Jim Kirwan
The Contessa of Lies
Tue Mar 30 13:18:30 2004
63.228.144.66

The Contessa of Lies
Jim Kirwan - kirwanstudios@earthlink.net
3-29-4
http://www.rense.com/general50/contessa.htm

The long awaited day has come: Condi has had her twenty minutes on 60 Minutes, and as always there are far more questions now than answers. This was never about her; it has always been about the needless deaths of many thousands of people, both here and abroad. And all that blood requires more than a cursory examination.

The key to understanding the scope of this administrations willingness to do whatever it takes, to get whatever they want, regardless of laws domestic or international and resides in the demeanor and the factual distortions of this Contessa of Lies. America would do well to pay close attention to the particulars, both of what she says, and to what she and the administration chose not say.

Rice: "Nothing would be better from my point of view than to be able to testify, but there is an important principle involved here it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress." And she went on to say: "that principle has to do with the separation of powers."

Dr, Rice apparently has forgotten that the Bush campaign made this point entirely moot, when they approached the Supreme Court in 2000, and asked the court to intervene on behalf of their failing Bush campaign to stop the vote count in Florida. This outrageous act was and is a violation of the separation of powers. The court noted "this would be just this one time" and therefore that shouldn't really upset the balance of our laws. All this court did was appoint a man to an office that is supposedly awarded only to the elected winner of a national election. That was a principal that directly involved a true conflict of interest, between the powers-that ultimately shattered that fundamental principle. Rice cannot claim that protection now, as it has been made null and void, by the direct actions of the administration she now represents.

The point she misses is that both she and the president work for the people of the United States. And the congress, in this instance, is the legally organized body that represents 'the people' and who are the body charged with discovering the truth that underlies the events behind the attacks on 9-11. Her failure to comply, basically says to all of us that we do not have the right to know what took place. Her conversations, she would have the public believe, take precedence over our right to know what happened on that day: and that is simply false.

Moreover, the name of this commission is The National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States http://www.9-11commission.gov / and this alone would seem to say it all. Yet we are told this is an investigation only about policy and intelligence failures surrounding that day-and this investigation is not concerned with actual events.
Specifically the pivotal language says: "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks." What about the attacks themselves and what of our complete failure to intervene militarily, as all our previous national defense strategies have called for? That is nowhere mentioned in the fundamentals of this supposed investigation!

All of which leads to the conclusion that this is double-speak for "We're concerned about the concepts of policies in place at the time and whatever foreknowledge might be found, but events will speak for themselves." What about what-really-happened, in the murder of thousands of people on that day?

When a congressional commission is finally formed after 30 months of stonewalling, the public rightfully has the expectation that this commission will diligently pursue whatever took place on that day: anything less is obviously just another cover-up. That used to be called Obstruction of Justice.

As for precedent: in calling witnesses from the executive branch to testify under oath before the congress and the public, in open session: that is part of the duty of the congress, to publicly insure that the right of the people to know what their government does has not been obstructed, and this is not only within the laws of the United States-but this is part of their oath of office: Namely to discover who and what was behind this outright and outrageously bold attack upon this country.

No member of this government can or should have acted, in the name of the United States, without having first determined on the public record: the Who, What, Where, When and Why of everything that happened on 09-11-01. All we have is the word of a congenital and serial liar for all those things, and despite the fact that he's the president-that's simply not enough!

This commission needs to answer the list of questions, in open session, from the families of the victims of 9-11. And to that end they need to subpoena any and all responsible parties that have information that bears on the events of that day and time. To do anything less would be, to be derelict in their duty to the people of the nation, and to the world that is watching how we will explain our actions-actions that were used to justify the invasion of two other nations.

Congress has a duty to the country and to the world, to provide the answers, not to what the administration says happened, but to the truth of what did happen. There is no more pressing issue before this government, than the clear bright light of truth, told in public, which only a major investigation can bring to these events.

The Bush administration has killed perhaps 10,000 people for their lies about what took place on that day. Bush and his pirates are terrified of the coffins that are coming back with our military dead from his two private wars. So terrified are they, that they have lied repeatedly about the actual number of both the dead and the wounded. They have had over two years to obtain results, and instead of holding these investigations they have done the cowardly thing: after rashly lashing out at others, they have prematurely declared victory then tried to move on. There has been no 'victory' we have not won, in fact the entire quagmire has only gotten deeper, and that region of the world in its entirety has become far more dangerous. Today it is far less secure a place than ever before-ask anyone who lives in the Middle East.

Look at the Israeli-Palestinian situation, which thanks to our support of the daily terrorism that the Israeli's are reigning down upon the captive state of Palestine which is now beginning to open the next chapter in a new global conflict. Where's the diplomacy we were once so famous for? It's been replaced with Shock & Awe, and our cowardly compliance with the long-range goals of extreme right wing elements in the government of Israel. To this end the Bush administration has squandered billions upon billions of the public's money without any pubic, or congressional discussions.

The USA was formerly considered to be the leading nation in the world. We were seen as a positive force for peace and potentially as a blueprint for prosperity and life. Now we are seen by most around the planet as the greatest threat to peace in the world today. And we can thank the Bush administration for this change in just four long years, of war, war, and lots more war.

The Contessa of Lies should be subpoenaed to testify in open court and arrested for obstruction of justice if she refuses: She should also be followed by all her fellow travelers in this administration, until we get to the bottom of this sordid and criminal event.

George W. Bush has said that he "owns" 911. Great, then let him begin to pay for that 'ownership' with the truth of what happened on that day.

kirwan
========================

Posted on Tue, Mar. 30, 2004

Letter Sent to Sept 11. Commission

Associated Press

Text of the letter White House counsel Alberto Gonzales sent to the Sept. 11 commission on Tuesday, addressed to Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, chairman and vice chairman of the commission:

Dear Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton:

As we discussed last night, the president is prepared, subject to the conditions set forth below, to agree to the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States for public testimony, under oath, by the assistant to the president for national security affairs, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

The president has consistently stated a policy of strong support for the commission and instructed the executive branch to provide unprecedented and extraordinary access to the commission. To my knowledge, the executive branch has provided access to documents or information in response to each of the requests issued by the commission to date, including many highly classified and extremely sensitive documents that have seldom, if ever, been made available outside the executive branch.

As an additional accommodation, the executive office of the president has made available more than 20 EOP officials, including the national security adviser, for private meetings with the commission. As you know, based on principles underlying the constitutional separation of powers, presidents of both parties have long taken the position that White House advisers and staff are not subject to the jurisdiction of legislative bodies and do not provide testimony - even on a voluntary basis - on policy matters discussed within the White House or advice given to the president. Indeed, I am not aware of any instance of a sitting national security adviser testifying in public to a legislative body (such as the commission) concerning policy matters.

We continue to believe, as I advised you by letter dated March 25, 2004, that the principles underlying the constitutional separation of powers counsel strongly against such public testimony, and that Dr. Rice's testimony before the commission can occur only with recognition that the events of September 11, 2001, present the most extraordinary and unique circumstances, and with conditions and assurances designed to limit harm to the ability of future presidents to receive candid advice.

Nevertheless, the president recognizes the truly unique and extraordinary circumstances underlying the commission's responsibility to prepare a detailed report on the facts and circumstances of the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001. Furthermore, we have now received assurances from the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate that, in their view, Dr. Rice's public testimony in connection with the extraordinary events of September 11, 2001, does not set, and should not be cited as, a precedent for future requests for a national security adviser or any other White House official to testify before a legislative body. In light of the unique nature of the commission and these additional assurances, the president has determined that, although he retains the legal authority to decline to make Dr. Rice available to testify in public, he will agree, as a matter of comity and subject to the conditions set forth below, to the commission's request for Dr. Rice to testify publicly regarding matters within the commission's statutory mandate.

The necessary conditions are as follows. First, the commission must agree in writing that Dr. Rice's testimony before the commission does not set any precedent for future commission requests, or requests in any other context, for testimony by a national security adviser or any other White House official.

Second, the commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice. The national security adviser is uniquely situated to provide the commission with information necessary to fulfill its statutory mandate. Indeed, it is for this reason that Dr. Rice privately met with the commission for more than four hours on February 7, fully answered every question posed to her, and offered additional private meetings as necessary. Despite the fact that the commission will therefore have access to all information of which Dr. Rice is aware, the commission has nevertheless urged that public confidence in the work of the commission would be enhanced by Dr. Rice appearing publicly before the commission. Other White House officials with information relevant to the commission's inquiry do not come within the scope of the commission's rationale for seeking public testimony from Dr. Rice. These officials will continue to provide the commission with information through private meetings, briefings, and documents, consistent with our previous practice.

I greatly appreciate the strong support you expressed to me last night for an agreement to the conditions on which we are proposing this extraordinary accommodation and your commitment to strongly advocate for the full support of the commission. If the commission accepts the terms of this agreement, I hope that we can schedule a time as soon as possible for such a public appearance by Dr. Rice. I want to reiterate once again, however, that Dr. Rice would be made available to the commission with due regard for the constitutional separation of powers and reserving all legal authorities, privileges, and objections that may apply, including with respect to other governmental entities or private parties.

I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accommodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement - commission access to the president and vice president. I am authorized to advise you that the president and vice president have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 commissioners, with one commission staff member present to take notes of the session.

I look forward to continuing to work with the commission to help it obtain the information it needs to fulfill its statutory mandate.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/8312248.htm