Thread: Bush facing potential "Watergate" over refusal to

Interesting to see how news is reported in other countries. This is in France.
~~~~~

Bush facing potential "Watergate" over refusal to pardon Agents

Chad Groening
Publié le mardi 13 mars 2007

An author and investigative journalist believes President Bush is playing a high stakes game by digging in and refusing to pardon two former U.S. Border Patrol agents who many people believe should never of have been charged with crimes related to the shooting of an illegal alien drug smuggler. One Congressman has even mentioned the word "impeachment."

Author Dr. Jerome Corsi has conducted an extensive investigation of the case of former border guards Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who received 11 and 12 years, respectively, after being convicted by a federal court in El Paso. The investigative journalist says this is not the first time the Bush Administration has prosecuted Border Patrol agents for doing their job ; one former agent, he notes, has already won his appeal of a conviction in a case very similar to that of Ramos and Compean.

"The Department of Homeland Security and [U.S. Attorney] Johnny Sutton are out to frame Border Patrol agents to get convictions to satisfy the White House, who wants to please Mexico," Corsi asserts. "If that’s the sequence here, we’ve got some big problems the American people are not going to be happy to learn," he says.

In fact, the author notes, when agent Ramos was brutally beaten up by illegal aliens at a Mississippi prison, one member of Congress actually suggested impeachment.

"Congressman [Dana] Rohrabacher said if either Ramos or Compean were to be killed in prison by the inmates, that impeachment proceedings would be started in the House of Representatives," Corsi notes. "Now, that’s the first time impeachment has been mentioned by a responsible public official," he says, "so I know this is a case that has high stakes for the White House."

A number of similarities exist between the case of Ramos and Compean and the Watergate scandal, Corsi observes. It becomes increasingly apparent, he says, "the more the White House refuses to get involved in issues like supporting the appeal for these officers to get out on bond pending their appeal."

Under the circumstances, the writer notes, "Ramos and Compean may be spending time today in jail that they never had to spend should their appeal be successful." So the Bush administration’s position, he contends, "is very vindictive ; it’s dug in. It indicates a hardening of position by the White House, and I see that as a very bad sign for the White House. It’s the identical thing that Richard Nixon did. When Watergate came, he dug in."

Supporters of the Ramos and Compean believe the Bush Administration zealously prosecuted them to pander to the demands of the Mexican government. In light of this, Corsi feels Mr. Bush is risking much by refusing to pardon two former Border Patrol agents and that his actions could possibly even lead to impeachment.

http://www.spcm.org/Journal/spip.php?article7353

Bush is nothing more then a snake, those guys have family's in they where doing there job. I'm starting to hate Bush for this and the NAU. It makes my blood boil.

Bush is more concerned about pleasing the Mexican government than he is about pleasing the Americans he is supposed to represent.

What is it about Mexico that Bush wants so badly? It's as if he's transfixed with that country. I just don't get it.

We had a thread here about a month or so ago about this. Very odd, like Mexico has some kind of hold on him.

What is it about Mexico that Bush wants so badly?

Glenn Beck said last night that it's Mexico's oil that he's after. He called it:

Amnesty for Oil

It has been said that Mexico's oil fields are drying up and they don't have the technology to net more oil. If this is the case, why would GB still be interested in their oil?

HERE'S A PORTION OF GLENN BECK'S TRANSCRIPT FROM MAR. 13, 2007:

"AMNESTY FOR OIL"


President Bush met with the Mexican President Felipe Calderon today about the issue of, you know, we used to call illegal immigration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I respect your views on migration. Because we`re working together, I believe we will make good progress on this important issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I`m sorry, "migration"? I think he left that pause in there so everybody in America could go, "Wait a minute, what?"

First of all, President Bush -- isn`t migration -- I hate to be P.C., but isn`t that offensive to birds? I mean, why don`t we just call it Mexican move-in day from now on? Is that politically correct enough for everybody?

"The Real Story" is not what they announced today at a press conference; it`s what they probably talked about behind closed doors, amnesty for oil. I`ve been telling you about this theory for weeks now, and it`s really pretty simple.

Mexico is our second-largest supplier of oil, and they`re running out of it. But the convenient part, at least for us, is they need foreign investment to keep their oil industry profitable. The problem is, Mexico`s oil industry is run by the government. It`s a source of enormous national pride. Letting any foreign country invest there, especially the big, bad U.S. of A, would not only require amending their constitution, but it would be like Mexico running our Grand Canyon National Park, which we should check on, because they may already be running it.

Of course, every shady, closed-door deal needs an incentive for the other side, as well. Well, what`s this deal all about? The fact is, millions of President Calderon`s citizens are already in our country illegally, and, I`m sorry to break it to you guys, he doesn`t want you back. It`s bad for the Mexican economy. Well, it`s bad for ours, too.

Guess what? Both problems can be solved with one, simple back room deal that you`ll never hear about: amnesty for oil.

Before leaving for Latin America, President Bush said, quote, "Our biggest suppliers of energy are Canada and Mexico," and that`s good. I`d much rather be getting energy from stable sources that are friendly than from sources that are unstable and not friendly. As long as the Mexican government feels confident seeking outside funding sources, for me, that is something that President Calderon should consider.

Ever since George Bush was elected, I`ve been saying, been telling you almost all the time, every major speech he gives, you`ve got to read between the lines when this guy talks. This is no different. I believe what he`s actually saying here is, Mexico, let our oil companies in there and, when you do, we`ll let your citizens stay here.

Congressman from Colorado Tom Tancredo joins me now. Tom, President Calderon needs this, because he just barely won in his election.

REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: That`s right.

BECK: And he needs to cure poverty down there.

TANCREDO: Well, listen, two-thirds of the people that voted did not vote for him. I mean, he won an election, but it certainly wasn`t with a majority. He is walking a very thin line down there.

The president wants to, of course, bolster him in this regard. He does not want it to appear as though -- and Calderon does not want it to appear as though he is placating the president and asking him to do something like an amnesty. So, you`re right, it`s not going to be anything they discuss.

It`s fascinating, in a way. The only person talking amnesty is the president of the United States. Calderon is saying, "Hey, listen, we`ve got to do something in Mexico in order to improve our economy." He`s right, of course.

Now, whether they`re going to take the steps necessary to actually do that, we`ll have to see, because the one step they have to take -- I mean, certainly moving even farther toward free markets, very important. But, Glenn, it is the problem of corruption that goes from the cop on the beat to the highest level of government. That is what stops their economy from actually catching fire.

BECK: I know.

TANCREDO: Now, how can I, how can we in the United States do anything about that? That`s his major challenge, Calderon`s challenge.

BECK: Quite honestly, Congressman, I think we`re getting sucked into that corruption, as well.

TANCREDO: Oh, it doesn`t stop at the borders. Corruption does not stop at the border, absolutely.

BECK: Absolutely. So I really truly believe that this is the modern day slave trade, and this is a great example of it. We get workers for our sugar plantations, if you will, and they get money. What we`re doing is we`re giving them money for their oil industry; they`re giving us the workers here, and everybody`s happy, except for those of us who say, wait a minute, look at the conditions these people are working in, look how you`re trapping them in poverty. This is the modern-day slave trade.

TANCREDO: Remember, it`s not just the money that they`re getting for the oil industry, Glenn. It is, in fact, the money being sent home by the millions of people who are working here illegally and furnishing money to their friends, and relatives, and families back home, $23 billion to Mexico alone last year.

That is -- well, it depends on the price of oil. If it`s $70 bucks a barrel, then oil is the highest source of revenue for the country. But when it`s below that, the receipts from the people here, the money flowing from their illegal workers in this country, comprises the highest source, largest source of income for the country.

Do you think for a moment that Calderon doesn`t know that that`s an important source of revenue for him and wants to keep that door open as far as he possibly can?

BECK: Congressman, I`d love to have you on the radio program tomorrow, because I want to talk to you about sanctuary cities. I want to talk to you about this a little bit more, and I want to talk to you about what we just said in "The Real Story," the first story, how are you going to get your message out now that the primaries are being messed with?

TANCREDO: Excellent point. Good points were made by your guest there, that first one.

BECK: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Congressman, appreciate it. That`s "The Real Story" tonight. If you`d like to read more about it or if you found a "Real Story" of your own that you`d like to tell us about, please visit glennbeck.com and click on "The Real Story" button. Back in a flash.

Originally Posted by Rockfish

It has been said that Mexico's oil fields are drying up and they don't have the technology to net more oil. If this is the case, why would GB still be interested in their oil?

From what I understand, they have plenty of oil but they need the American technology & know how to get it out.

Keep in mind that mccain and many others have high stakes in the ENERGY industry.

Big AG wants mexico land. They've already gotten a strangle hold thru NAFTA.

This NAU has been a plan for decades. This is a very tangled web.

The one thing we can be sure of is this is all GREED motivated and has nothing to do with what is best for the America and her citizens.