CIA Leak Scandal: Proof Bush Lied? A Final Report To Come?

posted by David Corn on 10/19/2005 @ 12:41pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (380)

Subscribe Now

In a story posted on Tuesday night, The New York Times, citing unnamed government officials, said that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, "is not expected to take any action" in the CIA leak case this week. That's good news for me; I have tickets to see U2 on Wednesday night. But it's also bad news, I am scheduled to go to Arkansas at the end of next week to deliver a speech at Arkansas State University-Jonesboro. (Longtime readers of this blog will recall that I was supposed to speak at Arkansas State University-Mountain Home last April but then the gig was canceled for what appeared to be political reasons. But after a mighty controversy erupted--in which the state legislature decried this apparent act of censorship--the faculty senate at ASU-Jonesboro voted for a resolution requesting that I be invited to speak at the Jonesboro campus, the main hub of the ASU system. The president of ASU took the faculty's recommendation, and I accepted his invitation.) So I am now hoping that if anything happens it happens early next week. The grand jury is scheduled to expire October 28, and lawyers tell me that most prosecutors do not like to wait until the last day of a grand jury's term to announce indictments. But it's possible. It's also possible that new information could cause Fitzgerald to extend his inquiry and impanel a new grand jury. Bottom line: we don't know. On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported Fitzgerald might announce his findings on Wednesday. The Times then reported that would not be likely. What's your hunch?

Most of the Times piece was devoted to the question of whether Fitzgerald would issue a report if he declines to indict anyone. In the old days--that is, when there was an independent counsel law--independent counsels were obligated to issue final reports detailing what they had uncovered and explaining any decisions not to prosecute. Fitzgerald is not an independent counsel but a special prosecutor, appointed in 2003 by then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey because Attorney General John Ashcroft had recused himself. With the independent counsel law expired, there can no longer be independent counsels. Consequently, Fitzgerald is not required to file a final report.

But can he produce such a report if he would like to? As the Times notes, there is a debate among legal experts as to whether he has the authority to do so. Fitzgerald has obtain much of his information through the grand jury process, and grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret. Some lawyers believe Fitzgerald could issue a report, especially if requested by Congress; others think Justice Department regulations would prohibit that. But you can guess how the political appointees at the Justice Department would interpret the regulations. And would any Republican leaders of Congress ask Fitzgerald for a report? With the Bush administration and congressional Republicans not keen to have a full accounting, it could be difficult for Fitzgerald--if he wants to produce a report--to win a tussle over how to read the regulations. As for whether Fitzgerald wishes to issue a final report, his office has declined to comment on this matter (or any other matter).

Since the start of the leak investigation I have asked congressional Democrats if they were prepared to pressure the administration regarding a final report in this case. A few--most notably, Senator Chuck Schumer--have called for the production and release of such a report. But the Democrats generally have not made this a priority item. That was a strategic misstep. Should Fitzgerald not indict anyone--or should he issue limited indictments--the Democrats (and many within the public) will still yearn for a full accounting of the investigation. Yet demanding a final report after Fitzgerald has made his decisions regarding indictments could look like sour grapes. Republicans will likely argue, "you sore-looser Democrats didn't get the indictments you wanted, so now you're trying to perpetuate this controversy by asking for a report that a special prosecutor is not supposed to release." The Democrats needed to mount a high-profile push for such a report before the end of FItzgerald's investigation. But they have missed their chance.

Final reports from independent counsels in the past have been quite useful. Independent counsel John McKay investigated Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan's attorney general, and brought no indictments against him. But in his final report, McKay detailed a series of suspicious actions conducted by Meese. Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel who investigated the Iran-contra affair, released a report rich with details about government officials who were indicted and those who were not. In his report, he included material indicating that Colin Powell on two separate occasions, when he was providing sworn testimony, offered contradictory accounts regarding the notes of Caspar Weinberger, Reagan's defense secretary. Powell had been an assistant to Weinberger. The existence of Weinberger's notes was a critical topic for the Walsh's investigation. and Powell seemed to have changed his story to help Weinberger's legal defense. In his report, Walsh noted he did not have enough evidence to charge Powell with any crime, such as providing false information to Congress. Yet because Walsh outlined this episode in his final report, I was able to report this story. (I was the first journalist--and one of the few--to note Powell's shifting account and his near-indictment. After I broke this news, CNN produced a segment on this story. Then executives in Atlanta killed the piece.)

Final reports can be quite valuable--but only if they are written. If Fitzgerald does not bring wide-ranging indictments that tell the full story, a report-less investigation will not provide a complete accounting. Oddly, it seems that on Tuesday, the White House endorsed the need for a final report. Press secretary Scott McClellan defined a successful completion of the investigation as one in which Fitzgerald would "determine the facts and then outline those facts for the American people." As the Times reports:

Asked if that meant the White House would favor a public report if there were no indictments, Mr. McClellan said that the decision was Mr. Fitzgerald's, but that "we would all like to know what the facts are."

Do you think Bush truly wants to see all the facts placed before the American public? But on this point Fitzgerald and the Justice Department should take McClellan at his word.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Harriet Miers, the Karl Rove scandal and other in-the-news matters.

******

BUSH KNEW OF THE COVER-UP? In Wednesday's New York Daily News, Washington bureau chief Thomas DeFrank has an important story--but much of it is between the lines. He writes:

An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

Bush has nevertheless remained doggedly loyal to Rove....

Waitaminute! Two years ago, the White House--via McClellan--definitively declared that Rove was not "involved" in the CIA leak. But if Bush at some point upbraided his guru about the leak that means (a) Bush knew that Rove was involved and (b) Bush countenanced McClellan's dissemination of a false cover story. This is evidence that Bush was a party to the attempted White House cover-up and that Bush might have directly lied about the issue. On September 30, 2003, he was questioned by reporters about the leak investigation. Here's an excerpt:

Q: Yesterday we were told that Rove had no role in it--

The President: Yes.

Q: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him?

The President: Listen, I know of nobody-- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody leaked classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

Was Bush in this exchange reaffirming McClellan's claim that Rove was not involved? That seems to be the case. Did Bush know at this time that Rove was involved in the leak? The Daily News story does not say when Rove spoke to Bush. Has Bush taken "appropriate action" against Rove? (The information that Rove shared with reporters--Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA--was classified.) There is no public indication "appropriate action" occurred.

Is it possible that one White House aide is now leaking a false story of Bush chastising Rove in order to distance Bush from the under-fire Rove? DeFrank reports:

Other sources confirmed...that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.

If DeFrank got this right, he has a bigger scoop than the paper seems to have realized. His article does not note that these accounts from White House aides indicate that Bush knew the White House had lied in its public statements about the leak scandal.

Ever since evidence emerged this summer that showed Rove had discussed Valerie Wilson's CIA position with reporters, one question has been whether Rove had acknowledged his role in the leak to Bush. The Daily News reports:

A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President."

But if Rove did not deceive Bush, then Bush was a party to the Rove-was-not-involved lie promoted by his White House. And this raises the question of what Bush did after Rove told him of his involvement. Bush certainly didn't do anything to correct the public record. I wonder if McClellan wants to see a chapter in a final report on Bush and Rove's conversations about the leak and how Bush responded.

UPDATE: The White House, according to CNN, is claiming the Daily News story is inaccurate.

Comments (380)

it's becoming quite clear that they ALL lied, Bush of course included.

what strikes me is the difference between this scandal and Clinton's troubles. In Clinton's case there were more leaks from the investigation than Emeril has sieves, while this case has been pretty much leak free, I guess appropriate for a "leak" investigation

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 12:57pm
At least, if Rove is indicted, Bushco will not be able to continue the raping and pillaging of America as efficiently. It will also prove that there is no "conservative" "Republican" party in existence today, and that their culture of corruption has come full circle to bite them in the ass.

Also, a little OT, but can we all stop saying Repugs spend money like drunken sailors? It is an insult to our troops, who, even drunk, are more responsible than those in charge.

Let's instead more appropriately say that Repugs SPEND MONEY LIKE A CRACKM WHORE IN COLUMBIA. Thank you.

Posted by Bill Arnett at 10/19/2005 @ 1:20pm
At least, if Rove is indicted, Bushco will not be able to continue the raping and pillaging of America as efficiently. It will also prove that there is no "conservative" "Republican" party in existence today, and that their culture of corruption has come full circle to bite them in the ass.

Also, a little OT, but can we all stop saying Repugs spend money like drunken sailors? It is an insult to our troops, who, even drunk, are more responsible than those in charge.

Let's instead more appropriately say that Repugs SPEND MONEY LIKE A CRACK WHORE IN COLUMBIA. Thank you.

Posted by Bill Arnett at 10/19/2005 @ 1:22pm
Are you really comparing republican wackos to crack whores? Are you insane? Crack whores wouldn't be caught dead doing some of the despicable things being done in Washington! How dare you diparage those crack whores, Columbian or otherwise.

Posted by Turk33 at 10/19/2005 @ 1:34pm
disparage.

Posted by Turk33 at 10/19/2005 @ 2:23pm
Bush lied? I'm shocked... Seriously, everybody in America (even Republicans, though they won't admit it) knows that you can always tell when Bush is lying -- his mouth is moving. And if you're going to hold his feet to the fire for a lie, nail him for the big one: Saddam had WMD and this war is worth American lives.

Posted by dalloway at 10/19/2005 @ 2:24pm
The press has to start asking Scotty: "What did the president know, and when did he know it?"

Posted by tominator at 10/19/2005 @ 2:32pm
Are Scotty's press conferences free from any kind of retribution? He has been caught lying for this Administration so many times I can't even understand why anyone shows up for these bs sessions. Can he be held liable for anything he says or the President? Or is just a fact that the President can lie to the people via Scotty and it isnt news because he didnt have to take oath before he stepped up? Will we NEED to start requiring Legal oaths before the Press Secretary opens his mouth? This is just utterly disgusting.

Posted by Fade at 10/19/2005 @ 3:20pm
What happened to the right? Cpt where are you. I have not heard from the usual suspects that normally have opinions on this subject.

Butterfly

Posted by butterfly at 10/19/2005 @ 3:53pm
"Arrest warrant issued for DeLay"

this is sweet

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 4:04pm
so's this: "A new Republican poll released today shows Santorum trailing state auditor Bob Casey Jr. (D) by 16 points, with Casey over the crucial 50 percent mark"

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 4:12pm
the term "crack whore" is mysogenist, woman hating slur, and rather meaningless in discussion

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 4:55pm
mary, a completely thought free post, congrats

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 5:06pm
no it isn't filled with insight, if you knew anything about crack, and the people who use it and the people who are addicted to it, you might have something, which you are sorely lacking, pity

this lack of humanity is especially pronounced in the right wing posters here, I don't need to enumerate them

I am posting here as someone who knows whereof he speaks, I'll leave it there for now

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 5:17pm
If George W. Bush is not by dictionary definition a simpleton, why does he persist in acting like one?

Posted by Taan at 10/19/2005 @ 5:19pm
the term was flung about thoughtlessly, carelessly, as there was no discussion of drugs or affiction or prostitution for that matter, and that was what I object to

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 5:20pm
Taan, is that a rhetorical question? I believe that Bush puts on the simpleton act, he gets a lot of mileage with this, and he IS a simpleton, who does what his handlers tell him to.

sounds counterintuative, doesn't it

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 5:23pm
MARYBRETBRAD

So you admit that you are a crack whore?

Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 5:23pm
Wow Rio

You had to go back almost 400 years to a time when evangelic fundamentalists where murdering their neighbors solely on the word of children to make your point. Sweet! lol

Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 5:28pm
I finally put the glass of Kool Aid down Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

and from reading you posts that koolaid caused quite a bit of brain damage. Your lucky it didn't kill you outright. But then wasn't it religious fanaticsm the lead the lambs to the Kool aid in the first place?

Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 5:33pm
hmm, yes, butterfly, the cons are being very quiet at the moment. i wonder why. i am sure it can't be a loss of faith in the republican leadership that has done so much for us the past few years, like mega-tax breaks for corps, the burden of which are shifted to us little guys and social program budget cuts (because as you know, tax breaks don't change how much it costs to run the government and someone's got to pay it). and sending americans off to die for no good reason in some other country while they are needed at home for disaster relief (is that another big storm heading up from the gulf? yikes!!). or all the women and children blown to bits in iraq, collateral damage that is OK if we do it in the name of freedom, but not if Saddam did it protecting his sovereignty. because it is our patriotic duty to get fleeced and keep our traps shut.

the rag

Posted by ragbraijoe at 10/19/2005 @ 5:37pm
RIO BRAVO:

blah blah blah left wing conspiracy blah blah blah

Fitzgerald as a runaway prosecutor? Thanks for the laugh! Check out his resume sport - the Gambino crime family, lead prosecutor in the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1998 U.S.S. Cole bombing, indictments of aides to Mayor Daley, National Security Coordinator for the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/19/2005 @ 5:49pm
MARYBRETBRAD,

Most of your last post was a wonderful read. There is far too much gamesmanship in DC and not enough substance. This particular episode is such a nasty little distraction from far greater problems. But...

the negativity we've grown used to, sadly, on the campaign trail becomes more important when there is real power behind. A little slime at Ann Richards or John McCain is one thing--we voters should be grown up enough to judge the value of each candidate on our own. But when the sliming comes from the White House or the VP's office (still unproven, I know) and is used against those who question them we have a problem. There seems to be a confusion, as in the time of Nixon, between the presidency, the man who currently holds the office, and the country as a whole. One of these three doesn't matter a lick in the big picture, but it is that one person and the men behind him who have overstepped the position of president in a way not to dissimilar with emperors of the past.

I can hear MASK now: you're paying too much attention to Bush. You're obsessed. In this case, he's right. There is an awful lot wrong right now in this country's political structure. But most of what is going wrong seems to revolve around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I know I'm a paranoid lefty sometimes, but these guys really seem sinister.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/19/2005 @ 5:53pm
Maybe we're quiet because:

1. Sometimes we have to go out and keep the economy running

2. Why jump in when a fool is acting in character?

Keep it up Mary and Rio; will consider rejoining when someone puts forth a rational thought.

Posted by love liberty at 10/19/2005 @ 5:54pm
MBB:

Minor point - you ignore that in the immediacy of the leak, it was Rove himself who claimed, "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game."

Posted by Hman23 at 10/19/2005 @ 6:04pm
nice post zero, I am enjoying the spectacle of right wing posters turning themselves inside out, indictment, no problemo. this is good and it's sure to get better

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 6:16pm
Sssshhhhh...

You're not supposed to keep track of these things. Just turn on the TV to E!, open up a beer, and relax, ZERO.

Learning is not to be encouraged in 2005. Don't worry, be happy.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/19/2005 @ 6:16pm
hman23, nailed it again

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 6:19pm
Liberty!

You're back buddy. It's been a while. And thank my lucky stars you seem to be in "Answer Man" mode today. So here's a question for you. Rio in his post uses a metaphor which illustrates the evangelic conservative tradition of murdering their neighbors (Salem) and mary mary uses a metaphor that illustrates the evangelic tradition of murdering their friends and family(Jonestown). Maybe you can illuminate the group here using plain and simple english, we obviously aren't as educated as yourself, why anyone in their right mind, hey look a pun, would want to be either evangelical or conservative?

Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 6:21pm
The reason many of us on the right are quiet is simple to understand... nothing has happened. No one guilty or found guilty of anything(except here). All the giddyness on the left is similar to my daughters 4 birthday when she found out the Fair God Mother would visit her tonite. You act as if these troubles for Rove, or Delay are the trumpet sounds for all and you hear a loud rush to the left by the "people" who have awaken to say, By GOD(sorry), the left is correct!!! Everybody is a criminal on the right and should be shot!!

I think you will be disappointed in the end.

Posted by john maasch at 10/19/2005 @ 6:31pm
No one guilty or found guilty of anything(except here) Posted by JOHN MAASCH

John

Good to see you again. I got to admit, you stumped me with that post. All I can say that's very lucky for the folks in this administration that no one was accused of killing a pretty blond girl on an exotic tropical island. It's even luckier that no one was accused of sleeping with and then killing a home state intern. Lucky. Very,very lucky.

Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 6:47pm
Mary Mary

It's only mass suicide if everyone knew there was cyanide in the kool aid. Admit it, Jim Jones murdered them. And if any parents knew about the cyanide, they murderd their kids. Let's all be honest with ourselves here. Evangelic conservatives are cold blooded killers. Like your boy Jery Falwell said on the show Crossfire " Kill them all in the name of God."

Funny thing about that statement Mary, God was clear in the ten, thou shall not kill. That seems to be the simple lesson you folks still haven't learned yet.

Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 6:55pm
What if there are no indictments? The evil genius Karl Rove must have Fitzgerald's family kidnapped and the corporate press refused to report on the scandal. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

Boy mary, then Karl Rove would be in BIG trouble.

Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 7:08pm
See you folks later. Mary, Rio, hey Liberty, still waiting for that answer. So looking forward to it.

Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 7:09pm
RESE,

Great enthusiasm! Is it natural or are you on something? Take a breath between posts once in a while. Just one of your posts is a major read. To post so money novels within just 20 minutes makes, IMO, it unlikely that many will read much of what you've added to this blog.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/19/2005 @ 7:17pm
Maasch, Clinton was not found guilty of what he had been charged with in the impeachment, yet it was very hramful to him, and you guys trumpet it over and over again, and it may have cost Gore the presidency. yet no one says nothing happened.

DeLay is indicted, or "impeached" and you claim nothing happened. Rove and Libby and who kows else may be indicted, so something has definitely happened, and I'll wager that you and others will wind up with plenty egg on their faces. I expect better from you

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 7:44pm
mbb, i'm not sure, but i think in the "grundrisse" marx does speak fondly of buggery. er, maybe that's what he had in mind for the remnants of the aristocracy? i'll have to go back and reread....

fwiw, a "utopian"? (ha!) more like a meglomaniacal snake-oil salesman. that does not equal "marxism" ...please review all of 19th century political history.

even the president of the united states... sometimes must have to stand naked...

yeah rese i had to ignore you. if there are links to those, please put them up.

Posted by dabar at 10/19/2005 @ 8:01pm
Frank,

The story was posted on Google News less than an hour ago.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/19/2005 @ 8:27pm
Whyme,

If you've read any amount of Johannes's posts and still question his support for this country, then you are lying when you write that you are trying to understand. You cannot be convinced, so stop trying.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/19/2005 @ 8:30pm
You're back buddy. It's been a while. And thank my lucky stars you seem to be in "Answer Man" mode today. So here's a question for you. Rio in his post uses a metaphor which illustrates the evangelic conservative tradition of murdering their neighbors (Salem) and mary mary uses a metaphor that illustrates the evangelic tradition of murdering their friends and family(Jonestown). Maybe you can illuminate the group here using plain and simple english, we obviously aren't as educated as yourself, why anyone in their right mind, hey look a pun, would want to be either evangelical or conservative?

Posted by WILL C. 10/19/2005 @ 6:21pm

Being a Conservative:

1. Because it is the adult thing to believe in personal responsibility and reward for personal effort rather than being a perpetual Linus who cannot survive without the blanket of Government to make them feel right.

2. Because I believe in the Constitution that was given to us by the Framers rather than it being some document that must be redefined by 9 men/women rather than the citizenry.

3. Because I believe this same Constitution limits the powers and authority of the Congress instead of the blank check of liberalism.

4. Because a true conservative (and admittedly Bush is not, but better than his father), believes that all citizens know how to better use the fruit of their labor than Government does. Taxation of the citizenry was always considered by our Framers and early leaders as the surest path to destruction. It robs one of their Freedom.

Being an Evangelical:

1. Because it is commanded by Jesus; "This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to the nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;" Matthew 28:20

"Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God" 2 Corinthians 5:18-20

2. Because the Evangelical movement comes closer to historic 1st century Christianity in faithfulness to the Word of God. This does not deny that there is much in the Evangelical movement that is not of God. I have stated a number of the errors that have entered into the Evangelical movement over the past 20 years including the attempts by some to make this a Christian nation. That is not our calling. I am not as concerned about Judges and laws as I am about helping people come to know God personally and experience a heart change.

3. True Evangelicals understand that we are called to submit to the ruling authorities as stated in Romans 13. I see many "liberal Christians" who find no problem with rebelling against government authority.

4. Evangelicals if they are true in their walk, understand and accept that we are called to the entire Word of God and not just those passages we want to accept. Jesus told Satan that "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" Matthew 4:4

5. True Evangelicals know that to be a Christian is to walk at liberty and not in bondage to the law of Moses which was to point us to our need for Christ (as explained by Paul in Galatians and elsewhere). "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free , and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage" Galatians 5:1

6. Evangelicals are fixed on Christ and not the world:

"Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved (the earth), what manner of persons outgh you to be uin holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God" 2 Peter 3:11-12

"looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" Titus 2:13

It is plain (I hope) because as Paul said, "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Corinthians 11:3

Likewise

Posted by love liberty at 10/19/2005 @ 8:30pm
If I ask this question another 1,000 times, you will note that not one person will respond with any plausible explanation.

If there were a plausible explanation, surely someone could serve it up:

What are we to make of the story of the "Dancing Israelis?" Why is it that there were Mossad Agents caught red handed on 9/11 in New York celebrating the destruction of the Twin towers? Why will NOBODY step forward to provide us with some evidence to debunk what the logical mind might deem to be the act of a guilty party?

Why oh why must we go on month after month with the constant berating of the messenger, with no plausible explanation for the actions, which are themselves too well documented to ignore?

Anybody?

Carl? Scooter? Dick? ANYBODY?

If you can't explain the story of the Dancing Israelis (Mossad agents celebrating the worst incident in US history), then you have no right whatsoever to discount the prospect that Israel was involved in some way in 9/11.

C'mon...share your theories.

And if you don't, you have no right whatsoever to shout down my search for the truth of who attacked us on 9/11...unless of course you have a vested interest in protecting those who may have conspired to pull off the crime of the century.

If Cheney's war required a catalyst...a "New Pearl Harbor" to serve as the justification for war, are we to assume that 9/11 is mere coincidence?

C'mon! Wake up!

Step forward with your explanation of the Dancing Israelis...

Now:

Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 8:30pm
You're back buddy. It's been a while. And thank my lucky stars you seem to be in "Answer Man" mode today. So here's a question for you. Rio in his post uses a metaphor which illustrates the evangelic conservative tradition of murdering their neighbors (Salem) and mary mary uses a metaphor that illustrates the evangelic tradition of murdering their friends and family(Jonestown). Maybe you can illuminate the group here using plain and simple english, we obviously aren't as educated as yourself, why anyone in their right mind, hey look a pun, would want to be either evangelical or conservative?

Posted by WILL C. 10/19/2005 @ 6:21pm

Being a Conservative:

1. Because it is the adult thing to believe in personal responsibility and reward for personal effort rather than being a perpetual Linus who cannot survive without the blanket of Government to make them feel right.

2. Because I believe in the Constitution that was given to us by the Framers rather than it being some document that must be redefined by 9 men/women rather than the citizenry.

3. Because I believe this same Constitution limits the powers and authority of the Congress instead of the blank check of liberalism.

4. Because a true conservative (and admittedly Bush is not, but better than his father), believes that all citizens know how to better use the fruit of their labor than Government does. Taxation of the citizenry was always considered by our Framers and early leaders as the surest path to destruction. It robs one of their Freedom.

Being an Evangelical:

1. Because it is commanded by Jesus; "This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to the nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;" Matthew 28:20

"Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God" 2 Corinthians 5:18-20

2. Because the Evangelical movement comes closer to historic 1st century Christianity in faithfulness to the Word of God. This does not deny that there is much in the Evangelical movement that is not of God. I have stated a number of the errors that have entered into the Evangelical movement over the past 20 years including the attempts by some to make this a Christian nation. That is not our calling. I am not as concerned about Judges and laws as I am about helping people come to know God personally and experience a heart change.

3. True Evangelicals understand that we are called to submit to the ruling authorities as stated in Romans 13. I see many "liberal Christians" who find no problem with rebelling against government authority.

4. Evangelicals if they are true in their walk, understand and accept that we are called to the entire Word of God and not just those passages we want to accept. Jesus told Satan that "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" Matthew 4:4

5. True Evangelicals know that to be a Christian is to walk at liberty and not in bondage to the law of Moses which was to point us to our need for Christ (as explained by Paul in Galatians and elsewhere). "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free , and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage" Galatians 5:1

6. Evangelicals are fixed on Christ and not the world:

"Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved (the earth), what manner of persons outgh you to be uin holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God" 2 Peter 3:11-12

"looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" Titus 2:13

It is plain (I hope) because as Paul said, "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Corinthians 11:3

Posted by love liberty at 10/19/2005 @ 8:31pm
TJBEHRENS1 , he has not said one positive thing about it. No one on the left has. None of you have. If you have anything positive about America then say it. All I do is ask why so negative then I get hit with numbers %'s and snippy remarks about how bad this country is. Its not just him, its all of you. Why so woked up?

Posted by whyme at 10/19/2005 @ 8:34pm
sorry for the double post, not sure what happened?

Posted by love liberty at 10/19/2005 @ 8:39pm
John:

I managed to find some reading materials for your consideration, which are posted on our thread of last night. Combined with some of the material posted here by Rese, there should be enough to provide you with an extensive overview.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/allcomments?pid=29442

Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 8:40pm
Zero:

Tell us how you perceive the events of 9/11 as they relate to the Israelis caught celebrating in New York, later found to be Mossad Agents.

Or tell us you don't care...

Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 8:56pm
Wurmser's cooperation with Fitzgerald would certainly come as no surprise to those who have been following his career. Last year, he was questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for his possible role in leaking U.S. security secrets to Israel.

According to a 2004 story in the Washington Post, the FBI interviewed officials in Cheney's office and the Pentagon, including Hannah and Wurmser, former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, to determine if they were involved in leaking U.S. security secrets to Israel, the former head of the Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabi and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The revelation that Hannah and Wurmser have become prosecution witnesses, as well as being identified as the original sources of the leak, indicates Fitzgerald now may be looking into the motive for outing Plame and how Administration officials sought to derail a vocal critic of Iraq intelligence.

The two administration hawks were instrumental in shaping the Bush administration's agenda with Iraq prior to 9/11.

Wurmser was the lead author of a 1996 policy paper for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It called for removing Saddam from power in Iraq as part of a broad strategy to transform the region and remove radical regimes. Eight months before 9/11, Wurmser called for joint U.S.-Israeli air strikes on Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya.

Hannah and Wurmser were first named as possible suspects in the Plame leak by Wilson, Plame's husband, in his book, The Politics of Truth.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Second_Cheney_aide_cooperating_in_leak_101 9.html

Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 8:58pm
I believe Judy was lying when she said that Scooter Libby told her Wilson's wife worked for Winpac and concluded from it that she was just an analyst. Miller was lying to protect herself and Libby for the outing of Valerie Plame. I believe that Judy Miller's roll was in passing the information on to other journalists, who were obliged to check the information out with officials in the administration before writing articles outing Plame, and they were only too happy to confirm off-handedly, "Oh, Yeah!! I heard that too!" What Dirt we have in this White House!

Posted by cdifrances at 10/19/2005 @ 9:13pm
whyme, why you had to bring my last name into this I do not understand, but no matter, I'm proud of it, though I may miss a certain anonymity.

thank you Tj for coming to my defense, but his next post was universal in his condemnation so I will hereby not defend myself but speak for all critics of this administration.

I'll start by saying that by criticising Bush and his evidently criminal gang we are defending america and the ideals it sometines stands for.

it is your uncritical fawning and jingoist raves that are a real danger to america. according to you, america can do no wrong, and that's just horsrshit, and does nothing for the country.

it's called american exceptionalism, and Bush is a great proponent of it, which leads him to repudiate treaties, laws of this country and the constitution. he reserves rights for america he will not grant to anyone else.

his weaseling out of the Geneva conventions, with the help of his shysters Gonzales et al is a shameful blot on this country. It is in totalitarian societies that criticism is persecuted, and you would feel very much at home there, since you would stamp out any negativity.

so go on rah rah rah for us, while our country collapses around us, I don't care.

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 9:14pm
Before I get to the point, let me recommend a book to you: The End of Faith, by Sam Harris. It's the most cogent expansion I've seen on how, counter to almost all their creeds, "organized" religions, virtually ALL of them, are instead the source of a large proportion of the violence, murder and anguish the world has suffered for centuries. If only John Lennon were alive today (and yes, that's intended to be ironic)

Now - I've just spent the past hour wading through the posts on this thread, and as a result I've come closer to a conclusion that has been forming in my mind for at least 18 months now: our country is headed for civil war.

Before you say, no, it's not that bad, that can't happen in America, ask yourself: what other result is possible, when a significant portion of our population (though a smaller portion than they were last year) continues to support the outrageous, illegal, immoral, dictatorial policies and actions of a failed presidency and government; when every factual presentation of evidence of misfeasance, malfeasance, mendacity, and outright theft by Bush or one of his supporters/cronies/political allies is shouted down as "partisan politics"; when a large portion of the reason people support Bush, and thus the reason they cannot let go of their support, is their and his (supposed) religious faith? When the evidence is finally so overwhelming that the usual denials and dismissals don't make any real sense even to those who are proffering them, what other course of action will be available to them to try to shut down, shout down, block out the truth of their poor choices and non-Christian behavior than to go to guns?

It's simple human psychology, and it operates on a macro, societal level as well as in individuals - when someone attacks your deepest, most strongly held core belief structures, especially on so many different levels as is currently happening to the right, there are only two possibilities: that the attacker is wrong, which is bad, or that he/she is right - which is worse. And genuine psychosis is created when the only way to make the pain of recognizing one's grievous errors go away is to eliminate the source - to kill the people who are causing the pain, and thus to return to denial and the ability to not look at the painful reality. And thus, civil war, because the people causing the pain are Americans too.

And when this thought occurs to me, another one follows immediately: if it DOES come to civil war - they have more guns than we do.

George W. Bush is a divider, not a uniter. You can look it up!

Posted by RichMiles at 10/19/2005 @ 9:21pm
The idea that he was a "mainstream" Christian is ridiculous, but not surprising given the caricature you have drawn of Christians

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

Oh Mary Mary

I draw no characture of Christians. The picture I paint is of Evangelicals, people who claim to be Christian but act in a most decidedly unchristian manor. Tax cuts for the rich, health care cuts for the poor: unchristian. Continueing to enjoy your vacation while your countrymen are dieing in a flooded city: unchristian. Waging unprovoked war: Oooo very unchristian. Lieing about the vandalism supposedly commited by the previous administration: unchristian. OH! here's one, Torture: unchristian. Kidnapping: unchristian. Stealing from your children to pay for war and tax cuts: unchristian. Cheating small business by giving out no bid contracts to your corporate buddies: unchristian. Beating up 63 year old black guys in the french quarter: unchristian. Placing a large graven image in the entrance of the Alabama supreame court: big time unchristian.

and we've only touched on it. But I gotta go eat dinner. See ya.

Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 9:22pm
Liberty, I would attempt to poke huge, gaping holes in your double posting, but that would only do two things:

1. Piss off Zero;

2. Begin another theological discussion that no side can win (on this blog or in real life).

The purpose of this particular string was the consequences of the CIA leak investigation, and I'm sure I speak for others when I ask: Are you people for real? Do you really think that anybody is going to take you seriously when you bash Fitzgerald for being a prosecutor run rampant when the latest round of hatred and venom was ignited by Kenneth Starr? Have you no shame? Are your heads so far up your anal cavities that you can't conceive how ridiculous that makes you? There are real crimes being committed, and if all you so-called patriots were really interested in what is best for the great country of America (but being lessened the longer the monkeys are in charge of the zoo), then you would be screaming for answers to the following questions:

Who leaked information that seriously compromised an agent of the United States and as a result, might have hurt American interests here and abroad?

Who knew about the leak, and when did he/she know it?

When will American interests take precedence over partisanship and the Republican slime machine?

How far are Americans willing to let this administration take us down the slippery slope before realizing that the current "Christian, conservative, pro-life, compassionate, personal responsibility" criminals that currently hold exclusive power in America are nothing more than snake-oil salesmen with nothing more in mind then their own greedy agendas?

How many lies can one administration tell, get caught in, and blatantly spin their way out of?

Anybody?

Posted by Turk33 at 10/19/2005 @ 9:22pm
"In a story posted on Tuesday night, The New York Times, citing unnamed government officials, said that special counsel ..."

Dear Mr. Corn, why on earth would you believe the NYT's? Quote them if you must but please don't take them seriously.

Posted by claire pool at 10/19/2005 @ 9:31pm
Judy Miller has the nerve to say that she can't remember who gave her the name? We all know that Joe Wilson has one wife and her name is Valerie Plame Wilson. How much more did Judy have to say?

Posted by cdifrances at 10/19/2005 @ 9:34pm
Claire, why should we take you seriously?

some of us read many different newspapers foreign and domestic, then we can decide what we choose to believe. I have seen no posts from you , and so I don't know what you believe

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 9:36pm
whyme, I think you have breached the ethics of this blog by including my last name, which has never appeared on any of my posts. I would like to ask my fellow posters what they think of this"outing"

I don't particularly care but I have never come across this before. maybe whyme can tell me how this sleight of hand was accomplished?

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 10:08pm
WhyMe wants someone on the left to say something positive about America. OK, how's this: I don't hate America - I love my country, and I love what it used to be and what it may some day be again - the beacon of freedom to the world and all that. But I hate what it has become, and how the loudest, most noxious voices in our public discourse spout hate-filled, anti-intellectual, anti-human dogma, untrammeled by facts when those facts don't jibe with their narrow and spiteful worldview.

I love that America is still a place where I can say these things, just as the dogma-spouters can say what they want - but I hate that our president and his allies are trying to stifle those who speak out against them, and that our leaders have forgotten why they ARE our leaders - to serve us, not to lie, and steal, and divide us and the rest of the world into "Us" and "Them".

I love America's religious freedom and diversity, but I hate it that God has been re-created in the image of a hateful, vengeful (yes, I know that word is in the Bible) supporter of only a small part of America, who claim that the rest of us, regardless of our beliefs, are worthy of contempt and violence and are going to hell because we don't think like they do.

In short, I love America, and what it has stood for for the past 230 years, but I hate what our president, and his supporters, and WhyMe, have turned it into today - an angry, hate-filled place of self-righteous hypocrites.

I agree with Will C. - it's not Christians I hate - it's fundamentalists. Seriously - what is the difference between a radical Muslim fundamentalist, who wants to kill all Jews and Christians, and a radical Christian fundamentalist, who wants to kill all Muslims. And Jews, and Liberals, and Democrats, and everyone else who not only doesn't believe as they do, but challenges them to actually THINK instead of merely repeating the party line, the right-wing talking points, or whatever their preacher told them they should think?

And before you try to weasel out of any of the above, it doesn't matter whether you personally think all those things - a vocal number of people who claim, as you do, to be conservative, and Christian, and fundamentalist DO claim these views. So just as you tar all on the left with the brush of liberalism no matter what our real views are, so I will tar you with the same brush as your radical fundamemtalist brethren. See how it works?

George W. Bush is a divider, not a uniter. You can look it up!

Posted by RichMiles at 10/19/2005 @ 10:12pm
Rese, you're even further off topic than I am - I'm clicking Ignore on you.

And JohannesRolf, I agree. Anonymity is a very key part of this experience, and WhyMe has violated yours.

Posted by RichMiles at 10/19/2005 @ 10:23pm
richmiles, yes indeed, you CAN love america AND criticise her.the religion bit has been tired before, by the Whig party in the 1840s, and that's where quite a few of our posters belong, in the 19th century. except for the kill kill kill crowd, they belong somewhere in the 12th century, or earlier

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 10:26pm
I got a conspiracy for ya....I think "Rese" is secretly "Plunger" using a different account! LOL!

Seriously, I wonder if these types who think Cheney, the Israelis, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Templar Knights planned, organized, carried out AND kept secret to all but a few "in the know" websites....ever wonder how a mid-level prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald is going to "bring them down"?

I mean, after all, "they" turned Jim Garrison and his trial of Clay Shaw into a joke....only allowing their stooge Oliver Stone to mock him further 30 years later!

I mean if I could organize a "2nd Pearl Harbor" and create a "mainstream media lock-out" of "the Truth"...seems I could knock off a few indictments about Valerie Plame's name being "outed" before lunch-time, right?

Or am I looking for sane reasoning....among clinical paranoids?

Posted by Mask at 10/19/2005 @ 10:27pm
Liberty!

You wrote me back, very thoughtful, very thoughtful indeed. And it was an excellent response, well organized, plain simple language just like I asked for. I understand where you get your flair for cutting and pasting. As a matter of fact all evangelics have a flair for that. You could say that the evangelic church is a cut and paste religion. You guys love cutting widely separated phrases and peaces of phrases from the Christian text and the pasting them together in what ever way the evangelic pastard wants so that he can tell whatever story he's recently dreamed up.

Here's a funny story. When I was living in North Carolina I used to always find these little booklets in men's room stalls usually in K-Marts. They always told the same basic story about sin and damnation. And they started out in a cut and paste fashion with snippets of the bible supporting the story line. But all of them, every single one of them when they got to the real scary part about hell and damnation, stopped with the cut and paste, and pretty much became pure fiction. Good, scary fiction, but fiction nevertheless. Then they ended with a few snippets of bible to support the salvation of the main character as he found JESUS! Lol. Needless to say, it was always a good read when I was sitting there taking a dump.

But getting back to your post, you boys have had a pretty good run. What is it now? Twenty five years? During that time more and more Americans actually believed and bought into the ideals and values you were nice enough to lay down for all of us on this Blog to read. But then you screwed up. You got control of the country. And we all found out, plain as day that you folks don't stand for any of that.

Liberty, I have no doubt you are a man of faith. But it isn't God sitting on your alter. It isn't Jesus answering your prayers. Lucipher, the angel of light, was imprisoned in this universe for attempting to take god's place. God even gave him a number, just like all convicts get: 666. That's in honor of us, carbon based life: six protons, six neutrons, six electrons. Not just human life, all life. God was his judge and life is his jailer. God didn't want old scratch to forget that. We are what keeps him here. And, it isn't like the movies. Church isn't a sanctuary. There's no magic line that Beelzebub can't cross. He worked long and hard to be God. He loves going to church. He loves getting men and women of faith to break the ten, wage war, execute the innocent, starve the poor, blow up pizza parlors and abortion clinics, lie cheat, steal. He just needs a willing audience. Enter you.

Now I don't expect you to believe any of this. Evangelic indoctrination is powerful stuff, big mojo. The only way Lucipher can break free of the bonds this universe holds on him is to get rid of us, all life on all planets. Then he's free. You might want to consider that the next time you start drooling for the Rapture. That is, unless you're working for him. Then drool away. But do it quick. Your time is almost over.

Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 10:31pm
Richmiles - thanks for your post.

Whyme - You're chanting a conservative mantra, that the left hates this country. Why are we so worked up indeed - or "woked up" as you put it. Well, I only wish that more people would wake up and understand what's going on. Your heroes are making a mockery of the country and what it stands for. The country was founded on religious freedom, the absence of state-based religion. Now we have "creative design", 10 Commandments displayed in court houses, charlatan evangelist swindlers pushed as charity targets by the government, attacks on women's rights, attacks on gay rights.

Plus the complete abdication of government to corporate interests across the broadest spectrum.

Plus the vast hypocrisy of our adventure in Iraq.

The virtually complete absence of truth or transparency in communications from the administration.

The hounding of its domestic enemies (i.e., critics), pouncing on whistle blowers.

The bankrupting of our national finances.

The increasing disparity between rich and poor.

No focus on global warming (sorry, climate change).

Increased pace of resource exploitation and ravaging of the country.

The growing number of uninsured.

Soaring medical costs.

Soaring energy costs.

A huge divide in the population.

Growing number of folks around the world that hate us.

A growing sense that we're losing the intellectual and technical high ground to the China/India/Brazil/etc. set of countries that are pouring investments into education and technology.

Where is the good stuff? Where's the "well at least the trains are running on time" kind of thing? Pointing out problems does not equate to hatred of the country. If anything, it's because I love this country so much that I am so outraged at what is happening. If you're sitting there thinking that things are going great - then I have to question your love for your country.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/19/2005 @ 10:56pm
RICHMILES

I've read your posts. You are a wise man. I am honored that you are here with us fighting the good fight against the destroyers of creation: evangelcic conservatism.

Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 11:24pm
Night all

Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 11:24pm
"It is also really not clear why people would go through such an excercise, conspiring to create the most spectacular terrorist attack in history, and to frame one's enemies for it, in order to have cause to invade Afghanistan."

Google "USS Liberty" Google "False Flag"

This was a conspiracy for Oil and Territory.

Hard to believe Cheney would be involved in a conspiracy to acquire all of the oil in the midde east, with the pipeline through Afghanistan as the first piece of the puzzle?

You're kidding, right?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_pr.shtml

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 12:30am
Johannes,

"Maasch, Clinton was not found guilty of what he had been charged with in the impeachment, yet it was very hramful to him, and you guys trumpet it over and over again, and it may have cost Gore the presidency. yet no one says nothing happened."

For Delay the harm so far is from Republican rules that he step down and from the press trying and finding him guilty before trial...if he is found guilty,then there is harm. Inditements do not equeal guilt. I would like to wait for the jury..just one of my quirks, I guess.

As far as Gore and his loss..he lost because he is and was Gore and his decisions were Gore like...incomprehensible. He had the job on a plater handed to him and he stumbled and fell face first into it in front of everyone.(Think it was those shopping bags of cash from the penniless monks?) Many say he may have won, but many of those same people have quietly breathed a sigh of relief. You could here all around the country. As far as hurting Clinton..I really can't see much hurt..He became a millionare, gets laid all the time, the press worships him...and he works in a cool office everyday in Harlem?....gets to hang with new buddy and mentor, Daddy Bush. Yeah, Clintons hurting,hell it even gave him a chance to get away from Hillary. Yikes.

Here is what gives me pause.. if what I read is true..Delays first inditement was with out a list of criminal recipents(SP) and was for a time period when his "crimes" were not illegal, then second grand jury would not indite, then finally third one did...All this from a man who has a history of settling his scores with enemies in a similar fashion. Then I read that what he supposidly has commited is legal in 30 states and in his own state Dems also are using the same system. Add to this Earle is running for governor. It doesn't really sound so "criminal" to me. I would have expected something really criminal given all the hype about the evil hammer, as this sounds more like sour grapes for an ass whuppin given him by by Delay. Bitter over actually having more GOP reps in the House that more closly represents the Texas state voters.

Where am I wrong?

Rove and Libby? I don't know anything as no one is indited or more importantly to me has been found guilty by the system yet. If they all are found guilty, then let then pay the price.

As I said above..I would like to wait for the jury, seems more...America to do so..

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 12:44am
I've been on the Wurmser trail since reading Karen Kwiatkowski's first-hand accounts of life inside the Cheney realm. I have to assume she's been before the grand Jury to reveal the innerworkings of that operation.

I had some interesting chats with Karen online. She is convinced that a conspiracy was at the center of it all. She saw it in operation.

If you want to see the road map for the fitzgerald investigation, read this carefully:

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/kwiatkowski.html

I spent time that summer exploring the neoconservative worldview and trying to grasp what was happening inside the Pentagon. I wondered what could explain this rush to war and disregard for real intelligence. Neoconservatives are fairly easy to study, mainly because they are few in number, and they show up at all the same parties. Examining them as individuals, it became clear that almost all have worked together, in and out of government, on national security issues for several decades. The Project for the New American Century and its now famous 1998 manifesto to President Clinton on Iraq is a recent example. But this statement was preceded by one written for Benyamin Netanyahu's Likud Party campaign in Israel in 1996 by neoconservatives Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Douglas Feith titled "A Clean Break: Strategy for Securing the Realm."

David Wurmser is the least known of that trio and an interesting example of the tangled neoconservative web. In 2001, the research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute was assigned to the Pentagon, then moved to the Department of State to work as deputy for the hard-line conservative undersecretary John Bolton, then to the National Security Council, and now is lodged in the office of the vice president. His wife, the prolific Meyrav Wurmser, executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute, is also a neoconservative team player.

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 12:59am
Meyrav Wurmser, an opponent of the Oslo peace accords and a central neoconservative figure, is a senior fellow at the right-wing Hudson Institute and a columnist for the Conrad Black-owned Jerusalem Post.

In 1996 she helped write a report for Israel's Likud party that urged Israel to break off then-ongoing peace initiatives. The report, which was titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" and was published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (an Israeli- and DC-based think tank) advised then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "to work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back" regional threats, help overthrow Saddam Hussein, and strike "Syrian military targets in Lebanon" and possibly in Syria proper. Coauthors of the report included Richard Perle, David Wurmser, and Douglas Feith. (6)

She also cofounded with Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in the Israeli military intelligence, the Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI). According to Jim Lobe, MEMRI specializes in translating and distributing "particularly virulent anti-U.S. and anti-Israel articles appearing in the Arab press to key U.S. media and policymakers." (8)

According to her Hudson Institute bio, Wurmser "helped to educate policymakers about the Palestinian Authority two-track approach to 'negotiating peace' with Israel: calling for peace in the English press and with western policymakers while inciting hatred and violence through official Arab language media."

Although it describes itself as "non-partisan," MEMRI--which has offices in London, Washington, Jerusalem, and Berlin--has frequently been accused of being nothing more than a propaganda outfit of Israeli intelligence. According the Guardian, which dug up deleted pages from MEMRI's web site through the internet archive, "Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three--including [Yigal] Carmon--are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence. Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian." (10)

The Guardian's Brian Whitaker also reported: "Although Memri claims that it does provide translations from Hebrew media, I can't recall receiving any. Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises 'the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel'. That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be found in internet archives." (10)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/wurmser_m/wurmser-m.php

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 01:09am
Will C.

I'm not sure where you developed your theology, but it sounds like L. Ron Hubbard on bad pizza. It is neither fair to the other bloggers nor perhaps even worth the investment of time and energy to correct all of the misguided pronouncement that you write.

But I will make comment as to your response to my citing scripture passages. Do you think I should cite me as the authoritative source or Christ to your question? Which one should have pre-eminence? I think in the end I will trust my relationship to God and taking Him at His word, over your distorted views.

As to Lucifer/Satan, I think that he has done a fairly convincing job on you to this point. I have more than a passing knowledge in this area, having cast out demons from severely possessed people around the world over the past 25 years. It is not exciting, or fun, nor even desirable to pursue. It is done by those chosen for whatever reason known only to God. I think you don't even begin to understand what you spout. It is a subject far too serious for the idle rantings you spin.

For the rest of you, please excuse the departure from topic. I try not to inject the religious issues except when asked.

Posted by love liberty at 10/20/2005 @ 01:11am
LL,

willc is...hard to describe..yet at the same time fits a dozen stereotypes.

Interesting, tho.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 01:18am
All The News That's Fit to Translate...

How David Wurmser's wife plays a direct role in the scheme:

Selective Memri

Brian Whitaker investigates whether the 'independent' media institute that translates the Arabic newspapers is quite what it seems

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.ht ml

The organisation that makes these translations and sends them out is the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), based in Washington but with recently-opened offices in London, Berlin and Jerusalem.

Its work is subsidised by US taxpayers because as an "independent, non-partisan, non-profit" organisation, it has tax-deductible status under American law.

The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease.

Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "Memri's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."

Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.

Col Carmon's co-founder at Memri is Meyrav Wurmser, who is also director of the centre for Middle East policy at the Indianapolis-based Hudson Institute, which bills itself as "America's premier source of applied research on enduring policy challenges".

The ubiquitous Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's defence policy board, recently joined Hudson's board of trustees.

Ms Wurmser is the author of an academic paper entitled Can Israel Survive Post-Zionism? in which she argues that leftwing Israeli intellectuals pose "more than a passing threat" to the state of Israel, undermining its soul and reducing its will for self-defence.

Memri sent out translated extracts from the poem, which it described as "praising suicide bombers". Whether that was the poem's real message is a matter of interpretation. It could, perhaps more plausibly, be read as condemning the political ineffectiveness of Arab leaders, but Memri's interpretation was reported, almost without question, by the western media.

The danger is that many of the senators, congressmen and "opinion formers" who don't read Arabic but receive Memri's emails may get the idea that these extreme examples are not only truly representative but also reflect the policies of Arab governments.

All it takes is a small but active group of Israelis to exploit that barrier for their own ends and start changing western perceptions of Arabs for the worse.

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 01:23am
Plunger, "All it takes is a small but active group of Israelis to exploit that barrier for their own ends and start changing western perceptions of Arabs for the worse"

I think Islamo Facists with a 12th centry view of the world, suicidal bombers convinced of virgins waiting breathlessly and wahabists are doing a fine job by themsleves. Israelis nor anyone could come up with the man from Jordan killing for God anyone who doesn't agree with us plan.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 01:29am
Congressman wants new Able Danger probe

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 (UPI) -- A vocal House Republican is calling for a new probe into what he says is a "witch-hunt" by defense officials against a Sept. 11 intelligence whistleblower.

Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., told United Press International that officials at the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, had "conducted a deliberate campaign of character assassination" against the whistleblower, retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer.

Shaffer has said that a highly classified Pentagon data-mining project he worked on, codenamed Able Danger, identified the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terror attacks as linked to al-Qaida more than a year before they hijacked four planes and crashed them, killing nearly 3,000 people.

Weldon told UPI he had written to the Department of Defense inspector general to ask for "an immediate formal inquiry, with people testifying under oath," into what he called "a clear witch-hunt" against Shaffer, who has been on administrative leave while minor allegations about some expenses are investigated.

Weldon's move comes after Shaffer said that boxes of his personal effects, returned to him by the DIA earlier this month, contained both government property and classified documents.

"Sending classified material through the mail is a felony, and much more serious than any of these minor, trumped up charges against (Shaffer)," he said, adding that "I want the appropriate persons held accountable."

Weldon said that the DIA had now taken steps to fire Shaffer. "It's outrageous and scandalous," he said.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051019-040108-63 65r

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_2004/0407027.html

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 01:41am
"I think Islamo Facists with a 12th centry view of the world, suicidal bombers convinced of virgins waiting breathlessly and wahabists are doing a fine job by themsleves."

John,

If you were referring specifically to the 9/11 hijackers, 9 of them seem to still be alive. What's up with that?

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 01:47am
There are reasons why previous generations kept Republicans from controlling both houses of Congress; it seems we have to relearn those painful lessons.

Posted by seattlescribe at 10/20/2005 @ 02:05am
and so, RESE....PLUNGER (maybe there ARE two of you), I'll ask again....

How does "THE most diabolical genius in the last 60 years" (Cheney), or even his minions....get "nabbed" by a mid-level prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald?

Wouldn't he brainwash Fitzgerald, using secret technology recovered at Roswell? Or replace his brain with that of an android built at Area 51? Or merely seduce him into flubbing his prosecution...using one of the numerous white sex slave clones of Marilyn Monroe, kept by the still-living JFK in his underground lair in Hyannisport?

Posted by Mask at 10/20/2005 @ 06:41am
Mask:

Your commentary is not educated, or educational.

Why don't you learn all about JINSA and then report back to us from a perspective of knowledge:

JINSA:

Since 1976 the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) has played a key role in cementing ties between U.S. and Israeli armed forces and military industries. With groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbying Congress for increased aid to Israel, JINSA zeros in on the U.S. military network to increase strategic (and financial) links with Israel's military-industrial complex. In addition to the generous flows of economic and military aid to Israel--accounting for one-sixth of all U.S. foreign aid--the U.S. military has underwritten the development of Israel's armaments industry.

Former U.S. flag officers--generals and admirals--have been the main target audience for JINSA's political education efforts. It organizes regular educational trips for retired military officers--especially those who are also consultants, investors, or board members of military contractors--to Israel, where they meet with Israeli political, military, and industry officials. Aside from building direct military-industry ties between the two countries, the trips also serve to forge a powerful pro-Israeli pressure group in the United States.

JINSA's two architects are husband and wife Stephen and Shoshana Bryen. Michael Ledeen was its first executive director, hired in 1977. Two years later, Stephen Bryen took the helm and his wife succeeded him in 1981. Stephen left in 1981 to become Deputy Undersecretary of Defense and was in charge of choosing which U.S.-made defense toys Israel would buy with U.S.-allocated military funds. (3)

In recent years, JINSA was one of the groups that most strongly supported the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Former head of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, is a member of JINSA's Board of Advisers and serves as a spokesman in furthering JINSA's goals. Other former advisory board members include Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Douglas Feith. Former administration officials from the Reagan era are James Woolsey, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Michael Ledeen. Many individuals with defense backgrounds and affiliations serve on the board of advisers and are involved in numerous contracts with Israel. Leon Edney, David Jeremiah, and Charles May, former armed forces officers, have all been consultants to Northrop Grumman, which has built Israeli ships and planes. May, Paul Cerjan and Carlisle Trost have also worked for Lockheed Martin, which has sold F-16s, flight simulators, and rocket systems to Israel. Trost is a member of the board of General Dynamics, whose subsidiary Gulfstream has a $206 million contract with the Pentagon. (4)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/jinsa.php

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 06:45am
"Carlisle Trost"?....."Carlyle Group"?.....coincidence?

HA! There are no "coincidences"! I'm just wondering why you're not going "all the way" and discussing the eyewitnesses (a janitor I believe) who saw men placing demolition charges in both Towers on September 10th?

Posted by Mask at 10/20/2005 @ 06:59am
Tinker, Banker, NeoCon, Spy Ahmed Chalabi's long and winding road from (and to?) Baghdad By Robert Dreyfuss Issue Date: 11.18.02

"The removal of [Saddam Hussein] presents the United States in particular with a historic opportunity that I believe is going to prove to be as large as anything that has happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the entry of British troops into Iraq in 1917," says Kanan Makiya, an INC strategist and author of Republic of Fear.

Chalabi would hand over Iraq's oil to U.S. multinationals, and his allies in conservative think tanks are already drawing up the blueprints. "What they have in mind is denationalization, and then parceling Iraqi oil out to American oil companies," says James E. Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Even more broadly, once an occupying U.S. army seizes Baghdad, Chalabi's INC and its American backers are spinning scenarios about dismantling Saudi Arabia, seizing its oil and collapsing the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). It's a breathtaking agenda, one that goes far beyond "regime change" and on to the start of a New New World Order.

The Chalabi Lobby Almost to a man, Washington's hawks lavishly praise Chalabi. "He's a rare find," says Max Singer, a trustee and co-founder of the Hudson Institute. "He's deep in the Arab world and at the same time he is fundamentally a man of the West."

In Washington, Team Chalabi is led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, the neoconservative strategist who heads the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Chalabi's partisans run the gamut from far right to extremely far right, with key supporters in most of the Pentagon's Middle-East policy offices -- such as Peter Rodman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Michael Rubin. Also included are key staffers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, not to mention Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former CIA Director Jim Woolsey.

The Washington partisans who want to install Chalabi in Arab Iraq are also those associated with the staunchest backers of Israel, particularly those aligned with the hard-right faction of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Chalabi's cheerleaders include the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). "Chalabi is the one that we know the best," says Shoshana Bryen, director of special projects for JINSA, where Chalabi has been a frequent guest at board meetings, symposia and other events since 1997. "He could be Iraq's national leader," says Patrick Clawson, deputy director of WINEP, whose board of advisers includes pro-Israeli luminaries such as Perle, Wolfowitz and Martin Peretz of The New Republic.

Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East, famously ridiculed Chalabi and company as "silk-suited, Rolex-wearing guys in London," adding, "I don't see any opposition group that has the viability to overthrow Saddam." Supporting the INC, he warned, meant that "the Bay of Pigs could turn into the Bay of Goats."

In June 1997, Chalabi spoke to JINSA's board, which includes, not surprisingly, Perle, Woolsey and key hard-line backers of Israel such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Max Kampelman, Eugene Rostow and former Rep. Steve Solarz (D-N.Y.). "The INC plan for Saddam's overthrow is simple," Chalabi told JINSA.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/21/dreyfuss-r.html

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 07:04am
From "creative destruction" to "total war," the guiding beliefs of the most aggressive foreign policymakers in the Bush administration may originate in the works of an influential yet rarely seen neoconservative.

Who is Michael Ledeen?

By William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service. Posted May 8, 2003.

Most Americans have never heard of Michael Ledeen, but if the United States ends up in an extended shooting war throughout the Middle East, it will be largely due to his inspiration.

Ledeen's ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. His views virtually define the stark departure from American foreign policy philosophy that existed before the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. He basically believes that violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America's manifest destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical legitimator of the American occupation of Iraq.

Now Michael Ledeen is calling for regime change beyond Iraq. In an address entitled "Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern Terrorism," for the policy forum of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) on April 30, he declared, "the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon."

Quotes from Ledeen's works reveal a peculiar set of beliefs about American attitudes toward violence. "Change -- above all violent change -- is the essence of human history," he proclaims in his book, "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago." In an influential essay in the National Review Online he asserts, "Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again to export the democratic revolution."

Ledeen has become the driving philosophical force behind the neoconservative movement and the military actions it has spawned.

Iraq, Iran and Syria are the first and foremost nations where this should happen, according to Ledeen. The process by which this should be achieved is a violent one, termed "total war," a concept pioneered by the 19th century Prussian general, Karl von Clausewitz in his classic book "On War."

His attacks against the CIA and the State Department have contributed to the exclusion of these intelligence bodies from any effective decision making on Iraq. His attacks on Iran, even when Iran was assisting the United States, helped keep the Bush administration from seeking any rapprochement with Tehran. Were it in Ledeen's hands, we would invade Iran today.

Given both his fervor and his influence over the men with the guns, Americans should not be surprised if Ledeen's pronouncements come true.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15860/

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 07:50am
August 22, 2003

Ledeen on the Run 'Faster, Please' Toward the Annihilation of Iran

The SMH dispatch reported the claim that "Administration officials said at least two Pentagon officials working for the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, have held "several" meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian middleman in United States arms-for-hostage shipments to Iran in the mid-1980s." Along the same lines, a "senior Administration official identified two of the Defense officials who met Mr. Ghorbanifar as Harold Rhode, Mr. Feith's top Middle East specialist, and Larry Franklin, a Defence Intelligence Agency analyst on loan to the undersecretary's office."

Of the two liaisons mentioned in the Australian paper's report, the most interesting for Ledeen watchers is Mr. Rhode. As the report points out, "Mr. Rhode recently acted as a liaison between Mr. Feith's office, which drafted much of the Administration's post-Iraq planning, and Ahmed Chalabi, a former Iraqi exile groomed for leadership by the Pentagon. Mr. Rhode is a protege of Michael Ledeen, who was a National Security Council consultant in the mid 1980s when he introduced Mr. Ghorbanifar to Oliver North, a NSC aide, and others in the opening stages of the Iran-Contra affair. It is understood Mr. Ledeen reopened the Ghorbanifar channel with Mr. Feith's staff."

Ledeen saves some of his most bilious language for Secretary of State Colin Powell, who only months ago mortgaged a good chunk of his soul to assemble the "Coalition of the Willing." Ledeen "asks" Powell the following, seemingly rhetorical, questions: "Why do you find the Iranian people so uniquely unworthy of support in their efforts to be free? Why do you use phrases like 'family squabble' to describe mass murder and systematic repression in Iran, when you used much stronger language to (accurately) describe a similar regime in Iraq?"

Perhaps Powell understands what much of the military brass does. Perhaps Powell is aware of how perilously overextended American troops are, and, rather than starting a fight the US is ill-positioned to finish, he realizes that the mullahs must be tolerated, because it is damned hard to liberate the world when the news is full of reports of the disillusionment of American troops.

But don't tell that to Ledeen, who even now exhorts President Bush toward more military adventurism. "The hell of it all is that this president has it right, and has had it right from the beginning. He knows Iran is at the heart of the Axis of Evil. He knows that America, because of its very essence as the embodiment of the democratic evolution, must support the fight for freedom in Iran. He says it all the time, only to have many of the others gainsay him."

More "conspiracy theory" from Ledeen, who stops short of ascribing motivations to the "gainsayers." Do they hate America? Are they Islamofascist dupes? Inquiring minds want to know, but Ledeen realizes that, with scant proof that the Powell/Armitage wing's willingness to negotiate with Tehran stems from anything more nefarious than knowing the limits of the US military, he's better off just throwing bombs and seeing if anyone blows up in the process.

Michael Ledeen is a dangerous animal, a laptop bombardier, a thug with a hidden agenda and a security clearance. It is no coincidence that the 8/14 column, like so many of his others, closes with an exhortation to the President. "Faster, please," it always goes. He talks of military confrontation with Iran, which will be ugly like nothing since the Korean war, like he's a frat boy trying to get laid. Ledeen is a risible presence on the American scene, and this column hopes that his enemies in Washington find a way to take him to task for reckless, foolish talk that will lead to the death of more Americans and further diffusion of the Administration's credibility. This columnist, however, is not holding his breath waiting for Ledeen to get his just deserts.

http://www.antiwar.com/gancarski/gan082203.html

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 08:00am
According to George W. Bush, Carl Rove is "The Architect"

But who was Carl Rove's "Architect" on matters pertaining to the invasion of the Middle East?

Michael A Ledeen

WASHINGTON - When The Washington Post published a list of the people whom Karl Rove, President George W Bush's closest advisor, regularly consults for advice outside the administration, foreign policy veterans were shocked when Michael Ledeen popped up as the only full-time international affairs analyst.

"The two met after Bush's election," the Post reported cheerfully, quoting Ledeen about Rove's request that "any time you have a good idea, tell me". "More than once, Ledeen has seen his ideas, faxed to Rove, become official policy or rhetoric," noted the newspaper.

"When I saw that, I couldn't believe it," said one retired senior diplomat. "But then again, with this administration, it seemed frighteningly plausible."

Ledeen has been no less prolific in his organizational work, although, besides AEI - where he works with fellow foreign policy neo-cons Perle, former United Nations ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik and Reuel Marc Gerecht - his main institutional forum over the past 25 years has been the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs (JINSA), an activist group that promotes a strategic alliance between the United States and Israel. He has also served on the board of the US Committee for a Free Lebanon and has taken an organizing role in CDI. His co-founder there, Amitay, also works for JINSA.

He is also close to key figures in the administration, particularly Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, whose pro-Likud politics he largely shares; Vice President Dick Cheney's powerful chief of staff, I Lewis Libby; and Elliott Abrams, the director for the Near East on the National Security Council. To that list can now apparently be added Rove, who is as close to Bush as it is possible to get.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF26Ak03.html

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 08:06am
Plunger - I hit ignore on RESE and now must do so with you also - your posts are just too darn LONG and clutter up the place. Sorry. If you start with small posts containing your thoughts (not cut/paste jobs) I hope someone will state that so I can un-ignore you.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/20/2005 @ 08:19am
Maasch, no one here is finding DeLay guilty, we are just gratified by his indictment, with guilty to come, perhaps. my point about Clinton still stands, he was found not guilty of the "crime" he was impeached for, maybe DeLay will too. you and I will have a reckoning soon, when further indictments are handed down against the folks you are so ardently defending, with convictions to follow, or not.

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 08:21am
THINK TANK = "In The Tank"...For Israel.

Daniel Pipes

Middle East Forum: Founder and director Project for the New American Century: Signatory

"if Pipe's admonitions had been heeded," the United States might also be at war with most of the Arab world.

The document, titled "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: The U.S. Role?" argued that "Syrian rule in Lebanon stands in direct opposition to American ideals" and criticized the United States for engaging rather than confronting the regime.

Among the all-star cast that signed the document were several future Bush administration figures, including Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Michael Rubin, David Wurmser, and Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky. Other signers included Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Michael Ledeen, and Frank Gaffney.

When it comes to international relations, Pipes was not the most appropriate or legitimate person to consider for a post like that at the USIP, which is devoted to "promoting the peaceful resolution of international conflicts." His comments about why the United States invaded Iraq are a case in point: "WMD was never the basic reason for war. Nor was it the horrid repression in Iraq . Or the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors. ... The campaign in Iraq is about keeping promises to the United States or paying the consequences�. Keep your promises or you are gone. It's a powerful precedent that U.S. leaders should make the most of."

This anti-Islamist bent is not a new endeavor for Pipes. He founded and still directs the Middle East Forum, "a think tank" aimed at defining and promoting American interests in the Middle East �. The Forum holds that the United States has vital interests in the region; in particular, it believes in strong ties with Israel , Turkey , and other democracies as they emerge; works for human rights throughout the region; seeks a stable supply and a low price of oil; and promotes the peaceful settlement of regional and international disputes." But regardless of this anti-militant Islam bent, Pipes himself has written that Muslim immigrants are "brown- skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene". (9)

Another organization that Pipes established, Campus Watch, tracks down university professors who are perceived to be anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian, or pro-Islamist. Seen by many as an affront to academic freedom and an attempt to silence criticism of U.S. policies toward Israel and the Arab world, the web site encourages students at colleges and universities to report any teachers who exhibit such behaviors in the classroom.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/pipes/pipes.php

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 08:23am
FISHBIT:

"Ignore" is exactly what American's have been doing relative to the information I've been posting, which is exactly what has led us to this crossroads in our nation's history.

Tell all of the families with troops stationed in harm's way that you're "ignoring" the reason they are there.

What are you personally willing to fight for?

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 08:26am
LL - Who knew you were an international caster-out-of-demons! I'm disappointed that it's not fun or exciting though - it kind of looks that way in the movies. But let me not trifle with such a serious subject. Dealing with an alien being from millions of years ago that blew up people in volcanoes... whoops, wrong religion, sorry about that. Yours is the one with the virgin birth, the ghost, drinking blood, stoning adulturers, etc. the details are irrelevant.

Given the notion of personal responsibility (you agree with that concept, don't you), why don't you quote yourself rather than Christ or Hubbard or Buddha or The Giant Turtle? Looks like you've abdicated personal responsibility here and let someone else tell you what to do, think, believe. You turn to the godhead for answers to every problem - just how you allege the archetypical liberal turns to the government.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/20/2005 @ 08:40am
This blog is in danger of being taken over by people who claim to have "cast out demons" (do you also handle snakes?), and by others who say they agree with them on their wild-eyed conspiracy theories. I know we're not supposed to get personal on here, but between Maasch, Liberty, Plunger, and that nutcase Rese (is he still here? I Ignored him last night), even the 12th century seems a time of enlightenment.

The whole concept of rational thought, intellectualism, humanism, and indeed BEING human just scares you guys to death, doesn't it? It puts deepest fear in you to realize that we might just all be on our own, with no direction home (thanks Bob), and God, if there is a God, just doesn't give two hoots about any of us. The arrogance of believing that an omnipotent god cares about any of our sorry asses is just too too sad. So you don't even think those thoughts, because they're just too scary, and besides, your clergymen haven't given you permission to think.

I don't say that there isn't some pretty serious conspiracy being hatched right here in our country - but jeeeez, try at least to make some sense in what you say. And please, stop with the massive cut&pastes - though I had to chuckle at Will C's observation of evangelicals as a cut&paste religion. It makes perfect sense, since they can make any issue about them simply by sticking a little Scripture into the mix. Still, if you want to cite someone else's work, use a link, and save the bandwidth here for YOUR words, if you can get it together to compose something that's not an echo of something someone else said, and ours.

Read some history, folks - and not just the history put out by your mind-controllers. I do NOT defend the actions of the Islamist terrorists, but I DO understand what they're pissed off about - and their grievances go back a lot farther than the '03 invasion of Iraq, or 9/11, or even Lawrence of Arabia's era. One of the mistakes that the West, meaning mainly America in recent times, have always made is in underestimating the length of our enemies' memories. For instance, in Vietnam, we were essentially sticking our national nose into a 1000-year-old civil war, expected to be respected and feared because we were AMERICA, dammit, and wondered why we got our butts kicked by a bunch of guys in black pajamas. We're doing it again in the Middle East - the Islamists (the ones who really ARE Islamists, and not just opportunists or poor misguided zealots) are currently angry about the past 900 YEARS!!! of European and Western exploitation of the Middle East, starting with the Crusades and going right up to the present attempts to remake them in our image and steal their oil - and we're probably going to get our butts kicked there too - not because our soldiers aren't strong and dedicated and brave, but because our political leadership is weak and opportunistic and cowardly, and despite Bush's disclaimers to the contrary, are watching the opinion polls like hawks, and changing their attitudes and opinions and actions with every drop in approval, and will almost certainly try to completely remake themselves in time for next year's midterms. And our sons and daughters are DYING because of these things. And people in Red America still support the president because he's a "godly" man. One can only hope there really is a hell, because if so, I suspect it will be full of people who, by their support and votes, have allowed Bush to destroy us in all the ways he has done and will continue to do.

That's the problem with this line of thinking - it's impossible to stay on topic because the criminal incompetence of the Bush administration leads one to so very many places.

And no, I don't hate America. I hate what our supposed leaders are doing to us, and to the world, and I'm not too keen on the folks who won't look at these things because they're too weak-minded and scared to see anything that challenges them, or think anything they haven't been told to think.

After all, if you surrender your life to God, then it makes you not responsible, makes it all God's fault when things go wrong, doesn't it?

End of rant. For now.

George Bush is a divider not a uniter. You can look it up!

Posted by RichMiles at 10/20/2005 @ 08:53am
MARYBRETBRAD:

Wasn't Saddam OUR OWN Dr. Evil?

Wasn't he a US creation?

Doesn't this poke a pretty serious hole in your analogy?

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 08:55am
PLUNGER

Sometime ago I heard a neo-con saying that Saddam was put in power by "Greenpeace, Amnesty International and the other stupid ones", probably MARYBRETBRAD is trying to suggest that. Poor people, completely endoctrinated with a low key spin.

Posted by areyouok at 10/20/2005 @ 09:00am
MBB - You say we had to address the situation in Iraq because Dr. Evil was going to kill people and imply that the population steeped in hopelessness would strike out against... the US? Or maybe against Dr. Evil. If you throw out the WMD argument, and say its appropriate to kill a few babies to rescue a room full of people, then why aren't we doing that consistently? Why no action in Darfur? Why aren't we working day and night to remove tyrants around the world? Why was it just this one? Why plant seeds there and not elsewhere? Or should we really start working up the invasion plans for Syria, Iran, Venezuela, etc.? Please define the national strategic vision for the US that includes invading countries to establish democracies.

If advocating a moral position is "preening" then what do you call advocating an immoral position? What's really childish is continuing to believe in this administration, seeing heroic stands and nobility where any dispassionate observer sees incompetence, deceit and greed. For truly it is said, they have eyes but do not see, ears but do not hear.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/20/2005 @ 09:00am
Fishbite - I like your style. Gotta go to work in a minute, or I'd have more to say. But I did want to offer a word of caution - if, in your 900am post replying to MBB, you were serious and not just ironic in including Venezuela as one of our possible invasion sites, I would ask you to consider that Chavez is democratically elected, very popular with his own people, and a victim of an American sliming because he has a lot of oil and is not properly obsequious to American pols and oil companies. There are some things about him not to like, but we here in the States don't know most of them. The stuff we get is mostly propaganda. Just my thoughts, hope I didn't misconstrue your intent.

More to come!

George Bush is a divider not a uniter. You can look it up!

Posted by RichMiles at 10/20/2005 @ 09:13am
"LOVELIBERTY" - You keep promising to take your born-again propaganda elsewhere, but you're still here. You can't stop, can you? Don't bother dredging up more quotations from the bible. Any rational person knows the Christian bible is a total cut-and-paste job, done at the Council of Nesea A.D.330. The writings of the disciples were gutted and edited by the appointed theological bigshots of the Roman emporer Constantine. So only a brainwashed fool would still cite the bible as the word of God. But you are great with cut-and-paste jobs. A real propaganda bullshit artist...a rightwing evangelical missonary pushing your snake oil.

Posted by philbq at 10/20/2005 @ 09:20am
Rese, you seem really needing to get answers about this conspiracy that no plane ever crashed on the pentagone and that planes on the WTC have been guided thru a device put on the towers. Well, this "reseau voltaire" theory has been completly debunked. I would need time to translate every point from french to english and it would take a lot of place. I check quickly your site and i recognized the Meyssan theory; so i may answer things not on that page sorry. so i'll just put few ones... 1st the lawn by the pentagon, the fire and the hole in the bulding. Why the entire lawn and not a special path??? well what big the special path would need to be? isn't it easy then smarter to cover it all so any truck at any time can get the access to the bulding? why so much fire? just realize that the plane wings are full of jet fuel, and unlike what Meyssan said, the gas released by fet fuel DOES explode. The plane is in aluminium and when hitting the pentagon the wings exploded ! but the rest of it, doing some needle effect went thru the super-structure of the pentagon hitting deep but making a "small" impact point and it made a super oven where the temperature was over 3000�C - the aluminium goes to gas when such hot. And it's not because you don't see any picture with pieces of the plane that there was none. In fact pictures have been selected to fit the "theory" and some pictures shown the debris and has been released just like some people in the neighborhood have seen a plane and told it. As well about "physics" and the way the plane hit the pentagon. Unlike what the "theory" said it wasn't easy to arrive from upper with something like a 45� angle and that was impossible to make an approach that fast and just above the lawn. It was already such a extreme approach and coming from a bigger angle from the top would have brought the plane to collapse before reaching his target. All this has been debunked by real experts in explosives, plane pilots and engineers and not by the fake experts Thierry Meyssan claimed to interviewed but failed to name. 2nd about the WTC and the approaching devices, like the ones used by airports, they are huge and can't be installed without nobody to notice so no conspiracy there. No any pilot would just use the automatic one which brings the plane exactly (the error is around 5 yards so nothing when you target a skycraper it's nothing) where you want to go. I could continue but it would take too much time, place and it's not the purpose here. So rese, maybe there's a conspiracy behind these attacks but don't worry even if there's one, it is NOT the one "exposed" by the "reseau Voltaire" and Thierry Meyssan. Their theory is nothing but craps. I hope you'll have better days now

Posted by Fabrice at 10/20/2005 @ 09:37am
richmiles, very nice, hope to hear more from you. and I share you admiration of Fishy

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 09:43am
Why are the following individuals labeled as "former" CIA employees? They are victims of the coup.

July 26, 2003 The Pentagon's War Machine CIA Probe Points to the Office of Special Plans

Patrick Lang, the former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defense Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence, said the Office of Special Plans "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat. Lang said in interviews with several media outlets that the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said he has spoken to a number of working intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi."

The Office of Special Plans should be examined to determine whether it "complemented, competed with, or detracted from the role of other United States intelligence agencies respecting the collection and use of intelligence relating to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and war planning. I also think it is important to understand how having two intelligence agencies within the Pentagon impacted the Department of Defense's ability to focus the necessary resources and manpower on pre-war planning and post-war operations," Tauscher's letter said.

"A group of civilian employees in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, all of whom are political employees have long been dissatisfied with the information produced by the established intelligence agencies both inside and outside the Department. That was particularly true, apparently, with respect to the situation in Iraq," Obey said. "As a result, it is reported that they established a special operation within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which was named the Office of Special Plans. That office was charged with collecting, vetting, and disseminating intelligence completely outside the normal intelligence apparatus.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold07262003.html

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 10:31am
the following is from a post found here:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/136703_comment.php

2005-10-01

Judith Miller & Larry Franklin, sitting in a tree...

I wrote here that I believed the whole fiasco surrounding Judith Miller and her role in leaking Valerie Plame's identity was nothing more than a PR initiative on the part of the Publisher of The New York Times and Ms. Miller to rehabilitate her reputation in the aftermath of all that whoring for war in Iraq she and her paper are guilty of. Admittedly, I was reaching, but nothing else made sense at the time.

Upon hearing the news that she had changed her mind and was prepared to testify, my initial reaction was, "Aha! I was right!" The story we are given again makes no sense. Her claim that she wasn't about to rat out her source until she was released by her source to do so is contradicted by none other than the source himself, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Cheney. Mr. Libby's lawyer told Ms. Miller's lawyer that she was free to testify... a year ago!

I recall reading the letters to the editor section in The Times shortly after Miller was jailed and of course you'd expect a sampling of letters favorable to the little war monger but these were simply nauseating in the way they celebrated this woman as though she were some kind of champion of the First Amendment! This was a publicity stunt. And a very successful one at that.

Right?

Wrong. I now believe something far more sinister is afoot.

There were other developments that day [SEPTEMBER 30th 2005 - Judith Miller agrees to testify], including one item which, given an unbiased media, should have merited a headline in next day's paper.

I refer of course to the news that Lawrence A. Franklin, the former Defense Department [@ OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS - under Douglas Feith] analyst charged in a far-ranging national security inquiry with passing classified military information to pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, had agreed to a guilty plea.

Why would someone agree to plea guilty? In hopes of getting a reduced sentence. Why would prosecutors agree to such a plea? In hopes of getting testimony out of the accused so that others might be indicted as well.

It's difficult to get the exact timeline, but it really does appear that Judith Miller's decision to come forward came only hours after the news that Franklin was going to testify. Is that just coincidence? I don't think so.

Remember that much of Judith Miller's notoriety stems from the fact that she played up Ahmed Chalabi's lies about Iraqi WMD and Iraqi atrocities and turned them all into propaganda for war by successfully smearing it all on the front page of The New York Times. And Ahmed Chalabi of course was doing this at the behest of the Pentagon, answering to none other than our new witness for the prosecution, Lawrence Franklin. This is the same office that was connected to Cheney in the prevarication about Saddam shopping for yellow-cake and the subsequent attempt to cover it up by going after Joseph Wilson who, of course, had to be punished for writing that editorial, What I Didn't Find in Africa.

There are just too many lines connecting the dots.

And perhaps the more compelling of those lines is the way the media has reported this story. Of course it makes no sense for Miller to suddenly agree to testify, so what was needed was a way of misdirecting the reader's efforts at understanding why she made this choice only now into harmless territory. Better to have the readers believe that Judith Miller is a flake than to see her at the center of a huge conspiracy designed to benefit big oil and Israel, and to America's great expense.

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 10:36am
"Outing" the Neocons: The Office of Special Plans by gorillaintheroom Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 01:34:45 PM PDT

One of the very interesting aspects of the Office of Special Plans, not mentioned in the mainstream press very much, is the composition of its core staff -- most of the key people assembled at working staff levels were Jews with far-right views. The few who weren't were from closely-allied groups, like right wing Lebanese Christians. To borrow Bill Clinton's phrase describing his cabinet -- it didn't exactly "look like America." Now I'm certainly not saying that all (or even many) American Jews who work in government have dual loyalty issues -- most clearly have an undivided loyalty first and foremost to the United States. But some of the people Feith brought in had unusually strong ties to Israel, including one official who had emigrated as a young adult hoping to be an Israeli diplomat.

David Schenker -- brought in shortly after 9/11 from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which is closely affiliated with AIPAC.

David Wurmser -- brought in from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), he was one of the authors of the Clean Break paper, which was an advice piece for Binyamin Netanyahu on how to move past the Oslo peace process, retain the West Bank permanently, and undermine the governments of Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Note the wording about "Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, 'peace for peace,' is a solid basis for the future. " No Palestinian state. The "remaking" of the Middle East will allow Israel to "transcend" its enemies, rather than have to make territorial concessions. Get into Iraq --> undermine Syria and Iran --> this changes the strategic environment to allow Israel to keep the West Bank. Wurmser, along with Michael Maloof, was part of the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, which was the unit Feith set up to try to backfill an al-Qaeda/Saddam connection and feed that story into the White House. He's also the husband of Meyrav Wurmser, who runs the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), an organization which translates selectively from the Arabic language press in order to paint the Arab world in a bad light and discount the idea of negotiating with the Palestinians, along with Col. Yigal Carmon, formerly with Israeli military intelligence.

Michael Rubin -- also went to OSP from AEI, and after later doing a stint working under Paul Bremer in Baghdad, he's now back at AEI, writing about how awful a job Paul Bremer did there, from a neocon perspective. Rubin also is sort of the designated attack dog for the AEI crowd -- writing a lot in the National Review Online about the supposed "antisemitism" of anyone who dares to criticize them.

Michael Makovsky -- most of the information above has appeared elsewhere in the blogosphere, but I have dug up some new (actually, too old to have been found) information on Makovsky. Michael Makovsky was a recent Ph.D. in history brought in to work on Iraqi oil issues (no previous oil experience! -- in such an oil industry heavy administration -- but the war wasn't about oil -- and Republicans with close ties to Big Oil tend not to be Jewish). In 1989, after working as a staffer for Sen. John Danforth, he had emigrated to Israel, according to an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (too old to have a web link, but it's available on Lexis/Nexis, where I found it). He said he wanted to serve as an Israeli diplomat, after serving in the Israeli Army, though he said he didn't intend to renounce his American citizenship. (It's definitely the same Michael Makovsky, since the article refers to his older brother David Makovsky, who is now a senior fellow at WINEP.) I can't find any reference to him having served as an Israeli diplomat, so that probably never came through for him, but it does make you wonder if the security clearance people were aware of this article when they did his background check. There a USA Today article from 1995 about the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin which quotes a Michael Makovsky who was a resident of a West Bank settlement and a friend of Yigal Amir, the assassin, though I'm not 100% sure it's the same person, since the ages cited in the two articles don't mesh -- but the only other Michael Makovsky I've found is a Czech soccer player, so I think it's likely him. I don't mean to imply that he supported the assassination, since his comments in the article don't say that -- if it was the same person -- but it does suggest that he was associating with a very ideological "radical right" crowd during his years there. I've also run across web links (since taken down) which linked Makovsky to the right-wing "Betar" organization while he was living in the UK as a student. Betar is a 'revisionist Zionist' territorial maximalist group founded by (drum roll please) Dalck Feith, the father of Douglas Feith, which has youth/campus organizations in the US and UK. One does wonder how Feith or his underlings must have had to browbeat the security clearance people into not asking about Makovsky's very apparent foreign loyaly questions.

Anyway, my point here is that Feith and company built the office which was to plan and "make the sales pitch" for the war around people with very strong ties to Israel, and it certainly didn't "look like America." It wasn't even a very representative sample of American Jews or the pro-Israel community. It was ideologues committed to Israel retaining the West Bank, and a strategic reordering of the region which would make that possible.

I don't think the folks with the yellow ribbons on their pickup trucks out in Red America realize that.

Several of these people also have "lawyered up" in the face of the FBI probe of AIPAC and Larry Franklin, which suggests that they see themselves in possible legal jeopardy.

Now honestly, if most Americans had been aware of what I've just stated above about the background of the people (at mid-level staff levels) who were putting together the plans for war against Iraq -- don't you think people would have questioned their motivations a bit more? We need to keep this in mind as we head toward war with Iran. Some of these people are still working in the Bush administration, and Michael Rubin was reportedly the author of the Iran policy paper that Larry Franklin leaked to AIPAC -- probably to facilitate AIPAC's orchestration of political pressure to bring about the desired policy outcome.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/12/163445/117

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 10:48am
Plunger: I must apoligize to the other bloggers for going off subject, but I am intensely interested in the JFK coup. (It was a coup of the United States government.) I have spent years of my life studying the JFK mystery. And I defy anyone to show me anything that is factually incorrect in the Oliver Stone film. Due to space, I will limit my comments to this: it is obvious to any serious honest observer that (1)Oswald was not a "communist", and was a covert operative of the U.S. government, (2) the assasination/coup was directed by senior officials of the U.S. government. That is the only conclusion if you look at the factual evidence honestly. Jim Garrison was right on target, but the CIA undermined his prosecution with the assistance of the maimstream media. Whenever the CIA is in trouble, the corporate media jumps to exonerate them. Garrison is a true hero, and the movie"JFK" should be seen by every American...it is the truth. The elimination of John Kennedy changed the course of U.S. history for the worst, bringing the age of Nixon,Reagan, and Bush. A triumph for the ruling class, a tragedy for this country.

Posted by philbq at 10/20/2005 @ 10:54am
Makovsky linked to the right-wing "Betar" organization???

Betar Ideology In a Nutshell

THE JEWISH MAJORITY IN ERETZ YISRAEL (Israel)

http://www.betar.co.uk/ideology.php

What then is, practically speaking, a Jewish "State"? When can it truly be said that our country has ceased to be "Palestine" and become Eretz Yisrael? Only then, when there will be more Jews that non-Jews; for the first condition of a national state is national majority.

For a long time, many Jews, including Zionists, were unwilling to understand the simple truth.

They maintained that the creation of important positions in Palestine (settlements, cities, schools, etc.) is enough. According to them a national life could be freely developed even though the majority of the population were to be Arab. This is a great mistake. History proves that any national position, however strong and important cannot be safeguarded as long as the nation which built it does not constitute a majority. A minority can safeguard its cultural position only as long as it can control the local majority. Sooner or later, every country in the world is to become the national state of the predominant nation there. Thus if we desire that Eretz Yisrael should become and remain a Jewish State, we must first of all create a Jewish majority.

The first step in Zionism consists of this, but it does not follow that it is the last step. After attaining a majority in Palestine and being enabled to govern upon broad democratic principles, we will have before us even a more important task: Shivat-Tzion (the return to Zion). By this we mean the creation of such conditions which would enable every Jew who is unwilling or unable to live in the diaspora to settle in the Jewish State and earn his livelihood there. These would probably reach into the millions, while a sufficient majority can be obtained by one million or a million and a half settlers. Afterward will come probably the most important task of all: to make Eretz Yisrael the leading state of the civilized world, a country the customs and laws of which are to be followed by the whole universe. "From Zion shall go forth Torah", signifies a "Torah" not merely in the religious sense. Zionism is a tremendous, overwhelming important tack, the boundaries of which our generation cannot as yet envisage. The first step, that deed without which there can be no Zionism, or a Jewish state, or a real Jewish nation, is the creation of a Jewish majority in Eretz Yisrael on both sides of the Jordan.

The building of Betar is founded upon the principles of discipline. Our aim is to make Betar such a world organism which, at a sign from the center, will be able simultaneously to move tens of thousands of hands in the cities of all countries. Our adversaries say that it is "unworthy of free men", that it means being made into a machine. I propose that we should not be ashamed to reply, and proudly to boot: "Yes - a machine". For it is the highest achievement of a mass of free men, if they are capable to act in unison, with the absolute precision of a machine.

The salvation of Israel will dawn at the moment when the Jewish Nation will learn how to act together and in unison, preferably as a "machine"; when humanity as a whole will learn art, salvation will come to the world, and warring particles will be transformed into one world family.

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 11:00am
Plunger: You are on track...Judith Miller, Larry Franklin, AIPAC, the many friends (operatives) of Israel within the senior officials of this government, it's all connected. The resignation of Douglas Feith is not a coincidence-he was Franklin's patron. It is a conspiracy to take this country to war against Iraq for the benefit of Israel/Big Oil.

Posted by philbq at 10/20/2005 @ 11:01am
PLUNGER

Go ahead in this good direction, if any further text or context is needed 100 years of research can provide it, with historical rigour and scientific certification. Finally why should we not call something by its word, conspiration = when people secretly plan together to do something bad or illegal (Cambridge). seems to me the correct word

Posted by areyouok at 10/20/2005 @ 11:13am
After Gary Webb wrote his series about connections between the CIA, its Contra mercenaries in Nicaragua, and cocaine dealing in Los Angeles, Webb was vicously attacked by the major media: the N.Y.Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times. This is the standard response whenever there are serios charges against the CIA. Their friends in the major media leap to their defense, as in the attacking and sabotage of Jim Garrison's case against Clay Shaw. But history has shown Clay Shaw was a CIA operative, and was involved in the assassination of JFK. Garrison was right.

Posted by philbq at 10/20/2005 @ 11:15am
FABRICE, thanks for adding some context to the 9/11 conspiracy branch of this thread. It's a lot easier to ask questions about this than to provide solid answers, but as they say, the truth is out there. I once wrote a who-shot-JFK paper, and I learned something from it: just because there are a lot of individuals and forces moving in the same direction, it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. Also, the powers that be have a lot to gain by never conclusively proving their skeptics wrong, which leaves them spinning their wheels and looking like kooks. It's the free lunch of the "projecting American power" crowd. Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason. Cream rises to the top, but so does scum. And the great middle will always rush to their defense, whether good or evil.

And speaking of scum - we were talking about Cheney, right?

Posted by MyParadigm at 10/20/2005 @ 11:16am
It is said that you can't tell the players without a scorecard.

Well here's the scorecard:

http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf24/10tf24i.html

Most interesting is the breakdown of how each "player" may be compromised by loyalties that diverge from those of you and I.

Dual-Loyalties are at the heart of the problem.

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 11:17am
And Gary Webb was right too. Later Congressional testimony by CIA officials admitted this, but Webb was ruined as a journalist. The defenders of the CIA/Evil empire struck back. So much for the "free press".

Posted by philbq at 10/20/2005 @ 11:19am
Johannes,

"you and I will have a reckoning soon,"

..am I safe in assuming the weapons of choice are ales or lagers at my expence or yours? :)

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 11:22am
CounterPunch

December 13, 2002 A Rose By Another Other Name

http://counterpunch.org/christison1213.html

The issue we are dealing with in the Bush administration is dual loyalties-the double allegiance of those myriad officials at high and middle levels who cannot distinguish U.S. interests from Israeli interests, who baldly promote the supposed identity of interests between the United States and Israel, who spent their early careers giving policy advice to right-wing Israeli governments and now give the identical advice to a right-wing U.S. government, and who, one suspects, are so wrapped up in their concern for the fate of Israel that they honestly do not know whether their own passion about advancing the U.S. imperium is motivated primarily by America-first patriotism or is governed first and foremost by a desire to secure Israel's safety and predominance in the Middle East through the advancement of the U.S. imperium.

"Dual loyalties" has always been one of those red flags posted around the subject of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict, something that induces horrified gasps and rapid heartbeats because of its implication of Jewish disloyalty to the United States and the common assumption that anyone who would speak such a canard is ipso facto an anti-Semite. (We have a Jewish friend who is not bothered by the term in the least, who believes that U.S. and Israeli interests should be identical and sees it as perfectly natural for American Jews to feel as much loyalty to Israel as they do to the United States. But this is clearly not the usual reaction when the subject of dual loyalties arises.)

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 11:26am
this comment is for bill arnett. i am probably as devoted as you are to slandering the bush admin. but for the sake of all liberals, before maligning somebody, please make sure you've got the spelling right. i'm assuming that you meant the crack whore was supposed to be going to the south american country, colOmbia, and not the north american univeristy, colUmbia?

Posted by metadivo at 10/20/2005 @ 11:26am
Johannes,

Are inditements guilt statements or are they an expresstion that we need to examine more and publicly... I still advise waiting for the jury verdicts. After reading all the left and right words being written, I am not sure any laws have been broken especially the intent to destroy US government by exposing agents....however, if there were, then I believe the law must be follwed to its conclusion and not hand slapped like Sandy Burgelar...what he did was verrrrry interesting..to quote an old Laugh In character..

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 11:27am
Maasch, I was thinking dueling intellects. It must be hard to try to prop up a sinking ship

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 11:28am
But MYPARADIGM, we ARE talking about Cheney.

Posted by areyouok at 10/20/2005 @ 11:29am
President Bush just completed a press conference with Palestinian leader, Abbas.

Isn't it a massive coincidence that on this very day, the President felt compelled to praise the Palestinian leader, and called on Sharon to play nice?

Feeling the need to distance yourself a wee bit from Israel right now for any particular reason, George?

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 11:33am
Johannes,

It is not sinking as I and many like me view things.. I see absolute hysteria on the other side over events that would not even make the news in the 90's. The vitriolic hate for all things Bush is disturbing to many people of all political stripes. The hard fact is the country is shifting slowly to the right and has been for some time. It will also shift to the left again. Even with the best case senario for the left in the Bush years, I don't see a shift to the left by the general public, nor do I see the Delay,Libby,Rove,Iraq as acatalyst creating any movement that isn't already on the left.

A case could be made that the Vietnam War support collaspe at home happened as the "Silent Majority" turned against the war. Nixons troubles added to GOP defeats. Iraq is no Vietnam to the great middle, Bush is not Nixon and Rove is not Watergate.Of course this is just my opinion..and nothing so far indicates a growing shift to get rid of the GOP yet. It may develop or it may not. Only 2006 will give a peak..

Frankly, I think the Democratic Party today has been hijacked so to speak, by the hard left of Moveon.org flavor, which ofends and isolates the old democrats of the Johnson-Kennedy thought. In fact I have always frlt JFK is to the right of Nixon and Reagan.

Anyway, I await the jury, if one is summoned.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 11:51am
Plunger,

I find this Jew/Israeli hiding under all events a little disturbing...am I alone on this?

Also, long posts are like long sermons in a hot church...one drifts quickly..

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 11:53am
John:

I agree, it is disturbing...though to one is suggesting they are tied to "all events" as your post implies.

As for the length of my posts, many of the article are very long, and I fo to considerable effort to select excerpts which portray the meat of the story in order to save you from having to read the entire article. Some may in fact appreciate my efforts.

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 12:03pm
metadivo, it's a little churlish to harp on spelling and typos, most of us refrain from doing so

Maasch, money laundering etc, not make the news? and then you bring up Berger? that's what we call a "Lapalie" in german, a trifle for you non teutonic ones out there

I had to "ignore" both plunger and else(sic) just too damn long and rambling

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 12:05pm
John Maasch,

You don't see a shift to the left? I presume that means you also don't see a shift away from President pubic hair!

Perhaps you should open a newspaper and look at the latest polls!

John, most folks have already left the party and just because you havn't got your buzz on yet doesn't mean the party isn't over!

Posted by colmes at 10/20/2005 @ 12:06pm
John Maasch - re the "vitriolic hate for all things Bush" comment

I saw this for the first time with Clinton. I was absolutely astounded by the unrestrained hatred that so many conservatives felt for Clinton. There was this emotional well of bitter anger that got deeper and deeper. I really don't think that it's the same with Bush. Others in the administration are hated (Rove and Cheney come to mind), but Bush himself is seen by many as a kind of foolish, bumbling puppet. Kind of cruel to hate him, other than as a surrogate for the evil his administration has perpetrated. He's not smart enough to hate. You'd have to see him as the master mind, the key strategist that has carefully laid out the agenda and set everything in motion. Given his track record in the business world, I just don't see him in that role. Perhaps I'm in the minority on this, don't know.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/20/2005 @ 12:08pm
Johannes,

I bring up Burger as he was "went through the system"and sentenced, was he not? His sentence was nothing compared to the "seriousness" of the charges. It was meant as a thought provoking moment..Delay has NOT been tried or convicted..so money laundering is a discussion point at best here.

The calls for his blood remind me of the old movie line, from I forget where, a German war movie I think, tho.."Trials? Of course he will have a trial, quick and fair and then promptly shot at sunrise"..

I love that Lapalie...never heard of it before, have heard of many others!!!Great language.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 12:16pm
Colmes,

The left never came to the party and if you like the polls so much, the conservatives may be standing at the other end of the room but no one has left the party. They have nowhere else to go as anyone on the Dean side of the isle is a model of everyting the feel is wrong with the world.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 12:19pm
Fishbite, Many hated Clinton but most did not(my side that is) .. what they hated was his personal behavior as it offend so many. His policies were pretty much mirrored from what the right sort of wanted. Many of us felt he got in front of the parade after it went by and thought he was leading it. He had alot of promise and many of us had homes but they were shes in our mouths..aqnd now Hillary....help us. I just have to say this Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, then Clinton?...Horrible pattern developing here.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 12:23pm
hopes, not homes.. got to go make some $ now...

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 12:23pm
Fish,

"He's not smart enough to hate.'...this is always what the left sees in him and he wins everytime..and the left ends up with another shit burger for lunch. When are you going to see a different view? It may help with understanding ...

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 12:27pm
Regarding the subject of this blog: Rumors swirl around Wash.D.C. that Cheney will resign. Maybe the shit he got himself into is making the old repaired ticker act up a bit. This is just so strange...a replay of the Nixon Reich. The question again is: What did the president know and when did he know it? One crime CAN bring down an evil corrupt presidency. It is karma.

Posted by philbq at 10/20/2005 @ 12:47pm
Richmiles - My reference to Venezuela was not serious, rather an attempt to reflect the admin's hit list. Let's see - they've got this anti-american running things AND a bunch of oil, sounds like a strong argument for some of those democracy seeds.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/20/2005 @ 12:53pm
War Update: Condelezza admitted to Congress yesterday that the U.S. military could be there another 10 years. As we have suspected, this war is an imperial move by the Holy American Empire. Forget the bullshit about WMD, or "freedom for Iraq". This war is about oil and serving the interests of Israel. Anybody that can't see that is a fool or a liar. Listening to Robert Fisk, the great British journalist in Iraq, interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, it is obvious the civil war in Iraq has begun. There are more sectarian killings every day. Wild dogs eat the flesh of corpses that lay in the desert. It is hell on earth. And the occupation is making it worse. The only answer is to withdraw U.S. military. But the U.S. Empire has grabbed its prize. And the U.S. will remain, the killing will go on.

Posted by philbq at 10/20/2005 @ 12:59pm
Plunger if you don't stop spamming with these huge posts reprinting stuff from elsewhere I am going to have to ignore you too.

Posted by ZERO 10/20/2005 @ 12:05am

Zero:

If you don't start providing facts and context about what the hell has brought our country to the brink of impeachment - again - in the midst of a war - I will care even less about your opinion than I do now.

If you have any facts or links to refute anything I've posted, I'd be delighted to have access to them. Knowledge is power.

If you are only concerned with my style rather than the substance of the posts, I accept your point.

Ignore reality at your own peril.

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 1:03pm
PHILBQ:

Israel is well served by having traded places with US.

Relative to the opression of Arab peoples, we have assumed Israel's position, while Iraqis have assumed the position of the Palestinians - taking the spotlight off of that conflict while we fight their wars.

From a perceptional perspective, this is clearly a fact. Those who choose to assume that we have arrived here by coincidence deserve the inevitable result.

When you travel abroad as an American in the future, you will be perceived either as an idiot or a war monger, or both - this just four years after international goodwill toward America hit an all time high.

Who do we have to thank for that?

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 1:12pm
"If anything, the fact that we helped create Saddam only strengthens the argument that it was our responsibility to remove him."

...and then kill off all of those pesky humans living atop our oil...or encourage them to kill one another?

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, this is the reality.

Strategically, one can only come to the conclusion that these guys are precisely "on plan" - otherwise they would have had an exit strategy clearly in mind before they went in, and would have gone in with enough troops.

Quagmire by design. Remind you of any other conflicts in the middle east?

Aren't you proud?

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 1:39pm
mary,:"If anything, the fact that we helped create Saddam only strengthens the argument that it was our responsibility to remove him." this is pretty much immoral crap. we didn't just "remove" him, like some unwanted house pest, we plunged a country into civil war with tens of thousand dead Iraqis and no end in sight.

are you really incapable of imagining anything other than cartoon motives for anyone but yourself?

this is true of you as well

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 2:02pm
"PLUNGER, I think the plan called for successful elections in January followed by a ratification of the Constitution in October."

The PR/Sales Plan invented by Rove called for that.

I was told in detail by someone in a position to know exactly what the deal was. We were scammed. Period.

You do like nice in those rose colored glasses.

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 2:03pm
Can anyone give me any plausible reason why Bush would nominate Mier's to the SC other than to have another "friendly" on the SC for the future recriminations?

I mean he had to know that there would be calls of cronyism in the wake of "heck of a job" Brown. He had to know that her credentials were not among the top 9 of constitutional scholars in the country. He had to know that both the left and right would wonder what her judicial philosphies were. He had to know that Whitehouse documents from the last five years would be requested that he also knew he wouldn't produce.

There is not one single good reason to nominate Mier's except that she thinks Bush "is the coolest guy she's ever known", which kind of tells you how she'd feel if someone were to present "uncoll"evidence about GWB or his Administration.

Is there another reason?....I'm seriously looking with an open mind.

Posted by colmes at 10/20/2005 @ 2:06pm
Colmes:

The only one I thought of was the "distraction" aspect that it would provide to the news cycle so as to reduce the minutes of coverage dedicate to the Chertoff disaster (Katrina) DeLay, Rove, Libby, Cheney, etc.

It has served that purpose.

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 2:23pm
Mary - Your parable of the corn, wheat, weeds and apple tree is a little bit strained, but also kind of revealing. Howzabout I restate it a little to approximate reality more closely. Let's say you take that field of weeds and drop bombs on it - to clear the way for the apple tree seed. Then send in some gardners to burn off the remaining weeds, plant the seed and start nurturing. Only problem, the delicate seedling withers away, the soil so damaged by bomb blast, etc. that it can no longer sustain life. In fact, the weeds are now agressively encroaching on the adjacent crop fields, because their home field is uninhabitable.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/20/2005 @ 2:55pm
Dr. Mary, give me a break. you are morally challenged, and your analogy sucks. what is the body's equivalent to the 150,000 troops in Ira?. also we are not just fighting foreign fighters supposedly streaming across the borders, but rather the government of Iraq, and the party leadership of the army gone underground

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 3:23pm
MARYBRETBRAD wrote: "Colmes asks why Meirs. I think the most plausible answer is that Harry Reid asked him to. Bush was down in the opinion polls and knew if he wanted to accomplish anything his final three years he would need overwhelming bipartisan support. Reid knew conservatives would be upset and create the impression of a win for him with his base, so he promised Meirs smooth sailing."

Do you really consider this to be the most plausible answer: that a completely ineffective Minority leader requested her? As weak as the Democrats are, I can't imagine that Bush even considered their response when making his selection, much less allow it to dictate his action. The Democrats painted themselves into a corner with Roberts. By allowing him, a certified conservative with solid legal credentials, to pass through the Senate, Democrats could have mustered a strong offense against only someone who was either much farther to the right of Roberts or much less qualified. She has not defined herself clearly in terms of her conservative credentials (though it seems clear she is not to the left of Roberts), but she is clearly less qualified.

Perhaps Bush has been too distracted, but he could have picked almost anyone with the slightest judicial experience and been able to steer him/her through the confirmation process with little bickering.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/20/2005 @ 3:46pm
So in one hour forty minutes we've come up with Mier's was picked to create a media diversion from even worse things....perhaps. We've also come up with a reaching out for bipartisanship, because it is true that Mier's was preapproved by the Senate minority leader....perhaps.

If it was for a diversion then it has misfired as this diversion....with a potential internal revolt is just as damaging politically as everything else. I mean we have an actual theoretical possibility that a President of a party with a majority in the Senate will not have his pick fillibustered but will have his pick rejected on an up and down....how embarrassing could it get?

The reach for bipartisanship is perhaps an alternative, but it's still a hard sell as this President has realistically shown no interest in such bridge building even in his first term which was arguably illegitimate. In his second term when he won both the electoral college and popular vote, and continues to hold hold majorities in the senate and house it appears hard to believe he's suddenly mastered the art of political diplomacy. But I'm prepared to be made a believer if someone can give a convincing enough reason.

Posted by colmes at 10/20/2005 @ 3:59pm
"I think the most plausible answer is that Harry Reid asked him to.'

THIS IS THE FUNNIEST THING I'VE HEARD. BUT STOOPID

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 4:02pm
MARYBRETBRAD: Having a war with the 1.5 billion Moslems of the world sounds like a stupid idea to me. But now that the Holy American Empire has occupied Iraq, it will not let go. Regardless of elections, civil war, endless U.S. and civilian deaths, the Empire has its prize and will not let go. That is why the Empire has built permanent bases. This occupation is long-term.

Posted by philbq at 10/20/2005 @ 4:13pm
I'm disappointed in Bush. If I were him, I would have nominated Ann Coulter and then sat back and enjoyed the show.

Posted by RonS at 10/20/2005 @ 4:13pm
Seems to me if we are only after oil and to help the greedy corporations kill everybody so the Bushes, Chaneys and all neo cons can take over the world and make all people of color poor and to ruin the enviroment, that we would have made Veneuela a state long ago and would never have put up with atin horn like Chavez.

Also, Mexico would be under our control and we would own their oil too since most of Mexico is coming here anyway. See, if we owned Mexico, then all the illegals would be home already?. We also could have kept Kuwait ...I don't see the ploy...

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 4:18pm
Rons,

Coulter got her JD from a better lawschool than Miers and is thus more qualified. That's how bad Bush's pick is.....which is why he can only have done it for nefarious reasons to mitigate the future recriminations.

Give me Coulter any day over Miers....but not good enough "get out of jail free" card for GWB.

Posted by colmes at 10/20/2005 @ 4:21pm
Mary - I go away for 1 hour and you're back with another parable! I guess it's easier for you to spin various stories then to deal directly with the real world situation. Killing a few healthy cells in the body to get the cancerous ones sure sounds better than torturing a few innocent real human beings, albeit non-Christians. How convenient for you that your bargain with the devil allows you to accept the collateral damage. Even more convenient that pulling your children's bodies out of the rubble of your house is not part of the collateral damage. Nor is a week of beatings and torture from your liberators for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/20/2005 @ 4:30pm
John, So since we haven't attacked every country with oil reserves, that must mean that oil was not a factor in Iraq?

Posted by Fishbite at 10/20/2005 @ 4:32pm
The original "document" that showed Niger yellowcake interest from Saddam was from Italian intelligence. The document was later found to be a fake. The letterhead that it was written on was the same letterhead that was stolen from an Italian intelligence office some months prior. Is it possible that Fitzgerald has found a break in by Cheney's office into Italian intelligence offices in order to steal letterhead in order to write a fake report in order to take us into a war? Such levels of high treason would surely necessitate a couple of friendly's on the highest court in the land, just in case pardon's were not possible.

Posted by colmes at 10/20/2005 @ 4:34pm
MBB:

Love your little analogies, but you put the cart before the horse. Terrorists, as you generically use the term, were not "streaming" into Iraq before we occupied it. Seems like the result of the invasion has somehow become your justification for it.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/20/2005 @ 4:34pm
By the way everyone, if you want a good chuckle, check out DeLay's mugshot.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/20/2005 @ 4:40pm
Hello. I'm new so don't you all beat me up at once. First of all, I love America, but will not give it a free pass because I am American. Speaking on the Plame leak, I do believe the White House(i.e.Rove and Libby) knew about it and orchestrated this whole affair W/ Judy Miller for retribution purposes. This is in line with every move they have made( i.e. McCain's illegitimate black child). With goofy as president ( come on, the man is goofy as hell) they can do whatever they want with GW's blessing. He does not care( and not just about black people).

Posted by k330k at 10/20/2005 @ 4:44pm
k330k, hello and welcome, we need new voices here, as there are knuckleheads that are not worthy of replies, my personal opinion

Maasch, your posts are getting loopier, attempts at sarcasm that fall flatter than the proverbial turd in the punch bowl

Ron, your cynicism doesn't wear well, if you believe in something defend it with reason and intellect

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 4:50pm
JOHANNESROLF, lighten up.

Posted by RonS at 10/20/2005 @ 5:00pm
There's that Italian fake document / potential Watergatesque break in plot that could doom this Administartion (see my post above for more details). Then there are the questions surrounding Bolton and his role into this process. The dark horse is the sultry story that would emerge if Fitzgerald has gone in the direction of figuring out why the gay prostitute psuedo reporter Jeff Gannon was in and out of the Whitehouse on dozens of occasions when McClellan was not even having a lie conference...I mean press conference.

The bottom line is.....Fitzgerald is a very thorough and efficient guy (by all the accounts I've read), and I'm not buying that it takes him two years to figure out a simple he said / she said on who said "Plame" first.

I think this think is going to be so revealing that the right will actually find religion!

Posted by colmes at 10/20/2005 @ 5:00pm
Oh by the way. All this religious talk by our representatives worries me. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? I don't need the government to guide me spiritually. That is between me and my maker. Make governmental decisions based on the greater good of your constituents and what THEY tell you to do, not how you want them to act. Too many of our politicians have forgotten that thjey were chosen to SERVE the public at large. If I don't like how you are serving me, I have the right to not only say so, but do what is needed to remove you from office. So please don't call it Bush-bashing, call it evaluating my employee.

Posted by k330k at 10/20/2005 @ 5:01pm
well, looky here:

US firm admits oil-for-food bribe

BBC

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 5:02pm
Ronnie, best you got? donnez moi un break

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 5:04pm
People, I wish we could debate(civilly) in person. You guys are classic. I'm out. I'll try and catch up tomorrow(No internet at home at the moment).Peace.

Posted by k330k at 10/20/2005 @ 5:04pm
I'm surprised how little incivility there is here,K330k, I try my best not to be too civil, and I'm many will agree that I have succeeded

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 5:07pm
K330K:

Welcome!

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 5:10pm
Are Scotty's press conferences free from any kind of retribution? He has been caught lying for this Administration so many times I can't even understand why anyone shows up for these bs sessions.

Fade - Scotty is as amusing as his mentor: Baghdad Bob.

Posted by seattlescribe at 10/20/2005 @ 5:33pm
Saddam's Defense attorney was kidnapped today. Good job GHW?

This guy will never testify.

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 5:36pm
The original "document" that showed Niger yellowcake interest from Saddam was from Italian intelligence. The document was later found to be a fake. The letterhead that it was written on was the same letterhead that was stolen from an Italian intelligence office some months prior. Is it possible that Fitzgerald has found a break in by Cheney's office into Italian intelligence offices in order to steal letterhead in order to write a fake report in order to take us into a war? Such levels of high treason would surely necessitate a couple of friendly's on the highest court in the land, just in case pardon's were not possible.

Posted by COLMES 10/20/2005 @ 4:34pm

For a debunking of Colmes argument, a defense of Bush by both the Bi-Partisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the British, a discrediting of Wilson, and finally my information on the only person that may be indicted in this investigation, see my post on Nichols at 5:42pm today.

Posted by love liberty at 10/20/2005 @ 6:02pm
k330k or kook?

Judging by first and second post you bring nothing new here. No offense meant to you but this is all the same stuff.

Johannes, you do not have to worry about being to civil..you are not...too uncivil..at times..

Turds in a proverbial punch bowl?

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 6:06pm
I lost a post here. Has this happened to anyone else?

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 6:20pm
Maasch:"Seems to me if we are only after oil and to help the greedy corporations kill everybody so the Bushes, Chaneys and all neo cons can take over the world and make all people of color poor and to ruin the enviroment, that we would have made Veneuela a state long ago and would never have put up with atin horn like Chavez.

Also, Mexico would be under our control and we would own their oil too since most of Mexico is coming here anyway. See, if we owned Mexico, then all the illegals would be home already?. We also could have kept Kuwait ...I don't see the ploy...

this is what I'm talking about, you sound like cpt here, I know, I know sarcasm. that usually requires a sense of humor, a trait you have not yet shown here

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 6:32pm
maasch, actually the one you resemble the most in your stubborn defense of the right is Scott McLellan. and even he is showing signs of cracking

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 6:35pm
K330k,

Just a wild guess here but would I be far off by suggesting, that you believe Bush lied so we could get more money for Haliburton and he is inherantly evil?

It just seems that you are part of the choir here anxiously awaiting the preacher.

Johannes,

My sarcasmic(great word) post is meant to make a point that runs counter to many here, that the US wanted to go to Iraq for oil. I and many like me, believe we have been at total war with the Islamo facists ever since Beruit and Iraq is a part of that battle to keep oil wealth out of the hands of the groups who have long ago discoverd the great satan US, long before "Bush Lied".

Johannes, incivilty is a special gift mastered by willc. You are not even close..yet.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 6:39pm
What have I not shown here...sarcasm or humor?

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 6:40pm
How could I make you laugh? Convince CPT to vote for Hillary?

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 6:44pm
Johannes,

Seriously, do you believe the conservatives are on the verge of collapse and the DEMS are already taking measurements for new carpet in the House and Senate?

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 6:46pm
Curt Weldon just downloaded the Able Danger truth on Lou Dobbs.

Weldon is FURIOUS!

All of this ties back to 9/11.

Advisor to four former Presidents said it most succinctly:

"The Wheels Have Come Off The Wagon"

Save a copy of this message thread, because it's all going to come true.

It is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo over.

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 7:00pm
Johannes,

What kind of videos do you make? I thught I read you are in the video business?

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 7:01pm
Pluinger,

Exactly what would "its sooooo over" look like?

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 7:02pm
Saddam's Defense attorney was kidnapped today. Good job GHW?

This guy will never testify.

Posted by PLUNGER 10/20/2005 @ 5:36pm

Plunger,

You misread the facts. The lawyer represented one of the other defendants, not Saddam.

Posted by love liberty at 10/20/2005 @ 7:13pm
Maasch,:" believe we have been at total war with the Islamo facists ever since Beruit and Iraq is a part of that battle to keep oil wealth out of the hands of the groups..."

I'm sorry, but this just nonsense. in Beirut we were meddling in a country's civil war, acccomplished nothing and withdrew when attacked. you have no idea what total war is, because there hasn't been a total war since 1945. the people who attacked us in Beirut have little or nothing in common with Bin laden, neither did Saddam, quite the opposite.

you need to turn off right wing radio for a few weeks, read the Wash. post, and think this through for yourself. that business about keeping Iraq's oil out of the hands of terrorists is but the latest rationale for a war that was begun to insure Bush's reelection

in Iraq, the iraqis had their own oil wealth and Saddam or another Baathist strongman was perfectly capable to keep the oil out of who's hands?

look something is changing in this country. the tone of the press has changed from fawning jingoism, to something approaching blistering criticism. Bush's poll numbers, one time 70% are a under 40%, his staff and two of the most powerfiul are enmeshed in legal troubles.

even if they are acquitted, do you honestly believe the GOP hasn't been damaged. their agenda has been pushed back. Bush, like you is in denial. remember the indictment is always page one. exoneration, if it comes, and thatsa big if, usually comes on page 16.

you must know about the attempt by the US administration of Iraq to privatise the nation's oil industry, which amounts to stealing. to install a puppet government whose members cannot safely leave the green zone is also an attempt to "secure" the oil. I tr ynot to see the world in absolutes of good and evil, and I have never called Bush et al evil, venal yes.

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 7:49pm
I'll answer the video question later, dinner beckons

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 7:49pm
Just thought I'd check in to hear the word from the "Arab Street" er..The Nation...Here's a good dose of common sense for you wacko liberal election losing cry babies =)

Myths To A Plame: The Case Against Rove

Posted 10/19/2005

Politics: As special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's mandate expires, Karl Rove's only crime may be not that he "outed" Valerie Plame as a CIA operative but that he exposed her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, as a liar.

The case involving Rove and who "leaked" Plame's "secret" identity as a CIA employee to the press is so convoluted that it's easy to forget the whole thing began with President Bush uttering 16 words in a 5,400-word State of the Union: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

It was these 16 words that Wilson spent eight days in Niger investigating on behalf of the CIA, "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people," as he put it, afterward writing an op-ed piece in The New York Times essentially claiming the Bush administration sent U.S. soldiers to Iraq to die for a lie.

Wilson, who later was a foreign affairs adviser to the Kerry campaign, turned out to be a physician in need of healing himself when it comes to truth-telling, as revealed on July 9, 2004. That was when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the CIA's prewar intelligence on Iraq.

The report concluded that Wilson lied when he denied his wife got him the Niger assignment. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote in his book, adding, "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

But according to the Senate report: "Interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip." This included a memo Plame herself sent to the CIA.

The report also said Wilson lied when he told The Washington Post he knew the Niger intelligence had been based on forged documents. The CIA didn't obtain the document said to be a forgery until a full eight months after Wilson's return from Niger.

Wilson told the public Niger had denied the uranium connection. But the Senate found that Wilson's own report said that the Niger government had confirmed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium.

So when Rove, in an e-mail sent to Time magazine's Matt Cooper in July 2003, said Wilson's trip to Niger for the CIA was arranged by "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency," without providing her actual name, he was not exposing Plame as an agent.

He was exposing her husband as a prevaricator, in effect warning Cooper and others not to take his claims seriously.

While Wilson was found to have lied repeatedly, an independent British investigative committee on WMD intelligence headed by Lord Butler in its report (butlerreview.org.uk ) found "the intelligence was credible" and Bush's statement was "well-founded."

Rove is said to have blown a CIA operative's cover. But didn't Wilson, who was hired as a consultant by the CIA, and presumably signed the routine CIA confidentiality agreement, blow his own cover by afterwards writing an op-ed piece in The New York Times?

Plame's name was certainly no secret, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who In America" entry. Nor were her political affiliations and those of her husband. It could be argued that Mrs. Wilson blew her own cover when she made a contribution to the Al Gore for President campaign and listed her CIA cover company as her employer in the FEC filing.

The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which Rove is accused of violating, was designed to protect the CIA from subversion and treason by those who wished harm upon the agency and the United States. It wasn't designed to protect the identities of desk jockeys and their spouses who willingly inject themselves into a national political debate.

If Karl Rove is a criminal, exactly what was the crime?

There is no crime, according to attorney Victoria Toensing, who drafted the legislation in her role as chief counsel for the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. She says that under the statute the "outed" agent must have operated outside the U.S. within the previous five years, and Plame had given up her role as a covert agent in favor of a desk job in Langley, Va., nine years before the Rove interview, according to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

The usual suspects who got even with Newt Gingrich for electing a Republican Congress, and who are pursuing Tom DeLay for pushing the Republican agenda, are now trying to settle the score with the man who got George W. Bush elected twice.

As we've noted, this isn't the first time an attempt has been made to criminalize political differences or to get even with GOP gurus for their political prowess and success. It is somewhat disheartening to see the administration Rove has served so well not mount a passionate defense of this innocent man, saying merely that anyone found guilty of leaking a CIA agent's name would be fired.

This is an attempt to use -- or rather, misuse -- the law to achieve what Democrats could not at the polls: the neutering of the Republican revolution. As columnist Ann Coulter points out, the only person to have demonstrably lied and possibly broken the law is Joseph Wilson. We can only hope it will not succeed.

Posted by jzimm at 10/20/2005 @ 8:29pm
Johannes - War for Oil BS -

As I read the latest & greatest piece of diarrhea to be penned by one of the 'war for oil" crowd, I was struck by how shallow and ill-thought out this theory it is.

In fact, when I called it the "war for oil theory" in the title of this editorial, I probably gave the whole idea more credit that it's due. That's because there's really nothing more to the whole "theory" than,

A) The United States uses oil B) Iraq has a lot of oil C) Bush & Cheney are former oilmen

We're actually lucky that Cheney never owned a Major League baseball team and that Iraq doesn't have any talented, young players or we'd probably be treated to the "war for baseball" theory by the anti-war left.

But "war for baseball" makes about as much sense as "war for oil" when you think about it. Just ponder the OBVIOUS question that the proponents of the 'war for oil' theory never ask. That question is, "What are we accomplishing with a war for oil that we couldn't achieve more easily via peaceful means?"

-- We can't be going to war to get Saddam to sell us oil because he already does.

-- Do we want him to sell us MORE oil? Well then all we'd have to do is ask. Iraq is desperate to acquire more revenue.

-- Do we want to increase the price of oil to make the oil companies more profitable? Again, that's easy to do. We could simply destroy the Iraqi oil fields in retaliation for their attacks on our planes in the "no fly" zone. That would cause a large temporary spike in the price of oil.

-- Do we want to get more oil on the world market so we can buy cheaper oil? We could easily convince the UN to remove the sanctions and Iraq would quickly double their oil production. They're currently producing way under capacity.

-- Do we want to get the oil field contracts that the French and Russians have? Behind the scenes, Bush could have offered to have the sanctions lifted if Hussein would have torn up the contracts he had with the French and Russians. If we didn't want the sanctions in place they'd be gone and the contracts Saddam made with the French and the Russians? They don't mean anything when you're dealing with a dictator like Hussein -- unless you've got a military capable of enforcing the deal. Also, just as a side note, the war, the occupation, and aid we'll give Iraq will end up costing us much more than those oil fields are worth even if we would have gotten them all (which we won't).

-- Do we want to control the country that has the 2nd largest supply of oil in the world so we'll still have a source of oil after much of the rest of the planet has gone dry? Well, this makes no sense at all in world where relationships between nations change regularly. Think about how our relationships with Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, & Germany have changed just since 9/11. The only way we could insure that we would still have access to Iraq's oil decades from now would be to make them into a US colony with a puppet ruler who actually takes orders from us. Is there anyone out there who actually thinks this is going to happen despite the fact that we're not doing it anywhere else in the world today?

The reason I've had to toss out all these different options in the first place is because there is no consistent, rational theory coming from the 'war for oil' people. They themselves don't even understand what they mean by "war for oil".

If you want to expose how little thought these people have put into this, just use the Socratic Method on them. I'm sure your conversation will sound something like this�

Anti-War Protestor: This is a war for oil! That's what this all about!

You: Why do you say that?

Anti-War Protestor: Because Iraq has oil and we want it! Bush and Cheney, they're oilmen!

You: So how does invading Iraq help us get their oil?

Anti-War Protestor: After we invade, we can just take it!

You: So you're saying we're going to invade Iraq and just take over their oil fields? Then we're never going to pay Iraq for their oil? That doesn't sound very likely�.

Anti-War Protestor: I'm not saying that�we will pay for the oil but�

You: But, we already pay for the oil. How is that different from what we're doing now?

Anti-War Protestor: We'll have all that oil under our control!

You: How will it be under our control?

Anti-War Protestor: Iraq's leader will be a puppet of the United States! They'll have to sell us oil!

You: But they already sell us oil. So why should we�

Anti-War Protestor: He tried to kill Bush's daddy! That's what this really about!

The 'war for oil theory' isn't a serious theory for people who pay attention to foreign policy. It's really nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan that through parrot-like repetition has managed to impress liberal partisans, people who don't like Bush, and those who don't really understand foreign Policy.

Posted by jzimm at 10/20/2005 @ 8:35pm
http://counterpunch.org/christison1213.html

The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's behest, or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly in a Ha'aretz column that Perle, Feith, and their fellow strategists "are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests." The suggestion of dual loyalties is not a verboten subject in the Israeli press, as it is in the United States. Peace activist Uri Avnery, who knows Israeli Prime Minister Sharon well, has written that Sharon has long planned grandiose schemes for restructuring the Middle East and that "the winds blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have absolutely no proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him . But the style is the same."

The dual loyalists in the Bush administration have given added impetus to the growth of a messianic strain of Christian fundamentalism that has allied itself with Israel in preparation for the so-called End of Days. These crazed fundamentalists see Israel's domination over all of Palestine as a necessary step toward fulfillment of the biblical Millennium, consider any Israeli relinquishment of territory in Palestine as a sacrilege, and view warfare between Jews and Arabs as a divinely ordained prelude to Armageddon. These right-wing Christian extremists have a profound influence on Bush and his administration, with the result that the Jewish fundamentalists working for the perpetuation of Israel's domination in Palestine and the Christian fundamentalists working for the Millennium strengthen and reinforce each other's policies in administration councils. The Armageddon that Christian Zionists seem to be actively promoting and that Israeli loyalists inside the administration have tactically allied themselves with raises the horrifying but very real prospect of an apocalyptic Christian-Islamic war. The neo-cons seem unconcerned, and Bush's occasional pro forma remonstrations against blaming all Islam for the sins of Islamic extremists do nothing to make this prospect less likely.

These two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further reinforced by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a president and vice president heavily invested in oil. All of these factors � the dual loyalties of an extensive network of policymakers allied with Israel, the influence of a fanatical wing of Christian fundamentalists, and oil � probably factor in more or less equally to the administration's calculations on the Palestinian-Israeli situation and on war with Iraq. But the most critical factor directing U.S. policymaking is the group of Israeli loyalists: neither Christian fundamentalist support for Israel nor oil calculations would carry the weight in administration councils that they do without the pivotal input of those loyalists, who clearly know how to play to the Christian fanatics and undoubtedly also know that their own and Israel's bread is buttered by the oil interests of people like Bush and Cheney. This is where loyalty to Israel by government officials colors and influences U.S. policymaking in ways that are extremely dangerous.

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 8:42pm
jzimm,

Many good points, but ther real obvious oil source to take over is Mexico and Venezuela. Close, cheap, no military battles harder than Iraq, and best of all not much shipping. If all we wanted was to control oil..Iraq would be the last place to start.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 8:47pm
And, for Plunger, no Israelis!!!!!

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 8:48pm
jzimm," As columnist Ann Coulter points out"

that says it all, you need say no more

you understand nothing about geo politics, and by couching your argument in far simoler terms than anyone here has you are exposing youself as a simpleton. why don't you explain to us why we are in Iraq, how it's going over there and what our exit strategy is, then we'll talk,

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 8:50pm
Maasch, don't play simple. there are many dictators in the world, many masses yearning to breathe free, we attacked one country, ostensibly to free the Iraqis, they have alot of oil, coincidence, I think not.I don't believe Mexico has a lot of oil, and for Venezuela, well there is plenty of saber rattling, and the US supported a right wing coup attempt against the democratically elected leader of that country. it's about hegemony, look it up

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 8:54pm
I disagree totaly. Mexico has alot of oil and Venezuela..besides, my arguement is that we are not in Iraq for their oil.. and if oil is all we wanted, Iraq would not be the place to go and get it.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 8:57pm
"sore loser" not "sore looser"

Posted by mag at 10/20/2005 @ 8:58pm
Maasch, since you seem to be interested in what I do for a living, here it is. I have been making videos of and for performing artists for around 30 years.

I pretty much invented my job, as no one else seemed to want to do it. during this time I've had many clients. a continuing relationship has been with the New York Public Library, whose dance collection has commissioned numerous projects.

the last of which was a concert by the New York Baroque dance company, which performed with a baroque orchestra, period instruments, period choreography, reconstructed by their director, period costumes, those wide skirts for the ladies who had to walk sideways to get through a door.

we made a two camera production, which I have edited and which is now part of the archives, and can also be used by the dance company for promotional and reconstruction purposes. That's pretty much it, with different dance, theatre, and opera companies filling the client slot.

as I mentioned before, this job leaves much free time and I read and do research. we work for some college dance and drama departments. I have also worked for quite a few lawfirms, fashion houses, and just about anyone who asks us to, like Sprint, Staples, Loews cinema etc.

a lot of it is computer work now, much learning of new software, that strains the brain in a mighty way. I have has some fellowships in both dance and music history, I am an amateur musicologist. all of this is self trained, autodidact am I. my college training was in german lit and theatre.

I cannot imagine living anywhere but NYC, though I have visited many european cities, living in Paris for a short time in the 70s. I would be glad to hear about your profession, if you care to share.

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 9:10pm
Maasch,oil export revenues make up less than a tenth of Mexico's total exports, this from a govt website. can you check your facts BEFORE you post, please

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 9:15pm
John:

You'll be proud of our leaders in this story on Frontline.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/view/

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 9:38pm
"my arguement is that we are not in Iraq for their oil"

BWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 9:40pm
Johannes,

One of my childhood friends works in Houston for the same company that hired him from college..30 years ago, anyway, they use natural gas and crude feeder stocks for polystyrene raw stock production,..in short, raw material for companys like glad bags , paints,... you get the picture. They meet regularily with oil producing countrys(opec members, pemex, ect) and he says we are drowning in oil but starving in refineries. Natural gas wells are shut down in gulf as damaged well heads need repairs(Now this will get your goat, Haliburton is the one expert and Ker McGee is the other)..

We have had some facinating conversations...Mexico has huge know reserves as well as unknown reserves, the Gulf of Mexico is floating on oil. Anyway, the Arab countrys want oil at $50.00 barrel so as to NOT stir the American drive to use alternative engines, power, ect...very interesting stuff and leads to the same complaint I have of others.......long posts.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 9:42pm
Johannes,

You cultural giant, you=)

,, I find the line of work fascinating. I have very little experience in the field. I have always loved symphonys, some opera is above my intellectual grade, but I do enjoy the music. I also like the ballet. Being a white 6'2" 250 lber, ballet was always out of my sphere of influence.

How about this.. I was raised in a German speaking protestant house hold where I knew 4 of my great grandparents, lived in a jewish neighborhood, graduated in Chemistry and biology from a catholic university and married a Seventh Day Adventist(kind of messianic jew). I was going to become a phyician in the foot steps of many in my family,but I was tired of school, hence the start of the black sheep roll. I didn't want to tell parents that their child was going to die and there is nothing I can do.. after having my own children I know I made the right decision.

I was an idustrial chemist selling chemicals that would allow a company like GM break down the paint spray booth over spray into inert and harmless or recyclable materials before the holding tank of water was treated or dumped. Burned up alot of ties and suits with chemical splashes.

A freind said to me, hey, biology boy, you studied carbon based items(people), so why not try another carbon based carreer..diamonds and jewelry, so that is where I landed. Have been for years and work for a company on west 40th, midtown. I get there once every month or so. I get rid of close out and over production stocks of jewelry. Mostly by copmputer and appointment to tv stations, web sites, ect. I also invented my own position.....jewelry by the pound. Lots of free time as season influences come into play. I always keep busy and continiously fight a battle with procrastination.

That is the jist of it.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 9:57pm
Johannes,

Warren Buffet's son(Omaha) financed a project called "Spirit", which combined ballet with American Indian sounds and movements. Saw it on video and was blown away. Absolutely moving as they incorporated American and Native movements..can't even describe it. Kind of like describing the birth of your child to a single person...if you know what I mean.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 10:03pm
well, Mexico has oil, a lot, but not in the same league as Iraq, maybe we can agree on that. I don't mind agreeing

.the US has a lot of oil, but consumes much much more. imagine if during the Carter administration, during the OPEC embargo, the president, I guess after Carter, Reagan, had announced a program of the scale of the lunar program, or the manhattan project, to make us energy independent, just imagine.

the guys in power, both oil men, one a failed one,see everything from that perspective, a man with a hammer sees everything as a nail, have a very limited point of view.

that the efficiency of our cars has actually gone down, is shocking.

the price of oil affects politics the world over, Russia would not have withstood the loss of much of its empire, had it not been for the rise in oil prices, which raised their revenue dramatically.

the oil is also the issue in the civil war in Iraq. the sunni minority, who has ruled Iraq for decades if not centuries, does not actually sit on the reserves, which are in the south and the north. they are now being asked, by 150,000 troops, to take a back seat in ruling the country and sharing the oil revenue,

and that's just not going to happen, they are fighting for their very lives. I don't wish to over simplify, we are also fighting Iraqis who simply hate being occupied by the infidel super power, and yes, there are foreign fighters, the numbers aren't clear even to our experts, who are a part of a jihadist movement.

but as in any movement, there are many on the sidelines, who are waiting to see who wins. just because Saddam won't be back, that doesn't mean that a baathist dictator will not rise again.

sooner or later, the americans will leave, and many Iraqis don't want to be on the losing side. I resist the simplification of the attack dog posters. that solves nothing.

the occupation of Iraq has made things much worse, it appears, and there not only isn't an exit strategy, but there seems to be no strategy at all except hold election after election, which has done nothing to slow the violence, quite the contrary.

I would be happy to hear another point of view but repeating kill, kill and stay the course, finish the job will not do it. a majority of the american people is equally unimpressed, judging by the poll numbers, this is a very unpopular war, and that unpopularity will not suddenly go away but increase, as it has increased so far

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 10:31pm
Johanne..."You asked why are we in Iraq?" Your idea of understanding of Geo politics is that Iraq has Oil and We invaded Iraq. Coincedence? Thanks for the laughs einstein. And Venezeuela doesn't have Oil? You're a frickin retard. Im glad that Bush didn't own a Baseball Team and Iraq had good baseball players becuase in your infinite wisdome would be sure that we invaded Iraq for baseball. Hey dummy. Here's why we invaded Iraq:

The Intelligence Indicated that Iraq did have WMD's (see John Kerrys comments from 2002 if you don't believe). We invaded Iraq because Samdam Hussein had repeatedly violated seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq did not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, Iraq tried over the previous decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which were reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions, not to mention repeated violations of attacks on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones (there were something like more than 400 occerrences). We had every leagal, Moral ,and ethical right to Invade Iraq. In fact an american leader who would stand by in the face of more continued breaches (in the face of the POSSIBILITY of Iraq possessing WMD's) would have been negligent.

Did the Bush administration see other possible benefits of invading Iraq (like the possibility of creating a democratic state in the middle east, freeing people from opression, and removing a man from power who paid "bounties" to the families of Palestinian terrorists for conducting suicide missions.) Im sure they did. and I have no problem with that, but the possibilities of WMD's and refusal for inspections was enough in itself....

Can you please come up with something less asnine to say other than Iraq has Oil, and Bush and Cheney were oilmen..Come back from your Madrassa and think for yourself

Posted by jzimm at 10/20/2005 @ 10:35pm
AND Joahnne Bin Laden before you say the intelligence was fixed and Bush Lied read John Kerry from 2002:

This Is written by John Kerry in 2002 - how odd

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.

All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.

Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.

I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.

The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.

Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance.

Posted by jzimm at 10/20/2005 @ 10:37pm
Zimmie, Kerry did not invade Iraq, Bush did. no WMD were found, you are repeating the same discredited lies. Un resolutions flouted have never been used as an excuse to invade another country, see Israel.you have swallowed the rationalizations hook line and sinker, and all your insults will change that

the world community chose not to hold Iraq responsible, a wise choice it appears.

anyway hows it going over there? know any soldiers, I mean suckers, who died? tell them or their families about UN resolutions. we've heard thirty or forty reasons and their all shit. a war is judged by the result, ie the postwar circcumstance, so far this one stinks, a stink which will only increase. save yourself the trouble, we've heard all that before

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 10:47pm
You're a frickin retard.

Hey dummy

.Come back from your Madrassa

Joahnne Bin Laden

Zimmie, you're so sophisticated, we are all just in awe, verreck!

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 10:51pm
Ya know, Johannesrolf, they keep posting here because where their preferred politics are, there's such unity of line they can't get noticed. Only over here are their ideas taken seriously enough to respond to, that's why they keep coming to this site and posting.

As for their sympathy for the troops, it certainly doesn't extend to the ones that hit the streets once they get home, does it? Never has. They never talk about the last round of Gulf War Veterans who are sick from depleted uranium rounds, that's yesterday's news. They make me sick. I'm bored with this little game of theirs. Maybe if we ignore them, they'll go away.

Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/20/2005 @ 11:02pm
Johannesrolf - Do you have the energy to take care of Jzimm? Please, for all our sakes. I can't believe another bullshit spinner has shown up. More witless parroting of neocon talking points. I'm going to bed.

Jzimm - hold on tight to your fantasies. They will set you free. Bush is truth, Saddam is Satan, up is down, dark is light. Ommm.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/20/2005 @ 11:07pm
Johanne:

"you are exposing youself as a simpleton" ....what's wrong joanne... you can dish it out but can't take it.

If you don't get it "simpleton" we are at war with Islamic extremist. How is it going? Considering that That Taliban have been removed from Power, Sadaam is on Trial for his life and a the Iraqi's just voted for their own constitution, I would have to say thing are going pretty dam great despite you liberal losers. Ironically Al-queada's only hope is that spineless america haters such as yourself could possibly win an election and pull another Vietnam..See Al-Zawahiri's recent letter to Zarqari - you are Americas greates danger. I guess you would say that WWII was a distraous defeat since we suffered 400,000 casualties. Was the outcome of that war worth it to those who lost loved ones? I guess you would have given up when the Jap's got the jump on us at Pearl HArbor (after all we lost more service men in that one day then we have lost in Iraq so far )..Brave up sissy boy. They want to kill you too even if you withdraw. Sorry if it is unsophisticated but you are just stuck on stupid.

I do have friends in the Military do you? I would say that the vast number of people in the Military and their families believe in what we are doing.

Posted by jzimm at 10/20/2005 @ 11:19pm
You're right fishbite Sadam was really not a bad guy. He was just a product of his environment. Withdrawing immediately would be a great idea. What do you think that would do? Would we be safer? It's funny that you lib's only hope for a successful candidate for 2008 is t find a Democrat who pretends to be a pro-war, strong military, Centrist (who shows up in church once in a while) even your poster girl wacko Cindy Sheehan recently bashed your darling Hillary for her stance on the war. You're a bunch of dillusional wannabe intellectuals who let your hate for Bush overwhelm your duty to your country

Posted by jzimm at 10/20/2005 @ 11:26pm
Ay, God, here we go, the America haters routine. Damn, I'm beginning to hate this shit. Why don't we have a public debate in each of our respective cities. I'm in Seattle. Let me at the fucks here in this town who think they can defend this right wing bullshit. I will mop up the floors with any of you. Hell, you pick the audience. Stack it. I will whip your asses. Let's go. I'm tired of this email shit. Let's throw down. Let me humiliate a couple of you.

Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/20/2005 @ 11:27pm
Good night midgets.I can sense your collective blood pressures rising. Truth is painful to you people...go slap each other on the ass and tell each other how right you all are. It's been my pleasure to interject so reality to your world. Im out....

Posted by jzimm at 10/20/2005 @ 11:32pm
JAYARJUNYAH - How about a tag team? I wouldn't mind having a piece of these dim-witted sophomores too.

Posted by seattlescribe at 10/20/2005 @ 11:47pm
Seattle and Jay,

You gotta admit JZIMM has kind of a wllc quality and way with words.....

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 11:48pm
Wonder if he likes wine.

Posted by john maasch at 10/20/2005 @ 11:48pm
JIZZM:

You believe the recent vote on the constitution was legitimate. Read up sport, in one province 39,000 voted yes - too bad only 36,000 registered voters live there. There are also two provinces that were overwhlmingly Sunni, yet somehow "yes" got upwards of 70% - go figure.

My son still believes in the Easter Bunny. You have much in common.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/20/2005 @ 11:57pm
Hman,

Sounds like Chicago, Saint Louis or Milwaukee in the Democratic wards........, doesn't it?

But many did get to vote.

Posted by john maasch at 10/21/2005 @ 12:05am
Or Ohio or Florida, John. :)

Posted by Hman23 at 10/21/2005 @ 12:09am
"But many did get to vote."

Yes John, in one province 3000 too many.

;)

Posted by Hman23 at 10/21/2005 @ 12:10am
WONDER IF THEY GOT LUNCH AND A BUS RIDE HOME?

LOL

Posted by john maasch at 10/21/2005 @ 12:18am
OHIO WAS OK BUT I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE FLORIDA WAS APROBLEM. IT ALSO BOTHERS ME SOMEWHAT THAT PEOPLE WHO CAN'T FIND THE X BOX NEXT TO THEIR CHOICE VOTES FOR ANYTHING!!

Posted by john maasch at 10/21/2005 @ 12:19am
Rational thought: there has been a lot of bad news lately for the Republican Party and the Bush White House. Every single time, be it DeLay or Rove/Libby, the reply from the remaining proponents of George Bush is "the accuser is dishonest and partisan!" The prosectuor in Texas is dishonest and partisan. Joseph Wilson is dishonest and partisan. Fitzgerald is dishonest and partisan. Even as the objective evidence piles up against the Republican leaders in question, the only defense that can be made is the accusation of dishonesty against someone else.

How much longer can that defense hold out? One accusation, believable. Two accusations? Questionable. Three accusations? Three now? Are we to believe that no honest, objective person can look at any Republican leader, and fine criminal activity? This defense is getting thin, and those who rely on it must hope that there is not a need for a fourth and a fifth accusation.

Posted by ZERO 10/19/2005 @ 6:12pm

They present this defense over and over again because they know they themselves are capable of endlass partisian attacks against their political opponents. That is also the limit of their imaginations. This wouldn't happen if the balance of power was more ... balanced.

Posted by zhong at 10/21/2005 @ 01:15am
JZIMM

May I invite you to stop insulting everybody here, and specifically stod insulting Johannesrolf, I am sure you have lots of interesting things to say, but only when you have been able to put your hatred away that maybe you will be able to get some comments/arguments out. (Otherwise we will send a little gulstream to the nearest air field from your home, with two siocops, get you dressed in orange, and send you for a nice nail job somewhere in Cuba or Jordan), have a nice day

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 04:17am
Bush lied us into war, as a representative of the "End-Of-Days, Zionist Christian Movement" and an unwitting dupe of the loyal Israeli Citizens who just happen to work in the White House, setting US Policy on behalf of Israel. Another Israeli Citizen who is a Bush appointee is Michael Chertoff..."The Master Of Disaster." Prior to assuming his position as Director Of Homeland INsecurity, Chertoff was tasked with covering up the torture chain-of-command issue, covering up the funding for 9/11, covering up Ken Lay's role in the Enron scandal, and the failed prosecution of the Clintons in the Whitewater investigation.

As for Bush, Armageddon just can't arrrive soon enough, and it's his finger on the button.

Bush's Neo-Con Praetorian Guards by Ahmed Amr www.dissidentvoice.org June 5, 2004

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/June04/Amr0605.htm

excerpts:

Before unilaterally making this radical departure from the policies of every American administration since 1948, Bush dispatched Elliott Abrams to negotiate terms with Sharon.

Abram's Likudnik antics are typical of the standard operating procedure in the Bush administration. In reviewing the resume of the folks Bush appointed as architects a "Greater Middle East," one runs into a who's who list of professional Jewish activists with a long record of supporting the most extreme right wing factions in Israel.

Wolfowitz has spent his whole adult life working on Likudnik agendas. Douglas Feith's law partner in Israel represents the right wing settler movement. Lewis Libby, the lawyer who convinced Clinton to pardon the tax dodging Mark Rich, has well established ties to Israeli intelligence. Richard Perle sits on the board of the Jerusalem Post and works with Conrad Black, a media mogul and Zionist propagandist. Along with Dick Cheney's wife, all four are affiliated with the neo-con movement that has its imprint all over Bush's Middle East policies.

Before joining the Bush administration, this neo-con cabal agitated against the Oslo agreement and worked on Netenyahu's election campaign.

It should come as no surprise that Douglas Feith was the Pentagon official who signed off on torturing and sexually humiliating Iraqi prisoners. Or that Feith and Libby are the main suspects in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent. Or that Wolfowitz and Perle virtually created Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress and collaborated with the INC in fabricating false intelligence and feeding it to neo-con media operatives like Judith Miller and Charles Krauthammer. Or that Libby and Feith were the force behind setting up the Office of Special Plans that sabotaged the CIA's and DIA's intelligence gathering operations. Or that Feith was in charge of the now discredited post invasion fantasies. Or that Paul Bremer, the current emperor of Baghdad, is a self-declared neo-con and a prot�g� of Henry Kissinger. Or that Michael Rubin, a neo-con zealot, was given a major role in administering our Iraqi colony. After his assignment in Baghdad, Rubin went right back to his desk at the American Enterprise Institute.

These are the Bush advisers that prey on the mind of a president who believes he is getting battle plans from God. They write his speeches and condense the news that he can't bother to read. Even Republican Senators are alarmed at the virtual seclusion of this President behind a wall of Praetorian guards recruited from the ranks of the Israeli Lobby.

None of this is a secret. It is just one of those taboo subjects that can get you libeled as an anti-Semite if you so much as hint at who these people are or question their allegiance to a foreign state ruled by a serial war criminal. But some prominent Americans have apparently had enough of their shenanigans. Retired General Anthony Zinni and Senator Hollings and others are finally taking them on.

Zinni is not just any old retired General. During his military career, this distinguished American officer served for four years as the commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of American forces in the Middle East.

The Israeli Lobby has always had an extraordinary amount of influence on American foreign policy. With Bush, they have hit the jackpot because they find him so easy to manipulate, especially when they make an appeal to his faith. He is at once the most peculiar and the most transparent of Presidents. If he appears to be cruel, he is just administering the wrath of God on planet earth. For him, Palestinian and Iraqi sufferings are a necessary price to pay to bring on Armageddon. He is not an opportunist preaching to the flock. He is part of the Christian Zionist movement. The designated priests of this Christian heresy are folks like Abrams who must get a huge kick out of messing around with the collective emotions of these holy rollers.

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 05:09am
Shalom JOHN MAASCH, thanks for describing your roots, with all the respect I have for you I kindly ask you not to misunderstand comments on zionist conspirancy with Jewish religion, as these two are separate issues, dont forget you also have the "True Torah Jews" who are Jews agaisnt zionism. For more info see jewsagainstzionism.com [jewsagainstzionism.com]

Besides, When Arafat (Wealthy Palestinian freedom fighter, Peace Nobel Prize shared with Rabin -assassinated by the Mossad- and Peres)was dying in Paris, the Rabbis you could see holding candles outside the Hospital where "True Torah Jews", I suppose those images where cleansed by the USA censoring machine.

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 05:27am
AREYOUOK:

An interesting debate among Jews about Zionism can be found at the following two links.

Note that Judith Miller is quoted in each:

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript312.html

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n4p-2_Weber.html

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 06:17am
What are the odds that BOLTON was the initial leaker of Plame's NOC status? VERY HIGH.

Note that at one point, Miller had a brief relationship with Benador Associates, a neoconservative booking agency.

Now read this story:

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/salon62.html

Miller began to uncritically parrot even some of the neocons' loonier claims. On CNN's "American Morning With Paula Zahn" for May 14, 2002, Miller explained the controversy that had broken out about allegations that Cuba had a biological weapons program. She told Zahn, "And there are a lot of very unsavory contacts, as the administration regards them, between Cuba and especially Iranians who are involved in biological weapons." Such frankly weird assertions raise questions about where in the world Miller got her so-called information. No serious intelligence professional believes that either Iran or Cuba has a significant biological weapons program, much less that a communist Latin American dictatorship was being helped by a Shiite Muslim fundamentalist state with deadly microbes.

Miller's statement only makes sense in light of the speech given by John Bolton, then undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, in May of 2002, in which he alleged that Cuba had a biological weapons program. Thomas Fingar, head of the State Department's Intelligence bureau, along with a retired national security officer, demurred from the charges in Bolton's speech. When Christian Westermann at the State Department intelligence bureau raised questions about the intelligence on which Bolton was basing his campaign, Bolton called him into his office, chewed him out, and then allegedly tried to have him fired, according to the April 18, 2005, edition of the Washington Post. Miller was channeling Bolton in her comments to Paula Zahn, and very likely was simply repeating whatever Bolton himself had told her. Washington political analyst Steven C. Clemons asserted that Bolton was a regular source for Miller in her reporting on national security and weapons of mass destruction issues. Bolton has a special interest in getting up a U.S. war against Iran, accounting for the bogus charge that it was active in Havana.

While Miller was in jail, John Bolton, now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, came to visit her.

Miller's reporting on this subject, as with so many other subjects involving the claims of the hawks and neocons, was embarrassingly bad. Since Bolton had so many detractors in the intelligence community, it would have been easy for a good reporter to double-check his claims and to discover with what suspicion they were viewed by the professionals. (Bolton is merely a bad-tempered lawyer who did political work for the Republican Party, including helping Bush-Cheney stop the Florida recount in 2000, and has no special knowledge of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs, much less of the Middle East.) That Miller neglected to seek out the whole story but rather contented herself with serving as a stenographer for figures such as Bolton and Iraqi fraudster Ahmad Chalabi suggests either a conviction on her part of an ideological sort, or an excessive trust in her sources -- probably both.

In mid-August of 1998, at a time when some observers suspected that the Clinton administration might engage Iraq militarily to take the focus in Washington off the Lewinsky scandal, Miller dropped a new bombshell. She published an article in the New York Times based on an interview with Khidhir Hamza, who claimed to be "the highest ranking scientist ever to defect from Iraq," and who had come to the U.S. in 1994. Hamza asserted that Iraq continued to have a viable nuclear weapons program and that only half of it had been destroyed by the Gulf War. One of Hamza's critics, Iraqi nuclear scientist Imad Khadduri, maintains that Hamza had only been given the lead position in the Iraqi nuclear program for six months in 1987, but was soon dismissed for petty embezzlement. He left the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission in 1989, became a college lecturer and businessman, then went to Libya in 1994. Khadduri says that Hamza established links to the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi and began publishing articles in the British press on Iraq's alleged nuclear program in 1995. He alleges that the Times on Sunday sent documents provided by Hamza to the International Atomic Energy Commission, which declared them false, but that the newspaper published Hamza's pieces anyway. Coming to the United States, Hamza was picked up by Benador Associates, a public relations firm and speakers' bureau closely associated with neoconservatives and their causes, including support for the expansionist Likud Party in Israel.

Miller gave an interview with National Public Radio about her piece on Hamza, on Aug. 17, 1998, with Linda Wertheimer. Miller gushed, "In fact, Linda, I think what struck my colleague and I when we were listening to Dr. Hamza talk, was Saddam Hussein's determination at all costs to have a nuclear bomb." She reported that the Gulf War bombings of Iraq's nuclear sites only hit about half of them, according to Hamza. In fact, Iraq's nuclear facilities were found and ordered destroyed after the war by the United Nations inspectors, and they were extremely thorough, as inspector and former U.S. Marine Scott Ritter insisted. When Wertheimer asked if Hamza was credible, Miller said, "Yes. We were able to speak to people, intelligence officials, administration officials, nuclear experts, a great variety of people, all of whom found Dr. Hamza very credible."

In fact, the story that Hamza was telling was extremely controversial and was controverted by knowledgeable persons. Either Miller was lying when she reported unanimity in the judgment of Hamza's credibility, or she only talked to a handful of hawks. Wertheimer adds, "I gather that the CIA almost missed him. The story of his defection and his attempts to find a safe haven in the United States reads sort of like a cross between a thriller and a farce." The transcript reports "LAUGHTER." Of course, the reason that the CIA "almost missed him" was that he was a minor bit player who had not been involved in the Iraqi nuclear program at all since 1989 and had no new information aside from baldfaced lies. (In 2001 Scribner published Hamza's mendacious book, which described him as "Saddam's Bombmaker," and thereafter he became a constant presence on American television news, flacked by Benador, purveying his lurid and completely false tales of an Iraq near to having a nuclear bomb.

Already by 1998, Miller was reporting Iraqi National Congress propaganda, purveying an image of Iraq completely different from that she gave in 1993, when she admitted that the country's weapons of mass destruction programs had been dismantled.

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 06:36am
PLUNGER

Thanks for precious links, herewith one to complement, an on-line version of Ford's "International Jew", please handle with care, it was one of Hitlers preferred books:

http://k-k-k.com/dearborn.htm

Besides, fellow bloggers, I suggest you read books concerning Herzl's Zionism ideology, to keep a balance.

Some more facts:

- Eichman traveled to Palestine in 1933, invited by the zionists and visited several Kibbutz, .......but better read the books (most of them written by Jews themselves).

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 06:51am
April 10, 2003 The Night After The Easier the Victory, the Harder the Peace

By URI AVNERY

excerpts:

Who are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers. [...] The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. [...] Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power.

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 06:56am
AREYOUOK:

Amazing that Ford paid for this study. I never knew about it.

This note in the introduction is relevant today:

"Please notice that the reference to "the world's foremost problem" is not the Jewish people as a whole, but, rather, to that brand of Jewish person who has interest in the manipulation of international affairs. The intent of this presentation is certainly not hatred, but a probing look into an obviously significant issue."

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 07:07am
Following AVNERY:

But America will not hold power forever, before America the Zionists infiltrated the UK administration and produced the Balfour Statement. Once the zionists have plundered the power and wealth of America (controlling Irak), they will go and control the next power, who they are? I will leave it to your imagination, but one thing is sure, America will become a miserable country as many others.

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 07:08am
PLUNGER on Ford:

Note that The Jewish establishment forced Ford to retread and present an apology (which he did, and Hitler depressed, but no prozac available at that time), if not, no jew would buy a Ford (boycot), and no jewish bank or financial institution would provide a loan to buy a Ford. Sounds to me like a conspirancy and an attempt to free speech, or what else ?

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 07:14am
I have seen first hand the machinations of Alan Greenspan as he pulls the levers behind the curtain, in concert with the US Treasury Department, in a perpetual attempt to "stick save" the stock market from collapse through the "Unconventional Measures" of the "Plunger Protection Team."

Use of the word "market" is a complete misnomer. There is no stock "market." It's all just smoke and mirrors...the illusion of a market. They have used the price of oil and faux-news headlines - manufactured by the House Of Bush, to manipulate market direction. In recent days, they have taken the price of oil down in an attempt to support the collapsing stock market, but it has not worked. Last night, Google dutifully came out with a huge earnings lie designed to prop up the market. We'll see it works today, and for how long.

The Plutocrats risk losing control of literally everything if the whole truth is revealed.

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 08:22am
Zimmie, your understanding of history seems to be non existent.

"we are at war with Islamic extremist. How is it going? Considering that That Taliban have been removed from Power, Sadaam is on Trial for his life"

Saddam, a bad guy, was and is not an islamic extremist. really, his regime was a secular one.

things are going pretty damn great in Iraq? not even the administration is trying to pass of that horseshit, pretty damn great for whom? for the US? hardly.

SOME people voted for a constitution, which has been described as a document which could tear Iraq into pieces.you are a megaphone for every phony rationalisation for this shameless war, nothing more.

how good of you to mention WW2 and the fact that we were attacked by Japan, we were NOT attacked by Iraq, this is a preemptive war, based on error and lies. I have mentioned before an analogy. it's as if england after being attacked by germany chose to invade Franco's Spain, a bad regime headed by a brutal dictator, who nevertheless had nothing to do with the attack.

your infantile insults do not disguise the fact that your arguments skitter all over the landscape, Hillary etc.

"who let your hate for Bush overwhelm your duty to your country"

what is my duty to my country? to mindlessly parrot the government line of the moment like you do?

you have indeed exposed yourself as a simpleton, though I do not find that appellation in any of my retorts to you, but I'll let it stand

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 09:15am
areyouok, when consumers boycott a company for spreading ethnic slurs, or worse, they are not curtailing the free speech of those haters, they are rather using their own free speech to spend their money where they choose and urge others to do the same

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 09:18am
JZIMM: You are so full of bullshit! "We had every legal right to invade IraQ"..."Iraq attacked our plnes in the no-fly-zone". Here is reality:(1) The no-fly-zones were not mentioned in any U.N. resolution and were completely illegal.(2)Any attack on a sovereign nation without a specific resolution from the U.N. Security Council authorizing military action(as in Kuwait) is a violation of the U.N. Charter and is illegal. It is not for the U.S. to decide what is legal...it is for the United Nations. You should stop listening to Limbaugh and learn something.

Posted by philbq at 10/21/2005 @ 09:24am
Maasch, the problem in Florida was not just that some seniors could not decipher a shoddily designed ballot. there was also the supposed felon purge among other things.

your sensitive nose has detected a smell coming from that election, which was "decided" in a state where the candidates brother is governor.

of course this subject is too deep to cover in a few sentences

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 09:25am
JOHANNESROLF:

I agree with your consumers boycot argument, the problem with Ford is far more complex and extensive, I have studied it deeply for more than 25 years at academic level, what matters is that it was a little group of Zionists that obliged the whole community to do so. Ford was not completelly right, but he was not completely wrong, it is a complex issue.

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 09:29am
Jzimm - Oh ditto head, where have you gone? We already miss your mindless parroting of untruths. Friends in the military - well good for you. You really are a staunch patriot, given that you have friends in the military! Let me guess - you have a magnet ribbon on your car! Another mark of the true american - they wear their abdication of intelligence markers proudly on their cars.

Guess what, Zimmer - the fact that you have bought the propaganda and self-serving lies of the administration only signifies your lack of discernment and inability to separate reality from the smokescreen. The fact that you are not alone in your ignorance may give you comfort. Pigs wallowing in swill love company too.

Hating folks that disagree with the government starts you down a very dangerous path. I urge you to think twice before you label everyone who attacks the administration's policies as a traitor. Read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence. Ponder a bit on what this nation stands for. Several conservatives who post regularly here demonstrate at least a balanced perspective on Bush and his administration - like this, don't like that, concerns about Iraq, etc. Rabid dog shills for Bush should really take their BS elsewhere. Or tone down the Limbaugh-speak, listen carefully and think through a rational argument.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/21/2005 @ 09:33am
Plunger,

Thanks for the piece on Bolton & his cozy relationship with Miller.

Frankly, there is so much intrigue surrounding the Administartion that the two year investigation could have gone in so many directions including the Bolton direction.

It's impossible to think that Fitzgerald has spent two years just figuring out who said Plame first. So has he gone in the direction of the Italian fake Niger document? Has he gone in the Bolton direction? Perhaps the Jeff Gannon direction.....I mean it is sordid, but on the other hand it is definitely a breach of our National Security to have some gay fuck slave roaming around the Whitehouse posing as a reporter (albeit uncredentialed).

Anyway, if the expose goes in the direction of Bolton it will be interesting to see how this affects the Mier's nomination. Bolton was a crony recess appointment blocked by the Senate. If it is exposed that he's the kind of "diplomat" that is convinced the end justify's the means then the spotlight that Mier's has been picked because she will help exonerate the crimes of this administration will shine extremely brightly.

Of course if the Kool Aid is really strong Miers will go through and Bush's next SCOTUS appointment will be Jeb, Laura or one of the twins!

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 09:40am
areyouok, :" little group of Zionists that obliged the whole community to do so. "

I agree that this is a complex story, but maybe you can explain how anyone "obliged" a whole community to do anything.

I have never found jews to be a united front on anything quite the opposite. Zionism was a political movement and its proponets were mostly secular, and Israel was set up as a secular state.

political movements change over time, and Zionism now is very different from Zionism then. but a worldwide jewish conspiracy, no way

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 09:54am
JOHANNESROLF

The problem arised from the fact that the jews have never been a united front. When Hitler enacted the anti-jewish laws in the 30s most of the jewish organizations in the world united to set up a boycott of german products, these was very dangerous for the Reich as they were bankrupt and had to pay the compensations of the previous war. The Zionists, understood this could be a possibility to finally build Israel, as they needed money and people. The jewish money and people where in Germany, the other central european Jews where not of interest for the Zionist state as they had no money nor qualifications. Therefore the trasfer agreement with the Reich. It was imperative to silence Ford and his accusations of a world Zionist conspiration, because if not the zionist-nazi deal could be broken, therefore a little group of zionists infiltrated the Jewish organizations in the western world and tried to silence Ford and any conspirancy theory, and also tried to stop the boycott of german products (but they failed), note that a significant part of the transfer agreement whas in exchange of german agricultural machinery and irrigation material for desertic palestine.

Again, it is very dangerous to summarize this complex topic without falling in one way or the other into a contradiction.

I suggest you read the Book: The transfer agreement, Edwin Black

http://www.transferagreement.com/

Nevertheless I advice you to remain cautious.

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 10:19am
areyouok, I'm afraid I don't share your enthusiasm for this topic

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 10:24am
JOHANNESROLF

I can understand that, the topic is heavy, negative and unpleasant. The worst is that after that it became even worse...........

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 10:29am
The question remains unanswered: who was "Jeff Gannon" meeting during all those visits to the White House??? The released logs of White House visitors showed hundreds of visits by "Jeff Gannon" , often on days when there was no press conference. Who was he "seeing" (or doing)???

Posted by philbq at 10/21/2005 @ 10:30am
which is worse; Outing a CIA intelligence agent or Stealing the most highly classified documents from a secured room and then destroying them? where are you a-holes demanding what was destroyed to cover up what your beloved ex president knew about Al queda and what HE DID NOT DO?

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 10:31am
allow me this quote from Tom Dispatch:

Just in the last week, 23 American soldiers died in combat; the American Air Force was let loose to bomb parts of the city of Ramadi and environs, bombings in which children died; mortars fell in Baghdad's Green Zone; and numerous Iraqis including 6 Shiite factory workers, 3 election commission officials, and 2 bodyguards of the governor of Anbar Province died in drive-by shootings or attacks of various sorts.

hows it going over there?

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 10:36am
This was all happening at the same time...but it is obvious that you are not into finding the truth, rather on a bitch hunt because your socialist ways will not come to light without a fight!

Until you all go after BOTH parties for their deeds, then have fun bitching away. When the Dems act with serious credibility, then there may be a leg to stand on and just because they may have some of the same views that you may have, their wrong doings should not be overlooked because it gets you what you want. That is called Hypocracy, which is what your last Presidential Hopeful was...a billionaire that was worth 10 times more than the BUSH family! WAKE UP!!!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 10:36am
Trying to keep my sanity and trying not to follow politics! I just watch Delay in court. His lawyer is a staunch Dem who said he does not agree with Delays politics but took the case because he said the whole thing is a witch hunt. He then asked the judge to recuse himself because he is an elected Dem who has given money to Moveon.org (who is selling tshirts with Delays mug shot on them) and had said the judge had given money days before the case was given to him...When are the Dems EVER GOING TO LEARN???

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 10:40am
No...just want accountability on both sides of the aisle

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 10:42am
frank, I did mean to comment, sorry. it was amusing, if a trifle long, that Arthuiir Miller fellow better watch out, someone may be gaining on him

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 10:43am
DANCALL

Are you taking dope ?, or drugs ? I think we will send you the gulfstream and an orange suit and fly you to Egypt for a massage.

Besides, in this blogs we have "in extenso" covered Clintons mistakes as well, so no need to increase the tone.

Did your mother explain to you how to deliver an idea or to communicate with people ?

Well the gulfstream is there for you.......

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 10:43am
Dancall,

1. Most people here hate the Democrats / Clinton, because they are bastions of corporatism. 2. You are talking about the Sandy Berger thing, but you could just as well be talking about the fact that it is THEORIZED that Bolton's CIA or Cheney's office authorized a break in to an Italian intelligence agency office and all that went missing from that break in was some letter head. Some months later the initial document on Niger yellowcake was from Italian intelligence. Unfortunately that document was later found to be false. But remember the British inteeligence document that "proved" the existance of the yellowcake was simply corroborating the findings in the Italian document (which was a forgery).

A cynic would surmise that Bolton autorized a break in to steal letter head, which was later made into a fake document. The Brits were in on the predetermined march to war (as shown by Downing St Memo's) so they did a "study" to corroborate the document even though they knew it was a fake. Once there was "proof" that Saddam sought yellowcake, Bush could use that in the State of the Union speech and bingo we're on our way to war.

I presume your not a cynic though huh Dancall.

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 10:45am
Colmes, think of it this way...proactive vs reactive. The war was reactive. Clinton knew the whole time what was going on...do you think Tim Mcvey did the bombings himself on OK City? If HE WAS PROACTIVE, then 9/11 would have neve had happened and WE WOULD NOT BE IN A WAR!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 10:50am
FRANKGRITS

Note the Kurds and they leader Ocalan (in prison since some years), murdered more than 40 000 people in Turkey. The Turkish administration, seems has murdered the double of Kurds. killing oil fields

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 10:51am
or how about the cole? World Trade bombings in 93? OK City Bombings? Niger bombings? THEY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON! This is one of the biggest cover ups in American History! The war today is a mess, I won't disagree with that. But what do we do now that EVIDENCE FOUNDED BY THE UN says that most of the Iraq bombing are coming in from Syria? Now they have evidence that Syria approved the assasination of the leader of the opposigning policitcal grouo (WHO WAS PRO AMERICAN) in Lebanon? Today France says well we should only talk about the assasination and not to mention that syria is sending troops into Iraq to create problems.

Look at the bigger picture here. Most of the major banks, pharms and other oil companies are foreign owned. BP gas is a BRITISH OWNED Compnay. ABN bank foreign owned. Insurance comapnies foreign owned. we are still puppet to Europe and Europe is a socialist region of the world...they fear america because we are trying to break the ties because we can. They hate religion and we are a religous based society.

Tie in the oil for food scandal...why is there not ONE article written here? Because it connects directly to the European socialist states. BOTTOM LINE!!!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 10:59am
The US has strategic air bases there (including gulfstreams) since 30 years at least, and never heard of any administration official (including democrats) complaining of human rights abuses. At the end the Turks did not allow the US to use this bases to attack Irak for fear of getting involved in the following civil war (and it proved right).

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 11:02am
Dancall,

Interesting logic......it appears that you are blaming Clinton for stealing Italian Intelligence Agency letterhead and making a fake document.

Besides, what the hell has the Iraq war got to do with 911 or OBL?

More to the point....have you asked yourself why GWB would appoint Miers to the Supreme Court.....if not for future exoneration from crimes being commited by this administration then why pick someone unqualified?

There's stuff in front of your eyes and you just don't want to open them.

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 11:03am
Lets not forget LUKOIL...RUSSIAN owned gas company...ever wonder why their colors are red and white? They hate were are in Iraq but can sell gas to Americans? Interesting?, NO?

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:04am
Colmes, that is reactive. Not proactive. regarding the judges. He wants judges that interp the law, not legislate from the bench. Neo cons don't like her because she does not follow their politics.

The only reason why Dems don't like her is the abortion issue. Bottom line.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:06am
So, Colmes, by your logic, we should forget what happened in the 90's and not LEARN from our mistakes and expose our own internal issues because of politics? If we stole those docs from the Italians then it should be exposed. By the way, Niger officials did publicly say that reps from Iraq did visit and asked about yellow cake.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:09am
Dancall,

Rafic Hariri was more pro-european (see pro-french) than pro-american, you are right that most of the bigger corporations there are european, which proves what I say, and finally, most of the people in europe are religious, those who are not, have faith in God in their personal way, not in a community way, and to finish, no one in europe would ever support a pre-emptive war based on lies.

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 11:10am
EX FBI Agents are coming clean on what happened in Oklahoma. It does not bode well for Mr Clinton. They are saying that all their evidence (connections with al queda) and with eye witness accounts, (MCVey was with seen and interacted with Arab men days before and the day of the bombing).

If this is true, Colmes, what do you have to say?

Another special ops guy who was on a special task force under Clinton is coming out and telling his story that Clinton knew days before the cole bombing that it was going to happen...what was done about it?

Why would ex FBI and special ops guys lie?

And yet, you would rather follow a legal witch hunt on Delay, where a staunch Dem is defending him and just exposed a JUDGE that is gives money to Moveon.org and got the case days after he gave money to the DNC? Interesting, no? Mr Corn WILL NEVER TALK ABOUT THIS!!!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:16am
DANCALL:

Please go away.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/21/2005 @ 11:17am
JOHN BOLTON:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/bolton/bolton.php

Project for the New American Century: Signed four PNAC letters (1998-2000), member of board of directors (1998-2001)

American Enterprise Institute: Senior Vice President for Public Policy Research (1997-2001)

Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: Former member of Advisory Board (2001)

Bolton has long appealed to racist voters. Working closely with his former boss James Baker during the Florida recount following the contested 2000 presidential election, Bolton proved his allegiance to the party and polished his reputation as someone "who gets things done." In July 2002, the Wall Street Journal reported that Bolton's "most memorable moment came after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a halt to the recount, when Mr. Bolton strode into a Tallahassee library, where the count was still going on, and declared: �I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the vote'."

After thanking Bolton for his services, Vice President-elect Cheney was asked what job Bolton would get in the new administration. "People ask what [job] John should get," Cheney said, "My answer is, anything he wants."

During the first administration, Bolton earned his reputation as a hawk who dismantled the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, renounced President Clinton's approval of the International Criminal Court, and blocked the efforts to add a verification clause to the bioweapons convention. Displaying what the Wall Street Journal described as his "combative style," Bolton told an international conference on bioweapons that the verification proposal was "dead, dead, dead, and I don't want it coming back from the dead."

Bolton has since the mid-1990s led the charge of the anti-multilateralists and UN bashers against the International Criminal Court.

In 1998, when he was senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Bolton described the ICC as "a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just na�ve, but dangerous."7 Early in the first year of the Bush administration, Bolton prevailed upon Secretary of State Colin Powell to give him the honor of renouncing the Clinton administration's signature of the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bolton called the moment he signed the letter abrogating Clinton's approval of the ICC "the happiest moment in my government service."

Bolton has long dismissed the legitimacy of the United Nations. In a 1994 speech at the liberal World Federalist Association, Bolton declared that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." To underscore his point, Bolton said: "If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

Praising Bolton in a speech he delivered on January 1, 2001 at the American Enterprise Institute, Sen. Jesse Helms, who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon."

Bolton has been a player in a strategy by U.S. militarists and neoconservatives to expand NATO and to form new U.S.-led political and military coalitions in Central and Eastern Europe. Leading this initiative have been two neoconservative institutes that are located in the same building in Washington, DC--the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute.

Before joining the Bush administration, Bolton was a member of the New Atlantic Initiative, a bipartisan initiative sponsored by AEI and funded by two right-wing foundations: Olin Foundation and Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation. The New Atlantic Initiative was launched in June 1996 following the Congress of Prague, where more than 300 conservative politicians, scholars, and investors discussed "the new agenda for transatlantic relations."

Headquartered at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, the New Atlantic Initiative is dedicated to strengthening North Atlantic cooperation, admitting the transitional democracies of the former Soviet bloc into NATO and the European Union, and establishing a free trade area between an enlarged European Union and the NAFTA countries.11 The New Atlantic Initiative is closely associated with the Project on Transitional Democracies, and was also closely linked to the now-defunct U.S. Committee on NATO--groups that were both founded by PNAC board members.12

Bolton is an outspoken hawk on U.S. policy in the Middle East, and has since the mid-1990s been closely associated with neoconservative organizations and pressure groups that are close to the right-wing Likud party in Israel--including the Project for the New American Century, American Enterprise Institute, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG).

Bolton boasts that one of his most important achievements was the central role he played at the State Department in 1991 in leading the successful campaign to repeal the 1975 General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism, "thus removing the greatest stain on the UN's reputation."

Along with other Bush administration officials, Bolton was on the board of advisers of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs before joining the administration. JINSA supports a "peace through strength" policy to support Israel and works to build "strategic ties" between the U.S. military and U.S. military contractors with Israel. Other administration figures associated with this militarist organization that aims to strengthen the military-industrial complexes in both Israel and the United States are Richard Cheney, Douglas Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz.

Two months prior to the Iraq invasion, Bolton traveled to Jerusalem to meet with former Prime Minister Netanyahu and Prime Minister Sharon to discuss strategies

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 11:17am
Dancall,

With all due respect I'm sick and tired of this "interpret the law / constitution" bullshit platitude.

THAT'S WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES!!

If the Law and Consitution were clearcut then nothing would ever get to the Supreme Court. It exists because it has to "interpret" the Constitution.....and EVERYBODY has a personal bias that would alter that interpretation.

When morons like Rush and Hannity go on and on about Strict Constuctionist all it means is they want people that don't look at things from a progressive perspective. It's ALL bias it's just different words.

Anyway, despite that you answered my question....Bush wants somebody that neither the left or right wants because he wants a "get out of jail free card" and to hell with the base and qualified people.

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 11:21am
Dancall:

If you have actual evidence of criminal wrong doing by any politician of any party, please share it.

Speaking of evidence, what do you suppose those "Dancing Israelis" were up to on 9/11? Why would Chertoff simply deport them along with the other "art students" (a.k.a. Mossad Agents) without charges while covering the entire matter up?

What's up with that?

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 11:21am
I stand corrected Areyouok. So do you stand around and the the radical musleums do their thing until it is too late? That mentaility got you all in a huge mess 60 years ago...Remember the Nazi's? Americans do because countries like France did nothing to stop Hitler in his early days and made a deal with hitler not to destroy their country, while the whole time, Egland got pounded nightly. tens of thousands of Americans died to regain the freedom for europe. Don't you ever forget that. You all can get your 6 week vacations because Europeans do own most of the major companies which makes money off the American people. You see, when we stop, your life style is OVER!!!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:21am
Yes, Colmes, THEY INTERP THE LAW that Congress approved. THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE LAW. THAT IS NOT THEIR JOB. If something is wrong with the law, it should be debated in congress, by the people who were elected to represent their views back home. The biggest fear that our fore father had was this exact problem. Judges are not elected officials by the people, they are appointed. If the judges hold the power, then we fall into a big mess. That is why it is called balance of power. Just follow the 9th circuit and you will see direct changes in the law...

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:25am
Plus, Colmes, why did Delay's lawyer ask the Judge to recuse himself today? He contributes to a far left org in America...

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:26am
Plunger, not familiar with that. Hey, I am all about EXPOSING EVERYONE! I am just tired of hearing slants on both sides when we all know that they are both corrupt. The only way it will change is not to support either party and this country needs a serious third or fourth party to represent the normal people with "common sense" who do not drink the "cool aid"

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:29am
Sandy Berger was already found guilty. You know what is fine was? $10,000 and loss of his top secret clearance for I think a year. that is the punishment for stuffing top secret documents down his pants, which had information on clintons decisions and WHAT HE KNEW. Is that true justice?

You know Damn well if that was a republican, that would have been ALL over the world news.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:32am
So where do we go from here, DANCALL? You seem more interested in going into the past than into the future. You can tie Clinton to all of the bad things that happened during his presidency. Likewise, you can tie Daddy Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford... to the yucky things that happened under their watches. Sounds to me like you're just plain un-American. ;-)

To be pro-active, we need to take them out before they get to us again, I suppose. Are we taking the proper steps toward this goal? It wouldn't seem so. Even if we wait out the next 8-10 years for the insurgency/civil war to end, are we going to be left with a government that is more amenable to our regional goals? Hell, Saddam was our best little buddy when we wanted him to be. We can pretty much arm and pay anyone to do anything for us if we choose.

Even if Iraq cools down in the next decade, we will have to go through this again on one of its neighbors soil. By the time we get that country sorted out, we'll have an exhausted army and an economy spinning downward. Meanwhile, we will no doubt have lost whatever influence we had established in Iraq.

If we want the Middle East to be friendly towards us, all we have to do is hand them the cash in an unmarked envelope in a back alley in Damascus, Tehran, etc. We seem committed to throwing bucks in their direction anyway; why the need to have our army under constant siege?

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/21/2005 @ 11:32am
David Corn would have been writing about that for months. Did Corn ever mention this and march on for justice? NO, because he was covering for his political views. Get it?

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:33am
Dancall,

I invite you to read my and PLUNGER entries in this same blog, we are extensive about WW2, it makes that you are wrong, while Roosevelt didnt move until too late, the rest of europe was sheltering bunches of fleeing jews, France re-invaded germany at the start of the 30s (alsace), so please read some more, get informed before you argument because you risk to contradict yourself. Besides, The Marshall Plan established a protected paradise for US companies in europe, only until recently (10) years) europe has been able to breack dow the puzzle of that plan and build a real free and unique market. (450 million people, efficient social security, high quality of life and expectancy of live, and last but not least, high productivity and innovation) Lots of US SMEs are comming here to invest in the boom, Join us man and stop yelling as a perverted neo-con.

Posted by areyouok at 10/21/2005 @ 11:33am
Yes, I believe you have to go to the past to learn for the future. that is the biggest mistake that people today make. Most young generations do not remember the wars and how dangerous the world really is. Not learning from the past and reviewing history is intellectual ignorance.

Sadaam's problem was his ego got the best of him. He was fighting against Iran, which is a very scary place right now. No doubt he was a puppet, but he forgot who got him there.

To stop this whole thing, Europeans have to agree that the CIA and British Intel should be able to take control like they had back 25 years ago. we as a society have become way too soft to be fighting a war with relgious fanatics

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:39am
any reaction to the fact that an AMERICAN company admitted guilt in the oil for food scandal and paid a hefty fine?

Dan, your scattershot posts are confusing at best, and at worst speak of a mind impaired

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 11:44am
Yo, seattlescribe, a little late on the uptake, but yeah, some glory hallelujah tag team ass stomping whoopee would be fun. I'd give Jzimm some intellectual midget, but he's already "cut and run", as they say. Bullies. Did you see Galloway thrash Hitchens? I think he cut him too much slack, and let him set too many of the terms, always a mistake. Galloway's only error was when he lost his cool when Hitchens accused him of supportiing the decapitations, a ridiculous affront at best. Obviously supporting a resistance and supporting its contradictions are two different things. The right is allowed to argue that collateral damage is part of warfare, but the left is supposed to account for the crazies that masquerade as revolutionaries. That's the way to handle that shit. Obviously we don't support the decapitations. The fact is that this country played an enormous role in creating those nutbag "islamic" coneheads, who they raised up in order to counter the secular communist governments they didn't like- which. bad as they were, were not reverting to public hangings, opium trading, and decapitations.

Oh, and by the way, how often have you heard right wing nutbags in this country say, "Ya know, over in Arabic countries, they cut off criminal's hands when they steal. Now, I''m not saying we should do this..." blah blah blah. No, they're not saying that. They're only seeding the ground for it, which is why they support the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan- that band of boy raping weirdos- to this day. Na, Galloway lost his cool and let Hitchens walk on that one. I'd have roasted his ass.

Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/21/2005 @ 11:45am
I think it's important to remember that the constitution writers did not anticipate political parties, rather short sighted, twenty years later the party system was in full swing

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 11:48am
France reinvated Germany in the 30's? Dude, that region has been fought over by the French and Germans since the 1870s. Get a grip on History. It had nothing to do with WWII in the big picture. What is it called maginot line? that worked really well! that's right, "germans will never go through the forest". Why was it a shelter for american companies? BECAUSE THE EUROPEAN BANKS WERE CLEANING UP! Our tax dollars today still go to Europe to pay you guys off. why should my tax dollars go to you so you can take a 6 week vacation?

What is going on in Germany now...a christian conservative movement? What? People are starting to realize that Europe is being overrun by Musleums.

I think you should get out of your Europeans are intellectual superiors and everyone should hug each other. The world doesn't work like that and as an American, I will NEVER TRUST the French Govt.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:52am
Mary, those analogies are tiresome.

not everything is a result of the Iraq war, but tens of thousand dead Iraqis and 2000 dead american soldiers, and thousands maimed, are.

this leads to at least two questions. 1. was, and is, it worth it?

2. was, and is, there another course of action?

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 11:52am
Dan:"we are a religous based society." this is false, in the political sense, and was never true, in fact the constitution specifically disputes that

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 11:55am
Dan:"What is going on in Germany now...a christian conservative movement?" this is also false

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 11:59am
Johanne, 2000 americans killed by Syrians? when you group in the thousands of iraqis, can you PLEASE DISTINGUISH HOW MANY AMERICANS KILLED IRAQI's AND HOW MANY WERE KILLED BY ROAD SIDE BOMBS!!!

If our guys were allowed to do their jobs, the thugs would have been destroyed last year, but we do not have the back bone to get the job done. They hide in mosques and build bombs in them, but we can;t do anything about it.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:59am
that is interesting...where is shroeder today?

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 11:59am
Dancall,

I have no idea why Tim McVeigh was talking to some arabs days before he blew up a building. I talked to some arabs a few days ago too. Arabs are here in this country. They are not all bad Dan. As far as I know the Arab's he was seen talking to were never identified so it's a bit of a stretch to say they "might" have been AQ.

You conduct your due dilligence on whether Clinton knew that Al Q were part of the Tim thing and the Cole thing and I'll do mine on whether the current Admin broke into an office to steal letterhead.

Plunger is doing his work on the questions still surrounding 911.

As far as I can tell this makes us all good citizens within a democracy. If you find out that Clinton nurtured AQ attacks then perhaps we can get him in the electric chair to be an accomplice of 911. Good for you Dancall, but stop telling us that there is no need to question this Administration....that is unAmerican.

By the way, the SC is SUPPOSED to review the constitutionality of contested laws enacted by congress. If that is a problem for you then you need to move to a dictatorship.

And again, I invite anyone to give me a plausible reason why GWB nominated a crony to the SC in the wake of Brown / FEMA, especially one with such weak credentials and not sufficiently activist enough to appease the Christian right. IF NOT FOR INSURANCE AGAINST FUTURE RECRIMINATIONS?

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 12:04pm
We are relgious based and if you READ the consitution, it specificially states that we need to have seperation of CHURCH and State. That alone speaks volumes and recognizes that we were a relgious based society. The fore fathers knew that the two needed to be apart. Your socialist ways want religion to be gone, much like the Soviet Union tried to do 60 years ago. You can never take the faith out of someone and if you try, the backlash will be stronger than your intellectual snobs will know what to do with. Thus the Red States destroying the polls!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 12:04pm
Plunger said: Speaking of evidence, what do you suppose those "Dancing Israelis" were up to on 9/11? Why would Chertoff simply deport them along with the other "art students" (a.k.a. Mossad Agents) without charges while covering the entire matter up?

Dancall said: "Plunger, not familiar with that."

Dancall:

If you're not familiar with the foregoing, which is in fact directly tied to one of the most significant events in the history of the world, it shows that you have not read through the prior posts on this thread, and are not fully qualified to engage in this discussion.

Scroll up and do some reading, then let's talk about the "Dancing Israelis" - and what that single event means in the broader context of the AIPAC/Franklin Spy Scandal, The Niger Forgery, The Plame Outing, 9/11 as the pretext for war, and the intentional lies that led us into war. If the Iraq war planning began two years prior to 9/11, just ask yourself a simple question. How could they have been formulating a plan without identifying a legitimate pretext? Why make such a plan if it's illegal to implement it? It required a pretext.

All of these are related, and none exist in a vacuum.

There is plenty of blame to go around on all sides. I don't give a shit about the Democratic Party. If you want to see all of the criminals called to account, just know that the soft underbelly of the entire conspiracy happens to belong to the Republicans right now.

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 12:05pm
dan your understanding of german politicsis , like most everything else, nonexistent.

the two major parties CDU and SPD, having insufficient number of votes to rule alone, have entered into a coalition. this something like the democrats and the republicans deciding to govern jointly, with cabinet positions divided among them, wether this is more "democratic' or not is up for discussion, hopefully with individuals better informed that you are

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 12:05pm
Colmes, he was with Arabs when he rented the Truck. Eye witnesses (three of them that worked there said they were with him...FBI acknoledged it, then had another team interview them and made no metion of them in their report.) Eye witnesses had two arab men running from the truck and then another described the same two guys that almost ran her over in their truck.

Terry Nichols traveled to the Phillipeans and met with known leader of the SE Asian AQ network. that also never made it into the FBI report.

The Ex agents are coming out and are telling their stories...if this was a rep in office, these guys would be on every news talk show...IT IS A COVER UP

Bush called the mayor days before the hurrican hit and told him to get the people out right then and there. This is documented. That story is never told. He had buses waiting to evacuate these people...nothing.

You see...your problems are always reactive instead of proactive!

Wake up dude!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 12:12pm
But if they christian group has no validity and the people are not getting tired of the socialist politics, then why is there this issue. It is like the liberals in America not recognizing that the Red States dispise the Dem leadership and that they are tired of being called stupid because they beleive in God.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 12:14pm
Google: "False Flag"

Google: "USS Liberty"

Even the "Dancing Israelis" were first though to be "Arabs"

Sometimes "Arabs" are not actually who they appear to be.

Al Qaeda is a CIA invention.

Bin Laden does not exist. Have you actually seen him?

How do you know it was "Arabs" with McVey?

What is the real reason behind the coverup?

The bottom line is you don't know, so stop acting like you do.

Seeking the truth, and proclaiming it, are not the same thing.

You weren't there.

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 12:19pm
Plunger, Like I said earlier...if the case is made against Bush, then he should be held accountable.

what I am saying is that if Clinton was doing his job, Bush would have never been elected and the 9/11 would have never had happened. The Clinton Administration was 5 times as dysfunctional but will never be exposed because the media hates Repbulicans

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 12:19pm
Dan, you are obtuse, it's CALLED the christian democratic party, not to be confused with a christian political organisation in the american sense. they decided on that name in 1947.

also not all judges are apppointed, many are elected, it depends on the court and the state

in germany the election was a tie, for heaven's sake, stop trying to shovel everything in the same pit. your ignorance is showing

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 12:20pm
Plunger, I have heard the Eye witnesses and have heard the FBI agents. What else do you want? Why would these peole lie?

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 12:20pm
Johan, eruopean socialism is being called out. Don't get angry. BTW, why would they use the name Christian? Have to have some connection to Christ and God, no? OK, I am a Christian, but I will start a Musluem Party. that makes a ton of sense. That party is in favor of working with the USA. Get over it. The socialist are coming to an end

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 12:23pm
Dan,

I'm not sure if we agree on the definition of reactive and proactive as I think that my questions reagrding something that happened 10 years after your thing seem to....oh never mind.

I like your theory and I've read a fair bit about it. My main question with it, is why, if AQ was behind the Oklahoma bombing, that AQ needed Terry and Tim. It isn't hard to buy fertilizer, diesel and rent a u-haul. Furthermore, AQ is a resistance movement dedicated to destroying the infidels through terror. They would claim responsibilty for the bombing as to not do so would not further their cause, but they didn't claim responsibility.....dude they don't intend to kill every one of us, their intention is to cripple us with terror. If we don't know it's AQ attacking how are we terrified of them?

Thanks for your answer on why Mier's was picked....glad to see you're looking at things critically!

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 12:23pm
it was a tie, what part of that don't you understand?

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 12:24pm
Plunger, do yourself a favor and do a google on "able danger"

"Captain Ed notes the Pentagon's decision yesterday to bar several military officials and intelligence analysts from testifying today before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing investigating whether the Able Danger program identified Mohamed Atta months before the 9/11 attacks.

The Pentagon's decision to keep the witnesses silent "only demonstrates that the program found something that the Pentagon still wants hidden," according to the Captain. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter is less unconcerned about the Pentagon's action, saying his panel has already established the credibility of other witnesses who will testify at the hearing."

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 12:28pm
I get it was a tie...not arguing that. Just a point that that means german people are getting tired of the socialist leadership and listen to a lier in office. The movement is coming.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 12:29pm
Ten years ago, the FBI was given powerful evidence of Iraq's involvement with Timothy McVeigh in the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City that killed , but the federal law enforcement agency abruptly stopped its investigation.

Oklahoma City investigative reporter Jayna Davis, however, didn't stop. She doggedly developed and pursued a host of leads that make it clear McVeigh was only one cog in a cell of Iraqi terrorists that included Hussain Al-Hussaini who is the main subject of her book, "The Third Terrorist."

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 12:30pm
If these stories are true, wouldn't that be one of the worst cover ups in American history, if not world hsitory?

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 12:32pm
Dan:

I assure you I know all about Able Danger...at least all that is available for public consumption.

Your post seems to imply that you know who Atta is and what faction he represents. If it were true that he was part of Bin Laden's merry band of terrorists, ask yourself this...why would so many on Capitol Hill and in the Intelligence and Defense Community be so adamant that this investigation be buried? Why were so many shredders brought in to erase all evidence of any relationship to Atta some two full years prior to the 9/11 attacks?

Why is Curt Weldon so God Damn pissed off about the coverup that he's willing to quit just to force the issue?

Think man, think!

Who did Atta really work for?

Please at least learn one thing during your time here.

Nothing is as it appears...the news media lies.

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 12:46pm
Dan, thank you for your trenchant, look it up analysis of german politics

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 12:47pm
"If these stories are true, wouldn't that be one of the worst cover ups in American history, if not world hsitory?"

Welcome to reality.

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 12:49pm
Now put down the Rush Limbaugh Show, and step back from the radio.

Your career as a parrot has come to a close.

Become a researcher.

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 12:53pm
Now please connect the shredding of Sandy Berger. You are also forgetting about Ruby Ridge and Waco...you had pissed off White Supremist and radicals that want Americans dead. This all happened in the 90's...Clinton's term. So please include his administration when building your conspiracy theories...

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 12:55pm
Rush is a Jack Ass. Like most of the other usual suspects. But even like crazy lefties, there is some truth in what they speak...

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 12:58pm
"Now please connect the shredding of Sandy Berger. You are also forgetting about Ruby Ridge and Waco...you had pissed off White Supremist and radicals that want Americans dead. This all happened in the 90's...Clinton's term. So please include his administration when building your conspiracy theories..."

No, these are YOUR conspiracy theories, and by all means - make all of your factual research notes and reference materials available to us.

We're all quite interested in the things we can actually impact today. Like stopping Armageddon, for example.

Now, go back to the beginning of this thread and read the hundreds of pages of research materials at your disposal (free of charge) which actually DO relate to the subject of this thread, and once you're all caught up on your reading, we'll talk.

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 12:59pm
Why would sandy berger feel compelled to steal documents that the 9/11 commission ask for? He DESTROYED them. what was in them??? remember, he was also John Kerry's right hand man during the elections until this story broke...

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 1:00pm
Waded through what I could of DANCALL's worldview ... refutation of "Bush called Nagin before Katrina" is so complete it's on snopes.com, book about McVeigh/Arabs is horribly written, full of disproved "facts" and loved by Clinton-haters. Not holding out much hope anything else he says is true. Let's just say, Plunger has not yet met his match.

Posted by MyParadigm at 10/21/2005 @ 1:05pm
My point is this...Bush most likely lied. But where the hell are you guys when we can clean house and expose what led to 9/11? You are all a bunch of hypcorites who will just say...well, it is water under the bridge. Too many innocent Americans died on 9/11..one day killed more people than any in the current war. The facts are laid out about the clinton adminstration, but you are so blinded to only read and do research that is anti Bush. You are intellectually lazy...for if you were a "true intellect", you will research all angles and not discredit someone else because you are not able to conquer your own bias.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 1:05pm
Sandy Berger is nothing to you guys? Give me a freakin break! HE WAS ALREADY PROVEN GUILTY, yet, I don't have my facts straight. IGNORANCE!!!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 1:08pm
Dan, you are a kook,

"one day killed more people than any in the current war".

what, tens of thousands of Iraqis aren't people?

you meant to write americans instead of people, but that was freudian slip, if I've evr seen one

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 1:08pm
You're being reactive, DANCALL.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/21/2005 @ 1:09pm
The Mcvey story is not just in a book. The FBI AGENTS, again, THE FBI AGENTS WHO ORIGINALLY DID THE INVESTIGATION ARE COMING OUT AND TELLING THEIR STORY. NOT A "BLACK OP'S FBI TEAM doing clean up work"

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 1:09pm
One day in the Iraq war killed more people than 9/11?

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 1:10pm
no, it is people, no americans because not all the people in the towers were americans...IGNORANCE!!!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 1:11pm
So who do you think Sandy Berger works for?

An invitation to AIPAC's National Summit on Foreign Policy & Politics, October 30-31, 2005 in Los Angeles, California.

AIPAC's Annual National Summit on Foreign Policy & Politics provides an opportunity for AIPAC's leadership to gain in-depth information and analysis about the people and most pressing issues affecting the U.S.-Israel relationship. Previous Summit speakers have included George Shultz, Joe Lieberman, Condoleezza Rice, John Kerry, John McCain, Sandy Berger, and Paul Wolfowitz.

http://www.aipac.org/documents/aipacclubs.html

http://www.zoa.org/pressrel2000/20000802a.htm

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 1:14pm
Johan, your comment relays your intellect...freduian slip if I have ever seen one. there were Europeans, Arabs, Indians, Asians. But because they were in the Towers, they were ALL AMERICANS. Gee, you must love the fact that the Pope is German!!!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 1:15pm
Plunger, he was the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR UNDER CLINTON and was KERRY's right hand man during his campaign. He works for the socialist party in America.

That is in interesting article at zoa.com interesting that Bush was able to get to the point he is at with Isreal and Palestine.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 1:23pm
About this Sandy Berger thing: 1) the documents were copies 2) the 9/11 commission got all the documents they wanted 3) he admitted what he did was wrong, paid a substantial fine, and got not one but three years suspension of secruity clearance. And was never to be seen again near the Democratic candidate. Compare with current administration at your leisure.

Posted by MyParadigm at 10/21/2005 @ 1:24pm
Why do you think Hillary went to NY to become senator? No other state would have elected her.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 1:24pm
10,000 fine is a JOKE and the documents were NOT Copies. they were originals and were "lost". Why steal them? If he wanted copies, he would have had to ask for them. That is the highest level of security clearance.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 1:26pm
"security" ... I kind of like "secruity" though

Posted by MyParadigm at 10/21/2005 @ 1:27pm
"That is in interesting article at zoa.com interesting that Bush was able to get to the point he is at with Isreal and Palestine."

And what point would that be?

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 1:30pm
my bad is was 50k...still a slap on the wrist considering what he did

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 1:30pm
that Isreal pulled out of gaza and a palestine state is in the future... Sharon knows that the reps don't eff around. Just like when the first iraq war and they did not retaliate against the SCUDS. Everyone in the world knows that when Dems are in office in America, it is a free for all.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 1:34pm
DANCALL,

Listening to Scott Ritter on Democracy Now talking about his book. Yeah, I know, he's a self-serving blowhard. But, you'll like this, he blames a lot of people who don't have the initials GWB. Of course, he begins withe GHWB for marshalling the sanctions into place, sanctions that, Ritter contends, were not about weapons but were about weakening Saddam for an internal overthrow. He states that through the diligent work of the inspectors (blowhard time), Saddam had given up or destroyed his weapons and had turned over his documents. By 1995, he was toothless. Yet the sanctions continued, and for this he blames Clinton, Albright, and--your fave--Berger. Starving Iraqi children in an effort to ripen the Iraqi citizenry for a revolution...not a particularly nice or effective strategy.

Of course, Ritter thinks that GWB was the nuttiest of all, giving up on the relatively easy task of containing Saddam through sanctions and the occasional inspection in favor of a full-blown invasion. I have not heard him declare this but he seems to imply that we could have just waited a little while longer for Saddam to die, be killed, or be deposed. Then we could have swooped in as heroes to quell the chaos that would have resulted from the power vacuum.

Anyway, just a little report. Berger: bad. Happy?

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/21/2005 @ 1:37pm
I think that is a very accurate dipiction of what was going on and how it could have been handled. When we talk about oil, you have to take into account that oil men know the oil business and where the oil is coming from. Bush knew that the Oil for food program was a fraud and "our so called allies" (France and Germany) are on a rampage to set up the EU and compete with the US. There is a major problem with this...how can France and Germany continue to break the EU rules and make all others follow them by the strict law, especially the countries that are loyal to the US. France controls the policy and Germany the banks. The UK seems to have the best handle on things because they still have not converted the pound into the Euro because they don't trust the germans and will not follow policy set forth by the French. the EU is ready to crumble and by starting the war, it has created cracks and at the same time it exposed the French and German connections to Iraq, along with the corrupt UN officials. However, the world media is controlled by socialists that hate america. Europeans will never understand the AMerican work ethic and will never understand our passion for freedom because we are the products of the World's travelers that came to america for the freedom to succeed by hard work and not be pigeon held to one job because of family history, grades in school or social class. They are the ones that left "old Europe" because they didn't own land and were tired of working for the "landlords". Until the world gets the fact that Russia is still moving toward their ultimate goal of socialims with the help of China, we are all in a world of hurt. Why do you all think that it was such a big deal why China and Russia were after teh third larget US oil Company and wanted to buy them? Have you all been watching the military build up of the Chinese and how there nuclear subs are now patrolling our waters? Why is Australia building a massive weapons and missle site in the north of OZ? Why are we going to pull our troops out of germany and move them overseas to SE Asia? Why do you think the Middle East is so Important? Because whoever controls the oil, controls the military. The chinese can have all the tanks in the world, but without oil, they don't move. we should also starting paying attention to Hong Kong and the Chinese view of Japan...who the chinese hate because what the Japanese did to them during World War II. Never mind that massive radical musleum movement that is occuring in SE ASIA. To that, I leave you all with your dillusioned view that socialism is the way to make a peaceful world.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 2:10pm
"We are a republic. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy."

- Alexander Hamilton.

Problem now, America and divided 50/50 and accuse the other what Hamilton describes where liberty is never found. ie, Radical Left Liberals vs Neo COns

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 2:27pm
Dancall,

You're rambling.

I need to know why (in your theory that might otherwise have some validity) our OBL folks would not do Oklahoma without a couple of white "infidels". And then I need to know why they allowed the American public to believe it was a couple of white infidels.

Also, I am still waiting for some sort of answer as to what other plausible reason could there be for nominating Miers?

I don't postulate theories unless I have determined a motive.....you have not done that so far as I can see.

By the way, you ask why former FBI agents would lie. They are not under oath and creating conspiracy theories does sell books and create speaking engagement fees. I'm not saying they are lying I'm just saying that there is a motive to lie.

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 2:33pm
We need a new thread - please. People are arguing with Dancall over whether Clinton covered up the fact that the OK City bombing was the work of Islamic terrorists or Iraq. Sandy Berger? the Marsall Plan? Germany?

Dancall - go away.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/21/2005 @ 2:35pm
Dancall:

America WAS divided 50/50.

Give it another couple weeks and see how many people become thoroughly disgusted with the Administration.

A point of recognition is coming soon. Neither part has the answers.

The "Party" is over.

It's up to us now.

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 2:45pm
Because there are plenty of American groups who hate what america has become and see the same problems with america that OBL does. What easier way to get what you want then working with a couple of white guys? It is called money. these are the same groups that are sitting in the woods peed off at the left for trying to take their guns away and taxing them to death and peed off at the right for getting into world affairs, which we were warned not to do by our forefathers

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 2:48pm
How about Powells former chief of staffs recent comments? Wilkerson called the Bush policy a Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal! Man, the tires are really coming off now! The evidense of a totally f-ed up administration is growing all the time! ......

Bush must feel like he's trying to walk away from a train wreck! I'll love to see how much he ages in the next two years!

Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 10/21/2005 @ 2:50pm
Plunger, I am afraid that the message is always going to get lost because there are so many "issues" and so many "special interest" groups clouding the common sense approach. It is impossible to please everyone.

the Dem party needs stronger leadership. they keep on sending controversial leaders into the mix.

About this topic Corn's article. I wrote a very long time ago to stop speculating and wait to see what comes of it. Corn is doing what he complains that the Reps do. why doesn't everyone just wait it out and see what happens. From what I can tell, if Fitz has proof, someone will fry. If nothing is found after 2 years of investigation and lots of money spent, will Corn ever move on? There are lots of other things to hit on, yet he insists on beating this thing to death.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 2:54pm
Because there are plenty of American groups who hate what america has become and see the same problems with america that OBL does. What easier way to get what you want then working with a couple of white guys? It is called money. these are the same groups that are sitting in the woods peed off at the left for trying to take their guns away and taxing them to death and peed off at the right for getting into world affairs, which we were warned not to do by our forefathers

Posted by DANCALL 10/21/2005 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person

I'm not following this motive for collaboration. Money? Who needed the money and what did they need money for? The OBL / Iraqi's needed the white guys money or the white guys needed the OBL / Iraqi money? A credit card is sufficient for 30 bags of fertilizer, 50 gallons of diesel and a uhaul rental.

Do you not care a whiff about your theory to develop a motive?

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 2:58pm
It is a train wreck. But let's just watch it come apart by itself. the more dems and people who oppose Bush scream, it makes it look like a witch hunt. Sit back and give them enough rope to hang themselves. If it is really that bad, they will. However, with today's news that the UN made connections with Syria and the Iraq bombings and their assassination connection, he may gain some credit back. The Delay case today didn't look good for the dems either...the Judge gave money to Moveon.org and gave money to the DNC days before he was given the case...plus Delay;s lawyer is a staunch Dem who said he did nothing wrong and this is a witch hunt, nothing else. Bad PR for the Dems

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 2:58pm
Do you know what it takes to actually get those things to go off? It was the exact same combination that was in the World Trade center bombings in 93. Key witnesses that knew mcvey say he couldn't get a milk bottle to go off, never mind two guys moving all that stuff onto a truck and mixing it with no help.

Yes, it is money. You show your "terrorist ability", you will be paid big bucks. Ever wonder why the IRA has been seen in the middle east, central and south america? Dude, wake up.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 3:02pm
BTW, just read that is was classified as a 4,800 lb bomb, packed in 20 barrels. Just two guys pulled this off?

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 3:13pm
Dan,

Ok, so I think you are saying that a plot involving fertilizer and diesel involves money from AQ/Iraq because the detonator is a big deal. I doubt it, but Ok, so that would be a reason that the white guys needed AQ/Iraq, but what does AQ / Iraq need the white guys for? Especially if they were so incompetant as to not be able to engineer a moltov cocktail?

I don't see what is so hard about moving 20 barrels that each weigh 240lbs with a dolly / hand truck. The "impossibility" of that task hardly convinces me of a wider conspiracy.

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 4:05pm
Yeah, Dancall, I guess it's all over for the dems as you are hoping. You say "Delay;s lawyer is a staunch Dem who said he did nothing wrong and this is a witch hunt, nothing else. Bad PR for the Dems..."

Next thing you know, Blacks' approval for Bush will go from the now 2% to a doubling of 4%. I can just hear the Fox News Network crowing, "Polls show Blacks approval rate for Bush soars!" Keep on "catapulting the propaganda" (Bush's words) like you have been and see how much more rope the Bush mob thinks they can play out. Looks to me like they've done enough to not only hang themselves but pretty much the entire corrosive, corrupt, gutless, rubber stamp Republican-controled U.S. Congress.

Stay tuned because not only will there be many more "Schadenfreude moments" to come but the imminent departures of Rove, Libby and possibly articles of impeachment against America's arch-enemies of freedom and democracy, Bush, Cheney and the entire administration of liars and swindlers.

Posted by richard38 at 10/21/2005 @ 4:07pm
Richard,

Didn't you get the memo....Democrats are not fit to pass judgement even when they're qualified judges!

However, Mier's is....because she stopped donating to Democrats back in the 1980's!

Welcome to hell!

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 4:17pm
Hey Plunger:

I do find the Able Danger materials interesting. However, I think you need to streamline your theories a bit into something that makes sense as a collective whole. Sorry to be overly critical, but many do not mesh too well together. On one hand you have Able Danger knowing about 4 of the highjackers. But, you also mentioned previously that there is evidence that none of the highjackers were on certain flights, or were still alive. Another theory is that OBL had nothing to do with 9/11. Someone else posted a theory that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Then you have the whole Dancing Israeli connection. What is it? Doesn't seem to fit that all of these theories are correct. Maybe you could explain.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/21/2005 @ 4:22pm
Colmes, you're right...two morons can pull this off.

The white supremists hate Liberals, Catholic and Jews. Who was in office during the waco invasion and ruby Ridge? Who wants to take away their rights to own a gun. Who is in their world is jamming a liberal agenda down their throat? If you can't see the connection on how AQ and these guys can work together, then I think you should take a hike outside your city walls and find out what is going on inside america. To jump on Richards comments, a black man is held only to the Dem party, just like the old irish catholics were held to the dem party. The only difference between the Irish and the blacks, the irish climbed the ladder because their leaders followed through for them. Today, the dems promise everything to the black community but it keeps getting worse. Is that the fault of the republicans? Hell NO! I hate to tell you all, but do you honestly think that ted Kennedy and John Kerry would allow black families in their neighborhoods? No! JC Watts will be the first black president. He is a republican from Oklahoma. His idea is that because he is black, that does not mean he has to be a democrate. He stats in his book that his family is actually very conservative, yet they vote dem and wonder why nothing is done for them. His idea is that based on IDIVIDUAL Thought is the only determination of what a person should pursue and not be labled a uncle tom for thinking like a Republican.

Would a Dem president nominate a Rep for the supreme court? The dems made a mockery of themselves during the Roberts nomination...as a matter of fact, he did not have one lawyer or one note in front of him...the man is brilliant. Yet, because he does not agree with your POLITICAL VIEWS, he is no good. Miers is a wild card and I am very suprised he went down this path...I think he knows she will not get it so he can buy time for someone else that may be more radical

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 4:40pm
Read and weap, Colmes...Why are they under gag orders...THIS IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW, YET, YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT? WHY? MAYBE IT WILL HURT HILLARY'S CHANCES...

October 20, 2005 05:20 PM EST

By Sher Zieve � Two weeks before the USS Cole was attacked, Able Danger members sent out a memo warning members of the Clinton Administration, Rep. Curt Weldon, (R-PA) said Thursday. On the Sean Hannity program, Rep. Weldon said that members of the Able Danger team had also warned the former Clinton administration not to send the USS Cole to Yemen, 2 days before it was bombed, and are willing to testify to it under oath.

Weldon also said that the Pentagon and the DOD are doing all that they can to silence the now 7 individuals, all former members of Able Danger, who want to testify. Weldon advised that all of these individuals maintain "impeccable credentials". Rep. Weldon also advised that he has evidence that staff members supporting the Senators of the 9/11 Commission did not want former Clinton Administration officials �outed' and, therefore, failed to give them the necessary Able Danger information.

All of the former Able Danger members, who are willing to testify, have been placed under "gag orders" from the Pentagon and the Department of Defense.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 4:46pm
Dancall,

I can't help you with your racism.

Yes two morons could have done OK.

No, they were not in cahoots with "arabs" as arabs are shrewder than to get nothing out of a deal that went right.

I would have thought that you would think the first Black President was going to be Condi....are you implying she's going down in this Fitzpatrick investigation?

No Dems would not nominate a Rep to the SC and they would also not nominate an under qualified crony.

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 4:52pm
Dancall,

I'm weeping!

It's interesting....so can you tell me whether these 7 are still currently employed at the Pentagon?

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 4:57pm
here is clip from Congressman Curt Weldon's web site that covers his public address on "able danger" yesterday. Remember,a woman that was appointed by Clinton was the one who stopped the communication by law between the FBI, CIA and military...and yet she was onthe 9/11 commission? Wake up guys!!!

thttp://curtweldon.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=35792

"...What troubles me is that I now have learned in the last 4 months that one of the tasks that was being done in 1999 and 2000 was a top-secret program organized at the request of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, carried out by the general in charge of our Special Forces Command, a very elite unit focusing on information regarding al Qaeda. It was a military language effort to allow us to identify the key cells of al Qaeda around the world and to give the military the capability to plan actions against those cells so they could not attack us as they did in 1993 at the Trade Center, at the Khobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole attack, and the African embassy bombings.

What I did not know, Mr. Speaker, up until June of this year, was that that secret program called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda in January and February of 2000, over 1 year before 9/11 every happened. In addition, I learned that not only did we identify the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, but we identified Mohamed Atta as one of the members of that Brooklyn cell along with three other terrorists who were the leadership of the 9/11 attack.

I have also learned, Mr. Speaker, that in September of 2000, again, over 1 year before 9/11, that Able Danger team attempted on three separate occasions to provide information to the FBI about the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, and on three separate occasions they were denied by lawyers in the previous administration to transfer that information...."

WHERE IS DAVID CORN ON THIS STORY? NO WHERE BECAUSE HE IS IT DOES NOT SUPPORT HIS POLITICS!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 4:59pm
They are not...read up pal!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 5:00pm
They all had their security clearance pulled and are now being black listed.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 5:00pm
Dancall,

This is fascinating....three questions though.

1. How do you "gag" someone that is no longer your employee? 2. What should Clinton have done to Mr. Atta in a pre 911 enviroment? Arrested him for what? 3. Why did Clinton tell Bush "you need to spend a lot of time on AQ" and then Bush not call a single meeting with his terrorist Czar prior to 911?

Posted by colmes at 10/21/2005 @ 5:07pm
Maybe you should all get back to your religious roots and realize that we are in a holy war and not just a Bush conspiracy to start a war for oil money.

They learned from the IRA on how to pull a powerful country to its knees. The Brits could have squashed the IRA moevement but they knew if they hit the Brits at home, the public would turn on the govt. Notice how now that the IRA is stepping down and negotiating now...they know their money is drying up in the us because everyone is watching and not turning a blind eye. Bush declined a visit by Gerry Amams to the White House on St Pats day...yet, Kennedy took him right in.

there is a MAJOR difference with the IRA and AQ. The IRA was fighting for FREEDOM of Government, not a repressive religion that beheads innocent victims and calls for a religous war against Jews and Christians.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 5:08pm
point 1. gag order for "national security or top secret infromation. Doesn't matter...once you sign for a certain level of clearance, you may be bond for life with some info. Just like Secret Service agents can't get into detail of what they hear with presidents. and beleive me, the ones I know HATE Clinton because they knew what was going on behind closed doors.

point 2. take him out. Goes back to the proactive vs reactive measures. We are now a very passive culture that is now being dictated by the ACLU. Back in the cold war days, these guys would have been taken out and arrested on the spot with no issues from either party...not the old dem party...THAT IS FOR SURE!!!

3. That is a major problem that Bush should address, which is why I think he is trying to keep everything low key because he is just at fault as Clinton. However, he walked into a serious mess...or did you not here that the Cliton staff destroyed the white house...

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 5:13pm
hey conspiracy buffs, how about the UN report on the assassination of Lebanon's ex-premier.

a conspiracy to sanitize the US desire to expand the Iraq war to Syria?

what business is it of the US when a lebanese politician is iced?

pretty hypocritical for the US to lecture Syria about their former occupation of Lebanon, considering 150,000 occupying troops in Iraq.

I notice that the tone of the war's apologists on this blog has changed, where they used to rhapsodise about freedom and democracy in Iraq, now they defend it in a kind of Monroe doctrine, manifest destiny way of we need their oil and the world be damned. of course the kill crowd just wants to kill any arabs, those who attacked us and all others by just calling them terrorist and the hell with them.humanists all

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 5:20pm
Oscar Wyatt going down...and before Corn or any other staff writer days he supported the Dems...he gave more money to the Dem Party and the Bush Family hated him!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 5:21pm
Johan, it is about freedom. I believe that if they can get a govt in place and get rid of these idiots who blow up people using road side bombs and let the elections happen, then the wacko's will be able to take power over by voting, then so be it. But they did it by a democratic system, which no one could dismiss...GET IT? Syria...hmm, where are the bombers coming from? Where are the WMD's? Truck loads being seen leaving for syria a month before the invasion? You tell me. They won't let UN inspectors in...why Johan, why?

The majority of the Iraqis understand that Sadaam was evil and want the US to help start the process. Much like what is going on in IRan but the new leadership is squashing that as we type. Or have you not been following up with that. Iran is telling the EU to EFF off.

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 5:27pm
MBB:

Hold the thought on Fitzgerald. If indictments are handed out, there will be attacks.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/21/2005 @ 5:29pm
they say Fitz has not led on to anything, not one little leak of what or where he is going, which is why I think Corn is a joke of a writer to keep up with his columns. There are many other stories that could be talked about, but Corn is a biased writer trying to gain recognition because he is connected to the story. Let it ride and see what Fitz comes out with. I think he is smart for doing it this way!

Posted by dancall at 10/21/2005 @ 5:33pm
Mary, that jazz with Joe Wilson being a liar has been discredited long ago, your guys are twisting in the wind, get used to it

Earle has indicted and convicted numerous democrats, which shoots you assertions to hell

"John Tierney of the NYT, who jailed Judy Miller of the NYT,"

what does that mean? that Tierney jailed Miller?

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 6:09pm
" has been opened up to a leftwing activist film maker to make a Michael Moore style propaganda film about Delay."

this is also nonsense. Moore has been reputed to makke his next film about health care, about N.O. and Katrina, and now this. the man is a favorite target of the right, sheer envy, artists seem to steer far clear of the right wing

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 6:13pm
Mary, do you get this crap straight from the republican national committe, or do you actively seek out these talking points. I think the idea here is to post YOUR thoughts, the party line is available everywhere else

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 6:17pm
Mary, do you get this crap straight from the republican national committe, or do you actively seek out these talking points. I think the idea here is to post YOUR thoughts, the party line is available everywhere else

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 6:24pm
Johanne,

When will you folks grow up enough to realize that MBB and the rest of us do not get our "talking points" from Rush, Hannity, or the RNC. We actually think, read, and form opinions all on our own. Many of us can actually operate moving equipment and speak at the same time.

You never see us accuse those on the left here of getting your talking points from MoveOn, the DNC or Al Franken. Can we establish that the dialogue is based upon the views and opinions sincerely held by both sides? Well maybe not Plunger who I still believe is Neverong/Jones (or gets their material from the same sources).

Posted by love liberty at 10/21/2005 @ 7:10pm
THE SHIT IS HITTING THE FAN...

Reposted from here:

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/frel/27082/

I just got this e-mail from a Democratic House member's staffer with tons of good dirt on the Plame investigation. I'm reprinting it whole cloth to share all, and show that while these Hill staffers are well-informed, they sure could use some capitalization classes.

Among the things I hadn't seen before:

-Fred Flights, an assistant to John Bolton, is a named name who could be indicted.

-Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham have been suggested as replacements for Dick Cheney.

-Colin Powell told John McCain he showed the infamous memo with Plame's identity on it two just two people; Dick Cheney and George Bush.

-Fitzgerald is looking at the precedent set from the indictment of Tricky Dick's veep Spiro Agnew to pursue against Cheney.

That's red meat folks.

Text of the e-mail:

below, some extremely sensitive information about the impending conclusion of the valerie plame investigations. the sources include two senior members of senate and key staffers; counsel for individuals that have been called before the grand jury; and two journalists taking a lead position in investigating the case. the following represents a composite of the information from those sources.

plamegate coming to conclusion. the investigation has focused mostly closely on vice president cheney and his staff, as well as us ambassador to the un (and former undersecretary of state for arms control) john bolton and his staff. we are told that eight indictments have already prepared, with the possibility of another ten. these indictments include senior white house staff, most notably vice president cheney's chief of staff scooter libby, fred flights (special assistant to john bolton), and--very surprisingly--national security adviser steve hadley. apparently, libby and hadley have both been told by their lawyers to expect indictments. the indictment of senior bush political advisor karl rove seems highly probable.

most critically, a plea bargain process has evidently been opened with vice president cheney's lawyer. that does not mean that an indictment is coming. but i've some critical background around the issue.

in the past several days, former secretary of state colin powell had a meeting with senator john mccain (R-AZ), primarily about the mccain-sponsored amendment on inserting a rider prohibiting torture onto the us defense budget (a bill which powell has himself been lobbying heavily for, against objections of president bush).

during the meeting, powell recounted to the senator that he had traveled on air force one with bush and cheney, and brought to their attention a classified memorandum about the issue of whether there was indeed a transaction inolving niger and yellow cake uranium. the document included ambassador joe wilson's involvement and identified his wife, valerie plame, as a covert agent. the memorandum further stated that this information was secret. powell told mccain that he showed that memo only to two people--president and vice president. according to powell, cheney fixated on the wilson/plame connection, and plame's status.

powell testified about this exchange in great length to the grand jury investigating the plame case. according to sources close to the case, powell appeared convinced that the vice president played a focal role in disclosing plame's undercover status.

in his conversation with mccain, powell felt that--at a minimum--there would be a serious shakeup at national security council as a consequence. in particular, vice president cheney would no longer hold a pivotal role in us national security affairs. powell apparently did not discuss the potential of a cheney resignation.

lead prosecutor patrick fitzgerald has apparently been looking at the precedent of formerly indicted nixon vice president spiro agnew. this shows the likely path, because addressing executive immunity and privilege questions would necessarily begin start with a plea-bargain deal that would entail a resignation.

this is all likely to occur within the next week. 28 october (next friday) is the last day of the grand jury, and no requests have been made to extend their session. the investigator is expecting to wrap up by then.

there are enormous implication for what would be the biggest white house shakeup since the iran-contra scandal in the reagan era. president bush's approval rating at 39% has already led to a significant decrease in policy efficacy with key legislators in congress. i'll spin out the broader policy implications when i have some time to write at greater length, but i wanted to get this out immediately.

one interesting point though--it is worth noting that a parade of senior republican senators have evidently been privately pushing mccain to lobby to be cheney's replacement. senator lindsey graham (R-SC) has also been mentioned. meanwhile, the white house has already been developing countermeasures--notably including senior white house officials privately voicing president bush's disappointment in karl rove's involvement in the case, calling it "misconduct." an urgent search for a rove replacement is already underway.

Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 7:38pm
LL,

I don't know about that, I listened to Air America today and was shocked and disappointed. Absolutely emotional Bush hate rants. Similaqr to what I read on this site. I will never go back there. I like guys here , johannes, Physics lover , I even get a kick out the lyrics of wllc.

Not all but quite a few could beread right off the script.

Limbaugh is an entertainer and admits it as well as admits his agenda. Air America..is awful. No wonder it is failing.

Posted by john maasch at 10/21/2005 @ 7:43pm
Maasch, are you suggesting that I follow a script in my post? that would be news to me. let's stick to specifics, I've never listened to air america, in fact listen to no radio whatsoever, I read many editorials and answer quite a few of them, in papers from all over the world.

I take special delight in pointing out errors of fact and have had errors corrected in Der Spiegel and the BBC, Krauthammer gets hell regularly from me, as do many others. I don't think the progressives here engage in the kind of group think we've come to expect from the right,

and if I may be so selfcongatulary, the subtlety and detail of facts on this blog are pretty amazing.

I find the Al Franken show unwatchable, but the daily show is truly funny, John Stewart is much funnier than either Leno or Letterman. the latter has 20 year old shows in syndication and those are very good

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 9:04pm
just one more thought, as deep as the Bush hatred might seem, presidents in the further past have been reviled far more, I'm speaking of the 19th century, but Bush may catch up

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 9:07pm
JOHN MAASCH:

While you are correct that Limaugh claims to be an entertainer, he is also considered by the neo-conservative movement as one of the primary mouthpieces of the movement, hence his being honored on numerous occasions as such. The more troubling on-air personalities, however, are people like Hannity, or O'Reilly. These people spout the same claptrap and demand they be considered as journalists. Their level of hate and bile is at least equal to the coming from Air America, and overwhelms Air America by sheer volume (due to substantially greater financial backing).

Posted by jorcheim at 10/21/2005 @ 10:54pm
powell recounted to the senator that he had traveled on air force one with bush and cheney,

Plunger - Maybe this is a minor detail, but, for me, it raises a red flag regarding your sources: I am not absolutely sure of this, but isn't there a custom, or practice, or perhaps even some official rule that prevents the president and the vice president from traveling on the same plane?

Posted by seattlescribe at 10/21/2005 @ 11:38pm
Johannes,

If you read my post again you will find yourself in a group that are singled out as not in that catgory. There are more but at the time I was rushe dot get to airport.

So, I am sorry but you do not fit the mold I describe, but as a thinker and as a astute person I am sure you can see my point as well as I can see the same traits in the right wing blogs....but there is a group think here as well as in other blogs. Sometimes hard to keep it out.

Posted by john maasch at 10/22/2005 @ 12:44am
Seattle,

Limbaugh is very good at supporting his points and does push the conservstiove line, however,he goes against Bush more than other conservatives. Bush, to him and me, is not a true conservative. He has the freedom to be loud and say things that the Republican Senators or Reps do not have the balls to say, which to me is frustrating. The Republicans have become great at getting power in elections but seem to act like they lost when it comes to governance. Example "I would have put up who I wanted on the SC and challange filbuster and then break it". No balls, all want to get along. LBJ new how to play the game. Bush does not, in my opinion.

Hannity is to preachy, I think his target audiance is catholic and evangelic women. O Reilly is a jack ass and poorly informed. Ex. " I want to talk to the guy who is responsible for gas prices" as if one guy is sitting in an office somewhere. He is good on some issues like Jesse Jackson hipocracy and Hillary fakery and lies.

All are entertaining. Frankin, (Met him once in my home town, same as mine) is an arrogant prick. This is from my lib friends who know him well. Big ego, worse than Oreilly and he is 6'6".

Posted by john maasch at 10/22/2005 @ 12:58am
Actually, Hannity is not entertaining. Many of my conservative cohorts feel as I do.

Am I the only one who thinks the problem in Syria just got worse?

Posted by john maasch at 10/22/2005 @ 01:00am
A good point was just made in The Corner at NRO. Nobody is "attacking" Fitzgerald. It's been said here (Zhong) that Republicans are attacking Ronnie Earle, Fitzgerald, and Joe Wilson.

We attacked Wilson as a dishonest liar, and the Senate committee that investigated his claim agreed Joe Wilson is a dishonest liar.

Ronnie Earle is a political hack. He indicted Senator Hutchison and the Jury laughed him out of court. During his current "campaign" against Delay, the one that took six grand Juries to finally indict, has been opened up to a leftwing activist film maker to make a Michael Moore style propaganda film about Delay.

And nobody is attaching Fitzgerald. ...

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/21/2005 @ 5:23pm

This reads like MBB is proud of these attacks? Hman23 is right, after the indictements will come the attacks on Fitzgerald. That was the point of the post by Zero I had copied to my post.

This guy's a "dishonest liar" that one's a "political hack", such insight. Also, is there such a thing as an honest liar? Is an honest liar someone who lies to us for our own good? Maybe you consider GWB an honest liar?

Posted by zhong at 10/22/2005 @ 02:13am
The Men From JINSA:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vest

Posted by plunger at 10/22/2005 @ 08:05am
Will Bush keep his word, or just keep moving the goal posts? Remember when Bush said that anyone in his administration who was found to have leaked Plame's NOC status would be "taken care of?" Did he mean they would be fired, or protected from prosecution? Fortunately a reporter held his feet to the fire and got a clarification:

On Sept. 29, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said of actions against potential leaks:

"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

But the next day, Bush, speaking at the University of Chicago, qualified McClellan's words, saying:

"And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Bush then contradicted himself on June 10, 2004. Speaking at the G-8 summit, he had this exchange with a reporter:

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

Posted by plunger at 10/22/2005 @ 08:25am
Maasch, I was a bit too defensive, sorry

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/22/2005 @ 08:52am
Posterchild for the Bush Administration...

According to an article in today's Independent Florida Alligator, Coulter -- who makes her living, in no small part, by enjoying her Free Speech rights under the First Amendment -- pleased the rabid attendees by denigrating the U.S. Constitution...

She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment.

"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them."

She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

Her statements received applause, and many attendees said they enjoyed her speech, but some added that they think she's somewhat extreme.

And they accuse the Left of hating American Values???

Can we serve you some more hypocrisy with that helping of hatred, Ann?

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001942.htm

Posted by plunger at 10/22/2005 @ 08:52am
Libby's OBSESSION with Wilson, for his efforts to prevent "CHENEY'S WAR" led to all that has followed. The "Selling Of A War" to the American people- using forgeris, half-truths, and lies - should be regarded as the most heinous crime that a President or Vice President can commit. It is BEYOND TREASONOUS.

The only worse crime would be to directly attack ones own country with the intent of using such an attack to "Sell The War."

Hanging by the neck would seem an appropriate punishment if found guilty of such a crime.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby21oct21,0,7741 636.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Posted by plunger at 10/22/2005 @ 09:20am
Geez, I'm the last poster on all these threads. I guess I really should get out a bit more.my apologies to all

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/22/2005 @ 09:59am
People want to know why kids are so screwed up? Simple. Their parents leave them at home to their own devices because very rarely doesn one job pay enough for one parent to stay home to raise and discipline the kids.

You red-staters who get all upset about the state of our kids and our culture, put your money where your mouth is. Support a living wage.

Posted by jorcheim at 10/22/2005 @ 10:55am
Dan, on the issue of appointed judges in the DeLay matter, you are mistaken, again, in Texas judges are elected, see AP news wire

"In a state that elects all of its judges in partisan elections, Congressman Tom DeLay could have trouble arguing that the judge assigned to his case should step aside because he donated to political parties and candidates. ... "

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/22/2005 @ 11:06am
Zhong,

"... after the indictements will come the attacks on Fitzgerald. "

Will YOU attack if not iditements handed down or if all are found not guilty?

What if they are indited for something OTHER than the Plame deal, as can happen in grand jury calls?

Are you going to pounce on Earle if Delay has all thrown out or is not guilty?

Posted by john maasch at 10/22/2005 @ 12:12pm
Rese, For God's sake and ours..go to bed!!Don't you sleep? You cut and paste fingers must be numb.......

Posted by john maasch at 10/22/2005 @ 12:14pm
Some remarks have been made about the joy the Dems are exhibiting over the lies being exposed in Washington D.C. I would like to ask those of you complaining just exactly how did you feel when President Clinton was on the hot seat for his foolishness with Monica?? We all have been reading about the lies,the corruption with Haliburton,the wheeling and dealing DeLay did with the campaign funds and re-districting in Texas,Cheney's trips to the CIA to get the information he wanted to hear,Richard Clark's rendition of the pressure the CIA was under to come up with something,anything the President could use for a case for war and you have the nerve to ask why we are joyous when someong finally has the GUTS TO QUESTION some of this.No one knows if there will be any indictments but at least someone brought some of it to the surface.

Posted by BusyHands at 10/23/2005 @ 01:01am
Anyone heard from Woplock lately? She lives in Fla. I enjoyed her posts and wonder if she had to evacuate.

Posted by BusyHands at 10/23/2005 @ 01:04am
JMaash,

My comments are mine and hopefully substative. If I attack at all I don't rely on character assasination as the only means of critisism. My opinions are based on my observations filtered by my personal experience.

Fitzgerald hasn't shown me anything that would cause me to suspect he was anything less than professional. I would be happy to see all lies of those investigated exposed to the public. And I think there is something there to expose because Plame was a NOC; and, there is a responsibility that comes with occupying the White House. When these issues are being reported on, I do my best to wade through the muck to try and distill some sense of it all (one of the reasons I come here). I try hard to determine what is fact and what is opinion and this is part of the standard with which I'll judge anything. But if I don't like the out come, I doubt I'll start attacking his character.

Ron Earle can stand on his record. It's true I don't like Delay because I don't believe anyone in government can muster that much money and influense without pandering to corporate interest and worse. Big Money is ruining our representative form of government. I haven't heard him say much about the charges except to say everything he did was legal. The court will judge the legalities, I'll do just fine judging their character for myself.

Posted by zhong at 10/23/2005 @ 01:52am
and right you are, Zhong, here in New York we have a billionaire, Berlusconi like, for the second time about to buy the office with his huge amount of money. his TV ads have been playing for weeks if not months.the myth is that a rich man like Bloomberg is above the fray and and not "beholden" to any interest, since he doesn't have to steal.

.but his policy positions show that he is firmly on the side of Wall St and the big money interests, see stadium flap. he also has an authoritarian, police commissar like streak in him, a trait he shares with his predecessor. Coarse and vindictive handling of protesters during the Republ. convention extends to continued petty harassment of spontaneous group bicycle events.the super rich already own most everything, must the rest of us be ruled by them too?

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/23/2005 @ 08:48am
... the myth is that a rich man like Bloomberg is above the fray and and not "beholden" to any interest, since he doesn't have to steal. ...

the super rich already own most everything, must the rest of us be ruled by them too?

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/23/2005 @ 08:48am

Why do Americans continue to vote for these people? The myth is probably the opposite of reality. Money in politics is like a form of censorship eliminating less affluent candidates early in the process.

Posted by zhong at 10/23/2005 @ 11:04am

David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

CIA Leak Scandal: Proof Bush Lied? A Final Report To Come?

posted by David Corn on 10/19/2005 @ 12:41pm

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

CIA Leak Scandal: Proof Bush Lied? A Final Report To Come?

posted by David Corn on 10/19/2005 @ 12:41pm

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation