Were the Saudis and Iran to team up against us, they could at least force the withdrawal of the army we now have in Iraq, and probably destroy whatever of our naval forces are trapped in the Gulf. It’s not their weaponry or armed forces that would give them the jump on us, but their geographic location. Working together, they could seal the Gulf against our naval forces, and the Saudis could take out our air bases on the Gulf. We would be hard-pressed to support our army in Iraq through Turkey, the only alternative. If Turkey were to join a combination against, that would take out Incirlik and our army would lack both any line of resupply, and any air support. It would probably be annihilated.

kathleen @ 125
Thanks for the answer.

Can a convicted felon that is pardoned by a President ever serve in a future administration? Please tell me no!

Elliot Abrams pled guilty to misdemeanors and was pardoned by Bush 41.

Abrams is a poster child neo-con: morally depraved; ruthlessly ambitious ; utterly dishonest; friend to torturers, murders, and assassins.

A perfect servant for the Bushes and their megacorp masters.

One Abrams specialty was massacre denial. During a Nightline appearance in 1985, he was asked about reports that the US-funded Salvadoran military had slaughtered civilians at two sites the previous summer. Abrams maintained that no such events had occurred. And had the US Embassy and the State Department conducted an investigation? “My memory,” he said, “is that we did, but I don’t want to swear to it, because I’d have to go back and look at the cables.” But there had been no State Department inquiry; Abrams, in his lawyerly fashion, was being disingenuous. Three years earlier, when two American journalists reported that an elite, US-trained military unit had massacred hundreds of villagers in El Mozote, Abrams told Congress that the story was commie propaganda, as he fought for more US aid to El Salvador’s military. The massacre, as has since been confirmed, was real. And in 1993 after a UN truth commission, which examined 22,000 atrocities that occurred during the twelve-year civil war in El Salvador, attributed 85 percent of the abuses to the Reagan-assisted right-wing military and its death-squad allies, Abrams declared, “The Administration’s record on El Salvador is one of fabulous achievement.” Tell that to the survivors of El Mozote.

But it wasn’t his lies about mass murder that got Abrams into trouble. After a contra resupply plane was shot down in 1986, Abrams, one of the coordinators of Reagan’s pro-contra policy (along with the NSC’s Oliver North and the CIA’s Alan Fiers), appeared several times before Congressional committees and withheld information on the Administration’s connection to the secret and private contra-support network. He also hid from Congress the fact that he had flown to London (using the name “Mr. Kenilworth”) to solicit a $10 million contribution for the contras from the Sultan of Brunei. At a subsequent closed-door hearing, Democratic Senator Thomas Eagleton blasted Abrams for having misled legislators, noting that Abrams’s misrepresentations could lead to “slammer time.” Abrams disagreed, saying, “You’ve heard my testimony.” Eagleton cut in: “I’ve heard it, and I want to puke.” On another occasion, Republican Senator Dave Durenberger complained, “I wouldn’t trust Elliott any further thanI could throw Ollie North.” Even after Abrams copped a plea with Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, he refused to concede that he’d done anything untoward. Abrams’s Foggy Bottom services were not retained by the First Bush, but he did include Abrams in his lame-duck pardons of several Iran/contra wrongdoers.

Abrams was as nasty a policy warrior as Washington had seen in decades. He called foes “vipers.” He said that lawmakers who blocked contra aid would have “blood on their hands”-while he defended US support for a human-rights-abusing government in Guatemala. When Oliver North was campaigning for the Senate in 1994 and was accused of having ignored contra ties to drug dealers, Abrams backed North and claimed “all of us who ran that program…were absolutely dedicated to keeping it completely clean and free of any involvement by drug traffickers.” Yet in 1998 the CIA’s own inspector general issued a thick report noting that the Reagan Administration had collaborated-with suspected drug traffickers while managing the secret contra war.

So could Abrams and the rest of the “psychopaths” neck deep in the Iran/Contra scandal be held accountable in civil court? The Hague? Could Abrams be impeached? I really do not want to see these ruthless killers show up in future administrations AGAIN!

I suspect the Saudi refusal to break bread having to do with Bush’s failure to do his part in a handshake deal with the Saudi King and the Arab League with respect to the then Crown Prince’s 2002 peace plan for Israel/Palestine. In essence, that plan was close to the Clinton Plan of 2001 — return of all Palestine land outside the 1967 boundries, a Palestinian Capitol in E. Jerusalem, and joint tenancy of the sacred sites. The 2002 Arab League proposal promised all-Arab recognition of Israel, diplopmatic and economic relations, in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian State along these lines. To accomplish this, Bush had to make an honest effort to bring Israel to the table as an active party to the process. In this respect Bush has totally failed to even try, witness Condi’s statement this week that she was not really trying for a “big Bang.” This was a slap in the face to the Arab League and the Saudi King — thus the “we won’t break bread or suck dates” reaction. The Condi-Bush strategy is to play little games with low level talks between Abbas (Fatah) and Israel that go nowhere, and pretend that they are busy trying to accomplish something. They are up on the car-lift running their wheels for no particular purpose, and the Saudi’s and the Arab League are calling them on it.

Bush’s problem is that he is captive of AIPAC, which really does not represent core opinions in the American Jewish Community, which votes over 80% Democratic, and he is also captive of the Armageddonists, who are his base, and want him to bring on “End Times.” Neither of these commitments or orientations provide him with the freedom to act — create realistic policy, or even take diplomatic advantage of the opening the Arab League 2002 declaration had on offer. Essentially he has backed himself into a narrow corner from which there is no easy exit.

But the Democrats corner can be narrow too — there certainly was not universal approval of the settlement Clinton tabled at Taba or of the informal Geneva agreements. But those do parallel the Arab League Declarations — and they are the starting points from which detailed negotiations are possible.

If we want to unwind the Middle East, we must begin here. It is the core issue.

There is a strong possibility that during and after the Aipac/ Rosen trial Aipac will have less influence over U.S. middle east policies. When Americans realize that Israel continued to spy on the U.s. (after the Pollard case) and that some American Jews (whose first loyalty is to Israel and not to the U.s. (no matter what Israel does) have been actively undermining negotiations with Iran (Powells negotiations with Iran) and creating and dessiminating false intelligence about WMD’s ( Perle,Ledeen, Rubin, Feith, Wurmser) and other right wing radical neo-cons (Cheney, Bolton, Franklin). When Americans have the clear opportunity(if the MSM shows some chutzpah and cover this trial fairly) to wake up about the power of the Israeli lobby and it’s negative effects on U.S. national security. The situation in the middle east may change.

Let’s hope and pray that the Aipac/Rosen trial is not dismissed and the MSM covers this critically important trial honestly and openly.

1,468 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Terry Olson and the Firepup Patriots:

With regard to the pardoning power, the “founding fathers” were not only intellectually brilliant but they understood how messy any kind of democracy or popular politics is…hence, they knew that legitimate laws would be used for specifically political purposes and wanted to provide for the ability to free but not necessarily rehabilitate political prisoners. Remember that the pardon is not without consequence to the pardoner or his/her political faction or party.

Pardon me fer tryin’ ta call up a couple a years of graduate study of the Constitution and early nation…but it surely felt good. Man, those 18th century enlightenment citizens were GIANTS.

KEEP THE FAITH WITH OUR HISTORY AND OUR CHILDREN!!

Sorry to slightly differ, the power of executive pardon is a multifaceted object; it can be used to extend lieniency and magnaminity towards a conviction at law – an extension of the rights of soverigns transfered to the executive; it is a way to redress a miscarrage of justice; it is a check upon an unbridaled Judiciary; it is a political tool as well; and other and “political” purposes as well (list not exclusive by any means). There is no simple answer to that question.

drat, EPU’d again by timezone, hope this is caught anyway. All the best……

But, I’ve not been optimistic since The Little PIssant stole the WH.

IRAQ SUPPORT: Saudi King Abdullah (L) greets Iraqi President Jalal Talabani upon his arrival in Riyadh March 27, 2007, ahead of a two-day Arab summit. Abdullah slammed the occupation of Iraq in his opening speech to the summit, Wednesday.
(REUTERS)
RIYADH — Saudi King Abdullah, whose country is a close US ally, slammed Wednesday the “illegitimate foreign occupation” of Iraq in an opening speech to the annual Arab summit in Riyadh.

UPDATE: The White House insisted Wednesday that King Abdullah was wrong to say the US military presence in Iraq is an “illegitimate foreign occupation.”

“The United States is in Iraq at the request of the Iraqis and under a United Nations mandate. Any suggestion to the contrary is wrong,” said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

US State Department spokesman Tom Casey stressed that the Security Council had several times renewed its mandate for the US presence in Iraq. “There is no question in our mind that our forces are there in a legal and legitimate capacity in every sense of the word,” Casey said.

Arab leaders have kicked off the two-day summit in the Saudi capital aiming to revive a dormant plan for peace with Israel and launch a diplomatic offensive to resolve the Middle East conflict.

“In beloved Iraq, blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and ugly sectarianism threatens civil war,” Abdullah said.”………….there’s more

http://www.metimes.com/storyvi…..3228-3225r

there have been some entries on this thread about Presidential Pardons. I read a book a few weeks ago called “31 Days: The Crisis That Gave Us the Government We Have Today” by Barry Werth. This book is about the first 31 days of the Ford Administration. Very interesting book that is suitable for these times. Here is what I took away from this book about Presidential pardons. If you accept a pardon for a specific crime, you automatically accept GUILT for that crime.

So, can a pardon be worded as such that an individual escapes Criminal punishment for a crime, but not Civil punishment? Anyone?

My scenario for BushCo is this: Have Congress tell GW that all pardons have to be worded such that the pardons only absolve the guilty individuals of criminal punishment NOT civil punishment. Once the individuals accept these pardons, they are guilty, period. Then in civil court, the Government bankrupts them of every penny they have ever earned. They have no defense because they have already admitted they are guilty by accepting the pardon.

If you don’t think this is enough punishment, chances are you are not alone. But I don’t feel the need to dwell on Old Testament concepts of punishment here, especially since I am just posting here for the first time, it would be rude.

So, why would GW agree to word pardons as I have mentioned above? Good question. But perhaps out there, there is an answer…..

Bush’s problem is that he is captive of AIPAC, which really does not represent core opinions in the American Jewish Community, which votes over 80% Democratic, and he is also captive of the Armageddonists, who are his base, and want him to bring on “End Times.” Neither of these commitments or orientations provide him with the freedom to act — create realistic policy, or even take diplomatic advantage of the opening the Arab League 2002 declaration had on offer. Essentially he has backed himself into a narrow corner from which there is no easy exit.

But the Democrats corner can be narrow too — there certainly was not universal approval of the settlement Clinton tabled at Taba or of the informal Geneva agreements. But those do parallel the Arab League Declarations — and they are the starting points from which detailed negotiations are possible.

If we want to unwind the Middle East, we must begin here. It is the core issue.