bump
The Truth About George W. Bush & Co.
- Thread starter GET YOU HOT
- Start date
Published on Sunday, February 8, 2004
by The Los Angeles Times
Bush Family Values: War, Wealth, Oil
Four generations have created an unsavory web of links that could prove an election-year Achilles' heel for the president.
by Kevin Phillips
Four generations have created an unsavory web of links that could prove an election-year Achilles' heel for the president.
Despite February polls showing President Bush losing his early reelection lead, he's still the favorite. No modern president running unopposed in his party's primaries and caucuses has ever lost in November.
But there may be a key to undoing that precedent. The two Bush presidencies are so closely linked, especially over Iraq, that the 43rd can't be understood apart from the 41st. Beyond that, for a full portrait of what the Bushes are about, we must return to the family's emergence on the national scene in the early 20th century.
This four-generation evolution of the Bushes involves multiple links that could become Bush's election-year Achilles' heel — if a clever and tough 2004 Democratic opponent can punch and slice at them. Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, the clear Democratic front-runner, could be best positioned to do so. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he investigated the Iran-Contra and Bank of Credit and Commerce International scandals, both of which touched George H.W. Bush's Saudi, Iraqi and Middle Eastern arms-deal entanglements.
Washington lawyer Jack Blum, the ace investigator for Kerry's subcommittee back then, is said to be advising him now, which could be meaningful. Ironically, the Bush family's century of involvement in oil, armaments and global intrigue has never been at the center of the national debate since the Bushes starting running for president in 1980.
The reason? Insufficient public knowledge. The only Bush biography published before George H.W. Bush won election in 1988 was a puff job written by a former press secretary, and the biographies of George W. Bush in 2000 barely mentioned his forefathers. Millions of Republicans who have loyally voted for Bushes in three presidential elections simply have no idea. Here are circumstances and biases especially worth noting.
The Bushes and the military-industrial complex: George H. Walker and Samuel Prescott Bush were the dynasty's founding fathers during the years of and after World War I. Walker, a St. Louis financier, made his mark in corporate reorganizations and war contracts. By 1919, he was enlisted by railroad heir W. Averell Harriman to be president of Wall Street-based WA Harriman, which invested in oil, shipping, aviation and manganese, partly in Russia and Germany, during the 1920s. Sam Bush, the current president's other great-grandfather, ran an Ohio company, Buckeye Steel Castings, that produced armaments. In 1917, he went to Washington to head the small arms, ammunition and ordnance section of the federal War Industries Board. Both men were present at the emergence of what became the U.S. military-industrial complex.
Prescott Bush, the Connecticut senator and grandfather of the current president, had some German corporate ties at the outbreak of World War II, but the better yardstick of his connections was his directorships of companies involved in U.S. war production. Dresser Industries, for example, produced the incendiary bombs dropped on Tokyo and made gaseous diffusion pumps for the atomic bomb project. George H.W. Bush later worked for Dresser's oil-services businesses. Then, as CIA director, vice president and president, one of his priorities was the U.S. weapons trade and secret arms deals with Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the moujahedeen in Afghanistan.
In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about how "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." That complex's recent mega-leap to power came under George H.W. Bush and even more under George W. Bush — with the post-9/11 expansion of the military and creation of the Department of Homeland Security. But armaments and arms deals seem to have been in the Bushes' blood for nearly a century.
Oil: The Bushes' ties to John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil go back 100 years, when Rockefeller made Buckeye Steel Castings wildly successful by convincing railroads that carried their oil to buy heavy equipment from Buckeye. George H. Walker helped refurbish the Soviet oil industry in the 1920s, and Prescott Bush acquired experience in the international oil business as a 22-year director of Dresser Industries. George H.W. Bush, in turn, worked for Dresser and ran his own offshore oil-drilling business, Zapata Offshore. George W. Bush mostly raised money from investors for oil businesses that failed. Currently, the family's oil focus is principally in the Middle East.
Enron is another family connection. The company's Kenneth L. Lay made his first connections with George H.W. Bush in the early 1980s when the latter was working on energy deregulation. When Bush became president in 1989, he gave Lay two prominent international roles: membership on the President's Export Council and the task of planning for a G-7 summit in Houston. Lay parlayed that exposure into new business overseas and clout with Washington agencies. Family favoritism soon followed. When Bush senior lost the 1992 election, Lay picked up with son George W., first in Texas and then as a top contributor to Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. Before Enron imploded in late 2001, it had more influence in a new administration than any other corporation in memory.
The intelligence community: Bushes and Walkers have been involved with the intelligence community since World War I. The importance of Sam Bush's wartime munitions-regulating role was obvious. During the 1920s, when George H. Walker was doing a lot of business in Russia and Germany, he became a director of the American International Corporation, formed during the war for purposes of overseas investment and intelligence-gathering. Prescott Bush's pre-1941 corporate and banking contacts with Germany, sensationalized on many Internet sites, appear to have been passed along to officials in government and intelligence circles.
George H.W. Bush may have had CIA connections before the agency's unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961. A number of published sources suggest that Zapata Offshore was a CIA front long before he went on to become director of Central Intelligence in 1976. As for George W. Bush, his limited ties are said to have come through investments in, and buyouts of, several of his oil businesses by CIA- and BCCI-connected firms and individuals.
Top 1% economics: Over four generations, the Bush family has been involved with more than 20 securities firms, banks, brokerage houses and investment management firms, ranging from Wall Street giants like Brown Brothers Harriman and E.F. Hutton to small firms like J. Bush & Co. and Riggs Investment Management Corp. This relentless record of handling money for rich people has bred a vocational hauteur. In their eyes, the economic top 1% of Americans are the ones who count. Investors and their inheritors are favored — a good explanation of why George W. Bush has cut taxes on both dividends and estates, where most of the benefit goes to the top 1%. Over the course of George H.W. Bush's career, he was close to a number of the merger kings and leveraged-buyout specialists of the 1980s who came from Oklahoma and Texas: T. Boone Pickens, Henry Kravis and Hugh Liedtke. "Little guy" economics has almost no niche in the Bush economic worldview.
Debt and deficits: Whenever a Bush is president, private debt and government deficits seem to grow. Middle- and low-income Americans borrow to offset the income squeeze of recessions. The hallmark of Bush economics during both presidencies has been favoritism toward capital over workers. Federal budget deficits have soared because of a combination of upper-bracket tax favors, middle-income job shrinkage, big federal spending to hype election-year economic growth, huge defense outlays and overseas military spending for the wars in Iraq and elsewhere. Imperial hubris costs a lot of money.
Politically, over four generations the Bush past has been prologue. Despite George W. Bush's new good ol' boy image — cowboy boots and born-again ties to the religious right — his basic tendencies go in the same directions — oil, crony capitalism, top 1% economics and military-industrial-establishment loyalties — that the previous Bush and Walker generations have traveled. The old biases and loyalties seem ineradicable; so, too, for old grudges, like the two-generation fixation on Saddam Hussein.
The presidency is an old Bush ambition. As early as the 1940s, Barbara Bush talked to friends about becoming first lady. The current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, told his wife before he retired in 1962 that he wished he'd been president. By 1963, George W. Bush, a student at Andover Academy, was talking about his own father's desire to be president.
In short, the word "dynasty" fits the Bushes all too well. They have had plenty of time to sort out their ambitions, loyalties and intentions. They know what they're in politics for — although this year may pose a new problem. The American people are also starting to find out.
Kevin Phillips' new book, just published, is "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush."
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
by The Los Angeles Times
Bush Family Values: War, Wealth, Oil
Four generations have created an unsavory web of links that could prove an election-year Achilles' heel for the president.
by Kevin Phillips
Four generations have created an unsavory web of links that could prove an election-year Achilles' heel for the president.
Despite February polls showing President Bush losing his early reelection lead, he's still the favorite. No modern president running unopposed in his party's primaries and caucuses has ever lost in November.
But there may be a key to undoing that precedent. The two Bush presidencies are so closely linked, especially over Iraq, that the 43rd can't be understood apart from the 41st. Beyond that, for a full portrait of what the Bushes are about, we must return to the family's emergence on the national scene in the early 20th century.
This four-generation evolution of the Bushes involves multiple links that could become Bush's election-year Achilles' heel — if a clever and tough 2004 Democratic opponent can punch and slice at them. Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, the clear Democratic front-runner, could be best positioned to do so. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he investigated the Iran-Contra and Bank of Credit and Commerce International scandals, both of which touched George H.W. Bush's Saudi, Iraqi and Middle Eastern arms-deal entanglements.
Washington lawyer Jack Blum, the ace investigator for Kerry's subcommittee back then, is said to be advising him now, which could be meaningful. Ironically, the Bush family's century of involvement in oil, armaments and global intrigue has never been at the center of the national debate since the Bushes starting running for president in 1980.
The reason? Insufficient public knowledge. The only Bush biography published before George H.W. Bush won election in 1988 was a puff job written by a former press secretary, and the biographies of George W. Bush in 2000 barely mentioned his forefathers. Millions of Republicans who have loyally voted for Bushes in three presidential elections simply have no idea. Here are circumstances and biases especially worth noting.
The Bushes and the military-industrial complex: George H. Walker and Samuel Prescott Bush were the dynasty's founding fathers during the years of and after World War I. Walker, a St. Louis financier, made his mark in corporate reorganizations and war contracts. By 1919, he was enlisted by railroad heir W. Averell Harriman to be president of Wall Street-based WA Harriman, which invested in oil, shipping, aviation and manganese, partly in Russia and Germany, during the 1920s. Sam Bush, the current president's other great-grandfather, ran an Ohio company, Buckeye Steel Castings, that produced armaments. In 1917, he went to Washington to head the small arms, ammunition and ordnance section of the federal War Industries Board. Both men were present at the emergence of what became the U.S. military-industrial complex.
Prescott Bush, the Connecticut senator and grandfather of the current president, had some German corporate ties at the outbreak of World War II, but the better yardstick of his connections was his directorships of companies involved in U.S. war production. Dresser Industries, for example, produced the incendiary bombs dropped on Tokyo and made gaseous diffusion pumps for the atomic bomb project. George H.W. Bush later worked for Dresser's oil-services businesses. Then, as CIA director, vice president and president, one of his priorities was the U.S. weapons trade and secret arms deals with Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the moujahedeen in Afghanistan.
In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about how "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." That complex's recent mega-leap to power came under George H.W. Bush and even more under George W. Bush — with the post-9/11 expansion of the military and creation of the Department of Homeland Security. But armaments and arms deals seem to have been in the Bushes' blood for nearly a century.
Oil: The Bushes' ties to John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil go back 100 years, when Rockefeller made Buckeye Steel Castings wildly successful by convincing railroads that carried their oil to buy heavy equipment from Buckeye. George H. Walker helped refurbish the Soviet oil industry in the 1920s, and Prescott Bush acquired experience in the international oil business as a 22-year director of Dresser Industries. George H.W. Bush, in turn, worked for Dresser and ran his own offshore oil-drilling business, Zapata Offshore. George W. Bush mostly raised money from investors for oil businesses that failed. Currently, the family's oil focus is principally in the Middle East.
Enron is another family connection. The company's Kenneth L. Lay made his first connections with George H.W. Bush in the early 1980s when the latter was working on energy deregulation. When Bush became president in 1989, he gave Lay two prominent international roles: membership on the President's Export Council and the task of planning for a G-7 summit in Houston. Lay parlayed that exposure into new business overseas and clout with Washington agencies. Family favoritism soon followed. When Bush senior lost the 1992 election, Lay picked up with son George W., first in Texas and then as a top contributor to Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. Before Enron imploded in late 2001, it had more influence in a new administration than any other corporation in memory.
The intelligence community: Bushes and Walkers have been involved with the intelligence community since World War I. The importance of Sam Bush's wartime munitions-regulating role was obvious. During the 1920s, when George H. Walker was doing a lot of business in Russia and Germany, he became a director of the American International Corporation, formed during the war for purposes of overseas investment and intelligence-gathering. Prescott Bush's pre-1941 corporate and banking contacts with Germany, sensationalized on many Internet sites, appear to have been passed along to officials in government and intelligence circles.
George H.W. Bush may have had CIA connections before the agency's unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961. A number of published sources suggest that Zapata Offshore was a CIA front long before he went on to become director of Central Intelligence in 1976. As for George W. Bush, his limited ties are said to have come through investments in, and buyouts of, several of his oil businesses by CIA- and BCCI-connected firms and individuals.
Top 1% economics: Over four generations, the Bush family has been involved with more than 20 securities firms, banks, brokerage houses and investment management firms, ranging from Wall Street giants like Brown Brothers Harriman and E.F. Hutton to small firms like J. Bush & Co. and Riggs Investment Management Corp. This relentless record of handling money for rich people has bred a vocational hauteur. In their eyes, the economic top 1% of Americans are the ones who count. Investors and their inheritors are favored — a good explanation of why George W. Bush has cut taxes on both dividends and estates, where most of the benefit goes to the top 1%. Over the course of George H.W. Bush's career, he was close to a number of the merger kings and leveraged-buyout specialists of the 1980s who came from Oklahoma and Texas: T. Boone Pickens, Henry Kravis and Hugh Liedtke. "Little guy" economics has almost no niche in the Bush economic worldview.
Debt and deficits: Whenever a Bush is president, private debt and government deficits seem to grow. Middle- and low-income Americans borrow to offset the income squeeze of recessions. The hallmark of Bush economics during both presidencies has been favoritism toward capital over workers. Federal budget deficits have soared because of a combination of upper-bracket tax favors, middle-income job shrinkage, big federal spending to hype election-year economic growth, huge defense outlays and overseas military spending for the wars in Iraq and elsewhere. Imperial hubris costs a lot of money.
Politically, over four generations the Bush past has been prologue. Despite George W. Bush's new good ol' boy image — cowboy boots and born-again ties to the religious right — his basic tendencies go in the same directions — oil, crony capitalism, top 1% economics and military-industrial-establishment loyalties — that the previous Bush and Walker generations have traveled. The old biases and loyalties seem ineradicable; so, too, for old grudges, like the two-generation fixation on Saddam Hussein.
The presidency is an old Bush ambition. As early as the 1940s, Barbara Bush talked to friends about becoming first lady. The current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, told his wife before he retired in 1962 that he wished he'd been president. By 1963, George W. Bush, a student at Andover Academy, was talking about his own father's desire to be president.
In short, the word "dynasty" fits the Bushes all too well. They have had plenty of time to sort out their ambitions, loyalties and intentions. They know what they're in politics for — although this year may pose a new problem. The American people are also starting to find out.
Kevin Phillips' new book, just published, is "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush."
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
Get You Hot,
I must of read like a million of your posts, thnx for all the info, but I always see you post facts and knowledge but what I wanna know is what are some solutions and recommendations and how all this links up.The outlook is like damn this game was stacked years ago its like trying to get in on monopoly after cats been playing for a few hours. Maybe give rules to live by or some tools to find the answers on my own. Thanks ahead. peace.
I must of read like a million of your posts, thnx for all the info, but I always see you post facts and knowledge but what I wanna know is what are some solutions and recommendations and how all this links up.The outlook is like damn this game was stacked years ago its like trying to get in on monopoly after cats been playing for a few hours. Maybe give rules to live by or some tools to find the answers on my own. Thanks ahead. peace.
one/quest/ion said:
Don't submit to the will of others.
Question everything.
Be ambitious.
Think Globally, act locally.
Conserve.
Celebrate.
Freethinking is an asset.
Resist temptation.
Think slowly, move quickly.
Anger is a waste of time.
Health is everything.
Work smarter not harder.
Your word is your bond.
The best things in life are free.
Live life like everyday is your last.
Be true to yourself.
Plan. Things are not just supposed to happen. Don't count on luck.
Cherish the things that make you happy.
Everything matters.
Alot of the "catch" phrases i live by...
Bush won't reauthorize U.S. eavesdropping program By James Vicini
Wed Jan 17, 6:24 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush has decided not to renew a program of domestic spying on terrorism suspects, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday, ending a tactic criticized for infringing on civil liberties.
Gonzales said electronic surveillance will be subject to approval from a secret but independent court, which Democrats in Congress and other critics have demanded during more than a year of fierce debate.
"The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that disclosed the administration's shift in approach.
Bush has reauthorized the program every 45 days, and the current authorization is mid-cycle, a senior Justice Department official said. Gonzales said a recent secret-court approval allowed the government to act effectively without the program.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/ts_nm/surveillance_bush_dc_5
Wed Jan 17, 6:24 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush has decided not to renew a program of domestic spying on terrorism suspects, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday, ending a tactic criticized for infringing on civil liberties.
Gonzales said electronic surveillance will be subject to approval from a secret but independent court, which Democrats in Congress and other critics have demanded during more than a year of fierce debate.
"The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that disclosed the administration's shift in approach.
Bush has reauthorized the program every 45 days, and the current authorization is mid-cycle, a senior Justice Department official said. Gonzales said a recent secret-court approval allowed the government to act effectively without the program.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/ts_nm/surveillance_bush_dc_5
Click the link below to read about how the President is positioning himself to become a dictator...
Habits of Secrecy Unprecedented & Rising
Habits of Secrecy Unprecedented & Rising
Last edited:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003764.php
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003221.php
also this news...
Today's Must Read
By Spencer Ackerman - July 26, 2007, 9:15 AM
Was it or wasn't it a briefing on the Terrorist Surveillance Program? The answer may determine Alberto Gonzales's fate.
As the world knows, Gonzales testified on Tuesday that James Comey, the former deputy attorney general, may have had legal objections to ... to... well, to some "intelligence activities" by the Bush administration, but not to the surveillance program announced by President Bush in December 2005, known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Stunned lawmakers immediately began talking about perjury charges: the previously-unknown "program" came as very convenient for Gonzales, who had told the Senate on February 6, 2006 that no one within the Justice Department had dissented from the program the "president described."
The crux of the distinction is now a White House meeting with Congressional leaders on the mysterious program that occurred on March 10, 2004. Gonzales told the Senate about the meeting in order to add "context" to his controversial bedside visit that day to recused Attorney General John Ashcroft to "inform" him about Comey's refusal to reauthorize Program X. If Gonzales is telling the truth, then the March 10, 2004 meeting wasn't about the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
Unfortunately for him, as the AP first reported, in 2006, then-intelligence chief John Negroponte, wrote to then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert to inform him of the dates of the congressional/White House meetings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program. And sure enough, the March 10, 2004 meeting is on Negroponte's list. You can read Negroponte's letter here.
Gonzales had been careful to avoid ever using the words "Terrorist Surveillance Program," apparently to avoid precisely the bind he's in now. At Tuesday's hearing, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) asked him about the distinction he's drawing. His answer? He won't answer in public.
SPECTER: Going back to the question about your credibility on whether there was dissent within the administration as to the terrorist surveillance program, was there any distinction between the terrorist surveillance program in existence on March 10th, when you and the chief of staff went to see Attorney General Ashcroft, contrasted with the terrorist surveillance program which President Bush made public in December of 2005?
GONZALES: Senator, this is a question that I should answer in a classified setting, quite frankly, because now you're asking me to hint or talk -- to hint about our operational activities. And I'd be happy to answer that question, but in a classified setting.
That better be one unbelievably convincing closed-session briefing, because options are running low for Gonzales. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has given him until next week to revise his testimony. If not, he'll ask the Justice Department's inspector general to "determine who's telling the truth" via a perjury inquiry. So far, Gonzales's spokesman is standing by the Tuesday testimony.
That's not surprising. If Gonzales concedes that the March 10, 2004 meeting was about the TSP, he'll be conceding that Comey's objections were indeed about the TSP -- and that means that his February 6, 2006 testimony misled the Senate. In other words, unless Gonzales can prove that the March 10, 2004 meeting wasn't about the TSP, he's going to be hounded by perjury charges for the rest of his tenure.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003221.php
also this news...
Today's Must Read
By Spencer Ackerman - July 26, 2007, 9:15 AM
Was it or wasn't it a briefing on the Terrorist Surveillance Program? The answer may determine Alberto Gonzales's fate.
As the world knows, Gonzales testified on Tuesday that James Comey, the former deputy attorney general, may have had legal objections to ... to... well, to some "intelligence activities" by the Bush administration, but not to the surveillance program announced by President Bush in December 2005, known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Stunned lawmakers immediately began talking about perjury charges: the previously-unknown "program" came as very convenient for Gonzales, who had told the Senate on February 6, 2006 that no one within the Justice Department had dissented from the program the "president described."
The crux of the distinction is now a White House meeting with Congressional leaders on the mysterious program that occurred on March 10, 2004. Gonzales told the Senate about the meeting in order to add "context" to his controversial bedside visit that day to recused Attorney General John Ashcroft to "inform" him about Comey's refusal to reauthorize Program X. If Gonzales is telling the truth, then the March 10, 2004 meeting wasn't about the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
Unfortunately for him, as the AP first reported, in 2006, then-intelligence chief John Negroponte, wrote to then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert to inform him of the dates of the congressional/White House meetings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program. And sure enough, the March 10, 2004 meeting is on Negroponte's list. You can read Negroponte's letter here.
Gonzales had been careful to avoid ever using the words "Terrorist Surveillance Program," apparently to avoid precisely the bind he's in now. At Tuesday's hearing, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) asked him about the distinction he's drawing. His answer? He won't answer in public.
SPECTER: Going back to the question about your credibility on whether there was dissent within the administration as to the terrorist surveillance program, was there any distinction between the terrorist surveillance program in existence on March 10th, when you and the chief of staff went to see Attorney General Ashcroft, contrasted with the terrorist surveillance program which President Bush made public in December of 2005?
GONZALES: Senator, this is a question that I should answer in a classified setting, quite frankly, because now you're asking me to hint or talk -- to hint about our operational activities. And I'd be happy to answer that question, but in a classified setting.
That better be one unbelievably convincing closed-session briefing, because options are running low for Gonzales. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has given him until next week to revise his testimony. If not, he'll ask the Justice Department's inspector general to "determine who's telling the truth" via a perjury inquiry. So far, Gonzales's spokesman is standing by the Tuesday testimony.
That's not surprising. If Gonzales concedes that the March 10, 2004 meeting was about the TSP, he'll be conceding that Comey's objections were indeed about the TSP -- and that means that his February 6, 2006 testimony misled the Senate. In other words, unless Gonzales can prove that the March 10, 2004 meeting wasn't about the TSP, he's going to be hounded by perjury charges for the rest of his tenure.
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
05-19-2007
www.roguegovernment.com
Lee Rogers
The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency” the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.
The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.
"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail. Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government.
The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort.
The directive defines Enduring Constitutional Government as the following.
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
Further on in the document it states the following.
The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.
This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such an effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all branches of government what to do.
Even worse is the fact that the directive states that the Secretary of Homeland Security will serve as the lead for coordinating overall continuity operations. We already know that the Homeland Security department is not really working to secure the homeland. Instead the Homeland Security department is really working to enslave the homeland just like the Home Office over in the United Kingdom has made that country an Orwellian hell of closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an emergency is declared, we can only guess what sort of surprises the Homeland Enslavement department will have for us.
The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that’s the case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures for all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of a so called “Catastrophic Emergency”.
It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the President.
SOURCE:
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=2169
05-19-2007
www.roguegovernment.com
Lee Rogers
The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency” the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.
The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.
"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail. Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government.
The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort.
The directive defines Enduring Constitutional Government as the following.
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
Further on in the document it states the following.
The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.
This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such an effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all branches of government what to do.
Even worse is the fact that the directive states that the Secretary of Homeland Security will serve as the lead for coordinating overall continuity operations. We already know that the Homeland Security department is not really working to secure the homeland. Instead the Homeland Security department is really working to enslave the homeland just like the Home Office over in the United Kingdom has made that country an Orwellian hell of closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an emergency is declared, we can only guess what sort of surprises the Homeland Enslavement department will have for us.
The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that’s the case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures for all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of a so called “Catastrophic Emergency”.
It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the President.
SOURCE:
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=2169
Last edited:
Mysterious disappearances in Pakistan
Musharraf's Pakistan and his unchecked intelligence agencies reek havoc on human rights, as over 400 families struggle for information about their missing loved ones.
By Naveed Ahmad in Islamabad for ISN Security Watch (15/08/07)
In the early days of June 2004, a few unidentified persons were seen inquiring about Atiq-ur-Rahman, a young scientist from the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), near his home in Abbotabad city, some 110 kilometers north of the capital Islamabad. Atiq went missing under mysterious circumstances on the morning of 23 June while his family and friends waited desperately for his wedding party.
Since then, Atiq's parents, his brother and five sisters, have been awaiting his return. "I believe my son will come home safe and sound," Siddiq-ur-Rahman, holding a framed picture of Atiq receiving a gold medal from none other than General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, tells ISN Security Watch.
Because of Atiq's position in the country's Atomic Energy Commission, his friends and family have logically assumed that he has been taken away by one of the country's intelligence agencies, but there has been no official word from anyone and the disappearance remains a mystery.
Three years later, on 16 July this year, Atiq's father-in-law finally said the engagement with his daughter Irum was no longer on.
Though the local police registered Atiq as missing, a formal investigation was never launched, and the family was soon asked to stop visiting the police station, saying one of the intelligence agencies had picked him up and there was nothing the local police could do.
To the utter surprise of the family, the PAEC did not panic over the development and instead kept dispatching warning letters asking Atiq to report to the office or lose his job. Eventually they stopped sending his salary.
"As a standard operating procedure, such cases are reported to our security department who are meant to handle them," a top PAEC official told ISN Security Watch.
Imran, Atiq's brother, recalls that a neighbor told him about several individuals who had been inquiring about his brother shortly before he disappeared. However, there are no witnesses to testify as to whether they saw Atiq being taken away.
More mysterious disappearances
Since 2002, over 400 families have claimed that their loved ones were picked up by the intelligence agencies under mysterious conditions. A few lucky families received briefed phone calls from the detention centers, but the majority have not been so lucky.
Despite the high profile coverage these cases were given in Pakistan's popular daily newspaper, The News, not a single human rights group had taken up the cause.
Realizing the void, Amina Masood, the wife of a missing philanthropist and businessman Masood Ahmed Janjua, has taken her case to the streets. Her actions have led other families in similar situations to join her and set up the nongovernmental Defense of Human Rights group.
Masood Janjua, now 45, disappeared on 30 July 2005 while on his way to catch a bus to Peshawar for an Islamic study group with Tablighi Jamaat, which describes itself as a peaceful movement. His young friend, Faisal Faraz, also went missing the same day from the very same place.
Amina braved intimidation from the intelligence corps and persistently demanded that the government speak up about her missing husband and dozens of others.
Her efforts moved Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry who took up the missing persons cases, forcing the government to trace around 100 missing persons - over half of whom have been released by the intelligence agencies.
The Defense Ministry, which controls Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence, finally has been summoned to the Supreme Court following the restoration of the chief justice in July after General Musharraf failed to prove severe allegations against the country’s top judge.
Some of the missing persons are Islamic militants and possibly criminals but the country's law opposes detention of any citizen without official charges followed by legal proceedings.
Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a mother of three children, disappeared from her Karachi residence in 2001. Unconfirmed reports suggest that she has been sent to Guantanamo Bay prison. Pakistani Interior Ministry spokesman Brigadier General Javed Iqbal Cheema denies any knowledge of the whereabouts of Dr Aafia or Amina Masood's husband.
"We are doing our best to trace the missing persons and duly share the available information with the Supreme Court," he told ISN Security Watch via telephone.
Amina Masood does not accept the government's version. She says some of those released on orders from the Supreme Court orders have filed affidavits claiming to have seen her husband in the detention centers.
She says her family received a phone call from General Musharraf's military secretary last year promising that her husband would be freed soon.
Amina refers to a letter from Dr Imran Munir, who clearly stated he had met Masood Janjua in a detention center in the Mangla cantonment, around 90 kilometers from Islamabad. Imran has been sentenced to eight years in prison on charges of espionage and the Supreme Court has ordered authorities to bring him before the court.
Dr Imran Munir's family claims that he is being punished for falling in love with the daughter of a brigadier who had invited him over for dinner on the same night that the 24-year-old went missing.
Charged or released
Lawyers for the missing argue that all of them should be charged and tried in open court or released.
In its annual report on human rights, the US State Department has acknowledged the disappearances. "There was an increase of politically motivated disappearances. Police and security forces held prisoners incommunicado and refused to provide information on their whereabouts, particularly in terrorism and national security cases."
Amnesty, Asia Watch and Human Rights Watch have been far more critical of forced disappearances during the Musharraf regime.
Many of the missing persons belong to nationalist outfits, fighting for the rights of under-developed areas such as Sindh and Balochistan. The government accuses these nationalists of receiving funding and training from Afghanistan and India.
The nationalist groups base their politics on ethnicity and regionalism. Historians use the term nationalism to refer to this historical transition and to the emergence and predominance of nationalist ideology. Prominent among these in Pakistan are the Balochistan Liberation Army and Mahajar Qaumi Movement (MQM).
Due to Amina Masood's relentless courage and humiliating revelations in the wake of a major judicial crisis, the country's Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence have faced the worst blows ever.
The death of Saud Memon, a Karachi cloth merchant, two weeks after being dumped near his house after four years of detention, further exposed the spy agencies' dubious activities.
Memon was picked up in Pretoria, South Africa, by US forces after the remains of Daniel Pearl were found on his barren land along the Super Highway. After US investigators failed to find any link between Memon and Pearl's killers, he was handed over to the Pakistani security agencies in January 2006 in Karachi.
The 44-year-old was brought before a Supreme Court bench on 4 May that year on a stretcher, his eyes looking blank and saliva spilling out of his mouth.
Weighing only 18 kilograms, Memon met a tragic death in a hospital in Karachi at the hands of alleged mental and physical torture.
Affidavits submitted in the Supreme Court by Pakistani citizens released by the intelligence agencies suggest that Saud was physically weak but had no mental or psychological problem after returning from US detention.
Mehmood Memon, Saud's younger brother, told ISN Security Watch via telephone from Karachi, "We are extremely terrified … Saud was dumped on the roadside with an implicit message: keep your mouth shut or else..."
In Rawalpindi, Amina Masood says she is receiving abusive telephonic calls and SMS messages threatening her life should she further pursue the release of missing persons.
"More recently, we are being informed through friends that Masood has been sent to Guantanamo Bay, but no such statement is furnished before the Supreme Court," Amina tells ISN Security Watch.
Around 100 Pakistanis are thought to be still detained in Guantanamo Bay, even after the release of some 90 Pakistanis over the past few months.
"Musharraf himself … has a son, Bilal, a daughter and grandchildren. He should be able to feel our agony and pain," pleads Atiq's semi-illiterate, bewildered mother.
"The least that can suffice is a word about our dear one's life and health," she speaks for herself and many others sitting beside her outside the Parliament building in a silent protest.
SOURCE: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=17984
Musharraf's Pakistan and his unchecked intelligence agencies reek havoc on human rights, as over 400 families struggle for information about their missing loved ones.
By Naveed Ahmad in Islamabad for ISN Security Watch (15/08/07)
In the early days of June 2004, a few unidentified persons were seen inquiring about Atiq-ur-Rahman, a young scientist from the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), near his home in Abbotabad city, some 110 kilometers north of the capital Islamabad. Atiq went missing under mysterious circumstances on the morning of 23 June while his family and friends waited desperately for his wedding party.
Since then, Atiq's parents, his brother and five sisters, have been awaiting his return. "I believe my son will come home safe and sound," Siddiq-ur-Rahman, holding a framed picture of Atiq receiving a gold medal from none other than General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, tells ISN Security Watch.
Because of Atiq's position in the country's Atomic Energy Commission, his friends and family have logically assumed that he has been taken away by one of the country's intelligence agencies, but there has been no official word from anyone and the disappearance remains a mystery.
Three years later, on 16 July this year, Atiq's father-in-law finally said the engagement with his daughter Irum was no longer on.
Though the local police registered Atiq as missing, a formal investigation was never launched, and the family was soon asked to stop visiting the police station, saying one of the intelligence agencies had picked him up and there was nothing the local police could do.
To the utter surprise of the family, the PAEC did not panic over the development and instead kept dispatching warning letters asking Atiq to report to the office or lose his job. Eventually they stopped sending his salary.
"As a standard operating procedure, such cases are reported to our security department who are meant to handle them," a top PAEC official told ISN Security Watch.
Imran, Atiq's brother, recalls that a neighbor told him about several individuals who had been inquiring about his brother shortly before he disappeared. However, there are no witnesses to testify as to whether they saw Atiq being taken away.
More mysterious disappearances
Since 2002, over 400 families have claimed that their loved ones were picked up by the intelligence agencies under mysterious conditions. A few lucky families received briefed phone calls from the detention centers, but the majority have not been so lucky.
Despite the high profile coverage these cases were given in Pakistan's popular daily newspaper, The News, not a single human rights group had taken up the cause.
Realizing the void, Amina Masood, the wife of a missing philanthropist and businessman Masood Ahmed Janjua, has taken her case to the streets. Her actions have led other families in similar situations to join her and set up the nongovernmental Defense of Human Rights group.
Masood Janjua, now 45, disappeared on 30 July 2005 while on his way to catch a bus to Peshawar for an Islamic study group with Tablighi Jamaat, which describes itself as a peaceful movement. His young friend, Faisal Faraz, also went missing the same day from the very same place.
Amina braved intimidation from the intelligence corps and persistently demanded that the government speak up about her missing husband and dozens of others.
Her efforts moved Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry who took up the missing persons cases, forcing the government to trace around 100 missing persons - over half of whom have been released by the intelligence agencies.
The Defense Ministry, which controls Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence, finally has been summoned to the Supreme Court following the restoration of the chief justice in July after General Musharraf failed to prove severe allegations against the country’s top judge.
Some of the missing persons are Islamic militants and possibly criminals but the country's law opposes detention of any citizen without official charges followed by legal proceedings.
Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a mother of three children, disappeared from her Karachi residence in 2001. Unconfirmed reports suggest that she has been sent to Guantanamo Bay prison. Pakistani Interior Ministry spokesman Brigadier General Javed Iqbal Cheema denies any knowledge of the whereabouts of Dr Aafia or Amina Masood's husband.
"We are doing our best to trace the missing persons and duly share the available information with the Supreme Court," he told ISN Security Watch via telephone.
Amina Masood does not accept the government's version. She says some of those released on orders from the Supreme Court orders have filed affidavits claiming to have seen her husband in the detention centers.
She says her family received a phone call from General Musharraf's military secretary last year promising that her husband would be freed soon.
Amina refers to a letter from Dr Imran Munir, who clearly stated he had met Masood Janjua in a detention center in the Mangla cantonment, around 90 kilometers from Islamabad. Imran has been sentenced to eight years in prison on charges of espionage and the Supreme Court has ordered authorities to bring him before the court.
Dr Imran Munir's family claims that he is being punished for falling in love with the daughter of a brigadier who had invited him over for dinner on the same night that the 24-year-old went missing.
Charged or released
Lawyers for the missing argue that all of them should be charged and tried in open court or released.
In its annual report on human rights, the US State Department has acknowledged the disappearances. "There was an increase of politically motivated disappearances. Police and security forces held prisoners incommunicado and refused to provide information on their whereabouts, particularly in terrorism and national security cases."
Amnesty, Asia Watch and Human Rights Watch have been far more critical of forced disappearances during the Musharraf regime.
Many of the missing persons belong to nationalist outfits, fighting for the rights of under-developed areas such as Sindh and Balochistan. The government accuses these nationalists of receiving funding and training from Afghanistan and India.
The nationalist groups base their politics on ethnicity and regionalism. Historians use the term nationalism to refer to this historical transition and to the emergence and predominance of nationalist ideology. Prominent among these in Pakistan are the Balochistan Liberation Army and Mahajar Qaumi Movement (MQM).
Due to Amina Masood's relentless courage and humiliating revelations in the wake of a major judicial crisis, the country's Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence have faced the worst blows ever.
The death of Saud Memon, a Karachi cloth merchant, two weeks after being dumped near his house after four years of detention, further exposed the spy agencies' dubious activities.
Memon was picked up in Pretoria, South Africa, by US forces after the remains of Daniel Pearl were found on his barren land along the Super Highway. After US investigators failed to find any link between Memon and Pearl's killers, he was handed over to the Pakistani security agencies in January 2006 in Karachi.
The 44-year-old was brought before a Supreme Court bench on 4 May that year on a stretcher, his eyes looking blank and saliva spilling out of his mouth.
Weighing only 18 kilograms, Memon met a tragic death in a hospital in Karachi at the hands of alleged mental and physical torture.
Affidavits submitted in the Supreme Court by Pakistani citizens released by the intelligence agencies suggest that Saud was physically weak but had no mental or psychological problem after returning from US detention.
Mehmood Memon, Saud's younger brother, told ISN Security Watch via telephone from Karachi, "We are extremely terrified … Saud was dumped on the roadside with an implicit message: keep your mouth shut or else..."
In Rawalpindi, Amina Masood says she is receiving abusive telephonic calls and SMS messages threatening her life should she further pursue the release of missing persons.
"More recently, we are being informed through friends that Masood has been sent to Guantanamo Bay, but no such statement is furnished before the Supreme Court," Amina tells ISN Security Watch.
Around 100 Pakistanis are thought to be still detained in Guantanamo Bay, even after the release of some 90 Pakistanis over the past few months.
"Musharraf himself … has a son, Bilal, a daughter and grandchildren. He should be able to feel our agony and pain," pleads Atiq's semi-illiterate, bewildered mother.
"The least that can suffice is a word about our dear one's life and health," she speaks for herself and many others sitting beside her outside the Parliament building in a silent protest.
SOURCE: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=17984
Bush's secret army
Meet the American mercenaries of Blackwater, who fight outside of the law and take direction from the radical Christian right
By JEREMY SCAHILL
March 21, 2007 4:02:04 PM
In September 2000, just months before its members would form the core of the Bush White House, the Project for a New American Century released a report called Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. In laying out PNAC’s vision for overhauling the US war machine, the report recognized that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” A year to the month later, the 9/11 attacks would provide that catalyst: an unprecedented justification to forge ahead with this radical agenda molded by a small cadre of neoconservative operatives who had just taken official power.
The often-overlooked subplot of the wars of the post-9/11 period is the outsourcing and privatization they have entailed. From the moment the Bush team took power, the Pentagon was stacked with ideologues like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Stephen Cambone, and with former corporate executives — many from large weapons manufacturers — like Under Secretary of Defense Pete Aldridge (Aerospace Corporation), Army Secretary Thomas White (Enron), Navy Secretary Gordon England (General Dynamics), and Air Force Secretary James Roche (Northrop Grumman). The new civilian leadership at the Pentagon came into power with two major goals: regime change in strategic nations and the enactment of the most sweeping privatization and outsourcing operation in US military history — a revolution in military affairs. After 9/11 this campaign became unstoppable.
http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid36046.aspx
Meet the American mercenaries of Blackwater, who fight outside of the law and take direction from the radical Christian right
By JEREMY SCAHILL
March 21, 2007 4:02:04 PM
In September 2000, just months before its members would form the core of the Bush White House, the Project for a New American Century released a report called Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. In laying out PNAC’s vision for overhauling the US war machine, the report recognized that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” A year to the month later, the 9/11 attacks would provide that catalyst: an unprecedented justification to forge ahead with this radical agenda molded by a small cadre of neoconservative operatives who had just taken official power.
The often-overlooked subplot of the wars of the post-9/11 period is the outsourcing and privatization they have entailed. From the moment the Bush team took power, the Pentagon was stacked with ideologues like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Stephen Cambone, and with former corporate executives — many from large weapons manufacturers — like Under Secretary of Defense Pete Aldridge (Aerospace Corporation), Army Secretary Thomas White (Enron), Navy Secretary Gordon England (General Dynamics), and Air Force Secretary James Roche (Northrop Grumman). The new civilian leadership at the Pentagon came into power with two major goals: regime change in strategic nations and the enactment of the most sweeping privatization and outsourcing operation in US military history — a revolution in military affairs. After 9/11 this campaign became unstoppable.
http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid36046.aspx
Last edited:
Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings
January 28, 2004
A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak.
Lots of information here, too much to post, check out some of the links....
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html
January 28, 2004
A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak.
Lots of information here, too much to post, check out some of the links....
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html
All the President’s Secrets
May 1, 2007
May 1, 2007
“If our government is unchecked contrary to what our founders thought it should be it almost inevitably will be unbalanced,” Frederick A.O. Schwarz said yesterday at a Center for American Progress event surrounding the release of Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a Time of Terror, which he co-authored with Aziz Huq.
When a government is unbalanced by presidential abuses of power—and a small coterie of people within the executive branch directs the course of the entire country—the chances increase that foolish decisions will be made and unjust policies implemented, Schwarz said.
Schwarz and Huq argue in Unchecked and Unbalanced that the Bush administration has created a “secret presidency” founded on classified presidential decisions and secret laws that confound efforts to hold the executive accountable. The book puts the Bush administration’s abuses of executive power in historical perspective and offers a plan to restore the checks and balances to U.S. government that are necessary to promote American liberty and security.
The event was moderated by CAP Senior Fellow Morton H. Halperin.
To formulate the arguments he contributed to Unchecked and Unbalanced, Schwarz drew upon his experience as chief counsel to the Church Committee, which investigated the practices of U.S. intelligence agencies in the 1970s and unearthed overreaches of executive power at home and abroad. Schwarz said at CAP that the Bush administration’s executive overreaching goes beyond any the country has previously witnessed. “Under the Bush administration for the first time in American history the president and the president’s lawyers actually claim the right to break the law,” Schwarz said.
Huq, who directs the liberty and national security project at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law, explained that Bush’s abuses of power go beyond past presidents’ decisions to ignore in times of crisis the traditional checks-and-balances structure of the government’s three branches. Unlike, for example, President Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, Bush’s violations of the law are conducted wholly in secret and are not linked to an emergency that has an identifiable end-point.
Perhaps most worrying, Huq argued, past overreaching presidents acknowledged that their abuse of executive power was wrong, but Bush makes no such concession. Today, when laws against torture or the warrantless surveillance of Americans are circumvented or simply set aside, it’s done with “the idea that it’s lawful and constitutional,” Huq said. This stance is borne of a theory of executive power that the president has the right to break the law for national security reasons “if the president of his own will alone decides he wants to do it,” Schwarz said, calling it an “extremely dangerous theory.”
The authors argued that such unprecedented and extreme abuses of executive power must be confronted and the checks and balances of American government restored in order to prevent future presidents from overreaching even further.
How can this be done? “The single most important thing is that the public come to understand what’s been done in their name—and reject it,” Schwarz said. Americans must understand that the president’s abuses of power on matters of torture, extraordinary rendition, and the indefinite detention of prisoners go against American values of liberty and justice. Americans should also realize that, contrary to furthering our national security interests, Bush’s actions are actually detrimental to them. Terrorists can point to the president’s policies on torture and indefinite detention as a “great recruiting poster for attracting people to join their cause,” Schwarz said.
Increased public scrutiny and criticism of executive abuses of power, supplemented by more aggressive congressional oversight, represent the United States’ best chance of restoring checks and balances to American government. “The gap between law as it should be and law as it is sometimes put into practice can be narrowed,” Huq said.
SOURCE:http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/05/unchecked_event.html
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5j_Soe-jhJ0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5j_Soe-jhJ0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_Soe-jhJ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_Soe-jhJ0
D
DANGEROUSBLACKMAN
Guest
Fuck Bush.
Text of Bush's Wednesday News Conference
By The Associated Press – Oct 17, 2007
Text of President Bush's news conference on Wednesday, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions.
BUSH: Good morning.
We're now more than halfway through October, and the new leaders in Congress have had more than nine months to get things done for the American people.
Unfortunately, they haven't managed to pass many important bills.
Now the clock is winding down. In some key areas, Congress is just getting started.
Congress has work to do on health care. Tomorrow, Congress will hold a vote attempting to override my veto of the SCHIP bill. It's unlikely that that override vote will succeed, which Congress knew when they sent me the bill.
Now it's time to put politics aside and seek common ground to reauthorize this important program. I have asked Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, National Economic Council Director Al Hubbard, and OMB Director Jim Nussle to lead my administration's discussions with the Congress.
I made clear that, if putting poor children first requires more than the 20 percent increase in funding I proposed, we'll work with Congress to find the money we need. I'm confident we can work out our differences and reauthorize SCHIP.
Congress has work to do to keep our people safe. One of the things Congress did manage to get done this year is pass legislation that began modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA is a law that our intelligence professionals use to monitor the communications of terrorists who want to do harm to our people.
The problem is that Congress arranged for the measure they passed to expire this coming February. In addition, the House is now considering another FISA bill that would weaken the reforms they approved just two months ago.
When it comes to improving FISA, Congress needs to move forward, not backward, so we can ensure intelligence professionals have the tools they need to protect us.
Congress has work to do on the budget.
One of Congress' basic duties is to fund the day-to-day operations of the federal government. Yet Congress has not sent me a single appropriations bill.
Time is running short, so I urged the speaker and the leader of the Senate to name conferees for six of the annual appropriations bills that have already passed the House and the Senate.
The two houses need to work out their differences on these bills and get them to my desk as soon as possible. They also need to pass the remaining spending bills, one at a time, and in a fiscally responsible way.
Congress has work to do on education. As we saw from the recent nation's report card, the No Child Left Behind Act is getting results for America's children.
Test scores are rising. The achievement gap is beginning to close. And Congress should send me a bipartisan bill that reauthorizes and strengthens this effective piece of legislation.
Congress has work to do on housing. Back in August, I proposed a series of reforms to help homeowners struggling with their mortgage payments. We're into six weeks later; Congress has yet to finish work on any of these measures.
These are sensible reforms that would help American families stay in their homes and Congress needs to act quickly on these proposals.
Congress has work to do on trade. Earlier this year, my administration reached out to the Congress and we forged a bipartisan agreement to advance trade legislation.
Now Congress needs to begin moving on trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea. These agreements expand access to overseas markets, they strengthen Democratic allies and they level the playing field for American workers, farmers and small businesses.
Congress has work to do for our military veterans. Yesterday, I sent Congress legislation to implement the Dole-Shalala commission's recommendations that would modernize and improve our system of care for wounded warriors. Congress should consider this legislation promptly so that those injured while defending our freedom can get the quality care they deserve.
Congress also needs to complete the Veterans' Affairs appropriations bill that funds veterans' benefits and other ongoing programs.
We have our differences on appropriations bills. The veterans bill is where we agree.
So I ask Congress to send me a clean bill that will fund our veterans, a bill without unnecessary spending in it.
And they need to get this work done. And I hope they can get it done by Veterans Day. It seems like a reasonable request on behalf of our nation's veterans.
Congress has work to do for law enforcement and the judiciary. I want to thank the Senate Judiciary Committee for beginning hearings today on Judge Mukasey's nomination to serve as the attorney general. I urge the committee to vote on that nomination this week and send it to the full Senate for a vote next week.
The Senate also needs to act on the many judicial nominations that are pending and give those nominees an up-or-down vote. Confirming federal judges is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and the Senate owes it to the American people to meet that responsibility in a timely way.
With all these pressing responsibilities, one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire. The resolution on the mass killings of Armenians beginning in 1915 is counterproductive. Both Republicans and Democrats, including every living former secretary of state, have spoken out against this resolution.
Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital support for our military every day.
There's little time left in the year, and Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by.
Now is the time for them to act. And I look forward to working with members of both parties on important goals that I've outlined this morning.
And now I look forward to taking some of your questions, believe it or not.
Q: Mr. President, Turkey's parliament is invading — sending military forces into Iraq to pursue Kurdish rebels. Do you think that Turkey has a legitimate right to stage a cross-country — cross-country offensive — cross-border offensive?
BUSH: I talked to Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus about this issue this morning. We are making it very clear to Turkey that we don't think it is in their interests to send troops into Iraq.
Actually, they have troops already stationed in Iraq and they've had troops stationed there for quite a while. We don't think it's in their interests to send more troops in.
I appreciate very much the fact that the Iraqi government understands that this is a sensitive issue with the Turks.
And that's why Vice President Hashemi is in Istanbul today, talking with the Turkish leaders, to assure them Iraq shares their concerns about terrorist activities, but that there's a better way to deal with the issue than having the Turks send massive troops into the country — massive additional troops into the country.
What I'm telling you is, is that there's a lot of dialogue going on, and that's positive. We are actively involved with the Turks and the Iraqis, through a tripartite arrangement. And we'll continue to — dialoguing with the Turks.
Q: Why are you going to attend the congressional award ceremony for the Dalai Lama today when ...
BUSH: When am I, or why am I?
Q: Why are you going to, when China has expressed outrage about it?
And what, if any, potential damage do you see to U.S.-China relations, considering that you need their support on dealing with Iran and North Korean nuclear issues?
BUSH: One, I admire the Dalai Lama a lot.
Two, I support religious freedom. He supports religious freedom.
Thirdly, I like going to the gold medal ceremonies. I think it's a good thing for the president to do, to recognize those who Congress has honored. And I'm looking forward to going.
I told the Chinese president, President Hu, that I was going to go to the ceremony. I brought it up. And I said I'm going because I want to honor this man.
I have consistently told the Chinese that religious freedom is in their nation's interest. I've also told them that I think it's in their interest to meet with the Dalai Lama and will say so at the ceremony today in Congress.
If they were to sit down with the Dalai Lama they would find him to be a man of peace and reconciliation. And I think it's in the country's interest to allow him to come to China and meet with him.
So my visit today is not new to the Chinese leadership. As I told you, I brought it up with him. I wanted to make sure he understood exactly why I was going.
And they didn't like it, of course. But I don't think it's going to damage — severely damage — relations. As a matter of fact, I don't think it ever damages relations when an American president talks about, you know, that religious tolerance and religious freedom is good for a nation. I do this every time I meet with them.
David? Welcome back.
Q: Mr. President, the last time you used that line and we were here ...
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: You know something, the interesting thing about it is, it works every time, because ...
(LAUGHTER)
... because there's a grain of truth.
I won't use it again, though.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: There's a report today from Israel Army Radio indicating that the Syrians have confirmed that the Israelis struck a nuclear site in their country. You wouldn't comment on that before, and I'm wondering if now, on the general Q, you think it's appropriate for Israel to take such action if it feels that there is mortal danger being posed to the state.
BUSH: David, my position hasn't changed.
Q: Can I ask you whether ...
BUSH: You can ask me another Q.
Q: Did you support Israel's strike in 1981 on the Iraqi reactor outside of Baghdad?
BUSH: You know, Dave, I don't remember what I was doing in 1980 — let's see, I was living in Midland, Texas. I don't remember my reaction that far back.
Q: Well, but as you look at, as president now ...
BUSH: In 1981, in Midland, Texas, trying to make a living for my family and...
Q: But you're a careful — you know, someone ...
BUSH: Student of history — I do. Yes.
No, I don't remember my reaction, to be frank with you.
Q: But if I ask you now, as you look back at it, do you think it was the right action for Israel to take?
BUSH: David, I'm not going to comment on the subject that you're trying to get me to comment on.
Q: Why won't you? But isn't a fair question to say, given all the talk about Iran and a potential threat, whether it would be appropriate for Israel to act ...
BUSH: I understand.
Q: ... in self-defense if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons?
BUSH: I understand what you're trying to take. I understand what you're trying to take. It's a clever ruse to get my to comment on it, but I'm not going to. Thank you.
Q: Well, I'm just wondering why you think it's not appropriate to make that judgment when it is a real world scenario, as we know, since they apparently took this action against Syria.
BUSH: Welcome back.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
Q: I don't know if you saw the picture on the front page on one of the papers this morning of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin.
BUSH: I did.
Q: They look like they're getting along pretty well. And they are among ...
BUSH: (OFF-MIKE) front page of the paper. No, man, come on.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: They looked like they were enjoying each other's company. And I'm wondering, since they were leaders of five Caspian Sea region nations — they have now declared each country will not be used as a base to attack the other. A, what do you make of their growing relationship? B, does it complicate what the United States can do in the region? And, C, would you characterize that arrangement as some sort of Caspian Sea Truman doctrine or something like that?
BUSH: You know, I think it's hard to judge how their conversations went, from a picture. Generally, leaders don't like to be photographed scowling at each other or, you know, making bad gestures at each other.
So I'm not surprised that there was, you know, a nice picture of them walking along. You know, I try to make sure that, when I'm with foreign leaders, there's a pretty picture of the two of us walking down, you know, the colonnades or something like that, to send a good message.
Q: Are you saying it's not so warm?
BUSH: Well, I don't know yet. What I'm about to tell you is, is that I'm looking forward to getting President Putin's readout from the meeting.
I think one of the — the thing I'm interested in is whether or not he continues to harbor the same concerns that I do. And I say continues, because when we were in Australia, he reconfirmed to me that he recognizes it's not in the world's interest for Iran to have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon.
BUSH: And they have been very supportive in the United Nations. And we're working with them on a potential third resolution.
So that's my concerns. I don't worry about the pictures. I understand why they meet. I will continue to work with Russia, as well as other nations, to keep a focused effort on sending Iran a message that you will remain isolated if you continue your nuclear weapons ambitions.
Q: But this declaration doesn't speak to that, Mr. President. This declaration doesn't suggest isolation for Iran, just the opposite, that Russia and Iran are going to do business.
BUSH: We'll find out. See, that's — you're trying to get me to interpret the meeting based upon a news story or a picture. I'd rather spend some time with Vladimir Putin finding out exactly what went on.
Thank you.
Q: When North Korea tested a nuclear device, you said that any proliferation would be a grave threat to the U.S., and North Korea would be responsible for the consequences.
Are you denying that North Korea has any role in the suspected nuclear facility in Syria?
BUSH: See, you're trying to pull a Gregory.
Q: Yes, I am.
BUSH: OK. Well, I'm not going to fall for it. But I'd like to talk about...
Q: Doesn't (OFF-MIKE) a right to know about who is proliferating, especially when you're negotiating with North Korea?
BUSH: Now, you have a right to know this, that when it comes to the six-party talks, proliferation, the issue of proliferation, has equal importance with the issue of weaponry and that North Korea has said that they will stop proliferating, just like they have said they will fully disclose and disable any weapons programs.
Step one of that has been dealing with shuttering Pyongyang. Step two will be full declaration of any plutonium that has been manufactured and/or the construction of bombs, along with a full declaration of any proliferation activities.
And, in my judgment, the best way to solve this issue with North Korea peacefully is to put it in the — keep it in the contexts of six-party talks. And the reason why is that diplomacy only works if there are consequences when diplomacy breaks down.
And it makes sense for there to be other people at the table, so that if North Korea were to, you know, have said to all of us, We're going to do X, Y or Z, and they don't, that we have other people, other than the United States being consequential.
There's a lot of aide that goes on between North Korea and China — or North Korea and South Korea. And therefore, if they renege on their promises, and they have said — they have declared that they will show us weapons and get rid of the weapons programs, as well as stop proliferation.
If they don't fulfill that which they've said, we are now in a position to make sure that they understand that there be consequences. And I'm pleased with the progress we're making. There's still work to be done; you bet there's work to be done.
Do I go into this thing saying, Well, you know, gosh, the process is more important than the results? I don't. What matters most, you know, to me — or whether or not we can achieve the results that I've said we're hoping to achieve.
And, if not, there will be consequences to the North Koreans.
Q: Is Syria part of those talks? Is Syria part of the talks?
BUSH: Proliferation is — a part of the talks ...
Q: Including Syria?
BUSH: Look, in all due respect to you and Gregory, this is not my first rodeo.
(LAUGHTER)
And I know what you're — trying to get me to comment.
I'm not going to comment on it, one way or the other.
Q: But your administration has talked about ...
BUSH: Thank you.
Martha?
Q: Mr. President, on Iraq, you've talked repeatedly about the threat of al-Qaida in Iraq. And we've also heard a lot about the military progress that's being made against that group.
Can you tell Americans how close the United States is to declaring victory against that group?
And if you're not able to do so, does that suggest that your critics are correct, that this war cannot be won militarily?
BUSH: I — the Iraq situation cannot be won by military means alone. There has to be political reconciliation to go with it. There has to be an emergency of a democracy. That's been my position ever since it started.
Al-Qaida's still dangerous. They're dangerous in Iraq. They're dangerous elsewhere. Al-Qaida's not going to go away any time. That's why it's important for us to be listening — you know, finding out what their intentions are and what are their plans, so we can respond to them.
This war against al-Qaida requires actionable intelligence. That's why this FISA bill is important.
And they still want to do us harm, and they're still active.
Yes, we've hurt 'em bad in Iraq. We've hurt 'em bad elsewhere. If you're the number three person in al-Qaida, you've had some rough goes. You've been captured or killed. And we're keeping the pressure on them all the time.
And so, yes, we're making progress, and — but, no, I fully understand those who say you can't win this thing militarily. That's exactly what the ...
Q: But does ...
BUSH: That's exactly what the United States military says, that you can't win this military. That's why it's very important that we continue to work with the Iraqis on economic progress, as well as political progress.
And what's happened is in Iraq is there's been a lot of political reconciliation at the grassroots level. In other words, people that hadn't been talking to each other are now talking to each other. They're beginning to realize there's a better future than one of — one with a country with deep sectarian divide.
And what's going to end up happening is, is that the local reconciliation will affect the national government.
In the meantime, we're pressing hard to get the national government to complete the strategic partnership with the United States, as well as pass meaningful legislation, like the de-Baath law or the provincial government law or the — or the oil revenue-sharing law.
Q: What you just laid out — should the American people be prepared for a large number of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq after you're finished with your presidency?
BUSH: The troop levels in Iraq will be determined by our commanders on the ground and the progress being made.
Thank you.
Q: Mr. President, I'd like to follow on President Putin's visit to Tehran; not about the image of President Putin and President Ahmadinejad, but about the words that Vladimir Putin said there.
He issued a stern warning against potential military action — U.S. military action against Iran.
BUSH: Did he say U.S.?
Q: Yes.
BUSH: Oh, he did?
Q: He said — well, at least the quote said that.
And he also said, quote, He sees no evidence to suggest Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb.
Were you disappointed with that message, and does that indicate, possibly, that international pressure is not as great as you once thought against Iran abandoning its nuclear program?
BUSH: As I say, I look forward to — if those are, in fact, his comments, I look forward to having him clarify those. Because when I visited with him, he understands that it's in the world's interests to make sure that Iran does not have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon.
And that's why, on the first round at the U.N., he joined us. And second round, we joined together to send a message.
I mean, if he wasn't concerned about it, then why do we have such good progress at the United Nations in round one and round two?
And so, I'm — I will visit with him about it. I have not been briefed yet by Condi or Bob Gates about, you know, their visit with Vladimir Putin. And ...
Q: But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon.
BUSH: I think so long — until they suspend and/or, you know, make it clear that — that their statements are real — yes, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge in order to make a nuclear weapon.
And I know it's in the world's interests to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian — if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.
We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.
And I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat; plus, we'll continue working the financial measures that we're in the process of doing.
In other words, I think — the whole strategy is, is that, you know, at some point in time, leaders, or responsible folks, inside of Iran, may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't worth it.
And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.
And secondly, it's important for the Iranian people to know we harbor no resentment to them. We're disappointed in the Iranian government's actions, as should they be.
Inflation's way too high. Isolation is causing economic pain. This is a country that has got a much better future — people have got a much better — should have better hope inside Iran than this current government is providing them.
So, look, it's a complete issue, no question about it, but my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you in the hopes that at some point in time somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation.
Yes, ma'am?
Q: Mr. President, you are sponsoring the international peace conference. President Abbas said he's not going to come unless there is a timetable.
BUSH: Who said that?
Q: President Abbas.
BUSH: Oh, yeah?
Q: Secretary Rice said that failure is not an option. You talked about substantial issues need to be discussed.
What is the minimum expectation from you that you will call this conference a success? And what you offering the Arab nations to encourage them to participate?
BUSH: Right. Well, that's why Condi's making the trip she's making, is to explain to people, in private as well as in public, that, one, we're for a comprehensive peace.
Two, that there is a — the meeting, international meeting will be serious and substantive. In other words, as she said the other day, this isn't going to be just a photo opportunity. This is going to be a serious and substantive meeting.
We believe that now is the time to push ahead with a meeting at which the Israelis and Palestinians will lay out a vision of what a state could look like.
And the reason why there needs to be a vision of what a state could look like is because the Palestinians that have been made promises all these years need to see there's a serious, focused effort to step up a state.
And that's important so that the people who want to reject extremism have something to be for.
BUSH: So this is a serious attempt. And I'm pleased with the progress. And the reason I'm pleased is because it appears to me that President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert are, one, talking — I know they're talking a lot, but they're making progress.
And, in order for there to be lasting peace, the deal has to be good for the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.
Our job is to facilitate the process.
Another reason I have an international meeting is to — is to get Arab buy-in for a state. In other words, part of the issue in the past has been that the Arab nations stood on the sidelines. And when a state was in reach, they weren't a part of the process, encouraging the parties to move forward.
And so, this is a — that's what I mean by comprehensive. It's comprehensive not only for what the state will look like, it's comprehensive in getting people in the region to be a part of the process.
So I'm feeling pretty optimistic about it.
Q: But could you discuss refugees and Jerusalem and security and all the issues that ...
BUSH: The important thing — I have discussed those publicly, as you know, early on in my presidency when I articulated a two-state solution.
The important thing is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to be discussing them. That's the important issue. The United States can't impose peace. We can encourage the development of a state.
That's precisely what I have been doing since the early stages of my presidency. In order for there to be a Palestinian state, it's going to require the Israelis and the Palestinians coming to an accord.
We can facilitate that, but we can't force people to make hard decisions. They're going to have to do that themselves. And I'm encouraged from what Condi tells me is going on in the Middle East, that there is a — you know, the attitude is let's work together to see if we can't lay out that vision for the sake of, you know — for the sake of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
And it's possible. I believe that we will see a democratic state. And I understand how hard it is. And the reason it's hard, by the way, is because there are extremists who don't want there to be a democracy in the Middle East, whether it be in Iraq or Lebanon or in the Palestinian territories.
That's the struggle. When you see people trying to blow up the opportunity for a state to exist, you've just got to understand it's broader than just the Palestinian territory. It's a part of this struggle, this ideological struggle in which we're engaged.
And we've got to ask ourselves: Why don't they want there to be a democracy?
And the answer is, because it doesn't fit into their ideological vision; they, being the extremists.
Another issue with Iran, by the way, that is of great concern to us is their willingness to fund groups that try to either destabilize or prevent the rise of a democracy.
Anyway, I'm optimistic this can be achieved. And we'll continue working to that end.
Q: Could I ask you about a domestic matter?
BUSH: Sure.
Q: The Commerce Department reported today that the housing starts last month fell to the lowest level since 1993.
How concerned are you that this housing recession will spill over into the broader economy? And what more can be done to prevent that from happening?
BUSH: I'm encouraged by the rate of inflation, the job growth. We've had 49 consecutive months of uninterrupted job growth, which is a record here in America.
I'm pleased with the fact that our deficit is shrinking. But like our secretary of the treasury, I recognize there's a softness in the housing market.
By the way, we had growth in the GDP because of exports. In other words, there's positive elements of our economy, but, no question, the housing is soft.
And the fundamental question is: What do we do to help homeowners? And I don't think we ought to be providing bailouts for lenders. But I do think we ought to put policy in place that help people stay in their home.
And that's why this FHA modernization bill is really important, because it'll extend the reach of the FHA and to help more people be able to refinance their homes.
Part of the issue in the housing market has been that, as a result of asset bundling, that it's hard sometimes for people to find somebody to talk to, to help them refinance.
In other words, in the old days, you know, you go into your savings and loan, your local savings and loan and sit down and negotiate a house deal, and the person with whom you negotiated would be around if you had financial difficulties to say, Can't you help me restructure.
Today the originator of the note no longer owns the note in many cases.
And the securitization of mortgages actually provided a lot of liquidity in the market, and that's a good thing. But it also creates a issue here in America, and that is: How do we get people to understand the nature of the mortgages they bought and how do you help people refinance to stay in home — stay in their home?
And so that's what Secretary Paulson and Secretary Jackson have been working on, particularly with the private sector, to facilitate the ability to people to refinance.
And finally, we need to change the tax law. You're disadvantaged if you refinance your home. It creates a tax liability.
And if we want people staying in their homes, then it seems like to me we've got to change the tax code. That's why I talked to Senator Stabenow the other day and thanked her for her sponsorship of an important piece of tax legislation that will enable people to be more likely stay in their homes.
So there's some things we can do. In the meantime, he's got to understand that it's going to have to work out — when you got more houses than you got buyers, the price tends to go down. And we're just going to have to work through the issue.
I'm not a forecaster. But I can tell people that I feel good about many of the economic indicators here in the United States.
Q: Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment, he said, recently, that next year, when he has to step down according to the constitution, as the president, he may become prime minister; in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there.
Senator McCain...
BUSH: I've been planning that myself.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: Senator McCain said yesterday, sir, that when he looks into Putin's eyes, he sees a K, a G and a B.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: Pretty good line.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: And he would never invite him to Kennebunkport. And he says it's time we got a little tough with Vladimir Putin.
I wonder if you think — is Senator McCain right?
And what would it mean for Russian democracy if, when you leave power, assuming you do, in January 2009 ...
(LAUGHTER)
... if Vladimir Putin is still in power?
BUSH: Yes. You know, one of the interesting — well, my leadership style has been to try to be in a position where I actually can influence people. And one way to do that is to have personal relationships that enable me to sit down and tell people what's on my mind, without fear of rupturing relations.
And that's how I've tried to conduct my business with Vladimir Putin. We don't agree on a lot of issues. We do agree on some. Iran is one. Nuclear proliferation is another. Reducing our nuclear warheads was an issue that we agreed on early.
But I believe good diplomacy requires good relations at the leadership level. That's why, in Slovakia, I was in a position to tell him that, you know, we didn't understand why he was altering the relationship between the Russian government and a free press. In other words, why — why the free press was becoming less free.
And I was able to do — he didn't like it. You know, nobody likes to be talked to in a way that may point up different flaws in their strategy. But I was able to do so in a way that didn't rupture relations.
He was able to tell me going into Iraq wasn't the right thing.
And, to me, that's good diplomacy. And so — and I'll continue to practice that diplomacy.
Now, in terms of whether or not it's possible to reprogram the kind of basic Russian DNA, which is a centralized authority, that's hard to do. We've worked hard to make it — you know, appear in their interest, or we made it clear to them that it is in their interest to have good relations with the West.
And the best way to have good long-term relations with the West is to recognize that checks and balances in government are important, or to recognize there are certain freedoms that are inviolate.
So Russia's a complex relationship, but it's an important relationship to maintain.
Q: Do you think it's (OFF-MIKE) if he stays in power after you're gone?
BUSH: I have no idea what he's going to do. I asked him when I saw him in Australia. I tried to, you know, get it out of him, who's going to be his successor, what he intends to do, and he was wily. He wouldn't tip his hand.
I'll tip mine. I'm going to finish — I'm going to work hard to the finish. I'm going to sprint to the finish line, and then you'll find me in Crawford.
Q: Mr. President, I'd like to turn your attention back to Capitol Hill.
A year ago, after Republicans lost control of Congress, you said you wanted to find common ground. This morning you gave us a pretty scathing report card on Democrats. But I'm wondering: How would you assess yourself in dealing with Democrats this past year?
How exactly have you been in dealing with them on various issues? And do you think you've done a good job in finding common ground?
BUSH: We're finding common ground on Iraq. I recognize there are people in Congress who say we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but it sounds to me as if the debate has shifted; that David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker's testimony made a difference to a lot of members.
I hope we continue to find ground by making sure our troops get funded. We found common ground on FISA. My only question is: Why change a good law? The way that law was written works for the security of the country.
That's what the American people want to know, by the way: Are we passing laws that are beneficial to the American people? This law is beneficial because it enables our intelligence experts and professionals to find out the intentions of al-Qaida.
Now, the law needs to be changed — enhanced by providing the phone companies that allegedly helped us with liability protection. So we found common ground there.
Hopefully we can find common ground as the Congress begins to move pieces of legislation.
The reason I said what I said today is there's a lot to be done. As you recognize, I'm not a member of the legislative branch; probably wouldn't be a very good legislator.
But as the head of the executive branch, it makes sense to call upon Congress to show progress and get results. It's hard to find common ground unless important bills are moving. They're not even moving. Not one appropriations bill has made it to my desk.
How can you find common ground when there's no appropriations process?
We found common ground on a trade bill — trade bills, really important pieces of legislation, as far as I'm concerned.
One of the reasons why is exports helped us overcome the weakness in the housing market last quarter. If that's the case, it seems like it would make sense to continue to open up markets to U.S. goods and services.
And, yet, there hasn't been one — there haven't been any bills moving, when it comes to trade. Veterans' affairs is an area where we can find common ground.
I've called in — I asked Bob Dole and Donna Shalala to lead an important commission, a commission to make sure our veterans get the benefits they deserve.
I was concerned about bureaucratic delay and, you know, I was concerned about a system that had been in place for years, but just didn't recognize this different nature, a different kind of war that we're fighting.
I don't like it when I meet wives who are sitting beside their husband's bed in Walter Reed and not being supported by its government, not being helped to provide care.
I'm concerned about PTSD. And I want people to focus on PTSD.
And so we sent up a bill. And I hope they move on it quickly.
There's place where we could find common ground.
Q: Is it all their fault that these bills aren't moving, when you've got these veto threats out?
BUSH: I think it is — I think it is their fault that bills aren't moving. Yes. As I said, I'm not part of the legislative branch.
All I can do is ask them to move bills. It's up to the leaders to move the bills.
And you bet I'm going to put veto threats out.
Of course, I want to remind you, I put a lot of veto threats out when the Republicans were in control of Congress. I said, now, if you overspend, I'm going to veto your bills. And they listened. And we worked together.
Whether or not that's the case, we'll find out.
And, by the way, on the SCHIP bill, we weren't dialed in in the beginning.
The leaders said, OK, let's see if we can get something moving. And I'm surprised I hadn't been asked about SCHIP. It's an issue...
Q: How far are you willing to go?
BUSH: Surprised I hadn't been asked about SCHIP yet.
I made it abundantly clear why I have vetoed the bills.
I find it interesting that when Americans begin to hear the facts, they understand the rationale behind the veto. First of all, there are 500,000 children who are eligible for the current program who aren't covered. And so to answer your question on how far I'm willing to go, I want to provide enough money to make sure those 500,000 do get covered. That ought to be the focus of our efforts.
Six or seven — in six or seven states, they spend more money on adults than children.
And, finally, the eligibility has been increased up to $83,000. That doesn't sound like it's a program for poor children to me.
And I look forward to working with the Congress, if my veto is upheld, to focus on those that are supposed to be covered.
That's what we need to get done.
Q: I wonder if you feel blind sided by the very blistering criticism recently from retired General Ricardo Sanchez, who was one of your top commanders in Iraq.
He told a news conference last week that there's been glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our nation leaders on Iraq.
BUSH: Right.
Q: Seems like quite a lack of common ground there, sir.
BUSH: You know, look, I admire General Sanchez's service to the country. I appreciate his service to the country. The situation on the ground has changed quite dramatically since he left Iraq.
The security situation is changing dramatically. The reconciliation that's taking place is changing. The economy is getting better.
And so I'm pleased with the progress we're making, you know. And I admire the fact that he served. I appreciate his service.
Q: Should the American people feel disturbed that a former top general says that?
Q: As commander in chief, are you in control of and responsible for military contractors in Iraq?
And, if not, who is?
BUSH: Yes, I'm responsible, in that the State Department has hired those military contractors.
Q: Are you satisfied with their performance?
And, if not, what are you doing to satisfy yourself that...
BUSH: I will be anxious to see the analysis of their performance. There's a lot of studying going on, both inside Iraq and out, as to whether or not people have violated rules of engagement.
I will tell you, though, that a firm like Blackwater provides a valuable service. They protect people's lives. And I appreciate the sacrifice and the service that the Blackwater employees have made. And they, too, want to make sure that if there's an inconsistencies or, you know, behavior that shouldn't — that ought to be modified, that we do that.
And so we're analyzing it fully.
Q: I wanted to ask you about SCHIP and why you even let that get to a situation where it had to be vetoed. Isn't there a responsibility by both the president and congressional leadership to work on this common ground before it gets to a veto?
BUSH: Right. As I said we were — we weren't dialed in. And I don't know why. But they just ran the bill and I made it clear we weren't going to accept it.
That happens sometimes.
In the past, when I — you know, I said, Look, make sure we're a part of the process, and we were.
In this case, this bill started heading our way, and I recognize Republicans in the Senate supported it. We made it clear we didn't agree. They passed it anyway.
And so now, hopefully, we'll be in the process. That's why the president has a veto. Sometimes the legislative branch wants to go on without the president, pass pieces of legislation, and the president then can use the veto to make sure he's a part of the process.
And that's — as you know, I fully intend to do that. I want to make sure — and that's why when I tell you I'm going to sprint to the finish and finish this job strong, that's one way to ensure that I am relevant, that's one way to ensure that I am in the process, and I intend to use the veto.
Q: Thank you, sir. A simple question.
BUSH: Yes?
Q: What's your definition of...
BUSH: It may require a simple answer.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: What's your definition of the word torture ?
BUSH: Of what?
Q: The word torture, what's your definition?
BUSH: That's defined in U.S. law, and we don't torture.
Q: Can you give me your version of it, sir?
BUSH: No. Whatever the law says.
Q: You talked about sprinting to the finish, and then you also, just a moment ago, sounded a bit resigned to the fact that, if legislators don't move bills, there's not much you can do to it. So...
BUSH: (OFF-MIKE) right now. Not to interrupt you, but it's called the bully pulpit. And I hope to get — I was trying to get your attention focused on the fact that major pieces of legislation aren't moving, and those that are are at a snail's pace.
And I hope I did that. I hope I was able to accomplish that.
Q: One more on veterans...
BUSH: I rudely interrupted him.
Q: Do you feel as if you're losing leverage and that you're becoming increasingly irrelevant? And what can you do about that to...
BUSH: Quite the contrary. I've never felt more engaged and more capable of helping people recognize — American people recognize that there's a lot of unfinished business.
And, you know, I'm really looking forward to the next 15 months. Looking forward to getting some things done for the American people.
And if it doesn't get done, I'm looking forward to reminding people as to why it's not getting done.
But I'm confident we can get positive things done. I mean, you shouldn't view this as somebody who says, well, this is, you know, it's impossible for Congress and the president to work together.
Quite the contrary. I just named some areas where we have worked together. And we're going to have to work together. We have to make sure our troops get the money they need. We have to make sure America's protected.
Having said that, I'm not going to accept a lousy bill. And the American people don't want there to be a lousy bill on this issue. The American people want to know that our professionals have the tools necessary to defend them.
See, they understand al-Qaida and terrorism is still a threat to the security of this country. In other words, they're still out there. And they're still plotting and planning.
And it's in our interest to have the tools necessary to protect the American people. It's our most solemn duty.
So there's a lot of areas where we can work together. This just happens to be period of time when not much is happening.
And my job is to — is to see if I can't get some of that movement in the right direction, and at the same time make sure that — you know, that we're a part of the process. And one way the executive branch stays a part of the process is to issue veto threats and then follow through with them. And so, that's what you're going to see tomorrow as to whether or not the Congress will sustain my veto on a bill that I said I would veto and explained why I'm vetoing it.
And, again, I want to repeat it, so the American people clearly understand.
One, there are half a million children who are eligible under this program that aren't being covered today.
Two, states are spending — some states are spending more money on adults than children. That doesn't make any sense if you're trying to help poor children.
By the way, in Medicaid we spend about $35 billion a year on poor children. So, if somebody's listening out there saying, Well, they don't care about poor children, they ought to look at the size — the amount of money we're spending under Medicaid for poor children.
And finally, to increase eligibility up to $83,000 in my judgment is an attempt by some in Congress to expand the reach of the federal government in medicine.
And I believe strongly in private medicine.
Now, I think the federal government ought to help those who are poor. And it's one of the reasons why I worked on Medicare reform was to make sure that we fulfill our promise to the elderly.
But I don't like plans that move people from — encourage people to move from private medicine to the public, and that's what's happening under this bill.
So, I'm looking forward to working with the Congress to, you know, make sure the bill does what it's supposed to do.
Listen, thank you all for your time. I enjoyed it.
By The Associated Press – Oct 17, 2007
Text of President Bush's news conference on Wednesday, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions.
BUSH: Good morning.
We're now more than halfway through October, and the new leaders in Congress have had more than nine months to get things done for the American people.
Unfortunately, they haven't managed to pass many important bills.
Now the clock is winding down. In some key areas, Congress is just getting started.
Congress has work to do on health care. Tomorrow, Congress will hold a vote attempting to override my veto of the SCHIP bill. It's unlikely that that override vote will succeed, which Congress knew when they sent me the bill.
Now it's time to put politics aside and seek common ground to reauthorize this important program. I have asked Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, National Economic Council Director Al Hubbard, and OMB Director Jim Nussle to lead my administration's discussions with the Congress.
I made clear that, if putting poor children first requires more than the 20 percent increase in funding I proposed, we'll work with Congress to find the money we need. I'm confident we can work out our differences and reauthorize SCHIP.
Congress has work to do to keep our people safe. One of the things Congress did manage to get done this year is pass legislation that began modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA is a law that our intelligence professionals use to monitor the communications of terrorists who want to do harm to our people.
The problem is that Congress arranged for the measure they passed to expire this coming February. In addition, the House is now considering another FISA bill that would weaken the reforms they approved just two months ago.
When it comes to improving FISA, Congress needs to move forward, not backward, so we can ensure intelligence professionals have the tools they need to protect us.
Congress has work to do on the budget.
One of Congress' basic duties is to fund the day-to-day operations of the federal government. Yet Congress has not sent me a single appropriations bill.
Time is running short, so I urged the speaker and the leader of the Senate to name conferees for six of the annual appropriations bills that have already passed the House and the Senate.
The two houses need to work out their differences on these bills and get them to my desk as soon as possible. They also need to pass the remaining spending bills, one at a time, and in a fiscally responsible way.
Congress has work to do on education. As we saw from the recent nation's report card, the No Child Left Behind Act is getting results for America's children.
Test scores are rising. The achievement gap is beginning to close. And Congress should send me a bipartisan bill that reauthorizes and strengthens this effective piece of legislation.
Congress has work to do on housing. Back in August, I proposed a series of reforms to help homeowners struggling with their mortgage payments. We're into six weeks later; Congress has yet to finish work on any of these measures.
These are sensible reforms that would help American families stay in their homes and Congress needs to act quickly on these proposals.
Congress has work to do on trade. Earlier this year, my administration reached out to the Congress and we forged a bipartisan agreement to advance trade legislation.
Now Congress needs to begin moving on trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea. These agreements expand access to overseas markets, they strengthen Democratic allies and they level the playing field for American workers, farmers and small businesses.
Congress has work to do for our military veterans. Yesterday, I sent Congress legislation to implement the Dole-Shalala commission's recommendations that would modernize and improve our system of care for wounded warriors. Congress should consider this legislation promptly so that those injured while defending our freedom can get the quality care they deserve.
Congress also needs to complete the Veterans' Affairs appropriations bill that funds veterans' benefits and other ongoing programs.
We have our differences on appropriations bills. The veterans bill is where we agree.
So I ask Congress to send me a clean bill that will fund our veterans, a bill without unnecessary spending in it.
And they need to get this work done. And I hope they can get it done by Veterans Day. It seems like a reasonable request on behalf of our nation's veterans.
Congress has work to do for law enforcement and the judiciary. I want to thank the Senate Judiciary Committee for beginning hearings today on Judge Mukasey's nomination to serve as the attorney general. I urge the committee to vote on that nomination this week and send it to the full Senate for a vote next week.
The Senate also needs to act on the many judicial nominations that are pending and give those nominees an up-or-down vote. Confirming federal judges is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and the Senate owes it to the American people to meet that responsibility in a timely way.
With all these pressing responsibilities, one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire. The resolution on the mass killings of Armenians beginning in 1915 is counterproductive. Both Republicans and Democrats, including every living former secretary of state, have spoken out against this resolution.
Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital support for our military every day.
There's little time left in the year, and Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by.
Now is the time for them to act. And I look forward to working with members of both parties on important goals that I've outlined this morning.
And now I look forward to taking some of your questions, believe it or not.
Q: Mr. President, Turkey's parliament is invading — sending military forces into Iraq to pursue Kurdish rebels. Do you think that Turkey has a legitimate right to stage a cross-country — cross-country offensive — cross-border offensive?
BUSH: I talked to Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus about this issue this morning. We are making it very clear to Turkey that we don't think it is in their interests to send troops into Iraq.
Actually, they have troops already stationed in Iraq and they've had troops stationed there for quite a while. We don't think it's in their interests to send more troops in.
I appreciate very much the fact that the Iraqi government understands that this is a sensitive issue with the Turks.
And that's why Vice President Hashemi is in Istanbul today, talking with the Turkish leaders, to assure them Iraq shares their concerns about terrorist activities, but that there's a better way to deal with the issue than having the Turks send massive troops into the country — massive additional troops into the country.
What I'm telling you is, is that there's a lot of dialogue going on, and that's positive. We are actively involved with the Turks and the Iraqis, through a tripartite arrangement. And we'll continue to — dialoguing with the Turks.
Q: Why are you going to attend the congressional award ceremony for the Dalai Lama today when ...
BUSH: When am I, or why am I?
Q: Why are you going to, when China has expressed outrage about it?
And what, if any, potential damage do you see to U.S.-China relations, considering that you need their support on dealing with Iran and North Korean nuclear issues?
BUSH: One, I admire the Dalai Lama a lot.
Two, I support religious freedom. He supports religious freedom.
Thirdly, I like going to the gold medal ceremonies. I think it's a good thing for the president to do, to recognize those who Congress has honored. And I'm looking forward to going.
I told the Chinese president, President Hu, that I was going to go to the ceremony. I brought it up. And I said I'm going because I want to honor this man.
I have consistently told the Chinese that religious freedom is in their nation's interest. I've also told them that I think it's in their interest to meet with the Dalai Lama and will say so at the ceremony today in Congress.
If they were to sit down with the Dalai Lama they would find him to be a man of peace and reconciliation. And I think it's in the country's interest to allow him to come to China and meet with him.
So my visit today is not new to the Chinese leadership. As I told you, I brought it up with him. I wanted to make sure he understood exactly why I was going.
And they didn't like it, of course. But I don't think it's going to damage — severely damage — relations. As a matter of fact, I don't think it ever damages relations when an American president talks about, you know, that religious tolerance and religious freedom is good for a nation. I do this every time I meet with them.
David? Welcome back.
Q: Mr. President, the last time you used that line and we were here ...
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: You know something, the interesting thing about it is, it works every time, because ...
(LAUGHTER)
... because there's a grain of truth.
I won't use it again, though.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: There's a report today from Israel Army Radio indicating that the Syrians have confirmed that the Israelis struck a nuclear site in their country. You wouldn't comment on that before, and I'm wondering if now, on the general Q, you think it's appropriate for Israel to take such action if it feels that there is mortal danger being posed to the state.
BUSH: David, my position hasn't changed.
Q: Can I ask you whether ...
BUSH: You can ask me another Q.
Q: Did you support Israel's strike in 1981 on the Iraqi reactor outside of Baghdad?
BUSH: You know, Dave, I don't remember what I was doing in 1980 — let's see, I was living in Midland, Texas. I don't remember my reaction that far back.
Q: Well, but as you look at, as president now ...
BUSH: In 1981, in Midland, Texas, trying to make a living for my family and...
Q: But you're a careful — you know, someone ...
BUSH: Student of history — I do. Yes.
No, I don't remember my reaction, to be frank with you.
Q: But if I ask you now, as you look back at it, do you think it was the right action for Israel to take?
BUSH: David, I'm not going to comment on the subject that you're trying to get me to comment on.
Q: Why won't you? But isn't a fair question to say, given all the talk about Iran and a potential threat, whether it would be appropriate for Israel to act ...
BUSH: I understand.
Q: ... in self-defense if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons?
BUSH: I understand what you're trying to take. I understand what you're trying to take. It's a clever ruse to get my to comment on it, but I'm not going to. Thank you.
Q: Well, I'm just wondering why you think it's not appropriate to make that judgment when it is a real world scenario, as we know, since they apparently took this action against Syria.
BUSH: Welcome back.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
Q: I don't know if you saw the picture on the front page on one of the papers this morning of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin.
BUSH: I did.
Q: They look like they're getting along pretty well. And they are among ...
BUSH: (OFF-MIKE) front page of the paper. No, man, come on.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: They looked like they were enjoying each other's company. And I'm wondering, since they were leaders of five Caspian Sea region nations — they have now declared each country will not be used as a base to attack the other. A, what do you make of their growing relationship? B, does it complicate what the United States can do in the region? And, C, would you characterize that arrangement as some sort of Caspian Sea Truman doctrine or something like that?
BUSH: You know, I think it's hard to judge how their conversations went, from a picture. Generally, leaders don't like to be photographed scowling at each other or, you know, making bad gestures at each other.
So I'm not surprised that there was, you know, a nice picture of them walking along. You know, I try to make sure that, when I'm with foreign leaders, there's a pretty picture of the two of us walking down, you know, the colonnades or something like that, to send a good message.
Q: Are you saying it's not so warm?
BUSH: Well, I don't know yet. What I'm about to tell you is, is that I'm looking forward to getting President Putin's readout from the meeting.
I think one of the — the thing I'm interested in is whether or not he continues to harbor the same concerns that I do. And I say continues, because when we were in Australia, he reconfirmed to me that he recognizes it's not in the world's interest for Iran to have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon.
BUSH: And they have been very supportive in the United Nations. And we're working with them on a potential third resolution.
So that's my concerns. I don't worry about the pictures. I understand why they meet. I will continue to work with Russia, as well as other nations, to keep a focused effort on sending Iran a message that you will remain isolated if you continue your nuclear weapons ambitions.
Q: But this declaration doesn't speak to that, Mr. President. This declaration doesn't suggest isolation for Iran, just the opposite, that Russia and Iran are going to do business.
BUSH: We'll find out. See, that's — you're trying to get me to interpret the meeting based upon a news story or a picture. I'd rather spend some time with Vladimir Putin finding out exactly what went on.
Thank you.
Q: When North Korea tested a nuclear device, you said that any proliferation would be a grave threat to the U.S., and North Korea would be responsible for the consequences.
Are you denying that North Korea has any role in the suspected nuclear facility in Syria?
BUSH: See, you're trying to pull a Gregory.
Q: Yes, I am.
BUSH: OK. Well, I'm not going to fall for it. But I'd like to talk about...
Q: Doesn't (OFF-MIKE) a right to know about who is proliferating, especially when you're negotiating with North Korea?
BUSH: Now, you have a right to know this, that when it comes to the six-party talks, proliferation, the issue of proliferation, has equal importance with the issue of weaponry and that North Korea has said that they will stop proliferating, just like they have said they will fully disclose and disable any weapons programs.
Step one of that has been dealing with shuttering Pyongyang. Step two will be full declaration of any plutonium that has been manufactured and/or the construction of bombs, along with a full declaration of any proliferation activities.
And, in my judgment, the best way to solve this issue with North Korea peacefully is to put it in the — keep it in the contexts of six-party talks. And the reason why is that diplomacy only works if there are consequences when diplomacy breaks down.
And it makes sense for there to be other people at the table, so that if North Korea were to, you know, have said to all of us, We're going to do X, Y or Z, and they don't, that we have other people, other than the United States being consequential.
There's a lot of aide that goes on between North Korea and China — or North Korea and South Korea. And therefore, if they renege on their promises, and they have said — they have declared that they will show us weapons and get rid of the weapons programs, as well as stop proliferation.
If they don't fulfill that which they've said, we are now in a position to make sure that they understand that there be consequences. And I'm pleased with the progress we're making. There's still work to be done; you bet there's work to be done.
Do I go into this thing saying, Well, you know, gosh, the process is more important than the results? I don't. What matters most, you know, to me — or whether or not we can achieve the results that I've said we're hoping to achieve.
And, if not, there will be consequences to the North Koreans.
Q: Is Syria part of those talks? Is Syria part of the talks?
BUSH: Proliferation is — a part of the talks ...
Q: Including Syria?
BUSH: Look, in all due respect to you and Gregory, this is not my first rodeo.
(LAUGHTER)
And I know what you're — trying to get me to comment.
I'm not going to comment on it, one way or the other.
Q: But your administration has talked about ...
BUSH: Thank you.
Martha?
Q: Mr. President, on Iraq, you've talked repeatedly about the threat of al-Qaida in Iraq. And we've also heard a lot about the military progress that's being made against that group.
Can you tell Americans how close the United States is to declaring victory against that group?
And if you're not able to do so, does that suggest that your critics are correct, that this war cannot be won militarily?
BUSH: I — the Iraq situation cannot be won by military means alone. There has to be political reconciliation to go with it. There has to be an emergency of a democracy. That's been my position ever since it started.
Al-Qaida's still dangerous. They're dangerous in Iraq. They're dangerous elsewhere. Al-Qaida's not going to go away any time. That's why it's important for us to be listening — you know, finding out what their intentions are and what are their plans, so we can respond to them.
This war against al-Qaida requires actionable intelligence. That's why this FISA bill is important.
And they still want to do us harm, and they're still active.
Yes, we've hurt 'em bad in Iraq. We've hurt 'em bad elsewhere. If you're the number three person in al-Qaida, you've had some rough goes. You've been captured or killed. And we're keeping the pressure on them all the time.
And so, yes, we're making progress, and — but, no, I fully understand those who say you can't win this thing militarily. That's exactly what the ...
Q: But does ...
BUSH: That's exactly what the United States military says, that you can't win this military. That's why it's very important that we continue to work with the Iraqis on economic progress, as well as political progress.
And what's happened is in Iraq is there's been a lot of political reconciliation at the grassroots level. In other words, people that hadn't been talking to each other are now talking to each other. They're beginning to realize there's a better future than one of — one with a country with deep sectarian divide.
And what's going to end up happening is, is that the local reconciliation will affect the national government.
In the meantime, we're pressing hard to get the national government to complete the strategic partnership with the United States, as well as pass meaningful legislation, like the de-Baath law or the provincial government law or the — or the oil revenue-sharing law.
Q: What you just laid out — should the American people be prepared for a large number of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq after you're finished with your presidency?
BUSH: The troop levels in Iraq will be determined by our commanders on the ground and the progress being made.
Thank you.
Q: Mr. President, I'd like to follow on President Putin's visit to Tehran; not about the image of President Putin and President Ahmadinejad, but about the words that Vladimir Putin said there.
He issued a stern warning against potential military action — U.S. military action against Iran.
BUSH: Did he say U.S.?
Q: Yes.
BUSH: Oh, he did?
Q: He said — well, at least the quote said that.
And he also said, quote, He sees no evidence to suggest Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb.
Were you disappointed with that message, and does that indicate, possibly, that international pressure is not as great as you once thought against Iran abandoning its nuclear program?
BUSH: As I say, I look forward to — if those are, in fact, his comments, I look forward to having him clarify those. Because when I visited with him, he understands that it's in the world's interests to make sure that Iran does not have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon.
And that's why, on the first round at the U.N., he joined us. And second round, we joined together to send a message.
I mean, if he wasn't concerned about it, then why do we have such good progress at the United Nations in round one and round two?
And so, I'm — I will visit with him about it. I have not been briefed yet by Condi or Bob Gates about, you know, their visit with Vladimir Putin. And ...
Q: But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon.
BUSH: I think so long — until they suspend and/or, you know, make it clear that — that their statements are real — yes, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge in order to make a nuclear weapon.
And I know it's in the world's interests to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian — if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.
We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.
And I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat; plus, we'll continue working the financial measures that we're in the process of doing.
In other words, I think — the whole strategy is, is that, you know, at some point in time, leaders, or responsible folks, inside of Iran, may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't worth it.
And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.
And secondly, it's important for the Iranian people to know we harbor no resentment to them. We're disappointed in the Iranian government's actions, as should they be.
Inflation's way too high. Isolation is causing economic pain. This is a country that has got a much better future — people have got a much better — should have better hope inside Iran than this current government is providing them.
So, look, it's a complete issue, no question about it, but my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you in the hopes that at some point in time somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation.
Yes, ma'am?
Q: Mr. President, you are sponsoring the international peace conference. President Abbas said he's not going to come unless there is a timetable.
BUSH: Who said that?
Q: President Abbas.
BUSH: Oh, yeah?
Q: Secretary Rice said that failure is not an option. You talked about substantial issues need to be discussed.
What is the minimum expectation from you that you will call this conference a success? And what you offering the Arab nations to encourage them to participate?
BUSH: Right. Well, that's why Condi's making the trip she's making, is to explain to people, in private as well as in public, that, one, we're for a comprehensive peace.
Two, that there is a — the meeting, international meeting will be serious and substantive. In other words, as she said the other day, this isn't going to be just a photo opportunity. This is going to be a serious and substantive meeting.
We believe that now is the time to push ahead with a meeting at which the Israelis and Palestinians will lay out a vision of what a state could look like.
And the reason why there needs to be a vision of what a state could look like is because the Palestinians that have been made promises all these years need to see there's a serious, focused effort to step up a state.
And that's important so that the people who want to reject extremism have something to be for.
BUSH: So this is a serious attempt. And I'm pleased with the progress. And the reason I'm pleased is because it appears to me that President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert are, one, talking — I know they're talking a lot, but they're making progress.
And, in order for there to be lasting peace, the deal has to be good for the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.
Our job is to facilitate the process.
Another reason I have an international meeting is to — is to get Arab buy-in for a state. In other words, part of the issue in the past has been that the Arab nations stood on the sidelines. And when a state was in reach, they weren't a part of the process, encouraging the parties to move forward.
And so, this is a — that's what I mean by comprehensive. It's comprehensive not only for what the state will look like, it's comprehensive in getting people in the region to be a part of the process.
So I'm feeling pretty optimistic about it.
Q: But could you discuss refugees and Jerusalem and security and all the issues that ...
BUSH: The important thing — I have discussed those publicly, as you know, early on in my presidency when I articulated a two-state solution.
The important thing is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to be discussing them. That's the important issue. The United States can't impose peace. We can encourage the development of a state.
That's precisely what I have been doing since the early stages of my presidency. In order for there to be a Palestinian state, it's going to require the Israelis and the Palestinians coming to an accord.
We can facilitate that, but we can't force people to make hard decisions. They're going to have to do that themselves. And I'm encouraged from what Condi tells me is going on in the Middle East, that there is a — you know, the attitude is let's work together to see if we can't lay out that vision for the sake of, you know — for the sake of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
And it's possible. I believe that we will see a democratic state. And I understand how hard it is. And the reason it's hard, by the way, is because there are extremists who don't want there to be a democracy in the Middle East, whether it be in Iraq or Lebanon or in the Palestinian territories.
That's the struggle. When you see people trying to blow up the opportunity for a state to exist, you've just got to understand it's broader than just the Palestinian territory. It's a part of this struggle, this ideological struggle in which we're engaged.
And we've got to ask ourselves: Why don't they want there to be a democracy?
And the answer is, because it doesn't fit into their ideological vision; they, being the extremists.
Another issue with Iran, by the way, that is of great concern to us is their willingness to fund groups that try to either destabilize or prevent the rise of a democracy.
Anyway, I'm optimistic this can be achieved. And we'll continue working to that end.
Q: Could I ask you about a domestic matter?
BUSH: Sure.
Q: The Commerce Department reported today that the housing starts last month fell to the lowest level since 1993.
How concerned are you that this housing recession will spill over into the broader economy? And what more can be done to prevent that from happening?
BUSH: I'm encouraged by the rate of inflation, the job growth. We've had 49 consecutive months of uninterrupted job growth, which is a record here in America.
I'm pleased with the fact that our deficit is shrinking. But like our secretary of the treasury, I recognize there's a softness in the housing market.
By the way, we had growth in the GDP because of exports. In other words, there's positive elements of our economy, but, no question, the housing is soft.
And the fundamental question is: What do we do to help homeowners? And I don't think we ought to be providing bailouts for lenders. But I do think we ought to put policy in place that help people stay in their home.
And that's why this FHA modernization bill is really important, because it'll extend the reach of the FHA and to help more people be able to refinance their homes.
Part of the issue in the housing market has been that, as a result of asset bundling, that it's hard sometimes for people to find somebody to talk to, to help them refinance.
In other words, in the old days, you know, you go into your savings and loan, your local savings and loan and sit down and negotiate a house deal, and the person with whom you negotiated would be around if you had financial difficulties to say, Can't you help me restructure.
Today the originator of the note no longer owns the note in many cases.
And the securitization of mortgages actually provided a lot of liquidity in the market, and that's a good thing. But it also creates a issue here in America, and that is: How do we get people to understand the nature of the mortgages they bought and how do you help people refinance to stay in home — stay in their home?
And so that's what Secretary Paulson and Secretary Jackson have been working on, particularly with the private sector, to facilitate the ability to people to refinance.
And finally, we need to change the tax law. You're disadvantaged if you refinance your home. It creates a tax liability.
And if we want people staying in their homes, then it seems like to me we've got to change the tax code. That's why I talked to Senator Stabenow the other day and thanked her for her sponsorship of an important piece of tax legislation that will enable people to be more likely stay in their homes.
So there's some things we can do. In the meantime, he's got to understand that it's going to have to work out — when you got more houses than you got buyers, the price tends to go down. And we're just going to have to work through the issue.
I'm not a forecaster. But I can tell people that I feel good about many of the economic indicators here in the United States.
Q: Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment, he said, recently, that next year, when he has to step down according to the constitution, as the president, he may become prime minister; in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there.
Senator McCain...
BUSH: I've been planning that myself.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: Senator McCain said yesterday, sir, that when he looks into Putin's eyes, he sees a K, a G and a B.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: Pretty good line.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: And he would never invite him to Kennebunkport. And he says it's time we got a little tough with Vladimir Putin.
I wonder if you think — is Senator McCain right?
And what would it mean for Russian democracy if, when you leave power, assuming you do, in January 2009 ...
(LAUGHTER)
... if Vladimir Putin is still in power?
BUSH: Yes. You know, one of the interesting — well, my leadership style has been to try to be in a position where I actually can influence people. And one way to do that is to have personal relationships that enable me to sit down and tell people what's on my mind, without fear of rupturing relations.
And that's how I've tried to conduct my business with Vladimir Putin. We don't agree on a lot of issues. We do agree on some. Iran is one. Nuclear proliferation is another. Reducing our nuclear warheads was an issue that we agreed on early.
But I believe good diplomacy requires good relations at the leadership level. That's why, in Slovakia, I was in a position to tell him that, you know, we didn't understand why he was altering the relationship between the Russian government and a free press. In other words, why — why the free press was becoming less free.
And I was able to do — he didn't like it. You know, nobody likes to be talked to in a way that may point up different flaws in their strategy. But I was able to do so in a way that didn't rupture relations.
He was able to tell me going into Iraq wasn't the right thing.
And, to me, that's good diplomacy. And so — and I'll continue to practice that diplomacy.
Now, in terms of whether or not it's possible to reprogram the kind of basic Russian DNA, which is a centralized authority, that's hard to do. We've worked hard to make it — you know, appear in their interest, or we made it clear to them that it is in their interest to have good relations with the West.
And the best way to have good long-term relations with the West is to recognize that checks and balances in government are important, or to recognize there are certain freedoms that are inviolate.
So Russia's a complex relationship, but it's an important relationship to maintain.
Q: Do you think it's (OFF-MIKE) if he stays in power after you're gone?
BUSH: I have no idea what he's going to do. I asked him when I saw him in Australia. I tried to, you know, get it out of him, who's going to be his successor, what he intends to do, and he was wily. He wouldn't tip his hand.
I'll tip mine. I'm going to finish — I'm going to work hard to the finish. I'm going to sprint to the finish line, and then you'll find me in Crawford.
Q: Mr. President, I'd like to turn your attention back to Capitol Hill.
A year ago, after Republicans lost control of Congress, you said you wanted to find common ground. This morning you gave us a pretty scathing report card on Democrats. But I'm wondering: How would you assess yourself in dealing with Democrats this past year?
How exactly have you been in dealing with them on various issues? And do you think you've done a good job in finding common ground?
BUSH: We're finding common ground on Iraq. I recognize there are people in Congress who say we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but it sounds to me as if the debate has shifted; that David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker's testimony made a difference to a lot of members.
I hope we continue to find ground by making sure our troops get funded. We found common ground on FISA. My only question is: Why change a good law? The way that law was written works for the security of the country.
That's what the American people want to know, by the way: Are we passing laws that are beneficial to the American people? This law is beneficial because it enables our intelligence experts and professionals to find out the intentions of al-Qaida.
Now, the law needs to be changed — enhanced by providing the phone companies that allegedly helped us with liability protection. So we found common ground there.
Hopefully we can find common ground as the Congress begins to move pieces of legislation.
The reason I said what I said today is there's a lot to be done. As you recognize, I'm not a member of the legislative branch; probably wouldn't be a very good legislator.
But as the head of the executive branch, it makes sense to call upon Congress to show progress and get results. It's hard to find common ground unless important bills are moving. They're not even moving. Not one appropriations bill has made it to my desk.
How can you find common ground when there's no appropriations process?
We found common ground on a trade bill — trade bills, really important pieces of legislation, as far as I'm concerned.
One of the reasons why is exports helped us overcome the weakness in the housing market last quarter. If that's the case, it seems like it would make sense to continue to open up markets to U.S. goods and services.
And, yet, there hasn't been one — there haven't been any bills moving, when it comes to trade. Veterans' affairs is an area where we can find common ground.
I've called in — I asked Bob Dole and Donna Shalala to lead an important commission, a commission to make sure our veterans get the benefits they deserve.
I was concerned about bureaucratic delay and, you know, I was concerned about a system that had been in place for years, but just didn't recognize this different nature, a different kind of war that we're fighting.
I don't like it when I meet wives who are sitting beside their husband's bed in Walter Reed and not being supported by its government, not being helped to provide care.
I'm concerned about PTSD. And I want people to focus on PTSD.
And so we sent up a bill. And I hope they move on it quickly.
There's place where we could find common ground.
Q: Is it all their fault that these bills aren't moving, when you've got these veto threats out?
BUSH: I think it is — I think it is their fault that bills aren't moving. Yes. As I said, I'm not part of the legislative branch.
All I can do is ask them to move bills. It's up to the leaders to move the bills.
And you bet I'm going to put veto threats out.
Of course, I want to remind you, I put a lot of veto threats out when the Republicans were in control of Congress. I said, now, if you overspend, I'm going to veto your bills. And they listened. And we worked together.
Whether or not that's the case, we'll find out.
And, by the way, on the SCHIP bill, we weren't dialed in in the beginning.
The leaders said, OK, let's see if we can get something moving. And I'm surprised I hadn't been asked about SCHIP. It's an issue...
Q: How far are you willing to go?
BUSH: Surprised I hadn't been asked about SCHIP yet.
I made it abundantly clear why I have vetoed the bills.
I find it interesting that when Americans begin to hear the facts, they understand the rationale behind the veto. First of all, there are 500,000 children who are eligible for the current program who aren't covered. And so to answer your question on how far I'm willing to go, I want to provide enough money to make sure those 500,000 do get covered. That ought to be the focus of our efforts.
Six or seven — in six or seven states, they spend more money on adults than children.
And, finally, the eligibility has been increased up to $83,000. That doesn't sound like it's a program for poor children to me.
And I look forward to working with the Congress, if my veto is upheld, to focus on those that are supposed to be covered.
That's what we need to get done.
Q: I wonder if you feel blind sided by the very blistering criticism recently from retired General Ricardo Sanchez, who was one of your top commanders in Iraq.
He told a news conference last week that there's been glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our nation leaders on Iraq.
BUSH: Right.
Q: Seems like quite a lack of common ground there, sir.
BUSH: You know, look, I admire General Sanchez's service to the country. I appreciate his service to the country. The situation on the ground has changed quite dramatically since he left Iraq.
The security situation is changing dramatically. The reconciliation that's taking place is changing. The economy is getting better.
And so I'm pleased with the progress we're making, you know. And I admire the fact that he served. I appreciate his service.
Q: Should the American people feel disturbed that a former top general says that?
Q: As commander in chief, are you in control of and responsible for military contractors in Iraq?
And, if not, who is?
BUSH: Yes, I'm responsible, in that the State Department has hired those military contractors.
Q: Are you satisfied with their performance?
And, if not, what are you doing to satisfy yourself that...
BUSH: I will be anxious to see the analysis of their performance. There's a lot of studying going on, both inside Iraq and out, as to whether or not people have violated rules of engagement.
I will tell you, though, that a firm like Blackwater provides a valuable service. They protect people's lives. And I appreciate the sacrifice and the service that the Blackwater employees have made. And they, too, want to make sure that if there's an inconsistencies or, you know, behavior that shouldn't — that ought to be modified, that we do that.
And so we're analyzing it fully.
Q: I wanted to ask you about SCHIP and why you even let that get to a situation where it had to be vetoed. Isn't there a responsibility by both the president and congressional leadership to work on this common ground before it gets to a veto?
BUSH: Right. As I said we were — we weren't dialed in. And I don't know why. But they just ran the bill and I made it clear we weren't going to accept it.
That happens sometimes.
In the past, when I — you know, I said, Look, make sure we're a part of the process, and we were.
In this case, this bill started heading our way, and I recognize Republicans in the Senate supported it. We made it clear we didn't agree. They passed it anyway.
And so now, hopefully, we'll be in the process. That's why the president has a veto. Sometimes the legislative branch wants to go on without the president, pass pieces of legislation, and the president then can use the veto to make sure he's a part of the process.
And that's — as you know, I fully intend to do that. I want to make sure — and that's why when I tell you I'm going to sprint to the finish and finish this job strong, that's one way to ensure that I am relevant, that's one way to ensure that I am in the process, and I intend to use the veto.
Q: Thank you, sir. A simple question.
BUSH: Yes?
Q: What's your definition of...
BUSH: It may require a simple answer.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: What's your definition of the word torture ?
BUSH: Of what?
Q: The word torture, what's your definition?
BUSH: That's defined in U.S. law, and we don't torture.
Q: Can you give me your version of it, sir?
BUSH: No. Whatever the law says.
Q: You talked about sprinting to the finish, and then you also, just a moment ago, sounded a bit resigned to the fact that, if legislators don't move bills, there's not much you can do to it. So...
BUSH: (OFF-MIKE) right now. Not to interrupt you, but it's called the bully pulpit. And I hope to get — I was trying to get your attention focused on the fact that major pieces of legislation aren't moving, and those that are are at a snail's pace.
And I hope I did that. I hope I was able to accomplish that.
Q: One more on veterans...
BUSH: I rudely interrupted him.
Q: Do you feel as if you're losing leverage and that you're becoming increasingly irrelevant? And what can you do about that to...
BUSH: Quite the contrary. I've never felt more engaged and more capable of helping people recognize — American people recognize that there's a lot of unfinished business.
And, you know, I'm really looking forward to the next 15 months. Looking forward to getting some things done for the American people.
And if it doesn't get done, I'm looking forward to reminding people as to why it's not getting done.
But I'm confident we can get positive things done. I mean, you shouldn't view this as somebody who says, well, this is, you know, it's impossible for Congress and the president to work together.
Quite the contrary. I just named some areas where we have worked together. And we're going to have to work together. We have to make sure our troops get the money they need. We have to make sure America's protected.
Having said that, I'm not going to accept a lousy bill. And the American people don't want there to be a lousy bill on this issue. The American people want to know that our professionals have the tools necessary to defend them.
See, they understand al-Qaida and terrorism is still a threat to the security of this country. In other words, they're still out there. And they're still plotting and planning.
And it's in our interest to have the tools necessary to protect the American people. It's our most solemn duty.
So there's a lot of areas where we can work together. This just happens to be period of time when not much is happening.
And my job is to — is to see if I can't get some of that movement in the right direction, and at the same time make sure that — you know, that we're a part of the process. And one way the executive branch stays a part of the process is to issue veto threats and then follow through with them. And so, that's what you're going to see tomorrow as to whether or not the Congress will sustain my veto on a bill that I said I would veto and explained why I'm vetoing it.
And, again, I want to repeat it, so the American people clearly understand.
One, there are half a million children who are eligible under this program that aren't being covered today.
Two, states are spending — some states are spending more money on adults than children. That doesn't make any sense if you're trying to help poor children.
By the way, in Medicaid we spend about $35 billion a year on poor children. So, if somebody's listening out there saying, Well, they don't care about poor children, they ought to look at the size — the amount of money we're spending under Medicaid for poor children.
And finally, to increase eligibility up to $83,000 in my judgment is an attempt by some in Congress to expand the reach of the federal government in medicine.
And I believe strongly in private medicine.
Now, I think the federal government ought to help those who are poor. And it's one of the reasons why I worked on Medicare reform was to make sure that we fulfill our promise to the elderly.
But I don't like plans that move people from — encourage people to move from private medicine to the public, and that's what's happening under this bill.
So, I'm looking forward to working with the Congress to, you know, make sure the bill does what it's supposed to do.
Listen, thank you all for your time. I enjoyed it.
Bush is not that smart. Cheney, however, is....I CORRECTED THE PROBLEM...PLEASE LISTEN CLOSELY...HALIBURTON...IS A DIRTYWORD! THESE CAMPS, DETENTION CENTERS ARE CONCENTRATION CAMPS....SEARCH ENDGAME ON GOOGLE...BUSH HAS A PLAN...
The Truth Is This Adimn.. Should Be Called Crooks R Us
True...
HALLIBURTON EVADED U.S.SANCTIONS AND DID BUSINESS WITH IRAQ:
“According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records... Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company." [Source: Wash. Post, 6/23/01]
I do plainly and ingenuously confess that I am guilty of corruption, and do renounce all defense.
Francis Bacon, on being charged with corruption
Francis Bacon, on being charged with corruption
Bush moves toward martial law, revises Insurrection Act with Public Law 109-364
by Frank Morales Friday, Oct. 27, 2006 at 4:27 PM
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.
Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.
Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."
Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."
A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."
The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.
The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."
In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)
It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.
Source:
(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006
(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122
(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.
(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.
www.towardfreedom.com/home/
Bush Pushing Food Aid Spending
Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2008
By AP/DESMOND BUTLER A (WASHINGTON) — President Bush is making a renewed push to allow the government to spend food aid money to buy crops in poor countries. Congress is unlikely to go along.
Bush has asked Congress to change a law that requires food supplies for foreign aid to be bought in the United States.
Lawmakers from states with large agricultural industries are opposing the proposal on grounds that American farmers should continue to benefit from the aid program. Congress members, nearing completion of a bill that would govern how the administration spends about $1.2 billion in aid, so far have not included loosened restrictions on food aid sourcing.
Bush mentioned the issue in Monday's State of the Union address. He urged Congress to make the changes that he argued would "help break the cycle of famine" in countries that receive U.S. food aid.
The administration and aid groups have argued that the current policy slows efforts to deliver food to disaster areas, sometimes by months. Critics also say it harms farmers in developing countries by denying them markets that could help them and the people who would work with them out of grinding poverty. "In some cases, food aid coming from the United States puts local farmers at a disadvantage," said Laura Rusu, a spokeswoman for Oxfam America.
Bush's latest request for the change comes less than three weeks before he is to go to Africa, where he is likely to highlight his administration's efforts to fight HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases and poverty.
Keith Williams, a spokesman for the Agriculture Department, says the administration is continuing to push Congress to approve the sourcing changes, and mentioning the issue Monday was an attempt to press the case.
With less than a year in his presidency and his popularity at low levels, Bush lacks the political muscle to push unpopular proposals through Congress. Traditionally, agricultural interests are quite strong politically.
Anti-poverty groups who have been critical of the current policy are skeptical that the administration is determined enough or even politically capable of winning over Congress. "I don't see that this is going to happen," said Marianne Leach, director of government affairs for the anti-poverty group CARE. "We have not heard about anything that the administration is doing to make this happen."
Some U.S. lawmakers, who oppose Bush's proposal, argue that massive agricultural purchases in developing countries could disrupt local economies and drive up prices for important staples beyond the crisis areas targeted by aid.
"I agree with the president that we should strengthen the emergency response capability of U.S. food assistance," said Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee in a statement. "Allowing some local purchase of food in poor countries seems to have promise, but let's be careful about wholesale change."
The Senate version of the bill would include $25 million — a small fraction of the overall food aid budget— for a four-year experimental program to test the idea of buying crops abroad.
Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2008
By AP/DESMOND BUTLER A (WASHINGTON) — President Bush is making a renewed push to allow the government to spend food aid money to buy crops in poor countries. Congress is unlikely to go along.
Bush has asked Congress to change a law that requires food supplies for foreign aid to be bought in the United States.
Lawmakers from states with large agricultural industries are opposing the proposal on grounds that American farmers should continue to benefit from the aid program. Congress members, nearing completion of a bill that would govern how the administration spends about $1.2 billion in aid, so far have not included loosened restrictions on food aid sourcing.
Bush mentioned the issue in Monday's State of the Union address. He urged Congress to make the changes that he argued would "help break the cycle of famine" in countries that receive U.S. food aid.
The administration and aid groups have argued that the current policy slows efforts to deliver food to disaster areas, sometimes by months. Critics also say it harms farmers in developing countries by denying them markets that could help them and the people who would work with them out of grinding poverty. "In some cases, food aid coming from the United States puts local farmers at a disadvantage," said Laura Rusu, a spokeswoman for Oxfam America.
Bush's latest request for the change comes less than three weeks before he is to go to Africa, where he is likely to highlight his administration's efforts to fight HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases and poverty.
Keith Williams, a spokesman for the Agriculture Department, says the administration is continuing to push Congress to approve the sourcing changes, and mentioning the issue Monday was an attempt to press the case.
With less than a year in his presidency and his popularity at low levels, Bush lacks the political muscle to push unpopular proposals through Congress. Traditionally, agricultural interests are quite strong politically.
Anti-poverty groups who have been critical of the current policy are skeptical that the administration is determined enough or even politically capable of winning over Congress. "I don't see that this is going to happen," said Marianne Leach, director of government affairs for the anti-poverty group CARE. "We have not heard about anything that the administration is doing to make this happen."
Some U.S. lawmakers, who oppose Bush's proposal, argue that massive agricultural purchases in developing countries could disrupt local economies and drive up prices for important staples beyond the crisis areas targeted by aid.
"I agree with the president that we should strengthen the emergency response capability of U.S. food assistance," said Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee in a statement. "Allowing some local purchase of food in poor countries seems to have promise, but let's be careful about wholesale change."
The Senate version of the bill would include $25 million — a small fraction of the overall food aid budget— for a four-year experimental program to test the idea of buying crops abroad.
Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
Monday, Feb.4, 2008
Mathaba News Network
Bush Buys Land in Northern Paraguay
Posted: 2006/10/13
From: Source
Undersecretary for the Social Habitat in the Argentine Federal Planning Ministry, issued a memo partially reproduced by digital INFOBAE.com, in which he spoke of the purchase by Bush of a 98,842-acre farm in northern Paraguay, between Brazil and Bolivia
Prensa Latina - Buenos Aires: An Argentine official regarded the intention of the George W. Bush family to settle on the Acuifero Guarani (Paraguay) as surprising, besides being a bad signal for the governments of the region.
Luis D Elia, undersecretary for the Social Habitat in the Argentine Federal Planning Ministry, issued a memo partially reproduced by digital INFOBAE.com, in which he spoke of the purchase by Bush of a 98,842-acre farm in northern Paraguay, between Brazil and Bolivia.
The news circulated Thursday in non-official sources in Asuncion, Paraguay.
D Elia considered this Bush step counterproductive for the regional power expressed by Presidents Nestor Kirchner, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
He said that "it is a bad signal that the Bush family is doing business with natural resources linked to the future of MERCOSUR."
The official pointed out that this situation could cause a hypothetical conflict of all the armies in the region, and called attention to the Bush family habit of associating business and politics.
SOURCE:www.mathaba.net/news/?x=544414
Cost of the War in Iraq
$491,649,469,420
Mathaba News Network
Bush Buys Land in Northern Paraguay
Posted: 2006/10/13
From: Source
Undersecretary for the Social Habitat in the Argentine Federal Planning Ministry, issued a memo partially reproduced by digital INFOBAE.com, in which he spoke of the purchase by Bush of a 98,842-acre farm in northern Paraguay, between Brazil and Bolivia
Prensa Latina - Buenos Aires: An Argentine official regarded the intention of the George W. Bush family to settle on the Acuifero Guarani (Paraguay) as surprising, besides being a bad signal for the governments of the region.
Luis D Elia, undersecretary for the Social Habitat in the Argentine Federal Planning Ministry, issued a memo partially reproduced by digital INFOBAE.com, in which he spoke of the purchase by Bush of a 98,842-acre farm in northern Paraguay, between Brazil and Bolivia.
The news circulated Thursday in non-official sources in Asuncion, Paraguay.
D Elia considered this Bush step counterproductive for the regional power expressed by Presidents Nestor Kirchner, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
He said that "it is a bad signal that the Bush family is doing business with natural resources linked to the future of MERCOSUR."
The official pointed out that this situation could cause a hypothetical conflict of all the armies in the region, and called attention to the Bush family habit of associating business and politics.
SOURCE:www.mathaba.net/news/?x=544414
Cost of the War in Iraq
$491,649,469,420
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/Av6nZtgUe3Q&rel=1[/FLASH]
Who Is Steve Bradbury?
By Spencer Ackerman
October 19, 2007, 12:24PM
It took two days of hearings for the Senate Judiciary Committee to reinforce its consensus that Michael Mukasey should be attorney general. The panel asked Mukasey tough questions about torture, detentions, surveillance and the president's inherent wartime powers. But those questions might have been misdirected. That's because an obscure Justice Department lawyer, Steven G. Bradbury, the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), might actually be more important to the war on terrorism than the attorney general.
It's also a position that's arguably more important to the administration too, since the OLC chief has the power to issue what former chief Jack Goldsmith called "an advance pardon" for dubious activities.
Yet while Bradbury has been serving as the acting head of the office since early 2005, he's never been confirmed for the spot. Senate Democrats continue to express opposition to Bradbury's nomination and say he remains in the position illegally.
Bradbury, a respected conservative lawyer, was nominated by President Bush in June 2005 to fill the void left by Goldsmith. The Office of Legal Counsel's job is to give guidance about whether certain government policies or presidential prerogatives are legal. But it's not meant to be an advocate for the president himself -- that's the White House counsel's responsibility. Goldsmith, in an agonizing reappraisal during 2003 and 2004, ended up rescinding earlier OLC directives about interrogation, expressed discomfort over administration plans to try terrorism suspects in military tribunals, and was part of a near-revolt in DOJ over warrantless surveillance, all of which is documented in Goldsmith's meditation on presidential authority, The Terror Presidency.
Following the president's reelection, the White House put loyalist Alberto Gonzales atop the Justice Department. Gonzales, the former White House counsel, was a consistent critic of Goldsmith's, and a staunch ally of presidential-power hardliners like David Addington and Dick Cheney. But Gonzales couldn't directly undo Goldsmith's revisions. That power falls to the OLC chief, and so the White House tapped Steven Bradbury, who had been deputy OLC chief, for the job.
But Bradbury, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas before taking a job with Ken Starr's law firm, hit a snag. In August 2006, three Democratic senators, Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), blocked Bradbury's nomination in a maneuver to compel the Bush administration to disclose more about its warrantless surveillance program. Around that time, President Bush personally quashed a review by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility into the propriety of DOJ lawyers who approved the program. The Democrats countered that they couldn't confirm Bradbury until he was formally cleared of wrongdoing.
The move angered Gonzales, who had told the judiciary committee that Bradbury's work was "critical." But since the OPR investigation died, Bradbury was caught. An attempted renomination in January of this year went nowhere.
But a funny thing happened on the way to Bradbury's downfall: he stayed in his job. And it's not hard to see why. Throughout 2006 Bradbury argued forcefully that the Supreme Court's rejection of the administration's military tribunals in terrorism cases was incorrectly decided. He argued that Geneva Conventions language barring "humiliating and degrading treatment" was hopelessly vague, and subject to "uncertain and unpredictable application." He was a leading advocate of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which revoked habeas corpus for terrorism detainees. He authored an opinion immunizing ex-White House counsel Harriet Miers from testifying in the U.S. attorneys investigation. And, most infamously, he apparently authored secret memoranda reauthorizing torture techniques, including waterboarding.
Bradbury, however, shouldn't have been in his job, at least not this year. A 1998 law called the Vacancies Reform Act bars non-Senate-confirmed appointees for holding their jobs for longer than 210 days. Durbin, Kennedy and Feingold wrote to Bush this week to note Bradbury's "apparent violation" of the statute, and asked Bush to offer up a new nominee as OLC chief. You can read that letter here.
Whether that happens is the next big legal test for the Bush administration in the war on terrorism. Bradbury received crucial support yesterday from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the top Republican on the judiciary committee. Mukasey showed no inclination to urge Bush to throw Bradbury overboard. Even if he ultimately recommends that a new OLC chief should be appointed, it's ultimately Bush's call. Given how precious the OLC's blessing is to the White House on crucial counterterrorism programs, it's clear that what happens with Bradbury will reveal a lot about Bush's intentions as he heads into his final year in office.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004506.php
By Spencer Ackerman
October 19, 2007, 12:24PM
It took two days of hearings for the Senate Judiciary Committee to reinforce its consensus that Michael Mukasey should be attorney general. The panel asked Mukasey tough questions about torture, detentions, surveillance and the president's inherent wartime powers. But those questions might have been misdirected. That's because an obscure Justice Department lawyer, Steven G. Bradbury, the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), might actually be more important to the war on terrorism than the attorney general.
It's also a position that's arguably more important to the administration too, since the OLC chief has the power to issue what former chief Jack Goldsmith called "an advance pardon" for dubious activities.
Yet while Bradbury has been serving as the acting head of the office since early 2005, he's never been confirmed for the spot. Senate Democrats continue to express opposition to Bradbury's nomination and say he remains in the position illegally.
Bradbury, a respected conservative lawyer, was nominated by President Bush in June 2005 to fill the void left by Goldsmith. The Office of Legal Counsel's job is to give guidance about whether certain government policies or presidential prerogatives are legal. But it's not meant to be an advocate for the president himself -- that's the White House counsel's responsibility. Goldsmith, in an agonizing reappraisal during 2003 and 2004, ended up rescinding earlier OLC directives about interrogation, expressed discomfort over administration plans to try terrorism suspects in military tribunals, and was part of a near-revolt in DOJ over warrantless surveillance, all of which is documented in Goldsmith's meditation on presidential authority, The Terror Presidency.
Following the president's reelection, the White House put loyalist Alberto Gonzales atop the Justice Department. Gonzales, the former White House counsel, was a consistent critic of Goldsmith's, and a staunch ally of presidential-power hardliners like David Addington and Dick Cheney. But Gonzales couldn't directly undo Goldsmith's revisions. That power falls to the OLC chief, and so the White House tapped Steven Bradbury, who had been deputy OLC chief, for the job.
But Bradbury, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas before taking a job with Ken Starr's law firm, hit a snag. In August 2006, three Democratic senators, Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), blocked Bradbury's nomination in a maneuver to compel the Bush administration to disclose more about its warrantless surveillance program. Around that time, President Bush personally quashed a review by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility into the propriety of DOJ lawyers who approved the program. The Democrats countered that they couldn't confirm Bradbury until he was formally cleared of wrongdoing.
The move angered Gonzales, who had told the judiciary committee that Bradbury's work was "critical." But since the OPR investigation died, Bradbury was caught. An attempted renomination in January of this year went nowhere.
But a funny thing happened on the way to Bradbury's downfall: he stayed in his job. And it's not hard to see why. Throughout 2006 Bradbury argued forcefully that the Supreme Court's rejection of the administration's military tribunals in terrorism cases was incorrectly decided. He argued that Geneva Conventions language barring "humiliating and degrading treatment" was hopelessly vague, and subject to "uncertain and unpredictable application." He was a leading advocate of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which revoked habeas corpus for terrorism detainees. He authored an opinion immunizing ex-White House counsel Harriet Miers from testifying in the U.S. attorneys investigation. And, most infamously, he apparently authored secret memoranda reauthorizing torture techniques, including waterboarding.
Bradbury, however, shouldn't have been in his job, at least not this year. A 1998 law called the Vacancies Reform Act bars non-Senate-confirmed appointees for holding their jobs for longer than 210 days. Durbin, Kennedy and Feingold wrote to Bush this week to note Bradbury's "apparent violation" of the statute, and asked Bush to offer up a new nominee as OLC chief. You can read that letter here.
Whether that happens is the next big legal test for the Bush administration in the war on terrorism. Bradbury received crucial support yesterday from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the top Republican on the judiciary committee. Mukasey showed no inclination to urge Bush to throw Bradbury overboard. Even if he ultimately recommends that a new OLC chief should be appointed, it's ultimately Bush's call. Given how precious the OLC's blessing is to the White House on crucial counterterrorism programs, it's clear that what happens with Bradbury will reveal a lot about Bush's intentions as he heads into his final year in office.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004506.php
HOLY SHIT..That's crazy as fuck. And then proposing another 1.4 trillion to handle this lil' recession we're in..Terrible..
Whoever the next president is, is gonna have a MAJOR fiscal crisis on his/her hands..
<embed src='http://hashemsfilms.com/components/com_seyret/localplayer/seyretplayer.swf' allowfullscreen='true' bgcolor='#FFFFFF' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='file=http://hashemsfilms.com/seyretfiles/localvideos/The_AntiChrist_Dajjal_Series/dajjal7.flv&image=http://hashemsfilms.com/seyretfiles/localvideos/The_AntiChrist_Dajjal_Series/_thumbs/dajjal7th.png&showdigits=false&autostart=false&logo=http://hashemsfilms.com/components/com_seyret/localplayer/logo.png&repeat=false&usefullscreen=true&backcolor=0x000000&frontcolor=0xCCCCCC' height='300' width='400'>
Whoever the next president is, is gonna have a MAJOR fiscal crisis on his/her hands..
That was the point of the Clinton/Bush presidencies to shut the US down for a potential takeover.You're it really doesn't matter who takes over the office at this point.
Please catch the movie Southland Tales!! I can't recommend that film enough!!!!!
Southland Tales is an ensemble piece set in the futuristic landscape of Los Angeles on July 4, 2008, as it stands on the brink of social, economic and environmental disaster. Boxer Santaros is an action star who's stricken with amnesia. His life intertwines with Krysta Now, an adult film star developing her own reality television project, and Ronald Taverner, a Hermosa Beach police officer who holds the key to a vast conspiracy.
http://rapidshare.com/files/73246079/Southland_Tales.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/73234027/Southland_Tales.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/73217849/Southland_Tales.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/73180162/Southland_Tales.part4.rar
rar password : kaan1983
Last edited:
Hmm..That looks pretty interesting...I'll definitely check it out; Thanks for the post.
And yeah, fam..It really doesn't matters who wins at this point; The U.S. is in a extremely serious state financially..
And yeah, fam..It really doesn't matters who wins at this point; The U.S. is in a extremely serious state financially..
The definition of embedded(NWO)...
That was the point of the Clinton/Bush presidencies to shut the US down for a potential takeover.You're it really doesn't matter who takes over the office at this point.
I ended up buying that movie, thanks for the tip!
On a darker note, all the talk about McCain and bailouts, brings something to light...
McCain and The Keating 5
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OnH07n-Q1hY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OnH07n-Q1hY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A-_ESdQrLVA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A-_ESdQrLVA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
a reminder...