Arianna and Gore Vidal Discuss Judy Miller

Arianna and Gore Vidal Discuss Judy Miller

Meowwww - I just love today's Arianna Huffington piece - her latest on the Judy Miller file. Doug Jehl at Miller's own newspaper, the NYT, is digging deep so as to avoid getting the NYT scooped by another media source. Arianna has been talking to Gore Vidal, one of my personal favorites. Arianna says:

"During a conversation with Gore Vidal (more about that tomorrow) we talked about the fact that we had both heard from different people that Judy was planning to start writing a book about her experiences in the Plame case while in jail. "De Profundis it's not going to be," Vidal said, referring to Oscar Wilde's jailhouse classic. "More like De Shallow-undis."

Gore also made the point that Miller had continued to carry water for her neocon chums right up until her incarceration. The last articles she wrote before going to jail -- about Kofi Annan and that neocon bugaboo, the UN -- stand as an example of sloppy and slanted journalism that required two Times corrections, one of them an entire article. For chapter and verse on this, look here and here.

I can't wait to hear the rest tomorrow.

Sen George Allen: Bush should face Cindy Sheehan

Sen George Allen: Bush should face Cindy Sheehan

Sen George Allen just told Wolf Blitzer, on his Sunday Late Edition show, that President Bush should meet Cindy Sheehan face-to-face. A national security aide has met with Sheehan, but Allen says that is not enough - Bush needs to face her - to met privately with her. (That aide was none other than Stephen Hadley - who was responsible for those 16 lying words in the President's SOTU speech in 2003 - talk about a slap in the face).

Barbara Boxer, also a guest on Blitzer's CNN show, said that she thinks it would be a very important thing for President Bush to do. Boxer also encouraged Ms. Sheehan to continue speaking her mind. Bush has refused to meet with Ms. Sheehan.

I think it's the worst PR for President Bush - ever - to have the public knowing that the Secret Service is trying to intimidate Ms. Sheehan to leave Crawford while Bush is refusing to meet with a woman who lost her son while fighting for America in Iraq. This is the age of the Internet. Intimidation and the dirty secrets surrounding it don't fly these days.

The White House is saying they already have met with Sheehan, along with other parents of the fallen, in the past. I'm not impressed with the White House excuse for snubbing this woman.

Wolf Blitzer invited Cindy Sheehan to participate on today's show, and she accepted. She is the one who TOLD Joe Hagin and Stephen Hadley, in a meeting yesterday, that she had met with President Bush once before, on June 17, 2004, after her son Casey had been killed in Iraq. Bush had met with Sheehan and some of her family members, as he had done with about 15 other families that day. He breezed in with a "party" attitude, in Sheehan's view. He was jovial and impersonal, and seemed to wish to keep his business strictly impersonal. The first thing he'd said was "Who are we honoring here?" (He didn't even take a moment to put Casey's name to memory, if only for that brief moment). He refused to look at pictures of Casey when they were offered. He refused to take the time to hear some stories about Casey.

This past week, too many Marines died in Haditha for Sheehan to let her conviction rest. When she heard President Bush once again invoke the fallen soldiers to encourage Americans to support his "killing policies" in Iraq, she demanded a new meeting with him. She says that Bush's representatives, Stephen Hadley and Joe Hagin, with whom she met yesterday, gave her spin on the reasons for the war and she stated, flat out, that she didn't believe them...and couldn't believe THEY really believed what they were saying.

When they left, they told her they would convey her feelings to the President.

If Israel Ever Needed a Friend - They Need it Now

"I am the son of a historian. I want people to be able to say in ten years, 'He was not party to this.'"

- Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking about Israel's planned pullout from the Gaza strip, protests over which have caused Netanyahu to dramatically resign

If Israel Ever Needed a Friend - They Need it Now

Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu's political move shows that Ariel Sharon needs the firm support of America now - more than ever. Israel cannot afford to have its government or their sense of fragile unity torn apart. Don't they have enough adversity facing them - all around them? If President Bush is committed to battling extremism everywhere, he should back Ariel Sharon and make it very clear that we support him - now.

Netanyahu feels strongly about this issue and he is saying that his move is purely political (Israeli elections will take place in November and Netanyahu will surely seek the office of Prime Minister), but let's not fail to think about how this symbolic act will affect the Israeli street. Expect extremism to flourish - because extremists will feel they have been greatly empowered by Netanyahu's resignation.

Haaretz reports:

A minister opposed to an important governmental decision is not supposed to be a part of that government. After his resignation the former minister can criticize the government at will, something he was not free to do beforehand.

Whose side is the Bush administration on? And why? I think we Americans deserve to hear Bush speak about these questions. We have a stake in Israel's future, because it involves stability in the Middle East. (In case you haven't noticed, over 1800 American soldiers have died in the Middle East because of the deliberate instability aggravated by the neocon Likudniks of America).

Last spring, the Bush administration had reaffirmed U.S. support for the Gaza-disengagement proposal, but had taken no stand on the political maneuverings surrounding it. An AIPAC spokesman (recently the target of espionage indictments in the US) said the group would not comment on "private discussions" with the Israeli prime minister's office. It seems we, in the US, can no longer play both political sides, seeing that they are so deeply divided.


Update: A good posting and quote from DHinMI at The Next Hurrah (with interesting discussion as well - a question of the timing of elections may make or break the Gaza pullout plan):

It's a real statement about how screwed up Israel's politics are these days that a cabinet resignation that puts more power in the hands of Ariel Sharon should be such as clear improvement, that progressives and those hoping for peace between Israelies and Palestinians should be heartened that Sharon may be on the verge of dispatching a rival. Or, rather, if the Gaza pullout is a success, that Sharon's rival may have just dispatched himself.

Augie Schroeder and Jeff Boskovitch

Augie Schroeder and Jeff Boskovitch


Augie Schroeder...............Jeff Boskovitch

They're two boys you'd see on any American street - in any mall, school, Scout meeting, rock concert, sports event...

They're two of the Marines from Brook Park, Ohio (Lima Company) who were killed in Haditha, Iraq, and who were represented by their families today on ABC's This Week. Rosemary Palmer and Jim Boskovitch appeared, along with Ohio Rep Dennis Kucinich. All were interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, who did a commendable job.

The Marines' photos can be seen at VOA along with these words:

Rosemary Palmer was convinced this would happen the last time she saw her son Augie alive. She says, "The pictures that we took before he went, we were sure that was the last time we'd ever see him."

Imagine the pain for Lance Corporal Jeff Boskovitch's family. His body and belongings have been displayed for TV by Iraqi insurgents. Recalling his nephew, "He was like the all-American kid."

I've seen the ugly display of propaganda from the extremists, and frankly, I wouldn't link it here if you paid me a million dollars.

You can see the story of Rosemary Palmer's sorrowful experience, being told that her son had died, at the beginning of this recent Newsweek article titled Sorrow and Debate by T. Trent Gegax.

There is also an article about the Schroeder/Palmer family at NJ.com (Star Ledger)

ABC Radio National (Au) reporter Michael Rowland has a quote from Augie Scroder's father, Paul:

Paul Schroeder, the father of 23-year-old Edward 'Augie' Schroeder, is not only grieving, he's also very, very angry.

PAUL SCHROEDER: To honour him I can no longer sit still, keeping quiet and being politically correct. I will not rest the rest of my life until the Republican Party is considered an afterthought for a generation or two and the Democratic Party finds some people with backbone to stand up and do what's right. [column: Debate rages in US over Iraq]

Chuck Culpepper writes a sports column for Newsday - a fairly unusual place to find political comment - and he says:

"Of the six who died Monday in a gun battle near the city of Haditha, they found one separate from the others, an indication that he, apparently Boskovitch, might've struggled back toward his unit before he died.

Ohio teachers dialed Ohio teachers, and families dialed families, and a wizened coach said, "I just hope this isn't in vain.

"That's what it comes down to. I'm like most Americans: If we're going to lose our youngest and our best, let's hope it's for something."

And President Bush, in his weekly radio address, having addressed Brook Park briefly Thursday, spoke 682 words exclusively on the economy, [my emphasis] beginning with: "Good morning. As families across the country enjoy the summer, Americans can be optimistic about our economic future."

And three-quarters of the way up that fence at Brook Park, above the flowers and the flags and the signs near the barbed wire at the top, you could spot it there in news photographs: two tiny American flags tucked on the shoulders, a jersey all white, with orange No. 16 and lettering - BOSKOVITCH."

-- Here's hoping there's a point to all of this pointlessness

How the Bush Admin is Responsible for Miller's Imprisonment

How the Bush Admin is Responsible for Miller's Imprisonment

Murray Waas writes about a meeting between NYT reporter Judy Miller and "Scooter" Libby on July 8, 2003 in Washington DC - six days before Reptile Novak wrote his column outing Valerie Plame as a "CIA operative."

Waas says Libby's failure to produce a personal waiver may have played a significant role in Miller’s decision not to testify about her conversations with Libby, including the one on July 8, 2003.

I have blogged that Miller's attorneys have intimated that Miller was not comfortable discussing her source, because of the conditional nature of that source's general waiver. (Perhaps Libby told her she could talk about some things, but not others, and that was not satisfactory to Miller, who is understandably worried about being incriminated herself.)

A quote from my prior blogpiece titled Michael Ledeen, Judy Miller, "Scooter" Libby:

"Judy's view is that any purported waiver she got from anyone was not on the face of it sufficiently broad, clear and uncoerced."- [Source- WaPo]

In his current article, Waas shows that President Bush was disingenuous, at best, when he averred that he would ensure that the White House would cooperate fully with Fitzgerald's investigation. If that was true, Bush would have pushed Libby to sign a personal waiver rather than a general one.

In essence, for their foot-dragging and non-cooperative nature, the Bush administration can be held partially (and directly) responsible for Judy Miller's imprisonment.

I know there's a lot of speculation about Judy's aggressive style of journalism and the ethics that surround that style, but let's not forget that her choice to remain in prison is because some folks in the White House decided it was more convenient to watch their own ass rather than worry about Judy's summer plans.

Related post - Dave Johnson

US Ambassador to Iraq Offers Shaky Reassurance

US Ambassador to Iraq Offers Shaky Reassurance

Zalmay Khalilzad is the US Ambassador to Iraq. In today's WSJ, he promises Iraqis that the US intends to to "win over" the people of Iraq, and then isolate and destroy "the enemy." As this plan is implemented, the US-led coalition will hand over control of specific areas to Iraqi forces and withdraw its units from these areas. He is preparing Iraqis for the future, telling them that elements of the Multi-National Force will be leaving Iraq. These are his words:

"..the U.S. is working with the Iraqi government to build up Iraqi security forces. These are growing in numbers and becoming more capable. With the cooperation of the people and with more robust Iraqi forces, the Iraqi government and the U.S. will use highly targeted military force to capture or eliminate the terrorists who irreconcilably oppose the new order."

Question - It's apparent we haven't "won over" most Iraqis, given the disastrous security issues we've "brought on" (and have literally invited others to "bring on") in their country today. Here we are telling Iraqis we will soon be leaving them, offering reassurance through an attempt to assign credibility to the narrative about trained Iraqi forces, which is folderol - and we know it - and they know it. If you lived in Iraq today (and thank God if you do not), would you feel comforted by the US ambassador's reassurances, as showcased in this article?

I don't consider myself to be a naysayer for the sake of naysaying, and I am a realist and a conflicted soul who knows that the mission in Iraq was misled and misguided and unjust - yet my heart mourns for the people of Iraq, who never deserved this type of unjust violence to be brought across and into their borders. I'm not the only one who believes this. Here is a statement from a young man who fought in the Iraq war:

"This is a new generation. We have the Internet, discussion forums, cable news. Soldiers don’t just march into battle blindly anymore. They have a lot more information."

- Army Sgt John Bruhns

We are now witnessing more false and terribly shaky promises and reassurances from the people responsible for turning Iraq into an embattled wasteland ripe for terrorist recruiting. I am an American, and if there was a message I could send to citizens of Iraq today, it would be that I am terribly sorry for what my nation did (the way they did it); that the young men and women we sent to their nation are there because they trusted our leaders and were doing a duty to their nation, most of them not having a full understanding of the reason they were sent there; and that I wish our leader would admit the glaring errors and make a commitment, this very day, to turn things around and do his honest best to work, with humility, with world leaders to tackle extremists instead of the US acting as counter-extremists. (Even Ariel Sharon is learning, from hard lessons, that all forms of extremism must be squelched - who would have thought he'd be ahead of the curve?). Neocon war-planners should be banished from the White House - and from Washington DC. Forever.

Tar Heel Tavern

Tar Heel Tavern

The latest edition of Tar Heel Tavern is up at the Anonymoses blog. It's titled Going to Blogolina in My Mind/A blog tour of North Carolina - - and let me tell you, it's one hell of a summary. Don't miss it! The theme is "automatic penciling" and/or 'tooting' your blog. I've never been a big tooter - Mommy taught me that it wasn't graceful to be a "look-at-me Louie," so you can imagine how freeing this exercise was for a fuddy duddy like me. (..and I hope you don't think my toot was codswallop. Amen.)

Toot My Blog

Toot My Blog

LET
IDDYBUD
BE THE ONE
YOU RUN TO



In this busy workaday world, you don't have time to read every news story with a fine-tooth comb. You're having trouble trusting the foxes of Cable - those talking heads with the perfect coifs and the shiny Chiclet teeth. You want the Headlines to come to life. Where do you turn? Who do you trust?

Iddybud.



Who will dig into the slop-pile of spin and emerge with the diamond of reality?

Iddybud.



Who does CNN refer to when they want the supreme skinny from the blogs?

Iddybud.



Seen in the LA Times, Greensboro's Yes Weekly, and the Syracuse Post Standard/Syracuse.com, recommended by Sen John Edwards's One America website, a diarist at Daily Kos, bashed by National Review, adopted daughter of Blogsboro and the Tar Heel Tavern keepers of North Carolina, poetry appearing at Billy the Blogging Poet, photography appearing at Hey Jude and Flickr, pin-up at Bloggrrrlz Gallery, award-winning Proud Liberal, one of the Sisterhood of political blogging.



When the spin gets you too dizzy to think, run to Iddybud.

Who's Who - The Wilson Entry

Who's Who - The Wilson Entry

Josh Marshall has gotten a hold of the Who's Who in America with Joseph Wilson's name, along with the name of his wife Valerie. (Thanks for sharing, Josh.) As I said before, the only COVER that the Who's Who was capbable of displaying is its own book cover.

Someone blew Valerie Plame's CIA(NOC) COVER in a Chicago Sun-Times article - and it sure as hell wasn't a BOOK that revealed the CIA cover. Someone told Novak. We don't know who it was - yet. He made a conscious decision to run with the information and blow the lady's cover, no matter WHAT her name was, and no matter how the shuffling and equivocating Novak tries to weasel his way out of the responsibility for the part he played by blaming a book for blowing a CIA cover.

You can't judge a book by its cover - but you CAN judge a journalist who blows CIA covers.


Listen to this - thanks to Atrios I've learned about a Jay Rosen column where Jay explains how, well before the recent swearing-snit and walk-off, Bob Novak probably knew he was "about to be faced with a gigantic contradiction in his public stance, and the CNN Network wanted it." Jay points to a prior Ed Henry/Bob Novak exchange. As I said before, why on earth would any of us WANT to see him as a pundit on any CNN show (or any political news show) when HE will not and cannot talk about the hottest subject matter? (And while he sits there looking like the cat reptile who swallowed the canary -as if he's onto something to which the interviewer will never become privy because of Novak's own manipulation-dance.) Jay offers a quote by the experienced journalist Joe Gandelman of the Moderate Voice,

“Is walking off the set a big deal? It’s only the most unprofessional thing a newsperson or actor can do.”

*By the way, I'm looking forward to seeing both Duncan (Atrios) and Jay (Press Think) in October at Converge South. Kevin Sites, too.

Headlines

"At the time I thought it was like a 2.5 [on the scale on pundit show smackdowns]. But when I heard it again later, I thought, no, it's more like a 1.5."

- James Carville, talking to Josh Marshall about Carville's comments, which some believe may have been the cause for Bob Novak's snit and walk-off on CNN's 'Inside Politics' earlier this week. Others say it was the edition of "Who's Who" in America which caused Novak's fight or flight response.

Headlines

Tom Hayden provides an exit rationale for the Iraq war. (Thanks, Tom). [Huffington Post]

James Carville spoke to Josh Marshall about Bob Novak. Here is what he said.. [TPM Cafe]

One of my favorite authors, Annie Lamott, thinks Novak knew his days with CNN were numbered.

Gen. Wesley Clark will be guest-blogging at the TPM Cafe from August 29th to September 2nd.

Michelle Malkin reports that New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has launched an investigation into the $875,000 loan from Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club to Air America. Spitzer's inquiry is focusing on the conduct of Gloria Wise's board of directors. "The question is: Was their action appropriate?," Spitzer spokesman Darren Dopp told the Post. My personal comment: I trust Attorney General Spitzer and am confident he will get to the truth of the matter. I couldn't imagine he'd let a situation like this go on, in the court of public opinion, without his involvement.

I deeply appreciate the showcase at Billy the Blogging Poet's website. The people of Greensboro, NC (aka Blogsboro) have come to be just like family to me. You'll never meet a more welcoming, diverse, and genuinely interesting group of people as you'll meet in Blogsboro.

- continuing

CNN's Abbi and Jacki Interviewed by CJR

"Bloggers themselves are starting to recognize the value of a segment dedicated to their collective voice."

- Jacki Schechner

CNN's Abbi and Jacki Interviewed by CJR



Abbi Tatton and Jacki Schechner, the lovely ladies of CNN's "Inside the Blogs" (which is a part of the CNN show "Inside Politics" - soon to be "The Situation Room") are interviewed at CJR. According to Jacki, they plan to expand their Blogging segment "to include politics, international and domestic security, which will give us the opportunity to access more news of the day and report on what's happening on the blogs and beyond. The blog segment will appear regularly on "The Situation Room," anchored by Wolf Blitzer, beginning next week."

Browne's Times Column Causes Blog-Stir

Browne's Times Column Causes Blog-Stir

Anthony Browne's London Times guest-column is causing quite a stir amongst bloggers in the UK because of his warm collegiality with V-Dare and his comparing Islamic fundamentalism to Nazism. V-Dare is well known for opposing immigration and multiculturalism.

Level of Blog Credibility Depends Upon Independence

Level of Blog Credibility Depends Upon Independence

Editor and Publisher reminds the world of what makes a credible and successful blogger, and I follow their quote with the slogan I've used since I started the IDDYBUD blog.

An independent blogger's greatest asset, besides wit, energy, bravery, and doggedness, is sincerity. We read them to hear a credible independent voice -- not the shills of a corporation, lobbying group, a government agency, or a party. But now it seems that every auto company, PR firm, and politician is taking up blogging -- to sell us the same old pitches in a sleek new package. Some bloggers, unfortunately, are selling out and jumping on the payroll of corporations and political parties.

- Editor and Publisher

~ ~ ~ ~

"Daring, bold, never sold."

- Iddybud blog-motto

John Edwards on John Roberts

John Edwards on John Roberts

Jesse J. Holland has an AP report in which we see former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards' informed criticism of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Because we all know so little about Roberts, I look to respected sources in the legal and political field, such as John Edwards, for information and opinion. When Sen. Edwards calls Roberts "a partisan for conservative causes" and questions Roberts' commitment to civil rights. it gives me cause for serious concern.

Edwards recently gave a speech to the American Constitutional Society, and you can see the video at the ACS website. In the speech, he discusses a number of topics, including the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

In case you missed John Edwards' recent speech in Oklahoma, you can listen to the speech here.

Daniel Owen of OvalOffice2008.com points us to a Daniel Barrick article in the Concord (NH) Monitor, where Edwards traveled at the beginning of the week.

Marines - Talking 'Bout Getting Out of Iraq

Marines - Talking 'Bout Getting Out of Iraq

See this article in the Marine Corps Times.

"During the ratification vote in October, all it takes is a two-thirds majority of negative votes in three of Iraq’s 18 provinces, and the constitutional process goes back to square one: elections for another interim government for a second attempt at drafting a constitution.

The prospect of that clearly concerns the Bush administration and no small number of military commanders who fear that if Iraq loses its political momentum now, it will collapse into sectarian violence."

Here's to all the Marines coming home safely...and soon.

Plame leak - Niger Forgery - AIPAC Espionage - linked

Plame leak - Niger Forgery - AIPAC Espionage - linked
Even Bob Novak has a special place in this hellish tangled web.

With the knowledge that an unnamed recent appointee to the Bush administration was involved, even though not indicted in the AIPAC espionage case, I don't think we can state, with assuredness, that the Lawrence Franklin case wasn't all about the ugly production-line process by which US/Middle East policy has been created in Washington D.C. and, particularly in the Bush administration. Neocons, with their fevered verve to destabilize Iran, rolled over our CIA and chose to ally with non-American forces, namely Ahmad Chalabi's INC. The INC's lies and double-crossings have done irreparable damage to America. Judith Miller was smack dab in the middle of the neocon fever, and wittingly or not, she contributed to a great lie, perpetrated from within the White House, which has been one of the gravest insults and disservices to American citizens in the history of the United States.

The indictments?
Steve Rosen, former AIPAC policy director and Keith Weismann, an Iran analyst for AIPAC, were indicted and further criminal charges were brought against former Pentagon and Defense Intelligence Agency employee Larry Franklin, a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve. Rosen and Weismann were charged with illegally receiving classified material. Franklin was charged with illegally passing classified information to Rosen.

From JTA:

The indictment lists charges involving incidents dating back to 1999, four years before the AIPAC staffers met Franklin. The charges are related to information on Iran and terrorist attacks in central Asia and Saudi Arabia that was allegedly exchanged with three U.S. government officials and three staffers at Israel´s Embassy in Washington.

A source close to the defense said that one of the U.S. officials involved, who has not been indicted, was recently appointed to a senior Bush administration post. The source, who asked not to be identified, would not name the official.

Larry Franklin had been a mid-level civil service employee who'd worked for many years at the Defense Intelligence Agency and worked in OSP Douglas Feith's office (Feith was under secretary of defense for policy). In Feith's office, Franklin worked under William J. Luti, deputy undersecretary for defense for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, whose office was a part of the operation under Feith.

The recent indictment, for the first time, publically acknowledges the fact that Time magazine has previously reported, which is that Franklin had been enlisted by the FBI to place a series of monitored telephone calls (scripted by the FBI) to get possible evidence on allies of Ahmad Chalabi, a favorite of Pentagon neocons.

Chalabi was alleged to have told his Iranian intelligence contacts that the US had broken their communications codes -- a breach that prompted a break in U.S. support for Chalabi last spring --
and the FBI wanted to know who had shared that highly classified information with Chalabi. -- An FBI counterintelligence investigation of who had leaked this information to Chalabi was reportedly under way by spring 2004, and many of Chalabi’s neocon allies were incredibly anxious: Misjudgment about Chalabi’s virtues or postwar Iraq planning was one thing; passing secrets to another nation would be an accusation of an altogether graver magnitude.[American Prospect - Laura Rozen/Jason Vest]

The classified document that Franklin allegedly passed to AIPAC concerned a controversial proposal by Pentagon hard-liners to destabilize Iran.
What was in the draft that neocon Michael Rubin had written and Lawrence Franklin allegedly shared with AIPAC? [Rubin, by the way, was furious at the leak about the AIPAC espionage, saying that the White House "rewarded the June 15, 2003, FBI leak" by canceling consideration of the draft altogether].

There are speculations that the destabilization plan pushed by neocons were in the draft in question - and that it advocated that the US (or its "proxies") should arm the Iranian opposition, including the Kurds, as part of its efforts to pursue regime change.

There have also been alleged leaks from former U.S. diplomatic officials who have visited Iraq and told journalists that there are Israeli intelligence officials operating in Kurdish Iraq as political advisers, and others under the guise of businessmen. [source - American Prospect]

Visions of the ugly politics of the 1980s in Latin America resurface when we acknowlege what the neocons have been trying to do in Iraq, with an obvious nod from the White House:

The public statements by the neoconservatives emphasize that regime change in Iran would not require U.S. military force. Then again, the neoconservatives’ inspiration for the Iran plan has its roots in Reagan-era NSPDs that, while providing nonmilitary support to Poland’s Solidary Movement, also had the CIA aggressively arming and training the Afghan mujahideen, the Nicaraguan Contras, and other anti-communist rebels. There’s also no denying that some of the chief advocates of the Iran regime plot come out of the Pentagon, America’s military command center. And some of those same Iran hawks have discussed the Iran regime-change issue, for instance, with Parisian-based Iran Contra arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar -- not exactly the kind of go-to guy for a nonviolent regime change plan, one might think.

THE NIGER FORGERY LINK

Franklin also participated in secret meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian arms dealer who acted as a middleman in the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan administration. The secret meetings, first held in Rome in December 2001, were brokered by Michael Ledeen, a leading neocon and long-time supporter of Israel. Ledeen said he arranged the meetings to put the Bush administration in closer contact with Iranian dissidents who could provide information on the war on terrorism. But he said that Franklin was always skeptical about the usefulness of the back-channel meetings. LINK - WRMEA

Bob Novak spilled classified information here:

From A Daily Kos diary entry:

Bob Novak's greatest harm to national security didn't come from outing Valerie Plame and her front company. His greatest harm came when he made the following statement in his July 14, 2003 article:

Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.

Up until that time, the name of the country involved was classified. Check out EmptyWheels great diary...How could Novak have known SISMI was involved? Either someone with clearance told him, or a conspirator to the forgeries told him. Who would those conspirators be? Those with links to P-2 and the parallel Italian intelligence network. I think I've pretty much spelled out who's on that list.

WHICH BRINGS IT ALL DOWN TO THE OUTING OF VALERIE PLAME

Why? Because her husband was getting too close to the truth.

It isn't hard to see how are these cases are related.

My question is this - and this is only speculation. When embedded in Iraq, it's been reported that Judith Miller used to throw Douglas Feith's name (and negative press) around as a threat to hang over the Military's heads (to get them to do what she wanted). It's clear she was a close contact of Feith's (and Franklin's) office. It is said that there are clues about who it was in the news media whom AIPAC used to "launder" classified information after AIPAC acquired it from recently-indicted Larry Franklin. An article says:

Rosen and Weissman disclosed sensitive information as far back as 1999 on a variety of topics that included terrorist activities in Central Asia, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida and US policy in Iran, the indictment said. Among their contacts were foreign government officials and reporters..

The FBI doesn't offer names of media sources, but it does provide dates and specific themes of stories. It is probably worth investigating.

Related: see Juan Cole's notes from a year ago.

Air America Story - Fake "News"?

Air America Story - Fake "News"?

On the right side of the blogosphere, a 'tongue-in-cheek' Scott at Powerline is using a Washington Post story about stolen Girl Scout funds to remind readers about the recent Air America story which has generated a lot of right-blogosphere chatter. Scott refers readers to Michelle Malkin, who, in turn refers readers to Bob Johnson, who is talking about a possible 'Gloria Wise - Progress Media - Piquant' connection and has prepared questions for Righties to start asking. Interesting - because the Right is taking a non-story and, in the new Blog-era journalism fashion, attempting to generate a story from conjecture. The result of this experiment remains to be seen, but I certainly don't believe that anyone should jump to uninformed conclusions just yet.

On the left side, Barbara O'Brien discusses the story at a post titled "How to Fake News: A Primer." She avers that the Right has gotten way ahead of any meaningful investigation and have declared Air America to be guilty based on one anonymously sourced news story in a rinky-dink local newspaper. By means of unsourced allegations and indiscriminate linking, the Right has created the appearance that there is much movement in the story and copious corroboration, but that is not true. And that’s why the story, as being reported by the Right, is fake. Even if it is found out, eventually, that Air America is guilty of anything whatsoever, the story - as reported by the Right AT THIS TIME - is fake and misleading.

So - is this a Jeff-Gannon-style Bashfest against the Progressives - or does the Right have anything material and substantial to back up their seeingly wild-eyed and politically-motivated accusations? The story goes on...and we see this story on the major Right-blogs for what it is, which is an attempt to do damage to Air America. I don't think the Righties are actually weeping or losing sleep over the possibility of a social organization's mismanagement of funding.


Update - Here's some news I can guarantee is "real." See the Headlines section of the Saturday edition of Iddybud. Atty General Eliot Spitzer will look into the matter.

A Judith Miller Mini-Series by Emptywheel

A Judith Miller Mini-Series by Emptywheel

EmptyWheel has begun a series about Judy Miller's sordid history regarding the Iraq war and the WMD farce. The first installment is at The Next Hurrah. The second installment is at the blog and can also be found at Daily Kos. It's good reading for anyone interested in knowing how Miller was led..and how she misled the public. It also causes you to wonder how this woman was able to wield such excessive power (even for a top-notch journalist) and how much her employer, the NYT, might know about her activities and her sources of information.

UPDATE: Part Three is now available at Empty Wheel.

Sgt John Bruhns - Iraq War Veteran

Sgt John Bruhns - Iraq War Veteran
He has certainly earned the right to offer his experienced opinion about Iraq



Read his statement. You can read more about Sgt Bruhns here.

Novak suspended by CNN

Novak suspended by CNN

The pressure has gotten to reporter/pundit Bob Novak. He completely lost it today on the Strategy Session of CNN's "Inside Politics." You can see the video at Media Matters. He swore at James Carville, ripped off his mike, and walked off the set. I was watching and I could hardly believe he broke down like he did. Perhaps the thought of Ed Henry's upcoming questions about the outing of Valerie Plame were too much for him to deal with. Ed Henry and James Carville seamlessly and gracefully continued on with the rest of the segment. CNN has suspended Novak, asking him to "take some time off." I was beginning to feel that it was inappropriate for CNN to continue to use Novak as a reliable source while the Fitgerald investigation was going on, anyhow. I mean, how much could Novak really say about the case when he's involved? Let's hope for a pundit to take his place who had nothing to do with the outing of Valerie Plame.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall claims there may have been a copy of the infamous Who's Who (where the Plame name-game is in question) on the CNN desk when Novak lost it yesterday.

Headlines

Headlines


President Bush visits BSA Jamboree
photo by Daniel Giles

- My son, who is a Life Scout, was one of the children who saw President Bush last Sunday at the 2005 BSA Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill. He was also one of the 300 Scouts who were medically treated for heat exhaustion on the day the President was initially scheduled to appear but cancelled due to the extreme heat. My son says that the soldiers at A.P. Hill were welcoming and treated him very well. He is now home safely. We are very sorry about the Scout leaders who died at the Jamboree when their tent pole hit a live wire and they were killed. My heart goes out to their families.

- Osama Bin Laden's aide Ayman al-Zawahri said in a videotape that London will face more attacks because of Prime Minister Tony Blair's foreign policy decisions; claiming the recent attacks stemmed from Blair's decision to invade Iraq. [al Jazeera News]

- Discovery Commander Eileen Collins has described how widespread environmental destruction on Earth is visible from the shuttle. She says, "It's very widespread in some parts of the world. We would like to see, from the astronauts' point of view, people take good care of the Earth and replace the resources that have been used." [BBC News]

- Ohio families are fed up with the loss of so many of their Marines. [Minneapolis Star Tribune] [Chicago Sun-Times]


- Tomorrow is the 1st anniversary of the release of the infamous anti-Kerry Swift-boat ads. Steve Cobble has an idea for Teresa Heinz.

- This weekend the GOP kicks off its 2006 campaign cycle at the party's annual summer meeting in Pittsburgh, with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum playing host. A right-wing wacky extremist is at the center of their effort to keep control of the Senate?! This goal - to hold on to power at any cost, while dragging America away from mainstream common values - how much longer can this spell success for the GOP?

- I liked Duncan's title on the new "GSAVE" moniker and President Bush's follow-up statement. I recently heard Air America writer/satirist Barry Crimmins recommend that the name of the Anti-War movement should be changed to the "Anti-Struggle" movement. (And Barry's book "Never Shake Hands with a War Criminal" can now be changed to "Never Shake Hands with a Struggle Criminal.") Thanks again to Barry, by the way, for the benefit he performed last week here in Syracuse for the Syracuse Peace Council. I had a wonderful time, and it was great to have met Barry in person.

- Drudge is reporting that the NYT is looking into the adoption records of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts as a part of the paper's "standard background check."

- My, how quickly things change with these fickle wackos. Once a 'Justice Sunday' hero - Bill is "Benedict Frist - Agent of Beelzebub" by the time the next 'Justice Sunday' rolls around. [CNN]

- What the hell was HE thinking?



- South Korean scientists have successfully cloned man's best friend (or in their case, man's best meat supply). "Snuppy" steak, anyone?

Update: Speaking of Man's Best Friends, Dark Syde has what I think is a great diary about them today at Daily Kos website.

Jeff Gannon-fake journalist- back in the news

Jeff Gannon-fake journalist-back in the news

At Salon, Tim Grieve has some very interesting comments about Jeff Gannon, at whom I have long pointed a questioning finger. As I've stated before, Gannon [aka Guckert] came into the picture at a curious time - just when a trashing of Joseph Wilson was "required" by the scum within the White House who were scrambling to cover political lies. Bob "Douchebag" Novak (nickname credit goes to Jon Stewart) has pulled false information out of an old Jeff Gannon article and is boldly using it as part of his ongoing and pathetic excuse-factory. Who does he think he's going to convince? I happen to think this has all been part of the M.O. of the "trash-Joe Wilson" group - to use Gannon's shite-bag "journalism" to lend credibility to the scummy lies of those who have been willing agents of the destruction of Joseph Wilson's reputation. And what a tangled web they've weaved. Patrick Fitzgerald certainly has his work cut out for him - but I happen to believe he sees through the tangled web, just as so many of us have. Point by point, bloggers are working together to dismantle the lies that have come off the "trash-Joe Wilson" conspirators' production line. If we can do it, I'm sure Fitzgerald and his team can do it. Recycling trash is what good conservationists do. Bob Novak is a committed recycler of Gannon trash. It’s clear that Bob Novak happens to want to conserve Gannon’s lies - along with his own tail.

As Bernard Weiner has recently written, in a satirical piece where he is the voice behind Karl Rove's diary:

"...we definitely don't want Fitz probing into Jeff-Gannon, how and why he was given key interviews and scoops, his Plame-story connection, and who supplied him overnight passes into the White House. Any one of those, especially the passes, could be more than just embarrassing; if provable allegations along those lines were thrown into this scandal soup, we'd really be done for, as the religious types would abandon us in droves."

See Peter Daou's report.

CSPAN showcases John Edwards this weekend

CSPAN showcases John Edwards this weekend

This Sunday, the CSPAN network will showcase former Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, on his recent sojourn to New Hampshire to attend a birthday party for Democratic state Sen. Lou D'Allesandro - and two pig roasts. It's part of CSPAN's "Road to the White House" program. [WT]

Steven Vincent Had Hope

Steven Vincent Had Hope
..in his memory, we can speak to power - the promise has not been honestly fulfilled.

People in the blogosphere are making what they wish of a journalist's death - injecting their opinions into the reason that Steven Vincent was cut down in cold blood. Bottom line, there is no reason. He was an American - it was all the thugs needed to know. Some murderous fuck took a beautiful soul out of this world, and we know that sort of task is God's job - and God's job alone. Steven would probably have never have listened to someone like me, who would have cautioned him about his hawkish idealism. He didn't care much for anyone who wasn't "all for the cause" - a look at his In The Red Zone blog and his blogroll shows that he had put his interest and trust in the right side of the blogosphere. Many who are searching for reasons for his senseless murder are neglecting to mention that Basra is less secure than it has ever been. Steven was obviously a gentleman of conviction - brave, bold, and he probably always knew this was a possibility. In life, I know I would have genuinely liked him. I 'm so sorry for what happened to him. My heart goes out to his wife - his family. I cannot imagine that Steven would have been satisfied with the fact that there are plans for U.S. troops to pull out - with no clear "victory". God knows what's going to happen to the people we leave behind in Iraq. What have we done? What have we done? Will Steven's dream ever be realized? All we've seen is an unnecessary political war - accompanied by an endless string of lies and dirty political tricks played upon American citizens by their government. Steven's name is added to a list of at least 1800 other Americans who have died for a cause with which we strive to categorize as death for some higher purpose - but that higher purpose is not at all clear.

Update: See Timothy Phelps' Newsday column about Steven Vincent.

BTC News has a rather sinister suspicion about the death of Steven Vincent. A theory about wrong place/wrong time/ wrong target/wrong people to have pissed off.

Bill O'Goebbels

Read what the jerky Bill O'Goebbels is saying now...or watch.

The Fitzgerald Focus

The Fitzgerald Focus

One particular sentence which David Johnston has written for the NYT shouldn't surprise me, yet it seems rather news-y. I was under the impression that all we officially knew was that Patrick Fitzgerald was focusing on the outing of Valerie Plame and who may have been responsible. Johnston writes:

Mr. Fitzgerald has focused on whether in the identification of the officer, Valerie Wilson, there was a deliberate effort to retaliate against her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his criticism of the Bush administration's policy on Iraq.

Is the focus is on the conspiracy to do political damage to Mr. Wilson? If so, what will be the legal charges brought about with any potential indictments? This is getting more interesting - and intriguing - by the day.

Jean Schmidt insults Vets;Exaggerates About Humble Beginnings

Jean Schmidt insults Vets;
Exaggerates About Humble Beginnings

Exaggerating about your humble beginnings can be politically dangerous when a GOP candidate does it and an American Street writer happens to have grown up with the truth-stretcher. Check out Barbara O'Brien's down-home tale about Ohio candidate Jean Schmidt, who says she doesn't think that American vets from the Iraq war are qualified to serve in public office! (Hear THAT one, vets?)

Schmidt's opponent, Iraq war vet Paul Hackett, is still accepting donations here.

A note about the results of the Ohio special election: It had been 15 years since a Democratic candidate for Congress received more than 30 percent of the vote in Ohio's 2nd District and decades since a Democrat held the seat. Paul Hackett received 48% of the vote. That speaks volumes about Schmidt's ignorant comment about vets. A hell of a lot of District 2 voters disagreed with Schmidt's view that being an American vet from the Iraq war is the "wrong kind of experience" for a member of Congress. 14 Marines (from Ohio, they're saying) were KILLED today - I wonder what Jean Schmidt and other Republicans would have said about them if they'd come home in one piece and run for office as Democrats?

I'm sick of Republicans pretending they are in awe of vets - putting yellow-ribbon magnets on their ATV bumpers - then, like Jeckyl v Hyde, donning Purple Heart stickers on their cheeks to mock veterans who don't happen to belong to the Republican party. And saying the vets have no place in Congress. What a bunch of pukes.

The only cover "Who's Who" displays is its own cover

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.

Related:
Josh Marshall
Rodger Payne
Baltimore Sun
Larry Johnson - Lame Bob Novak

Iran - Ten Years Away

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."

Bolton booed

Bolton booed

Recess-appointed John Bolton's been booed - it happened on Monday afternoon - - in New York - on the sidewalk outside the United States Mission. I'm sure it won't be the last time.

It's very likely that the President has picked tastier selections from his nose than the well-documented bastard he picked for UN ambassador.

Judith Miller in the Spotlight

Judith Miller in the Spotlight

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.

BlogHercon Gets Rolling

BlogHercon Gets Rolling

I am sorry that I cannot be with the ladies at BlogHercon this weekend. I am especially thinking of them and I hope they have a productive and memorable time. It looks like great fun so far. [Beth's Blog].

If women hold up half the sky, why are they not heard? [asks Katherine at PingV.com]

The BlogHercon site is here.

A special shout out to Jay Rosen, who so kindly mentioned my inability to be there. A family commitment has put me on the opposite coast. I am with all of you in spirit. Have a blast!

- Jude

US Military Evicted from Uzbekistan Airbase

US Military Evicted from Uzbekistan Airbase

Indepundit is reporting that the U.S. Military has been evicted from an airbase in the ex-Soviet state of Uzbekistan. Joe Gandelman has a report as well. The airbase was important to the support of our operations in Afghanistan. [see Reuters] The government in Uzbekistan is said to be one of the most authoritarian in the Islamic world. The Bush adminstration gave Uzbekistan $500 million to secure basing rights in the country -- and much of that money was siphoned into the private accounts of President Karimov and his allies. Senior officials in the Bush administration are saying that if they'd turned a blind eye to the Uzbek refugee/human rights problems, the Military could have managed to stay.

When was the last time you heard about the Bush administration accepting the loss of a fairly critical Military base while we were at war - based on the crappy human rights record of the nation in which they are based? [see Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, et al - - all with abominable human rights records]. We Americans know the Bush administration better than that. Bush has a BIG bully pulpit - and he knows how to use it. Oil and gas interests and access to strategic military facilities in Central Asia have been primary motivators for the Bush Administration. How can the Bush administration expect us to believe they're just as glad to lose this important military base? Is this proof that we're losing ground for the spread of democracy in Central Asia? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers has said:

"Central Asia is important to the United States for lots of reasons, not just for operations in Afghanistan... Security and stability in Central Asia is an important concept, and those that can bring security and stability ought to be welcomed in Central Asia. Uzbekistan is a very important country over there."

What will we do about the Uzbekistan problem now? Karimov is the kind of leader that Saddam Hussein was a couple of decades ago. Do you see a failure of a pattern emerging? Sanctions that will result in the sure starvation of the babies and the elderly? Ignoring the UN and any meaningful role they might play? I wouldn't put it past neocon Michael Ledeen to suggest that we should attack Uzbekistan in order to "deliver" democracy. That's the neocon M.O., isn't it?

Bolton Makes Quite a "Mistake"

Bolton Makes Quite a "Mistake"

John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, "mistakenly" told our Congress that he had not been interviewed or testified in any investigation over the past five years, the State Department has said. According to reports from MSNBC, John Bolton has testified to the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame

Some might call that omission a lie.

As usual, the Bush administration, who "leaves no pal behind," does not care about the lie omission.

Character counts, unless you are a friend of Dubya Bush.


Update - 7/30 - TPM Cafe has a copy of a letter which Senate Dems have sent to the President about the Bolton fib.

Tony Blair Says Nothing We Didn't Already Know

Tony Blair Says Nothing We Didn't Already Know

I thought that Tony Blair may have forgotten what "symbolism" meant when I read that he'd said:

"If it is concern for Iraq then why are they driving a car bomb into the middle of a group of children and killing them?"

But then I read his next line:

I am not saying any of these things don't affect their warped reasoning and warped logic

..and I thought, to myself, that this was nothing we didn't already know.

It certainly means that Mr. Blair recognizes that Iraq is a part of the warped reason that terrorists are striking innocent people in his nation.

When Mr. Blair says much of the world had dropped its guard to the threat of terrorism after the "wake-up call" of the 9/11 attacks of 2001, he may be right in some ways. Over 3000 people dead in one attack in America is certainly a candidate for a new Western-based consciousness (*the people of the Middle East and Europe have gone through these troubles with terrorism for years).

New York City's wake-up call came years before, however, when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. To many jaded New Yorkers, 9/11 was expected (although no one expected the towers to fall - which is still a much-talked about mystery).

If world leaders used the "wake-up" call of 9/11 to unecessarily remove precious liberties from freedom-loving people, then it can safely be said that those freedom-loving people got a "wake-up" call after 9/11 as well. The alarm screamed "Hold fast to your freedoms lest they be stolen away by radical rightwing interests in the name of fear and terror!"

We, the people, must all be careful in this new age. If life is no good without freedom, then terrorists win by killing our spirits with the willing aide of leaders who employ fear. The terrorist wields fear and the leaders employ fear. The only person with secure and robust employment these days is 'old Mr. Fear.'

Do not read this as a voice against good government. Above all, do not consider this to be a support of any kind of violence against our fellow man. Take your politics out of it and hear the voice of freedom telling you to be cautious of that which you choose to rally around.

Mr. Blair's complicitous involvement in the Iraq war planning, which we learned about in the leaked Downing Street memos, has sent up a caution sign about anything he may say to defend his leadership on Iraq and the terror that has followed in London.

I'd like to put these misspent and sorrowful days in Iraq behind us and move on, with governments we can trust and who are willing to work with each other to end poverty, genocide, unjust wars, and disease. We need to end the bitter division between right and left. "Iraq" is not a fitting reason for killing innocent people in London, just as sure as "imminent threat" was not a fitting reason for the damage we've caused to the nation and the people of Iraq.

I think, with the greatest sorrow, of mothers and fathers who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq. If I could tell them anything, I would tell them that their children were honorable soldiers who were loyal to the ideals of their nation. Even as I talk about the ones who, in shadows, found a way to convince their nations to go to a war that was not necessary, I will never diminish or demean the lives of the men and women who, like so many Americans, trusted in the good faith of their leaders.

Now they are looking for a way to pull out of the awful mess they led us into. I am very angry - and I can imagine that those families must feel the confusion and anger far deeper than I do.

Only ONE set of Niger documents from ONE source

Only ONE set of Niger documents -
from ONE source

The Left Coaster has posted some observations which raise a 'whole slew of additional questions about who knew what and when.' These questions were unfortunately neither raised nor answered within the whitewash Senate Report. Go to THIS LINK to find a detailed analysis of the Senate Report on the topic of the forged Niger documents and evidence that there was only ONE set of forged Niger documents relating to the “uranium from Africa” claim – and no other sources.

Excerpt:
A. The Senate (SSCI) Report inadvertently offers the evidence one needs to prove that there was only one set of Niger uranium documents, that those documents were forged, that those documents were the basis of the original reports that sent Wilson to Niger (only he didn't know it for sure although I think he made a good guess at one time that they probably were), even though they publicly surfaced several months after the Wilson trip.

B. One of the sources of the first set of reports (late 2001/early 2002) on the alleged Iraq-Niger deal must have been aware that the documents were forged and the evidence suggests strongly that he or she made some effort to mask this fact, until the documents surfaced.

C. The Senate (SSCI) Report, using ambiguous wording regarding the source of the first three intelligence reports received by the CIA (two of which were the basis of Wilson's Niger trip and the third having appeared shortly after Wilson's trip), failed to make it clear that those reports were obviously based on extracts from the forged documents.

D. Based on the finding that the original set of Niger reports were based entirely on extracts from the forged documents, serious discrepancies are evident in the CIA's/Bush administration's claims about how and when they first became aware that the Niger documents were forged and on how they decided that the Niger intelligence was not credible. This raises serious questions about the extent of the Bush administration's manipulation of the truth about the "uranium from Africa" claim, their knowledge of the forged Niger documents, and their motives for attacking Joseph Wilson and exposing Valerie Plame's covert CIA identity.

* even though former Ambassador Joseph Wilson did not know it at the time he was sent to Niger, the alleged claims of an Iraq-Niger uranium deal that led to Wilson's trip to Niger in early 2002, were in fact based on extracts of information passed on to the CIA from the very same forged documents that surfaced publicly later in 2002.

Bolton Recess Appointment?

Bolton Recess Appointment?

It's been speculated that John Bolton is one of jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller's major sources for WMD and national security issues. Bolton has testified on the Plame case [on what terms, we are not clear] and he may be a key figure in the plot to out CIA agent Valerie Plame [see Justin Raimondo's column]. Bolton's office had promulgated the Niger/Uranium 'story' inside the State Department, put him close to "the activities." Two of Bolton's assistants, David Wurmser and John Hannah, worked in Dick Cheney's office, and there is a likely possibility of a Bolton to Wurmser and Hannah, to Cheney (and/or Libby) to Rove connection on this cover-up. If Bolton is recess-appointed to the UN by Bush, will that give him some form of diplomatic immunity on the legal matter surrounding Plame's outing and internal administration matters? I'm not an attorney, but I would be curious to learn the answer.

Plamegate: The Point Where Tenet Got Off the Liars' Boat

Plamegate: The Point Where Tenet Got Off the Liars' Boat

Josh Marshall points to what he calls a very important piece on Plamegate by Walter Pincus (with Jim VandeHei) in today's Washington Post. I'm glad they wrote it - and I'm glad Josh is pointing out the most important point. As I blogged about in these past few weeks, this investigation surrounds the cover-up as well as the outing itself. More importantly, George Tenet has, in a key way, separated himself from those who wished the 16 words had never been made an issue (and would stoop to the lowest political depths to protect themselves). [See my coverage from July 12, 2005].

By July 10, 2003, Rove, Libby, and WHIG knew they would have to take drastic measures to cover the major hole that Joseph Wilson had popped in the side of their "Liars' Boat".

Perhaps, by his resignation, which many of us saw as Tenet being used as a scapegoat, Tenet was actually jumping off a sinking ship.

Hear a Talking Douchebag for Just Under $600!

Hear a Talking Douchebag
for Just Under $600!

Thoreau Quote

"Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake."
- Henry David Thoreau

Suspicions & Reservations About Sen Pat Roberts

Roberts has delivered Karate chop after Karate chop to the light of day on White House intelligence manipulation. Soon we'll witness his Charlie kick to the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation.

Suspicions & Reservations About Sen Pat Roberts

I lost faith and trust in Sen Pat Roberts' ability to lead fair Senate Intelligence Committee investigations long ago. At first, I thought it was just typical partisanship that caused him to act as he has acted. We are involved in a war on "terror" - a seemingly endless and delicate war. These times are dangerous and call for our Senate to work together to do what's best to protect America. There is something suspicious about Roberts' willingness to throw national security over for not only partisan gain, but suspect covering up of a White House leak.

Roberts has participated in helping the White House to cover its ass in the past. I have blogged, in the past, about my suspicion that he (or other GOP Senate Intelligence Committee members) leaked information to the fake journalist Jeff Gannon (aka Jeff Guckert) who mysteriously came along at a time when Joe Wilson was being systematically torn down and Democratic computer files were being violated and pilfered for the Senate Intelligence Committee's benefit. It's all too questionable for me to say nothing. See this from a Washington Post article, from back in Nov, 2003:

"Angry about a leaked Democratic memo, the Republican leadership of the Senate yesterday took the unusual step of canceling all business of the committee investigating prewar intelligence on Iraq. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) called on the author of the memo -- which laid out a possible Democratic strategy to extend the investigation to include the White House and executive branch -- to 'identify himself or herself . . . disavow this partisan attack in its entirety' and deliver 'a personal apology' to Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence. Only if those steps are taken, Frist said, "will it be possible for the committee to resume its work in an effective and bipartisan manner -- a manner deserving of the confidence of other members of the Senate and the executive branch."

Roberts followed Frist on the floor and said that unless the Democratic members "properly" address the issue, "I am afraid that it will be impossible to return to 'business as usual' in the committee."

After discussions with Roberts, the majority leader said that "the committee's review is nearly complete" and "we have jointly determined the committee can and will complete its review this year."

"They can't do that," Rockefeller said, noting that hundreds of pages of requested documents have recently been promised by the State Department and Pentagon and more interviews have been scheduled.

In addition, he noted that the final report from David Kay, who heads the CIA's search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has not been completed. "What can we say about prewar intelligence without Kay's report?" Rockefeller asked."

See my corresponding post from 2003, about Bill Frist and Pat Roberts working together to cover up the White House lies.

I smell one big rotten rat, I've smelled it for a long time, and I am sorry - I do not trust Sen Pat Roberts. Look at what he's doing now to cover the White House CIA leak [see Josh Marshall's commentary - also being discussed at TPM Cafe].

I think Pat Roberts should be investigated by a Senate Ethics Committee. In my opinion, his past actions have caused me to believe he's not trustworthy to head this type of Committee at this delicate time in our democracy's history. How can we protect America when our Representatives, who deal with oversight of Intelligence, are participating in blatant and dangerous partisan cover-up games? We were screwed once by the Bush administration's many manipulators of Intelligence (see "Iraq War}. We must not allow these games to be able to continue. Sen Pat Roberts is a symptom of our weakness, poor protection, and divisiveness - not the cure. I'd love to see his keister kicked off the Committee altogether. He has proven, to me, that he doesn't belong in that position.

___

This cover-up has been so blatant - and so obvious [linked: my post of Nov 2003]. Why hasn't the press picked up on this long ago?

See my July 9, 2004 post about Roberts' willingness to let the most important part of the investigation - which was the manipulation of the intelligence by the White House - SLIDE.

Related Daily Kos posting - "GOP to investigate Fitzgerald" (*Investigating the investigation? PLEASE!)

See Larry C. Johnson's statement on Roberts. [at "No Quarter"]

The Daily Howler is doing a lot of apologizing for Roberts (along with a good share of Josh Marshall-bashing). A curious exercise - with Somerby accusing those who point out the obvious fact that Sen Roberts is a partisan tribalist as being ......partisan tribalists (wow - I could've had a V8). Marshall, a journalist, has nowhere near Robert's power as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Somerby seems to have been struck down with the curse of evenhandedness, which will not get him far when it comes to speaking to power and getting anyplace close to the truth.

At Interesting Times, Chris Andersen wonders if Roberts is trying to use the subpoena power of his committee to determine what is going on within the Fitzgerald investigation.

"Might he pull an Ollie North and use congressional immunity to get damaging testimony about Plamegate out into the open so that that testimony cannot then be used by Fitzgerald in his investigation?"

The Show Goes On

The Show Goes On

The Cat's Dream has a post about the mistake in London that left a perfectly innocent fellow dead. Related - London Blasts: Don't Let Them Win by Gabriele Zamparini.

Tom Friedman is Dead Wrong About His "Excuse Makers"

Tom Friedman is Dead Wrong About His "Excuse Makers"

Tom Friedman said:

When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow “understandable” is outrageous.

That's true on its face, but then you must consider that that people who decide that life is less worth living than having the ability to make a political and/or religious point may be acting out some form of frustration with "power" in their society - and how they perceive that power. People don't make a decision to commit suicide lightly. I know - I am a suicide counselor myself. People don't act in a vacuum!

I am deeply disturbed, as much as the next person, that terrorist tactics are being culturalized. We are NOT going to put a stop to it by pointing our fingers at one another in a free society and calling one another despicable for what we see as symptoms of sickness in the culture that breeds terror. Are imperialism, colonialism, and Zionism symptoms of cultural sickness? Of course they are! Has the Iraq war caused an increase in recruitment of terrorism? Of course it has!

Tom Friedman started his latest column with such a great idea. He recommended that hate speech should be pointed out whenever it is seen.

Hey, Tom Friedman! I just saw some hate speech - and it's right there in your column. It says:

"...excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists."

To Tom Friedman, people are "despicable" when they tie possible reasons for terrorist behavior with things that have actually occurred in history. (As if it's a murderous act, in and of itself - shame on Tom Friedman!)

"...imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq.."

These are not excuses - they are discussion about why and how these murderers come to make such heinous decisions. Tom Freidman acts as if THINKING and DISCUSSING is "despicable" in a free and open society. Think about that! Friedman is telling you to shut up and fall in line.

I would classify that as hate speech. Tom Friedman should stick to writing about business, because he's very good at it. His "flat world" concept is brilliant, in my opinion.

He becomes an insulting boor (and bore) when he sticks his nose into politics. I'm sick and tired of Mr. Friedman libeling people who only wish to comment on the reality of the society in which we live. He was dead-wrong about the Iraq war - and he's dead-wrong now in denying that the culture of the "flat world" and that the history that has led up to it has bred terrorism among us.

And it was such a good article at its start....Friedman ruined it with his "good dog/bad dog" vibe. When he lectures to us about how "words matter", he'd better look in a mirror.