Dancing with the BARS: Republican Tom DeLay Convicted Of Money Laundering
Say: CHEESE!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom DeLay Convicted Of Money Laundering
Former Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay Convicted Of Money Laundering Charges
Where Was Tom Delay On September 11, 2002? Laundering Money. Plotting the destruction of his own country and the rebuilding of the MIddle East with US taxpayer dollars, and your childrens debt to China, and figuring out how to rewrite the constitution for corporate profits. Tom Delay is among the greatest criminal politicians ever to grace Washington DC. Electing Criminals to be your leader is like hiring a wolf to watch the chickens. There is a special place in hell waiting for this fake-christian liar thief loser, and a prison cell before that.
Shake those hips, Tom, and don't drop the soap in the shower, or "The Pumper" might get ya! Here' Tom "The Hammer" DeLay, hoping he doesn't get "hammered" by someone behind bars:
Tom DeLay's new partner for "Dancing Behind Bars":
What's with Republicans and dancing??? Here's Bristol Palin, the teen who got pregnant, who's against teens who get pregnant...also on Dancing With The Stars:
I have an idea!!! Bristol Palin should be partners with Tom DeLay on Dancing With The Stars!!! Thank you! Thank you!
William S. Burroughs - A Thanksgiving Prayer
Black Friday by Steely BIG Dan
China, Russia quit dollar in trade settlement
The Day the Dollar Died
Max Keiser: Teutonic Genie out of bottle, America punches itself in face
How to Create an Angry American Video
London’s mounted police ran at student protesters ‘like a cavalry charge’
Mounted Police charge protesters at Whitehall 24 November - I wasn't planning on uploading this, I assumed the BBC would mention it along with their coverage of all the other protests, they haven't. These protesters are not those who were kettled outside the treasury building, we weren't allowed in for that, after some kids had started fires and thrown some sticks n junk at the police lines separating us from the main protest they began to move forward. This happened about an hour and a half after police started pushing us back, they had already deployed the cavalry 3 times, although those instances were less aggressive than this one. I have decided to follow the anticuts campaign and make a documentary out of all the footage I gather, so this will eventually be in there.
More proof the Mainstream Media is government controlled and isn't "free": Media warned over next WikiLeaks story
WikiLeaks’ next document cache expected to detail three million secret diplomatic cables
Big Dan's Big 9/11 LINKS: Do your OWN research, because the mainstream media was in on it, you won't find help there!
plunger sez:
A far bigger reason to "talk Turkey"
WikiLeaks release to show NATO ally Turkey helped Al Qaeda in Iraq
"Al Qaeda In Iraq" (I contend) was a brand name invented by one Karl Rove - and I said so at the top of my voice all over the web the very first time I heard it.
"Al Qaeda In Iraq" is a Rove-invented brand name of something that is not what you perceive it to be.
The definition of "Al Qaeda" is in actuality:
"Operatives of the US, Israeli and British covert services who act to foment terror against both our allies and our enemies at various times in order to achieve political ends."
The attacks on mosques in Iraq and the apparent "Civil War" are all the result of these rogue covert actors - whom you know as "Al Qaeda, but that our own government has on its payroll.
So when you hear Bush say that the same group that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks is now operating in Iraq to destabilize that country and kill our troops, he is technically correct. The group in both cases was HIS GROUP, "Al Qaeda."
Nothing is as it appears.
NOTHING.
We are about to learn that it was actually run from Turkey as a false flag op - as there is no "Al Qaeda" independent from the CIA and Mossad and MI6.
"Al Qaeda is a widely known euphemism among the global elite. It is accompanied by a wink and a nod - as we will read in these soon to be released diplomatic cables.
Here was my take on it in 2006:
LOSING THE IRAQ WAR ON PURPOSE:
The following takes a few twists and turns to prove my point, but once you read through it, you will be hard pressed to conclude that Donald Rumsfeld ever had any intention to WIN & LEAVE Iraq.
It’s time to view the global strategic game with fresh eyes, and realize that our assumptions about traditional victory and success run completely contrary to those of the GLOBALISTS who have stolen our country from us – and reside in our White House.
First there is this:
September 18, 2006 at 09:49:22
U.S.-Israel-Iran Alliance: The Great Game Updated
Excerpts:
“The public leadership is put in place by power brokers with unlimited global access to high-level military, intelligence, economic, and strategic analysts, policy-makers, influence brokers, and puppet-masters. The broader objective of extending the power of the military/industrial elite without regard to national interest.
The ideology of a ruling elite both determines and reinforces favored decision-making algorithms that, despite their complexity, generally result in the same rather obvious determinations: exploitation of labor, strategic use of military force, allocation of resources for purposes of social control rather than social empowerment, and even choosing which party and candidates can best represent the elite's interests in national elections.
This kind of strategic chess game has been going on for centuries unabated. Manipulating a few dozen national entities and a few core industries simply does not require a unique brand of "smarts".
Iraq is in ruins, U.S. corporate interests have taken the U.S. taxpayer debt incurred by the war and destruction and converted it into windfall profits, the U.S. has control of Iraqi oil, the country is in the midst of a violent conflagration that creates a power vacuum that strengthens both Israel and Iran, and we're building massive military bases and the world's largest and most heavily fortified embassy as a governor's mansion for our new 51st state. Of course, 3,000 U.S. troops have died with many more severely wounded, and who knows how many Iraqis. U.S. casualties are especially tendered by Americans as proof of the catastrophic handling of the war. But this concern represents a total misreading of the mindset of military command.
Perhaps it's time to get this straight: 3,000, even 10,000, dead soldiers means nothing to the Pentagon or the Defense Department. When will Americans get that through their heads?
Barton Kunstler, Ph.D
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_barton_k_060918_u_s__israel_iran_all.htm
More of my own thoughts follow:
I was told directly by someone with intimate knowledge that the State Department had learned that Rumsfeld planned to FOMENT CHAOS in Iraq from the outset…and that literally all of the apparent failures in Iraq were part of Rumsfeld’s goal prior to the invasion of Iraq. If ETERNAL OCCUPATION and PERMANENT BASES are your ultimate goal, this strategy makes sense – as peace and stability would eliminate the justification for US boots on the ground.
The recent revelation that Rumsfeld actually threatened to fire any General who continued to work on the planning for the aftermath of the invasion (“The future Of Iraq Project”) makes total sense when you consider that the actual goal of Donald Rumsfeld was to “AVOID WINNING.”
THE FUTURE OF IRAQ PROJECT:
Washington, DC, September 1, 2006 - The National Security Archive is today posting State Department documents from 2002 tracing the inception of the "Future of Iraq Project," alongside the final, mammoth 13-volume study, previously obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. "The Future of Iraq Project" was one of the most comprehensive U.S. government planning efforts for raising that country out of the ashes of combat and establishing a functioning democracy. The new materials complement previous postings on the Archive's site relating to the United States' complex relationship with Iraq during the years leading up to the 2003 invasion:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB198/index.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Future_of_Iraq_Project
RUMSFELD HAD THIS ADVICE, AND NOT ONLY CHOSE TO IGNORE IT, BUT THREATENED TO FIRE ANYONE WHO CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT IN THE LEAD UP THE WAR.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php
Our troops, and the citizens of Iraq, are dying needlessly as the direct result of a dishonest strategy, intentionally designed to result in quagmire. They got the best advice the State Department had to offer, then intentionally chose to do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE in order to guarantee failure, which in their view, meant success.
The Rumsfeld / Bush / Cheney plan from the outset, contrary to ALL LOGIC, was to both allow for the complete destruction of this civil society AND to stay there with troops in place forever.
IMPEACHABLE LIES REVEALED:
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's newly-issued chapters showed that top Administration officials, including the President, Vice President, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, repeatedly misrepresented intelligence community findings, to support the Iraq invasion with lies that Iraq was tied to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, and had advanced WMD programs.
RUMSFELD’S EVIL REVEALED…
HOW RUMSFELD STEAMROLLED THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE UTTER DESTRUCTION OF IRAQ AND THE QUAGMIRE – WHICH WAS ALWAYS HIS GOAL:
INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD HAASS
ADVISOR TO COLIN POWELL ON IRAQ WAR PLANNING
Q.
Why did we go to war?
A.
I think the first thing to say about this war is that it was an elective war. It was a war of choice. We didn't have to go to war against Iraq; certainly not when we did, certainly not how we did it. It wasn't as though the Iraqis were poised to suddenly do something or break out. So the decision to go to war -- which obviously was the president's decision -- like everything else about this war, was an elective decision.
Q.
Did we do enough to plan for the postwar?
Q.
Is it fair to say that the Pentagon were too optimistic about the postwar situation?
A.
I’ll let you make the judgment and characterizations. I would just simply say that the aftermath has proven to be far more expensive in every sense of the word, in terms of human expense, in terms of the financial expense. I think in part, it was based upon some planning assumptions. I think part also, what made it a lot more difficult was in the immediate aftermath of the war, the degree of looting that took place. Looting doesn't really capture the degree of physical destruction that took place. [It] meant that the job suddenly grew in magnitude and some precious time was lost. So the entire undertaking became far more demanding because of what happened in the initial days and weeks afterwards. …
The question that I think is legitimate to ask is, should we have had more forces ready to deal with the so-called peace stabilization side of things? Should we perhaps have been more sober in our expectations of how the Iraqis would react once the thumb of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen was lifted? So one can argue that the coalition forces at that point, there simply weren't enough of them and they weren't involved enough to deal with it. Or to put it another way, there was too long of a lag between war fighting and then dealing with the war's aftermath.
Q.
Your view on that would be that we didn't have enough troops on the ground.
A.
In part number, in part mission; we were slow to transition from war fighting to dealing with the afterward. That either would have argued for additional forces or a more rapid transition from one mission to another. Though to be fair, it was a difficult call to make -- how fast to make that transition -- because you still had the reality or the possibility of residual resistance from the Iraqis.
Q.
You were making recommendations about the postwar period while you were in the State Department. You made recommendations to Secretary Powell. What were your recommendations as to what that situation was going to look at and what it was going to require?
A.
I'm not going to go into every detail of what sort of advice or recommendations I made. What I simply did was look at the history of these situations, really going back to Germany and Japan and looking back over the more than one dozen experiences the United States had had since the German and Japanese occupations after World War II and ask questions. What it was we could likely expect? What is it we needed to be prepared for?
My view was that we should be thinking very large; that we were talking about a situation that would be very demanding; that we should try to use local forces as much as possible; that while we should dismantle the upper level of those, say, who had been involved in the Ba'ath Party, we should try to take advantage of the lion's share of the army and police.
Interestingly enough, after World War II, the initial thinking about de-Nazification was to get rid of lots of people. But very quickly on, the United States and others realized that we really needed to work with the existing German forces and only get rid of the top level. So that was a lesson that I thought we should apply here.
But essentially, also I was arguing that we should make this as international as possible. There was no reason to hoard this to ourselves in some "victor gets the spoils" mentality, but rather that we should see this as something to be shared with others -- for two reasons.
ACTUALLY THERE WAS ONE REASON…THE PERSONAL GREED OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE.
“We did not want this to drain the human and financial resources of the United States.”
YOU FAILED – IT DID.
Q.
When did you hear Chalabi being flown into Nasiriyah?
A.
Pretty much when everybody else heard about it. When it became public. …
Q.
But you're in charge of policy, I mean, you're at a high level. Presumably, you would have known.
A.
I learn never to use the word "presumably" when it comes to government. All I can tell you is, I didn't know about it in advance, and I don't know who of my colleagues might have known about it. … I don't know that anyone knew about it in advance. All I can say is, in my own view, such initiatives were and are unwise, because they're an attempt to get too involved in the internal politics of Iraq. I just don't think that's the sort of thing that's wise or sustainable.
Q.
I spoke to General Garner. He told me that he was instructed by Secretary Rumsfeld to shelve the “Future of Iraq Project.”
A.
I can't speak to that. I don't know what sort of instructions or communications went on within the Pentagon. I would just simply hope it's not true, because I thought a lot of good work went into that project.
Q.
That's what he said. He said that he looked at the papers. He talked to the some of the people in the State Department. He thought it was good work. He wanted to use the work. But then he was instructed not to. Does that surprise you?
A.
Yes.
RUMSFELD & CHENEY TOOK THE BONE-HEADED INITIATIVE TO FLY IN CHALABI ON THEIR OWN, AND IN SO DOING, DESTROYED US CREDIBILITY WITHIN IRAQ.
HERE IS A POLICY EXPERT WHO FORMULATED POLICY FOR COLIN POWELL. HIS ADVICE WAS
A. TO KEEP THE POLICE AND MILITARY IN PLACE TO ENSURE LAW AND ORDER.
B. TO ALLOW THE IRAQIS TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS WITH NO OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.
C. TO BRING IN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FOREIGN PARTNERS TO SHARE IN THE JOB OF SECURING THE COUNTRY, AND IN SO DOING, TO SHARE IN THE “SPOILS OF WAR.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/haass.html
The War in Iraq is about “SUCCESSFUL FAILURE.”
In the words on Chalabi: “We are heroes in error.”
Dead soldiers and civilians are of virtually no consequence to Rumsfeld and the rest of the criminals in charge. Picture a chessboard, and we are all merely pawns.
THE FAILURE IN IRAQ IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE PERSONAL HUBRIS AND GREED OF RUMSFELD, CHENEY AND BUSH ON BEHALF OF THEIR GLOBALIST OVERLORDS.
Your leadership does not represent your interests.
IMPEACH.
