Case Against Cheney

Well, of course, the investigation of who leaked CIA agent Valerie Plame's name -- violating the federal law that bars the "outing" of intelligence operatives -- has come around to Vice President Dick Cheney's office. While it may be news to the Washington Post -- which headlined a breathless report on Tuesday: "Cheney's Office Is A Focus in Leak Case" -- the fact is that Cheney and his aides have been likely suspects from day one.

No prominent member of the administration had more to lose as a result of the 2003 revelation by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, that the White House's pre-war claims regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had been inflated than did Cheney -- who, to a far greater extent than George Bush, had a hand in shaping the arguments for going to war, plugged them in media appearances and defended them after all evidence suggested his pronouncements had been wrong. It is important to recall that, while Bush may have deliberately fuzzed the facts in his 2003 State of the Union address, it was Cheney who leapt off the cliff of speculation with the pre-war declaration that, "We know Saddam Hussein's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

No key player in the administration was more at odds with the Central Intelligence Agency than Cheney. Indeed, Cheney's badgering of the agency to come up with "evidence" of Iraqi WMDs and al-Qaeda connections was so aggressive -- he regularly stormed into the CIA headquarters to demand a briefing and then, when the information did not fit his biases, demanded that someone else brief him -- that members of the House Intelligence Committee complained in a reprimanding letter, "These visits are unprecedented. Normally, vice presidents, including yourself, receive regular briefings from (the) CIA in your office and have a CIA officer on permanent detail. There is no reason to make personal visits to the CIA."

No top office within the administration was better positioned than Cheney's to gather the information that was used to attack Wilson and his wife and to peddle that information to the press. In fact, as Joe Wilson told me in an interview about the leaking of his wife's name that we did early in 2004, "With respect to who actually leaked the information, there are really only a few people -- far fewer than the president let on when he said there are a lot of senior administration officials -- who could have done it. At the end of the day, you have to have the means, the keys to the conversations at which somebody might drop my wife's name -- deliberately or not -- a national security clearance, and a reason to be talking about this. When you look at all that, there are really very few people who exist at that nexis between national security and foreign policy and politics. You can count them, literally, on two hands."

Wilson added that, without a doubt, "the vice president is one of those people."

And no one, repeat no one, in Washington is known to be more vindictive than Dick Cheney. So the notion that Cheney would not only have been aware of but in fact delighted in punishing Wilson by ruining the career of the ambassador's wife is entirely plausible. By all accounts, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating that prospect as his long examination of crimes that may have been committed in relation to the Plame leak draws to a close.

Does this mean that the vice president will be indicted by the federal grand jury that is currently examining the actions of White House political czar Karl Rove and, more importantly, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby?

Don't bet on it.

Libby is blood-oath, fall-on-the-sword loyal to Cheney. A Reagan-era State Department hand and Congressional staffer who came to know his future boss when Cheney was serving in Congress during the 1980s, Libby went with Cheney to George H. W. Bush's Defense Department -- serving Secretary of Defense Cheney as Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Strategy and Resources and Deputy Under Secretary for Policy. Libby was then a founder of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, which promoted the vision of American Empire that Cheney and his staff had cooked up in their controversial draft Defense Policy Guidance statement during their final days at the Pentagon. And when Cheney returned to the corridors of power, as vice president, Libby was at his side.

But the Cheney-Libby partnership is not merely a power and policy connection. Their relationship is more father-son than boss-surrogate. Libby vacations with Cheney at the vice president's $2.9 million villa in Wyoming, and Libby's access is such that he is welcome to invite friends and compatriots along to enjoy the skiing near Jackson Hole.

The likelihood that Libby would give up a relationship that has buttered his bread for the better part of a quarter century is even more remote than the likelihood that Rove would turn on Bush.

Yet, no one who knows about how Cheney and Libby operate will doubt that the two men had no secrets from one another during the period when the attacks on the CIA, in general, and Wilson and Plame, in particular, were taking place.

The vice president is a famously hands-on player. He personally requested information about claims that the Iraqis were attempting to obtain uranium from African countries -- the issue that Wilson examined in 2002, when he was dispatched to Africa and found that the claims were not credible. And while Cheney now says that he knew nothing of the report that Wilson produced before the war, the former ambassador has never believed him.

"If you are senior enough to ask the question, you are senior enough to get a very specific response," said Wilson. "In addition to the circular report that was sent around as a consequence of my trip, I have every confidence that one way or another the vice president was briefed as well." Yet, it was the vice president who continued to claim, long after Bush had dropped the line, that Saddam Hussein was a nuclear threat. And Cheney always went much further than Bush or others in the administration when making that claim. Indeed, it was Cheney who specifically stated prior to the Congressional votes on authorizing the use of force in Iraq that, Hussein had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." Cheney claimed in the same speech that, "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten American friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."

It is certainly reasonable to argue that Cheney had more reason to strike out at Wilson than anyone else in the administration when the former ambassador revealed the truth in a New York Times opinion piece that appeared in the summer of 2003. And, while Cheney may not have done the deed directly, it is comic to suggest that the vice president -- who was in constant contact with both Libby and Rove around the time of the leak -- could have been unaware of any serious effort to discredit Wilson by "outing" his wife as a CIA agent.

John Nichols' biography of Vice President Cheney, Dick: The Man Who Is President (The New Press, 2004) is currently available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. An expanded paperback version of the book, which Publisher's Weekly describes as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says "reveals the inner Cheney," will be available this fall under the title, The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press).

Comments (250)

1. Indeed, Cheney's badgering of the agency to come up with "evidence" of Iraqi WMDs and al-Qaeda connections was so aggressive -- he regularly stormed into the CIA headquarters to demand a briefing and then, when the information did not fit his biases, demanded that someone else brief him -- that members of the House Intelligence Committee complained in a reprimanding letter, "These visits are unprecedented. Normally, vice presidents, including yourself, receive regular briefings from (the) CIA in your office and have a CIA officer on permanent detail. There is no reason to make personal visits to the CIA."

   Aw, c'mon, quit being so damn cynical! Isn't it obvious that Cheney was so quintessentially determined to strike Iraq because he truly wanted to "liberate" the Iraqi people? Sheesh!

   (stifles laughter)

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/18/2005 @ 1:31pm

2. I hope this can play out (the indictments) without any or all of the following:

   A missing blonde dominates 24X7 on the MSM

   A big storm dominates 24X7 on the MSM

   The Saadam (sp) trial dominates 24X7 on the MSM

   Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, and the other corrupted media types 'pohh pooh' it

   Oh yeah - ' "terrorist" event dominates 24X7 on the MSM..

   God help all

   Posted by biobit at 10/18/2005 @ 1:58pm

3. Nichols once had at least a slight resemblance to a journalist. Given his recent writing, he may be well on the way to the journalist dung heap. Most of his recent stuff doesn't even merit serious debate.

   Additionally, his willingness to ignore the requirements of a serious journalist and join with David Corn in accepting as gospel the accusations and testimony of someone like Joe Wilson just serves to put a final nail in his coffin.

   Perhaps the Nation will search out and bring in some liberal journalists who at least are serious about journalistic integrity. That would bode well for future debate of the issues.

   Posted by love liberty at 10/18/2005 @ 2:06pm

4. Miller did what her employers wanted her to do...take us into war and discredit any who might stand in the way of the mission. Her employers included the Ownership of the New York Times, and the White House Neocon (Zionist/AIPAC) cabal that worked directly for Cheney to manufacture false intelligence upon which to justify an invasion of Iraq.

   Remember the letter from Libby to Miller which clearly included a coded message about the clusters of aspen trees being connected by their roots?

   Think about the most popular use of the word "Roots" in the United States. It was a movie, called "Roots" and it was about "ethnic heritage."

   It cracks me up to watch the likes of Chris Matthews and all of his guests dancing all around this issue without any of them having the nerve to dare mention that the common heritage of these individuals is that they are Jewish.

   Why is this such a forbidden topic? The owner of the times is Jewish and most of the Neocons who faked the intelligence that led us into war are Jewish. AIPAC, which is presently being investigated for espionage in the Larry Franklin spy scandal is an Israeli organization.

   IS THERE AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM?

   C'mon people, this is America. Can we not discuss the obvious without fear of reprisal?

   The roots that connect them is their Zionist Neocon agenda. What is a neocon? Who are they? Look at the signatories to the PNAC Agreement. What country do they act on behalf of?

   Define a neocon - and you will see that there was a conspiracy between the interests of big oil and the interests of Zionists to take America to war.

   This is just blatantly obvious - yet everyone is compelled to politely dance around the issue.

   The game was as follows:

   Create a set of circumstances around which a story could be spun (usually through false intelligence created by Cheney's little shop of whores, especially Chalibi). Feed it to Miller, who ran it by her boss to let him know that this one was "for the team."

   Write the story. Get it "approved" by Rove and Libby. Get her Times Boss to approve it as the above-the-fold lead, and then coordinate the timing of the story with the White house so that Carl was standing at the ready to put it to maximum use.

   Their photo-ops, and too cute quotes were always magically available, at the ready, as soon as the Times broke the news. Cheney and others had their talking points written before the stories even hit the paper.

   Cheney's team would feed this phony stuff to the Times, then turn right back around and quote them as the reliable source for the story that he had fed to them himself.

   This goes all the way to the top of The New York Times, and every other Mainstream Media company.

   Investigate them all. CNN's Wolf Blitzer in particular.

   The Master Strategist has to have been Rove throughout. Remember how Bush described him at his acceptance speech…simply stated:

   "The Architect."

   Just think how wealthy you could make all of your friends if you knew tomorrow's news - today. When you are in the news creation business, and every headline has a dramatic ability to move oil prices and markets, a well oiled conspiracy could make billions.

   Could anyone be defined as more "well oiled" than Cheney?

   Watch for an increasing number of distractions to hit the news in the coming days, as these manipulators strive to keep the public from learning of their transgressions by flooding the news cycle with all manner of "bad news."

   Queensborough Bridge on fire. Baltimore Tunnel Closed. New England Dam set to break. Hurricane pending.

   Life is good in the "change the subject" business today.

   http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_Asia_watch/Is_Iran_Next.html

   http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html

   The Neocon Timeline:

   http://litbmueller.blogspot.com/2005/05/lawrence-franklin-case-possible. html

   http://www.veteransforpeace.org/The_thwarted_Iraqi_110303.htm

   A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

   http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

   http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/cheney.htm

   http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/cheney_s_secrets.html

   What Do We Learn about Fred Fleitz from the Bolton Testimony?

   http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/09/what_do_we_lear .html#more

   So who forged the Niger Document?

   That's what Fitzgerald is trying to figure out. Who had the motive to defend the forgery?

   http://jen.forclark.com/story/2005/7/13/222015/098

   http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000784.html

   http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/10/21409/4086

   http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6711

   http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=5934

   http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=5732

   Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 2:09pm

5. Your posts are so predictable and empty LL. Maybe the Nation should hire a serious journalist like Judy Miller. She would never accept what her sources tell her as gospel.

   Posted by Hman23 at 10/18/2005 @ 2:19pm

6. Evidently, for LOVE LIBERTY, the only serious journalists are working over at FOX.

   Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 2:33pm

7. HMAN23, zing! :)

   PLUNGER, are you sure you're getting a well rounded diet with the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables?

   Posted by MyParadigm at 10/18/2005 @ 3:01pm

8. Your posts are so predictable and empty LL. Maybe the Nation should hire a serious journalist like Judy Miller. She would never accept what her sources tell her as gospel.

   Posted by HMAN23 10/18/2005 @ 2:19pm

   A. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Surely, HM you are a big enough person to allow that someone might not view Nichols with the same appreciative eye that you do?

   B. I have never suggested nor will I now, that Judith Miller is a serious journalist or commentator. My standard for decades has been and is William F. Buckley. After that would come people like Bill Gertz,Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams. On the left, Michael Kinsley, William Saletan, Peter Beinert. It doesn't mean I agree with all of them, but I do consider each to be a true professional.

   Posted by love liberty at 10/18/2005 @ 3:18pm

9. Love Liberty--

   I find it somehow odd that you can accuse (without justification, which I doubt you are able to provide) Nichols' work of not meriting serious debate. The last thread I saw you post on here consisted of the following: You made a claim that the dastardly liberals were out to slander Bush by misrepresenting his comments, and tried to prove your point by citing Bush in one instance. Others responded by pointing out an additional statement that Bush made, as well as those that his spokesman made on his behalf, that supported exactly the point that you claimed was simply a mischaracterization of Bush's views. In response to this, you simply stated that you stood by your original point, without even acknowledging that counter-evidence had been presented. What serious debater simply ignores the points that his opponents make?

   Perhaps this is in violation of the "no personal attacks" policy, but I find it difficult to simply watch as you bring unsupported accusations against others, especially when those accusations seem to be more accurately aimed at yourself.

   Matthew

   Posted by matthewg at 10/18/2005 @ 3:30pm

10. Myparadigm:

    Did you have anything useful to add or subtract from my posting? Any facts that might serve to educate? Healthy debate? I truly doubt anyone cares about my dietary regimine. We have a Republic to save.

    We're dying to hear your theories.

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 3:30pm

11. Dear John,

    Mechanism! The arm bones connected to the wrist bone. The wrist bone's connected to the hand bone. Because of this mechanism, we can pick up a nice cold brew and quench our thirst. Of course government of the people hating, evangelic conservatives can raise the same beer up to their lips using the power of their minds. It's one of their many magical powers.

    If Bush and Cheney don't know what their top political aids are doing, then they are living up to the stereotype that conservatives are "Schtoopid". Of course, I'm not a big fan of stereotypes. Though I think we can be certain that our fearless leader is a certifiable moron. I say this not because I can read minds or stare into souls. I say this because old G.W. has demonstrated time and time again that he is capable of a vast array of incompetence. And, I'd bet you money that five years into the job, he still hasn't gotten a blow job in the oval office. If this guy is the bench mark for conservative manhood, it's probably better we don't have a draft. Don't need to inadvertently create a whole new generation of whining, crying, hissy fit swift boat types. Right "Liberty" ; )

    But I'm getting off topic. The idea that our vice president is involved in underhanded, duplicitous, treasonable actions doesn't shock me. Tearing apart the union seems to be an historical institution among evangelic conservatives. This brings me back to mechanism.

    In the year 2000 our president and his vice ran on a platform of humble foreign policy and no nation building. First Lie! Within two weeks of being sworn in they were already hot on planning the invasion of Iraq. Now we know this. It is a fact. What bugs me is no one has ever asked them how they planned on making the transition. They must have had a plan. They must have had a mechanism for moving from humble foreign policy with no nation building to full scale invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of its government, and the building of a new democracy. Any competent planner would have thought this problem through. Don't you think? So what is it John? What was the plan? In the absence of 9-11, how were they going to make that critical transition? If our current administration can't answer that simple question then, the arm bone's connected to the wrist bone. The wrist bones connected to the hand bone. The hand bones connected to the…..

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2005 @ 3:49pm

12. ZERO,

    LL is pulling the same stunt that MARYBRETBRAD is trying on the Corn blog. The more attention that is paid to Rove, Libby and Cheney, the more they focus on Wilson.

    For big strong dudes working in a system that decries victimization, they certainly are a bunch wusses.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/18/2005 @ 4:08pm

13. Will C.

    You're not suggesting that the administration had planned all along to use 9/11 as a pretext for war, just like it says in the PNAC document signed by Dick Cheney...Are you?

    You don't surmise that the faux energy shortage created by Bush's largest contributor, Ken Lay, was all a clever ruse in the months preceeding the election designed to scare the crap out of the electorate just in time for the energy gurus to be swept into power...Do You?

    You're not asserting that Lay was invited to every top secret Energy Planning Meeting in order to oversee the divvying up of the oil fields of the Middle east as any form of payola for having created the new energy-centric paradigm in America upon which the Bush Administration came to power (if you don't count the fact that the actually lost)...are you?

    And when Enron went tits up and the trials started, isn't it your contention that it was just coincidental that Michael Chertoff was the prosecutor who placed all the blame of Arthur Andersen while trying to prevent the release of the incriminating audio tapes featuring Enron energy Traders conspiring to shut down power plants in California?

    You're not suggesting that Cheney was actually the Commmander In Chief of the National Air Defense System on 9/11, directing NORAD's (non) response amid a previously planned drill designed to look exactly like the attack that was in fact occuring...leading to massive confusion and the success of the attack...ARE YOU?

    Surely you can't think that there is any connection between Chertoff's appointment to track down the money that funded these attacks (as Head of Operation Greenquest) and the fact that no difinitive statements have ever been made about where the funding came from...RIGHT?

    The fact that while in private practice, Chertoff had represented a man accussed of funding the first World Trade Center attack is merely coincidental as well, right?

    And the part about Chertoff and most of the co-conspirators in Cheney's office being dual citizen Israelis, and that thingie between Libby and Miller inferring that they are "connected at their roots"...and that whole AIPAC Franklin spy scandal...no connection to any of this stuff there, RIGHT?

    Man, I'm runnin' out of bones to connect and I'm one joint short.

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 4:28pm

14. Dear Plunger,

    Yes my friend. You see the forest though the trees. Through the seething mass of players on the field, you have your eyes locked on the ball. Let us play another game: Connect the Dots. The Bush family, the Saudi royal family, the bin Laden family: We don't have to connect these dot. These dots connect themselves. A conspiracy theory some might suggest. Yes, perhaps.

    Imagine if our nation had had a few outstanding conspiracy theoreticians working in our CIA and FBI prior to 9-11. But wait, we did. The parts were discovered. The red blooded American liberals who discovered them were ignored. They were disbanded. The Bush administration went on and stayed on vacation. How did Condi say it, "It said something like Osama Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States?" Then she rolled he eyes. Conservative republicans keeping America safe, you practically have to smack these boys upside the head with a two by four before they even get a sense that there's any wood in the room. But alas, nobody can be that "schtoopid". Nobody can be that incompetent, unless they're trying to be.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2005 @ 4:48pm

15. Plunger,

    dem bones sound about right to me.

    Here's is your missing one.....it would appear that the above amounts to some seriously treasonous stuff which would end up in court eventually. That is why congress blocked lots and lots of Clinton's Federal district court appointments (was it 200 I don't remember, but isn't it funny that the right screamed about the dems blocking I think 7 of GWB's!) in order to wait for a Republican president so they could be packed more heavily with "friendlies". It is also why John and Harriet will be put on the SCOTUS. The right wing noise about Harriet is designed to make the Dems think there is a chance to defeat her nomination in an "up and down", thus they will choose not to fillibuster. She'll go through with 55 republican ayes.

    Posted by colmes at 10/18/2005 @ 4:54pm

16. Plunger,

    I read your post and I think you are not one joint short, I think you have smoked one too many.

    The only thing missing in your post are the black helicopters and secret night time radio broadcasts to Haliburton.

    I am amazed that you hold Bush in such low regard, he being an idiot and a bubbler, that he could put together all the fine minutia(sp)for war and profit in a larger conspiritorial effort going back to Ken Lay( Clintons big contributor),for nothing more than to destroy the world and give it all to ...I don't know who.

    This stuff obviously keeps you awake at night or you are unemployed and have too much time on your hands. Don't misunderstand me as I acknowledge there are problems out there and I am upset by some of Bush plans myself.

    I have never experienced such paranoid fear of the Right wing conspiricies to ruin the world by design. If we could channel all the hate energy on thid site towards stopping the terrorists..man..or world peace?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 4:58pm

17. PLUNGER, don't get me wrong. I actually like your posts. They're thought-provoking and unusually well-documented. They also occasionally veer off into a world view that greatly over-emphasizes the influence of nefarious hidden forces on our lives. My experience is that the power of common sense and the principle that eventually the truth becomes known are much stronger. I find all your connect-the-dots stuff fascinating. But I'm a lot more concerned with winning the next election, because that's going to happen a lot sooner than justice for these characters and all their sick world-domination crap. So that's what I see as the real elephant in the room - the fact that people are catching on to this charade, and the need for people like us to make our move politically and push them back to the margins where they belong.

    So don't change, man. America needs you. Just want to make sure you're looking for victory first, revenge second.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/18/2005 @ 5:01pm

18. Love Liberty says: "My standard for decades has been and is William F. Buckley." Listen, Love, I've been watching and listening to Buckley for decades myself as well, but you should understand that William F. Buckley is not and never has been a journalist. Buckley is a polemicist.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 5:02pm

19. Keep posting Plunger! Whether people choose to agree or disagree with your conslusions or theories, you are providing information that should at least be evaluated, not dismissed out of hand by people like John Maasch. We hear consistently from conservatives that lefties do not understand that we live in an "evil" world with "bad, bad" actors (i.e. the terrorists). However, as quick as some are to point this out, they are equally quick to deny anything suggesting that some of the evil can lurk right here at home.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/18/2005 @ 5:15pm

20. My,

    It could be just me but I don't see you(DEMS?) making much of a dent in the next election or even in the next. i could be wrong, but I don't see even a slight move to the left, as it has been so discredited with the main stream of the country.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 5:17pm

21. John Maasch, I don't think Ken Lay was ever a big contributor to Bill Clinton. He was W's largest single contributor, however.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 5:18pm

22. Hman,

    I see plenty of evil here at home. I just don't think we are the sole source of evil in the woeld, as this is the view that , to me, seems to eek through this site.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 5:19pm

23. What exactly is it about the left that has been "discredited?" Was the left wrong about WMD's, ties between Saddam and al Qeda? Was the left wrong about Bush's tax cuts -- did they create jobs? When the left accused the Bush administration of cronyism, were they wrong about that? Has free-market capitalism proven to be a cure all for our nation's ills. Man, look in the mirror. Sacred right-wing cows are tipping over every day.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 5:22pm

24. "I just don't think we are the sole source of evil in this world..." Hey good for you. You see, that's a classic strawman argument. I've seen no sane poster on this board even try to make that argument. No liberal believes this. Maybe you believe it and you're projecting, but I just don't get where you come up with something like that.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 5:24pm

25. Bbatten,

    Enron started during Clinton and as you know, companies pay both sides. I remember somewhere, I and I am sorry I can't doc now, but I believe Enron gave dems, however, that may have turned around when Dems started losing.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 5:27pm

26. Bbatten,

    The only projection I would do is if I am ill, ( bad wine maybe);)

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 5:28pm

27. John, the numbers are roughly 10 to 1, if I remember correctly. Let me guess -- you probably also think Clinton and Lay were golfing buddies.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 5:28pm

28. Myparadigm:

    I appreciate your thoughtful response.

    Truthfully, I'm not motivated by revenge. I'm motivated by my midwest roots and the belief in the Pledge of Allegiance and Liberty And Justice For All. I'm motivated by the sense of right from wrong that my upbringing gave me. I'm motivated by the fact that those good people I left behind in the midwest are cowering in fear in front of their televisions every day as manufactured terror threats, real world catastrophies and violent weather weather conspire to overload the senses with fear and loating for our future - by design. I'm motivated by the gutting of the industrial base, the suttering of the auto industry and the end of a way of life in this country that many still don't see coming.

    I'm motivated by the daily lies told to us by our government about Jobs Data, GDP, Consumer Confidence, Unemployment Numbers, The Strong Economy, Resiliant Consumers, Housing Bubbles and all the rest.

    Most of all, I'm motivated by the knowledge, for a solid fact, that 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with a CIA actor named Osama. I'm motivated by the fact that the theives responsible for staging that event and all that has followed have looted the nation's treasure to line their own pockets while moving us ever closer to dictatorship and martial law.

    We have been played for fools. There is no Osama Bin Laden. Young men and women are dying every day, for a lie.

    I'm fighting on their behalf.

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 5:33pm

29. John Maasch:

    Explain this:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 5:35pm

30. Plunger, may I humbly suggest that with this administration, you can do a great deal of damage just by knowing the facts. You don't need any conspiracy theories to make an extreme case. By the standards set with Nixon and Clinton, Bush and Chaney for that matter have already committed a number of impeachable offenses, many of which are identical or much worse than Nixon. Clinton's not even in the same ballpark. One of Nixon's articles of impeachment was for using the national intelligence apparatus for political purposes. Clinton's second article was obstruction of justice and the entire claim was based on a five-minute conversation he had with his secretary. We don't need conspiracy theories for these guys. They're just ballsout crooks.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 5:40pm

31. Bbatten,

    I see history as showinfg tax cuts work for everybody. This point to me is done. I have a fundementally different view with everyone on this site , that no matter how much money you make, it is yours and you should be able to keep it. EVERY time tax cuts go into place the money going to the tax man INCREASES. The problem is spending also increases and usually at a higher rate.

    Capitalism works; we are sitting in a 14 trillion dollar economy. Our increase in economic this year alone, in fact Walmart's output alone, is greater that the entire output of Russia. Enough said about capitalism works or not.. however, no one claims cure all for anything. That would be plain silly.

    WMD s..not there ok. Al Queda and Saddam ? I think they new each other and are more than willing to help each other. That is good enough for me. The WMD issue doesn't bother alot of us on the right because we think Saddam was jacking around with the ever sharp Hans Blix for years, as well as the UN.. He was shooting at our planes everyday since he was spared by first Bush. I figure he lost his chances.

    Question for you...What would you feel if WMDs were found there? Would that have changed opinion of Bush and the Iraq war? Just curious.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 5:41pm

32. I don't care if they golfed or not. I also don't care about BJs in office. Don't lump me in with your stereo types of the right.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 5:43pm

33. But you are the sole source of evil in the world. It's one of the by products of having Lucipher as your god. The evangelic infusion! The evangelic abomination! The evil Angel church, disguised as Christians who blow up family planning clinics, disguises as Muslims who blow up pizza parlors, disguised as Jews who gun down Palestinians.

    You want the ten on every school house wall. But you read them as thou shall kill, thou shall lie, thou shall cheat, thou shall steal. You want the ten as a monument to worship in every courthouse doorway because you read them as thou shall have graven images. We all saw the crazed evangelic outside the Alabama supreme court house screaming don't touch it, that is my god. You would and will have other gods before god.

    Blinded by the angel of light, you don't see the shift toward the great Liberal Center of America. Then you can't feel the wrath. You can't sense the reckoning. You bob around in your mainstream, swept along by the currants in water over your head. We are dry land democrats, mainland liberals, building a nation on solid ground. You follow the low road, the crooked path. You will sleep with the fishes. No safety net for you. We will not pull you from the angry depths, ever again.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2005 @ 5:46pm

34. I also don't see fear in the mid west. I live here. I also believe that the radical islamic groups have been at full blown war with us for 15 years, and Osama is just the most notable person now that we were finally awaken in September. Whether you admit it to yourself or not, the fact remains we are at war and will be for sometime to come. Iraq is a stop on the way towards more battles with radical nut burgers like the Jordanian in Iraq. Watch Iran..

    What about my question on WMDs? Mean time I will go read the site offered by PLUNGER now.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 5:49pm

35. Will C,

    I don't know anyone who you describe in your post. That is not my world.

    You need to get some joints from Plunger. You need anger management. With rants like yours I don't think many will be converted...

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 5:52pm

36. Will,

    If you think taking some plaque of the walls or if you see the GREAT Evil one around any corner, well, ....judgemental ? Come on...

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 5:54pm

37. All this is the ongoing matter of my new neo-con-opera libretto V@LKERIE FL@ME http://www.billcostley.blog-city.com

    Posted by Bill Costley at 10/18/2005 @ 5:54pm

38. Joints! I believe they connect the finger bones

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2005 @ 5:54pm

39. If WMD's had been found in Iraq, I would still feel that it was a diversion from the more important business of routing Osama bin Laden and his organization. The fact that a given country has a certain technology is not a carte blanche justification for invading it. The war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place, not safer.

    Your assertion that tax cuts always lead to more revenue is just plain wrong. If it were correct, the Reagan administration would not have run up record debt and deficits. The 3 extra percentage points Clinton exacted on the highest brackets obviously did not ruin the economy and poverty decreased every one of his 8 years in office. The rich got richer too by the way. These numbers you cite regarding the current "strength" of our economy are almost irrelevant. The only place our GDP has been growing is large corporate profits. Real wages have stagnated, the cost of living has gone up, energy prices are through the roof and a greater number than ever are without healthcare. The poverty rate has increased each year of the Bush presidency and abortion rates are back to pre-Clinton levels (they dropped every year under Clinton to a 25 year low in 2000.) Corporate media likes to keep the discussion on GDP, so that the unprecidented levels of corporate profits in recent years can make the economy appear to be healthy. Incidently, have corporations taken some of these profits and created more American jobs? No. Have they paid more taxes with these profits to help pay down our debt? No, they've paid less taxes on greater profits. Does this help you or I? I can't see any way it is of any help to me.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 5:55pm

40. Cowering in your own excrement won't win you this fight. But don't let me stop you. :)

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2005 @ 5:57pm

41. Plunger,

    Interesting for sure...so, then Israel is behind all the Islamic attacks on us?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 5:58pm

42. BBATTEN:

    The point I have been making is that it is not just about this administration. All of our elected officials are compromised, otherwise they never would have made it to their elected offices. The US Presidency is not the top of the power pyramid. Taking out this gang of crooks does not solve the problem.

    If you do not believe that conspiracies are in play each and every day at levels higher than the office of the President, then you might be inclined to believe that the next election will actually result in change.

    We have been on a slippery slope, and clearly, the actors playing their parts in the Senate, The Congress, On The Courts and on Capitol Hill are doing the bidding of someone other than the American People.

    Things don't turn so decidedly bad for our citizens without some conspiracy to make it so. Unlimited free credit - by design - has consequences. The savings rate is less than zero, and the housing bubble is about to burst. It was Greenspan who insisted that everyone go out and refi their houses two years ago on adjustable rate mortgages. The media played their part, hyping the housing boom and the cash-out refi craze. What now?

    Follow the money. Where did it go? This country is bankrupt. Who got rich and who got fleeced?

    The next election? You can't have elections during a pandemic...especially with a Blackwater Storm Trooper stationed outside your home under Martial Law.

    The more desparate these guys get, the more likely we will see more faux-terror.

    Could I be wrong? Of Course! I sure hope so!

    The entire country is catching on to the fact that FEAR is being manufactured by those in power for political and financial gain.

    Did you ever find out who sold short thousands of shares of United and American Airlines just prior to 9/11? Did you learn who went long Invision Technologies just prior to 9/11?

    Wouldn't these trades point to foreknowledge of the attacks? Who made money on it? Why haven't we been told?

    As for the black helicopters...Michael Chertoff is in charge of them. How comfortable does that make you?

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 5:58pm

43. Plunger,

    "Interesting for sure...so, then Israel is behind all the Islamic attacks on us?"

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/18/2005 @ 5:58pm | ignore this person

    Shit, man...I don't know - but I at least know to ask a ton of questions when nothing else makes any sense.

    Explain the story of the "dancing israelis" on 9/11...caught red handed in New York celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers.

    I've been asking for over a year now for any plausible explanation for that story, and no one ever has one.

    What do you think?

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 6:01pm

44. Bbatten,

    So your solution is what..tax everything away? Kill the rich? What do you want?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 6:01pm

45. Plunger, I believe in our system and I agree that it is compromised, but there is a solution. It's the same solution that we've always had. We can throw the bastards out. IMO, the real problem for people in our country is the power of large corporations. Take corporate political influence out of the equation and our society gets a lot healthier.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 6:04pm

46. Willc,

    By the way, I am not in a fight with you...why do you think you are in a fight with me? I just happen to think you are completely wrong on everything. So what? It is not personal with me. It seems a little personal with you, tho.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 6:06pm

47. John Maasch: "So your solution is what..tax everything away? Kill the rich? What do you want?" Again, a classic strawman. No, John, what I want is marginally higher rates on the wealthy and more regulation of corporations in areas of politics, monopoly, profits and shareholder rights and universal healthcare for all Americans. Again, the top rate during the Clinton administration was a few points higher. The rich got richer. The poor got richer. The nation survived.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 6:09pm

48. I'd like to remind everyone that the reason there are such wild conspiracy theories regarding 9-11 is that important questions have never been answered. Until someone explains why NORAD was standing down after 55 specific terrorist warnings from the FAA or why there was hundreds of times the action on American and United "puts" in the week before the tragedy, I will always suspect that we are not being given the whole truth.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 6:13pm

49. It's not "American" conservative, it's Evangelic Conservative. There is nothing American about the evangelic church other than it's right to exist. The freedom of religion is a center point of the liberal agenda. I don't argue their right to exist. I argue their right to exist disgused as branches of the great religions. I argue their right to exist claiming to be men and women of god, when they live their lives in conflict with God's word, in conflict with the ten. Even if you are not a man of faith you cetainly are familar with faith. Lucipher is the sole source of evil in this universe. His church is his mechanism.

    But believe what you want to. It is your right.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2005 @ 6:13pm

50. Zero,

    You have discovered my dilema,, Clinton thought I was rich and wanted more of my money, so what if WillC and bbatten thinks I am rich, too..I am in mortal danger,,,so I will quit making money, paying taxes, and demand my rights!!

    I want everything from the government free because I am breathing, therefore I am entittled to it! Oh and don't forget..kill the corporations too. Hey, lets go to N Korea!! Sounds like a good place, eh?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 6:15pm

51. Zero: You managed to get "space aliens" and "anti-semitism" into your last post, but failed to use the words "Nazi," "Hate Speech" and "Conspiracy Theorist" at the same time.

    Clearly, Mossad agents were arrested in New York as described. It was covered by far too many of the main stream media for you to attempt to explain it away per the ADL's damage control instructions.

    Michael Chertoff deported them after they had been held in solitary confinement and tortured. If you want to learn about it, and then explain your theory of just what in the hell they were up to on the morning of 9/11, you can Google "dancing israelis" and read numerous links on the subject...even in the Israeli Newspaper Haaretz...we'll be more than happy to hear you carefully considered analysis.

    In the absence of your studies, you're in no position to discredit someone who has done theirs...at least not with any credibility.

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 6:20pm

52. What's the matter John? Afraid to throw down. Perhaps a little chicken hawkish. I thought you conservative boys were tough. Then you hit me with this limp wristed "It ain't personal" crap. You must be one of those above the fray types. That's ok.

    When your ready son, you come on down to the playing field. We gonna have fun with you.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2005 @ 6:22pm

53. Speaking of credible studys... after this afternoons posts, I am inCREDIBLY hungry..nothing solved and no minds turned, however, sterotypes reconfirmed..another days passes...sigh..

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 6:25pm

54. Sure, willc, sure..

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 6:25pm

55. Maasch:

    Now that you have apparently viewed the entire 4-part Fox News investigative series by Carl Cameron regaring 200 Mossad agents spying in the United States - and in light of the AIPAC spy scandal, how much of that concerns you and leads you to become more curious about how this might have factored into some things that have occurred in this country which have in fact impacted your life? Do you care how powerful AIPAC is?

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 6:26pm

56. I will never change your mind WillC. I feel fine with where you are ..enjoy. That is why it is not personal, I don't care that you believe what you believe.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 6:28pm

57. Plunger,

    I find this all very fascinating. I am pondering and need to read it again. I will get back to you later..

    John

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 6:29pm

58. John Maasch: "so I will quit making money, paying taxes, and demand my rights!! "

    Why do conservatives respond to resonable arguments about taxation with histeria. Again, marginally higher tax rates on the wealthiest among us have already proven to be an effective way to balance the budget and bring down the debt. Not one republican voted for the 1993 Clinton tax bill. In fact, most party leaders predicted that it would ruin the economy and possibly create a second great depression. You know, after a while, this tax dogma conservatives continually spout sounds a little like religious dogma. Nevermind the facts, we've got our dogma. Example: for 30 years, conservatives have been saying that when you raise the minimum wage, you end up with fewer minimum wage jobs. The fact that this has never, ever happened will not stop conservatives from saying this again when someone advocates a raise.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 6:29pm

59. Lou Dobbs just revealed:

    Arlen Specter is promoting a new bill to SELL an additional 60,000 H1B Visas at $500 per person. US employers need to pay just $500 to bring in a high quality foreign tech worker at a far lower wage than their American counterparts, these new 60,000 tech workers are in addition to the 65,000 already allowed.

    Obviosly, American Workers are supposed to accept wages equal to those that foreign workers are willing to work for - or go hungry.

    Who is Arlen Specter representing?

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 6:32pm

60. Sure, willc, sure..

    Boy that's the best you got. I figured a little yappy dog like you would have a whole butt load of crap to throw my way. Sure, willc, sure.. You gotta be kidding me. Did you momma forget to change your diaper today? You sitting at the 'puter with poopy pants doing the butt cheek shuffle. A little bit to the right. A little bit more to the right.

    Hell son, you better slow down. You gonna fall off the chair. Then what you gonna do. Cry? Cause I ain't commin by to pick up your stinky ass

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2005 @ 6:34pm

61. "Plunger,

    I find this all very fascinating. I am pondering and need to read it again. I will get back to you later..

    John"

    Glad to hear this has made it onto your radar screen - albeit 3 years after it originally aired. I hope that at least causes you to ask another question of yourself...

    "How can it be that something so significant is not known by anyone in this country?"

    And that of course leads to all kinds of other questions.

    If you'd like some reading material to learn more, I'll be happy to share the links I have, and you are of course free to descern which you deem credible.

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 6:36pm

62. Getting back to Cheney, I'm surprised conservatives still continue to defend him. How can you defend a guy who leaked bogus info to a reporter through his surrogates, saw the reporter write the bogus info in the NYT and then went on TV the next day and cited the NYT story as evidence that his view was mainstream when he said, "There's no absolutely no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program." How can you defend a guy who said he had no monetary connection with Halliburton, and now we find out that he's made millions off of options they gave him based on the profits they made from no-bid contracts he made sure they got? Amazing!! And they still think he's just a grrrrrreeeaaat guy!

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 6:37pm

63. I don't care that you believe what you believe. Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    You got that right son. You don't care. And that about sums up your whole sorry existance.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2005 @ 6:37pm

64. Plunger,

    I don't watch alot of TV news broadcasts.. it mostly seems canned. I view it as entertainment.

    I do read everything I can get my hands on so send me a list of readings. I have had some good lists from some of the people here. I try to read both "sides", so I am interested. I spend alot of time in airplane seats so reading is a great time killer.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/18/2005 @ 6:42pm

65. Freiheit, what does the ability to remember the name Johnny Spann have to do with the fact that Cheney may have committed a crime? How did you acquire your mind-reading skills with respect to the writers and editors of The Nation? And, yes, this is at least partly about "attacking Bush" because Bush's administration may have committed a very serious crime. And it seems to me that it is conservatives crying crocodile tears over these accusations. After all, didn't they have a few accusations of their own during the last administration?

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 6:42pm

66. Actually, Freiheit, I do own a small business with anywhere between 4 and 16 employees depending upon what's going on. And, please look at our own national census figures. Find out for yourself that the number of minimum wage jobs has gone up every year including years in which there was a raise in the minimum wage. And, "never, ever" means it has never happened. It's not an economic expression.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 6:45pm

67. Freiheit: "Just another anti-Bush weapon. Blatant, typical hypocracy."

    Just wondering, Freiheit, what was your opinion of the Paula Jones case? What about "Travelgate?" Did you think the Whitewater investigation was a good use of Congressional time? How about Henry Cisneros -- do you think we should still be spending $20 million a year looking into how much he paid a mistress in the early 90's? When congressional Republicans accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" after he tried to kill bin Laden with a cruise missle, did you agree?

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 6:54pm

68. Freiheit, many of us feel that violating national security is a little more important than getting a bj or losing money in a land deal 30 years ago. Many of us feel that willfully deceiving congress into authorizing a shooting war is a little more important than firing a couple people from the travel office for political reasons. So I don't accept your "they all do it" argument at all.

    And as far as the minimum wage thing is concerned, if given the choice between legitimate government statistics and your anecdotal evidence, I'm more comfortable with the statistics.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 7:05pm

69. Of what crime was Clinton guilty with respect to "Travelgate?" Where was the indictment? As the republican-run Pillsbury Commission concluded in 1994, the Clintons told the truth about their part in Whitewater and were guilty of no crimes. Again, Freiheit, where is the indictment? Henry Cisneros is the only member of the Clinton administration to be indicted (you should know this). I asked you if you thought it was a good idea to still be paying $20 million a year for his investigation. You obviously don't know what's going on, so I'll drop that one.

    On the very day that Clinton was 45 minutes late with his cruise missle to kill bin Laden, he had spent the entire morning in depositions answering questions about sex. Do you think congress could have helped Clinton fight terrorism if they wanted to, or were they correct to concentrate on his sex life?

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 7:13pm

70. Freiheit, do you see any inconsistency with the fact that out of this and the last three presidential administrations, you see the one with the fewest indictments as the most corrupt?

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 7:18pm

71. If Clinton were an executive of Halliburton, he wouldn't have had to answer questions about oral sex. As far as Bush is concerned, if you don't think he's a liar, you've been living on another planet.

    "If anyone in my administration were involved in this, they wouldn't be in my administration."

    "As Governor, I championed a Patients' Bill of Rights."

    "The Social Security System will be bankrupt by 2011."

    I could go on and on because I, unlike you, pay attention to these things.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 7:23pm

72. Freiheit: "But you're right, national security is a bigger deal than the personal integrity of the leader of the free world... "

    Earth to Freiheit. Urgent message: Not only did the rest of the free world have no problem with Clinton's personal integrety, they loved him. He's a hero in Ireland, a rock-star in Britain, beloved in Italy, etc. etc. Maybe you haven't noticed this, but the rest of the world absolutely hates Bush.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 7:31pm

73. Frank, the scandals happen because republicans don't believe in our Founders' vision of "peoples' government." Since they don't believe in government, they don't take it seriously and, therefore, they don't govern as effectively. Add the fact that, these days, most of them are not really conservatives but crony capitalists in disguise as conservatives, and you have a real problem.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 7:35pm

74. I just can't ignore my impression that Nichols couldn't give two sheets whether a CIA operative was "outed." This is all about attacking Bush. In fact virtually everything Nichols writes is about attacking Bush. Oh, and I have no problem with Nichols attacking Bush by the way. That's his job.

    When someone gets cancer, do you proceed by finding and eliminating every single cancer cell? Obviously not. You go for the heart of the malignancy, the tumor, and you remove so it can't cause any more pain and suffering. Yeah, Bush is getting hit from all sides, and I hope it happens every stinking day for the next three years. And I predict it will because this administration is corrupt and is so mired in the filth and corruption that they make Tammany Hall look like a church picnic. And enough trying to rationalize with true believers - anybody who could in all honesty defend the scum who infest the highest offices in America is so blinded by faith and/or greed that they are beyond redemption. The people who need to be convinced are the masses of undecideds who are getting screwed and killed each and every day and who only believe what they see in the mainstream media. And for that to happen, the freakin' Democrats (or somebody with a backbone has to stand up and give a coherent, logical description of the counter-proposal to what we have been subjected to for the last five years. It seems bleak, but without hope, there is no will to change.

    Do I sound bitter? Five years of lies and corruption will do that to an optimist.

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/18/2005 @ 7:36pm

75. So, in your mind, a great number of indictments and convictions within a certain administration would not mean that administration was corrupt. Interesting. How do you know if a certain administration was corrupt? By listening to Bill O'Rielly or something? Come on.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 7:37pm

76. Freiheit: "You error in assuming the entire "world" shares your beliefs."

    No, see you still don't understand people who are moved by facts. There are Pew and Gallup international polls that show what I posted is true. I don't just think people hate Bush. They answer that they do in polls. In Britain, for example, currently a plurality think Bush is more dangerous to world peace than Osama bin Laden. It depends on where you trot, but the only place on the globe you could trot to and find a positive impression of Bush would be Indonesia and Singapore. Those are the facts, Freiheit, not "my liberal beliefs."

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 7:47pm

77. Polls are certainly more prone to factual data than anecdotal evidence. Statistics in polls are a legitimate way to find out how large populations think. Pray tell: what other way would you determine what a population thinks? How about a seance.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 7:51pm

78. How many indictments will be brought up before this is over? It doesn't matter to some of our conservative fellow citizens. They evidently have other ways to judge the integrity of a given administration. Indictments? Bah, humbug, that's just the legal system, right Freiheit?

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 7:55pm

79. Turk, if everyone goes to the polls in 2006 and votes for democrats, I guarantee you there will be big changes. Congress turning over to the Dems would be a nightmare for this administration and they know it. Look for them to start another war before the next election.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 7:59pm

80. Frank, our president has had sex at least twice in his life. The first was during the 70's, before he paid for his partner to have an abortion and the second was for the twins. Nobody can prove that he's had any more sex than that!

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 8:03pm

81. Freiheit, I'm beginning to stronly doubt that you are, in fact, a "globetrotter" as you say. Because if you think Angela Merkel's slight margin of victory had anything to do with Bush, you just don't understand what's going on in Germany right now. Germany's still going through the pain of incorporating the east and dealing with their poverty. The vast majority of Germans have made it very plain that they don't like Bush. And, your Tony Blair comparison is a hoot. Any Brit who has his head on straight will tell you Blair won in spite of Bush, not because of him.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 8:07pm

82. Freiheit, I already told you what I would do. Is your memory failing you? To review: raise the marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans by 3 or 4 percentage points, regulate corporations with respect to the political process, off shore tax shelters and shareholder power and institute national healthcare. That's just what I would do. We liberals are not followers like conservatives. We don't necessarily agree on everything or parrot what an imperious leader says. This is just one liberal's answer.

    It's interesting that you think liberals "can't be honest." If you knew thing one about your leaders, you would know that their "neocon" philosophy actually calls on its proponents to hide their real agendas because of their unpopularity. Every member of this administration is a fan of Leo Strauss. Read him, Freiheit, and then reevaluate your world view on who's lying.

    Posted by BBatten at 10/18/2005 @ 8:13pm

83. John:

    Let's start here.

    You are obviously well read, and I accept at face value that you do not receive the bulk of your "news" - and I use that term loosely - from television.

    Isn't it interesting that after all these years, it took me to bring the story to you that somehow justified a four part investigative expose on Fox News? I think it's very telling.

    How can it be that such a story never made it into any of the news magazines or newspapers that you typically read? This should provide some answers:

    http://www.rense.com/general18/JINSA.htm

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vest

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 9:02pm

84. FrankGrits-- Just out of curiousity, and if you don't mind my prying, what are your personal reasons for being outraged?

    Matthew

    Posted by matthewg at 10/18/2005 @ 9:47pm

85. How did they know there would be an event to document on 9/11?

    It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots of the dancing Israeli Mossad agents - here's the most logical scenario:

    1. The Israeli "movers" cheered the 9-11 attacks to celebrate the successful accomplishment of the greatest spy operation ever pulled off in history.

    2. One of them, or an accomplice, then calls a 9-1-1 police dispatcher to report Palestinian bomb-makers in a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel.

    3. Having thus pre-framed the Palestinians with this phone call, the Israeli bombers then head for the George Washington Bridge instead, where they will drop off their time-bomb van and escape with Urban Moving accomplices.

    4. But the police react very wisely and proactively by closing off ALL bridges and tunnels instead of just the Holland Tunnel. This move inadvertently foils the Israelis' misdirection play and leads to their own capture and 40 day torture.

    5. To cover up this story, the U.S. Justice Department rounds up over 1000 Arabs for minor immigration violations and places them in New York area jails. The Israelis therefore become less conspicuous as the government and media can now claim that the Israelis were just immigration violators caught in the same dragnet as many other Arabs.

    6. After several months, FBI and Justice Department "higher-ups" are able to gradually push aside the local FBI agents and free the Israelis quietly.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 10:08pm

86. FREIHEIT:

    What's your take on this story. It obviously happened, as there is a police report and numerous main stream media accounts - and ultimately they were deported by Chertoff.

    Tell us what you think they were doing:

    Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 10:25pm

87. My, it sure is a good thing that President Bush refuses to hand over the Vice President's daily schedule of meetings and the like for national security purposes in the aftermath of 9/11. No reports are available for the Energy Task Force meetings years ago. Cheney has been allowed to operate in total secrecy, especially after PNAC got their Pearl Harbor.

    Posted by jakesteed98 at 10/18/2005 @ 10:51pm

88. Nixon may have eventually (what, after six years or so?) ended U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, but not after expanding the war into Cambodia and Laos. That sure worked out well--remember a guy named Pol Pot?

    Posted by didjman at 10/18/2005 @ 11:15pm

89. Cheney, a corrupt VP! Not true, not true. Bone headed, incompetent, relies a little too much on rich guy welfare, but not corrupt. He gets a company in the black, leaves it in the red. He gets a country in the black, leaves it in the red. Do we see a trend? Are the same tracks in the snow and is Cheney always at the end of them?

    When your hatred of government of the peoples second to none as evangelic conservative pundits like to proudly tell us, then the proper course of action to destroy said government and the nation it serves is to hire Cheney. Of course if you want to add a catalyst to the whole slimy mess you most definitely hire George W. to help him out. And the Lambs of Lucipher did just that.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2005 @ 11:40pm

90. FREIHEIT:

    You do know that many of us here think Clinton was just as bad as Bush, only for different reasons, right?

    While I won't comment on Plunger's theory (actually, I haven't read it yet), I think the salient point that needs to be made is that regardless of which party is in power, they are bother whores to corporate largesse. In the immortal words of Barry Crimmins, "The two party system just means that the corporations cut two checks instead of one."

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/18/2005 @ 11:43pm

91. It's a sad truth that evangelic conservatives only gushingly support the rule of law when it's the opposition who's in trouble. When it's them in trouble, "Rule of Law?" what the hell is that. Of course that brings us to the next tiers down: morality. Now how does that go? Don't bear false witness against thy neighbor? Yes that's it. Hmm, I guess this administrations behavior means that morality is out the door also. Let us drop down one more tier : Ethics. They have us here. From listening to evangelic pundits and posters it's perfectly ok to go after someone if they attack you even if your attack is both illegal and immoral.

    So this proves it. Dick Cheney is not corrupt, he's ethical. …..LOL who am I trying to kid. I give, Cheney's corrupt.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 12:01am

92. hEY FREIHEIT

    Yup, the VP is corrupt.

    Is it Halliburton? You bet it's Halliburton. Which company is paying huge fines for overcharging in Iraq? I may not have the PROOF to convince you, but when a lier like Cheney says he's diveted himself of his inlvovlement with Haliburton while cashing their paychecks to him, when he lied to the country and the world in the debates about our reasons for attacking Iraq, when there is plenty of eveidence that the VP is corrupt, but you and your like refuse to acknowledge it, the truth will unfold. You can't cover your lies foreever. Former Bush administration officials have sounded alarms that you would call sour grapes.

    What other company on earth can compete with Halliburton? None, because they don't have the golden seal of Cheney's aprroval.

    Is it corruption that Halliburton wins contracts, or is it the bids and expertise? Those aren't bids. A bid would assume there would be a competing bid. Competeing bids are not allowed. What you refer to as bids are really DEMANDS.

    As for your comment "We won WWII, right?" WE have a bunch of yahoos running this country who are preparing us for their past.

    People like Karl Rove who call democrats unpatriotic and unamerican

    Rove said that about "liberals" not democrats.

    You say Gore lost? FREIHEIT I challenge you to defend the practice of keeping black and poor Florida residents from voting. It happened, the eveidence is too strong to ignore. Bush has been elected twice with the help of his supporters who kept blacks and poor people from the polls. Tell me FREIHEIT, why is that okay?

    Posted by chazbough at 10/19/2005 @ 12:08am

93. FREIHEIT

    What do you want? Names and addresses of people who were kept from the polls? The names of many of the people who were denied the chance to vote are in the public record.

    You are like those who say the Holocaust never happened.

    I could hold five fingers in front of your face and you would say you don't see them because you afraid it may prove that your beloved Bush is a fraud.

    Posted by chazbough at 10/19/2005 @ 12:22am

94. FREIHEIT

    There is some slight relief to learn that you think it is not okay to deny anybody their right to vote.

    Posted by chazbough at 10/19/2005 @ 12:24am

95. Chaz,

    Gore did lose, unfortunately. Of Course to win, old GW's little brother had to take 50,000 people off the voter roles down in FL. 45,000 of those names were legal and deserved to vote. And, here's the funny part, they had to kill 45000 votes to only win by a couple hundred. Thank god for family connections. If that isn't limp...

    Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 12:25am

96. Republicans have a history of corruption when they hold the Presidency.

    Nixon and the White House Plumbers. Watergate. The break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Cointelpro. The illegal expansion of the war into Laos and Cambodia. The enemies list.

    The term "sleaze factor" was coined during the Reagan administration. 16 Reagan administration officials convicted in HUD scandal. 14 convicted in Iran-Contra (two overturned, largely due to administration stonewalling). 2 convicted of illegal lobbying. Supplying arms to both Iraq and Iran during Iran-Iraq war.

    And now the Bushies are following the Republican tradition. The question is, how high up will the consequences go?

    Posted by didjman at 10/19/2005 @ 12:37am

97. Interesting thing about the claim the evangelic made concerning the "Florida voter conspiracy". The South Florida Sun-Sentinel has Jeb Bushes list of 50000 Floridians removed from the voter roles and after analyzing the names found that 45000 of those people deserved to vote. Oop's!

    Is it legal? Yes. Is it moral? Nope, Thou shall not steal baby. At least from a strict constructionist read of the ten. From an evangelic activist interpretation, stealing someone's right to vote is probably A-OK. Right freiheit! Did Lucipher say it's Ok to steal?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 12:52am

98. Freiheit,

    You are eating their lunch.

    Willc ...What exactly is "evangelic conservatives" and why does it grind you, as it is in all your rants today?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/19/2005 @ 12:54am

99. Well, I still feel it is unconstitutional to denby a convicted felon the right to vote, if he or she has paid the debt to society... but that's just me. If that were the case, then they couldn't disenfranchise so many people of color... or the poor...

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 12:56am

100. (Be real, a pissing match over who is less corrupt is a waste of our time.)

     Yes, let's not compete in a sport which you would surely lose. Unless getting a blow job is the worst thing a chief executive can do.

     Oh no! Is that truly possible?

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 12:57am

101. No spoon feeding for you John. You're a big boy now. Think long and hard. It will come to you. And, then I'll give you a cookie.

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 12:58am

102. I find it troubling to have people who can't put an x in a box of their candiate deciding the fate of the most powerful country in the world. Even when sample ballots were published and mailed before the election.

     Maybe it is just me.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/19/2005 @ 12:58am

103. That should have been DENY*

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 12:59am

104. Freiheit,

     It's legal to remove 50000 names form the voter roles in florida. Perfectly squeeky clean legal. Highly amoral though. But you fellas like that kind of thing. :)

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 01:00am

105. Until it's time to take their name off the voter roles of course. Rock the house

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 01:05am

106. Willc,

     If it is your position that all GOP are bad, then who is good? And why?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/19/2005 @ 01:07am

107. I can't believe I am doing this, but here goes...

     WILL C:

     FREIHEIT is right about this being a pissing contest about who is more corrupt. Listen, there ane MANY documented cases of Clinton's corruption in Arkansas. From running drugs through Mena, to taking payoffs to push NAFTA through, he's just as tainted as Bush.

     However, the problem I have is, the mainstream media doesn't put Bush under the microscope nearly as much as it did Clinton. But in the end, it doesn't matter. Because neither of them receive the kind of scrutiny they truly deserve.

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 01:08am

108. Jorcheim,

     It might be a perspective view. All my Dem friends thought Clinton was attacked by the media and the REP. All my conservative freinds think Bush is attacked by the media and the Dems..

     Everyone thinks they are attacked when scrutinized by those they feel are their enemy.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/19/2005 @ 01:11am

109. Man, I'm runnin' out of bones to connect and I'm one joint short.

     Posted by PLUNGER 10/18/2005 @ 4:28pm

     Maybe you smoked it...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 01:12am

110. GOP? As in Good Old-fashioned Perversion. The great liberal center of America argues for love and marriage between good hard working Americans. The GOP advocates Incest, Bestaility and Child rape polygamy. Do not your own actions answer your question?

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 01:13am

111. FREIHEIT

     Where are your sources that say the Florida and Ohio election were free of fraud?

     I have an article from the August 2005 issue of Harpers by Mark Crispin Miller. "None Dare Call It Stolen" presents a compelling arguement to make me believe the Ohio results were tainted in Bush's favor. Who has written the article to rebute Miller?

     Representative Peter King (R, NY) was interviewed in a HBO documnetary, a year before the election in 2003, and said, "the election is over. We won, it's all over except for the counting. and we'll take care of the counting."

     He may have been joking, but he said it. That is not the smoking gun in the article.

     From the article: "On January 5 Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, released Preserving Democracy: What went wrong in Ohio. The report was the result of a five week investigation by the committee's Democrats who reviewed thousands of complaints of fraud, malfeasance or incompantance surrounding the election in Ohio, and further thousands of complaints that poured in by email and phone as word of the inquiry spread. The congressional researchers were assissted by volunteers in Ohio who held public hearings in Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo and Cincinatti and questioned more than 200 witnesses. Although they were invited, Republicans chose not to join in the inquiry.

     The wrongs exposed were specific violations of the US and Ohio constitutions, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act, etc."

     So FREIHEIT, the there is there unless you believe Rep. Conyers lied in the Congressional record and committed perjury to advance his "socialist cause."

     Face it, to most Americans, voter fraud is not as fun to watch as a Micael Jackson trial or a girl getting abducted in Aruba. So you hear Rush or Lyndon Laroche or Pat Robertson deny the election fraud in Florida or Ohio and you believe them.

     So FREIHEIT, the there is in the Congressional Record. You can look it up, or you can take Rush's word for it.

     Posted by chazbough at 10/19/2005 @ 01:14am

112. Abortion! Amoral? What makes you say that?

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 01:14am

113. The Florida vote was wrought with fraud... legal and otherwise. And to deny it is to be dishonest.

     But when have we ever had a fraud-less election in this country.

     If you really want to know how politics works in this country, go watch Bulworth... I think it's perhaps the best political commentary film of our time. And funny as hell to watch Warren Beatty try to rap.

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 01:16am

114. ... Well, umm ... I don't think Cheney can butter Libby's bread if Libby's the only one in jail. Surely, Libby's resentment would start to build behind bars while he watches Cheney on the outside having all the fun, declaring wars in the Middle East, and martial law in the US. --- You know those (Bush/Cheney's) euphemistic plans that call upon the military to quarantine the mass exodus of flu infected and deathly ill Americans, known for running out of town hysterically --- away from their homes, whenever they have the flu...

     Posted by claire pool at 10/19/2005 @ 01:17am

115. Willc,

     No my actions do not answer the question.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/19/2005 @ 01:18am

116. Freiheit,

     Here is the post from Willc this afternoon. It may help you understand what you are dealing with...

     " But you are the sole source of evil in the world. It's one of the by products of having Lucipher as your god. The evangelic infusion! The evangelic abomination! The evil Angel church, disguised as Christians who blow up family planning clinics, disguises as Muslims who blow up pizza parlors, disguised as Jews who gun down Palestinians.

     You want the ten on every school house wall. But you read them as thou shall kill, thou shall lie, thou shall cheat, thou shall steal. You want the ten as a monument to worship in every courthouse doorway because you read them as thou shall have graven images. We all saw the crazed evangelic outside the Alabama supreme court house screaming don't touch it, that is my god. You would and will have other gods before god.

     Blinded by the angel of light, you don't see the shift toward the great Liberal Center of America. Then you can't feel the wrath. You can't sense the reckoning. You bob around in your mainstream, swept along by the currants in water over your head. We are dry land democrats, mainland liberals, building a nation on solid ground. You follow the low road, the crooked path. You will sleep with the fishes. No safety net for you. We will not pull you from the angry depths, ever again.

     Posted by WILL C. 10/18/2005 @ 5:46pm | ignore this person "

     Good luck.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/19/2005 @ 01:20am

117. FREIHEIT:

     Bush could have been proven guilty for many things as well, had his daddy ever allowed the insider trading investigation to go through.

     But that is not my point.

     The point is, they both (and practically every other president I can think of) should have been indcted for something. Some worse than others. But the bottom line is, our system is designed to reward those who break the laws (as long as they are white). If you break the laws in service to corporate greed, you get a free pass. You break the laws to enrich yourself, you get serious jail time. Why do you think marijuana laws are so stringent? I mean, if you have ever smoked a joint, or a bowl, or what have you, you know it is not much different in terms of its mind-altering effects from booze. The point is, it doesn't enrich the plutocracy, because it is a WEED. Simple. This is just one minor example of a litany which serve as a framework for the way the system REALLY works.

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 01:20am

118. Not much more than emotional rantings and loads of generalties mixed with horseshit.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/19/2005 @ 01:21am

119. Jor,

     Did OJ get a pass because of cash or color?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/19/2005 @ 01:23am

120. JOHN MAASCH:

     A combination of both... without Johnny Cochrane, he would have fried. Without the race card, he would have fried.

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 01:26am

121. FREIHEIT

     Were you put off by the testimony because the people were black?

     Posted by chazbough at 10/19/2005 @ 01:28am

122. FREIHEIT

     I am going to research the Ohio voter fraud further and get back to you. You still can't say how Miller's article is wrong other than you didn't like the C Span presentation.

     Posted by chazbough at 10/19/2005 @ 01:33am

123. FREIHEIT:

     Actually, your being black would make sense. You dislike the fact that blacks in America have put their faith in the Democrats and currently have very little to show for it.

     The problem with that view is, while true, the Republicans are considerably worse. Blacks in this country are caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to electoral politics.

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 01:35am

124. What if the blacks and whites elect the black candidate for governor in Ohio?

     Are they miss informed or are they educated?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/19/2005 @ 01:37am

125. FREIHEIT I did not mean to race bait. There are too many Americans who are put off by minorities. I am glad you are not put off by minorities and I apologize if I offended you. But why would a skinny little white-boy university student's testimony be less valid than any one elses. Would it shock you to learn that I was once a skinny little white-boy university student?

     Posted by chazbough at 10/19/2005 @ 01:37am

126. FREIHEIT

     If you read the Miller article in the Aug 05 Harpers, I'll read the article that you say suggests the Ohio fraud never happened. Miller's words are hard tro ignore.

     Posted by chazbough at 10/19/2005 @ 01:43am

127. FREIHEIT:

     Point taken. Still doesn't change what I said. It just means there's one less person out there that understands what I mean.

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 01:55am

128. Yes John

     Saying it makes it so. You are turning out to be quite the conservative. Let me help you out a bit.

     Blessed are the peace makers. The opposite of that is "Dammed are the war makers". God gives us the right to defend ourselves. But in common English, defense implies attack. Now I know the tired old song you folks have been singing. It goes a little something like this "Osama/Saddam attacked us on 9-11 so therefore we must attack Osama/Saddam and capture or kill Saddam." The end... Thunderous applause.

     John did you catch it. No? Somewhere in the song Osama/Saddam magically turns into just Saddam. So what happened to Osama? John, that is a very good question.

     Which takes us back to my statement about don't your own actions answer your question. They do, John. The ten are clear: Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't kill. I'm sorry bubba, but that's exactly what you folks have been doing since 2000. That makes you bad people. But it gets worse. Our country is based on the concept of government of the people. I didn't vote for GW. I didn't support the war. I never believed Saddam had WMD. But that doesn't matter. Because everything that's been done by you and your fearless leader, has been done in my name. This is government of the people. I'm part of that government. I'm one of the people. I'm as responsible as the men who actually carried out the acts.

     Now John, I've been giving you a hard time today and I do apologize for that. We are truly in this together. When you folks launched this war without an attack to justify it you didn't just damn yourself, you damned me too. When you lied, I lied. When you killed, I killed. When you cheated, I cheated. When you stole, I stole. That is the nature of government of the people, we are all responsible for the actions of our government.

     Because of what you did in my name, I have to fight you. I must restore my own personal honor and the honor of my countrymen. I must wipe clean the sins that you have committed. You think I hate you. You think I hate our president. Sorry, isn't happening. I believe in God. But, I'm not one of you talk the talk conservatives. Faith isn't as easy as doing a cannon ball into the river and then running out screaming "I'm Saved". You have to actually do what the Nazarene says to do. That's what John 4.14 means when it states and I'm paraphrasing, "You only get to heaven through me". You can't just talk a good talk. You have to walk the walk. And it doesn't really matter if you are Christian or not. If you walk in his footsteps, he doesn't care about your faith or lack of it.

     John, I hope this helped to clear things up. If it doesn't, brother you are shit out of luck.

     Posted by Will C. at 10/19/2005 @ 02:01am

129. BBATTEN, I guess I got you confused with ILOVEPHYSICS who laid out a similar platform.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 10/18/2005 @ 8:32pm

     No, I think you just got confused, period. No one else is laying out anything similar to what I am, inre taxation.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 03:12am

130. I find it troubling to have people who can't put an x in a box of their candiate deciding the fate of the most powerful country in the world. Even when sample ballots were published and mailed before the election.

     Maybe it is just me.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/19/2005 @ 12:58am

     Wait until you're 94 years old. Maybe your mind is still sharp, but you can't hear without a hearing aid, maybe even deaf in one ear, the hearing aid makes all kinds of whacky noises sometimes...

     And maybe you have glasses, bifocals, and you still can't see very well. Have to cock your head this way and that, and move the page back and forth, closer to you...now further away.

     And you may be able to think and reason, but your 5 senses are failing you.

     Then, and only then, will you be able to write something like that and have me respect it.

     In case you're wondering, that is my grandmother I was describing.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 03:18am

131. How could you categorize the Bush Administration: Huey Long with a sense of Divine Right, or perhaps Manifest Destiny? They remind me of the dragon Smaug's comment from the Hobbit, "I go where I want, I kill when I want, I am Smaug!". Bush, Cheney, et. al. seem to believe that they can do anything.

     I've been a political junkie for over 30 years but I have never seen anything like these guys: cynically spouting self-righteous platitudes while lining the pockets of their cronies and supporters at every opportunity; sending 2000 young Americans to their deaths for made-up reasons without an ounce of apparent regret. To top it off we have a Republican controlled Congress that refuses to investigate anything, and the most compliant media since the 1950s. As Paul Krugman pointed out, there are no longer any non-political truths. Any criticism of Bush's policies is immediately labled partisan and used as "He said, she said" fodder for the cable news shows.

     There is little doubt that Rove, Libby (and most likely Cheney by proxy) are guilty as hell. They become so arrogant, vindictive, and isolated from reality that they lost all sense of limits, to the point that they thought they could safely take down a working CIA operative. On the bright side, I guess this shows that even the Bush Administrative was not able to change the basic laws of the universe: If you fly too close to sun you will fall.

     Stormbringer

     Posted by Stormbringer at 10/19/2005 @ 03:31am

132. JOHN, That last post came across the wrong way. I've been at work 16 hours and it has impaired my writing skills. I don't mean any disrespect to you personally.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 03:42am

133. October 19, 2005 Niger Uranium Forgery Mystery Solved? The Fitzgerald/Plame investigation goes in a new direction by Justin Raimondo

     excerpts:

     I am told by a former CIA operations officer, the report has aroused some interest on this side of the Atlantic. According to a source in the Italian embassy, Patrick J. "Bulldog" Fitzgerald asked for and "has finally been given a full copy of the Italian parliamentary oversight report on the forged Niger uranium document," the former CIA officer tells me:

     "Previous versions of the report were redacted and had all the names removed, though it was possible to guess who was involved. This version names Michael Ledeen as the conduit for the report and indicates that former CIA officers Duane Clarridge and Alan Wolf were the principal forgers. All three had business interests with Chalabi."

     Alan Wolf died about a year and a half ago of cancer. He served as chief of the CIA's Near East Division as well as the European Division, and was also CIA chief of station in Rome after Clarridge. According to my source, "he and Clarridge and Ledeen were all very close and also close to Chalabi." The former CIA officer says Wolf "was Clarridge's Agency godfather. Significantly, both Clarridge and Wolf also spent considerable time in the Africa division, so they both had the Africa and Rome connection and both were close to Ledeen, closing the loop."

     A veteran of the Iran-Contra scandal, Ledeen played an important role in the Iran-Contra "arms for hostages" scandal by setting up meetings between the American government and the Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar. Not all that unexpected coming from a self-proclaimed advocate of Machiavelli's amoralism. Today, Ledeen is among the most visible and radical neoconservative ideologues whose passion for a campaign of serial "regime-change" in the Middle East is undiminished by the Iraqi debacle.

     Ledeen has kept the neocon faith – and the same friends – for all these years. He's still buddies with Ghorbanifar. In December 2001, he had a meeting in Rome with Ghorbanifar in the company of the Pentagon's top Iran specialist, Larry Franklin, and Harold Rhode, assigned to the Office of Net Assessment, a Pentagon think tank. Also at the Rome conclave: a number of Ghorbanifar's Iranian friends, including a former senior official of the Revolutionary Guard.

     Franklin, we now know, was busy spying for Israel during this period, handing over classified information to AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman: he has been indicted and has turned state's evidence: the trial is set to begin in January.

     Rhode is an ideologue of a similar coloration. Together with Franklin, Rhode helped set up the Defense Department's Office of Special Plans, which stove-piped phony "intelligence" provided by Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress and hyped the case for war. Rhode and Franklin worked hand in hand with Chalabi, and, as United Press International intelligence correspondent Richard Sale reports, they had certain interests in common:

     "According to one former senior U.S. intelligence official who maintained excellent contacts with serving U.S. intelligence officials in the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, 'Rhode practically lived out of (Ahmed) Chalabi's office.' This same source quoted the intelligence official with the CPA as saying, 'Rhode was observed by CIA operatives as being constantly on his cell phone to Israel,' and that the information that the intelligence officials overheard him passing to Israel was 'mind-boggling,' this source said. It dealt with U.S. plans, military deployments, political projects, discussion of Iraq assets, and a host of other sensitive topics, the former senior U.S. intelligence official said."

     No wonder my source tells me that "Fitzgerald asked the Italians if he could share the report with Paul McNulty," the prosecutor in the AIPAC case. There are plenty of links between the two investigations: they are, in a sense, the same investigation, since many of the same people are involved.

     http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7681

     So, perhaps now you can see why I have been so focused on matters pertaining to AIPAC and spying in the US? The Plame Investigation and the AIPAC Investigation are morphing into the same investigation.

     I guess you have to be a conspiracy theorist to figure some of these things out. As long as he has these creeps under oath, do you suppose Fitzgerald might think to ask Cheney and others what they were actually doing on the morning of 9/11/2001? If he is looking into the Neocon-stated pretexts for the war, the most frequently referenced by far is 9/11. Perhaps this is an even bigger investigation than you think. Once you start pulling on a loose thread, where do you stop?

     Thank you for your time and attention. You may now return to your quarrel over whether Republicans are worse than Democrats, or vice-versa, as you have been programmed to do by those in charge of the divide and conquer strategy...while Rome burns.

     Or, you can focus on what unites us, and stop playing that game.

     It's up to you.

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 05:16am

134. Why Did Feith Resign? Could it have had something to do with the Larry Franklin spy scandal?

     excerpts:

     We have to ask: On whose behalf was Franklin storing a "terrorism situation report" labeled "SCI" – the second highest category of classified information, several degrees above "classified," "secret," and "top secret" – and, even more intriguingly, where did he get it?

     The resignation of Defense Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, Franklin's boss, as investigators close in on the Israeli spy nest embedded in his department now has to be seen in a new light. As Professor Juan Cole pointed out back in January, when Feith's departure was announced:

     "Feith has been questioned by the FBI in relation to the passing by one of his employees of confidential Pentagon documents to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which in turn passed them to the Israeli embassy. The Senate Intelligence Committee is also investigating Feith. There seems little doubt that he operated in the Pentagon in such a way as to produce false and misleading 'intelligence,' that he created an entirely false impression of Iraqi weapons capabilities and ties to al-Qaeda, and that he is among the chief facilitators of the US war in Iraq.

     "Feith is clearly resigning ahead of the possible breaking of major scandals concerning his tenure at the Department of Defense, which is among the more disgraceful cases of the misleading of the American people in American history."

     Will the Franklin-Rosen-Weissman investigation implicate Feith – or someone higher up in the Washington food chain?

     Why would an Israeli spy want access to highly sensitive U.S. intelligence regarding al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?

     http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6137

     AIPAC and Espionage: Guilty as Hell Pentagon analyst plea bargains, threatens to expose Israel's Washington cabal by Justin Raimondo

     The plea bargain struck by former Pentagon analyst Lawrence A. Franklin – charged with five counts of handing over classified information to officials of a pro-Israel lobbying group, who passed it on to Israeli diplomatic personnel – has delivered a body blow to the defense of the two remaining accused spies. Steve Rosen, who for 20 years was the chief lobbyist over at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and Keith Weissman, AIPAC's top foreign policy analyst, befriended Franklin and pumped him for top-secret information – including sensitive data about al-Qaeda, the Khobar Towers terrorist attack, Iran's weapons program, and attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Now they face the likely prospect of Franklin testifying to their treason in court.

     For months, AIPAC's defenders have been bruiting it about that this prosecution is persecution, that the whole thing is a "setup." What Rosen, Weissman, and Franklin are accused of is routine, said their defenders – "everybody does it" – and the decision to go after AIPAC is thinly disguised anti-Semitism, the 21st century American equivalent of Kristallnacht. They have impugned the FBI as some sort of neo-Nazi outfit, exonerated the accused before even hearing the charges, and engaged in a smear campaign against anyone who wonders why it is that a purportedly American organization is engaged in an intelligence-gathering operation involving the transfer of top-secret information to a foreign government.

     Now the man they portrayed as being a persecuted victim is admitting that, yes, he spied for Israel, and, furthermore, the clear implication of this apparent plea bargain is that he is prepared to expose the spy ring that Israel was – and perhaps still is – running inside AIPAC, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington.

     "If we observe how we were lied into war with Iraq, and by whom," I wrote in May, "the whole affair looks more like an Israeli covert operation by the day." The AIPAC spy scandal is confirming this in spades – and much else, too. It is also showing that the Israelis were not about to stop with Iraq, but were – and are – lobbying furiously for more military action in the Middle East, this time aiming for regime change in Tehran. The indictments issued against Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman describe a systematic attempt by Israel's fifth column in Washington to garner top-secret U.S. intelligence about Iran, its weapons program, and U.S. deliberations about what action to take.

     The chief beneficiaries of the conquest of Iraq, and subsequent threats against both Iran and Syria, have been, in descending order, Israel, Iran, and Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda has used the invasion as a recruiting tool and training ground for its global jihad against the United States. Iran has extended its influence deep into southern Iraq and has penetrated the central government in Baghdad. In the long run, however, Israel benefits the most, as a major Middle Eastern Arab country fragments into at least three pieces and the U.S. military is ineluctably drawn into neighboring countries.

     While the U.S. imposes an occupation eerily reminiscent of Israel's longstanding occupation of Palestinian lands and prepares to deal with Israel's enemies in the region, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon makes major incursions into the West Bank, even while supposedly "withdrawing" from Gaza.

     Israel's legendary Mossad intelligence service, with its reputation for both efficiency and ruthlessness, reportedly shadowed the 9/11 hijackers on American soil as they prepared to launch the biggest terrorist attack in our history. Multiple sources reported a large-scale surveillance operation directed at U.S. government buildings, including offices of the Drug Enforcement Agency, the FBI, U.S. courthouses, and some military bases and research facilities. The AIPAC spy cell in Washington was the brain, and the "Israeli art students" – whose movements shadowed the hijackers in Florida and elsewhere – were the arms and feet of a subterranean creature whose dimensions we are only just beginning to discover.

     http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7454

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 05:33am

135. Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 ...

     Were they part of a massive spy ring which shadowed the 9/11 hijackers and knew that al-Qaeda planned a devastating terrorist attack on the USA? Neil Mackay investigates

     THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.

     Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.

     Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.

     After the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for US-Israeli relations. He said: "It's very good." Then he corrected himself, adding: "Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans]."

     If Israel's closest ally felt the collective pain of mass civilian deaths at the hands of terrorists, then Israel would have an unbreakable bond with the world's only hyperpower and an effective free hand in dealing with the Palestinian terrorists who had been murdering its innocent civilians as the second intifada dragged on throughout 2001.

     It's not surprising that the New Jersey housewife who first spotted the five Israelis and their white van wants to preserve her anonymity. She's insisted that she only be identified as Maria. A neighbour in her apartment building had called her just after the first strike on the Twin Towers. Maria grabbed a pair of binoculars and, like millions across the world, she watched the horror of the day unfold.

     As she gazed at the burning towers, she noticed a group of men kneeling on the roof of a white van in her parking lot. Here's her recollection: "They seemed to be taking a movie. They were like happy, you know ... they didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was strange."

     Police Chief John Schmidig said: "We got an alert to be on the lookout for a white Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration and writing on the side. Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down."

     By 4pm on the afternoon of September 11, the van was spotted near New Jersey's Giants stadium. A squad car pulled it over and inside were five men in their 20s. They were hustled out of the car with guns levelled at their heads and handcuffed.

     In the car was $4700 in cash, a couple of foreign passports and a pair of box cutters – the concealed Stanley Knife-type blades used by the 19 hijackers who'd flown jetliners into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon just hours before. There were also fresh pictures of the men standing with the smouldering wreckage of the Twin Towers in the background. One image showed a hand flicking a lighter in front of the devastated buildings, like a fan at a pop concert. The driver of the van then told the arresting officers: "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem."

     http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707

     http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=75266&contras sID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

     http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contras sID=/has%5C

     http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/16/110443.shtml

     http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/207226.html

     The 60 page DEA report pertaining to this matter (scroll down to view it) is here:

     http://cryptome.org/dea-il-spy.htm

     Note:

     the following story:

     The White Van Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies? Writer: Chris Isham, John Miller, Glenn Silber and Chris Vlasto Source: ABCNEWS Date: Friday, 21 June 2002

     Has been scrubbed from ABC News' server...WHY?

     Here is the archived story on another service:

     http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/020621_whitevan.html

     And here is where it used to be on ABS News web site (note the mention of "White Van" in the URL):

     http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html

     The Four Part Fox News series is archived here (having been scrubbed from the Fox News server):

     http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

     Noticing any pattern here?

     ABC's 20/20 even did a full segment on it - which while you can read about here:

     http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j062402.html

     Is again suspiciously missing from the ABC server here (note again the mention of 20/20 and White Van in the URL):

     http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html

     The story pertaining to the 20/20 segment is excerpted here:

     On Friday night, the ABC News program 20/20 broadcast "The White Van," which told the story of 5 young Israeli men apprehended in New Jersey hours after the World Trade Center was hit. They had been observed on 9/11 watching the burning of the World Trade Center from their vantage point in Liberty State Park, New Jersey, photographing each other as they rejoiced against the backdrop of the WTC aflame in the distance. Writing on March 15, I envisioned the scene, described in news stories and conjured in my mind's eye:

     "As smoke billowed up into the pellucid sky, obscuring the sun, they laughed and joked and took pictures of each other against a backdrop of unspeakable horror. Outraged witnesses called the cops, who swooped down and picked them up. These Middle Eastern-looking men,' as witnesses described them, turned out to be Israelis: they were found with box cutters in their van, $4,000 in cash, and multiple passports. The van was registered as the property of 'Urban Moving Systems.' Police interrogated them for hours, and transferred them to a maximum security facility. A raid on the Urban Moving Systems warehouse (whose owner, Dominik Suter, has since fled to Israel) yielded computers, documents, and other evidence – of what?"

     "I hope we've put all these woomers to west."

     Much of the ABC report confirms my basic contention, and the contention of many others, that there was indeed, as Fox News reporter Carl Cameron puts it, a "vast Israeli spy operation" in the US in full operational mode prior to 9/11, engaged in watching the pro-Arab support network that operates in many major American cities.

     What the 20/20 report amounts to is the Israelis' second line of defense, which basically boils down to this: well, yeah, they were Israeli spies, but they were just here defending Israel's interests and had no pre-knowledge of 9/11. In the process of spinning this new rationale, however, we have a series of damning admissions, as spun by ABC terrorism "expert" Vince Cannistraro, a "former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA."

     Indeed, such surveillance – to the degree it was successful – would have increased the likelihood that the Israelis would gain some knowledge of the 9/11 plot. If not all the details, at least a strong indication that 9/11 was bound to be a special day – one they would celebrate, shamelessly and carelessly, in full sight of others, unable to restrain their joy at the sight of the WTC emitting a black cloud over Manhattan.

     A September 14 New York Times round-up of the nationwide investigation into the terrorist attacks seemed to imply not just foreknowledge, in the case of the 5 Israelis, but some form of collaboration:

     "In New Jersey, where officials believe that the hijackers received assistance from accomplices, Sherri Evanina, a spokeswoman for the FBI. in Newark, said that five men were detained late Tuesday after the van in which they were driving was stopped on Route 3 in East Rutherford. She said witnesses had reported seeing the men celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center earlier in the day in Union City. 'They were seen leaving the location after they were celebrating,' Agent Evanina said. 'They were watching the entire event from their location.'"

     If the best comedy is unintentional, then "The White Van" is chock full of yucks. The following had me rolling on the floor:

     "For the FBI, deciphering the truth from the five Israelis proved to be difficult. One of them, Paul Kurzberg, refused to take a lie-detector test for 10 weeks -- then failed it, according to his awyer. Another of his lawyers told us Kurzberg had been reluctant to take the test because he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country."

     For the FBI, it seems, deciphering anything that isn't completely spelled out for them is well nigh impossible. So he wouldn't take the test for weeks, then took it and failed and then denied working for the Mossad – in this country, at any rate. As John Stossel, Barbara Walters' 20/20 colleague, ceaselessly reiterates: "Gimme a break!"

     Why, in this case, is it so hard for the FBI to discover the truth – when they're being practically hit over the head with it? It's pathetic, really, to contemplate the utter cluelessness of our chief federal law enforcement agency, and the reporters who take their denials seriously. As 20/20 reports:

     "Despite the denials, sources tell ABC News there is still debate within the FBI over whether or not the young men were spies."

     The tale of the White Van, as told by 20/20, raises more questions than it settles. For what about those polygraphs? We are told that some of the Israeli detainees "were given as many as seven lie-detector tests." Why so many? The five were detained for over two months, 40 days of it in solitary confinement, time and opportunity enough for an awful lot of questions

     It will take more than Baba Wawa and her babbling yes-man to circumvent the facts and "spin" the Israelis out of this one. For what 20/20 conveniently left out was the entire context of the larger Israeli spy story, as uncovered by Carl Cameron in his 4-part series on Fox News, and since widely discussed both here and abroad.

     We are supposed to look at five guys in a van, dancing for joy in the shadow of the burning WTC, in isolation, apart from the hundreds of Israeli "art students" who took such an ardent interest in entering government buildings in the months and weeks prior to 9/11.

     And this amazing story on september 12, 2001:

     FIVE MEN DETAINED AS SUSPECTED CONSPIRATORS MAPS CONNECT THEM TO ATTACK; SIMILAR VAN WAS IN LIBERTY PARK

     "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

     http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/LIMA.html

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 06:18am

136. And what did Dick Cheney do on 9/11?

     http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm

     His lies are well chronicled here, in Part 2:

     http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm

     I think we all deserve some answers from Mr. Cheney...

     THIS TIME - UNDER OATH.

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 06:37am

137. I have remarked on other occasions how the "21st Century Hard Left now has elements of the late 20th Hard Right", specifically a paranoid conspiracy-minded group who see "black helicopters" and "United Nations' invasions" around every corner.

     This came about in the 70s and 80s, with what many reactionaries saw as the "death of American traditions" and of course their feelings of powerlessness, in an increasing liberal-dominated culture and government. It gave rise to the survivalists, the "militias", and ultimately Tim McVeigh.

     Right now, that same kind of paranoia is starting on the Left, for the same reasons. And as ONE example....PLUNGER (above). He's not alone, believe me, on other blogs, I have seen similar "real stories behind 9/11" (all notably referencing fringe websites and "structural engineers who can 'prove' that an airliner hitting one of the towers 'cannot' cause it to collapse").

     Just as the extreme Right had their pre-Internet tracts and books, claiming that "after liberals take away our guns, the UN and the Chinese Army plan on invading us from socialist Canada"....now, the extreme Left (armed with a communication system that can INSTANTLY disseminate the most ludicrous "information") has developed ITS "globe-spanning, corporate, neo-fascist, 'pro-Israeli' (code for something we all know is NOT confined just to those who support Israel), theocratic Cabal" which plans and executes "fake attacks by terrorists" to "push through draconian laws that result in an oppressive dictatorship".

     One key problem the Right had in the 70s and 80s was distancing themselves from these types, but they did, marginalizing them and along with the Left, calling them "nutjobs". Unfortunately, the "New Paranoids" on the Left, seem to be EMBRACED by a percentage on the liberal side....and dare I say, given prominence in the anti-war movement (which puts mainstream Democrats in a bit of a pickle, when they show up in DC!)

     Posted by Mask at 10/19/2005 @ 07:00am

138. Mask:

     What is your theory behind the well documented story known as the "dancing israelis?"

     Please be specific.

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 07:13am

139. Here's a list of folks who have either testified or have been interviewed by Patrick Fitzgerald (or by FBI agents) in connection with the Plame probe. Please send us omissions and additions and expansions. Anonymity is guaranteed. To repeat: the list below is of those who have been interviewed by officials in connection with the case. Inclusion does not necessarily indicate that the listed person has testified under oath.

     Bush: Early Summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath) Cheney: Early summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath) Ex-Dep. Sec/State Richard Armitage WH Assist. To. Pres. Dan Bartlett Ex-WH press aide Claire Buchan: Feb. 6, 2004 WH COS Andy Card Time's Matt Cooper: July 13, 2005 Ex-WH press. sec. Ari Fleischer (at least twice) A.G. Alberto Gonzales: June 18, 2004 Ex-DOS BIR dir. Carl Ford NSA Stephen Hadley Ex-CIA comm. dir. Bill Harlow Assis. Sec. of Commerce/Ex-Rove assist. Izzy Hernandez Assist. Sec. of State Karen Hughes Ex-Sec/State counterproliferation offic. Bob Joseph Washington Post's Glenn Kessler Ex junior WH press aide Adam Levine: Feb. 6, 2004 Cheney CoS Irving L. "Scooter" Libby (twice) Ex-Cheney adviser Mary Matalin: Late January, 2004 Current WH Press Sec. Scott McClellan: Feb, 6, 2004 Ex-CIA dep. dir. John McLaughlin Cheney aide Cathie Martin New York Times ' Judy Miller (twice) CIA comm. dir. Jennifer Millerwise (did not go before grand jury) Columnist Bob Novak Ex-Sec/State Colin Powell: July 16, 2004 Ex-Abramoff assist./Rove assist. Susan Ralston WH DCoS Karl Rove (4 times) NBC News' Tim Russert Stranger who stopped Novak in the street Ex-CIA dir. George Tenet Sen. Adviser to Sec/State Jim Wilkinson (has said he did not testify) Ex-Amb. Joseph Wilson

     On the witness list at one point but never called to tesify:

     New York Times' Nick Kristoff

     "Cooperated" with Fitzgerald:

     Sec/State Condoleezza Rice

     Others believed to have testified:

     John Hannah, David Wurmser (senior members of Cheney's staff) (Hotline sources)

     Other journalists mentioned in press acounts as having initially sparked Fitzgerald's interest:

     Time's Massimo Calabresi Time's Mike Duffy Time's James Carney NBC's Andrea Mitchell NYTer David Sanger Newsday's Timothy M. Phelps Newsday's Knut Royce Newsweek's Evan Thomas Ex-Postie Mike Allen NBC's Campbell Brown WSJ ed. page. editor Paul Gigot / reporter Greg Hitt Ex-celeb. James Guckert/Jeff Gannon

     http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/10/the_f_list.html# more

     Just this morning, Tim Russert said of the Judith Miller fiasco:

     "This raises enormous, enourmous questions."

     I think he is understating it.

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 07:51am

140. The supposed trial of Saddam Hussein is being broadcast as if it were live, but is actually on a 20 minute tape delay.

     Why you ask?

     He is CIA. He knows way too much about GHW Bush - and in the event he starts to spill the beans, the censors need time to do their dirty work.

     Welcome to 1984 comrade, your papers please?

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 07:56am

141. Cheney and Rove should walk the plank. Everybody in Washington DC knows that Libby would not leak to discredit Wilson without Cheney's ok. Libby is Cheney's attack dog and pawn. Cheney was obsessed with revenge on Wilson for letting the air out of Cheney's Iraq lies and accusations. But Libby will take the hit to protect his boss. Stay tuned...the end is near. The hubris of this mafia in the White House will be their undoing.

     Posted by philbq at 10/19/2005 @ 08:48am

142. Concerning the 9/11 conspiration arguments, it is true that there is alot of information out there, (even very credible information), that points to the direction of a conspiration. As I do not master most of the fields concerning these conspiration arguments, I will simply keep them as very plausible possibilities.

     What I know is that, if America can spend so much time analysing why a reporter wrote in her note-book the name of an undercover CIA agent, Than all the plausible arguments concerning the 9/11 conspiration need to be analysed more seriously.

     I am afraid there is no political will to do so, as there is no national courage to go in that direction, I fear Americans would be afraid to know the true, in the event the true is a conspiration.

     Posted by areyouok at 10/19/2005 @ 08:52am

143. Plunger: I enjoy your posts. The reason for the delay in the feed from the Saddam trial is so the CIA can edit out any embarrassing truths about U.S. misdeeds that Saddam reveals in court. This trial is seen by the world to be an illegitimate joke. They want to execute Saddam as soon as possible to silence him before he embarrasses the U.S. by talking about what Rumsfeld said to Saddam on his visit in 1988.

     Posted by philbq at 10/19/2005 @ 08:55am

144. The Saddam trial has just been postponed until November.

     I wonder if we'll ever learn what led to that.

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 09:05am

145. PLUNGER,

     Maybe it is that "Wilma", can cover the media in the mean time, once "Wilma" gone, Saddams trial will continue, and so forth

     Posted by areyouok at 10/19/2005 @ 09:33am

146. all this talk about there not being a there there, is stealing from Gertrude Stein, anybody want to look up the original quote?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 09:56am

147. Yes PHILBQ, and anything Saddam says about the USA will certainly be true.

     Gotta be true - he's the bad guy.

     Congrats on your continued, unwaivering support of the enemy.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/19/2005 @ 10:14am

148. The quote "There is no there there" appears in Stein's Book Everybody's Autobiography. When Stein returned to California on her lecture tour to the United States in the 1930s, she wanted to visit her childhood home in Oakland, CA. She records that she could not find the house. Hence, "there is no there there."

     Note that in the original context, there WAS a there there - until it was torn down.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 10/19/2005 @ 10:23am

149. myparadigm, nice

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 10:40am

150. Mask,

     Your unflinching position that there is no wrong in the current administration and that to suggest otherwise is merely a conspiracy theory is ridiculous.

     Simple question to ask yourself:

     Why would GWB nominate Miers (a clearly cronyistic pick from both a left and right wing persective) in the aftermath of the FEMA disaster in New Orleans? Surely logic would scream "anbody but a close personal friend (that went to the second best lawschool in all of Texas!) Forget the crony argument, why would he disappoint the base? For sure that was a tough political decision to make.

     If you are not yet coming up with the plainly obvious answer that he needs friends on the court to rule favorably in the future when the misdeeds finally come to light you are being very naive.

     So I don't know that all of Plunger's theories are spot on, but I am convinced that there is some pretty nasty shit swilling around in the Whitehouse that's eventually likely to surface.

     If you refuse to look for that shit then you're not doing your duty as a citizen of this democracy.

     And don't even tell me that you honestly think Mier's will recuse herself on hearings involving Administration officials, because we both know that is an utter crock of shit.

     Posted by colmes at 10/19/2005 @ 10:52am

151. It all makes one wonder what else "Darth Cheney" is hiding (besides himself). As to the specualtion of the "Secret Energy Task Force"....it is pretty much out of the bag now if you know where to look. HERE [judicialwatch.org] The task force, back in 2001, was looking at maps of Iraqi oil fields and reports re: potential investors in Iraqi oil. So BushWar 2 IS Cheney's energy policy....of course, its not going precisely as planned. I suppose before you make a plan you oughta have a clue.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/19/2005 @ 12:07pm

152. re: Saddam trial

     from MSNBC:

     The main reason for the adjournment was because some 30 to 40 witnesses had been too scared to show up, the presiding judge said.

     "They were too scared to be public witnesses," Rizgar Mohammed Amin told Reuters. "We're going to work on this issue for the next sessions."

     A secondary reason was that the defense had requested a three-month delay to review the evidence.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/19/2005 @ 12:11pm

153. Looking from the outside in, it does strike me as somewhat strange that a fairly large number of highly placed officials - not those at Cabinet level, but those just under, where policies are formulated - in the United States hold dual US/Israeli citizenship, that this seems to be accepted as «normal» (one might ask what the response would be if they held, say, dual US/PRC citizenship instead), and that in what are called «mainstream media» questions as to where the primary loyalties of these persons lie seem to be taboo. Now it may well be the case that the interests of the US economic and political elite and that of their Israeli counterparts are, in fact, identical, but that the question is not debated openly - or if attempts to raise it are made, they are immediately quashed by references to «anti-semitism», Adolf Hitler, and the extermination of European Jewry - is remarkable. To my mind «Plunger» is to complimented on his attempt to make this issue the core of the discussion, but it is distressing how few are willing to run with this particular ball. Instead we are treated to pseudo-discussions concerning Mr Clinton's sexual peccadilloes and blue dresses. I find this sad, not only for the five per cent of the world population which resides in the United States, but also for the 95 per cent of us who live elsewhere, but, often to our distress, find ourselves subject to the consequences of policy decisions taken in your country....

     Posted by mhenriday at 10/19/2005 @ 1:07pm

154. In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.

     Ah...but what of the individual in the seat of power with dual citizenship (dual loyalties or conflicted loyalties)? If a person has in fact pledged allegiance to two flags, or even two flags plus a religion that places its laws above those of state's or man, then where do one's loyalties lie?

     What if a dual-citizen's religion calls for them to put their religion first - evangelizing a religious objective by any means necessary - even ignoring and forsaking any pledge or oath which may have been entered into that would interfere with the goals of the religion...then what?

     If a Senator, Congressman, Homeland Security Director, etc. of the United States happens to enjoy dual-citizenship with the State Of Israel - but actually is inclined to feel more loyalty to Israel than to America, then if might be deduced that no treason is committed in the event such an individual were to vote or act in ways which are of more benefit to their other loyalties than to the United States.

     This begs the question, why would a country tolerate placing anyone in a position of such power if they are not bound by the laws that the rest of us are sworn to live by? Isn't the issue of dual citizenship something that should be carefully examined as it relates to the laws regarding treason? It would appear that a dual citizen caught violating the letter of the law with respect to treason could merely claim that his/her greater loyalties lie with another country.

     The Pledge Of Allegiance is supposed to matter, right?

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 1:52pm

155. "Is it corruption that Halliburton wins contracts, or is it the bids and expertise?"

     I was under the impression that Halliburton and company were corrupt because they got huge contracts without the need for winning bids...

     Posted by drhammer at 10/19/2005 @ 2:33pm

156. DRHAMMER:

     You nailed it... pardon the pun.

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 2:42pm

157. Every citizen of a foreign state in America owes a double allegiance, one to it and one to the United States. He may be guilty of treason against one or both. If the demands of these two sovereigns upon his duty of allegiance come into conflict, those of the United States have the paramount authority in American law.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 2:48pm

158. Can someone here inform me of the names of one or two companies other than Halliburton that should have been considered for the Iraq contracts? Thank you.

     Posted by RonS at 10/19/2005 @ 2:54pm

159. Rio, that was a fact free post, something you accuse others of

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 4:07pm

160. RONS, a cursory google revealed this:

     Bechtel Schlumberger Technip There are 34 competitors for Halliburton; see more.

     are the right wingers too lazy or too stupid to google for themselves?

     this is a hard one, let me think....

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 4:16pm

161. The real "whodunnit" may begin. The cat may finally be out of the bag. For those doubters of us so called "conspiracy theorists": are the Kennedy "conspiracy theorists" now looked upon as whackos? I doesn't take a a rocket scientist(or even a political scientist) to understand a CIA/Mafia/Cuban freedom fighter connection. Fast forward to today: Israel/Military-Industrial Complex/Neo-Con/Big Oil/World domination. It's not a huge stretch if you will examine all the pieces. Plunger can describe in wonderful detail the "Israeli Five" and all that entails. Look further: What plane hit the Pentagon? Could a 757 fly so low and perfectly hit that building after making such a perfect turn? Why did it hit the only area under construction? Who were the photographed "suits" on the grounds picking up the shreds? Where are the pieces of this air plane? Where are the body parts? Go to New York. Why did building number 7 crumble so perfectly? Film shows only fairly small fires in that building. Why did the Twin Towers demolish so perfectly? Who benefits the most from such a "catastrophic event". A "catastrophic" or "cataclysmic" event was mentioned by the Neo-Cons in their pre-election mandate(Project for a New American Century.)Alot of stuff adds up. www.weknow.com www.911truth.org www.911mysteries.com

     Posted by wjfalcone at 10/19/2005 @ 4:18pm

162. JOHANNESSROLF: Thanks, but google is not a way to determine which companies are capable of doing the work. If you are going to make a case that there are such companies, you have to do better than that. So don't tell me about laziness. By the way, my question was sincere.

     Posted by RonS at 10/19/2005 @ 4:23pm

163. the site in question was an industry site, and it did give three of their competitors. that was your question, they also stated that there are 34 more competitors,

     I guess I should have cited the site, my bad. I asumed that you were sincere, but why you didn't google or any other search is still unexplained.

     I went back and the citation is from Hoovers, which is a lot better than your opinion for instance, implied in your post was that there aren't any competitors and that even with no bid contract Halicrooked are the only ones providing this expertise, context counts

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 4:30pm

164. JOHANNESROLF: Thanks. Yes, not citing the site threw me off. But I guess I should re-phrase my question to those who believe that Halliburton profited unfairly: who instead of Halliburton should have gotten the contracts? That would seem to be a fair question. Also, I might be wrong, but didn't Bechtel get awarded major contracts for the Iraq reconstruction?

     Posted by RonS at 10/19/2005 @ 4:36pm

165. studied political science in Austria in the 70's / Posted by FREIHEIT 10/18/2005 @ 8:22pm | ignore this person

     I just got a little time and started reading this thread, but this caught my eye. It seems to explain some things: so, Freiheit, given your leanings, I assume you are a supporter of Heider?

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/19/2005 @ 4:39pm

166. if you had phrased that question like that, your claimed sincerity would be more credible.

     no bid contracts are by definition unfair and reek of corruption, that is the issue

     arcane discussions such as who should have been invited to bid are above my, and your, horizon

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 4:44pm

167. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051019/dick_cheneys_covert_action.php

     Two weeks before President Bush spoke the infamous 16 words in the January 2003 State of the Union speech, the Department of Defense was fanning the flames about Iraq's alleged Nigerien uranium shopping trip. Starting in late 2001, senior Department of Defense officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, provided favored military talking heads with talking points and briefings to reinforce messages the administration wanted the public to remember.

     One of those who frequently attended these affairs, Robert Maginnis, a former Army officer and now a commentator for Fox News and the Washington Times , published an op-ed on January 15, 2003, for United Press International, subsequent to one of the briefings. In writing about the case for attacking Iraq, Maginnis affirmed that Saddam, "failed to explain why Iraq manufactures fuels suited only for a class of missile that it does not admit to having and why it sought to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger."

     Notwithstanding repeated efforts by intelligence analysts to downplay these intelligence reports as unreliable, DOD officials fanned the flames. This, my friends, is one example of "cooking intelligence." These facts further expose as farce the Bush administration's effort to blame the CIA for the misadventure in Iraq. We did not go to war in Iraq primarily because of bad intelligence and bad analysis by the CIA. The Bush administration started a war of choice.

     While CIA did make mistakes, and while some key members of the National Intelligence Council were willing to drink the neocon Kool-Aid and go along with the White House, when it came to questions of whether Iraq was buying uranium in Niger or if Saddam was working with bin Laden, CIA and INR analysts consistently got it right and told the administration what they did not want to hear. It was policymakers, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, NSC Chief Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who ignored what the analysts were saying and writing.

     The evidence of the White House effort to manipulate and shape U.S. public opinion is now overwhelming. Just last week, President Bush appeared in a pathetic scripted "dialogue" with hand-selected U.S. troops. We also know that male escort Jeff Gannon Guckert was granted special access to White House press briefings and that pundits like Armstrong Williams sold themselves to the White House. The Bush administration had an organized campaign to manipulate the U.S. media to get its message out. Unfortunately, the corporate media played along.

     The attack on Valerie Plame Wilson was not an isolated incident. It was part of a broader pattern of manipulation and deceit. But this was not done for the welfare of U.S. national security. Instead, we find ourselves confronted by an unprecedented level of terrorist attacks and a deteriorating military situation in Iraq. At the same time, we now know that the Bush administration gladly sacrificed an undercover intelligence officer in order to keep up the pretense that the war in Iraq was all about weapons of mass destruction.

     Americans have died because of the Bush deceit. The unmasking of Valerie Plame was not an odd occurrence. It was part of a pattern of deliberate manipulation and disinformation. At the end of the day, American men and women have died because of this lie. It is up to the American people to hold the Bush administration accountable for these actions.

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 4:47pm

168. I should have known better. Limbaugh is being interviewed by Hannity and not Colmes. It's a set up with a lot of fawning admiration and softball questions. Hannity looks like he's gonna have an orgasm any moment now. What a sham!

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/18/2005 @ 9:11pm | ignore this person

     Frank - that was my reaction too. How about his spiel that liberal talk radio is supported by donations! I had to turn the channel.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/19/2005 @ 4:47pm

169. political science in Austria? my country of birth was and still is a hotbed of Nazis, where did I see those WW2 numbers, of course Hitler was Austrian as well. a reactionary country for sure and more so in the 70s. I'm just trying to frame the response of Frei, which I am eagerly looking forward to

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 4:47pm

170. RIO BRAVO: Thanks for your post at 3:29. Yeah, I know. Observing the crazies is one of the reasons I stop by here. But I do like to challenge some of the more sensible ones from time to time. Orwell thought the Party could get by with a couple of ten minute hate fests a day, but these guys seem to need it hourly...

     Posted by RonS at 10/19/2005 @ 4:48pm

171. ron, if you want people to read yer posts, you might try not to insult them

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 4:51pm

172. plunger, as much as I enjoy reading your posts, I am sometimes daunted by their length

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 4:59pm

173. JOHANNSEROLF: How did I insult you? I don't think you are crazy. I've only noticed your posts recently, and although we are from different political philosophies -- apparently -- I regard you as one of the sensible ones here. As I do Zero and some others. The crazies are the conspirarcy nuts that Rio Bravo was referring to, and I hope you are not one of them! I apologize if I gave you any other impression. But I will not apologize if I offended the dancing Israeli crowd!

     Posted by RonS at 10/19/2005 @ 4:59pm

174. thank you for the compliment, I find the conspiracy crowd, here acctually very few, interesting, even the most far out opinion often contaisns a kernel of truth.

     take the Kennedy assassination, for instance. I am certainly not satisfied with the official explenation

     or the 2000 election, ditto for the official line, so rebut, rebut, rebut

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

175. Rons:

     It would appear that Conspiracy Charges are most likely to be brought against any number of Cheney's true believers. I imagine it's just about impossible to bring conspiracy charges without a related Theory...thus the term "Conspiracy Theorists" applies to our own Justice Department as a necessary skill set.

     Why do you suppose that culturally, it has become fashionable to demean those who develop theories related to conspiracies? By definition, a conspiracy requires theory. Further, why is it that this label is attached most frequently to matters pertaining to Israel in what can only be described as an institutionalized response to criticism? Is this not evidence in and of itself?

     As for the story about the Dancing Israelis which I am oft criticised for "daring" to mention...what facts do you have to support the truth or fiction of this story? Clearly something occurred that was so significant, it warranted major media coverage, and a major coverup thereafter on those major media sites that covered it.

     What's your "theory?"

     Taking shots at people can be fun, but it's usually a good idea to have some facts or theories of your own to add to the equation to justify your holier than thou attitude...otherwise it's just the blogosphere equivalent of a "drive by."

     Won't it be interesting when Fitzgerald continues pulling on this thread all the way back to 9/11, and the story of the dancing israelis becomes mainstream news once again?

     What will you be saying then?

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 5:22pm

176. Sorry for my delayed response...

     Yes, there has been corruption in all administrations, but the Rs take it to a whole new level. Nothing in the Clinton administration came close to the wholesale corruption in the Reagan and both Bush administrations.

     How many Clinton officials were convicted? I believe it was one, on a misdemeanor. I believe 32 Reagan officials were convicted. It's hard to tell what the final tally will be on this admin.

     Posted by didjman at 10/19/2005 @ 5:32pm

177. usapride: I want my country to live up the the ideals I was taught in school...freedom, justice, and liberty. When my government's policies contradict those Jeffersonian ideals, I must oppose my government. The U.S. was in bed with Saddam for many years, and now they don't want to talk about it. They want to execute Saddam before he talks. Their dishonorable past comes back to haunt them, like the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. I want the truth...maybe you don't. I do.

     Posted by philbq at 10/19/2005 @ 5:34pm

178. RONS, since you say you like to challenege, seems to me that JR has put the ball in your court. You asked who else but Halliburton, and JR gave you 30+ choices. So, I think the question is now to you - why is it ok that none of those were given an opportunity to bid?

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/19/2005 @ 5:34pm

179. 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 @ 5:35pm

180. I have studied the JFK assassination for over thirty years, and I believe there was more than one gunman. But I do not think the evidence is there for a government conspiracy. Most likely a mob hit, but I would not exclude Castro. There is also an interesting theory that the KGB circulated the story that it was the CIA in order to undermine the agency, even subsidizing some of the conspiracy books. Certainly, those conspiracy theories contributed to the effect of undermining the CIA.

     Most conspiracy theories seem to originate from the extreme, kooky right and move leftward. I first understood this in the early seventies while reading a history of the ruling class by one of the major Communist parties. They had the same scenarios and characters as the John Birch Society. The JBS called the enemy "Communists" and the Communists called them "capitalists" but they were the same people and agencies. And the footnotes cited the same references that the JBS used, which were primarily right wing sources.

     I also agree with Hofstadter about the relationship between the "paranoid style" and powerlessness. When he wrote his famous study, conservatives were out of power and many believed they always would be out of power; hence, conspiracy theories were more prevalent among people on the Right. Back then, most people who would consider themselves liberal would laugh at conspiracy theories. Today, it seems that these theories are more prevalent on the Left, even among liberals rather than just extreme Leftists.

     The 2000 election was the result of a country that has become heavily divided, and is simpley the first of what, sadly, will be many such elections. I fear the trend will be for both factions to contest these elections from now on, and that democracy will be undermined by law suits from the Left and Right. What is the Valerie Plame affair – as well as Monica Lewinsky – other than attempts by those out of power to obtain a change they could not obtain through the electoral process?

     Posted by RonS at 10/19/2005 @ 5:47pm

181. Toto, we're not in Kansas any more. There was a time when it seemed that the Nation, while a leftwing haven, thrived on a reputation for drawing "intellectual" review, analysis, and debate about the issues of the day. That day has clearly come and gone.

     This site has now become the home of hardcore leftwing haters of Christianity, Conservativism, and especially the current Administration. Interspersed, one can still find the intellectual, looking to interject opinion that at least has some reasoned thought and research of the facts behind it. But the Plungers, the Will C's, and the like have now driven the dialogue into the furthest extremes of conspiracy madness and utter hatred for anyone who does not think like they do.

     This site has become the source for conservatives and any thinking person (I include liberals of reasoned thought)of drollery and drivel, the likes of which most Americans never observe.

     Why rent a video, when I have merely to log onto the Nation website and scroll through such an array of pernicious thought and much that is lacking in perspicuity.

     If there were any weight to the endless rants of Plunger, or even the wild accusations that fill these postings, the Democratic leadership would be relentless in the halls of Congress and in the MSM until they had achieved a new Watergate. But they don't and they will not. Not because they are in bed with Bush and the GOP, but because they know there is no there, there; and that the American people are not as paranoid as some here. The let the kooks like Conyers, Cynthia McKinney and the like do their thing because it just stirs the pot. But you never see the Dem leadership support them.

     And finally, perhaps someone here who actually prefers the facts, will just google the results from the 9/11 Commission and the Senate committee that both debunked Wilson as not credible.

     So then Cheney whom is credited with being some evil mastermind is not as smart as the Senate to know that Wilson is nuts and just a partisan hack looking for his 15 minutes in the light.

     Say goodnight Alice!

     Posted by love liberty at 10/19/2005 @ 5:48pm

182. HMAN23: No, it is the Left that has been making a big deal about the Halliburton contracts -- it is from the Left that these criticisms originate -- and therefore I think these critics should simply state who they think should have been considered and why. But I drop this discussion; I concede to Rio Bravo, no one here has that answer.

     Posted by RonS at 10/19/2005 @ 5:52pm

183. I'm not convinced that Israel was behind the rush to war in Iraq. they had nothing to gain from our misadventure, they knew Saddam didn't have the weapons, hell half the world knew that, and riled up muslims are not exactly in their interest. also they were are perfectly capable to take on Saddam and his fifth rate army.

     which brings me to our Iraqis making up an army to withstand the "insurgents", I've never called them freedom fighters.

     this army is supposed to be Baathist free, ha, what a joke.

     also the Iraqi army capitulated very quickly both times in recent history, so these are the guys who are gonna do what our army can't? pacify Iraq? no way

     I bet on the suicide bombers to win. I'm not saying their cause is just, just that I pick them to win

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 5:53pm

184. RONS:

     Give us a break! JR listed more than 30 companies. You expect people posting on a blog to now look into each company and write a persuasive piece as to why each has the capability - as if they are drafting up the bid themselves? Sorry, the companies are already identified as competitors in the same sapce. Given it was a no-bid award, I think the burden is on you to justify it. No surprise you are "dropping" the issue.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/19/2005 @ 6:00pm

185. HMAN23: Have fun.

     http://slate.msn.com/id/2081707

     Posted by RonS at 10/19/2005 @ 6:12pm

186. HMAN & Johann

     re: Halliburton vs "anyone else"....yeah, it seems the wingnuts got their earplugs in cause no matter how many times you answer, they ain't hearing it! Kinda like Dubya I guess....can't hear dissenting opinions.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/19/2005 @ 6:14pm

187. Ron, that Hitchins guy talks out of both sides of his mouth

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 6:24pm

188. Johann: Regarding the Hoovers site, I think you need a subscription to view the 34 other competitors. But thanks again. Good night!

     Posted by RonS at 10/19/2005 @ 6:31pm

189. Love Liberty, the democrats do not research the scandals with any vigor because they are part of the same corruption. In order to uproot it, they risk outing themselves. They know full well it can be turned around on them and they say nothing. That doesn't mean the shit ain't there. It just means they're up to their necks in it. It's all business, after all. And it's none of our business, so far as they are concerned.

     As for Christian hating, not me. I just don't care for religious politics of any persuasion.

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/19/2005 @ 7:11pm

190. Does anyone have any opinion about the information provided on this web site? Not vouching for the information, just bringing it to light.

     http://judicial-inc.biz/Israel_in_Iraq.htm

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 7:21pm

191. 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 @ 7:34pm

192. PLUNGER,

     Don't you find it at least a little icky? I find it a lot icky. What are we supposed to do with this? Turn our sights onto Jews? We could do a Bill Bennett here and say...no can't do that. While it might be interesting to look into the links of those involved with our grand plan in the Middle East, finding Zionist connections doesn't really help solving the mess that has been created.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/19/2005 @ 7:36pm

193. TJBEHRENS1:

     I find the entire situation icky, squared.

     HOWEVER:

     I was raised to believe that the truth matters more than ANYTHING, and regardless of how "icky" it may be, I want to know the entire truth. The really "icky" part is that someone like me needs to be demanding the truth, when we have a "Media" that is supposed to be tasked with that responsibility to the American People.

     THAT IS IMPORTANT!

     If we learn that our country is controlled by a foreign power, and that our MEDIA is in the tank with them, then we can all make decisions as individuals based on that reality, which may include fighting back, or leaving.

     We all deserve the truth, don't you at least agree with that?

     Posted by plunger at 10/19/2005 @ 8:02pm

194. ron, I kow that,what's your point?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 9:23pm

195. LL,

     I don't hate Christianity, though I am wary of many people who call themselves Christians, but seem to ignore Jesus's teachings about loving your neighbor and your enemy and about excess wealth being a bad thing, while spending huge amounts of energy condemning abortion and homosexuality, about which Jesus said zilch.

     As far as hating Conservatism, there aren't any conservatives in this country to hate, at least none of any prominence. In the media, we have extreme hate-mongers who call themselves conservative, but aren't. Rush Limbaugh makes fun of 13 year-old girls. Michael Savage calls for nuking cities in the Middle East. A local wing-nut host here in Portland says that police killing unarmed civilians is a good thing.

     In the White House we have an administration that lied to get us into a war, is running up large debts (though he's actually a piker compared to that Right Wing Saint, Ronald Reagan, who quadrupled the national debt in his eight years in office), and is locking up people without a trial.

     How anyone can think this is good for the country is beyond me.

     I don't hate the administration, I just think that those people in the administration who have violated the law should pay for their actions, and those who have lied to the country and the world in order to start a war should also pay for their actions.

     By the way, I am no lover of Bill Clinton. I voted for him in 1992, but not in 1996. It pisses me off when I see bumper stickers that say "Nobody died when Clinton lied", because that's not true--Clinton lied in order to bomb Iraq. It's true that Clinton didn't invade Iraq, but ihe did bomb it.

     Posted by didjman at 10/19/2005 @ 9:48pm

196. Re-posted from David Corn's article blog---

     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 @ 10:28pm

197. RONS:

     Please tell me you have more than posting a link to an op-ed article on Slate. Have a good night - maybe an answer will come to you in a dream.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/19/2005 @ 10:33pm

198. Why do the righties label criticism as "hate"? Are they so insecure that they can't take any accountability?

     Some of the righties on here accuse those of us who feel the administration should be held accountable for their wrongdoing of being hateful.

     Perhaps some of it that they can't fathom not hating someone they oppose. I don't hate Bush, though I do think that he and his administration are colossal failures, and I think he and those in his administration responsible for the colossal failures should be held accountable.

     Posted by didjman at 10/19/2005 @ 10:46pm

199. "LOVELIBERTY"--- If you find the folks at this site so repugnant, we would be delighted if you would take your pompous, born-again, Limbaugh-derived half-baked opinions elsewhere. You cite Bush administration data to make your erroneous points??? What planet are you on??? Anybody that believes anything from this evil mafia in the White House is a fool, or a liar. Good Riddance!

     Posted by philbq at 10/19/2005 @ 10:56pm

200. I don't think it is paranoia to acknowledge the deep, broad influence that the Israel lobby (AIPAC) has on U.S. mid-east policy. Everyone in Congress is scared to death of them. Anyone who speaks or votes against them is thrown out of office. I suspect that is the main reason why leading Democrats (Kerry, Hillary, etc.) won't call for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Israel likes us foghting their wars. And Israel is behind the growing saber-rattling propaganda against Iran. The Franklin case is typical: a senior official with duel loyalties spying for Israel. And this case reaches deep into the Bush warhawks, like the Plame case. Our government has been sold by treasonous creeps. That's not paranoid...that's reality.

     Posted by philbq at 10/19/2005 @ 11:10pm

201. Philbq:

     Word!

     Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 12:35am

202. The truth is finally out! Philbq is a closet anti-semite. Come on now Phil, you can admit your little pet hates; Jews, Christians, anyone who doesn't agree with you. You have to be one of the more obnoxious kooks posting here. And that gives kooks a bad name. You claim to be a lover of Jeffersonian democracy. Somehow I missed the particular writing by Jefferson where he approved of hating those with a different opinion and thought hating and spewing contempt those in opposing view could only enhance the democratic experience. Must have been a later edition.

     Posted by love liberty at 10/20/2005 @ 12:45am

203. 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 @ 01:00am

204. I see some fellow bloggers mistake anti-semitism with anti-sionism, but, beware it is not the same, and you can be a jew while being antisionist. Conservatives seem to get very nervous with the conspirancy theories, why?, if you are so sure it is not true, why to make such a big fuss on it. Finally, I wish to remind you that during WW2, the sionist movement negociated with Hitler the transfer agreement, officially sold as a way to save jews, but in reality, it worked only for those who had the money and the will to give it all to the future Sionist state. That of course did not help with the already existing sionist conspirancy confusion created by the "The Protocols of the elders of Sion" and the "International Jew" of Henry Ford, sorry but, if there are people that believe in conspirancy it is the own fault of the maybe conspirators, and not of over imagination.

     Posted by areyouok at 10/20/2005 @ 03:56am

205. 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 @ 06:47am

206. "As Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald mulls possible charges in the Valerie Plame investigation, the gloating in liberal enclaves like Manhattan, Oberlin and [Arianna Huffington's] dining room has swelled to a roar," Jacob Weisberg writes at the Web magazine Slate (www.slate.msn.com.)

     "Opponents of the Bush administration are anticipating vindication on various fronts -- justice for their nemesis Karl Rove, repudiation of George W. Bush's dishonest case for the Iraq war, a comeuppance for Chalabi-loving reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times, and even some payback for the excesses of independent counsels during the Clinton years," Mr. Weisberg said.

     "Hold the schadenfreude, blue-staters. Rooting for Rove's indictment in this case isn't just unseemly, it's unthinking and ultimately self-destructive. Anyone who cares about civil liberties, freedom of information, or even just fair play should have been skeptical about Fitzgerald's investigation from the start. Claiming a few conservative scalps might be satisfying, but they'll come at a cost to principles liberals hold dear: the press's right to find out, the government's ability to disclose, and the public's right to know."

     Posted by Mask at 10/20/2005 @ 07:01am

207. "LOVE LIBERTY"---(I use quotes because I think anyone who supports the fascists running this country can't possibly love liberty) I have nothing against Jewish people (I have liberal Jewish friends). I have nothing against Christians (I have Christian friends). But I have a problem with imperial Zionists and born-again crusaders. You are both misguided and maniacally dangerous. You spread your strange beliefs through violence, money, and domination. But remember it was you who were complaining about the opinions expressed at this site. Then why are you here? If you were honest, you would admit that it is intelligent and stimulating conversation. Since you usually interact with your brain-washed yesmen, I think you secretly like to bounce your rightwing propaganda off some different minds sometimes. But that shit doesn't work here...we are liberated, LIBERAL thinkers here. So you must defend your kookoo rantings with facts, and you can't. So you whine about our crowd. Pathetic...

     Posted by philbq at 10/20/2005 @ 07:11am

208. MASK: Jason Weisenberg (and you) are full of bullshit!!!The Plme investigation UPHOLDS those principles Weisenberg was talking about. Get it straight: the outing of Joe Wilson's wife was an attempt to discredit a respected critic of this war and administration, using the standard Rove tactic of no-holds-barred hardball. And it has blown up in their face. This is just like Watergate, brought on by the hubris and immorality of the ruling gang. So you can stuff that Slate-Weisenberg garbage. It's crap.

     Posted by philbq at 10/20/2005 @ 07:21am

209. JOHANNESROLF: I had no agenda with that remark, just an FYI. However, to both you and HMAN23, I think that if people on the Left -- bloggers and journalists and political leaders etc. -- are making these accusations about Halliburton, that they ought to be able to come up with the name of one or two companies who could do the specific reconstruction work (which is different than doing a web search on company names) and be prepared to explain why. I am sorry that Hitchens does not reach the intellectual heights of Micheal Moore, Jon Stewart, or Bill Maher, let alone PLUNGER.

     Posted by RonS at 10/20/2005 @ 07:39am

210. RONS

     Herewith a list of companies that not only can compete with Halliburton, but also have been promised contracts if their countries joined the coalision in Irak, so far no one has got any contract, and they feel looped, and are forcing their gov to get out:

     Dragados, Endesa for Spain. Maersk, Carl Bro and Kampsax for Denmark.

     Herewith lists of companies that could also compete but were ruled out because their countries did not support the war:

     Batiments et Ponts, Bouyges for France. Bsix and Solvay for Belgium. Gaz de Portugal. Eurest from Holland.............. and the list is large. Concerning USA companies Johannesrolf has done a good job already.

     Posted by areyouok at 10/20/2005 @ 08:08am

211. ron, you expect us to come up with the background information to disprove the strawman you yourself have set up. why don't you prove that Haliburton and only Haliburton can do the work given to them by no bid contracts.

     it's the no bid part folks is complaining about, not their expertise.

     Michael Moore et al have a clear consistent message, Hitchens in my opinion does not, and identifying them or me with plunger was a cheap shot. now that's something you are evidently good at

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 08:16am

212. areyouok, very nice

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 08:16am

213. The rats are scattering, and turning on one another.

     Spy vs. Spy - to the tenth power.

     Posted by plunger at 10/20/2005 @ 09:33am

214. unfortunately "Bush lied" is no longer much of a news sory since it has happened so often and therefor has become apredictable event

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 11:30am

215. AREYOUOK: Thank you for a reasoned, civil reply. A U.S. Spanish consortium had won a $12.75 million dollar contract to rebuild a hydro-electric plant in Iraq. (Project was completed last year.) This consortium was also selected as eligible for up to $15 billion in contracts to support US military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dragados, one of the companies on your list, was in the consortium but opted out of the dam project, partly because of a policy not to enter Iraq for security reasons. (Source: Forbes) (This has not stopped American contractors, including Halliburton, who have had workers killed in Iraq.)

     Posted by RonS at 10/20/2005 @ 11:32am

216. But the Plungers, the Will C's, and the like have now driven the dialogue into the furthest extremes of conspiracy madness and utter hatred for anyone who does not think like they do.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY

     Liberty!

     Why is it you always comeout and fight when I'm not here you big pussy. Say hi to the mrs. Give her my love. :)

     Posted by Will C. at 10/20/2005 @ 4:51pm

217. Posted by COLMES 10/19/2005 @ 10:52am

     So I don't know that all of Plunger's theories are spot on, but I am convinced that there is some pretty nasty shit swilling around in the Whitehouse that's eventually likely to surface.

     If you refuse to look for that shit then you're not doing your duty as a citizen of this democracy.

     Agreed. I hope the "nasty shit" surfaces sooner rather than later--future generations, including my children, are going to be stuck paying the price. I want a govermnent that is accountable to "we the people" NOW. Regarding our duty as citizens of this democracy, I think the following quote from FDR states it nicely:

     "That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." (Theodore Roosevelt, twenty-sixth president of the United States)

     Posted by dlg at 10/20/2005 @ 4:57pm

218. The message which Mr. Corn conveniently keeps stirring up with the leftwing lemmings (sorry, but when you fall so easily for spin, rumors, and the like time after time, well, a conservative just has to come to some kind of conclusion). So, Philbq ("we are liberated, Liberal thinkers here") and others who are wild-eyed believers in the left wing conspiracies and rumors continue to believe in Joseph Wilson and his attempts to change US foreign policy despite having been discredited by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the British Butler Report.

     Since it seems no one bothers to read the actual reports; relying instead on leftwing blogger sites and political spin machines, someone needs to help you come to a realization of the truth. I can lead you to the water, but you have to drink it.

     http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

     (sorry too long to for a link)

     Mr. Wilson's official account to the C.I.A. noted that a former prime minister of Niger had told him that he had been approached in 1999 about meeting with an Iraqi delegation interested in 'expanding commercial relations' between Niger and Iraq. The former prime minister told Mr. Wilson that he interpreted the approach to mean the Iraqis were interested in acquiring a form of uranium."

     Get that? Wilson tells the world that he found no evidence in his meetings with Niger officials that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. But his report to the CIA (which was never given to Bush or Cheney) said just the opposite.

     The British Butler report (2004):

     We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa was well-founded.

     For the reasons given above, even now it is premature to reach conclusions about Iraq's prohibited weapons. But from the evidence which has been found and de-briefing of Iraqi personnel it appears that prior to the war the Iraqi regime: a. Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including if possible its nuclear weapons programme, when United Nations inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted. b. In support of that goal, was carrying out illicit research and development, and procurement, activities. c. Was developing ballistic missiles with a range longer than permitted under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. d. Did not, however, have significant -- if any -- stocks of chemical or biological weapons in a state fit for deployment, or developed plans for using them.

     http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/ [url]

     the British Report also says that their intelligence revealed that Saddam was still making this effort with Niger as late as 1992

     Who lied?

     Wilson has consistently lied to the American people about who sent him (his wife), what he found (the Senate says his report to the CIA raised suspicions, not the reverse), he lies about Cheney and his staff even knowing that he was going, or his report to the CIA. These facts are all laid out in the Senate report which was signed by both Dems and Republicans sides on the Committee.

     Bush's famous 16 words have been validated by the British investigation. Bush did not say our intelligence people, he said British intelligence. They stand by that report to this day.

     In the end, do not be surprised if the only person ever indicted is the infamous Joseph Wilson.

     Posted by love liberty at 10/20/2005 @ 5:42pm

219. Liberty!

     Why is it you always comeout and fight when I'm not here you big pussy. Say hi to the mrs. Give her my love. :)

     Posted by WILL C. 10/20/2005 @ 4:51pm

     Will,

     Because I have a very busy life and have to jump in whenever I get the opportunity. And thank you, I will!

     Posted by love liberty at 10/20/2005 @ 5:45pm

220. Sigh...

     Joe Wilson gave different accounts of his visit to Niger to the CIA and to the 9/11 Commission. He lied or he was mistaken. Assume he lied. Okay, he lied.

     Let's even assume that the British Intelligence that Bush quoted was accurate, and we'll even allow that 1999 is still "recent" in January 2003. And we'll assume that even if American intel couldn't confirm the British intel, that we should have gone with the British.

     This means what? That the war was not based on exaggerated claims, wild speculation, and laughable interpretations of Iraqi military capability? That Rove and Libby were justified when they exposed a CIA agent to the press? That the future for our soldiers in Iraq is safe and secure and that Halliburton's next contract will be to build the yellow brick road?

     So good at reading boring transcripts. So inept when looking at the real world.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/20/2005 @ 6:27pm

221. TJ,

     Surely you are capable of seeing beyond the narrow and shallow response you put together. I have seen your work. My posting dealt with the issue, not the hodge podge of post invasion complaints you have.

     That Rove and Libby were justified when they exposed a CIA agent to the press? That the future for our soldiers in Iraq is safe and secure and that Halliburton's next contract will be to build the yellow brick road?

     Where did I suggest any of those things? In point of fact, it is still not established that they did reveal a covert agent. Secondly, you might want to rethink your phrasing; is there some sinister danger that I am not aware of in exposing a CIA agent to the press? I wasn't aware the press was on our Terrorist list or the list of rogue nations too dangerous for US citizens (hyperbole, but you get my point).

     And your reading was incomplete. The British report showed Saddam still trying as late as 1992, not merely 1999.

     Posted by love liberty at 10/20/2005 @ 6:39pm

222. Is Joseph Wilson about to be indicted? Or just run out of Washington on a rail like in the good old days?

     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.

     http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&is sue=20051019&view=1

     Posted by love liberty at 10/20/2005 @ 6:43pm

223. HI LL - been a while since I've posted. I too am busy lately with little time to blog. Anyway, you did manage to find some shred of evidence to support what we knew all along - Hussein was interested in buying uranium. What WILSON concluded was that he had not been successful in his attempts. Further, as YOUR link concludes, he had neither stockpiles of uranium, NOR stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. Finally, WILSON was just one of many contributors to volumes of work done by CIA and MI5 agents world-wide that concluded that Hussein had no WMD.

     What continues to nauseate me is how LL and the NEOCONS defend traitors like Cheney. Further, they confuse the issue of whether or not there was WMD. The fact is, WMD or not, a covert CIA agent was outed. All Americans should be outraged that a covert operative in such a highly sensitive area (nuclear non-proliferation) was compromised over a political vendetta. Sadly, neo-cons don't care how many years of effort on the CIA's part was wasted by that single, stupid, and treacherous act. They feel political attacks that favor the Republican party are justified, no matter how much this country has to pay in terms lost covert assets.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 10/20/2005 @ 6:45pm

224. For those honest enough to want to make an objective decision about what is going on with this investigation, I direct you to the following summary analysis and timeline with a concluding summary pasted in here:

     ON JULY 22, 2005, the New York Times published a lengthy, front-page article detailing the work of two senior Bush administration officials, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, on the Niger-uranium story. A seemingly exhaustive timeline ran alongside the piece. In 19 bullet points, the Times provided its readers in considerable detail with what it regarded as the highlights of the story. The timeline traces events from the initial request for more information on the alleged Iraqi inquiries in Africa to Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger; from the now-famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union to the details of White House telephone logs; from Bush administration claims that Karl Rove was not involved in the leak to the naming of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and on from there to the dates that White House officials testified before the grand jury.

     As I say, seemingly exhaustive. But there is one curious omission: July 7, 2004. On that date, the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report on the intelligence that served as the foundation for the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq. The Senate report includes a 48-page section on Wilson that demonstrates, in painstaking detail, that virtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false.

     This is not a minor detail. The Senate report, which served as the source for much of the chronology in this article, is the definitive study of the events leading up to the compromising of Valerie Plame. The committee staff, both Democrats and Republicans, read all of the intelligence. They saw all of the documents. They interviewed all of the characters. And every member of the committee from both parties signed the report.

     It is certainly the case that the media narrative is much more sensational than the Senate report. A story about malfeasance is perhaps more interesting than a story about incompetence. A story about deliberate White House deception is perhaps more interesting than a story about bureaucratic miscommunication. A story about retaliation is perhaps more interesting than a story about clarification.

     http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/217wnm rb.asp

     Posted by love liberty at 10/20/2005 @ 7:00pm

225. If Wilson's lies lead to an indictment, I'll not shed a tear. I honestly don't understand your point. If it is for those of us on the left to end the hero-worshipping of Wilson, you're right.

     I think you mean 2002 rather than 1992 since 1992 is not more recent than 1999. There was one report of uranium in a warehouse in Benin in 2002 that was purportedly on its way to Iraq from Niger. When an investigation was done, no uranium was found. The issue was summarily dropped.

     But again, What is the point? To send Wilson to jail? Fine. Then what? Regardless of the 16 words, there were countless "mistakes" made, either in the State of the Union speech, Powell's presentation to the UN, and Condi's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's blustery nightmare scenarios, so Wilson's attack of that single sentence makes no difference. More to the issue at hand, does Wilson's statements in any way absolve the Administration in "Plamegate"? I recognize the substance of your point--that we have to wait to see what Fitzgerald will do. But how much slime are you willing to swallow to stick with these guys?

     Sorry for being narrow and shallow. Must be the antibiotics at work.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/20/2005 @ 7:05pm

226. Because:

     What is truly in question and appears to be not the fact now, is that Wilson's wife probably was not covert at the time of this whole episode. Your charge therefore remains just hype because no one on the conservative side is saying that it is acceptable to "out" a covert agent.

     Also, contrary to your statement, any conclusion by Wilson was only speculative, not conclusive, and only enhanced the other findings that Saddam was trying to get the Uranium.

     BTW, I would love to see the charges against Cheney to has made him a traitor? And of course you will be able to provide evidence that is sufficient for a conviction?

     Opinion doesn't count. Welcome back!

     Posted by love liberty at 10/20/2005 @ 7:07pm

227. No problem TJB,

     I realize that you are one of many on the left that continue to find no justification for the war. However, we who see the world through a different lens continue to see the war as not only justified, but are grateful that the President had the courage of his convictions to pursue this course of action.

     To that end, we continue to agree that we disagree!

     Posted by love liberty at 10/20/2005 @ 7:10pm

228. In case someone starts challenging me for a response, I have to run out to a meeting. Will return around 12pm Eastern.

     Posted by love liberty at 10/20/2005 @ 7:16pm

229. Liberty!

     You crusty old fart. I appologise about that pussy comment. I have the same problem myself. Life gets in the way. LOL. If only we could figure out how to get paid for doing this. It's too much fun.

     To be honest I hope Rove and crew didn't break the law. Government of the people is a reflection of the people. Across the board, I don't like what I see looking back at me when I stare into that mirror. It's unchristian. It's an affront to God. Which is why I will break your balls when you split hairs about Valerie Plame status at the CIA. You can cut and paste all you want but it seems to me that the subject matter expert on her status is the CIA. They sent the letter to justice. Justice appointed the special prosecuter. And, here we are.

     God help you if they are guilty.

     Posted by Will C. at 10/20/2005 @ 8:20pm

230. Well, again, the bottom line is that the west has no right to interfere in the affairs of the Middle East. The United States, Britain, and several of the other western nations have for years done everything in their power to make sure the only people who have any poltical power in the Middle East are piggy Arab potentates, Zionist fanatics, and Islamic fundamentalists. They backed bin Laden, they financed bin Laden, and when the rabid dog they created turned on them, they scream fowl. The world is the world they have created. Even now, they back different militant factions of Islam in Iraq. No militant democrats, no revolutionary nationalists, no socialists, no communists, no secular government of any kind. They cannot fix a problem that they continue to perpetuate. The war is bullshit. They're bullshit. They need to respect the self determination everywhere else that they demand for themselves here at home.

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/20/2005 @ 11:11pm

231. LL,

     By the way, I hope you are feeling better.

     And yes, I believe there was no justification for the war. I wish that I could see the war as a positive. It's just that the dead bodies, the wasted funds, the long, winding, possibly endless road of civil war, the continuing stories of abuse (though I admit the current stories are about burning bodies Afghanistan, not Iraq--but they're both part of the War on Terror, right?), and the near certainty that the democratic government we shall witness in Iraq is not one that is inclined to be our ally--these things just get in the way of seeing the good that is happening.

     And I still think that if Joe Wilson were pulled out of this mess entirely, Iraq would still just be a place for our soldiers, our finances, and our reputation to go up in smoke. Wilson is an insignificant little mite, not worthy of our attention. The White House need not have panicked in such a Nixonian manner--how could we think any less of them, even if they had taken the high road in the Plame affair? The problem in this case is not in the details, but in the big, broad landscape. And it's not a pretty picture.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/20/2005 @ 11:46pm

232. LL:

     One thing I find amusing is that you ask everyone for objectivity, yet you consistently base your opinions on op-ed articles written by others.

     The only indisputable fact is that you (or any of the authors of your cut-and-past jobs) have no idea what Plame's status was. The only pieces of information that we know about, is what witnesses and their attorneys choose to leak to the press. IF Fitzgerald is pressing a charge for which Plame's covert status is an element, I suspect Fitzgerald would have called officials from the CIA to lay this out fairly simply. I also suspect that a judge would not have allowed Miller to be jailed if Fitzgerald had not made this requisite showing. You may ask, where is the proof she was covert? Well, given that what we know is selectively leaked from grand jury witnesses, it is not surprising that the officials who could testify to Plame's status have not done so. I guess we will see. I wonder though, what it would take to convince you. Will you still cling to this line of argument if it turns out that her boss testified that she was operating under non-official cover (as maintained by Larry Johnson)? Or will that person be the next liar in your mind?

     As to the rest of the opinion writers who speak through you:

     There was more to this than Bush's 16 words. There were months of press appearances by officials operating under the direction of the VP that pushed not only the WMD issue, but the nuclear one. Cheney's and others' statements went even farther than Bush's in his SOTU address. I suggest you go back and look at what was said. This is why the heat is falling more on Cheney's office as it relates to the Wilson investigation.

     For the 100th time, Plame did not send Wilson. Cheney wanted follow-up from the CIA. Plame told her boss Wilson should go. CIA higher-ups made the decision to send Wilson - Plame had no authority to authorize the trip. Wilson came back and gave an oral report that was written up by others. Now here is where it gets unbelievable - Cheney was never briefed on what Wilson found. Bullshit! There is no way that the CIA would get a directive from the VP, and not brief the VP. There is also no way that Cheney did not ask for follow-up, then forget about it.

     Your other attempts at misdirection between Wilson's account and the Senate Report have been debunked by many others on this board, so I do not need to go there. In any event, even assuming discrepancies, it will not be a viable legal defense to any of the charges that may be filed.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/20/2005 @ 11:50pm

233. 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. Combined with the interests of big oil, this conspiracy to "do war - by way of deception" was a match made in hell.

     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 sources for 9/11, covering up and deporting the Mossad agents caught within the US around 9/11, covering up Ken Lay's role in the Enron scandal, oversaw the failed prosecution of the Clinton's in the Whitewater investigation, and as a private attorney, defended the man thought to have been responsible for funding the first attack on the World Trade Center. Mr. Cover-up is now Mr. Disaster.

     As for Bush, Armageddon just can't arrive 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 protégé 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.

     For further context, read the following two articles, each of which include comments by none other than Judith Miller:

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

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

     Posted by plunger at 10/21/2005 @ 05:36am

234. HMAN23: A U.S. Spanish consortium had won a $12.75 million dollar contract to rebuild a hydroelectric plant in Iraq. (Project was completed last year.) This consortium was also selected as eligible for up to $15 billion in contracts to support US military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dragados, one of the companies on your list, was in the consortium but opted out of the dam project, partly because of a policy not to enter Iraq for security reasons. (Source: Forbes) (This has not stopped American contractors, including Halliburton, although a number of their workers have been killed in Iraq alongside U.S. soldiers.)

     Posted by RonS at 10/21/2005 @ 07:32am

235. RONS:

     Why are you re-posting this to me? I saw it the first time. This singular example is hardly persuasive justification for Halliburton getting such large contracts without competettive bidding. There were over three dozen other companies people had listed. What about those? Google some more.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/21/2005 @ 09:44am

236. LL:

     Shifting gears - what did you think of Marty Bahamonde's testimony regarding FEMA's response to Katrina? Seeing how you were such a stuanch supporter of the federal response, I am curious.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/21/2005 @ 10:05am

237. Man, what nonsense. The whole point is that Iraq is being governed by occupying powers, and it's a simple question of autonomy. If Iraq had any real say in the contracting process at all, Halliburton might be getting something, but it wouldn't be setting terms, which is what is happening now. The country is being carved up by investors, a direct violation of autonomy. No, we don't suggest companies other than Halliburton, because it's not our fucking country. Don't any of you Roman Imperial vanguard assholes understand that yet? Too bad. You will. The world is fighting back, and it's going to happen, with or without you.

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/21/2005 @ 11:50am

238. So when is Europe and South Korea going to kick our troops out? And when is India going to send back all those outsourced jobs? When do you expect we will get kicked out of the UN and they will set up office in Paris? Or when is it do you think Mexico will build a fence to keep us out? I expect the Palestinians will start to refuse our financial aid? Yeah, the world hates us.

     Posted by RonS at 10/21/2005 @ 12:27pm

239. The sideshow with Halliburton should be getting more attention.See bmoor.fanspace,com for my views on expanding the house of reps. we need some pious individuals to hammer these people who accept the loss of life as the price of doing business. unless we annex Iraq as a de facto 51st state and stay there forever; we cannot control what ismalisists are going to think and do. we should be treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue not something you can fight on a stable front-that's even stupider than viet nam.

     Posted by joebear at 10/21/2005 @ 1:49pm

240. ron, why are you so pleased with the palestinians receiving american aid, aren't they terrorits?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 2:02pm

241. LOVE LIBERTY, Although we almost always disagree, we do see eye-to-eye on the "quality" of some of the posts on this thread. Without naming names, when I first started reading this thread a day or two ago, I was literally embarrassed for the radical Left of this country. And very much hoping not to be lumped in with them!

     I used to think I was a hardcore leftist, but now I realized I am just a piker in comparison to some around here.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/21/2005 @ 3:16pm

242. 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 @ 7:40pm

243. ILP,

     Welcome back and thank you for a note of sanity. I was beginning to think the Nation had been sold to aliens. It has started to remind me of a few of the most far out types on Pacifica Radio; a haven for every whack conspiracy.

     At the end of the day, serious people will engage in a debate of the issues. Our political process is about finding either areas of agreement (compromise) as the first agenda of politics. The second is to build enough of a legislative majority to implement your parties political and social philosophy. The very far extremes of both sides are left to become irritants like sand flies at the beach.

     Posted by love liberty at 10/21/2005 @ 7:44pm

244. HM,

     In response to your separate posts to me, you asked about FEMA and also charged me with non objectivity by relying upon the op-ed pieces from others that I have pasted.

     1. As to FEMA, I did not hear the testimony and have little interest in it. And it was not so much a "staunch support" of the Fed response, as it was a constant input that I felt that State and Local officials have the primary responsibility in these natural disasters. The reason being that in ensuing weeks, the state and local officials have only further validated my charges that they still have the primary responsibility for the human suffering that occurred. FEMA actions pre-Katrina and post Katrina have never approached the level of meltdown that we witnessed in New Orleans. I will also add that information continues to come out in the past few weeks showing that much of the media hysteria seen on camera has been proven to be just that; hysteria with no substance behind it. Shouldn't be any surprise to anyone, right or left.

     2. Regarding my opinions; I am very confident of the strong opinions I have formed over 50 decades. I cite the articles of others as second and third party validation. One of the wonderful benefits of dialogue on internet sites like the Nation is the ability for all of us to present an infinite number of reference resources. It only enhances the dialogue from all sides in my humble opinion.

     Posted by love liberty at 10/21/2005 @ 8:02pm

245. Damn, Love Liberty, you're five hundred years old? I wouldn't have placed you at a day over fifty. But fifty DECADES? Hell, I'm through arguing with you. The best I'm able to offer up is second or third hand accounts.

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/21/2005 @ 8:25pm

246. JJ,

     It must be Friday, TGIF!

     Posted by love liberty at 10/21/2005 @ 10:31pm

247. ILOVEPHYSICS:

     I wish everyone on this site would learn the difference between an argument and an assertion. That includes all sides of the argument. Ugh...

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/21/2005 @ 10:59pm

248. Joebear:" we need some pious individuals to hammer these people who accept the loss of life as the price of doing business."

     I'm having trouble with the word pious here. maybe we should get the pope over here, I hear he's real pious

     Jorchy, please expalin the difference, I'm being sincere here

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/22/2005 @ 09:29am

249. JOHANNESROLF:

     I never assumed you were being anything but sincere, bro.

     OK, an assertion is just that. The person posting is simply asserting that something is the way it is.

     And argument (in the debating sense of the word) is a point that is made which is backed up by facts that can be cross-checked.

     The problem with this, of course, is that on both sides, people are using faulty (bullshit) information and facts which have not, themselves, been verified. I am not saying that something not very well known can't be a legitimate fact. But what I have seen more often than not is people cutting and pasting verbatim from various issue-based or heavily slanted sites. This does two things. It lowers the level of discourse to start with, and it opens the door for less honest posters (people with less-than-high integrity when it comes to making a point).

     While I will admit, this is mostly directed at people like LOVE LIBERTY, CPT, etc., I have noticed on numerous occasions people on the left doing the same sorts of semantic and rhetorical shenanigans.

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/22/2005 @ 11:03am

250. Jorcheim, works for me

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/22/2005 @ 11:36am