A New Watergate?

[John Simkin]

John wrote:

Tim, as I have already pointed out, William Buckley is a long-time CIA operative .

John, you are now being investigated by Patrick Fitzgerald for "outing" William F. Buckley, Jr., who had always claimed he only worked for the CIA for a brief time.

Fitzgerald will ask you to identify your source that Buckley remained a CIA operative (as I do now).

Is that another one of your threats? Do you really think Patrick Fitzgerald is going to come after me?

For evidence that William Buckley was a long-time member of the CIA and that the National Review was/is a CIA front see the article by George Will's article in the Washington Post on 29th January, 1975. Will was actually the National Review’s Washington columnist. He explained that most senior members of staff knew that the National Review was a CIA operation. He revealed that the journal had four CIA agents on its staff. He claimed that he had evidence that the National Review had been receiving funds from the CIA. He also revealed that Buckley was very close to E. Howard Hunt and had been raising funds for him. (The article was published during the Watergate Scandal). Will lost his job in the National Review but was never prosecuted for outing Buckley. In fact, the article received very little attention at the time and Buckley was pleased to let the subject drop. As this thread is linked to my very popular page on William Buckley, I don't think you will have pleased your idol by raising this issue.

[Tim Gratz]

John, can't you take a joke? I wasn't outing you because I obviously do not think Buckley is an undercover CIA agent regardless of what Will wrote. Therefore, the humorous intent should have been obvious.

Since the CIA asked for a law enforcement complaint about the "outing" of Plame but never made such a complaint against Will I suspect that may prove that Buckley was not on the CIA payroll. (Why would he need to m oonlight anyway?).

[Pat Speer]

Since the CIA asked for a law enforcement complaint about the "outing" of Plame but never made such a complaint against Will I suspect that may prove that Buckley was not on the CIA payroll. (Why would he need to m oonlight anyway?).

Of course, Buckley is not on the payroll. You don't insult a groupie by offering her money.

Tim, you're last post offering a "better safe than sorry' view of the world is one of the saddest things I've ever read. President Bush' job is to make the right decision and trust the most credible intelligence. His refusal to follow the CIA and his decision to follow a "better safe than sorry" strategy in Iraq was the sure road to hell. In the 70's, his father adopted a "better safe than sorry" strategy on the national estimates of Soviet missile defense. As a result, we suddenly found ourselves on the wrong side of a second "missile gap," which cleared the way for Reagan to engage in the largest military build-up in U.S. Peacetime history. One Trillion dollars later, we're still funidng Star wars etc. "just in case.." Why you're unable to see that that TRILLION dollars could have been better spent on education, better public transportation, better health care, etc... is beyond me. Why you're unwilling to acknowledge that the Reagan/ Bush nexus might have had other things on their mind than the welfare of the American people, namely the welfare of their MIC backers, is beyond me. I think you are terrifyingly naive...

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, Reagan did have other things on his mind. I have read that he made a conscious decision to spend the Soviet Union into the ashheap of history by accelerated defense spending.

I for one cannot care less if defense contractors made money in bringing an end to the cold war. What pleases me is that my daughter need not grow up like I did, living in constant fear of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers. Perhaps you are too young to remember the era of fall-out shelters, "duck and cover", etc but as long as communism remained an empire dedicated to the destruction of the west, a worldwide nuclear exchange remained a possibility, even if by accident.

And I do not understand what is so difficult to understand about that old adage "better safe than sorry"?

I repeat if there are two reasonable intelligence estimates that differ about whether Iraq has WMD, the only rational choice in my opinion is to act on the estimate that it does, if that estimate is a credible one, even if the greater weight of the evidence supports the alternative point of view. To me, that reasoning is not naive; it is sane; and to "guess" on the riskier alternative, given the risks involved, would indeed be insane.

[Ron Ecker]

Pat, Reagan did have other things on his mind. I have read that he made a conscious decision to spend the Soviet Union into the ashheap of history by accelerated defense spending.

I've read about this too. I read that there were experts who believed that the Soviet Union would have fallen of its own dead weight anyway without Reagan further enriching the MIC with profligate spending (while feeding schoolchildren catsup as a "vegetable") for the alleged purpose of bringing down the "Evil Empire."

IMO Reagan was a terrorist and traitor. After mouthing lines about "swift retribution" for terrorists, he gave international terrorism a big boost by letting some 250 U.S. Marines get blown up in Lebanon without reprisal. Instead of the promised "swift retribution," the U.S. left Lebanon like a scalded hound with its tail between its legs. Reagan also let Saddam Hussein bomb the U.S.S. Stark (killing some 30 U.S. sailors) without reprisal. (The only people who got "swift retribution" from this cowardly clown were little guys like Kudaffi (sp) in Libya, for whatever he supposedly did, and whoever ran the island of Granada, scene of that glorious U.S. military victory.) Reagan approved the CIA mining harbors in Nicaragua, a terrorist act that led to a Congressional cutoff of funds, which in turn led to the Iran/Contra scandal including trading arms for hostages (aiding and abetting an enemy, or treason). How anyone can look back at this bloody two-bit actor as a hero is beyond me.

[Mark Stapleton]

Pat, Reagan did have other things on his mind. I have read that he made a conscious decision to spend the Soviet Union into the ashheap of history by accelerated defense spending.

I for one cannot care less if defense contractors made money in bringing an end to the cold war. What pleases me is that my daughter need not grow up like I did, living in constant fear of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers. Perhaps you are too young to remember the era of fall-out shelters, "duck and cover", etc but as long as communism remained an empire dedicated to the destruction of the west, a worldwide nuclear exchange remained a possibility, even if by accident.

And I do not understand what is so difficult to understand about that old adage "better safe than sorry"?

I repeat if there are two reasonable intelligence estimates that differ about whether Iraq has WMD, the only rational choice in my opinion is to act on the estimate that it does, if that estimate is a credible one, even if the greater weight of the evidence supports the alternative point of view. To me, that reasoning is not naive; it is sane; and to "guess" on the riskier alternative, given the risks involved, would indeed be insane.

Tim,

That's what's happened. That era of fallout shelters in your youth has wired into your head the conviction that everything bad in the world, including the assassination, must have been the work of the Soviets or its allies. You should realise that the assassination of JFK is a different and unique event. For one thing, unlike all the other American assassinations, no-one confessed.

The money President Reagan spent to force the Soviets into bankruptcy and collapse could have been spent on better things. Did you know the USA is the only western country without some form of universal health care? Trouble is, that fact is not important to the people who run your country.

[Gerry Hemming]

John wrote:

Tim, as I have already pointed out, William Buckley is a long-time CIA operative .

John, you are now being investigated by Patrick Fitzgerald for "outing" William F. Buckley, Jr., who had always claimed he only worked for the CIA for a brief time.

Fitzgerald will ask you to identify your source that Buckley remained a CIA operative (as I do now).

Is that another one of your threats? Do you really think Patrick Fitzgerald is going to come after me?

For evidence that William Buckley was a long-time member of the CIA and that the National Review was/is a CIA front see the article by George Will's article in the Washington Post on 29th January, 1975. Will was actually the National Review’s Washington columnist. He explained that most senior members of staff knew that the National Review was a CIA operation. He revealed that the journal had four CIA agents on its staff. He claimed that he had evidence that the National Review had been receiving funds from the CIA. He also revealed that Buckley was very close to E. Howard Hunt and had been raising funds for him. (The article was published during the Watergate Scandal). Will lost his job in the National Review but was never prosecuted for outing Buckley. In fact, the article received very little attention at the time and Buckley was pleased to let the subject drop. As this thread is linked to my very popular page on William Buckley, I don't think you will have pleased your idol by raising this issue.

------------------------

John:

I just interrupted Fitzgerald's post-jogging breakfast via a telephone call to his "work-a-holic" office. He reminded me that George Will published his "theory" long before the "1982 Intelligence Identities Act" took effect as law !! Any indictment of Mr. Will would be violative of our constitutional prohibitions against "ex-post facto" prosecutions, "written" into our "Law-of-the-Land"; something you Brits have failed to do [writing a Constitution] and opting instead for "Statutes-at-Large"!!

However, the U.S. / U.K. Treaty providing for concurrent prosecutorial jurisdiction might just subject you to a "love-cruise" rendition aboard one of the outsourced PSC's lavishly equipped Grumman "Jetstreams" -- that is: if you don't demand an "unhooded" voyage in one of their hot-air balloons.

Should you so desire, I could file [as "Next Friend"] in your name a petition directly to Justice Scalia, to wit:

Seeking the invocation of the "All Writs Act" [Title 18 U.S. Code, section 1361]; and seeking abatement of all proceedings [or renditions] whilst I prepare a Writ of Prohibition, consolidated with Quo Warranto, and a "Bivens Action". Appended thereto will be found an "immediate-cease-and-desist" demand against any further stupid "Gratzonianist" accusatory/threatening and obscene blatherings !!

John !! "...Who will rid you of this pries...er...shyster wannabe.."!!

NOW that we have had our Sunday "funnies", let us return to more serious TROLLING --Pull-ease.

Crumpets soaked in Guinness old boy, Eh wot ??

GPH

_____________________________

[Ron Ecker]

Did you know the USA is the only western country without some form of universal health care?

I was surprised to read the other day that they don't even have anything close to universal health care in "Communist" China. I believe it was an article in Newsweek, said that poor people in China don't even bother trying to go to a hospital, because you have to bribe the doctors and poor people don't have the money. I thought that "to each according to his need" was supposed to be one of the benefits of Communism. (I should add, though, that I don't really trust anything I read in Newsweek or Time, which like all the establishment media are purveyors of U.S. government propaganda, including "Oswald did it.")

[Dawn Meredith]

How anyone can look back at this bloody two-bit actor as a hero is beyond me.

It's called right wing revisionist history, Pat. Tell a lie often enough and beofre you know it half the sheeple in the US will be spouting it. The length of that funeral and the deification of that man just astounded me.

Dawn

I love the line about him in the film "Back to the Future".

[Gerry Hemming]

Since the CIA asked for a law enforcement complaint about the "outing" of Plame but never made such a complaint against Will I suspect that may prove that Buckley was not on the CIA payroll. (Why would he need to m oonlight anyway?).

Of course, Buckley is not on the payroll. You don't insult a groupie by offering her money.

Tim, you're last post offering a "better safe than sorry' view of the world is one of the saddest things I've ever read. President Bush' job is to make the right decision and trust the most credible intelligence. His refusal to follow the CIA and his decision to follow a "better safe than sorry" strategy in Iraq was the sure road to hell. In the 70's, his father adopted a "better safe than sorry" strategy on the national estimates of Soviet missile defense. As a result, we suddenly found ourselves on the wrong side of a second "missile gap," which cleared the way for Reagan to engage in the largest military build-up in U.S. Peacetime history. One Trillion dollars later, we're still funidng Star wars etc. "just in case.." Why you're unable to see that that TRILLION dollars could have been better spent on education, better public transportation, better health care, etc... is beyond me. Why you're unwilling to acknowledge that the Reagan/ Bush nexus might have had other things on their mind than the welfare of the American people, namely the welfare of their MIC backers, is beyond me. I think you are terrifyingly naive...

-------------------------

Pat:

I could NEVER stomache that asshole "Ronny-RayGun" even when he was a "Z" classless "actor?" Moreover, you might have read where I went against "Bush-41" during 1991 in encouraging Larry Nichols to rescind his state and federal law suits against "Slick Willy" -- and advising Larry that further "Jennifer Flowers, et al. exposes" would operate to insure that an inadequate Geo. H. W. would emerge as the reigning Mogul of the ruling Cabal.

And this, after days of re-drafting the dismissed original pleadings [prepared by a law professor??] and having both the Arkansas and federal district court reinstate same.

Google and discover that Clinton made over 50 official declarations of Iraqi WMDs. In fact, Saddam had previously purchased "Yellow-Cake" 4 times since the 1980s. Prez Geo. "Shrub" the 43rd was threatened after 9/11 with an even more heavily documented [this time legal charge] that Saddam's "Republican Guards" took down the Murrah Federal Building [OKBOMB]; and that said terrorists had been granted DCI/ INS immigration waivers [the 100 limit anaully was violated] by both Bush-41 and Clinton "Bribers" !!

[see: "The 3rd Terrorist" - by Jayna Davis & the multiple court case transcripts which followed].

Moreover, there was a threat that observations made by my Son's Long Island based Para-Rescue Unit [NY Air Guard - See: "The Perfect Storm] that one of their "Blackhawk" Pavelows had witnessed a MANPADS ["Stinger" or SAM-17] launched against TWA-800 from a "Go-Fast" Cigarette boat. That said 50+ knot speedboat used Sov-type ECM & FLIR "blooming" devices to elude capture, and disappeared toward an Iraqi flagged [enroute to the Caribbean] merchant vessel [read "mother-Ship"].

I was pissed at the RMK/BRJ" consortium in Vietnam long before Jeb Magruder called his cousin [and my business partner] Peyton Marshall Magruder [ex-WerBell business associate post-WWII] during early 1973.

The DEAL?? Go to RVN, asssit in declaring over $200 million worth of mostly still crated heavy construction vehicles & equipment and declare same as surplus salvage !! -- And, after bribing RVN prez Thieu [via mistrees who kept $1.5 M] with $21 Million -- ship ALL to the Shaw in Iran. Magruder got a measely $60,000+, and I got a Saigon to Miami to Saigon telephone bill for almost a thousand buckaroos.

The USS Stark was an "Act-of-War"; moreover, a "State-of-Belligerency" continued between Iraq and the U.S. even despite the 1991 "cease-fire" sponson/compact. According to the U.N. Charter, a member belligerent state has every right & privilege to reinstate active military actions should ANY substantive part of the "cease-fire" be violated. This remains the case with North Korea since July 26th, 1953 [uS Time] and the Panmunjon "interim" agreements. This is also why the Congress continued the complete "War Powers Act' delegation of authority to all Presidents; that is: until it expired sine die with Nixon during April 1973 !!

These belligerent Iraqi acts centered on violations of [uN approved] "No-Fly Zones" and the "lighting-up" of coalition fighters/recon/bombers enforcing same; by Iraqi use of Soviet supplied SAM radar and a few missile launches.

The second half of the "War Powers" clause in section 8 states "...and may issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make regulations as to captures and prizes..."!! Declarations of War are obsolete, and inimical to world commerce. A war delaration immediates requires ALL nation states to either declare their neutrality -- or their alliance as to the belligerent entities, be they "Prince, Power, or State"!! Because this paralyses world commerce, it is to be avoided. Therefore, the president [unilaterally] or the Congress [by "Joint Resolution"] may authorize reactive, defensive, or pre-emptive military action. The Boland Amendment was an example of the Congress using "the-power-of-the-purse" to abate belligerency. Had the reverse been the case -- the "Executive" being the "branch" which hesitated to respond; the results would have been similar: "Privateering & outsourcing the combatant arms.

These U.S. actions [recognized in both military & Int' Law] were in response to the new Sandinista regime's overt "Declaration of War" against the U.S. [at Las Mercedes, Oriente -- July 26th 1979]. Noriega later complied with 1,000+ years of Int'l Law by overtly [and before his subjects] declared War against the U.S., whilst adhering to the ancient requirement that he hold a wepon in one hand, and the banner, colors, flag, or shield of his "Liege" [Nat'l Flag of the Republic of Panama] in the other -- while verbalizing in clear language his declaration of belligerency [1990]!!

We are at War gentlemen, and despite the insidiousness of the Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, et al. concorderie; Y'all should either delare your loyal opposition, or join with the enemy -- IF you have the balls.

You can't have both ways. "Hanoi Jane", Hayden, Kerry, or GO! John McCain in 2008.

'Nuff said,

GPH

___________________________________

[Mark Stapleton]

Did you know the USA is the only western country without some form of universal health care?

I was surprised to read the other day that they don't even have anything close to universal health care in "Communist" China. I believe it was an article in Newsweek, said that poor people in China don't even bother trying to go to a hospital, because you have to bribe the doctors and poor people don't have the money. I thought that "to each according to his need" was supposed to be one of the benefits of Communism. (I should add, though, that I don't really trust anything I read in Newsweek or Time, which like all the establishment media are purveyors of U.S. government propaganda, including "Oswald did it.")

Ron,

A friend of mine recently returned from a one year stint in China working for Vodaphone. He was in one of the medium sized cities--can't recall the name--and he said that some days he had to literally step over bodies of people who had died in the street. No-one bats an eyelid.

[Terry Mauro]

Did you know the USA is the only western country without some form of universal health care?

I was surprised to read the other day that they don't even have anything close to universal health care in "Communist" China. I believe it was an article in Newsweek, said that poor people in China don't even bother trying to go to a hospital, because you have to bribe the doctors and poor people don't have the money. I thought that "to each according to his need" was supposed to be one of the benefits of Communism. (I should add, though, that I don't really trust anything I read in Newsweek or Time, which like all the establishment media are purveyors of U.S. government propaganda, including "Oswald did it.")

****************************************************************************

"I was surprised to read the other day that they don't even have anything close to universal health care in "Communist" China. I believe it was an article in Newsweek, said that poor people in China don't even bother trying to go to a hospital, because you have to bribe the doctors and poor people don't have the money."

Well, they can't very well call it "Communized" Medicine, Ron. All kidding aside. But seriously, it sure sounds alot like what's happening here, in the good old US of A. Especially, for the medically indigent who end up being blotted up off our mean "streets paved with gold", brought into the E.R.s, patched up, and thrown back out on the streets, after not being able to furnish a medical benefits card [i.e.: BCBS, Aetna, Healthnet, Pacificare], or an HMO [Healthy Members Only] card. Also, remember how economically backward the Peoples' Republic of China was compared to the U.S.S.R. bloc, which must have resembled more like living in the lap of luxury, compared the legacy Mao left to the P.R.C. Now that they've gone capitalist, perhaps they'll be able to perFect a form of Socialized Medicine more conducive to a universal model that would be beneficial to all of mankind. I have hopes for the Asians.

Anglo-Saxon-Indo-Europeans may have had the brute force with which to physically conquer the world, but the Asians have always been smarter intellectually, and will rule in the end. Remember their motto, "Don't get mad, get even."

As for Newsweek, Time-Life...think, Mockingbird.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Terry Mauro

[Tim Gratz]

A general has been quoted as saying that Wilson "outed" his wife's identity to him before the current controversy arose.

If true, and I doubt the general is lying, then either:

1. Plame was not a covert agent; or

2. Wilson himself may be guilty of violating the Espionage Act.

I should add in fairness that since the CIA requested investigation of the disclosure, it presumably thought Plame was "covert". I should also add that even if Wilson had identified his wife's work, that does not necessarily excuse any subsequent disclosures by others.

transcript of a meet the press program re the Plame matter (October 30, 2005):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9851404/

Finally, in terms of this being "another Watergate", John must have missed Fitzgerald's press conference. He clearly stated he had the full cooperation of President Bush (a far cry from Nixon's resistance every step of the way to the Watergate Special Prosecutor).

Edited November 8, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Finally, in terms of this being "another Watergate", John must have missed Fitzgerald's press conference. He clearly stated he had the full cooperation of President Bush (a far cry from Nixon's resistance every step of the way to the Watergate Special Prosecutor).

Bush of course has not given his full cooperation. Fitzgerald has asked Bush to promise he will not pardon any of his officials found guilty of a crime. This he has refused to do. This is very important as Libby is currently unwilling to implicate Bush and other aides in the leaking of information about CIA agents as he expects to be pardoned before his boss leaves office.

Although Nixon did provide money to the Watergate burglars he refused to pardon them. Of course, he arranged to get a pardon from Ford before he left office. In many ways, this was the most important abuse of power concerning the Watergate scandal. If Bush does pardon Libby just before he leaves office, it will be a clear sign of how he was involved in the matter from the beginning.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Bush of course has not given his full cooperation.

So, John, Fitzgerald is a xxxx?

John also wrote:

Fitzgerald has asked Bush to promise he will not pardon any of his officials found guilty of a crime. This he has refused to do.

John, source, please? I would think it inappropriate for a prosecutor to request that a president so limit his presidential discretion to pardon. And I do not recall reading this anywhere.

Edited November 8, 2005 by Tim Gratz