**Bush invokes executive privilege to keep Justice Department documents secret**

where there's bush, there's bubba.

And where there's the two of them, there's . . uh . . . I don't know . . . Kissinger?

:-)

"You want to "take back the Constitution?" You will not succeed unless you understand -- clearly -- how it "got lost." See where I'm going with this?" - BB

We absolutely agree on this point.

Where we differ is in the idea that all significant government actions are covered by laws passed by the Congress.

The executive and judicial branch have discretion and rule making capabilities.

I assert that these decisions/rules/proclamations/executive orders/writs/sentences/trial procedures, while not explicitly covered by congressionally passed legislation, are if fact bound to the limitations of the Constitution and the BoR, and also that these decisions/rules are a major contributor to the problem of extra-constitutional government.

You seem to favor a one pronged approach, where I favor a three pronged approach.

Goals are the same, but definition of the problem, and hence the solution are different.

Best Regards,

(IMO, it is thoughtful discussions, like this one, that make FR great.)

remember the old saying: ....... where there's bush, there's bubba." or ....."where there's bush there's hildabeast"

or, "what's good for the gander is good for the goose"????

No justice at the top. More stripping away of rights at the bottom.

Kennedy and Schumer Introduce Bill S 1788

While contacting Schumer again is a non-starter, contact the Judiciary Committee to make sure they OPPOSE this bill.

http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/members.htm
224 Dirksen Building
Washington, DC 20510

ph:(202) 224-7703
fax:(202) 224-9516

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

REPUBLICANS

Orrin G. Hatch, Ranking Minority Member
Utah
Strom Thurmond,
South Carolina
Charles E. Grassley,
Iowa
Arlen Specter,
Pennsylvania
Jon Kyl,
Arizona
Mike DeWine,
Ohio
Jeff Sessions,
Alabama
Sam Brownback,
Kansas
Mitch McConnell,
Kentucky

---------- FULL TEXT OF BILL ----------
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.1788:
(make sure you add the ":" at the end of the link)

Use NICS in Terrorist Investigations Act (Introduced in the Senate)
S 1788 IS
107th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. 1788
To give the Federal Bureau of Investigation access to NICS
records in law enforcement investigations, and for other
purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
December 7, 2001

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. REED, Mr.
TORRICELLI, Mr.
LEVIN, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. CORZINE) introduced the following
bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To give the Federal Bureau of Investigation access to NICS
records in law enforcement investigations, and for other
purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Use NICS in Terrorist
Investigations Act'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

Section 922(t)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--

(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking `and' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:

`(D) allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to access
NICS audit log records for the purpose of responding to
an inquiry from any federal, state, or local law enforcement
agency in connection with a civil or criminal law enforcement investigation.'.

SEC. 3. GUN SALE ANTI-FRAUD AND PRIVACY PROTECTION.

(a) PREVENTION OF FRAUD AND ABUSE- Section 922(t)(2)(C) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
before the semicolon the following: `,
consistent with the responsibility of the Attorney General under
section
103(h) of the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (18
U.S.C. 922 note) to ensure privacy of the system and to prevent system fraud and abuse, but in no event fewer than
90 days after the date on which the licensee first
contacts the system with respect to the transfer'.

(b) INTERAGENCY COOPERATION- Section 922(t)(2) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by adding after
subparagraph (D) the following:
During the period that records are maintained pursuant to
subparagraph (C), the Department of Justice and its divisions, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
shall make those records available to the Department
of the Treasury and its divisions, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms, for the purpose of conducting
system audits to detect fraud and misuse of the system
and to protect the privacy and security of the system.
The Department of the Treasury shall maintain and destroy those records in accordance with a
ll statutory requirements imposed on the Department of Justice.'.

---------- COSPONSORS ----------

Sen Boxer, Barbara - 12/7/2001
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 12/11/2001
Sen Corzine, Jon - 12/7/2001
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. - 12/7/2001
Sen Levin, Carl - 12/7/2001
Sen Reed, Jack - 12/7/2001
Sen Torricelli, Robert G. - 12/7/2001

Thanks for posting the bill.

It confirms what I thought they were doing..

For years, the Democrats have been trying to get access to the NIC database, they made a big push when Columbine happened to pass bills getting access to the records.. The reason they gave then was "To protect the children and to prevent Columbine from happening again".. Now their excuse is "To protect the children and to Prevent 911 from happening again"..

Sound familiar??

The ONLY reason they want access to these records if for one reason only.. So they will have a foundation to pass MORE Laws to restrict the American Citizens from Having and Bearing arms.. To Enact more laws that will be on-line with what California has passed..

You are correct, it is a bill that needs to be squished..

Re: post 312

You are absolutely right, timing is everything. The only way that Clinton will pay for his crimes (and he will) will be when the great majority of the American people, through their own accord, recognize what a bum (wait, no- that's an insult to bums) what a scumbag Clinton was and still is. And his lovely wife, too.

When "popular demand" pushes congress into action, the time will be right to unload. Hopefully, it will happen before the current administration has left office. I personally think it will happen sooner than we expect due to the following reasons:

1) Everything happens faster nowadays (except tax cuts and Fiday afternoons at work), and information gathering is speedy. Look for some enterprising journalists to find something really damning on Clinton vis-a-vis terrorism sooner rather than later

2) I live in the Blue Zone (Passaic County, New Jersey) and although it's somewhat conservative around here, there's plenty of Rats. A while ago, they supported Clinton but were not vocal about it (post-stained blue dress). Now I even hear many of them proclaim Clinton to be a scumbag, without prompting or badgering them. This is very bad for Clinton. He loses the people here, well then he might as well never leave Harlem. Or at least re-locate to Marin County, California.

3) It fits the story. W is such a marked contrast to Clinton, that people have a completely different view of the Presidency now. Especially since 9-11. Even regular Democrats that disagree with Bush on policy know that he's a good man, a good leader, and they respect him. Bush is the un-Clinton. He's the opposite of Clinton. By default, Clinton becomes a bad man, a poor leader, and someone not worthy of respect. The opposite of Bush. Most people view the world in broad strokes, which makes changing their opinions on topics like politics almost impossible. They need to do it themselves. With a lot of help from the Media, of course, which will pump this story until it pops (I can see the tag line now on the bottom of the MSNBC screen "America Betrayed: Clinton on Trial"). Clinton could eventually out do Benedict Arnold on the traitor-meter scale in the eyes of present Americans and Americans of the future.

4) The Democratic Party is going to turn on him. Yeah, Clinton raised a lot of money for the Rats, but they're going to end up choking on that money. Besides, Clinton never really helped anyone that couldn't help him, and that wasn't a part of his circle. Clinton was a great brand for the Rats, but that brand is going to turn into "New Coke" pretty soon, and the Rats are going to want to get the stink away from them. "Good sound policies on economics, but we had no idea the mortal danger he put the country in with his illegal deals and money laundering (for example). This is the offence he should have been impeached for!" (a leading Rat like Charlie Rangel will say this one day, while of course not mentioning that he and his buddies did everything they could to stop the truth from being told, and of course, not being asked about that little fact by Mr. Rather)

Anyway, that's what I think...

Oh yeah, and don't be surprised if the journalist who nails Clinton is....

Geraldo Rivera

...........could you imagine if Geraldo finds something incredibly bad for Clinton, and broadcasts it while reporting from Afghanistan or Somalia"

I gotta go to bed!

I'm enjoying this thoughtful conversation so much too, Triple. FR at its (non-polemical!) best. And you are such a tenacious "sparring partner!" So much so, that I'm just about ready to throw in the towel and go along with your "three-pronged approach."

But first, let's review our position:

Where we differ is in the idea that all significant government actions are covered by laws passed by the Congress....

I suspect we really don't differ all that much on this, T. All branches of government are bound to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and their composing members are bound by their oaths of office to faithfully interpret the Constitution and so apply it in those areas that are properly within the scope of their respective authorities, which are defined by and derived from the Constitution.

The Constitution is our fundamental law. But that law is articulated and supplemented by statutory law. The Constitution makes the legislative power the exclusive privilege of Congress: Only Congress can draft and implement new statutes, new "laws." And when it does, both the executive and judicial branches are bound by them, not to mention the entire people.

Of course, the part most Americans have forgot about in all this (if they ever knew it in the first place) is that no "new law" is "lawful" if it cannot meet certain basic tests as stipulated by the Constitution, most definitely including the Bill of Rights' several necessary tests. On the Framers' understanding, any "new law" that cannot pass the constitutional tests is no-law, a nullity that binds no one.

If I might interject here the observation that the Constitution is not cast in stone. It quite thoughtfully provides the mechanism for its own orderly transformation - Article V. And the Constitution vests the wielding of this power exclusively in Congress. Congress, on two-thirds majorities of both houses, can propose amendments and send them to the states for ratification; or on application of two-thirds of the several states, Congress "shall" call a constitutional convention (that it would effectively control) for entertaining and ratifying proposed amendments.

Which is to say there is absolutely no reason why Congress should ever have to pass a statute that is "no-law." They clearly have the power "to do things right" - according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The fact that they rarely do these days (e.g., see legislation pertaining to gun control, expanded police powers, etc.) is a constant source of personal misery.

Made particularly unbearable by an insight that might be stated: The amendment process subjects public questions to the consideration and assent of the whole people. And that's the very thing Congress seems almost desperate to avoid these days. I gather they view that sort of thing as an encroachment on their powers -- their exercise of which is growing increasingly lawless. Or so it seems to me.

But I'm seriously digressing here. Time to get back to the main thread. You said:

The executive and judicial branch have discretion and rule making capabilities....

Certainly they do, T. Like Congress, both the executive and judicial departments have the power independently to stipulate the internal rules of procedure of their respective departments.

So an executive order must be understood as pertaining to the internal affairs of executive branch departments. We might say it is a "law" binding on government employees; but it has no reach to the people at large.

That would be my take on the Framers' understanding, anyway. The fact that presidents have been known to abuse this power - Bill Clinton is a famous example - doesn't mean that the abusers are creating "new law."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but an E.O. that directly targets the people is an infamy under the Constitution: It is an executive invasion of congressional prerogative, a usurpation of the power of Congress under our system of separated powers.

Now the Framers thought that if a case like this were to occur, the offended-against branch would cry bloody murder. Ever jealous of its constitutional powers and privileges, it would beat back the usurper in no uncertain terms, and thereby restore the constitutional order.

But if the offended-against branch doesn't object - and we can't forget that a supine Congress allowed Bill Clinton to spit on the Constitution with impunity - then in effect it collaborates in an unconstitutional power grab. Which, in the short and long run, works against the very interests of the people which the Constitution was designed to secure and maintain.

The judiciary gets the same deal as the executive and the legislative: It sets its own rules of court procedure. It can make rules for the conduct of its own legitimate business; but it can't make rules that specify the conduct of the people at large. In the latter case, it is bound by the Constitution fundamentally, and by the statutes effected by Congress that are consonant with constitutional provisions. The judiciary has no constitutional power to change these rules unilaterally; that is, on its own exclusive authority.

And yet we know the judiciary can be highly creative in its interpretation of constitutional law. It seems it can always find a "penumbra" when it needs one. Worse, somehow the courts - especially the Supreme Court - has gotten the (quite unjustified) reputation of being sole authoritative interpreter of constitutional law.

Yet to my mind, anyone who swears an oath to perform his official public duty under the Constitution is, by virtue of that act, declaring that he understands the document to which he is committing his complete allegiance.

That may be the theory. In actual practice, however, it's the judiciary which gets to explain to the people "what Congress did" in its legislative acts.

It's here the plot thickens. These legislative acts are being written by (unaccountable) congressional staff. Under the very noses of their congressional bosses, with or without their express knowledge and/or approval. Sometimes the statutory language is deliberately left so convoluted, or alternatively so vague, that it just begs for the mediation of the courts.

IMHO, this sort of thing constitutes a deliberate cession of power from Congress to the judiciary. Which (apparently) is exactly what the folks who do this sort of thing have in mind. After all, Congress has to stand for re-election; but federal judges are "forever" - at least "on good behavior." Again we see the separation of powers undermined from institutional causes.

You continue:

I assert that these decisions/rules/proclamations/executive orders/writs/sentences/trial procedures, while not explicitly covered by congressionally passed legislation, are in fact bound to the limitations of the Constitution and the BoR, and also that these decisions/rules are a major contributor to the problem of extra-constitutional government.

Of course they are, Triple! ON PAPER, at least. But what constitutional law requires, and what we are now getting from our government, are quite TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. To my way of thinking, it's not the E.O.s per se, or trial procedures per se, which are the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem, IMHO, is the blurring of boundaries between the separated powers of government. And the resultant destruction of constitutional order that results from that cause.

Of course you are right, T: We absolutely need to keep our eye on all three branches. This is the "three-pronged approach" to solving the problem that faces us, that threatens to undermine our American system of ordered liberty from within.

Absent the care and love and vigilance of the American people, there is no way our constitutional system of ordered liberty can survive. That is the stark fact that faces the American people at this particular juncture in history. JMHO FWIW.

If the government has been lax in executing its duties under the Constitution, then the people need to get a whole new bunch in there. It's time to get rid of the "deadbeats" who are draining us of our liberty and our livelihood.

So yes, let's get on their cases. Best to start with the branches whose personnel can be readily changed by the people: the legislature and the executive. With a federal judge, if he's "stinky," all you can do is work for his impeachment….

In the final analysis, the Constitution leaves control of the federal government up to the people. If the people will not perform this function, then they are ceding their own sovereign power to an increasingly disordered state. And to my mind at least, the state is disordered because it's "off the Constitution."

It seems to me we either put Leviathan in the chains of the Constitution or shortly we will be Leviathan's dinner. (I'm fancifully envisioning the cyclops Polyphemus here…. Yikes!!!!)

Thank you so much, Triple, for your thoughtful and helpful reply. All my best - bb.

Hope you were following it, but the Carlyle thread just got deleted. It must have hit nerves.

You're kidding me, I really don't understand that, it was a good thread, doesn't anyone want truth out there anymore! So sorry to hear that!

Betty,

Regarding the executive branch and executive orders, it is well established that their proper purpose is to dictate how executive branch members should act.

The only place where we *may* differ occurs when the executive (or judicial) branch is interacting or impacting with the people.

For example, an EO that bans importation of high-capacity military magazines sets behavior for customs, but has an impact on the people. (higher prices - inavailability)

Is this lawful? A usurpation of the authority of the legislature? (I conceed that it is.)
What is the solution - I say go after all three branches, because both the usurpers *and* the usurpees are not holding up to their duties under their oaths of office and ultimately, the Constitution.

This appraoch does not allow 'passing the buck' or one party to claim that the actions of the others are not their responsibility, under the separation of powers doctrine.

Best Regards and Merry Christmas.
Your friend and sparring partner,

For example, an EO that bans importation of high-capacity military magazines sets behavior for customs, but has an impact on the people. (higher prices - inavailability).... Is this lawful? A usurpation of the authority of the legislature? (I conceed that it is.) What is the solution - I say go after all three branches, because both the usurpers *and* the usurpees are not holding up to their duties under their oaths of office and ultimately, the Constitution.... This approach does not allow 'passing the buck' or one party to claim that the actions of the others are not their responsibility, under the separation of powers doctrine.

Great analysis, Triple. The fact is, the Framers really thought that usurpation of constitutional preogatives and privileges by one branch against another would be more or less "self-correcting," because each branch would fight to maintain its own "constitutional turf," so to speak.

But what we have nowadays in too many cases is collusion among the branches, not jealous separation. This blurs the lines of authority and accountability. The fact is, all too often there is tacit acquiescence (i.e., "horse-trading" going on) when, say, Congress' prerogatives are being invaded (by either the executive or the judicial) in return for some perceived advantage Congress wants -- say, cooperation by the executive in some plundering scheme against the taxpayer that Congress has the hots for. "One hand washes the other": It's just the way "da busi-ness" gets done in Washington, Inc., these days.

A final point: There's no way the government is going to just "fix itself." And if the people themselves don't "fix it," then it's gonna "stay broke."

Constitutional liberty cannot be maintained where the people are ignorant of the Constitution, or apathetic, or just plain slothful. Which is a highly depressing thought....

So I have to say you're exactly right, T -- we have to look at all three branches, and monitor their respective trespasses against the separation of powers the Constitution was designed to maintain between them.

Thank you for such a fascinating discussion, T. Merry Christmas! All my best -- bb.

"Thank you for such a fascinating discussion, T. Merry Christmas! All my best -- bb"

My pleasure.

bb, The original basis for this conversation is difficult for me. Please allow me to look at the original. I will not try to prove my arguments but will cut to the bottom line to deliver what is apparent to me as reality.

The Constitution has literally been bypassed.

Actions by Judges, Congress and Presidents have contributed to this. The basis for court decisions is now Precident not the Constitution.

Congress has passed off most of it's Authority to 'Agencies'. The Agencies write Regulations that are dealt with as Law.

The Executive Branch under several Presidents has signed 'Agreements' with foreign powers, not Treaties. That way the Constitution is Bypassed.

The Agencies under the Executive signed the FTAA agreement with the Latin American nations in December 1999 under Clinton. That way the Senate did not have to ratify the Agreement which combines all the countries of North and South America as one.

Now, when Bush came into office he had made promises to his constituents about some of his actions. If he is able to work on and complete each of these it will be awesome to have done so in 4 years.

But, there are people that say he should have done this, or he could have done that, or all he needed to do is...

Let's just take one small insignifigant thing that Clinton did that Bush should change, the FTAA. To change that he would have to notify all participants in the Agreement that he is going to remove the USA from the Agreement. Then negotiations would have to reopen to then come to an agreement that the Senate will ratify. Meanwhile, all those participants will have to go back and redo all the Agreements they have made with other countries because of the FTAA agreement. Plus, the smallest of points, all of Latin American Leaders understand that they are right now about to be swamped(literally) with goods from China because China is in the WTO and the tarriffs and duties must be lowered. The same thing is is to occurr in the USA. These leaders understand that for the USA to struggle against the onslaught of goods from China we must all move ASAP to be together to lower the costs of production and act as one nation to even begin to compete. Otherwise, the standard of living in this part of the world is in for a precipitous slide douwnward. The Presidents of the different nations have said this on our own TV. Articles have been written about this to no avail. How many years would be needed to complete this?

The President of the USA, Mr. Bush, MUST work on his agenda from where the nation is, not from where he desires it to be. That statement implies that all Presidents will come in and leave not having changed the situation very much. Thus alllowing a build up of activities not tied to the Constitution.

Here is the situation as I see it.

The Lawyer one choses is more important than the law.

The President one choses is more important that the law.

The Congress is becoming boistrous but irrelevant.

How do you see the situation?

How do you see the situation?

Well I'll tell ya, Slingshot: On one of those dark days, I think I understand how Plato felt, when he concluded that his beloved Athens was irretrievably lost to the irremedial disorder of the mob. (And then just washed his hands of the whole mess, and retreated to the Academy.) And this is little moi, an optimist, speaking. :^)

I agree with your general assessment -- that our government is, in fact, operating extra-constitutionally and has been for some time now. But no one person, no one president no matter how dedicated and virtuous -- not even the second coming of George Washington himself -- can turn this situation around.

In the last analysis, I blame the people for this. It's their Constitution. It's their order of liberty that the Constitution structures and defends. And it's they who are responsible if politicians and judges have trashed it.

IMHO, the political (dis)order we have now is a reflection of the culture in which it arises. Eric Voegelin coined a word that I think aptly describes what the United States has become: an ochlocracy -- a government of, by, and for the rabble.

And yet the "rabble" is blind to the larger forces at work in the world -- the economic break-out of PRC is a notable example (as you point out) -- that do not bode well for future American prosperity or security.

Ultimately, what we have is a gigantic moral problem in an amoral age -- a vast flight from responsibility and accountability by "rabble" both inside and outside of the official government. Athens had this problem (and was swallowed up). Republican Rome had this problem (and was transformed into the Roman Imperium); and now it looks like it's America's turn. Will America be "swallowed up" or go the "empire route"? Or is there some other possible future?

Like, for instance, the recovery of our Constitution from the faithless hands of its supposed upholders and protectors? And restoration of it to the letter, and in its true spirit?

Perhaps if more people begin to understand that the Constitution is what alone upholds and defends the liberty and security of the American people from the depredations of the unjust state and from foreign enemies alike, would they take some pains to recover and restore it?

(By cleaning out the "Augean stable" that Congress has become in the 2002 elections for openers, maybe?)

Do the American people still have the will to defend themselves against all enemies foreign and domestic? That, my friend, seems to be the open question.

Meanwhile, I pray a lot. Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Slingshot. All my best -- bb.

**Meanwhile, I pray a lot. **

This is one of the most interesting and exciting times in the history of the world. Excuse me for being so optimistic.

Really, we may be The generation. Plan for the long term and be prepared for the short term.

Our system is similar to the Tower of Babel. It reaches into the heavens(satellites) and into the deepest oceans. It circumnavigates the world and yet the "mortar" that holds it all together is little electrons we call communications. Very fragile. Disturbed with comparative ease.

There is an article about what China did on 9-11. I will send it in a few minutes.

May the Grace and Mercy of God be with you all now and forever more.

**This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.

To view this item online, visit

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?

ARTICLE_ID=25680

Saturday, December 15, 2001 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAY OF INFAMY 2001

Book says China involved in 9-11 attacks

Beijing used bin Laden to assault U.S., claims author -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last spring, President George W. Bush faced his first major foreign-policy challenge when an American EP-3E surveillance plane was hit by a Chinese fighter and forced to land on Hainan Island. Tensions flared even further as China detained the 24 American crewmen for 10 days, the standoff eventually resolving after both plane and crew were finally released. Still, U.S.-Sino relations remained ominously chilly throughout the year, until they were overshadowed by the events of Sept. 11.

Post 9-11, the Bush administration's focus has, of course, been riveted on the terror war, and China has gone off the main radar. But despite Beijing's public support for the coalition's war on terror, regular rumblings of Chinese complicity with the terrorists have surfaced. Among them was a WND report of some Chinese fighters assisting the Taliban.

Now, author Gordon Thomas has written a book claiming that Beijing had an actual role in the Sept. 11 attack on America. In "Seeds of Fire," Thomas purports to show how Beijing is positioning itself to become America's "new major enemy."

An investigative journalist from Ireland and author of 38 books, Thomas points out that on Sept. 11, a transport plane from Beijing landed in Kabul. A Chinese delegation had gone to Afghanistan to sign a deal with the Taliban – reportedly brokered by Osama bin Laden – to provide the Afghans with missile-tracking technology, state-of-the-art communications and air-defense systems. In return, says Thomas, the Taliban would order Muslim separatists in northwest China to stop their activities.

In a Sept. 13 report, the Washington Post confirmed that Beijing had just signed a deal with the Taliban to provide Afghanistan "with much needed infrastructure and economic development assistance."

Due to the fall of the Taliban at the hands of opposition forces and the United States, however, "the goods were never delivered," Thomas told WorldNetDaily.

The delegation, says Thomas, included senior officers of the People's Liberation Army and the Bureau of State Security, as well as managers from two of China's leading defense contractors.

In his book, Thomas contends that hours after the plane landed in Kabul, CIA Director George Tenet received a coded "red alert" message from Israeli Mossad agents that presented a "worst case scenario" – that China would use a surrogate, bin Laden, to attack the United States.

Thomas also claims that the head of Pakistan's intelligence service was in Washington to meet with Tenet on Sept. 11, and that he briefed Tenet that day on the links between bin Laden and China.

The intelligence agent "told [Tenet] that China had made a decisive decision," wrote Thomas. "It was prepared to infuriate America and its allies in supporting bin Laden and the Taliban because Afghanistan fitted into China's own long-term strategic plans."

Saying that bin Laden has traveled to China numerous times to meet with officials there, Thomas contends that "almost certainly he talked to them about obtaining" material to build weapons of mass destruction.

China's President Jiang Zemin, adds Thomas, waited three days to contact Bush about the Sept. 11 attack and told the U.S. president that, vis-à-vis the war on terrorism, China would find itself in a "difficult situation, given our well-known position of opposing any interference in the internal affairs of any country."

Washington sources say that Bush "gritted his teeth and said he would push on without China," Thomas wrote.

The author also cites what he calls the "happy parties in the streets of Beijing" following the 9-11 attacks.

"They're selling videos there with commentary saying, 'America had it coming,'" said Thomas. "Their message is: 'America can be defeated.'"

On another note, Thomas believes President Bush's decision to pull out of the ABM treaty will cause Russia and China to strengthen their ties – to the detriment of the United States.

"It's in China's interest to see the U.S. destablilized," he added. **

How about this? Now who would have thought??

...China would find itself in a "difficult situation, given our well-known position of opposing any interference in the internal affairs of any country."

Of course, PRC itself is free to interfere in the internal affairs of any country to its heart's content. How else did those stockpiles of Chinese ammunition wind up in Al-Qaida's caves in Tora Bora?

If OBL has flown the coop, I'd start looking for him in China.... It's probably the only place on earth right now where OBL would feel completely secure. And with good reason.

Thanks for posting this, Slingshot. All my best -- bb.

This is one of the most interesting and exciting times in the history of the world. Excuse me for being so optimistic.

Dear Slingshot -- I found Psalm 27 a great blessing in this holy season of troubled times. Just an excerpt of the four concluding verses:

* * * * * * *

11 Teach me thy way, O Lord, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies.

12 Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are arisen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty.

13 I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.

14 Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the Lord.

* * * * * * *

I understand President and Mrs. Bush chose Verse 13 as the text of the White House Christmas card this year. I feel profoundly grateful to them for that.

God bless and keep you and yours, Slingshot. And may God bless America, "in the land of the living." Merry Christmas! -- bb.