shape
carat
color
clarity

The Bush Family Coup

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

rubydick

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
321
James Ridgeway of the Village Voice has a great piece on the Bush Crime Family:

The Bush Family Coup: Son revisits the sins of the father on America

Here's a brief selection:

"Between 1960 and 1974, the FBI conducted half a million investigations of so-called subversives, without a single conviction, and maintained files on well over a million Americans. The FBI tapped phones, opened mail, planted bugs, and burglarized homes and offices. At least 26,000 individuals were at one point catalogued on an FBI list of persons to be rounded up in the event of a “national emergency.” Hoover was particularly obsessed with Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement, which he thought was influenced by communists. The FBI proceeded to undermine the civil rights movement, planting agents among the Freedom Riders (and also the Ku Klux Klan). Hoover put spies into the ranks of labor activists and of Democratic Party insurgents during the 1964 presidential campaign.

"Meanwhile, the CIA began spying domestically. The Agency planted informants of its own within the United States, especially on college campuses. Between 1953 and 1973, they opened and photographed nearly a quarter of a million first-class letters, producing an index of nearly 1.5 million names. Under something called Operation CHAOS, separate files were created on approximately 7,200 Americans and over 100 domestic groups. In 1964, the CIA even created a secret arm called the Domestic Operations Division, the very name of which flew in the face of its legal charter. Back then, there were no “communications problems” between the two agencies."

This piece discusses the 1976 Church Committee investigation, which revealed law enforcement and intel agencies running seriously amok. Similar to getting Capone through tax evasion charges, the CIA and FBI abuses were revealed not by investigations in the established Senate and House Intelligence Committees, which had long been infiltrated and controlled by the CIA/Military/Industrial players, but by an investigation of accounting abuses. This is often how criminals are nailed and hopefully the same tactic can be used to nail Don Bush and his cronies.

With all the recent discussion of the FISA statutes, it has been revealed that, out of the thousands of FISA warrants sought by the government since the Act came into law, only a handful were denied. And what was denied? Why, none other than a warrant to search the laptop of one Zacarias Moussaoui. You remember him, right? He was the guy up in Minnesota who wanted to learn how to fly planes, but not how to land them:

Access Denied

According to a table compiled from DOJ statistics at the EPIC website, the FISA Court did not reject a single warrant application from its beginning in 1979 through 2002. In 2003 it rejected four applications. In 2004, the number was again zero.

FISA Warrarts from 1979 to 2004

These EPIC tables omit the denial of the warrant in the Moussaoui case, which occurred in early September 2001. That's a bit odd, to say the least.

Do I believe Bush personally allowed 9/11 to happen? No. He's too stupid to be trusted with information of that sort. But the available evidence strongly suggests that certain people pulling his strings did have that knowledge. From 9/11 to the anthrax attacks against prominent Democrats through the death of Paul Wellstone and the string of voting irregularities in the last few elections, there is a stench in the American political landscape that grows stronger by the day. The French have a word for it: coup d'etat. Americans, the most entertained citizens on earth, are blissfully unaware that this silent coup has even taken place.
 

tanuki

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
341
In reading the Michael Issakof article dated Oct 1, 2001 that you linked, I get the impression that the Justice Department in Washington was so busy blowing off the request from the FBI agents in Minneapolis for permission to investigate Moussaui that they never went to the level of forwarding a request to the special panel of judges to authorize a domestic wiretap. Without a formal request he wouldn''t be listed in those whom the judges denied.
 

rubydick

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
321
Tanuki,

Yes, that sounds like a reasonable explanation. The Moussaoui story is really unbelievable. What was effectively a drive-through process for obtaining warrants suddenly got sticky when it came to this dude. One of many remarkable things about the 9/11 attacks.
 

fire&ice

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
7,828
The Villiage Voice - now that''s a paper with no slant.
28.gif
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
22,146
Date: 1/2/2006 2:16:45 PM
Author: fire&ice
The Villiage Voice - now that's a paper with no slant.
28.gif

Well, "The New York Times" is willing to omit the news El Jefe wants omitted, so we will have to look to alternative sources if we want to have a clue as to what the government is really up to. Alexander Coxburn, in "The Nation", says the word in Washington is that Bush is drinking again.* Is it true? Who knows? Mr. Coxburn is often correct and prescient. I cannot tell you how angry I am that "The New York Times" has betrayed the public trust and that I cannot trust them anymore.


* "Start with Bush. Never at ease before the cameras, he now has the hunted blink and compulsive nasolabial twitch of the mad dictator, a cornered rat with nowhere left to run. Nixon looked the same in his last White House days, and so did Hitler, according to those present in the Führerbunker. As Hitler did before him, Bush raves on about imagined victories. Spare a thought for the First Lady, who has to endure his demented and possibly drunken harangues over supper. The word around Washington is that he's drinking again. At this rate he'll be shooting the dog and ordering the First Lady to take poison, which I'm sure she'll have great pleasure in forwarding to her mother-in-law."
 

rubydick

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
321
Date: 1/2/2006 3:17:43 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/2/2006 2:16:45 PM

Author: fire&ice

The Villiage Voice - now that''s a paper with no slant.
28.gif

Well, ''The New York Times'' is willing to omit the news El Jefe wan
ts omitted, so we will have to look to alternative sources if we want to have a clue as to what the government is really up to. Alexander Coxburn, in ''The Nation'', says the word in Washington is that Bush is drinking again.* Is it true? Who knows? Mr. Coxburn is often correct and prescient. I cannot tell you how angry I am that ''The New York Times'' has betrayed the public trust and that I cannot trust them anymore.

* ''Start with Bush. Never at ease before the cameras, he now has the hunted blink and compulsive nasolabial twitch of the mad dictator, a cornered rat with nowhere left to run. Nixon looked the same in his last White House days, and so did Hitler, according to those present in the Führerbunker. As Hitler did before him, Bush raves on about imagined victories. Spare a thought for the First Lady, who has to endure his demented and possibly drunken harangues over supper. The word around Washington is that he''s drinking again. At this rate he''ll be shooting the dog and ordering the First Lady to take poison, which I''m sure she''ll have great pleasure in forwarding to her mother-in-law.''

Sad, but true. Bush is drinking again. You can see the proof here
1.gif


Proof of Bush''s Drinking

As for the Village Voice''s "slant", I can accept that they have one. What paper doesn''t? How many people are aware that the Washington Times is owned by the Rev. Sun Moon and that its chief "national security" reporter (Bill Gertz) and his wife Debra are both hard-core Moonies themselves? How''s that for a slant?

But would it not be better to discuss what James Ridgeway and Bill Gertz actually write, rather than the bias you or I perceive they have because of the paper they write for?
 

fire&ice

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
7,828
As for the Village Voice''s ''slant'', I can accept that they have one. What paper doesn''t?

But would it not be better to discuss what James Ridgeway and Bill Gertz actually write, rather than the bias you or I perceive they have because of the paper they write for?
That''s precisely my point. I don''t believe MUCH of what is printed from any source.

And, no - I don''t see the merits of discussing what I take as a grain of salt - from most news sources. I believe a good deal of what he wrote. What I don''t subscribe to it the leap of faith he derives from the information. The slant is always something sinister on either side of any argument. The same can be said about the National Review.

In my own dopey world of insignificant data, I have been seriously misquoted, words taken out of context, etc. - with the end result just being a miscommunication on something not so important. Words that got by publishers. Or better yet, how I feel about this case, the information taken & from that a conclusion (as untrue as it may be) drawn. Like a statement saying - "Usually signed in this way" actually written this way "If it isn''t signed this way it should be suspect". When in fact, that is NOT the case. But, sure makes for a better read in terms of absolute truths.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top