Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Breaking News!



Breaking News!




Karl Rove is still a traitor.




See this Daily Kos post revealing Bush's startling hypocrisy. Bush will not trust Congress with intelligence information - he says he doesn't trust them - he thinks they're leakers - this, coming from the West Wing traitor-leakers extraordinaire.

Next - a WSJ article:
Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity By ANNE MARIE SQUEO and JOHN D. MCKINNON Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL July 19, 2005; Page A3

A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document....The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson's involvement in her husband's trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn't be shared, according to the person familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive.....Who received the memo, which was prepared for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and how widely it was circulated are issues as Mr. Fitzgerald tries to pinpoint the origin of the leak of Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the person familiar with the document, it didn't include a distribution list. It isn't known if President Bush has seen the memo.....Mr. Novak attempted to reach Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, in the days before his column appeared. However, Mr. Fleischer didn't respond to Mr. Novak's inquiries, according to a person familiar with his account.
There is one part of the WSJ article that I have a real problem with. It seems to me to be a false statement - a revision of history. The writer, Mr. McKinnon, says:
White House officials had been warning reporters off the notion that the trip to Niger was ordered by Vice President Dick Cheney, as Mr. Wilson had suggested. Emails and a first-person account published this week of his grand-jury testimony by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper support this notion.
On Charlie Rose this week, I heard Matt Cooper aver, several times, that he surmised this Rove leak was a war on Joseph Wilson and that it seemed very "odd" to him. He used the word "odd" again and again..too many times to discount it. Another point: Joseph Wilson NEVER tried to say that Dick Cheney sent him directly. I have followed this story far too long to let an untruth like this one slide by. I think this is either sloppy journalism or bias - it is not my place to say which.

Tancredo: Is he retarded?



Tancredo: Is he retarded?

Tancredo said: "You could take out their holy sites." Radio Host Campbell said, "You're talking about bombing Mecca." Tancredo replied, "Yeah."
I just had to post my 14-year old son's first reaction, upon hearing about Tom Tancredo's statement about bombing Mecca (when it was replayed on MSNBC):

"What?!?? Bomb the Black Stone?
Is he THAT retarded?"


Okay - he could have said that in a politically correct way, but I ask you - how many politically correct 14-year olds do YOU know?

The point is this:
Even a young boy understands that a civil society would never target a world religion's most sacred site for revenge against bin Ladenists.

I just read that Tancredo won't back down. He said, on MSNBC, that we shouldn't "get uptight".

We shouldn't get uptight about his drooling desire to bomb the most Holy site of Islam?! He's acting like a terrorist.

How could it be that we elect such total damned idiots to Congress? He should be taken to task by his own party for this monstrous talk.


Face it - Yentl may have come close to being constituted as torture, but blowing up Mecca? Well, that just might screw up a lot more things for America, Mr. Bernie Goldberg.


Mamsy-pamsy Bernard Goldberg is worried about Barbara Streisand screwing up America...while this jerk Tancredo talks, very seriously, about America needing to destroy sacred sites?!!?

Give me a break, already!

Apologize, Tancredo.


Hurricane Edith Coming?



Hurricane Edith Coming?
It's blowing in at 9pm TONIGHT!

Scared of Hurricane Emily?
FUGGEDABOUDDIT!
Be afraid of Hurricane Edith!
There are two Ediths who are in the eye of the storm which will surely be blowing out of your Cable News Television sets soon...perhaps as soon as today.
*There has to be a diversion from the CIA-outing snakes crawling around the West Wing.

One Edith stands out as more radically conservative than the other. Neither are going to give proper balance to the SCOTUS.

Democrats already say that Edith Hollan Jones is unacceptable because she has shown an activist's defiance - she has a record of flaunting her defiance of the US Supreme Court on the issue of a standard set by the Supreme Court for establishing a condemned convict's retardation - and we can expect a major battle if she is nominated by Bush. (Why would Bush do such a stupid thing, knowing the country is so divided? I'll tell you why - because he is Bush.)

An Edith Hollan Jones nomination would spell "I-N-S-T-A-N-T - - F-I-L-I-B-U-S-T-E-R" for Democrats.

I heard a Houston journalist, who knows her well, say that she wrote a revealing minority opinion on a case involving a woman's right to choose, proclaiming that Roe v Wade was "bad law" and that sometimes, regardless of standing law, an overturning should be considered.

From McCorvey v Hill, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Sept 2004 [FindLaw.com]:

Edith Jones opinion:

I agree that Ms McCorvey's Rule 60(b) case is now moot. A judicial decision in her favor cannot turn back Texas' legislative clock to reinstate the laws, no longer effective, that criminalized abortion.

It is ironic that the doctrine of mootness bars further litigation of this case. Mootness confines the judicial branch to its appropriate constitutional role of deciding actual. live cases of controversies. Yet, this case was born in an exception to mootness and brought forth, instead of a confined decision, an "exercise of raw judicial power." [..] Even more ironic is that, although mootness dictates that Ms. McCovery has no "live" legal controversy, the serious and substantial evidence she offered could have generated an important debate over factual premises that underlay Roe.

McCorvey presented evidence that goes to the heart of the evidence Roe struck between the choice of a mother and the life of her unborn child. First, there are about a thousand affadavits of women who have had abortions and claim to have suffered long-term emotional damage and impaired relationships from their decision.

Studies by scientists, offered by McCorvey, suggested that women may be affected emotionally and physically for years afterward and may be more prone to engage in high-risk, self-destructive conduct as a result of having had abortions. Second, Roe's assumption that the decision to abort a baby will be made in close consultation with a woman's private physician is called into question by affadavits from workers at abortion clinics, where most abortions are now performed.

According to the affadavits, women are often herded through their procedures with little or no medical or emotional counseling. [...}

If the courts would delve into the facts underlying Roe's balancing scheme with "present-day knowlege", they might conclude that the woman's "choice" is far more risky and less beneficial and the child's sentience far more advanced than the Roe court knew.[..]

The problem inherent in the Court's decision to constitutionalize abortion policy is that, unless it creates another exception to the mootness doctrine, the court will never be able to examine its factual assumptions on a record made in court.

Read one (pasty) white conservative male's opinion on Jones and/or Clement (or any other ultra-Conservative female judicial nominee):

"If that sense of things is right, then it could make a notable difference if the decision that upholds the law on partial-birth abortion — and the decision turning the law on abortion onto a different axis — were written and announced by a woman."

- Hadley Arkes
Makes you all warm inside, knowing that pasty white men are propping up the ladies in order to take away our freedom of conscience, doesn't it, gals?


My problem with Edith "Joy" Brown Clement is that she is a conservative with an apparently paperless record on her Roe v Wade opinion. Senate - approach Joy Clement with great caution! She has not left much of a paper trail.

Corporate America would favor Clement because she was once a private practitioner who represented business interests -- experience that the big business community says the Rehnquist court now lacks. Clement might be friendly to corporate America, but she may not be as "friendly" to the women of this nation. If women held more CEO seats, knowing she's a conservative in the Federalist Society mold (and not knowing what she might do with our right to choose), I wonder if the enthusiasm for Joy Clement would be as great.

We are left to wonder if "Joy" Clement will try to overturn Roe v Wade. You can't blame us. We trust Bush as far as we can throw him. I think that the Senate would have a hard time filibustering Joy Clement, though...and I don't yet see a solid reason why they would. She really hasn't been involved in any terriibly controversial decisions. She'd definitely be a better choice over Edith Hollan Jones.


John Edwards - Democrats: Stand Strong for Principles



John Edwards - Democrats: Stand Strong for Principles

Raleigh News & Obeserver
POINT OF VIEW
Published: Jul 16, 2005
Finding a justice with bipartisan support
By JOHN EDWARDS


Note: If Bush nominates someone like Edith Hollan Jones, we should be seeing one of the biggest Senate battles in American history. If Bush decides to follow the ugly path of division and non-consensus, which he has been treading for five years now, my instincts tell me that he will nominate Jones. I hope I'm wrong.


Monday, July 18, 2005

In This White House, You're Only "Out" if You're a Convict



In This White House, You're Only "Out" if You're a Convict

Wow. The "high" standard for holding a high position in the White House is apparently that you didn't get convicted for breaking the law. I must say, I'm really impressed with Bush's latest promise.(not)

Funny how the President's pie-crust promises crumble as the focus on Karl Rove gets more heavily concentrated.


Bob Somerby - You were rude



Bob Somerby - You were rude
..and your case against Joseph Wilson is unconvincing.

I am extremely disappointed with and dismayed by Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler, who has bought heavily into Deborah Orin's line of reasoning. Orin has all too often been the topic at Media Matters, an organization who lives to scope out misinformation in the media.

Somerby goes overboard in the rudeness department by saying:
Today’s liberals want to be happy but dumb — just as dumb as pseudo-conservatives have been for the past several decades. He [he?! - my emphasis] wants to be fed stupid tales, in which his side is always right, and the other side is wickedly wrong. And no, he doesn’t want ambiguity!
Insulting, indeed...especially when he uses Orin as his reason.

It's a no-brainer that this case is not the big "Ah-ha!" The Bush administration is always snaking their way out of trouble. This is not "the perfect case" for liberals. To know that Bob Somerby only sees it in that light, for me, makes his star fall to the ground - flattened and dulled. I once enjoyed reading him, with no reservation. His credibility, as far as I'm concerned, is damaged by this line of suspicious thinking about any of our motives for caring about this story.

In accusing Wilson of failing to grasp logic, Mr. Somerby doesn't seem to grasp the logic of the claim that's being refuted. It was never necessary for anyone to claim that any transaction took place. The administration just needed to be able to scare people into accepting the war in Iraq. One of Mr. Somerby's references, used to make someone like myself look "dumb", is Susan Scmidt's WaPo quote:
Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger
which he never mentions was later corrected by the Post, and changed to IRAN.
(Tip of the hat to Duncan at Atrios):



Beyond all that, the point is this: Karl Rove outed a CIA agent. By 2003, he knew, very well, that there were no WMD in Iraq. He knew, whether anyone would like to admit it or not, that Wilson was right to have questioned those 16 words. George Tenet had publically gotten down on bended knee and apologized to America for those 16 words appearing in the SOTU speech.

I think Bob, an extremely good writer in general, has wasted too much time attempting to refute Joseph Wilson and not enough time directing his energy toward the false justifications for war in Iraq and the lie factory which created them. I wish he wouldn't use people like me to cover for what I see as him being sadly close to the RNC talking points on Wilson. I don't think he's made fair assumptions (or a good case) about my motives for caring about this story or believing Joseph Wilson. I'm insulted.

In all fairness, MyDD has posted Bob's statement after he realized how he had offended others. I still don't agree with his theory - not one bit - but at least he realized how he had offended. Paul Rosenberg and Gary Boatwright expound on their disagreement with Bob.


Michael Ledeen, Judy Miller, "Scooter" Libby



Michael Ledeen, Judy Miller, "Scooter" Libby
Fitzgerald investigation is closely-held, yet it seems to go deeper than "Karl-said/Novak-said" - - and you can bet Judith Miller hasn't decided to sit in jail for no good reason. The Plame outing didn't occur in a vacuum, and the investigation may be going deep. Judy Miller has her reasons to remain silent. Those reasons remain a mystery, and we can only speculate.

_______________


I would like you to read a post of mine from May, 2004. It includes discussion about Michael Ledeen, a man so voracious for tackling Iran's regime that he has used the recent London terrorist bombings to try to start a whole new "drums-of-war" campaign for America. It also involves Judith Miller and Ahmad Chalabi. My post from May 2004, provides a glimpse into the way the White House has been forced to shelter some very inconvenient (neocon) "friends" in order to save political face.

Judith Miller remains in jail because she apparently doesn't feel comfortable with the waiver Scooter Libby's attorney gave her - and Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan has chided her for it, making it sound as if the protection she's giving a "source" is some sort of a guise. Worse than the chiding, Judge Hogan has raised the possibility (in open court) that Judy Miller could be charged with criminal contempt if she continues to defy Hogan's order to cooperate in the investigation.

It seems as if Ms. Miller found the waiver offer to be coercive in some way. I'm trying to figure why this would be..(?) Judy's well-known to be a smart, relentless, incredibly well-sourced, and fearless reporter, so I don't believe that fear is her motive for silence. Is Judy playing a martyr/saint?...Is she deliberately hiding something? It's a mystery. It's obvious that the investigators are playing hardball with Miller, and I'm sure they would have played the same hardball with any of the other reporters who failed to cooperate. Her attorney, Floyd Abrams has said:
"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]
Four other reporters have answered some of the prosecutors' questions after receiving specific waivers from their sources, including Libby....yet Judy Miller won't do it. Why?

I believe what we have here is an extremely thorough investigation being run by Fitzgerald, Hogan, et al. As stated in the WaPo, "In this closely-held investigation, federal appeals court judges of very different ideological stripes, and Hogan, have reviewed secret evidence and have agreed that Miller's and Cooper's claims of a right to protect their sources is outweighed by the public interest in investigating a possible breach of national security." We have to believe this investigation goes far beyond the "Karl said/Novak said" chatter being bounced around the media and blogosphere, which has reached such a frenzied fever-pitch that people are beginning to tune it out.

I'm not pointing any fingers and I don't think I'm raising any irrational spectres when I ask this question (also asked by Sidney Blumenthal - Salon.com):
"Who gave Ahmed Chalabi classified information about the plans of the U.S. government and military?"
...and what might this have to do with Judy Miller's part in this Plame investigation?

It's clear that Judy Miller's been one hell of a good reporter in the past, although her character flaws, which consist of her ego and her highly competitive nature, seem to have gotten her into trouble with a White House administration who have masterfully used her, and her character flaw, to exploit their propaganda - which many suspect were outright lies facilitated by Miller through Chalabi. The New York Times has apologized for the fiasco, but the ones who should have apologized to the public first, and foremost, was the White House.

I feel it is important to note, for those who may not be aware, that Judy Miller teamed up with notorious neocon Laurie Mylroie on her first book. At the time, she was a fellow at the Bradley Foundation, which is tied to AEI and Bill Kristol's Project for a New American Century, which led the Iraq war charge. AEI (American Enterprise Institute) is a conservative think tank which is a hotbed of Iraq hawks known as "neocons", of which Michael Ledeen is included.

Ledeen is also connected with a lesser-known player named David Wurmser, who is Ledeen's partner in the closely-knit network of neocons (aka "The Lie Factory") who planned this attack upon Iraq based upon false information. David Wurmser is married to Meyrav Wurmser, the director of Middle East studies at the right-wing Hudson Institute. (See John Aravosis' Americablog analysis from 2004 for connections).

Author James Akins has quoted Ledeen, who has, with enthusiasm espoused by sinister neocons, cited Wurmser's disturbing philosophy on US foreign policy in the Middle East: [basically, saying that the reason to pull down Hussein is the hope that Saudi Arabian monarchy will fall to al Qaeda so that the U.S. could extend the "war on terror" into that region]:
"In The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen cites Wurmser in charging that, just before 9-11, "Saudi intelligence had become difficult to distinguish from Al Qaeda." Countless other, similar accusations have been flung at the Saudis by neocons. Max Singer, co-founder of the Hudson Institute, has repeatedly suggested that the United States seek to dismantle the Saudi kingdom by encouraging breakaway republics in the oil-rich eastern province (which is heavily Shia) and in the western Hijaz. "After [Hussein] is removed, there will be an earthquake throughout the region," says Singer. "If this means the fall of the [Saudi] regime, so be it." And when Hussein goes, Ledeen says, it could lead to the collapse of the Saudi regime, perhaps to pro-al-Qaeda radicals. "In that event, we would have to extend the war to the Arabian peninsula, at the very least to the oil-producing regions."

Juan Cole has brought up the topic of Michael Ledeen as recently as yesterday. Mr. Cole tells us to check out Katherine Yurica's posting about Michael Ledeen (*) and understand that Scooter Libby was the liaison to the CIA for the network that ran the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon - and this is highly significant to this entire story.
Libby's network was in competition with the CIA and many members wanted to permanently weaken the agency in favor of the Pentagon, since they had much more influence there.
The neocons of the Bush administration included members of our own Vice President's offices (if not the Vice President himself). The facts surrounding the creation of (false) justifications for the Iraq invasion has threatened to literally pour out of multiple leak sources, like a decayed old hose that's ready to burst. Judith Miller is an inextricable cog in the wheel of the tangled web of lies. How could she possibly separate herself when her involvement was incestuous?

If you were Judy Miller would you talk? You surely wouldn't want to spend one more day in jail than you'd have to. I suppose it would depend upon the nature of the questions you'd be asked. In Miller's case, I would have to guess that the nature of the questioning must carry the threat of incrimination.


* Seeing the Forest has a Round-Up of the Rove Scandal updates

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Juan Cole On Matt Cooper/Karl Rove



Juan Cole On Matt Cooper/Karl Rove

Juan Cole analyzes Matt Cooper's replies to Tim Russert's questions on Meet the Press this morning and has come to these logical conclusions:

- Karl Rove not only knew that Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, but also that she was working on the WMD issue.

- Rove must have known that telling Time Magazine about Wilson's wife would negatively affect her ability to do her job with regard to WMD.

- Rove knew that he was discussing classified information with Mr. Cooper. (Why otherwise promise that the information would "soon be declassified?")

- Before the Cooper revelations, Rove said that he did not know Joe Wilson's wife's name and did not reveal it. We now know that he told Cooper that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, without actually speaking her name. Juan Cole wonders, "when [Rove] says that he heard that [Wilson's wife] worked for the CIA "from a reporter", you have to ask yourself:
"Did he hear that from a reporter after he had already informed the reporter of it? Or did he hear it from a reporter after Scooter Libby, Rove's colleague, had already told the reporter about it?"
Here is a beauty of an analogy by Mr. Cole to show you how unnecessary the destruction of Joseph Wilson was - as unnecessary as the Iraq war itself -- but for sheer political furtherance, defensiveness, and aggression:
There was no Iraqi nuclear weapons program. It had been dismantled shortly after 1991. There was no program, ipso facto there is no plausibility to reports of significant uranium purchases, purchases which did not occur. The Rove approach is to insist that there is evidence that some creature ate grass on a farm in Maryland, and that it has not been disproved that it was African elephants that did the eating. That there are no free-ranging African elephants in Maryland does not matter if you keep pointing to the grass and say, well, something ate it and it could have been elephants.

There was no Iraqi nuclear program, and Rove knew this in summer of 2003 when he outed Valerie Plame.


Jay Rosen on Wilson Case and the Press



Jay Rosen on Wilson Case and the Press

Don't miss Jay Rosen's latest article at the Huffington Post. The White House is reaping that which it has chosen to sow, in their own unique (and ethically questionable) way. If the White House believed, as Karl Rove told Chris Matthews, that Joseph Wilson's wife was "fair game", then shouldn't the press consider questions about the case "fair game" in an atmosphere where reality is "created" every day?

This excerpt has a mountain's worth of a message in a just a few short paragraphs:
Within government, a representative figure for the pre-rollback era is David Gergen, the consummate insider who served as White House advisor to Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton. He preached to both parties, the press, and to television audiences a cautious realism in media relations. It's long gone now but (in my paraphrase) it went something like this:

"The White House has a right to get its message out. The press has a right to question and probe. There are going to be conflicts (and during scandals much worse) but they ought to remain within bounds. The press needs the Administration, it's number one source. The Administration can be hurt by bad press, and helped by good relations with reporters. So calm down and let's get on with producing White House news together."

Or as Larry Speakes, fomer press secretary to Ronald Reagan, once put it: "You don't tell us how to stage the news, and we don't tell you how to report it." It's no surprise that Gergen moved easily from one Administration to the next, and from government into journalism and back. He had the insider's consensus narrative in his pocket. But what if one party unilaterally withdraws from Gergen-style managerialism? There's nothing in the press playbook about that.
I deeply appreciated Mr. Rosen's use of a Ron Suskind "parable" and contrasting the strange White House attitude toward delivering their created version of "the truth" to the reality of the needs of the real-world press, who are now asking some tough questions while reporting the developments in the story of the outing of Valerie Plame:

The Parable (Ron Suskind):

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Today the prosecutor is studying what they do, and there's no way to roll that back. In a Salon interview after the Times article came out, Suskind (whose sources were mostly Republicans) was asked whether the Bush forces were indeed trying to "eliminate a national point of reference on facts."
Absolutely! That's the whole idea, to somehow sweep away the community of honest brokers in America -- both Republicans and Democrats and members of the mainstream press -- sweep them away so we'll be left with a culture and public dialogue based on assertion rather than authenticity, on claim rather than fact.
No more honest brokers; and claims take the place of facts. Disguised by the culture war's ranting about media bias, this is happening all around us today. Limits on what liberties could be taken with the factual record without triggering a political penalty are being overcome. Joseph Wilson interfered, forcing the White House to pay a penalty (my emphasis in bold print): the so-called sixteen words in the State of the Union speech that had to be withdrawn after his op-ed. So he had to pay. And that's how roll back, freedom over fact, culture war, and the naming of Valerie Plame connect to one another.....

- Jay Rosen


E-Mail to Mark Steyn Regarding His Misleadings on Wilson



E-Mail to Mark Steyn Regarding His Misleadings on Wilson
Buying into propaganda doesn't fly in the face of facts pointing to the contrary.Fearmongering and avoiding the core issue, which is Karl Rove playing recklessly and loose with America's classified information, doesn't serve the public well.


I wrote to Mark Steyn today because I totally disapprove of his journalistic style and method, which is clearly one of avoidance, disinformation and fearmongering.

As the Londoners have recently proclaimed, and my heart is with them: "We are not afraid".

We will fight terror, but it can only be done, with cooperation, if we start from a point of honesty. Propaganda just doesn't work in the modern age.

I'll give you a reprint of my e-mail to Mr. Steyn today.




To: Mark Steyn mailbox-at-steynonline-dot-com
My Title: We're Not Buying Your Line of Reasoning
Re: Quote from your column in Chicago Sun Times 17 July 2005
Excerpt from your July 17 column:

"....Just about everybody on the face of the earth except Wilson, the White House press corps and the moveon.org crowd accepts that Saddam was indeed trying to acquire uranium from Africa. Don't take my word for it; it's the conclusion of the Senate intelligence report, Lord Butler's report in the United Kingdom, MI6, French intelligence, other European services -- "


Dear Mr. Steyn,

I don't write many e-mails to columnists. In this case, I was driven to do so.

"Everybody on the face of the earth" is an exaggeration that few Americans are "buying." There is too much information out here to believe such a line, which sounds a lot like whistling past the graveyard.

We know this is about the gross abuse of intelligence and political retrubution toward the man who dared to try and dispel the inconsistencies on the part of the White House in building their case to make pre-emptive war on Iraq. The retribution came in the form of ceratin White Hose officials playing fast and loose with classified information.

Most people on the face of the earth can see that. There is no ethical excuse for what has been done to Valerie Plame. You can use all the fear-mongering and fact-twisting you'd like. In the end, truth always prevails. Mr. Steyn, I think you'd look a lot better, when the smoke clears, on the right side of history. That, of course, is up to you.

I cannot abide by your gross misleadings, though. I thought I'd write and tell you so. I'm an honest person who happens to believe Mr. Wilson. There isn't anything he's said, to this day, to convince me otherwise. In the end, I think most other American citizens who respect the value of good character will agree with me.

Sincerely
Jude Nagurney Camwell


Senate Intelligence Report -

In his testimony, George Tenet had obvious reservations about Cheney/Feith/Libby:

NYT LINK

These reservations do not seem to have made it into the Senate Intelligence Report.

Comment from Guardian article, showing that Tenet was scapegoated instead:
Link -
The report repeatedly condemns the departing CIA director, George Tenet, accusing him of skewing advice to top policy-makers with the CIA's view, and casting aside dissenting views from other intelligence agencies overseen by the state or defence departments.

It blames Mr Tenet for not personally reviewing Mr Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, which contained since-discredited references to Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium in Africa. Mr Tenet has resigned, and leaves his post on Sunday.
** NOTE: The Senate Intel Committee used Tenet as scapegoat and told America they'd investigate the White House role "later"...and they never did.



Butler Report:

My comments: Joe Wilson's 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 served 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 government 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Related post at my freelance blog

From Independent article:
"George Tenet, the CIA director at the time, declared that the Niger claim was "not tenable". And in last week's damning senate report on pre-war intelligence, a memo by a senior CIA official was revealed which said: "We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue."



MI6 -

see my comments here (many links):
LINK

SISMI


French intelligence -

See: New Yorker/Seymour Hersh New Yorker Link
In the fall of 2001, soon after the September 11th attacks, the C.I.A. received an intelligence report from Italy’s Military Intelligence and Security Service, or SISMI, about a public visit that Wissam al-Zahawie, then the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican, had made to Niger and three other African nations two and a half years earlier, in February, 1999. The visit had been covered at the time by the local press in Niger and by a French press agency. The American Ambassador, Charles O. Cecil, filed a routine report to Washington on the visit, as did British intelligence. There was nothing untoward about the Zahawie visit. “We reported it because his picture appeared in the paper with the President,” Cecil, who is now retired, told me. There was no article accompanying the photograph, only the caption, and nothing significant to report. At the time, Niger, which had sent hundreds of troops in support of the American-led Gulf War in 1991, was actively seeking economic assistance from the United States.

None of the contemporaneous reports, as far as is known, made any mention of uranium. But now, apparently as part of a larger search for any pertinent information about terrorism, SISMI dug the Zahawie-trip report out of its files and passed it along, with a suggestion that Zahawie’s real mission was to arrange the purchase of a form of uranium ore known as “yellowcake.” (Yellowcake, which has been a major Niger export for decades, can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors. It can also be converted, if processed differently, into weapons-grade uranium.)


"Other European services"
( ???????? ... )


Typical DLC: Tom Vilsack Wimps Out



Typical DLC:
Tom Vilsack Wimps Out


I could hardly believe it.
Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, new head of the DLC, appeared with John King on CNN just now and asked for Karl Rove to APOLOGIZE and said he expected we could "move on" with other issues.

APOLOGIZE?!?

What is WRONG with Tom Vilsack? Has he no courage or moral fortitude?

Rove should be kicked out of the White House - on his ass!

Vilsack’s leadership abilities should be scrutinized. He deserves to be thrashed for this wimpy performance.

He spells L-O-S-E-R for Democrats by taking such a weak position on behalf of the DLC.


John Fund = Liar



John Fund = Liar

On CNN's "Reliable Sources" (cough) with Howard Kurtz today, I observed partisan weasel John Fund protecting Karl Rove like a mother-bear would protect her cub. He's helping to spread the RNC lies about Joseph Wilson - trying to peg him as a liar. Why is John Fund engaging in this behavior? When Howard Kurtz asked John Fund, (not exact wording - transcript not yet availble): "Even if what you're saying may be so, did that give Karl Rove the right to discuss his wife with those journalists?" Fund had no reasonable reply.

*Note: My question as to why Fund would be acting this way is asked in jest. If you look at any of the links on this post, you will see that Fund has been nothing but an extension arm of the attack-dog arm of the RNC.




Mehlman Not Only Looked Ridiculous, He Looked 'Nuts'

There is a fine line in politics where, once you cross it, you begin to look like a bumbling idiot. Ken Mehlman has definitely crossed that line, in my opinion. His performance on Meet the Press this morning was both laughable and insulting to the common sense of most American citizens. While the general modus operandi, in politics, to attack an enemy who has negativity to desseminate about one of your own, you have to pick and choose your battles carefully. The modus operandi of Ken Mehlman's RNC is to attack like a rabid dog, frothing and spinning lies about the target of their defense. Now, in the case of Karl Rove, Mehlman is spewing outright lies and attacking wildly, regardless of the fact that the person he's covering for is a proven liar and glaringly unethical; regardless of any sense he hopes to make by the extremely general attacks. Mehlman thinks, simply by invoking names of certain politicians and organizations, (for example: Moveon.org, Hillary Clinton - whom Mehlman carefully referred to as "former First Lady) and Nancy Pelosi - another high-profile female in politics - women are all "fair game" to these goons, I guess.)

I'm starting to think Mehlman is 'nuts' - he must be. A sane person could not expect to sit on national TV and attack MoveOn.org and Hillary and Nancy Pelosi for having reservations about what Karl Rove did when he engaged in a free-for-all discussion about classified information about a CIA agent with members of the press. Mehlman is attacking anyone and everyone who would even care to TALK about the issue at this time - calling them all "partisans". (Has he completely lost his mind?) Doesn't Mehlman see what he's doing? He's making the objects of his stupid attacks look really, really good by those attacks. It proves that Mehlman and those he defends have no sense about what Americans think about what constitutes good character and that the RNC doesn't hold good character as a serious value.


Friday, July 15, 2005

John Dean: Rove in Serious Trouble



John Dean: Rove in Serious Trouble

John Dean discusses the legal aspects of the Plame outing - the "Randel Precedent" - if followed -- bodes ill For Karl Rove.

Consider this excerpt:
Karl Rove may be able to claim that he did not know he was leaking "classified information" about a "covert agent," but there can be no question he understood that what he was leaking was "sensitive information." The very fact that Matt Cooper called it "double super secret background" information suggests Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (which by definition is sensitive).

United States District Court Judge Richard Story's statement to Jonathan Randel, at the time of sentencing, might have an unpleasant ring for Karl Rove. Judge Story told Randel that he surely must have appreciated the risks in leaking DEA information. "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country," the judge observed. Judge Story concluded this leak of sensitive information was "a very serious crime."

"In my view," he explained, "it is a very serious offense because of the risk that comes with it, and part of that risk is because of the position" that Randel held in the DEA. But the risk posed by the information Rove leaked is multiplied many times over; it occurred at a time when the nation was considering going to war over weapons of mass destruction. And Rove was risking the identity of, in attempting to discredit, a WMD proliferation expert, Valerie Plame Wilson.

Rove and Novak Have a History of Co-Conspiracy



Karl and Bob Novak Have a History of Co-Conspiracy
Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on CIA Officer by David Johnston and Richard W. Stevenson, The New York Times [Reprinted Friday 15 July 2005- Truthout]
This is not the first time Mr. Rove has been linked to a leak reported by Mr. Novak. In 1992, Mr. Rove was fired from the Texas campaign to re-elect the first President Bush because of suspicions that he had leaked information to Mr. Novak about shortfalls in the Texas organization's fund-raising. Both Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove had been the source.
Novak is such a scumbag.

The latest on Novak shows that Novak has probably lied. Has Novak committed perjury? From Americablog:
Novak's own statement contradicts story that HE told Rove about Plame, and not vice versa
by John in DC - 7/15/2005 01:09:00 PM

Astute reader Ted just alerted to what appears to be a lie from either Novak or Rove.

Today's big story is that Rove supposedly never gave Valerie Plame's name to Novak - but rather that Novak mentioned Plame was CIA and Rove said "yeah I heard that too," or something to that effect.

In fact, here's what Novak said in his first interview that we know of just after he leaked Plame's name in print:

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

Read that again. I didn't dig it out, it was given to me - they gave me the name. That does not jibe with Rove's anonymous buddy telling the NYT that it was Novak who first brought up Plame as CIA and NOT Rove.


American Service Men and Women are Angry with Karl Rove



American Service Men and Women are Angry with Karl Rove

From a new website called "Taking the Fight to Karl" (TakeItToKarl.com):
"Time for this site to illustrate the main contrast between liberals who answer the call of duty and Karl Rove, who smears them and participates in endangering them in order to play politics. Karl Rove is running scared and Bush is protecting him. This is your moment to go on the offensive...Link this site."
This is becoming an incredibly popular website: 82,498 visitors since June 24, 2005. It is a site set up for the purpose of receiving email from men and women serving currently in the United States military or veterans who are angry at Karl Rove's recent comments. The proprietor does not serve in the military himself. His aim is to let Karl Rove know that when it comes to defending the USA, there are no Democrats or Republicans, just Americans.

Send an email to FightingLiberals at yahoo dot com and it will be published at the blog. Your name will be witheld unless you specifically ask it to be printed.



A Precious Tidbit from Greg Palast



A Precious Tidbit from Greg Palast

Regarding Judy Miller's privileged (and ethically questionable) "access" to Karl Rove and other official goons who would conspire to betray CIA, and protecting these goons as "sources", Palast says:
"Every rule has an exception. My mama always told me to "compliment the chef" at dinner. But that doesn't apply when the chef pees in your soup. Likewise, there's an exception to the rule of source protection. When officialdom uses "you-can't-use-my- name" to cover a lie, the official is not a source, but a disinformation propagandist -- and Miller and The Times have been all too willing to play Izvestia to the Bush's Kremlinesque prevarications.

And that is what Miller is protecting: the evil called "access."

The great poison in the corpus of American journalism is the lust for tidbits of supposedly "inside" information which is more often than not inside misinformation parading as hot news."
- [LINK-CommonDreams.com]
The whole thing makes me want to take a shower to scrub away the filth of power-abuse and propaganda; the stinking lovechild borne of the intercourse between journalists with 'access-ego' and lying White House goons, off my brain. If only it could be that easy.

* A tip o'the hat to Dr. Menlo, who has some great links at his site.


Go Ahead Mehlman, Make Our Day



Go Ahead Mehlman, Make Our Day

Seen At Obsidian Wings:

But there's one GOP talking point that I hope they'll go on repeating, and that is that this is just a partisan attack. Lots of Republicans are saying this; as an example, here's Ken Mehlman again:
"It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks."


Republicans: please keep saying this. Keep telling the American people that it's only Democrats who think it's wrong to out an undercover CIA agent. Keep saying that the only reason anyone would think it's any sort of a problem to put vindictiveness and a desire to discredit one's political opponents above national security is "partisanship"....Because most people know better. Most people know that you just do not out undercover agents at all, and you surely do not out them to score political points. And if the Republicans keep telling them that it's only Democrats who care about this, maybe they'll listen.

- Hilzoy, Obsidian Wings

Soledad Interviews a Steaming Hunk Of Excrement



Soledad Interviews a Steaming
Hunk Of Excrement


I have never seen anything as bizarre as CNN's Soledad O'Brien's interview this morning with Congressman Peter King-(R-NY). King was attemping to defend Karl Rove (for whom there is no ethical defense). Soledad's lovely face betrayed incredulity while interviewing this fellow, who reduced himself to a steaming hunk of partisan excrement. We understand the despair of these Republican partisans when we see a hack like King talking all too fast and calling Joe Wilson a liar, flat out. Congressman Peter King is a disgusting creature. He's willingly harboring and coddling a traitor to America. Every decent American citizen knows that you just don't out an undercover agent. Doing it to score a political revenge-point is the supreme example of a scum-of-the-earth abandonment of ethics - and most people understand this clearly. All of the fast talk and filthy accusations serve to make King - and any other who'd publically act the same way - look like a crazy fool. This is the dirtiest attack I've ever seen by any of these partisan goons. Joseph Wilson is a former Ambassador who, along with his wife, have only strived to serve America with honesty, even when it meant insisting on remaining honest while working side by side with the dark and secretive Bush administration.

UPDATE: I just read, in Editor and Publisher, that King, in a recent interview with Joe Scarborough, said that people like Tim Russert should be shot. Men with your clean white coats: get a stretcher and take this fascist boob out on it - in a straight jacket - pronto. He's a terrorist.


Thursday, July 14, 2005

Fineman: MSM "Soul-Searching" After Poor Iraq War Lead-Up Coverage



Fineman: MSM "Soul-Searching" After Poor Iraq War Lead-Up Coverage

I am encouraged by Howard Fineman's latest article at Newsweek. He tells us, basically, that MSM is not only soul searching after "over its performance, or lack of performance, in the months leading up to the American-led ouster of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq", but they're also pissed off about being used and intimidated by this administration - especially when it was by a person who had totally abused the excess of power that he never should have had in the first place (Rove). The Bush administration's divisive tactics do not only apply to Red state vs. Blue state - they also apply to Fox-style media vs. non-Fox style media. Civil wars are dancing all around us, courtesy of the most secretive, divisive, unethical administration this country has ever known.

Fineman says,
By dividing the press corps into Red versus Blue—and talking only to the Red—administration strategists are inviting attacks from one side.

But that might be precisely what they want. After all, they won two national elections that way.
I'm glad MSM is beginning to see what these bastards have done to damage MSM's integrity, along with this nation's reputation, credibility, and inner-peace.