Jane got some ’splainin’ to do.

If this is how we get rid of this stain, how ironic and appropriate.

Karma is a bitch, but not an evil one like Jane.

re stupid: harman was also the person who let slip the PAA negotiations to blitzer the week before the bill was passed:

Sunday, July 29, 2007

From the ACLU:

We weren’t notified that the bill was moving until 6 days before when Rep. Harman let it slip on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer

either a planned slip, or really really stupid.

Marcy or someone else who has some answers… I would like some comments on the timing of the release on this case. First, we have Risen and Lichtblau from NYT on the Congressperson who wasn’t tapped and now we have the more complete picture of Harman and an agent from AIPAC discussing intervening in the pursuit of justice at DOJ and then Gonzales halting the investigation because she would be more valuable to the administration now that she had been neutered. Yes, she was neutered.

The scheduled releases of these NSA intercepts rings too much as a Cheney type operation from the last administration. Why now? What does Cheney or the neocons gain from this? How far does Cheney live from Ft Meade?

EW is in the Guardian, too. They start off by citing the Times, but they give EW credit too.

Mind you, she’s done that before, methinks.

FWIW, I find no sign of this story at the LA Times. Will be curious to see when/how it gets noticed in Jane H’s neighborhood.

The Bush WH was fond of swapping political support for prosecutorial intervention. But Harmon did not have any prosecutorial discretion to trade. All she was agreeing to was exercising political influence. It was not a vote, it was not a mandatory governmental act, it was merely questionable influence. It strikes me as business as usual. How is this different from a situation where Harmon agrees to spend her mere political influence on behalf of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty for Animals? And I ask this as a rhetorical question to draw a distinction. Nevertheless it is not big news flash that AIPAC, a foreign interest as it is, lobbies Congress.

Still it says a lot about the game that was being played with the prosecutorial privilege by the Bushites and we have seen this over and over again with Iglasias, with Seilegman, and with the attacks against Acorn. Is it not abundantly clear that Bush and Rove really thought the politicization of the DOJ provided the keys to the kingdom of a permanent majority? This is just part and parcel of the same corrupt pattern. That the Bushites did bargain with the prosecutorial power in an effort, not for justice or for cooperation is pursuing justice, but for political gain in concealing warrantless wiretapping seems to me to be the meat of the story.

To be clear to drational and others: I’m not saying anything about the motives for this leak, or the timing of the story, or anything. I’m simply disputing the point that “no one could have foreseen” in October 2005 a Democratic House majority coming out of the 2006 elections.

Virginia, with off-year statewide elections, was awash in young campaign staffers in the fall of 2005. An admittedly self-interested group, but also trained observers. They were salivating about 2006, sending out resumes to Congressional candidates all over the country.

Oh, let’s see … If I were cranking out a plot line for this stuff, what would I do? The WH declares that there is to be a two-country solution to the Palestinian problem. Israeli guy tries to bring the WH COS back into the fold (”Remember who you are.”) but gets rebuffed. The WH needs to have Dems in congress it can count on, but knows that some in the upper reaches of the House have been compromised; maybe there are more. There’s a lobbying group that actually functions more like an agent of a foreign government, and its activities are relevant to the declared policy objective; probably inimical, too. Turns out that that lobbying group has its hooks into the known-to-be-unreliable House Dem. And WH just happens to have knowledge of a taped conversation between House Dem and lobbying group’s guy. OK, says WH, you want to mess with us? We’re going to get rid of the compromised Dem, take the tarp off your cloaked foreign agency, and just for giggles make the last administration look bad, because we also know how to show that they used their knowledge of this little deal to manipulate the Dem for their own aims, which happened to jibe quite closely with those of your lobbying group. See how much of your structure we can weaken when we pull out one little rivet? Let’s see if you can show a little respect around here, now; because this is _our_ town, not yours. (* WH strolls off humming “Chi-CAH-go, Chi-CAH-go …”*)

sorry above I meant blackmail not really bribery …it’s all so bad I can’t keep the words apart.

and everyone, EW and Bmaz and all commentors, thank you for putting facts on my feelings and helping me remain sane in these times.

Still no mention of this in any MSM outlets that I can find. Top story on CNN is mysterious death of 21 polo horses in florida. Shoot me.

Stupid, incredibly stupid. Harman knew the misuses of intelligence gathering resources that Cheney and Rove were prone to; they make Nixon look like a piker. She had to assume that she was a potential target for illegal spying, let alone that conversations with any foreigner, let alone this crew, were potential fruit to be picked by the NSA. And the alleged dialogue? It’s out of a Ben Affleck movie.

So why might Ms. Harman have felt so secure in having this conversation? Stupidity may not be the only answer; she may have felt she’d made her bones and had protection.

Still, we don’t really know what was in those FISA applications, do we?

Jane Harman: Stupid and Reckless…

Nothing I didn’t know already, but if she’s has to walk the plank for this, I’ll take it.

These purported “bank bailouts” aren’t that at all. The globalist oil/banking tyrants have planned on this outcome for decades. They have every available computer model, and their own (IMF/World Bank) experiences to draw upon to know precisely to what extent a fiat-based economy can be stretched (manipulated through every available tool know to man) to its maximum potential before it simply implodes and starts to feed on itself in reverse. When Spain suddenly did an about face on investigation of War Crimes by the Bush Administration, it was likely the result of the World Bank threatening to call in their loans are shut off their credit if they didn’t back-off.

They all knew that derivatives and CDOs were deadly. They planned on them destroying the entire global economy. They knew that when the end of the inflationary crusade had reached its maximum potential, and swung into reverse, there would be virtually nothing that politicians or citizens could do but watch in horror.

The plutocracy that owns this planet and controls its resources, banks and media, has finally achieved nirvana. They are telling you to your face that the banks are going to take all of your money, and print more, and leave you with the bill – and there’s simply not a damn thing you can do about it.

WHY?

Blackmail is why.

There are so many co-conspirator, both willing and duped, on so many levels, and the Rockefeller-led Shadow Global Government is so powerful, that no one dare speak his name or call for his arrest and conviction for his Treason.

When you have Total Information Awareness, as does Rockefeller, through his Mossad and NSA divisions, you have the ability to know everything in the world, and as a result, blackmail or kill your enemies (Constitutionalists).

When you are Rockefeller and you control the Fed, Exxon-Mobil, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and are taking down your competitors on a daily basis – plus you control the major think tanks, plus the AIPAC/Israel division of the global oligarchy, and your business partners include the Crown, The Bank Of England, BP, and Queen Beatrix and her banking and Oil Empire, and your longest time co-conspirators are the Rothschilds – you effectively rule the world.

You want to control the rest of the resources and countries you have yet to capture? Destroy the global economy and take the value of oil down to zero if you have to – and simply wait them out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01…..038;emc=th

The foregoing is about Venezuela, but the same will be true of Russia and the middle eastern countries.

The big oil/banking/new world order conglomerates control the ability to pull oil out of the ground and convert it to needed revenue for these countries that rely on oil revenue to feed their own.

Rockefeller made his fondness for the Chinese communist system of governance well known decades ago – and he’s been driving the globe to accept a world government based upon its authoritarian principals ever since.

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”

– David Rockefeller, 1973, on Mao Tse-tung: (NY Times, 1973-10-08)

https://en.xiandos.info/David_Rockefeller

Let’s see what Karen Kwiatkowski has to say on this matter…

Kwiatkowski: Israeli Military Generals were free to come and go at the Office Of Special Plans without the requirement to record evidence of their visits in the guest register log book.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/M…..7Ak01.html

”What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline,” Kwiatkowski wrote. ”If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of ‘intelligence’ found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam (Hussein) occupation (in Iraq) has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defence” (OSD).

Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations she witnessed during her tenure in Feith’s office, and particularly those of an ad hoc group known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), constituted ”a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress”.

Kwiatkowski’s charges, which tend to confirm reports and impressions offered to the press by retired officers from other intelligence agencies and their still-active but anonymous former colleagues, are likely to make her a prime witness when Congress reconvenes in September for hearings on the manipulation of intelligence to justify war against Iraq.

According to Kwiatkowski, the same operation that allegedly cooked the intelligence also was responsible for the administration’s failure to anticipate the problems that now dog the U.S. occupation in Iraq, or, in her more colourful words, that have placed 150,000 U.S. troops in ”the world’s nastiest rat’s nest, without a nation-building plan, without significant international support and without an exit plan”.

Kwiatkowski’s comments echo the worst fears of some lawmakers, who have begun looking into the OSP’s role in the administration’s mistaken assumptions in Iraq. Some are even comparing it to the off-the-books operation run from the National Security Council (NSC) during Reagan administration that later resulted in the ”Iran-Contra” scandal.

”That office was charged with collecting, vetting, disseminating intelligence completely outside the normal intelligence apparatus,” Rep. David Obey, a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives, said last month.

”In fact, it appears that the information collected by this office was in some instances not even shared with the established intelligence agencies and in numerous instances was passed on to the National Security Council and the president without having been vetted with anyone other than (the secretary of defence)”.

Actually, little is known about OSP, which was originally created by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and his top deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, to investigate possible links between Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist group.

While only a dozen people officially worked in the office at its largest, scores of ”consultants” were brought in on contract, many of them closely identified with the neo-conservative and pro-Likud views held by the Pentagon leadership.

There have been published reports that a similar informal group co-ordinated closely with the OSP from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s office, but these have not been confirmed.

Headed by a gung-ho former Navy officer, William Luti, and a scholarly national-security analyst, Abram Shulsky, OSP was given complete access to reams of raw intelligence produced by the U.S. intelligence community and became the preferred stop, when in town, for defectors handled by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), led by Ahmed Chalabi.

It also maintained close relations with the Defence Policy Board (DPB), which was then chaired by neo-conservative Richard Perle of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Feith’s mentor in the Reagan administration.

Perle and Feith, whose published views on Israeli policy echo the right-wing Likud party, co-authored a 1996 memo for then-Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that argued that Hussein’s ouster in Iraq would enable Israel to transform the balance of power in the Middle East in its favour.

The DPB included some of Perle’s closest associates, including former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director James Woolsey and former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who played prominent roles in pushing the public case that Iraq represented an imminent threat to the United States and that its was closely tied to al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks.

In her article, Kwiatkowski wrote that OSP’s work was marked by three major characteristics:

First, career Pentagon analysts assigned to the Secretary’s office were generally excluded from ”key areas of interest” to Feith, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, notably Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. ”In terms of Israel and Iraq, all primary staff work was conducted by political appointees, in the case of Israel, a desk officer appointee from the Washington Institute for Near Policy”, a think tank closely tied to the main pro-Israel lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Second, the same group of appointees tended to work with likeminded political appointees in other agencies, especially the State Department, the NSC, and Cheney’s office, rather than with those agencies’ career analysts or the CIA.

”I personally witnessed several cases of staff officers being told not to contact their counterparts at State or the National Security Council because that particular decision would be processed through a different channel,” Kwiatkowski wrote.

The CIA’s exclusion from this network could help explain why Cheney and his National Security Advisor, I. Lewis Libby, a long-time associate of Wolfowitz, frequently visited the agency, in what analysts widely regarded as pressure to conform to OSP assessments.

This exclusion of professional and independent opinions, both within the Pentagon and across government agencies — according to Kwiatkowski — resulted in ”Groupthink”, a technical term defined as ”reasoning or decision-making by a group, often characterised by uncritical acceptance of conformity to prevailing points of view”.

In this case, the prevailing points of view were presumably shaped by neo-conservatives like Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle, and the ”intelligence” provided by the INC.

I thought those wiretaps started way back in 97 or 98 during the Clinton administration? I have read they were looking for someone or into the companies that had re WIRED THE White House. (Abramoff contracts or something like that) Were Amdocs/Comverse Infosys/Verint involved or under investigation during this time?