The only cover "Who's Who" displays is its own cover
Novak blew Valerie's Plame's cover with his column. Someone (with a human voice) told him about her and her status with the CIA. He now claims he found her name in the book of "Who's Who" - and he may have, but the point is oh-so-moot.
"Who's Who" didn't blow Valerie's cover. It merely supplied a name. "Who's Who" is not a political thug or a traitor to the U.S. The only cover exposed by "Who's Who" is its own book cover.
Douchebag Novak blew Valerie Plame's cover (wherever he got the info from - we still don't know), and "Who's Who" cannot possibly be responsible for the felony or the treason that comes with the territory.
I know this sounds harsh, but I think you have to be, sometimes. I think you'd have to be a complete jackass to accept Novak's latest excuse-making as anything close to truth or honesty. I'll never again believe a fake word that comes out of his fake teeth.
Bottom line, we don't give a shite why Novak identified her as "Valerie Plame" in exposing her link to the C.I.A. in July 2003 when she had also been known in her personal life by her married name, Valerie Wilson.
What we are concerned about was that the snake-like Novak BLEW HER COVER.
Iran - Ten Years Away What will we do with those ten years?
Today's WaPo tells us that Iran has been judged to be at least ten years from having a nuclear bomb [NIE estimate - the first major review since 2001 of what is known and what is unknown about Iran].
The question remains - should the U.S. be openly promoting the idea of democracy in Iran? I think we should... with honor, good faith, and the utmost respect for human rights and the rule of law...not by gunning for their present regime.
Neocon Michael Ledeen is going to be marginalizing this new NIE information - and the people who supplied it to us. I guarantee it. Ledeen is so hot for Iran's regime that he's been glowing brighter than a freshly-nuked bomb-victim in his animated determination to overthrow them.
You may say, "Jude, why are you worried? No one is talking about going to pre-emptive war with Iran." That is simply not true. People ARE talking about it - quite openly. Here's a quote from Ledeen himself - and remember this - he's still a valued member of the PNAC crowd that our own VP supports wholeheartedly:
"First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize."
It's the NeoCon creed. You can look at up on Google if you don't believe it's true.
This new NIE report is going to send Ledeen and the neocons reeling. It drowns their false droning on and on about the immediacy and urgency of the Iranian situation and tacks on five more years with which America can do something productive, positive, and creative to win Iranian hearts and minds.
NeoCons showed us how NOT to support human rights and democracy in Iraq. They provided President Bush with the perfect blueprint (a blueprint he had willingly accepted as "righteous") for what NEVER to do again! Yet, Bush has never been one to accept reality. Instead, Bush chooses to create his own reality, and his re-election in 2004 set a stage for dangerous political dynamics that our kids will be contending over the course of the next ten years - as Iran comes closer to having a nuclear bomb. The neocons have not changed their tune, and the Bush administration has clearly shown that they would have rather destroyed a good American man who told us the truth about Niger (and destroyed his family/out a CIA agent) than to recognize the mistaken avenue down which the neocons have taken us.
Listen to the reasoning of Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi of Iran (quoted below-see LINK). It's time for Americans to rely on our own sense and use our own freedom to speak out now...before we enter into another damned disaster.
"Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi has said that while she, too, opposes nuclear weapons, the West would do more good by focusing not on Tehran's nuclear programme but on promoting democracy in the Islamic Republic.
"In a country or a society where people supervise decisions and everything else, like a democratic country, the existence of an atomic bomb cannot be dangerous," Ms Ebadi said."
We think of jailed journalist Judy Miller - and many of her fellow journalists who are currently rallying around her solely because of the fact that she's in jail and not taking into consideration her unusual [incriminating?] entanglement in this case. James Moore isn't particularly sympathetic to Judy's plight - and he tells it like it he sees it.
Word from some sources is that Judy was about to be canned and this jail-time may have the hidden bonus value of salvaging her job with the Times.
Richard Cohen doesn't necessarily agree with those who would "politically indict" Miller with their "denunciation" of her. After all, in his words:
"The Constitution applies even to Nazis."
(And that should make us want to make it our priority to stand up and rally 'round Judy Miller's defense?)
Mr. Cohen asks us to try to separate politics from principle in Millers case. Politics and principle were incestuous when it came to Judith Miller's WMD reporting, and the offspring that has been produced is an ugly little liar-baby. Richard Cohen says that Miller wasn't the only gullible journalist, and while that may be true, Judith Miller's activities stuck out like a (colossal) sore thumb. I suspect, as many do, that Judy crossed the line from "gullible" to "all-too-willing"...and I think it was an example of a character flaw, at best.
Miller may have been all too willing to involve herself in the White House plot against Joe Wilson - but WHY - WHY- WHY? What did it have to do with good or ethical journalism?
Update: There are some VERY public doubts arising about Judith Miller's conscience (and ethics) regarding this prison sentence and the investigation from which it has sprung.