No Questions Asked

When the administration began making its case for war in Iraq, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why. Anyone who looked objectively at the facts knew there was very little chance that Saddam and bin Laden had teamed up to fight the U.S. or that Iraq had WMDs. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice reported that Saddam was not a threat long before the push for war began.

I never was able to figure out why the US went into Iraq. It seemed inconceivable that the administration would go to war simply for oil. With the stories coming out now, however, I am beginning to think that greed really was the only reason for this war. It’s not something I want to believe, but the facts are lining up and the logic behind some of the administration’s actions seem to point to a power grab by the president and coprorations profitting from the chaos caused by the wars.

What else could explain this:

Those Who Blow Whislte on Contractor Fraud In Iraq Face Penalties

One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted.

Or worse.

For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.

There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to wish he had just kept his mouth shut.

He had thought he was doing a good and noble thing when he started telling the FBI about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers - all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said. He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry employees.

The seller, he claimed, was the Iraqi-owned company he worked for, Shield Group Security Co.

”It was a Wal-Mart for guns,” he says. ”It was all illegal and everyone knew it.”

So Vance says he blew the whistle, supplying photos and documents and other intelligence to an FBI agent in his hometown of Chicago because he didn’t know whom to trust in Iraq.

For his trouble, he says, he got 97 days in Camp Cropper, an American military prison outside Baghdad that once held Saddam Hussein, and he was classified a security detainee.

Also held was colleague Nathan Ertel, who helped Vance gather evidence documenting the sales, according to a federal lawsuit both have filed in Chicago, alleging they were illegally imprisoned and subjected to physical and mental interrogation tactics ”reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants.”

Corruption has long plagued Iraq reconstruction. Hundreds of projects may never be finished, including repairs to the country’s oil pipelines and electricity system. Congress gave more than $30 billion to rebuild Iraq, and at least $8.8 billion of it has disappeared, according to a government reconstruction audit.

Despite this staggering mess, there are no noble outcomes for those who have blown the whistle, according to a review of such cases by The Associated Press.

”If you do it, you will be destroyed,” said William Weaver, professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and senior advisor to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

”Reconstruction is so rife with corruption. Sometimes people ask me, ‘Should I do this?’ And my answer is no. If they’re married, they’ll lose their family. They will lose their jobs. They will lose everything,” Weaver said.

The administration is now building its case for war in Iran using the same arguments as it did in 2003 when it sold the US public on the need to go to war in Iraq. Can we be so simple minded that we have already forgotten that there was no legitimate reason to attack Iraq or that 100 of millions have been stolen in the effort to rebuild the country?

All Americans must educate themselves about the changes this administration is making to the US system of checks and balances. Read the executive orders that have been signed by President Bush and made into law. Pay attention to the similarities between the false accusations that were made against Iraq and Saddam and the allegations being made against Iran now. Be aware that some members of the press are being paid to air stories. Remember companies like Haliburton and people like Dick Cheney are making a lot of money from this war.

Fight for your way of life. If you do nothing, you will lose everything and you will have no one to blame but yourself.

I was surprised to see the latest executive order signed by Bush. It seems that he is not only concerned about people ”preventing the progress in Iraq” — he is also worried that some people will ”undermine the sovereignty of Lebanon or it’s democratic process and institutions.” To summarize: If you complain about US policy in Iraq or Lebanon, the government can take everything you have and throw you in jail.

We haven’t even publicly announced we are doing anything worth protecting in Lebanon but the president felt strongly enough to issue an executive order threatening to seize the property of anyone who undermines that country’s sovereignty.

What is Bush planning to do in the near future? First there was the executive order giving him dictatorial powers in case of a “national emergency” in the US, then the executive order making it legal for him to confiscate the property of anyone who disagrees with him and about Iraq and now he is doing the same thing with Lebanon.

What does our country have to do with Lebanon? Do you think he wants to declare war with Israel? If I recall correctly, it was the Israeli government who destroyed the infrastructure of Lebanon and it’s “institutions.”

Is it a step by step plan to prepare for an attack against Iran?

Does the Fox News reports warning of multiple terrorists attacks inside the United States in the next 90 days have anything to do with this?

Is this the preparation for the false flag attack that Seymour Hersh warned us about?

Why is the president bypassing Congress and why aren’t any of the lawmakers complaining about it?

I don’t know for sure, but this latest order does not sound good for our country or the world.

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, determine that the actions of certain persons to undermine Lebanon’s legitimate and democratically elected government or democratic institutions, to contribute to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Lebanon, including through politically motivated violence and intimidation, to reassert Syrian control or contribute to Syrian interference in Lebanon, or to infringe upon or undermine Lebanese sovereignty contribute to political and economic instability in that country and the region and constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any overseas branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

(i) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(A) to have taken, or to pose a significant risk of taking, actions, including acts of violence, that have the purpose or effect of undermining Lebanon’s democratic processes or institutions, contributing to the breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon, supporting the reassertion of Syrian control or otherwise contributing to Syrian interference in Lebanon, or infringing upon or undermining Lebanese sovereignty;

(B) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, such actions, including acts of violence, or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;

(C) to be a spouse or dependent child of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(D) to be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) The prohibitions in paragraph (a) of this section include but are not limited to (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:

(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;

(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that, for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken. The Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure compliance with those provisions of section 401 of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641) applicable to the Department of the Treasury in relation to this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

Sec. 7. This order is not intended to create, nor does it create, any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 1, 2007.

What kind of Democratic candidates do we have? Obama says he’d attack Pakistan and Hilary says she’d consider using nuclear weapons. I yearn for the days when war was considered a last resort and presidents worked towards peace. Obviously neither candidate has any idea what the region is like. An attack against Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons and little control would be devestating to everyone. There are so many real “rogue” nations with nuclear weapons that if the US launches one there may be no end to the misery.Where are the bitter complaints against Hilary’s comments?

Obama: Nukes ‘Not on the Table’

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons ‘in any circumstance’ to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan and drew criticism from chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

‘I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,’ Obama said, with a pause, ‘involving civilians.’ Then he quickly added, ‘Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.’

Obama was responding to a question by the Associated Press about whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

‘There’s been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that’s not a hypothetical that I’m going to discuss,’ Obama said after a Capitol Hill breakfast with constituents.

When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf in a major foreign policy speech Wednesday that he would use U.S. military force in Pakistan even without Musharraf’s permission if necessary to root out terrorists.

Asked about Obama’s speech and his comments about nuclear weapons, Clinton chided her fellow senator about addressing hypotheticals.

‘Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. … I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons,’ Clinton said.

Asked about the notion of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al-Qaida leadership: ‘How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons.’

Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is politically unstable, raising concerns that the current military leadership could be replaced by religious fanatics who would be less cautious in using the weapons.

Obama warned that terrorists in the mountains of Pakistan are planning another attack on the United States, after already killing 3,000 Americans in their 2001 attacks. (NOTE: It always bothers me when they discount all the non-Americans who were killed in 2001)

‘It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005.’ he said. ‘If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.’