That's all folks

This blog is closed.

Please see the right hand side for links to some of my work on the Sibel Edmonds case.

I'm still working on the Sibel Edmonds case, and can be found at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak and Against All Enemies

See below this post for "What the heck is Sibel Edmonds' Case about? And why should I care?" - an overview of the case.

What the heck is Sibel Edmonds' Case about? And why should I care?

Below is a short-as-possible piece which hopes to answer the burning question in Sibel's case: What the heck is her case about?

For a longer version, see my recent interview with Scott Horton

Please call the offices of Congressmen Waxman - (202) 225-3976 - and Conyers - (202) 225-5126 - demanding open hearings into Sibel Edmonds' case and the State Secrets Privilege.

-----------

Sibel Edmonds' case is about the intersection of illegal arms trafficking, heroin trafficking, money laundering, terrorist activities and the corruption of many "highly-recognizable, highly-known names" in and around the US government. Sibel says that the people involved will go straight to prison if we can get hearings into her case. Richard Perle, in prison. Douglas Feith, in prison. Dennis Hastert, in prison. Marc Grossman, in prison.

According to Sibel, the best place to begin trying to understand the case is a recent article by Phil Giraldi in the American Conservative. Sibel says “Giraldi has it 100% right; this I consider the most accurate summary of my case.”

Giraldi writes:

"Sibel Edmonds... could provide a major insight into how neoconservatives distort US foreign policy and enrich themselves at the same time. On one level, her story appears straightforward: several Turkish lobbying groups allegedly bribed congressmen to support policies favourable to Ankara. But beyond that, the Edmonds revelations become more serpentine and appear to involve AIPAC, Israel and a number of leading neoconservatives who have profited from the Turkish connection.
[]
Turkey benefits from the relationship by securing general benevolence and increased aid from the US Congress - as well as access to otherwise unattainable military technology. The Turkish General Staff has a particular interest because much of the military spending is channeled through companies in which the generals have a financial stake, making for a very cozy and comfortable business arrangement. The commercial interest has also fostered close political ties, with the American Turkish Council, American Turkish Cultural Alliance and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations all developing warm relationships with AIPAC and other Jewish and Israel advocacy groups throughout the US.

Someone has to be in the middle to keep the happy affair going, so enter the neocons, intent on securing Israel against all comers and also keen to turn a dollar."

Giraldi goes on to list some neocons who are "linked to Turkey" - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Marc Grossman, Eric Edelman, and Stephen Solarz - and he suggests that they "enrich themselves" via drug trafficking and arms dealing.

The American Turkish Council (ATC)
The main Turkish lobbying group in the US is an organization called the American Turkish Council (ATC) - one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country. The ATC is heavily stacked with former government officials - statesmen, lobbyists and 'dime a dozen generals' - lobbyists and representatives of the military-industrial-complex (MIC). Brent Scowcroft is the chairman, and heavy hitters from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrup Grumman and other 'defense' contractors populate the board.

It's perhaps not surprising, then, that Turkey is a major recipient of US military aid - running to the billions of dollars - with much of it financed by the US taxpayer. Giraldi suggests in his article that this largesse appears to be the result of bribes paid to congressmen - a suggestion that shouldn't surprise anyone - but there's much more to the story than the usual Iron Triangle / Revolving Door story that we're all familiar with.

In a 10-page article in Vanity Fair on Sibel's case, the ATC is described as "a front for criminal activity" involving "large-scale drug deals and of selling classified military technologies to the highest bidder." We'll discuss the drug side of the story shortly, but let's first take a quick look at the military technology element - not only are the MIC contractors bribing congress to ensure that military aid flows to Turkey (and Israel), the Turks and the Israelis are also illegally selling that technology to the highest bidder - which inevitably includes America's enemies, States, and terrorist groups.

Sibel's case also involves the nuclear black market - some Turkish members of the ATC have supplied Pakistan's A.Q. Khan network with hardware, as have American companies that Sibel overheard on the wiretaps. Perhaps even more disturbing, as reported in Vanity Fair, other wiretaps indicate that "Turkish groups had been installing doctoral students at U.S. research institutions in order to acquire information about black market nuclear weapons." Daniel Ellsberg says that, according to Sibel, bribes were paid to people at the State Department to facilitate this activity.

These are extraordinary claims, of course, and we have a lot of evidence to support the claims - including, but not limited to, the fact that Valerie Plame's front company, Brewster Jennings, had been conducting a counter-intelligence operation against the ATC for years.

One very interesting aspect of Sibel's case that has not really gained traction is that while the ATC is understood to be the key focus of her case, it appears that AIPAC is equally involved. In a terrific 2005 interview with Chris Deliso, Sibel said:

Essentially, there is only one investigation – a very big one, an all-inclusive one... But I can tell you there are a lot of people involved, a lot of ranking officials, and a lot of illegal activities that include multi-billion-dollar drug-smuggling operations, black-market nuclear sales to terrorists and unsavory regimes, you name it... You can start from the AIPAC angle. You can start from the Plame case. You can start from my case. They all end up going to the same place, and they revolve around the same nucleus of people.

And she went a little bit further in a great interview with David Swanson this week:

"AIPAC helped form the American Turkish Council - look at the board members, look at the people. You will see the same people involved in both fronts, because it is the same operation."

Reading between the lines (in a number of different places), it appears that Sibel was actively involved in 'the AIPAC investigation' as well as the investigation into the ATC. As she says, both the ATC and AIPAC are both 'fronts' for the 'same (criminal) operation.'



Drug Trafficking.
As I document in "Sibel Edmonds & the Neocons' Turkish Gravy-Train," Afghanistan supplies almost 90% of the world's heroin, and most of that goes straight to Turkey where it is processed, packaged, warehoused, and then re-exported to other countries for final consumption. Turkey supplies approximately 80% of Europe's heroin, and 15% of heroin in the US - worth approximately $40 billion at street prices.

Turkey is widely acknowledged to be controlled by a "Deep State." In 1996, a deadly car crash at a place called Susurluk blew this out into the open. In the car were four people who probably shouldn't have been in the car together:

"an MP, a police chief, a beauty queen and her lover, a top Turkish gangster and hitman called Abdullah Catli... Catli, a heroin trafficker on Interpol’s wanted list, was carrying a diplomatic passport signed by none other than the Turkish Interior Minister himself.
[]
The Susurluk Incident became Turkey’s Watergate, exposing the deep links between the Turkish state, terrorists and drug traffickers. It revealed what Turks call the Gizli Devlet, or Deep State – the politicians, military officers and intelligence officials who worked with drug bosses to move drugs from Afghanistan into Europe."

Sibel spells it out:

"The Turkish government, MIT and the Turkish military, not only sanctions, but also actively participates in and oversees the narcotics activities and networks."

As I outlined in the curiously-titled "Sibel Edmonds: America's Watergate," Sibel's case demonstrates that Turkey's Deep State 'owns' large parts of the American establishment, to the point where it appears that there also is a 'Deep State' in the US as well. ATC/AIPAC appear to be headquarters for this Deep State in the US, a cozy club where drug dealers, weapons traffickers and past-and-present government officials coexist. Happily!

And if that's not bad enough, we also know that:

"Heroin trafficking is also the main source of funding for the al-Qaeda terrorists. A Time Magazine article in August 2004 reported that al-Qaeda has established a smuggling network that is peddling Afghan heroin to buyers across the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, and in turn is using the drug revenues to purchase weapons and explosives. The article states: “...al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies are increasingly financing operations with opium sales. Anti-drug officials in Afghanistan have no hard figures on how much al-Qaeda and the Taliban are earning from drugs, but conservative estimates run into tens of millions of dollars.”

That is, our Turkish Deep State friends, the people we are directly providing with weapons, are outsourcing some of their distribution activities to al-Qaeda and the Taliban (and, while we're at it, to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA.))

When we are discussing issues such as al-Qaeda smuggling heroin through Afghanistan and the other 'Stans, sometimes it can seem remote and distant, so let's come back to something more concrete. In Adrian Gatton's terrific recent article, The Susurluk Legacy, he quotes Huseyin Baybasin, a Turkish heroin kingpin who is now in jail in Holland:

“I handled the drugs which came through the channel of the Turkish Consulate in England... I was with the Mafia but I was carrying this out with the same Mafia group in which the rulers of Turkey were part.”

Gatton also describes how anyone in the UK government who dared speak about the issue were immediately rebuked by the Foreign Office (the UK equivalent of the State Department.)

The parallels with Sibel's case couldn't be clearer. As 60 Minutes first reported (youtube) in 2002, and Vanity Fair later reported, the Turkish Embassy was directing a lot of the heroin trafficking activity - in conjunction with people at the ATC.

"Sibel also recalled hearing wiretaps indicating that Turkish Embassy targets frequently spoke to staff members at the A.T.C.
[]
In her secure testimony, Edmonds disclosed some of what she recalled hearing... Many (calls) involved an F.B.I. target at (Chicago's) large Turkish Consulate... Some of the calls reportedly contained what sounded like references to large scale drug shipments and other crimes."

And just as the UK Foreign Office silenced anyone in the UK who tried to speak out, Sibel says:

The Department of State is easily the most corrupted of the major government agencies.
[]
In some cases where the FBI stumbles upon evidence of high-level officials being involved in drug-smuggling, they're even prevented from sharing it with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency]. The Department of State just comes in and says, "Leave it."

Elsewhere, Sibel says:

"For years and years, information and evidence being collected by the counterintelligence operations of certain U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies has been prevented from being transferred to criminal and narcotics divisions, and from being shared with the Drug Enforcement Agency and others with prosecutorial power. Those with direct knowledge have been prevented from making this information available and public by various gag orders and invocation of the State Secrets Privilege. Why?"

Pay attention here, because the ATC is where the worlds of the MIC and the heroin trafficking collide. One of the key Turkish interfaces at the ATC is the Turkish Generals - people that Giraldi says own a stake in the companies through which the military spending is channeled. As described earlier, these exact same people, the Turkish Deep State, also control much of the global heroin market. In between the MIC and the heroin traffickers - are the "neoconservatives (who) distort US foreign policy and enrich themselves at the same time."

One of the difficulties in trying to unravel the Sibel Edmonds case is that we aren't sure where one case ends and another begins. We know that some of the wiretaps were from the ATC, and some from the Turkish embassy in DC, and some from the embassy in Chicago. We also know that many of the wiretaps involve conversations between the embassies and the ATC.
Some of the wiretaps relate to drug trafficking, some relate to the nuclear black market and other weapons trafficking, and some refer to terrorist activity - including 9/11.

Perhaps it's not surprising, then, when she says:

You have the same players when you look into these activities at high-levels you come across the same players, they are the same people.

Those 'same people' - at least on the American side - according to Giraldi, appear to be Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Marc Grossman, Eric Edelman, and Stephen Solarz. It appears that we can also add William Cohen and Joseph Ralston - and Dennis Hastert - to that roster, and I'm sure there are a few more that haven't yet been publicly identified.

If what Sibel says is true, and her claims are all backed by documents and wiretaps, and also backed up by other agents who have filed similar complaints, and are ready and willing to testify. All of these people should be in jail. For a long, long time.

Congress must hold hearings to get to the bottom of these crimes. If you agree, please call Congress, today, and demand public, open hearings.

(for more, see Who wants to gag Sibel Edmonds? And why? (with answers!))

Contact Information

Congressman Henry Waxman (contact page)

(Those calling Waxman's office should ask for Michelle Ash & David Rapallo.)

In Washington, D.C.
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-3976 (phone)
(202) 225-4099 (fax)

In Los Angeles
8436 West Third Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90048
(323) 651-1040 (phone)
(818) 878-7400 (phone)
(310) 652-3095 (phone)
(323) 655-0502 (fax)

House Government Reform Committee (contact page)
By Mail or Phone:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5051

Please also contact Congressman John Conyers, asking him to support hearings by Chairman Waxman.
(Those calling Conyers' office should ask for Elliot Mintzberg.)
Email: John.Conyers@mail.house.gov

Washington, DC
2426 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5126
(202) 225-0072 Fax

Sometimes fearmongering isn't enough (guest post by noise)

Arkansas GOP chief Dennis Milligan:

He said he’s “150 percent” behind Bush on the war in Iraq.

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Milligan said. (1)

Clemons sez he is a big fan of Scott

* Horton interviewed Steve Clemons. Clemons sez he is a big fan of Scott. Everyone sez that about Horton.

* Taibbi takes Giuliani apart.

* Jeralyn:

"My answer to the question as to whether Rudy is more dangerous than Bush: Of course he is. He's smarter and more Machiavellian.

A more apt question would be whether he's more dangerous than Dick Cheney. Probably not. But it's also why, happily, he won't be successful in his bid for the Presidency."

* scott interviewed Jim Lobe. Lobe says he thinks the Turks will invade conduct cross-border raids into Iraq "starting in a month or so."


* Other Horton:

"(Larry) Wilkerson’s parting comment is telling. “They are dangerous men who will lie about almost anyone or anything,” Wilkerson angrily responded by e-mail, singling out Feith, DiRita, Cheney and Rumsfeld for scorn."

* i'll be offline (my) monday

Postsecret

Postsecret

US let Pakistan go nuclear: ex-CIA official

Dawn (in Pakistan, in full):

"US let Pakistan go nuclear: ex-CIA official

WASHINGTON, May 3: The Reagan administration allowed Pakistan to continue its nuclear programme because it needed Islamabad’s support to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, says a former CIA official.

Richard Barlow was an analyst for the CIA, monitoring Pakistan’s nuclear programme during the Reagan era. In 1989, he moved over to the Pentagon, where he worked for then Secretary of Defence Richard Cheney.

In an interview to a Washington news site, Raw Story, Mr Barlow claims that he lost the job when he raised objections to his bosses about senior Pentagon officials allegedly lying to Congress concerning Pakistan’s emerging nuclear programme.

When Mr Barlow joined the CIA in 1985 as a counter-proliferation intelligence officer with particular expertise on Pakistan, he soon learned that US officials were aware of Pakistan’s efforts to establish a weapon-cable nuclear programme but chose to ignore them.

According to Mr Barlow, individuals at the State Department later actively facilitated procurement, tipping off targets of sealed arrest warrants in undercover operations and illegally approving export licenses for restricted goods.

In 1985 — following the arrest of a Pakistani agent in the US who attempted to procure specialised switches for nuclear detonators — Congress took steps to prevent Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons, passing bills that would cut off economic and military aid to Pakistan if it were found to be involved in nuclear activities.

“However, President Reagan wanted military and economic aid to continue flowing to Pakistan to ensure its ongoing support of his covert war against the Russians in Afghanistan,” Mr Barlow says.

In 1987, Mr Barlow engineered the arrest of some of Pakistanis in the US as part of an undercover operation. He says the arrests came with the full support and knowledge of the highest levels of the CIA and the Reagan administration.

The arrests sparked a firestorm. Proof of Pakistan’s proliferation activities would trigger the provisions of the so-called Solarz Amendment and put an end to Pakistani aid.

The amendment’s author, Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs Chairman Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-NY), called for a top-secret briefing by the CIA. Mr Barlow was sent to represent the agency.

Under orders from the CIA, he told the subcommittee that there were “scores” of illegal transactions that should have triggered the Solarz Amendment. He also claimed that the Pakistanis involved — including a retired general — were agents of the government of Pakistan.

While Mr Solarz and others in Congress favoured Mr Barlow, he claims that some senior officials of the Reagan administration tried to undercut his testimony. US officials running the covert Afghan war — the Directorate of Operations, the former National Intelligence Officer for Proliferation who had been responsible for briefing Congress and the State Department’s regional office — were particularly upset and tried to get him fired for engineering the arrests and spilling the beans, he says.

A US court, however, convicted the Pakistani nationals arrested for assisting their country’s nuclear programme and President Reagan triggered the Solarz Amendment for the first and only time.

Immediately afterward, President Reagan invoked a national security waiver provision in the law, nullifying the amendment.

Mr Barlow left the CIA and in early 1989, after George H. W. Bush became president, he joined the Pentagon’s Office of Non-Proliferation Policy."

Military equipment found in Turkish train wreck

Turkish MSNBC (thanks Mizgin)

"Military equipment found in Turkish train wreck: Buyukanit

There has been speculation in the media, denied by Tehran, that a consignment of arms was being sent to Syria from Iran.

The chief of the Turkish general staff has confirmed that military equipment was found amongst the cargo of a freight train that was derailed by a terrorist bomb last week.

General Yasar Buyukanit said that while he would not comment in detail on the allegations that a cache of warms and munitions had been found at the site of the train derailment, he did say that there was military equipment aboard the train.

Claims that a cargo container on train that derailed in south eastern Turkey on May 24 after a terrorist group detonated a mine on the tracks was found to contain weaponry surfaced in the media soon after the incident.

“An investigation is already under way,” Buyukanit said. “If the cars of the train enter the country from the border without undergoing a detailed check, officials do not check them again. There is something wrong here. A car derailed and weapons appeared. It is impossible to say something before the investigation is completed. But I can say that there was military equipment.”"

an apology

Yesterday I did something very stupid, and I linked to something that, rightfully, caused a lot of offence.

I asked the author of the video to pull it down, they agreed, and sent me this message:

The video is down. Too bad, I received a bunch of inquiries and phone calls from friends asking me who she is. I'd tried telling them before about her but nobody seemed to care. Suddenly, mix her story with pop culture crap and people open their eyes - go figure. Maybe it has something to do with how their brains have been re-wired over the last bunch of years with all the crap they watch on tv. Oh well, please pass on my apologies... and, please, tell her my intentions were sincere. I'll try to figure out another way to get people to open up to her case.

I understood that this was the intention behind the video, and I saw the video in that context. It is a common at youtube to use trashy 'pop culture' to bring attention to an issue in this way, and it is understood that there is no link between the actual content of the video, and the pop culture element.

Regardless, it was appalling judgement by me. Sincere apologies.

RIP

Steve Gilliard, RIP.

Sibel Edmonds - still waiting for justice.

This Is How I Protest The War

* clemons:

"There are a lot of new good people -- working together finally -- in this administration. But Vice President Cheney, and his national security spearcarriers -- David Addington, John Hannah, and David Wurmser -- will be out there to sabotage and oppose him at every turn. These rivals can't be seduced to support David Gordon's logic. They need to be out run, embarrassed, exhausted, pushed out of the room, or crushed.

That's how one wins against Cheney's followers. David Gordon's appointment is a sign that smart realists are ascendant."

* Henry Rollins - "This Is How I Protest The War" (10 mins)

* Mizgin has a letter from a soldier. go read.

* your president speaks:

"Sometimes I'm not poetic enough to describe what it's like to be in the presence of the Holy Father. It is a moving experience. And I have not been in the presence of this particular Holy Father."

Repudiate Now.

Scott Ritter:

"Impeachment is the constitutional remedy for a unilateral president whose governance is an insult to traditional American democratic norms and values. However, impeachment alone is simply a measure which addresses the symptoms of a larger malaise that has stricken America. The arrogance associated with the concept of the unitary executive is prevalent throughout mainstream American political life. The passivity of the legislative branch is one byproduct of the dominance of the unitary executive. It is also an indicator that the will of the people, as expressed through their election of the people's representatives to the Congress of the United States, no longer has the weight and bearing long associated with the American democratic experience.

Any effort to impeach Bush and any of his administration found to be engaged in activities classifiable as "high crimes and misdemeanors" would fail to rein in the unitary executive core of any successor. One only has to listen to the rhetoric of the Democratic candidates for president to understand that this trend is as deeply rooted among them as it is with President Bush. Americans today look for leaders without recognizing the absolute necessity of electing team players. The Founding Fathers deliberately designed the executive branch to be strong and independent, but also made sure, through an elaborate system of checks and balances, that it operated merely as one of three separate but equal branches of government.

The "in your face" efforts of the Bush administration to minimize the role of Congress and to achieve political control of the judiciary are simply more public manifestations of trends that occurred in a more quiet fashion in past administrations, Republican and Democratic alike. When America elects a leader who states clearly that he or she will work with their equal partners in governance, the Congress, for the good of the country, and who will acknowledge the supremacy of law set forth in the form of binding legislation passed by the will of Congress void of any limiting or contradicting "presidential signing statement," then we will finally have a leader who is truly worthy of the title "President of the United States of America."

But this will not happen of its own volition. The impeachment of President Bush would not in and of itself terminate executive unilateralism. It would only limit its implementation on the most visible periphery, driving its destructive designs back into the shadows of government, away from the public eye, and as such, public accountability. Impeach President Bush, yes, if in fact he can be charged with the commission of acts which meet the constitutional standard for impeachment (and I believe he could, if Congress only had the will to do its job). But to truly heal America, we must repudiate everything President Bush stands for, in terms of not only public and foreign policy, but also in terms of his style of governance, since the former is derived from the latter.

Repudiation is a strong term, defined as "rejecting as having no authority or binding force," to "cast off or disown," or to "reject with disapproval or condemnation." In my opinion, the complete repudiation of the presidency of George W. Bush is the only recourse we have collectively as a people to not only seek redress for the wrongs committed by the Bush administration, but also to purge society of this cancer that threatens to consume and destroy us as a whole, and which would continue to manifest itself in our system of governance even after any impeachment proceedings.

Like any cancerous growth, the Bush administration has attached its malignancy to the American nation in a cruel fashion, its poisonous tentacles stretching deep into our national fabric in a manner that makes difficult the task of culling out the healthy from the diseased. But we cannot truly repudiate something without its complete and utter elimination from our midst. As such, there must be a litmus test to help us differentiate the good from the bad, that which must be restored from that which must be eliminated. For me, there is only one true test: that of constitutionality. There will be those who argue, and have argued, that the time is well past for an oppressed people (and one would be a fool not to comprehend that under the Bush administration, the American people have in fact been oppressed) to rely on the niceties of legal argument, especially when the system of law we seek to use in our defense has been so thoroughly corrupted by those who seek to impose tyranny.
[]
Short of a complete and total abdication on the part of the Congress, the collapse of the judiciary system, and a shocking decision by those men and women who wear the uniform of the armed forces of the United States to lend force of arms to the will of a dictatorial president, I cannot ever envision a time in which conditions in these United States could deteriorate to the point that a violent revolution "of the people and by the people" would be required to restore constitutional legitimacy and authority. Having said that, I remind the reader that with so few Americans professing any working understanding of the Constitution, it is difficult to speak of people defending that which they remain ignorant of.

While I reject violence as a means of redressing social wrongs, especially when applied to issues of governance, and instead rely on the rule of law as manifested by the Constitution and those legitimate bodies empowered by the Constitution to remedy every situation, I cannot help but fear the moment when the foundation of legitimacy which defines who we are and what we are as a nation fades away into irrelevance amidst a sea of complacency and ignorance. There is no greater breeding ground for the forces of tyranny than the surrender of civic responsibility on the part of those entrusted with the defense of liberty. And in this I do not mean the Congress of the United States, but rather the people of the United States, the duly elected representatives of whom constitute the Congress.

I fear not the bloody rebellion of an outraged citizenry, but rather the passive submission of a shameful mass which betrays the cause of liberty and freedom through the abandonment of the Constitution, and the obligations of citizenship derived thereof, in favor of the narcotic of consumerism. Such a mass, foreswearing blind obedience to those who profess how to best construct a cocoon that immerses the occupant in transitory comfort, is the most pressing problem facing America today. In a nation whose defining document begins, "We the People," I find that it is we the people who constitute the greatest threat to the future of America. It is not through the force of our actions, but rather the vacuum created by our inaction and apathy, a vacuum all too readily filled by those who would have us exchange our hard-fought freedoms for a gilded cage of market-driven consumerism.

This is the main reason why I am not a proponent of the 'impeach now' mentality so prevalent in political circles that oppose George W. Bush. The expediency of impeachment simply replaces one source of tyranny (President Bush) with another (whomever replaces him). It is not the failures of an individual that have gotten us to where we are today, but rather the failure of the collective. So before we speak of impeachment and the notion of executive accountability, I would like to address the issue of repudiation and the necessity of civic responsibility.
[]
Today one only needs to observe the corruption of our rulers and the carelessness of our people to understand the significance of the Constitution when it comes to preserving these United States of America. The nefarious nature of the Bush cancer is that, in its infection of the American system, it seeks to draw legitimacy for its tyrannical actions by citing the very same Constitution it seeks to destroy. The promoters of this point of view cite the academic term "Unitary Executive Theory" when defining their philosophy. To me, it is nothing less than treason. The Founding Fathers, in discussing the concept of a "unitary executive," made use of the term in a manner reflective of their desire to restrain executive power, versus the extreme interpretation embraced by counsels to President Bush and Vice President Cheney who seek to expand executive power and authority to near dictatorial levels, especially during a time of war. The tendency on the part of President Bush to obviate the role of Congress is well documented, in matters pertaining to governance in times of peace as well as war. The unprecedented number of presidential signing statements issued by Bush speaks volumes to this trend. These signing statements, historically a device used by executives to protect presidential prerogative when it comes to how a bill might be interpreted in a court of law, have been used by the Bush administration to negate the legal impact of a given piece of legislation by clearly stating the intent of the president to act in a manner inconsistent with the letter of the law. That the president believes he has a right to conduct himself in this manner is the height of hubris; that Congress continues to facilitate this behavior unchallenged represents the depth of legislative depravity.
[]
Those who espouse the nobility of patriotism by extolling Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which addresses the issue of impeachment of the president and vice president, are all too mute about the remainder of that great document. Whether this silence is derived from negligence or ignorance, or a combination thereof, is not the point. What lies at the heart of this issue is that void of a solid foundation of "creed," as Thomas Jefferson put it, to fall back on in times of constitutional crisis derived from the abuse of power and authority. The American people have only a bottomless pit as their support, and this is no support at all. Impeach President Bush? Maybe, if due process dictates. Repudiate President Bush? Absolutely, especially if one aspires for an America that truly matches the visions and ideals set forth by the Founding Fathers.

Repudiate the notion of a "unitary executive."

Repudiate presidential signing statements.

Repudiate executive violation of Article 6 of the Constitution, which binds municipal law in America with binding treaty obligations incurred when the Senate ratifies a treaty or agreement by a two-thirds majority or better.

Repudiate "faith-based initiatives" pushed by any branch of government.

Repudiate a weak Congress.

Repudiate weak senators or representatives, especially those with a track record of abrogating their constitutional mandate.

Repudiate ignorance, especially that of the American citizen who knows little or nothing about the Constitution which empowers him or her.

Repudiate consumerism, especially the virulent form it takes in the selfish framework of American-centric capitalism.

Repudiate pre-emptive wars of aggression.

Repudiate American Empire.

Instead, embrace the empowerment of education. Embrace active citizenship. Embrace the rule of law, as set forth by the Constitution. Do all of this and, in the end, if conditions and circumstance warrant, impeach President Bush and any of those in his administration so deserving."

FARA Puts Some Records Online

* CQ:

"Foreign Lobbying Database Up and Running
Tracking the efforts of foreign countries and organizations to lobby the U.S. government became easier this week. The Justice Department launched a searchable online database of filings under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) — including reports filed during the current month."

we'll see. Sunlight Foundation is more circumspect: "FARA Puts Some Records Online"

* Amy:

U.S., Russia Trade Barbs Over Missile Plan
The standoff over U.S. plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe continues to intensify. On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the U.S. policy was akin to “diktat” and “imperialism.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin: "Some members of the international community have a desire to dictate their will to everyone on any issue, without coordinating their actions with common norms of international law."

Meanwhile Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded to Putin during a visit to Germany.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "Democratic institutions and an open society are not a source of weakness. Nor is freedom of speech and freedom of the press a nuisance. They are pillars of modern society. When we differ with Russia, we will consult, we will address their views seriously and we will express our own views candidly. In that regard I have to tell you that I find Russia's recent missile diplomacy difficult to understand, and we regret Russia's reluctance to accept the partnership if missile defence that we have offered."

* Amy:

British Teachers, South African Trade Union Back Israel Boycott
In Britain, the main union of British college teachers has endorsed a call for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. The measure calls Israeli academia “complicit” in Israel’s forty year occupation of Palestinian lands. The congress of the University and College Union represents more than 120,000 British teachers. The move comes as South Africa’s largest trade union federation is preparing its own campaign to call for a national boycott on Israeli products and an end to diplomatic ties with Israel. Willy Madisha, president of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), said: “The best way to have Israel comply with United Nations resolutions is to pressure it by a diplomatic boycott such as the one imposed on apartheid South Africa.”

* Amy:

Dow Jones Considers Murdoch Bid for WSJ
In media news, Dow Jones has announced its now open to talks on selling the Wall Street Journal. The news comes just one month after Dow’s controlling family, the Bancrofts, rejected a takeover bid from News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch. Dow now says its open to Murdoch’s offer.

* Amy:

Ex-Rove Aide Resigns as Arkansas U.S. Attorney
And finally, the former top aide to chief White House strategist Karl Rove has stepped down as U.S. attorney for Arkansas. Tom Griffin’s resignation came just hours after Congressmember John Conyers had asked for information about Griffin’s role in a scandal first reported by the journalist Greg Palast for both the BBC and Democracy Now. Palast obtained internal Republican emails showing Griffin had sent so-called voter “caging-lists” designed to challenge voters from casting ballots. The caging lists were skewed towards targeting people of color, predominantly African-Americans.

The Crazies

* NYT:

" Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought today to minimize any sense of division within the Bush administration over Iran after the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency delivered a pointed new warning against what he called the “new crazies” pushing for military action against Tehran.

“The President of the United States has made it clear that we are on a course that is a diplomatic course,” Ms. Rice said here. “That policy is supported by all of the members of the cabinet, and by the vice president of the United States.”

At the same time, President Bush today strongly criticized the Iranian government for holding four American citizens, and demanded their release.

Ms. Rice’s assurance on U.S. strategy came as senior officials at the State Department are expressing fury over reports that members of Vice President Cheney’s staff have told others that Mr. Cheney believes the diplomatic track with Iran is pointless, and is looking for ways to persuade Mr. Bush to confront Iran militarily.
[]
Reports about hawkish statements by members of Mr. Cheney’s staff first surfaced last week in The Washington Note, a blog run by Steve Clemons of the left-leaning New America Foundation. The report has alarmed European diplomats, some of whom fear that the struggle over Iran’s nuclear program may evolve into a decision by the Bush administration to resort to force against Iran.

In interviews, people who have spoken with Mr. Cheney’s staff have confirmed the broad outlines of the report, and said that some of the hawkish statements to outsiders were made by David Wurmser, a former Pentagon official who is now the principal deputy assistant to Mr. Cheney for national security affairs. The accounts were provided by people who expressed alarm about the statements, but refused to be quoted by name.

During an interview with BBC Radio that was broadcast today, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he did not want to see another war like the one still raging in Iraq five years after the American-led invasion there.

“You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say, ‘let’s go and bomb Iran,’“ Mr. ElBaradei said, in his strongest warning yet against the use of force in Iran. “I wake up every morning and see 100 Iraqis, innocent civilians, are dying.“
[]
During an interview with BBC Radio that was broadcast today, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he did not want to see another war like the one still raging in Iraq five years after the American-led invasion there.

“You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say, ‘let’s go and bomb Iran,’“ Mr. ElBaradei said, in his strongest warning yet against the use of force in Iran. “I wake up every morning and see 100 Iraqis, innocent civilians, are dying.“

Mr. ElBaradei, who has urged Western powers to consider allowing Iran limited enrichment on its own territory, is already facing criticism from Bush administration officials who say he should stick to monitoring Iran’s nuclear program and leave diplomatic policy to the six countries that have banded together to try to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

But several Western European officials also echoed his concern, and said privately that they are worried that Mr. Cheney’s “red lines” — the point at which he believes that Iran is on the brink of acquiring a nuclear weapon and a military strike is necessary — may be coming up soon. “We fully believe that Foggy Bottom is committed to the diplomatic track,” one European official said Wednesday. “But there’s some concern about the vice president’s office.”

In the BBC interview, Mr. ElBaradei said that one could not “bomb knowledge.” Asked who the “new crazies“ were, he replied: “Those who have extreme views and say the only solution is to impose our will by force.“"

I'd be happy to forgive Gore for 2000

In the comments here I briefly mentioned Gore on Lehrer talking about whether violent revolution was appropriate in 2000.

From Lehrer:

"GWEN IFILL: Let me ask you one final question, which is, as you were putting this book together and assembling your thoughts about what you see as a broad-based collapse in a lot of the way we think and reason in our society, did you ever think to yourself, based specifically on the indictment that you make against the Bush administration, that perhaps you conceded too soon in 2000?

AL GORE: Well, there was -- I took it all the way to a final Supreme Court decision. And in our system, there is no intermediate step between a final Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.

So, at that point, having taken it as far as one could, then the question becomes, are we going to be a nation of laws and not people? Do I support the rule of law, even though I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision? I did disagree with it, and I think that those of us who disagreed with it will have the better of the argument in history."

Gore has used a similar formulation in the past. In an interview in New York Magazine, May 06:

"Does he, like many Democrats, think the election was stolen?

Gore pauses a long time and stares into the middle distance. “There may come a time when I speak on that,” Gore says, “but it’s not now; I need more time to frame it carefully if I do.” Gore sighs. “In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.”

Later, I put the question of Gore’s views on the matter to David Boies, his lawyer in the Florida-recount battle. “He thought the court’s ruling was wrong and obviously political,” Boies says. So he considers the election stolen? “I think he does—and he’s right.”"

SteveA sez:

"I did not see Gore on Lehrer. From what you said here, though, it seemed he understood that the election had been stolen. He might have been able to make a case if he had wanted. But, he figured he had two options only. He could either go along with the result as he was given it by the Bush people, knowing they had stolen the election, or he could have taken a course that would have inevitably lead to violence in the streets.

Is this why politicians on the left never do anything in this country?

They always think that doing something will get lots of people killed?

So, people on the Warren Commission planned to cover it up because if the general population knew that the assassination of their President was an inside job, then, they figured, there would be blood in the streets and we can't have that.

We can't challenge the efforts of republican operatives to steal elections because why? Democrats do the same things? The people who steal elections whether dem or rep are not against killing large numbers of Americans if it means preserving their hold on power?

Do we go along with making the 9-11 murders into some bogus act of war by foreigners when there were obvious questions about who had to be involved on the inside because to open up those questions would have lead to blood in the streets?

I do not think that fighting in the streets can get us anywhere where we want to be. So, I am very interested in finding some third alternative between "rule by gangsters" and the "blood in the streets" options Gore sees for us.

Did anyone ask Gore whether he thought the consequences to the country of his acquiecence to the coup would be worse than if he had decided to stand up for something? He could have just stated the facts as he saw them. Maybe he could have argued that we should not let the coup stand, nor should we start shooting up the place.

Did anyone ask him whether he thought that if the Bush people could have stolen the election, as he seems to have conceded, that they could have planned and carried out all that came afterward?

When the election in Mexico was stolen just recently, and the people were in the streets, there was not great bloodshed. Did Gore think that he couldn't risk even that kind of confrontation? What would he have been afraid of, that the government and the gangsters would have capitulated? That there would not have been enough people concerned about an honest election showing up. Does he think people basically go along with gangster rule and he doesn't want to expose that fact?

I could go on with my questioning. I will not consider Gore for any elected office unless I hear some kind of better excuse for what he did."

Good questions, all.

OTOH, I'd be happy to forgive Gore for 2000. Compared to the alternatives, he seems like a giant. Is there another Dem candidate that would even dare mention the theft of 2000? (or 2004 for that matter.) The theft in 2000 didn't 'happen to Gore' - it happened to all of us.

Im Piç

With Turkey in the news again, calipendence sent me this little creation of his last week that I forgot to publish.

From Calipendence:

"Piç" = bastard
"im" = sign of
"Im Piç!" = "Bastard Sign!"

Rather than "Bastard Sign!", I'd be tempted to go with Sign of The Bastard - but let's impeach him anyhow.

Update from calipendence in the comments, in case i wasn't clear:

"Should note to non-Turkish speaking folks that "Im Piç!" sounds like "Impeach!" when pronounced in Turkish. Thus it should read something like "Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!" to us listening..."

a 12-dimensional hyperspatial jigsaw puzzle

Starroute in the comments re Turkey et al:

"I happened to run across that rocket story at Google News yesterday and have been scratching my head over it ever since. Since the Turks claimed the missiles were bound for either Hezbollah or the Palestinians, my first thought was that it might be disinfo connected with the current US scheme to tilt towards the Sunnis (with Saudi support) and smash all Shi'ites that Seymour Hersh has been talking about.

Additionally, the Daily Star (is that Lebanese?), says, "The Iranian Embassy issued a statement Wednesday denying that the weapons belonged to Iran, and said the allegations were being made 'by circles' aiming to disrupt Turkey's close relations with Iran."

So -- are the Turks doing this, or are they being set up? Are they really smuggling weapons or is the whole thing an elaborate stage show? And would "circles" be a reference to the US, the Kurds, or Israel -- or an insinuation of all three doing ring-around-the-rosies together?

The damn thing is like a 12-dimensional hyperspatial jigsaw puzzle. Any way I try to fit it together, I come up a few pieces short."

thnx, as always.

I don't feel like I have a grip on what is going on either.

(and Yep, the Daily Star is from Lebanon)

update: Mizgin in the comments:

Let me tell you something . . . if you go to the Habur border crossing, which leads into South Kurdistan (N. Iraq), you will see commercial vehicles waiting in a line that is kilometers long, on both sides of the border.

Why is that? Turkish customs inspections.

So, now, the Turkish press wants me to believe that Iran just "covertly" slipped a train car with rockets across their border without anyone in the Turkish government knowing about it?

Please . . . tell me another one.

The Turkish government knows very well that Iran is transporting rockets across "Turkish" territory (oh, coincidentally, that's really Kurdish territory, territory that the Turkish military keeps a TIGHT grip on, i.e. OCCUPIES. They have a habit of kicking out journalists or human rights workers who get too "nosy" in "The Region" or too concerned with what goes on there.)

The question is: Why did the Turkish military permit the news to be published? What do they stand to gain from it? Are they giving a message to the US, reminding the US just how very valuable they (the Pashas) are to the US? After all, it was just last week that two US F-16s from Iraq happened to "stray" into "Turkish" territory. . . after two Turkish F-16s happened to stray into Iraqi Kurdish territory and TSK launched artillery into some Southern Kurdish villages.

Are the Pashas giving a message to Iran, because they've been conducting military operations in conjunction with Iran--funny that, NATO's second largest army conducting military operations with a member of the "Axis of Evil." I have no doubt they've got a number of other deals going on with Iran.

But then, everyone in "The Region" knows that Turkey's been getting it on with Iran for some time . . . just like they've been getting it on with certain Iraqi Sunni tribes and the Iraqi Turkmen Front (hehehe . . . and people wonder why there's so much violence in Kerkuk?)

There are even Turkish mercenaries, based in the US, operating in Kerkuk.

Or did the Pashas permit publication simply because they are dying to stick it to AKP?

Welcome to our world.

BTW - someone left an anon comment on the blog yesterday that CNN Turk was saying yesterday that 'oops, they made a mistake, there were no rockets on the train'

When you say Iraq is about controlling the oil

* Josh:

"When you say (Iraq is) about controlling the oil, that's not the same as saying that the oil companies themselves -- ExxonMobil, Shell, etc. -- want to own the oil in the ground or want more generous concessions from the governments. They probably do. But I don't think this is what that's about. The oil companies, in case you haven't noticed, make a decent amount of money under the current system of working with the local oligarchies and kleptocracies in the countries in question.

This is about the US controlling the region itself, having troops on the ground and structures in place so that none of the nominal governments in the region can act on their own without US assent. That's a whole different question than which companies have the right to pump the stuff out of the ground."

maybe... maybe not

* Atrios:

"Why Do We Stay In Iraq?

Josh Marshall heads down the path to madness in order to try to answer that question.

The answer is unknowable because there isn't one. There are a variety of powerful actors who have different motives. It's as true, if not more true, for the continued occupation as it was for the initial invasion.

George Bush started the war because Saddam tried to killed his Dad and because he wanted to prance around on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit. He later got stubborn about the whole thing when those mean Democrats started criticizing him, and he began to buy into the transformational rhetoric due to his increasing messianic bent. And, now, it's about his "legacy."

Dick Cheney started the war because of his insatiable lust for the black stuff. Dick Cheney keeps us in Iraq because of his insatiable lust for the black stuff.

Don Rumsfeld went to war to prove that he could achieve any military result with 3 marines, an armed aerial drone, and his left pinky. He stayed in Iraq because George Bush told him to and because he still needed to prove his awesomeness.

AEI and Viceroy Jerry went to war because they were excited about their new libertarian paradise laboratory.

Paul Wolfowitz had grand dreams about transforming the Middle East into who knows what.

Tom Friedman and others went to war because they have the mentality of 5 years olds and they thought that the smartest thing we could do was whip out our giant schlong and wave it around for awhile. Tom Friedman and others stay in Iraq because they think that if they don't keep popping cialis ("If your occupation lasts longer than 6 months...") the world will notice our little tiny shriveled up thingy.

Karl Rove went to war so his boy could prance on the aircraft carrier and win re-election. He stays because leaving Iraq will anger wingnuttia.

Lots of other people stay in Iraq just because they don't like to admit they're wrong. Their egos are more important anything.

The sensible liberals at Brookings were so stupid they thought Saddam was a threat. They were the stupidest people of all, because that was about the only thing which had nothing to do with why we invaded Iraq. They stay in Iraq because they're unable to accept responsibility for their actions.

Democrats went to war because they were scared of losing their elections. They stay there because they're scared of losing elections.

Ultimately it's all centered around oil, the endless needs of the military industrial complex, and various other financial interests masquerading as ideology. But there isn't one reason, just a grand harmonic convergence of wingnuttery."

* amy:

"Israel Dismisses Truce Talks, Launches Attacks
In Israel and the Occupied Territories, Israel has dismissed the prospect of a truce with Palestinian militants and continued its bombing attacks on Gaza. On Wednesday, two Hamas militants were killed in an Israeli strike. Meanwhile the quartet of Middle East peace mediators urged support for the ceasefire at a meeting in Berlin.

UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon: "Looking ahead, the quartet discussed the calendar for the coming months to support and encourage progress on the bilateral and regional tracks. The quartet principles agree to meet in the region in turn with the Israelis and Palestinians to review progress and discuss the way forward. The quartet also agreed to meet in the region with members of the Arab League to follow up on the Arab peace initiative and efforts to advance the regional track."

The appeal came as Israeli forces carried out what is being described as an extrajudicial execution in the middle of a crowded Palestinian street. Witnesses say undercover Israeli troops ambushed an off-duty Palestinian security officer in broad daylight in Ramallah. The officer, Mohamed Abdul Halim, was shot twenty-four times. Halim was reportedly carring a weapon but never attempted to open fire. Palestinian information minister Mustafa Barghouti was present on the scene and had shots fired at his vehicle."

trying to provoke more Islamic violence

Winter has this from Craig Murray:

"I am in general opposed to violence, except as a last resort. And I know that the police are not all fascists. Many policemen don't like the drive against civil liberties any more than I do. But, even granted that they are only doing their job, I can promise you this. The first policeman who stops me as I am peacefully going about my lawful business, and demands to know who I am and where I am going, will get punched on the nose.

As the government whittles away our basic freedoms, there comes a point where you either resist, physically, or we all lose our liberty. I think Reid and Blair's new proposal for a police power to "Stop and question" takes us to that point.

Of course, having skin of a regulation Scottish blue colour, I am not likely to be stopped. Jean Charles De Menezes was killed for having a slightly olive complexion and dark hair, and it is people of his hue and darker who will in fact be stopped and questioned.

The proposal is obvious madness - if the government was looking to provoke young British Muslims, no tactic would work better. Which does lead us, quite seriously, to be forced to question whether Reid and Blair are trying deliberately to cause an even further deterioration in community relations. There are two possibilities: either they are trying to provoke more "Islamic" violence, or they are very stupid.

Come to think of it, there is a third possibility. They may be trying to provoke more Islamic violence, and be very stupid."

Winter likes the third option, and notes that Murray "appears to be way too honest for the Foreign Service."

interview

Sibel and I gave an interview on Peter B Collins show today. You can download it here if you are interested - there's not much new ( about 25 mins.)

We talked, in part, about whether Waxman's reluctance to hold hearings might be due to the fact that there are some Democratic ex-congressmen involved in the bribery scam.

Sibel says that there are at least two democrats involved - I said that Stephen Solarz' name comes up in the case.