The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database Deja Vu
I've been reading the comments on this board and it reminds me a lot of when George Bush was running - first and second time. For his first term and much of his second term no matter what he did a lot of people defended him. And a lof of the same people who supported Bush now support McCain. We are all paying for the decision 50% of the voters in this country made in November 8 years ago and then again 4 years ago. Are we all going to have to pay for the next 4 years too?
Bush has been a disaster for this country. If you vote for McCain in a lot of ways we continue on the same path. The people on this board who are worrying about things that don't matter should look more closely at the things that do. Instead of trying to prove a point or that you are right and acting like anything negative said about John McCain is a personal insult why not spend that time learning more about the important issues and what exactly will happen to this country if we elect John McCain and continue on a similar path to the one we have been on for the past 8 years?
Barack Obama is not perfect. But he's not a Muslim. He's not an elitist. He's not for sex education for kindergartners. Those things are absurd but John McCain and his campaign managers know those are the things that get people riled up. Those are the things that some people in this country will occupy themselves with instead of the things that matter. He sure doesn't want you talking about the war and how he was for it and Barack Obama was not.
Barack Obama is an intelligent person who is honest, ethical and who has the insight and good judgment to make the best decisions for this country. He has a gift of being able to motivate and encourage people. He may not have executive experience but neither does John McCain or Joe Biden. Bush did.
Sometimes history provides the right person at the right time. I believe that Barack Obama has come along just we need him. Like Lincoln and Roosevelt did.
I am hearing on the news programs that the repub base is fired up. I am certain this is the same language I heard in 2004. How many times do we have to repeat and relive the consequences of Bush's election, reelection and McCain's same policies until we get it? What needs to happen to make citizens actually look critically at the past and apply the lessons to the future. I am gobsmacked.
Media Manipulation - Deja vu?
The press remains allergic to the topic of what Bush's deep political stain could mean for the GOP on Election Day. The press has virtually erased Bush as a player in this campaign, which is striking because back in 2000, when Bill Clinton was the retiring two-term president, the press couldn't stop writing and gabbing about his role in the unfolding campaign. (It was mostly bad for Dems, the pundits agreed.) But Bush? Who's he?
It's fitting, really, that as the media's lapdog performance under Bush comes to its conclusion, the press would soft-peddle the president's role in his farewell convention fiasco. It's fitting because, let's face it, Bush's presidential failure is really the media's failure, and what journalist wants to dwell on that? Remember, this is the same political press corps that just had a gut feeling about Bush in 2000; just liked the guy. They vouched for him. Said he was a real, authentic politician who would restore bipartisanship to Washington.
Aren't these the same claims being proclaimed by McCain's media buttkissers........one foot in the grave and a heartbeat away.............
Perhaps you should do some studying. SOS all over again, just like all the lies leading to regime change in Iraq, except this time with NUKES. Once again, Bush believes he knows the Iranian people and thinks he can predict how they will respond. Bush's messianic vision is labeled as worrisome, which is a rather kind description of this President.
You really should read the entire article, but I doubt that you will. It's likely to actually cause you to think.
http://www.newyorker.com/press
Issue of 2006-04-17 Posted 2006-04-08
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 8, 2006
THIS WEEK IN
THE NEW YORKER
PRESS CONTACTS: Perri Dorset, (212) 286-5898 Daniel Kile, (212) 286-5996 Maria Cereghino, (212) 286-7936
The Bush Administration’s Plan For Iran
“The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack,” Seymour M. Hersh reports in the April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker (“The Iran Plans,” p. 30). Moreover, he writes, “There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change.” One former senior intelligence official tells Hersh that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Adolf Hitler. “That’s the name they’re using,” he says. A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror says, “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.” The danger, he adds, is that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” The former senior intelligence official, referring to activity at three U.S. military facilities, says, “The planning is enormous.” He depicts it as hectic and operational—far beyond the contingency work that is routinely done. One former defense official tells Hersh that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He adds, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ” A government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon confirms that undercover units are working with minority groups in Iran, and that while one goal is to have “eyes on the ground,” the broader aim is to “encourage ethnic tensions” and undermine the regime.
Hersh reports, “In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat.” A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, tells Hersh that the Administration is “reluctant to brief the minority.” He adds, “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq.... There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”
Hersh also reveals that one of the options under consideration involves the possible use of “a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz.” The former senior intelligence official tells Hersh that the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military and that some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed. Hersh writes, “The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option.... He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue.” The adviser explains, “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries.”
The Pentagon adviser warns, as do many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?” he asks. He tells Hersh that any attack might also reignite Hezbollah. “If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle,” he says. A retired four-star general tells Hersh that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.” “If you attack,” a high-ranking diplomat in Vienna tells Hersh, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.” The diplomat went on, “There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking.” He adds, “The window of opportunity is now.”
Also this week: In “A Church Asunder” (p. 44), Peter J. Boyer reports that the election of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church “posed the biggest crisis for Anglicanism since the Reformation, and brought the worldwide church to the edge of schism.” Boyer writes that while a belief in the power of compromise has always permeated the Anglican faith, to several conservative bishops the move “pushed the Anglican notion of comprehensiveness beyond its historically implied limits. What the Church had affirmed, in the view of these traditionalists, was not just a different expression of Christianity but a different religion altogether.” Bishop Robert Duncan, of Pittsburgh, led a small delegation of twenty bishops in protest the day of Robinson’s affirmation and has since reached out for support from the worldwide Anglican community, and specifically from bishops in the Global South, who tend to be far more conservative. Boyer writes, “More than half of all Anglicans live in Africa, South America, and Asia.... There are more Anglicans in Kenya (roughly three million) than there are Episcopalians in the U.S.... The balance of power has shifted dramatically.” While Anglicanism has no global hierarchy as in the Catholic Church, Duncan hopes that through an alliance with the Global South, he and like-minded bishops can convince the worldwide Anglican Communion that the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, or ecusa ... has already departed from the faith, and that an alternative body of orthodox Episcopalians should be recognized as the true church in America.” Boyer writes, “Duncan says that his battle is not with Gene Robinson, or even over the issue of homosexuality, but with what he considers a radical reinterpretation of the faith by the liberal church.” He says that the future may hold many unpleasant legal battles, “And the question that the state courts are going to have to figure out is, ‘Who are the Episcopalians.’ ” Boyer writes, “Gene Robinson watches these developments with a mixture of sadness and alarm.” He tells Boyer, “Bob Duncan wants to ally our church with the church of Kenya, where the primate there said that, when I was consecrated, Satan entered the church. What most people don’t realize is that homosexuality is something that I am, it’s not something that I do.... We’re not talking about taking a liberal or conservative stance on a particular issue; we’re talking about who I am.” Later, he adds, “I have to tell you—I felt called by God to come out. It seems to me that if God stands for anything, God stands for integrity. And to be a priest, calling other people to integrity, when you’re not exercising it yourself—it’ll kill you.”
Plus: Hendrik Hertzberg, in Comment, on the drawbacks of the Bush Administration’s health-care plan (p. 25); Adam Gopnik on “The Gospel of Judas,” a recently released translation (p. 80); Alec Wilkinson on Pete Seeger and on a new album inspired by his work by Bruce Springsteen (p. 44); Cynthia Zarin on the works of Maurice Sendak (p. 38); David Denby on the new films “The Notorious Bettie Page” and “Friends with Money” (p. 86); John Lahr on the life of playwright Clifford Odets (p.72); and fiction by Bernard MacLaverty (p. 66)
The April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker goes on sale at newsstands beginning Monday, April 10th.
Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special CounselPatrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.
Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.
CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.
A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.
Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special CounselPatrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.
Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.
CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.
A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.
Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special CounselPatrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.
Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.
CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.
A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.
Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special CounselPatrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.
Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.
CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.
A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.
Hmmm, since Cheney is
perhaps Fitzgerald could use electrodes on Scooter (a grown man with that name should be a crime in itself..LOL), Rove and Cheney himself and see how he likes information extracted in this manner.
Agree 100%. Cheney is the
one of the masterminds of this adminstration. As I said, but screwed up the post, that if they impeach Bush, they better darn well take Cheney out with him. He is far more dangerous than Bush could ever hope to be, but will Cheney be called to task for his evildoings? How in the United States of America did torture become a topic of conversation? Why has not anyone been called out on these things they have done in the guise of national security? And what really gets me is that people are WILLING to give away their freedoms and rights to be safe. So who are the cowards? Also, and I have heard no one mention this, that after 9/11, Bush said we will not cower to the terrorists, not to change our way of life, our celebrations, to go about as we were, etc. Hmmm, so instead, our rights and freedoms have been violated. Now we have unauthorized NSA spies on our phone calls, emails, whatever else they want to peer into, and now the filthy Patriot Act is up, thank Goodness, but what's next? Scary.
Yes, I was joking about Cheney. sm
I agree the bill is nuts. I can get you a link to that. It actually passed.
Cheney on warpath again?
This is a long article written by Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post, Apr. 11, 2008.
It goes to Cheney's warmongering concerning Iran (if such be the case), the difference of opinion on Iran (Gates and Rice v Cheney), clarification on the "wipe Israel off the map" comment, Cheney's recent visit to Israel, and much more. Page 5 goes into other topics; one of special interest being torture approved from the WH basement by Bush aides and Cheney.
Excellent article that covers recent comments being made by Cheney about Iran (you may recall he and Rumsfeld did the same prior to the fantisized reasons to invade Iraq).
I bring it for edification and perhaps for discussion.
Maybe Cheney is a closet dem
He knows many people hate him, including me. He could be trying to lose McC's election since McC spoke out against Bush and Cheney.
D@ck Cheney was the man in the wheelchair
and wow I don't think booing is appropriate, D@ck Cheney doesn't get a free pass just because he is in a wheelchair.
I guess it shouldn't surprise us, though, that there's no taking responsibility for actions in our government - that's one of the biggest problems in our country - it's always someone else's fault.
House Judiciary Trio Calls for Impeach Cheney Hearings
by John Nichols
Three senior members of the House Judiciary Committee have called for the immediate opening of impeachment hearings for Vice President Richard Cheney.
Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on Friday distributed a statement, “A Case for Hearings,” that declares, “The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.”
In particular, the Judiciary Committee members cite the recent revelation by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent as part of a White House campaign to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson. On the basis of McClellan’s statements, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin say, “it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice.” The three House members argue that, “Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to ‘unknowingly [pass] along false information.’”
Adding to the sense of urgency, the members note that “recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction — this time about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”
Although Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin are close to Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, getting the Michigan Democrat to open hearings on impeachment will not necessarily be easy. Though Conyers was a leader in suggesting during the last Congress that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed impeachable offenses, he has been under immense pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to keep Constitutional remedies for executive excesses “off the table” in this Congress.
It is notable, however, that Baldwin maintains warm relations with Pelosi and that Wexler, a veteran member of the Judiciary Committee has historically had an amiable and effective working relationship with Conyers. There is no question that Conyers, who voted to keep open the impeachment debate on November 7, has been looking for a way to explore the charges against Cheney. The move by three of his key allies on the committee may provide the chairman with the opening he seeks, although it is likely he will need to hear from more committee members before making any kind of break with Pelosi — or perhaps convincing her that holding hearings on Cheney’s high crimes and misdemeanors is different from putting a Bush impeachment move on the table.
The most important immediate development, however, is the assertion of an “ask” for supporters of impeachment. Pulled in many directions in recent months, campaigners for presidential and vice presidential accountability have focused their attention on supporting a House proposal by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nod, to impeach Cheney. When Kucinich forced consideration of his resolution on November 7, Pelosi and her allies used procedural moves to get it sent to the Judiciary Committee for consideration. Pelosi’s hope was that the proposal would disappear into the committee’s files.
The call for hearings by Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin puts impeachment on the table, at least as far as activists are concerned, creating a pressure point that can serve as a reply when House Democrats who are critical of Bush but cautious about impeachment ask: “What do you want me to do?” The answer can now be: “Back the call for Judiciary Committee hearings on whether to impeach Cheney?”
“Some of us were in Congress during the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. We spent a year and a half listening to testimony about President Clinton’s personal relations. This must not be the model for impeachment inquires. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for President Clinton. In fact, the worst legacy of the Clinton impeachment - where the GOP pursued trumped up and insignificant allegations - would be that it discourages future Congresses from examining credible and significant allegations of a constitutional nature when they arise,” write Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin.
“The charges against Vice President Cheney are not personal,” the House members add. “They go to the core of the actions of this Administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority support hearings according to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70 percent of voters say that Vice President Cheney has abused his powers and 43 percent say that he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up.”
Arguing that hearings need not distract Congress, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin note that the focus is on Cheney for a reason: “These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the Vice President — not our commander in chief — and the resulting impact on the nation’s business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton Presidential impeachment hearings.”
They also argue, correctly, that the hearings are necessary if Congress is to restore its position in the Constitutionally-defined system of checks and balances.
“Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence — not politics — should determine the outcome,” the Judiciary Committee members explain. “Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an Administration that has consistently skirted the constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it.
Many Say War Not Worth It; Cheney: 'So?'
Did you see Cheney on the ABC News tonight? You should have seen his smirky grin when he told her "so." He doesn't care what the country thinks about the war.
"On the security front, I think there's a general consensus that we've made major progress, that the surge has worked. That's been a major success," Cheney told ABC News' Martha Raddatz.
When asked about how that jibes with recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, Cheney replied, "So?"
Why should he care? He's leaving office soon and none of his family or friends were at risk over there. He and most of his cronies all were successful in shirking military service. And he won't be around to pay the bill for this war -- our children and grandchildren are the ones who will pay in the long run if it doesn't financially ruin this country before then.
I'm sure he thought he and a few others would benefit in $$$ from this invasion, and I'm sure some folks did (like Halliburton) but instead it has backfired. Recent news shows that the war has ultimately destabilized the flow of oil and our relations with the countries that provide our oil. Plus the Iraqi pipeline has never gotten back to even pre-war levels.
May their sorry a$$e$ rot in helll! What did Bush do in the first three weeks of office - clear brush in crawford? He holds the record for the most vacations.
That's what I said to my hubby When Bush and Cheney..
...decided that we should go to war in Iraq, even when AL Qaeda was in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Decided that there were WMDs in Iraq, despite being told by an impartial panel (United Nations) that there were no such things.
We knew right then and there that this country was in deep trouble. We had an arrogant excuse of a president, who was bound and determined to follow his own agenda (or daddy's)no matter what the American people wanted.
I know how you feel, but this problem is NOTHING compared to the mess that the last administration left us in!
Cheney spent SIX TIMES MORE on...
...entertainment than Bush????
Well, maybe that makes sense. He does seem like someone who is pretty difficult to entertain.
Torture is never justified and brings often useless, coerced confessions and devastating revenge.
“Those subjected to physical torture usually conceive undying hatred for their torturers.” One must therefore also consider the greater likelihood that American civilians (here or especially abroad) and American troops overseas will be subject to torture (or terror) by aggrieved enemies.' Halliburton=Cheney=benefiting from war/terrorism
Check it out, lots and lots and lots written about it. Draw your own conclusions.
And George Bush and Dick Cheney FBI Examines Computers in Cheney's Office
FBI agents examined computers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office and talked to former and current White House aides Thursday as they investigated an FBI intelligence analyst accused of passing classified information to Filipino officials.
Meantime, former Philippine President Joseph Estrada acknowledged receiving an internal U.S. government report on the Philippines from the analyst, Leandro Aragoncillo, but played down the importance of the information, comparing it to material aired in his country's media.
The FBI is looking at whether Aragoncillo, a former Marine, took classified information about the Philippines from the White House when he worked for Vice Presidents Al Gore and Cheney from 1999 to 2002.
The type of information has not been disclosed. Though Aragoncillo had top-secret clearance, that status would not have made him privy to highly sensitive intelligence.
Aragoncillo, a U.S. citizen originally from the Philippines, was charged last month with providing classified information from his FBI posting at Fort Monmouth, N.J., to former and current Philippine officials who oppose President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Philippine Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales said the criminal complaint against Aragoncillo suggests the information could have been intended to destabilize the Philippine government.
Michael Ray Aquino, a former top Philippine police official who acted as Aragoncillo's alleged go-between, was indicted by a Newark, N.J., federal grand jury Thursday on charges of conspiracy and acting as an unregistered foreign agent. Aragoncillo, 46, of Woodbury, N.J., and Aquino, 39, living in Queens, N.Y., have been jailed since their arrests last month.
Federal prosecutors in Newark did not seek an indictment against Aragoncillo because he is negotiating a plea, court records show.
Aquino lawyer Mark A. Berman said his client rejected a plea deal.
There's a fundamental difference between Aragoncillo and Aquino, Berman said. Aquino is not an FBI agent and had no reason to know that the information the government laid out in the indictment was classified.
While the criminal complaint is limited to Aragoncillo's time at Fort Monmouth the investigation has widened to include his stint, while a Marine, in the vice president's office. Agents examined computers and interviewed current and former vice presidential aides Thursday, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
FBI spokesman Rich Kolko would not confirm details of the investigation, but he said, In the course of a logical investigation, the FBI will research the subject's entire career for whenever he had access to classified or sensitive information to see whether any illegal or improper activity took place.
Meantime, Estrada said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press in the Philippines that he received documents from Aragoncillo but that he did not think they contained classified information.
He was just describing how America sees the Philippines, Estrada said. I don't think that is classified. It pertains to graft and corruption, the first gentleman (Arroyo's husband).
Estrada said he met Aragoncillo during his state visit to Washington in 2000 and received about six reports from him.
He compared what Aragoncillo did with reports diplomats send back home. I don't think that's espionage, he said.
He's a kind person, the former president said of Aragoncillo. He's a good family man. He has two children.
Estrada said Aragoncillo communicated with him by mail and also spoke with him on his birthday, but he didn't say when. Estrada was toppled in massive street protests in 2001 on charges of corruption and is under house arrests while on trial.
A Philippine opposition senator has acknowledged receiving information from Aquino. Sen. Panfilo Lacson, a former national police chief under whom Aquino served, said he and many others received information passed by Aquino, but he played down the value of the reports, describing them as shallow information.
White House and Justice Department officials declined to comment on the investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a former federal prosecutor who handled an FBI spy case, said the Aragoncillo case raises questions about easy access to classified materials and how long the naturalized U.S. citizen was able to pass on sensitive information before he was stopped.
If the complaint is accurate, there is a wealth of evidence which makes it all the more surprising he went undiscovered as long as he did, because it was not a very sophisticated operation, Schiff said.
Aragoncillo was hired to work at Fort Monmouth in July 2004 and began sending classified information and documents in January, often via e-mail, according to an FBI complaint made public last month. The documents' contents have not been made public.
From May to Aug. 15 of this year, he printed or downloaded 101 classified documents relating to the Philippines, of which 37 were classified secret, according to the criminal complaint.
He sent some of the material to Aquino, the complaint said.
Aragoncillo's public defender, Chester M. Keller, declined to say if his client was cooperating with investigators. It's just too sensitive right now, Keller said.
___
Associated Press reporter Jim Gomez in Manila and Jeffrey Gold in Newark, N.J., contributed to this report.
Cheney Fields Tough Questions
I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005
Hmmm, so I guess now we've progressed to the *FINAL* last throes ???
Associated Press
Update 1: Cheney Fields Tough Questions From Troops
12.18.2005, 03:18 PM
Facing tough questions from battle-weary troops, Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday cited signs of progress in Iraq and signaled that force changes could come in 2006.
Cheney rode the wave of last week's parliamentary elections during a 10-hour surprise visit to Iraq that aimed to highlight progress at a time when Americans question the mission. Military commanders and top government officials offered glowing reports, but the rank-and-file troops Cheney met did not seem to share their enthusiasm.
From our perspective, we don't see much as far as gains, said Marine Cpl. Bradley Warren, the first to question Cheney in a round-table discussion with about 30 military members. We're looking at small-picture stuff, not many gains. I was wondering what it looks like from the big side of the mountain - how Iraq's looking.
Cheney replied that remarkable progress has been made in the last year and a half.
I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we'll see that the year '05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq, the vice president said. We're getting the job done. It's hard to tell that from watching the news. But I guess we don't pay that much attention to the news.
Another Marine, Cpl. R.P. Zapella, asked, Sir, what are the benefits of doing all this work to get Iraq on its feet?
Cheney said the result could be a democratically elected Iraq that is unified, capable of defending itself and no longer a base for terrorists or a threat to its neighbors. We believe all that's possible, he said.
Although he said that any decision about troop levels will be made by military commanders, Cheney told the troops, I think you will see changes in our deployment patterns probably within this next year.
About 160,000 troops are in Iraq. The administration has said that troop levels are expected to return to a baseline of 138,000 after the elections, but critics of the war have called for a significant drawdown.
More than 2,100 troops have died in Iraq since the U.S. invaded in March 2003.
The round-table with the vice president came after hundreds of troops had gathered in an aircraft hangar to hear from a mystery guest. When Cheney emerged at the podium, he drew laughs when he deadpanned, I'm not Jessica Simpson.
Shouts of hooah! from the audience interrupted Cheney a few times, but mostly the service members listened intently. When he delivered the applause line, We're in this fight to win. These colors don't run, the only sound was a lone whistle.
The skepticism that Cheney faced reflects opinions back home, where most Americans say they do not approve of President Bush's handling of the war. It was unique coming from a military audience, which typically receives administration officials more enthusiastically.
Cheney became the highest-ranking administration official to visit the country since Bush's trip on Thanksgiving Day 2003. It was his first visit to Iraq since March 1991, when he was defense secretary for President George H.W. Bush.
The tour came on the same day that President Bush was giving a prime-time Oval Office address on Iraq. Cheney's aides said the timing was a coincidence, yet the two events combined in a public-relations blitz aimed at capitalizing on the elections to rebuild support for the unpopular war.
The daylong tour of Iraq was so shrouded in secrecy that even Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and President Jalal Talabani were kept in the dark. The prime minister said he was surprised when he showed up for what he thought was a meeting with the U.S. ambassador and saw Cheney.
Talabani, his finger still stained purple as proof that he had voted three days earlier, was clearly delighted. He thanked Cheney profusely for coming and called him one of the heroes of liberating Iraq.
Cheney had an hourlong briefing on the election from Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, top U.S. commander Gen. George Casey and Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. He emerged saying he was encouraged by preliminary results showing high turnout about Sunni Muslims, who make up the backbone of the insurgency.
His next visit was to Taji Air Base, where he saw tanks that Iraqis had rebuilt and watched while they practiced a vehicle sweep at a security checkpoint.
U.S. forces guarded Cheney with weapons at the ready while Iraqi soldiers, who had no weapons, held their arms out as if they were carrying imaginary guns.
The Syrian border is back under Iraq control now, U.S. Lt. Gen. Marty Dempsey told the vice president, pointing to a map of Iraqi troop locations. When people say, 'When will Iraq take control of its own security?' the answer truly is it already has.
Cheney lunched on lamb kebobs, hummus and rice with raisins along with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers who helped secure polling sites. Then he headed to his third and final stop in Iraq at al-Asad.
Cheney flew over Baghdad in a pack of eight fast-moving Blackhawk helicopters, following the airport road that has been the site of so many insurgent attacks and passing the courthouse where Saddam Hussein is being tried.
The unannounced stops in Iraq came at the beginning of a five-day tour aimed at strengthening support for the war on terror. Stops include Oman, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Cheney's staff kept the Iraq portion secret from reporters, waiting to reveal the plans when Air Force Two was preparing to refuel in the United Kingdom. Once on the ground, the entourage transferred from his conspicuous white and blue 757 to an unmarked C-17 cargo plane that would fly overnight to Baghdad International Airport.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the former mayor of Cleveland who is seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination for president for the second time, introduced articles to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney Tuesday, basing his decision on Cheney's initial push to send the United States into war with Iraq.
The vice president is beating the same drums of war against Iran that he beat against Iraq under false pretenses, and he's doing it all over again, against Iran, Kucinich said. And I say that it's time to stand up to that. Our country couldn't afford this last war. We can't afford to go into another one. And somebody has to challenge the conduct of this Vice President.
Plus GWB has spoken at their meetings in the past.
Your theory would appear to be some sort of conspiracy thing.
But I'm glad I read about it. I see George Soros, Clinton, McCain, Cheney and Rice, Colin Powell are all members. It is supposed to be totally nonpartisan and welcoming all regardless of race, religion or ideology.
(This is funny - had to take out Cheney's first name in order to post this - said I was using a bad word!!!)
Cheney 'cabal' hijacked foreign policy By Edward Alden in Washington Published: October 20 2005 00:00 | Last updated: October 20 2005 00:19
Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday.
In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “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.
“Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.”
Mr Wilkerson said such secret decision-making was responsible for mistakes such as the long refusal to engage with North Korea or to back European efforts on Iran.
It also resulted in bitter battles in the administration among those excluded from the decisions.
“If you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions, you are courting disaster. And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran.”
The comments, made at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, were the harshest attack on the administration by a former senior official since criticisms by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism czar, and Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary, early last year.
Mr Wilkerson said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out with Mr Powell, whom he served for 16 years at the Pentagon and the State Department.
“He's not happy with my speaking out because, and I admire this in him, he is the world's most loyal soldier.
Among his other charges:
■ The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it.”
■ Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president”.
■ The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel”.
Mr Wilkerson said former president George H.W. Bush “one of the finest presidents we have ever had” understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast, he said, his son was “not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either”.
“There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today.”
The words President Murtha are sounding pretty good!
DERRICK Z. JACKSON
White House plays chicken with a war hero
By Derrick Z. Jackson | November 19, 2005
THE WHITE House is so deluded, it actually believes it can turn a soaring hawk into a scrounging chicken. Stung by the call by US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania to pull out of Iraq, Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary, said this week, ''It is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
Talk about playing the chicken-hawk card. A White House where most of the architects of war avoided combat in their own lives dared to associate two people who are worlds apart in world views. Moore made the anti-Bush ''Fahrenheit 9/11, which infuriated the right wing by breaking box office records for a documentary film. Moore was booed at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
Murtha is the 73-year-old recipient of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for combat duty in Vietnam. He is a Democrat whose three decades in office are marked by support of President Reagan's policies in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Murtha was a top Democratic supporter of the 1991 Gulf War. He wants a constitutional ban on burning the American flag.
In a 2002 press briefing, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz termed the support of politicians like Murtha for the Pentagon as ''wonderful. In the 2004 vice presidential debate, incumbent Dick Cheney said, ''One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha.
For all those shows of patriotism, Murtha was skeptical about the rush to invade Iraq in 2003 of Iraq even though he voted to give President Bush the authorization to go to war. He publicly said Bush beat the war drums before building an international coalition. Murtha said he had not seen anything in intelligence reports that indicated an imminent threat. Murtha said Bush ''has put the country in such a box. He can say, 'You'll undercut me if you don't vote for this resolution.'
One month after the invasion, when no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found, Murtha warned that American credibility was at risk. By the September, the absence of weapons of mass destruction made him join the much more liberal House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, in calling for Bush to fire the planners of the invasion. Despite the proclamation that ''we achieved a marvelous military victory, Murtha became increasingly frustrated with the chaos of the occupation. This summer, Murtha said administration officials were ''not honest in their assessment that they were winning the ongoing battle.
Finally, this week, Murtha unleased a scathing attack on Bush's Iraq policy. He called it ''a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. He said he believed military officials when he visited Kuwait just before the war and they showed him where American forces would be attacked by weapons of mass destruction when they approach Baghdad. But now, with no end to the killing in sight, he said, ''The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home. . .They have become the enemy.
Murtha talked about soldier after soldier he has visited in hospitals, wounded and maimed by the invasion. Yet, there's more terrorism now than there ever was and it's because of what? Is it because of our policy? I would say it's a big part.
In perhaps the most humble admission of his press conference, Murtha said, ''The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress.
This came the day after Cheney threw mud in the direction of critics who gave Bush his war authorization. Cheney accused them of making ''irresponsible comments. He accused them issuing ''cynical and pernicious falsehoods to make ''a play for political advantage.
He said, ''The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory -- or their backbone.
This was the same Cheney who gave us some of the greatest falsehoods of this generation with ''There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons, and that we would be ''welcomed as liberators.
Murtha clobbered Cheney's words the next day, saying, ''I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.
This hawk still soars, above the scrounging chicken hawks.
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.
marks the location of current message within thread
