As much as I would like to see Bush and Rumsfeld charged by an international court with war crimes, it just won't happen.  Instead, both will be unable to travel out of this country to avoid being arrested.  So, instead of being like Carter, an international trouble shooter for elections, or like Clinton, a fund raiser and facillitator for natural disasters in the world, little George will be a homebody, left to fester like a sore boil. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

He never was much for the foreign climes before having to make state visits; I don't think this would weigh that heavily on GWB.

hey, we're rapidly headed down the same path here at home... witness the relentless march of fascism...

The New Jersey attorney general has issued subpoenas to five telephone companies to determine whether any of them violated the state's consumer protection laws by providing records to the National Security Agency. Experts say it is the first legal move by a state to question the agency's program to compile calling records to track terrorist activities. On Wednesday, the United States filed a lawsuit to block the subpoenas, setting up a legal showdown pitting the state's authority to protect consumers' rights against the federal government's national security powers.

thus opening up a much larger can of worms...

But as a matter of government practice and legal precedent, the dispute is significant because it transforms what had primarily been a fight between the federal government and civil liberties groups into a far knottier one pitting federal authorities against state ones. Clifford Fishman, a professor at Catholic University Law School who is an expert on electronic-surveillance law, also said the actions by both state and federal government were laden with political overtones. Professor Fishman said New Jersey's subpoenas — issued by a Democratic administration — appeared to be "a political move to try to embarrass the Bush administration as well as the phone companies." But he added that "the Bush administration is responding with a howitzer instead of a sniper."

this is totally in keeping with the modus operandi of the bush administration... don't just thwart your enemies, beat them to death with heavy blunt instruments, dismember the bodies, and then burn them on a sacrificial pyre...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Tom

Tell us how you really feel.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Bush and Cheney in the Hague is justice but not complete justice without a least representative sample of the Left Faces of the War Party...

George W. Bush Rape Rooms

Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, attending

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

 As I have said in previous posts, the civil war underway in Iraq is breaking the way of the Shia.  Moqtada al Sadr's Badr militia are the big boys on the block with the muscle and means to enforce their will.  Most of our troops are attacking Sunni insurgents and terrorists.  The Shias generally avoid attacking us because, why antagonize us when we're doing their dirty work for them. 

Mixing metaphors, the crazy gorilla, in Iraq's basement seems to be stirring itself in anticipation of 07 and secession. The Kurds with the Shiites are sitting back, fat dumb and happy just waiting.  It has been common knowledge since 2003 that someday, Kurdistan would secede. Indeed,  that issue, I submit, has been the subrosa force driving the disintegration of the Iraqi nation - for good or ill.

This recent editorial in a Kurdish Weekly Magazine supportive of the leading Kurdish Democratic Party signals beginning of the final conflict.

CIA gets heavy when the President asks for it.

The buck has to stop at the top, and the WH set the rules. They certainly aren't trying very hard to prevent this kind of thing, it's fair to say.

Tom, I don't think it works that way. I think the CIA or whoever goes to the president and tells him that this is what we have to do to beat the terrorists - fill in the blank here. Renditions, secret prisons, whatever. The president responds with "Do whatever you have to" and signs off on any paperwork. I doubt Bush gives any thought to what the CIA does to prisoners that they kidnap.

I wish I could snatch a few people off the street and torture them until they spiiled their guts. First on my list is L. Paul Bremer. I'd make the SOB tell me what he did with that $9 billion in cash of pre-war Iraqi oil revenue stolen while in CPA custody. He'd be one hurting unit if he held out on me.

Gettysburg, 

Hearing your repetitive drone of another Republican talking point is...

"becoming tiresome and a bit redundant... trying desperately to convince Hot Young Lib that it was Al Qaeda and not the Bush administration that carried out the 9/11 attacks"

TRUE... Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11!  Not Saddam.  Not  the Iraqi people.  This war has no tie to 9/11, except as a propaganda tool.

The fact that US intelligence was tracking key Al Qaeda operative, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, within the US air-supremacy-controlled, northern Iraq no-fly-zone prior to this administration's invasion is telling.  Did we use the same two 500 lb smart bombs to take out al-Zarqawi then?  No.  Why not?  It would have detracted from or called into question the propaganda build up for Bush's Iraq invasion and occupation.

The truly outrageous "parlor tricks" being used are those employed by the Bush administration and rubber stamped by this no oversight, Republican congress. 

___________________________________________________________

“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Hearing your repetitive drone of another Republican talking point is... "becoming tiresome and a bit redundant...

Hello Kettle this is the Pot!!! It doesn't get any blacker than this!!! If it's repetitious talking points you are looking for you have come to the right echo chamber. Lets seee you come up with one original thought. List one problem in the world you, and your buds, are not blaming on Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice.  

Isn't Carter the guy who got the Nobel Peace prize for brokering the deal with North Korea where they gave up any nuclear ambitions?

You make a reasonably fair statement, with applicability to different wars, different intelligence agencies, and different Administrations. Intelligence officers 1historically have a very wide range of approaches, from things blatantly illegal (e.g., Sidney Gottlieb and human experimentation on US citizens), to internal critics (e.g., Sam Adams and even George Carver, the latter as a critic of other manipulative intelligence agencies), to ideological defectors-in-place (e.g., Philip Agee) and money/ego types (e.g., the Walker ring, Robert Hanssen).

I differ, perhaps, in saying that the WH may or may not set the rules, and in saying that actions once started, with poorly understood outcomes, necessarily can be shaped in the direction desired by the WH -- if, indeed, the WH desires to so shape them. The Kennedy administration probably did want to stop Diem abuses such as Con Son and the Buddhist repression, but wound up with a coup d'etat and a series of unstable, corrupt juntas.

For that matter, there was far too much "who will rid me of this turbulent priest" or "do what ya gotta do" under Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. Eisenhower probably best controlled operations, but allowed the 1947 Kennan containment doctrine to become an inflexible crusade under John Foster and Allen Dulles.

Clandestine and covert operations are not nearly as controllable as many would like them to be. This is not US experience alone; I suspect Sir Francis Walsingham could commiserate with William Colby.

Different Administrations have allowed or encouraged inappropriate actions. While the Bay of Pigs planning was initiated and preparations made under Eisenhower, the action, and the eventual sacrifice of Brigade 2506 took place under Kennedy.

Different Administrations have also prevented things, in retrospect, that may not have been wise. The Patti mission to 1945-1948 Indochina, and the proposals under Ho in a coalition, was under Truman, although very, very bad decisions stemmed from the brothers Dulles under Eisenhower. The tragedy of Viet Nam might have been prevented, or at least significantly modified, by different secret choices between roughly 1945 and 1953.

US administrations, however, do not often have the level of control many critics wish; activities, once started, are much harder to stop, and non-US citizens don't play by US rules. I feel quite comfortable in saying that the current Administration started operations in Iraq without seriously thinking through an endgame that might result in civil war, but I also don't believe the US has significant control over groups ranging from the Mahdi Army to the Pesh Merga, run by people from Badr to Sadr. I'm slightly amused about calling anything Mahdist, given the range of Islamic thought that term covers. There isn't a great similarity between the British experience in 21st century Basra and 19th century Omdurman.

Much as I consider the current Administration irresponsible in planning and contemptuous of constitutional law, I'm afraid I cannot agree that it would have any real control over internal activities. Much as I consider GWB weak and foolish, I cannot rationally say he personally and consciously authorized rape rooms run by Iraqi groups.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

All true, and I agree to your last sentence.

However, is this situation any reason for comfort? Plausible deniability is a PR move, not a moral defense. At least a portion of responsibility for the actions of executive departments must belong to the President.

A Presidential Finding to authorize some clandestine activity may not mention specifics ("rid me of this priest") but is still an exercise of authority over actions taken under it. Kennedy accepted responsibility for Brigade 2506.

Setting aside Iraqi behavior, we have ample evidence that rather than exercising authority to prevent excesses and abuse of prisoners, the admninistration authorized the Pentagon to take the gloves off. General Miller didn't go to Iraq to enforce humane treatment of prisoners.

So we are left with defending the President by saying he authorized torture but only by US personnel, not Iraqis. A fine distinction.

Hasn't one of the problems with the Bush policy toward Iraq been that it is befuddled by its view of Iran? On the one hand Bush wanted to get rid of Saddem, either to cause fear in the Arab and Muslim worlds or to bring democracy to Iraq. However the United States, the Saudis and many of the Sunni Muslim Arab leaders are very afraid of the Shiia of Persia.

You add to this basic conflict with the total unwillingness to do the necessary actions of nation building, bringing order, safety, services to the Iraq people Bush and Rumsfeld were virtually asking the Iraqi militias to step into the breach and both settle 80 years of scores and to assert dominance. Since Iraq is one of the few Arab countries dominiated bh Shiia, however much the Iraqi Shiia and the Iranian Shiia might diverge they certainly have reason to form an alliance of convience. It unclear whether anyone in the Bush Administration gave a moments thought to this problem once the statue of Saddem was pulled down.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Tom wrote:

Nothing this group of murderous, greedy, stupid liars tolerates to stay their course of insanity surprises me

I hate to admit it but Bush's trip to Baghdad surprised me. I bought the Strategery Conference at Camp David hook line and sinker.  I thought they really were planning a new Iraq strategy not another publicity stunt con game.

Oh yeah, the centerpiece - the Big Sweep of Baghad II (Opertion Lightning the first). Gen Petraeus has, according to published news reports at the time, been planning this for months to launch as soon as the "government" was announced.

Is there any better example that Bush, from start til ???, run this war as a domestic political black op?  First of all, if I knew what was coming and when,.... Second, it has long been common knowledge among Pentagon counterinsurgency experts that these repeated sweeps never fail to fail (See Getting Swept, By William S. Lind)

Now see Today's Headlines:

• 7 explosions hit Baghdad within 5 hours (AP)
• Iraq attacks kill 31 (Reuters)  - 
• 2 U.S. soldiers missing after Iraq attack (AP)  
• Military Experts Question US Strategy Toward Insurgents in Iraq

Well, we're not talking about the actions of Shia militants, are we? We're talking about the detention facilities of the Interior and Defense ministries of the "sovereign" Iraqi government, the one the US is committed to wholeheartedly supporting with the sacrifice of thousands of lives. Oh, wait. You're right -- Shia militants. I see what you mean.

drv

Alright, I'll concede that Larry never accused the president of raping anyone. He only IMPLICITLY argues that Bush has ordered such tactics. I, for one, do not believe these allegations to be true and as anyone with a functioning mind can attest, "torture" is an umbrella term and the specific varieties employed are NOT authored from the Oval Office. This is not the hit show "24" people.

George Bush sanctioned rape rooms?
Larry Johnson is retarded?
Sorry. That's offensive. Let's try this: does asking a yes/no question imply the answer might be "yes"? If there's no question, there's no question. Inter-tribal suspicion and hostility reduce the chances for a stable, democratic Iraq. Better planning for the post-war phase of the operation might have reduced suffering after the collapse of Hussein's government. Okay? If that's the contention, I agree. That's a long way from asserting (yes, asserting, at least the possibility: if there's no question, there's no question) that the President "sanctioned" rape rooms, for which assertion Mr. Johnson provieds no evidence.

Howard, I was just letting off steam late at night. The theft of the $9 billion bothers me to no end because no one in the press or the government ever even mentions it. Having that kind of money around with no one looking over your shoulder is an invitation to steal. I know I'd have hard time resisting temptation.

I refuse to rule out collusion before the $9 billion got to Baghdad. Skim $1 billion off the top and your campaign expenses are taken care of for the next two elections. The money came from the UN so the Bush administration spent some time arranging for its transfer.

I don't believe that no one in DC thought about how and to who the $9 billion would be disbursed. That $9 billion would have been a big issue. People in the Bush administration might be corrupt but they are not stupid. The president has an MBA. Rumsfeld and Cheney ran big companies. No one forgot about internal controls over $9 billion.

If the Iraqis did steal the $9 billion, think about how many weapons and bombs they could buy with that kind of money.

I want to hear a detailed decripton of how L. Paul Bremer and the CPA doled out the $9 billion and I bet the Iraqis do to. It was their money, after all. Riverbend on her blog already wrote about how the Iraqis want to know where the oil revenue has been going.

I think Americans and Iraqis would be infuriated if they found out that some sleazebags became billionaires by stealing $9 billion in Iraqi oil revenue.

Dude, you should really watch a video of WTC-7 collapsing.

"Hammered by debris?" An 8 second structurally symetrical implosion was caused by "debris" that hit the building 9 hours beforehand?

Look, very few people outside of Berkeley really want to be "9/11 guy" at parties; you keep it to yourself. But there is zero chance WTC-7 wasn't demolished.

"the Big Sweep of Baghad II (Opertion Lightning the first). Gen Petraeus has, according to published news reports at the time, been planning this for months to launch as soon as the "government" was announced."

Petraeus is one of the biggest morons in the US military.

I've followed his crap since back before the Saddam sons were killed.

Every single one of his pronouncements is unmitigated bullshit. Every single one of his "operations" have been dismal failures.

He needs to be cashiered out yesterday. He's an example of what is totally wrong with the US military.

While your overall points are undoubtedly correct, there IS the issue of WHO was sent to Iraq to set up the counterinsurgency forces there.

And we KNOW who they were - the EXACT same guys who were sent to Nicaragua and El Salvador to advise under Negroponte - and the result was execution squads and torture.

This would seem to place the onus for SOME of this stuff the Iraqis are doing on US advisors. No doubt the Irsqis would have done it anyway - they ARE a Third World country and this is what Third World countries do - no doubt about that.

But it's clear the US made little effort to restrain the excesses except in a few reported cases where US troops became aware and intervened. The question then becomes: how often does the US military actually look to see what is being done?

And if we either don't look, or look and don't intervene, then how is it that Bush is talking about establishing a "democratic" government in Iraq?

That would seem to be the crux of the issue here - not to mention that similar, if perhaps less extensive and less crude, abuses took place in US military run prisons.

This report entitled "Pentagon Study Describes Abuse by Units in Iraq" is interesting in this context.

Money quotes:

"Special Operations interrogators gave some detainees only bread or crackers and water if they did not cooperate, according to the investigation, by Brig. Gen. Richard P. Formica of the Army. One prisoner was fed only bread and water for 17 days. Other detainees were locked for as many as seven days in cells so small that they could neither stand nor lie down, while interrogators played loud music that disrupted their sleep.

The inquiry also determined that some detainees were stripped naked, drenched with water and then interrogated in air-conditioned rooms or in cold weather. General Formica said it appeared that Navy Seals had used that technique in the case of one detainee who later died during questioning in Mosul in 2004, but he reported that he had no specific allegations that the use of the technique was related to that death."

So we tortured the detainee, and he died - but we don't know that he died because of the torture.

Right.

"Despite the findings, General Formica recommended that none of the soldiers be disciplined, saying what they did was wrong but not deliberate abuse. He faulted "inadequate policy guidance" rather than "personal failure" for the mistreatment, and cited the dangerous environment in which Special Operations forces carried out their counterinsurgency missions. He said that, from his observations, none of the detainees seemed to be the worse for wear because of the treatment. "Seventeen days with only bread and water is too long," the general concluded. But he added that the military command's surgeon general had advised him "it would take longer than 17 days to develop a protein or vitamin deficiency from a diet of bread and water.""

The above pretty much says it all. Torture is okay as long as the effects aren't "permanent."

LJ: As I have said in previous posts, the civil war underway in Iraq is breaking the way of the Shia.

I think this is the main point to be drawn from this latest scandal (in the parade of atrocities in Iraq, this one will be forgotten tomorrow). The prosecutors of this war want to play down the civil war. The insurgents are terr’ists, foreign jihadis, al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Zarqawi was all about fomenting civil war and we killed him, so this (centuries old) sectarian conflict will just fade out.

The only way to beat the insurgency is by demonstrating that they are illegitimate while the Coalition MNF and the Unity Government are lawful. We have done just the opposite by stomping on Iraqis like they were ants. Of course, we’ve set the ground rules for Iraqi government forces to follow (incarcerate anyone with no due process and torture them for information or just for retaliation).

Iraqis know that we turned back males over 12 that were fleeing Falujah and then killed almost everyone caught in the city. They know about Aabu Ghraib and payback killings and the daily humiliations and harassments. They know that Iraqi government troops and police, along with standing militias, have been killing “civilians” in cold blood just as the insurgents do. How can this Unity Gov be legitimate when it acts no better than the insurgents?

80% of Iraqis see the U.S. as an occupier because of our mistreatment and killing of innocent Iraqis. So, officials are shocked that the formerly Shia run Interior Ministry has been torturing Sunnis (“Rick, I’m shocked to find there’s gambling going on here!”). I know Bush doesn’t do reality. Still, I think that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice have been spinning the war so long that they really don’t know what’s going on there.

See my comment about Bush's Executive Order that prohibits auditors from revealing any "national security" related information from an audit...and the order prohibiting any CPA member from ever being charged under criminal statutes for anything they did in the CPA.

Bullcrap.

Even the owner said it was "pulled" - allegedly, as you say, because of "damage" that nobody could see was sufficient to authorize pulling it.

The insurance reward, on the other hand...

Trans, In April 2002, I was watching Iraqi tv on the internet and I was a regular visitor to the official Iraqi website maintained by Saddam. That's how interested I was in what was going on then.

In April 2002, all of the major nmetworks including FOX were in Baghdad for Saddam's big birthday bash. Leslie Stahl interviewed the Iraqi, what's-his-name, the one who fled the US after the first WTC bombing.

At least a dozen congressman visited Baghdad in 2002.

Baghdad was the Grand Central Station of the Middle East in 2002. You can bet the CIA was in Baghdad along with Special Ops. These guys had to be making deals with the Iraqi military brass, senior government officials etc.

What the hell does everyone else besides me and you think was going on then? The CIA apparently could not bribe anyone in Iraq into revealing the names of the scientists working on WMD programs or the location of the facilities or even a few details about the WMD programs.

Hello? Not one Iraqi could be bribed with $20 million to spill the beans even though they all knew the US was going to invade in the near future?

The f**king scumbags running this country knew the answer.

HB, BTW, a right-wing blogger read my Ann Coulter post and called me a dangerous moonbat. The f**king idiot was so concerned about Coulter's well-being that he linked to my post on his blog. If anyone has a complaint about me, I'm steering them to that moron's website.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

The man has an excellent PR sense. I see Chairman JCS

After his term is up he will undoubtedly re-enter the private sector and make millions of dollars; most likely with someone else's company seeing he has struggled with his own business ventures.

By birthright, he should be welcomed into The Carlyle Group, but the odds are against it.

I'd like to know what war crimes you believe he's committed? I can't seem to think of any.

Do the rules of war written in the Geneva Convention Convention ring any bells? The pesky torture parts?

Click here for the Users Help Forum.

Bush does have a new plan:

FINALLY! The Bush administration has a plan for Iraq. A new one, I mean. The old plan — accept flowers from grateful Iraqis, locate WMD, create democracy and the rule of law, depart in five months — had definite appeal, but it didn't work out.

The new plan is that we're going to get the Iraqis to come up with a plan. ........Bush dropped in on Baghdad's Green Zone unannounced, giving Maliki only five minutes' notice of his arrival. .......As the president explained: "......I understand leadership…. You've got to have a plan. And that's what I found in Iraq." In fact, he found that the Iraqis have a "plan to succeed," "a robust plan" and "a plan to improve security."

They also have a "plan to bring militias and other armed groups under government control,"  a "plan … to improve the Iraqi judicial system," "a plan to revitalize the Iraqi economy" and "plans on electricity and energy."

..."torture" is an umbrella term and the specific varieties employed are NOT authored from the Oval Office.

The Pentagon and OVP are part of the Exec.Branch, which makes the Oval Office the Head-Mother-Fuc**ers-Whats-In-Charge.

Can't get much more authored than that.

Click here for the Users Help Forum.

FOREIGNID: 134144
FOREIGNPARENTID: 133913
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 10415
AUTHOR: mrs panstreppon
DATE: 06/17/2006 11:45:13 PM

Larry wrote
"...I cannot wait to watch how George and Condi will square this circle. We're helping a group of Shia religious extremists who have close ties to Iran consolidate power in Iraq. Meanwhile, we're threatening Iran with dire consequences if they don't surrender their nuclear program. This Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde policy is getting our kids killed and putting our security at risk..."

Lets look at this at the strategic level, assuming that Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the rest(of the insiders) know where they want to go and are doing their utmost to get there given the (admittedly limited)constraints on their field of action. Perhaps their conception is the destruction of the Sunni community as a power center in Iraq, but along with this the installation of a friendly regime in Iran. If the Iraqi Shiites take over, then with a friendly regime in Iran, not much is lost. That's why attacks on Iran are inevitable - the stakes are too large to let the current regime in Tehran continue - the real issue not being nuclear weapons(did anyone informed on the issues really every believe this pretext), but whose calling the shots at the top. The US govt. has been trying to instigate another coup in Persia for over 25 years.

With friendly rulers in Iraq and Iran, albeit of the Shia variety, things would be in great shape, just like the good-old- days. Looking down the road a bit, perhaps splitting the large fossil-fuels resource rich countries into opposing blocks (Shia vs. Sunni) is really just a part of the game plan - the end goal of which is mastery of the world(maintaining sole superpower status indefinitely) via control of major petroleum resources and retention of military supremacy.

So, there is a way(and no doubt others that I have not considered) to see consistency in their actions - though one must feel that they(lets call them "The Cabal") would have been happier if the difficulties encountered in Iraq had been much less severe. Still they must view these problems, as well as the minor complaints from the congress and people, as being of relative insignificance - and as an opportunity to maintain domestic political control while carrying out policies that most people in the US would in fact find abhorrent if the truth were out in the open. They are certainly thanking God, or Mammon, or whatever they worship, that the media has been so helpful in their quest.

No doubt they feel that it is "their due", and may even believe it is in the best interest of their US; it certainly has little to do with democratic principles, institutions, and philosophies.
If successfull, their plans signify that America is Finished, in the sense of being the place I thought it was, and was taught it was, in my more impressionable, and optimistic, youth.

There is so much more to say, but I fear I digress too much.

What does that have to do with the deal he made with North Korea to stop them developing nuclear weapons? Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Jimmy Carter and his "turn down the thermostat" approch to the US economy the reason that Republicans were in the White House for the next 12 years? Did Reagan steal the elections in 49 out of 50 states?

Iraqis know that we turned back males over 12 that were fleeing Falujah and then killed almost everyone caught in the city. They know about Aabu Ghraib and payback killings and the daily humiliations and harassments. They know that Iraqi government troops and police, along with standing militias, have been killing “civilians” in cold blood just as the insurgents do. How can this Unity Gov be legitimate when it acts no better than the insurgents?

Amen, but we need a new narrative if we're going to make the facts stick in the American psyche. Most people here know that this country has absolutely no legitimate claim to the moral highground in this fight anymore; the catalog of despicable acts has precluded a happy, sunshiny ending to this Iraq mess.

But, right or wrong, too many Americans are still trapped with an "I'm a good person, trying to give democracy to Iraq and toppling Saddam was a good thing to do. I have honest motives, so the President must have honest motives as well. And of course our fighting men and women represent the finest in American values. Therefore, by definition, we cannot possibly lose the moral highground"

It's a caricature, but you get the point. Now, how do we properly assign blame to President dipshit without casting aspersions at people who got behind the war because they thought they were doing the right thing?

seashell

True, the Pentagon is by extension part of the Executive Branch. But in his argument Larry said George W. Bush himself was ordering certain varieties of torture including rape. I believe we can all agree that such a claim is absurd. If Bush DID issue that specific order then he is much smarter than most people realize...

That's sort of like arguing that Ken Lay wasn't responsible for Enron because someone down the chain said "Let's rape California!"  Maybe you should volunteer to help out with Kenny's appeal.

Besides, we have it on authority that Bush is the top "Decider." 

Neoboho

Right on. 

I wish I could rate this a 10 on the 1 - 5 scale!!!!

The only thing I would add is that this President / executive branch would not be able to continue its "despicable acts" if there was adequate congressional oversight.

__________________________________________________________

“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."