May 27, 2006

06/06/06: Not Just Another Date...

That's all I have to say about that.

With 06/06/06 looming (June 6, 2006), authorities in some cities are worrying prophecy theorists or hate groups might read something ominous into the date and use it as an excuse to stir tension. Some expectant mothers are making birthing appointments to ensure they avoid the date, according to the Sunday Times in London. [more]


Anonymous Anonymous said...


9:28 AM  
Anonymous cjt said...

Many details here...

Rove-Novak Call Was Concern To Leak Investigators
Thursday, May 25, 2006

Suspicious that Rove and Novak might have devised a cover story during that conversation to protect Rove, federal investigators briefed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the matter in the early stages of the investigation in fall 2003, according to officials with direct knowledge of those briefings.

9:37 AM  
Blogger Quzi Formerly CC said...

Untouchable & Team,

I hope you have a restful weekend. Thank you for all of your hard work and dedication! We the people need you. Many are looking forward to June...what a great month it will be for truth and freedom...

God bless our soldiers and their families.

Have a nice Memorial Day weekend Justice bloggers...

9:40 AM  
Anonymous cjt said...

The coconut bounced off Lays head right onto Rove's...Note the word "still".

"Fitzgerald is still investigating Rove for possible perjury and obstruction of justice for Rove's failure to disclose in his initial FBI interview and his initial grand jury testimony that he had provided information about Plame to Cooper. Rove has said that his failure to disclose his conversation with Cooper was because of a faulty memory."

10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice of you to remember my birthday.

A felon or 2 will do nicely.

10:43 AM  
Blogger GrandmaNuk said...

Nice selection on the board. Here's to justice. Very curious, "sealed vs sealed". Obviously, protecting the first "sealed" is as important as the second "sealed". Could it be that the worm has turned?

10:52 AM  
Blogger Jackie said...

This post is only important to those that believe in it's leader and his followers. The rest of us follow the truth. Now will June be as good a month as May was. Gonzales is about to quit do to the fact that he has made new laws. Seems like all of the Bush appointees are learning on the job with no experience. Finally Bush admits he made mistakes that cost the lives of our young troops. It was nice to hear him admit it but he 's not changing a thing. I really don't think other world leaders will buy what Blair/Bush are selling now. No one is going to join in to help with this mess that Blair/Bush made. Powell said it best " you broke it you fix it". Blair is leaving in Dec. with nothing good to show for his time in office. Bush's team is fighting and leaking on each other. Notice how other world leaders are working together and getting things done. Oh on PBS last night they said in Bush's first term he called Ken Lay a close friend, after the Lay was found guilty Bush didn't know who he was and couldn't remember anything about him. I guess the memory loss problem is catching on with this Administration.

11:06 AM  
Blogger The Subway Serenade said...

It's not The Mother Ship. It's The Bull Ship!

And as we all know The Bull Ship goes on forever. Perhaps we need Jesus to save us from Christians.

Love Is God.
God One Another.

Red Line Blues

11:09 AM  
Blogger Former Fed said...

Fitz & his folks are doing the most important work for the Country since the Watergate investigation. The Nation has faced this kind of crisis only a few times in our history. This may be even worse than the Civil War because the very essence of our great country is at risk from the Bush Administration and its fellow travelers.

Have a great Holiday everyone and keep the faith.

11:10 AM  
Anonymous bronzedome said...

"Very curious, "sealed vs sealed". Obviously, protecting the first "sealed" is as important as the second "sealed"."

I too am curious about those two sealed documents Grandmanuk. So unusual...
Could one of those sealed indictments be for George Bush?

11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, if Condi was not involved with those crooks, she would be a nice catch for Patrick Fitzgerald.
I see he likes his ladies with brains as well as exotic beauty.
Go Patrick...

11:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Finally Bush admits he made mistakes that cost the lives of our young troops. It was nice to hear him admit it but he 's not changing a thing.""""""""

Ken Lay- loss of memory--same as he did to Abramoff.

Ken Lay -he really never deserted hom--only in public--He actually told him he would never spend a dat behind bars-while he was president the appeals process last for years.Their sentences were announced.Right now they would die in jail.

Jackie here is a sample of what he was doing behind the scenes.Bush--God Forbid--was guilty of Mendacity--to the public.

11:55 AM  
Blogger jan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:21 PM  
Blogger jan said...

To get even wierder it makes me think of The Seven Seals of Revelation.

12:37 PM  
Blogger jan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:40 PM  
Blogger jan said...

And I am not a "religious" person.

12:42 PM  
Blogger jan said...

I'm just now reading the wesite I posted. Didn't mean to do that. I just googled the seven seals and copied off the first one. Did'nt mean to feak everyone out on me. Please, I'm not a "tin foiler" I was just saying what came to mind- a problem of mine.

Well, I have to get back to work, my break is over.

1:08 PM  
Blogger jan said...


Four years ago, when the taboo against calling George W. Bush a liar was even stronger than it is today, the national news media bought into the Bush administration's spin that the President did nothing to bail out his Enron benefactors, including Kenneth Lay.

Bush supposedly refused to intervene, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Enron had poured into his political coffers. That refusal purportedly showed the high ethical standards that set Bush apart from lesser politicians.

Bush's defenders will probably reprise that storyline now that former Enron Chairman Lay and former Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Skilling stand convicted of conspiracy and fraud in the plundering of the onetime energy-trading giant. But the reality is that the Bush-can't-be-bought spin was never true.

For instance, the documentary evidence is now clear that in summer 2001 - at the same time Bush's National Security Council was ignoring warnings about an impending al-Qaeda terrorist attack - NSC adviser Condoleezza Rice was personally overseeing a government-wide task force to pressure India to give Enron as much as $2.3 billion.

Then, even after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when India's cooperation in the "war on terror" was crucial, the Bush administration kept up its full-court press to get India to pay Enron for a white-elephant power plant that the company had built in Dabhol, India.

The pressure on India went up the chain of command to Vice President Dick Cheney, who personally pushed Enron's case, and to Bush himself, who planned to lodge a complaint with India's prime minister. Post-9/11, one senior U.S. bureaucrat warned India that failure to give in to Enron's demands would put into doubt the future functioning of American agencies in India.

The NSC-led Dabhol campaign didn't end until Nov. 8, 2001, when the Securities and Exchange Commission raided Enron's offices - and protection of Lay's interests stopped being political tenable. That afternoon, Bush was sent an e-mail advising him not to raise his planned Dabhol protest with India's prime minister who was visiting Washington. [For details on the Dabhol case, see below.]

Contrary to the official story, the Bush administration did almost whatever it could to help Enron as the company desperately sought cash to cover mounting losses from its off-the-books partnerships, a bookkeeping black hole that was sucking Enron toward bankruptcy and scandal.

As Enron's crisis worsened through the first nine months of Bush's presidency, Lay secured Bush's help in three key ways:

* Bush personally joined the fight against imposing caps on the soaring price of electricity in California at a time when Enron was artificially driving up the price of electricity by manipulating supply. Bush's resistance to price caps bought Enron extra time to gouge hundreds of millions of dollars from California's consumers.

* Bush granted Lay broad influence over the development of the administration's energy policies, including the choice of key regulators to oversee Enron's businesses. The chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was replaced in 2001 after he began to delve into Enron's complex derivative-financing schemes.

* Bush had his NSC staff organize that administration-wide task force to pressure India to accommodate Enron's interests in selling the Dabhol generating plant for as much as $2.3 billion.


As Enron's corporate house of cards collapsed anyway in fall 2001, the toll was devastating. Investors lost tens of billions of dollars; some retirees were financially wiped out; 5,000 Enron employees were laid off. Enron's accounting tricks also discredited its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP, which was soon closed by government regulators.

But Bush was fortunate that the Enron scandal broke while he was still wrapped in the glow of favorable poll ratings that followed the 9/11 attacks. The Washington news media generally acquiesced to Bush's insistence that he really wasn't that close to Enron or Lay, though Lay had earned a Bush nickname: "Kenny Boy."

The facts, however, suggest a political intimacy between Bush and Enron, especially with the now convicted swindler Ken Lay, dating back at least to Bush's first campaign for Texas governor in 1994.

By the 2000 presidential campaign, Lay was a Pioneer for Bush, raising $100,000. Enron also gave the Republicans $250,000 for the convention in Philadelphia and contributed $1.1 million in soft money to the Republican Party. Not only was Lay a top fund-raiser for the campaign, but he helped out during the recount battle in Florida in November 2000.

Lay and his wife donated $10,000 to Bush's Florida recount fund that helped pay for Republican lawyers and other expenses. Lay even let Bush operatives use Enron's corporate jet to fly in reinforcements. After Bush secured his victory, another $300,000 poured in from Enron circles - including $100,000 from Lay and $100,000 from Skilling - for the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Fund.

Yet, after the Enron scandal broke, Bush acted as if he barely knew Lay. On Jan. 11, 2002, Bush told reporters that Lay "was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994" for Texas governor, implying that he had gotten to know Lay as Gov. Richards' holdover appointee to a Texas business council.

The administration also claimed that it turned down Enron's bail-out pleas in late October 2001 when Lay sounded out senior Bush officials about overt financial help. By then, however, Enron's troubles were too advanced - and the public spotlight too intense - for the administration to launch a full-scale rescue mission out in the open.

Yet, before Enron went into its death spiral, the Bush administration did what it could, behind the scenes.

Gathering Storm

The Houston-based energy trader's financial crisis can be traced back to 2000 when the long-running stock market boom ended. During the boom, Enron had risen through the ranks of Fortune 500 companies to a perch at No. 7.

A leader of the so-called New Economy, Enron expanded beyond its core business interests in natural gas pipelines, branching out into complex commodity trading, which included electricity, broadband capacity and other ethereal items, such as weather futures.

The bursting of the dot-com bubble in March 2000 put pressure on Enron as it did many other companies. Even though Enron's stock held strong, hitting an all-time high of $90 a share on Aug. 17, 2000, the tumbling market and some risky overseas energy projects left Enron with many poor-performing assets.

To protect its image as a darling of Wall Street - and to prop up its stock value - Enron began shifting more of its losing operations into off-the-books partnerships given names like Raptor and Chewco. Hedges were set up to limit Enron's potential losses from equity investments, but some hedges were themselves backed by Enron stock, creating the possibility of a spiraling decline if investors lost faith in Enron.

Still, Enron saw a silver lining in the darkening economic clouds of 2000. A prospective George W. Bush victory could speed up Enron's deregulatory plans for the energy markets. Through energy trading in California alone, Enron stood to earn tens of billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, in summer 2000, the first signs of suspicions arose that Enron was trying to manipulate the California energy market.

An employee with Southern California Edison sent the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) a memo expressing concerns that Enron and other electricity providers to California's deregulated energy market were gaming the system by cutting off supply and creating phony congestion in the electricity grid to run up energy prices. [See Energy Daily, May 16, 2002]

By December 2000, Enron was implementing plans dubbed "Fat Boy," "Death Star" and "Get Shorty" to siphon electricity away from areas that needed it most and getting paid for phantom transfers of energy supposedly to relieve transmission-line congestion. [Washington Post, May 7, 2002]

That same month, after a 35-day battle over Florida's vote count, Bush nailed down his presidential victory by getting five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop a statewide recount.

Grateful Bush

Once in the White House, a grateful Bush gave Lay a major voice in shaping energy policy and picking personnel. Starting in late February 2001, Lay and other Enron officials took part in at least a half dozen secret meetings to develop Bush's energy plan.

After one of the Enron meetings, Vice President Cheney's energy task force changed a draft energy proposal to include a provision to boost oil and natural gas production in India. The amendment was so narrow that it apparently was targeted only to help Enron's troubled Dabhol power plant in India. [Washington Post, Jan. 26, 2002]

Other parts of the Bush energy plan also echoed Enron's views. Seventeen of the energy plan's proposals were sought by and benefited Enron, according to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. One proposal called for repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, which hindered Enron's potential for acquisitions.

Bush also put Enron's allies inside the federal government. Two top administration officials, Lawrence Lindsey, the White House's chief economic adviser, and Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative, both worked for Enron, Lindsey as a consultant and Zoellick as a paid member of Enron's advisory board.

At least 14 administration officials owned stock in Enron, with Undersecretary of State Charlotte Beers and chief political adviser Karl Rove each reporting up to $250,000 worth of Enron stock when they joined the administration.

Lay exerted influence, too, over government regulators already in place. Curtis Hebert Jr., a conservative Republican and ally of Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., had been appointed to the FERC during the Clinton administration. Like Bush and Lay, Hebert was a promoter of "free markets," and Bush elevated him to FERC chairman in January 2001.

But Hebert ran into trouble when he broke ranks with Lay on Enron's plan to force consolidation of state utilities into four giant regional transmission organizations, or RTOs. By quickly pushing the states into RTOs, Enron and other big energy traders would have much larger markets for their energy sales.

Hebert, who advocated state rights, told the New York Times that he got a call from Lay with a proposed deal. Lay wanted Hebert to support a faster transition to a national retailing structure for electricity. If he did, Enron would back him to keep his job.

The FERC chairman said he was "offended" by the veiled threat. Lay already had demonstrated sway over selection of administration appointees by supplying Bush aides with a list of preferred candidates and personally interviewing a possible FERC nominee.

Lay offered a different account of the phone call. He said Hebert was the one "requesting" Enron's support, though Lay acknowledged that the pair "very possibly" discussed issues involving FERC's authority over the nation's electricity grids.

Hebert also raised Enron's ire when he started an investigation in early 2001 into how Enron's complex derivative financing instruments worked. "One of our problems is that we do not have the expertise to truly unravel the complex arbitrage activities of a company like Enron," Hebert said. [NYT, May 25, 2001]

At the time, those complex - and deceptive - derivative schemes were concealing Enron's worsening losses.

Energy Crisis

The California energy crisis also was spinning out of control. Rolling blackouts crisscrossed the state, where the partially deregulated energy market, served by Enron and other traders, had seen electricity prices soar 800 percent in one year.

After taking power, Bush turned a deaf ear to appeals from public officials in California to give the state relief from the soaring costs of energy. He also reined in federal efforts to monitor market manipulations.

As California's electricity prices continued to soar, Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and Sen. Dianne Feinstein voiced suspicions that the "free market" was not at work. Rather they saw corporate price-fixing, gouging consumers and endangering California's economy.

But California's suspicions mostly were mocked in official Washington as examples of finger-pointing and conspiracy theories. The administration blamed the problem on excessive environmental regulation that discouraged the building of new power plants.

Again, Lay was influencing policy behind the scenes. An April 2001 memo from Lay to Cheney advised the administration to resist price caps.

"The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps or returning to archaic methods of determining the cost-base of wholesale power," Lay said. [San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 30, 2002]

Cheney and Bush echoed Lay's position in their political exchanges with Davis and other Democrats. On April 18, 2001, Cheney told the Los Angeles Times that the Bush administration opposed price caps because they would discourage investment. [L.A. Times, April 19, 2001]

In May 2001, Bush traveled to California on a trip choreographed like a President visiting a disaster area. Only this time, Bush wasn't promising federal help to a state in need. He was carrying the same message that Lay had sent to Cheney. In effect, Bush was saying: Read my lips. No price caps.

"Price caps do nothing to reduce demand, and they do nothing to increase supply," Bush said. [L.A. Times, May 30, 2001]

After weeks of standoff, as electricity prices stayed high and began spreading to other Western states, the political showdown ended on June 18, 2001. FERC approved limited price caps, a reversal prompted by Republican fears of a political backlash that could cost them seats in Congress. [L.A. Times, June 19, 2001]

Still, the administration's rear-guard defense of deregulation had bought Enron and other energy traders precious months to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in trading profits in California.

The imposition of FERC's limited price caps - and the state's aggressive conservation efforts - brought the energy crisis under control. That may have been good news for California, but not for Enron. By losing control over its ability to keep electricity prices artificially high, Enron faced new economic pressures.

"There are some hints of a connection [between the price caps and Enron's collapse], including the billions of dollars in cash that flowed in and out of Enron as the crisis waxed and waned," the New York Times reported later. [NYT, May 9, 2002]

With the easing of the California energy crisis, Enron's stock price began to decline, slipping from around $80 early in the year to the high-$40's. That began to put pressure on the stock hedges tucked inside the off-the-books partnerships.

The Dabhol Battle

In June 2001, the White House went to bat for Enron on another touchy issue, the natural gas power plant that Enron had built in Dabhol, India.

The plant had become something of a white elephant. Its cost of electricity was several times higher than what India was paying other providers, which led to an impasse over unpaid bills. Enron wanted India to pay $250 million for the electricity or buy out Enron's stake in the plant, worth about $2.3 billion.

These sorts of contract disputes between U.S. companies and foreign governments are normally handled by the Commerce Department or possibly the State Department. But Enron's Dabhol problem became a priority of Bush's National Security Council staff.

That level of interest over a contract dispute was almost unprecedented, according to former NSC officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations. The administration's intervention even involved direct appeals from top U.S. officials.

On June 27, 2001, Cheney personally discussed Enron's problem with Sonia Gandhi, the leader of India's opposition Congress Party. "Good news is that the Veep mentioned Enron in his meeting with Sonia Gandhi yesterday," said one NSC e-mail dated June 28, 2001. (I obtained this and other documents under a Freedom of Information Act request.)

Throughout summer 2001, while intelligence warnings about an expected al-Qaeda terror attack went unheeded, the NSC staff met frequently to coordinate U.S. pressure on India over Enron's plant, drawing in the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Office of U.S. Trade Representative and the Overseas Private Investment Corp., which had committed $360 million in risk insurance to the Dabhol project.

While the NSC held no follow-up meetings on the Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence warning entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S.," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice organized and led the "Dabhol Working Group."

The working group sought to broker meetings between Lay and senior Indian officials, including Brajesh Mishra, the national security adviser to Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. During a trip to India, a senior State Department official delivered a "demarche" or official warning to the Indian government, but New Delhi still resisted the U.S. pressure.

Also in the summer of 2001, Enron was consolidating its influence at FERC.

Nora Mead Brownell, a controversial member of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, was named as a new FERC commissioner. In support of Brownell's appointment, Lay called White House aide Karl Rove to say that Brownell "was a strong force in getting the right outcome" in deregulating Pennsylvania's energy market, according to a July, 17, 2001, letter by Rep. Waxman to the White House counsel.

Then, in August 2001, FERC Chairman Hebert, who had gone along with the California price caps and had ordered the inquiry into Enron's arbitrage schemes, abruptly resigned only six months into his four-year term. He clearly was forced out, explaining lamely that he desired "to seek other opportunities."

Bush replaced Hebert with former Texas Public Utilities commissioner Pat Wood III. Lay had included Wood and Brownell on a list of his preferred FERC candidates. [AP, Jan. 31, 2002]

Accounting Scandal

As Lay was flexing his political muscle in Washington, out of public view back in Houston, Enron's accounting house of cards was shaking. On Aug. 15, 2001, Sherron Watkins, an Enron vice president, warned Lay that accounting irregularities, including the hedges tied to Enron stock, were threatening to undo the corporation.

On Sept. 11, however, the course of George W. Bush's presidency took a sharp turn, as Islamic terrorists seized four U.S. airliners, crashing two into the World Trade towers at the heart of the U.S. financial markets. Another smashed into the Pentagon and the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania when passengers apparently battled for control.

Bush vowed to retaliate for the attacks by waging a "war on terror," finally targeting Osama bin Laden and his protectors in Afghanistan, the Taliban government. On the front lines of that new war were Pakistan and India, traditional enemies who were engaged in a brush war over the disputed territory of Kashmir.

Despite the New Delhi's importance in prosecuting the "war on terror," Enron's Dabhol power plant remained at the center of U.S. relations with India.

On Sept. 28, more than two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the NSC-led Dabhol Working Group prepared "talking points" about the Enron business dispute for Cheney to deliver in a meeting with India's Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh.

On Oct. 7, the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan began with aerial assaults against Taliban targets.Two days later, on Oct. 9, the State Department was again pressing Enron's case with the Indians.

Undersecretary Alan Larson "raised the Dabhol issue with both FM Singh and NSA Mishra and got a commitment to 'try' to get the government energized on this issue prior to the PM's visit to Washington" in November, an Oct. 23 NSC e-mail said. "Pls give me one/two bullets for the President to use during his meeting with Vajpayee."

Meanwhile, Enron's financial situation was collapsing. Its credit rating was cut and its stock was falling. On Oct. 30, 2001, behind closed doors, SEC commissioners approved a formal investigation of Enron's accounting.

The NSC's Dabhol Working Group, however, continued to press for India to make concessions to Enron. On Nov. 1, the White House prepared a memo on Dabhol talking points that Bush could raise in his meeting with Prime Minister Vajpayee.

On Nov. 6, OPIC President Peter Watson sent a stern warning to Vajpayee's national security adviser Mishra. "The acute lack of progress in this matter has forced Dabhol to rise to the highest levels of the United States government," Watson said in a letter. The dispute "could have a negative effect regarding other U.S. agencies and their ability to function in India."

So, almost two months after 9/11 with the war against Afghanistan still being fought, the Bush administration was threatening India, a key regional power, with a pullout of U.S. agencies from India because it was refusing to meet Enron's demands for cash.

The Bush administration's pressure on India over Dabhol did not end until Nov. 8, the day the SEC delivered subpoenas to Enron and the company announced that it was under formal SEC investigation.

That same day, on Nov. 8 at 2:33 p.m., an internal administration e-mail warned that "President Bush can not talk about Dabhol" in his meeting with India's prime minister.

As Enron slid into scandal and bankruptcy, White House officials stressed that the administration had rebuffed a couple of last-minute overtures for a bail-out from Lay, including one to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. Those rejections, administration spokesmen claimed, proved the mettle of Bush's integrity, not letting politics influence policy.

In early 2002, when OPIC officials released documents on the Dabhol Task Force, Bush's aides dismissed their significance. On Jan. 18, 2002, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called the Dabhol effort "not uncommon."

But the available evidence makes clear that the Dabhol operation - like other energy-related initiatives - represented extraordinary efforts to save Enron. Bush even put Enron's financial interests at the top of the administration's agenda with India, though it threatened to complicate relations with a key South Asian power after 9/11.

The White House also appears to have taken to task OPIC officials who released the internal e-mails in a normal response to a Freedom of Information Act request. When I sought more Enron documents under FOIA, a shaken OPIC bureaucrat told me that his agency had been perhaps too cooperative in releasing the earlier records.

All future Enron-related releases from the Bush administration amounted to boilerplate and documents that were already in the public domain.


Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at It's also available at, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & "Project Truth."

1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Fitzgerald and his staff are doing the work of the "people" then the "people" should be able to post on his blog which is maintained on the taxpayer's dime.

2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah you do that, call him and good luck.

I'll exercising my free speech rights down the street in a fenced in "protest zone" people like you set up.

Later I'll be preparing my free speech qusetions at the next Bush town hall meeting.

2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not one penny of taxpayer's money supports this blog. Anyone can register for a blogspot blog.

2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the staff is maintaining this on government time then it is being financed with taxpayer dollars. Fitzgerald and SPB post during working hours, so I would say a lot of government paid time is being spent on this blog.

2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

... plus how many of the staff are posting comments on government time? Time spent trashing public officials and threatening anyone that doesn't toll the line.

2:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If so much time hadn't been wasted by Fitzgerald and his staff on this blog the "Evil Doers" may be frog marching by now. Blogging instead of doing the "peoples" work seems inappropriate to me.

2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush blogs too, give him a call first. Read him the riot act for us.


2:43 PM  
Anonymous Rosemary said...

Dr. Evil,

Some of your posts are humorous, especially the ones where the veins in your neck and forehead stick out and you bang away at the keyboard with two fingers, but those cut and paste jobs get the big DELETE, because that is just SPAM, IMHO. :D

2:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Evil,

You sure gotta purdy mouth. Squeal like a pig for me. Come on SQUEEEEEAL!

2:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rosemary, what do you call that post by Jan at 2:26? That was the mother of all cut and paste jobs. Is it just that I can't cut and paste or does that apply to everyone?

3:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay stop spamming up the comments boards. You're getting to be really annoying.

3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It appears there are rules for the faithful and there are more strengent rules for the deception detection folks.

3:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is called rebuttal which most around here aren't use to.

3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Roger replied to me in a response that, "But this site is meant as a parody, they make fun of everyone here. All the GOP/Dems both because most of these guys have no political affiliation", I took him at his word. Then when I looked the word parody up in Websters it said, " parody is 1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation. To me that was a revelation in itself.

3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm getting tired of reading all these "rebuttal" arguments back and forth. We wouldn't have to if nobody responded to these particular comments. However, it seems as if SOMEBODY just can't resist the temptation to respond!! (Must be their egos that are getting the best ouf of them.) And nobody wins these arguments.

3:55 PM  
Blogger Special Prosecutor Biloxi said...

"Fitzgerald and SPB post during working hours, so I would say a lot of government paid time is being spent on this blog."

Assanon, you must have nothing better to do but worry about Fitzgerald, myself, and the DOJ office with this blog.. Obviously, the GOP graft KOOLAID are not paying you enough to raid this blog.. Please.. Get a life and worry your own taxpayer's money and where your money is going thanks to your Gerbil buddy President!!!

4:12 PM  
Anonymous Hollerback Girl said...

You go boy!!! That's telling him, Special Prosecutor Biloxi!!! I just found this blog.. I am looking forward to when Prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald will announce Karl Rove's indictment. My dad told me about this blog.. And who is person who talking negative on this blog??? He must be on the Bush payroll to sabotage... Be careful, Special Prosecutor Biloxi!!

4:23 PM  
Blogger Special Prosecutor Biloxi said...

Hello, Hollerback girl,

Welcome to the blog.. Glad you have joined the blog... Yeah, I used to negativity.. I appreicate you comments and look for future comments from you...

8:42 PM  
Blogger DoDGoNe said...

dont be fooled

ifi spoke the truth.. but..

hre is a view on this matter

The Marduk Connection: Part 1

Although archaeologists and historians seem confident with the "Ancient World Chronologies" they weaved since last century, there are some certain "holes" or "gaps" in them for which they have got very little or no clue at all. The most significant of these gaps is a "total blackout" around the year 1650 BC. Ancient documents, archaeological findings and texts on clay tablets or papyri don't say much about this shadowed pinpoint on our chronology tables.

Let's see what we mean:

In Ancient Egypt, there came a time when the central authority weakened and led to a turmoil which somehow resulted with the so-called "Hyksos Years" along the Nile delta. The time was around 1650 BC but we do not know much about how the "Asiatic nomads" dared to attack the mighty Egypt or even where did they really come from. This "obscured era" lasted for almost a hundred years and the order finally restored in Egypt around 1550 BC. But interestingly, no historical documents from the later years of the New Kingdom in Egypt ever mentioned the Hyksos disaster and the turmoil of the period. What kind of "opportunity", had these nomadic plunderers got just after 1650 BC, to get the Egyptians down on their knees? Historians are silent, though some opinions float around mentioning the "administrative failure at the end of the Middle Kingdom" or "an economical crisis which had weakened the Egyptian armed forces". Any solid evidence? No, not at all.

In Indus Valley, mainstream historical approach led us to a theory in the late 19th century, which was called "The Arian Invasion". This theory marks about the very same period, around 1650 BC and is as much blurred as the Hyksos Era in Egypt. All the archaeological findings proposes an advanced civilization along the Indus Valley (especially in the ancient city Mohenjo-Daro) and around the banks of ancient Sarasvati River which started most probably back in 3100 BC or so. This people, now called The Harappans, had had their all sophisticated city forms, writing system and literature which seem as advanced as Sumerians' and Egyptians'. But, strangely again, around 1650 BC something caused a "blackout" in history and the Harappan cities were destroyed, abandoned and finally invaded by a less civilized nomadic people who apparently came from northwest. Historians call these northern nomadics "The Arians" (the ancestors of all Europeans) and the blurred era of 1650 BC was widely believed as the "Arian Invasion" period in ancient India. No need to say that there were no enough evidence to explain the sudden collapse of the Harappan civilization and the disaster followed by the invasion. The "Arian Invasion" idea was "totally foreign to the history of India" as scholar David Frawley wrote, "whether north or south - has become almost an unquestioned truth in the interpretation of ancient history. Today, after nearly all the reasons for its supposed validity have been refuted, even major Western scholars are at last beginning to call it in question." (1) - (See the Notes section)

In Asia Minor, another mysterious nomadic people which is believed to be of Indo-European origin, experienced a sudden rise around 1650 BC and dominated almost all the eastern and central parts of the peninsula, including the famous ancient city of Hattusa (Bogazkoy.) This people, now called The Hittites, was first discovered by Charles Texier in 1834 during a research in Central Anatolia and was hitherto unknown to historians, mentioned only in the Old Testament. In 1876, scholar A.H. Sayce suggested that the "writers" of the scriptures found in Central Anatolia was the Hatti or Hittite people of The Bible. Famous egyptologist W. Flinders Petrie's research on the "El Amarna Letters" (2) supported the idea of a previously unknown ancient power in Anatolia. Finally, in 1907, excavations directed by scholar Hugo Winckler proved the existence of the mysterious Hittites. The researchs showed that, during a turmoil in Ancient Neareast and Anatolia, this Indo-European people seized the power and established their state almost "suddenly" in the area, previously dominated by the Hatti people, at some time around 1650 BC. Another "blurred point" which is not explained thoroughly yet.

Furthermore, this same Indo-European warlords attacked Babylon and ceased the activities of Assyrian trade colonies in southwestern Anatolia soon after they seized the power in Asia Minor – around 1600 BC. A statement in an ancient document mentions about the "Babylonian operation" of Hittites: "In the time of Samsuditana, men of Hatti began marching towards the Land Of Akkad." According to Hittite specialist Oliver R. Gurney, the most accurate date for the Hittites' Babylonian conquest was 1600 BC: "The activities of Assyrian merchants in Cappadocia ceased suddenly, probably during the reign of Anittas" Gurney says. And he adds: "It is not certain what caused this: The conquests of Anittas or a natural disaster which destroyed the city of Assur" (3). This was a very "unlucky" time for Mesopotamia's once proud Babylonian empire because they even couldn't get the strength to resist the Hittites.

One of the most remarkable Assyrologists of the 20th century, Leo Oppenheim, mentions about a "Dark Age" of the Mesopotamian history. This time span, according to Oppenheim, begins with the last kings of the Hammurabi Dynasty and lasts until the first kings of Kassite period which corresponds approximately between 1680 BC – 1500 BC in the timeline. "Many problems related to the chronology of Mesopotamia are intimately linked to the span of time allotted to the Dark Age", says Oppenheim, and he concludes: "There are different schools of thought, 'short' and 'long' chronologies, and intermediary solutions. None of them is based on more than circumstantial evidence. The discussion is sure to continue until more evidence and synchronisms will allow us to fit the few available facts into a more reliable time sequence." (4)

The term "Dark Age" was first used by scholar Benno Landsberger in his article "Assyrische Koenigsliste und 'Dunkles Zeiter'" in 1954. The term usually refers to the lack of documentation and evidence of a specific time span and underlines an apparent "turmoil" in Mesopotamia, around 1650 BC.

"In the beginning of the 16th century BC" says Michael Roaf, "Hittite King Murshili destroyed Aleppo and ended the Hammurapi Dynasty in Babylon. When he got back in Anatolia, he was murdered by his brother-in-law who seized the crown. Shortly after this, Hurrian attacks and the civil war shrinked the Hittite land to their capital and its neighbourhood. Ancient Near East entered into a period of regression or at least, uncertainty. For the following century, there is almost no source" (5).

We can safely say that the time span between 1650-1500 BC was a real "blackout" in the Near East history, which scholars refer as the "Dark Age". According to Roaf, Egypt was no exception but it became the first power in the ancient world to "revive". Around 1525 BC, the first king of the 18th Dynasty, pharaoh Ahmose defeated the Hyksos at Lower Egypt and established the "New Kingdom."

In the Aegean Sea, a very advanced civilization called The Minoans suffered a sudden decline around 1650 BC and collapsed slowly but steadily in almost a few decades (though parts of it remained "alive" during the eve of the early Greek civilization.) As far as we know, the people who established the Minoan civilization on the Aegean islands had arrived there from the Near East, approximately around 3000 BC. With their advanced cities, writing system and arts, Minoans were unique in the region but that strange "collapse" during the very same time period, around 1650 BC, almost erased them from the history. The cause of the decline is still a subject for some controversial theories, though there are some very solid evidence which suggest a serious catastrophe, occured between 1650 - 1630 BC.

Let's turn our eyes to a very far land now: A land of jungle, beyond the Atlantic Ocean. In Meso-America, around the same date, 1650 BC, something caused a real "change" and a mysterious civilization managed to seize the power around the Yucatan peninsula. This people, now called The Olmecs, (the "Rubber People") have no known origin in the continent (6) and still preserve a deep mystery. Scholars now begin to think that they were the descendants of a high culture called "La Venta Civilization" which existed probably between 2900 - 1600 BC. But with a little or no clue which could help to explain who these early Meso-Americans were, the "Olmec enigma" is still hard to solve as Gerald Messadie states (7).

In the Far East, the land of China, the mighty Xia kingdom experienced a sudden collapse and during the turmoil, its successor, the Shang Dynasty seized the power, almost around the same mysterious date: 1650 BC.,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

go on on yr own

happy sunday
ill be in a templar's head city

12:25 AM  
Blogger GrandmaNuk said...

dodone....I hope that you aren't inferring that we are headed for another "dark age" with the antics of this criminally negligent, corrupt, indifferent and arrogant administration. Hopefully, PJF and other hard working DOJ lawyers will soon put the administration's misdeeds so in front of the American electorate that sanity and justice will be returned to our country.

Jan, most interesting post from truthout. PJF posted a "tip of the iceberg" about Plamegate, but I'm convinced that there are MANY icebergs floating around that will take years if not decades to uncover.

7:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can a mafia family be a hate group? Can certain factions of the catholic church that take donations or look the other way be a hate group? Are the cops working for the Rossi Daley crime syndicate be a hate group? Everytime my Uncle and I have turned down bribes or blow the whistle we are tormented, stalked, by mafia/Rossi payed off investigators. It's like civil war in this little town all over again. This has been coming for years now. I found out why my family dropped out of Freemasonary after 400 years, they became politically involved. It was just after the civil war. History repeats itself- the Catholics were slave owners in the civil war- the north was masons and protestant- I'm seeing it happen all over again. This is something that has to happen to everyone who opposses them. For my Uncle-it started in 1994. For me-2001 or possibley earlier. Tired of being on surveilance. sorry just venting- They keep trying to run the black family out of town and me and my Uncle. Same as in chicago.
keep up the good work Mr. Fitzgerald.

8:12 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home