51% of Americans Want 9/11 Probe; 30% for Immediate Impeachment

This poll was released by Zogby last month, Sept. 6th. With Osama Bin Laden (who is dead, see FOX article) making Drudge again (with faked tapes) it deserves a look now. It was just one year ago that a Scripps Howard-Ohio State Univ. study reported that 31 percent of Americans think the official story of 9/11 is a lie. It continues to grow, and can no longer be overlooked as a "fringe" opinion. This is why we post various mini-video clips on the blog, so others can see the arguments for themselves--i.e. evidence that could not possibly fit the official account. There is sufficient evidence to prove in a court of law that both the government and media have, and continue to lie, about the events of Sept. 11th. Family members of victims go unheard as well in their cries for independent investigation. Everything the government is doing is founded upon that one event. There is no hard evidence that connects bin Laden or any "Arab hijackers" (no autopsies either) to 9/11--only allegation and repetition--and there have been no "spectacular" attacks since that day of infamy.

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

-- Rex Tomb, FBI spokesman (source here)

clipped from www.zogby.com

Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment 67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7 a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush' and Vice President Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives. The 911truth.org–sponsored poll also found that over two-thirds of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. FEMA did not explain this collapse, the 911 Commission ignored it, and the promised official study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is now 2 years overdue.

Nitro Book Controversy and Dr. Seal--Symptoms of a Bigger Problem

High School is not what is used to be, in culture, education, or social mores. Compare this to what you see today. Do the government schools produce academic men and women or juvenile delinquents with diplomas? Since self-esteem was emphasized self-respect has declined, and social anarchy has become the norm. Self-control, temperance, maturity, dignity, personal responsibility, and respect for authority (though some authorities must be disrespected on principle) are lost. Men and women dress alike since the unisex '60s revolution, and there is no shame in immodest dress or wild behavior, and no one may speak a word about it in criticism. The idol of Tolerance has trumped the righteousness of Truth, and the results are obvious. Yet taxpayers keep paying more, like slaves, to "help our children" (collectivism) and the State continues increasing funding for government schools which only increases output from the "education" factories. It should not be missed either that many political families send their own to private schools, while demanding support for the government schools.

Warning: Government and public education officials will be offended by you reading this, along with social engineers in the media. But remember everyone protects his own interest.

Government schooling and Elitist Bureaucrats.

Those who believe they can give their children real education and any sense of individualism or moral rectitude by sending them to the social grind mill of the government schools are deceiving themselves. Newspapers now openly report the most shameful and now common fact that teachers, particularly modern women, are preying on students for their perverse personal gratification, something that the law calls "statutory rape". Recently a story broke that students on an overnight field trip (an an unnecessary activity that begs for trouble to come) engaged in perverse acts in the bus. The "education" of children is thus "contributing to the delinquency of minors"--which is a crime! Now the Nitro book controversy is just another symptom of the corrupt and amoral public system that consumes the largest portion of state taxes (in West Virginia approx. $2 billion and 26 percent) and is managed by bureaucratic social engineers, like the arrogant "doctor", Dr. Seal, who recently insulted Lincoln County families and has justly been taken to task.

People would "value education" more if they actually got a real one rather than the elitist social indoctrination while teaching the parroted "official history" of the United States which is full of Yankee and socialist, politically-correct propaganda. Government cannot be expected to pay for something it does not want, and the intellectual, atheistic, historical, and social bias is obvious. Admittedly it is also difficult to teach the truth when government lies have covered the course of its historical actions, and propaganda will always fade as those truths become known though impugned as "historical revisionism" (actually the unrevising of original revisionism). Confusion abounds because of this and then the frustration of teaching and learning amidst controversy gives way to apathy and mere survival of what the law mandates. (That public schooling is mandatory by law should make everyone suspicious of its true purpose, knowing the government controls the education largely). Jay Leno frequently makes humor on the tragic fact that modern high schoolers, even adults, are stupid and ignorant. It is impossible to say that the government schools have nothing to do with this. It is also impossible to claim that parents are not responsible either.

There used to be a term called "spoiling" children (the word means "to ruin"), which means pandering and bribing them "go through the system" by every means to perform rather than teaching personal discipline and responsibility. "Team work" is substituted for individual responsibility that is a front for communistic "group think". Sports is exalted, academics diminished, for the same reason, to teach collectivism. Collectivism in turn teaches people to depend upon the State for their welfare, which in turn the modern government dishes to them in various forms, collected from the tax revenues of its serfs who work much of each year for the public welfare (i.e. communism).

Actually, this is all by design in a much larger picture. The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlott Thomson Iserbyt (a free online e-book) should be looked at by all who are concerned about teaching their children rather than delegating and dumping them into the government school system in a fatalistic way thinking they will "turn out all right". Educators should also take a hard look, and the legislators who always cry for raises and additional taxation. It would be enlightening.

One reviewer writes this about the book:

As an educator for the past 28 years, and believing myself to be at least a little left of center politically, I found "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" to be the scariest thing I have ever read. Some will brand this book as conservative propaganda. But those of us in the teaching profession wonder aloud to each other and anyone else who will listen, what politicians are thinking about when they pass educational reform legislation. It would seem impossible to make some of the decisions that are being made without having deliberately set about to wreak (sic) the education system in America. If the facts laid out in this book are true (and the book is full of documentation) what is happening to education in Washington D.C. is worse than the Twin Towers tragedy and the attack on Pearl Harbor combined. The promotional material for this book says that it should be required reading for parents. I think it should be required reading for every educator or university student considering a career in education.

Home schooling was used to bring up most of the great men in colonial America, both statesman (not politicians) and pastors, who only went on to "higher education" for specific professions, such as law, theology, science, or such. The idea that everyone must go to college only waters down the purpose of higher education and indeed college has become a refuge for higher delinquency and mere social process which the accreditation of the state approves. It should not be missed either that the highest paid state or university employee in West Virginia is a football coach, proving where the state truly lays its highest rewards. (Sports fanatics are to blame then as well for misplaced and corrupting principles). Yes, the "love of money is the root of all sorts of evil", including the eroded purpose of higher education.

The real purpose behind the Promise Scholarship was to increase government revenues through legalizing the illegal gambling industry by pretended do-goodism (crying "our children"!), which West Virginians fell for. Why is everyone so naive, except that they have been negligent in their own personal responsibility to examine things?

Compare 19th Century Higher Education to todays in this letter from Professor Clyde Wilson of Univ. of South Carolina, which makes the modern party-University pale in comparison, and explains the relative ignorance and lack of modern statesman in society:

A 19th Century College Curriculum

"The college curriculum consisted chiefly of Latin, Greek, and pure mathematics, with smaller amounts of modern languages, chemistry, geology, physics, botany, zoology, metaphysics, logic, rhetoric, political economy, and constitutional and international law. More than half of a students time in four years was spent in languages ancient and modern; three-fifths in the languages and pure mathematics together. The intent of these studies was to develop the powers of reason, analysis, and perspective…" [Studying of Greek and Latin meant translating the old Greek and Latin classics, such as those by Thucydides, Herodotus, Plato, Cicero, Livy and Tacitus, into English - and sometimes back again. Thus they were learning history, politics, philosophy, poetry, science, and language all at once. Add this to all the minor subjects - with some overlap - above, and one can clearly see why they were so versatile, and why they were so able in whatever career they pursued. G.M]

Professor Clyde Wilson

I would challenge even the arrogant Dr. Seal's education against the above curriculum of real "higher education". Methinks he would flunk their tests from the 19th century with his 21st Century indoctrination, making him look like an ignorant hillbilly in a suit.

The government school system must be abandoned by every responsible parent who knows that they alone are morally responsible for the upbringing of their own children, who are their own offspring, not the State. It will be better for them, for the parents, and for society as a whole.

MEANWHILE THE GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS CONTINUE THEIR MANUFACTURING OF A PARTICULAR KIND OF GENERIC PEOPLE FOR THEIR AMORAL UTOPIAN SOCIETY, WHICH IS PROVOKING THE STUDENTS TO REBEL MORE AND MORE TO GET FREE FROM THE SOCIAL ENGINEERING THEY FEEL BEING FORCED UPON THEM (AND THEY HAVE EVERY MORAL RIGHT TO SECEDE FROM IT), WHILE PARENTS ARE TOLD TO COOPERATE WITH THE CORRUPT SYSTEM--WHILE THEY PAY FOR IT! IT IS THE STATE THAT INTERFERES BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN, BREAKING THE NATURAL AND GOD-GIVEN BOND THAT CAME ABOUT AT BIRTH, DESTROYING THE FAMILY SOCIALLY, IF NOT LITERALLY.

Florida GOP Debate: Fred Compares Rudy to Hillary; Ron Paul Wins FOX Poll Again

AUDIO SPIN ROOM FOX DEBATES

RON PAUL'S INTERVIEW AFTER HE WIN'S WITH 35%...FOX Hannity in shock again! He refutes the unjust charges of poll "spamming" (which is not possible via FOX's cell poll system) and compliments FOX's good audience. Hannity begins to smile (if you see the video) because Paul is making rational arguments, and his genuine support is irrefutable.

Listen to the FOX "Spin Room" portion in PODCAST HERE

FOX NEWS TEXT MESSAGE POLL RESULTS
Who won the Florida GOP Debate?

Ron Paul - 34% - Winner
Mike Huckabee - 27%
Rudy Giuliani - 11%
Mitt Romney - 10%
Fred Thompson - 9%
John McCain - 5%

Read it and weep Don Surber. Fred needs some help. Meanwhile the spin is a "Florida focus group" says Giuliani won. He was way behind Huckabee! Did Huckabee "spam" the polls too? He is never charged is he? There is not even consistency in their baseless arguments, only bias assertions.

QUESTIONS: ARE NOT THE MEDIA MANIPULATING THEIR AUDIENCES INSTEAD OF REPORTING THE TRUTH? IS THE MEDIA NOT DELIBERATELY MANIPULATING PUBLIC OPINION, WHEN POLLS DO NOT SHOW WHAT THEY WANT? Like we stated before, 'FOX distorts, won't let you decide!' Spin...spin...spin as they might, the truth cannot be entirely drown out. Maybe the parties should listen to what Americans are really saying, and beginning to listen to, instead of their own propaganda and that of the party elitists. Does America really have "free elections" or "free press" when all this goes on?

The republicans see how Ron Paul is getting attention for limited government and constitutional views (as if the oath of office does not make them swear to it) and now they debated who was the most conservative, while Ron Paul is!

FRED SLAMS RUDY: Fred Thompson compares Giuliani's positions to those of Hillary Clinton--accurate and priceless! (Listen to it in the podcast above). But Fred is a hypocrite, just another CFR republican himself parroting the neocon script.


Then read this to see just how much both media and republican party do not want you to decide, but manipulate and stack the audience, polling, and all other means possible against Ron Paul. Yet his support keeps growing!

Fox News 'Stacked the Deck' at Latest Debate?

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

NEWS ANALYSIS/OPINION

Was the anti-Ron Paul fix in? GOP Jeffersonian conservative presidential candidate Ron Paul signaled that he believed it probably was in a victorious, post-debate interview, pointing out that he was only allowed 1,000 audience tickets [compared to others].

While Sean Hannity (see related story) indicated that Ron Paul supporters "stacked" the cell-phone poll that showed Ron Paul won the debate, the truth may be the reverse. By placing the debate in Florida, a stronghold of the Bush/Giuliani wing of the Republican party, and by setting the rules to select a neo-conservative audience, Fox and the Republican party apparently got what it could not get in New Hampshire - an anti-Ron Paul crowd.

(See reactions at DailyPaul.com, LewRockwell.com/blog or even the posting board at such sites as MSNBC for more comments on the Fox audience composition)

Reports on the 'Net, for instance, indicate that Mitt Romney purchased the most tickets and had the most supporters in the audience, though Fox apparently never clearly stated how the audience was chosen. In any event the debate audience was hostile to Ron Paul's anti-American Empire statements and anti-war rhetoric. So was the handful of GOP voter-representatives that were gathered together to give a minute by minute reaction to the debate.

The audience scenario was in stark contrast to the larger American public that wants an end to militarism by a reported 70-30 margin. The apparently deliberate composition of the audience comes on the heels of anti-Ron Paul bias at another Rupert Murdoch media entity, the New York Post (see related story) that actually covered the recent Value Voter GOP debate without mentioning that Ron Paul came in third in an after-debate online poll.

The constant and deliberate strategies of placing Ron Paul at a disadvantage, or ignoring him altogether, are insignificant when taken alone, but, like pinpricks, add up and cause significant irritation. Nonetheless, the Ron Paul campaign has persevered; he has finished at or near the top in straw poll after straw poll; his fund raising has moved up dramatically each quarter; ridicule has given way to irritation and calculated avoidance.

Most recently, it would seem the mainstream media has ceased to emphasize the straw polls, and even the fund-raising that used to paint a portrait of a winning candidate. Instead, more and more, media "pundits" depend on mainstream polling data to marginalize Ron Paul and his constitutionalist message.

Trouble is, as Ron Paul himself pointed out last night, the polls that mainstream media is relying on still often do not even mention him as an option.

Yet the attacks continue to come; newspapers stories deliberately do not mention his successes, audiences are picked to oppose him, talk radio and TV hosts go out of their way to denigrate his points of view without ever explaining exactly what they are.

Ron Paul perseveres....

Conservative Straw Poll--Giuliani Out; Romney, Huckabee, Paul Top

It also states in the article that "Romney's campaign actively petitioned supporters to vote online whether or not they had attended the conference." So that would be Romney "slamming the polls", not Ron Paul, wouldn't it?

Note Ron Paul dashed both Giuliani and Fred Thompson. Note as well that
"permanent tax reductions" and taxes are two of the leading values issues, as well as abortion opposition and defending marriage (something Presidents actually have little influence legally upon, more so the states).

This shows that Ron Paul is a serious contender. It also shows with Huckabee that republican voters are dissatisfied with Giuliani. Too bad people are blind to Huckabee's lack of constitutional integrity, or lack of a lower tax plan (Paul would eliminate the Income Tax entirely!), and fail to see that unjust war (the neocon's Iraq, Iran, Syria plan) is also murder, more so than abortion! This shows the ignorance and biblical illiteracy of "values voters'" judgment.

clipped from blogs.abcnews.com Romney Wins Conservative Straw Poll Email Share October 20, 2007 3:36 PM ABC News' Karen Travers reports: Mitt Romney won the Family Research Council Values Voters' Summit straw poll in Washington Saturday, barely beating out Mike Huckabee with just 30 more votes. Romney garnered 1595 votes to Huckabee's 1565 in the poll of conservative activists. Ron Paul was third with 865 and Fred Thompson was fourth with 564 votes. Rudy Giuliani, who addressed the crowd Saturday, finished eighth. More than 2,000 conservative activists attended the summit and heard from the Republican presidential field over the last two days. 3. Please indicate which issue is the most important in determining your opinion of the candidate that you will most likely vote for – choose one: RESULTS: -abortion -defending marriage -tax cuts -permanent tax relief RESULTS: Romney- 1595 Huckabee- 1565 Paul- 865 Thompson- 564 Brownback- 297 Hunter- 140 Tancredo- 133 Giuliani- 107 McCain- 81

Putin Counters Bush Administration's War-mongering against Iran

The FAKE assassination threats did not work, and the meeting was not prevented, as the conspirators had hoped in desperation. Putin, who is even an "ally in the war on terrorism" (Bush said with Putin in Crawford, TX, while Putin was in bluejeans) knows the neocons are doing this for Israel and the neocon blueprint to intrude further into the Caspian region. He again adamantly denies Iran poses a genuine "nuclear threat" to Israel (which has nukes already). Putin is well aware of the neocons PAX AMERICANA blueprint for a "new middle east" and "global hegemony", and refuses to bow the lies being put out to justify aggression in the Caspian region, where Russia also has interests. He demonstrates his firm stand by circling the wagons, the countries of that region, to prevent the U.S. from using Caspian region countries as military bases in the event the U.S. or Israel should attack.

Now watch for propaganda against Russia to attempt to undo this very damaging message that refutes their lies and deceit, which the FAKE ASSASSINATION THREATS failed to prevent. Of course the propaganda has already begun via the headline here (typical Zionist media spin) which is rather deceitful, as if Putin is threatening the U.S. militarily, instead of merely working to PREVENT U.S. aggression into the region further.

It is also worth noting that Afghanistan has against increased in the "war on terrorism" again, as the U.S. is now increasing troops and supplies, being the first target of neocon imperialism into the Caspian region, despite that there was "no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11" (Rex Tomb, spokesman for FBI) and that the Taliban (instead of boasting) denied any involvement in 9/11 from day one! See the big picture? EVERY U.S. ACTION IS BASED UPON PURE LIES, FROM 9/11 TO IRAQ, TO NOW IRAN.

clipped from www.telegraph.co.uk Putin favours Iran with military warning to US By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow Last Updated: 2:09am BST 18/10/2007 President Vladimir Putin handed the Iranian regime a welcome publicity boost yesterday when he delivered a stern warning against US military action during a historic summit in Teheran. Mr Putin seemed eager to offer his counterpart unconditional support, repeating claims that there was no evidence to suggest Iran wanted to build a nuclear bomb. Mr Putin also secured the vital backing of Azerbaijan in a five-nation pact by the Caspian states to prevent the US from using the region as a staging ground for military action against Iran. Mr Ahmadinejad greeted his guest who had flown to Iran despite dubious Russian claims of a plot to assassinate him.

Conservative Ret. Marine Major and Neocon Critic Scott Ritter to Speak at WV State Univ.

A Conservative versus the Neoconservatives who puts honesty above partisanship.

Everyone, especially republicans, need to hear what this experienced veteran has to say about the neoconservatives, the Israeli Lobby, Iraq, Iran, and America's new Homeland Security government. Great opportunity to listen to someone who has great experience in UN weapons inspections and military foreign policy.

October 25: "Preventing Fascism at Home at Imperialism Abroad"

A Seneca 2 Forum featuring author Scott Ritter. 7:00 PM at the WV State University (Institute, WV) Student Union and co-sponsored by WVSU Political Science Dept. Scott Ritter had an extensive and distinguished career in government service. A retired Marine Major, he served under General Schwarzkopf with the US Central Command headquarters in Saudi Arabia. He spent 12 years as an intelligence specialist in the US Marine Corps and joined UNSCOM in 1991. He resigned in August 1998 citing US interference in the work of the inspections. Ritter is the author of six books. Free to the public and free parking on campus.

Below is a TIME article where he was named their PERSON OF THE WEEK.

Person of the Week: Scott Ritter

Friday, Sep. 13, 2002 By TONY KARON

Former inspector Scott Ritter, center, speaks at the Iraqi National Assembly

RAMZI HAIDAR/AFP

Never mind the naysaying European heads of state, the anxious Arab leaders or the skeptical senators — the unkindest challenge to President Bush's plans to take out Saddam Hussein this week came from erstwhile true-blue American hero Scott Ritter. Familiar to Americans as the rock-jawed Marine intelligence officer who stood up to Saddam's bullies in 1998 while serving with the UN inspection team, and got himself singled out for expulsion even before UNSCOM was withdrawn, Ritter was back on America's TV screens this week, but with a dramatically different message: President Bush had no proof of any new weapons of mass destruction threat emanating from Iraq, Ritter says, and he was lying to the American people to get them to go to war. Once a favorite guest of hawkish Republicans who regularly invited him to testify at congressional committees about the dangers of turning a blind eye to Iraq's weapons programs, this week Ritter was instead addressing the Iraqi legislature, decrying his own country's claims — and warning that readmitting inspectors was the only way to avoid a war.

THE USURPER: "Cheney's Law"--The Man Who Hijacked America' s Government

If he [the President] ever violates the laws, one of two things will happen:

He shall come to the head of his army to carry everything before him; or, he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold rush for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of everything, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, Sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not at the head of his army beat down every opposition? Away with your President, we shall have a King: The army will salute him Monarch; your militia will leave you and assist in making him King, and fight against you: And what have you to oppose this force? What then will become of your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?
... This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility - and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.

-- Patrick Henry; Anti-Federalist Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788

This is why we have articles of Impeachment, and the oath of office is to "defend the Constitution" (not the President), which limits Executive power, from all enemies, "foreign and DOMESTIC", even within the government itself.

America has long been in a Constitutional Crisis (since Lincoln's Civil War), but now since 9/11 the plea of "necessity" was raised like at no other time (and without sufficient evidence) to hijack Executive "unitary" powers into a virtual dictatorial level. The craftsman behind that hijacking, behind President Bush, is Richard Cheney, who was also a member of the neoconservative Project for a New American Century, which pre-planned a blueprint for a "new middle east" in September 2000. Everything that transpired before, since, and after 9/11 has been carefully orchestrated by Cheney in secret. Nothing less than a Coupe has taken place, using the terrorizing event of 9/11 to subject both the Congress and Americans to an imperial presidency.

Even conservative scholars agree that constitutional powers have usurped:

"George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt never claimed war powers close to what Bush is claiming".

--Bruce Fein, Constitutional Scholar, Deputy Attorney General, Reagan Administration

The following is a recent documentary from FRONTLINE on PBS. Their introduction speaks for itself, and the film can be viewed for free online.
"CHENEY'S LAW" WATCH FULL PROGRAM ON LINE:

Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush.

For three decades Vice President Dick Cheney conducted a secretive, behind-closed-doors campaign to give the president virtually unlimited wartime power. Finally, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Justice Department and the White House made a number of controversial legal decisions. Orchestrated by Cheney and his lawyer David Addington, the department interpreted executive power in an expansive and extraordinary way, granting President George W. Bush the power to detain, interrogate, torture, wiretap and spy -- without congressional approval or judicial review.

Now, as the White House appears ready to ignore subpoenas in the investigations over wiretapping and U.S. attorney firings, FRONTLINE examines the battle over the power of the presidency and Cheney's way of looking at the Constitution.

"The vice president believes that Congress has very few powers to actually constrain the president and the executive branch," former Justice Department attorney Marty Lederman tells FRONTLINE. "He believes the president should have the final word -- indeed the only word -- on all matters within the executive branch."

After Sept. 11, Cheney and Addington were determined to implement their vision -- in secret. The vice president and his counsel found an ally in John Yoo, a lawyer at the Justice Department's extraordinarily powerful Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In concert with Addington, Yoo wrote memoranda authorizing the president to act with unparalleled authority.

"Through interviews with key administration figures, Cheney's Law documents the bruising bureaucratic battles between a group of conservative Justice Department lawyers and the Office of the Vice President over the legal foundation for the most closely guarded programs in the war on terror," says FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk. This is Kirk's 10th documentary about the Bush administration's policies since 9/11.

In his most extensive television interview since leaving the Justice Department, former Assistant Attorney General Jack L. Goldsmith describes his initial days at the OLC in the fall of 2003 as he learned about the government's most secret and controversial covert operations. Goldsmith was shocked by the administration's secret assertion of unlimited power.

"There were extravagant and unnecessary claims of presidential power that were wildly overbroad to the tasks at hand," Goldsmith says. "I had a whole flurry of emotions. My first one was disbelief that programs of this importance could be supported by legal opinions that were this flawed. My second was the realization that I would have a very, very hard time standing by these opinions if pressed. My third was the sinking feeling, what was I going to do if I was pressed about reaffirming these opinions?"

As Goldsmith began to question his colleagues' claims that the administration could ignore domestic laws and international treaties, he began to clash with Cheney's office. According to Goldsmith, Addington warned him, "If you rule that way, the blood of the 100,000 people who die in the next attack will be on your hands."

Goldsmith's battles with Cheney culminated in a now-famous hospital-room confrontation at Attorney General John Ashcroft's bedside. Goldsmith watched as White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andy Card pleaded with Ashcroft to overrule the department's finding that a domestic surveillance program was illegal. Ashcroft rebuffed the White House, and as many as 30 department lawyers threatened to resign. The president relented.

But Goldsmith's victory was temporary, and Cheney's Law continues the story after the hospital-room standoff. At the Justice Department, White House Counsel Gonzales was named attorney general and tasked with reasserting White House control. On Capitol Hill, Cheney lobbied Congress for broad authorizations for the eavesdropping program and for approval of the administration's system for trying suspected terrorists by military tribunals.

As the White House and Congress continue to face off over executive privilege, the terrorist surveillance program, and the firing of U.S. attorneys, FRONTLINE tells the story of what's formed the views of the man behind what some view as the most ambitious project to reshape the power of the president in American history.

U.S. Military think Bush and Cheney Out of Control; "Would Revolt" over Iran

Along with the previous article below regarding Defense Secretary Gates opposing Cheney's war-mongering on Iran, you will not read this either in American press or hear it over the airwaves. The Zionist dominated news wires and networks do not want you to know there is a growing crisis of tension between the Military and civilian leadership in the U.S. government regarding the war and also Iran. See the "liberal" media is on board for Democratic Jihad against Iran, precisely because it is liberal, and they are part of the gang pushing for global democracy through revolutions and imperialistic "regime changes".

________________________________________________________________________________

This short clip from Bill Moyer's Journal shows the teamwork and/or coercion between the neoconservatives plan for a new middle east and the "liberal media" which helped sell the war to the public, wars planned well before that "catalyzing event", 9/11. The fact that you are not reading this information about conflict between the military and Bush and Cheney over expansion of the middle east wars demonstrates that the corporate media is doing exactly the same thing again, that it is not objective, or free press, but deliberately editing and censoring to support the agenda! The media is not telling you the truth, and apparently they do not want you to know that there is any disunity worth reporting.

______________________________________________________________

Note in the Spiegel article below in particular the comments by Admiral Fallon, head of CENTCOM, (who took to task and derided his inferior Gen. Petraus, as a spineless sycophant, to put it mildly in his military assessments) who vows their will be no war with Iran as long as he is head of CENTCOM! Get the picture that the military is revolting? Is it not amazing that the U.S. media are not covering this, and only foreign press?

Note also when this historian speaks of Israel on the war issues, he is referring not to the Prime Ministers (past, present, and to be) Sharon, Ehud Olmert, or Netanyahu, but the average Israeli, and their broader Knesset parliament, which is not as hawkish as the extreme war wing, particularly of the radical Likudnik terrorist party (and perhaps why the U.S. is taking the lead). Iran is not threatening Israel militarily, only philosophically as to their right to exist while trampling and oppressing the Palestinians. There is no evidence (per the IACA) that Iran is seeking to make a nuclear weapon, to which also Putin is witness, and taking even now a public stand. Even if they were, as the interview points out, Israel already has nukes, and mutual armament is a deterrant to war on both sides, as it was between the U.S. and the Soviets, and Israel clearly has the upper hand. Iran has no plans to militarily destroy Israel, but only challenges its legal and moral right to exist. It is PROPAGANDA ONLY that asserts Iran wants to militarily "wipe Israel off the map" (an inaccurate translation to imply military attack).

The consequences of war with Iran (for they would retaliate through oil containment) would be economically devastating to America, Israel, and the entire West.

See the links for the full interview and article in the German publication.

SPIEGEL ONLINE - October 15, 2007, 12:22 PM
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,511492,00.html

SPIEGEL ONLINE INTERVIEW WITH MILITARY HISTORIAN GABRIEL KOLKO

'Many in the US Military Think Bush and Cheney Are Out of Control'

In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the Amsterdam-based military historian Gabriel Kolko talks about the prospect of war with Iran and argues that many in the US military now view the White House as being 'out of control.'

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Kolko, editorials in US papers like the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard and the National Review are pushing for military action against Iran. How does the leadership in the US military view such a conflict?

Gabriel Kolko: The American military is stretched to the limit. They are losing both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everything is being sacrificed for these wars: money, equipment in Asia, American military power globally, etc. Where and how can they fight yet another? The Pentagon is short of money for procurement, and that is what so many people in the military bureaucracy live for. The situation will be far worse in the event of a war with Iran.

Many in the American military have learned the fundamental dilemma of modern warfare: More money and better weapons don't mean that you win. IEDs, which cost so little to make, are defeating a military which spends billions of dollars per month. ...

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are people in the Pentagon getting nervous about how influential voices in the White House continue to push for conflict with Iran?

Kolko: Many in the US military think Bush and Cheney are out of control. They are rebelling against Bush and Cheney. Washington Post reporter Dana Priest recently said in an interview that she believed the US military would revolt and refuse to fly missions against Iran if the White House issued such orders.....

CENTCOM [US Central Command, the military grouping whose responsibilities include the Middle East] commander Admiral William Fallon reportedly thwarted Cheney's wish to sent a third additional aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. One paper wrote that he "vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM."...

Kolko: Israel may be a factor. They must cross Syrian and Jordanian airspace, and the Iranians will be prepared if they are not shot down over Syria. Their countermeasures may be effective, but perhaps not ... War with Iran will lead to a rain of rockets and Israel would be left with an inability to deal with local priorities. Iran is likely to get nuclear bombs sooner or later. So will other nations. Israel has hundreds already. Israeli strategists believe deterrence will then exist. Why risk war?

Israel dislikes Iran and the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons, but they believe they can handle it with a deterrent relationship. Israel needs its army, which is not large enough for potential nearby problems -- for Palestinians and its Arab neighbors, who it rightfully fears and hates. That means Israel can be belligerent, but it is not capable of playing the US role, except of course with nuclear weapons.

So I regard the Israelis as opponents of a war with Iran which would involve them. They certainly noticed how during the war with Lebanon the Palestinians in Gaza used the opportunity to increase pressure on Israel from the south. Israelis opposed the Iraq war because it would lead to Iranian domination of the region, which it has.

Hence, the report that Cheney is trying to use Israel, if it is true, shows that he's confused and quite mad -- but also unusually isolated.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But what about the Democratic Party? Isn't it in the interest of the Democratic Party to do everything they can to end the war?

Kolko: All three leading Democratic Party presidential hopefuls -- Clinton, Obama and Edwards -- refused at a debate recently in New Hampshire to promise to pull the US military out of Iraq by the beginning of 2013. The American public is a small factor, as elections have repeatedly shown, but may play some role also. As the last election proved, anyone who thinks Democrats will stop wars is fooling him- or herself. But war with Iran would require new authorizations. Then the Congress would, potentially, be very important.