Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Nation's been going since 1865.
But, if it hadn't been for Hammond Lamont, great-great uncle of Connecticut Democratic senatorial hopeful Ned Lamont, we might be telling a different story.
When Nation Editor Wendell Phillips Garrison was ready to retire in 1906, after "41 years of unrelaxed application" in the weekly's service, he wanted to let The Nation die because he could think of nobody "fit to carry on who would respect it and its traditions." Whereupon Oswald Garrison Villard, then a regular writer for the magazine, who later became its owner and editor in 1918, suggested that he consider Hammond Lamont. (Hammond had done newspaper work in Seattle and Albany, and was managing editor of the Evening Post.) After some reflection, Garrison changed his mind and asked Lamont to become The Nation's third editor. As one report had it, Lamont was no firebrand --one report characterized him as a "noble, kindly, conservative gentleman," But he understood The Nation's role, its traditions and kept the magazine alive {Sadly, he died just three years later, during what had been expected to be a minor operation on his jaw.}
This week, The Nation--along with thousands of others across this country --is poised to celebrate Ned Lamont's victory over longtime incumbent Joe Lieberman. But there'll also be celebration of another Lamont --one who kept America's oldest weekly alive and kicking so we could mark this good day.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Is this sorta like the "Dubya is a Nazi, because his granddad Prescott was" thing?
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 08:52am
the bushes were nazi's?
that sure explains a few things
Posted by Will C. at 08/07/2006 @ 08:56am
Posted by WILL C. 08/07/2006 @ 08:56am | ignore this person
Geez, WILL...get up-to-speed, will ya?
EVERYBODY (i.e. the blogs) KNOWS that Prescott Bush, despite being a pretty liberal Republican, who sponsered public housing, Planned Parenthood, and the United Negro College Fund...was a "Nazi"! Duh!
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 09:33am
Your sarcastic efforts to distract from KVH's message of hope and encomimium for Ned Lamont's great-great uncle is not appreciated Mask.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/07/2006 @ 10:34am
Excuse me...Encomium.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/07/2006 @ 10:35am
MAsk, please show where ANYBODY here claimed Prescott was a Nazi. Or stop typing.
I started the debate about this the other day by saying "Prescott DID BUSINESS with the Nazis". YOU are the one claiming he WAS a Nazi.
What would you be without your false analogies?
A fart in the wind.
No, that's what you are. A maskfartinthewind.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 10:40am
I wonder what that Lamont would think of The Nation today?...
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/07/2006 @ 10:38am | ignore this person
Disapointed with the editor, probably.
HAs anybody ever seen KVH make Georgie (why in 1642 something happened that may apply to this) Will break out in belly laughs?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 10:42am
Posted by CRABWALK 08/07/2006 @ 10:40am | ignore this person
CRAB....take PLUNGER off "Ignore" and ask HIM if you think there isn't a Blogosphere full of Conspiracy Nuts who think Prescott was a Nazi. And don't you think saying endlessly "Prescott did business with the Nazis" (while ignoring DEMOCRATS, like Averill Harriman) who did as well before the war started, is SOMEWHAT of a poke at the old Senator (who was by all accounts a quite liberal Republican who supported contraception and the United Negro College Fund) as a "fascist sympathisizer"....
simply because it gives fodder to throw against his incompetent grand-son???
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 10:49am
"Ned Lamont's victory over longtime incumbent Joe Lieberman. "
I am hoping for the samething..
The country will begin to see the left fringe take over the dem party in the same manner as the Mcgovernites... and we all know where that will go...
Go Ned GO..
..to see the dems throw their last election candidate under the bus is amazing...
Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2006 @ 10:52am
Mask, when Rese/Plunger is your source...well, there is no reason to continue.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 10:55am
Maasch,
Nice spin, but the Republican's are strongly behind Lieberman. Tough to spin in two different directions simultaneously.
Posted by freedomplease at 08/07/2006 @ 10:56am
Do not any of the neo-cons understand that Jumpin' Joe was one reason, among many, that Gore "lost".
Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 10:58am
You may be the only person here that reads Plunger, Mask.
Anybody else pay attention to the nutter?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:00am
"...Anybody else pay attention to the nutter?"
Posted by CRABWALK 08/07/2006 @ 11:00am
I read Plunger's posts.
I read Mask's and yours, as well.
Of the three, only one does not demean the other bloggers, or call them names.
Guess which one?
Posted by drhammer at 08/07/2006 @ 11:14am
Me!
what do I win Dr? A night on the town with Mask and Plunger? Wheee.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:16am
Crap. wrong again.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:17am
Posted by CRABWALK 08/07/2006 @ 11:16am | ignore this person
Hey, hey, hey....in my single days, I'd take you out to some fine micro-brews, a few cool bands in some "underground spots", and we'd pick us up some fine hippie chicks (like DARLADOON).
PLUNGER would sit you in front of his computer screen, say "Don't touch that pile, that's my 'How They Killed Andy Kaufman' pile" and spend the whole night showing you websites that "are the ones that have the REAL Truth of Dick Cheney, Jewish Bankers, the British Royal Family, and Why Betamax Was Taken Off The Market!!!"
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 11:22am
Free,
"Nice spin, but the Republican's are strongly behind Lieberman. Tough to spin in two different directions simultaneously."
I think Rove is behind Ned..think about it...NED wins and then the country sees another shift further left as the Deaniacs take over control of the dem party...they run another New England or Northeast lib as their presidential candidate in 08, the rest of the country scrarches their heads and say, another left crank?...and what do you get? Another 8 years of Repub control and White House...
Yup, this is a Rove dreal through and through..
Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2006 @ 11:26am
"...Anybody else pay attention to the nutter?"
Posted by CRABWALK 08/07/2006 @ 11:00am
I read Plunger's posts.
I read Mask's and yours, as well.
Of the three, only one does not demean the other bloggers, or call them names.
Guess which one?
Posted by DRHAMMER 08/07/2006 @ 11:14am
There is no room for personal attacks in community forums.
It's bad form.
Civility should be a requirement of the posting priviledge.
Posted by plunger at 08/07/2006 @ 11:30am
Maasch,
Yes that would be a brilliant Rovian tactic.....if only he could suddenly switch (I didn't say "flip flop") the Republican position to be the anti-war position!
If you haven't noticed yet, Maasch, the vast majority of the country is in some way opposed to the "stay the course" position in Iraq. The voters (at least in CT) appear so upset with the lack of choice from the "stay the course" orchestra that they are prepared to do something as drastic as toss Lieberman, who is a national politician and as a fence straddler is an incredible bacon winner for CT. Yet CT voters seem willing to dump all these good attributes because they want the boys to come home in their lifetime. So does most of America.
Spin it any way you want, John, but the fact of the matter is that this is a vote against "stay the course". Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by freedomplease at 08/07/2006 @ 11:38am
Free,
"the vast majority of the country is in some way opposed to the "stay the course" position in Iraq. "
No, I don't think the stay the course is the correct description....they now feel it was not a good idea to go in,but that, I beleive is because of constant dem and MSM demogogary, at any rate, what they want is a way out, which we all do and have always wanted..the Iraqis need to carry their own water and I hope they are beginning ...I think most here misread wanting to get out with wanting to bolt out of there tomorrow, as most here want...that is the difference.
Still, Rove gets the Dems to dump one of their own and they look like lefty loons panicing and running hard left off the cliff dragging NED and all dems after them or at least start a fight with in the party with guys like Ben Nelson, over how far left vs center leaning...and a split is born.
Spin it any way you want, Free...this is not a good win..for you.
Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2006 @ 12:03pm
what they want is a way out, which we all do and have always wanted
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2006 @ 12:03am | ignore this person
But John, the Administration says "the decision to withdraw will be made by a future President" and Lieberman has steadfastly fully supported the Administrations positions and handling of the Iraq scuffle.
If "what they want is a way out, which we all do and have always wanted" then how could CT voters in good concious vote for the opposite (which would be the Lieberman position)?
For that matter, if you are really seeking a way out (in your lifetime) how could you support the Administration?
As we draw closer to the general election you will see embattled Republican's LEAD the withdrawal bandwagon, so perhaps Rove is behind it all. But as an American I could care less which party does the right thing in Iraq so long as one (or both) of them do it!
Posted by freedomplease at 08/07/2006 @ 12:16pm
Hey, hey, hey....in my single days, I'd take you out to some fine micro-brews, a few cool bands in some "underground spots", and we'd pick us up some fine hippie chicks (like DARLADOON).-Mask
Works for me.
See you at Mecca; http://www.michiganbrewing.com/mbc.asp Fine brews (The BEST!), good tunes, cute barmaids.
Hanging out with you would make this cynical bastard look like Mary Poppins.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 12:21pm
NED wins and then the country sees another shift further left as the Deaniacs take over control of the dem party
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2006 @ 11:26am | ignore this person
Wait,wait, wait, John. For the past several weeks, Mask has been posting furiously in his 'Ned is a one-issue candidate' mode, that Lamont and Leiberman have identical political views with the sole exception of their views on the war. Since Lamont opposes the war, and the vast majority of Americans ALSO oppose the war, isn't a Lamont victory a move towards the CENTER?
Posted by Lillian at 08/07/2006 @ 12:22pm
Posted by LILLIAN 08/07/2006 @ 12:22am | ignore this person
Okay, LIL...you can come with me and CRAB for micro-brews!
And I'll CONTINUE to say that Ned Lamont is a "one issue" candidate, because there's only ONE ISSUE that matters to his supporters....the war in Iraq.
If he toed the line and supported every position of Lieberman, except the war (and threw in a few slams on Bush)....the Move'Oners would support him just as strongly as they are now.
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 12:26pm
LIL, stop making sense.
mmmmm, IPA. mmmm.
Careful, Mask. We might get caught in a Man-hug with beers sloshing around us. Could cause rumors.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 12:29pm
Posted by MASK 08/07/2006 @ 08:52am | ignore this person
In the words of that addle-brained old space cadet Ronnie, "Well, there he goes again."
Mask, it was never 'Prescott was Nazi'...it was 'Prescott made his fortune DEALING with the Nazis'. And we determined that a)it was a story started by the RIGHT-WING slime machine and b)it bore some truth.
Now we've moved on to "The Other Lamont". Please try to keep up.
Posted by Lillian at 08/07/2006 @ 12:30pm
Free,
"But as an American I could care less which party does the right thing in Iraq so long as one (or both) of them do it!"
we are in complete agreement here..
I think think NED will win, but if he does I think there will be pressure to leave NOW, which is not the right move, IMO, and this will start the split in the Dem Party...after all, we do not want to have to come back top Iraq or the ME to finish what a president Bush has not finished..as in his father...we do not want to be stuck like the Israelis in a never ending circle..some one has to finish ...and I am afraid the Islamo facists want a clash of cultures here for religious reasons...apocoliptic return of some kind of Iman(second coming senario like the christians)..this is nopt going to end peacefully, now or in the future in this area and all the anti war people will be stuck in a bigger war...I pray not, but it looks this way to me..
I bought a BBC series on WW2 and the senarios are frightenly similar.
Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2006 @ 12:37pm
And I'll CONTINUE to say that Ned Lamont is a "one issue" candidate...
Posted by MASK 08/07/2006 @ 12:26am | ignore this person
Of course you will Mask. And you'll continue to be wrong.
It doesn't matter to you that people with ACTUAL political insight, like John Nichols and Ari Berman, have pointed out Leiberman angered voters and constituents with his mydriad unpopular stances on everything from corporate bailouts, to Social Security privatization, to government intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.
On this subject, yu've become like that female character on Mad TV who rolls back her heavily-made-up eyes, sicks her fingers in her ears, and chants "la, la, la, la, la".
Posted by Lillian at 08/07/2006 @ 12:43pm
I read Plunger and concur with his injunction for principled courtliness in form at this forum as he skewers the fascists (are at least attempts to) in substance at this site.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/07/2006 @ 1:32pm
after all, we do not want to have to come back top Iraq or the ME to finish what a president Bush has not finished..as in his father...we do not want to be stuck like the Israelis in a never ending circle..some one has to finish ...and I am afraid the Islamo facists want a clash of cultures here for religious reasons...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2006 @ 12:37am | ignore this person
John, can you define what "finishing" would be?
I mean we did get the WMD's had they ever existing and we did depose Saddam and we have installed a democracy of sorts. What more are you hoping to achieve? And if you just tell me and the American people then perhaps we'll get behind the program.
And if the "islamo facsists" (there's are right wing talk radio misnomer endlessly incorrectly parroted) want a "clash of cultures" why are you so intent on feeding their wants and whims with the fodder of our armed forces?
Fuck the "islamo facsists" by pulling out so that they don't get what they want!
John, grocers in Baghdad get fire bombed if they put spherical vegetables too near to elongated vegetables as it is all too "arousing" for these repressed people. We don't need 150,000 MEN in that environment, we need porno DVD's air dropped by the tens of millions!
Posted by freedomplease at 08/07/2006 @ 1:32pm
Free,
I like your last post..lots of truth in my opinion..
Finish it,is to let the Iraqis stand up and run their own affairs so we can leave..this as was stated, will take some time..I think they may have a chance to do that..I do believe in Islamofacists..all the guys you mentioned in the fruit market, ulling out is what they want, this is true, and they will follow our return home here alos, for they believe their fight is a religious one..God is with them...one can't negoiate with these people for peace anymore than you can negoitiate abortion with the Vatican...these "god" driven nuts have been attacking us since the 70's.
Stick your head up out of the box labeled Iraq and look around in all directions...every nation that borders a Muslim dominated country is a war with one or all of their neighbors..
QUESTION, Why is Hellsboola in Venz and Columbia? Or in South America? What can be gained there?
Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2006 @ 1:49pm
Woah! Lamont only leads by 6 points?
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=945
Last week they had him at 15. C'mon, Moonbats! We need you to beat Joe and take over the party! VOTE!!
Posted by woodyee at 08/07/2006 @ 1:52pm
Posted by LILLIAN 08/07/2006 @ 12:30am | ignore this person
Too subtle for ya?....Okay, LIL...my point was on how Ms vanden Heuvel is using Ned's great-great-uncle to play up some "bona fides" for future-Senator Lamont...
in the same way that Blogo Left (ignoring distinquished Democrats MORE involved in Union Thyssen...and even MORE ignorning Prescott Bush's "Lincoln Chaffee" Republicanism)...to attack Bush.
Neither Ned's uncle or Dubya's grandfather have ANYTHING to do with the men involved....good or bad. And it's silly to try to make it so.
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 2:10pm
FRANK...
1st-- PLUNGER is over at Mr Nichols "Desperate Measures" article. Since it discussing Lieberman, he naturally feels compelled to post 2000 word Cut & Pastes on "The International Zionist Conspiracy".
2nd-- Yes it has been "explained" a few times. How Lamont is "for universal health care, opposed to the Bankruptcy Bill, etc".
What HASN'T been denied is (in fact was admitted by Ari Berman in his title and "so what?" caveat) is that Lamont is winning on the war in Iraq and that NO OTHER Democrat (who has been less "strident" in support of the war...but just as "DLC" as Joe) is facing their wrath.
Now what's going to be interesting after tomorrow when Lamont wins the nomination (Somebody said I said that kind of talk was "delusional", love a link, so I can apologize if I did)...
is where he "goes" politically. Has the entire state of Connecticut swung so far to the Left that...they endorse the same issue stances and policies as Move On and Daily Kos and for some odd reason, they re-elected Lieberman in 2000, 1994 and elected him in 1988, but are now firmly in the "Feingold/Kucinich/Boxer" wing of the Party...
or are they just against the war (meaning Lamont IS a "one issue candidate", despite the denails) and we'll see Ned "play down" his more liberal stances in the general election (especially if Lieberman runs as an Independent)?
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 2:19pm
Maasch,
So "finishing" is some ill defined feeling? I mean, what makes you think the Iraqi's are incapable of taking care of themselves today? And what makes you think they will be any more capable in a month, in a year, in a decade? If Rumsfeld goes to war with the army he has rather than the army he would like to have why do we wait for perfection in Iraqi security forces?
When the Republican President decides they are ready and pulls out.....you'll agree and when the Democrat President decides they are ready and pulls out you'll call it cutting and running? Are we still in third grade?
Maasch says that "every" nation that borders a muslim dominated nation is at war!!! Care to retract / modify that statement before I'm forced to name about 30 countries not at war in Africa and Asia?
Posted by freedomplease at 08/07/2006 @ 2:30pm
Thanks Freedomporfavor and Frankgrits for scuttling the neo-con "blunts" (as opposed to "points") up thread.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/07/2006 @ 2:38pm
OK,
"Maasch says that "every" nation that borders a muslim dominated nation is at war!!! '
Perhaps I should say, many nations have some sort of conflict with an insurgency problem of some sorts of islamic jihadists..I do not have an actual head count, but I supposed I could spend the day counting, if you really need it and can't see my point with out the count......FYI, the point I am trying to make is there is unrest in all the Muslim world and it is not just against Bush, or the US...I believe it is against all the western world and will at some point explode into a calamity..and they will end up glowing in the dark after they first light us up. and they will light us up first, as we "cut and run" from Iraq, in their eyes have us on the run and missinterprut our actions as defeated..all the while a future democrat brings home the troops and declares all is well now..and thinks he can sit down with the Jihadists and say, "ok, we are sorry, how can we help you?"..puff... IMO..
This is where I am going in my view of thre future...and I don't see Bush and Iraq as an isolated scene that "awakens" the Islamo facists...I believe they hace been attacking us for 20 year(us, as in the western world)..
Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2006 @ 3:08pm
Jeez. If it wasn't for my ignore list, I'd suspect I'd gotten in the last word with the neo-cons who frequent this site. Thanks again, Grits and Freedom!!
Posted by lewwelge at 08/07/2006 @ 3:08pm
"Ned Lamont is an energetic fresh candidate with fresh ideas must in the image of a young John Kennedy. '
I thought kennedy was a cold warrior in the Scoop Jackson mold, or, I say he was more to the right of Ronlad Reagan...Ned Lamount? Another millionare from the north east who wants to save us from...? Bush? I dunno...
But GO NED GO..
Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2006 @ 3:11pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/07/2006 @ 2:25pm
Hmmm....let's see...
John Kennedy ran on EISENHOWER being "soft on defense" ("missile gap" ring a bell) and on an ACROSS-THE-BOARD tax cut (even for the evil "super rich" like him, his brothers, and his Dad).
If Lamont's like that, I say ....Go for it, Ned!
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 3:17pm
Maasch,
Sometimes your idiocy is astounding (with all due respect)!
You want us to stay in Iraq until Iraqi's are capable (as defined only by political necessity and only by a Republican administration since if a Democrat made this undefined wishy washy decision that Iraq is ready you'll be the first to call it "cutting and running").
Fine, so long as they come home I'm sure real leaders will give a crap that kooks like you call it "cutting and running".
But in the best of scenario's we'll have a extremely autocratic heavily policed state in Iraq, controlled by the Shi'ite majority. It's the shi'ite clerics that have decreed the "correct" arrangement of vegetables in a grocery and non-compliance is apparently punishable by fire bombing death!
Yipee Maasch, you want us to stay longer in Iraq and at MY tax paid expense and our brothers and sisters lives so that the Shi'ite majority that is so sexually repressed as to worry about the placement of vegetables can have even MORE power than if we pulled out today!
You are entirely out of your mind!
We agree on one thing.....that religious nutcases are a very dangerous and destabilizing force in Iraq. You think that if we kill enough of them then it'll be controlled, but at the same time we're arming the religious nutbags and hoping that they can reign supreme over a country the size of California!
What you REALLY want is for the USA to control Iraq, but Bush ain't going for that dream. The dream he's going for is arguably worse than the nightmare we have today. So take what you have today or go for something worse at the cost of thousands of additional lives and hundreds of billions of additional dollars?
It's a no-brainer.
Get out now.
Posted by freedomplease at 08/07/2006 @ 3:36pm
Hey all
Does that picture of Dubya and Lieberman smooching mean that our glorious Cmdr-in-Thief has finally found his "man-date"
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/07/2006 @ 4:42pm
Mask, your such a sad lonely troll. All you seem to do is lurk around here and try discourage free speech and fresh ideas. Go volunteer somewhere. Don't you have anything better to do than hang out at The Nation? You're pathetic.
Posted by elfrijole at 08/07/2006 @ 4:50pm
Frank
Conn. DOES allow same-sex civil unions. Maybe there's an entirely different reason GWB supports Joe?
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/07/2006 @ 5:26pm
BTW Frank Did you see the video funded by the RNC thru the firm DCI "Al Gore's Penguin Army" at YouTube
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/07/2006 @ 5:39pm
Posted by ELFRIJOLE 08/07/2006 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person
How am I "discouraging free speech"....exactly?
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 6:20pm
FRANK
No, I'm not "DANCALL"...move on.
2nd...I didnt say Dems were "soft on defense"...I said JFK ran on IKE being soft on defense (Google "missile gap").
Lamont's no Jack Kennedy!
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 6:20pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2006 @ 6:19pm
Love, I thought the new talking point was that you whackjobs want Lamont to win. Remember? Lamont's victory will bring about the destruction of the Democratic party.
Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 8:59pm
It is so satisfying to see/read the neo-cons who have the gall to post here getting their just deserts of repudiation and dismissal.
Thanks unrepentently liberal thinking contributors for balancing action and thought (since Nicole Kiddman's character in the Philip Roth based film of the selfsame title "The Human Stain," states "action is the enemy of thought").
Posted by lewwelge at 08/07/2006 @ 10:22pm
AND "the early bird still gets the worm" applies because, apparently, we left-liberals got in the last word last night, too! Thank you writer/contributors.
Or maybe my ignore list blinds me to a/some nightowl(s) or early bird(s). No problema.
Va Ned Lamont todavia hoy!
Posted by lewwelge at 08/08/2006 @ 06:38am
GO NED GO... and good night to the WHITE hOUSE DREAMS...FOR YEARS TYO COME...
Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2006 @ 10:43am
Geez...Lamont's got money. You'd think the Mammon-worshipping NeoCons would love him just for that...
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/08/2006 @ 11:38pm
At approximately 11:48 a.m. August 9th, CNN reported that Ariel Weinmann - a US Sailor - had been arrested for espionage committed on behalf of Russia. CNN intentionally lied. They know precisely that Weinmann had spied for Israel, as does the Jewish Media:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525834949&pagename=JPost% 2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Is this what it has come to?
Do you respect the truth?
Will you cover the story of how CNN intentionally changed the country responsible for the spying from Israel to Russia?
What's next?
Report: US sailor spied for Israel David Keyes, THE JERUSALEM POST
Aug. 9, 2006
A US Navy sailor, Ariel J. Weinmann, is suspected of spying for Israel and has been held in prison for four months, according to an article published Monday in the Saudi daily Al-Watan. It reported that Weinmann is being held at a military base in Virginia on suspicion of espionage and desertion.
According to the navy, Weinmann was apprehended on March 26 "after it was learned that he had been listed as a deserter by his command." Though initial information released by the navy makes no mention of it, Al-Watan reported that he was returning from an undisclosed "foreign country." American sources close to the Defense Department told Al-Watan that Israel was the country in question.
"The US Navy concluded Article 32 proceedings [a pretrial investigation] in the case of Fire Control Technician Third Class Ariel J. Weinmann on July 26, 2006," Ted Brown, a media relations officer at the US Fleet Forces Command, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday. The US Fleet Forces Command is the "convening authority of the case... and will make the decision with respect to what charges, if any, will be referred to a general court-martial."
The veracity of Al-Watan's claim that Weinmann is suspected of spying for Israel remains in question, and military and Pentagon spokesmen are remaining tightlipped. A public affairs officer at the Office of Naval Intelligence told the Post that he was unaware of the allegations against Weinmann.
Al-Watan speculated that if Weinmann spied on behalf of the Mossad, it would be the biggest espionage case since Jonathan Pollard's arrest. Pollard, who worked as a civilian intelligence analyst for the US Navy, was caught in 1985 and convicted of spying for Israel. He is currently serving a life sentence in the US.
According to the navy, "Weinmann was assigned to the USS Albuquerque (SSN 706) and had deserted on or about July 3, 2005." The Albuquerque is a Los Angeles-class attack submarine.
Though the navy's initial press release contained no reference to Israel, Brown stated that more detailed information about the case would be released shortly.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525834949&pagename=JPost% 2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Posted by plunger at 08/09/2006 @ 1:17pm
THE CNN LIE:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/09/sailor.charge/index.html
Sources: Navy sailor suspected of spying for Russia
From Barbara Starr CNN Washington Bureau Wednesday, August 9, 2006; Posted: 1:57 p.m. EDT (17:57 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A sailor facing espionage and desertion charges has been held at a Norfolk, Virginia, brig since March, the U.S. Navy said Wednesday.
Ariel Weinmann, 21, is suspected of having worked on behalf of Russia, said military sources close to the case.
He was likely to have had access to technical manuals and other material on how submarine systems work, Navy sources said. It's not believed that anyone else in the Navy worked with him, they said.
The fire control technician third class, assigned to the submarine USS Albuquerque, attempted on three occasions to pass classified information to foreign agents, according to the charges against him.
Those times include March 2005 in Bahrain; October 2005 in Vienna, Austria; and March 2006 in Mexico City, Mexico, according to the charges.
In addition to the espionage allegations, Weinmann also faces desertion charges, which could result in the death penalty. He is accused of deserting in July 2005 during his first tour of duty.
A customs agent took Weinmann into custody March 26 at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport when he tried to re-enter the United States.
The case is the second one involving spying allegations by Russia against the U.S. military. The Defense Department has said it believes Russia collected information about American intelligence in Iraq from U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar, in 2003.
Posted by plunger at 08/09/2006 @ 3:48pm
Averill Harriman and Prescott Bush were both "Skull and Bones " and big shots at Brown Brothers, Harriman !
Posted by proudleftists at 08/09/2006 @ 6:33pm
To go back on topic - thanks, Katrina, for "The Other Lamont". I have been disappointed in the media using the facile "rich cable executive" shorthand for Lamont rather than exploring his amazing political activist family. Thanks also for the "ignore" feature which sends the kiddies to play outside.
Posted by Jmathieson at 08/09/2006 @ 7:08pm
I thought that is was within "The Nation."'s best interest to stay away from endorsing a candidate or supporting any particular party. I gather this from Victor Navasky's book. Should I assume that because I am only half way through "A Matter of Opinion" that the second half tells me how "The Nation." went from being a fence-sitter to a liberal uber left-wing candidate supporter?
Posted by scottrad at 08/11/2006 @ 08:51am