Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

John J. McCarthy

Members
  • Content count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About John J. McCarthy

  • Rank
    Experienced Member
  • Birthday 01/25/1943

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com

Profile Information

  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    Justice
  1. Improbably Collapse

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782
  2. Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

    http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/where_the_h...ur_9_11_pr.html
  3. Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

    I am absolutely waiting for the day one and all of the naysayers, COCKburn included, are ever arrested for a felony crime where the only thing going for the prosecutor is circumstantial evidence. That's right, boyz, circumstantial evidence is good enough for the Feds to convict your sorry asses for any crime up to and including murder, mass murder and war crimes. All of the points that the naysayers are demanding "PROOF" of are inconsequential! How do you think the FBI gets so many gold stars for convictions?? Get used to it. Look at the books, naysayers and read 'em and weep. Your day is coming!
  4. Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

    THE TIME TO ASSERT CHECKS AND BALANCES IS NOW Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. October 11, 2006 NewsWithViews.com go here to read http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin48.htm or read pasted below THE TIME TO ASSERT CHECKS AND BALANCES IS NOW Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. October 11, 2006 NewsWithViews.com From every sector of America's political spectrum that contains people still capable of thinking rationally arise denunciations of the recently enacted Military Commissions Act. Beyond any doubt, major portions of that statute are blatantly unconstitutional. Beyond any doubt, through those portions of the statute the individuals now controlling Congress and the Executive Branch have in effect declared war on constitutional government in this country. But the question remains: NOW WHAT?! Exactly what are the American people going to do--what can they do-- to reverse this latest outrage? America's federal system is a government of checks and balances. If Congress and the Executive Branch are temporarily in the clutches of the Forces of Darkness, there remain the Supreme Court, the States, We the People as the Electorate, and We the People as "the Militia of the several States". We the People cannot turn to "the Militia of the several States", because the Militia remain unorganized. My first book-length treatment of that problem is now close to publication. But, even if it were already in general circulation--and received with more than the yawns of disinterest that follow most calls for fundamental reform in this country--a long time would pass before its recommendations could be put into practice through statutes enacted in enough of the States. We the People as the Electorate could (and should) remove from Congress every Representative and Senator, running in this November's elections, who voted for the Military Commissions Act--and then hope that the reconstructed Congress would immediately repeal that offensive legislation, and override the President's veto of the repeal. This strategy depends for its success, however, on two contingencies: (i) that the candidates challenging the incumbents will follow that course of action if elected, rather than proving to be nothing more than a new set of Pinocchios for the Forces of Darkness; and (ii) that the elections themselves will be honest. If, as many Americans fear, elections are routinely rigged throughout this country, relying on them to change the substance of Congress, rather than just the faces of the marionettes composing it, is useless. That leaves the States and the Supreme Court. Linkage of the two is not accidental, but compelled by the terms of the Military Commissions Act. Congress and the Executive Branch have attempted to preclude the Judiciary from reviewing the statute, by denying the federal courts jurisdiction over the subject matter--that is, stripping them of the authority to hear cases or controversies challenging the (il)legality of the statute. Arguably, Congress does have the power, in general, to control the jurisdiction of what the Constitution calls the "inferior Courts [which] the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" (Article III, Section 1). Whether these "inferior Courts", and the Supreme Court in its turn, will agree that Congress has the power to excise from the "federal question" jurisdiction that now exists a special class of cases and controversies, for the sole purpose of preventing the courts from declaring the Military Commissions Act unconstitutional--that is, for the sole purpose of preventing violations of the Constitution from being set aside--remains to be seen. Moreover, although the Constitution allows Congress to control the jurisdiction of the "inferior Courts" that it "ordain and establish [es]", that power does not extend to State courts, which the States, not Congress, create. And State courts certainly enjoy sufficient jurisdiction to investigate the unconstitutionality of actions taken under color of the Military Commissions Act within the boundaries of their own States. Cases and controversies working their tortuous ways from the bottom up, trial by trial and appeal by appeal, through the "inferior [federal] Courts" or the State courts will take years to complete, however. During which time, serious--perhaps fatal--harm will be done to this country. America needs immediate action. And the Constitution offers the means. The Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the Laws of the United States", and "to Controversies * * * between a State and Citizens of another State" (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). It also provides that " n all Cases * * * in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction" (Article III, Section 2, Clause 2). So, if a State were to sue those officials of the General Government (civil and military) who administer the Military Commissions Act, and are not citizens of that State, the case would have to be heard by the Supreme Court itself in its "original Jurisdiction"--that is, the jurisdiction the Constitution confers directly, and therefore which no statute of Congress can withhold or remove. Indeed, if several States each filed separate suits against officials who were not their citizens, and all of these suits were consolidated (if only for reason of the Court's convenience), the unconstitutionality of essentially the whole of the Military Commissions Act in its every application could be heard at one sitting. The States certainly have "standing" to bring such suits. The Constitution removes certain powers from the States and transfers them to the General Government, on the understanding that those powers will be exercised strictly according to the delegations and limitations the Constitution sets. Senators, Representatives, and other officials of the General Government "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" (Article VI, Clause 3). And the President takes the more extensive "Oath or Affirmation * * * to the best of my Ability, [to] preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). If officials of the General Government violate the Constitution-- thereby forswearing their "Oath or Affirmation" of office--the States suffer injury, by having more power taken from them in fact than the Constitution allows in law. Indeed, unless the "Oath or Affirmation" that the Constitution requires are just meaningless hot air, there must exist a judicial means for their enforcement. And inasmuch as the States are the primary beneficiaries of those "Oath or Affirmation" when they are honored, and the primary victims when they are dishonored, the States must have access to that judicial means. So now it is time to fish or cut bait. One State legislature needs to pass, and one State governor needs to sign, a statute appointing a special attorney general to prosecute such a suit. Tomorrow, if not sooner. I should suggest that this special attorney general really be a SPECIAL attorney general, with no ties whatsoever to the political and legal Establishment; that he be invested with plenary power to litigate the case as he alone determines proper; and that he be supplied with sufficient funds to assemble a "dream team" of constitutional scholars and litigators, and necessary para-legal personnel, for that purpose. The future of America as a free and independent nation being at stake, no effort or expenditure can be too great. Some people will complain that this proposal is naïve, because the State governments are no less corrupt than the General Government. If that were true across the country, then all hope for We the People's self-government would be gone. And one must never lose hope. DVM SPIRO SPERO. With fifty different State governments, the claim that not a single one of them can be put to a constitutional purpose, in the hour of this country's greatest need, must be rejected as the counsel of defeatism and despair, the spawn of agents provocateurs, not the sense of American patriots. Other people will argue that the Supreme Court cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Perhaps that is true. But, then again, perhaps not. No one can know, until the effort is made. Even a broken clock is right twice a day--and America's time may just be at hand. In any event, America has next to no choice. And a case brought by even one State in the Court's original jurisdiction, whatever its eventual outcome, will immediately seize the whole country's attention--separate the sheep from the goats--and galvanize patriotic Americans into taking other actions as well, particularly if the Court refuses to do its duty. As Churchill said, if it is not the beginning of the end, it will be the end of the beginning. But if this proposal--or something equally daring--is not put into practice, the end of America will soon be upon us all. Take your choice. © 2006 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved
  5. National Security Archive Update, October 13, 2006 The Reykjavik File: Previously Secret U.S. and Soviet Documents on the 1986 Reagan-Gorbachev Summit http://www.nsarchive.org For more information contact: Svetlana Savranskaya/Thomas Blanton - 202/994-7000 Washington, D.C. and Reykjavik, Iceland - President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev almost achieved a deal 20 years ago at the 1986 Reykjavik summit to abolish nuclear weapons, but the agreement would have required "an exceptional level of trust" that neither side had yet developed, according to previously secret U.S. and Soviet documents posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org) of George Washington University and presented on October 12 in Reykjavik directly to Gorbachev and the president of Iceland. The documents include Gorbachev's initial letter to Reagan from 15 September 1986 asking for "a quick one-on-one meeting, let us say in Iceland or in London," newly translated Gorbachev discussions with his aides and with the Politburo preparing for the meeting, U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz's briefing book for the summit, the complete U.S. and Soviet transcripts of the Reykjavik summit, and the internal recriminations and reflections by both sides after the meeting failed to reach agreement. Archive director Thomas Blanton, Archive director of Russia programs Dr. Svetlana Savranskaya, and Pulitzer-Prize-winning biographer Dr. William Taubman presented the documents to Gorbachev at a state dinner in the residence of President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson of Iceland on October 12 marking the 20th anniversary of the summit, which Grimsson commented had put Iceland on the map as a meeting place for international dialogue. The documents show that U.S. analysis of Gorbachev's goals for the summit completely missed the Soviet leader's emphasis on "liquidation" of nuclear weapons, a dream Gorbachev shared with Reagan and which the two leaders turned to repeatedly during the intense discussions at Reykjavik in October 1986. But the epitaph for the summit came from Soviet aide Gyorgy Arbatov, who at one point during staff discussions told U.S. official Paul Nitze that the U.S. proposals (continued testing of missile defenses in the Strategic Defense Initiative or SDI while proceeding over 10 years to eliminate all ballistic missiles, leading to the ultimate abolition of all offensive nuclear weapons) would require "an exceptional level of trust" and therefore "we cannot accept your position." Politburo notes from October 30, two weeks after the summit, show that Gorbachev by then had largely accepted Reagan's formulation for further SDI research, but by that point it was too late for a deal. The Iran-Contra scandal was about to break, causing Reagan's approval ratings to plummet and removing key Reagan aides like National Security Adviser John Poindexter, whose replacement was not interested in the ambitious nuclear abolition dreams the two leaders shared at Reykjavik. The documents show that even the more limited notion of abolishing ballistic missiles foundered on opposition from the U.S. military which presented huge estimates of needed additional conventional spending to make up for not having the missiles. The U.S. documents were obtained by the Archive through Freedom of Information Act and Mandatory Declassification Review requests to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and the U.S. Department of State. The Soviet documents came to the Archive courtesy of top Gorbachev aide Anatoly Sergeyevich Chernyaev, who has donated his diary and notes of Politburo and other Gorbachev discussions to the Archive, and from the Volkogonov collection of the U.S. Library of Congress. These documents are now available on the Web site of the National Security Archive: http://www.nsarchive.org
  6. Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

    Excerpt: "No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq ... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now." - Michael Ledeen Dear All, Michael Ledeen has been described as Karl Rove's Karl Rove. He combines imperial militarism, fascism and Machiavellian politics to produce a philosophy of chaos, death and destruction. He would have been elevated to a high position in Hitler's Third Reich and presently is held in great esteem by many in G.W. Bush's Fourth. In a world bristling with nuclear fission and fusion weapons, he and his goal of "creative destruction" truly deserves the adjective "insane." He is a truly notable crackpot in a federal government full of crackpots. Best regards, Bob ================ http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.html June 30, 2003 issue Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative Flirting with Fascism Neocon theorist Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than from the American Right. By John Laughland On the antiwar Right, it has been customary to attack the warmongering neoconservative clique for its Trotskyite origins. Certainly, the founding father of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, wrote in 1983 that he was "proud" to have been a member of the Fourth International in 1940. Other future leading lights of the neocon movement were also initially Trotskyites, like James Burnham and Max Kampelman-the latter a conscientious objector during the war against Hitler, a status that Evron Kirkpatrick, husband of Jeane, used his influence to obtain for him. But there is at least one neoconservative commentator whose personal political odyssey began with a fascination not with Trotskyism, but instead with another famous political movement that grew up in the early decades of the 20th century: fascism. I refer to Michael Ledeen, leading neocon theoretician, expert on Machiavelli, holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, regular columnist for National Review-and the principal cheerleader today for an extension of the war on terror to include regime change in Iran. Ledeen has gained notoriety in recent months for the following paragraph in his latest book, The War Against the Terror Masters. In what reads like a prophetic approval of the policy of chaos now being visited on Iraq, Ledeen wrote, Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence-our existence, not our politics-threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission. This is not the first time Ledeen has written eloquently on his love for "the democratic revolution" and "creative destruction." In 1996, he gave an extended account of his theory of revolution in his book, Freedom Betrayed - the title, one assumes, is a deliberate reference to Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed. Ledeen explains that "America is a revolutionary force" because the American Revolution is the only revolution in history that has succeeded, the French and Russian revolutions having quickly collapsed into terror. Consequently, "[O]ur revolutionary values are part of our genetic make-up. . We drive the revolution because of what we represent: the most successful experiment in human freedom. . We are an ideological nation, and our most successful leaders are ideologues." Denouncing Bill Clinton as a "counter-revolutionary" (!), Ledeen is especially eager to make one point: "Of all the myths that cloud our understanding, and therefore paralyze our will and action, the most pernicious is that only the Left has a legitimate claim to the revolutionary tradition." Ledeen's conviction that the Right is as revolutionary as the Left derives from his youthful interest in Italian fascism. In 1975, Ledeen published an interview, in book form, with the Italian historian Renzo de Felice, a man he greatly admires. It caused a great controversy in Italy. Ledeen later made clear that he relished the ire of the left-wing establishment precisely because "De Felice was challenging the conventional wisdom of Italian Marxist historiography, which had always insisted that fascism was a reactionary movement." What de Felice showed, by contrast, was that Italian fascism was both right-wing and revolutionary. Ledeen had himself argued this very point in his book, Universal Fascism, published in 1972. That work starts with the assertion that it is a mistake to explain the support of fascism by millions of Europeans "solely because they had been hypnotized by the rhetoric of gifted orators and manipulated by skilful propagandists." "It seems more plausible," Ledeen argued, "to attempt to explain their enthusiasm by treating them as believers in the rightness of the fascist cause, which had a coherent ideological appeal to a great many people." For Ledeen, as for the lifelong fascist theoretician and practitioner, Giuseppe Bottai, that appeal lay in the fact that fascism was "the Revolution of the 20th century." Ledeen supports de Felice's distinction between "fascism-movement" and "fascism-regime." Mussolini's regime, he says, was "authoritarian and reactionary"; by contrast, within "fascism-movement," there were many who were animated by "a desire to renew." These people wanted "something more revolutionary: the old ruling class had to be swept away so that newer, more dynamic elements-capable of effecting fundamental changes-could come to power." Like his claim that the common ground between Nazism and Italian fascism was "exceedingly minimal"-Ledeen writes, "The fact of the Axis Pact should not be permitted to become the overriding consideration in this analysis"-Ledeen's careful distinction between fascist "regime" and "movement" makes him a clear apologist for the latter. "While 'fascism-movement' was overcome and eventually suppressed by 'fascism-regime,'" he explains, "fascism nevertheless constituted a political revolution in Italy. For the first time, there was an attempt to mobilize the masses and to involve them in the political life of the country." Indeed, Ledeen criticizes Mussolini precisely for not being revolutionary enough. "He never had enough confidence in the Italian people to permit them a genuine participation in fascism." Ledeen therefore concurs with the fascist intellectual, Camillo Pellizi, who argues-in a book Ledeen calls "a moving and fundamental work"-that Mussolini's was "a failed revolution." Pellizzi had hoped that "the new era was to be the era of youthful genius and creativity": for him, Ledeen says, the fascist state was "a generator of energy and creativity." The purest ideologues of fascism, in other words, wanted something very similar to that which Ledeen himself wants now, namely a "worldwide mass movement" enabling the peoples of the world, "liberated" by American militarism, to participate in the "greatest experiment in human freedom." Ledeen wrote in 1996, "The people yearn for the real thing-revolution." Ledeen was especially interested in the role played by youth in Italian fascism. It was here that he detected the movement's most exciting revolutionary potential. The young Ledeen wrote that those who exalted the position of youth in the fascist revolution-like those who argued in favor of his beloved "universal fascism"-were committed to exporting Italian fascism to the whole world, an idea in which Mussolini was initially uninterested. When he was later converted to it, Mussolini said that fascism drew on the universalist heritage of Rome, both ancient and Catholic. No doubt Ledeen thinks that the new Rome in Washington has the same universalist mission. He writes that people around Berto Ricci-the editor of the fascist newspaper L'Universale, and a man he calls "brilliant" and "an example of enthusiasm and independence"- "called for the formation of a new empire, an empire based not on military conquest but rather on Italy's unique genius for civilization. . They intended to develop the traditions of their country and their civilization in such a manner as to make them the basic tenets of a new world order." Ledeen adds, in a passage that anticipates his later love of creative destruction, "Clearly the act of destruction which would produce the flowering of the new fascist hegemony would sweep away the present generation of Italians, along with the rest." And Giuseppe Bottai, to whom Ledeen attributes "considerable energy and autonomy," was notable for his belief that "the infusion of the creative energies of a new generation was essential" for the fascist revolution. Bottai "implored the young . to found a new order arising from the spontaneous activity of their creation." One of the greatest exponents of such youthful vitalism was the high priest of fascism, the poet and adventurer Gabriele D'Annunzio, to whom Ledeen devoted an enthusiastic biography in 1977. Years ago, I visited D'Annunzio's house on the shores of Lake Garda: there is a battleship in the garden and a Brenn gun in the sitting room. D'Annunzio was an eccentric and militaristic Italian Nietzschean who "eulogized rape and acts of savagery" committed by the people he called his spiritual ancestors. The poet was also an early prophet of military intervention and regime change: he invaded the Croatian city of Fiume (now Rijeka) in 1919 and held the city for a year, during which he put into practice his theories of "New Order." In 1918, moreover, D'Annunzio had dropped propaganda leaflets over Vienna promising to liberate the Austrians from their own government, something Ledeen hails as "a glorious gesture." D'Annunzio's watchword was "the liberation of human personality." "His heroism during the war made it possible," Ledeen writes, "to bridge the chasm between intellectuals and the masses. . The revolt D'Annunzio led was directed against the old order of Western Europe, and was carried out in the name of youthful creativity and virility." As Ledeen shows, the Italian fascists expressed their desire "to tear down the old order" (his words from 2002) in terms that are curiously anticipatory of a famous statement in 2003 by the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. In 1932, Asvero Gravelli also divided Europe into "old" and "new" when he wrote, in Towards the Fascist International, "Either old Europe or young Europe. Fascism is the gravedigger of old Europe. Now the forces of the Fascist International are rising." It all sounds rather prophetic http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....=michael_ledeen Profile: Michael Ledeen Positions that Michael Ledeen has held: a.. Research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Quotes 2000 "[T]he defense of the country is one of those extreme situation in which a leader is justified in committing evil." [Ledeen, 2000] Associated Events a.. The use of Islamist militants by American and Israeli militarists -- The war in Afghanistan to September 11 and beyond - January 1999 - General Agim Ceku (see September 4, 2001 "Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize." [Wall Street Journal, 9/4/2002] Associated Events a.. Events leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq - September 4, 2002 - Neoconservative Michael Le ... October 29, 2001 "No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq ... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now." [American Enterprise Institute, 10/29/2001] Associated Events a.. Complete 911 Timeline - October 29, 2001 - Michael Ledeen, speaking at ... August 6, 2002 "Scowcroft has managed to get one thing half right, even though he misdescribes it. He fears that if we attack Iraq 'I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror.' One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists. That's our mission in the war against terror." [National Review, 8/6/2002] Associated Events a.. Events leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq - August 4, 2002 - Appearing on CBS's R ... March 25, 2003 "I think the level of casualties is secondary. I mean, it may sound like an odd thing to say, but all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war. ... What we hate is not casualties but losing. And if the war goes well and if the American public has the conviction that we're being well-led and that our people are fighting well and that we're winning, I don't think casualties are going to be the issue." [American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/2003] Associated Events a.. Events leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq - March 25, 2003 - During a conference held at t ... Related Entities: Michael Ledeen actively participated in the following events: February 19, 1998 The Committee for Peace and Security publishes an open letter to President Bill Clinton outlining a 9-point "comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime." The letter is signed by a litany of former US government officials known for their neoconservative viewpoints. Several of the signatories are also involved with the Project for the New American Century and had endorsed a similar letter published by that organization the previous month. [CNN, 2/20/1998; Abrams et al., 2/19/1998] Entity Tags: Leon Wienseltier, Max Singer, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, Caspar Weinberger, John R. Bolton, Peter Rosenblatt, Jeffrey Gedmin, Frank Gaffney, Frank Carlucci, Paula J. Dobriansky, William B. Clark, Richard Armitage, Dov S. Zakheim, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard V. Allen, Jeffrey T. Bergner, David Wurmser, Gary Schmitt, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Stephen Bryen, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Michael Ledeen, Richard Burt, Douglas Feith, Jarvis Lynch, Robert C. McFarlane, Frederick L. Lewis, Sven F. Kraemer, Bernard Lewis, Peter Rodman, Roger Robinson, Martin Peretz, Robert A. Pastor, Joshua Muravchik, Fred C. Ikle, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, Stephen Solarz 1999: US NGO Formed to Promote Peace in Chechnya The American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC) is founded by Freedom House. Its mission is to promote a "peaceful resolution of the Russo-Chechen war." Board members include Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alexander M. Haig, Jr., Steven J. Solarz, and Max Kampelman. ACPC's regular members include Richard Perle; Elliott Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, Midge Decter, Frank Gaffney, Bruce Jackson, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, James Woolsey, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, among others. The APC is closely tied to the American Enterprise Institute and the Jamestown Foundation and National Endowment for Democracy and other US democratization initiatives. [Guardian, 9/8/2004; American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, 11/15/2005] Entity Tags: National Endowment for Democracy, American Enterprise Institute, Jamestown Foundation, Norman Podhoretz, Robert Kagan, James Woolsey, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Bruce Jackson, Frank Gaffney, Midge Decter, American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC), Kenneth Adelman, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Max Kampelman, Alexander M. Haig, Jr., Zbigniew Brzezinski, Stephen Solarz 2000 In his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, neoconservative Michael Ledeen measures modern leaders against Machiavelli's rules for leadership and concludes that "[e]ven after a half a millennium, Machiavelli's advice to leaders is as contemporary as tomorrow." [Ledeen, 2000, pp. 185] He laments that contemporary Western leaders, "like their counterparts in the rest of the world, have fallen short of Machiavelli's standards." [Ledeen, 2000, pp. 187] According to Ledeen, "f new and more virtuous leaders do not emerge, it is only a matter of time before we are either dominated by our enemies or sink into a more profound crisis." [Ledeen, 2000, pp. 187] Such a situation, he explains, would put the US in the "same desperate crisis that drove Machiavelli to call for a new dictator to set things aright." He adds, "In either case, we need Machiavellian wisdom and leadership." [Ledeen, 2000, pp. 188] Throughout the book Ledeen highlights certain qualities that he believes make strong leaders. A leader "must be prepared to fight at all times," he writes, and must be of "manly vigor." Women, he says, are rarely strong leaders because women generally cannot achieve virtue for they lack the "physical wherewithal and the passionate desire to achieve" military glory. To Ledeen, the ends may justify the means. In some situations, "n order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to 'enter into evil.'" [Ledeen, 2000, pp. 90] According to Ledeen, the Christian god sanctions this view. Machiavelli, he notes approvingly, wrote: "I believe that the greatest good that one can do, and the most gratifying to God is that which one does for one's country." Ledeen thus adds: "Since it is the highest good, the defense of the country is one of those extreme situation in which a leader is justified in committing evil." [Ledeen, 2000, pp. 117] Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen After November 2000 After the 2000 Presidential Election, Bush's White House political adviser, Karl Rove, tells neoconservative Michael Ledeen "Anytime you have a good idea, tell me." From that point on, according to Ledeen, every month or six weeks, Ledeen offers Rove "something you should be thinking about." On more than one occasion, ideas faxed to Rove by Ledeen, "become official policy or rhetoric," the Post reports. [Washington Post, 3/10/2003] Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen, Karl Rove October 29, 2001: Necon Scholar: 'This Is Total War' Michael Ledeen, speaking at an event sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, states: "No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq ... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now." [American Enterprise Institute, 10/29/2001] Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen December 7, 2001 Michael Ledeen, an avid admirer of Machiavelli, argues in a piece published by National Review Online that the US must be "imperious, ruthless, and relentless" against the Muslim world until there has been "total surrender." Any attempt on the part of the US to be "reasonable" or "evenhanded" will only empower Islamic militants, he asserts. He writes: "We will not be sated until we have had the blood of every miserable little tyrant in the Middle East, until every leader of every cell of the terror network is dead or locked securely away, and every last drooling anti-Semitic and anti-American mullah, imam, sheikh, and ayatollah is either singing the praises of the United States of America, or pumping gasoline, for a dime a gallon, on an American military base near the Arctic Circle." [National Review, 12/7/2001] The piece is republished in the Jewish World Review four days later. [Jewish World Review, 12/11/2001] Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen December 9, 2001 The Bush administration sends two defense officials, Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin, to meet with Iranians in Rome in response to an Iranian government offer to provide information relevant to the war on terrorism. The offer had been backchanneled by the Iranians to the White House through Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms trader and a central person in the Iran-Contra affair, who contacted another Iran-Contra figure, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute. Ledeen passed the information on to his friends in the Defense Department who then relayed the offer to National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Hadley, who expressed no reservations about the proposed meeting, informed George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage. According to officials interviewed by the New York Times, the United States Embassy in Rome was not notified of the planned meeting as required by standard interagency procedures. Neither the US embassy nor CIA station chief in Rome learns of the three-day meeting until after it happens (see December 12, 2001). When they do catch wind of the meeting, they notify CIA and State Department headquarters in Washington which complain to the administration about how the meetings were arranged. [Newsday, 8/9/2003; Washington Post, 8/9/2003; New York Times, 12/7/2003] In addition to Ghorbanifar, Ledeen, Franklin, and Rhode, the meeting is attended by Nicolo Pollari, head of SISMI, and Antonio Martino, Italy's minister of defense. [Washington Monthly, 9/2004] According to the Boston Globe, either at this meeting, a similar one in June (see June 2002), or both, Ledeen and Ghorbanifar discuss ways to destabilize the Iranian government, possibly using the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, a US-designated terrorist group, as a US proxy. [boston Globe, 8/31/2004] Additionally, according to an unnamed SISMI source, Pollari speaks with Ledeen about intelligence his agency has collected (see October 15, 2001) suggesting that Iraq made a deal with Niger to purchase several tons of uranium. SISMI already sent a report to Washington on the matter in mid-October (see October 15, 2001). Reportedly, Pollari has also approached CIA Station Chief Jeff Castelli about the report, but Castelli has since indicated he is not interested in the information. [La Repubblica (Rome), 10/25/2005] Entity Tags: Antonio Martino, Nicolo Pollari, George J. Tenet, Stephen J. Hadley, Harold Rhode, Larry Franklin, Manucher Ghorbanifar, Michael Ledeen, Harold Rhode December 12, 2001 The newly-installed US ambassador to Italy, Mel Sembler, learns during the course of a private dinner with Iran-Contra figure Michael Ledeen and Italian defense minister Antonio Martino about the secret backchannel meeting they attended three days before (see December 9, 2001) with US defense officials, former Iran-Contra figures, and Iranian government officials. After the dinner, Sembler immediately contacts the CIA station chief in Rome to find out if he knows about the meeting. But the station chief says he was also unaware of the meeting. "Soon both Sembler and the Rome station chief were sending anxious queries back to the State Department and CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., respectively, raising alarms on both sides of the Potomac" since all US government contact with foreign government intelligence agencies is supposed to be overseen by the CIA. [Washington Monthly, 9/2004 Sources: Unnamed US Government sources] Entity Tags: Antonio Martino, Michael Ledeen, Mel Sembler January 30, 2002 Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice's chief deputy on the National Security Council, instructs former Iran-Contra figure Michael Ledeen and officials in Douglas Feith's office to cease their dealings (see December 9, 2001) with Manucher Ghorbanifar. [Washington Monthly, 9/2004] Entity Tags: Stephen J. Hadley, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Manucher Ghorbanifar June 2002 In Paris, Defense Department officials (including either Harold Rhode or Larry Franklin) meet with Iranian officials and Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms trader who had been a central figure in the Iran-Contra affair. The meeting reportedly resulted from "an unplanned, unscheduled encounter," that took place without White House approval. An earlier meeting involving several of the same figures had taken place seven months earlier (See December 9, 2001). [Washington Post, 8/9/2003; New York Times, 12/7/2003] When Secretary of State Colin Powell learns of the meeting, he complains directly to Condoleezza Rice and the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. [Newsday, 8/9/2003; Washington Post, 8/9/2003] Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen, Harold Rhode, Colin Powell, Manucher Ghorbanifar, Larry Franklin July 2002 Michael Ledeen contacts Mel Sembler, the US ambassador to Italy, and informs him that he will be traveling to Rome again (see December 9, 2001) to continue "his work" with the Iranians. Sembler passes this on to Washington, and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley sends word to Ledeen reminding him that he is not to deal with the Iranians. [Washington Monthly, 9/2004] Entity Tags: Mel Sembler, Michael Ledeen, Stephen J. Hadley September 4, 2002 Neoconservative Michael Ledeen argues in a piece published by the Wall Street Journal that the US must not limit the next military strike to Iraq alone. Rather, according to Ledeen, the US "should instead be talking about using all our political, moral, and military genius to support a vast democratic revolution to liberate all the peoples of the Middle East from tyranny." In addition to Iraq, he says, the governments of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia must also be overthrown. "Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize." [Wall Street Journal, 9/4/2002] Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen Late 2002 Michael Ledeen joins with Morris Amitay, vice-president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs; ex-CIA head James Woolsey; former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney; former senator Paul Simon; and oil consultant Rob Sobhani to set up a group called the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI). [sunday Herald (Glasgow), 6/1/2003] CDI says it "fully agrees with President Bush's inclusion of Iran in the 'axis of evil' and supports congressional initiatives to bring about needed change in Iran." [Coalition for Democracy, 1/16/2004] The group has strong ties to Reza Pahlavi, the son of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the US-backed leader of Iran who was removed from power by the 1979 Iranian Revolution. [international Herald Tribune, 6/6/2003] Entity Tags: James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen March 25, 2003 During a conference held at the American Enterprise Institute, an audience member asks the panel of guests-made up of James Woolsey, Richard Perle, and Michael Ledeen-where they see "the level of acceptance of US society in terms of casualties, not only on the US side, but as well on the Iraqi side, and in terms of duration of the operation?" Ledeen responds: "I think the level of casualties is secondary. I mean, it may sound like an odd thing to say, but all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war. ... What we hate is not casualties but losing. And if the war goes well and if the American public has the conviction that we're being well-led and that our people are fighting well and that we're winning, I don't think casualties are going to be the issue." [American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/2003] Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, James Woolsey May 6, 2003 The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) hosts "The Future of Iran Mullahcracy, Democracy, and the War on Terror" at Washington DC's Wohlstetter Conference Center. The forum, cosponsored by Hudson Institute and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, includes a discussion on "What lies ahead for Iran?" and "What steps can the United States take to promote democratization and regime change in Iran?" Noted moderators and panelists include: Meyrav Wurmser, The Hudson Institute; Uri Lubrani, Israeli Defense Ministry; US Senator Sam Brownback; Michael A. Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht, both of the AEI; Bernard Lewis, Princeton University; and Morris Amitay of The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. [American Enterprise Institute, 5/6/2003] Entity Tags: American Enterprise Institute, Meyrav Wurmser, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Michael Ledeen May 29, 2003 CNN reports that despite US government prohibitions (see March 15, 1995 and May 6, 1995) banning US citizens and business from doing business with Iran, dozens of US companies are actively conducting business there, including Halliburton, ConocoPhillips and General Electric. The companies are using a complicated array of corporate loop-holes and off-shore accounts to maneuver around US laws. Michael Ledeen, interviewed by CNN, says these companies are aiding terrorism. "The oil companies are a wholly owned subsidiary of the government...the government is the primary sponsor of terrorism," he says, additionally claiming that "they have separate organizations that are used to funnel oil profits and other profits into the terror network." [CNN, 2/10/2003; CNN, 5/29/2003] Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen, Halliburton, Inc. September 26, 2003 American Enterprise Institute hosts Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the Ayatollah Rohallah Khomeini. Khomeini leads a discussion or Iran's future at the Wohlstetter Conference Center in Washington D.C. He is introduced by Michael Ledeen. [American Enterprise Institute, 9/26/2003] Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen December 19, 2003 Michael Ledeen, in an op-ed piece published by the Wall Street Journal, makes numerous charges against the Iranian government saying it supports terrorism and is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. He asserts that the Bush administration must therefore act soon against Iran. He says Iran is the "ultimate litmus test of the seriousness of the Bush administration" and that the "...[administration's] ability to conduct an effective campaign against the mullahs in Tehran will determine the outcome of the war against the terror masters." Ledeen asserts that the US does not need to invade Iran to "liberate it," rather it only needs to support the "enthusiastically pro-American" people, as the US did the "Serbs against Slobodan Milosovic, the Filipinos against the Marcoses, the Poles against Soviet Communism." [Wall Street Journal, 12/19/2003] Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen January 6, 2004 Hossein Khomeini, grandson of Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, returns to Iran on January 6, 2004. During 2003, he spent several months in Iraq and visited the US, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (see September 26, 2003). Khomeini's return to Iran is a surprise to Michael Ledeen and the AEI. According to Ledeen, sources close to the Khomeini family suggest that he was lured back with a combination of threats and promises. Ledeen says that Khomeini's wife was recently visited by Iranian security agents who told her, "If your children suddenly die in the streets, you must know that it was not our doing." [New York Sun, 1/26/2004] Entity Tags: Michael Ledeen, Hossein Khomeini April 3, 2005 Journalist and radio host Ian Masters asks former CIA operative Vincent Cannistraro during an interview, in reference to the question of who forged the Niger documents (see March 2000), "If I were to say the name Michael Ledeen to you, what would you say?" Cannistraro replies, "You're very close." After the radio show, Ledeen denies in a statement that he has any connection to the documents. [ian Master's Background Briefing, 4/3/2005]
  7. Would The Official Theory Of The Collapse Of The WTC Buildings Meet The Test For Admissibility Of Expert Testimony Under Daubert? It occurs to me in the course of my analysis of the United States Supreme Court case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed 2d 469 (1993), that the official conspiracy theory of the cause of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 (and WTC 7) would not meet the test for admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert and Kumho Tire Co. Ltd v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L. Ed 2d 238 (1999). I believe that many other aspects of 9/11 would not pass the Daubert test either. More on Daubert, Kumho Tire Under Daubert, and the applicable federal rules of evidence, a court acting as a gatekeeper must conduct what is essentially a 4-part analysis of the proposed opinion or theory before expert testimony will be admitted into evidence in support of the opinion or theory. The purpose of the court's gatekeeper function is to determine that the opinion testimony is both relevant and reliable before the jury or the judge is permitted to receive it into evidence. On the question of reliability the Court must inquire into: 1. Whether the opinion/theory is susceptible to testing and has been subjected to such testing; 2. Whether the opinion/theory has been subjected to peer review; 3. Whether there is a known or potential rate of error associated with the methodology used and whether there are standards controlling the techniques' operation; and, 4. Whether the opinion/theory has been scrutinized and accepted by the scientific community. On these points it must be noted, however so briefly here, that: 1. Yes and no. The official theory of the collapse of the WTC is susceptible to testing, but the government has never tested the theory. Legitimate private tests of the official theory have proved that the theory is not scientifically valid. At a minimum, conflicting results have been obtained in any private tests. There has been no test per se involving an actual structure like the WTC. However, fires in other steel-structured high-rises have never caused any of them to collapse. 2. No. The official theory has never been subjected to formal peer review. The theory was advanced as fact and that was it. Much of the forensic evidence from the WTC was destroyed and discarded in the days and weeks following 9/11. Very little forensic evidence remained for analysis. In the private sector, engineers, physicists, demolition and explosive experts, and the like, have reviewed the official theory given the limited available information and conducted tests. As to those tests I refer you back to point 1 above. 3. Yes. In light of points 1 and 2 the rate of error as to the legitimate tests the have been conducted appears to be 100%. The official theory is impossible. There is no general acceptance of the theory in the scientific community. 4. No. While some members of the scientific community may choose to accept the official theory, there is no general acceptance of the theory in the scientific community. Therefore, under the standards established by the US Supreme Court in Daubert, expert testimony offered to support the official theory of the collapse of the WTC should be, and probably would be, excluded by an impartial judge. Alternative theories and hypotheses for the collapse of the WTC such as those advanced by Steven Jones, PhD, and others, should on the other hand pass the Daubert test and be admitted into evidence. For an opinion or theory to pass the Daubert test, and for the court to permit the trier of fact to hear the opinion testimony, is not to say that the trier of fact would necessarily agree with the experts' opinions. Admissibility into evidence and acceptance by the trier of fact of the evidence are two different things. It is the difference between saying something and having it believed. I am suggesting, however, that scientific theories presenting alternative hypotheses for the collapse of the WTC that are grounded in good science would in all likelihood pass the Daubert test and be admissible in court, whereas the official theory of the collapse of WTC would not meet the Daubert test of reliability and, thus, the trier of fact would not be permitted to hear the official theory. Yet, we are all expected to accept the official theory as fact. Stevan Douglas Looney (10/11/06) Stevan Douglas Looney is A trial lawyer practicing law for 26 years. Stevan was admitted to the bar in New Mexico in 1980. He IS also admitted to the US Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Tax Court, as well as the Courts of the State of New Mexico. He served as a Special Assistant Attorney General for New Mexico. Stevan is also on the Board of the New Mexico Continuing Legal Education Board and is a Hearing Officer for the New Mexico Disciplinary Board. http://www.v911t.org/LegalAnalysis.php
  8. North Koreas Nukes and Rumsfeld

    http://www.successfuloffice.com/North-Kore...uclear-Test.htm North Korean Nuclear Test Background Information & latest News on The North Korean Nuclear Crisis SEOUL, South Korea, North Korea said this morning it has performed its first nuclear weapons test. The country's official Korean Central News Agency claimed the test was performed and there was no radioactive leakage from the site. Ramifications: President Bush and Secretary Rice have both repeated that the United States will NOT tolerate a nuclear North Korea. Hostilities would then seem imminent. Japan will not sit still. We expect constitutional changes allowing the arming of Japan if North Korea is not disarmed immediately. This would not be to the liking of China, the main supporter of North Korea. * Confirmed by South Korea - 3.6 seismic activity noted. U.S. Geological Survey says 4.2 magnitude, it's a NUKE! Australia has also confirmed the seismic activity China Warned 20 minutes prior to test South Korea has raised it's Military Defense Level. October 9th 2006 - South Korean Stocks Plunge on news of test LOCATION: 240 miles north of Pyongyang (capital) Latest News * Japan's Defense Agency on Monday deployed three Air Self-Defense Force The Japanese are trying to find out if there aree radiation levels that can be detected. * N.Korea may conduct another nuclear test-Yonhap * China denounces "brazen" North Korea nuclear test Reuters * Outcry at N Korea 'nuclear test' BBC * North Korea tests nuke Washington Times * North Korean Nuclear Test Evokes a New Threat Other News Sources: * Report: North Korea Tests Nuclear Weapon SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea performed its first-ever nuclear weapons test Monday, Yonhap news agency reported, citing government officials. * The Daily Item Background Information & Past News on North Korean Nuclear Weapons Program * North Korean Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Since the 1950s, the DPRK has been proceeding with a nuclear development program. It seems that North Korea is engaged in one of two things. This is an excellent source of information in nearly every way. * BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | UN to pressure N Korea over test * Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Growing fears over North Korea * ABC News: N. Korea Appears to Be Preparing for Nuclear Test * FT.com / Asia-Pacific / North Korea's military programme * North is capable of a nuclear test, Seoul official says * The Epoch Times | Possible North Korea Nuclear Test Imminent Japan can become a nuclear power within 5 years. Articles 9 of the constitution to be amended or repealed shortly. * Will Japan Go Nuclear??? * Japan Will never Go Nuclear * How Dangerous Is North Korea * JAPAN’S RENEWED IMPERATIVES FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS: An Analysis Japan’s imperatives for acquisition of nuclear weapons were analyzed in sufficient detail by this author four years ago in his paper: “Japan’s Imperatives for Nuclear Weapons” (SAAG Paper No. 487 dated 05.07.2002). The strategic imperatives arising from Japan’s security environment and the political imperatives arising from Japan’s international political importance were discussed. Some of the major points made in the above-said paper bear recapitulation and they are: o Japan’s imperatives for a nuclear weapons capability were born the day it was subjected to nuclear weapons attacks in 1945. o The Korean War which came close to being a nuclear conflagration reinforced the imperatives. o The imperative became latent due to the nuclear umbrella provided by the United States. o The post-Cold War era has not brought any peace dividends to East Asia. On the contrary East Asia has become more strategically turbulent and uncertain for Japan. o An independent Japanese nuclear deterrence capability would provide both strategic and political stability in East Asia besides strengthening Japan’s own security and reducing Japan’s vulnerability to coercive pressures from their neighbors. While they developed nuclear weapons: * Millions Dead from Starvation in North Korea * Economy of North Korea - BY WIKIPEDIA * North Korean starvation detailed More on North Korean Nuclear Crisis * North Korean Nuclear Facilities * DPRK Briefing Book * Japan the spoiler in Northeast Asia
  9. Why is the Brazilian government interested

    Paranoia pounces ad nauseum. Probably wouldn't happen with polite discourse, intercourse or other course. You get sunburned from being in the sun. Relax, enjoy the shade periodically and lighten up!
  10. Mark Foley: A Cover up that Failed

    Lawmaker Saw Foley Messages In 2000 Page Shared Exchanges With GOP Rep. Kolbe (Arizona is Pedophile capital right behind Dung Hill) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6100800855.html By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 9, 2006; Page A01 A Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley's inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications. A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ph...enlarge_tab.gif Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) saw messages Foley sent in 2000. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) saw messages Foley sent in 2000. (Hussein Malla - AP) VIDEO | Coverage of the scandal surrounding the former Republican congressman Mark Foley. Rep. Mark Foley Scandal * Foley Consuming GOP As Elections Draw Near * Conflicting Accounts Leave Plot Holes in Foley Saga * Staffer Cites Earlier Role by Hastert's Office * Speculation Centers on a Republican Former Page * Inquiry To Look At House, Not Foley The revelation pushes back by at least five years the date when a member of Congress has acknowledged learning of Foley's behavior with former pages. A timeline issued by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested that the first lawmakers to know, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the House Page Board, and Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), became aware of "over-friendly" e-mails only last fall. It also expands the universe of players in the drama beyond members, either in leadership or on the page board. A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted. But Cline denied the source's characterization, saying only that the messages had made the former page feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, she said, "corrective action" was taken. Cline said she has not yet determined whether that action went beyond Kolbe's confrontation with Foley. In interviews with The Post last week, multiple pages identified Kolbe as a close friend and personal confidante who was one of the only members of Congress to take any interest in them. A former page himself, Kolbe offered to mentor pages and kept in touch with some of them after they left the program, according to the interviews. Kolbe once invited four former pages to make use of his Washington home while he was out of town, according to an instant message between Foley and another former page, Jordan Edmund, in January 2002. The pages planned to attend a first-year reunion of their page class. But because of a snowstorm, they did not take Kolbe up on his offer, according to one of the four pages. Cline said one of the youths invited was a former page of Kolbe's. Because the congressman frequently travels on weekends, either to his Arizona ranch or abroad, the house is often available to friends, constituents, staffers and former staff members, such as a former page, she said. Kolbe, the only openly gay Republican in Congress, is retiring at the end of the year. The latest revelation in the growing House page scandal comes just a month before crucial midterm elections. Foley resigned Sept. 29 after ABC News confronted him with the sexually explicit messages that he exchanged with a former page, triggering investigations by the Justice Department, the House ethics committee and Florida authorities. Hastert and his top aides have been sharply criticized by Democrats and some conservative Republicans for failing to act promptly after receiving warnings that Foley had been sexually predatory in dealing with pages and former pages. Ron Bonjean, the speaker's spokesman, said yesterday: "Allegations of inappropriate conduct by members of Congress towards pages need to be fully reviewed by the ethics committee and law enforcement." In addressing the revelation about Kolbe, Bonjean said, "This allegation reiterates why the speaker has also called for a full review of the House page program to ensure that it is as safe and secure as possible." A new poll by Newsweek indicates the Foley scandal is doing significant damage to the Republicans' political fortunes and could sink their chances of holding onto control of Congress on Election Day, Nov. 7. The poll found that 52 percent of Americans, including 29 percent of Republicans, believe Hastert was aware of Foley's Internet communications with underage pages and tried to cover up Foley's actions. More of those polled, 42 percent, now say they trust Democrats to do a better job handling moral values than Republicans; 36 percent favored Republicans on the values question. In a sharp exchange on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), the vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, insinuated that Democrats were behind the revelations of Foley's actions and the release of electronic messages showing Foley having sexually graphic or highly suggestive conversations with former pages. "What I don't understand is where have these e-mails been for three years? Are we saying that a 15-year-old child would have sat on e-mails that were triple-X-rated for three years and suddenly spring them out right on the eve of an election? That's just a little bit too suspicious, even for Washington, D.C.," Kingston said. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) shot back, "If there's any evidence that you need that the values in Washington have turned upside down, you could just hear what Jack had to say. Only in Washington, D.C., can you take a group of people in charge of the House and basically have evidence that they've been looking the other way while a predator has been . . . going after 15- and 16-year-old pages, [and] they somehow . . . have the audacity to turn that into a political attack against Democrats." So far, only ABC News and The Washington Post are known to have obtained the sexually explicit instant messages between two former pages and Foley. The Post obtained its copies from a former page who served on Capitol Hill with the other two pages. Staff writer James V. Grimaldi contributed to this report.
  11. A Game Of Chicken Gone Wrong

    HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: National Oct. 8, 2006, 4:27PM U.S. project could start atomic war, experts warn Refitted missiles may sound alarm and prompt nuclear response by Russia By ERIC ROSENBERG Copyright 2006 Hearst News Service WASHINGTON — A Pentagon project to modify its deadliest nuclear missile for use as a conventional weapon against targets such as North Korea and Iran could unwittingly spark an atomic war, two weapons experts warned Thursday. ADVERTISEMENT Russian military officers might misconstrue a submarine-launched conventional D-5 intercontinental ballistic missile and conclude that Russia is under nuclear attack, said MIT's Ted Postol, a physicist and professor of science, technology and national security policy, and Pavel Podvig, a physicist and weapons specialist at Stanford University. "Any launch of a long-range non-nuclear armed sea or land ballistic missile will cause an automated alert of the Russian early warning system," Postol told reporters. The triggering of an alert wouldn't necessarily precipitate a retaliatory hail of Russian nuclear missiles, Postol said. Nevertheless, he said, "there can be no doubt that such an alert will greatly increase the chances of a nuclear accident involving strategic nuclear forces." Podvig said that launching conventional versions of a missile from a submarine that normally carries nuclear warheads "expands the possibility for a misunderstanding so widely that it is hard to contemplate." Mixing conventional and nuclear D-5s on a U.S. Trident submarine "would be very dangerous," Podvig said, because the Russians have no way of discriminating between the two types of missiles once they are launched. Russia, unlike the U.S., lacks sufficient satellites to supplement radar and confirm whether missile launches are false alarms. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. "The media and expert circles are already discussing plans to use intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry non-nuclear warheads," he said in May. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces." Accidental nuclear war is not so far-fetched. In 1995, Russia initially interpreted the launch of a Norwegian scientific rocket as the onset of a U.S. nuclear attack. Then-President Boris Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" in the first stages of a retaliatory strike before the mistake was discovered. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What a great way to start a war! Bests, John McCarthy
  12. Mark Foley: A Cover up that Failed

    http://www.rense.com/general73/hast.htm Gays dont lie! Bests, John McCarthy
  13. North Koreas Nukes and Rumsfeld

    Rummy's North Korea Connection What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it? (FORTUNE Magazine) By Richard Behar Research Associate Brenda Cherry May 12, 2003 (FORTUNE Magazine) – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rarely keeps his opinions to himself. He tends not to compromise with his enemies. And he clearly disdains the communist regime in North Korea. So it's surprising that there is no clear public record of his views on the controversial 1994 deal in which the U.S. agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program. What's even more surprising about Rumsfeld's silence is that he sat on the board of the company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The company is Zurich-based engineering giant ABB, which signed the contract in early 2000, well before Rumsfeld gave up his board seat and joined the Bush administration. Rumsfeld, the only American director on the ABB board from 1990 to early 2001, has never acknowledged that he knew the company was competing for the nuclear contract. Nor could FORTUNE find any public reference to what he thought about the project. In response to questions about his role in the reactor deal, the Defense Secretary's spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told Newsweek in February that "there was no vote on this" and that her boss "does not recall it being brought before the board at any time." More from FORTUNE An oil boom? Not in India The brightest star in GM's constellation 'Now is the time to invest' FORTUNE 500 Current Issue Subscribe to Fortune Rumsfeld declined requests by FORTUNE to elaborate on his role. But ABB spokesman Bjorn Edlund has told FORTUNE that "board members were informed about this project." And other ABB officials say there is no way such a large and high-stakes project, involving complex questions of liability, would not have come to the attention of the board. "A written summary would probably have gone to the board before the deal was signed," says Robert Newman, a former president of ABB's U.S. nuclear division who spearheaded the project. "I'm sure they were aware." FORTUNE contacted 15 ABB board members who served at the time the company was bidding for the Pyongyang contract, and all but one declined to comment. That director, who asked not to be identified, says he's convinced that ABB's chairman at the time, Percy Barnevik, told the board about the reactor project in the mid-1990s. "This was a major thing for ABB," the former director says, "and extensive political lobbying was done." The director recalls being told that Rumsfeld was asked "to lobby in Washington" on ABB's behalf in the mid-1990s because a rival American company had complained about a foreign-owned firm getting the work. Although he couldn't provide details, Goran Lundberg, who ran ABB's power-generation business until 1995, says he's "pretty sure that at some point Don was involved," since it was not unusual to seek help from board members "when we needed contacts with the U.S. government." Other former top executives don't recall Rumsfeld's involvement. Today Rumsfeld, riding high after the Iraq war, is reportedly discussing a plan for "regime change" in North Korea. But his silence about the nuclear reactors raises questions about what he did--or didn't do--as an ABB director. There is no evidence that Rumsfeld, who took a keen interest in the company's nuclear business and attended most board meetings, made his views about the project known to other ABB officials. He certainly never made them public, even though the deal was criticized by many people close to Rumsfeld, who said weapons-grade nuclear material could be extracted from light-water reactors. Paul Wolfowitz, James Lilley, and Richard Armitage, all Rumsfeld allies, are on record opposing the deal. So is former presidential candidate Bob Dole, for whom Rumsfeld served as campaign manager and chief defense advisor. And Henry Sokolski, whose think tank received funding from a foundation on whose board Rumsfeld sat, has been one of the most vocal opponents of the 1994 agreement. One clue to Rumsfeld's views: a Heritage Foundation speech in March 1998. Although he did not mention the light-water reactors, Rumsfeld said the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea "does not end its nuclear menace; it merely postpones the reckoning, with no assurance that we will know how much bomb-capable material North Korea has." A search of numerous databases found no press references at the time, or throughout the 1990s, noting Rumsfeld was a director of the company building the reactors. And Rumsfeld didn't bring it up either. ABB, which was already building eight nuclear reactors in South Korea, had an inside track on the $4 billion U.S.-sponsored North Korea project. The firm was told "our participation is essential," recalls Frank Murray, project manager for the reactors. (He plays the same role now at Westinghouse, which was acquired by Britain's BNFL in 1999, a year before it also bought ABB's nuclear power business.) The North Korean reactors are being primarily funded by South Korean and Japanese export-import banks and supervised by KEDO, a consortium based in New York. "It was not a matter of favoritism," says Desaix Anderson, who ran KEDO from 1997 to 2001. "It was just a practical matter." Even so, ABB tried to keep its involvement hush-hush. In a 1995 letter from ABB to the Department of Energy obtained by FORTUNE, the firm requested authorization to release technology to the North Koreans, then asked that the seemingly innocuous one-page letter be withheld from public disclosure. "Everything was held close to the vest for some reason," says Ronald Kurtz, ABB's U.S. spokesman. "It wasn't as public as contracts of this magnitude typically are." However discreet ABB tried to be about the project, Kurtz and other company insiders say the board had to have known about it. Newman, the former ABB executive, says a written summary of the risk review would probably have gone to Barnevik. Barnevik didn't return FORTUNE's phone calls, but Newman's Zurich-based boss, Howard Pierce, says Rumsfeld "was on the board--so I can only assume he was aware of it." By all accounts Rumsfeld was a hands-on director. Dick Slember, who once ran ABB's global nuclear business, says Rumsfeld often called to talk about issues involving nuclear proliferation, and that it was difficult to "get him pointed in the right direction." Pierce, who recalls Rumsfeld visiting China to help ABB get nuclear contracts, says, "Once he got an idea, it was tough to change his mind. You really had to work your ass off to turn him around." Shelby Brewer, a former head of ABB's nuclear business in the U.S., recalls meetings with Rumsfeld at the division's headquarters in Connecticut. "I found him enchanting and brilliant," he says. "He would cut through Europeans' bullxxxx like a hot knife through butter." None of them could recall Rumsfeld talking about the North Korea project. But if he was keeping his opinions to himself, others were not. The Republicans attacked the deal from the start, particularly after gaining control of Congress in 1994. "The Agreed Framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature," says Stephen Bosworth, KEDO's first executive director and a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea. It's not hard to understand why it was controversial. North Korea is on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and has repeatedly violated the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Robert Gallucci, the assistant secretary of state who spearheaded the 1994 agreement, doesn't disagree, but says, "If we didn't do a deal, either we would have gone to war or they'd have over 100 nuclear weapons." The problem, say a number of nuclear energy experts, is that it's possible, though difficult, to extract weapons-grade material from light-water reactors. "Reprocessing the stuff is not a big deal," says Victor Gilinsky, who has held senior posts at the Atomic Energy Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "You don't even need special equipment. The KEDO people ignore this. And we're still building the damn things." Given the Republican outcry over the reactor deal, Rumsfeld's public silence is nearly deafening. "Almost any Republican was complaining about it," says Winston Lord, President Clinton's assistant secretary of state for East Asian/Pacific Affairs. Lord can't remember Rumsfeld speaking out. Nor can Frank Gaffney Jr., whose fervently anti-KEDO Center for Security Policy had ties to Rumsfeld. Gaffney speculates that Rumsfeld might have recused himself from the controversy because of his ABB position. By 1998 a debate was raging in Washington about the initiative, and the delays were infuriating Pyongyang. Inspectors could no longer verify North Korea's nuclear material inventory. Still, at some point in 1998, ABB received its formal "invitation to bid," says Murray. Where was Rumsfeld? That year he chaired a blue-ribbon panel commissioned by Congress to examine classified data on ballistic missile threats. The commission concluded that North Korea could strike the U.S. within five years. (Weeks after the report was released, it fired a three-stage rocket over Japan.) The Rumsfeld Commission also concluded that North Korea was maintaining a nuclear weapons program--a subtle swipe at the reactor deal, which was supposed to prevent such a program. Rumsfeld's resume in the report did not mention that he was an ABB director. In his final days in office, Clinton had been preparing a bold deal in which North Korea would give up its missile and nuclear programs in return for aid and normalized relations. But President Bush was skeptical of Pyongyang's intentions and called for a policy review in March 2001. Two months later the DOE, after consulting with Rumsfeld's Pentagon, renewed the authorization to send nuclear technology to North Korea. Groundbreaking ceremonies attended by Westinghouse and North Korean officials were held Sept. 14, 2001--three days after the worst terror attack on U.S. soil. The Bush administration still hasn't abandoned the project. Representative Edward Markey and other Congressmen have been sending letters to Bush and Rumsfeld, asking them to pull the plug on the reactors, which Markey calls "nuclear bomb factories." Nevertheless, a concrete-pouring ceremony was held last August, and Westinghouse sponsored a training course for the North Koreans that concluded in October--shortly before Pyongyang confessed to having a secret uranium program, kicked inspectors out, and said it would start making plutonium. The Bush administration has suspended further transfers of nuclear technology, but in January it authorized $3.5 million to keep the project going. Sooner or later, the outspoken Secretary of Defense will have to explain his silence. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nit Pik This! Bests, John McCarthy
  14. My CIRCUS MAXIMUS theory of distraction

    Me thinks the government has failed to document it's conspiracy theory claims on 911. The lies are being exposed!!!! The naysayers cannot say the same. Just answer the questions! How did the WTC collapse? Look at the evidence all over this forum. Bests, John McCarthy
  15. Enemy Combatants R US

    Habeus Corpus day is tomorrow, Tuesday, October 10, 2006. Yes, The Military Commissions Act 2006 or The Erosion of Democracy and Freedom in America http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id812.html See ya later Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I wonder who conspired to arrange all of this in one felt swoop? Is al Quaeda getting a kickback from Halliburton or RMK? If there are a bunch of terrorists running around and conspiring to do harm why are they not already in the concentratiion camps being built to accomodate those falling into the catagory of 'enemy combatants' (aka US citizens)? Bests, John McCarthy
×