Don't agree. We trust God for Wisdom, Strength, and health in our govenment.....sm
Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-02-11
In Reply to: Wrong, Tonto! - The Lone Ranger
BUT that does not mean that there should not be a separation in church/state. We can trust in the Lord and pray for our nation, but is is up to us, as keepers of this nation, to work hard, to strive to appoint the right people, to try to defend the constitution, not just in war, but in peace. By becoming a UNITED nation once again, because we are being destroyed more quickly from within....the terrorist are loving it and will not have to do much to make this nation fall, if we do not use wisdom, discernment, and love, once the whole economy has collapsed and there is more and more crime, chaos, despair, etc., there won't be much the terrorists will have to do for our downfall...and there won't be much to gain from this country, either, if it sinks that low, IMHO
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
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
not as badly as Obama...don't trust him at all...Mccain maybe a couple of degrees more trust...sm
Not much, but just a little. I will not condone someone (Obama), who makes my "crap detector" go off every time I see and hear him.
Don't trust a word he says.....he is bad, bad news bears.
Agree illegal health care has got to go!
I type an account where there appears to be many illegal aliens in that area, in that 90% of the babies getting tests have a hispanic last name and its often mentioned interpreters were needed to speak to the parents. Some never get a first name, I'd say at least 25% of the babies I type reports for have been in and out of intensive care for up to a year and still are going by "babyboy" or "babygirl" as a first name. Page after page of tests performed for each baby, and that's just in my specialty! We have to be spending millions on this and for what, to enourage them to come here and dump their babies at the hospital at birth and not even bother to name them? It makes me really disgusted to type the 50th report for "babyboy gonzalez" who is 18 months old and still in the ICU for congenital heart problems/lung problems, knowing darn well his healthcare is free while I can barely afford to insure my own child! We owe these illegals nothing yet we rob from our own to cater to them! Are we crazy?
I agree that there is a problem with health care...
and insurance in this country. What I disagree with is expanding yet another entitlement program to throw more money down an endless well.
This is what Huckabee has to say, and I think it makes a lot of sense:
The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system.
We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict.
We do need to get serious about preventive health care.
I advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs.
I value the states' role as laboratories for new market-based approaches.
When I'm President, Americans will have more control of their health care options, not less.
As President, I will work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system.
Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health care, people do, and move from employer-based to consumer-based health care.
The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes. We do need to get serious about preventive health care instead of chasing more and more dollars to treat chronic disease, which currently gobbles up 80% of our health care costs, and yet is often avoidable. The result is that we'll be able to deliver better care where and when it's needed.
I advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot.
We can make health care more affordable by reforming medical liability; adopting electronic record keeping; making health insurance more portable from one job to another; expanding health savings accounts to everyone, not just those with high deductibles; and making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. Low income families would get tax credits instead of deductions. We don't need all the government controls that would inevitably come with universal health care. When I'm President, Americans will have more control of their health care options, not less.
I also value the states' role as laboratories for new market-based approaches, and I will encourage those efforts. As President I will work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system, not more of the same, paid for by Uncle Sam at the expense of hard-working families.
Health care spending is now about $2 trillion a year, which is close to $7,000 for each one of us. It consumes about 17% of our gross domestic product, easily surpassing the few European nations where spending is close to 10% and far higher than any other country in the world. If we reduced our out-of-control health care costs from 17% to 11%, we'd save $700 billion a year, which is about twice our annual national deficit.
Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. General Motors spends more on health care than it does on steel, $1,500 per car. Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee beans. We have an employer-based system from the 1940's, a system devised not because it was the best way to provide health care, but as a way around World War II wage-and-price controls. Costs have skyrocketed because the party paying for the health care - the employer - and the party using the health care - the employee - are not the same. It is human nature to consume more of something that is essentially free.
Workers complain that their wages are stagnant, but businesses reply that their total compensation costs are rising significantly because they are paying so much more for health care. Health care costs are adversely affecting your paycheck, even if you're healthy. Some Americans are afraid to change jobs or start their own businesses because they're afraid of losing their health insurance. It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health insurance, people do, and to ease the burden on our businesses. Our employer-based system has outlived its usefulness, but the answer is a consumer-based system, not socialized medicine.
As a personal aside, I have one of those health savings accounts and it has helped me on more than one occasion. I like the idea of deductions for health insurance premiums for everyone. I like that a lot. I like the idea of tax credits for lower income people who maintain their own insurance. Child care credits worked. Why wouldn't child health care credits?
I just don't think another wide open *gimme* program will work. This program as it went to Bush would open the doors to higher income people who are now paying their own premiums to stop doing that and get on a program. That is going in the WRONG direction. Instead give those people tax deductions for 100% of those premiums paid. For those who are in the lower income brackets struggling to pay their own premiums so as not to get on a program, reward that with tax credits. Let's reward responsibility instead of encourage irresponsibility.
Just one humble opinion.
President Bush's strength of character.....sm
was tested this weekend, when two shoes were hurled at his head in fast succession, while the owner of said shoes, (size 10, by the way, per our prez), had hoped they would hit him, not to mention embarass with the intended podiatric insult.
However, President Bush showed great strength of character in the aftermath of said attack, calling off the secret service, and making light of the matter.
And not to mention, lightning quick reflexes.
Kudos to you, Mr. President. I salute you.
LOL! "Bush's strength of character", now that's funny.
x
There is strength in diversity. Makes life interesting.
-----
35 years, experience, strength, command of issues.
nm
Health Insurance/Health Care sm
I figure either one of two things will happen. Either the US will go to a single payer system, i.e., national health care covering all through federal taxes and cost control by the government, or therre will be an implosion of the private system in x number of years with something different emerging from the ashes.
With the exhorbitant cost of health insurance, mandating coverage is not an answer. Anything can be mandated. The question is how does one pay for it?Massachusetts mandated individual coverage, and already has had to exclude 20% due to the cost of a policy, anywhere from $1,200 to $1,400 a month for family coverage. Employers cannot afford to cover employees either due to the cost of health insurance. The current system? Well, insurance companies can charge $3,000 a month for a health insurance policy, health care providers can charge $800,000 for a 3-day hospital stay, etc. In the end no one, businesses or otherwise, will be able to keep "feeding the beast" and the current system will implode.
I think the proposal of being able to buy into Medicare is a noble one, but president Clinton pushed that years ago, and with much opposition and to no avail at that time.
I don't mean to sound so pessiimistic. Actually I'm not. There are 300 million people in this country, they have the ability to change anything, and hopefully they will take the initial steps to do that in November.
Obama's strength is his control. I give your post the ' thumbs down'..nm
nm
Aw, the voice of wisdom.
x
Sage wisdom
I personally like dandelion greens, wild onions, polk sallat and lots of other wild greens, nuts, berries, pawpaws, wild grapes, wild mushrooms, etc. etc. We'll be fine for awhile.
If you're a "bible kook" count me right there with you. If one needs any more proof, just read the book. Written 2000 years ago, if it isn't true, how could it so accurately predict exactly what is happening? Like the time will come when a person will work all day long just for food for a single day. I don't see that being very far in the future. IMHO wise people are turning to the Bible for instructions. THAT is the only hope we really have.
Please enlighten me with your wisdom.
How do you handle this then? Terrorists who want us dead and will do anything to accomplish that. How do you deal with them? What is the source? Do we all convert to their religion? What? I'm curious as to what your solution is for this mess.
I still would like to see Obama go after the CEOs of these big corporations and banks the pocketed loads of money and walked away from a failing business. Why aren't they being investigated and tried for what they have done? Instead of we going after the past administration even though dems knew what was going on.
As for your information about Mohammed giving info until the harsh interrogations.....there are two sides to this story and until everything is released and looked into, all you go by is what MSNBC says and the rest of us go by facts.
Nancy Pelosi and other dems were brief on these interrogations and they did NOTHING. The government has only allowed part of the information to be unclassified. There is still other information out there that they have not brought to light and seem to be not wanting to bring to light. Wonder why....hmmmm.
The reason behind terrorist attacks is because they are Muslim extremists who believe their religion has called them to rid the world of people who aren't Muslim. No tea and cookies and friendly talks is EVER going to change that.
Yes...please give him some wisdom!
I can't disagree on that one.
More wisdom in his right hand than the whole
.
This pearl of wisdom is brought to you by
someone who proved herself ridiculous 500 posts ago....
experience versus wisdom
to change the downward course of the nation. Haven't you been listening?
Humor? Wisdom? To be called a
"babe," "skirt" is humorous? Wisdom???? Where is the so-called wisdom in that sexist remark? But of course Lush will get away with it.... he's too valuable to the pubnuts!! Disgraceful is what it is!!!!
Your disrespect for the wisdom of elders
Might try reading up on the brilliant genius that IS Lee Iacocca. Take a look at his photo...84 and looks 20 years younger. Sharp as a tack, as demonstrated by the level of expertise and thorough analysis expressed in the piece he wrote. The smartest thing he said, in essence, was "Dude, where's my country?"
In any cas, your petty, drive-by sound byte is a mere reflection of the same bankrupt leadership he decries, prime example being the tanking McSame.
BTW, here's a few other millionaires who endorse Obama, every single one of the former pubs:
1. Warren Buffet
2. Colon Powell
3. Susan Eisenhower
4. Julie Nixon Eisenhower
5. Senator Lincoln Chafe
6. Gov Linwood Holton (VA)
7. Mayor Richard Riordan (LA CA)
8. Bill Ruckelhaus
9. Douglas Kmiec
10. (Former) Mayor Ed Koch (NY)
11. Ken Adelman
12. General Tony McPeak
13. Donald Capoccia
14. Jackson M. Andrews
15. Richard J. Schwartz
16. Todd Garrett,
17. Michael Smercornish
18. Richard B. Stewart
19. Jim Whitaker
20. Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr
Gourdpainter, I really respect your wisdom. s/m
And I, too, have been having trouble sleeping because of this election as well. I think they call it election burnout. I guess the whole Rev. Wright thing is somewhat concerning, but I find that the positive things about Barack Obama far outweigh that one thing. I watched a brilliant interview with him last night by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. He addressed so many things: Foreign policy, Afghanistan, that fact that we desperately need to update our infrastructure in this country, roads, bridges, and especially the power grid, as it is one of our major weaknesses for terrorist attack. He has a very definite plan for all of these things that I have never heard anyone else address, and I was very impressed. He made a statement about how the trillion dollar deficit that Bush ran up would not have been so bad had there been something to show for it, if that money had been spent on building up our infrastructure and how China is so far ahead of us on that issue. That interview was definiately the best one I have seen, and it really gave an excellent glimpse into this man and what he hopes to achieve, and just confirmed for me how right he is for this country.
I am putting this election into God's hands. What is meant to be will be. But I am very concerned about the whole election process. There have already been instances of problems with the machines. In West Virginia, the machines were flipping votes from Obama to McCain, and I do anticipate lots more problems like that. It's going to be close either way.
Hang in there, gourdpainter. Hopefully, we'll both be able to get some sleep when this is all over. 
No dear, that would be words of wisdom!!
xx
"The wisdom of the Clinton Presidency..."
ohhhhh to quote reville guffaw guffaw GUFFAW guffaw lol
Wisdom and humor too. A winning combination.
nm
"There you go." A Reagan-esque pearl of wisdom.
Remarkable how a child's viewpoint can often offer wisdom
nm
And George showed SO MUCH experience and wisdom when he first took office, right?????....sm
He got in on Daddy's coat tails and by and large had Daddy's former administration aides and cabinet members calling the shots and try to cover his idiocy. When is everyone coming out of denial about this past administration?
Good thing we have PSYCHIC wisdom on the board
:-(
...even 'more' wisdom to outsmart you envious pubs...nm
nm
You should explain your wisdom to Harold Ford and John Tanner.
These lawmakers obviously have no idea what it truly means.
The way I read it is as nothing more than a badly worded symbolic gesture of no real significance other than to *express the sense of Congress.*
You're entitled to agree with the lone 19 Republicans regarding our troops.
I choose to agree with the vast majority who are *expressing* that they support our troops, particularly Ford and Tanner, whose comments are below.
Ford and Tanner said they strongly support the troops. But they noted that current Iraqi government leaders reportedly are considering granting amnesty to Iraqis who killed U.S. troops as acts of resistance and defense of their homeland. They cannot support a government that would grant such amnesty, Ford and Tanner said in written statements.
Ford, a U.S. Senate candidate, called the Republican resolution a gimmick that fails to recognize that 'stay the course' is not working and that amnesty for terrorists is unforgivable.
I trust him
and I think we're all going to be very surprised at what comes out in the Libby trial, and I don't think the dems and their cohorts in the mainstream media are going to come out in a good light.
BTW, I love how you state your opinion as fact. You should get a job in the MSM. They would love you.
Trust
but Verify - Ronald Reagan considered a great pres by repubs. They don;t often mention the rest fo the statement "the cake will be there when you return."
trust
and what do you REALLY mean by your reply??
trust you?
dont' think so. I dont care what Obama's religion is or how he was raised. I dont care if his preacher did preach racist comments. That does not make it okay for you to be racist, or for me to be racist. Just because someone else may be ignorant doesnt make it okay for you to be ignorant. You talk about change, or doing something about prejudice, what are YOU doing? You arent trying to stop it by getting on here and BEING prejudice. So get over yourself please! I mean, come one are you 5? Didn't mommy teach you that just because someone does something mean to you, it's not okay to do it back? Grow up. And as far as Acorn is concerned, just because they slap some pictures of black people that are related to Acorn, doesnt mean that it is a racist group. Did they do something wrong with the votes? I believe so. Does it mean they are racist? NO. Geeze, people get a life.
I don't trust EITHER of them but
McCain flapping his wings and crowing about "when I was in the Hanoi Hilton," etc.etc, completely turned me off. Not that I didn't and don't respect his service to the country, I was already aware of it and his constant crowing made it sound a tad too much like bragging or tooting his own horn for my liking. Then when he appointed Palin as his running mate, that REALLY blew it.
Now about Palin. The fact that she has no "experience in Washington" is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned. I have called her an "airhead" and continue to do so. Is she really an airhead? None of us really know. Her speech at the Republican convention was obviously scripted. She delivered it well. Then they would not let the media at her for (wishfully) unscripted interviews until they had had at her for brainwashing. Then they set her out as a pit bull attacking Obama...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE. She continues with her pre-programmed speeches. She might be the sweetest cookie on the sheet but we'll never know. She ALLOWED herself to be programmed into what she is. A reformer? I think not. Had she have been a true reformer, once she was appointed, she might have come out swinging with something like, "look, folks, I'm running on the Republican ticket but I don't agree with them and I don't agree with the Democrat leadership either. Here is what I will TRY to do for you......" It would have given the RNC heart failure but I, for one, would have voted for her, not McCain. As I see it, Palin=McCain=Bush and we don't need 4 more days of Bush policies, much less 4 more years.
Who can you trust?
Weapons of mass destruction. Patriot Act. Wire taping. Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo Bay. Fannie and Freddie. Bernanke and Paulson. Bush and Cheney............
Trust me, he definitely did not want
tainly did not remain neutral, after all, he does report for CNN remember. It will definitely be one-sided.
Oh trust me....
our ball park is a smoke free area and there are still those smokers who think it is okay to smoke. When I'm anywhere near cigarette smoke my sinuses clog up and I get a major headache. It irritates me that I can't even watch my 5 y/o's T-ball games without a major headache from some inconsiderate twit who can't follow the no smoking rules.
Trust me....(sm)
It was not the LGBT community's idea to put this to a vote. Why would you think that they would do that when they are an obvious minority? That idea came from evangelicans, and the advertising before the vote was bought and paid for by the religious community.
Just keep in mind...if they had brought the subject of whether or not women had the right to vote in this country to a popular vote, it probably would not have passed.
Trust me, .- aka ( ) aka P******
with a new e-mail address and a new monicker but the same disruptive style (which is getting pretty easy to recognize). She needs a new hobby, or a library card or something else to occupy her time. Maybe nobody else will play with her? I think the best way to handle this is not open her posts and definitel never respond to them.
Hmm, I would say most do not trust government.sm
Fear and paranoia are a given, they instill it in us 24/7. Viewership of MSM outlets is way down, so I guess Fox would be #1 with just Bush supporters. I want truth and accountability from the media and our elected officials period. I dumped the Republican party because we are not getting truth or accountability. I will vote for the first candidate that does something about it.
Politicians - I don't trust ANY of them
Especially ones who will have anything to do with Clintons (both of them) or any of Clintons cabinet people.
Sure as h--- can't trust McPain.
He'll have the middle class in complete shambles, a war in Iran, forget an education for your kids, infrastructure will be in shambles as now, and oil will still be our staple. No change, just more BS.
I trust him to smile
charmingly when someone puts one of the silly distraction issues to him. He brushes it off and continues to work on plans for correcting the financial disaster brought about by McClain's deregulation legislation with Phil Gramm, ending the senseless war, and the dozens of other serious issues that we are facing.
Polls mean nothing. Don't trust them. - sm
Polls have always been used by the media to sway people to vote one way or the other. I have no idea how they can even count them as reputible. The real poll is when people vote and I have never heard anyone say that they are voting a certain way because of the polls. What we are hearing on the news is made up to fit whichever news station you ware watching and from what I see and read on the internet the polls change hourly.
Do you trust Obama ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_XtTh_ddE
Who asked you to trust me? (sm)
I really don't care if you trust me or not. That's just rediculous. Don't trust me...look something up for a change. I'm simply stating facts. What you need to do is just admit you got busted and quit digging yourself into a deeper hole. 
He has my respect, but not my trust....
he needs to EARN that and show us what he is made of. This, to me, was more of a vote against republicans than a vote for Obama; had the economy not tanked as badly, he wouldn't have had a chance. I do wish him well, as he is getting into a mess even bigger than he anticipated. We are all Americans first and should stand behind our president.
Trust factor
You know, Sam, I don't know if Obama is trustworthy or not. I don't know him and I don't know John McCain. I think we would all do well to keep an eye on the direction of our country. I really, really thought McCain would end up in the White House but with the landslide electorate vote I don't see any way that could possibly happen now. Maybe it would be a good idea to get to work on doing away with the electorate. The popular vote should be enough. It appears to me that elections are decided really just by a few states.
Sooooooo I'm not really sure that we have time to worry about whether we trust the new president or not. I don't trust any politicians but the cards have been dealt and there's plenty we all need to do.
I think anyone should have to earn trust....
and respect. I know what John McCain is and what he is not, from his voting record and his history. I know what Barack Obama is from his own books, his life and his voting history. Obama threw a lot of his previous life under the bus as each issue was raised because it would have been a roadblock to his candidacy. I find that dishonest and lacking in integrity.
All that being said...it is up to him alone to either solidify my opinion of him or change it. But I am not jumping on his bandwagon simply because he won the election.
:)
That's OK. I'm sure you can put your trust in fine,
*
Trust me, what JTBB has to say is far
nm
In Congress We Trust....NOT
SIBEL EDMONDS: In Congress We Trust...Not
The former FBI translator and whistleblower suggests blackmail may be at the heart of Congressional refusal to bring accountability and oversight to its own members - such as both Hastert and Harman - in matters of espionage and national security
Exclusive to The BRAD BLOG...
Posted By Sibel Edmonds On 4th May 2009 @ 13:41 In Dennis Hastert, NSA, National Security, Mainstream Media Failure, Accountability, U.S. House, FBI, Henry Waxman, U.S. Senate, Nancy Pelosi, Bush Legacy, Jane Harman | 54 Comments
Guest Editorial by Sibel Edmonds
I have been known to quote long-dead men in my past writings. Whether eloquently expressed thoughts by our founding fathers, or those artfully expressed by ancient Greek thinkers, these quotes have always done a better job starting or ending my thoughts - that tend to be expressed in long winding sentences. For this piece I am going to break with tradition and start with an appropriate quote from a living current senator, John Kerry: "It's a sad day when you have members of Congress who are literally criminals go undisciplined by their colleagues. No wonder people look at Washington and know this city is broken."
The people do indeed look at Washington and know that this city is 'badly' broken, Senator Kerry. The public confidence in our Congress has been declining drastically. Recent poll results [1] highlight how the American people's trust in their Congress has hit rock bottom. A survey of progressive blogs easily confirms the rage rightfully directed at our Congress for abdicating its role of oversight and accountability. Activists scream about promised hearings that never took place - without explanation. They express outrage when investigations are dropped without any justification. And they genuinely wonder out loud why, especially after they helped secure a major victory for the Democrats. The same Democrats who had for years pointed fingers at their big bad Republican majority colleagues as the main impediment preventing them from fulfilling what was expected of them.
The recent stunning but not unexpected revelations [2] regarding Jane Harman (D-CA) by the Congressional Quarterly provide us with a little glimpse into one of the main reasons behind the steady decline in the integrity of Congress. But the story is almost dead - ready to bite the dust, thanks to our mainstream media's insistence on burying 'real' issues or stories that delve deep into the causes of our nation's continuous downward slide. In this particular case, the 'thank you' should also be extended to certain blogosphere propagandists who, blinded by their partisanship, myopic in their assessments, and ignorant in their knowledge of the inner workings of our late Congress and intelligence agencies, helped in the post-burial cremation of this case.
Ironically but understandably, the Harman case has become one of rare unequivocal bipartisanship, when no one from either side of the partisan aisle utters a word. How many House or Senate Republicans have you heard screaming, or even better, calling for an investigation? The right wing remains silent. Some may have their hand, directly or indirectly, in the same AIPAC cookie jar. Others may still feel the heavy baggage of their own party's tainted colleagues; after all, they have had their share of Abramoffs, Hasterts and the like, silently lurking in the background, albeit dimmer every day. Some on the left, after an initial silence that easily could have been mistaken for shock, are jumping from one foot to the other, like a cat on a hot tin roof, making one excuse after another; playing the 'victims of Executive Branch eavesdropping' card, the same very 'evil doing' they happened to support vehemently. Some have been dialing their trusted guardian angels within the mainstream media and certain fairly visible alternative outlets. They need no longer worry, since these guardian angels seem to have blacked out the story, and have done so without the apparent need for much arm twisting...
Hastert Redux
I am going to rewind and take you back to September 2005, when Vanity Fair published an article [3], which, in addition to my case and the plight of National Security Whistleblowers, exposed the dark side of the then Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert (R-IL), and the corroborated allegations of his illegal activities involving foreign agents and interests.
Vanity Fair printed the story only after they made certain they were on sure footing in the face of any possible libel by lining up more than five credible sources, and after triple pit-bull style fact-checking. They were vindicated; Hastert did not dare go after them, nor did he ever issue any true denial. Moreover, further vindication occurred only a month ago. On April 10, 2009, The Hill reported [4] that the Former Speaker of the House was contracted to lobby for Turkey. The Justice Department record on this deal indicates that Hastert will now be "principally involved" on a $35,000-a-month contract providing representation for Turkish interests. That seems to be the current arrangement for those serving foreign interests while on the job in Congress --- to be paid at a later date, collecting on their IOU's when they secure their positions with 'the foreign lobby.'
In a recent article [5] for American Conservative Magazine, Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer stationed in Turkey, made the following point: "Edmonds's claims have never been pursued, presumably because there are so many skeletons in both parties' closets. She has been served with a state-secrets gag order to make sure that what she knows is never revealed, a restriction that the new regime in Washington has not lifted."
And then, he hits the nail on its head: "In Hastert's case, it certainly should be a matter of public concern that a senior elected representative who may have received money from a foreign country is now officially lobbying on its behalf. How many other congressmen might have similar relationships with foreign countries and lobbying groups, providing them with golden parachutes for their retirement?"
Congress went mum on my case after the Vanity Fair story, with, of course, the mainstream media making it very easy for them. They turned bipartisan in not pursuing the case, with the same zeal as they have, so far, not pursued the Harman case. Similarly, the mainstream media is happily letting it all disappear.
I was not aware that during the publication of the Hastert story in Vanity Fair, Jane Harman's AIPAC case was already brewing in the background. Moreover, one of the very few people in Congress who was notified about Harman was none other than Hastert --- the man himself. The same Hastert, who in addition to being one of several high-ranking officials targeted by FBI counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations, was also known to be directly involved in several other high profile scandals: from his intimate involvement in the Abramoff scandal [6], to the Rep. William Jefferson scandal [7]; from his 'Land Deal' scandal [8] - where he cashed in millions off his position while "serving", to the 2006 House Page scandal [9].
All for One, One for All?
How does it work? How do these people escape the consequences of accountability? Are we talking about the possible use of blackmail by the Executive Branch against Congressional representatives, as if the days of J. Edgar Hoover were never over? Cases such as NSA illegal eavesdropping come to mind, when Congressional members were briefed long before it became public, yet none took any action or even uttered a word; members of both parties. Or is it more likely to be a case of secondhand blackmail, where members of Congress watch out for each other? Or, is it a combination of the above? Regardless, we see this 'all for one, one for all' kind of solidarity in Congress when it comes to criminal conduct and scandals such as those of Hastert and Harman.
Although at an initial glance, based on the wiretapping angle, the Harman case may appear to involve blackmailing --- or a milder version, exploitation of Congress by the Executive Branch --- deeper analysis would suggest even further implications, where Congressional members themselves use the incriminating information against each other to prevent pursuit or investigation of cases that they may be directly or indirectly involved in. Let me give you an example based on the Hastert case mentioned earlier:
In 2004 and 2005 I had several meetings with Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) investigative and legal staff. Two of these meetings took place inside a high-security SCIF [10], where details and classified information pertaining to my case and those involved could be discussed.
I was told, and at the time I believed it to be the case, that the Republican majority was preventing further action - such as holding a public hearing on my whistleblower revelations. Once the Democrats took over in 2006, that barrier was removed, or so I thought.
In March 2007, I was contacted by one of Rep. Waxman's staff people who felt responsible and conscientious enough to at least let me know that there would never be a hearing into my case by their office, or for that matter, any Democratic office in the House. Based on his/her account, in February 2007 Waxman's office was preparing the necessary ingredients for their promised hearing, but in mid-March the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called Waxman into a meeting on the case, and after Waxman came out of that twenty-minute meeting, he told his staff 'we are no longer involved in Edmonds' case.' And so they became 'uninvolved.'
What was discussed during that meeting? The facts regarding the FBI's pursuit [11] of Hastert, and certain other representatives, were bound to come out in any Congressional hearing into my case. Now we know that Hastert and Pelosi were both informed of Harman's role in a related case involving counterespionage investigation of AIPAC. Is it possible that Pelosi asked Waxman to lay off my case in order to protect a few of their own in an equally scandalous case? Was there a deal made between the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House to keep this and other related scandals hushed? Will we ever know the answer to these questions? Most likely not, considering the current state of our mainstream media.
And the victims remain the same: The American people who have entrusted their Congress with the role of ensuring oversight and accountability.
This kind of infestation touches everyone in Congress; one need not have a skeleton of his own to get sucked into the swamp of those infested. Does Waxman have to be a sinner to take part in the sin committed by the Hasterts and Harmans of Congress? Certainly not. On the other hand, he and others like him will abide by the un-pledged oath of 'solidarity with your party members' and 'loyalty to your dear colleagues.'
Rotten at its Core
Back to the enablers: How can we explain the continued blackout by the mainstream media, and/or, the logic-free defenses of the Harmans and Hasterts alike by the apologist spinners --- some of whom pass as the 'alternative' media? Some are committing what they rightfully accused the previous administration and their pawns of doing: cherry picking the facts, then, spin, spin, and spin until the real issue becomes blurry and unrecognizable. The conspiracy angle aimed at the timing; Porter Goss' possible beef with Jane Harman; accusing the truth divulgers, CQ sources, of being 'conspirators' with ulterior motives; portraying Harman as an outspoken vigilante on torture. And if those sound too lame to swallow, they throw in a few evil names from the foggy past of Dusty the Foggo man! If the issue and its implications weren't so serious, these spins of reality would certainly make a Pulitzer-worthy satire.
Let's take the issue of timing. First of all, the story was reported [12], albeit not comprehensively, by TIME magazine years ago. It took a tenacious journalist, more importantly a journalist that could have been trusted by the Intel sources to give it real coverage. It is also possible that the sources who leaked in the Harman case got fed up and disillusioned by the absence of a real investigation and decided to 'really' talk. After all, the AIPAC espionage case was dropped [13] by the Justice Department's prosecutors within two weeks of the Harman revelations.
Same could be said about the Hastert story. At the time, many asked why the story was not told during the earlier stages of my case. It took three years for me and other FBI and DOJ sources to exhaust all channels; Congressional inquiry, IG investigation, and the courts. Those who initially were not willing to come forward and corroborate the details opened up to the Vanity Fair journalist, David Rose, in 2005.
Now let's look at the 'blackmail' and 'Goss Plot' angles. Of course the 'blackmail' scenario is possible; in fact, highly possible. We all can picture one of the President's men in the White House pulling an opposing Congressional member aside and whispering 'if I were you, Congressman, I'd stop pushing. I understand, as we speak, my Justice Department is looking into certain activities you've been engaged in.'
We all can imagine, easily, a high-ranking Justice Department official having a 'discreet' meeting with a member of Congress who's been pushing for a certain investigation of certain department officials for criminal deeds, and saying, 'dear Congresswoman, we are aware of your role in a certain scandal, and are still pondering whether we should turn this into a direct investigation of you and appoint a special prosecutor…'
But, let's not forget, the misuse of incriminating information, for the purpose of blackmail, does not turn the practitioner of the wrongful deed into a victim, nor does it make the wrongful criminal deed less wrong. Instead of spinning the story, taking away attention from the facts in hand, and making Harman a victim, we must focus on this case, on Harman, as an example of a very serious disease that has infected our Congress for far too long. Those who have been entrusted with the oversight and accountability of our government cannot do so if they are vulnerable to such blackmail from the very same people they are overseeing…Period.
Those who have been elected to represent the people and their interests cannot pursue their own greed and ambitions by engaging in criminal or unethical activities against the interests of the same people they've sworn to represent, and then be given a pass.
As for far-reaching ties such as Harman's stand on torture, or a specific beef with former CIA Director Porter Goss, or wild shots from the hip in bringing up mafia-like characters such as Dusty Foggo; please don't make us laugh! Are we talking about the same Hawkish Pro-Secrecy Jane Harman here?! Harman's staunch support of NSA Wiretapping of Americans, the FISA Amendment of 2008, the Patriot ACT, the War on Iraq, and many other activities on the Civil Liberties' No-No list, is widely recognized by almost everyone, apparently, but the authors of the recent apologist spin.
And, let's not forget to add her own long-term cozy relationship with AIPAC, and the large donations she's received from various other AIPAC-related pro-Israeli PACs. To these certain 'wannabe' journalists, driven by far from pure agenda(s), shame on you; as for honor-worthy vigilant activists out there: watch out for these impostors with their newly gained popularity among those tainted in Washington, and take a hard look at whose agendas [14] they are serving as a mouthpiece for.
Despite a certain degree of exposure, cases such as Harman's and Hastert's, involving corruption of public officials, seem to meet the same dead-end. Criminal conduct, by powerful foreign entities, against our national interest, is given a pass, as was recently proven by the abandonment of the AIPAC spy case. The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of blackout by our mainstream media seem now to have been almost universally accepted as a fact of life.
Pursuit of cases such as mine, via cosmetically available channels, has been, and continues to be proven futile for whistleblowers.
Therefore, you may want to ask, why in the world am I writing this piece? Because more and more people --- although not nearly enough --- are coming to the realization that our system is rotten at it's core; that in many cases we have been trying to deal with the symptoms rather than the cause.
I, like many others, believed that changing the Congressional majority in 2006 was going to bring about some of the needed changes; the pursuit of accountability being one. We were proven wrong. In 2008, many genuinely bought in to the promise of change, and thus far, they've been let down.
These experiences are disheartening, surely, but they are also eye-opening. I do see many vigilant activists who continue the fight. As long as that's the case, there is hope. More people realize that real change will require not replacing one or two or three, but many more. More people are coming to understand that the road to achieving government of the people passes through a Congress, but not the one currently occupied by the many crusty charlatans who represent only self-interest --- achieved by representing the interests of the few, rather than the majority of the people of this nation. And so I write.
Here I go again, rather than ending this in a long paragraph or two, I will let another long-gone man do it shortly and effectively: "If we have Senators and Congressmen there that can't protect themselves against the evil temptations of lobbyists, we don't need to change our lobbies, we need to change our representatives." - Will Rogers
==
Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and noted whistleblower who has been under a years-long "gag order", prohibiting her from discussing many details of her allegations of corruption and espionage gleaned during her time at the FBI, due to the continuing "States Secrets privilege" assertions by the Executive Branch. Her own story has been partially documented over the last several years in several different media outlets, including a lead story on CBS' 60 Minutes [15], a detailed feature in Vanity Fair [16] and, over the years, in a number of exclusive articles here at The BRAD BLOG [17]. She is the Founder and President of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. [18]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com
URL to article: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7117
URLs in this post:
[1] results: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0708/p...uspo.html.com/
[2] revelations: http://static.cqpolitics.com/harman-3098436-page1.html
[3] article: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9774.htm
[4] reported: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...r-turkey-2009-
04-10.html
[5] article: http://amconmag.com/article/2009/may/04/00016/
[6] scandal: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...l_officia.html
[7] scandal: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/...son/index.html
[8] scandal: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1740900.shtml
[9] scandal: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/wa....html?_r=2&hp
8;ex=1160020800&en=a3fbb0550d8f4163&ei=5094&partne r=homepage
[10] SCIF: http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_te...i=55745,00.asp
[11] FBI's pursuit: http://www.nswbc.org/Press Releases/PressRelease-March5-07.htm
[12] reported: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...549069,00.html
[13] dropped: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...e_dropped.html
[14] agendas: http://blogs.jta.org/politics/articl...orter-goss-fin
ger-jane-harman
[15] lead story on CBS' 60 Minutes: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in526954.shtml
[16] feature in Vanity Fair: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9774.htm
[17] articles here at The BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=58
[18] National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.: http://nswb.org
|
