Published: Thursday July 19, 2007
Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order
(Ed. Full text at end)which allows the government to seize the assets
of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.
He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts — a former Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his
strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War — by quoting
the “strong words” which open Roberts’ latest
column: “Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year
from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.”
(Ed. Posted here previously)
“I don’t actually think they’re very strong,” said Roberts of his
words. “I get a lot of flak that they’re understated and the situation
is worse than I say. … When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive
Order] … there’s no check to it. It doesn’t have to be ratified by Congress.
The people who bear the brunt of these dictatorial police state actions have
no recourse to the judiciary. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man
rule. … The American people don’t really understand the danger that they face.”
Roberts said that because of Bush’s unpopularity, the Republicans face a total
wipeout in 2008, and this may be why “the Democrats have not brought a
halt to Bush’s follies or the war, because they expect his unpopular policies
to provide them with a landslide victory in next year’s election.”
However, Roberts emphasized, “the problem with this reasoning is that
it assumes that Cheney and Rove and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts,
or it assumes that they are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed
after Bush has his fling.” Roberts believes instead that Cheney and Rove
intend to use a renewal of the War on Terror to rally the American people around
the Republican Party.…
Editor’s comments, continued:
The partisan circus that spent $80 million+ to investigate and impeach Clinton (compare to the $3 million originally alloted to the 9/11 Commission mandated “to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks”) for perjury, rather than pursuing his myriad other crimes, certainly cheapened the weighty Constitutional duty of impeachment. Elizabeth Holtzman, a member of the House Panel that impeached Richard Nixon, thoroughly discusses this in her excellent book, “The Impeachment of George W. Bush.” In her article, “Impeachment: The Case in Favor” published in the February, 2007 issue of “The Nation,” she states:
Our country’s Founders provided the power of impeachment to prevent the subversion of the Constitution. President Bush has subverted and defied the Constitution in many ways. His defiance and his subversion continue. (emphasis added)
“Failure to impeach Bush would condone his actions. It would allow him to assume he can simply continue to violate the laws on wiretapping and torture and violate other laws as well without fear of punishment. …
“There is no remedy short of impeachment to protect us from this President, whose ability to cause damage in the next two years is enormous. If we do not act against Bush, we send a terrible message of impunity to him and to future Presidents and mark a clear path to despotism and tyranny. Succeeding generations of Americans will never forgive us for lacking the nerve to protect our democracy.”
From the Washington Post, Friday July 20: “Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S.…Continue reading
Cheney Determined To Strike In US With WMD This Summer
Only Impeachment, Removal or General Strike Can Stop Him
By Webster G. Tarpley 7-21-7
“The greatest threat now is ‘a 9/11′ occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities.” — Dick Cheney on Face the Nation, CBS, April 15, 2007
A few days ago, a group of lawyers from western Massachusetts met with the local congressman, Democrat John Olver. Their request was that Olver take part in the urgent effort to impeach Bush and Cheney. Olver responded by saying that he had no intention of doing anything to support impeachment. He went further, offering the information that the United States would soon attack Iran, and that these hostilities would be followed by the imposition of a martial law regime here.
According to reports in the British press, the Cheney war party has gained the upper hand in the secret councils of the Bush White House, pushing aside the purported hesitations of Miss Rice, Secretary Gates, and the NATO allies to chart a direct course towards war with Iran:
‘The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned. The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although… Continue reading
VDARE.COM – http://vdare.com/roberts/070910_911.htm
September 11, 2007
9-11, Six Years Later
By Paul Craig Roberts
On Sept. 7, National Public Radio reported that Muslims in the Middle East were beginning to believe that the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were false flag operations committed by some part of the U.S. and/or Israeli government.
It was beyond the imagination of the NPR reporter and producer that there could be any substance to these beliefs, which were attributed to the influence of books by U.S. and European authors sold in bookstores in Egypt.
NPR’s concern was that books by Western authors questioning the origin of the 9/11 attack have the undesirable result of removing guilt from Muslims’ shoulders.
The NPR reporter, Ursula Lindsey, said that “here in the U.S., most people have little doubt about what happened during the 2001 attacks.”
NPR’s assumption that the official 9/11 story is the final word is uninformed. Polls show that 36 percent of Americans and more than 50 percent of New Yorkers lack confidence in the 9/11 commission report. Many 9/11 families who lost relatives in the attacks are unsatisfied with the official story. Why are the U.S. media untroubled that there has been no independent investigation of 9/11?
Why are the media unconcerned that the rules governing preservation of forensic evidence were not followed by federal authorities?
Why do the media brand skeptics of the official line “conspiracy theorists” and “kooks”?
What is wrong with debate and listening to both… Continue reading
By Paul Craig Roberts
The anti-war movement has proven impotent to stop the war in Iraq despite the fact that the war was initiated on the basis of lies and deception. The anti-war movement stands helpless to prevent President Bush from attacking Iran or any other country that he might demonize for harboring a future 9/11 threat.
September 11 enabled Bush to take America to war and to keep America at war even though the government’s explanation of the events of September 11 is mired in controversy and disbelieved by a large percentage of the population.
Although the news media’s investigative arm has withered, other entities and individuals continue to struggle with unanswered questions. In the six years since 9/11, numerous distinguished scientists, engineers, architects, intelligence officers, pilots, military officers, air traffic controllers, and foreign dignitaries have raised serious and unanswered questions about the official story line.
Recognition of the inadequacy of the official account of the collapse of the twin towers is widespread in the scientific and technical community. One of the most glaring failures in the official account is the lack of an explanation of the near free-fall speed at which the buildings failed once the process began. Some scientists and engineers have attempted to bolster the official account with explanations of how this might happen in the absence of explosives used in controlled demolitions.
September 21, 2007
Look On My Works, Ye Mighty, And Despair!
This is the 100th show on Electric Politics. So it seems appropriate to cover a series of subversive topics with a genuinely revolutionary soul, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. We talk about 9/11, about the emerging American police state, and about the realities of international economics which, unfortunately, all too few economists understand. Now, Craig calls himself a pessimist, but I detect an element of optimism here — certainly a fiery determination to make change happen. And as far as I’m concerned, he’s a true American hero.
Total runtime of an hour and forty minutes. Enjoy!
Also, on September 9, 2007, George Kenney posted the following entry to his excellent
Electric Politics Blog:
To the profound consternation of the political establishment, 9/11 skeptics have not only not gone away but are flourishing. A site that keeps track, worth noting, is Patriots Question 9/11, run by the persistent Alan Miller. To date, he’s amassed the names of about 800 prominent individuals who to varying degrees question the official story — recent additions include Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, a former senior staff member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Dr. Lynn Margulis, a member of the National… Continue reading
by David Ray Griffin
Debunking 9/11 Debunking
Early in 2007, Interlink Books published my Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory . The stimulus for my writing this book was the appearance in August 2006—just before the fifth anniversary of 9/11—of four publications intended to bolster the official account by debunking the alternative view, according to which 9/11 was an inside job. The most explicit and well-known of these publications was a book by Popular Mechanics entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths .
My book’s introduction and conclusion dealt with the irresponsible way the press, including the left-leaning press, has dealt with this issue. One of their failings, I showed, was simply to accept the official reports — especially The 9/11 Commission Report and the report on the World Trade Center put out by the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) — as neutral, scientific reports. They thereby ignored the fact that the 9/11 Commission was run by Philip Zelikow, who was virtually a member of the US. Bush administration, and that NIST is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce and hence of the Bush administration (which has distorted science for political purposes to an unprecedented extent).
The book’s four chapters then demonstrated that none of the documents of August 2006 actually served to debunk the claims of the 9/11 truth movement. The first two chapters dealt with two documents—including a new book by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton,… Continue reading
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
October 27, 2007
Americans had best rethink the “war on terror” while they still have
the liberty to do so. For all of President Bush’s blah-blah talk about bringing
democracy to the world, the Bush administration has proved that it is no friend
of liberty at home.
The Bush administration has violated constitutional principles, US law, and
the Geneva Conventions as no previous administration has done. Here is a short
list of the Bush administration’s crimes:
Spying without court warrants on Americans in violation of both the US Constitution
and the FISA statute.
The denial of habeas corpus, attorney-client privilege, due process, and Geneva
Conventions protections to those, American or foreign, designated without evidence
as terrorists or enemy combatants.
The justification and use of torture to coerce confessions and the kidnapping
of foreign nationals who are sent to be tortured in foreign prisons.
The initiation of military aggression against states based on intentional deception
by the Bush administration of the US public and the United Nations, and the
intentional fabrication of “evidence” to justify unprovoked aggression
against sovereign states, which is a war crime under the Nuremberg standard
established by the US.
Violation of the oath of office to defend the US Constitution by practically
every member of the Bush administration and Congress.
Bush has assaulted the separation of powers and the rule of law with “signing
statements” and “executive orders” that President Nixon’s White
House Counsel John Dean says are commands that treat the co-equal… Continue reading
In case you’d like to remind representatives of their Federal Oath of Office when you make the calls . . .
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
*Impeachment Next Step: Judiciary Committee HEARINGS*
(Ed.: What follows has been adapted, with appreciation, from Democrats.com. Lest you think this is a “Democrats-only” issue, please see the two articles at the end of this call to action.)
Thanks to Dennis Kucinich, Tuesday was an historic day for impeachment!
As promised, Kucinich requested a floor vote on H.Res. 333, and as expected, BushDemocrat Leader Steny Hoyer moved to table the bill. And then all hell broke loose as 165 Republicans voted with Kucinich and 85 other brave Democrats to force a debate on impeachment and thereby embarass Nancy Pelosi.
To block that debate, Hoyer moved to send H.Res. 333 back to the Judiciary Committee, and that motion passed with the support of all but 5 Democrats (Kucinich, Bob Filner, Marcy Kaptur, Maxine Waters, and Ed Towns). A live blog of the proceedings is posted at http://impeachcheney.org
Representatives Wexler and Shea-Porter have now announced support for hearings:
In an e-mail to supporters on November 7, 2007, Representative Robert Wexler, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, stated that
… Continue reading
I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months.
by Paul Craig Roberts
November 28, 2007
Pat Buchanan is too patriotic to come right out and say it, but the message of his new book, “Day of Reckoning,” is that America as we have known her is finished. Moreover, Naomi Wolf agrees with him. These two writers of different political persuasions arrive at America’s demise from different directions.
Buchanan explains how hubris, ideology and greed have torn America apart. A neoconservative cabal with an alien agenda captured the Bush administration and committed American blood, energy and money to aggression against Muslim countries in the Middle East, while permitting America’s domestic borders to be overrun by immigrants and exporting the jobs that had made the United States an opportunity society. War and offshoring have taken a savage economic toll, while open borders and diversity have created social and political division.
In her new book, “End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot,” Wolf explains America’s demise in terms of the erosion of freedoms. She writes that the 10 classic steps that are used to close open societies are currently being taken in the United States. Martial law is only a declaration away.
The Bush administration responded to Sept. 11 by initiating military aggression in the Middle East and by using fear and the “war on terror” to implement police state measures at home with legislation, presidential directives and executive orders.
Overnight, the United States became a tyranny in which people could be arrested and incarcerated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusation.…Continue reading
December 27, 2007
By Paul Craig Roberts
"They’re locking them up today
They’re throwing away the key
I wonder who it’ll be tomorrow, you or me?"
The Red Telephone (LOVE, 1967)
At Christmas time it has been my habit to write a column in remembrance of
the many innocent people in prisons whose lives have been stolen by the US criminal
justice (sic) system that is as inhumane as it is indifferent to justice. Usually
I retell the cases of William Strong and Christophe Gaynor, two men framed in
the state of Virginia by prosecutors and judges as wicked and corrupt as any
who served Hitler or Stalin.
This year is different. All Americans are now imprisoned in a world of lies
and deception created by the Bush Regime and the two complicit parties of Congress,
by federal judges too timid or ignorant to recognize a rogue regime running
roughshod over the Constitution, by a bought and paid for media that serves
as propagandists for a regime of war criminals, and by a public who have forsaken
their Founding Fathers.
Americans are also imprisoned by fear, a false fear created by the hoax of
"terrorism." It has turned out that headline terrorist events since
9/11 have been orchestrated by the US government. For example, the alleged terrorist
plot to blow up Chicago’s Sears Tower was the brainchild of a FBI agent who
searched out a few disaffected people to give lip service to the plot devised
by the FBI agent.… Continue reading
By Paul Craig Roberts
01/04/08 “ICH ” — — What was the greatest failure of 2007? President Bush’s “surge” in Iraq? The decline in the value of the US dollar? Subprime mortgages? No. The greatest failure of 2007 was the newly sworn in Democratic Congress.
The American people’s attempt in November 2006 to rein in a rogue government, which has committed the US to costly military adventures while running roughshod over the US Constitution, failed. Replacing Republicans with Democrats in the House and Senate has made no difference.
The assault on the US Constitution by the Democratic Party is as determined as the assault by the Republicans. On October 23, 2007, the House passed a bill sponsored by California Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman, chairwoman of a Homeland Security subcommittee, that overturns the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free expression, association, and assembly.
The bill passed the House on a vote of 404-6. In the Senate the bill is sponsored by Maine Republican Susan Collins and apparently faces no meaningful opposition.
Harman’s bill is called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. When HR 1955 becomes law, it will create a commission tasked with identifying extremist people, groups, and ideas. The commission will hold hearings around the country, taking testimony and compiling a list of dangerous people and beliefs. The bill will, in short, create massive terrorism in the United States. But the perpetrators of terrorism will not be Muslim terrorists; they will be government agents and fellow citizens.
We are beginning to see who will be the inmates of the detention centers being built in the US by Halliburton under government contract.…Continue reading
Inside the Shell Game
By Paul Craig Roberts
March 24, 2008
The investigative journalist Edward Jay Epstein has taken up the Litvinenko case.
The media used the Litvinenko case as sensational propaganda against Russian President Putin and then tossed it aside. For those whose memories of the case have faded, Alexander Litvinenko was a former KGB officer living in England who died in 2006, apparently from the radioactive isotope Polonium-210.
The British government encouraged the tale that Russian President Putin had sent Andrei Lugovoi to poison Litvinenko’s tea at a meeting on November 1, 2006. The story appealed to people brought up on James Bond thrillers, but the story never made any sense. Polonium 2-10 is a rare and tightly controlled substance as likely to contaminate the assassin as the victim. There are far easier and more effective ways of killing someone.
Moreover, there is no evidence to connect Russia to Litvinenko’s death. But this didn’t stop the British government from grandstanding, sending an extradition request for Lugovoi in July 2007. The British government sent the request despite the facts that there is no extradition treaty between Britain and Russia and the Russian constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens. Epstein suggests that the purpose of the extradition request was to block the Russian government from investigating Litvinenko’s death in London. Litvinenko had a false passport provided by the British government. A real investigtion might have opened up the shadowy world of security consultants in which Litvinenko rubbed shoulders… Continue reading
March 31, 2008
By Paul Craig Roberts
The US Congress, the US media, the American people, and the United Nations, are looking the other way as Cheney prepares his attack on Iran.
If only America had an independent media and an opposition party. If there were a shred of integrity left in American political life, perhaps a third act of naked aggression–a third war crime under the Nuremberg standard–by the Bush Regime could be prevented.
On March 30, the Russian News & Information Agency, Novosti, cited “a high-ranking security source: “The latest military intelligence data point to heightened US military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran.”
According to Novosti, Russian Colonel General Leonid Ivashov said “that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran’s military infrastructure in the near future.”
The chief of Russia’s general staff, Yuri Baluyevsky, said last November that Russia was beefing up its military in response to US aggression, but that the Russian military is not “obliged to defend the world from the evil Americans.”
On March 29, OpEdNews cited a report by the Saudi Arabian newspaper Okaz, which was picked up by the German news service, DPA. The Saudi newspaper reported on March 22, the day following Cheney’s visit with the kingdom’s rulers, that the Saudi Shura Council is preparing “national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts’ warnings of possible attacks on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactors.”… Continue reading
by Bill Douglas
Last Monday, March 31st, a historic event occurred. A conference call was held that involved a list of great American heroes, who have put everything on the line to protect their nation’s democracy. It was meaningful this occurred the same month as HBO’s release of John Adams.
A decision was made — April 16-22nd will be a WEEK of TRUTH !!
All are invited to get involved, by spreading the word on this event, as well as participating in the national “buy-in for truth week,” to finally break thru the corporate media blockade of 9/11 questions, at www.WeekofTruth.org
“. . . they [the majority of Americans] shall come to realize what I now realize… that the 9/11 Truth Movement are the real patriots in 21st century America!”
— Steve Alten, New York Times Best Selling author of “The Shell Game”
“Alone we can do so little . . . together . . . so much.”
— Helen Keller
This auspicious group came together to strategize how to collect the many powerful aspects of the growing movement pushing for answers to the endless unanswered questions around 9/11’s attacks, into one mass focused week of action. The goal . . . to break through the years of frustration with the (media) fourth estate’s betrayal of American democracy through their ongoing censoring of the questions regarding the increasingly obvious official myth of 9/11, which defies physics, logic, and FAA/DOD protocol.
As I sat in on this historic… Continue reading
by Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton
Posted at Lewrockwell.com
June 7, 2008
The George W. Bush administration responded to the 9/11 attack on the World
Trade Center and Pentagon with an assault on U.S. civil liberty that Bush justified
in the name of the “war on terror.” The government assured us that
the draconian measures apply only to “terrorists.” The word terrorist,
however, was not defined. The government claimed the discretionary power to
decide who is a terrorist without having to present evidence or charges in a
court of law.
Frankly, the Bush administration’s policy evades any notion of procedural
due process of law. Administration assurances that harsh treatment is reserved
only for terrorists is meaningless when the threshold process for determining
who is and who is not a terrorist depends on executive discretion that is not
subject to review. Substantive rights are useless without the procedural rights
to enforce them.
Terrorist legislation and executive assertions created a basis upon which federal
authorities claimed they were free to suspend suspects’ civil liberties
in order to defend Americans from terrorism. Only after civil liberties groups
and federal courts challenged some of the unconstitutional laws and procedures
did realization spread that the Bush administration’s assault on the Bill
of Rights is a greater threat to Americans than are terrorists.
The alacrity with which Congress accepted the initial assault from the administration
is frightening. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act passed by a vote of 98 to 1 in
the… Continue reading
by Paul Craig Roberts
July 17, 2008
National Public Radio has been spending much news time on Darfur in Western Sudan where a great deal of human suffering and death are occurring. The military conflict has been brought on in part by climate change, according to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Drought is forcing nomads in search of water into areas occupied by other claimants. No doubt the conflict is tribal and racial as well. The entire catastrophe is overseen by a government with few resources other than bullets.
Now an International Criminal Court prosecutor wants to bring charges against Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
I have no sympathy for people who make others suffer. Nevertheless, I wonder at the International Criminal Court’s pick from the assortment of war criminals? Why al-Bashir?
Is it because Sudan is a powerless state, and the International Criminal Court hasn’t the courage to name George W. Bush and Tony Blair as war criminals?
Bush and Blair’s crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf, at least in the number of deaths and displaced persons, the terrible situation in Darfur. The highest estimate of Darfur casualties is 400,000, one-third the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush’s invasion. Moreover, the conflict in the Sudan is an internal one, whereas Bush illegally invaded two foreign countries, war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard. Bush’s war crimes were enabled by the political leaders of the UK, Spain, Canada,… Continue reading
by Mike Berger
Once upon a time in America, the media would have presented the public with opposing views expressed by the professionals at Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth ( ae911truth.org ) when an agency such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) exclaimed , after years of research, that simple office fires led to the unprecedented collapse of WTC 7 . Circa 1949 – 1985, the media followed what was known as the fairness doctrine . Now reduced to nothing more than a propaganda slogan by Fox, there was a time when holders of broadcast licenses were required by the FCC to present fair and balanced coverage on controversial issues of public interest. After all, the airwaves are owned by the public. There once was a time when the media let the public evaluate controversial issues on the merits of the arguments presented. Twenty-one years after President Reagan vetoed Congress’ attempt to codify the Fairness Doctrine, many Americans still assume this doctrine holds sway. After reviewing some of the more than 400 mainstream media articles written yesterday about the NIST final report on the collapse of WTC 7, it is easy to get the impression that no credible alternative explanations exist. Why would any American question the NIST report? They have no exposure to opposing views expressed by professional engineers and architects. It is as if none exist if you rely on the mainstream media. Only two outlets quoted members of the professional organization, AE911truth.org. More… Continue reading