Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Senate Hearings on Bush, Now
By CARL BERNSTEIN
In this VF.com exclusive, a Watergate veteran and Vanity Fair contributor calls for bipartisan hearings investigating the Bush presidency. Should Republicans on the Hill take the high road and save themselves come November?
Worse than Watergate? High crimes and misdemeanors justifying the impeachment of George W. Bush, as increasing numbers of Democrats in Washington hope, and, sotto voce, increasing numbers of Republicans—including some of the president's top lieutenants—now fear? Leaders of both parties are acutely aware of the vehemence of anti-Bush sentiment in the country, expressed especially in the increasing number of Americans—nearing 50 percent in some polls—who say they would favor impeachment if the president were proved to have deliberately lied to justify going to war in Iraq.
John Dean, the Watergate conspirator who ultimately shattered the Watergate conspiracy, rendered his precipitous (or perhaps prescient) impeachment verdict on Bush two years ago in the affirmative, without so much as a question mark in choosing the title of his book Worse than Watergate. On March 31, some three decades after he testified at the seminal hearings of the Senate Watergate Committee, Dean reiterated his dark view of Bush's presidency in a congressional hearing that shed more noise than light, and more partisan rancor than genuine inquiry. The ostensible subject: whether Bush should be censured for unconstitutional conduct in ordering electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant.
Raising the worse-than-Watergate question and demanding unequivocally that Congress seek to answer it is, in fact, overdue and more than justified by ample evidence stacked up from Baghdad back to New Orleans and, of increasing relevance, inside a special prosecutor's office in downtown Washington.
In terms of imminent, meaningful action by the Congress, however, the question of whether the president should be impeached (or, less severely, censured) remains premature. More important, it is essential that the Senate vote—hopefully before the November elections, and with overwhelming support from both parties—to undertake a full investigation of the conduct of the presidency of George W. Bush, along the lines of the Senate Watergate Committee's investigation during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.
How much evidence is there to justify such action?
Certainly enough to form a consensus around a national imperative: to learn what this president and his vice president knew and when they knew it; to determine what the Bush administration has done under the guise of national security; and to find out who did what, whether legal or illegal, unconstitutional or merely under the wire, in ignorance or incompetence or with good reason, while the administration barricaded itself behind the most Draconian secrecy and disingenuous information policies of the modern presidential era.
"We ought to get to the bottom of it so it can be evaluated, again, by the American people," said Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on April 9. "The President of the United States owes a specific explanation to the American people … about exactly what he did." Specter was speaking specifically about a special prosecutor's assertion that Bush selectively declassified information (of dubious accuracy) and instructed the vice president to leak it to reporters to undermine criticism of the decision to go to war in Iraq. But the senator's comments would be even more appropriately directed at far more pervasive and darker questions that must be answered if the American political system is to acquit itself in the Bush era, as it did in Nixon's.
Perhaps there are facts or mitigating circumstances, given the extraordinary nature of conceiving and fighting a war on terror, that justify some of the more questionable policies and conduct of this presidency, even those that turned a natural disaster in New Orleans into a catastrophe of incompetence and neglect. But the truth is we have no trustworthy official record of what has occurred in almost any aspect of this administration, how decisions were reached, and even what the actual policies promulgated and approved by the president are. Nor will we, until the subpoena powers of the Congress are used (as in Watergate) to find out the facts—not just about the war in Iraq, almost every aspect of it, beginning with the road to war, but other essential elements of Bush's presidency, particularly the routine disregard for truthfulness in the dissemination of information to the American people and Congress.
The first fundamental question that needs to be answered by and about the president, the vice president, and their political and national-security aides, from Donald Rumsfeld to Condoleezza Rice, to Karl Rove, to Michael Chertoff, to Colin Powell, to George Tenet, to Paul Wolfowitz, to Andrew Card (and a dozen others), is whether lying, disinformation, misinformation, and manipulation of information have been a basic matter of policy—used to overwhelm dissent; to hide troublesome truths and inconvenient data from the press, public, and Congress; and to defend the president and his actions when he and they have gone awry or utterly failed.
Most of what we have learned about the reality of this administration—and the disconcerting mind-set and decision-making process of President Bush himself—has come not from the White House or the Pentagon or the Department of Homeland Security or the Treasury Department, but from insider accounts by disaffected members of the administration after their departure, and from distinguished journalists, and, in the case of a skeletal but hugely significant body of information, from a special prosecutor. And also, of late, from an aide-de-camp to the British prime minister. Almost invariably, their accounts have revealed what the president and those serving him have deliberately concealed—torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, and its apparent authorization by presidential fiat; wholesale N.S.A. domestic wiretapping in contravention of specific prohibitive law; brutal interrogations of prisoners shipped secretly by the C.I.A. and U.S. military to Third World gulags; the nonexistence of W.M.D. in Iraq; the role of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney's chief of staff in divulging the name of an undercover C.I.A. employee; the non-role of Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the events of 9/11; the death by friendly fire of Pat Tillman (whose mother, Mary Tillman, told journalist Robert Scheer, "The administration tried to attach themselves to his virtue and then they wiped their feet with him"); the lack of a coherent post-invasion strategy for Iraq, with all its consequent tragedy and loss and destabilizing global implications; the failure to coordinate economic policies for America's long-term financial health (including the misguided tax cuts) with funding a war that will drive the national debt above a trillion dollars; the assurance of Wolfowitz (since rewarded by Bush with the presidency of the World Bank) that Iraq's oil reserves would pay for the war within two to three years after the invasion; and Bush's like-minded confidence, expressed to Blair, that serious internecine strife in Iraq would be unlikely after the invasion.
But most grievous and momentous is the willingness—even enthusiasm, confirmed by the so-called Downing Street Memo and the contemporaneous notes of the chief foreign-policy adviser to British prime minister Tony Blair—to invent almost any justification for going to war in Iraq (including sending up an American U-2 plane painted with U.N. markings to be deliberately shot down by Saddam Hussein's air force, a plan hatched while the president, the vice president, and Blair insisted to the world that war would be initiated "only as a last resort"). Attending the meeting between Bush and Blair where such duplicity was discussed unabashedly ("intelligence and facts" would be jiggered as necessary and "fixed around the policy," wrote the dutiful aide to the prime minister) were Ms. Rice, then national-security adviser to the president, and Andrew Card, the recently departed White House chief of staff.
As with Watergate, the investigation of George W. Bush and his presidency needs to start from a shared premise and set of principles that can be embraced by Democrats and Republicans, by liberals and centrists and conservatives, and by opponents of the war and its advocates: that the president of the United States and members of his administration must defend the requirements of the Constitution, obey the law, demonstrate common sense, and tell the truth. Obviously there will be disagreements, even fierce ones, along the way. Here again the Nixon example is useful: Republicans on the Senate Watergate Committee, including its vice chairman, Howard Baker of Tennessee ("What did the president know and when did he know it?"), began the investigation as defenders of Nixon. By its end, only one was willing to make any defense of Nixon's actions.
The Senate Watergate Committee was created (by a 77 to 0 vote of the Senate) with the formal task of investigating illegal political-campaign activities. Its seven members were chosen by the leadership of each party, three from the minority, four from the majority. (The Democratic majority leader of the Senate, Mike Mansfield, insisted that none of the Democrats be high-profile senators with presidential aspirations.) One of the crucial tasks of any committee charged with investigating the Bush presidency will be to delineate the scope of inquiry. It must not be a fishing expedition—and not only because the pond is so loaded with fish. The lines ought to be drawn so that the hearings themselves do not become the occasion for the ultimate battle of the culture wars. This investigation should be seen as an opportunity to at last rise above the culture wars and, as in Watergate, learn whether the actions of the president and his deputies have been consistent with constitutional principles, the law, and the truth.
Karl Rove and other White House strategists are betting (with odds in their favor) that Republicans on Capitol Hill are extremely unlikely to take the high road before November and endorse any kind of serious investigation into Bush's presidency—a gamble that may increase the risk of losing Republican majorities in either or both houses of Congress, and even further undermine the future of the Bush presidency. Already in the White House, there is talk of a nightmare scenario in which the Democrats successfully make the November congressional elections a referendum on impeachment—and the congressional Republicans' lockstep support for Bush—and win back a majority in the House, and maybe the Senate too.
But voting now to create a Senate investigation—chaired by a Republican—could work to the advantage both of the truth and of Republican candidates eager to put distance between themselves and the White House.
The calculations of politicians about their electoral futures should pale in comparison to the urgency of examining perhaps the most disastrous five years of decision-making of any modern American presidency.
There are huge differences between the Nixon presidency and this one, of course, but surprisingly few would appear to redound to this administration's benefit, including even the fundamental question of the competence of the president.
First and foremost among the differences may be the role of the vice president. The excesses of Watergate—the crimes, the lies, the trampling of the Constitution, the disregard for the institutional integrity of the presidency, the dutiful and even enthusiastic lawbreaking of Nixon's apparatchiks—stemmed from one aberrant president's psyche and the paranoid assumptions that issued from it, and from the notion shared by some of his White House acolytes that, because U. S. troops were fighting a war—especially a failing one against a determined, guerrilla enemy in Vietnam—the commander in chief could assume extraordinary powers nowhere assigned in the Constitution and govern above the rule of law. "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal," Nixon famously told David Frost.
Bush and Cheney have been hardly less succinct about the president's duty and right to assume unprecedented authority nowhere specified in the Constitution. "Especially in the day and age we live in … the president of the United States needs to have his Constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national-security policy," Cheney said less than four months ago.
Bush's doctrine of "unimpairment"—at one with his tendency to trim the truth—may be (with the question of his competence) the nub of the national nightmare. "I have the authority, both from the Constitution and the Congress, to undertake this vital program," Bush said after more than a few Republican and conservative eminences said he did not and joined the chorus of outrage about his N.S.A. domestic-surveillance program.
"Terrorism is not the only new danger of this era," noted George F. Will, the conservative columnist. "Another is the administration's argument that because the president is commander in chief, he is the 'sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs' … [which] is refuted by the Constitution's plain language, which empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws 'necessary and proper' for the execution of all presidential powers."
A voluminous accumulation of documentary and journalistic evidence suggests that the policies and philosophy of this administration that may be unconstitutional or illegal stem not just from Bush but from Cheney as well—hence there's even greater necessity for a careful, methodical investigation under Senate auspices before any consideration of impeachment in the House and its mischievous potential to create the mother of all partisan, ideological, take-no-prisoners battles, which would even further divide the Congress and the country.
Cheney's recognition of the danger to him and his patron by a re-assertion of the Watergate precedent of proper congressional oversight is not hard to fathom. Illegal wiretapping—among other related crimes—was the basis of one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon passed by the House Judiciary Committee. The other two were defiance of subpoenas and obstruction of justice in the Watergate cover-up. "Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the 1970s, served, I think, to erode the authority … [that] the president needs to be effective, especially in the national-security area," Cheney has observed. Nixon did not share his decision-making, much less philosophizing, with his vice president, and never relegated his own judgment to a number two. Former secretary of state Colin Powell's ex-chief of staff, retired army colonel Larry Wilkerson, has attested, "What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."
Here it may be relevant that Powell has, in private, made statements interpreted by many important figures in Washington as seemingly questioning Cheney's emotional stability, and that Powell no longer recognizes the steady, dependable "rock" with whom he served in the administration of George W. Bush's father. Powell needs to be asked under oath about his reported observations regarding Cheney, not to mention his own appearance before the United Nations in which he spoke with assurance about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and insisted that the United States was seeking a way to avoid war, not start it.
Because Powell was regarded by some as the administration "good guy," who was prescient in his anxiety about Bush's determination to go to war in Iraq ("You break it, you own it"), he should not be handed a pass exempting him from tough questioning in a congressional investigation. Indeed, Powell is probably more capable than any other witness of providing both fact and context to the whole story of the road to war and the actions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the others.
One of the similarities between Bush and Nixon is their contempt, lip service aside, for the legitimate oversight of Congress. In seeking to cover up his secret, illegal activities, Nixon made broad claims of executive privilege or national security, the most important of which were rejected by the courts.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their colleagues have successfully evaded accountability for the dire consequences of their policies through a tried-and-true strategy that has exploited a situation in which the press (understandably) has no subpoena power and is held in ill repute (understandably) by so many Americans, and the Republican-controlled Congress can be counted on to ignore its responsibility to compel relevant, forthright testimony and evidence—no matter how outrageous (failure to provide sufficient body armor for American soldiers, for example), mendacious, or inimical to the national interest the actions of the president and his principal aides might be.
As in Watergate, the Bush White House has, at almost every opportunity when endangered by the prospect of accountability, made the conduct of the press the issue instead of the misconduct of the president and his aides, and, with help from its Republican and conservative allies in and out of Congress, questioned the patriotism of the other party. As during the Nixon epoch, the strategy is finally wearing thin. "He's smoking Dutch Cleanser," said Specter when Bush's attorney general claimed legality for the president's secret order authorizing the wiretapping of Americans by the N.S.A.—first revealed in The New York Times in December.
Before the Times story had broken, the president was ardent about his civil-libertarian credentials in such matters: "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so," Bush said in a speech in Buffalo, New York, in April 2004.
Obviously, Bush's statement was demonstrably untrue. Yet instead of correcting himself, Bush attacked the Times for virtual treason, and his aides initiated a full-court press to track down whoever had provided information to the newspaper. "Our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk," he declared, as if America's terrorist enemies hadn't assumed they were subject to all manner of electronic eavesdropping by the world's most technologically sophisticated nation.
As in the Nixon White House, the search for leakers and others in the executive branch who might be truthful with reporters has become a paranoid preoccupation in the Bush White House. "Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country," Bush added. (The special prosecutor's revelation that Bush himself—through Cheney—was ultimately behind Scooter Libby's leaking to undermine Joseph Wilson has ironically caused Bush more damage among Republican members of Congress than far more grievous acts by the president.)
The irony of the Valerie Plame affair, like the Watergate break-in itself, is its relative insignificance in terms of the greater transgressions of a presidency that has gone off the tracks. The "third-rate burglary," as it was famously dismissed by Nixon's press secretary, Ron Ziegler, was actually the key to unlocking the rest of the White House secrets and their cover-up by the President and his men. Absent the knowledge of those other illegal activities of the Nixon presidency, the vehemence with which Nixon, Mitchell, Haldeman, Ziegler, Colson, et al. denied any knowledge of the Watergate break-in, or even its tangential connection to the White House, never made such sense.
As in the case of the Watergate break-in and the Nixon White House, it is now evident that the Plame investigation by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has opened the door to larger questions of transgression: at minimum giving clarity to how far this president and his men and women have been willing to go to protect their knowledge of the false premises and pretenses on which they went to war and sold it to the Congress, the people, the press, the United Nations, and the world.
Contrary to all the denials of the President's spokesman, Scott McClellan, the White House sought "to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson," according to the special prosecutor. And, Fitzgerald told the U. S. District Court, "It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to punish Wilson."
Lost in most accounts of the complicated Plame backstory is its relevance in terms of Bush's 2004 re-election, and hence the obvious concern by Rove and other presidential deputies: that if Wilson's credentials and information were not undermined they would serve as confirmation during the presidential campaign that Bush had knowingly used false claims (that Saddam Hussein had been trying to seek nuclear materials from Niger) in his 2003 State of the Union address to publicly justify going to war.
The parallel with potential damage from Watergate to Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign is almost eerie (and equally complicated): if the insistent denials about White House involvement in the Watergate break-in had been proven false at the time, or the door opened on the other illegal activities of the President and his men, Nixon might have been a far more vulnerable candidate for re-election in 1972.
Literally dozens of investigations have been ordered at the C.I.A., the Pentagon, the National Security Agency, and elsewhere in the executive branch to find out who is talking to the press about secret activities undertaken in Bush's presidency. These include polygraph investigations and a warning to the press that reporters may be prosecuted under espionage laws.
Bush's self-claimed authority to wiretap without a court order—like his self-claimed authority to hold prisoners of war indefinitely without habeas corpus (on grounds those in custody are suspected "terrorists")—stems from the same doctrine of "unimpairment" and all its Nixonian overtones: "The American people expect me to protect their lives and their civil liberties, and that's exactly what we're doing with this [N.S.A. eavesdropping] program," asserted Bush in January.
When Nixon's former attorney general John N. Mitchell was compelled to testify before the Watergate Committee, he laid out the sordid "White House horrors," as he called them—activities undertaken in the name of national security by the low-level thugs and high-level presidential aides acting in the president's name. Mitchell, loyal to the end, pictured the whole crowd, from Haldeman and Ehrlichman and Colson down to Liddy and the Watergate burglars, as self-starters, acting without authority from Nixon. The tapes, of course, told the real story—wiretapping, break-ins, attempts to illegally manipulate the outcome of the electoral process, routine smearing of the president's opponents and intricate machinations to render it untraceable, orders to firebomb a liberal think tank, the Watergate cover-up, and their origin in the Oval Office.
In the case of the Bush administration's two attorneys general, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, there are indications that—as in the Nixon White House—they approved and/or promulgated policies (horrors?) that would appear intended to enable the president to circumvent the Constitution and the law.
Ashcroft expressed reservations as early as 2004 about the legality of the wiretapping authority claimed by Bush, according to recent disclosures in the press, but Ashcroft's doubts—and the unwillingness of his principal deputy attorney general to approve central aspects of the N.S.A. domestic eavesdropping plan—were not made known to the Congress. Gonzales, as White House counsel, drew up the guidelines authorizing torture at American-run prisons and U.S. exemption from the Geneva war-crimes conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners. (His memo to the president described provisions of the conventions as "quaint.")
"Let me make very clear the position of my government and our country," said Bush when confronted with the undeniable, photographic evidence of torture. "We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being." The available facts would indicate this was an unusually evident example of presidential prevarication, but we will never know exactly how untruthful, or perhaps just slippery, until the president and the White House are compelled to cooperate with a real congressional investigation.
That statement by Bush, in June 2004, in response to worldwide outrage at the infamous Abu Ghraib photographs, illustrates two related, core methodologies employed by this president and his cadre to escape responsibility for their actions: First, an Orwellian reliance on the meaninglessness of words. (When is "torture" torture? When is "ordered" "authorized"? When is "if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration" a scheme to keep trusted aides on the payroll through a legal process that could take years before adjudication and hide the president's own role in helping to start—perhaps inadvertently—the Plame ball rolling?)
"Listen, I know of nobody—I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information," the president was quoted saying in Time magazine's issue of October 13, 2003. Time's report then noted with acuity, "Bush seemed to emphasize those last two words ['classified information'] as if hanging onto a legal life preserver in choppy seas."
The second method of escape is the absence of formal orders issued down the chain of command, leaving non-coms, enlisted men and women, and a few unfortunate non-star officers to twist in the wind for policies emanating from the president, vice president, secretary of defense, attorney general, national-security adviser to the president, and current secretary of state (formerly the national-security adviser). With a determined effort, a committee of distinguished senators should be able to establish if the grotesque abuse of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo was really the work of a "few bad apples" like Army Reserve P.F.C. Lynndie England wielding the leash, or a natural consequence of actions and policies flowing from the Oval Office and office of the secretary of defense.
In a baker's dozen of hearings before pliant committees of Congress, a parade of the top brass from Rice to Rumsfeld, to the Joint Chiefs, to Paul Bremer has managed for almost three years to evade responsibility for—or even acknowledgment of—the disintegrating situation on the ground in Iraq, its costs in lives and treasure, and its disastrous reverberations through the world, and for an assault on constitutional principles at home. Similarly, until the Senate Watergate hearings, Nixon and his men at the top had evaded responsibility for Watergate and their cover-up of all the "White House horrors."
With the benefit of hindsight, it is now almost impossible to look at the president's handling of the war in Iraq in isolation from his handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. Certainly any investigation of the president and his administration should include both disasters. Before 9/11, Bush and Condoleezza Rice had been warned in the starkest of terms—by their own aides, by the outgoing Clinton administration, and by experts on terrorism—of the urgent danger of a spectacular al-Qaeda attack in the United States. Yet the first top-level National Security Council meeting to discuss the subject was not held until September 4, 2001—just as the F.B.I. hierarchy had been warned by field agents that there were suspected Islamic radicals learning to fly 747s with no legitimate reasons for doing so, but the bureau ultimately ignored the urgency of problem, just as Bush had ample opportunity (despite what he said later) to review and competently execute a disaster plan for the hurricane heading toward New Orleans.
There will forever be four indelible photographic images of the George W. Bush epoch: an airplane crashing into World Trade Tower number two; Bush in a Florida classroom reading from a book about a goat while a group of second-graders continued to captivate him for another seven minutes after Andrew Card had whispered to the president, "America is under attack"; floodwaters inundating New Orleans, and its residents clinging to rooftops for their lives; and, two days after the hurricane struck, Bush peeking out the window of Air Force One to inspect the devastation from a safe altitude. The aftermath of the hurricane's direct hit, both in terms of the devastation and the astonishing neglect and incompetence from the top down, would appear to be unique in American history. Except for the Civil War and the War of 1812 (when the British burned Washington), no president has ever lost an American city; and if New Orleans is not lost, it will only be because of the heroics of its people and their almost superhuman efforts to overcome the initial lethargy and apparent non-comprehension of the president. Bush's almost blank reaction was foretold vividly in a video of him and his aides meeting on August 28, 2005, the day before Katrina made landfall. The tape—withheld by the administration from Congress but obtained by the Associated Press along with seven days of transcripts of administration briefings—shows Bush and his Homeland Security chief being warned explicitly that the storm could cause levees to overflow, put large number of lives at risk, and overwhelm rescuers.
In the wake of the death and devastation in New Orleans, President Bush refused to provide the most important documents sought by Congress or allow his immediate aides in the White House to testify before Congress about decision-making in the West Wing or at his Crawford ranch in the hours immediately before and after the hurricane struck. His refusal was wrapped in a package of high principle—the need for confidentiality of executive-branch communications—the same principle of preserving presidential privacy that, presumably, prevented him from releasing official White House photos of himself with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff or allowing White House aides to testify about the N.S.A. electronic-eavesdropping program on grounds of executive privilege.
The unwillingness of this president—a former Texas governor familiar with the destructive powers of weather—to deal truthfully ("I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees," he said in an interview with Good Morning America three days after the hurricane hit) and meaningfully with the people of the Gulf Coast or the country, or the Congress, about his government's response ("Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job") to Hurricane Katrina may be the Rosebud moment of his presidency. The president's repeated attempts to keep secret his actions and those of his principal aides by invoking often spurious claims of executive privilege and national security in the run-up to the war in Iraq—and its prosecution since—are rendered perfectly comprehensible when seen in relation to the Katrina claim. It is an effective way to hide the truth (as Nixon attempted so often), and—when uncomfortable truths have nonetheless been revealed by others—to justify extraordinary actions that would seem to be illegal or even unconstitutional.
Is incompetence an impeachable offense? The question is another reason to defer the fraught matter of impeachment (if deserved) in the Bush era until the ground is prepared by a proper fact-finding investigation and public hearings conducted by a sober, distinguished committee of Congress.
We have never had a presidency in which the single unifying thread that flows through its major decision-making was incompetence—stitched together with hubris and mendacity on a Nixonian scale. There will be no shortage of witnesses to question about the subject, among them the retired three-star Marine Corps general who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war's planning, Gregory Newbold.
Last week he wrote, "I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat—Al Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy." The decision to invade Iraq, he said, "was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results." Despite the military's determination that, after Vietnam, "We must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it.… We have been fooled again."
The unprecedented generals' revolt against the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, is—like the special prosecutor's Plame investigation—a door that once cracked open, cannot be readily shut by the president or even his most senior aides. What outsiders long suspected regarding the conduct of the war has now been given credence by those on the inside, near the top, just as in the unraveling of Watergate.
General Newbold and his fellow retired generals have (as observed elsewhere in the press) declared Rumsfeld unfit to lead America's military at almost exactly the moment when the United States must deal with the most difficult legacy of the Bush presidency: how to pry itself out of Iraq and deal with the real threat this administration ignored next door, from Iran.
Rumsfeld appeared Friday on an Al Arabiya television broadcast and said, "Out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round." This kind of denial of reality—and (again) Orwellian abuse of facts and language—to describe six generals, each with more than 30 years military experience, each of whom served at the top of their commands (three in Iraq) and worked closely with Rumsfeld, is indicative of the problem any investigation by the Senate must face when dealing with this presidency.
And if Rumsfeld is unfit, how is his commander-in-chief, who has steadfastly refused to let him go (as Nixon did for so long with Haldeman and Ehrlichman, "two of the finest public servants it has been my privilege to know"), to be judged?
The roadblock to a serious inquiry to date has been a Republican majority that fears the results, and a Democratic minority more interested in retribution and grandstanding than the national weal. There are indications, however, that by November voters may be far more discerning than they were in the last round of congressional elections, and that Republicans especially are getting the message. Indeed many are talking privately about their lack of confidence in Bush and what to do about him.
It took the Senate Watergate Committee less than six months to do its essential work. When Sam Ervin's gavel fell to close the first phase of public televised hearings on August 7, 1973, the basic facts of Nixon's conspiracy—and the White House horrors—were engraved on the nation's consciousness. The testimony of the president's men themselves—under oath and motivated perhaps in part by a real threat of being charged with perjury—left little doubt about what happened in a criminal and unconstitutional presidency.
On February 6, 1974, the House voted 410 to 4 to empower its Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment investigation of the president. On July 27, 1974, the first of three articles of impeachment was approved, with support from 6 of the 17 Republicans (and 21 Democrats) on the committee. Two more articles were approved on July 29 and 30. On August 8, facing certain conviction in a Senate trial, Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford became president.
In Watergate, Republicans were the ones who finally told Richard Nixon, "Enough." They were the ones who cast the most critical votes for articles of impeachment, ensuring that Nixon would be judged with nonpartisan fairness. After the vote, the Republican congressional leadership—led by the great conservative senator Barry Goldwater—marched en masse to the White House to tell the criminal president that he had to go. And if he didn't, the leadership would recommend his conviction in the Senate.
In the case of George W. Bush, important conservative and Republican voices have, finally, begun speaking out in the past few weeks. William F. Buckley Jr., founder of the modern conservative movement and, with Goldwater, perhaps its most revered figure, said last month: "It's important that we acknowledge in the inner counsels of state that [the war in Iraq] has failed so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure." And "Mr. Bush is in the hands of a fortune that will be unremitting on the point of Iraq.… If he'd invented the Bill of Rights it wouldn't get him out of this jam." And "The neoconservative hubris, which sort of assigns to America some kind of geo-strategic responsibility for maximizing democracy, overstretches the resources of a free country."
Even more scathing have been some officials who served in the White House under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's father. Bruce Bartlett, a domestic-policy aide in the Reagan administration, a deputy assistant treasury secretary for the first President Bush, and author of a new book, Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, noted: "A lot of conservatives have had reservations about him for a long time, but have been afraid to speak out for fear it would help liberals and the Democrats"—a situation that, until the Senate Watergate Committee hearings, existed in regard to Nixon. "I think there are growing misgivings about the conduct of the Iraq operation, and how that relates to a general incompetence his administration seems to have about doing basic things," said Bartlett.
After Nixon's resignation, it was often said that the system had worked. Confronted by an aberrant president, the checks and balances on the executive by the legislative and judicial branches of government, and by a free press, had functioned as the founders had envisioned.
The system has thus far failed during the presidency of George W. Bush—at incalculable cost in human lives, to the American political system, to undertaking an intelligent and effective war against terror, and to the standing of the United States in parts of the world where it previously had been held in the highest regard.
There was understandable reluctance in the Congress to begin a serious investigation of the Nixon presidency. Then there came a time when it was unavoidable. That time in the Bush presidency has arrived.
Carl Bernstein is a Vanity Fair contributing editor. His biography of Hillary Rodham Clinton will be published by Knopf next year.
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/printables/060417roco03?print=true
SEHO (!!)
Sense Holdings and Oak Ridge National Laboratory Announce Completion
of Breakthrough Handheld Explosive Detection Device;
Ultra-Sensitive MEMS-based Demonstration Detector to Address
Multibillion-Dollar Homeland Security Markets
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Apr 18, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) --
Sense Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB:SEHO)(FWB:OUP), a developer of next-generation biometric and explosive detection security technologies for government and commercial security markets, announced today the completion of a first-generation MEMS-based explosives detection demonstrator, whose cutting-edge technology could provide airports, homeland security agencies, corporate America and other customers with superior explosive detection capabilities at a fraction of current costs.
Sense has reached a critical milestone by bringing this technology out of the laboratory with the capability for portable demonstrations. The current prototype can detect TNT and PETN. Sense and Oak Ridge have commenced pattern recognition studies for advanced sniffing sensitivity. Sense's demonstrator device is the first in a line of compact, lightweight handheld explosive detection devices based on the Company's proprietary Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) technology.
Sense is the sole exclusive licensee for proprietary patents and technologies developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The technology to date has been funded by several government agencies, such as the Department of Energy (DOE); Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF); Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and others.
Sense Holdings intends to market the handheld detectors to major airports, transportation infrastructure, and other significant homeland security industry markets. The airport security market, the most visible segment of end users for explosive detection equipment, has grown rapidly since the 9/11 attacks and subsequent government initiatives to tighten security requirements. In addition, Sense's marketing and deployment targets will include police departments, federal facilities and military bases, ports and international border agencies, as well as commercial sites such as stadiums and arenas.
According to industry sources, the US market for EDS devices is currently estimated to be $3.5 billion, and expected to grow significantly to 10 billion by 2010 as technologies such as this penetrate the market and prove that it can handle alerting the public of imminent danger.
Sense is developing its line of advanced detection products under a research and development partnership with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, TN, which is operated by the US Department of Energy. Sense is the sole commercialization partner with exclusive rights for the manufacture, sale and distribution of MEMS-based handheld devices.
"ORNL is extremely excited that our scientific team has been able to deliver on all milestones set forth by Sense at the inception of our CRADA agreement," stated Dr. Bruce Warmack, Principal investigator at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. "We look forward to increased detection capabilities as we continue to develop the technology for commercialization."
"The successful completion of this demonstrator unit is a very significant milestone in Sense's program to commercialize our MEMS-based handheld explosives detector," said Dore Perler, Sense Holdings CEO. "Sense believes that this new product line represents the next step forward in the evolution of major security screening technologies." This technology can be applied to the detection of a wide range of illicit and dangerous threats, including explosives, chemical warfare agents, biological warfare agents and diverse narcotic substances.
Sense is a leading developer of advanced proprietary solutions for global Homeland Security and counterterrorism. Sense intends to commercialize several additional MEMS-based detectors utilizing its proprietary detection technology. Among its customers are the U.S. Army and U.S. Department of Corrections, in addition to some of the world's largest international companies.
About ORNL
ORNL is a multi-program science and technology laboratory managed for the U.S. Department of Energy by UT-Battelle, LLC. Scientists and engineers at ORNL conduct basic and applied research and development to create scientific knowledge and technological solutions that strengthen the nation's leadership in key areas of science; increase the availability of clean, abundant energy; restore and protect the environment; and contribute to national security. ORNL also performs other work for the Department of Energy, including isotope production, information management, and technical program management, and provides research and technical assistance to other organizations.
Rogue --
Are you familiar with the Charles Harrelson (Woody Harrelson's father, and convicted assassin of a federal judge) angle in the Kennedy assassination theories. It's a long story, but I'm expecting to meet an associate of Harrelson's back in the 70's (someone mentioned in this story) this weekend and I'm going to inquire if he knows anything about this.
Charles Voyd Harrelson
Charles Voyd Harrelson is known mostly because of the fact that he was convicted in 1982 of murdering Judge John Wood, but, What has sparked a lot of controversy is the fact that Harrelson is suspected of being one of the three tramps that were arrested on the day of the Kennedy Assassination. Harrelson was indeed involved with some very dirty people in his criminal life but was he involved with the assassination?
Harrelson was born in Huntsville Texas in 1939 although he did not plan on staying there long and was drawn to the more attractive sights of Houston. In Houston Harrelson made a living selling dental equipment and was also believed to have sold encyclopaedias.(1) Harrelson wished to earn money at a quicker rate and soon became involved in criminal activities.
Harrelson was fingered by Chauncey Holt as being one of the three tramps taken from a train hours after the assassination “so I scooted under the train, went under to the other side, encountered Harrelson and Montoya”(2) said Holt in a Newsweek interview with John Craig, Philip Rogers and Gary Shaw. Holt states that he did not know Harrelson that well but said, “I’m confident that’s who it was”. Lois Gibson a forensic artist and facial expert for the Houston Police Department compared the photos of the tramps with those of Holt, Harrelson and Charles Rogers and came up with a match for all three(3). It is said that Harrelson once while high on cocaine exited the Corvette he was driving and shot it full of holes as it made too much noise(4). Harrelson was wanted for the contract murder of Judge John Wood and was stopped by police, a six hour stand off ensued when the police found him, and he allegedly held a .44 magnum to his head and confessed to the murder of both Judge John Woods and President John F. Kennedy(5).
A reporter for the Dallas morning news by the name of Chuck Cook interviewed Harrelson on the judge Wood case and subsequently asked him about his claims of murdering the President, Cook said that Harrelson ‘got this sly little grin on his face, Harrelson is very intelligent and has a way of not answering when it suits him’(6). At a later interview Cook brought the subject up again and at that point Harrelson became very serious, Cook quoted Harrelson as saying “Listen, if and when I get out of here (prison) and feel free to talk, I will have something that will be the biggest story you ever had” and added “November 22, 1963. You remember that!”. Cooks claims seem to be sensational as every other time Harrelson has been questioned with regard to the assassination he has emphatically denied it. Cook later showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was “amazed at the similarities”, Cook later revealed that Harrelson's jail conversations were indeed being monitored although this is the norm in some prisons including the maximum penitentiary in Colorado in which he is currently incarcerated(7).
When later questioned on the assassination and the murder of Judge Wood by Dallas TV newsman Quin Matthews, Harrelson said “ At the same time I said I killed the Judge, I said I had killed Kennedy, which might give you an idea as to the state of my mind at the time… it was an effort to elongate my life... well, do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy alone, without any aid from a rogue agency of the U.S. Government or at least a portion of that agency? I believe you are very naïve if you do”(8). Harrelson was also shown the photos with comparisons of himself and the tall tramp on Nigel Turners documentary ‘The Men Who Killed Kennedy- The Cover-up’, Harrelson admitted a striking similarity between himself and the tramp but that it was not him and that he was dining with a friend in Houston at the time. I recently asked retired Texas Ranger Captain Jack Dean what he thought Harrelson might do when questioned about the photos, he stated “my thought's are that if asked he would not say yes or no but make some statement as “it does look like me”” , Capt. Dean has not seen the documentary yet he predicts that this would be Harrelsons likely response.
In Harrelsons wallet the day he was arrested was the business card of Russell Douglas Matthews(9), Matthews was believed to be Harrelson's idol although this has not been conclusively proven. Russell Matthews is described by the FBI as a burglar, an armed robber, a narcotics pusher and a murderer(10). Matthews worked for mob controlled casinos in Cuba during the 1950’s and later turned to the Dallas underworld in the 1960’s. He was a known associate of Santos Tafficante the Miami mob boss and Joseph Campisi a leading Mafioso who also testified for Harrelson at one of his trials. Matthews and Campisi were seen together in both Dallas and Las Vegas in 1978(11). Perhaps the most interesting fact is that Matthews was a known associate of Jack Ruby the murderer of Lee Harvey Oswald. This is just one of many ties between Harrelson and Ruby although it may well be that they never met, nevertheless they were both indirectly connected with the same people. Four witnesses say that they knew that Matthews and Ruby knew each other well(12), although the Warren Commission states that Matthews was only a ‘casual acquaintance” of Ruby’s, and this link alone proves that Ruby was involved with organized crime, a fact that the Warren Commission refused to acknowledge. On October third 1963 a call was placed from Jack Ruby’s Carousel club to a number in Shreveport, Louisiana listed to Elizabeth Matthews, Russell Douglas Matthews former wife(13). Matthews was also the best man at the wedding of George McGann and Beverly Oliver. Beverly Oliver was a witness to the assassination of John F. Kennedy and captured the whole event on film only to have her film confiscated by the FBI and was never to be seen again, Beverly also worked in the Colony club as a dancer, this club was right next door to Ruby’s Carousel club, it was frequent for dancers to go from club to club watching their friends dance . Beverly Oliver has also stated that she saw Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald together and remembers seeing David Ferrie in the Carousel(14). Another claim by Beverly Oliver is that she and McGann once had a meeting with Richard Nixon in a hotel in 1968 in Miami. George Mcgann was murdered in the home of one Ronny Weeden, the case was never closed. Harrelson knew Weeden during his stay in prison and claims that Weeden committed the murder and that Weeden disappeared afterwards. Harrelson also stated that Weeden “had a reputation as a hit man”(15); Weeden's name was also in McGann's notebooks. Even if Harrelson was not involved in the assassination he may have learned of it from Matthews who may well have had knowledge of it from his friend Jack Ruby.
Another associate of Matthews was Lewis McWillie. McWillie was once employed as the manager of the Tropicana Casino in Havana where Jake Lansky brother of Mayer Lansky held considerable influence. Jack Ruby went on a weeklong trip to Cuba in 1959 where he met with McWillie on several occasions. Ruby once shipped 4 guns to Cuba for McWillie, Ruby also sent a .38 Smith and Wesson revolver from Rays Hardware Store Dallas to McWillie in Las Vegas(16). Over a four-month period Ruby called McWillie 8 times at the Thunderbird in Las Vegas. Another man believed to be involved in the assassination was Frank Fiorini/Sturges who was once in Government with Castro before he defected and worked for the CIA, Sturgis was the government overseer at the Tropicana during the time of Lewis McWillie's employment there(17). Marita Lorenz, Castros former lover once stated that she drove to Dallas with Sturges carrying weapons in their caravan.
One man linked McWillie, Matthews and Harrelson altogether, although the link with Harrelson is somewhat tenuous and is mostly speculative.
Benny Binion (1904-1989) was at first a bootlegger and involved in illegal gambling in the 40’s and 50’s until he opened his own casino ‘The Horseshoe’. Binion was investigated by the FBI all his life. Benny ran craps games in 1936 from a hotel, he killed a bootlegger and got 2 years in jail, he also killed another rival but was acquitted on the grounds of self defence. He served 3½ years for evading income tax and once proclaimed “I’ve been a hustler all my life, since I was nine”(18). Binion's horseshoe was a place of much controversy and also a lot of money. Binion was once nearly convicted of shooting someone in his own casino but was later acquitted after all 3 witnesses did a 180 and fingered a pit boss at the casino instead(19). Lewis Mcwillie was employed by Binion in 1942/43 involving his underground schemes in Dallas(20). Matthews was once manager at Binion's casino ‘The Horseshoe’(21). Both men have worked with Binion and both men knew Jack Ruby, this implies some sort of connection.
The contract for the murder of judge Wood was put out by Jimmy Chagra who was convicted and sentenced by Judge Woods. It was in Binion's Horseshoe Casino where Harrelson first met Chagra although there were no members of the Binion family present at the time(22). Harrelson introduced himself to Chagra and after he had left Chagra asked someone “That guy is passing himself off as a killer, what do you think?” An investigation into Binion by the FBI in 1983 states that there was one member of the Binion drug ring in El Paso Texas which is where Chagra was from and definitely implicates Binion in the murder of Judge Woods and so links Binion with Harrelson, “(censored) was a principal subject in the FBI major case-WOODMUR, dealing with the murder of San Antonio Federal Judge John Wood. Information indicated that it was the Binion family that introduced (censored) to (censored) in the wood shooting. It is believed that their introduction took place at the Horseshoe Casino”(23), we must assume hat the censored names are those of Charles Harreslon and Jimmy Chagra.
Sheriff Steve Guthrie of the Dallas police was once recorded as saying “We all know Bill Decker is a payoff man with Benny Binion”(24), Bill Decker was sitting in the lead car of the motorcade when President Kennedy was assassinated and was also involved in the transfer of Lee Harvey Oswald from the Police station to the county jail where he was ambushed by Jack Ruby who mysteriously entered or was let into the building. Decker was also known to be friendly with the aforementioned Russell Douglas Matthews and also with Joseph Campisi who as I have already stated was involved with organized crime and testified at Harrelsons trial. This is quite a strong connection between Ruby, McWillie, Matthews, Binion, Harrelson and Decker although it seems Harrelson was not included on quite the same level as everyone else, nevertheless he was involved with these people, indirectly with some but directly with others.
Chauncey Holt, the man who claims that Harrelson was one of the three tramps also claims that Harrelson was connected to John Masen(25), the gunsmith of Dallas, where Holt had to send ammunition previously. There is speculation that Masen was involved in gun running with Jack Ruby. John T. Masen told the FBI that he acquired and sold 10 boxes of mannlicher Carcano ammunition (the type Oswald Supposedly used to assassinate the president) in 1963(26), Masen had previously been investigated for violation of the firearms act. Masen was associated with Manuel Rodriguez of the Alpha 66 group (mercenary group with anti-Castro feelings).
A man who has more dealings than most with Charles Harrelson is retired Captain Jack Dean, United States Marshall and Texas Ranger. Charles Harrelson was brought to Edinburg, Texas in September 1970 to stand trial for the hired killing of Sam Degilia Jr. The case had been worked on by two Rangers Tod Dawson and Skippy Rundell until Jack entered the service in 9-1-70 and inherited the case as he put it “I did the leg work on this case”. Harrelson had just been in court in Palcious texas for another hired killing and was found to be innocent, during the next four years he came to know Harrelson very well. The first trial was a hung jury as a nightclub singer came forward and claimed to have been with Harrelson at the time although the second trial resulted in his conviction as the singer feared perjury charges and did not turn up and instead went to Aruba. Harrelson was sentenced to 15 years in prison but was let out in five due to a new state law passed allowing him credit due to jail time served.
During Harrelson's time in prison he wedded a nurse who worked in the penitentiary. He also attempted to escape from prison and was sent down on a gun charge in Kansas for a year or two after he had served his time. The next dealing Jack had with Harrelson was when Judge John Wood was murdered outside his San Antonio condo by a shot in the back by a high-powered rifle. A few days after the murder Jack received a phone call from an unknown source, “How are doing, Jack”, “Who is
this”, “You know who this is”, “I don’t think so”, “Charles Harrelson was in San Antonio the day Judge Woods was Killed”, Jack asked “Did Charlie kill the judge”, “Charles Harrelson was in San Antonio the day judge Woods was killed”, the caller then hung up and Jack was never sure who the caller was. In an operation of this size one would assume that people would be tight lipped as to who was responsible for such a serious crime, someone would only tip off the authorities if they had themselves something to gain, perhaps a rival to Chagra/Binion.
Recently Harrelson has made an appeal on the grounds that he did not receive a fair trial and claims that he was 270 miles away in Dallas when the Judge was murdered, part of his lawyers strategy was to discredit a key witness who testified against him 16 years previous. His son Woody was asked whether he believed if his father was innocent in the Judge Wood case he said “I’m not saying my father is a saint, but I think he’s innocent of that, yeah!”(28). At one point Harrelson apologises to Judge Orlando Garcia for going on at length to which the judge responded “ We’re talking about your freedom, so you need not apologise”. Jack Dean does believe that Harrelson is guilty of the murder of Judge Wood as it was his own information that the FBI used to start their case. He also believes that Harrelson is/was only dangerous to a select few and only when money was involved, “He has a conman's personality, and you would like him if you met him”.
Jack Dean also knew Harrelson's father who ironically was a prison guard and his Uncle who was a prison warden. Jack has also said that ‘Charlie’ liked to gamble which ties in with his involvement of things at the Horseshoe casino and with other figures who used to be involved in gambling. Jack stated that to his knowledge Harrleson was not involved with the Mafia but was involved with the ‘Dixie Mafia’ who he described as “a bunch of Texas and L.A. bad guys” he also said that “He did do some collecting for some people related to organized gambling……at one time he supposedly had a cocaine habit”, this could be relating to McWillie and Matthews who were heavily involved in these rackets. Harrelson had a reputation of getting the job done according to Jack but when he got caught he took everyone else with him, which is something that I think any of us would do to save our own hides. Capt. Dean was in charge of security at the court hearings presided over by judges Beiery and Garcia and during this time he let Harrelson see his grandchildren, Jack received a note of appreciation afterwards, he also at another point told Jack that when he got out he would buy him a beer to which Jack responded that HE would buy the Beer IF Harrelson did get out.
Another possible tie to the assassination or others like it is the fact that Harrelson was once represented by the Lawyer Percy Foreman. Foreman had an impressive record as a lawyer, by 1958 he had defended 778 accused murderers, of which one was executed, 52 went to prison and the remaining 705 were acquitted of the crime(29). Foreman famously defended James Earl Ray who was accused of assassinating Martin Luther King in Memphis although after Ray's death it was proven that he did not do it and the assassination was funded by wealthy Texans and Businessmen from New Orleans(30). Foreman urged Ray to ditch his attorneys and pick him as otherwise he would face the electric chair, he convinced Ray to plead guilty to the murder as if he did so he would spare his own life(31). Foreman also defended oil tycoon HL Hunt, Hunt was believed to be one of the men that funded the assassination of Martin Luther King, Hunt sponsored a radio show that denounced Martin Luther King, was involved with the FBI’s phone tapping and was also a member of the racist John Birch Society. Foreman was indicted by a federal grand jury for obstruction of justice as the sons of Lamar Hunt, Nelson Hunt and W.Herbert Hunt paid him $100,00 to ensure that two of his clients (Rothermel and Curington) would not testify against the Hunts(32). When the Hunts were brought to trial they had only to pay a fine and it was rumoured that due to political pressure from Washington the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee received $50,000 from the Hunts for lobbying for their case. Perhaps most amazing of all is the fact that Foreman also represented Jack Ruby albeit only for 4 days after he had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, Ruby’ sentence was later commuted to life in prison. It is worth noting that it was Foreman who called Joseph Campisi as a witness , Campisi was the number two man in Carlos Marcello’ Dallas Organization. Campisi dined with jack Ruby the night before the assassination and was the first to visit him in jail(33). The water surrounding Percy Foreman is somewhat murky, Harrelson aside Foreman representing 2 figures in the assassination of Martin Luther King (Ray and Hunt) and one in the assassination of John F. Kennedy (Ruby). Ruby did not want to be represented by Foreman , Ray was convinced to plead guilty although he was proven innocent later and Harrelson was convicted for the murder of Degelia.
At the moment Harrelson is in his jail cell (8x12), which he leaves only for visits of family or his legal team, He has not much chance of getting out of prison unless some new evidence is found. The prison in which he is incarcerated is one of the most secure prisons in the world, some of its former and present inmates include Timothy McVeigh the Oklahoma city bomber, Terry Nichols, McVeighs accomplice, Eyad Ismotil, bomber in the first world trade centre attack, Luis Felipe leader of New York's Latin Kings gang and Rodney Hambrick serving on bomb charges(34). The average sentence in the Colorado penitentiary is 36 years although Harrelson was sentenced to more than that, life.
It is unclear if Charles Voyd Harrelson was involved in any way with the assassination of John F. Kennedy but it is clear that he associated with a number of people who had knowledge of the assassination and were involved on some level with organized crime in Dallas and Las Vegas. Perhaps Harrelson was telling the truth while high on cocaine or perhaps he was as he claims not in the right state of mind, however many that knew him saw the photos and believe there to be a resemblance. Information regarding Harrelson during the early 60’s is hard to come by, and nobody can definitely tie him to being in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963, all there is, is circumstantial evidence and the confession of one man. Charles Harrelson may have done a lot of bad things in his time but we can not jump to conclusions that may be untrue based upon things which remain unfactual. Even Ross Perot is getting in on the act, he claims that Harrelson was given a contract to assassinate him!(35) There is evidence that Harrelson was identified in 1982 by Florida Law enforcement officials as being a member of a group of hired gunmen known as ‘The Company’(36), which takes its name from the CIA. It is claimed that ‘The Company’ owned $30 million in assets including planes ships and real estate. Florida officials claim that ‘The Company’ imported drugs from South America and also were involved in gunrunning and mercenary operations. This scenario is comparable with the situation in 1963 where there was collaboration between the CIA, Mafia, Cuban exiles and some FBI men in operations against Cuba, most notably in the training camp at lake Ponchartrain Louisiana. It is said that Jimmy Chagra once hired ‘The Company’ as protection . This name ‘The Company’ could just be a composite name used by Florida officials for the well known Cuban exile force that launched the Bay of Pigs invasion and also separate raids on Castro’s Cuba. There is no proof to suggest Harrelson was involved with this group in 1963 although his involvement with Jimmy Chagra in the late seventies does suggest that he knew them at some level. Charles Harrelson was 25 when the assassination happened, what needs to be known is what he was doing at that stage in his life, was he selling dental equipment or was he establishing his reputation as a hit man? Something to ponder, the cost of the trial and investigation into the assassination of judge wood exceded that of the Warren Commission.
I would like to thank Captain Jack Dean for his assistance to me in writing this piece and also to Ms. Judy Shoffner the librarian of the Texas Ranger Research center for her advice and help in contacting Capt. Dean. I would also like to thanks Mr. Charles Voyd Harrelson for responding to my letters.
Please support the petition http://www.PetitionOnline.com/lepopres/petition.html
1. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKharrelson.htm
2. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKharrelson.htm
3. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm
4. Mick Farren, CIA Secrets of the Compan, page 190
5. Ibid.
6. Jim Marrs, Crossfire:The Plot that Killed Kennedy
7. Letter from Charles Harrelson 23rd June 2004
8. Jim Marrs, Crossfire:The Plot that Killed Kennedy
9. http://www.jfkresearch.com/
10. David E. Scheim, The Mafia killed President Kennedy, pg 101
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Nigel Turner, The Men Who Killed Kennedy Documentary
15. David E. Scheim. The Mafia killed president Kennedy, pg 101
16. Ibid. page 102
17. Anthony Summers, Conspiracy, page 448
18. Eyewitness News Las Vegas: http://www.klas-tv.com/
19. Peter O’Connell, Las Vegas Review Journal Sunday June 24th 2001
20. David E. Scheim, The Mafia killed president Kennedy, pg 102
21. Ibid. page 101
22. Peter O’Connell, Las Vegas Review Journal Sunday June 24th 2001
23. Ibid.
24. David E. Scheim, The Mafia killed President Kennedy pg 110
25. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/holt1.htm
26. Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy pg 553
27. Texas News Monday 3rd August 1998
28. Ibid.
29. www.fans offieger.com/foreman.htm
30. Act of state
31. Jerry McLeer: http://www.jfkresearch.com/
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. www.talk left.com/news-archives/001680.html
35. Gerald Posner, Citizen Perot
36. Jim Marrs, Crossfire:The Plot that Killed Kennedy
Christ Among the Partisans
By GARRY WILLS
Published: April 9, 2006
THERE is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program.
This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.
Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: "When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you" (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart.
But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it.
The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes.
To claim that the state's burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills — that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test.
The Romans did not believe Jesus when he said he had no political ambitions. That is why the soldiers mocked him as a failed king, giving him a robe and scepter and bowing in fake obedience (John 19:1-3). Those who today say that they are creating or following a "Christian politics" continue the work of those soldiers, disregarding the words of Jesus that his reign is not of this order.
Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion — imposing a reign of Jesus in this order — they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord's name in vain.
Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?"
That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him "Satan." He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts.
The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian. He is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father's judgment is breaking into history. His miracles were not acts of charity but eschatological signs — accepting the unclean, promising heavenly rewards, making last things first.
He is more a higher Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, than a higher Socrates. No politician is going to tell the lustful that they must pluck out their right eye. We cannot do what Jesus would do because we are not divine.
It was blasphemous to say, as the deputy under secretary of defense, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, repeatedly did, that God made George Bush president in 2000, when a majority of Americans did not vote for him. It would not remove the blasphemy for Democrats to imply that God wants Bush not to be president. Jesus should not be recruited as a campaign aide. To trivialize the mystery of Jesus is not to serve the Gospels.
The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding. It is not surprising that people want to tame them, dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair. If that is all they are, then we may as well make Socrates our redeemer.
It is true that the tamed Gospels can be put to humanitarian purposes, and religious institutions have long done this, in defiance of what Jesus said in the Gospels.
Jesus was the victim of every institutional authority in his life and death. He said: "Do not be called Rabbi, since you have only one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, the one in heaven. And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah" (Matthew 23:8-10).
If Democrats want to fight Republicans for the support of an institutional Jesus, they will have to give up the person who said those words. They will have to turn away from what Flannery O'Connor described as "the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus" and "a wild ragged figure" who flits "from tree to tree in the back" of the mind.
He was never that thing that all politicians wish to be esteemed — respectable. At various times in the Gospels, Jesus is called a devil, the devil's agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, a promoter of immorality.
The institutional Jesus of the Republicans has no similarity to the Gospel figure. Neither will any institutional Jesus of the Democrats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/opinion/09wills.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
BSM -- There's got to be something significant behind this move. I don't know of any pumping going on, and the buying just hasn't stopped. Can't wait to find out what's driving it . . .
BSM -- Have to believe news is pending with this kind of activity. I'm with you DCTH as well. I'll look into FWIW. (I think I lost money on it once before.)
You're not going to believe this, Dale, (and I don't mean to be bragging, I could relate many stocks in which I lost money), but I was in TVIN at .18, and in fifteen years of playing the otcbb, that is the company I made more money on than any other. I once had 75000 shares, still holding a paltry 1250, mostly just for love. This may post may get deleted for saying this, but if you would like a source for good companies well before they are value micro caps, check out the micrcap kitchen on Silicon Investor.
Been away from the pc this afternoon . . . I believe it did briefly hit 52week high and then settled back. Can't say if they are projecting specific time that they will post a profit. I like the story (one of the best bird-flu plays, imo) and they seem to be responsibly managed. The RB thread is actually quite good for factual info, some knowledgeable posters, but too much chitchat, and lots and lots of daily posts. Are you in it. I've been holding since .38, and you might say I'm pleased at its performance. Thank you gpg.
EMFP posts nice 10K
Form 10KSB for EMERGENCY FILTRATION PRODUCTS INC/ NV
22-Mar-2006
Annual Report
ITEM 6. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATION
Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-looking Statements
This report may contain "forward-looking" statements. Examples of forward- looking statements include, but are not limited to: (a) projections of revenues, capital expenditures, growth, prospects, dividends, capital structure and other financial matters; (b) statements of plans and objectives of our management or Board of Directors; (c) statements of future economic performance; (d) statements of assumptions underlying other statements and statements about us and our business relating to the future; and (e) any statements using the words "anticipate," "expect," "may," "project," "intend" or similar expressions.
Overview
The Company is in the business of producing masks and filters for medical devices designed to reduce the possibility of transmission of contagious diseases. The Company is also a distributor of a blood clotting device for surgery, trauma and burn wound management.
Since its inception, the Company has been involved primarily in the development of its technology. During this time, revenues have not been adequate to cover operating expenses. Without adequate revenues to offset expenditures, the Company has reported a loss in each of its years of existence. To date, the Company has funded itself by way of a series of private equity placements. As of the end of fiscal 2005, the Company had offset its accumulated deficit in this manner. The most valuable asset of the Company is its intellectual property and technology. The Company acquired the rights to a substantial portion of its intellectual property from its president and chief executive officer (See Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates, below), which property includes title to the patent on a component of an emergency CPR assistance device, called a dual- filtered vapor isolation valve and the rights to certain other technologies related to environmental masks. Rights pertaining thereto include the right to maintain, sell and improve the devices, and to license those rights. Although the Company believes its technology to be very valuable in the economic sense, this value is not quantified as such on the Company's balance sheet since the technology is recorded at historical cost rather than fair value.
Results of Operations
Revenues: During 2005, the Company reported an increase in revenues of $249,041 or approximately 61% from revenues for 2004, primarily due to the substantial increase in NanoMask and NanoMask replacement filter sales during late 2005 as compared to 2004. The Company commenced production of the filters at the Company's Henderson, NV facility during November 2005. Following an initial ramp-up period, which was used to fine-tune equipment, hire workers, and establish standard operating procedures, the Company was able to ship approximately 600,000 NanoMask filters and 50,000 NanoMask shells to distributors by the end of 2005. The Company expects revenues for the NanoMask and NanoMask replacement filters to increase significantly during 2006 since the Company has entered into numerous domestic and international distributor agreements with minimum order quantities. In the aggregate, these distributors have committed to purchase a total of 580,000 masks and 9,800,000 filters in 2006, and 715,000 masks and 11,450,000 filters in 2007. The Company is also pursuing additional domestic and international distributor agreements.
Along with a manufacturing facility opened in Henderson, NV during October 2005, in February 2006 the Company opened a manufacturing facility in Nogales, Mexico and has commenced production of the Company's NanoMask filters at that location. Through the combined production facilities, the Company expects to be able to produce approximately 1 million NanoMask filters per week, enabling it to fulfill its supply commitments to its international and domestic distributors, as well as pursue large retail and medical products customers with whom the Company has already held discussions, although no agreements have yet been executed.
Revenues have also been generated in 2005 and 2004 in part from the sale of the emergency CPR assistance device. Sales for this product decreased during 2005 primarily due to the substantial decrease in orders from the U.S. military during 2005 as compared to 2004. Government orders, historically, have been sporadic based upon the timing of their restocking requirements, although there are no guarantees as to when or if the government will continue to re-order any of the Company's products. In addition to competition from other companies that may offer alternative products, governmental orders from the military are dependent on current foreign affairs and international conflicts and the need for emergency products in the US military.
Additionally, the Company generated revenues in 2005 and 2004 related to Superstat, a modified collagen hemostat, for which the Company has exclusive distribution rights to the U.S. and foreign governments and militaries. Revenues related to Superstat remained relatively constant for 2005 as compared to 2004. As previously discussed, in addition to competition from other companies that may offer alternative products, governmental orders from the military are dependent on current foreign affairs and international conflicts and the need for emergency products in the US military.
Cost of Sales: During 2005, the Company reported an increase in cost of sales of approximately $149,000 or 57% compared to 2004, which is commensurate with the increase in revenues for the same period. Costs as a percentage of sales were 63% and 65% for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The Company expects costs as a percentage of sales to decline to approximately 50% to 55% in the near future once the manufacturing facility in Mexico is operating efficiently, unless significant changes in the cost of materials occur. The significant components of the Company's cost of sales include actual product cost, including outsourced manufacturing and packaging, freight and shipping, and royalties paid on revenues generated.
Operating Expenses: General and administrative expenditures for 2005 as compared to 2004 remained relatively constant with an increase of $129,028, or approximately 8.1%. The Company expects general and administrative expenses to increase slightly in the near future due to the need for additional accounting and other consulting services required for the increase in production and revenues that are expected during 2006. During late 2005, the Company hired a Director of Manufacturing and a Director of Business Development and expects to incur additional operating costs related to this and the hiring of marketing personnel.
During 2005, the Company issued 236,840 shares of common stock to its directors valued at $0.38 per share for services rendered totaling $90,000 in their positions as directors. The Company also issued 1,025,000 shares of common stock during 2005 to certain officers and consultants for services rendered and in lieu of unpaid salaries valued at $0.88 per share, or $902,000.
During 2004, the Company issued 400,000 shares of common stock to its directors valued at $0.36 per share for services rendered in their positions as directors. The Company also issued approximately 1,400,000 shares of common stock during 2004 for services rendered and to be rendered to various outside consultants and lawyers. These services include efforts to form strategic alliances and relationships with potential distributors of the Company's products, including any product-related public relations efforts associated with the efforts, developing marketing programs specifically targeted to promoting brand name awareness, legal fees, patent related services, and services related to researching potential product distribution agreements and/or marketing agreements in the Pacific Rim.
The Company expects salaries and wages expenses to increase significantly over the next twelve months due to increased production. The Company anticipates that expenses for director fees, consulting, and other services rendered will remain relatively constant over the next few years. The significant components of the Company's operating expenses for 2005 include salaries and wages totaling $887,671, consulting, director fees and other professional services totaling $660,064, product and liability insurance totaling $50,649 and office rent totaling $60,166.
Research and development: Although not significant for the periods presented, the Company expects research and development costs to increase somewhat in the future as the Company intends to bring additional products to market during the next twelve months. Future research and development costs for testing, validation and FDA filings for these potential new products are estimated to range from $50,000 to $60,000 during the next twelve months. The Company spent approximately $52,000 during the year ended December 31, 2005, for additional molds required for one of its new products, ELVIS (Emergency Life-Support Ventilation and Intubation System), and approximately $21,000 for molds required for the children's version of the NanoMask. An additional $30,000 to $40,000 may also be required for the production of molds for other potential new products. The significant components of the Company's research and development costs ordinarily include prototype development and materials, governmental filings and laboratory testing.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
The Company has not been able, in the past, to generate sufficient net cash inflows from operations to sustain its business efforts as well as to accommodate its growth plans. However, at the present time, the Company believes that it will have sufficient cash inflows from future operations along with its existing cash resources, to sustain its business efforts going forward. Management has been able to secure numerous domestic and international distributor agreements with minimum order quantities. In the aggregate, these distributors have committed to purchase a total of 580,000 masks and 9,800,000 filters in 2006, and 715,000 masks and 11,450,000 filters in 2007. The Company is expecting to show a significant increase in revenues during 2006 due to these new distribution agreements. These minimum orders, assuming they are fulfilled, would generate revenues of approximately $8,000,000 to $9,000,000 for 2006.
Also during 2005, the Company entered into a non-exclusive distribution agreement with 2H Distributors, a California-based company, to distribute the Company's environmental masks to both retail and wholesale market segments in the United States and internationally. 2H Distributors has recently begun ordering an increased amount of environmental masks and filters and is continually marketing the product and seeking retail outlets throughout the country. Their wholesale marketing plans entail forming partnerships with a number of consumer products distributors in Southeast Asian markets such as Vietnam and Thailand.
The Company is also pursuing additional domestic and international distributor agreements. Because of a significant increase in demand, as previously discussed, the Company opened its NanoMask filter manufacturing facility in Henderson, NV during October 2005, and in February 2006, the Company opened a manufacturing facility in Nogales, Mexico and has commenced production of the Company's NanoMask filters at that location. Through the combined production facilities, the Company expects to be able to produce approximately 1 million NanoMask filters per week, enabling it to fulfill its supply commitments to its international and domestic distributors, as well as pursue large retail and medical products customers with whom the Company has already held discussions. If the demand for these filters continues, the Company expects to be able to generate sufficient cash flow from operations to cover its ongoing expenses, and thus will not need to raise additional funds.
During 2004, the Company entered into three separate subscription agreements with accredited investors, pursuant to an offering conducted under Rule 506 of Regulation D, as promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933. In connection with the offering, the Company sold 3,000,000 shares of common stock at a purchase price of $0.25 per share, pursuant to which the Company received gross proceeds of $750,000. In connection with this offering, the Company also issued (i) Class A Warrants for the purchase of 3,600,000 shares of common stock; and (ii) Class B Warrants for the purchase of 2,000,000 shares of common stock. The Class A Warrants are exercisable at $0.30 per share for a two year period. The Class B Warrants were cancelled during early 2005. During 2005, all of the 3,600,000 Class A Warrants were exercised for total gross proceeds to the Company of $1,080,000.
The Company was obligated to register the shares of common stock issued and the shares issuable upon the exercise of the warrants as part of an S-2 registration statement, which was filed on October 29, 2004 and became effective on November 12, 2004. As part of the transaction, the Company paid $75,000 in cash and issued warrants to a finder for the purchase of 600,000 shares of common stock exercisable at $0.30 per share for two years. The Company also paid escrow and related transaction expenses of $44,250.
During 2005 and 2004, the Company also issued 692,300 and 906,775 shares of common stock, respectively, through the exercise of common stock warrants previously granted from a separate offering conducted during 2003, for total proceeds of $173,075 and $271,381, respectively. Subsequent to December 31, 2005, the Company issued an additional 100,000 shares of common stock through the exercise of common stock warrants for total proceeds of $25,000. In addition, the Company may receive additional funds of up to approximately $117,000 through the exercise of common stock warrants currently outstanding.
The Company intends to bring additional products to market during the next twelve months, including the breathing circuit filters, the ELVIS BVM bag, and the continued marketing and development of the NanoMask and NanoMask filters as previously described. The research and development costs associated with the ELVIS BVM device will be the most significant. The estimated costs for testing, validation and FDA filings for these potential new products are estimated to range from $50,000 to $60,000 during the next twelve months. The Company spent approximately $52,000 during the year ended December 31, 2005, for additional molds required for the ELVIS BVM bag, and approximately $21,000 for molds required for the children's version of the NanoMask. An additional $30,000 to $40,000 may also be required for the production of molds for other potential new products.
Cash used by our operating activities for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 was funded primarily by the sale of common stock for cash and from the exercise of outstanding stock warrants.
On October 20, 2005, the Company issued 387,976 shares of common stock in lieu of outstanding debt as follows:
- 34,091 shares to the Company's President for past due wages;
- 42,614 shares to the Company's Secretary/Treasurer for past due wages;
- 51,136 shares to the Company's Chief Financial Officer for past due wages;
- 236,840 shares to the Company's directors for past board service; and
- 23,295 shares to a related consultant for past services performed. On September 15, 2004, the Company adopted a 2004 Stock Option and Award Plan (the "Plan") under which options to acquire the Company's common stock or bonus stock may be granted from time to time to employees, including officers and directors and/or subsidiaries. In addition, at the discretion of the board of directors or other administrator of the Plan, options to acquire common stock or bonus stock may from time to time be granted under the Plan to other individuals who contribute to the Company's success or to the success of the Company's subsidiaries but who are not employees. A total of 2,500,000 shares of common stock may be subject to, or issued pursuant to, options or stock awards granted under the terms of the Plan.
As of December 31, 2005, 1,479,000 shares of the Company's common stock were issued pursuant to the Plan for the services of various individuals to the Company. The 1,479,000 shares (issued during 2004) were recorded at the fair market value of the shares on the date of issuance which was $0.45 per share for a total of $665,550. However, a total of $492,540 of this amount was originally recorded as deferred compensation for services to be rendered to the Company in the future, and $45,000 was capitalized to patent and acquired technology costs related to one of the Company's developing products. Amortization of $450,540 of the deferred compensation was recorded through December 31, 2005, leaving a remaining balance of deferred compensation of $42,000 at December 31, 2005.
In September 2004, the Company announced that it had been awarded a Prototype Development/Testing/Evaluation Grant (PDT&E) to develop a testing protocol for filter media on behalf of the U.S. Military. As part of this project, the Company tested their licensed nano-enhanced filter media at Edgewood Chemical Biological Center in Edgewood, Maryland. The original study funded by the grant comprised protocols or tests to evaluate the Company's filter media efficacy against four different contaminants. As a result of the successful completion of this testing phase, the Company was requested by the United States military to test its filter media against a number of additional contaminants. This final phase of testing was completed during May 2005. As a result of these successful tests, the U.S. military is currently introducing the Company's technology to companies that manufacture filters for various military applications with the aim of having them incorporate the technology in their filter applications. The Company would also expect to sub-license its nano-enhanced filter media to a number of Department of Defense approved manufacturers to develop and/or enhance existing filtration products that are currently used by the U.S. Air Force, Army and Navy, as well as to commence development of new product applications that will serve to better protect U.S. Military personnel. The $75,000 grant was received by the Company during early 2006.
In late 2004, the Company entered into an exclusive, long-term agreement with Itochu Techno Chemical, Inc. (Itochu), a Japanese corporation, whereby Itochu will distribute the Company's Respaide, Vapor Isolation Valve and Series One Breathing Circuit Filter products in Japan, once their final assessment of the overall market for the Company's products is completed. The agreement terminates on May 31, 2008, but can be extended for an additional three-year period. The agreement also allows for Itochu to form sub-distribution agreements with other medical product companies, with the Company's approval, to promote the sale of the Company's products in Japan.
During early 2005, and in conjunction with Itochu's partner/affiliate, Senko Medical Instruments Mfg. Co. Ltd (one of Japan's leading medical products distributors), Itochu has conducted a marketing review of the Company's products. This marketing review is required by Koseisho (Ministry of Health and Welfare, similar to the United States FDA) and mandates that companies who have been granted a certificate of import and a certificate of sale comply fully with Japanese regulations concerning medical products. The marketing review will enable Itochu to make initial introductions of the products to potential customers in Japan, to determine the potential size of the market in Japan, and to allow the Company and Itochu to establish minimum purchase requirement quantities applicable to the agreement for each annual period.
The Company has shipped a number of sample orders, and has modified its products at the request of Itochu, to conform to Japanese medical product standards. These modifications necessitated minor but time consuming alternations to existing molds. As a result, this process has caused delays in the commencement of shipping commercial orders to Itochu and its distribution partners. The Company has now completed all of the modifications requested by its Japanese partners and is now awaiting final validation and confirmation of the last round of modifications to the products, following which the Company expects to initiate commercial shipments to Japan.
During our current fiscal year 2006, the Company expects that it will be able to continue measures that will (i) reduce unnecessary cash outflows, and (ii) increase revenues through our improved marketing efforts.
The Company's future business model is intended to be cost-efficient and will emphasize: (1) continued development of the NanoMask and NanoMask filters, including the introduction of a child's mask, and the continued pursuit of additional domestic and international distributor agreements;
(2) establishing continual efficiencies in its manufacturing facilities in order to cut costs and improve quality control; (3) in-house research and development; (4) accumulation of intellectual property assets; and (5) ownership of key production equipment.
Impact of Inflation and Interest Rates
At this time, we do not anticipate that either inflation or interest rate variations will have a material impact on our future operations.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Except with regard to the estimated useful lives of patents and acquired technology, the Company does not employ any critical accounting policies or estimates that are either selected from among available alternatives or require the exercise of significant management judgment to apply or that if changed are likely to materially affect future periods. Management reviews the carrying value of the technology assets annually for evidence of impairment and considers, based on its current marketing activities, plans and expectations, and the perceived effects of competitive factors and possible obsolescence, whether any write-downs should be taken or whether the estimated useful lives should be shortened.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (SFAS 123R). SFAS 123R requires that compensation cost related to share-based employee compensation transactions be recognized in the financial statements. Share-based employee compensation transactions within the scope of SFAS 123R include stock options, restricted stock plans, performance-based awards, stock appreciation rights and employee share purchase plans. The Company has previously accounted for any stock-based employee compensation under Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 25, the effect of which has not been significant in recent periods due to the absence of such compensation. The provisions of SFAS 123R will be effective during the first interim fiscal period that begins after December 15, 2005, during which the Company grants any form of stock-based compensation. Since the Company has no present plans to award such compensation in the foreseeable future, the likely effect of adoption cannot be predicted at this time.
In May 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections, a Replacement of APB Opinion No. 20 and SFAS No. 3. SFAS No. 154 replaces APB Opinion No. 20, Accounting Changes and SFAS No 3, Reporting Accounting Changes in Interim Financial Statements and changes the requirement for the accounting for and reporting of a change in accounting principles. SFAS No. 154 applies to all voluntary changes in accounting principles. It also applies to changes required by an accounting pronouncement in the unusual instance that the pronouncement does not include specific transition provisions. When a pronouncement includes specific transition provisions, those provisions should be followed. The provisions of SFAS No. 154 will be effective for accounting changes made in fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2005. We do not presently expect to make any accounting changes that would be affected by the adoption of SFAS No. 154 that will have a material impact on the Company's financial condition or operations in the foreseeable future.
Been keeping a lower profile on the boards, otc, though still in the market. I find I have a lot more time when I avoid virtual interaction. I'm more of a tactile kind of guy.
I live in such a distant and remote corner of Texas that the state itself is not something I identify with very much. I live about two miles east of the Texas-New Mexico border and about 3-4 miles north of the Texas-Mexican border. Most people out here in far West Texas identify more with the desert West than with the cotton-picking South.
I had somehow gotten the impression that you had moved from Georgia to Corpus Christi, and that you had become a Texan yourself. Why did I think that? Perhaps its more the state of mind, which you have and I don't
What are your thoughts on your UCPJ. I saw where you said you were out, but certainly you're watching. How high, in your opinion, will it go?
ksuave
Don't worry, I was just joshing.
Sold 1/3 of my UCPJ Friday . . . thanks otcbargains. (I'm going to donate the profits to the William Jefferson Clinton Library building fund, in your name.)
Haven't been contributing much here at all as I've been busy doing all sorts of things aside from having been doing well in the market. I recently (last week) moved to a much nicer place, but it's in the same zip-code as I was living in before. I like my zip-code.
ksuave
Donald Rumsfeld makes $5m killing on bird flu drug
By Geoffrey Lean and Jonathan Owen
Published: 12 March 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article350787.ece
Donald Rumsfeld has made a killing out of bird flu. The US Defence Secretary has made more than $5m (£2.9m) in capital gains from selling shares in the biotechnology firm that discovered and developed Tamiflu, the drug being bought in massive amounts by Governments to treat a possible human pandemic of the disease.
More than 60 countries have so far ordered large stocks of the antiviral medication - the only oral medicine believed to be effective against the deadly H5N1 strain of the disease - to try to protect their people. The United Nations estimates that a pandemic could kill 150 million people worldwide.
Britain is about halfway through receiving an order of 14.6 million courses of the drug, which the Government hopes will avert some of the 700,000 deaths that might be expected. Tamiflu does not cure the disease, but if taken soon after symptoms appear it can reduce its severity.
The drug was developed by a Californian biotech company, Gilead Sciences. It is now made and sold by the giant chemical company Roche, which pays it a royalty on every tablet sold, currently about a fifth of its price.
Mr Rumsfeld was on the board of Gilead from 1988 to 2001, and was its chairman from 1997. He then left to join the Bush administration, but retained a huge shareholding .
The firm made a loss in 2003, the year before concern about bird flu started. Then revenues from Tamiflu almost quadrupled, to $44.6m, helping put the company well into the black. Sales almost quadrupled again, to $161.6m last year. During this time the share price trebled.
Mr Rumsfeld sold some of his Gilead shares in 2004 reaping - according to the financial disclosure report he is required to make each year - capital gains of more than $5m. The report showed that he still had up to $25m-worth of shares at the end of 2004, and at least one analyst believes his stake has grown well beyond that figure, as the share price has soared. Further details are not likely to become known, however, until Mr Rumsfeld makes his next disclosure in May.
The 2005 report showed that, in all, he owned shares worth up to $95.9m, from which he got an income of up to $13m, owned land worth up to $17m, and made $1m from renting it out.
He also had illiquid investments worth up to $8.1m, including in partnerships investing in biotechnology, issuing reproductions of paintings, and operating art galleries in New Mexico and Wyoming. He also has life insurance with a surrender value of up to $5m, and received up to $1m from the DHR Foundation, in which he has assets worth up to $25m, and $773,743 from the Donald H Rumsfeld Trust, in which he has assets of up to $50m.
Late last week no one at Gilead Sciences was available to comment on Mr Rumsfeld's sale of its stock. In a statement to The Independent on Sunday the Pentagon said: "Secretary Rumsfeld has no relationship with Gilead Sciences, Inc beyond his investments in the company. When he became Secretary of Defence in January 2001, divestiture of his investment in Gilead was not required by the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Office of Government Ethics or the Department of Defence Standards of Conduct Office.
"Upon taking office, he recused himself from participating in any particular matter when the matter would directly and predictably affect his financial interest in Gilead Sciences."
Donald Rumsfeld has made a killing out of bird flu. The US Defence Secretary has made more than $5m (£2.9m) in capital gains from selling shares in the biotechnology firm that discovered and developed Tamiflu, the drug being bought in massive amounts by Governments to treat a possible human pandemic of the disease.
More than 60 countries have so far ordered large stocks of the antiviral medication - the only oral medicine believed to be effective against the deadly H5N1 strain of the disease - to try to protect their people. The United Nations estimates that a pandemic could kill 150 million people worldwide.
Britain is about halfway through receiving an order of 14.6 million courses of the drug, which the Government hopes will avert some of the 700,000 deaths that might be expected. Tamiflu does not cure the disease, but if taken soon after symptoms appear it can reduce its severity.
The drug was developed by a Californian biotech company, Gilead Sciences. It is now made and sold by the giant chemical company Roche, which pays it a royalty on every tablet sold, currently about a fifth of its price.
Mr Rumsfeld was on the board of Gilead from 1988 to 2001, and was its chairman from 1997. He then left to join the Bush administration, but retained a huge shareholding .
The firm made a loss in 2003, the year before concern about bird flu started. Then revenues from Tamiflu almost quadrupled, to $44.6m, helping put the company well into the black. Sales almost quadrupled again, to $161.6m last year. During this time the share price trebled.
Mr Rumsfeld sold some of his Gilead shares in 2004 reaping - according to the financial disclosure report he is required to make each year - capital gains of more than $5m. The report showed that he still had up to $25m-worth of shares at the end of 2004, and at least one analyst believes his stake has grown well beyond that figure, as the share price has soared. Further details are not likely to become known, however, until Mr Rumsfeld makes his next disclosure in May.
The 2005 report showed that, in all, he owned shares worth up to $95.9m, from which he got an income of up to $13m, owned land worth up to $17m, and made $1m from renting it out.
He also had illiquid investments worth up to $8.1m, including in partnerships investing in biotechnology, issuing reproductions of paintings, and operating art galleries in New Mexico and Wyoming. He also has life insurance with a surrender value of up to $5m, and received up to $1m from the DHR Foundation, in which he has assets worth up to $25m, and $773,743 from the Donald H Rumsfeld Trust, in which he has assets of up to $50m.
Late last week no one at Gilead Sciences was available to comment on Mr Rumsfeld's sale of its stock. In a statement to The Independent on Sunday the Pentagon said: "Secretary Rumsfeld has no relationship with Gilead Sciences, Inc beyond his investments in the company. When he became Secretary of Defence in January 2001, divestiture of his investment in Gilead was not required by the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Office of Government Ethics or the Department of Defence Standards of Conduct Office.
"Upon taking office, he recused himself from participating in any particular matter when the matter would directly and predictably affect his financial interest in Gilead Sciences."
With only 20.5m shares out, BSM has got to be worth more:
BSD Medical's Cumulative Payout From TherMatrx Sale Grows to $33 Million
THURSDAY, MARCH 09, 2006 8:05 AM
- PR Newswire
BSM
4.80 -0.13 News
SALT LAKE CITY, March 9, 2006 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- BSD Medical Corp. (BSM) today announced that the company has received a payment of nearly $5.9 million as quarterly proceeds through the earnout from the sale of TherMatrx, Inc., bringing total receipts thus-far to approximately $33 million. The company also anticipates further compensation in the settlement of the transaction. The recent payment will be reflected in the company's third quarter of fiscal 2006, which began March 1, 2006. A prior quarterly payment was also received and announced that will be similarly reflected in BSD's second quarter results that have not yet been reported.
BSD Medical produces precision-focused microwave/RF systems that raise the temperature in diseased sites of the body as required by a number of medical therapies. BSD developed the TherMatrx system to provide a solution for conditions associated with benign enlargement of the prostate as men age. The company's primary focus is on systems that produce better response to cancer treatment, increasing cancer survival and patient quality of life. For further information visit the BSD website at www.BSDMedical.com.
Statements contained in this press release that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements, as that item is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All forward-looking statements, including all projections and expectations of future events, including future receipts from the TherMatrx sale, are subject to risks and uncertainties, detailed in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
SOURCE BSD Medical Corp.
Hyrum A. Mead of BSD Medical Corp., +1-801-972-5555, or fax, +1-801-972-5930,
investor@bsdmc.com
MKRS
MKRS -- technically it's a vmc, but it's also a zcc:
Mikros Systems Corporation Receives Additional Funding From The Department of the Navy
Thursday March 2, 7:03 am ET
PRINCETON, N.J., March 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Mikros Systems Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: MKRS.OB - News) is pleased to announce that it has received additional funding in the amount of $2.95M from The Department of the Navy for the continuation of the development and production of the ADEPT(TM) maintenance tool for Navy surface combatants. This modification will expand the application of ADEPT(TM) to include all Aegis ship variants for cruisers and destroyers. This market totals over 80 ships plus shore-based facilities. Future potential markets include foreign navies and other U.S. Navy ships. This maintenance and training tool allows Navy personnel to engage cutting-edge technology to reduce maintenance time and enhance skill levels of shipboard personnel.
ADEPT(TM) began as a U.S. Navy Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program in 2002, and over the course of development, Mikros has filed for three technology patents with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office dealing with maintenance procedure automation and dynamic maintenance personnel training. Mikros expects to be filing additional patents in the near future.
The first two production units are now in qualification testing, and an additional four units are scheduled for completion in April. These additional units will be delivered to the U.S. Navy for shore-based and shipboard testing and evaluation.
The Company also has been notified by the Navy that it has been selected for a Phase II SBIR contract award to continue its research and development into the potentially detrimental interaction between commercial Wireless Local Area Networks (e.g., Wi-Fi) and U.S. Navy radar systems. Under the SBIR topic entitled Radar Wireless Spectral Efficiency (RWSE), Mikros will be evaluating the introduction of Wi-Fi networks onboard U.S. Navy carriers and developing a CVN Wi-Fi network planning tool.
The public is encouraged to view the Mikros Web site (http://www.Mikros.us ) for further information and updates on the Company.
Mikros Systems Corporation is a high technology company focused upon the development and application of new technologies in the defense industry and commercial markets.
Certain matters discussed in this press release are "forward-looking statements" intended to qualify for the safe harbors from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements regarding technology under development, strategies and objectives. The forward-looking statements include risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the anticipated size of and growth in the markets for the Company's products, the trends favoring the use of the Company's proposed commercial products, the anticipated demand for the Company's new products, the timing of development and implementation of the Company's new product offerings, the utilization of such products by the Company's clients and trends in future operating performance, and other factors not within the Company's control. The factors discussed herein and expressed from time to time in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission could cause actual results and developments to be materially different from those expressed in or implied by such statements. The forward-looking statements made herein are only made as of the date of this press release and the Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update such forward-looking statements to reflect subsequent events or circumstances.
Source: Mikros Systems Corporation
TIK ticking upward. Potentially explosive, very low float.
Nice call, Joe. LOL.
HISC.pk -- Receives First Purchase Order for GSM Cyber Trackers
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060117/0106414.html
TVIN -- suddenly quite a bit of volume . . .
HISC.pk news
Homeland Integrated Security Systems Announces Expanded Capabilities for the Cyber Tracker
Tuesday January 3, 8:20 am ET
HISS Announced Today That After Significant Testing With Its Development Partners It Will Be Launching New, Expanded Capabilities of Its Patent Pending Cyber Tracker
ASHEVILLE, NC--(MARKET WIRE)--Jan 3, 2006 -- Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc. (Other OTC:HISC.PK - News) -- The Cyber Tracker, using a Linux based operating system and a single-board computer in its configuration, will perform a variety of functions not commonly found in other wireless GPS devices.
While utilizing IDEN, GSM and CDMA, it will only be held in by the boundaries of the cellular carrier it is being hosted under. According to Ian Riley, CTO of Homeland Integrated Security Systems, "Our small, 5"x5"x1" portable computer device, which utilizes a high-speed Internet port, will allow the Cyber Tracker to integrate into a variety of devices, and perform numerous functions. In abundant applications, if something can be measured or monitored electronically, the Cyber Tracker will be able to locate and transmit the data wirelessly from virtually anywhere in the world."
The first of many external devices tested by Homeland Integrated Security Systems is a video camera which attaches to the Cyber Tracker through its onboard Ethernet port. The Cyber Tracker can capture, store, and transmit color video images wirelessly and transmit them in seconds to the end user.
According to Frank Moody, CEO of Homeland Integrated Security Systems, "The newly announced additional functions, outside of tracking, will allow us to market the Cyber Tracker as not only a real-time tracking device with voice capabilities, but also a data device. For example, when the Cyber Tracker is implemented into vehicles such as school buses and taxi cabs, it will allow a third party to monitor, photograph, record, and transmit information such as location, vehicle functions, and speed."
Utilizing an external port, the Cyber Tracker will be able to lock and unlock vehicle doors, turn engines off, monitor engine functions and outputs, display flashing lights on school buses, connect a laptop to the Internet and monitor remote devices wirelessly.
With the completion of the first production model units, Homeland Integrated Security Systems is discovering that with its open programming format, and its single-board computer configuration, that the versatility of the Cyber Tracker is potentially limitless. The tracking functions of the unit are just one very small piece of the units' capabilities. The data functions of the Cyber Tracker will allow the cellular and satellite industries to tap into sales which have previously been thought to be unattainable.
Homeland Integrated Security Systems Inc.'s Cyber Tracker will be featured at the 2006 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES®) to be held in Las Vegas January 5-8. Company representatives will be demonstrating the various features of the Cyber Tracker at Booth # 72029 in the Sands Expo & Convention Center in Las Vegas. The CES is the largest consumer electronics show in the world, attracting more than 140,000 attendees from 115 countries witnessing the introduction of thousands of new products and technologies from more than 2,500 exhibitors.
About Homeland Integrated Security Systems
Homeland Integrated Security Systems owns proprietary technology and has the rights to use patents to some of the most innovative and sophisticated security products. Among the key target markets are the 361 commercial seaports in the U.S. which are vulnerable to criminal penetration. The company is now accepting pre-orders for the Cyber Tracker at www.hissusa.com.
For more information please visit our Web site www.hissusa.com or contact Matt Maguire 1-866 THE APPL(E).
Statements regarding financial matters in this press release other than historical facts are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The company intends that such statements about the Company's future expectations, including future revenues and earnings, technology efficacy and all other forward-looking statements be subject to the safe harbors created thereby. Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc. is a development-stage company that continues to be dependent upon outside capital to sustain its existence. Since these statements (future operational results and sales) involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change at any time, the Company's actual results may differ materially from expected results.
Contact:
Contact:
Matt Maguire
1-866 THE APPL(E)
Source: Homeland Integrated Security Systems, Inc.
HISC.pk. Don't normally like pinks, but I took a position here on Thursday at .052.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=3302
In the same manner that the obsessiveness and expansiveness of rogues theories undermine his genuine insights, that lentinman’s desperate emotional need for acceptance and respect (I think maybe his mom wasn’t affectionate enough with him as a child) thoroughly undermines and renders irrational his keen intelligence, and that otcbargain’s delusions not only about the world but also about what he actually thinks he believes undermines what are probably his noble intentions, my antipathy to intractability has undermined my expectations for patient debate at this forum. I admire the succinctness, precision and quietude with which Echos engages the others here, but I have come to feel it pointless. What, I should defend myself from charges of being a communist? I have real concerns to deal with. As much as I enjoy having an outlet at which I can banter with others, I see this is not it, and in keeping with my annual resolve to try to stay focused on what is important in my life, I hereby unbookmark this sad little thread with best wishes to echos, threes, stockpeeker and the other occasional voices of reason here, an entreatment to rogue that he not try to solve it all but focus on that which is relevant, and a special gfy to the squeaky little tinman.
Looking forward to a good year,
ksuave
Lentinman -- I'm curious about your thoughts re the renovation of the President Hotel in downtown KC. Were public funds or a tax abatement a part of the plan to restore it? Many cities around the country, including mine, are facing similar situations, and I myself am torn about it.
Long time no see, peeker.
Elaborating on the same ideas as you posted, Harold Pinter's acceptance speech to the Nobel committee is a scathing indictment of American foreign policy:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1661516,00.html
Lentinman -- Statistician and contortionist. Cirque du Soleil's book keeper.
Covert CIA Program Withstands New Furor
Anti-Terror Effort Continues to Grow
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 30, 2005; A01
The effort President Bush authorized shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to fight al Qaeda has grown into the largest CIA covert action program since the height of the Cold War, expanding in size and ambition despite a growing outcry at home and abroad over its clandestine tactics, according to former and current intelligence officials and congressional and administration sources.
The broad-based effort, known within the agency by the initials GST, is compartmentalized into dozens of highly classified individual programs, details of which are known mainly to those directly involved.
GST includes programs allowing the CIA to capture al Qaeda suspects with help from foreign intelligence services, to maintain secret prisons abroad, to use interrogation techniques that some lawyers say violate international treaties, and to maintain a fleet of aircraft to move detainees around the globe. Other compartments within GST give the CIA enhanced ability to mine international financial records and eavesdrop on suspects anywhere in the world.
Over the past two years, as aspects of this umbrella effort have burst into public view, the revelations have prompted protests and official investigations in countries that work with the United States, as well as condemnation by international human rights activists and criticism by members of Congress.
Still, virtually all the programs continue to operate largely as they were set up, according to current and former officials. These sources say Bush's personal commitment to maintaining the GST program and his belief in its legality have been key to resisting any pressure to change course.
"In the past, presidents set up buffers to distance themselves from covert action," said A. John Radsan, assistant general counsel at the CIA from 2002 to 2004. "But this president, who is breaking down the boundaries between covert action and conventional war, seems to relish the secret findings and the dirty details of operations."
The administration's decisions to rely on a small circle of lawyers for legal interpretations that justify the CIA's covert programs and not to consult widely with Congress on them have also helped insulate the efforts from the growing furor, said several sources who have been involved.
Bush has never publicly confirmed the existence of a covert program, but he was recently forced to defend the approach in general terms, citing his wartime responsibilities to protect the nation. In November, responding to questions about the CIA's clandestine prisons, he said the nation must defend against an enemy that "lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again."
This month he went into more detail, defending the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping within the United States. That program is separate from the GST program, but three lawyers involved said the legal rationale for the NSA program is essentially the same one used to support GST, which is an abbreviation of a classified code name for the umbrella covert action program.
The administration contends it is still acting in self-defense after the Sept. 11 attacks, that the battlefield is worldwide, and that everything it has approved is consistent with the demands made by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, when it passed a resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks."
"Everything is done in the name of self-defense, so they can do anything because nothing is forbidden in the war powers act," said one official who was briefed on the CIA's original cover program and who is skeptical of its legal underpinnings. "It's an amazing legal justification that allows them to do anything," said the official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issues.
The interpretation undergirds the administration's determination not to waver under public protests or the threat of legislative action. For example, after The Washington Post disclosed the existence of secret prisons in several Eastern European democracies, the CIA closed them down because of an uproar in Europe. But the detainees were moved elsewhere to similar CIA prisons, referred to as "black sites" in classified documents.
The CIA has stuck with its overall approaches, defending and in some cases refining them. The agency is working to establish procedures in the event a prisoner dies in custody. One proposal circulating among mid-level officers calls for rushing in a CIA pathologist to perform an autopsy and then quickly burning the body, according to two sources.
In June, the CIA temporarily suspended its interrogation program after a controversy over the disclosure of an Aug. 1, 2002, memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that defined torture in an unconventional way. The White House withdrew and replaced the memo. But the hold on the CIA's interrogation activities was eventually removed, several intelligence officials said.
The authorized techniques include "waterboarding" and "water dousing," both meant to make prisoners think they are drowning; hard slapping; isolation; sleep deprivation; liquid diets; and stress positions -- often used, intelligence officials say, in combination to enhance the effect.
Behind the scenes, CIA Director Porter J. Goss -- until last year the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee -- has gathered ammunition to defend the program.
After a CIA inspector general's report in the spring of 2004 stated that some authorized interrogation techniques violated international law, Goss asked two national security experts to study the program's effectiveness.
Gardner Peckham, an adviser to then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), concluded that the interrogation techniques had been effective, said an intelligence official familiar with the result. John J. Hamre, deputy defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, offered a more ambiguous conclusion. Both declined to comment.
The only apparent roadblock that could yet prompt significant change in the CIA's approach is a law passed this month prohibiting torture and cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, including in CIA hands.
It is still unclear how the law, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), will be implemented. But two intelligence experts said the CIA will be required to draw up clear guidelines and to get all special interrogation techniques approved by a wider range of government lawyers who hold a more conventional interpretation of international treaty obligations.
"The executive branch will not pull back unless it has to," said a former Justice Department lawyer involved in the initial discussions on executive power. "Because if it pulls back unilaterally and another attack occurs, it will get blamed."
The Origins
The top-secret presidential finding Bush signed six days after the Sept. 11 attacks empowered the intelligence agencies in a way not seen since World War II, and it ordered them to create what would become the GST program.
Written findings are required by the National Security Act of 1947 before the CIA can undertake a covert action. A covert action may not violate the Constitution or any U.S. law. But such actions can, and often do, violate laws of the foreign countries in which they take place, said intelligence experts.
The CIA faced the day after the 2001 attacks with few al Qaeda informants, a tiny paramilitary division and no interrogators, much less a system for transporting terrorism suspects and keeping them hidden for interrogation.
Besides fighting the war in Afghanistan, the agency set about to put in place an intelligence-gathering network that relies heavily on foreign security services and their deeper knowledge of local terrorist groups. With billions of dollars appropriated each year by Congress, the CIA has established joint counterterrorism intelligence centers in more than two dozen countries, and it has enlisted at least eight countries, including several in Eastern Europe, to allow secret prisons on their soil.
Working behind the scenes, the CIA has gained approval from foreign governments to whisk terrorism suspects off the streets or out of police custody into a clandestine prison system that includes the CIA's black sites and facilities run by intelligence agencies in other countries.
The presidential finding also permitted the CIA to create paramilitary teams to hunt and kill designated individuals anywhere in the world, according to a dozen current and former intelligence officials and congressional and executive branch sources.
In four years, the GST has become larger than the CIA's covert action programs in Afghanistan and Central America in the 1980s, according to current and former intelligence officials. Indeed, the CIA, working with foreign counterparts, has been responsible for virtually all of the success the United States has had in capturing or killing al Qaeda leaders since Sept. 11, 2001.
Bush delegated much of the day-to-day decision-making and the creation of individual components to then-CIA Director George J. Tenet, according to congressional and intelligence officials who were briefed on the finding at the time.
"George could decide, even on killings," one of these officials said, referring to Tenet. "That was pushed down to him. George had the authority on who was going to get it."
The Lawyers
Tenet, according to half a dozen former intelligence officials, delegated most of the decision making on lethal action to the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. Killing an al Qaeda leader with a Hellfire missile fired from a remote-controlled drone might have been considered assassination in a prior era and therefore banned by law.
But after Sept. 11, four former government lawyers said, it was classified as an act of self-defense and therefore was not an assassination. "If it was an al Qaeda person, it wouldn't be an assassination," said one lawyer involved.
This month, Pakistani intelligence sources said, Hamza Rabia, a top operational planner for al Qaeda, was killed along with four others by a missile fired by U.S. operatives using an unmanned Predator drone, although there were conflicting reports on whether a missile was used. In May, another al Qaeda member, Haitham Yemeni, was reported killed by a Predator drone missile in northwest Pakistan.
Refining what constitutes an assassination was just one of many legal interpretations made by Bush administration lawyers. Time and again, the administration asked government lawyers to draw up new rules and reinterpret old ones to approve activities once banned or discouraged under the congressional reforms beginning in the 1970s, according to these officials and seven lawyers who once worked on these matters.
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, has described the administration's philosophy in public and private meetings, including a session with human rights groups.
"We're going to live on the edge," Hayden told the groups, according to notes taken by Human Rights Watch and confirmed by Hayden's office. "My spikes will have chalk on them. . . . We're pretty aggressive within the law. As a professional, I'm troubled if I'm not using the full authority allowed by law."
Not stopping another attack not only will be a professional failure, he argued, but also "will move the line" again on acceptable legal limits to counterterrorism.
When the CIA wanted new rules for interrogating important terrorism suspects the White House gave the task to a small group of lawyers within the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel who believed in an aggressive interpretation of presidential power.
The White House tightened the circle of participants involved in these most sensitive new areas. It initially cut out the State Department's general counsel, most of the judge advocates general of the military services and the Justice Department's criminal division, which traditionally dealt with international terrorism.
"The Bush administration did not seek a broad debate on whether commander-in-chief powers can trump international conventions and domestic statutes in our struggle against terrorism," said Radsan, the former CIA lawyer, who is a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn. "They could have separated the big question from classified details to operations and had an open debate. Instead, an inner circle of lawyers and advisers worked around the dissenters in the administration and one-upped each other with extreme arguments."
At the CIA, the White House allowed the general counsel's job, traditionally filled from outside the CIA by someone who functioned in a sort of oversight role, to be held by John Rizzo, a career CIA lawyer with a fondness for flashy suits and ties who worked for years in the Directorate of Operations, or D.O.
"John Rizzo is a classic D.O. lawyer. He understands the culture, the intelligence business," Radsan said. "He admires the case officers. And they trust him to work out tough issues in the gray with them. He is like a corporate lawyer who knows how to make the deal happen."
These lawyers have written legal justifications for holding suspects picked up outside Afghanistan without a court order, without granting traditional legal rights and without giving them access to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
CIA and Office of Legal Counsel lawyers also determined that it was legal for suspects to be secretly detained in one country and transferred to another for the purposes of interrogation and detention -- a process known as "rendition."
Lawyers involved in the decision making acknowledge the uncharted nature of their work. "I did what I thought the best reading of the law was," one lawyer said. "These lines are not obvious. It was a judgment."
Credit and Blame
One way the White House limited debate over its program was to virtually shut out Congress during the early years. Congress, for its part, raised only weak and sporadic protests. The administration sometimes refused to give the committees charged with overseeing intelligence agencies the details they requested. It also cut the number of members of Congress routinely briefed on these matters, usually to four members -- the chairmen and ranking Democratic members of the House and Senate intelligence panels.
John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, complained in a 2003 letter to Vice President Cheney that his briefing on the NSA eavesdropping was unsatisfactory. "Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," he wrote.
Rockefeller made similar complaints about the CIA's refusal to allow the full committee to see the backup material supporting a skeptical report by the CIA inspector general in 2004 on detentions and interrogations that questioned the legal basis for renditions.
Some former CIA officers now worry that the agency alone will be held responsible for actions authorized by Bush and approved by the White House's lawyers.
Attacking the CIA is common when covert programs are exposed and controversial, said Gerald Haines, a former CIA historian who is a scholar in residence at the University of Virginia. "It seems to me the agency is taking the brunt of all the recent criticism."
Duane R. "Dewey" Clarridge, who directed the CIA's covert efforts to support the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s, said the nature of CIA work overseas is, and should be, risky and sometimes ugly. "You have a spy agency because the spy agency is going to break laws overseas. If you don't want it to do those dastardly things, don't have it. You can have the State Department."
But a former CIA officer said the agency "lost its way" after Sept. 11, rarely refusing or questioning an administration request. The unorthodox measures "have got to be flushed out of the system," the former officer said. "That's how it works in this country."
Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901585_pf.html
Chiefs Demoted in Pentagon Succession Line
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON -- The three military service chiefs have been dropped in the Bush administration's doomsday line of Pentagon succession, pushed beneath three civilian undersecretaries in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's inner circle.
A little-noticed holiday week executive order from President Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy behind Rumsfeld. The second spot would be the deputy secretary of defense, but that position currently is vacant. The Army chief, which long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth.
The changes, announced last week, are the second in six months and mirror the administration's new emphasis on intelligence gathering versus combat in 21st century warfighting.
Technically, the line of succession is assigned to specific positions, rather than the current individuals holding those jobs.
But in its current incarnation, the doomsday plan moves to near the top three undersecretaries who are Rumsfeld loyalists and who previously worked for Vice President Dick Cheney when he was defense secretary.
The changes were recommended, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, because the three undersecretaries have "a broad knowledge and perspective of overall Defense Department operations." The service leaders are more focused on training, equipping and leading a particular military service, said Whitman.
Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert with the American Enterprise Institute, said the changes make it easier for the administration to assert political control and could lead to more narrow-minded decisions.
"It continues to devalue the services as institutions," said Donnelly, saying it will centralize power, and shift it away from the services, where there is generally more military expertise and interest.
Under the new plan, Rumsfeld ally Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary for intelligence, moved up to the third spot while former Ambassador Eric Edelman, the policy undersecretary; and Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, hold the fourth and fifth positions.
The first to succeed Rumsfeld remains the job of the deputy secretary, a position currently vacant because the Senate has not confirmed Bush's nominee -- Navy Secretary Gordon England.
Senators have already approved Donald Winter to be England's replacement as Navy chief, and it is expected that Bush will eventually move England into the No. 2 Pentagon job without congressional approval through what is known as a recess appointment.
Bush tinkered with the succession line last June, temporarily making England, as Navy secretary, the No. 2 in the succession hierarchy until the deputy's job was filled. Last week, Bush changed that, ordering that the acting deputy secretary -- also England -- would succeed Rumsfeld, until a deputy is appointed.
The new succession order bumps the Navy secretary to near the bottom of the line of succession -- eighth behind the deputy, the three Pentagon undersecretaries and the Army and Air Force secretaries.
The Army secretary historically has been third in line, right behind the deputy secretary.
As a precursor to the Defense Department, the Army was once considered the backbone of the nation's military. The Department of War was the country's military agency from 1789 to 1949, when it became the Department of Defense. At that time, the War Office was renamed as the Army, which became a component of the Defense Department.
Since the terrorist attacks, intelligence gathering has taken center stage. Earlier this year, Bush named former ambassador John Negroponte as the country's first director of national intelligence, charged with overseeing the government's 15 highly competitive spy agencies.
And in the spring of 2003, Rumsfeld installed Cambone -- one of his closest aides -- in the new job of intelligence undersecretary.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-defense-doomsday-succession,1,5936454.s...
Uh oh. It looks like our cozy relationship as bedfellows has come to a quick divorce, rogue. Much as I share with you the belief that a faction of the corporate elite (mostly centered around the energy industry) are ruthless totalitarians, I’m afraid we part company when it comes to how deep within the federal government that conspiracy lays. It’s my belief that the militia movement is indeed a bunch of right-wing wackos who are manipulated by the conspirators to attack the legitimacy of the government in order to weaken its resistance to their control. By trying to tie everything together, you lose sight of that part of what you say is true.
I awoke this morning at about 7 (mountain time) and perused your post then, but it was a little much to respond to a 10,000 word essay on the historical ties between the Bush crowd and Nazi Germany over my first cup of coffee, but you are right, Rogue, the only word for it is "fascism". Just like in Germany in the 30's, many in the populace are so fearful of "communism", they embrace the destruction of our rights to protect us from the Red Menace, even though we don't have Stalin's army breathing down our neck.
What's truly sad is that many decent, law-abiding patriotic Americans have had so much propaganda shoved down their throats, that ranting and railing against the horrors of "socialism" is considered a normal part of political discourse simply because we have some basic government sevices like public transportation or food stamps for the starving, but when others accuse the govenment of fascism, it is considered completley over the top and unacceptable discourse that only left-wing nutjobs would engage in, but fascism is really the only word for it.
When government controls business -- and I don't mean passing laws or regulations that businesses must abide by such as not being allowed to pour toxic waste into public waterways or employ children at less than livable wages, I mean deciding the methods and amounts of production and distribution -- that's called communism. But when business controls government -- and I don't mean insisting on the right of free enterprise, I mean passing laws that exempt business from taxes and/or liability, or using government resources in the service of private enterprise (such as using the army to invade another country or provide security), that's called fascism. It has nothing to do with goose-stepping about and speaking in a funny accent; it's placing government under the control of large conglomerates of money. We called it fascism in WWII, but Mussolini called it Corporatism, and that's what we are living under today.
Socialism does not pose a threat to the American way of life; "corporatism" does.
It reminds me of that old Twilight Zone episode called "Nightmare on Elm Street", Echos, the one in which aliens (from outer space, not Mexico) turned of everyone's power and then turned it back on in some select houses, and then sat back and watched the humans attack each other. They planned to conquer earth effortlessly.
Al Qaeda exerted almost nothing -- nineteen men and, what was it, a couple hundred thousand dollars, and then all they had to do was sit back and watch America implode. Of course they had a lot of help from others who had no more respect for the laws and institutions of the United States than they did -- the administration of George W Bush. The ruthless and power hungry Bush administration seized the opportunity to take dictatorial control and undermined America beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.
"Everything's changed now," they said, meaning they were no longer bound by law or human decency.
"I hit the trifecta," George W Bush said.
"I hit the trifecta," George W Bush said.
"I hit the trifecta," George W Bush said.
Impeachment proceeedings should have started right then.
And some people think this administration that gleefully saw opportunity in 9/11 will make us secure by taking away our rights, an administration that savors the fear and exploits it, just exactly, as roguedolphin has pointed out, like the Nazis did.
It's incredible to see that the United States of America, the noble experiment in enlightenment and democracy, is losing a battle for moral credibility against a bunch of heathen, 12th Century religious fanatics.
Very powerful essay by Mr. Steinback. Thanks, echos.
Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''
I'm looking for more upside on BSM, too, 1001. This week would be nice, but if not, I'll wait.
I had never noticed my bookmarks before, but looking now, I see that I have four (4) bookmarks. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were not lying and that yesterday I only had three . . . wait, I’m not that good at statistics . . . does that mean my popularity has gone up 25% or 33% during the course of this exchange? Has yours ever gone up that much in a day, Len? Nuff said, case closed, to quote the words of a very wise man, a man who’s never wrong.
I can’t win because this is what your life is about; winning arguments on the internet is obviously a very more important part of your life, maybe the best thing you have going for you, and I concede , Len, you win . . . I AM A MORON, and you are a wonderful human being, surrounded by dozens of virtual admirers. (Do you have any actual family and friends?)
This is my last comment about this. Go on, get the last word in, Big Guy.
ksuave
PS -- I'm going to try to find time to post on another subject later this evening.
Rogue – Maybe your compulsion to tell the truth, and that of your cohorts who subscribe to all the Infowar theories, creates a built-in public relations problem. Your basic theories are based on a lot of facts, but then there’s also a lot of conjecture, and when you present the conjecture as fact, it undermines the basic truths to what your saying. The connections between the Cubans and Averill Harriman and Geo HW Bush can be proven, and yes Barry Goldwater did talk about the poison ice pellet gun, but that doesn’t prove that it was definitely Bush’s intention to kill Hoover with this gun – that’s only theory, yet the film presents building block theorizing and concludes it is fact when Bush’s motives can’t be proven. The fact that nobody knows where W was during the days surrounding the death of John Kennedy Jr. (I’m assuming that is true) does in no way prove that he was involved in the death, but it is presented as undeniable because of the conjecture of his fathers initiation rites to kill Hoover. That’s conjecture built upon conjecture, and it’s going to alienate potential allies (such as myself for instance). You conspiracy theorists should stop trying to solve the whole puzzle and emphasize the questions that actually do throw doubt on the official version of events if you want to gain support. Despite the theory of initiation rites required before advancement to higher office by the Skull & Crossbone guys, I am still prone to think that W was more likely just on some innocent little cocaine binge than he was off killing John-John. Thanks to my perusal of these sites in the last few days, I have really come to wonder why exactly is it that WTC 7 collapsed – it wasn’t filled with burning jet fuel like the two towers were, and that’s usually given as the reason why those buildings collapsed, but it just doesn’t necessarily follow then that the administration was behind booby-trapping all three buildings. If the Illuminati have as much power as is stated, why are they toying with us in their establishment of a fascist state, why don’t they just do it, why are they going through all these motions of slowly stripping Americans of their rights. (I personally think the power elite – not the illuminati – are going as fast as they can, but they obviously don’t have the wherewithal that you and your cohorts credit them with.) It’s more important to get more Americans asking the legitimate questions about the power elite than it is to try to put the whole conspiratorial enchilada together. You know, I don’t think I disagreed with a single thing Nader was saying during the 2000 campaign, but his campaign was still so wrong-headed. It brought about the exact opposite consequences that he desired, and it marginalized his supporters, just like the followers of Infowars are marginalized rather than listened to.
All just my humble opinion.
Len – I will stand by the last paragraph I wrote in the post I left this morning: “ . . . I realize that there is no way I can win this argument. . . . As I stated yesterday, lentinman has a pathological obsession to always prove himself right (and totally demean anyone who dares disagree with him), whereas ultimately and frankly, my dears, I really don’t give a damn..”
ksuave
Rogue –
It seems the first time I attempted it, the JFK film downloaded in a scrambled state, and when I watched it the day before yesterday, and dozed off during it, I kept seeing the same loop over and over again. They would be talking about the magic bullet and I would doze off, and when I awoke, they were talking about the magic bullet again, and I would doze off again, and again they would be talking about the magic bullet when I awoke again. After reading your note yesterday and not recollecting anything about Watergate or Reagan or Clinton in the film, I downloaded it again and watched the entire thing without dozing off once. My thoughts:
I believe the overall theory posited by the film in regards to the anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA, E Howard Hunt et. al. is as good of a theory as any about what happened to Kennedy. I’m more than happy to embrace a good part of that, although again it’s not particularly new to me. Also, the history of the perfidy and Nazi collaboration on the part of many in the American business elite (the Rockefellers, the Fords, the Walkers, the Prescotts, the Bushes) is also no surprise, and is something more Americans should be made familiar with. But when the group of people who are behind this film and the Infowars and other related sites try to tie in absolutely everything and everyone as a part of a tight-knit conspiracy, they kind of lose a little credibility. I mean, really, the part about George HW Bush being dispatched to Washington the day of Kennedy’s assassination to kill J Edgar Hoover with a poisoned ice pellet is more than a little hard to take. And that George W Bush is personally responsible for the death of John Kennedy Jr. (John-John). Puh-leeeze, Rogue, don’t you see how some of this undermines the plausible parts? The sad thing is that the overall vision of a small group of ruthless (there’s no other word) fascists have taken control of so much of America is true, and they have so twisted and manipulated the discourse that most Americans, well-meaning as they may be, think and act against their own best interests.
I might have written more about this, but I have family matters to tend to today (it’s a holiday today, some kind of Christian thing) and I had to waste some time earlier this morning, scrapping some crap off my shoe.
ksuave
Len –
As someone who believes Confucius was right when he wrote: “He who wins an argument on the Internet is still a jerk,” I’m going to try to make this as brief as possible:
Both the world and this thread were not so different two or three months ago when you deleted the post in which I reasoned that Americans who state they are out to destroy (i.e drown) the government of the United Sates are treasonous. It was not an over-the-top statement either then or now. Right-wingers have been calling supporters of the United Nations, the First Amendment, equal rights for minorities and a woman’s right to choose traitors throughout my entire life. It is, sadly, part of our national discourse. I at least was trying to explain why I believe that self-professed enemies of the United States government are enemies of the United States.
I don’t recall ever accusing you of changing words within a post, and I don’t recall ever saying anything about whether you supported the invasion of Iraq or not, though I do recall once stating something along the lines that “. . . anyone who voted for Bush in ‘04 should have known . . . something something something . . .” and that you then went completely ballistic, saying how dare I accuse you of supporting the Bush’s Iraq policy, when I really and truly was referring to “anyone” and not you personally. Perhaps I wrote that in a note that was in a reply to a note you had written but, believe it or not, it was actually not about you; some things aren’t. I recall your opposition to the invasion. La-di-da.
I really don’t know what you keep referring to in regards to how much you have helped me behind the scenes and how ungrateful I have been for it. I do recall asking you on two different occasions to reiterate your picks – once of o&g plays and once for nanotech plays – which you kindly did, and if I failed to thank you then, I do so now (though not in any hopes that we’re going to kiss and make up). And I also recall, that sometime during the summer, or maybe last spring, a right-winger from an entirely different bulletin board with whom I had shared words followed me here and started making posts attacking me and calling me by my given name, a name I had never divulged over here. Since that person had not participated in any another VMC discussion, I pm’ed you and requested that you delete his/her posts and – to the best of my recollection – you responded with a reasonable analysis of that person’s posts and deleted the one in which he called me by my real name and left some others for whatever reason. I may not have that sequence of events completely right, but I don’t have any recollection of there being any point of contention between you and I over that, and again, if I failed to thank you profusely enough then, I do so now. Other than those incidents, I have no idea how you have may have personally helped me behind the scenes. I did make a nice little chunk of change on HOM, which you were the first to bring to my attention, but that wasn’t personal and I DID thank you for that.
As may be apparent to casual observers here (if there are any), lentinman and I had a friendly discourse going between us for a while, but it went sour I believe (as I stated earlier) when I teased him about his attempt to statistically dismantle Gary Grobbel’s abilities as a stock picker. I most certainly make no claim to know more about statistics than lentinman, but I dare him to categorically state that statistics cannot be manipulated to prove anything one wants, particularly by someone as proficient in statistics as len.
Finally, I realize that there is no way I can win this argument. Lentinman seems to have the time and desire to file away old posts, draw them up at will and argue these virtual, Internet debates endlessly, and I don’t. As I stated yesterday, lentinman has a pathological obsession to always prove himself right (and totally demean anyone who dares disagree with him), whereas ultimately and frankly, my dears, I really don’t give a damn.
ksuave
Oy Vey. It’s no wonder your view of the world is askew if you could so misconstrue something as simple as my previous commentary in regards to passion in politics, Mr. Bargain. You were not “compared” to any of those people, nor were you accused of being scatological.
I see no odds in discourse with someone so lacking in a sense of either irony or humor, so – assuming you are a subscriber to the theory of Jesus – may you have a very merry Christmas, Sir, and a happy new year.
ksuave
I finally watched the JFK assassination film that Rogue posted the link to, or at least most of it as I confess I dozed off through some of it. I don’t say that to necessarily disparage the content of the film but rather as a critique of the editing which was quite amateurish and repetitive. One can learn everything that was in that film from Oliver Stone’s JFK film, and he’s a bit better of a film maker, so I would recommend that instead to anyone who is not familiar with this subject. I didn’t really learn anything new from the documentary as I am hardly unfamiliar with the conspiracy theories surrounding that horrible event, and I will briefly elaborate here upon my own thoughts about that and also the larger issues brought up by the opinions and links Rogue regularly posts.
It is my personal opinion that the theory of Oswald acting as the lone gunman is bunk, and that it is even possible that Oswald, as he maintained until his own assassination, was just the patsy. Hence, I do believe there was a conspiracy insofar that there was more than one person involved, but exactly who was involved is something I have no theories on. The idea of it being some group of Southern right-wingers working with rogue (!!) CIA agents and disaffected Pentagon officials (all fanatical anti-communists who felt JFK was too soft) makes some sense to me, but exactly who that might be, I wouldn’t venture. All the theories of Hoover, the mob, Castro . . . well, gee, they all hated JFK too, so who knows. One thing I am fairly certain of, however, is that it was not the Illuminati, a bunch of 33 degree Yale alumni masons working with Zionists, or however the Skull & Crossbones theory goes. I am absolutely with Rogue that there is a confederation of powerful people in this country who controls events to a far greater degree than any of us know, but to believe that it is as large and inclusive and cohesive as Rogue believes is beyond the pale. Nevertheless, it IS expansive and has great power; it controls most foreign and public policy (that matters), it decides the fate of nations, and its oeuvre, indeed, is fascism.
One of the methods in which this confederacy maintains its power is through distraction. While this relatively small group of individuals is running rampant over the rights and well-being of the greater population in order to maintain its own wealth and power, it keeps the public discourse focused on the imaginary problem of “big government”. While the patricians rule, they’ve got the masses fretting about “socialism”. Fox news and otcbargain don’t care that billions of tax-dollars get stolen through corruption, but they crap their pants over Amtrak and public education, the greatest threats to the future of mankind. Which is why I wrote a few days ago that as wacky as Rogue’s theories might be interpreted, they approach the problems facing us more truthfully than the right-wingers’ fears do. Fascism is a threat to America, socialism is not.
Speaking of otcbargain (I’m doing some catch-up here from the months I didn’t really participate here), I would like to go on record as saying that I kind of like him too, but I like him more for his innocence and naivete than for his “passion”, something everyone was falling all over themselves about a few months ago. When it comes to politics, passion can be a terrible and frightening swift sword. I have no doubt that John Wilkes Booth was a passionate man, as was Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaszinski, Charles Manson, Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler. No, no, no, I am not comparing otcbargain to Hitler – I have no evidence that otcbargain is any way responsible for the invasion of Poland, the death of millions, or even scatalogical fascinations with his girlfriend, if he has one – I’m just saying that passion ain’t always as admirable as it’s often cracked up to be.
Since I’m clearing the deck here before I attempt to bring up and pound on a new subject sometime over the next few days, I need to clarify my problems vis-a-vis the Kansas City tinman. I agree with echos that it is an unseemly and ignoble engagement, but I refuse to take the brunt of it myself for it is my foe who has acted ignobly and who maliciously slandered me. The problem stems from sometime a couple of months ago when the tinman wielded his power to censure one of my posts and then completely and publicly misrepresented the nature of that post. I was engaged in typical joust with otcbargain when the tinman stepped in, eliminated one of my posts and stated that he was forced to do so because it was written in all-caps and was only filled with vindictive name-calling. This was not true as anyone who has read my posts would know. I never write in all-caps – with the sole exception of when I am mocking the tinman and declare myself A MORON – and furthermore, as are most of my contributions to this thread (when not just simply pasting relevant articles), it was, I like to think, a literate and reasoned argument, primarily positing that people such as Gordon Norquist and otcbargain who, when advocating the drowning of the US government in a bathtub, are in fact espousing treason (i.e. the destruction of the American government). Technically, yes, I was calling them traitors, but that is clearly more of a political label than mere name-calling (i.e. YOU ARE A MORON).
Now, why would the tinman single me out for censure and arbitrarily eliminate one of my posts and lie about its content when this doesn’t seem to be his M.O., one might reasonably ask. I have a theory. Just prior to this incident, the man without a heart and I were engaged in some pm’s in which he tried to prove to me statistically that Gary Grobbel is not an effective selector of stocks. As one who has made a nice little living for about ten years and who has learned a great deal from reading gpg’s posts on SI, I was unconvinced by his methods. It became apparent to me that Tinnie is as accomplished at manipulating statistics as he is at using them productively, and I pointed out to him that his criteria for evaluating gpg’s picks was flawed, and I engaged in what I thought was some good natured banter with him. What I didn’t understand then was that lentinman’s need to prove himself correct isn’t the cute little personality quirk he likes to present it as, but is rather more of a pathological obsession. It was certainly my bad to have made fun of a man who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him IS A MORON, and he was going to assert his magnificent powers as board monitor to punish me for my sins. When he did so, I’m afraid he lost my respect, most probably forever, and so, in my abbreviated contributions here ever since, I have made a point to make that clear.
Now, having stated all that, I intend to bring up a political subject here that is of national significance and is dear to my heart sometime in the next few days that hasn’t, to my recollection, ever yet been discussed here, as swanlinbar has suggested, and I hope to go on from there
ksuave
With talk by Rumsfield this morning of a pullback of US troops, I thought I would post this article by Seymour Hersch published a few weeks ago about the likely future face of the conflict. Most informative. For those who don't know, Hersch has been one of the most pre-eminent investigative reporters on foreign policy and national security for decades now.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051205fa_fact