High Treason And Felonies by Ted Lang

High Treason And Felonies

By Ted Lang
2-3-8

The elephant that has been swept under the carpet to protect the Cheney-Bush regime could not go forever unnoticed by the American people. The unending laundry list of so-called "high crimes and misdemeanors" described in Section 4 of Article II, powers of the President, enumerates such treason that even the Founders and writers of the Constitution, in all likelihood, never had the capacity to either imagine or foresee. Section 4 states: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." And Bush has gone on record as to what he thinks of the Constitution he swore to protect and uphold. As former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill pointed out, Bush was obsessed with invading Iraq and going after Saddam Hussein. We will probably never learn of the real reason behind his planned vendetta, but it seems that his need to do so can be summarized thus: Who will rid me of this meddlesome competitor? Dick Cheney saw his opportunity to fill Bush's burning need. Never being able to become the "top gun" in the White House, Cheney saw his chance to provide the solution for Bush's burning quest. As David McCullough pointed out in his John Adams [© 2001, Simon & Schuster ­ New York]: "All the frustrations and feelings of stagnation that went with the vice presidency, all that so many others who followed in the office were to bemoan down the years, were felt intensely by the first Vice President." But with the advent of The Establishment's New World Order launched in reality by the Bush-Clinton dynasties, strict adherence to the Constitution was seen as counterproductive to the agenda requiring the abrogation national sovereignty. Vice President Al Gore was given specific solemn duties in terms of "re-inventing government" and strengthening airline security immediately prior to September 11, 2001. And Cheney saw his opportunity to lead and be an effective Vice President. For it was Cheney that started pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency at their Langley, Virginia headquarters on a seemingly regular scheduled basis seeking to induce the needed intelligence thereby providing Bush with the pretext to pull the trigger on Iraq and Saddam. It was in fact Cheney that initiated inquiries regarding "yellowcake" uranium solicitation by Saddam from South Africa. These inquiries from the office of the Vice President must have been very disturbing for high-level CIA supervisors and managers necessitating immediate verification and a thorough investigation. The first level of inquiry would obviously be localized and be an in-house review, but then progress to where a possible direct investigation of the alleged clandestine activities were said to have been taking place. One of the closest readily accessible and knowledgeable operatives was undercover CIA supervisory operative, Valerie Plame. Plame's cover was the use of her maiden name, and her "occupation" as an international energy trader with the CIA corporate front of Brewster Jennings Associates. The CIA had set up this phony front as far back as 1994. Plame would have had first-hand knowledge of WMD solicitations, especially nuclear ones centered in Africa. Most of the information that follows is from the Wikipedia encyclopedia entry under the title of the "Plame Affair." Having established the Brewster Jennings front, Plame was acknowledged by the CIA to have been a secret operative there from January 1, 2000 forward. She operated in this capacity until exposed by The Establishment's Bilderberg-connected Washington Post and its reporter, Robert Novak, on July 14, 2003. Here is the opening excerpt from Novak's article, entitled "Mission to Niger": "The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided." But if Novak is being honest here when referring to a "routinely "and "low level" inquiry, why did he feel it necessary to investigate and approach high-level "senior officials" in the Cheney-Bush regime? Six paragraphs later, he offers this: "Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. 'I will not answer any question about my wife,' Wilson told me. Novak hints at a Plame/Wilson-arranged vacation junket on the taxpayer, playing down the higher level CIA officials' request to Plame and the fact that Wilson offered to pay for the trip himself. Why was it necessary to elevate George Tenet's position by Novak's posturing of the Cheney-initiated inquiry as being routine and low level, yet denigrate former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's trip to Niger and his report as being less than definitive yet requiring comment from two high-level "senior administration officials" of the Cheney-Bush regime? Consider Novak's second paragraph: "Wilson's report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly President Bush did not, before his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases to the British government. That the British relied on forged documents made Wilson's mission, nearly a year earlier, the basis of furious Democratic accusations of burying intelligence, though the report was forgotten by the time the president spoke." How does Novak know that "certainly President Bush did not" [see the report]? Does Novak's argument seem plausible? It totally disregards and omits the actual source from which the inquiry originated: the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Why didn't Novak start with the very origin of the Niger question? And Wilson's report was regarded by high-level CIA officials "as less than definitive"? Here's just the opposite view as cited in Wilson's July 6, 2003 editorial piece in The New York Times and taken from the archives of CommonDreams.org: "Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired." Now isn't this a more plausible observation, and wouldn't it go a long way to ending all doubt as regards the possibility of yellowcake from being secretly shipped to Iraq? Why did Novak choose to ignore this part of Wilson's editorial? And why would the CIA regard Wilson's findings as "less than definitive" given the unlikelihood of the huge and overarching coordinated conspiracy required to pull off a secret transfer of uranium to Iraq? And isn't it possible, that if Tenet wasn't interested, that it might be because such a possibility was so highly implausible and absurd? And who cares what British intelligence might have learned ­ what was our CIA's take on the matter from the getgo? As we all know today, there was intelligence uncovered through Italian media sources, with a somewhat undefined participation in some way by neocon war agitator Michael Ledeen. But Novak takes the neoconspirator approach in ignoring, for the most part, Cheney's role, and plays down Bush's use of those famous 16 words in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But much more revealing than those 16 words, is the ENTIRE paragraph documenting Bush's lie, as pointed out by Dennis Hans in his Counterpunch article of July 24, 2004, entitled, "Those 16 Words Still Smell." Here's the entire paragraph taken from Hans citing Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union address: "The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide." What utter nonsense! What a pack of unadulterated lies! The CIA was clearly on board with Wilson's findings and saw absolutely no threat from Niger. And as to those aluminum tubes, here's Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting's write-up on July 18, 2003, entitled, "Bush Uranium Lie Is Tip of the Iceberg": "Aluminum tubes: In the State of the Union address and elsewhere, the White House has claimed that Iraq was seeking to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in processing uranium, tubes Bush said would be 'suitable for nuclear weapons production.' But a report in the Washington Post (9/19/02) months before Bush's address noted that leading scientists and former weapons inspectors seriously questioned the administration's explanation ­ pointing out that the tubes, which would be difficult to use for uranium production, were more plausibly intended for artillery rockets. The Post also noted charges that the 'Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence.' Commendably, some reporters, like NBC's Andrea Mitchell (7/14/03), have questioned the aluminum tubes claim in recent reporting about Bush's State of the Union address." Clearly disenchanted with the "obstructionism" of the intelligence community, Cheney, along with the help of then-Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, set up an independent intelligence operation, Office of Special Plans headed up by neoconservative neoconspirator, Zionist Douglas Feith, that would fit cozily into Bush' nebulous description of "our intelligence sources." Robert Novak, if for no other reason than his inborn curiosity tempered by years of balancing it against legal parameters in getting to the bottom of a story, should have known that attacking Wilson by exposing the latter's wife as a "CIA operative" would blow her cover as well as that of Brewster Jennings, then a nine-year-old successful covert operation with a highly significant security mission. Here's a segment from Wikipedia: "According to Murray S. Waas in the American Prospect of February 12, 2004, the CIA source warned Novak several times against the publication: two 'administration officials' spoke to the FBI and challenged Novak's account about not receiving warnings not to publish Plame's name; according to one of the officials, 'At best, he is parsing words .... At worst, he is lying to his readers and the public. Journalists should not lie, I would think.' Novak's critics argue that after decades as a Washington reporter, Novak was well aware of Plame's CIA status due to the wording he used in his column. A search of the LexisNexis database for the terms 'CIA operative' and 'agency operative' showed Novak had accurately used the terms to describe covert CIA employees, every time they appear in his articles." The primary sources of Novak's supposedly new-found information on Plame were Richard Armitage and Karl Rove. It is now established that Armitage, Bush's former Deputy Secretary of State, serving in that capacity from 2001 until 2005, was Novak's primary "inside source." Armitage was second in command at the State Department formerly headed by Secretary of State, Colin Powell. The third ranking official at the State Department under the Cheney-Bush regime was Marc Grossman. Here's the Wikipedia write-up of this Cheney-Bush character: "Ambassador Grossman was U.S. Ambassador to Turkey from 1994 to 1997. In Turkey, he promoted security cooperation, human rights and democracy, and a vibrant U.S.-Turkish economic relationship. Ambassador Grossman had previously served as the U.S. Embassy's Deputy Chief of Mission from 1989 to 1992." It was while at a Washington DC reception held at the residence of the Turkish Ambassador that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV met Valarie Plame. They later married in 1998, the marriage being his third and her second. The strong ties that Plame had developed with Turkish diplomats and government officials is precisely what made her a valuable US intelligence asset. It has now, once again been revealed recently by fired former FBI linguist and Turkish translator, Sibel Edmonds, that she had uncovered astonishing, incriminating evidence that Turkey, along with Pakistan, was seeking to acquire nuclear military secrets through the United States State Department. Edmonds, along with others, has pointed the finger at Grossman. Grossman was number three at State, while Douglas Feith was number three at Rumsfeld's Pentagon. Contained in the Wikipedia entry under "Douglas Feith," there is this revelation: "Upon leaving the Pentagon, Feith established the Washington, DC law firm of Feith & Zell. His law firm colleague, Marc Zell, was resident in Israel. Three years later, Feith was retained as a lobbyist by the Turkish government. Among other clients, his firm represented defense corporations Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Lockeed Martin and Northrop Grumman are among the largest defense corporations on the US government's paid contractor list, Lockeed being the largest. And again, with Feith, we see the "Turkish connection." Is this why the FBI required a translator in Sibel Edmonds who was fluent in the Turkish language? In an article that succinctly articulates the situation concerning Sibel Edmonds and her gagging by the Cheney-Bush regime, Gary Leupp, in his January 29, 2008 piece for Counterpunch entitled, "We Can't Afford to Let Them Spill the Beans," offers: "Over 120 Israelis were detained after 9/11, some failing polygraph tests when asked about their involvement in intelligence gathering. But they were not held or charged with any illegal activity but rather deported. As former FBI translator and whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds has revealed, there was a curious failure of the government before 9/11 to act upon intelligence pertaining to an al-Qaeda attack. Most importantly Edmonds, defying the gag order that former Attorney General Ashcroft imposed on her in 2002, is implicating Marc Grossman, formerly the number three man in the State Department, in efforts to provide U.S. nuclear secrets to Pakistan and Israel. She suggests this was done through Turkish contacts and Pakistani contacts, including the former head of Pakistan's ISI who funneled funds to Mohamed Atta!" Leupp continues: "Edmonds claims that during her time at the FBI (September 20, 2001 to March 22, 2002) she discovered that intelligence material had been deliberately allowed to accumulate without translation; that inept translators were retained and promoted; and that evidence for traffic in nuclear materials was ignored. More shockingly, she charges that Grossman arranged for Turkish and Israeli Ph.D. students to acquire security clearances to Los Alamos and other nuclear facilities; and that nuclear secrets they acquired were transmitted to Pakistan and to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the 'father of the Islamic bomb,' who in turn was selling nuclear technology to Libya and other nations." Leupp goes on: "She links Grossman to the former Pakistani military intelligence chief Mahmoud Ahmad, a patron of the Taliban who reportedly arranged for a payment of $100,000 to 9/11 ringleader Atta via Pakistani terrorist Saeed Sheikh before the attacks. She suggests that he warned Pakistani and Turkish contacts against dealings with the Brewster Jennings Corp., the CIA front company that Valerie Plame was involved in as part of an effort to infiltrate a nuclear smuggling ring. All very heady stuff, published this month in the Times of London (and largely ignored by the U.S. media). She does not identify Grossman by name in the Times." Why is this blockbuster of a real conspiracy and proven treason against our nation not being reported by the American corporate mainstream media? We know why: the gatekeeper, with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's full approval, is The New York Times, and as I pointed out in my earlier piece quoting news industry insider, Bernard Goldberg, "If the Times decrees a story important, by definition it is important. And when the Times ignores a story ­ or a book or a social trend or an idea ­ then it is invisible." The deliberate outing of covert CIA operative and a CIA front that had been effective for nine years was orchestrated by Vice President Dick Cheney. All of Novak's sources came from that particular office of the Cheney-Bush operation. This occurred while Plame was probably as close as Sibel Edmonds was to exposing the sale of nuclear secrets by "our" State Department to Turkey, Pakistan and Israel. Turkey and Israel have very tight diplomatic and intelligence ties. Only a few months back, Edmonds revealed that in addition to the Israel lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee's direct and egregious involvement in the espionage case involving former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin that it was only the tip of the iceberg. She offered back then that at least FIVE espionage cases could have been made against Israel and its criminal lobby! How has our Zionist MSM handled this? By the way, Sibel Edmonds is Jewish! So the Zionist New York Times is silent, as are the rest of the media in reverence to the Times' dominating role over news and information in America. Isn't it a lot easier to now see why co-traitor and Democrat Nancy Pelosi wants impeachment off the table? If Cheney is impeached, he could be arrested and tried for violating Title 18, Section 794, Part b, which covers espionage operations during time of war. Such a violation is punishable by either death or life in prison. Outing a covert CIA operative is precisely this kind of counter-espionage activity forbidden by this law, as well as is the selling of nuclear military secrets during a time of war. The State Department transfer of nuclear secrets to Turkey eventually found its way to Iran. Curious how Cheney-Bush are using the same approach as succeeded in igniting the war with Iraq towards Iran; yet, Cheney outed Plame who could have provided POSITIVE evidence that Iran DID at least receive nuclear secrets, albeit, however, from the Cheney-Bush crime machine's State Department! It is now easy to understand why there are no impeachment inquiries on the table; it is now also easy to see why there is in effect a "state's secret" gag order on Edmonds; it is also easy to see why there is a gag order on former Lt. COL. Karen Kwiatkowski of Douglas Feith's old office, and yet another on Valerie Plame. And Democrats Waxman, and Leahy, and Reid, and Pelosi, and Clinton all know the dirty, filthy treasonous secrets of the deadly, criminal Cheney-Bush regime. Virtually every member of this criminal dictatorship is guilty of one felony and/or capital offense or another. How asinine is it for US to attack Iran now, and also in light of the highly publicized negative NIE? And if the Cheney-Bush neoconspiracy is a treasonous operation, what about the complicit Democrats in Congress who are now accessories after the fact? And what of the continuing complicity of The New York Times and the rest of the "American" MSM? Our government, its political parties and our media are all corrupt, filthy cesspools in desperate need of a serious cleaning!

© THEODORE E. LANG 2/03/08 All rights reserved

Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.

SOURCE: http://www.rense.com/general80/treason.htm