Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Jonah Goldberg had better read the Butler report

Jonah Goldberg had better read the Butler report

Jonah Goldberg had best read the Butler report (rather than the summary-snippets) before he crows about how Joe Wilson lied. Joe wasn't lying.

Read page 121, Chapter 6.4 of the Butler report, particularly sections 501 to 503.

Then read Joseph Wilson's words once again.

The argument was not whether or not an attempt was made to purchase uranium, it was whether or not our American president was using incredibly shaky information in his State of the Union speech to promote an unnecessary war. The Butler Report only serves to separate the British government's admittedly inconclusive intelligence from Bush's (ab)use of that intelligence.

Chapter 6.4
Section 503-

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. British government intelligence from several different sources indicated that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased uranium, as opposed to having sought uranium. The British governemnt did not claim this.

d. The forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.

Are you red or blue?

Are you red or are you blue?

Take the quiz at Slate.

Note: I wound up in the middle.
I think far better questions could have been asked to ascertain a more accurate result. If you have a well-rounded knowlege about some of these too-obvious questions, you are relegated to a label. Such is the sad state of journalism today. Too many labels. Labels don't reflect real and whole people.

Photo- Berkeley Plantation

Photo by Iddybud

Berkeley Plantation
Charles City, Virginia

Code Red: Bush administration elevates the threat of more threat elevations

Code Red: Bush administration elevates the threat of more threat elevations

The color has gone from Yellow to Red! The chances of being scared out of your britches with daily warnings about new terror attacks and cancelled presidential elections are now 99-100%.

(This is satirical, of course.)

Bush and Lay Share same 'Sharp' attorney

Bush and Lay Share same 'Sharp' attorney

At Talking Points Memo, Wright Angle (with very interesting analysis), and Beat Bush Blog, there is discussion about the strange fact that our president G.W. Bush and Enron's Ken Lay have hired the same "estate-planning" attorney (cough) to represent them. (Bush in relation to the Valerie Plame outing incident; Lay for his recent indictment). In a comment to Beat Bush Blog, I wondered, what if this became a conflict of interest for attorney James Sharp? Perhaps Mr. Lay's interests are what will eventually be shown as the same interests (and alleged crimes) of the president himself. Wouldn't that be something?

This is not meant to sound like a conspiracy theory, although I'd imagine many people would look at these words and throw it away as just another wacky idea. There was an article I'd read recently that really got me thinking...could it be true?
I don't suffer foolish theories easily, but Mr. Ruppert's examination of the situation follows logic.

The CIA is known to protect American (big money) interests and energy/oil has much to do with National Security. Energy/oil also had much to do with the business interests of the Bush and Lay families. (And what about those secret energy-policy meetings with Cheney?) As for mutual interests, the name ARAMCO comes to mind, given Ms. Plame's part in the CIA's overall relationship with ARAMCO and the fact that ENRON is said to have been a "front" for ARAMCO.

Almost the entire Bush administration has an interest in ARAMCO.

We need to watch what happens with George Tenet (Plame's old boss) and fellow former-CIA James Pavitt in the near future. What was the real reason they quit? It's been said the CIA didn't support the Iraq-attempt-to-buy-Niger-uranium charges and that they warned the president not to use them to falsely promote a war. What if it was shown (by paper trail) that Bush misled us intentionally - taking our nation to war for his own personal business interests (and Kenny-boy's, too)? That would make it all the more interesting that those forged Niger documents are now in the hands of California Congressman Henry Waxman (D), the man who'd most likely introduce the articles of impeachment of president Bush (if it came down to that).


A somewhat-related comment:
This is surely not the time to replace George Tenet with anyone who would even remotely be considered a partisan. What happens to our CIA from here is very important in these times of terror and will require mutual trust and unity amongst those who must confirm any nominee. I'm afraid Bush may hastily nominate Porter Goss as new CIA head, and I think that would be a political mistake.

Outgoing Deputy CIA Director for Operations James Pavitt made a recent plea:

In my opinion, now is not the time for radical reorganization of the intelligence community, for creating a new structure, a different framework in the hope of always getting it right and always connecting the dots. Some have said my retirement and George Tenet's resignation create the "perfect storm" for radical restructuring in the intelligence community. Let me remind you that in the book and the movie "the perfect storm," the ship sank and the crew drowned.

I would argue against change for the sake or appearance of change particularly in these politically charged times and at a time of great terrorist threat. No one really seeks a perfect storm. The aftermath of 9/11 brought about tremendous change in the way we do business; but change for its own sake is dead wrong. I believe thoughtful empowerment of the DCI and sustained executive and congressional commitment to improve our nation's intelligence capabilities will serve our nation well...


Vets are Fed Up with Being Called "Unpatriotic"

Vets are Fed Up with Being Called "Unpatriotic"

Today at Voice of a Veteran blog, Vet asks, after reading disabled Vietnam veteran Jack Dalton's article titled "You Calling Me An Unpatriotic Wimp?" :

The true colors of the Bush "patriots" come forth. You, my fellow veterans, are being called "wimps with no backbones" if you oppose Bush. Aren't you getting a little tired of being accused of being traitors by those who could care less about veterans?

I imagine there are many men and women serving in Iraq at this very moment who are privately dissenting while still doing their duty.

Tom Burka Funny of the Day

Tom Burka Funny of the Day

Whew! Now we won't have to worry about the elections being called off. I'm so glad we got that over with. How about you?

Have you seen Tom's Headline Contest?

More Torture?

More Torture?

This isn't going to play well for American PR. We have Sweden sore at us now.

Ron Reagan and Jeremy Glick-Of Fathers and Sons

Ron Reagan and Jeremy Glick-Of Fathers and Sons

At the funeral of former President Ronald Reagan, his son Ronald Prescott Reagan said of the attempted assassination of his father that “God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference.”

I believe that is the key reason Mr Reagan has agreed to speak at the Democratic convention. In my opinion, he's unhappy with the Bush administration's pandering to the fundamentalist Christian base at the great expense of the public welfare of the American people.

Today in an interview with Al Franken on Franken's Air America radio show, Jeremy Glick (son of a Port Authoity worker who died 9/11) said he doesn't feel it's ethical to state "what his father would have wanted or believed" as things stand today.
It only serves to make sense, for how could he know what his father would say today? He can only tell you what he knows his father believed before his death (and the elder Glick believed the Bush election was not legitimate). The young Glick has opposed the war on Iraq and was skewered cruelly and unprofessionally by FOX's own Bill O'Reilly in a dismally one-sided interview on the O'Reilly Factor. The awful experience will be covered in the new Robert Greenwald documentary "Outfoxed".

Like Jeremy Glick, Ronald Prescott Reagan cannot speak for his father. In the younger Reagan's case, it is profoundly unfortunate that he cannot tell you what his father may have believed for at least the past ten years because President Reagan was debilitated by Alzheimer's disease. Ron P. Reagan has his own sound mind, however. In his heart, he has witnessed and experienced a sorrow only known to families of Alzheimer victims. He says his own mother, the beloved wife and soul-companion of our former president, agrees wholeheartedly with his decision to speak at the Convention. He believes stem-cell research is important to making the quality of all American lives better. Ron understood the role that God played in his father's life. I believe he's picking up the ball for his dad and taking the responsibility he believes his father would have taken based on the former president's deepest reverence of God.

Written for Daily Kos

Why Isn't Hillary Speaking at Dem Convention?

Why Isn't Hillary Speaking at Dem Convention?

As a New York woman who knows how influential and brilliant New York Senator Clinton is, I'd really like to know why Hillary won't be speaking in Boston at the end of this month.

The Kerry campaign couldn't be so petty as to allow rivalry to get in the way, could they? I surely hope not. Seeing Hillary left off of the roster is especially dismaying for me, a female blogger from New York who was "disinvited" to the Convention.

Al Gore overlooked Bill Clinton far too obviously in his 2000 campaign. Bill Clinton's spot on the 2000 Dem convention list of speakers made him far less important than he should have been. Whether or not the Bush team was more influential in their ability to steal the election, Gore's omission of Bill Clinton as a key figure in the 2000 campaign hurt his chances from the get-go.

John Kerry's campaign has asked Bill Clinton to speak. Since Bill is on the list, perhaps the Kerry campaign may think they don't need Hillary Clinton. Perhaps they believe that would be "over-Clintonizing".

I don't agree. Hillary is possibly THE most influential woman in the world. She is consistently at the top of "most admired women" polls.

Perhaps Sen Kerry and his team believe that having Ron Reagan and Hillary Clinton speaking at the same convention would be a bad idea. I would tell him they're wrong in their strategic thinking. Having a representative of both former Presidents Clinton and Reagan's families as keynote speakers at the Democratic convention is the perfect idea to show America there is finally a sense of uniting between citizens. I'd tell him to be very thoughtful and cautious about the matter. Get Hillary on the phone!

Whole Batch of FOX Memos

Whole Batch of FOX Memos

Wonkette and Anonymoses have the "whole batch" of FOX memos.

FOX tells you they pride themselves on balance and fairness. Read some of these memos from Fox News chief John Moody and decide for yourself.

Talk about controlling the facts (regardless of the truth):

"..It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force." We won't be among that group...More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters...whatever happens, it is richly deserved."