The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C., March 11, 2007: “We are rapidly approaching a major confrontation here yet very few people are aware of it. The military has told Bush that to “retake” Baghdad” i.e., kick out the insurgents and, most important, secure the city against a return, the U.S. will need ca 50,000 new troops!

Bush wouldn’t dare risk a public explosion on top of the growing medical lack-of-care- scandal so he is shipping men over in small increments. He won’t stop until he had reached the 50,000 goal. The same military estimates that with luck, they can “fully secure” Baghdad within four months and then establish iron control over it to prevent any return of the insurgents.

Not only were an officially-recognized 21,000 sent over, most without proper weapons, no body armor of any kind or any serious urban warfare training, but an additional  4,000+ were also shipped over as “support troops” which are not considered combat troops.

Today, I learn that Bush is sending over another 7,000 men and in the end, the remainder will be send in small batches, the press told to keep this under wraps for “national security” reasons. On top of this, there are not any more armored Humvees, no body armor currently in stock and the ammunition is very low. Bush does not care about this but he does care about the rapidly collapsing on the Unknown Front, Afghanistan.

He stripped our troops out, leaving the British and other to confront a growing Taliban which is slowly, and viciously, retaking much of northern Afghanistan, killing anyone who is suspected of helping the U.S.

Now why is Bush doing this?

Some say the oil ,and Iraq has huge oil reserves, but this is not the real reason for the  coming and obvious disasters.

The real reason are the frantic demands of Israel for the U.S. to remain in Iraq as a buffer to protect them. Bush, as is well-known here, is fanatically pro-Israel and the Jewish lobby and diplomatic corps here has been fiercely lobbying their co-religionists in Congress to support them by any means.

This is a terrible thing to say but I must say it: Every dead and mangled GI is the direct fault of Israeli demands. We are not bringing democracy to Iraq but security for Israel and there is no other explanation.

Any Congressman, and there are a growing number,  who dares to oppose the wishes of Israel runs the very real risk of immediate reprisal from the Israeli lobby and, most especially, by the heavily pro-Israeli American media.

The Army has been tapping phones and DISA systems here and all of this sickening business is a fact, not some idiot blogger rantings.

It used to be said that the Voice of the People was the Voice of God but in 2007 Washington, it is the Voice of Israel that has become the Official Voice of Jehovah.

Bush, and Congress, hear and they obey.

I, and many, many others, think the time has come for the American public, not the politicians, to become aware of this ugly business and express their views in very loud and determined voices or the death and maiming tolls of their children, fathers and lovers will continue to soar.

Israel is buying her security with the blood of America’s youth, and neither Bush nor Israel care.”

Bush demands 8,200 more troops for wars

March 11, 1007

by Deb Reichmann

Associated Press

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay – President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.

Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.

In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting under way in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.

The budget revisions come as many lawmakers opposed to the buildup in Iraq are debating funding for the war. But in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Bush proposed canceling $3.2 billion in low-priority defense items to offset the extra money needed to support the additional troops.

Cutting the programs, he said, would eliminate the need to increase the overall $93.4 billion in additional defense money he's already requested to finance this year's war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This revised request would better align resources based on the assessment of military commanders to achieve the goal of establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as democratic and secure nations that are free of terrorism," Bush wrote in his letter to lawmakers.

Bush signed the letter on his flight Friday from Brazil to Uruguay, part of his five-nation tour of Latin America that continues on Sunday in Colombia. The White House released the letter Saturday in Montevideo, Uruguay.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, recently hinted of the need to bolster the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

"Gen. Petraeus expects under the Baghdad security plan as well as other parts of Iraq, that the number of people going into detention will increase and so these military police forces will be for that," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

Rolling Back Pentagon Spies

March 9, 2007

by Shane Harris

National Journal

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is considering a plan to curtail the Pentagon's clandestine spying activities, which were expanded by his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, after the 9/11 attacks. The undercover work allowed military personnel to collect intelligence about terrorists and to recruit spies in foreign countries independently of the CIA and without much congressional oversight.

Former military and intelligence officials, including those involved in an ongoing and largely informal debate about the military's forays into espionage, said that Gates, a former CIA director, is likely to "roll back" several of Rumsfeld's controversial initiatives. This could include changing the mission of the Pentagon's Strategic Support Branch, an intelligence-gathering unit comprising Special Forces, military linguists, and interrogators that Rumsfeld set up to report directly to him. The unit's teams work in many of the same countries where CIA case officers are trying to recruit spies, and the military and civilian sides have clashed as a result. CIA officers serving abroad have been roiled by what they see as the Pentagon's encroachment on their dominance in the world of human intelligence-gathering.

A former senior intelligence official who knows Gates said that the secretary wants to "dismantle" many of the intelligence programs launched by Rumsfeld and his top lieutenants, Stephen Cambone, the former undersecretary for intelligence, and Douglas Feith, who was Rumsfeld's policy chief. The former official added that the Defense Intelligence Agency, which has also expanded its human spying efforts, could be returned to a more analytical role.

The official noted that Gates doesn't intend to eliminate the Strategic Support Branch but said that its mandate will change. The unit arose from a written order by Rumsfeld to end the "near total dependence on CIA" for intelligence-gathering, and agency officials viewed it as a competitor.

Much of what Donald Rumsfeld set up at the Pentagon after 9/11 could be dismantled or altered.

Gates headed the CIA under President George H.W. Bush and was the only director in the agency's history to rise through the ranks from entry-level employee. He has criticized the Defense Department's ascendant role in espionage. In a May 2006 op-ed in The Washington Post, he wrote, "More than a few CIA veterans -- including me -- are unhappy about the dominance of the Defense Department in the intelligence arena and the decline in the CIA's central role." In written responses to senators' questions before his confirmation hearing, Gates said, "Clearly, if confirmed, this will be an area that I would look into."

The precise details of how Gates could move the military out of the CIA's espionage territory, while satisfying combat commanders' desire for on-the-ground intelligence, are still being worked out, former officials said. But the contours now taking shape strike the balance that Gates has indicated he wants: giving primary authority for human intelligence-gathering to the CIA, which falls under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Asked about Gates's plans, a spokesman for the Defense secretary's office said he was "not aware of any planned changes at this time."

A senior defense consultant who works on human intelligence issues for the Pentagon cautioned that the plan's details are changing rapidly and that nothing has been formally put in place. Congressional staff members said that the House and Senate Intelligence committees had not received any formal proposal, but they added they expected that Gates would not follow Rumsfeld's approach.

Those tracking the debate said they don't foresee any formal action by Gates until retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper is confirmed as Defense undersecretary for intelligence. Gates selected Clapper, who was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in the early 1990s, in January, but a date for his conformation hearing hasn't been set.

A former intelligence official who knows Clapper well said he's also concerned that the Pentagon has overstepped its bounds. "I think Jim is as uncomfortable with it as anyone is in the intelligence community," the former official said. "The feeling on this one is that this was a Rumsfeld-created exercise... by people who really didn't understand intelligence."

The high level of interest in and speculation about Gates's plans show how eager intelligence officials are, particularly in the CIA, to settle the turf war that Rumsfeld helped to spawn.

The Defense Department has had its own human intelligence service since 1993. But it was never as expansive as the CIA's operations directorate, which has since been renamed the National Clandestine Service and is legally designated as the lead human intelligence agency.

When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the CIA had marshaled rebel forces to help overthrow the Taliban. Rumsfeld recognized that the military's long-standing reliance on the CIA for on-the-ground intelligence could keep his department in a subordinate role in the war on terrorism. It was well known that the CIA's spying capabilities, particularly in the Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries that were then of top concern, had degraded in the wake of major intelligence cutbacks after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Neither the CIA nor the military had enough spies to wage a new war on terrorism.

Rumsfeld wanted the military to take a leading role in the global hunt for terrorists, so he expanded the Defense Department's own capabilities to gather intelligence and to recruit spies abroad. This led to creation of the Strategic Support Branch and the clandestine deployment of small Special Forces teams to U.S. embassies. There, in civilian clothes, they worked as intelligence operatives, recruiting sources within governments or Islamic groups.

But those efforts upset CIA officials, particularly station chiefs, who are supposed to run the spy networks in their assigned countries. Many experts criticized the military's espionage efforts as bungled attempts by ill-trained personnel.

In December, the Los Angeles Times reported that members of one Special Forces spying team, known as a military liaison element, or MLE, shot and killed an armed assailant trying to rob them outside a bar in Paraguay. In East Africa, MLE members were arrested by a local official after their spying was exposed.

Those incidents reinforced a long-held opinion among civilian intelligence professionals that military personnel aren't suited for clandestine spying. "Most people regarded Defense human intelligence services as a group of bozos," said one former CIA official. "They were incompetent. Their training tended to be substandard."

Military intelligence officials counter that the CIA hasn't always met their needs for tactical intelligence in war zones. "When I was in the Balkans, I was not confident that the CIA would provide what I needed on the ground," said retired Maj. Gen. James (Spider) Marks, who ran the Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., the service's training school, and was the senior intelligence officer for all U.S. ground forces during the Iraq invasion.

Marks said that coordination between the CIA and the military improved after the 9/11 attacks. "The agency was bending over backward to be cooperative" and to allow military commanders to "dip into their capabilities," meaning they could see what intelligence the CIA had collected on certain people and targets.

But the military still needs its own teams, Marks insisted. "The bottom line is, we don't have enough tactical human intelligence capabilities. We need guys in Humvees." Marks said he doesn't know any details about how Gates might change the military's role, but he was skeptical about any rollbacks. "If Gates wants to transfer those responsibilities back to CIA and say, 'You own the responsibility of being first in theater and providing the human intelligence backbone, source structuring, and vetting,' that's good. But I would never trust that."

Intelligence experts said they don't expect Gates to reduce the military's or the Defense Department's abilities to collect tactical intelligence in war zones.

"There are things that the Defense Department can do with targeting that are tactically going to be needed within DoD," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Hoekstra acknowledged that "the military wasn't satisfied" with the quality of intelligence it received from the CIA before 9/11. "But the answer to that is not going off and creating a parallel universe," he said. "The answer is working with CIA and telling them what they need and where they're coming up short.... The problem I have is that every time Rumsfeld didn't get the support he needed, he said, 'Screw it. I'll do it myself.' "

Hoekstra, like other experts, said that Gates could make intelligence changes under his own authority without approval from Congress. "I don't think he necessarily has to brief us on it. Not formally."

Others predicted that if Gates reins in the Pentagon's spymasters, it will trigger a storm of opposition. "In the six years since 9/11, the military intelligence community has developed a sense of bureaucratic ownership," said Matthew Aid, an intelligence historian. "They spent a lot of money developing their own sources and capabilities. There will be a great deal of opposition to giving the CIA these resources."

--Mark Ambinder, associate editor of The Hotline, contributed to this report.

Top Gun aircraft are seized from US museums in ‘paranoia’ raids

March 11, 2007

by Tom Baldwin in Washington

The Times (UK)

Federal US agents have seized disabled F14 fighter jets from museums in California because of fears that parts would be sold to Iran.

The raids reflect the nervousness that is driving policy towards the Islamic republic at a time when the US has stationed two aircraft carriers in the Gulf and is alleging that Iranian Revolutionary Guards are aiding attacks on its soldiers in Iraq. One European diplomat described the raids as evidence of American paranoia.

The F14 Tomcat fighters, made famous by the film Top Gun,had been sawn in half and welded together before being sold by the Ventura naval base as scrap metal in 2005 for as little as $2,000 (£1,000) apiece. Three ended up in museums at Chino Airport, while a fourth was acquired as a prop by producers of the TV show JAG.

Although there is no evidence that the aircraft had been plundered for parts, U.S. customs conducted a 17-month operation to stop any components from entering the black market. Iran’s ageing squadron of F14s dates to before the 1979 Revolution and Tehran has become increasingly desperate to find spare parts despite a US arms embargo against it.

The Pentaton has said repeatedly that Iran’s military could seek to wreck the world’s economy by closing the Sgtrait of Hormuz through which much of the West’s oil supplies are shipped.

Admiral Michael McConnell has cited Iran’s ballistic missiles and naval power as elements of a conventional military force, as well as its terrorist surrogates such as Hezbollah, that threaten oil-rich Gulf states and challenge US interests. “It seeks a capacity to disrupt the opertions and reinforcement of US forces based in the region- potentially intimidating regional allies into withholding support for US policy- and raising the political, financial and human costs to the US and our allies of our presence in Iraq. “ Iran said this week it would attend an international conference with the US and other UN Security Council members, including Britain, on the future of Iraq in Baghdad tomorrow.

Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, said that a junior minister would lead the country’s delegation at the talks, its first public encounter with the US since 2004.

Sean McCormack, the US State Department spokesman, has refused to rule out the possibility of face-to-face negotiations. He said that the US would use any contact with the Iranians to raise the subject of  their support for Shia militias, which have killed US troops. “And if that means having a discussion with the Iranian representative in the context of this meeting, yeah, we’re going to take that opportunity.”

A British diplomatic source said that while the sight of Iran and the US around the same table would have important sybolic value, “we are under no illusions that this weekend will produce a silver bullet.” All sides have dismissed speculation that the talke will help to resolve the stand-off over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Flying Tomcats

— Iran is now the only country to fly F14s

— The stock dates to the Shah’s era, when 79 planes were brought from the USA

— The deal included spare parts, but with the US weapons embargo these have long since ran out.

— Analysts estimate the country has about 25 serviceable planes

— US customs have arrested a number of people for trying to smuggle spare parts to Iran

— Iranian F14 crews gained important combat experience during the Iran-Iraq war, outgunning the Iraqi Air Force and inflicting heavy casualties

— In their entire service US F14s only ever shot down a handful of planes

'Smart' rebels outstrip US

Top American generals make shock admission as Iraq leader pleads with neighbouring countries to seal off their borders

March 11, 2007

Paul Beaver in Fort Lauderdale and Peter Beaumont

The Observer

The US army is lagging behind Iraq's insurgents tactically in a war that senior officers say is the biggest challenge since Korea 50 years ago.

The gloomy assessment at a conference in America last week came as senior US and Iraqi officials sat down yesterday with officials from Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia in Baghdad to persuade Iraq's neighbours to help seal its borders against fighters, arms and money flowing in. During the conference the US, Iranian and Syrian delegations were reported to have had a 'lively exchange'

In a bleak analysis, senior officers described the fighters they were facing in Iraq and Afghanistan 'as smart, agile and cunning'.

In Vietnam, the US was eventually defeated by a well-armed, closely directed and highly militarised society that had tanks, armoured vehicles and sources of both military production and outside procurement. What is more devastating now is that the world's only superpower is in danger of being driven back by a few tens of thousands of lightly armed irregulars, who have developed tactics capable of destroying multimillion-dollar vehicles and aircraft.

By contrast, the US military is said to have been slow to respond to the challenges of fighting an insurgency. The senior officers described the insurgents as being able to adapt rapidly to exploit American rules of engagement and turn them against US forces, and quickly disseminate ways of destroying or disabling armoured vehicles.

The military is also hampered in its attempts to break up insurgent groups because of their 'flat' command structure within collaborative networks of small groups, making it difficult to target any hierarchy within the insurgency.

The remarks were made by senior US generals speaking at the Association of the US Army meeting at Fort Lauderdale in Florida and in conversations with The Observer. The generals view the 'war on terror' as the most important test of America's soldiers in 50 years.

'Iraq and Afghanistan are sucking up resources at a faster rate than we planned for,' one three-star general said. 'America's warriors need the latest technology to defeat an enemy who is smart, agile and cunning - things we did not expect of the Soviets.'

Other officers said coalition rules of engagement were being used against the forces fighting the insurgency. 'They know when we can and cannot shoot, and use that against us,' said one officer, reflecting the comments of US soldiers in the field. Another said recent video footage of an ambush on a convoy, posted on the internet, was evidence that insurgents were filming incidents to teach other groups about American counter-measures.

The concerns emerged as Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, issued a stern warning that unless Iraq's neighbours - including Iran and Syria - united to help to shut down the networks supplying both Sunni and Shia extremists, Iraq's sectarian bloodshed would engulf the Middle East.

Speaking at the beginning of the conference of regional and international powers in Baghdad, Maliki warned: 'Iraq has become a front-line battlefield. It needs support in this battle, which not only threatens Iraq, but will also spill over to all countries in the region.' Shortly after he spoke, mortar shells landed near the conference site and a car bomb exploded in a Shia stronghold across the city.

Maliki asked for help in stopping financial support, weapons smuggling and 'religious cover' for the relentless car bombings, killings and other attacks that have increasingly been inflicted on Iraq, as the minority Sunnis, who dominated the country under Saddam Hussein, have fought the Shia majority who now run the government.

Terrorism, Maliki said, 'was an international epidemic, the price of which was being paid by the people of Iraq'. He also warned Syria and Iran not to use Iraq as a proxy battlefield against the US: 'Iraq does not accept that its territories and cities become a field where regional and international disputes are settled.'

Maliki said he hoped that today's conference could be a 'turning point in supporting the government in facing this huge danger'. The one-day gathering is also seen as a chance for conversations on its fringe between Iran and the US over the deepening Iranian nuclear crisis - opening the way to end the 28-year diplomatic impasse between America and Iran since the US hostages crisis. The chief US delegate has left open the door for possible one-on-one exchanges about Iraq.

Comment: Iran is a rich country. Iran has been buying highly advanced aircraft from Russia and the United States knows it. Stories about “weak Iranian airpower” are pure propaganda. Also, Iran has also acquired a significant number of defensive/offensive missiles from Russia that are in place and would wreak havoc with putative invaders. That’s why Israel wants the U.S. to bomb Tehran. Then the retaliation would be against U.S. naval units in the Gulf and the Indian waters, the Green Zone and other U.S. bases but not against Israel. Those wanting to get the real news and not the official line being fed with a spoon to the eager bloggers, read the foreign news sites. It’s all there but never here. BH

Legal expert: President Bush may have ordered torture of terror suspects

by David Edwards and Andrew Bielak

March 10, 2007

Raw Story

The US government began hearings on Friday to determine if 14 accused terrorists currently being held at Guantanamo Bay can be deemed enemy combatants. The hearings, which have been closed to independent observers, are receiving heavy criticism for their secretive nature and what some are calling pre-determined outcomes.

"The administration has been almost pathological in trying to find ways to keep these people from ever seeing a real judge or a real lawyer," John Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told the Associated Press, "and the reasons are obvious."

Turley, among many legal analysts, believes that the likelihood that torture tactics were used on the detainees has heightened the administration's state of secrecy for fear of public retribution. The law professor also suggested that President Bush not only knew about the torture program but may have ordered it.

"It seems pretty clear that they've been tortured," Turley told the AP, "and that the president knew they were being tortured, and may have even ordered their torture through techniques like water boarding."

Last September, CIA sources told ABC News that the harshest, technique they were authorized to use on "high-value detainees, such as the 9/11 attacks architect Khalid Sheikh Mohamed...was called 'water boarding,' in which a prisoner's face was covered with cellophane, and water is poured over it (pictured above) -- meant to trigger an unbearable gag reflex."

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported for ABC's The Blotter that "new rules issued by the Pentagon today prohibit water boarding, though there was no clear acknowledgement that it was permitted previously," and that "CIA officers told ABC News that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lasted the longest under water boarding, two and a half minutes, before beginning to talk."

"It seems likely now that the president may have not only known about the torture program, but may have ordered it," Turley told the AP. "That would be truly otherwordly, where the United States could be accused of running a torture program."

The list of detainees has a number of high-profile suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and former al-Qaeda military chief Abu Zubaydah.

Having been held in a secret CIA detention facility until recently, the 14 detainees were moved to Guantanamo Bay by President Bush in September after knowledge of the CIA's "black sites" became public.

Granting pardons can cause leaders grief

March 11, 2007

by Michael J. Sniffen

Associated Press

Washington, D.C. Richard Nixon, Mark Felt, Marc Rich. Is President Bush willing to risk- on behalf of ex=White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby- the kind of political grief that pardons for those four men brought the presidents who granted them?

Nixon resigned the presidency over the Watergate scandal. Felt was the FBI man convicted of ordering illegal break-ins. Weinberger was the defense secretary charged in the  Iran-Contra scandal. Rich was a fugitive financier.

All received presidential pardons processed outside normal channels.

As in those cases, Bush would have to bypass the regular clemency process to pardon Libby for the four felonies he was convicted of on Tuesday.

Such pardons historically have gotten presidents into political trouble.

A number of conservative politicians, bloggees and commentators, including National Review and Wall Street Journal editorial writers, want Libby pardoned- preferably now. Top Democrats have demanded that Bush pledge not to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

William Jeffress, one of Libby's lawyers, said, "I believed a pardon for Scooter was appropriate last summer" when it came out that a State Department official, not Libby, was the initial source for a newspaper column disclosing the classified CIA job of Valerie Plame, wife of Iraqi war critic Joseph Wilson.

Bush’s spokesman Tony Snow has tried to damned speculation. Snow said Bush is “careful” about pardons and takes the process very seriously. “He wants to make sure that anybody who receives one- that it’s warranted,” Snow said.

The Constitution grants the president absolute power to grant pardons, without approval by Congress or second-guessing by the courts.

The only check on abuse is the risk of "the damnation of his fame to all future ages," as James Iredell, one of the original Supreme Court justices, once put it. Some have run that risk.

·                    _President Ford pardoned Nixon for Watergate before Nixon had even been charged. The resulting rage is thought by many political observers to have cost Ford his bid to be elected president in 1976.

·                    _President Reagan pardoned Felt and another FBI executive in 1981 while they were appealing convictions for ordering secret and illegal searches of the homes of relatives and friends of violent opponents of the Vietnam War. The New York Times called Reagan's clemency "a gratuitous revision of the record." Prosecutor John W. Nields Jr., who was not consulted, complained Reagan surely did not know what the trial brought out about Felt — who years later was unmasked as the mysterious "Deep Throat" source that helped expose Watergate.

·                    _On Christmas eve in 1992, just before he left office, the first President Bush pardoned Weinberger and a CIA official as they awaited trial on Iran-Contra charges, as well as four other administration officials who had pleaded or been found guilty in the scandal. Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh complained "the Iran-Contra cover-up ... has now been completed," thus blocking him from fully examining Bush's own role.

·                    On his last day in office, in 2001, President Clinton pardoned 140 people. One was Rich, who had lived abroad for 17 years to avoid trial on charges of evading $48 million in taxes. Congress held hearings on the Rich pardon. A federal investigation looked into whether the pardon was a reward for contributions by Rich's ex-wife to Clinton's presidential library and his wife's Senate campaign; no charges were brought.

None of these pardons went through the vetting process set up at the Justice Department by President McKinley in 1898.

Department rules require that pardon-seekers wait five years after conviction or release from prison, whichever is later, before applying. Bush has less than two years left in office, but presidents are not bound by department regulations.

The waiting period is designed to allow petitioners "to demonstrate they can live as productive, law-abiding citizens," said Margaret C. Love, the department's pardon attorney during 1990-1997, under the elder Bush and Clinton's first term.

On occasion, the waiting period has been waived by the pardon attorney or at the president's request, Love said. One example was a teacher involved in steroid distribution who the prosecutor said helped the government case and whose school district needed a pardon to continue employing him.

The pardon attorney's career staff verifies claims of rehabilitation and checks with the prosecutor, judge and victim. Complete and consistent evaluations help produce department recommendations that may shield a president from criticism.

But since Attorney General Griffin Bell delegated the supervision to subordinates in 1977, Love said, the process has been "dominated by federal prosecutors, who tended to regard pardon as an interference with their law enforcement responsibilities."

Career prosecutors take a grave view of crimes against the system of justice, like Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice convictions. Although appointed by Bush as a U.S. attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald is a career prosecutor and voiced that viewpoint after winning the Libby convictions.

"Truth is what drives our judicial system. If people don't tell the truth, the system cannot work. Having a high-level official lie under oath is just something that can never be accepted."

Many advocates of a pardon for Libby say he should never have been charged at all. He maintains his innocence while defense lawyers work on an appeal.

But a Justice Department manual says, "A petitioner should be genuinely desirous of forgiveness rather than vindication. ... A petitioner's attempt to minimize or rationalize culpability does not advance the case for pardon."

Finally, Bush just does not grant many pardons. In his first year as Texas governor, he was burned. A county constable he pardoned for a marijuana conviction was caught months later stealing cocaine. “I said, ‘Whoa’ because it was a pretty rough story,” Bush told a reporter. He went on to set a 50-year record low for pardons in Texas, granting only 19, including six convicts who proved their innocence. As president, he’s granted just 113 in just over six years- the stingiest record among the 11 presidents since the end of World War II.

The Pink Triangle Club

Reservist acknowledges gay porn past (Right Wing star has a Nova!)

March 9, 2007

by John Hoellwarth

Marine Corps Times

A Reserve corporal (USMC) whose star has been rising in conservative circles over the past few months- including appearing on Fox News and being photographed with right-wing firebrand Ann Coulter- has acknowledged appearing in gay porn films.

Cpl. Matthew Sanchez, 36, now a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, has made national headlines since, as a student at Columbia University, he stood up to war protesters who publicly vilified him for his military service while administrators there refused to intervene, citing freedom of speech.

Sanchez has appeared on cable television programs such as Foz News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” and “Hannity & Colmes,” and penned an editorial for the New York Post. He also wrote a Back Talk column for the Jan 1 edition of Marine Corps Times titles, “Missing the big picture: Ivy League protestors feel superior to service members.”

Sanchez also appeared at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington

where he was photographed with his arm around Coulter, who caused a stir when she gave a speech at the conference in which she slammed Democratic presidential contender John Edwards using a vulgar word for a gay man.

On March 6, four days after Coulter’s comment, homosexual blogger, Joe My God published the picture of Coulter and Sanchez and alleged that Sanchez had spent the mid ‘90s acting in gay porn films such as “Man to Men” under the name of Rod Majors and Pierre LaBranche.

In a letter published on 222.salon.com on Thursday, Sanchez confirmed that “I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago, “ but that he no longer does that.

“Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don’t like it. That’s not hypocrisy talking, that’s just experience,” he wrote. “I can tell you, though, that by the time in finished my brief tour of the major (porn) studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself. It was an emotional low, and the people who surrounded me were like drug dealers interested only in being with the anesthetized in order not to shake off the stupor of being high.”

While Sanchez says he has put his gay porn past behind him (!), the Marine Corps hasn’t. Homosexual behavior is prohibited by an article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that forbids “sodomy.”

As a member of the IRR, Sanchez falls under the authority of Marine Corps Mobilization Command in Kansas City, Mo, where the commanding general’s staff judge advocate, Lt. Col, Michael Blessing, has begun an inquiry into the revelations about his past, according to command spokesman Shane Darbonne.

“We’re looking into it and we’re going to verify facts and determine if any further action is warranted,” Darbonne said.

As of Friday afternoon, officials at Marine Forces Reserve in New Orleans were unable to confirm whether Sanchez had enlisted prior to the end of his film career or if Reserve Marines were prohibited from doing porn when not in a drilling status. Sanchez has not returned phone calls seeking comment. He joined the Corps May 14, 2003 and is a refrigeration mechanic.

On Friday, officials at Marine Corps Recruiting Command were unable to say whether past participation in gay port disqualifies a potential enlistee because it was unclear how the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy might apply.

Comment: First we had the fake Marine, ‘Jeff Gannon’ a homosexual whore, vanishing inside the White House at night on fourteen recorded occasions before being outed and now a new Friend of Ann Coulter and, no doubt, our President and his coterie of twittering lovelies. I wonder how the Christian Right people (with their very own Ted Haggard The Muncher to contemplate)  feel about this? At least Clinton liked women. What would Jesus do, indeed!  BH

Reaction to Coulter’s slur hints at shift in view of gays.

March 9, 2007

by Wyatt Burhanan

San Francisco Chronicle

When conservative commentator Ann Coulter called former Vice President Al Gore a "total fag" on national television nearly a year ago, it barely caused a stir.

Coulter's recent labeling of presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot," however, has triggered a huge response, including a campaign initiated today by a gay rights group and media watchdog to persuade mainstream media outlets to dump her for good.

At least four newspapers have dropped Coulter's syndicated column, and 40,000 people signed an online petition to Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes her column, demanding that it release her. Three corporations, including Verizon, stopped advertising on Coulter's Web site after she made the comment.

This follows recent controversies over the use of the new "f-word" -- as some call it -- by actor Isaiah Washington and an antigay rant by NBA player Tim Hardaway. Washington apologized and announced he would go to "rehab," and Hardaway lost endorsements and was penalized by the league.

Coulter wondered on the "Hannity & Colmes" show on the Fox News Channel on Monday about the difference between the reactions this year and last.

Dan Savage, editor of the Stranger, a Seattle alternative news weekly, and author of several books on his life as a gay man, said the reaction to Coulter could indicate a change in how people view gays.

"I always thought we would be reaching a tipping point with anti-gay hate where it will no longer be acceptable, and maybe we are reaching that tipping point now," said Savage.

Neil Giuliano, the president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the rights group starting a campaign to get Coulter's voice out of mainstream media, said public opinion about anti-gay slurs is changing because gay and lesbian people are more visible than ever.

"As this happens, those in the overall culture who don't like that are going to raise their voices and become even louder, and that's why I think a lot of this is going on," Giuliano said.

Ronald Butters, a Duke University professor who studies the changing meaning of taboo words in American English, said he doesn't think "faggot" has become more or less offensive.

"Words mean what the public takes them to mean," he said. "The very reason that there is a furor is a pretty good indication of how insulting that term was."

Leaders in the gay community said the Coulter fallout could become the prototype for how the public will respond to the use of the term "faggot."

"People are actually realizing this word hurts and defames an entire group of people, and having people other than ourselves standing with us is very significant," said Giuliano, whose organization is known as GLAAD.

GLAAD is issuing a "call to action" today to its 40,000 constituents, asking them to contact the heads of cable news organizations and NBC and "call on them publicly to state that they will no longer feature Ann Coulter as an on-air commentator."

The Human Rights Campaign, another gay and lesbian civil rights organization, started a campaign earlier this week to pressure the Universal Press Syndicate and newspapers that publish Coulter's words to drop her. So far, people have sent about 40,000 e-mails through the organization's Web site.

"It just seems to me the conventional wisdom around Ann Coulter till now has been that the most important thing for anyone to do is ignore her, but I think we have a more serious problem here that we are addressing," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "This word ought to be seen as offensive and dangerous as any hate-based word."

Conservative gay scholar Andrew Sullivan, who heard Coulter's comments live, said she uttered it with "malice aforethought." But equating it to other slurs is a difficult comparison, Sullivan said.

"Nothing has the power of the n-word," he said.

Coulter made the offending utterance last Friday at a major gathering of conservatives, where she shared the stage with several Republican candidates for president.

During her speech, a series of jokes about Democrats, Coulter said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.' So ... I can't really talk about Edwards."

Coulter has defended her use of the term as a "schoolyard taunt."

"The word I used has nothing to do with sexual preference ... and unless you're going to announce here on national TV that John Edwards, married father of many children, is gay, it clearly had nothing to do with that," Coulter said in an interview this week on "Hannity & Colmes."

The explanation has not satisfied her critics, including three Republican presidential candidates, Rudolph Giuliani of New York, John McCain of Arizona and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Edwards and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean also criticized Coulter.

And the Shreveport (La.) Times on Thursday became at least the fourth newspaper to drop her column out of 35 publications that carried it.

"Today, we move past the rhetoric and unproductive dialogue offered by Ann Coulter," the newspaper's executive editor, Alan English, wrote in an announcement on the newspaper's Web site.

Butters, the Duke professor, called Coulter's explanation of her use of the word "simply ridiculous and untrue."

"It is always intended, I think, as a derogatory term of one of the most pernicious sorts," he said.

Thom Lynch, who leads San Francisco's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center, said he does not hear the word used often among gay men.

"It's not a word people have reclaimed in any sense. If straight people use it in the same way Ann Coulter did, people will get really angry about it," he said.

Still, some gay people are skeptical of the condemnation of Coulter.

"I don't have a problem with people using the word 'faggot.' I use the word 'faggot' all the time," said Seattle's Savage. He started a public humiliation campaign against former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a Republican, after Santorum made derogatory statements about gay men. But he does not think there should be a campaign to silence Coulter.

"When we start acting like the thought police, it plays into the right-wing paranoia that we are going to force them all to say only nice things about us in public," Savage said. "I think we would gain ground faster in the gay and lesbian civil rights movement if we drop the Sally Field act of, 'You like me! You really like me!' "

E-mail Wyatt Buchanan at wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com.

Comment: Coulter, a genuine poster girl for the far right,( in company with convicted drug abuser, Limbaugh,) is a 50 year old vicious and frustrated person. A darling of the neo-fascists that still worship the totally discredited, polymorph and perverse George Bush, Coulter recently smeared the widows of 911 victims and has, herself,, been reputed to have a very strange sexual orientation background. In the case of Coulter, whose scrawny crane legs once graced the cover of a national magazine, the charges are probably too bizarre to be true but with such vicious people, one recognizes that self-hatred plays a significant role in their  chronically  negative behavior. BH

Hit it again, Zeke, it’s still moving! The Wounded Jesus Freaks at the Door

Creationist measure in Tennessee legislature

February 26, 2007

The Panda’s Thumb

Senate Resolution 17 (PDF), introduced in the Tennessee state senate on February 21, 2007, by Raymond Finney (R-District 8), would, if enacted, "request the commissioner of education to provide answers to questions concerning creationism and public school curriculums in Tennessee," beginning with, "Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?" If the answer is yes, then SJR 17 poses the further question, "Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?" If the commissioner declines to answer on the grounds that it is impossible to prove or disprove any answer, then SJR 17 poses the further question, "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?" And if the answer is no, then SJR 17 poses no further questions, remaining content to express admiration of the commissioner "for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators, and others."

After the obligatory discussion of the trial of John Scopes for teaching evolution in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925, the on-line news source NashvillePost.com (February 26, 2007) speculates, "This move by Finney, while not likely to receive the same level of interest as the Scopes case, may well have its roots in the same reasoning that encouraged the Rhea County leaders to spark the debate: a desire for attention. The resolution needs only to be passed by the Republican-controlled Senate in order to force Tennessee's Department of Education to answer on the record. A joint resolution would have to pass the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, where it would likely find itself relegated to a black hole committee and not see the light of day. By circumventing ... the House, Senate Republicans would then be forcing a Bredesen cabinet member to weigh in on the creationism argument, right before next year's legislative session when both parties would be seeking to add to their numbers in the 2008 elections." (Philip Bredesen, a Democrat, is the current governor of Tennessee.) The fact that the courts have repeatedly ruled -- in, for example, McLean v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard, and Kitzmiller v. Dover -- that the teaching of creationism in the public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is not mentioned.

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."

U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT, (New York Times 3/23/05)

March 10, 2007

TheocracyWatch

Theocracy is derived from the two Greek words Qeo/j(Theos) meaning "God" and kra/tein (cratein) meaning "to rule." The Reverend Rod Parsley, a champion of theocracy, or what he calls a "christocracy," told his congregation at the World Harvest Church, located just outside Columbus, Ohio, "Theocracy means God is in control, and you are not." more

The theocratic right seeks to establish dominion, or control over society in the name of God. D. James Kennedy, Pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, calls on his followers to exercise "godly dominion ... over every aspect ... of human society." At a "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference in February, 2005, Kennedy said:

Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.

Twenty-five years ago dominionists targeted the Republican Party as the vehicle through which they could advance their agenda. At the same time, a small group of Republican strategists targeted fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches to expand the base of the Republican Party. This web site is not about traditional Republicans or conservative Christians. It is about the manipulation of people of a certain faith for political power. It is about the rise of dominionists in the U.S. federal government.

Today's hard right seeks total dominion. It's packing the courts and rigging the rules. The target is not the Democrats but democracy itself.

According to acclaimed journalist and television host Bill Moyers,

True, people of faith have always tried to bring their interpretation of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals ... it's the American way, encouraged and protected by the First Amendment.  But what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America's great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation,  energy,  regulation, social services and so on.

Back from The Brink

Before the midterm elections of 2006, dominionists controlled both houses of the U.S. Congress, the White House and four out of nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. They were one seat away from holding a solid majority on the Supreme Court. As of January 1, 2007, dominionists will not control the leadership of either house of Congress, and the President will no longer be able to so easily appoint dominionists to the federal courts.

Five of the Republican Senators who were unseated on November 7 received whopping scores of 100% from the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family Voter Scorecards. Those Senators are: Conrad Burns (R-MT), George Allen (R-VA), Rick Santorum (R-PA), James Talent (R-MO), and Mike DeWine (R-OH). Rick Santorum was the number three ranking Republican in the party. Santorum and Allen both had Presidential ambitions. (FRC and FOF are the most politically influential of dominionist organizations.) For more discussion of the elections go to Talk To Action. Our country just took a step back from the brink with democracy

We Go From Here?

Dominionists were very close to controlling all three branches of the federal government from which they could impose their narrow interpretation of scripture on the rest of society. People so close to full political power are not going to go away. The American people need to maintain vigilance and understand the history of how dominionists came to political power. And we need to embrace democracy with a passion -- for it was voter apathy that allowed leaders like Pat Robertson to get so many dominionists elected to Congress in the first place.

The Conspiracy Corner: Blessed Prozac Moments!

United States Under Attack By 3-11 Satanic Yiddish-British-Bush Gang !!!

March 11, 2007

by Tom Heneghan National Security Expert/ Whistleblower

United States under attack by 3-11 Satanic Yiddish -British-Bush Gang they set fire to California!

Laser Technology used, fired from Aircraft making emergency landing at Los Angeles International  Airport.!

Aircraft on route from San Diego to Los Angeles passing directly over area of attack Orange County, California!

The Satanic Filth (I.E.) Bush-Clinton Crime Family using extra hour of sunlight-daylight to feed !

Black-ops attack on the American people (I.E.) California firewall!

QUESTION? Is this attack on California designed to silence coverage of Hearings in Congress dealing with Bushes Criminal activity against the American people.

One last note: Department of Homeland Security Website had emergency alerts well before the  California Fires Breakout!

This dovetails with various websites all over the world dedicated to fingering Bush-Clinton Crime

Families being attacked!

DIRECT MESSAGE TO OUR PATRIOTIC MILITARY AND THE REPUBLIC OF FRANCE !

Identify the Enemies of the American People and the American Revolution, the Domestic and Satanic Enemies accordingly, identify these Enemies and Annihilate them!

GOD save the United States!

www.stewwebb.com <http://www.stewwebb.com>

Comment: We get a good deal of such terrifying warnings from various global experts. One that came in yesterday warned about giant Chinese Communist robot toads about to attack the port of San Diego and one last week claimed that aircraft from the USN aircraft carrier ‘George Washington’ launched its aircraft against the World Trade Center on 9/11 (Actually, the AFP’s brilliant investigative reporter, Christopher Bolleyn, has proven beyond a doubt that this attack was caused by ex-Soviet scientists using their special Plasmoid Cloud machine controlled by the evil Dr. Melbourne Fong, of the Hidden Hand.) BH

The Wailing Wall Adventures

Nazi-hunting centre convicted for defamation

March 8, 2007

AFP

PARIS-The Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center was convicted of defamation by a Paris court on Thursday for accusing a French-based group of financing Palestinian militants.

The Committee for Charity and Support for the Palestinians (CBSP) filed suit against the centre's head of international relations, Stanley Trevor Samuels, after he claimed it sent funds to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The CBSP has dismissed the charges as "ridiculous", saying it worked to support 3,000 Palestinian orphans.

Samuel was handed a suspended fine of 1,000 euros (1,300 dollars) and ordered to pay one euro in symbolic damages to the Palestinian support group over what the court described as "seriously defamatory" allegations.

The court ruled that documents produced by the Wiesenthal centre established no "direct or indirect participation in financing terrorism".

The Wiesenthal centre said later in a written statement that it had appealed the court ruling, which it believed was unjustified.

Israel in the past has also accused the CBSP of supporting the Palestinian radical group Hamas by transferring funds to the families of people killed by the Israeli military or during anti-Israeli attacks.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has its European headquarters in Paris, describes itself as a human rights group dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust by fostering tolerance and understanding.

The organisation is named after Simon Wiesenthal, an Austrian Jew who lost many family members in the Holocaust, and later dedicated most of his life to tracking down fugitive Nazis to bring them to justice.

Comment: Whatever will the Wiesenthal people do when the last 95 year old Nazi volunteer fireman dies in a nursing home? They have to have a reason to beat the drum for money, after all.  Why not go after Hindu mystics who still use the swastika as a religious symbol or the breeders of dachshunds (who as we all know from Binjiman Wildomerski’s new book ‘Killer Nazi Dachshunds of the SS Death Camps,” were specially bred by Heinrich Himmler’s cousin Wally, to rip the toenails out of Jewish concentration camp inmates waiting in three-mile long lines for their soothing hot showers.) BH