Thread: Bush's impeachable offense

GOOD POINT WILLIAM!!

while looking for a Bush family/Mexican connection I ran across this interesting reading.
http://bushwatch.org/family.htm

Now we are getting some where:

this is long some part here then click the link



Bush's Longstanding
Criminal Mexican Amigos
The disturbing ties of some of George W. Bush's Latino advisors
More on Bush-Amigos links in PBS Frontline interview with Gary Jacobs
By Julie Reynolds
Research assistance by Victor Almazán and Ana Leonor Rojo
3-5-5


LOS AMIGOS DE BUSH

"Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres. Tell me who you side with and I will tell you who you are." - "George W. Bush for President" web site

-----

Those who say that George W. Bush has scant knowledge of foreign affairs don't understand his family's relationship with Mexico.

If one event could be said to make that relationship visible, it had to be the state dinner given eleven years ago by President Bush for Mexico's president, Carlos Salinas. It was an elegant yet boisterous gala, where the biggest movers and shakers in Texas and Mexico congregated and celebrated. This group was to become W's Mexican legacy, a gift of ties and connections passed on from the father to his son.

What was not visible was that the group included two men with numerous links to drug cartel figures. These men helped George W. Bush win the Latino vote in Texas. Which raises a few questions: How did these guys get into the Bush circle? What else do they do for him? And, to rephrase a famous query, what did the presidential candidate know and when did he know it?

A glance around the fourteen tables at the 1989 dinner showed that pains were taken to arrange them so that no one appeared more important than the others. There was a smattering of celebrities - Anthony Quinn, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Barbara Walters and Larry King. Bush's son Jeb and his Mexican wife Columba joined the soirée, too.

The Mexican president had spent a long day with President Bush signing trade pacts, the precursors of NAFTA. Salinas brought his so-called Dream Team: his commerce secretary, finance minister, and his personal Machiavelli, Jose Córdoba. It would later be astounding to see, as the decade unfolded, how many of that administration's proud men and women fell shamefully from grace - some exiled, some imprisoned and some assassinated.

No one knew it then, but many at that banquet would survive to one day help young W beat a path back to the White House. There were loyal "Bushfellas" who were old friends of the family: Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher Sr., General Colin Powell, and George Bush Senior's ever-present friend, Secretary of State James Baker. Gary Jacobs, whose Texas bank was about to be bought by the son of Mexico's billionaire-politico Carlos Hank González, was also a guest. Tony Garza, then a young judge, is now a Bush cabinet contender. Today, all are advisors or contributors to W's campaign.

Hidden among the glitterati were two relative unknowns. They were, however, familiar to the group at hand. They were the loyal "Amigos de Bush" from San Antonio: criminal defense lawyer Roy Barrera Jr. and car dealer Ernesto Ancira Jr. In contrast to the Salinas group, the ties of Barrera and Ancira to drug cartels would remain unnoticed for another decade. Their ties to George W. would grow stronger.

In the Name of the Father

George Bush Sr. began his family's relationship with Mexico in the 1960s, when his Zapata Offshore Oil Company was partner in a border-region oil company called Perforaciones Marinas del Golfo (Permargo), with Jorge DÃÂ*az Serrano.

In 1988, the financial newspaper Barron's reported that the two Jorges - Bush and DÃÂ*az Serrano - used prestanombres ("name-lenders") to hide Bush's investment in Permargo from the Mexican government, skirting Mexican foreign-ownership laws. Barron's also accused the Securities and Exchange Commission of destroying related documents after Bush became vice president in 1981.

Bush Sr. met Carlos Salinas's father, Raúl Salinas Lozano, back when the latter was Mexico's commerce secretary. The families' friendship has continued through the years. Raúl Salinas, the president's brother, has told investigators that Jeb and Columba Bush joined him three times for vacations at his hacienda Las Mendocinas. It was the same estate where he reportedly hosted an infamous 1990 party for the cream of Mexico's drug cartels, which Jeb and Columba did not attend.

Twelve years ago presidents-elect Carlos Salinas de Gortari and George Bush Sr. met in Texas in a meeting that was called "The Spirit of Houston."

"That meeting shaped the relationship between both countries for years to come," Antonio Ocarranza, former Zedillo aide and president of the consulting firm Public Strategies Inc.(PSI) office in Mexico City told the Dallas Morning News. PSI is owned by several generous George W. Bush supporters, including Bush pioneer Roger Wallace.

Today, as governor of Texas, George W. Bush has assumed the role his father once had as president. He meets regularly with Mexican officials, from President Zedillo to Secretary of Energy Luis Téllez, to discuss joint energy pacts and trade issues.

"I've had foreign policy as the governor of Texas, and that is with Mexico," George W. Bush said during the New Hampshire primary.

While he is in public shaking hands, Bush's friend Ernesto Ancira works backstage in the international energy sector. Which comes naturally: Ancira's family and their partners practically own the energy business in Mexico. The Bushes, of course, know everyone in the oil business in the US. It's a nice match, the Bushes and the Anciras.

Let me make one thing clear: there is no evidence that Ernesto himself runs afoul of the law. Ancira is, rather, a point man in what Mexican journalist Juan Ruiz Healy calls "El Grupo Texano de George W. Bush." He happens to have quite a few friends who are connected with drug cartels. In addition, there are some disturbing links between Ernesto's group of friends in San Antonio and the assassination of Mexican politician José Francisco RuÃÂ*z Massieu. Since Ernesto has been a friend and a helper to the man who may be president, I believe they are connections worth exploring.

"ERNESTO IS VERY FRIENDLY, very fun-loving," a real estate agent told me as we cruised Ernie Ancira's turf, "The Dominion," a securely-gated San Antonio development where a number of Mexico's elite have invested in million-dollar homes.

Ernie, she said, loves to barbecue. Has money. Likes to socialize.

Ernie - auto dealer Ernesto Ancira, Jr. - is one of San Antonio's most popular and respected business leaders. Every year, he's in the lists of top Latino entrepreneurs. Last April, his Ancira Enterprises Inc. made the number two slot - with $575 million in revenue - in Hispanic magazine's list of the fastest-growing Latino companies.

"My mother was paranoid about her kids' success," he once said. "It's like there was a tremendous hurry to accomplish."

Truly a binational man, Ernesto Ancira Jr., was born in San Antonio in 1944, but spent his formative years close to his industrialist cousins in Mexico, who are in-laws of the Salinas family. In the 1960s he rose to become the top assistant to his mentor, Claudio X. González, one of the country's most powerful businessmen. González later became President Salinas's foreign investment advisor.

Ancira's family in Mexico has long been part of the power elite. The Ancira name is prominent in the city of Monterrey; that northern commercial center's most elegant old hotel bears the name of Hotel Ancira.

But in the 1970s, the Ancira family ran into problems back in Texas. Ernie's father was implicated in a money laundering scandal at his company, San Antonio Foreign Exchange. The elder Ancira moved back to Mexico, but there he was named by US authorities as a participant in an $8 million tax fraud scheme.

Ernie Junior, however, chose to return to Texas and prosper. In San Antonio, he hooked up with an ex-FBI agent and former city manager, Ralph Winton, and in 1972 they started a used car business together. Within a scant six years, Ancira bought out his partner, and Ancira Winton Chevrolet was earning $150 million and growing.

Ernesto became a civic leader and a Republican heavyweight. He chaired the Alamo Bowl and still heads the Southwestern Bell PGA Golf Tournament. He was LULAC's 1987 Empresario of the Year, and he received a MALDEF Corporate Responsibility Award the same year.

And he met the Bushes. He co-chaired "Adelante con Bush" when George Senior ran for president, and along the way, he befriended George W. He is one of the folks George W. Bush's people call his "100 closest friends," a group that kicked off W's presidential campaign last year with $1000 donations.

Ancira learned to schmooze with politicians big and small, sometimes annoying local Republicans when he supported an occasional Democrat. He paid for a 1994 trip for Congressman Henry Bonilla to meet Mexican officials in Ciudad Victoria. Twice he bestowed travel gifts on Bush's Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher, Sr. He reportedly piloted his Cessna to host airborne meetings so that Mosbacher and his Mexican counterpart, Jaime Serra, could privately discuss NAFTA. Young Ernie was a millionaire, a friend of the Bushes, and he was literally flying high. His family - movers and shakers all - would have expected no less.

Early Cartel Connections

As he developed business and political contacts, Ernesto Ancira also cultivated friendships with men connected to Mexican drug cartels. One of the first was financier Guillermo Ã?vila.

As early as 1987, Ã?vila was part of an Ernesto Ancira troika, a flashy threesome-about-town starring Ancira, Ã?vila and developer Gustavo GarcÃÂ*a. The three were often seen together in San Antonio in the late 1980s, until Ã?vila and his partners were busted for drug money laundering.

Ernesto wrote to the US Attorney in the case and said that Ã?vila was a "responsible individual" who had a "positive impact on our community." Their kids even went to the same private school.

But �vila and his partners had transferred $500,000 of supposed drug money - provided by a law enforcement sting - in and out of accounts in the US, Mexico, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands. In addition, �vila owned an El Paso house that was raided in connection with the seizure of 21 tons of cocaine from his brother-in-law's Sylmar, California warehouse, an all-time international record. The Juarez cartel's Carlos Tapia Anchondo was living in �vila's home, and the drugs belonged to one of the cartel's top men, Rafael Muñoz Talavera.

When he entered the courtroom, Ã?vila winked at friends and family. But when the prosecutors played tapes of the defendants accepting "dirty" money, the party was over.

Ã?vila was found guilty of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments on behalf of drug traffickers. Incredibly, he served a little over a year in prison. Afterward, he was banished from the US and moved to San Luis PotosÃÂ*. The boss, Rafael Muñoz Talavera, was gunned down on a Juarez street in 1998.

Ã?vila got off easy. He could credit his astute attorney, Roy Barrera Sr., whose son and partner Roy Jr. was a guest of the Bushes at the White House dinner. "Little Roy" is now a top-notch trial lawyer and a close Bush advisor.

Though Roy Senior is a Democrat, Little Roy is a staunch Republican who has been in the trenches with W and Ernesto Ancira ever since they all campaigned for President Bush in the late 1980s, under the banner of "Adelante con Bush."

http://www.rense.com/general63/bushs.htm

I agree with the commenter that we aren't going to get Bush out of office, but we can work to see that his approval rating goes as low as possible.

Personally I would like to see that because I don't agree with any of his agenda- not only open borders but also a reckless war and massive deficit spending.

However, immigration is by far his biggest transgression.


What's a good goal for success? I would say if going into the 2006 elections Bush's approval is in the low 30's ore less, that would be excellent.

The other key priority is getting better people elected to Congress. I don't know how strong Robert Vasquez' bid is to win Idaho 1 but I would think he would be in a strong position.

We also need to get rid of Chris Cannon, Jeff Flake, and Jim Kolbe and replace them with pro-reform people.

If we can do all that we will be making excellent progress toward victory.


Now, when it comes to the U.S. Senate, Bush and the other leaders of the ruling class feel they have a right to pick the candidates. On the other hand, that influence doesn't tend to extend to the House, either because they flat out don't have the influence or else because they don't want to spread themselves too thin.

The result is that we now have a House that slighly leans in our favor, which is no small feat considering how hostile the establishment is to us.

Whereas, the Senate is strongly against us.

However, the House is the farm club that feeds the Senate. If we solidify our control of the House, eventually we will get the Senate as well.

The other important thing is that since the House is the only entity in Washington that is fairly supportive of us, we need to be sure that they are the most powerful force in Washington. Things certainly seem to be going in that direction.

So, political agenda: A strong House of Representatives, get more of our folks in the House in the next election, then start turning up the heat on the Senate. Then, come 2008, put the presidential candidates up against the wall and demand that they take a stand. Hopefully there will be a whole boatload of open borders ninnies and only one or two sane candidates and so one of the sane ones will win.

actually I misworded that statement that started:

"hopefully there will be a whole boatload of open borders ninnies..."

Actually, that is a certainty.

And remember who all the ninnies are:

John McCain
Rudy Giuliani
Newt Gingrich
Rick Santorum
Sam Brownback
Chuck Hagel
Jeb Bush
Condoleeza Rice
Haley Barbour

I probably forgot a couple.

All of these are automatically disqualified. Do not under any circumstance vote for any of those.

Some may try to tapdance and pretend that they support border enforcement. Gingrich has been trying to play that game, but he's not fooling anyone.

Originally Posted by Charlesoakisland

while looking for a Bush family/Mexican connection I ran across this interesting reading.
http://bushwatch.org/family.htm

YOu know, someone was telling me that there is a book that chronicles the events of the bush family called, "The Family". I heard that there is some sick things in that book.

If we raise enough hell...and raise it loud enough and long enough I believe that the Dems will bring charges of impeachment against Bush. This Downing Street memo....just might do it...if the point is pressed hard enough. There are some folks pressing it right now.

The largest problem is that his successor is no better. I hope the memo could get them both. But a good ol' fashioned dust up in the legislature will at least stop some of their agenda for awhile. Time isn't on our side...so anything...anything that will take up lots of TIME...would work in our favor.

RR

IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED."
Special to BuzzFlash
Thursday, May 5, 2005
By Greg Palast
http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=426
Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the facts with this snooty, condescending conclusion written directly to the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons."

We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo, "beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished.

You should parse the entire memo -- reprinted below -- and see if you can make it through its three pages without losing your lunch.

Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the elections Thursday, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard evidence of Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British" elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But in the US press … nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that's a story for "over there."

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it worth a second look.
My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy to do.



[Here it is - the secret smoking gun memo - discovered by the Times of London. - GP]

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

Sixx says: I posted this as one of my first post and I started on 8 May 2005. At the time, it was thought that it did not directly effect immigration and I think it may have been pulled. People, I have BFV-Battelfield Vision.
I can see around corners that are not corners yet. This is going to do bush in.

Originally Posted by Sixx

IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED."


Sixx says: I posted this as one of my first post and I started on 8 May 2005. At the time, it was thought that it did not directly effect immigration and I think it may have been pulled. People, I have BFV-Battelfield Vision.
I can see around corners that are not corners yet. This is going to do bush in.

Sixx it isn’t always easy having foresight, but I am glad that there are folks who can see the big picture once all the facts are presented.

Yes, I read this some weeks ago and wondered why the press was fixed on Micheal Jackson, the runaway bride and other such nonsense for hour after interminable hour.

WILL THEY NEVER GET TO THIS????

RR