Thursday, April 26, 2007

Corruption at HPSCI? Say it aint so.

* RAW:
"Did Gonzales delay Renzi corruption probe? Four intel lawmakers 'under FBI scrutiny' Four sitting members of the House Intelligence Committee have come "under FBI scrutiny" over the last two years, and a top Democratic senator believes that the Attorney General may have been successful in delaying one probe of a Republican Congressman until after the midterm elections."

* Justin at ABC:
"Since 2005, four sitting members of the House panel entrusted with the nation's deepest secrets have come under FBI scrutiny.

The committee, known formally as the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI, for short), reviews classified budgets and operational plans for the CIA, the NSA and other so-called three-letter agencies.

Unlike nearly everyone else who works with the nation's deepest national security secrets, lawmakers on intelligence committees undergo no background checks, no polygraphs and no lifestyle audits. They are automatically waived in to review everything from secret satellite data to nuclear weapons intelligence.

"That means the people who serve on that committee have to have the highest integrity possible," said Vince Cannistraro, a former senior CIA official and case officer."

Meanwhile, someone (purportedly) from CREW left a comment at LSES:
"With respect to Ms. Sibel Edmonds allegations, I wonder if she would be willing to go on record about what sort of congressional members have been involved in criminal activities?

Is it true there is blackmail involved?

Also is the House Intelligence Committee in particular, susceptible to this blackmail by the ATC et all?

The reason being is Congressman Rick Renzi has resigned from his post on the House Intelligence Committee, and he is also under federal investigation.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Did_Gonzales_delay_Renzi_corruption_probe_0425.html

I'm not saying one way or another that there are, but could there be connections between these members of congress and the allegations Ms. Sibel Edmonds has continuously stressed?

This is a very important matter. The House Intelligence Committee protects america from foreign intrusion and serious national security matters.

If any of their members have been blackmailed or accepted political favors, the consequences could be quite dire.

It would further illustrate the kind of disregard for the law that was in play before September 11, and may explain why the attacks happened."

4 comments:

«—U®Anu§—» said...

There you go. With as much as there is in Sibel's story, people don't find it hard to understand. It's always pleasing to see a new convert.

The other day, I told you about a TV news story about commercial vehicles from Mexico running in the U.S. I'm uncovering some information which is really troubling. Have you wondered what the full implication of all the racket from the Bush administration is regarding immigration?

Of course, it is to put together a guest worker program so employers can draw from a ready pool of cheap labor. But, I've discovered some things that are far more sinister, and it's being done so quietly I can get practically no information about it.

I need something more, and I'm almost out of ideas about where to look. I'll think it over and make a post. This is going to make you puke. There really is a solid plan that's been under development many years to put more Latinos to work in the U.S. What you haven't been told is business is hoping it will be TENS OF MILLIONS. Bush will use it as an excuse to complete his military-police state vision of America. The names of some of the players may surprise you, maybe not. I'm surprised at the scope of the effort, and how clever it is.

lukery said...

Mr U - we await your post...

Anonymous said...

Talking of conspiracies, I am not into them..as in one large conspiracy, most are joint ventures of various interest, that's why it is almost impossible to nail a conspiracy as an actual conspiracy.

I don't go along with the 911 conspiracy that the goverment planned it either except in this way....there is no doubt in my mind that there are individuals burrowed in agencies and positions in our goverment that though of a 911 event as a sacrifice for the greater good of their whatever cause. If you want something to happen without fingerprints on it you just remove or weaken the supports under the bridge. You don't know exactly which car or truck will finally fall through the sabotaged bridge but you know eventually one will.
All you have to do is wait.

Enlightenment said...

Anonymous, with all due respect, your analysis of 9/11 doesn't hold water for the simple reason that it accepts the "official" version of events in all ways except substituting "nobody had any idea this could happen" for "some people knew it COULD happen but let it happen for their own purposes". Other than that you are left with a mountain of impossibilities and "coincidences" inherent in the "official" fairy tale. You need to look into the DETAILS of 9/11, not just take what is said on the "news" at face value and draw conclusions based on what they tell you.

Some of the most glaring things the "official" 9/11 myth cannot explain are:
1.How is it possible for the "hijacker pilots" who by everyone's account were too unskilled to master flying Cessnas worth a damn somehow able to fly airliners like experts, with Hani Hanjour, said to be the most unskilled of all (an instructor said he was unsure if Hanjour ever even drove a CAR before he was so bad), able to make his "airliner" do a high G-force corkscrew turn to zoom in at hundreds of miles per hour a few feet above the ground to hit the Pentagon on the ground floor?

2.How is it possible for the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 to "collapse" at freefall rate or anything even remotely near freefall rate? You must understand, that means we are expected to believe that the uppermost floors crashed into and THROUGH the majority of the building as quickly, meaning as EFFORTLESSLY, as falling through air, meaning something (explosives) had to have reduced the majority of the building to such a state of offering no more resistance than air. In the real world common sense tells us that without explosives such a feat is patently impossible.

3.Why did Bush's Secret Service staff allow Bush to remain in Booker Elementary for at least 35 more minutes after Andy Card whispered to him that "America is under attack"? Standard operating procedure would be to immediately and I mean IMMEDIATELY remove Bush from the location and whisk him away to a much safer place. Yet they didn't. The only way they could have been so confident as to allow Bush to remain there would be if they knew he was not even a possible target that morning; the only way they could have known THAT would be if they knew the 9/11 plans beforehand, meaning it was an inside job.

4.Why did the Air Force, the most expensive and high-tech air force in the world, remain completely impotent to stop the "hijacked airliners"? The northeast is the part of the country that is most thick with Air Force bases for obvious reasons. Yet the Air Force purposely dragged its feet, ordering fighters to fly at about 25% speed, ordering others to fly out over the Atlantic. Two F-15s were in the air off Long Island but "didn't get there in time". Right. Sixty-seven times in the year before 9/11 the Air Force had scrambled fighters WITHIN A FEW MINUTES of an aircraft deviating from its flight plan (remember Paine Stewart?). Yet on the most important day in its history it didn't follow standard operating procedure. And if you claim this was just a colossal screw-up, then why did the generals in charge of the Air Force and N.O.R.A.D., Gens. Myers and Eberhart respectively, both get PROMOTED after 9/11???

5.Why were record amounts of "put" orders (betting a stock is going to drop in value) placed on the stocks of United Airlines, American Airlines and [WTC-based] Morgan Stanley-Dean Witter in the week before 9/11? Whoever placed the "put" orders had foreknowledge and it would be so easy for the S.E.C. to determine WHO placed them, yet we don't hear about any arrests for it.

6.Who forewarned some important people like the then-mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown and several top generals to avoid flying and avoid the WTC on 9/11? They cancelled their flights.

7.Why has it been over 5 years yet we have YET to see video footage that shows an airliner crashing into the Pentagon? Remember last year, that crap that was shown on the news for about a day until they apparantly realized how ridiculous it looked? Where they said "now in this frame you can see the nose of it, then it disappears, then we see the explosion... See? There you have it." Why have we not seen video footage showing the amazing feat of an airliner crashing into it? It certainly isn't from a lack of camaras, as the Pentagon has several that were pointing at the crash site, in addition to at least 3 civilian camaras nearby also pointing at the crash site (the tapes from them were within minutes confiscated by the F.B.I.-- why, if they show something that backs up the "official" myth, why aren't we seeing the tapes on t.v.??)

8.Doesn't it seem a little too "coincidental" to you that the "airliner" went out of its way to circle around to hit the side of the Pentagon that was the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass were located? The part that was hit was also the part that was under renovation at the time, with the fewest amount of military personnel present. It was ALSO the part that had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced so that a fire there wouldn't spread to other parts of the building. At what point do the "coincidences" become too much to be a coincidence?

9.It was reported in the mainstream press, in MSNBC among other outlets, in 2002, long after the British press had revealed it, that Bush had complete war plans for the invasion of Afghanistan sitting on his desk two days BEFORE 9/11. Care to explain that?

Any one of these shows 9/11 was an inside job; taken together they are overwhelming. Sorry Anonymous, but in order to believe the "official" explanation of events, with or without tweaking it to "they knew and did nothing", involves accepting a mountain of impossibilities that don't just strain credulity but shred it. That's why looking into the details of matters is so important; without knowing any details it is far easier to get bamboozled by the unscrupulous bastards who planned 9/11 than it is if you know just how many things about the "official" story simply could not have happened in the manner we have been told by the Cheney administration. Conversely, if you KNOW the details I have mentioned and STILL think the "official" story is true, then I feel very sorry for you. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you haven't looked into the details.