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.

Plamegate Updates

Plamegate Updates

Raw Story has ledes from WaPo and LA Times, both indicating that no decision has been made by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, but perjury/obstruction of justice charges may be under consideration for Rove and Libby.

Steve Clemons at The Washington Note says he has just learned from a highly placed source -- and in the right place to know -- that John Bolton was a regular source for Judith Miller's New York Times WMD and national security reports. Hmmm...

It seems as if those secret pages in the Court's hands are probably part of an after-the-leak CIA "damage assessment". This is probably how the Justices determined the extent of damage to national security and whether or not to place journalists Cooper and Miller in prison for their refusal to cooperate.

Ideas floating in the blogosphere

1. Maybe Mossad fabricated information and used a number of sources including Chalabi to disseminate the information. Suspected spies Michael Maloof and Larry Franklin working for Bill Luti and suspected spy Douglas J. Feith would then "stovepipe" the information to the White House. The same information would be disseminated by Miller on the pages of the New York Times to make the disinformation look real. When you have Defense Department intelligence corroborated by the New York Times it looks very convincing especially when our ally Israel was confirming the stories. Susan

2. Miller saw Wilson's op-ed as very threatening to herself...and who knows how she may have involved herself? Jonah

3. The Last Throes of Credibility

Kos Has a Message for DLC

Kos Has a Message for DLC

Kos has a message for Sens Evan Bayh and Hillary Clinton, and Gov. Tom Vilsack:

"Keep chasing the "vital center", and you'll prevent the Democratic Party from standing for core principles."

I couldn't agree more. See David Sirota's comments.

Jeff Gannon, INR Memo, Republicans on Sen. Intelligence Committee - TIED?

Jeff Gannon, INR Memo, Republicans on Sen. Intelligence Committee - TIED?

I keep repeating myself, but I have to say, once again, that Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) came into focus at a most interesting time - right around the time of the Rove/Libby/Hadley cooperative effort to "CYA" on the 16 words and the Niger story.

See my old posting once again.

I repeat two pertinent questions I had asked last February:

How did Gannon get this information from the INR report?
Why did no other reporter have access to it?

I will also repeat:

I would hate to even suspect that any of the fine Senators on the Intelligence Committee (listed at bottom of original post) would have cooperated in any activity, intentional or unintentional, which involved slipping internal information to Jeff Gannon/JD Guckert for the purpose of partisan gain.

Sometimes people get carried away, and although I would hope it would not be true, I just don't know these days. We know now that we can't trust the White House - but what about the partisans in the House and Senate? We know there are plenty. How can we avoid suspicion that they may havce been ill-used by the White House, at best?

McCain Choosing Party Over Country on Plamegate

"Rove/Libby have made sure that we are going to lose the "war" on terrorism by outing a CIA agent to further an agenda to go to war and then covering it up. Agents around the world are never going to trust us again at the very time when we need thier info the most."

- Oopsie the Clown, an unlikely name for such a serious and true comment

McCain Choosing Party Over Country on Plamegate?

At Americablog, readers are extremely disappointed in comments made by Sen. John McCain about Plamegate. They expected something less partisan, less divisive, and directed toward America's security interests. Read the comments at this link.

McCain appeared on MSNBCs Hardball last night - and another comment has been made at TPM Cafe by "Olden Golden Decoy" about the ridiculous thing McCain had said on the show:

When Matthews hit McCain with the fact that Rove most likely directed some really slimy dirty tricks against him and his family back during the primaries - McCain rolled over and literally turned into a proverbial pile of gutlessness by waving and blubbering it all off to "politics are like that" and "we (McCains election team) did some real dirty things too.