Monday, July 03, 2006



I received a rather late response to my posting of August 10, 2005 called

I will not publish this anonymous comment on
that post but will publish it here with an opinion of my own!

But first, let's read this nameless observation:

"Read with interest the somewhat dated Karl Rove piece and took specific interest in the "treason" definition. Does it not completely fit the actions recently taken by the NY Times with their terrorist international banking story? All the people on the get karl Rove bandwagon better step back and take a serious look at what is and what isn't treason and what does and does not compromise U.S. security." - anonymous

I cannot for the life of me, understand how ordinary citizens (if anonymous is just ordinary or a citizen) can back such an outrageous point of view. The neocon's pathetic rhetoric of Treason , that they propagandize to their base followers, so these bootlickers can then go forth and proselytize to us all, the neocon fascist message of... TREASON!!!

"A mêlée of deceit is called a War on Terror, but actually is a War Of Terror. It is waged upon our own citizens, neighbors and families. The fraud called the Patriot Act is an immeasurable disgrace and a lethal betrayal. The Stamp Act was mild in comparison, but in our era of “girlie men” serfs paying homage to the federal tyrant is good citizenship. Most Americans are fools and deserve contempt for their fervor in obeying an illegitimate regime. Make no mistake, partisan politics is a scam, the entire ruling class are co-conspirators in treason." CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.

OPPS, I JUST FOUND OUT HOW THIS 32% BASE CAN STILL SUPPORT FASCISM AND BUSH'S FASCIST REGIME... CLICK HERE but be warned, if you for some childish reason cannot stand to read A CUSS WORD or two then DO NOT ENTER! thinkingblue

PS: Please read the articles below to get a bit of fresh air not containing the wretched stench of neocon mendacity!


By Greg Palast

The Right Wing has gone hog-ass wild over the New York Times’ “shocking” report that the Bush Administration is actually tracking terrorists’ money transfers. Oh my!

The fruitcakes are in flames! “Stand them in front of a firing squad or put them in prison for the rest of their lives,” says one pinhead on Fox TV.

For what? The stunning news that the government is hunting the source of al-Qaeda’s cash? “Osama! You must stop using your ATM card! Condi Rice is reading our bank statements!

Somehow, I suspect bin Laden already assumes his checkbook is getting perused.

It is worth noting that the fanatic screeching for a “firing squad” is a guy who claims to be a former CIA agent. No one can confirm his claim of course, but this character, Wayne Simmons, has made his career blabbering away juicy intelligence secrets to sell himself as an “expert,” stuff far racier than the Times’ weak report. Well, hypocrisy never stood in the way of the Foxes in the news house.

You want to talk “treason”? OK, let’s talk treason. How about Dick Cheney telling his creepy little hitman ‘Scooter’ Libby to reveal information that led to the naming of a CIA agent? Mr. Simmons, do you have room in your firing squad schedule for the Vice-President?

And no one on Fox complained when the Times, under the by-line of Judith Miller, revealed the secret “intelligence” information that Saddam was building a bomb.

Yes, let’s talk treason. How about this: Before the 9/11 attack, George Bush’s intelligence chieftains BLOCKED the CIA’s investigation of the funding of al-Qaeda and terror.

The “Back-Off” Directive

On November 9, 2001, BBC Television Centre in London received a call from a phone booth just outside Washington. The call to our Newsnight team was part of a complex pre-arranged dance coordinated with the National Security News Service, a conduit for unhappy spooks at the CIA and FBI to unburden themselves of disturbing information and documents.

The top-level U.S. intelligence agent on the line had much to be unhappy and disturbed about: what he called a “back-off” directive.

This call to BBC came two months after the attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Towers. His fellow agents, he said, were now released to hunt bad guys. That was good news. The bad news was that, before September 11, in those weeks just after George W. Bush took office, CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) personnel were told to “back off” certain targets of investigations begun by Bill Clinton.

The agent said, “There were particular investigations that were effectively killed.”

Which ones? His reply was none too comforting: Khan Labs.

On February 11, 2004, President Bush, at an emergency press briefing, expressed his shock — shock! — at having learned that Dr. A. Q. Khan of Pakistan was running a flea market in fissionable material. But, we knew that from the agent’s call — nearly three years earlier. As the intelligence insider told us, the Khan investigation died because the CIA was not allowed to follow down the money trail … to Saudi Arabia.

Apparently, the Saudis, after Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait in 1991, switched their funding for an “Islamic bomb” from Iraq to Pakistan. Dr. Khan used the Saudi loot to build and test his bomb — then sell off the blueprints and bomb-fixings to North Korea and Libya. This was, one might say, a somewhat dangerous situation. But Bush’s spymasters made it a policy to “See No Saudi Evil” — so the investigation died.

What You “Ought Not to Know.”

Closing the agencies eyes to the Khan bomb was not the only spike. That same week in November 2001, unhappy FBI agents “accidentally” left an astonishing dozen-page fax on the desks of our NSNS colleagues. It was marked, “199-I — WF” and “SECRET.”

The code “199-I” means “national security matter” in FBI-speak. It was about what the FBI deemed “a suspected terrorist organization.” What made the document special — and earned the anger of the two agents who “lost” it for us — is that it indicates that the “suspected terrorist” activities were not investigated until September 13, 2001, despite a desire by agents to investigate these characters years earlier.

ho was exempt from investigation? That was on page 2 of the 199-I document. The FBI was hunting in Falls Church, Virginia, for “ABL,” Abdullah bin Laden, nephew of Osama. They were also seeking another relative, Omar bin Laden (or “Binladden” in the alternative translation of the Arabic name). But by September 13, when the restrictions on agents were removed, the bin Ladens were gone.

Why did buildings have to fall before the FBI could question the bin Ladens? Because, frustrated agents noted, the “suspected terrorist organization” was funded directly by the Saudi Royal family.

The suspect group, the World Association of Muslim Youth, operated soccer clubs — and a whole lot more. For example, there was its shuttle operation for jihadi warriors to Bosnia and, foreign intelligence agencies told us at BBC, alleged involvement of WAMY members in bombings.

In the face of these accusations, the Saudi supreme dictator, King Abdullah, praised WAMY, saying, “There is no extremism in the defending of the faith.” That’s his opinion.

Abdullah bin Laden brought WAMY to the USA where, in a summer camp in Florida, little kids were given instruction in baseball and in the glories of hostage-taking (no kidding).

But the FBI’s investigation of the bin Ladens and their group was out of the question so long as the Bush Administration kept intelligence agencies from following the funds transfers of the House of Saud.

That November night in 2001, when we were about to televise the 199-I memo, my BBC producer, Meirion Jones, sought out the FBI’s comment, assuming we’d get the usual, “It’s baloney, a fake, you misunderstand, it ain’t true.”

But we didn’t get the usual response.

Rather, FBI headquarters in Washington told us: “There are lots of things the intelligence community knows and other people ought not to know.”

“Ought not to know”?!?

We ran the story of the Bush Administration’s impeding investigations of the funding of terror. BBC ran it at the top of the nightly news in Britain and worldwide. It hit the front pages of newspapers around the globe — except in the USA. In America, the New York Times and our other news outlets were still accepting the Bush Administration’s diktat that intelligence “information” — that is, news of disastrous intelligence failures — was something the Times’ readers, “ought not to know.”

So I’m tempted to say that, Yes, the New York Times has committed treason — not by reporting on what Bush’s spies are doing, but on failing to report on what Bush’s spies did not do: a deadly failure to follow the money before September 11 because the House of Bush chose to protect the House of Saud.


Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller,

Armed Madhouse: Who’s Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal ‘08, No Child’s Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War.

Interview requests and media inquiries to Interviews (at)

Red meat for the right-wing

July 3, 2006 07:29 AM / The Rant .


As a journalist, I am offended by the latest Republican assault on The New York Times and freedom of the press.

As an American, I am afraid for the future of my country when politicians so casually discard our founders' belief that a free press is a necessary Constitutional guarantee.

The last time an American president went after the press with such a vengeance was during Richard Nixon's second term. We all know how that one ended.

President George W. Bush and his Republican sycophants actually want The Times prosecuted for treason for daring to publish news. They've been pissed at the Times for breaking the story about Bush's questionable domestic spying program last December and they've now focused on a recent Times story about administration monitoring of overseas financial transactions.

Says GOP Rep. Peter King, the lead attack dog in this assault on the press:

The Times can't have it both ways, They can't on the one hand say there's no harm in releasing this. Everybody knew about it. But on the other hand, we had to put it on Page One because it was so top secret.

Responds New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller:

The Bush Administration likes to have it both ways. They confide in us when they want to advertise the programs that are successful. And then they rebuke us if we write about something they would prefer we didn't write about.

It's an election year. Beating up on The New York Times is red meat for the conservative base. But I don't think this is all politics. I think the administration is a little embarrassed. This is the most secretive White House we've had since the Nixon White House.

There's no doubt the Bush Administration would like to conduct all of its business in secret and then dole out bits and pieces that are only favorable to their cause. They decry news reports from Iraq that show the war is not going well because the truth directly contradicts
their fantasies that conditions are improving in the country.

They cringe when the facts dispute their outrageous claims in the so-called "war on terror" because keeping America scared is a key part of the Republican plan for success.

John Dean, the White House counsel who helped bring down Nixon, says
the Bush Administration sees secrecy as the path to power:

(Just like Hitler did... thinkingblue)

The issue of state secrets is a relatively old concept, but it has been used dramatically under the Bush presidency.

When you get into the area of national security, there are few guidelines. It's the grayest area.

Dean places the blame for the Administration's obsession with secrecy and power on Vice President Dick Cheney, who served with him in the Nixon White House and later served as President Gerald Ford's Chief of Staff:

He was working in the White House in that period after Watergate when the president lost some of his powers. He has publicly announced that one of his missions was to strengthen the presidency, and we've seen him push the envelope.

In Washingtonese, "push the envelope" means finding ways to skirt or evade the law. Most politicians, Republican and Democrat, become adept at it but few have honed the art as well as the Bush Administration.

Any student of government knows controlling the flow of information provides an easier path to absolute power. If the Bush Administration succeeds in muzzling the media and destroying the Constitutional guarantee of a free press, there will be nothing left to stop their determined, resolute march to complete and total control of the government of the United States.

© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue

Doug Thompson also publishes a personal blog at Blue Ridge Muse.

Also read another time when Bush accused the NYT of treason. thinkingblue

New York Times Accused of Treason


Once again an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage has been blocked. We all know that no family or even one person can live on the Federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. The fact that it is still this low is disgraceful.We, the voters of this country, must force all members of Congress to understand that we cannot be fooled by political maneuvers or phony dialogue about the proposed increases costing The USA jobs. We must force then, with our letters and words, to understand that WE, the voters in their Districts and States, know their arguments don't hold water and that people are being hurt everyday in America as a result of this freezing Federal Minimum Wage while they give themselves fat pay increases.Let both your Senators and your Congressional Representative know exactly how disgusted you are by the blockage of a reasonable raise of the Federal Minimum Wage on The Hill. Only by knowing that you will remember their final vote and exercise your power at the Ballot Box will they begin to listen and pass this important bill.If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at

Thinkingblue's response to this disgraceful notion of NOT RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE!

This is so outrageous, it should need no further comment, but I will say "ANY PERSON BLOCKING A MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE SHOULD HANG THEIR HEAD IN SHAME!"

Keeping people, who may not be skilled, perpetually and significantly below the POVERTY LEVEL will not keep our economy bustling. The only thing it will do is continue a caste system of BORN IN POVERTY, STAY IN POVERTY one's whole lifetime without the ability to better one's self!

Anyone calling themselves a Proud American and can still believe that keeping others in a slave-like existence is a morally upright position should experience the shackles of impoverishment themselves!

(Minimum-Wage Jobs Give Many Americans Only a Miserable Life! "Someone who plays by the rules and tries to work full time should be able to support a family," From the webpage:

Thank you, thinkingblue














CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!