posted May 04, 2006 07:00 PM              

quote:

---

Why, if you are right, if you are alerting the American public about the outrageous mind control conspiracy..and others which circulate widely through the Internet and some radio shows...then how do you account for you and others not being parked in prison or mental institutions rotting your rears off?

---

For what?

Stating my opinion?

They don't work that way.

That would be infringing on my "freedom of speech," for all the world to see....

...besides...I'm small potatoes...one little voice crying in the wilderness....

I am NOT a 'whistle blower." I am instead a messenger.

Whistle blowers ARE in danger, and some HAVE been 'knocked off!' ( i.e. hit. ) ...as well as those in power who have attempted to thwart the progress of the NWO...

Can you say JFK? RKF? JFK JR? Paul Wellstone? William Cooper? Shall I go on?

And why haven't Cathy and Mark been sued by all those mentioned in the books as mind controllers, torturers, drug runners, murderers and more?

I'll let Cathy tell you.....

quote:

---

Mark and I finally got our well documented book entitled TRANCE Formation of America published, complete with irrefutable graphic details which are in themselves evidence to present to Congress, all the factions of law enforcement including the FBI, CIA, DIA, DEA, TBI, NSA, ETC., all major news media groups, national and international human rights advocates, both American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations, the National Institute of Mental Health, and more....to no avail.

TRANCE thoroughly exposes many of the perpe-TRAITORS and their agenda replete with names which raises the question "why haven't we been sued?"

The obvious answer is that same "national security act" that continues to block our access to all avenues of justice and public exposure, also prevents these criminals from inevitabley bringing mind control to light through court procedures, an opportunity we would welcome.

---

From TRANCE Formation of America - 13th printing...on page 242..part of the time line...

posted May 04, 2006 11:26 PM              

Page 129....

posted May 05, 2006 12:04 AM              

There was the "whistle blower" who didn't get the chance to blow the whistle.....

His name was Danny Casolaro....

He wound up "suicided."

Danny was a reporter getting ready to expose what he referred to as "The Octopus" due to the different tentacles of corruption emanating from the Executive Branch of the Pentagon.

He said "The Octopus' was the biggest story to ever break in this country. He believed it would re-establish Constitiutional values of truth and justice by exposing high level criminals.

But guess what?

Danny Casolaro was found dead in a motel bathtub with his wrists cut.

A brief suicide note was found in place of his "Octopus" manuscript.

Shortly before this happened, he called his brother to tell him he had the evidence.

*sigh*

posted May 05, 2006 12:33 AM              

Gannon is a running joke with legitimate news men and women. On an interview on T.V. one night a reporter said it is hard as hell for reporters to get into the White House even for news conferences, which are normally held in the morning. He talked about how reporters had to have a clearance and a special card to allow them access. Which explains why we get very little truths from the corporate owned media and instead only Bush propaganda.

Yet, this reporter went on to say, Gannon came and went at all times of the day and night without even having to show a pass. He said the security people in the White House knew Gannon by sight he was there so often. He also stated that he has never heard of any press conference or any meeting at the White House that took place in late evening. *nudge, nudge* *wink, wink*

This stuff about Gannon is yet another thing the REAL world knows but is unheard of by Bush supporters such as Jwhop who only get their news from Fox News, Newsmax, and other conservative media.

posted May 05, 2006 12:43 AM              

Particularly take note of Scott McClellan's little side shuffle in the news conference. It was not long after this that McClellan resigned.

On Monday, March 27, The New York Times ran a story on the "White House Memo" which detailed the two-hour meeting between President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair held in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, where they discussed ways to mislead the public and government officials of their respective countries into supporting President Bush's pre-determined plan to invade Iraq.

Both Bush and Blair acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, so Bush went so far as to propose painting a U.S. spy plane in United Nations colors and flying it at low altitude over Iraq to provoke the Iraqis into firing on the plane and thus give justification for his "war of choice."

All the while, the American and British people were being told that war with Iraq was a "last resort," as war of any kind should be.

Also during this time, Congress and the American people were being told on a daily basis by Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and the Bush White House that our country and its allies were under "imminent threat" of attack by WMDs from Iraq. The Times story also mentioned the "Downing Street Memo," released to the public in May 2005, detailing a July 23, 2002, meeting which took place at Blair's office in London. In that meeting, high level members of the Blair administration were reporting back to Blair on their meetings with their Bush administration counterparts and stating that Bush had already decided to invade Iraq and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

In its March 28 editorial, The News-Journal reminded us of the more than 30,000 Iraqis and 2,531 coalition soldiers killed and asked an important question: "If deception on such a consequential scale isn't an impeachable offense, what is?"

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEMO SAYS:

President Bush to Tony Blair: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach"

Bush: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated."

Blair: "A second Security Council Resolution resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected and international cover, including with the Arabs. "

Bush: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.''

Blair responds that he is: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."

Bush told Blair he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."

Something remarkable happened Monday: the Corporate Media finally got sick of Bush's endless lies about Iraq, and started to tell the truth.

The immediate cause was a front-page New York Times story about the "White House Memo," a 5-page report on the White House meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair on January 31, 2003 - seven weeks before the invasion of Iraq.

At that time, millions of us were protesting around the world. We all knew Bush wanted war - that's why we were protesting! - but Bush insisted publicly that he did not, and the Corporate Media let him get away with his lies.

The "White House Memo" proves that Bush was lying - saying one thing in public while saying the opposite in private. In private, he told Tony Blair that war was inevitable, and that it didn't matter if WMD's were found or if the U.N. adopted a resolution actually authorizing the invasion.

In fact, Bush was so desperate for war that he proposed painting a U.S. spy plane with U.N. colors and flying it over Iraq to provoke an attack. But even if Saddam refused the bait, Bush told Blair the bombing would begin on March 10. Bush wanted war, no matter what.

The Times article caused White House reporters to challenge Scott McClellan at the morning press gaggle. And in the evening, the "White House Memo" was featured on two key cable shows - Hardball with Chris Matthews and Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

In a follow up for -- from this morning's briefing, I said that the President was aware in the run-up to the war that there were no weapons -- no weapons -- unconventional weapons had been found, and you sort of denied that it was in the memo.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, this morning you said that the President was aware there were no weapons of mass destruction. And that is not what that article spelled out.

Q This is what it -- the memo says: The President and Prime Minister acknowledge that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq in the run-up to the war.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, let me remind you and take you back to that time period, because there was a U.N. weapons inspection team that was looking at these issues. And that team put out I think some sort of interim report back in December of '02, and that report showed that the regime was not coming clean. And we said at that time that the regime was continuing its pattern of non-cooperation and that if they continued --

Q They also said they didn't find any weapons.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- if they continued down that path, then we were prepared to use force. The President pursued a diplomatic solution. That's why we went to the United Nations. That's why we passed a 17th resolution that called on the regime to disclose or face serious consequences.

Q The memo says he wanted a war, basically that he was determined, and there were no weapons found.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, that's not an accurate assessment, and you know it. Because you covered --

Q Is this memo wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you covered us at that time period. And let me remind you, go back to that time period, look at the public comments that were made, look at the numerous statements that were made by the President of the United States. We were continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution, but we recognized that it was necessary to prepare and plan accordingly in the event we would need to use force, and that's what we were doing at that time, as well.

But Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, and he continued to defy the international community -- even when he was given one final opportunity, or face serious consequences. So let's not rewrite history. It was very clear what was going on at the time.

Q Is this memo correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't -- I haven't seen that memo, Helen.

Q You haven't seen The New York Times' memo?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've seen The New York Times.

David Gregory with a rare follow-up. Methinks our press corps is learning.

Q Well, let me just follow on that. There's nothing in there that suggests that this is not an accurate reflection of a conversation that the President had with Prime Minister Blair, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that our public and private comments are fully consistent.

Q And therefore the guts of this appears to be accurate?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what you're talking about "guts" of. Let's be specific in what we're talking about.

Q Well, comments made about the inevitability of war, the President's feeling about that at one --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the President was making numerous public comments at the time, David. You covered those comments. The use of force was a last option, but we recognized that it was necessary --

Q It was his mind frame, though.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- to prepare and plan, and that's what we were doing at the time. And if you go and look at the public comments at the time, going back to late in the fall and winter period of 2002, on into 2003, we were making it very clear what the regime needed to do. And if it didn't do it, we were prepared to enforce the Security Council Resolution 1441, which called for serious consequences.

Q It didn't call for going to war.

Q Let me ask you a more fundamental question. The President -- according to this report of this memo -- said to Prime Minister Blair that he didn't expect that there would be any sectarian violence. That's obviously proven -- he was disproven. That is, in fact, the case that there is sectarian violence. Some worry about the prospects of civil war.

My question, though, is the President's judgments, this administration's judgments about the war that did not come to pass, that created a credibility problem with the American people with regard to how they view this war, does that not hurt the President when he now says, we need patience and we have to persevere?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, you made a very long statement there, and I'm not accepting the premise of the beginning of your question that that's an accurate reflection of things. We've talked about what we anticipated and what we didn't anticipate and what we prepared for.

We are working to transform a troubled region of the world, and that goes directly to our own security. The Middle East has been a breeding ground for terrorism. We had a false sense of stability because of previous foreign policies of previous administrations. This President made the decision after September 11th that we were going to take a comprehensive approach to the war on terrorism, and that we were going to work to spread freedom.

Q You're getting off point.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it's very much on point.

Q Well, if I was too long-winded, let me just -- let me just be more precise.

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure.

Q The President assumed incorrectly, hindsight tells us, that there would not be sectarian violence after the invasion. Is that correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there were certain things that we anticipated, and certain things that we didn't anticipate. The President has talked publicly about what some of those were. And we've also worked to adapt and adjust to circumstances on the ground. Any time you're engaged in a war -- and the President talked about this issue last week -- things aren't going to go necessarily according to the plans. You've got to be flexible, you've got to be able to adapt and adjust to the circumstances on the ground. And that's exactly what we have done.

Q Scott, had the President decided on the 31st of January to go to war with Iraq regardless of whether there was a second U.N. resolution, and regardless of whether weapons of mass destruction were found?

MR. McCLELLAN: We were preparing in case it was going to be necessary, but we were continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution in that 2003 time period. And all the -- there was a lot of public comments made at the time, leading up to the decision to go in and use force, and remember, even 48 hours before we began Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam Hussein and his sons were given one final opportunity to leave the country and avoid serious consequences.

Q So would you dispute what's in this memo, which says that, in fact, that decision had been made by January the 31st, and say that the President had not decided to go to war?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I was asked that earlier, and I think I addressed that when I just said we were continuing to pursue a diplomatic course. You can go back and look at all the public comments at the time. The President made numerous public comments. You can look at other officials in the administration and what we were saying, but Saddam Hussein -- that's why I pointed back to -- remember, there's a December report, or interim report by the weapons inspector, the United Nations weapons inspector, and it showed that the regime was not coming clean.

We said that they were continuing their pattern of non-cooperation at the time. And we also made it very clear that war was the last option, but if the regime was not going to come clean, then we were prepared to move forward and use force.

Q Did the President talk about several ways to provoke a confrontation with Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I addressed that question when Ed asked his question.

Hooookay. Scottie says that the president made several public statements about pursuing a diplomatic solution to the problem of Iraq, so when faced with clear evidence he had secretly decided to go to war no matter what happened we should ignore that evidence and focus on what the president said in public. Whatever.

Time for a little reality denial.

Q Is there a widening rift between U.S. and Iraqi forces? There seems to be a huge difference of opinion over the raid that took place, and even whether it was a mosque. And I was wondering, is the President concerned about this? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that you ought to look to our military, in terms of what the facts are on the ground. Our military put out a statement earlier. I don't know if they provided additional briefings at this point; I've been in some meetings with the President. But I'm not going to get into trying to discuss the situation on the ground, particularly involving operations that take place there.

Q Could the Iraqi government's version of events be very different?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what you're referring to when you say, "Iraqi government." I don't know what you're referring to there.

Q Well, there are statements from the U.S. saying it wasn't a mosque, and the Iraqis --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's right. And the military statement that was put out said that this was a special -- Iraqi special operations forces that was involved in this, and the United States was simply providing an advisory and supporting role.

posted May 05, 2006 12:47 AM              

The Downing Street "Memo" is actually meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 it was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth about how the Iraq war began.

Since that time, much more information has come to light through leaks of secret government documents and the accounts of an increasing number of people who have witnessed the administration’s wrongdoing firsthand.

There is now in the public record a large body of evidence that vividly illustrates:

Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq
Bush’s willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war
The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force
The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent and manipulate information that would counter its justification for war
The lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society


From cherry-picked intelligence to a non-existent plan to win the peace; from no-bid contracts for reconstruction to character assassination for anyone who dares to question the premises of the war—the Bush administration has perpetrated what is by any measure one of the most egregious foreign policy misstep in our history.

A majority of the American people now believes that the president intentionally misled our nation into war, and nearly half say he should be impeached if that assertion can be proven. The only question that remains is: will he and his administration be held accountable?

He will be held accountable if the Dems win back the majority in the House and Congress in the Nov. elections. As long as the neo-cons retain control of Congress and the House, no he won't be held accountable unless there is a groundswell from the American people demanding that he be held accountable.

A couple more links:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

posted May 05, 2006 01:53 AM            

I'm still quite certain these signing statements are completely unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, and therefore grounds for impeachment. No president should be allowed to direct a branch of the Federal Government not to communicate honestly with the Legislative Branch. No President should be allowed to circumvent a ban on torture. No President should be allowed to interfere with a whistleblower.

quote:

---

Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

---

The President circumventing adding illegally gathered intelligence to it's military files is clearly illegal.

The line, "cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations," is utter nonsense. If Congress is in on the decision for the Secretary of Defense, and is in on the decision to go to war, it is certainly within it's rights to demand information it needs to carry out it's function in our government. To suggest that a federal employee can be directed not to be forthright with Congress due to national security reasons is nonsense.

posted May 05, 2006 02:32 AM              

How is everybody?

Still up???

Revved up???

Caffine buzz???

Eyes Wide Open???

posted May 05, 2006 03:05 AM              

quote:

---

To suggest that a federal employee can be directed not to be forthright with Congress due to national security reasons is nonsense.

---

Ya got THAT right, AG...

(please note my many, many, many, posts about THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT!)

posted May 05, 2006 10:48 AM              

That was FABULOUS!

posted May 05, 2006 11:19 AM              

....but.....

I certainly DO care if the shrub Sr. is a pedophile and has abused innocent children, whether in the White House...or not....

posted May 05, 2006 11:40 AM            

Bush was not saying one thing in public and another in private. Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum...a public ultimatum and at the same time applied pressure on the UN to uphold the UN's own Security Council Resolutions. Eventually Resolution 1441 was adopted which gave Saddam one last chance to comply with his cease fire agreement. He didn't.

Of course Bush said war seemed inevitable. What fool wouldn't? After 12 years of failing to live up to Saddam's cease fire agreement, thumbing his nose at 16 UN Security Council Resolutions demanding he live up to his own agreement and reports from UN weapons inspectors that there were...about 2000 or more tons of unaccounted for WMD components in Iraq, war did seem inevitable.

But, in your stringing together irrelevant bits and pieces of a puzzle from twisted interpretations by reporters as to what the memos mean, none of which fit the picture and attempting to catch Bush in a lie to lead America into war, you failed to do so.

This is the downfall of your position and it's found in your own choice of statements to post.

Blair responds that he is: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."

You see Mirandee, Bush, Blair, the CIA, the intelligence services of nations around the world believed Saddam had WMD. Governments in the Middle East believed Saddam had WMD, Egypt for instance.

That is fatal to your oft repeated mantra...Bush lied, people died. Bush didn't lie, Bush believed Saddam had WMD and Bush had every reason to believe that was true.

It is also noted you have not produced one statement by Bush to the American people which was a lie Mirandee though you made and continue to make the accusation.

3 different Commissions have looked at the questions of what happened, who said and did what leading up to the war and going back before 9/11 to assess the situation on the ground and documents and direct testimony under oath as to who said what, when they said it and who they said it to. Further, classified documents were declassified so the Commission could review what Bush was being told by our own as well as other intelligence agencies.

In no case did the Commissions determine Bush acted rashly or misinterpreted intelligence information OR pressured intelligence agents to come to any particular conclusions OR misused intelligence information OR hyped intelligence information to lead America to war. IN NO CASE WHATSOEVER Mirandee.

In fact, it was found Bush was in receipt of information about on the ground circumstances in Iraq which were more dire than Bush ever told the American people. Bush was told by our own intelligence agencies that Saddam was training al-Qaida members in the use of WMD..gases and poisons. Please explain to me Mirandee how Saddam could do that...if Saddam had NO WMD? Also Mirandee, explain why that didn't represent an imminent threat to the United States? Training al-Qaida, in Iraq, in the use of WMD....al-Qaida which had recently flown civilian aircraft into and destroyed the World Trade Center in NY...as well as hitting the Pentagon. That's not an imminent threat? Are you NUTS? No comment on your sanity is necessary at this point.

You have not produced even one case of Bush lying to the American people and it's time now Mirandee for you to stop making that allegation.

You can't tie any lie to Bush, to anything Bush told the American people.
Bush never once said Saddam was an imminent threat...though Bush had information that was true. Bush said Saddam was a grave and growing threat or danger. Your attempt to suggest Cheney and Rice were running around and "daily" declaring Saddam an imminent threat is bullsh!t. The statement was made a few times at most..by Cheney, not Bush and at the time, there was every reason to believe that was the exact truth.

The President's statements and actions were perfectly consistent with the information he was receiving.

posted May 05, 2006 01:37 PM            

quote:

---

You can't tie any lie to Bush, to anything Bush told the American people.

---

You know I can, and I'm certain Petron could certainly pull some out for you.

The most obvious lie is the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda..." - President Bush May 1, 2003 (Three years ago when major combat operations had ended...supposedly.)

That day he also may other allusions to Iraq attempting to tie it to 9/11.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

posted May 05, 2006 03:57 PM              

VICTOR ASHE, MAYOR OF KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE

Author Kitty Kelley mentions in her book THE FAMILY (about the Bush family), that George W. Bush cohabited at his Texas ranch and elsewhere with the Mayor of a major city in Tennessee.

(Shermon Skolnick began the discussion severel years ago as a story about "The Pedophile/Homosexual Underground". www.skolnicksreport.com "Overthrow of the American Republic", Part 24. )

It relates to George W. Bush's homosexual relationsip, since about puberty, with Victor Ashe, long-time Mayor of Knoxvillle. When some in Congress began inquiries in the fall of 2003, Ashe in December, 2003, gave up being Knoxville Mayor and was appointed by George W. Bush, the occupant and resident of the White House, as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland. That is, getting Ashe out of the U.S. jurisdiction, not available to nosey Congressmen.

Bush and Ashe are both members of the satanic cult, "Skull & Bones", headquartered in a windowless building,called "The Tomb" on the campus of Yale University. Part of the initiation procedure is for the new proposed member to divulge his entire sexual history, to several other Bonesmen, so that when he is shoved up into high office, government, finance, etc., he can be blackmailed into silence.The new member has to cavort, au naturel, sometimes more than once, with another Bonesman in a double-size coffin filled with mud.

An older Bonesman member has to also participate in such proceedings. This was done by John F. Kerry slightly older than George W. Bush.

As mentioned in our stories and talk shows, [Sherman Skolnick] the secret pictures of this, reportedly ended up in the possession of the picture editor of a group of magazines run by American Media, Inc., AMI, headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. That editor was Bob Stevens. Being of near-sighted vision, he took off his glasses and he opened up an envelope addressed to him, holding it close up to his face, breathing thus in spores of anthrax, from which he soon thereafter died.

In his public statements, Skolnick carefully discussed that he usually does not discuss sordid relations EXCEPT if they involved National Security. In the Ashe/Bush matter, the Red Chinese Secret Police have used their knowledge of the matter to blackmail out of the Bush White House, U.S. MILITARY, financial, and industrial secrets, clearly warranting us publicizing the Ashe/Bush matter. Further, Skolnick contended that Ashe and Bush met for sex at a Tennessee location owned by the purported top financier of Osama bin Laden. That U.S. resident moneybags has been granted unlawful protection and immunity from exposure by the Bush White House.

The more than 500 that worked at AMI were evacuated, the building was closed up by America's secret political police, about October 2001, shortly after the 9-11 incidents. The FBI did not permit any of the picture or text files to be removed. Stevens' widow, in a little-known lawsuit against the FBI, claimed the Bureau obstructed her from finding out what happened to her husband.

Rudolph Guiliani, once U.S. District Attorney in New York, later Mayor of New York City, founded and owns BioOne, specializing in cleaning up places made toxic by anthrax. He bought the closed AMI building for a "song" and now has possession of the pictures that could scandalize his pal George W. Bush, and Bush's male sex-mate, U.S. Senator John F. Kerry, "laying down and playing dead" while supposedly running for president against 3rd cousin and fellow Bonesman George W. Bush.

In her book, Kitty Kelley claims that, from her sources, Bush, facing embarrassment by the possible revelations of the pictures, arranged for secret U.S. agents to murder Bob Stevens. *Rainbow's note - and another one bit the dust!*

===Skolnick in his posted and archived statements and on various radio talk shows, discussed how George H.W. Bush, that is Daddy Bush, has been in business with the co-founder of the Medelin, Colombia dope cartel, Carlos Lehder. And that the link was covered up when the Bushies arranged to secretly remove from a U.S. Jail, Lehder, who has disappeared.

Kitty Kelley raises the issue of Bush, Sr., being in dope trafficking through South America and elsewhere.

(*Rainbow Note* - whistle blowers, Cathy O'Brien and Mark Phillips, also mention this in their book TRANCE Formation of America. )

This info came from....

http://www.rense.com/general57/newbook.htm

posted May 07, 2006 08:18 PM              

Date: Friday, May 5

Prostitutes financed by Jack Abramoff and linked to AIPAC and former Israeli prime minister serviced House, Senate members, media hosts, top military, other feds....

...U.S intelligence: Sen. Leader William Frist and reporter Robert Novak alleged as regular clients

by Tom Flocco

A long-time top-level government agency official joined a national security expert in confirming grand jury testimony last month, revealing that male and female heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and child prostitutes provided sexual services to numerous congressmen, senators, national media hosts and other federal officials who were compromised and made susceptible to blackmail at three Washington hotels.

“The whole Republican Party was for sale-the House, Senate and the White House,” said a well-respected federal agency official with impeccable credentials who declined to be named but who is familiar with testimony and sources close to the grand jury probing Jack Abramoff.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s grand jury heard several agents testify in April that the “Watergate, Ritz-Carlton and Sheraton Hotels in Washington, DC were used to compromise legislators and news-people with prostitution services, the financing of which is directly linked to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Marc Rich and Abramoff,” said national security expert Thomas Heneghan.

There are no corporate media reports as to whether White House officials participated in the hotel sex ring activities with House and Senate members; however, Heneghan said U.S. Senate Leader and 2008 presidential candidate William Frist (R-TN) was alleged to be a frequent visitor to the hotels according to U.S. intelligence agents.

Frist is reportedly a close friend of alleged Bush 43 male consort and former Knoxville, Tennessee mayor Victor Ashe according to federal agents.

Heneghan also alleged additional prostitute customers as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former CNN host-reporter Robert Novak, both of whom were introduced into the sex-ring by GOP reporter and male prostitute Jeff Gannon, who visited the Bush White House living quarters 200 times without the assignations being recorded in visitor logs.

The genesis of the Valerie Plame CIA leak allegedly took place during one of Novak's visits with an Abramoff hooker at one of the hotels according to the sources.

The corruption and crimes surrounding the indicted Republican lobbyist were widespread and far-reaching enough to cause Fitzgerald to impanel a separate grand jury, often referred to by intelligence officials as the “Franklin grand jury,” which is hearing testimony and examining Abramoff linked evidence tied to the Iraq War, September 11 and related issues.

Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin was arrested for leaking classified U.S. government information to AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman who reportedly leaked information to Israel concerning a controversial proposal by Department of Defense hardliners to destabilize Iran.

The federal source wishing to remain anonymous said that additional government officials are currently testifying this month before the Franklin grand jury about Abramoff, the GOP-linked prostitution ring and its ties to AIPAC.

“Photographs of politicians in compromising positions have reportedly already been used as blackmail to silence politicians who would speak the truth about the 2000 election fraud in Florida, 9-11, Iraq/yellowcake/WMD and how Jack Abramoff and Netanyahu were the pimps for the operation,” said Heneghan.

President Bush has emphatically denied that he personally knows Abramoff, despite CIA documents indicating the indicted lobbyist visited the White House 200 times during the first ten months of the Bush presidency-often enough for a personal visit on every business day of each month, according to wide news reports.

Despite the daily White House visits, Bush said “I’ve never sat down with him and had a discussion with the guy,” adding, “I’m also mindful that we live in a world in which those pictures will be used for pure political purposes,” attempting to justify his unwillingness at first to release photos with Abramoff.

Fitzgerald is reportedly convinced that the Bush administration wanted Valerie Plame-Wilson’s identity as a CIA official leaked because her intelligence team had identified Israeli Mossad operatives inside Iran who were to receive weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to be delivered through Turkey and planted in Iraq to further the president’s case for war, said the intelligence expert.

“The financing for these whorehouses is linked directly to AIPAC, Benjamin Netanyahu, Marc Rich and Jack Abramoff; and the money trail ties back to American International Group (AIG), Hank Greenberg and Doug Alexander-former British Minister of E-Commerce,” said Heneghan.

In an ominous prediction, Heneghan said, “It won’t be long before the un-compromised U.S. military may have to declare a State of Emergency and re-implementation of the Constitution under a special provision of the Naval Code, which would lead to the arrest and removal of the criminal government residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

According to Heneghan, the Abramoff congressional sex ring is tied to the SunCruz Casino scandal, secret accounts at Riggs Bank and Crozier Bank , the 9-11 “hijacker” Venice, Florida flight schools, and former U.S. ambassador to Italy Mel Sembler and Doug Alexander-both of whom have been linked to the reported Florida 2000 election fraud-all of which is tied to a financial trail that connects narcotics trafficking to Al Qaeda and the congressional sex ring.

MSNBC host and former congressman Joe Scarborough, subject of a recent TomFlocco.com story, “is now cooperating with federal investigators in the Abramoff matter which has led the probe to the doorsteps of the AIPAC whorehouses now operating in Washington, DC,” said Heneghan.

The intelligence expert told us “Scarborough told federal investigators that he now believes his female staff member was murdered in his congressional office to silence her regarding knowledge of Alexander, Sembler, Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush and the Florida election 2000 coup d’ etat.”

posted May 07, 2006 09:29 PM              

quote:

---

In fact, it was found Bush was in receipt of information about on the ground circumstances in Iraq which were more dire than Bush ever told the American people. Bush was told by our own intelligence agencies that Saddam was training al-Qaida members in the use of WMD..gases and poisons.--jwhop

---

huh?? he never made that claim to the american people??

quote:

---

THE PRESIDENT: We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

---

of course he threw that in there, even though, like many of the other claims, it was disputed by our own intelligence agencies....

*********

Newly Released Data Undercut Prewar Claims
Source Tying Baghdad, Al Qaeda Doubted

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 6, 2005; A22

In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency questioned the reliability of a captured top al Qaeda operative whose allegations became the basis of Bush administration claims that terrorists had been trained in the use of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, according to declassified material released by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.).

Referring to the first interrogation report on al Qaeda senior military trainer Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the DIA took note that the Libyan terrorist could not name any Iraqis involved, any chemical or biological material used or where the training occurred. As a result, "it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers," a DIA report concluded.

In fact, in January 2004 al-Libi recanted his claims, and in February 2004 the CIA withdrew all intelligence reports based on his information. By then, the United States and its coalition partners had invaded Iraq.

Levin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he arranged for the material to be declassified by the DIA last month. At the same time that the administration was linking Baghdad to al Qaeda, he said, the DIA and other intelligence agencies were privately raising questions about the sources underlying the claims.

Administration officials declined to comment for this article.

Levin noted in a prepared statement that, beginning in September 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet, and then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell used the alleged chemical and biological training by Baghdad as valid intelligence in speeches and public appearances to gather support for the Iraq war.

In none of the speeches or appearances was reference made to the DIA questioning the reliability of the source of the claims, Levin said. The doubts about al-Libi were contained in the DIA's February 2002 "Defense Intelligence Terrorist Summary,"which was sent to the White House and the National Security Council and circulated among U.S. intelligence agencies.

Bush also said in his October 2002 speech: "We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade." Levin said the DIA's declassified February 2002 report points out that "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."

"Just imagine," Levin said, "the public impact of that DIA conclusion if it had been disclosed at the time. It surely could have made a difference in the congressional vote authorizing the war."

Levin also pointed out that before the war, the CIA had its own reservations about al-Libi, although the agency did not note them in its publicly distributed unclassified statements. In those, Levin said, it described the source -- without naming al-Libi -- as "credible." In the classified version, however, the CIA added that the source "was not in a position to know if any training had taken place."

Levin said: "Imagine if the president or the others had added that the source of the information might have been making it up for his questioners or wasn't in a position to know. . . . Would he have delivered that in his speech?"

Levin said he first obtained the DIA document as part of his continuing investigation as an Armed Services panel member into intelligence activities that took place within the office of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Feith's Office of Special Plans undertook a review and analyses of prewar al Qaeda intelligence.

Levin said Friday that he was not aware whether the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on which he also serves, has the document. That panel did not have the DIA document in July 2004 when it completed its Phase 1 report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

The committee is now conducting its second-phase investigation of the use of Iraq intelligence, one part of which is to compare prewar public statements by officials and members of Congress with the information known at the time.

Levin took part in a news conference Friday with two other intelligence committee Democrats in which they raised questions about whether the panel had received all the classified material on Iraq, including the February 2002 DIA publication, that Bush administration officials had when they made their public statements.

At that news conference, Levin urged that the process be slowed down to make sure the committee had gathered all the intelligence material.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501267_pf.html

posted May 08, 2006 07:33 PM            

quote:

---

huh?? he never made that claim to the american people??..Petron

---

That's right Petron, Bush never told the American people that bit of intelligence he received from US intelligence.

So Petron, Bush was NOT hyping the intelligence to lead America into war...or he sure as hell would have declassified the intelligence and told us. He didn't.

The intelligence agencies as turned over to Bush by Commander Corruption were so riddled with ass covering bureaucrats you couldn't get universal agreement on whether it's day or night. Fortunately, a lot of the bunglers, incompetents and politicals among them are gone.

Porter Goss is gone too but perhaps he feels it was worth it to get rid of those within the agency who more properly belong in a political campaign for the democrats.

posted May 08, 2006 07:39 PM              

quote:

---

That's right Petron, Bush never told the American people that bit of intelligence he received from US intelligence.

So Petron, Bush was NOT hyping the intelligence to lead America into war...or he sure as hell would have declassified the intelligence and told us. He didn't.--jwhop

---

did you even look at the link i posted jwhop??? its dated October 7, 2002 but its not from newsmax......maybe it will get your attention if accompanied by a picture.....

quote:

---

THE PRESIDENT: We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

---

posted May 08, 2006 11:09 PM            

I thought the statement came after the beginning of the war from a declassified CIA document which was part of the 9/11 Commission hearings.

However, that doesn't mean you've drawn the right conclusion from the DIA report that the original report was bogus or that the al-Qaida prisoner was lying.