Conyers betrays the left: no impeachment

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Newsweek's take on the Pelosi-Harman thing

Postby AlicetheCurious » Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:40 am

What’s for Dinner?
On the House Intelligence Committee, it’s a heaping plate of controversy.

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek

Updated: 7:03 p.m. ET Oct. 25, 2006

Oct. 25, 2006 - While reportedly under investigation for her ties to an influential pro-Israel lobbying organization, California Rep. Jane Harman last month hosted a private dinner for the group that was attended by two top Bush administration officials—Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

The Sept. 13 dinner took place at the home of Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and was attended by over 120 top financial backers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The highlight of the evening was a panel discussion in which Harman played the host, questioning Negroponte and Chertoff about Mideast developments, international terrorism and homeland-security issues, according to an AIPAC official.

The dinner was hardly an unusual one for AIPAC. The group often arranges such elite pow-wows at the homes of senior members of Congress and government officials (one in the mid-1990s was hosted by then Vice President Al Gore) as a way for AIPAC to both demonstrate its political clout and to provide a perk for major donors.

But last month’s event raises new questions about recent reports that the FBI was investigating whether Harman, an outspoken supporter of Israel, last year may have agreed to improperly influence an ongoing Justice Department probe of AIPAC. The reports of the probe came just a few days after Harman released a politically sensitive House report that included important new details about the investigation surrounding the activities of disgraced former GOP Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham.

The low-level probe into Harman was launched last year after department officials received a tip that Harman was at the same time seeking the assistance of big AIPAC donors to lobby House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to stay on as the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee (and become the panel’s chairman if the Democrats retake control of the House in next month’s elections.)

Harman has dismissed the investigation, first reported last week by Time magazine’s Web site, as “laughable,” and no evidence has surfaced of any quid pro quo, or even any Harman effort to influence Justice. A Harman aide on Wednesday pointed to Negroponte and Chertoff’s presence at Harman’s home as further evidence that the inquiry couldn’t possibly have been a serious one. “It makes no sense,” said the aide, who asked not to be identified while talking about sensitive matters. “If there was a serious investigation going on, and there were concerns about Jane Harman’s reliability and intentions, why would the administration agree to send these two heavy hitters?”

One explanation could be that the reported Harman probe was on such a close hold that senior administration officials attending last month’s dinner never even knew about the inquiry. Chertoff, who was chief of the Justice Department’s criminal division between 2001 and 2003, “was not aware of an investigation at that time” and only learned about the “alleged investigation” when it became public a few days ago, a spokesman told NEWSWEEK on Wednesday.

A senior law-enforcement official said that Harman “has been looked at in a very preliminary level” because officials are obligated to pursue tips when they come into the Justice Department. But while describing the investigation as “not particularly well developed,” the official added that “it’s not closed.”

But another explanation, the one preferred by Harman’s allies, is that leaks about the probe were part of a political effort to discredit her and to divert attention from what they believe is the real issue: a web of influence peddling and corruption in national-security contracting that has tainted the House Intelligence Committee itself. The key, they say, is timing. Harman, in recent weeks, has been engaged in an intense and increasingly bitter battle with Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Republican from Michigan, over the release of an internal report on the activities of Duke Cunningham, the former California Republican congressman and member of the Intelligence Committee who resigned last year after pleading guilty to accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes. When Hoekstra refused to release a public executive summary of the report, Harman on her own two weeks ago released a copy and posted it on her Web site a move that infuriated Hoekstra and other GOP members of the committee.

The next day, Hoekstra unilaterally suspended Larry Hanauer, a Democratic staff member who reported to Harman, allegedly because of suspicions that Hanauer may have leaked a classified intelligence report on Iraq. (Hanauer has since denied in a sworn affidavit that he played any role in leaking the report, and Democrats have charged that the aide’s suspension was done as “retaliation” for Harman’s release of the Cunningham report.)

It was in the midst of this highly charged, and partisan, squabbling that the reports of the FBI investigation into Harman surfaced. They also came at a time that Pelosi, in line to be House Speaker if the Democrats win, was signaling she does not want Harman to be chairman of the intelligence panel; reports of a FBI probe into Harman would presumably give Pelosi cover to deny the chairmanship to Harman—a moderate Democrat whom Pelosi feels has not been aggressive enough in challenging the Bush administration.

Obscured amid the charges and countercharges is the important new information on the Cunningham investigation included in the Intelligence Committee report, prepared by a special counsel and released by Harman. One was the conclusion by the special counsel, Michael Stern, that the House Intelligence Committee staff had ignored numerous “red flags” that Cunningham was using his position on the panel to steer Pentagon intelligence contracts to one of the contractors, Mitch Wade, who was paying him bribes. (Wade has since pled guilty to bribing Cunningham.) The red flags included “frequently expressed questions about the ethics and integrity of Wade” and “doubts about the value of the project” that Cunningham was directing to Wade’s company, according to the report.

The other new element was the special counsel’s call for further investigation into the award of large CIA contracts to yet another unidentified company. Federal sources and lawyers close to the case—who asked not to be identified talking about classified matters—tell NEWSWEEK that the unidentified company in the report is Global Transportation Systems (GTS), a Virginia-based shipping broker whose president, Richard Wenzel, has emerged as a potentially key witness in ongoing federal investigations into political influence peddling that have grown out of the Cunningham case, the sources said.

In January 2004, according to investigative blogger Laura Rozen, Wenzel and his company hired as Washington lobbyists a company affiliated with Brent Wilkes, a San Diego businessman who has been named as an unindicated co-conspirator in the Cunningham case. The committee report also describes a private dinner at a fancy Washington restaurant attended by Wenzel, Wilkes, former top CIA official Kyle (Dusty) Foggo and a House Intelligence Committee staffer apparently seeking a job from Wenzel. (Lawyers for Foggo and Wilkes have denied any wrongdoing by their clients. Wenzel could not be reached for comment.) The clear suggestion in the committee counsel's report is that these alleged cozy relationships among congressional staffers and government officials may have distorted national-security contracting and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars—issues that are potentially more serious than the low-priority probe of Harman or her political feuds with her House colleagues.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15419753/site/newsweek/

AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Conyers

Postby MASONIC PLOT » Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:02 pm

You all didnt really think Conyers was any different than the rest of those harlots in congress did you? The dont impeach presidents anymore, sure they impeached clinton but didnt remove him. And besides, if you look closely that was a red herring, a staged psychological operation to get everyone looking the other way while the real crimes were being committed ie, selling secrets to china, preparing for 9-11 and the coming police state coup, it all fits together nicely if you stand back and view it from 10 or 15 paces.
MASONIC PLOT
 

Postby chiggerbit » Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:20 pm

chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: this

Postby Tosca » Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:56 pm

Hi Nordic!

I couldn't have said it better and agree with you 100%. The 'talking points ' are already being used! Amazing how fast they got the sheep in line to enable them to continue the fascist agenda.

Don't talk about 911! Don't talk about Diebold! Don't talk about Impeachment! Don't talk about Guantanamo!! etc etc. !!

What truly amazes me too,is how many people personally IDENTIFY with politicians! Are they under the illusion that these politicians are their family members? 'We' this, 'We' that ! Can someone please inform these fools that politicians are lying crooks EVERYWHERE on the planet (with a few exceptions)?? I call it 'football politics' -- my team vs your team! One herd versus the other herd. And those who dare to question BOTH sides are subjected to dismissal, threats, etc. Whatever happend to holding the people you elected accountable to the promises they made? Whatever happend to critical thinking and intellectual freedom?


ok enough ranting for now..

dems are in power now-- sing kumbaya, fall into lock-step and shut up!!


tosca
Tosca
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Its a simple issue

Postby MASONIC PLOT » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:07 pm

Your problem is quite simple and common. You still believe in that romantic ideal that there is a difference between the two parties, you go out and vote tweedledee in to replace tweedledum when he isnt doing a good job, when tweedledee doesnt quite meet your expectations its back to tweedledum we go. There is ZERO difference between the two parties, once you accept this and stop expecting them to actually change things then you can get well and begin to live a more healthy mentally stable life.

Watch the news very closely and you will see them pointing out that the new democrats most recently elected are of a new breed. It has actually been said countless times since the election on tuesday that this new breed of democrat could very easily be mistaken as a republican on the issues. You have been hoodwinked, tricked, decieved and lied to and it is time to wise up and make 2008 the day nobody shows up to vote, then maybe some real changes will take place, until then you can expect the same old insanity and madness out of these harlots you waste your time voting for.
MASONIC PLOT
 

Re: Its a simple issue

Postby Tosca » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:35 pm

MASONIC PLOT wrote:Your problem is quite simple and common. You still believe in that romantic ideal that there is a difference between the two parties,....



I'm not sure how you got that impression, but ok. I'll be more clear. It has become painfully obvious , particularely in the west, that 'democracy', i.e. 'elections' are a fraud and are simply a model created and used by the elite, to fend off a revolution! Many |Europeans already see this ( 'belief in democracy down in Germany') , as the votes against the EU proved in France and Holland. I've come to the conclusion that in the present system, the voters are the ones who are legitimizing these thieves in high places. The question is: what if they called an election and nobody showed up to vote?

below is a translated text written by Albert Libertad- Anti-electoral wall cupboard published by Anarchy n°47, March 1, 1906

The criminal

It is you the criminal, ô People, since it is you the Sovereign. You are, it is true, the unconscious and naive criminal. You vote and you do not see that you are your own victim.

Yet, have you not experienced enough that the deputies, who promise to defend you, like all the governments of the world present and passed, are liars and helpless ones?

You know it and you complain about it! You know it and you name them! The government, who ever they are, worked, work and will work for their interests, for those of their castes and of their associations.

Where has it been and how could it be different? The governed are subordinates and exploited: do you know any that are not?

As long as you do not understand that it is with you alone that it belongs to produce and to live in your own way, as long as you will support, — by fear — and that you will make yourself, — by belief in the necessary authority — of the chiefs and the directors, knows it well also, your delegates and your masters will live of your labour and your silliness. You complain for everything! But are you not the author of the thousand wounds that devour you?

You complain of the police, the army, the justice, the barracks, the prisons, the administrations, the laws, the ministers, the ministers, the government, the financiers, the speculators, the civil servants, the bosses, the priests, the landlords, the wages, the unemployments, the parliaments, the taxes, the custom officers, the pensioners, the high cost of food, the tenant farming and the rents, the long days of workshop and factory, the thinness of daily bread, the deprivations without number and the infinite mass of social iniquities.

You complain; but you want the maintenance of the system where you vegetate. You revolt sometimes, but to always start again. It is you who produce everything, who plough and sow, who forge and weave, who knead and transform, who build and manufacture, who feed and fertilize!

Why do you not eat to your hunger? Why are you not well clothed, the not well nourished, the not well sheltered? Yes, why the without bread, the without shoes, the without residence? Why are you not your Master? Why do you bow, obey, and serve? Why are you the inferior, the humiliated, the offended, and the servant, the slave?

You elaborate everything and you do not posses anything? All is from you and you are nothing.

I am mistaken. You are the elector, the voter, the one who accepts what is; the one who, by the ballot paper, sanctions all his miseries; the one who, by voting, consecrates all his servitudes.

You are the volunteer valet, the amiable domestic, the lackey, the servile man, the dog licking the whip, crawling in front of the grip of the Master. You are the gofer, the jailer, and the informer. You are the good soldier, the model gatekeeper, and the benevolent tenant. You are the faithful employee, the devoted servant, the sober peasant, and the resigned workman of your own slavery. You are yourself your own torturer. Of what are you complaining off?

You are a danger to us, free men, for us, anarchists [sic]. You are a danger as equal of the tyrants, of the Masters that you give yourself, that you name, that you support, that you nourish, that you protect with your bayonets, that you defend with you brute force, that you exalt of your ignorance, that you legalize by your ballot papers, — and that you impose on us by your imbecility.

It is well you the Sovereign, who they outrageously flatter and they deceive. The speeches incense you. The posters get a hold on you again; you like the stupidities and the courtships; be satisfied, while waiting to be shot at the colonies, to be massacred at the borders, at the shade of your flag.

If interested tongues lick their lips over your royal droppings, ô Sovereign! If candidates famished of commands and stuffed of platitudes, brush the spine and the croup of your paper autocracy; If you intoxicate yourself of the incense and the promises poured down on you by those who have always betrayed you, mislead you and will sell to you tomorrow: it is that yourself you resemble to them. It is that you are not worth better than the horde of your starveling adulators. It is that not having been able to raise yourself to the conscience of your individuality and your independence, you are unable to free your self by yourself. You want not; therefore you cannot be free.

Let us go, vote well! Rely on your representatives; believe in your elected officials.

But cease to complain. The yokes that you undergo, it is yourself to whom you impose them. The crimes of which you suffer, it is you who commits them. It is you the Master, it is you the criminal, and, irony, it is you the slave, and it is you the victim.

We, others, tired of the oppression of the Masters that you give us, tired to support their arrogance, tired to support your passivity, we come to call upon you to reflection, to action [sic].

Let us go, a good movement: take off the narrow suit of the legislation; wash your body harshly, so that the parasites and the vermin that devour you are killed. Then only will you be able to live fully.

The CRIMINAL, it is the Voter!

Anti-electoral wall cupboard published by Anarchy n°47, March 1, 1906
Tosca
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Good post

Postby MASONIC PLOT » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:44 pm

Well I wasnt really referring to you specifically, but that is an excellent post, thanks for that. I largely agree!
MASONIC PLOT
 

Postby chiggerbit » Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:59 pm

Will Hillary and the rest be against investigations? Will she have learned the lessons her husband doesn't seem to have learned about his failure to finish investigations into corruption in the previous White House? Great article. Parry does such a good job of showing the relevence of recent history in today's political climate.


snips

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.......

.....Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.....


.....After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires. [See Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]....
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Fearless » Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:47 pm

Maybe Bush will be forced to resign, ala Nixon. Maybe they have so much on him, he was forced to throw Rummy under the bus. I dunno, just a thought.
Fearless
 
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

2008

Postby MASONIC PLOT » Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:52 pm

Personally I think we will all be very lucky if Bush leaves office in 2008. Frankly I am not so sure he will. I expect events that will result in martial law and cancellation of elections between now and then. Radical? Absolutely. Possible? Entirely.
MASONIC PLOT
 

Clinton was always a "member of the family"

Postby darkatdawn » Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:06 pm

Barbara Bush recently referred to WFC as a "son" should say volumes. Chiggerbit a brief glance down consipracy lane shows Billy and Poppy were dope runners together flying in tons of the stuff to the Mena airport Little Rock Ark. Do you really believe the son of a single mom trailer park residence got to be president on his own. He had "special handling" written all over him from his numerous scholarships to his miraculous sudden break into national politics. Sorry. Also, if you care to look, you will find a ton of evidence showing him covering up for gross scams like Waco and Okc bombing. He must have been in on all the early planning for 911. Where you bin boy? As for Hillary, that dragon lady has ice in her veins. God help us if she runs the show...
darkatdawn
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Clinton

Postby MASONIC PLOT » Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:25 pm

Bubba is as blue blood as they come. Rumor has been going around for years that his mother was a political call girl who serviced dignitaries visiting Arkansas, one of which was Joe Kennedy the partiarch and of course those Rockefellers. I think it is pretty safe to say that Clinton is the product of one of these servicings and brought up accordingly because of it.

As for Mena, he did indeed look the other way while Bush Sr smuggled in lots of drugs through that airport which was sold on the streets of LA to raise money for the Iran Contra covert ops. Guess who was in charge of those smuggling missions? W and Ollie North.

Interestingly their old friend Daniel Ortega of Sandinista/Iran/Contra fame, is back, elected President of Nicaragua last saturday. 4 days later Rumsfeld is sacked and exiled stage left and Robert Gates enters, stage right. Gates as you may or may not know is a veteran Bushie and key player in the Ortega/Iran/Contra affair.
MASONIC PLOT
 

Postby sunny » Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:39 pm

MASONIC PLOT-

Considering the Contras were trying to murder every Sandinista in sight, could you provide cites which prove, or at least strongly implicate,Ortega was complicit and part of the Asses of Evil Iran/Contra affair? I realize he may be compromised now, but then? Whew, that's a new one.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby chiggerbit » Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:50 pm

Yes, I've heard all the ones about Clinton, but the Ortega allegations are new. I've never cared much for the Clintons, although if pressed, I guess I would rather have them than one of the Bush's, although I'm not sure about that....

Would like to hear more about Ortega.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Ok

Postby MASONIC PLOT » Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:09 pm

I didnt really mean to imply that he was part of their cabal at the time, although I might argue that he was, just as I believe chavez and the iranian president read from a globalist written script. In the above post I just mentioned that he was back in the picture and at the same time gates is back, both being famous for being involved in the iran contra affair.
MASONIC PLOT
 

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests