The door to impeachement swings WIDE open! Treasonous acts under investigation!

Has Obama unwittingly, -openly - exposed his agenda and opened the door for impeachment based on treason?

Congress Probes Alleged U.S. Bribes to Afghan Warlords
www.foxnews.com...
Updated December 17, 2009

AP

If the allegations are true, then the U.S. would be unintentionally involved in a protection racket and indirectly financing the enemy, the Democrat leading the inquiry, said Wednesday.

WASHINGTON -- Congress is investigating allegations that U.S. tax dollars are being paid to warlords and the Taliban for security on supply routes used to truck food, water, fuel and ammunition to American troops in Afghanistan.

If the allegations are true, then the U.S. would be unintentionally involved in a protection racket and indirectly financing the enemy, Rep. John Tierney, the Massachusetts Democrat leading the inquiry, said Wednesday.

The Obama administration is escalating the U.S. mission in Afghanistan amid concerns that corruption throughout the country is a major roadblock to progress.

Bribes and kickbacks are frequently used to do business there, raising worries among many Democrats on Capitol Hill that the U.S. investment will fall short of stabilizing Afghanistan's shaky government.

Tierney is seeking documents from the Defense Department and companies connected to a $2.1 billion U.S. contract to transport goods and materiel through Pakistan to Bagram Airfield, the U.S. military's main hub in Afghanistan. From Bagram, the supplies are distributed to several hundred smaller camps and bases spread throughout the country.

Tierney said his staff has been told by credible informants that security guards hired by the trucking companies funnel money to the local warlords or the Taliban to ensure the convoys get to their destinations unscathed.

"It's protection money," said Tierney, who heads the House Oversight and Government Reform national security subcommittee. "Early indications are payments are either made as a lump sum for a period of time, or payment per container."

Multiple layers of subcontractors are often used in these transactions, making it difficult to follow the trail of cash, Tierney added.

The Defense Department had no immediate response to Tierney's investigation.

At a Dec. 2 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged the long, rugged supply lines to landlocked Afghanistan through Pakistan's port city of Karachi offer numerous opportunities for fraud and corruption that pad the Taliban's accounts.

But Clinton said the problem is not solely an Afghan one and neither is the solution. "We just have to be honest here about how complex and difficult this problem is," she said.

The arrangement for moving supplies throughout Afghanistan, known as the Host Nation Trucking contract, began in May 2009. There are eight companies handling the work.

Before this umbrella contract was in place, there were far more contractors involved and less oversight, according to John Dawkins, chief executive officer of the Mesopotamia Group in Kabul, one of the current contractors.

But he also said it's no secret that payments are made to ensure safe passage through dangerous patches. Without U.S. or NATO security to guard the convoys and the routes, which is a risky and time intensive task, there's no other option.

"We have to pay certain security companies to get from one place to another place," Dawkins said. "And everybody's interconnected and there's huge money involved. If you don't pay for your security, you're on your own."

Dawkins also downplayed the notion that much of the money flows to the Taliban. "Most of the people are just bandits on the road," he said. "I think you'd have a really hard time defining exactly who the Taliban are."

So, if true, the president is now accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the one element needed to meet the definition of treason. Unintentional? I don't *think* so.

But, was there ever any doubt he was planning to do this?

Taliban leader rejects U.S. attempts to lure away fighters with money
www.cnn.com...

He was referring to the Taliban reintegration provision, part of the $680 billion defense appropriation bill that Obama signed Wednesday to pay for military operations in the 2010 fiscal year.

The provision would separate local Taliban from their leaders, paying the fighters to quit the organization, replicating a program used to neutralize the insurgency against Americans in Iraq, according to the Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Akhund said 19th century British invaders and Soviet fighters in the 1980s tried the same tactic, unsuccessfully.

He said the Taliban consider the U.S. measure "a sign of weakness and complete despondency of the enemy."

(snip)
"There's been an amnesty program for low-level Taliban in place for many years now, and thousands of people have taken advantage of it," he said. "So this is not entirely a new idea. The idea of bribing people, local guys, to come over. ... It's one of the most cost-effective ways to get people to lay down their arms, either to negotiate a peace or coerce them."

Obama advisers split over bribes for the Taliban
www.smh.com.au...

THE US President, Barack Obama, has been forced to delay the announcement of a new US strategy in Afghanistan because of disagreements inside his administration over paying "bribes" to the Taliban.

Sharp divisions have emerged over the ethics and effectiveness of paying militants to lay down their arms.

Emphasis mine

Is there any doubt that monies paid for protectionism would be going to Taliban insurgency? Are we actually funding the enemy in the very war we proclaim to fight? He even passed a LAW to pay them off by putting it in the spending bill!

Money buys everything, huh? Even a one way ticket to impeachment for a treasonous president?

And before you jump to attack me, this investigation was started by..




wait for it..





Wait for it...!




a





Democrat!

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Libertygal]

very interesting post. I think we all knew that Obama was up to no good, now apparently he's just stopped caring about hiding it.

reply to post by Wrath5639


I could not agree with you more!

He is wide open with everything, so in your face with it, while all the while saying something diffefrent!

People listen, but refuse to LOOK, and it is all right there in front of our eyes.

It sickens me. Seriously.

Hmmmm...... how is treason defined...... Oh here it is.......

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Link Here

I would say if proven true, then yes treasonous acts have been committed!

I'm not republican nor democrat. Actually, I'm brazilian and couldn't care less for Obama or whoever is the next US president.

But I think the post is self explanatory. If bribing the road bandits, be them taliban or not, is the most cost-effective strategy, that means it'd good for the US. Otherwise they would have to spend a LOT more money deploying soldiers to secure the roads.

It's war and it's a dirty game. Do what you have to do to win. If that means feeding the pigs before slaughtering them, so be it. That looks more like politics than anything else. The opposition poking the government in the ribs.

I don't like our president, lula. But sometimes the opposition gets too blind in their political schemes and lose sight that some attacks on the president are not very intelligent because the consequences are costly for the country.

Lets suppose Obama gets impeached and the next president decides not to pay the road bandits anymore. In the middle of this economical crysis the new president would have to spend A LOT MORE MONEY to deploy soldiers to secure all the roads to safely send the supplies to the camps stationed in those regions. Now, we could just say its cheaper to call back all the troops and not get involved anymore in the middle east, but we have to be realistic. Not gonna happen.

reply to post by henriquefd


The post actually covers both the road bandits and the warlords.

The road bandits are just funnelling the money up the river, do not doubt that for a moment!

This is exactly what is wrong with not reading the bills before they pass them, too. However, they cannot proclaim ignorance on this one, because I read, and replied to a post about the bandit bribes quite some time back when the bill was in the senate.

I even stated at that time, did we really think the bandits would stop fighting if we paid them? They have to explain to their families, friends and neighbours why they are no longer on the front fighting the good war! Not to mention the local warlords, and Allah forbid, they would take money and hide it from the war effort.

Of course, they will take the payments, but seriously, who is keeping track of who got paid and who is still fighting? How absurd!

I give it a day if not hours before it's buried and not heard of anymore.
Dont forget FOX/CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC, all answer to the same masters.

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


You are probably correct.

I heard about this a couple of days ago, though, and it does seem to be gaining some momentum. The very fact there is an investigation says something, I would hope, but how far that goes is another story!

I know that pointing out that Petreus was doing this in Iraq under the Bush Adminnistration will spoil your bash-Obama party but it is a fact. Petreus wasn't bashful about it and was/is a major proponent. As our friend from Brazil pointed out, sometimes there are more efficient ways of waging war. It's not all bullets/guns/guts. Remember those pallets of US dollars that went missing in Iraq early in the war? Where do you think those went?

If you people sincerely believe that Obama --- irrespective of what you may think of him --- is actually doing things to 'aid the enemy', for the love of God put the crack pipe down. If by paying $1M he is able to save US lives, advance our war efforts and maybe save having to drop $5M in bombs than God speed to him. War isn't what you all apparently believe it is.


[edit on 17-12-2009 by jtma508]

So basically the men and women serving over there, risking their lives as well as the ones that have lost their lives are and have been getting F$^ked over!!!!! And thats from the US government!!!!
Surely this isnt going to be tolerated? Why hasnt this been made public and those involved held accountable?
I honestly thought that Obama when elected would make one hell of a difference, not only to the US but to the world. Obviously i was well wrong.
Theres no other way of putting it.
Although on the other hand does he actually know everything? You know what happens to people that rock the boat.

reply to post by jtma508



So now a Democrat is having a bash Obama party? Spare me. Oh! You mean me? I am not republican or democrat. But, the inestigation was started by a democrat.. in.. case.. you.. missed... that part...

I found some talk about Petreus and the re-integration program as was discussed in the OP, but if you have other information, please do share a source. I don't care who did it, it is wrong, so I would love to see some more informationon that.

And yes, I think I am old enough to know how things "work", and I also think I am old enough to figure out we are paying them to kill our own troops.

reply to post by enca78


That is exactly what it amounts to. I don't know why it took so long for this to hit the "mainstream" as it wetre, or how long the investigation has been going on, but the article notes Hillary making a statement Dec 2, so it has obiously been a while.

reply to post by Libertygal


I don't care who is hosting the party. I voted Ron Paul. But the charge is disingenuous. So you think the Mahdi Army, responsible for more attacks on Americans than any single source, just decided to pack it in one day? How naive.

And no, we're not paying people to kill Americans. We're paying people to prevent Americans from being killed. Many of the people involved on the other side are motivated by money. they couldn't give a rat's ass who kills who. They're only interested in the money they can make. If the Sunni's will switch sides for a few bucks thyen what the hell.

article

reply to post by Libertygal

Have you stopped to think who would be president if Obama was impeached? NOw that is scary!!!!!

Why is something the US military is doing directly Obama's fault ???


Sure, maybe he can't please every one of his critic's .... but then again OBAMA DIDN'T START THE WAR DID HE ???

I hear these Repub's crying about this and that, ... but wouldn't another act of treason be LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO START A WAR FOR CORPORATE PROFIT ???

seriously, .... (Snip)

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 17-12-2009 by asala]

Ummm, if Bush the minor wasn't impeached and charged for the crimes he committed against America, what makes you think Obama will be?

Congress is spineless, as they've shown time and time again.

reply to post by jtma508


I put forth that you are very niave' to believe that we are not paying to kill Amerians. I mean that in the most polite way possible.

Just where do you think that money goes after the trucks drive by? That is correct, to buy more arms and pay more insurgents.

reply to post by IntastellaBurst


Um, he is the Commander in Chief? He passed the spending bill for the military with appropriations to do exactly this? Are you serious?

No, he didn't start the war, but he sure did pass that bill May 9, 2009 to pay these people off. It is Obama's war now, suck it up.

I'm not sure why some here on ATS pick apart others posts or opinions, and yes they are just that, their opinions, but it need not be that way. We shouldn't be there in the first place. War is a racket. Smedley D. Butler.

It is all about the pipeline. Osama was killed in 2001 in Tora Bora. That IS a fact. The Taliban and Al Qeida were put together by the CIA, but they got out of control and took on their own agenda. That is also a fact. the problem now is getting them dispersed to focus on growing their own sustainable crops to feed their people. We shouldn't be there at all.

But that is the agenda of TPTB. It matters not who dies, they/we are not Elite. They are not worthy as are none of us in TPTB's eyes or minds.

So to impeach Obama matters not, he should be hung as should Bush and a few other presidents. Those presidents who figured out what was going on and who was pulling the strings and tried to right the ship, were assassinated by TPTB.

WE, that is you and I, must remember who WE are and WHAT we are. MAN created government, women too, but you get the idea. So IT is OUR servant and we the master, we must reinforce this on our representatives every day. Call them, write them, e-mail them, hound them. Liberty means repsonsibility, yours and mine. I do it as do others. Some of them WANT to dot he right thing but are afraid. If we do not back them then they will not do the right thing. Simple.

Research your strawman and reclaim him. You can honestly live virtually free of debt when you do this.

spiritualeconomicsnow.net...

Download Mary's book on the right side of page and read it. It is our world, WE own it by right and by dominion, let's take it back from the Elite, it is that simple.

Originally posted by Chett
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Have you stopped to think who would be president if Obama was impeached? NOw that is scary!!!!!

I could not agree with you more! Biden or heaven forbid if something happened to him, Pelosi.