Green Mtn
location: Observing the Progressive madness with considerably less amusement.
listening to: Grandchildren, the best reason for saving the future.
registered: 2004.04.03
posts: 2617
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
Presently, the author has a book coming out on this topic.
Having heard her interviewed today, I thought of yall.
respects
article | posted October 26, 2005 (November 14,
2005
issue)
The White House Criminal Conspiracy
Elizabeth de la Vega
Legally, there are no significant differences between the
investor fraud perpetrated by Enron CEO Ken Lay and the
prewar intelligence fraud perpetrated by George W. Bush. Both
involved persons in authority who used half-truths and
recklessly false statements to manipulate people who trusted
them. There is, however, a practical difference: The
presidential fraud is wider in scope and far graver in its
consequences than the Enron fraud. Yet thus far the public
seems paralyzed.
In response to the outcry raised by Enron and other
scandals,
Congress passed the Corporate Corruption Bill, which
President Bush signed on July 30, 2002, amid great fanfare.
Bush declared that he was signing the bill because of his
strong belief that corporate officers must be straightforward
and honest. If they were not, he said, they would be held
accountable.
Ironically, the day Bush signed the Corporate Corruption
Bill,
he and his aides were enmeshed in an orchestrated campaign
to trick the country into taking the biggest risk imaginable--a
war. Indeed, plans to attack Iraq were already in motion. In
June Bush announced his "new" pre-emptive strike strategy.
On July 23, 2002, the head of British intelligence advised
Prime Minister Tony Blair, in the then-secret Downing Street
Memo, that "military action was now seen as inevitable" and
that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy." Bush had also authorized the transfer of $700 million
from Afghanistan war funds to prepare for an invasion of Iraq.
Yet all the while, with the sincerity of Marc Antony protesting
that "Brutus is an honorable man," Bush insisted he wanted
peace.
Americans may have been unaware of this deceit then,
but
they have since learned the truth. According to a Washington
Post/ABC News poll conducted in June, 52 percent of
Americans now believe the President deliberately distorted
intelligence to make a case for war. In an Ipsos Public Affairs
poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org and completed
October 9, 50 percent said that if Bush lied about his reasons
for going to war Congress should consider impeaching him.
The President's deceit is not only an abuse of power; it is a
federal crime. Specifically, it is a violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to
defraud the United States.
So what do citizens do? First, ...
continued at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/
delavegaFair Warning: ya might want to consider her credentials.
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
G
Green Mtn
(view)
Presently, the author has a book coming out on this topic.
Having heard her interviewed today, I thought of yall.
respects
article | posted October 26, 2005 (November 14,
2005
issue)
The White House Criminal Conspiracy
Elizabeth de la Vega
Legally, there are no significant differences between the
investor fraud perpetrated by Enron CEO Ken Lay and the
prewar intelligence fraud perpetrated by George W. Bush. Both
involved persons in authority who used half-truths and
recklessly false statements to manipulate people who trusted
them. There is, however, a practical difference: The
presidential fraud is wider in scope and far graver in its
consequences than the Enron fraud. Yet thus far the public
seems paralyzed.
In response to the outcry raised by Enron and other
scandals,
Congress passed the Corporate Corruption Bill, which
President Bush signed on July 30, 2002, amid great fanfare.
Bush declared that he was signing the bill because of his
strong belief that corporate officers must be straightforward
and honest. If they were not, he said, they would be held
accountable.
Ironically, the day Bush signed the Corporate Corruption
Bill,
he and his aides were enmeshed in an orchestrated campaign
to trick the country into taking the biggest risk imaginable--a
war. Indeed, plans to attack Iraq were already in motion. In
June Bush announced his "new" pre-emptive strike strategy.
On July 23, 2002, the head of British intelligence advised
Prime Minister Tony Blair, in the then-secret Downing Street
Memo, that "military action was now seen as inevitable" and
that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy." Bush had also authorized the transfer of $700 million
from Afghanistan war funds to prepare for an invasion of Iraq.
Yet all the while, with the sincerity of Marc Antony protesting
that "Brutus is an honorable man," Bush insisted he wanted
peace.
Americans may have been unaware of this deceit then,
but
they have since learned the truth. According to a Washington
Post/ABC News poll conducted in June, 52 percent of
Americans now believe the President deliberately distorted
intelligence to make a case for war. In an Ipsos Public Affairs
poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org and completed
October 9, 50 percent said that if Bush lied about his reasons
for going to war Congress should consider impeaching him.
The President's deceit is not only an abuse of power; it is a
federal crime. Specifically, it is a violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to
defraud the United States.
So what do citizens do? First, ...
continued at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/
delavegaFair Warning: ya might want to consider her credentials.
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
