to perform has intended, they would take appropriate action. Ref

    Note: This doesn't say the conduct is or isn't appropriate nor what they wanted. Rather, the way DoD has worded their "threat of sanctions" is premised on the false assumption that "if someone did something they weren't supposed to do, there will be sanctions.

    However, it is likely the opposite is true: The contractors, because they have correctly done what DoD wanted -- pay people to plant propaganda -- that there will be nothing done.

    Also, Chairman of JCS Casey has stated the $300M contracts for all the contractors are classified. This means that, given the dollar amount, there would or should be Congressional reporting, and also NSA's OPSEC requirement. With a dollar figure this high and multiple contractors, this would qualify as a "major program" -- it remains to be seen whether DoD has appropriately informed the HASC/SASC of their plan.

    Also note the SAIC contractor is the same outfit that produced some arguably defective and unreliable DoJ information technology software. It remains unclear why SAIC gets paid money to [a] produce unreliable software; [b] spew forth unreliable information in Iraq.

    Is SAIC in the "unreliable service" industry? On the contrary, SAIC is doing exactly what DoD and DoJ want: Propaganda and ineffective government information management programs, very effective if you want a government that can't do much, but likes to talk about illusions.

    End Update

    * * *

    The specific people involved appear to be RNC staffers from the 2004 election. [via TPM]

    Maha reminds us of the $300M, 5Year contracts to provide the support to DoD: SAIC, L-3's SYColeman.

    This seems very similar to what Rendon did in early 2002 in re the alleged WMD-misinformation.

    Why do I smell another Downing Street Memo: Names, meetings, contracts, agreements, and a massive "we have no idea what you're talking about"-response to the FOIAs?

    The issue becomes: If investors were driving the invasion, why have they abysmally performed in the execution? The answer: Nobody cares about results, they just wanted an excuse to get the money -- Iraqi contracts.

    Can you smell Halliburton, procurement fraud kickbacks?

    Then, use the kickbacks as more money for the RNC to bribe officials . . .

    * * *

    But it gets better. Lincoln's CEO is related to the RNC: Christian Bailey.

    So this means that we can indirectly link the DoD's Iraqi propaganda effort with the current DoJ Legislative Liaison, Elizabeth Marcel Apisson, the RNC General Counsel in NYC during the RNC Convention [ 212-356-2015 ]; and her husband David Carmen, indirectly linked to the Carmen Group's lobbying efforts on behalf of the KAZAKHSTAN, spending approximately $8,000 in travel to fly between the United States and KAZAKHSTAN.

    David Carmen is a registered Republican and has publicly disclosed his campaign contributions.

    The Carmen group was listed on the DOJ registered lobbyist list as being a lobbyist for KAZAKHSTAN, with $627K in funding involved, through an apparently closely held firm named Parville Finance Ltd.

    Marshall Stanford, apparently indirectly associated with the Carmen Group, is associated with South Carolina has taken trips:

    April 18, 2000 - April 21, 2000 (4 days)
    Location(s) - Kazakhstan
    Purpose - Fact-finding trip

    Notes - Travel Cost - $7,129.00
    Lodging Cost - $345.00
    Meal Cost - $80.00
    Other Cost -
    Total Cost - $7,554.00
    Additional family members - No



    Republican Party South Carolina

    Total number of trips - 3
    Total cost of trips - $16,598.40
    Average cost per trip - $5,532.80
    Total number of days spent traveling - 19 days
    Rank of representative - 310 (Out of 621)


    Full Travel list:
    Republican Party
    South Carolina

    Total number of trips - 3

    Total cost of trips - $16,598.40
    Average cost per trip - $5,532.80
    Total number of days spent traveling - 19 days

    Rank of representative - 310 (Out of 621)

    Individual trips

    Sponsor(s) -

    AEI World Forum Dates -
    June 15, 2000 - June 18, 2000 (4 days)

    Location(s) - Denver, CO
    Purpose - Social security - gave speech

    [Recall, some in 2005 were removed from the RNC's Denver Social Security speech for a bumper sticker, "No more blood for oil." They decided to file suit: Copy.]

    Notes -
    Travel Cost - $150.00
    Lodging Cost - $465.00
    Meal Cost - $200.00
    Other Cost -
    Total Cost - $815.00

    Additional family members - No

    Sponsor(s) - Carmen Group

    Dates - April 18, 2000 - April 21, 2000 (4 days)

    Location(s) - Kazakhstan

    Purpose - Fact-finding trip
    Notes -
    Travel Cost - $7,129.00
    Lodging Cost - $345.00
    Meal Cost - $80.00
    Other Cost -
    Total Cost - $7,554.00
    Additional family members - No


    Sponsor(s) - Human Rights Project
    Dates - April 21, 2000 - May 1, 2000 (11 days)
    Location(s) - Nepal, India
    Purpose - Assess Tibetan refugee crisis

    Notes - Travel Cost - $6,621.90
    Lodging Cost - $1,207.50
    Meal Cost - $400.00
    Other Cost -
    Total Cost - $8,229.40
    Additional family members - No

    Curiously, in 1993 Austrian jets intercepted CIA jets on the way to Azerbaijan.

    But not to be outdone, it appears the Carmen Group does have a sense of humor, going so far as to leave public comments linking a strange operation Cameltoe to their lobbying efforts. At this time, we are unable to understand the significance or relevance of operation Cameltoe to Iraq and the apparent combined DoD-RNC efforts to dump propaganda on the American public for what is arguably an unlawful war in Iraq.

    * * *

    Let's consider the broader geographical issues in re the apparent DoD effort to indirectly provide the American public with propaganda about the war in Iraq:

  • What is the motivation of DoD to provide this information

  • What specific events have occurred that DoD wants to mobilize public support for

  • What issues is Congress considering

  • Are there White House objectives in expanding combat operations

  • What resistance in Congress or the American public's mind must be overcome to launch combat operations in either Iran or Syria, while at the same time credibly creating the picture of "A drawdown" in Iraq?

    * * *

    What appears to be occurring is what happened during Vietnam.

    Just as Johnson was calling for Vietnamization and troop withdrawals, actual combat operations on the ground and air were expanding. Although President Bush may have announced a strategy to withdraw troops from Iraq, this approach includes an increase in aerial bombardment and special forces units, both which failed in Vietnam.

    Recent Operation Steel Curtain is on the Syrian Border. It is our judgment that Bush is attempting to orchestrate a Cambodian-like-justification to go into Syria -- Hersh reports the Special Mission Units have already done just that.

    However, we believe the LA Times has pointed to something more important: To what extent, despite the "big uproar over Iraq-WMD-Plame" is the same thing going on with Syria?

    It is our view that Operation Mass Appeal launched by the MI6 is continuing in re Syria, but there are other communications occurring.

    We doubt Congress will have the requisite staff or interest to review the matter. They, as of late, have shown little interest in looking into Phase II or the Eastern European Detention Centers. Hersh hints that Congress wouldn't want to know where the rest of the detention centers are; we suspect that there may be some in areas like Africa, such as South Africa or Libya but we're just guessing.

    It is possible that the public references to Eastern Europe reported in the WashingtonPost were deliberate red herrings to distract attention from the real detention locations, TBD. [See p. 179 of 208]

    * * *

    Let's take a look at the specific quote from the LA Times:

    One of the storyboards, dated Nov. 12, describes a U.S.-Iraqi offensive in the western Iraqi towns of Karabilah and Husaybah.

    "Both cities are stopping points for foreign fighters entering Iraq to wage their unjust war," the storyboard reads.

    It continues with a quote from an anonymous U.S. military official: " 'Iraqi army soldiers and U.S. forces have begun clear-and-hold operations in the city of Karabilah near Husaybah town, close to the Syrian border,' said a military official once operations began."

    Another storyboard, written on the same date, describes the capture of an insurgent bomb-maker in Baghdad. "As the people and the [Iraqi security forces] work together, Iraq will finally drive terrorism out of Iraq for good," it concludes.

    It was unclear whether those two storyboards have made their way into Iraqi newspapers.

    The point is: Not only have the stories been used in Iraq, they've been quoted in China, and subsequently used Stateside.

    Here's the link for this single example.

    There's no telling how many other stories have been planted in Iraq with the full expectation they find their way back to the States, as links from Congress, DNC, or RNC, websites.

    It remains to be seen whether Congress, picking up from its "outrage" over the pre-Iraq-manipulation, reviews the matters now, or requires a larger catalyst.

    Given the unfavorable weather, and the inability to oversee Phase II, we see little prospect Congress will assert its oversight. It has enough trouble staying focused on its Constitutional mandate without the White House-orchestrated distractions of Iraq.

    * * *

    Notice the common format for the Waxman Press release: Italics, bold, and blue font.

    Consider the incentive to focus on attention on more "requests by DNC to review matters" that go nowhere: Just like Phase II, diverting attention from impeachment and the White House.

    * * *

    It is our view that the Joint Staff is using an Operation Mass Appeal-like campaign to generate American support for Special Mission Units crossing into the Syrian and Iranian borders [See Page A-27; Backup].

    However, we judge that the arms flows from Syria are benign; insurgents within Iraq need not hide in Syria; and material support from Iraq is more interested in maintain stability in Iraq. We fully expect the situation in Iraq to deteriorate as we saw in Kosovo.

    The President would be wise to scrap his "Plan for Victory" and immediately make a bee-line for Teheran, sit down the Iranian President, and forge a plan for stability both within Iraq and along the Iranian-Iraqi border.

    Approximately 65% of all returning American military forces from Iraq have sought mental health support; they are in no position to provide reliable, sustained combat support in other theaters for some time.

    At best, the current situation in Iraq is spiraling down into a Yugoslavian-like disaster with ethnic cleansing. Although the choir may be in harmony with PollyAnna, the chapel roof is no defense to nature's fury.

    Caesar's strategy for victory frightened the barbarians to the North, insulating Europe for 2,000 years of internal strife.

    Read more . . .

  • Monday, November 28, 2005

    Fantasy White House: Disorganized randomness to simulate leadership

    I've rewritten/plagiarized/reformatted/edited a news release.


    Miami Police Take New Tack Against Terror

    By Constant [Original words By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer]

    Miami police announced Monday they have no clue what is going on, so they’re going to create the illusion of order by spreading confusion.

    They will stage, yes admittedly "stage", random shows of force at hotels, banks and other public places to keep terrorists guessing and remind people to be vigilant.

    They want to do this randomly because if they are organized that would be too complicated.' If they make an error, they'll chalk it up to be "organized chaos."

    Deputy Smaltz said officers might, for example, surround a bank building, check the IDs of everyone going in and out and hand out leaflets about terror threats. And then maybe let the people who work enter the building. What a great day to start the day!

    "This is an in-your-face type of strategy. It's letting the terrorists know we are out there. If that doesn't work, at least we'll pretend to be doing something. Besides, it’s a good training scenario for the law enforcement who were too stupid to get into the army." Smaltz said.

    The operations will keep everyone including the media and ACLU off guard, Smaltz said.

    He said CIA contractors plot attacks by putting places under surveillance and watching for flaws and patterns in security. "That's how the American special forces and CIA cover teams placed explosives in the World Trade Center and faked the explosions in Philadelphia."

    Police Chief Smalzt said there was no specific, credible threat of an imminent terror attack in Miami, but they're going to stir things up.

    But he said the city has repeatedly been mentioned in intelligence reports as a potential target. Not that "potential threats" really means anything -- no telling how many innocent people have lost their lives in Eastern Europe over this bogus information.

    Smaltz also noted that 14 of the 19 hijackers who supposedly took part in the Sept. 11 attacks lived in South Florida at various times [and the FBI knew they lived outside the Navy Based but told people to be quiet] and that other alleged terror cells have operated in the area.

    So, in 2005, we finally decided to do something about it!

    Both uniformed and plainclothes police will ride buses and trains, while others will conduct longer-term surveillance operations. Kind of like living in a police state, but we'll call this "training" just like Bolton called it when he got the Echelon files.

    Not to be outdone, Smaltz and others are taking a "can do" approach. They want to be mysterious, random, but make sure everyone notices. So much for being stealthy.

    "People are definitely going to notice it," Smaltz said. "We want that shock. We want that awe. But at the same time, we don't want people to feel their rights are being threatened. We need them to be our eyes and ears."

    But if they use their eyes and ears, we're going to yell at them. This is a ruse to bait people who are attentive, and make them second-guess themselves.

    Remember, 9-11 was faked. There are no real terrorists. The objective of these "training scenarios" is to bait people to "make them believe" something is going on; but it's actually designed to target those who dare notice reality and beat them into submission.

    Claymore Butochoki, a man with a half-connected brain stem exclaimed, "Wow, all this time, wouldn’t it have been useful to have used the "national security letters" as a public call to "get people involved'"?

    Smaltz just laughed, "Not these buffoons. On one hand they want to keep everyone quiet, but then have the keystone cops run around chasing ghosts."

    An anonymous executive director of ACLU of Florida, said the Miami initiative appears aimed at ensuring that people's rights are not violated.

    Then the police yelled, "We got the ACLU to buy into our crap! We've got amnesty for 42 USC 1983 actions. Yes, yes, yes!!"

    "What we're dealing with is officers on street patrol, which is more effective and more consistent with the Constitution," the anonymous one said.

    "We'll have to see how it is implemented -- just like we did with the Patriot Act -- let's give it some time, listen to John Yoo and other monkeys, and then complain later when we realize that law enforcement has lied to us . . . AGAIN!"

    Someone who claims to be remotely associated with the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said the Miami program is similar to those used for years during the holiday season to deter criminals at busy places such as shopping malls.

    Then again, if you read what someone else with the "Association of Police Chiefs said" you might wonder. [This is real].

    "One on hand we want to be surprising, than at the same time we want to get public support. Hay, we've screwed up, just like in Iraq."

    "We want to make sure that, despite the 30,000 National Security Letters than nobody can talk about, that people are talking about what we don't want them to worry about: Government stupidity."

    Seems like a strange policy: To make everyone aware, but wait until 2005 to figure out that the original "show of force" in New York didn't really address the "full picture" we were asked to believe in 2001.

    Then again, what would you expect form a bunch of stupid monkeys who are running local, state, and federal government: Katrina, Iraq, and the RNC!

    Read more . . .

    9-11: Consider the strange order -- Explosives planted, then . . .

    There's been some talk about 9-11. It occurred to me that there's something perhaps very strange.

    People don't normally place explosives, confirm they are ready, but then not use them.

    Until . . .

    This got me thinking about previous claims: WTC had explosives already in place, prior to their collapse.

    Have you considered:

  • The explosions in the WTC basement

  • How the towers fell at the same rate

    It appears as though the WTC had explosives in them.

    * * *

    Let's consider something. Think very methodically, one step at a time.

    Go back to 9-11.

    Simply look at the buildings before they fell down, collapsed.

    What do you know?

    There are explosives in them.

    But the explosives haven't gone off.

    * * *

    That's the point.

    * * *

    All this time we've been led to believe "airplanes hit buildings, and then explosives went off" . . .

    But there's a problem.

    If "someone" wanted to do damage: Why didn't they simply explode the buildings when they had the chance, and not wait for the aircraft, missiles, or "whatever" collided?

    That's the key question.

    * * *

    Go back to 9-11 again, the day before.

    Think about the building.

    It has explosives in it.

    But the buildings are still standing.

    What is the purpose of "not exploding the buildings" when they had the chance?

    Why would a group of people go to the trouble of putting explosives in a building, but not detonate them right away?

    * * *

    The answer is that the explosives were placed with the knowledge that they would be detonated at a later date, but not immediately.

    Yet, we are asked to believe, "There was a goal to take down the towers."

    Why didn't they detonate the explosives when they had the chance?

    * * *

    The answer appears to be:

  • A. Someone wanted to explode the building at a precise time or after a specific event.

  • B. Despite having explosives in the WTC, they knew not to detonate the building right away;

  • C. They were waiting for the "later event" before exploding the building.

    * * *

    Did they put the explosives in the building to take down the building?

    Yes and no.

    The purpose of the explosives, if it was to take down the building, is not linked with "taking down the building" -- because if they "wanted to take down the building" ... why not simply take down the building when all the explosives were in place?

    The answer appears to be: They waited for a specific reason, a specific time, or a specific event. . .

    That was known in advance, at the time the explosives were placed would occur; otherwise, if they "didn't know about the event, time, or incident" that would occur, why didn't they independently detonate the explosives before the 9-11 attacks?

    The only way they'd know "not to detonate the explosives" when they were in place was if they knew about something else; or they were told after they finished placing the explosives "wait . . .do not detonate them . . . yet."

    * * *

  • Who would put explosives in a building, but not detonate them after they were placed?

  • Why would we believe "they wanted to take the building down," but they didn't use the explosives until something else happened?

  • How did they know, in advance, that despite the explosives being in place, they wouldn't detonate them until a later time?

  • If someone has placed explosives in a building, with the intent to take down the building, but hasn't used them, why did the place the explosives in the first place?

  • If someone had the ability to take down a building, and the explosives were in place, how did they know to wait; and how did they know that a later event would occur, triggering the explosives?

  • Why would someone or a group, that had the ability to take down the building, make a specific decision to "not pull the trigger" or "not put into use" the very explosives that were positioned?

  • What would someone do to explain why they "Put explosives in a building, but didn't use them, and were waiting for something else to happen?"

  • Did the people who placed the explosives have the knowledge of the imminent collisions by missiles, aircraft, or other objects; or were they told to wait "until something else happened"; if so, what were they told to "wait for"?

  • Why would someone take order so "plant explosives," but not ask, "When do you want this to happen?"

  • Why would someone, who had planted explosives in the towers, not think it odd that, despite the explosives being in place, they weren't being used?

  • Why would someone, who had planted explosives in the tower, not think it was odd that the capability, that existed to take down the buildings, wasn't put into effect when the explosives were ready?

    * * *

    It makes no sense to argue the objective of the explosives was "just to take down the building." Because if that were the case -- then they'd simply detonate them, and that would be the end of it.

    But it wasn't the end.

    Planting the explosives was only the beginning.

    Let's assume "someone who planed the explosives didn't know the whole story."

    That would then mean, despite planning the explosives that were ready and able to take down the buildings, someone had to say, "Even though everything is ready, don't use them . . . until . . .[Something else happens]":

  • A call

  • An event

    This means that there had to be cell phone traffic from the people who were involved prior to 9-11 to confirm:

  • We are ready

  • The explosives that are ready, are not going off

  • We are waiting

    And then there had to be other communications which said:

  • We understand you are ready

  • Wait for our confirmation to detonate

  • Standby

  • OK, you are clear to use the explosives that we've told you not to use, but you can now detonate them.

    * * *

  • Where are the tapes of these communications?

  • Who made them?

  • Who was discussing the placement of the explosives with the knowledge that there would be a subsequent number of other communications just prior and on 9-11?

    Something to think about: People don't place explosives that take down buildings unless they want to use them.

    But 9-11 was different: Someone placed the explosives; then had to confirm they were ready; then make a decision not to use them until a specific subsequent event occurred:

  • A command

  • A communication

  • A confirming event

  • A specific incident.

    * * *

    The purpose of 9-11 wasn’t to destroy the WTC.

    The purpose was to make a bowery inferno, and destroy a landmark.

    The goal was to blame someone.

    The objective was to demand a fast response.

    Nothing adds up.

    Why would someone, who was a “crazed terrorist” that had placed explosives in the building, not simply detonate the explosives when they had the chance?

    We’re asked to believe, despite the placement of explosives, that they would wait until a second round of other events occurred.

    * * *

    What would have happened if the “hijackings” [if that was what happened] didn’t occur; were they going to detonate the explosives then?

    If, despite a possible “non hijacking” they were going to “detonate the explosives anyway,” why not simply detonate them regardless, at the time that the explosives were ready?

    Perhaps this explains why WTC 7 detonations occurred: There was supposed to be another aircraft, mirages, or missile attack on that building. . . but it didn’t happen as planned?

    * * *

    I think there are other events that happened during 9-11 that “didn’t go according to the original plan”:

  • Why did WTC7 detonate, but there was no collision?

  • Who placed explosives in WTC7, but knew to “not use them” despite the explosives being ready?

  • How many people who worked in WTC7 knew the real purpose of the government offices in the US Postal Office?

    * * *

    People who commit crimes always make mistakes.

    These people, despite their planning, are not perfect.

    They show a poor understanding of physics and the rules of evidence.

    These people do not appear to be lawyers or sophisticated forensic scientists. Rather, they appear to be show people. Ones who are masters at deception and the appearance of something.

    Collisions. Holograms. Missiles going off. Fiery explosions. But the story doesn’t add up.

    * * *

    Who from Hollywood or the motion picture or video business would be in a position to orchestrate all the technical detains of the perfect “live action shot”?

    How much money did they get from overseas lobbyists?

    What relationship does these “movie experts” have with the people who supposedly Sibel Edmonds says were sending money through Azerbaijan?

    Makes you wonder if they’re a lobbyist. Maybe they have a lot of contacts.

    And to think they would have to be really familiar with all the sights of the North East.

    Kind of makes you wonder who that person might be, where they are now, where they’re living, which websites their reading, and whether they’re already under surveillance.

    * * *

    Let’s think about the FBI and the current investigation into the lobbying problems. You don’t think that Sibel Edmonds was onto something when she was talking about Azerbaijan?

    What could possibly be the connection between video, New York, Azerbaijan, and the movie business?

    Think, think, think! What could it possibly be?

    * * *

    Then they have to wonder:

  • Does someone have a link between the videos and Azerbaijan

  • Is someone alive today that knows what really happened

  • What kind of experience do they have in making pictures of big explosions

  • How did they know to be where they were to capture on film all those explosions

    * * *

    The problem people in the movie business have is when they are told to photograph something, but they don’t physically understand what it is they’re filming.

    Conversely, what if they’ve been told that “the image we’re trying to capture” is something; but what they’re actually witnessing is something else.

    Imagine you’re a videographer in New York on 9-11. You’ve got this cushy job. You’re on a contract. You’re getting a lot of money to cover a specific RNC event.

    They tell you to go capture some “scenic views” of the skyline. And in advance you’ve got some layout sheets of the final production.

    There you are: Everyone has agreed that the “perfect lighting” for the specific shots of the World Trade Center just happen to correspond to the angle of the sun when the length of the shadow is the same as the height of the building.

    Isn’t that convenient.

    And it just happens to occur at 9:00 in the morning.

    Wow! Who would bother to put all this together?

    * * *

    You don’t think the US Attorney’s office already knows this?

    Or, could it be that there’s another group of people that have been waiting to reveal who’s been involved?

    Then again, perhaps it’s all going to disappear, and nobody will bother asking questions. Not at all.

    Nobody will figure it out.

    Nobody will think to ask.

    Everyone will believe what they see. The camera never lies.

    Especially when the liars are lying.

    * * *

    It’s all so confusing and mysterious.

    Is it going to get more fun?

    FBI agents like to put things together.

    They also like to take people apart.

    GTMO. Abu Ghraib. Wet towels.

    Black ninja costumes. Eastern Europe.

    How many Americans are going to get “special attention” to tell us what really happened on 9-11?

    If you’re a stupid camera man, you’ll just call on your cell phone and make it all go away.

    Cell phones are for sissies.

    Next time, try something that actually works.

    You’ve been traced.

    Thank you for reading.

    * * *

    This is what a single, relatively benign explosive cache-detonation looks like:

    It is a single burst.

    This is not what happens when there is an aircraft impact; nor is it what happens when jet fuel explodes; nor what happens when aircraft explode.

  • Which contract/government crew was told to place a "training cache" in the middle of a civilian field in Pennsylvania?

    * * *

    This is what an object looks like when, after it has been recovered from salvage, has been placed in a bunch of leaves:

    Note there is a problem: Supposedly this came from a "big explosion" on the ground, but if that is true: The leaves around the object should have caught on fire.

    They're still "not burnt." That makes no sense.

  • Where did they get the spare parts

  • Which person, by name, placed the object

    * * *

    This is what happens when you have someone place paper in the middle of a field in Philadelphia:

    The paper, as was the paper at the towers, should have burnt along with the "big explosion" that was incorrectly fused with insufficient explosive power.

  • Who placed the paper on the ground

    Unlike the team that worked on the WTC photo shoot, this team appears to be more of an expert in "simulating' things, rather than in actually destroying real buildings.

    If this was an actual explosion, we should have come across something that resembles:

  • An accident

  • Someone on the ground who was near the explosion should have been hurt

    But we have no reports of training-personnel getting hurt.

  • Where did they practice this

  • Which specific US Army National special forces team was tasked to train those who would place this explosive

    Recall that the Ft Collins was the location where the modified jets were created.

    The issue becomes: Was this "create jets and find explosives"-problem conveniently co-located in Colorado:

  • Did the special forces units in Colorado get tasked to provide the training

  • is there a recurring link between the video, training, and other pre-positioning on explosives linking back to Colorado?

    I haven't heard much discussion on the most likely units, personnel, and training facilities that would possibly be involved to carry off this type of operation.

    It's time to presume that US military units, perhaps CIA contractors, were involved; and that they continue to remain in place in the United States.

  • Where are they

  • What are they talking about

  • What have they done after the incident

  • How have they put their "lessons learned from the 9-11 demolitions" into "future use"

    You'll be found. You've made plenty of mistakes.

    Your commander in chief may be a tyrant, and be surrounded by people who say he can "do whatever he wants."

    But you can't stop people from putting this together.

    You're going to lose.

    If you were all powerful, and your commander in chief could really 'do anything,' then he would stop this.

    It continues.

    And you know that we know.

    * * *

    Problem: You got lazy and arrogant after covering up the space aliens and JFK non-sense.

    It was easy to paint others as "crazy."

    Nothing adds up.

    You're crazy for believing otherwise.

    The more you cover up things in 2005, the more it does to show that the original fairy tale from 9-11 in 2001 wasn't planned well.

    What other mistakes are you going to make?

    You are not perfect.

    We will find you.

    No amount of stonewalling by the White House or Congress is going to stop us.

    You're going to lose.

    You've wished for this.

    Hoc voluerunt!

    Read more . . .

  • Remember the 14th

    Phase II status report was promised 14 November 2005.

    We have nothing. Congress has a problem they need to solve.

    There are alternatives.

    * * *

    The key is to remember: The President has the problem; the Senate Investigation is merely a distraction from the original problems within the Executive Branch.

    The trick the White House is using: Diverting attention from the failed leadership, and "making the issue" into "whether the Congress/Senate is or isn't doing something" and "whether the messengers in the CIA did or didn't do something.'

    Those are called, "Red herrings" or "irreelvant issues" from the real problem: What did the White House do or not do that it should have done, or "malfeasance."

    * * *

    Update: 3 Dec 05: Senate obstructing Phase II investigation.

    End update

    * * *

    Congress agreed to provide on 14 November 2005 a status of Phase II investigation into the 9-11/WMD issues in re the intelligence.

    The only information we have is the 4 Nov 2005 information, Ref; Ref; Ref.

    We were promised detailed information on 14 Nov 2005.

    We were told that the six Senators would provide a response.
    The three Republicans and three Democrats are to report back to Senate leaders by November 14.Ref

    The letter provided only has three signatures.

    This means the promised response, despite it being meaningless, does not meet the original agreement to include a joint statement which all six [6] senators were to report to the Senate leadership.

    The Senate has failed in meeting the deadline.

    They tell us it is impossible to determine.

    The deadline has passed.

    The detailed status report was not provided as promised.

    The only thing we have is:

  • "We are unable to provide an estimated completion date"
  • "An agreement was not reached"
  • "It is not possible to predict the length of time needed to produce a final report"

    They don't know.

    That is not acceptable.

    This note outlines a broader discussion of this failure; and hopes to act as a catalyst to answer, “What is to be done?”

    Discussion and comments.

    In other words, the deadline was an insufficient catalyst for leadership to analyze what was going on, come to an agreement as to the way forward, or what would be done to answer the questions.

    Six Senators were unable to respond to a simple question: "How are we doing?"

    They don't know.

    This is a leadership failure.

    * * *

    To be clear, the Congress of the United States is unable to provide any assurance that the material information which voters need before the November 2006 election will be available.

    This is unacceptable.

    Thus, the American voters and public at large should be encouraged to make what is called "Adverse inferences" about the original information, inter alia:

  • What was or was not done in re 9-11, WMD, and Iraq;

  • What was or was not done as required by statute;

  • What was or was not done to adequately investigate; and

  • What was or was not done to ensure the official conduct of the American government and its agents was or was not consistent with the rule of law, American Constitution, and their oaths of office.

    * * *

    Let us review what the public was led to believe what was going to happen:
    Frist has asked that three members of each party meet in private to figure out what phase two of the Senate investigation should entail and that they return on November 14 with a plan. Ref

    A reasonable person reading the MTV material would conclude:

  • The six senators would meet

  • They would agree

  • The product of that meeting would be a single plan

  • The plan would include a reasonable estimate of the work involved; the approximate time, resources, and staffing support required to achieve that outcome; and various indicators to assess progress along a performance baseline

  • The plan would include milestones with specific success criteria for the report with agreed-to questions to be answered, with various success criteria to evaluate the progress of the report relative to those answers

  • Success criteria would be included

  • There would be a mention of specific measures of performance to assess to what extent the final report, as it was being developed, was or was not meeting specific success criteria at interim milestones

  • The interim milestones would include success criteria so that staff members would know whether progress was satisfactory; whether the information in the report, as it was being generated did or did not meet the objectives of the agreed-to-plan; and whether the progress toward the final report was likely to achieve the agreed-to-objectives of the plan.

    In so many words: On all counts, the Congress of the United States has demonstrated that they cannot plan and have no "plan to get a plan."

    Bluntly, a reasonable person reviewing the "best available information through the American media" would conclude there is a disconnect between:

  • A. What the public should reasonably expect; and

  • B. What the Congress provided.

    This is unacceptable.

    * * *

    Let's consider what other nations are doing while the Americans "figure out" what they're doing.

    Via TPM: The UK is moving forward on the WMD investigation.

    Note the UK Parliament rejects the Butler report.

    What is the American's excuse for "no information on the status" as promised by 14 Nov 2005?

    No answer.

    * * *

    This problem is one for Congress to address. It is their job to come up with a plan: A plan to "figure out what is going to happen, along some meaningful milestones."

    If you have no plan, then you need to have a "plan to get a plan."

    This Congress has neither.

    This is not a response to the 14 November 2005 deadline.

    The issue for Americans is: Why should we care; and what can we do.

    First, you can write your Senators and let them know that you believe that they’ve let you down.

    Second, you should encourage your friends to make “adverse inferences” about the original problem: There appears to be some sort of incentive for inaction. Legally, this is known as malfeasance; and appears to be related to corruption, bribery, or some other form of valuable consideration for official inaction.

    Third, you should encourage your friends to make known to law enforcement and the US Attorney’s office any information you have that would explain:

  • Why officials have failed to perform a duty they had agreed to do;

  • Who may have paid funds to encourage non-performance.

    * * *

    The important thing to keep in mind is that we’re dealing with multiple levels of alleged malfeasance within Congress.

  • A. First, we have the original wrong doing in re 9-11 and the WMD issues;

  • B. Second, we have a promise by the Senate to complete Phase II of those investigations, but no formal response; and

  • C. Third, we have the promise by the Senate to provide status of that Phase II, but no response.

    The objective of Congress, as they get further into this mess, will be to distract attention from the original abuses, and focus on “why the public has a problem.”

    It would be useful if the country would recall the lessons of the Iraq-WMD non-sense, and realize despite what officials may say publicly, those involved in the actual operations may have quite another view.

    Congressman Murtha has made several trips to Walter Reed and found out first hand what seemed to elude Congress: Things were not going well.

    In that spirit, it’s time to begin some serious discussions about the alternatives facing the American public. This note doesn’t attempt to provide a laundry list of actions items; nor does it presume to have the answers.

    Rather, at this point, the thrust of this note is simply to lay out what we do know; what we may have to assume; and why this issue needs to be reviewed in the context I propose.

    * * *

    Deadlines are important, especially when someone imposes a deadline on themselves, but they fail to act.

    The problem the public has is that the 14 November 2005 deadline was not an official act of Congress; nor did it attach specific statutory or legal consequences for failing to act.

    In the future, what may be needed are some specific statutory consequences on specific Congressmen if they fail to act and meet specific deadlines.

    Also, what may be an option is to have a triggering mechanism that mandates Congressional hearings when Congress sets a deadline like this, but fails to act.

    Or, what could be an option is a trigger than will mandate that some sort of special master be automatically triggered that would oversee the situation and compel the Congress, Courts, and Executive Branch to jointly come to a status hearing, under penalty of perjury, and find out exactly what is going on.

    * * *

    The legal community traditionally takes the approach that if Congress designs a flawed system, like the Federal Election Commission, that is slow to act, the Judicial Branch will defer to the legislature and say, “This is what Congress intended.”

    Thus, we can conclude that given the 14 November 2005 deadline has passed that Congress intended for there to be no response, despite a promise to do so.

    * * *

    Some might suggest that this is a minor issue. That is the point. If Congress promises to do something very simple like “provide status on a Senate Investigation,” there’s little reason to believe they can handle something more complicated.

    Yet, despite this “apparent inability to do something complicated,” they do find the time to vote themselves pay raises.

    Why don’t they have a “Sense of Congress” that Federal Legislative Representatives should be paid $10Billion [Billion, with a B] each; that way they can bankrupt the country.

    Yes, there are limits.

    * * *

    To be fair to Congress, despite them being unfair to America, we should give them the collective chance, as they have given the administration, to come up with a “really good story” to explain this.

    Suffice it to say, their explanation is just an excuse.

    It is likely they’ll dream up some sort of fairy tale to make the public the cause for the problem.

    We’ll have to wait. Then again, how many more times are we to wait?

    * * *

    The issue of deadlines is important of international law. When we consider the UN Security Council deadlines on Syria and Iraq, Secretary of State Powell and Rice have both emphasized that deadlines are to be met.

    It is curious that the issue of deadlines is important when it comes to matters of “creating an excuse to invade other countries,” but that standard doesn’t apply to the United States.

    Congress, despite its ranting over “all the deadlines Saddam hasn’t met” has shown that it doesn’t take deadlines seriously, unless Congress decides to be serious.

    * * *

    Again, the fundamental truth is that this problem is one for Congress to solve; and the issue for the public to keep in the back of their minds is: What is to be done.

    * * *

    The larger perspective is what are the implications of this “busted suspense.” Bluntly, we can take a macro and mirco view of the problem.

    Simplistically, all Congress had to do by the 14th was simply make a one line statement. That didn’t happen.

    In turn, what we can infer is that some sort of Congressional-staffer-meeting-review did not occur; and that there was insufficient coordination among the various Senators, despite their agreement to cooperate.

    In a larger picture, we have to consider the implications: If Congress, as a body, cannot solve a simple problem like, “What is the status” and timely report that as promised, we have to ask: What are the more difficult problems which Congress is unable to work with the Executive; what are the risks to the American public if these failed-mechanisms result in a worst case scenario; and what would the public like to have “been done in advance” had this to-be-realized-disaster addressed now in 2005, as opposed to it happening.

    In other words, the failure to meet a simple suspect sends a clear signal that there is some sort of polarization in Congress, as we saw before Katrina; there is a underlying problem that is waiting to percolate; the failure of Congress to address a simple problem means the momentum of that underlying risk cannot credibly be argued to be mitigated; and it would be prudent for us to pretend we are looking back from 2007 onto 2005 and ask, “Now that we know there is this mess, what could we have done in 2005?”

    * * *

    I take the “busted suspense related to the 14 November 2005 deadline” very seriously. It is an indicator of the ability of Congress to work together after they have had a private discussion.

    * * *

    Let us suppose that the momentum underlying the current “gridlock in Congress” is related to either a national security issue; some sort of structural problem in re maintenance; or a larger safety of life issue.

    In 2005, it is not acceptable that Congress, because of its inability to solve problems, can be given a green light or pass in that responsibility.

    * * *

    Congress has something called legislative immunity. Perhaps there are times when legislative immunity should be ignored, and there be some specific, monetary damages imposed on named Congressional representatives for their failure to act.

    The record is not compelling when it comes to the Congress imposing sanctions for failing to follow ethics rules.

    The issue becomes, self-evidently, is if small infractions are not sanctioned, then what is to stop the abuses at a larger level? Self-evidently, we have greater corruption by the very personnel who are passing the laws everyone else is supposed to follow.

    * * *

    Some have suggested that, before the laws like the Patriot Act are passed, the Congress must subject itself to the same intrusions.

    I favor that approach: “If Americans must endure these violations of their civil liberties, Congress must subject itself to that process first.”

    * * *

    Adverse inferences are something courts make when a witness fails to produce information.

    In this case, let us suppose that Congress, as an entity, were appearing before a court. Congress has failed to provide information related to the original misconduct; and the subsequent investigation.

    A court could find that a “reasonable inference” is fraud.

    That Congress may or may not be involved in fraud is not news. The issue becomes: What else. Pick your statute.

    * * *

    The issue before us is: What “status” and “what facts” do the Congress not want the American public to know.

    These relate to issues of criminal law. It remains a matter of law for the court to decide to what extent, if any, specifically named Congressional representatives, their staffs, and members of the executive branch are involved in an alleged conspiracy to be silent about what originally happened in re 9-11, WMD in Iraq, and other matters the Senate originally promised in Phase II to review.

    * * *

    We now arrive at the issue of, “What does this failure to respond by Congress,” say about the culture and risks of doing business or interacting with Americans on a business and political level.

    Bluntly, it doesn’t really tell us anything new: Americans make worthless promises, are not to be relied upon, and are emerged in a culture of fraud, deceit, and are not reliable.

    Welcome to reality.

    The issue becomes: What is to be done.

    Bluntly, Congress is issuing worthless promises; and the statements they make do not amount to lawful contracts.

  • Are Congressmembers, when they make a promise, required to put that in writing under the penalty or perjury, with a specific promise to relinquish personal assets if they fail to perform on that promise; to which they receive a valuable consideration called a payment or a “salary”; and the public has shown some sort of damage or loss as a result?

    The problem is to show that the intended to not perform on that promise; or that they failed to perform on a promise they were required to fulfill; or that they have received something of value that, had the truth been known [they are not doing their job] would not be entitled to receive?

    Again, the issue the court, auditors, and investigators have: If the voters want to keep voting crooks, thieves, and unreliable people into Congress who make worthless promises and are not to be trusted – that is their choice.

    * * *

    What about duty determinations?

    The Executive Branch, when it faces someone in the Senior Executive Service who can’t do their job, will do something called a line of duty determination. This is essentially a look at the person’s individual record; and the overseeing authority asks: Is this person up to the job.

    Congress, under the Constitution, isn’t subject to any standard other than age.

    * * *

    Should Congress, in the future, be required to make statements about “we promise to provide this information under penalty of perjury; or if we fail to provide an answer we agree to resign, give up our paycheck, or do something that would show we have recognized we are punished?”

    That might be a catalyst.

    IN the future, it appears unless Congress specifically agrees to something, under penalty of perjury, to adjust its position to the negative for failing to do something, Congress cannot be relied upon to do its job, either as a body or individually.

    * * *

    Are there specific “promises Congress makes that are, or should be subject to a Grand Jury review?”

    In theory, there is a system of checks and balances in Government. But, in practice, under the American system, the courts do not check: They simply defer to “whatever Congress decides,” and may, on occasion, find a particular act of Congress unconstitutional.

    Ideally, it would be preferable that if there is a specific promise that a by-name Congressman or Senator makes, that the failure to meet that promise should amount to some sort of adverse result.

    In theory, the voters will take care of things. In practice, the voters may ignore something that materially affects the entire country.

    The issue, self-evidently, is what is a specific citizen in Indiana supposed to do when a specific Senator in New Mexico does not do something they promise?

    * * *

    The media, under the proverbial disinfectant and sunlight theory of government, provides a valuable check on power.

    But what is to be done when the media, under threat of “no access to that source” is denied the ability to talk about things which are sensitive?

    It would be nice if the public was informed of the “limits of the coverage” and “what agreements the media has made in exchange for access.” Have they agreed to not ask questions; or how are members of the “blacklisted media” vilified by those who have made agreements to be quiet?

    * * *

    Theoretically, the idea of government is to solve problems. But what happens when the government fails to solve problems; does not investigate; and refuses to provide information?

    Self-evidently, we no longer have a government. We have a body of people who get paid to do nothing, are rewarded for doing nothing, and materially affect many people, not just at home, but abroad.

    If the American government proves unresponsive or incapable, it will either self-destruct; or it will spread like a cancer; or it will reform from within; or it will change form without.

    We cannot undo the momentum.

    What can be done is to solve the problem.

    The issue Congress needs to ask is: Will a foreign power or entity that hopes to take advantage of this inertia/incompetence use that to undermine the Constitution?

    I would argue this has already happened, and is at the heart of Congress’ failure to review the matters. Bluntly, we are at the circular-reasoning mode.

    Congress needs to realize that if it does not solve this problem; and it denies the public the ability to bring claims to address these grievances in court; then the only option the Congress is allowing, through inaction, is the use of force on the battlefield.

    That is a non-starter. The nation of laws and the rule of law mandates we be civilized in the discussion.

    We do not advocate violence.

    But we have to ask, “If Congress refuses to do what it promises, and denies the public access to the information to make informed decisions; what option, beside unlawful methods does the Congress hope to be used to correct the problem which Congress refuses to address?”

    We would hope that Congress, not under threat of violence, but under threat of lawful sanctions, realize that they have a problem.

    They jointly agreed to simply “provide information” on the status of an investigation by a specific date.

    The response the public has been given is one of, “There is nothing you can do to Congress if we ignore our promise.”


    We do not advocate violence.

    * * *

    Now it is time for the public to let Congress explain itself.

    There may be a plausible explanation. There could be a really nifty story. Perhaps there is some brewing “larger crisis” that reasonably “got in the way” of Congress.

    We await something that resembles a response.

    But, Congress has already created the deadline: the 14th of November 2005.

  • Are we going to “wait for another deadline”?

  • Are we going to “patiently wait for Congress to promise something else” that proves to be “incapable of being satisfied”?

  • How many times do the “simple promises of a deadline getting ignored” are required for the public to take action at the ballot box?

    We do not advocate violence.

    * * *

    Some in the major parties have suggested there is some sort of “moratorium” on demonstrations until “after the election.”

    * * *

    To be clear, the 14th of November should be a reminder to all: That Congress has failed to keep a simple promise; and their internal controls are ineffective in ensuring that they respond to something simple.

    * * *

    Let us remember that that the larger issue is: What really happened in re Iraq and the WMD issues and 9-11?”

    It’s been four years since 9-11. That’s four seasons. One cannot blame the November 2005 weather for the inability to respond to the 14 November 2005 deadlines.

  • Which lobbyists have gotten in the way?

  • How much money was transferred to “not do” what they promised?

    * * *

    Next time Congress whines about “a stunt,” hold your breath: IT remains to be seen whether the agreement, in the wake of that stunt amounts to anything.

    Congress, as the President, have chosen to not review something.

    It remains a matter for the US Attorney to review to what extent, if any, specifically named individuals within the Executive and Legislative branches are cooperating to impede the flow of information for lawful investigations.

    * * *

    It is time a special counsel either be appointed; or Attorney Fitzgerald continue to appear before the court with the objective of expanding this probe in re Plame, WMD, and Iraq into something larger.

    Be mindful of what Attorney Fitzgerald said: Be calm.

    I sense he knows which lobbyists have an interest in suppressing the truth.

    * * *

    We’ve seen Americans at the toy stores fight over Christmas gifts. Let us hope that incivility does not spill into Congress, on the streets, or threaten specific people with harm.

    America needs some adult supervision. Either Attorney Fitzgerald and the Court can impose some discipline; or the needed catalyst may come from without.

    American TV companies are already making pilots about “What America might be like after it falls apart.”

    That seems like a fair warning that someone is contemplating a “Life after the American dream has ended.”

    It is a shame that Americans are not given the lawful tools to effectively discipline Congress in a timely way; and that the Congress is given the power to assent to tyranny, going so far as to not provide status of their own investigations.

    * * *

    America finds itself at the proverbial crossroads. There is no magic moat around America that makes it immune to accountability.

    Congress made a promise to provide information on the 14th of November 2005. It remains to be understood what story, if any Congress might wish to share.

    America needs to decide what it wants to do to discipline the unresponsive. This is a problem that is not unique to a specific party or branch of government.

    Americans show little inclination of caring until it is too late. If America chooses not to respond, then it is foreseeable that the TV Pilots will turn into real-life drama on Fox News.

    But the entire world will be watching, as they were during Katrina.

    If Americans don’t care about Congress, why should anyone in the world? They may sit back, enjoy the chaos.

    It’s all convenient distractions for 400 million Chinese who do not wish to be bothered to inform the world of a problem with bird flu or benzene spills.

    We’ve learned that problems within one nation cross borders. We might have said a few days ago, “Let us hope this is different. . . .”

    We can always hope.

    * * *

    The November 14th deadline has passed. Congress needs a wake up call.

    Please send your Senators and Representatives a letter communicating your concern. A promise should mean something. If Congress isn’t willing to do something simple, then we might as well stay home and watch the system come crumbling down under its own weight.

    Then, we can rebuild under the same Constitution, but a system that is responsive, not one that creates more excuses to do nothing.

    Also, please send a letter of support to Attorney Fitzgerald. Encourage him to have an open mind and look for what patterns of conduct or other factors related to the Plame issue may be affecting Congress in their desire to not provide the public with information on Phase II.

    * * *

    Enough of the pleasantries.

    What’s Congress’ solution to their self-evident leadership problem? There needs to be a special master that is charged with throwing these people around, finding out what is going on, and delivering to the public a straight answer.

    It is clear Congress and the staff is confused, incompetent, and not able to do something simple. It is inappropriate they be relied upon.

    Congress has to solve this problem within the rule of law. But what happens if Congress refuses to respond? We have no answer. Perhaps we need to have a Constitutional Convention to remind the Congress that we should have interim elections; that if a majority of the public believes it is time for a vote, we should close down Congress, send everyone home, and have new elections within 4 weeks.

    That would save a lot of time and money. Who would be able to raise much money for such a short election?

    It is arrogant that Congress would assert that the public “has to put up with” the non-response to the 14 November 2005 deadline.

    * * *

    The US congress and American have little credibility when they whine about “missed deadlines before the UN” but the US Congress can’t meet a deadline.

    Are we to believe that the only credible sanction on the US to get the Congress to “meet a deadline” is something that might resemble a UN General Assembly resolution?

    Let’s ask, before we consider that option, how many UN members would face sanctions by the US if they dare to vote on something that may be needed.

    Bluntly, if the UN is in no position to do anything, Americans are simply on a default-trajectory to more non-sense. That does not inspire, and Americans should not be confused why their failed system and buffoon leaders inspire in Iraq more attacks.

    What is America “fighting for” in Iraq: The right to set deadlines, but do nothing?

    That is not government, nor a “system” to be inspired.

    A government and a constitution are not the same thing. One can have in place a fine constitution with pretty words, but if the system fails to impose sanctions for failing to meet those standards, you might as well torch the document.

    America, self-evidently, has all but done that.

    * * *

    Rice’s statements before the world about Syria’s “non cooperation” apply to the US Congress.

    How many times has the US used the veto to “prevent Israel from being wiped off the map,” only to find out that it was Israel that was contributing to the problem: The Arabs were all alone, had their land seized, and the Americans told everyone, “Put up with it.”

    The Congress telling the American public to do the same: Put up with our promise to do something, but you can’t do anything if we don’t deliver.

    That is not impressive.

    * * *

    Congress appears to be getting away with not meeting its 14 November 2005 suspense because nobody has a solution. That, by definition, is a defective government.

    Why is government collecting money? To pay people who are in positions of power to not storm the building.

    * * *

    Americans should not wonder what happened in Louisiana in the wake of Katrina: People showed their true sides. Now we see the same things in stores around the country.

    American is a place that is based on a Constitution; but if Congress isn’t willing to “make it’s promises mean something,” then there really isn’t much to believe that Congress is serious about making more serious promises mean something.

    But, we see from Iraq, that when Congress is cajoled into doing something like granting unlawful power to the President to wage war without legal foundation, the Congress will go along with that, “Hay, it wasn’t us . . .the President lied to us.”

    Well, Congress went along with the lie – and self-evidently, doesn’t want to admit it was part of the lie: Failure of oversight, failure to ask questions, failure to do their jobs.

    Nothing new. Except, the Congress doesn’t want the public to realize what we’ve long suspected: That the US Congress isn’t any different than the corrupt, unresponsive, and failed regimes in Africa. At least they have the decency to spend their money publicly -- American “leaders” hide it, pretending they are “one of us.”

    * * *

    Let’s consider what could happen. If Congress can’t handle a simple problem like a deadline, it remains to be understood what brewing emergency is waiting to come unglued.

  • Who will Congress find as a scapegoat?

  • Which failed Congressional Staffers are going to pass another budget?

  • How many law firms will be asked to “review the matter” as Volker did with Anderson?

    Another fine mess to bury on page A26 of the Washington Post.

    * * *

    Why should American care about a busted suspense? Congress is wasting your money. They’re too stupid to solve little problems. God knows what kind of kickbacks are occurring with the contracts that get awarded with the annual budget.

    Want more highways to nowhere like we have in Alaska? Americans paid for that. And it tells us something about America’s future: It is a highway to nowhere.

    Maybe the Hollywood TV pilots for 2006 are a better roadmap: Plan on a radically different future in America, one where the public simply walks away and no longer recognizes America as it currently stands.

    Oh, but we can’t talk about doom. That might upset the goons in the Counter Intelligence Field Activity who are looking for an excuse to harass people, take them to Eastern Europe, and see how wet they can get their towels.

    How are those black ninja suits. Practice those hand signals. Nobody will figure it out.

    * * *

    The issue before us is one of internal controls. Congress, when they make a promise to do something simple, should have set up a checklist.

    Then, when the staffer looked at the calendar or the congressional correspond log should have said, “Wow, we have suspense on the 14th of November, we better do something.”

    But all that didn’t work. Thank you residents of Maryland and Virginia – you have proven yourself to be incompetent staffers. Or were you taking the train from up north in NYC and Connecticut?

    Mind you, the buffoons that failed on this aren’t the ones we can blame: The real ones we should blame are someone else who is a convenient scapegoat.

    * * *

    Congress is the one that agreed on this deadline. Nobody made them do it.

  • What happened to the Congressional Correspond logs?

  • What happened to the Congressional staffers?

  • If the staffers can’t handle something simple like this, what can we say about their boon doggle “staff visits” to places like GTMO, Abu Ghraib or Eastern Europe?

    Hay, if you want to make anyone believe you’re remotely competent in conducting fact finding, then you might want to do something that resembles a marginal level of performance in meeting a single deadline.

    * * *

    Will Congress have an investigation “into itself”?

    Will Congress “hold hearings” on why they are incapable of meeting a simple suspense?

    Should the GAO be called in; or does that only apply to cases where the Congress wants to diver attention from Congressional bribes and whip the Executive Branch?

    How about having a Congressional Government Oversight Committee look into this – oh, wait, they only oversee everything else. That explain why the post 9-11 Homeland Security mess [that self-evidently failed in re Katrina] didn’t get a “trial run” except by fire.

    * * *

    Congress can’t handle a simple deadline. What does this say about the “more complicated” things like overseeing the civilian agencies like law enforcement?

    “Oh, that’s not our job . . . “ Sure it is: 42 USC 1983, or something like it, could be a tool that Congress could pass to really kick the law enforcement in the groin and remind them of the Constitution.

    But, despite having a national decertification database, and training at Quantico, who are the ones that are “leading” the buffoons in Iraq, GTMO, and Afghanistan on “how to commit violations of the law without getting caught”? That’s right – your friends in the judicial branch – the contractors – the ones who used to be in law enforcement, but are not assigned to the prison system.

    * * *

    The public needs to make Congress prove everything. No longer can their verbal statements or promises be relied upon. They can’t, won’t, refuse to meet the 14th November 2005 deadline: Why believe anything else?

    If Congress wants to primes anything in the future about “other status reports,” they need to provide that agreement in writing, with some sort of meaningful sanction if they fail to meet that promise.

    It would be helpful if Congress would swear under oath that they are still in compliance with their oaths of office. The CEOs have to do that with their financials before the SEC; it seems Congress should be required to do the same with their “most important asset” – their word.

    If you’re not willing to back your promise up with something, your word means nothing.

    The fact that “Congress may not be able to agree on the status” should have been told, as promised, on the 14th of November.

    We have nothing.

    Fine: You’ll get nothing in return – no trust. Your problem. You solve it.

    * * *

    Let’s recall what Phase II is really about. It’s the second half of the Senate Intelligence Committee into Iraq-WMD-9-11 related intelligence issues that failed.

    Phase II was delayed because they didn’t want to have the result until “after the election.” Well, we still have elections, but we have no Phase II.

    Thank you for not doing your job.

    * * *

    We have a leadership problem. Nothing has been done. There is no plan to “figure out” what is going on. They have no “plan to get a plan.” Where’s the staff? No answers.

    We would reasonably assume that Phase II news is at odds with both parties.

    The real story is that all the information we have about 9-11 and WMD is most likely damaging to the public confidence in the RNC; but also the issue will be – what has the DNC done, or not done that they should have, to bring the real status to the public.

    It appears the White House was told the truth about Iraq and 9-11 and failed to act; Congress has unlawfully transferred power to the President; and the real problem was the Congress and Executive have jointly agreed to blame the intelligence community, while the real problem lies squarely with the RNC.

    The issue is: Where is the DNC, and what prevented the DNC from issuing an independent statement?

    Incompetent people, incapable of leadership, are self-evidently unfit to govern.

    * * *

    We can make some adverse inferences about 9-11, WMD, and the Senate investigation:

  • Fraud, corruption, conspiracy
  • Knowledge of crimes, aiding and abetting
  • Witness tampering
  • Bribery
  • Malfeasance
  • Unlawful acts: Violation of the laws of war, treaties, and Constitution
  • Violations of the oath of office

    More generalized adverse inference:

  • Unresponsive government
  • Unreliable political parties
  • Ineffectual staff, leadership
  • Incompetent
  • Indicators of criminal activity
  • Warrants increased audit, oversight, internal controls, checking
  • SAS 99 fraud indicators are flashing red
  • Can’t do something simple; no prospect can do something complicated
  • Unfit for leadership position or increased responsibility
  • Should retire, go away, and annoy their neighbors with stupidity

    * * *

    Despite all the jockeying around, the real issue is:

  • What happened in re 9-11, WMD, and Iraq?

  • Or, are we only going to “get information on status” after Attorney Fitzgerald completes his next Grand Jury review in 18 months?

  • Or are we saying that the Congress knows about deliberate delays by both the DNC and RNC and have jointly agreed to suppress everything about what is occurring on “national security grounds”?

    Please, tell us what could possibly be “nationally security related” in not providing information on the status of an investigation?

    All we needed was a smiley face: Happy face, or unhappy face.

    We got nothing; so we have to presume that there are whole scale violations of your oath of office.

    Without a credible remedy for violating your deadline, your words mean nothing.

    * * *

    We judge the information, if known, would be bad news. That the information on status could easily have been given.

    The Congress has also included in the statutes the requirement that the courts impose various sanctions for failing to meet deadlines.

    Congress should impose this standard on itself.

    * * *

    If Congress is not willing to meet a deadline, then Congress should be forced to pay for their own salaries until that deadline is met.

    That means: The money the public is currently paying that goes to all Congressional staff salaries should be put aside until Congress comes up with an answer; and all money allocated should pay for a special master to find out what is going on with Congress.

    * * *

    Who is taking advantage of our “freedoms”? Not the Iraqi insurgents – the Congress.

    * * *

    We need some real checks and balances. Time to check on Congress. Let’s have some legal powers so that the courts can mandate the congress and Executive agree to a deadline, or face jail time for their failure to respond to the court.

    * * *

    “Trust us” gave us Abu Ghraib, GTMO, and Eastern Europe.

    There’s no reason to trust Congress. Their promises, statements, plans, and leadership are worthless, unreliable, and incompetent.

    * * *

    It is time to begin exploring a more responsive approach without Congress’ input. They will not review the matters under their control; they should be denied an input to structural changes that would materially affect their power.

    It is time to consider a Constitutional Convention; and encourage member nations of the UN to vote against the US at the General Assembly: “What’s up with these deadlines, America?”

    * * *

    If Congress can’t meet a deadline, why should America be subject to deadlines under the Patriot Act?

    “Hay, we can’t talk about National Security letters” . . .but Congress is quick to provide no information on what it promises either.

    Why do American citizens have to put up with national security letters; but Congress feels it is free to ignore their promises to do something?

    If Congress wants to be believed, they need to subject themselves to the scrutiny of the Patriot Act, and let the public have free reign to call them before the court to find out what is going on.

    I hear the CIA is torturing people in Eastern Europe – is there a plan to get some answers from Congress using the same methods, or will the British Official Secrets Act be used as a shield to “not talk about” America’s Congress?

    * * *

    How many bribes are Congressional representatives getting to do nothing, not respond, not do what they primes, to lie, delay?

    * * *

    What’s a judicial solution:

  • What about a court, special master, or legal tool to find out what is going on in congress?

  • Why not present the information to a grand jury?

  • Why are we letting the Congress and Executive apparently write the rules, not respond, and then pretend nothing happened?

    * * *

    The idea of government is to promote the best leaders to effectively solve problems. These buffoons have abused their trust and do the opposite: They’re unfit for government. The checks and balances have failed. The system of internal controls and staffing has proven incapably defective in responding to a simple deadline.

    Both parties in government have failed in re Katrina and Iraq. Incompetence is not isolated to one party, class, branch, or person.

    The residents of Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland, who provide the labor to “keep Congress going,” have shown they have a defective educational system – are they unable to communicate?

    Self-evidently the citizens of Maryland and Virginia live in, continue to support, and materially fail in cleaning up this cess pool called the District of Columbia.

    * * *

    When leaders fail to do something, and we make adverse inferences, how are we going to lawfully remove them from office?

    There’s no reason to have any sympathy for them at all.

    District of Columbia: They are of no value, incompetent, unreliable, untrustworthy.

    The system of checks, balances, public oversight are ineffectual and meaningless.

    It is time to develop a parallel system and let the public decide which one is more effective, responsive, consistent with the Constitution.

    * * *

    The weather of late has not been conducive to effective government. Yet, we gone through for seasons without a change.

    * * *

    Which lobbyists have gotten in the way – how much money did they move from overseas countries to encourage inaction in Congress?

    * * *

    Encourage your friends to make adverse inference. We should have heard something. The 14 November 2005 deadlines has passed.

  • What is the status of the main investigation?

  • Why should we believe that anyone is actually looking at the original matters?

  • Who is the real point of contact, and why is there silence?

    * * *

    There was a big puff about a closed meeting. They called it a stunt. But here we are, despite the catalyst of that stunt and subsequent promise, we have no response.

    Does Congress, despite stunts, not respond?

    Other than it’s casual Constitutional reference, Congress does little other than create excuses, conduct cursory reviews and rubber stamp lobbyist budgets.

    Yet, there are alternatives that achieve the same objectives of the US Constitution.

    * * *

    Things must be really bad if both the RNC and DNC are unable to simply make a simple statement.

    What will the distraction be?

    Despite the stunt and agreement to make a peep on 14 November 2005, we sill have nothing. No information on status.

    It is reasonable to presume there is no progress being made on the original inquiry. We need a new crew under the US Attorney’s office to independently review the matter:

  • What Phase II issues are related to matters of criminal law?

  • Who were the Senators who were part of the White House-Senate agreement to stonewall the investigation into the Iraq-WMD-9-11 intelligence issues

  • What did the Senators and White House staff agree to in order to remain silent about the actual war crimes, threats, and other alleged unlawful acts in re Iraq, WMD, and 9-11?

    * * *

    Please make your excuses something better than, “Oh, we sent it in the mail, but it got lost.”

    Will Congress point at the public for daring to notice it is well past the 14th of November?

    * * *

    It remains to be understood what illusory promises were made in exchange for a requirement that nothing be done, but the burden fall on the public to clean up.

    * * *

    If the matter was “still under review” on the 14th of November, why didn’t you say that; and at least provide us with what you have?

    The promise was to provide the public with information.

    What is Congress solution to this? Voting themselves a pay raise.

    We have the illusions of promises and compliance, but nothing to show for it. This is real, the same charges against Saddam were fabricated. Why the “upsetness” over illusions, but the denial about reality.

    The news must be really bad.

    Hay, they’re talking about aliens, but the world hasn’t fallen apart. We can take it. Tell us the truth: Tell us nothing ahs been done, and the RNC is full of buffoons.

    We already knew that. But are you going to sit on this for another 10 months?

    * * *

    Million citizen march: Find out what is going on in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC.

    Or do you want 10 million?

    Or does America have to “not pay” their taxes to wake up Congress?

    Or, how quickly will the US bonds go into default if America stopped working for one month?

    I don’t see America’s banks getting upset. They can always renegotiate the terms.

    Who cares about their credit rating if they’ve got no prospect of having a stable American Congress that will find out facts?

    There may not be an America, much less a home or a country.

    May as well live in caves. People who live in caves don’t pay taxes. That means no money for Congress to play with. Then the lobbyists won’t bother to ask for what they can’t get: Money.

    But then again, aren’t we talking about “mandatory TV spots” for campaign advertising? The escalator will keep going, but to where: More non-sense from the RNC Congress.

    * * *

    Nasty things happened in the wake of Katrina. Now we see people fighting. What will happen if Americans are told about the Aliens?

    To find out that Star Wars was a training film for an intergalactic war between Earth.

    But what have those SETI people been listening to if the Aliens are out there, but we can’t hear them?

    Or is someone in the US government “fully aware of the Aliens communication systems” but they have neglected to tell us that they’ve been wasting money on SETI because SETI is part of some “really dark secret” related to a planet that has no core?

    * * *

    Americans should take note: The American government is incompetent.

    They do not deserve respect.

    They are idiots. They lie. They can’t do their job.

    They make up rules that allow them to legally violate standards of reporting that everyone is subject to.

    Then, they have the arrogance to lecture the world about made up things, all the while they can’t meet that standard.

    Then Americans wonder why people take up arms against them: Because you deny the world the peaceful method to effectively solve problems.

    Is this what Congress wants as a “resolution” to the failure to respond, as they promised, and provide a status of what is going on?

    The 14th Of November 2005 is an important date. America showed that it deserves to have no confidence; its leadership is challenged, not to be trusted, and should be second guessed.

    * * *

    A lack of explanation is not a presumption of guilt. But it sure makes one wonder about the non-sense coming out of DC: Do you really plan to impose that standard of accountability, law, and order on the world, but refuse to assent to that standard at home?

    Why not skip a day of work. Nobody will notice.

    Maybe the public will find a way to clean out your desk and start a new system in a new place.

    Where you’re not invited.

    * * *

    If you ever want to talk to someone who isn’t doing anything, just dial a random number in the 202 area code.

    Chances are you’ll find someone who’s lazy and stupid.

    Collect calls are best.

    Read more . . .