Cheney the Lying Unconvicted Criminal was the key player in obstructing the investigation into the California during the blackouts in 00 and 01!!!!

It seems there is no place of massive Corporate malfeasance our Evil Emperor Cheney does not have his hand in.

Well I will send this out to Mike Thompson, my honourable Congressman who does not believe in Conspiracy theories and our Impeachment or the oversight duties of Congress.


All roads seemingly leead to this Secret Task Force he convened upon taking up the puppet strings of the president. I would not be suprised if Jason Leopold is the one to break it open.



~~~ angry indy



Cheney Suppressed Evidence in California Energy Crisis
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t.org | Investigative Report

Thursday 19 July 2007

In-depth investigation shows how Vice President Dick Cheney pressured federal energy regulators to conceal evidence of widespread market manipulation by energy companies during the California electricity crisis in 2001.

In March 2001, while California's two largest utilities were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and the state's electricity crisis was spiraling out of control, Vice President Dick Cheney summoned Curt Hebert, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), to his office next to the White House for a hastily arranged meeting.

Cheney had just been informed by his longtime friend Thomas Cruikshank, the man who handpicked the vice president to succeed him at Halliburton in the mid-1990s, that federal energy regulators were close to completing an investigation into allegations that Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Williams Companies and AES Corporation of Arlington, Virginia had created an artificial power shortage in California in April and May of 2000 by shutting down a power plant for more than two weeks.

Cruikshank was a member of Williams's board of directors, and perhaps more importantly, had been one of many energy industry insiders advising Cheney's energy task force on a wide-range of policy issues, including deregulation of the nation's electricity sector, that would benefit Williams financially.

Cruikshank informed the vice president he had learned about the preliminary findings of FERC's investigation during a Williams board meeting earlier in March 2001. FERC, Cruikshank told Cheney, was in possession of incriminating audio tapes in which a Williams official and an AES power plant operator discussed keeping a Southern California power plant offline so Williams could continue to receive the $750 per megawatt hour premium for emergency power California's grid operator was forced to procure to keep the lights on in Southern California.

AES was the operator of two power plants in Los Alamitos and Williams marketed the electricity. The power plants were designated by the California Independent System Operator (ISO), the agency that manages the state's power grid, as crucial in order to ensure a reliable flow of electricity in the Southern part of the state. To stave off the potential for blackouts, the ISO was given the authority to pay top dollar for power if the power plants operated by AES, as well as power plants operated by other companies, were not in operation.

California's electricity crisis wreaked havoc on consumers in the state between 2000 and 2001. The crisis resulted in widespread rolling blackouts and forced the state's largest utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, into bankruptcy. California was the first state in the nation to deregulate its power market in an effort to provide consumers with cheaper electricity and the opportunity to choose their own power provider. The results have since proved disastrous. The experiment has cost the state more than $30 billion.

According to a copy of the March 2001 Williams transcript, Rhonda Morgan, a Williams official, told an AES power plant operator "it wouldn't hurt Williams's feelings" if the power plant that was down for repairs was kept offline for an extended period of time so the company could continue to be paid the "premium" for its emergency energy supplies from the ISO. In a separate conversation with Eric Pendergraft, a senior AES official, Morgan said, "I don't wanna do something underhanded, but if there's work you can continue to do ..."

Pendergraft responded to Morgan, saying, "I understand. You don't have to talk anymore."

The collusion between Williams and AES allowed Williams to earn an extra $10 million over a period of 15 days and set in motion a series of events that resulted in the California power crisis between 2000 and 2001, a crisis that was based almost entirely on manipulative practices by energy companies.

This story is based on a two-month investigation into Cheney's energy task force; how the vice president pressured cabinet officials to conceal clear-cut evidence of market manipulation during California's energy crisis, and how that subsequently led Cheney to exert executive privilege when lawmakers called on him to turn over documents related to his meetings with energy industry officials who helped draft the National Energy Policy and also gamed California's power market. Truthout spoke with more than a dozen former officials from the Energy Department and FERC as well as current and former energy industry executives all of whom were involved in personal discussions with Cheney relating to the National Energy Policy.

In addition to Hebert, the FERC chairman, the other senior cabinet officials who attended the March 2001 meeting in Cheney's office included Andrew Lundquist, the former executive director of Cheney's energy task force, now an energy industry lobbyist, White House political adviser Karl Rove, President Bush's chief of staff Andrew Card, and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, according to former Energy Department and FERC officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they said they were not authorized to disclose details of their secret meetings with Cheney or information about the energy task force meetings.

Joe Allbaugh, another adviser to the vice president's energy task force, had heard of a similar situation involving an energy company his wife was involved with. Allbaugh told Cheney that Reliant Energy also shut down a power plant in California in June 2000. That caused wholesale power prices in California to reach levels that exceeded "just and reasonable" rates, a violation of the Federal Power Act. FERC apparently had audio tapes of Reliant employees discussing the scheme.

"[We] started out Monday losing $3 million ... So, then we decided as a group that we were going to make it back up, so we turned like about almost every power plant off. It worked. Prices went back up. Made back about $4 million, actually more than that, $5 million," the Reliant trader says in a tape-recorded conversation on June 23, 2000.

Allbaugh's wife, Dianne Allbaugh, was a lobbyist for Reliant, TXU and Entergy, who was paid at least $20,000 a month by those corporations, and told her husband what she had learned from executives at Reliant. Allbaugh then informed Cheney.

Cruikshank and Allbaugh did not return dozens of calls or respond to emails seeking comment. Devona Greenstone, a spokeswoman for Hebert, was sent a detailed list of questions for Hebert to answer and was given more than one week to respond to the queries. But neither Greenstone nor the former FERC chairman replied despite numerous follow-up phone calls and emails sent to Hebert and Greenstone. A spokesperson for Cheney also failed to return 16 messages left for comment over the past month.

If You Were "King" or "Il Duce"?

Joseph Kelliher, a former Energy Department official, had been soliciting advice from Williams, Reliant, El Paso, Enron and other energy companies on natural gas issues on behalf of Cheney, another area those companies were accused of gaming, particularly in California.

In a March 10, 2001 email, just a week or so after Cheney was briefed by Cruikshank about the Williams scheme, Kelliher emailed energy lobbyist Dana Contratto, asking Contratto if he was "King" or "Il Duce", "what would you include in a national energy policy, especially with respect to natural gas issues?" according to energy task force documents.

Contratto responded with a three-page list of ideas, many of which were included in the final version of the energy policy.

On another occasion, Kelliher sought out Stephen Craig Sayle, an Enron Corp. lobbyist, to make similar recommendations. Sayle, former counsel for the House Commerce Committee, sent Kelliher Enron's "dream list." The list included a recommendation that the administration commit to market-based emissions trading, which was also used in administration's National Energy Policy.

Sayle wrote Kelliher about the energy policy, saying, "a multi-pollutant regulatory strategy should be estimated for the power generation sector including: Gradually phased in [mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions] reductions; reform/replacement of NSR; use of market-based/emission trading programs; inclusion of both existing and new plants and equal treatment for both. The last bullet is the critical one to ensure that: a) we encourage the new generation that is required; b) we ensure that the new technologies developed through DOE programs can come into the market.

"Obviously, this is a dream list," Sayle said in the March 23, 2001 email he sent to Kelliher. "Not all will be done. But perhaps some of these ideas could be floated and adopted."

Sayle also provided Kelliher with a PowerPoint presentation on behalf of his other energy clients in the so-called Clean Power Group, a consortium made up of a handful of the country's biggest energy companies, including NiSource Inc., Calpine Corp., Trigen Energy Corp. and El Paso Corp, whose mission, according to the group's web site, is to "streamline requirements under the Clean Air Act for electric generating facilities while at the same time making major reductions in air emissions."

The PowerPoint presentation, A Comprehensive Multi-Pollutant Emission Control Strategy for Power Generation, summarized the Clean Power Group's support of a "cap and trade" method in addressing emissions of mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide from power plants, but included a proposal for a voluntary cap on carbon dioxide. The Clean Power Group stood to benefit from the initiative it urged Kelliher to get the White House to adopt in that the companies could release more emissions under its proposed plan than under the more restrictive rules the Clinton administration had put in place.

After receiving Sayle's email and supporting material, Kelliher recommended that President Bush "direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose multi-pollutant legislation that would establish a flexible, market-based program to significantly reduce and cap emissions; provide regulatory certainty to allow utilities to make modifications to their plants without fear of new litigation; provide market based incentives, such as emissions-trading credits to help achieve the required reductions," all of which the president approved and was eventually incorporated into the National Energy Policy.

In fact, President Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative consists of many of the bullet points laid out months earlier in Sayle's email to Kelliher.

In addition to Kelliher correspondence with Sayle, he also met with oil and gas industry lobbyists who helped write executive orders that Kelliher passed on directly to the White House. Two months later, the president issued executive orders nearly identical to those Kelliher received from the lobbyists' months earlier, according to energy task force documents.

Kelliher now chairs FERC, the agency that is entrusted with keeping a close eye on wholesale energy markets, ensuring that companies like Williams and Reliant refrain from engaging in the type of manipulative practices they were caught doing during the spring and summer of 2000 in California.

Cheney Orders FERC to Seal Evidence

But the documentary evidence of widespread market manipulation that FERC obtained in March 2001, while Kelliher was soliciting energy industry officials to assist in writing the National Energy Policy, and when Cruikshank and Allbaugh disclosed to the vice president the manipulative tactics Williams and Reliant had engaged in, was sealed by FERC on direct orders by Cheney because it would have been a political nightmare for the Bush administration and would have derailed a recommendation of one of the cornerstones of the vice president's National Energy Policy: deregulation, and perhaps scuttle the policy altogether if evidence about the energy companies behavior in California was made public, according to half-a-dozen former FERC officials and former Energy Department officials.

So in May 2001, just days before Cheney unveiled his long-awaited National Energy Policy, FERC entered into confidential settlements with Williams in which the company forfeited $8 million it was owed by California's grid operator for power Williams sold into the marketplace at inflated prices. Williams did not admit any guilt for the power plant shutdown and, on orders from Cheney, FERC agreed to keep details of the settlement sealed. FERC later entered into a similar settlement with Reliant. The company agreed to forfeit $13.8 million it was owed by California's grid operator, did not admit to any wrongdoing, and FERC kept the details of the settlement confidential.

Moreover, FERC kept California officials in the dark about the nature of the state's claims that its wholesale electricity market was being manipulated. Hebert is now the vice president of external affairs for Entergy in New Orleans.

For former Governor Gray Davis, the illegal behavior by energy companies like Williams that federal energy regulators discovered, then covered up, during a time when the former governor had said publicly he believed such behavior had taken place, is beyond disturbing.

Instead of protecting the interests of consumers, FERC's primary job, Hebert toed the White House line and together with Cheney, Hebert had come out publicly to say that Davis should immediately order the California Public Utilities Commission to relax environmental restrictions on the permitting process related to power plant construction and raise electricity rates to keep utilities Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison from becoming insolvent. The insolvency issue was due to the fact that the utilities were paying higher prices for power than it was legally allowed to charge its customers under the state's deregulation law.

In an interview, Davis, now an attorney with Loeb & Loeb in Century City, California, said he never saw the evidence FERC had obtained implicating Williams in shutting down power plants in the state.

"If I had hard evidence that this was happening, I would have stood out in front of the Congress until they did something," Davis said. "I thought there was something rotten going on but I never believed that these energy companies would outright steal from us."

"This was an absolute outrage and was based on pure greed," Davis added. "I clearly didn't know this was happening with Williams. I think FERC perpetrated a fraud on the American public and California consumers by sealing the findings of this investigation while I was out there saying that this type of manipulation was happening. I think that if the results of this investigation were made public in March 2001, when FERC knew this was taking place, it would have stopped energy deregulation in America in its tracks. This admission in effect by Williams would have been the death knell for energy deregulation."

Davis had a tumultuous relationship with the federal agency that appeared to be based on partisan politics. Just three months before Cruikshank and Allbaugh provided Cheney with details that the energy companies they were affiliated with had gouged California consumers and violated the state's market rules, the vice president, and FERC's chairman, railed against Davis, blaming the energy crisis on him and said the governor's claims that energy companies were acting like a "cartel" were baseless.

"The basic problem in California was caused by Californians," Cheney said, adding that he would resist calls by lawmakers to allow price caps to be placed on wholesale energy prices in the Western United States.

The article in Full.

Carter Admin study on Organics ?!?!

Just a small break from our usual coverage of America and the world sliding into the pit...

An interesting historical bit on Organics

by Meteor Blades [from DailyKos]

Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:27:50 AM PDT

Twenty-five years ago, my colleague S.K. Levin and I delved into an issue just then beginning to be discussed on the fringes: organic agriculture. Now she lives in the lower reaches of the French Alps with perpetually dirty gardener’s feet. She was already a bit of a farmer in her journalist days, raising ducks, chickens and mini-crops of vegetables in the thin soil of the Colorado Front Range without benefit of herbicides or pesticides and wondering how this might be done on a larger scale.

In those days, and during the late 1970s, the response of a very few people to what seemed like perpetually hard times for small family farmers was to adopt alternatives to the application of expensive synthetic chemicals to control bugs and weeds and try out other experiments that cut against the grain of factory farming that had been steadily changing the landscape of agriculture physically, financially and culturally for decades, including raising risks to both human health and the environment.

It was the birth, or rather the rebirth, of organic farming.

The whole idea was considered a big fat joke at the time. Critics, and they were in the vast majority, spun the false tale that organic farming was all about a bunch of hippies – or hippie-influenced peasants – wanting to live like the Amish, without electricity or tractors. Anyone, the critics said, who thought farming without chemicals was possible on a large scale, was just plain nuts and deserved to be absorbed by the "scientifically" run mega-operations that had been eroding the small family farm since the 1930s. Never mind that a mere handful of people were talking about living like the Amish, the wacko notion fit the paradigm of the day and held fast.

In 1978, a period of extremely high petroleum prices, President Jimmy Carter, who, whatever else may be said of him, wasn't given to accepting conventional wisdom as all that wise, directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to take a thorough look at organic agriculture. USDA soil scientist Robert Papendick led the team that produced Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming. (You can read the whole thing, but, fair warning, it’s a 10.7mb pdf file.) Essentially, it said that organic farming had a lot of promise, with multiple benefits, and a lot of hurdles.

Published at the end of 1980, the report was too late to get much attention from the Carter Administration. It got zero mainstream media attention. When Reagan came into the Oval Office, it was, like Carter’s energy policy, deep-sixed. That didn’t stop a few individuals from pressing forward, but the USDA did next to nothing to help them, and department employees who had anything good to say about organic agriculture were for a long time viewed skeptically by their colleagues and bosses alike. As Levin and I reported in 1983, Papendick was treated like dirt for years.

So, it was with a broad grin smirk that I read at Science Daily last week that Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests

Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators. Catherine Badgley, research scientist in the Museum of Paleontology, is a co-author of the paper along with several current and former graduate and undergraduate students from U-M.

"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can’t produce enough food through organic agriculture," Perfecto said. ...

"We were struck by how much food the organic farmers would produce," Perfecto said. The researchers set about compiling data from published literature to investigate the two chief objections to organic farming: low yields and lack of organically acceptable nitrogen sources.

Their findings refute those key arguments, Perfecto said, and confirm that organic farming is less environmentally harmful yet can potentially produce more than enough food. This is especially good news for developing countries, where it’s sometimes impossible to deliver food from outside, so farmers must supply their own. Yields in developing countries could increase dramatically by switching to organic farming, Perfecto said.

And Robert Papendick? He became a hero in some circles.

• Permalink ::
• [kossacks]Discuss (106 comments)

Do Abortions Endanger a Woman's Mental Health?

truthout listed:
Do Abortions Endanger a Woman's Mental Health?

PBS Airtime: Friday, July 20, 2007 at 8:30 p.m. on PBS (check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/now/sched.html)

The politics and science of a new pro-life argument: Do abortions endanger a woman's mental health? Next time on NOW.

Does abortion cause long-term emotional and psychological problems for women? On Friday, July 20, at 8:30 p.m. (check local listings), NOW introduces viewers to a new front in the effort to end abortions in the United States: claims of extreme negative effects on a woman's mental health. Once focusing primarily on the unborn child, anti-abortion advocates see new hope in an argument that focuses on the women who've made or are about to make a fateful decision. All sides of the debate have been listening and weighing in, including the Supreme Court.

just had to post it for the title...but curious goings on nonetheless...

The British Empire strikes back

Russian-British diplomatic war has begun

London implemented a threat that last week was so much talked about: in response to Russia’s refusal to hand over Andrei Lugovoi the UK set to expel 4 Russian envoys. "The Russian government has failed to register either how seriously we treat this case or the seriousness of the issues involved, despite lobbying at the highest level and clear explanations of our need for a satisfactory response," British Foreign Minister David Miliband said in a speech to Parliament. Announcing the decision, David Miliband, also said Britain would tighten visa requirements for Russian officials and businesspeople, suspend talks meant to provide easier access to British visas for ordinary Russians and review “the extent of our cooperation with Russia on a range of issues.” Besides that, if Lugovoi leaves Russia, London will seek for his extradition according to international agreements.
A spokesman for the British Embassy in Moscow clarified that the restrictions would concern only Russian officials, visa regime for tourists or other ordinary citizens remained the same. "These changes apply only to (visa) applications from the Russian government," he said. "Tourist, business and student visas will continue to be considered on their merits."
Miliband told MPs Russia was an important ally and the situation was one that Britain had "not sought and does not welcome". But he said it was necessary to send a "clear and proportionate signal" to Russia, about the seriousness with which Britain regarded the matter. In his statement, Miliband said that Britain believed that Russia was a "key international partner" in areas like bilateral trade and the fight against terrorism, but that "we need a relationship based on trust and respect."
The seriousness of the retaliations were emphasized also by the new Britain premier-minister Gordon Brown who stated that London would not apologize for envoys expulsion but would like to solve the problem as soon as possible.
The next morning Guardian wrote that expelling diplomats are officers of Russian secret services. With reference to anonymous sources the daily newspaper writes: “All four individuals being expelled are officers with one of the successor organisations to the KGB, a clear signal that British authorities strongly suspect that Russian intelligence agencies had a hand in the murder (of Alexander Litvinenko). David Miliband, the foreign secretary, told the Commons yesterday: "This response is proportional and it is clear at whom it is aimed." The other British press is much more restrained though. Newspapers write that expelling Russians are diplomats of middle rank who have no relation to espionage or Litvinenko’s case.
The last week the Russian ministry of Foreign Affairs warned against making Russian-Britain relations a hostage of the wrangle around Lugovoi’s extradition. But on Monday Moscow met Britain’s decision with hardly restrained irritation. That was quite obvious from the words of the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov who had a telephone conversation with David Miliband. Sergei Lavrov said that all that activities seemed to be a well-produced action aimed at deliberate politisation of investigation of Litvinenko’s case, although Russia was always ready for collaboration on this problem, but strictly on professional basis.
Lavron reminded again both about the Russian Constitution that banned extradition of RF nationals and about the European Convention that did not prohibit that. He mentioned also Boris Berezovsky and Ahmed Zakaev and several UK nationals suspected of terrorism, who had not been handed over to the USA. “That’s why the position of London cannot be excused neither from the moral point of view, nor from the legal one” - the RF Ministry of Foreign Affairs states.
In Lavrov’s opinion, the London’s decision proves strengthening of russophobian sentiments in social and political circles of the Great Britain so that now it is reflected even in the foreign policy. The Miliband’s statement that London would like to see Russia as an international partner looked ingenuous, Lavrov said and added that ”they should understand well in London that the provocative actions conceived by the British authorities will not go unanswered and cannot fail to produce the most serious consequences for Russian-British relations as a whole."
It seems that one should expect expulsion of Britain diplomats from Moscow as well as continuation of old and appearance of new spy scandals concerned with the Great Britain.

17 июля 2007, 14:48

The decline and fall of America or BE concerned Chertoff is actually telling the truth ?

Don't Laugh at Michael Chertoff
By Frank Rich
The New York Times

Sunday 15 July 2007

Michael Chertoff, President Bush's fallback choice for secretary of Homeland Security after Bernard Kerik, is best remembered for his tragicomic performance during Hurricane Katrina. He gave his underling, the woeful Brownie, a run for the gold.

It was Mr. Chertoff who announced that the Superdome in New Orleans was "secure" even as the other half of the split screen offered graphic evidence otherwise. It was Mr. Chertoff who told NPR that he had "not heard a report of thousands of people in the convention center who do not have food and water," even after his fellow citizens had been inundated with such reports all day long.

With Brownie as the designated fall guy, Mr. Chertoff kept his job. Since then he has attracted notice only when lavishing pork on terrorist targets like an Alabama petting zoo while reducing grants to New York City. Though Mr. Chertoff may be the man standing between us and Armageddon, he is seen as a leader of stature only when standing next to his cabinet mate Gonzo.

But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Last week, as the Bush administration frantically tried to counter Republican defections from the war in Iraq, Mr. Chertoff alone departed from the administration's script to talk about the enemy that actually did attack America on 9/11, Al Qaeda, rather than Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the jihad-come-lately gang Mr. Bush is fond of talking about instead. In this White House, the occasional official who strays off script is in all likelihood inadvertently coughing up the truth.

Mr. Chertoff was promptly hammered for it. His admission of "a gut feeling" that America might be vulnerable to a terrorist attack this summer was universally ridiculed as a gaffe. He then tried to retreat, but as he did so, his dire prognosis was confirmed by an intelligence leak. The draft of a new classified threat assessment found that Al Qaeda has regrouped and is stronger than at any time since 2001. Its operational base is the same ungoverned Pakistan wilderness where we've repeatedly failed to capture Osama bin Laden dead or alive for six years.

So give Mr. Chertoff credit for keeping his eye on the enemy while everyone else in the capital is debating never-to-be-realized benchmarks for an Iraqi government that exists in name only. Just as President Bush ignored that August 2001 brief "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," so Washington, some of its press corps included, is poised to shrug off the August 2007 update "Al Qaeda Better Positioned to Strike the West." The capital has been sucker-punched by the administration's latest P.R. offensive to prop up the fiasco in Iraq.

The White House's game is to create a new fictional story line to keep the war going until President Bush can dump it on his successor. Bizarrely, some of the new scenario echoes the bogus narrative used to sell the war in 2002: an imaginary connection between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11. You'd think the Bush administration might think twice before recycling old lies, but things have gotten so bad in the bunker that even Karl Rove is repeating himself.

Fittingly, one of the first in Washington to notice the rollout of the latest propaganda offensive was one of the very few journalists who uncovered the administration's manipulation of W.M.D. intelligence in 2002: Jonathan Landay of the McClatchy newspapers.

Pakistan - the REAL Iraq

Bush's Pakistan Paradox
By Robert Scheer
Truthdig.com

Tuesday 10 July 2007

As Iraq continues to disintegrate, and our top generals and in-country ambassador predict that U.S. troops will need to die there for decades in order to prevent a full-scale regional blood bath, it is important to recall the reasons why we got into this mess. The marker of what will go down in history as "Bush's folly" is that this idiot of a president invaded a country that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist attacks on the United States or WMD threats to America while coddling the military junta in Pakistan, which was guilty on both counts.

(For newspaper editors inclined to strike my reference in this syndicated column to our "idiot president" as excessively pejorative, I refer them to one definition of idiot in Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary: "being unable to guard against common dangers and being incapable of learning connected speech.")

Two news stories this week underscore the extreme irrationality and utter moral depravity of the Bush administration in exploiting the 9/11 attack to justify the invasion of Iraq. They both concern Pakistan, the close ally of the Taliban government when Afghanistan hosted Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network. And, as opposed to Iraq, Pakistan did have weapons of mass destruction and facilitated their proliferation to "rogue nations." Both examples provide damning evidence that Bush cared not a whit about WMD or about preventing another 9/11-style attack, because the danger of both existed in Pakistan, which he befriended, rather than in Iraq, which he invaded.

The first report details that Pakistan has effectively lifted the minimal house arrest restraints imposed on A.Q. Khan, the father of the "Islamic bomb," who presided over the transfer of nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. The second is a devastating New York Times report that the United States failed to attack an important al-Qaida gathering in Afghanistan at which top terrorist leaders were present, out of fear of alienating Pakistan's dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Recall that Bush boasted in his 2004 presidential debate with Democratic candidate John Kerry that "we busted the A.Q. Khan network," when, in fact, neither Khan nor any of the top ringleaders of his nukes-for-sale operation have ever been brought to trial. Some had to hold high positions in the Pakistani government in order for the shipment of Pakistan's most highly valued nuclear technology to go unimpeded. Perhaps it is for that reason U.S. agents have never been allowed to interview Khan, let alone subject him to the waterboarding torture reserved for those who wouldn't know a nuke if it hit them upside the head.

While American agents still aren't allowed to talk to Khan, an AP reporter had no difficulty interviewing him this week, reporting that the minimal restraints of his house arrest have been lifted. Thus, he is now, echoing that Southwest Airlines commercial, free to move about the country - if not the world. So, Bush did not bust Khan's network, but on the contrary he allowed it to function for years out of fear of embarrassing Musharraf at a time when Bush was cozying up to the dictator who had quickly pardoned Khan of all possible crimes.

Not offending Musharraf also led the Bush administration in 2005 to jettison a planned attack on a high-level al-Qaida gathering in Pakistan that U.S. intelligence had learned of. Bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was in attendance, and the capture of the man thought to be actually running al-Qaida would have allowed Bush to begin making good on his promise to get the perpetrators of 9/11 "dead or alive."

Instead, as The New York Times reported, the mission was abandoned in the final moments, as Navy SEALs in parachute gear sat on C-130 cargo planes, because "it could jeopardize relations with Pakistan." The Times quoted Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, as saying, "The reluctance to take risk or jeopardize our political relationship with Musharraf may well account for the fact that five-and-a-half years after 9/11, we are still trying to run bin Laden and Zawahiri to ground."

No wonder that top U.S. officials charged with defeating al-Qaida feel frustrated. As the Times reported, "Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its ability to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan's tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network."

Heckuva job, Bushie.

How Many Lies Will an A.G. get to tell Congress before he is removed ?

Gonzales Was Told of FBI Violations
By John Solomon
The Washington Post

Tuesday 10 July 2007

As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The acts recounted in the FBI reports included unauthorized surveillance, an illegal property search and a case in which an Internet firm improperly turned over a compact disc with data that the FBI was not entitled to collect, the documents show. Gonzales was copied on each report that said administrative rules or laws protecting civil liberties and privacy had been violated.

The reports also alerted Gonzales in 2005 to problems with the FBI's use of an anti-terrorism tool known as national security letters (NSLs), well before the Justice Department's inspector general brought widespread abuse of the letters in 2004 and 2005 to light in a stinging report this past March.

Justice officials said they could not immediately determine whether Gonzales read any of the FBI reports in 2005 and 2006 because the officials who processed them were not available yesterday. But department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that when Gonzales testified, he was speaking "in the context" of reports by the department's inspector general before this year that found no misconduct or specific civil liberties abuses related to the Patriot Act.

"The statements from the attorney general are consistent with statements from other officials at the FBI and the department," Roehrkasse said. He added that many of the violations the FBI disclosed were not legal violations and instead involved procedural safeguards or even typographical errors.

Each of the violations cited in the reports copied to Gonzales was serious enough to require notification of the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, which helps police the government's surveillance activities. The format of each memo was similar, and none minced words.

"This enclosure sets forth details of investigative activity which the FBI has determined was conducted contrary to the attorney general's guidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection and/or laws, executive orders and presidential directives," said the April 21, 2005, letter to the Intelligence Oversight Board.

The oversight board, staffed with intelligence experts from inside and outside government, was established to report to the attorney general and president about civil liberties abuses or intelligence lapses. But Roehrkasse said the fact that a violation is reported to the board "does not mean that a USA Patriot violation exists or that an individual's civil liberties have been abused."

Two of the earliest reports sent to Gonzales, during his first month on the job, in February 2005, involved the FBI's surveillance and search powers. In one case, the bureau reported a violation involving an "unconsented physical search" in a counterintelligence case. The details were redacted in the released memo, but it cited violations of safeguards "that shall protect constitutional and other legal rights." The second violation involved electronic surveillance on phone lines that was reinitiated after the expiration deadline set by a court in a counterterrorism case.

The report sent to Gonzales on April 21, 2005, concerned a violation of the rules governing NSLs, which allow agents in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations to secretly gather Americans' phone, bank and Internet records without a court order or a grand jury subpoena. In the report - also heavily redacted before being released - the FBI said its agents had received a compact disc containing information they did not request. It was viewed before being sealed in an envelope.

Gonzales received another report of an NSL-related violation a few weeks later. "A national security letter ... contained an incorrect phone number" that resulted in agents collecting phone information that "belonged to a different U.S. person" than the suspect under investigation, stated a letter copied to the attorney general on May 6, 2005.

At least two other reports of NSL-related violations were sent to Gonzales, according to the new documents. In letters copied to him on Dec. 11, 2006, and Feb. 26, 2007, the FBI reported to the oversight board that agents had requested and obtained phone data on the wrong people.

Nonetheless, Gonzales reacted with surprise when the Justice Department inspector general reported this March that there were pervasive problems with the FBI's handling of NSLs and another investigative tool known as exigent circumstances letters.

"I was upset when I learned this, as was Director Mueller. To say that I am concerned about what has been revealed in this report would be an enormous understatement," Gonzales said in a speech March 9, referring to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller. The attorney general added that he believed back in 2005, before the Patriot Act was renewed, that there were no problems with NSLs. "I've come to learn that I was wrong," he said, making no mention of the FBI reports sent to him.

Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer for the nonpartisan Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, "I think these documents raise some very serious questions about how much the attorney general knew about the FBI's misuse of surveillance powers and when he knew it." A lawsuit by Hofmann's group seeking internal FBI documents about NSLs prompted the release of the reports.

Caroline Fredrickson, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the new documents raise questions about whether Gonzales misled Congress at a moment when lawmakers were poised to renew the Patriot Act and keenly sought assurances that there were no abuses. "It was extremely important," she said of Gonzales's 2005 testimony. "The attorney general said there are no problems with the Patriot Act, and there was no counterevidence at the time."

Some of the reports describe rules violations that the FBI decided not to report to the intelligence board. In February 2006, for example, FBI officials wrote that agents sent a person's phone records, which they had obtained from a provider under a national security letter, to an outside party. The mistake was blamed on "an error in the mail handling." When the third party sent the material back, the bureau decided not to report the mistake as a violation.

The memos also detail instances in which the FBI wrote out new NSLs to cover evidence that had been mistakenly collected. In a June 30, 2006, e-mail, for instance, an FBI supervisor asked an agent who had "overcollected" evidence under a national security letter to forward his original request to lawyers. "We would like to check the specific language to see if there is anything in the body that would cover the extra material they gave," the supervisor wrote.

Sometimes the FBI reached seemingly contradictory conclusions about the gravity of its errors. On May 6, 2005, the bureau decided that it needed to report a violation when agents made an "inadvertent" request for data for the wrong phone number. But on June 1, 2006, in a similar wrong-number case, the bureau concluded that a violation did not need to be reported because the agent acted "in good faith."

-------