Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

04-Al Qaeda Was Enroute To US To Kill Cheney/Rove/Plame-BUSHCO Told Plame-FUCK YOU! (Larry Johnson)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 08:31 PM
Original message
04-Al Qaeda Was Enroute To US To Kill Cheney/Rove/Plame-BUSHCO Told Plame-FUCK YOU! (Larry Johnson)
Edited on Sun Oct-21-07 08:50 PM by kpete
In 2004 the FBI received intelligence that Al Qaeda hit teams were enroute to the United States to kill Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Valerie Plame. The FBI informed Valerie of this threat. This was just more "good" news piled on the fact that her intelligence career was in shambles, that intelligence assets she had recruited/managed were destroyed, and that she was unable to rebut publicly false and malicious smears of her character and reputation by a bunch of partisan Republican hacks. As the mother of two pre-school children, her first thoughts were about protecting her kids. She took the threat seriously and asked for help.

When the White House learned of these threats they sprung into action. They beefed up Secret Service protection for Vice President Cheney and provided security protection to Karl Rove. But they declined to do anything for Valerie. That was a CIA problem.

Valerie contacted the office of Security at CIA and requested assistance. They told her too fucking bad and to go pound sand. They did not use those exact words, but they told her she was on her own.

Before learning of this I credited George Tenet with doing a good job of restoring morale at the CIA but criticized him strongly for playing politics with the White House and helping set the table for scamming the American public into the Iraq war. Now, in light of this revelation, I realize the man is a despicable coward. He refused to come to the aid of one of his CIA officers who faced a specific death threat. In fact, Georgie boy never once reached out to Valerie to provide any comfort or encouragement. He wanted to stay on good terms with the White House so he effectively cut her loose.

So if you have wondered why Joe and Val are a little pissed off, this might help shed some additional light on the matter. Not only did the Bush Administration out a covert intelligence officer working on the most sensitive national security issues in a time of war, but when that officer faced a direct threat to her life and her family's safety because of that public exposure, they did not do a goddamn thing to help. I don't know about you, but that fries my ass.

more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/21/211336/47
or:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/10/21/valerie-plame-wilson-and-the-ultimate-betrayal/#more-975
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. As one Kos poster wrote, good Larry's seen the light on Tenet.
The advantage of secrecy is that you can hide what kind of an ass you are from naturally fair minded people, for a long time, anyway.

And not helping Plame was despicable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
41. Tenet was a Clinton appointee.
Do you suppose they've learned their lesson?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Who's 'they'?
Otherwise no comment, since I don't understand the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Tenet was a "yes," man.
Two kinds of people that we really don't need right now, are partisans who have compltely lost their objectivity and plan to use their positions to "get at" members of the otber party; i.e. Gonzalez and Ken starr, or "yes," men who just want to be liked and are team players at the expense of the public interest. i.e. Tenet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Okay, either way my point stands, his behavior was despicable.
I really cannot bring myself to care WHY he did it, the what is simply that bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. Bush and Cheney are traitors to their country.
Traitors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dickbearton Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
65. Exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
71. Holy shit!
Well why the hell isn't Olberman all over this shit? Maybe he will be tomorrow. I'm sick and tired of these muthers getting away with any damned thing they want to pull! When is someone going to grow a spine and charge em? :grr: They're traitors hell yes! They should be in prison IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. If this is true...
...then I've officially received the :party:10,000th:party: reason to HATE the Bush misAdministration.:grr:

FWIW - 6,963 was when Bush dropped Barney:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Just another moment in time in Georgie's sadistic life...
mind if I file this one in my Photobucket account?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #10
22. To think that someone had the nerve to ask here last week
Edited on Mon Oct-22-07 07:51 AM by DesertedRose
Where was the "meme" about *'s sadistic cruelty coming from.

Here's yet another glaring example. (Plame)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
56. The sociopathic nature of Georgie Porgy is well known
Where do they think his nickname, The Silverspoon Sociopath came from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
30. You have them listed and wirtten down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
movonne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
51. And why is impeachment off the table????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. I know it's a rhetorical question
but I think the answer might include collusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. sheeit
Considering the circumstances, I think Plame and Wilson's response was tame. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. Well NOW
we know why rove had secret service protection. I bet they had fun protecting his sorry butt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
25. bet rove's ass is still getting secret service protection....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. Probably Blackwater....
at the taxpayers' expense, of course. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
5X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. Big K and R for Plame and Wilson. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. Not only did they blow her cover, they left her as "fair game" for assassins.
Traitors, cowards, and despicable excuses for human beings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. Will we ever learn what actions were taken to protect the other B & J
Edited on Sun Oct-21-07 09:12 PM by higher class
people and contacts? Were they protected and not Valerie? If yes, we have political partisanship in another form.

Lesson learned, if you are leaving government service in the way she had to, don't sign anything unless it contains a section of future protection. On the other hand, you can't trust those people in any bargain or fight.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
9. Grrrecommended. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. This IS I-M-P-E-A-C-H-A-B-L-E Nancy! Can we FINALLY put it back on the table?
Come on, stop the nightmare! Stop these criminals from destroying our country!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Nancy's not going to do a thing
It runs counter to her triangulation strategy. She plans to pick up all those disaffected Republican voters for the Dems in '08 and then by gawd we'll show 'em.

Yep, that'll happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. So she thinks that the only people that care about our constitution are the "fringe left"...
Edited on Sun Oct-21-07 11:30 PM by calipendence
... and doesn't want to "jeopardize" the Democrats chances in 2008 by saying that the Constitution is more important than a piece of paper then! We have to be careful how much "constitutional stuff" we put on the table then!

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
49. You're just making those quotes up as part of your campaign of humiliating Pelosi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #49
62. Hey, I had a Pelosi 2007 t-shirt and bumper sticker earlier...
But she's SEVERELY let us down and she NEEDS to hear that she has! She is one of the few that can stop this country from going down hill now and needs to do something about it! Not doing anything about it is either incompetent or complicit. Both just about equally as bad in our time of need!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
60. Party first, Nation second
Can you tell I'm getting just a bit disenchanted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. ...and you're not alone
I really didn't expect the Dems to storm the White House, but I did expect them to take Bush and his 25 percent approval rating and beat him over the head from time to time. Instead, they capitulate and fold at every critical juncture.

I'm going to work hard to get rid of my Blue Dog in the primary. It probably won't happen, but it'll be worth it to put a scare in his ass. I hope Pelosi's constituents do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hvn_nbr_2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. I think that whatever patriots remain at CIA might just consider this an...
"actionable" offense, if you get my drift.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. how so...?
what would be the actual criminal charge that would make actually make it an impeachable offense?

just curious- :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
47. good point. Somehow even though the crazy ass who is president
is in it up to his ears and beyond - he always seems to be insulated - standing there guilty but no hard evidence ! (although it is laughable that downing st memo isn't hard evidence, to me)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
54. The only impeachable offense was outing Plame in a time of war.
Just because all cia operatives are expendable doesn't mean the CIA should be complicit in making that happen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
59. Impeachment does not have to be criminal.
Suppose Bush goes to Crawford for the entire year and does nothing. (I know, we wish.) Should he be removed from office? :shrug:

The right answer is yes, even though no criminal act was committed.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #59
68. yes, it does.
pretty much by definition.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. Whose definition?
Edited on Mon Oct-22-07 10:50 PM by IMModerate
Impeachable offense is whatever congress says it is. The word "misdemeanors" in the founders' usage means bad deeds or malfeasance. You don't know what you're talking about.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD1731F931A2575AC0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. i do know one thing- bush is NOT going to be impeached.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Totally different from what you said before.
He CAN be impeached. Clinton was impeached, no criminal behavior.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. btw- perjury is still considered criminal behaviour.
and that's why clinton was impeached. (the official reason, that is).

and maybe bush CAN be impeached(after all- ANY president can be)...but he WON'T be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #75
76. Right, but he wasn't convicted of perjury...
He was charged with civil contempt of court, paid a fine.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. Some have argued that it was the questioners that were the ones that committed a crime...
Since if one tries to get someone to "commit perjury" purely for the purpose of getting someone to lie on the stand and not to actually pursue a criminal investigation, that itself is a criminal act (we DO have laws to protect against these sorts of "fishing expeditions"!). Those questioning Clinton without trying to illustrate that they were actually pursuing some other criminal act were the ones committing the crime. Arguably him lying on the stand in that instance wasn't really technically perjury, though many of us consider it that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
58. I hope you weren't waiting for this as the first unimpeachable impeachable offense
There have been many. They are not going to impeach, not because they don't have impeachable offenses but because.........well, fuck if I know why?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dewlso Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
14. Apathy has become the norm
With offenses such as these and the blatant abuse of executive privilege by bush and cheney, one would think that not only would congress launch an investigation but some kind of censure or impeachment procedure would have begun. I have the feeling that, with the exception of a few Democrats with a spine, the Democrats in Congress have accepted a overwhelming feeling of apathy due to years of being in the minority and under the thumb of the ruthlessly criminal repugnant regime. I pray that more people like Representative Stark would stand up and say something. Do something. Show that you KNOW that your in control now and that you will not turn your head to these crimes against AMERICA. It leaves me with the impression that some of these Democrats in the majority have forgotten who they SERVE. WE THE PEOPLE. Stand up Nancy, Harry, and Orrin need to take ACTION. You have the power and the majority of Americans behind you. Stand up for what is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FREEWILL56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
16. I'm not the least bit surprised by this.
Tenet is a cheap opportunistic scumbag and of course the white house and the rest of those republicons certainly won't give a fuck about a few citizens as they cut loose everybody in the gulf area in the paths of katrina and rita and to this day don't give a fuck. They don't do for the US or its citizenry as they do for themselves. I feel so much sorrow for our brave men and women who are being made to stick their necks out unnecessarilly for the likes of these assholes who put them into harms way repeatedly without warrant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
17. If Al Qaeda was "en route", did they take a side trip instead of coming here?
Edited on Mon Oct-22-07 01:43 AM by Whoa_Nelly
I only ask because it sounds like they were on their way, but really never came. If the intelligence was that they were coming, then what happened afterward that they didn't make it here? Or, was their plan thwarted because the intelligence outed them?

I agree the treatment of Plame has all along been horrendous and despicable by the WH thugs. Am just asking about the other part of the story.... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glowing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. They either bribed them out of doing the job or rounded them up and
sent them to gitmo for torture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
19. IIRC, when the Wilsons knew Novak had learned Valerie worked for CIA (remember Novak had called Joe
Wilson for comment), Valerie advised the CIA figuring it would be taken care of. Not the first time the media's stumbled on to something "sensitive" regarding CIA & has been warned off the story, to not disclose sensitive info regarding ops or operatives. The Wilsons figured someone significant in the CIA food chain (presumably someone more significant than Harlow) would effectively warn Novak off.

It evidently didn't happen.

The Wilsons I think felt Valerie was hung out to dry from the beginning. And Joe Wilson has previously said that after Valerie's cover was blown, there'd been threats and they'd gotten no assistance from CIA. They were told they were on their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. That makes sense. That explains a lot.
In particular, it explains why the CIA didn't clamp down harder on Novak when they found out he had the story. Orders came down from Tenet to issue a "really wish you wouldn"t do that" instead of a "We'll fry your ass if you put that in print."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
21. I 'get' that Plame wasn't protected, and that's beyond the ken. What I
don't get is why this should be a different day for Cheney and *. I have to believe they got these threats constantly. What made this different-Plame's name being added, and why was she even mentioned?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
24. Can congress remove her gag order? BJ has been exposed so what's the risk?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
26. But according to Katie Couric, the Wilson's are just being partisan.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happygoluckytoyou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
27. I SAY SPEND ALL THE $ PROTECTING PLAME...
if you gotta choose.... 1 out of 3 ain't bad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rockybelt Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
28. The real reason they didn't care
For some really good reading, go to cannonfire.blogspot.com and peruse this article.
There you will find the real reason that Cheney outed Plame when he did.
These bastards need to be impeached, convicted and then sent before a war crimes tribunal(Of which they are so fond) where they can deal with them for crimes against humanity.:mad: :mad: :mad: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Annces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
31. Amazing n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
32. ah yes, the bush administration protecting all americans


FEELING SAFER YET???



just another reason people think george bush is a motherfu*king, piece of shit, asswipe, scumbag!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
33. K&R. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinhardt Donating Member (122 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
34. Huh? Enron To Develop "Blackout Bombs": report

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/10/22/2003384239


Enron developing `blackout bombs': report

KNOCKOUT: If the plan is approved, Vice-President Cheney's
energy task force will be asked to develop the weapon, at a
cost of $500 million 
STAFF WRITER
AFP, Sacremento Bee
Monday, Oct 22, 2007, Page 3 
Enron is to develop a non-lethal graphite bomb designed to
disable California's power supplies, reports said yesterday.

Should war break out, the so-called "blackout bombs"
would be carried by cruise missiles to paralyze power grids in
California's southeastern coastal cities,

The bombs work by sprinkling a cloud of chemically treated
carbon fibers over power supplies, causing them to
short-circuit, but without killing many people, the report
said.

If approved, Cheney's closed-door energy task force, the
nation's top energy-trading research unit -- would begin
research and development of the weaponry, at a cost of up to
$500 million (US$15.34 million), beginning next year, the
report said.

FERC declined to comment on the claims.

Reports said the Enron used the graphite bomb against
California in 2000 wiping out 85 percent of California's 
electrical supply. A similar version was used by NATO against
Serbia in 1999.

Rocky relations between Enron and California look set to
continue after Kenneth Lay President Enron dismissed an offer
of a peace treaty with California, saying it would be like
agreeing to "a treaty of surrender."

Speaking to the Sacramento Bee last week, Lay said that
California's call for the signing of a peace agreement with
Enron under the "one Union" principle was made in
terms that made it unacceptable.

Bush made what he called the "solemn appeal" in a
keynote speech at the opening of the Enron share-holder trials
in Texas last Monday, but insisted independence for America
would never be tolerated.

Enron flexed its military muscle earlier this month, showing
off two domestically developed missiles during the trial  seen
as a reminder to California that it has the means to defend
itself by artificially inflating its stock value. 


:-)

Well, it could have happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. The ironic thing about that
is that it was proven that "deliberate shortage" occurred during the California energy crunch, and in some regard, Cheney was involved and/or gave his blessing to the project. So much for a "free market."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinhardt Donating Member (122 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Intentionally cutting off a nation's electricity is what militaries and terrorists do..

..unless its in the homeland of course

on the home-front its called "meeting wall-street
expectations"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. You aren't a terrorist if you're working on behalf of a nuclear superpower
Then, you're a "hero"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reinhardt Donating Member (122 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. I would bet a lot that going down in history as an American hero is in Kenneth Lay's future n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
35. Outrageous
In a stream of outrageous behavior.

Still, this proves my theory- Bush has effectively purged anyone who isn't directly loyal to him, and willing to step on his enemies on command.

Heads up people- we have no protection unless the King declares you one of his favorites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
38. Let me see if I understand this: the White House can thwart an assassination attempt...
...that threatens their own using FBI intelligence, yet Bush can sit by and do nothing about stopping 19 commandos from entering the USA and hijacking four planes and killing 3,000 Americans?

Why do I find these diametrical concepts difficult to reconcile?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #38
48. Cuz you're a thinking person.
You really have to quit that, or so I've been told when I point things out like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
43. Now why would Al Q want to kill Bush and Cheney?
it is rare that the patsies would want to kill their masters?

You wouldn't think the junta would want to protect Mrs Wilson since she was 'spoiling their fun?'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
46. The same thing had happened with Richard Clarke
under the Clinton Adminstration, almost. Clarke was also targeted by Al Qaeda during the 90's, only what they did in response back then wasn't to give him Secret Service Protection they SENT HIM TO SECRET SERVICE TRAINING and provided him with his own service weapon. In effect they made him a defecto Secret Service Agent. As far as I know he still carries his sidearm to this day.

Vyan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornagainDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
50. Kill Cheney and Rove???
Well I was just thinking....no, I better not say how I feel about that, I could get in trouble. }(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewHampster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Why would Al Queida kill their best friends?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornagainDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Thanks for gettin' me off what I was thinking.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #52
61. Hey now, you aren't saying that this administration and Al Queda are colluding, are you?
Surely that can't be true!!!!!:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewHampster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. Friends since boyhood
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
53. I don't believe al-Qaeda was "en route" to the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
64. Those bastards!
Can we impeach them NOW, Nancy??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
66. FUCK ALL BUSHITLERS! ESPECIALLY THE TOP ONE AND #2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sam Ervin jret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
67. If this is true and provable it is a high crime and treason. But what else is new.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
70. This is their response to everyone who breathes their air.
Piss us off and we will kill you. Always side with the house or fucking crawl off and die. Our way or fuck off.

This is why George Bush is a pathetic little man and all that follow his Uncle are dickheads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC