CIA vs. Congress vs. White House: Who to Root For?

It's hard to know who to root for in the continuing scuffles between the Republican Congress, the White House and the CIA over the intelligence agency. The latest round--actually, it's a postdated tussle--was triggered by a May 18, 2006 letter that Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, sent to George W. Bush raising protests on three fronts: recent appointments at the CIA, the new Director of National Intelligence office, and the White House's failure to brief Congress about certain covert programs, which Hoekstra didn't name in his letter. (The letter was first disclosed by The New York Times on July 9.)

It was easy for some to see Hoekstra as a heroic reformer challenging secret government. Truthdig.org named Hoekstra the "Truthdigger of the Week." But the spy wars of Washington are not linear affairs and the battle lines murky. Is the CIA a rotting institution that failed prior to 9/11 and then provided Bush flawed intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq? Or is it a bastion of risk-averse conventionalists who have undermined Bush's ambitious, forward-looking national security agenda (which includes the Iraq war)? The CIA has been getting it from the left and the right in recent years. And it's unclear whether the top tier of the agency ought to be backed or booted.

When Porter Goss, a Republican who preceded Hoekstra as chairman of the House intelligence committee, was CIA director, he placed his political aides in charge of the agency, and the career officers rebelled. Several of the most experienced CIA veterans--including Stephen Kappes, the director of operations, resigned rather than deal with the Goss crew. The CIA people viewed the Goss gang as hacks motivated by political concerns; Goss and his allies saw the CIA career leadership as bureaucrats resistant to change. (Goss resigned as CIA chief in May; he was replaced by General Michael Hayden, who, as the National Security Agency chief, was a longtime intelligence professional.)

Enter Hoekstra and his letter. What received the most attention was his charge that his committee had not been briefed about "some alleged Intelligence Community activities." He added, "If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the Administration, a violation of law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the Members o this committee." Hoekstra did not say what secrets the White House had been keeping from him. Open-government fans cheered Hoekstra's pointed reminder to Bush: the law says you cannot run covert programs on your own without telling Congress. And on Fox News Sunday, the day his letter was disclosed, Hoekstra said his letter had done the trick and that subsequently he was briefed about this intelligence activity--which he still would not identify. (Hoekstra is not much of a maverick; he has not rushed to hold public hearings on such matters as the controversial and arguably illegal NSA domestic wiretapping program.)

Another point Hoekstra made in his letter was important. He expressed his concern that the new DNI office has become a "large, bureaucratic, and hierarchical structure." If there was a need for a DNI--which supposedly is supposed to coordinate the various intelligence agencies of the US government, including the CIA--there was no reason to create another intelligence bureaucracy. The intelligence community would benefit more from streamlining than from an expanding management. So score Hoekstra another point here.

But the first topic Hoekstra raised in his letter shows he can be loopy. Hoekstra voiced his displeasure over the selection of Hayden, an Air Force general, to be the CIA director, noting that he wanted a civilian to head a civilian agency. But what really ticked him off was the selection of Kappes to be the new number-two at the agency. Bringing back Kappes, Hoekstra wrote, would lead to "political problems" at the agency. What did Hoekstra mean by this? He explained: "I have been long concerned that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies. This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization that prides itself with being able to keep secrets." Kappes, he added, is part of this group.

Hoekstra didn't spell it out in his note. But what he was saying was that he believed a CIA cabal has tried to undercut Bush regarding the war in Iraq--that CIA officials opposed to the war plotted against the president and sought to undercut his case for war by leaking stories indicating that the intelligence cited by Bush and his aides on Iraq's WMDs and purported connections to al Qaeda was not that strong. (Joe Wilson's trip to Niger and subsequent op-ed piece declaring there had been nothing to the charge Iraq was seeking uranium there, the rightwing theory goes, was part of a deliberate CIA conspiracy against the White House.) Hoekstra also is probably thinking of the leaks about CIA secret prisons and the agency's clandestine renditions of detainees to nations where abusive interrogation occurs.

So Hoekstra appears to be of the belief that the problem was not that Bush used flawed WMD intelligence to take the nation to war but that CIA leakers disclosed the flaws of the intelligence. This is a tad alarming, for every post-invasion review of the intelligence--including one conducted by Hoekstra's own committee--found that the intelligence community was dead wrong on WMDs. A Senate intelligence committee review also concluded the CIA had been right to conclude there was no strong evidence that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were in cahoots. Hoekstra should realize that the important issue is not the leaks (which were true) but the misuse of the intelligence.

But Hoekstra still believes in Iraq's WMDs. Last month, he joined with Republican Senator Rick Santorum to hype a 2003 Defense Department report that noted that about 500 weapons containing degrade mustard gas or sarin nerve agent had been found in Iraq. These weapons, though, were manufactured before the first Gulf War and were not evidence that Saddam Hussen had maintained a WMD program in the years before the invasion. A senior Pentagon official, quoted by Fox News, said that these weapons were not useable. "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," he said, noting the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war." Yet Hoekstra and Santorum made it seem this discovery was significant. Hoekstra promised further investigation. "We are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," he said.

Let's recap: Hoekstra was mad at Bush for keeping him out of the loop, and he warned the president about expanding the bloated intelligence capability. But he thinks the CIA is laced with politically-minded plotters who hold unfounded beliefs (such as there were no operational links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden) and who are working to thwart the national security policies of the nation. In Washington's version of Spy Verus Spy, it can be difficult to know which--if any--side to cheer.

Comments (82)

1. I guess....

   Mr Corn is all over the place...even with Peter Hoekstra. "He's a CIA reformer"..."He still believes in Iraqi WMDs".

   Boil this article down and you get....water.

   Posted by Mask at 07/10/2006 @ 4:18pm

2. Being from Michigan, I get to hear a lot more from Mr. Hoekstra than your average political observer. The "loopy" Hoekstra is the rule. The letter complaining about secrecy and congressional oversight is the exception. In fact, when his opposition to Hayden first came up months ago, I had to double check to see if we were talking about the same guy.

   But as far as I'm concerned, if anyone one actually in office manages to tell the truth about Bush, even accidentally, I'm all for it.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 07/10/2006 @ 4:20pm

3. But as far as I'm concerned, if anyone one actually in office manages to tell the truth about Bush, even accidentally, I'm all for it.

   Posted by MYPARADIGM 07/10/2006 @ 4:20pm | ignore this person

   Actually, MYPARA...that's Mr Corn's problem. He too likes Hoekstra for being "anti-Bush" and "pro-CIA reform"....but Hoekstra is pro-"Iraq had WMDs" and a Republican so Mr Corn CAN'T like him.

   So...we get 10 paragraphs of Mr Corn running down a litany of things against the Administration by Hoekstra, and some caveats on why Hoekstra is an idiot because he and Santorum pushed the "new revelations" about WMDs.

   Really not his best work...but he's still coming down from that gut-punch by Patrick Fitzgerald last month no doubt.

   Posted by Mask at 07/10/2006 @ 4:37pm

4. MASK

   Couldnt agree more with your 4:37pm post.

   100%

   Posted by CPT at 07/10/2006 @ 4:42pm

5. Well fellas, look at this way. If a die-hard, right-wing, toe-the-line guy like Peter Hoekstra is calling Bush out, then Bush really is screwing up, isn't he?

   Posted by MyParadigm at 07/10/2006 @ 4:47pm

6. Posted by MYPARADIGM 07/10/2006 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person

   Sure, but what is Mr Corn's point?

   That he "likes Hoekstra" when he says things David Corn likes, but otherwise thinks he's stupid?

   Okay....turn it around and write the same article about Joe Lieberman (ref: below and Ms vanden Heuval's latest).

   Posted by Mask at 07/10/2006 @ 5:06pm

7. Posted by MASK 07/10/2006 @ 4:37pm |

   So if one is all for truth out of the hsuB admin-- one is automatically anti-hsuB, Thus, hsuB is anti-truth?

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/10/2006 @ 5:16pm

8. Depressing that someone like Hoekstra can get elected for anything. More depressing that someone like Hoekstra gets put in charge of a committee. Most depressing that anyone at The Nation gives a rat's ass what someone like Hoekstra says about anything.

   His mouth is like the proverbial monkey at the keyboard: theoretically sounds emanating from that orifice will make sense at some point. But should we discount pure luck rather than cognitive ability as the propulsion of an idea, cushioned with his usual barrage of insanity, that isn't completely yucky on its face?

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/10/2006 @ 5:43pm

9. By the way,

   has "whom" been completely eliminated from our language or is grammar yet another on the list of things to which the general response is "whatever"?

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/10/2006 @ 5:51pm

10. Excellent article. I've been following the news articles on this story since it was published yesterday on the NYTimes web site and I could not work out what was going on. You put all the puzzle pieces together.

    Posted by carolynfuller at 07/10/2006 @ 6:05pm

11. Depressing that someone like Hoekstra can get elected for anything. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 07/10/2006 @ 5:43pm

    Keep in mind that Hoekstra comes from the left coast of MI. About as conservative as it comes. Rep Schwarz won a six way primary against 5 ultra conservative opponents last election. It really pissd off the New Republican Party. They were aghast that an actual moderate got elected. We now have a slightly modified congressional district that puts a few more dems in the mix, with an ex-CIA man running as a dem. But the real race against Schwarz is in the repube primary. He is being labeled "extremely liberal" even though he co-sponsored the end the estate tax bill, voted to open up ANWR and has hauled water for w most of the time. His crime? Voting to balance the budget. That is how someone like Hoekstra gets and keeps his job.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2006 @ 7:27pm

12. Truth in advertising: Schwarz first voted to NOT open up ANWR, then voted for it, then blamed his 2nd vote on the democrats.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2006 @ 7:30pm

13. Sure, but what is Mr Corn's point?

    That he "likes Hoekstra" when he says things David Corn likes, but otherwise thinks he's stupid?

    Well, I suppose you could miss Corn's point if the only thing you expected was blatant partisanship, but if you expected actual analysis then you wouldn't have to ask that question, Mask. The whole point is that Hoekstra might be making a few good points about the nature of what's going on in the current intelligence community dust-up, but for the wrong reasons, ones that are tied not to public interest but to his own partisan position. It's about whether Hoekstra is "in the loop", Corn is saying; its politics rather than real reform even when he seems to be on the right path.

    The problem is that Corn's all too right, the whole "intelligence reform" agenda from the Republicans in Congress is riddled with partisan objectives when it was partisanship that got them into trouble. If professional, skeptical intelligence analysis had been listened to in the first place, we wouldn't be in Iraq and wouldn't be having this discussion. Corn is on exactly the track that Congress itself should have been following for some time, asking what's really been going on in this administration's relationship with the intelligence infrastructure and what the results have been.

    Posted by Stwriley at 07/10/2006 @ 10:40pm

14. he who controls the intelligence agencies controls a lot ...

    Posted by ZERO 07/10/2006 @ 11:35pm

    Nothing to worry about with Negroponte and Hayden in charge. Sleep well...but leave a light on.

    What will happen first: a female prez or a female CIA chief? Or anyone who isn't a white dude? Talk about a tired old-boys club.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/10/2006 @ 11:39pm

15. RESE...hope to catch you.

    Again, could you post a LIST of all the people and organizations "in on" 9/11?

    Posted by Mask at 07/11/2006 @ 07:10am

16. Rio, are you saying that there have been no instances of torture by US forces, despite admission by US forces that such acts did take place? Or that no renditions have taken place? Or that no innocent people have been rendered? Maybe your radio program should get a hold of the Italian justice dept. Why do you hate Christians?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2006 @ 08:48am

17. Posted by RESE 07/11/2006 @ 07:34am | ignore this person

    RESE, you cut & paste EVERYTHING ELSE from those sites....

    why not cut & paste the List?

    Posted by Mask at 07/11/2006 @ 09:41am

18. Off topic, but interesting nonetheless:

    Ann LooneyTunes Coulter, the wingnut's spokes-harlot, is apparently a prolific palgiarist! And not only in her latest ravings "Godless", but in her syndicated column. Wonder if the MSM who runs her tripe will request pro-rata refunds? Cro oked

    Also...CO Democrats pass tough illegal immigrant act. Seems more useful than rent-a-cops or weekend warriors on the border. Real Action

    And last, but not least, Seems that Corporate CEOs are enjoying record (well 2nd highest) pay rates EVER [262x the average worker]. (2000 being first at a whopping 300x and notably both under Dubya's watch...imagine that.) See: Corprate Greed

    We now return you to your normally scheduled bickering, already in progress...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/11/2006 @ 09:50am

19. Rio's being even dumber than usual, so I'm forced to respond. Basically, his point is that since the religious anti-torture organization does not have access to classified information, the rightwing radio freak has proved them to be whining liars who hate our troops.

    Just another day in the parallel universe of conservative logic.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 07/11/2006 @ 09:52am

20. Rio

    As everyone knows by now the Cheneny Administration has nothing to hide and believes strongly in honest open government. All the data regarding torture, rendition, black sites ( I'm not really sure why they're called "black sites". Maybe you know Rio ? ) is probably readily available on line and provided to the public under the freedom of information act on request. Mr. Trepper's request that this group provide exhaustive details on all these matters before making unsubstantiated allegations seems entirely reasonable.

    And if they still can't furnish detailed proof to their scurrilous claims after doing the research they should like just shut up and look the other way like good Americans.

    Thank God for the Treppers and the Limbaughs and all the other guardians at the gate.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 07/11/2006 @ 10:07am

21. Off topic, but interesting nonetheless:

    Check out latest entry by Cindy "Fast for Peace" Sheehan:

    http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/node/2510

    I find traveling out of the country very challenging Come to being on a fast. When I was on a layover in Madrid on my way to Venice, Italy yesterday, the closest thing I could find to a smoothie to get a little protein was a coffee with vanilla ice cream in it. Traveling for 22 hours is very taxing under normal circumstances--but then again, when have we had normal circumstances since the 2000 and 2004 successful coup attempts that have brought BushCo into power?

    I traveled from Venice to the frontier of Italy to the province of Udine which is right at the foot of the pre-Alps. I am here for a huge youth festival which includes many elements of social justice and peace work. It is beautiful and the air feels different from other places that I have travelled. It is strangely soft and gentle as is the natural light. However, there is not a Jamba Juice on every corner, so blended juice drinks with protein powder are impossible to find.

    I have also received so many emails from worried, wonderful, and well-meaning friends and supporters in the US who are concerned about me and all of the others who are fasting. I don't like being on this fast, trust me, but 3 Marines were killed in Iraq today---3 unsuspecting families are about to head into a tailspin of senseless grief and we won't ever get an accurate count of the Iraqis who were killed today. It is going to be 112 degrees in Baghdad tomorrow. The occupiers and the occupied are suffering terribly.

    It is important to keep our focus on saving the people of Iraq and our soldiers.

    It is important to keep our focus on ending the war crime in Iraq.

    The Troops Home Fast is a moral response to an immoral act. We can, and must be, morally strong so we can feast on the day that the last troop is brought home from the war crime in Iraq.

    Then our focus can change to holding BushCo responsible for the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace and focus on never allowing this to happen again.

    Come to Camp Casey. August 16 to September 2nd

    Smoothies? Coffee? Vanilla Ice Cream??? That's a fast???

    Posted by woodyee at 07/11/2006 @ 10:17am

22. Posted by WOODYEE 07/11/2006 @ 10:17am | ignore this person

    Except the die-hard Sheehaniacs, WOODY, few left who don't see Ms Sheehan for what she is and the near-parody she has become.

    Posted by Mask at 07/11/2006 @ 10:24am

23. RESE

    Why is this a "trick question" for you?....seems with the 3000 word C&Ps you post regularly, you could take some time to post a simple list of "The Cabal", its members and associated corporations/organizations/nation-states.

    Let me start you off...

    1. Dick Cheney 2. AIPAC 3. The Vatican 4. Exxon/Mobil 5. Benjamin Netanyahu 6. Paul Wolfowitz 7. Time/Newsweek 8. the Mossad 9. the Swiss Federal Banking Commission 10. Edgar M. Bronfman

    Okay....take it away with the other 500 now...

    Posted by Mask at 07/11/2006 @ 10:39am

24. Mr. Corn,

    I seriously can't follow any of this anymore. Thank God I don't spend 100% of my time following this shit.

    How do you do it?

    And who the hell has anything good to say about the CIA? Not I. You're right about that one...

    Posted by Beausoleil at 07/11/2006 @ 10:45am

25. Mask:

    You were on vacation it seems. Are you sure you're back ? Or to put it another way: is that the same ol' Mask behind the mask ? Because the tenor of your commentary is completely different. Suddenly we seem to be much more ascerbic and confrontational. In the past I've often found you maddeningly supercillious, often ( deliberately ) off the point and otherwise working assiduously to fullfill your self appointed function as general pain in the ass but I never found you all sort of peckishly peevish 'till now. Wassup ?

    Have you abandoned your role as insightful policy maven, mentor for the misguided and helpful critic of the Nation staff and gone over entirely to the dark side along with your new playmates Libz, Woodeye, Cpt and Barry 25 ? Maybe your vacation wasn't all you thought it would be ?

    Or is there a new editor acting as the lens that focuses the Mask committee comentary ?

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 07/11/2006 @ 11:25am

26. Rio said the following:

    "Is this funny or what? I just love these sterotypical liberal special intrest groups always gropeing in the dark without any shred of evidence or validity seeking ignorant sheep to follow them!"

    I see, like WMDs, the "smoking gun", Saddam and Ossama, Nigerian Yellowcake. . . .

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/11/2006 @ 11:55am

27. Rio, who was it again who told us Iraq had WMDs and that we had to invade to protect ourselves from the possibility of mushroom clouds over American cities? I believe that was Bush, yes?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/11/2006 @ 11:56am

28. Besides, Rio, your posting does nothing to invalidate the secret prisons claim which, in case you did not know, was a story broken by the Washington Post late last year. The Washington Post is not a "liberal interest group" but a very well known newspaper.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/11/2006 @ 11:57am

29. Rio, this is the opening of that Post story from last November 2nd:

    CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11

    By Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, November 2, 2005; Page A01

    The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.

    The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

    In Afghanistan, the largest CIA covert prison was code-named the Salt Pit, at center left above. In Afghanistan, the largest CIA covert prison was code-named the Salt Pit, at center left above. (Space Imaging Middle East) Detainees Database

    The Pentagon has declined to identify the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, most of whom were captured in Afghanistan during and after the 2001 war there. The Post has compiled a list of names made public thus far, encompassing 434 men whose identities have appeared in media reports, on Arabic Web sites...

    * Names of Detainees Held at Guantanamo Bay

    WHAT DO YOU THINK?

    * Post Your Comments

    THURSDAY AT 12:30 P.M. ET National Security and Intelligence Washington Post staff writer Dana Priest discusses the latest developments in national security and intelligence. Video MSNBC Priest on Secret Prisons The Washington Post's Dana Priest talks about the CIA's secret compounds that have been used to hide and interrogate some of its al Qaeda captives. Who's Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

    * The Sietch * PressThink * PressThink

    Full List of Blogs (1662 links) »

    Most Blogged About Articles On washingtonpost.com | On the web

    Save & Share

    * Tag This Article

    Saving options 1. Save to description: Headline (required) Subheadline Byline 2. Save to notes (255 character max): Subheadline Blurb None 3. Tag This Article

    The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.

    The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.

    The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

    ----If you want to read more simply look up "Washington Post Secret Prisons Story" on Google and this story will pop up.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/11/2006 @ 11:59am

30. And if you have an issue with "liberal interests groups", talk to Dana Priest.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/11/2006 @ 12:00pm

31. Welcome, Rio, to the "reality based community." It is never too late to join. Maybe you could bring Len Mosse, NACL and LVLiberty along too?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/11/2006 @ 12:01pm

32. Posted by RED NECKERSON 07/11/2006 @ 11:25am | ignore this person

    Example, RED?

    Referring to my comments on Mr Corn's ambigious stab at ...what? "See, see, a Republican like Hoekstra has smartened up and is asking tough questions...but, uh, he's still a pro-'Iraqi WMDs' guy so he's stupid" ???

    or me playing around with our local paranoid lunatic?

    Posted by Mask at 07/11/2006 @ 12:19pm

33. But what is the secret program Hoekstra was upset about? That's the interesting question. Any rumors?

    Posted by jaybee at 07/11/2006 @ 12:51pm

34. LL & asstd wingnuts

    If there are no "black sites" then why did a 26 member US contingent defend the practice to the UN? PDF FILE

    Or how did the Swiss intercept Egyptian communications stating that detainees were being held in Romania...

    ...and why would the "the Decider" be upset about a leak regarding places that don't exist?

    Try reading the Wiki ref.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/11/2006 @ 2:17pm

35. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 07/11/2006 @ 2:17pm | ignore this person

    Uh, LOC....wikipedia is a great site (with caution, given its ability to be ALTERED by anybody) for reference information.

    But it's not an objective NEWS or investigatory site.

    Just to keep it clear.

    Posted by Mask at 07/11/2006 @ 2:33pm

36. Chris Jansing of MSNBC just presented a "debate" regarding the Wisconsin Professor who has been hired to teach a course on Islam, to include the theory that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Ms. Jansing read from her script a telling phrase...

    She said: "There are all kinds of different theories about all kinds of different events...there are even those who deny that the holocaust ever occured...why should this professor be allowed to teach the theory that the US Government was involved in 9/11 to his class?"

    Hold on a minute...

    Who wrote the script?

    Who had the idea to use the most inflamatory Jewish example to make this point?

    Who made the moral equivalency of 9/11 Inside Jobbers to holocaust deniers ?

    Who wrote the script?

    The intended message was clear.

    The tactic is evidence.

    "Don't look at the government's role, and by ALL MEANS, don't look at the connections of Israel's Mossad to the events of 9/11.

    This is your Government's Minister Of Propaganda at work.

    Subtle?

    Not.

    The shill who was hired to attack the Professor was given 3X more air time than was the attorney who was there purportedly to "debate" on behalf of the university. He spoke for 20 seconds - then the segment came to a rapid close.

    Sometimes things are EXACTLY as they appear.

    Hey Karl - you're busted!

    Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

    Posted by plunger at 07/11/2006 @ 3:20pm

37. C'mon Lib AND Rio: You cannot maintain intellectual integrity and deny that any of the assorted renditions (Welcome aboard to Air Egypt), tortures (Remember Abu Gharaib)and other assorted things that have brought shame to our great country (A.G.'s memo justifying torture and using the word quaint when describing the Geneva Convention's protections for soldiers of ALL countries) are realities. BTW, Rio - great Howard Hawks movie you've named yourself after. I watch it any time its on any of the old movie channels. The Duke was rarely better and Angie Dickinson was scrumptious

    Posted by The Goods at 07/11/2006 @ 3:37pm

38. PLUNGER...give you a try. Your buddy RESE kept dodging the question-

    Can you provide a simple list (1,2,3,4,...) of everybody and every organization that were "in on" the 9/11 "attack"?

    (and I don't mean a "link", but actually write it, or more likely, cut and paste it)

    Posted by Mask at 07/11/2006 @ 3:45pm

39. LVLiberty,

    Two problems here. Firstly, there is evidence of the involvement of European governments in "extraordinary rendition" or the transfer of persons detained by our government to rendition facilities in other nations. Several European governments are complicit in this and it is being looked into. This was written about in detail in June in the Washington Post. However, since you summarily dismiss everything that highly reputable paper writes simply because you deem it to be "liberal" it will make little difference to you either way. I suppose that if we are to follow your example, truth is only truth if it comes from people (or organizations) one is prepared to believe. Hopefully you really are not like that.

    Secondly, I looked at the article you posted from Pitt Law's website and while it does say that Romania cannot find any evidence of secret prisons within its borders (and that is encouraging) it does not lay to rest this controversy. There is not incontrovertible evidence that the prisons do not (or did not) exist. Why has the U.S. government neither confirmed nor denied their existence?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/11/2006 @ 4:41pm

40. LVLiberty,

    This is the heading for that Washington Post article so you can look it up (it is too long to post here):

    European Probe Finds Signs Of CIA-Run Secret Prisons

    By Craig Whitlock Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, June 8, 2006; Page A16

    You might even consider reading it even though everything that comes out of that large paper must be "liberal."

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/11/2006 @ 4:44pm

41. LVLiberty, Take a look at this:

    Watchdog Back CIA Flights Report

    Europe's leading human rights body has called on the United States to cease secret flights transferring terror suspects across the continent.

    The Council of Europe also accused European states of colluding with the CIA in breach of basic human rights, backing the findings of a seven-month investigation by Swiss senator Dick Marty.

    "The strategy [to address the terrorist threat] should conform in all its elements with the fundamental principles of our common heritage in terms of democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law," a resolution voted by the Strasbourg-based watchdog said.

    The assembly also decided to continue its inquiry into alleged secret flights and jails.

    Marty had called on states to set up "a world legal order, with the US, but built on sound values, especially those upheld by the Council of Europe."

    His report published in Paris earlier this month, concluded that 14 European nations colluded with US intelligence to set up secret flights and detention centres in violation of international human rights laws.

    Under the CIA policy of rendition, prisoners are moved to third countries for interrogation. But Washington denies they are subjected to torture.

    Call for clarification

    The European Union justice commissioner, Franco Frattini, who was invited to Council of Europe debate, called for national inquiries to follow up Marty's findings.

    He acknowledged it as a fact that such incidents occurred on European territory since the September 11 attacks on the US. However, he said the exact number of so-called renditions was unknown.

    He added it was still unclear whether governments were aware of renditions or cooperated and whether or not they were legal.

    "What we must do is make sure that national authorities understand that they have not only the power but the duty to carry out judicial investigations," said Frattini.

    In his report, Marty provided no direct evidence but said that most European governments did not seem eager to help him establish the facts about renditions.

    He relied mostly on flight logs provided by the EU's air traffic agency, Eurocontrol, witness statements gathered from people who said they had been abducted by US intelligence agents, as well as judicial and parliamentary inquiries in various countries.

    Marty also accused the Swiss government of having "deliberately ignored allegations" of suspect aircraft transiting through the country's airspace, which were eventually confirmed by Swiss Federal Aviation Office.

    He also questioned Switzerland's decision in February to extend permission until the end of the year for overflights by non-commercial US aircraft.

    swissinfo with agencies

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/11/2006 @ 4:47pm

42. That article was run June 26th, 2006.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/11/2006 @ 4:48pm

43. Posted by MASK 07/11/2006 @ 2:33pm

    But the 40 references at the end includes both.

    And for the record, a review by Nature showed Wiki to be on par with Enc Britannica for accuracy of information. Since the review, Wiki has "tightened" its editing policies to try and improve quality even more.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/11/2006 @ 9:01pm

44. HHEMWM

    All LL has to do is read the 40 some reffs on the Wiki entry (upthread)...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/11/2006 @ 9:02pm

45. They're all different shades of evil. Hoekstra's problem is having been dissed. He's not standing up for principle. What is needed are genuine progressives in congress.

    Listen to a podcast interview with a genunine progressive: Chris Owens is a candidate for the 11th district in Brooklyn and he agreed to be interviewed in a podcast at the Intrepid Liberal Journal [intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com]

    Posted by trebor007 at 07/11/2006 @ 10:45pm

46. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 07/11/2006 @ 9:01pm | ignore this person

    Sorry, LOC..."Nature" aside. Wikipedia recently had a scandal in which Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass)'s staff ALTERED his wikipedia article, editing out a reference to a promise Markey had made to term limit himself, when he decided to run for an additional term.

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 07:00am

47. RESE

    Still waiting on your List....it should be simple to post.

    Yet you continue to dodge....I wonder why?

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 07:01am

48. Posted by MASK 07/12/2006 @ 07:00am

    Hmmm...hadn't heard about that. Although the references are STILL the references regardless of the entry proper.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/12/2006 @ 07:28am

49. I'm gonna keep hammering away at this: Even though once in a long while one of the wingnuts who posts here writes something worth answering, virtually all of them never do. Reading throught the posts by Mask, LL, Rio, et al, one is struck YET AGAIN with the blunt instrument of their plain unadorned duh-ness. If you met any one of them at a party, you'd simply mumble something about having to take a pee, and find someone half-way intelligent to talk to. Why would you waste time and bandwidth engaging them here? I'm not advocating hitting the ignore button; read their goofy guff, by all means. Just treat them as the intellectual lepers they are; leave them be to masturbate in peace.

    Posted by bookmanjb1 at 07/12/2006 @ 08:50am

50. Like Penn & Teller, RESE...and the rest...

    I'm going to reveal the "trick" to you, unlike other "magicians" would.

    You will NEVER post a "List of the Cabal Members".....why? Simple, if you did it would fall into two catagories-

    1. Too small, and therefore prevent you from adding more and more and more "suspects" (like Martin Lattimore or whoever), without showing that you're just making it up as you go along.

    or 2. Too large, with SO many people and organizations on it, that it becomes impossible to rationally explain how so many people were "in on it" and yet it's still "secret" (except to you and your wacko websites, of course).

    Too few on "The List" and you let some of the evil-doers "off the hook"....too many and it becomes a "conspiracy" SO large that everybody...except YOU...is in on it.

    It's a good way to show how your nuttiness collapses in on itself with simple logic....in the same way that you can't SPECIFICALLY explain "what really happened" to American Flight #77 if a "missile" hit the Pentagon. (He'll run with that now...watch)

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 08:55am

51. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 07/12/2006 @ 07:28am | ignore this person

    True, but I would reference the specific references, not wikipedia itself...again, given that it is open to ANYBODY altering its listings.

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 08:56am

52. Posted by BOOKMANJB1 07/12/2006 @ 08:50am | ignore this person

    BOOK, besides disagreeing with you and your politics...

    is there ANY other qualifier for being an "intellectual leper"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 08:56am

53. staff ALTERED his wikipedia article, editing out a reference to a promise Markey had made to term limit himself, when he decided to run for an additional term.

    Posted by MASK 07/12/2006 @ 07:00am

    wow... that's terrible

    did you ever hear the one about where the republican party ran and and won back the congress on a platform founded in term limits?

    twelve years later...

    still no term limits

    Posted by Will C. at 07/12/2006 @ 09:35am

54. BWAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Posted by Will C. at 07/12/2006 @ 09:36am

55. You know what they say...

    "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

    The Decider decided not to study history.

    The NeoJacobins (s)elected a perfect puppet to implement their globalist (PNAC) plan on behalf of the Greater Israel.

    Bush = "Rebel Without A Clue"

    Kristol's PNAC has used Bush to acquire Iraq on behalf of Israel, and is now rushing to distance himself from the "Useful Idiot" that AIPAC employed to provide the gentile face for the Zionist cause.

    "Dual Loyalty" and "Dual Citizenship" ought to preclude ANYONE from serving in ANY position in our government.

    Do you know how many people with access to US Intelligence Secrets are also citizens of Israel?

    Does this sound like a good thing that benefits US - or a bad thing that leads to FAKE INTELLIGENCE (see Ledeen and the forged Niger Document) and unending war.

    The Traitors need to be revealed for what they are.

    The oath they swore to uphold for America is meaningless as compared to their loyalty to Israel.

    Posted by plunger at 07/12/2006 @ 09:43am

56. Posted by WILL C. 07/12/2006 @ 09:35am

    twelve years later...

    still no term limits

    Wow, Will, you actually wrote something I can agree with. You're right, the bastards ran on term limits and then dumped them when they found out just how comfy Washington can be. Plus, we've got Republicans spendingl like there's no tomorrow (i.e., like Democrats).

    Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 09:54am

57. The only thing I can say is it's better to vote for people who at least will claim to care about the right things, and lie about them, than to vote for people who don't even claim to be responsible.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 09:56am

58. Just like national security - it's better to vote for people who have a plan to fight the war on terror, rather than people who don't.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 09:57am

59. Posted by WILL C. 07/12/2006 @ 09:35am | ignore this person

    WILL, is that what would be called "hamster humor"?

    Or just your interminable desire to post something snarky?....which of course I truly enjoy doing myself!....hehe!

    BTW...Agree with PONTI and you on that one...GOP blew their chance at being REAL reformers by selfishly dropping term limits.

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 10:01am

60. Posted by MASK 07/12/2006 @ 08:56am

    is there ANY other qualifier for being an "intellectual leper"?

    I'll risk stating the obvious here and venture to say that any Republican, to the moonbats, is by definition of an intellectual leper. Another instance of projection, since the moonbat left is at most 1/6 of the country and the 'lepers' make up about 51 percent.

    And you must be truly desperate to talk to someone when you're responding to RESE or the PLUNGER - ignored them long ago, as I suspect most have.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 10:02am

61. RESE

    Okay...now, where does Gary Condit rank in the "List of the Cabal Members"?

    I'm thinking...# 317 or # 318, just over "Jessica Simpson", but just under "The CIA Black Ops Guy That Killed Marvin Gaye".

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 10:03am

62. Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/12/2006 @ 10:02am | ignore this person

    Not "desperate" just bored.

    Oh, and not a Republican...something MUCH worse in the minds of many here....a Clinton DLC'er who mocks liberals.

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 10:04am

63. Isn't it interesting that Lieberman's name pops up in the case of two similar-looking tarts, who were "Honey Pots" (or "Swallows" - the term used to describe women in the employ of Israel whose job is to compromise US Officials) for Israel's Mossad?

    Note that his article dated less than TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO 9/11.

    Police to return to parks in Levy case Experts: Condit damaged own reputation

    July 22, 2001 Posted: 6:07 PM EDT (2207 GMT)

    Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, said it wouldn't be productive to focus on Condit's conduct. In 1998, Lieberman was the first prominent Democrat to criticize Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

    Lieberman said the two matters are different and he declined to say whether Condit should resign, as two Republican lawmakers have said.

    "The Chandra Levy case is a missing persons case. And I think we all ought to let the law-enforcement authorities focus on finding Chandra Levy and relieving the terrible trauma and nightmare that her family and friends have gone through," Lieberman told Fox News Sunday. "And when that is over, politicians can begin to speak out."

    Saturday, a spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney, said Cheney met with Condit around the same time Levy was logging off her computer in her apartment May 1.

    Juleanna Glover Weiss said the meeting happened between 12:30 p.m. and 12:50 p.m. in Cheney's office in the House of Representatives. The meeting was "at Condit's request," she said, and included Cheney and some of Cheney's staff discussing the California energy crisis.

    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/21/missing.intern/index.html

    CHENEY ORDERED THE HIT TO PROTECT THE 9/11 OPERATION?

    Posted by plunger at 07/12/2006 @ 10:05am

64. You want to know how stuff REALLY works in washington...read this:

    http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/LEVY.html...

    WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO CHANDRA LEVY

    excerpts:

    The MOSSAD keeps extensive dossiers on a large number of U.S. politicians. And they undoubtedly knew of Condit's wild sex life, and felt that Levy would make the perfect honey trap.

    Chandra was in a perfect position to have access to highly classified data about McVeigh, that linked him to U.S. intelligence operations involving CIA sponsored terrorism, both here and abroad. Chandra would easily be able to obtain this information pertaining to McVeigh, and more importantly, related inside information to the impending 9-11 attacks. Information such as the 1993 WTC bombing materials having been purchased with the credit card of a US Muslim and an FBI provocateur named Melvin Lattimore.

    Anyone "connecting the dots" would have to conclude that Chandra Levy had come upon some of the most incredible intelligence secrets in history, including the plan to use huge terrorist strikes in America to justify global wars, finance the military industrial complex, and justify a police state here at home in a huge power grab.

    David Schippers, Chief Council for the House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former President Clinton, went public revealing that in the months BEFORE the 9-11 attacks, many FBI agents had come to him informing him about the impending attacks.

    Mr. Schippers talked to many Congressmen and Senators, and tried to get a hold of Att. Gen. John Ashcroft, all only to get the run-around.

    Chandra Levy, through her sensitive position in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, through their computers and facilities, and human intelligence contacts, and through her intimate relationship with a congressman on the intelligence commitee, unearthed a dangerous group of details related to the coming 9-11 attacks, the same information the FBI agents had brought to Schippers. She had none of the restrictions the FBI agents had, or so she thought, and apparently was about to go public with the information.

    The lead FBI investigator in the Chandra Levy case is Special Agent Bradley J. Garrett. He is known as "The Fixer", because he is called in to find patsy's to take the blame for government murders. Notice a few details from his past: Garrett was the lead FBI investigator in the strange death of Clinton White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster.

    Garrett was also the lead FBI investigator in the murder of Clinton White House intern, Mary Caitrin Mahoney. You see, A U.S. Secret Service Agent assigned to checking doors at the White House, opened a door one night and found Hillary Clinton in a compromising sexual position with Ms. Mahoney

    Chandra Levy had expected to stay on as an intern at the Federal Bureau of Prisons until September 2001. Her internship was abrubtly and unexpectedly ended just days before her disappearance. It's likely she was caught going into unauthorized areas. She also had applied for permanent full time jobs with the FBI and the CIA, where full background checks are mandatory. It's likely her snooping at BOP, her relationship with Condit, AND her connections to the MOSSAD had turned up in her background investigation.

    Not only was Chandra Levy snuffed out to eliminate any risk of the impending 9-11 attacks, and the McVeigh information leaking out such a short time before his scheduled execution, but also to protect high ranking members of the Federal government from having their partnership with drug cartel baron Carlos Lehder, and his disappearance from the Federal Prison System, becoming widely and publicly exposed.

    Through her connections to the MOSSAD, through her internship with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and access to top security information, and through her involvement with a Congressman, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and having topmost security clearance, and the circumstances in her life just prior to her abduction and murder, one could only conclude that Chandra Levy had knowledge of the Carlos Lehder affair, the Timothy McVeigh matter, and most importantly, the impending 9-11 attacks. Was she about to go public with it? It would seem beyond a shadow of a doubt. On the day before she disappeared, May 1, 2001, she left a message on the phone machine of a close family member. She said that there was something BIG, and something important to tell them about. She wouldn't say what it was, and that was the last time she was heard from.

    Posted by plunger at 07/12/2006 @ 10:06am

65. Posted by MASK 07/12/2006 @ 10:04am

    Not "desperate" just bored.

    I hear ya. I've even started talking to Will again.

    Oh, and not a Republican...something MUCH worse in the minds of many here....a Clinton DLC'er who mocks liberals.

    Yeah, I know. That's even worse, to them. I suspect that Dean and the Kos Kids will run your type out of the Democratic Party soon.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 10:08am

66. Falwell Confirms Lewinsky Affair Linked to Israeli Lobby Intrigue

    By Michael Collins Piper

    Television evangelist Jerry Falwell couldn't resist bragging and finally admitting the truth: he and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu did conspire--at a critical time--to trip up President Bill Clinton and specifically use the pressure of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to force Clinton to abandon pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied West Bank.

    Falwell's confession didn't make national news--as it should have. Instead, the preacher's confession came buried in a lengthy story in the December 2005 issue of Vanity Fair. Entitled "American Rapture" the article (by Craig Unger) described the long-standing and still-flourishing love affair between American dispensationalist evangelicals such as Falwell and the hardline Jewish extremist forces in Israel then under the leadership of Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu.

    The admission by Falwell confirms precisely what this author first revealed in a story published in The Spotlight on February 9, 1998 and later recounted in a lecture before the Arab League's official think tank, the Zayed Centre in Abu Dhabi, in March of 2003.

    Although, following the lecture at the Zayed Centre, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, a lobby for Israel, denounced as a "bizarre conspiracy theory" the assertion by Falwell that the public unveiling of the Lewinsky affair forced Clinton to pull back on pressuring Israel confirmed exactly what was reported in documented detail in The Spotlight in an international exclusive.

    Regarding Falwell's recounting of how he worked with Netanyahu in undermining Clinton's pressure on Israel, Vanity Fair reported:

    On a visit to Washington, D.C. in 1998, Netanyahu hooked up with Jerry Falwell at the Mayflower Hotel the night before [Netanyahu's] scheduled meeting with Clinton. "I put together 1,000 people or so to meet with Bibi [Netanyahu] and he spoke to us that night," recalls Falwell. "It was all planned by Netanyahu as an affront to Mr. Clinton." . . . The next day, Netanyahu met with Clinton at the White House. "Bibi told me later," Falwell recalls, "that the next morning Bill Clinton said, ‘I know where you were last night." The pressure was really on Netanyahu to give away the farm in Israel. It was during the Monica Lewinsky scandal . . . . Clinton had to save himself, so he terminated the demands [to relinquish West Bank territory] that would have been forthcoming during that meeting, and would have been very bad for Israel." (END OF VANITY FAIR EXCERPT)

    What Falwell did not mention--at least as reported by Vanity Fair--is that his meeting with the Israeli leader took place on the very evening before the mass media in America broke open the Monica Lewinsky scandal with much fanfare. Nor did Falwell mention--as this author pointed out at the time-- was that one of Netanyahu's leading American media publicists, neo-conservative power broker, William Kristol, the first American media figure to publicly hint (in the days before the scandal was officially unveiled) that there were forthcoming revelations regarding a White House sex scandal that was about to be unleashed.

    In addition, this author pointed out that at least six days before the first news of the Lewinsky scandal began breaking in the media at midnight on Tuesday, January 20, 1998, an advertisement appeared in the January 15 edition of the distinguished Washington Jewish Week newspaper accusing President Clinton of having "turned his back on Israel."

    What made the advertisement so striking was that it used a rear view of President Clinton (first captured on video in 1996) that had never been published but which, in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal, became very familiar. It was a view of the president, his back to the camera, clearly taken from the video in which he was seen hugging the soon-to-be infamous Miss Lewinsky when she was in a receiving line at the White House some two years before. This was an image that Miss Lewinsky had bragged about among her associates prior to the time that the scandal broke. So clearly, Clinton's critics among the hard-line pro-Netanyahu forces in the United States--who sponsored the advertisement in question--were already tuned in to the fact of the Lewinsky-Clinton liaison and of the fact that it was soon to be unleashed against the president to undermine him.

    This author can now reveal, for the first time, that two figures at the very highest level of the Clinton White House were personally given copies of The Spotlight's articles regarding these matters and that, at the time, they quietly acknowledged that the articles were "probably right."

    The fact that Jerry Falwell's acknowledgment of how the Lewinsky affair was used as a club against Clinton--in tandem with "Bibi" Netanyahu's appearance at the White House, following the meeting with Falwell--was published in Vanity Fair is interesting in and of itself. That magazine is owned by the far-flung publishing empire of the billionaire Newhouse brothers ("Si" and Donald) whom Forbes dubbed the 25th richest family in America and who are known to be generous contributors to the Anti-Defamation League and other elements of the pro-Israel lobby.

    http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_MichaelCollinsPiper3.htm

    Posted by plunger at 07/12/2006 @ 10:11am

67. http://www.aztlan.net/israeli_sexpionage.htm

    Israeli Sexpionage : The McGreevey, Condit and Clinton Affairs

    Chandra Levy and Monica Lewinsky, which I will discuss later, can be called "Swallows".

    Zionist Israel places great importance in its "symbiotic" relationship with the USA. In fact, the State of Israel would be unable to exist without the vast amounts of aid, both military and social welfare, that is sent yearly to prop up the Zionist government. This total amount is estimated to be more than 5 Billion dollars per year. In addition, Israel survives and depends on critical technology transfers that are obtained both through cooperation and covertly. For example, Israel now possess thermonuclear bombs and missiles, thanks to an American Jew, Jonathan Pollard, who stole the "nuclear secrets" while working as a US Naval Analyst. Pollard, it was admitted by the Israeli government, was a MOSSAD spy. He is presently doing a life term in a US Federal Prison for his crime.

    The success and effectiveness of the Israel/USA symbiotic relationship depends on many factors. One is massive propaganda through the US based Zionist press that keeps the American people in a constant stupor about certain political and economic realities. Another is the near total subserviency of corrupt politicians, especially of the Democratic Party, who do not speak up because they are on the take. Another is the massive infiltration into government of what are nothing less than Israeli agents. Israeli agents in the Pentagon, for example, has caused the USA dearly in terms of the costs of the "War on Iraq" and in terms of its "hated image" around the world.

    Lastly, a factor that is very important for Israel in keeping a profitable symbiotic relationships with the USA is effective sexpionage. Sexpionage is so important to Israel, that it has opened an office for this purpose right smack in the center of US political power -- Washington D.C. The office fronts as a post 911 anti-terrorism institute and is located at 3811 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 720 Arlington, VA 22203. The Chief of the office is non other that the immediate former Director of the Israeli MOSSAD, Shabtai Shavit.

    The target in this sexpionage operation was the married Gary Condit, who was a senior member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. As member of the committee, Condit was privy to highly classified information of much interest to Zionist Israel. The MOSSAD leaned on their "sleeper and sexpionage agent" Chandra Levy to obtain the secret US government information that the Israeli government needed. The MOSSAD arranged for Chandra Levy, than a US government intern, to meet Congressman Condit. Soon, the married Condit was having a sexual affair with the voluptuous 24 year old Chandra Levy.

    Whatever classified information Levy was able to obtain, on her "sexpionage mission", was at the cost of her life. One day before she was to return to California, she disappeared without a trace. The Washington D.C. police searched Congressman Condit's apartment for clues to no avail. Thirteen months later the "skull and bones" of Chandra Levy were found at Washington's Rock Creek Park even though the park had been repeatedly searched during the early phases of the investigation.

    Everyone reading this report should be acquainted with the President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky affair. This has been called "The Mother of all Sexpionage Scandals" because it almost toppled a US presidency. Generally less known is the fact that Monica Lewinsky was actually a "sexpionage agent" working on behalf of the Israeli government. She was, and probably still is, what the MOSSAD calls a "Swallow".

    It is believed that Lewinsky's primary mission was to sexually compromise Bill Clinton in order to bribe him to release the Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. The timing and unfolding of the "White House Sex Scandal" coincided with the efforts and meetings by the then Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu with President Bill Clinton in the White House.

    The mission for Israel failed but it ended giving the Zionist state some peripheral benefits. In an effort by Clinton to rid himself of the "Swallow", he transferred her to the Pentagon with the highest "security clearance" possible and which is only afforded to top brass and a few high level government officials. Soon Monica Lewinsky was cavorting with Admirals and Generals and became pregnant. She says she aborted the baby.

    No one knows what Pentagon secrets Lewinsky was able to pass on to the Zionists, but perhaps Paul Wolfowitz' great success in involving the USA in the War against Iraq may be the results of Monica Lewinsky's efforts on behalf of Israel. Sexpionage pays and it is paying big for Israel.

    Posted by plunger at 07/12/2006 @ 10:21am

68. True, but I would reference the specific references, not wikipedia itself...again, given that it is open to ANYBODY altering its listings.

    Posted by MASK 07/12/2006 @ 08:56am

    Chiming in - isn't that really all LOC did? I suppose he could have cut and pasted all 40 references, but ...

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/12/2006 @ 10:48am

69. Some things never change - clowns to the left of me , clowns on the right - all beating an alledged horse! Man, you guy's need to get lives! Who cares what some cyber moron thinks! Does anything consequential get done here?

    The lies and half-truthes of this administration are so convoluded that the specifics are moot. I don't need no stinking references anymore. I am confident that history will sort it out - Bush will be brutalized!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/12/2006 @ 10:55am

70. Yeah, I know. That's even worse, to them. I suspect that Dean and the Kos Kids will run your type out of the Democratic Party soon.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/12/2006 @ 10:08am | ignore this person

    Not likely. Dean's a flop. For all his "Internet fundraising" and "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" stuff....he's never learned to watch his mouth and he was totally blind-sided by Schumer and Reid over the Paul Hackett/Sherrod Brown thing.

    Kos and the Blogosphere are actually more "important" than Dean is. They've pushed Ned Lamont and have pretty much bet their "credibility" has power players in the Party on Lamont winning the nomination or atleast "issueing a wake-up call" to "pro-war" Dems like Hillary, Biden, etc.

    If Kos, Atrios, HuffPost, Eschaton, et al become the "face" of the Party, and the GOP moves a bit to the center, Dems are going to be screwed for ANOTHER dozen years.

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 11:09am

71. Posted by MASK 07/12/2006 @ 08:56am

    I would again point to the Nature article....if the overal quality approaches Encylopedia Brittanica then it is trustowrthy by and large. Sure, some gratuitous self-editing occurs...but as you noted, it WAS caught.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/12/2006 @ 11:10am

72. Posted by HMAN23 07/12/2006 @ 10:48am | ignore this person

    I was merely trying to help LOC out. Direct referencing wikipedia as your "source" leaves you open to the "Ed Markey" thing getting thrown back in your face.

    Honestly trying to keep LEFTOF from being embaressed on this one, HMAN.

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 11:10am

73. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 07/12/2006 @ 11:10am | ignore this person

    See above, LOC....not an "attack", trying to keep you out of trouble, so to speak.

    I LIKE wikipedia...quick refs and reasonably accurate, but still without real editors and fact-checking.

    But I think you'd do better going for the direct references themselves and not shunting through wikipedia....just some friendly advice.

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 11:13am

74. Beating a dead horse -

    I see your point, but thought LOC made pretty clear in his follow-up posts that the importance of the wiki entry was the 40 refs not the editorializing (if any) in the body.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/12/2006 @ 11:16am

75. He provided a convenient and LINK to sollected sources; not a source itself (or so I took it).

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/12/2006 @ 11:18am

76. Being in Hoekstras shoes, where you want to have to actually work with the stupid people you are trying to help establish as the American Empire - but you also have to actually work with those fascists, and their strategies on how to lead America down the path to Empire and Dictatorship, and you have to work with people like George Bush who are not too astute, it can be irritating, so a guy like Hoekstra gets mad - it doesnt make him disloyal.

    Posted by conshame at 07/12/2006 @ 11:21am

77. Mask: Oh, I'm not a Republican...something MUCH worse in the minds of many here....a Clinton DLC'er who mocks liberals.

    Pontificus: Yeah, I know

    Mask has never uttered a word of praise for Bill Clinton. Republicans alot of the time do not want to be a man, so they have use a ruse. The RNC sends some other debaters here too - in addition to their very very smartest ones.

    Posted by conshame at 07/12/2006 @ 11:30am

78. Mask and Pontificus are saying, oh if I was Hoekstra, if I had the job of helping George Bush fulfill the dream he had about God wanting him to start wars, oh if I was Hoekstra, I would just work the the idiot and never get mad at him for being so dammn dumb. Hoekstra lost his temper, he knew working with George Bush would be irritating, but if you want to go around starting wars with an idiot you have to be patient with the idiot and not lash out at him like that. Whoa! Come on, defend the mess guys, give it your very best argumentative techniques, and defend George Bush from Hoekstras loose mouth. Whoa!

    Posted by conshame at 07/12/2006 @ 11:35am

79. I'm with NO-NO; I hope only to live long enough for some historian in the mold of Lord Acton ot write an history of the Bush II presidency. We peasants will be storming the ranch with torches and pitchforks.

    Posted by The Goods at 07/12/2006 @ 11:45am

80. Mask has never uttered a word of praise for Bill Clinton.

    Posted by CONSHAME 07/12/2006 @ 11:30am | ignore this person

    Uh, SHAME....how many do you want? Happy to oblige with discussions of "New Democrat", "welfare reform", free trade vs protectionism, "the era of Big Gov't is over", etc.

    I think the fight you'll get here at "The Nation"....isn't with me, over the praising of Bill Clinton.

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 12:11pm

81. Posted by CONSHAME 07/12/2006 @ 11:30am

    The RNC sends some other debaters here too - in addition to their very very smartest ones.

    Perhaps you can tell me who I should contact to get my checks? Karl Rove won't return my phone calls, the bastard.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 1:32pm

82. Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/12/2006 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person

    CONSHAME (like a mercifully few others here) is under the impression that if a "contrary" opinion is expressed on a "clearly labelled liberal magazine's blog", that it must be "RNC operatives sent in by Rove and Mehlman".

    I've been hit with the same accusation....just before I posted on how Sam Alito was a terrible choice for USSC and how gay marriage bans and abortion rights roll-backs are both un-Constitutional and stupid.

    Odd thing for a "Republican operative", no?

    Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 2:19pm