Libby: Bush, Cheney Authorized Leaks

President Bush told Vice President Cheney to tell the vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to disclose highly classified information regarding Iraq intelligence in order to try and discredit legitimate criticism of the administration.

What's this? The latest line from proponents of impeachment?

No, according to court records that became available Thursday, it is what Libby testified was the scenario that played out before he began contacting reporters in an effort to undermine the reputation of former Ambassador Joe Wilson.

According to a National Journal report on the documents: "I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he had received 'approval from the President through the Vice President' to divulge portions of a National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to the court papers. Libby was said to have testified that such presidential authorization to disclose classified information was 'unique in his recollection,' the court papers further said."

|

The Journal report, which is based on both the court papers and interviews with senior government officials familiar with the investigation of Libby's actions by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case, suggests that a fast-and-loose approach to the release of classified information was authorized by Bush and Cheney before the war as part of an effort to "make the case" for the invasion of Iraq.

After the invasion, when Wilson raised questions about the validity of claims made by the president, the Journal report suggests that the gloves came off, and the weapon of choice was classified information.

"Bush and Cheney authorized the release of the information regarding the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) in the summer of 2003, according to court documents, as part of a damage-control effort undertaken only days after former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV alleged in an op-ed in The New York Times that claims by Bush that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger were most likely a hoax."

The White House initial response Thursday was to refuse to comment on Libby's testimony, which has called into serious question the president's October, 2003, assertion that: "I don't know of anyone in my administration who has leaked. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

But if the president is not now in a position to take appropriate action, members of Congress are.

U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, who has been the most determined Congressional watchdog with regard to the administration's misuse of intelligence information, says that, "If what Scooter Libby said to the grand jury is true, then this latest development clearly reveals yet again that the CIA leak case goes much deeper than the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity to the press. The heart and motive of this case is about the deliberate attempt at the highest levels of this administration to discredit those who were publicly revealing that the White House lied about its uranium claims leading up to the war. The Bush Administration knew that Iraq had not sought uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapon, yet they went around telling the Congress, the country, and the world just the opposite. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Valerie Wilson's husband, publicly spoke out with proof that the administration was not telling the truth on uranium, the administration engaged in an orchestrated plot, which now reportedly includes President Bush, to discredit Ambassador Wilson and dismiss any notion that they had lied about pre-war intelligence."

Hinchey, one of the rare members of the House who has made it his business to monitor and police abuses of executive powers, wrote the 1999 amendment to intelligence reauthorization legislation that forced the declassification of documents that revealed the role played by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other members of the Nixon administration in the illegal 1973 overthrow of Chilean President Salvador Allende.

The congressman is one of 33 cosponsors of Representative John Conyers' resolution calling for the creation of a select committee to investigate, among other issues, the Bush administration's manipulation of pre-war and retaliating against critics. That committee would be charged with making recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment, which would, of course, require a finding that high crimes and misdemeanors had been committed by the president and vice president.

Hinchey's says that Libby's testimony adds to the mounting body of evidence that rules, regulations and laws have been bent far beyond the breaking point.

"It is an absolute disgrace to the institution of the presidency that President Bush authorized members of his administration to disclose select parts of highly classified information from a National Intelligence Estimate in order to make political advances and gain public support," says Hinchey. "How dare President Bush and Vice President Cheney say they want to prosecute those who leaked the NSA domestic surveillance program when they themselves authorized the disclosure of information from some of the most highly sensitive documents in the government. The White House opposes leaks when the disclosed information hurts them politically, but supports leaks when information advances their political cause."

Hinchey has for months been urging Fitzgerald to officially expand his investigation to include an examination of the motives behind the leaks by Libby, focusing in particular on the question of whether the administration's intent was to discredit Ambassador Wilson's revelation that Iraq had never sought uranium from Niger or other African countries. If that is proven to be the case, Hinchey has argued, "President Bush and other top members of his administration knowingly lied about uranium to the Congress, which is a crime."

"It is my belief, as well as the belief of my 39 House colleagues who signed my original letter to Special Counsel Fitzgerald, that he has the authority and obligation to expand his investigation to investigate the lies about uranium, which are the true heart of this case," Hinchey explained Thursday, in a statement outlining his intention to step up efforts to press for the expansion of the investigation.

The congressman is laying down the line that members of Congress, be they members of the Democratic opposition or honest Republicans who are beginning to recognize the extent to which they have been deceived by Bush, Cheney and their aides, will need to embrace at a moment when the administration and its media echo chamber will be doing everything in their power to constrain Fitzgerald's investigation.

Says Hinchey: "The heart of the CIA leak case cannot and must not be ignored."

Comments (428)

1. To turn a phrase...."It all depends on how you define 'leak' "

   Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 04/06/2006 @ 4:28pm

2. Oh please this is a big YAWN....She was NOT covert...end of story...You silly nitwits will grasp at any straws because of your desperation at being out of power crybabies...Go ahead...make a big stink about it....It is amusing to see the traitors once again get thier panties all twisted up over nothing

   Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 4:30pm

3. By the way...You better bring in Tony Blair and the MI6 to impeach as they said the same things.

   Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 4:33pm

4. I'd like to know what traitorous LIB in congress leaked the NSA program to the New York Slimes???Can we say Jay Rockefeller???

   Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 4:38pm

5. LibZ

   Maybe you can get Dumbya to throw "Tony Blair and the MI6" into Gitmo...then Cheney can have their toenials pulled out. All in the name of security dontcha know!

   Posted by leftofcenter at 04/06/2006 @ 4:42pm

6. I just hope that Libby has a way to prove this. Oh, what a party I would throw...

   Posted by Flarney at 04/06/2006 @ 4:49pm

7. claims by Bush that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger were most likely a hoax."

   I would prefer the word forgery to hoax, and a very clumsy forgery too as had been pointed out even then. the clumsy nature of that forgery, mmh, who does that remind you of?

   Posted by johannesrolf at 04/06/2006 @ 4:50pm

8. Because unless he has something to back it up couldnt the white house just spin it as a guy trying to get himself off the hook?

   Posted by Flarney at 04/06/2006 @ 4:51pm

9. Hey! Anyone out there in the vending / entertainment industry? We should get one of those "Whack-a-mole" games and put little Dubya heads...call it "BushWahcker"

   Nyuk, nyuk

   Posted by leftofcenter at 04/06/2006 @ 4:54pm

10. Well, you know they're going to spin it some way - I guess thats half the "fun"

    Posted by LClaire at 04/06/2006 @ 4:54pm

11. FLARNEY,

    That's the beautiful thing about this. For some reason Libby has stopped trusting that Chenney will grant the pardon upon conviction and Libby doesn't want to do 20+ years....he's in a classic prisoners dilemma. He's squealing and Stephen Hadley is feeling the heat and they're both dumping all over who appears to be the real culprit.....Mr Karl Rove. But Rove and Chenney hate each other (since the 2004 election when Karl floated some trial balloons of replacing the liability part of the ticket....Chenney, so Rove's starting to blame Chenney....who appears to be directly responsible for the "loss" of thousands of e-mails).

    The entire admin is imploding. And while I applaud the fact that the rule of law appears to be emerging from its darkest day in US history there is a problem......without Chenney, Rove, Libby, Hadley and Card it means that Bush, Condi and Rummy are really in charge and that is a very scary thing even if it's only for a few months!

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/06/2006 @ 4:59pm

12. BUSH LOVERS WHERE ARE YOU??? YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFENING! YOU ARE SUPPORTING A LIAR!!! HE IS A HYPOCRITE, LIAR AND DIVULGER OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. HE IS SCUM. I AM LAUGHING AT YOU BUSH-LOVING IDIOTS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT NOTHING TO HIDE BEHIND NOW. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, HE STABBED YOU IN THE BACK AND EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID TO SUPPORT HIM HAS BEEN THROWN IN YOUR FACE. AS LONG AS YOU SUPPORT BUSH HE WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY YOU FOR THE FOOLS THAT YOU ARE. HAHAHAHAHA

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/06/2006 @ 5:00pm

13. BUSH LOVERS WHERE ARE YOU??? YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFENING! YOU ARE SUPPORTING A LIAR!!! HE IS A HYPOCRITE, LIAR AND DIVULGER OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. HE IS SCUM. I AM LAUGHING AT YOU BUSH-LOVING IDIOTS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT NOTHING TO HIDE BEHIND NOW. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, HE STABBED YOU IN THE BACK AND EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID TO SUPPORT HIM HAS BEEN THROWN IN YOUR FACE. AS LONG AS YOU SUPPORT BUSH HE WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY YOU FOR THE FOOLS THAT YOU ARE. HAHAHAHAHA

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/06/2006 @ 5:01pm

14. BUSH LOVERS WHERE ARE YOU??? YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFENING! YOU ARE SUPPORTING A LIAR!!! HE IS A HYPOCRITE, LIAR AND DIVULGER OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. HE IS SCUM. I AM LAUGHING AT YOU BUSH-LOVING IDIOTS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT NOTHING TO HIDE BEHIND NOW. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, HE STABBED YOU IN THE BACK AND EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID TO SUPPORT HIM HAS BEEN THROWN IN YOUR FACE. AS LONG AS YOU SUPPORT BUSH HE WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY YOU FOR THE FOOLS THAT YOU ARE. HAHAHAHAHA

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/06/2006 @ 5:01pm

15. "AS LONG AS YOU SUPPORT BUSH HE WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY YOU FOR THE FOOLS THAT YOU ARE. HAHAHAHAHA"

    Interesting....Its working great for you fools so far...Lost the presidency...The congress ....The courts...Statehouses...Governerships....Yeah man...Keep throwing it in our faces...Great Job!!!

    Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 5:05pm

16. Zero

    That would the double-super secret declassification. Therein the declassification itself is kept secret, that way the involved parties don't have to worry about it since they still believe themselves to be "classified" and can continue about their daily "secretive" business without fear of being "outed". All makes perfect sense...to the dimwitted, that is.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/06/2006 @ 5:12pm

17. This country WILL NEVER get back on the right progressive course until these fascists are removed from officed and put on trial.This is the most ANTI-CHRISTIAN administration in history, they MOCK ALL of Jesus teachings.

    Posted by proudleftists at 04/06/2006 @ 5:12pm

18. "This is the most ANTI-CHRISTIAN administration in history, they MOCK ALL of Jesus teachings."

    I know what you're trying to say, but I don't want my government aligned with any religion. That's just scary.

    Posted by Flarney at 04/06/2006 @ 5:19pm

19. BUSH LOVERS WHERE ARE YOU??? YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFENING! YOU ARE SUPPORTING A LIAR!!! HE IS A HYPOCRITE, LIAR AND DIVULGER OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. HE IS SCUM. I AM LAUGHING AT YOU BUSH-LOVING IDIOTS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT NOTHING TO HIDE BEHIND NOW. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, HE STABBED YOU IN THE BACK AND EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID TO SUPPORT HIM HAS BEEN THROWN IN YOUR FACE. AS LONG AS YOU SUPPORT BUSH HE WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY YOU FOR THE FOOLS THAT YOU ARE. HAHAHAHAHA

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 04/06/2006 @ 5:01pm | ignore this person

    They are certain to return here just as soon as someone in the Republican echo chamber figures out how to spin this. Until then, all we'll hear from their side is the sound of crickets chirping.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/06/2006 @ 5:22pm

20. this is for you, Lefty:

    http://hammer.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/06/2006 @ 5:22pm

21. yes Lillian, they are waiting for their marching orders

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/06/2006 @ 5:23pm

22. The wingers are Googling furiously.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/06/2006 @ 5:25pm

23. Attorney gen Gonzalez asserts Bush can order warrantless spying of entirely domestic calls, and even hints that such a program is already in place.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/06/2006 @ 5:29pm

24. Gonzalez is the naked face of tyranny, Bush is merely the court jester

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/06/2006 @ 5:31pm

25. Right about now I figure Bush has arrived at the conclusion that his old friend Jack Daniels can provide more comfort than Jesus Christ, the "Deity of Choice" for luminaries such as Delay, Limbaugh, et al. No offense to the Son of Man, but faith can only carry a guy like Bush so far. Somewhere along the line he's gonna blow a gasket. Of course, he could always shoot someone, Cheney-style, let's see ... maybe somebody like Scooter Libby.

    Posted by EnviroVarmint at 04/06/2006 @ 5:32pm

26. Overheard on Letterman ...

    Q: What do you call a Republican in jail?

    A: A canned hamster.

    (apologies to Will C.)

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/06/2006 @ 5:35pm

27. JR:

    Unbelieveable. Do you have a link to anything re: Gonzales?

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/06/2006 @ 5:37pm

28. To Zero:

    These are impeachable offenses against Bush and Cheney and it is long past time to get down to the business of removing this crooked regime from office.

    As for the response of our conservative and right wing contingent (other than whatever Aludra is calling himself these days, which I can't see because it wastes good bandwidth). they will let us know as soon as Ken Mehlman tells them what it (probably something having to do with Clinton's privates). Then, after that's been refuted twelve ways to Sunday, they'll still be repeating it as if that would make it true.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/06/2006 @ 5:42pm

29. Johann....excellent. Everyone should play!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/06/2006 @ 5:43pm

30. JR: Don't worry, I got it.

    Wow.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/06/2006 @ 5:43pm

31. To what do you refer?

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/06/2006 @ 5:43pm

32. Sorry, Jack Rabbit, I meant "JR" as in JOHANNESROLF (for the mention of Gonzales's testimony, which I located). I see I have to change my abbreviations.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/06/2006 @ 5:46pm

33. I would say it's crucial that we connect as many dots as quickly and efficiently as possible, while the issues still resonate. Consider the way the Reaganites were able to squeeze out of the Irancontra; downplaying its significance in large part because the leaders at the very top escaped culpability (Reagan pleaded ignorance and Bush covered his trail barely enough). Anything short of sending these guys to the big house allows them to come back and re-write history to their liking. The machinations of the Reagan/Bush era were far worse than Watergate, though they managed to worm their way out of any significant consequence.This gang of pseudo-fascists must be held accountable for their acts. We need to have the recent history of Bushco (and their crimes) filed as public record; particularly, as the republicans have near complete control over all branches of government, and cannot lay blame on the liberals or democrats for the recent train wrecks happening before our eyes (those few dems complicit by crossing the line must be tossed out as well).

    These thugs have been around forever and need to be put out of their misery. What frightens me is that despite the recent crippling of republicans, their party now teetering on the edge of the precipice, the democrats appear too feeble to give the fatal push necessary to send the neocons into oblivion. This would require them to step out of the shadows of big business bribery and industrial military blackmail and come clean with a fresh image and ideas: like democracy for the people, not the pigs at the top of the pyramid bloating themselves at our expense.

    Let us hope that in their intoxication and euphoria with absolute power, the administration has made enough blunders to hang themselves (evidence now looking better and better).

    Posted by Oustbush at 04/06/2006 @ 5:46pm

34. executions

    Posted by Flarney at 04/06/2006 @ 5:51pm

35. To Hman:

    It's OK. I'm the one who needs to be more aware. Over on Democratic Underground, when someone says "JR" they usually mean me, but that's not the case everywhere.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/06/2006 @ 5:56pm

36. With Scooter seeming like he is perfectly willing to point the finger at his old boss, is an announcement that Cheney is retiring for "health reasons" not too far off on the horizon?

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/06/2006 @ 5:57pm

37. Hard to believe that this took them by surprise. So they either knew the substance of Libby's particular testimony ahead of time and just were not prepared for the latest press accounts of it; or Libby was not keeping the rest of the gang in the loop about everything he said in his testimony.

    Or they calculated somehow that it would not cause a splash.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/06/2006 @ 6:06pm

38. I really enjoy the rare occasion where the republican propaganda machine breaks down...it's like pulling the batteries out of all these Bushbots. If these guys aren't receiving instructions directly, they have nothing to say...how nice.

    Posted by Oustbush at 04/06/2006 @ 6:08pm

39. Gonzales also would not discount that the president could order the NSA to listen in on purely domestic calls without first obtaining a warrant from a secret court established nearly 30 years ago to consider such issues.

    Gonz ales [chron.com]

    These guys are like a kid slowly admitting that, yes, he did break the neighbor's window.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/06/2006 @ 6:08pm

40. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/06/2006 @ 6:11pm | ignore this person

    So Leave Liberty posts a "trial abllon" with the potential spinpoints...

    1) Clinton did it first 2) It's old news 3) Nichols is an idiot 4) Liberals are idiots

    Hey Leave Liberty, didn't you get the memo? It's supposed to be...

    1) The President can do whatever he wants 2) He told the truth, so what if it was supposed to be a secret 3) Clinton did it first, and so did FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Carter 4) Liberals are all idiots

    Posted by Lillian at 04/06/2006 @ 6:33pm

41. dangit...that's "trial balloon"...

    Posted by Lillian at 04/06/2006 @ 6:34pm

42. LILLIAN,

    And here's the update to "the memo":

    If you can't sell points 1-4 above, kindly reference 9/11.

    Posted by kfine at 04/06/2006 @ 6:39pm

43. Leave Liberty, there is nothing whatsoever about your post that I did not comprehend. I simply found it to be much like all of your other posts here. BS spin for the sole purpose of defending what is simply indefensible.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/06/2006 @ 6:42pm

44. The CLAIM that the media is parroting is that

    "The President is authorized to declassify information and make it public, therefore no crime was committed."

    This is not entirely true.

    First, where is the proof that President Bush checked with Intelligence officials to ensure that leaking this information would not lead to the death of operatives (it likely did) or undermine national security (it definitely did, virtually shutting down our best source of WMD intelligence "in a post-9/11 world"). This alone is Treasonous.

    Where is the proof that Bush officially signed a document declassifying this information prior to Libby leaking it?

    Show me the notarized and dated document. If it exists, then all of the statements the President made subsequent to signing it were lies, because he NEVER let on that the information had been declassified, or that he was the source of the information that was subsequently leaked. Every statement made by Bush and his administration on this topic was a lie.

    Next, Libby has testified that the leak was in fact done for POLITICAL PURPOSES.

    Now we're walking over the line into ILLEGAL.

    The Office of the Presidency is NOT the Office of the Republican Party.

    Rove is a POLITICAL STRATEGIST. Rove was Bush's advisor in the Office Of The Presidency...not the Office of the Republican Party.

    Bush chose to implement a politically motivated strategy, conceived by Rove ("The Architect") and used OUR OFFICE to promote HIS AGENDA (Lying a nation into war) by releasing CLASSIFIED Documents (both Bush and McClellan are on the record stating that they were in fact CLASSIFIED) at the expense of our National Security and ultimately, our NATIONAL TREASURE, and then...

    THEY LIED ABOUT IT.

    White House Press Secretary, 9/29/03: "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

    White House Press Secretary, 10/7/03: "Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants . . .If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business."

    President Bush, 10/28/03: "I want to know the truth. ... I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."

    President Bush, 10/28/03: "I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information."

    President Bush, 6/10/04: Reporter: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?" President Bush: "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."

    MR. McCLELLAN: We spoke about this the other day, and I'll be glad to go back through it. One, when this report was published, there was -- well, keep in mind, first, that there's a process in place for reporting the leaking of classified information, and that process worked in this instance.

    Office of the Press Secretary October 7, 2003

    Posted by plunger at 04/06/2006 @ 6:49pm

45. LL - Don't despair. Though your neocon buddies have deserted you today, I know first-hand the GOP has a few tricks up their sleeves, and they will rally the troops.

    I suspect we are due for an elevated terrorist warning right about now.

    Clearly, the American people haven't been terrorized enough. The GOP rancor over same-sex marriages, same-sex adoption, and "illegal" immigrants hasn't terrified Americans enough, since they are actually raising their heads out of the foxholes to see the disastar that is right-wing politics.

    DUCK AND COVER, DUCK AND COVER! WE'RE AT WAR, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE (LITERALLY, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, THE CRUSADES ARE ALIVE AND WELL IN THE MIDDLE EAST!)...

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/06/2006 @ 6:52pm

46. liberty

    how about defending the bearing false witness thing.

    or as an evangelic pastard do you approve of the bearing false witness thing?

    Posted by Will C. at 04/06/2006 @ 8:15pm

47. and Letterman is using my stuff

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Posted by Will C. at 04/06/2006 @ 8:15pm

48. Will, I hope your rodent is protected by copyright. I'm sure Dave has quite the legal team.

    BTW you did see the Abramoff/hamster quote from the character witness at his sentencing, right? Such a family man, he once stayed up all night searching for a lost hamster. If only he could find such a good friend now.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/06/2006 @ 8:28pm

49. THE LATEST PLAME LEAK NEWS [Andy McCarthy]

    We will have to wait to see how this all develops, and I'll be interested in particular in Byron's take, but on first impressions it seems to me that the story the press is going gleefully ga-ga about today is pretty disingenuous.

    According to reports, the government in the Scooter Libby case has filed papers which include a revelation about Libby's grand jury testimony. Specifically, Libby is said to have told the panel that he was authorized by President Bush, via Vice President Cheney, to leak "certain information" that was contained in the National Intelligence Estimate.

    If you read far enough into the AP report I cite here, you will learn that the "certain information" is not otherwise specified. That is, we don't know what it was and whether it was classified.

    Unfortunately, the AP reports that only after treating readers to Howard Dean's rant about how "The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put interests of his political party ahead of America's security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe." (Italics mine.)

    It is crucial to note here, however, that there has been no accusation -- none -- that the President or anyone else was willing to reveal, much less actually revealed, classified information. It is irresponsible to say such a thing based on the current record.

    The National Intelligence Estimate has some classified sections, but it is not all classified. Indeed, it is mostly not classified and made available for public consumption. Libby was evidently allowed to talk about some parts of it before it was formally released to the public. But it is important to bear in mind that it was going to be released to the public. Classified information is not released to the public.

    Almost certainly, what Libby was permitted to do was preview for certain reporters some of the highlights of what was shortly going to be made public in the NIE. That is, NOT disclose the classified information, but talk about what was going to be in the public domain. This is something that is done everyday in Washington -- probably even by Howard Dean.

    It would have been an act of political insanity not to do such a thing. There were (and are) people in the government (particularly at the CIA and the State Department) who vigorously opposed the Bush foreign policy. They have leaked things left and right since the president took office, and it would be ridiculous to think they would not have put their spin on the NIE -- just the way Joseph Wilson put his misleading spin on something that, in all likelihood, was actually classified and should not have been spoken of publicly (much less made grist for a NYTimes op-ed), namely, the substance of his trip to Niger.

    If administration officials like Libby did not speak to the press about what was going to be in the NIE, the American people would only have heard from people like Wilson and others opposed to the President's policies. One can only imagine how Dean would have played off that one-sided version of events ... and I have a slight suspicion -- call me crazy -- that he would not have been complaining about leaks of classified information from those sources.

    In any event, when you look at these stories, it is very important to parse carefully how the press is describing Libby's testimony. The impression being (consciously) created is of recklessly irresponsible leaking of classified information. The reality is very likely far from that. Remember, leaking classified information can often be a crime, yet no one has been charged with such an offense.

    Like I said....The LIBZ got their panties twisted up over basically nothing once again

    Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 8:30pm

50. Rove ran ALL of the White House Strategy.

    Bush did exactly what Rove recommended.

    The reason Rove and Hadley are not names found on the Libby trial witness list is because they are going to be indicted themselves.

    This was NOT all about discrediting Wilson. Rove also knew that there was evidence within Plame's organization that could put the lie to the WHIG's faux intelligence claims to lie us into a war. The Bush Doctrine (a Rove invention) calls for "premptive strikes." Rove decided that Plame's organization needed to be taken down in order to implement their plan. Rove identified that Wilson should be sent to Niger and then used to out Plame to close down the WMD intelligence unit.

    Sound far fetched?

    More far fetched than lying us into war?

    More far fetched than bringing down a skyscraper on mere voice command?

    More far feteched than the story that a cave dweller destroyed the United States as we knew it?

    Rove was the Architect of ALL strategy...including 9/11.

    THEY ALL KNEW.

    Put them under oath.

    Ask them about EVERYTHING.

    Posted by plunger at 04/06/2006 @ 8:32pm

51. Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/06/2006 @ 8:28pm

    I encourage the world to use the hamsterland metaphor.

    Free of charge

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/06/2006 @ 8:36pm

52. The LIBZ got their panties twisted up over basically nothing once again

    Posted by LIBZSUK 04/06/2006 @ 8:30pm

    but you're Libz

    And you speak of yourself in the plural... don't you precious

    Posted by Will C. at 04/06/2006 @ 8:37pm

53. I hear the Black Helecopters flying over now....I am so glad you kook lefties are getting nuttier by the day...should seal your political fates for generations

    Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 8:37pm

54. you're the one who sees black helicopter

    (or is it just an auditory hallucination)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/06/2006 @ 8:48pm

55. If you bothered to read either 12958 or 13292, you would see the the President indeed has the authority to declassify documents originated for him or by him.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/06/2006 @ 7:06pm | ignore this person

    Actually Leave Libery, I have indeed read these Executive Orders. Have you? Or are you just basing your contention that these orders give the pResident "at will" powers to declassify documents on the Republican Talking Points Memo you received?

    In my reading, the pResident would appear to have classification/declassification power provided the information meets specific standards (divulging military plans oe weapons, intelligence activities, etc.) Of particular note are the sections that speak to the prohibition on declassification which would divulge information which could be expected to "...reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method..."

    When Mr. Nichols (and the National Journal) writes...

    "President Bush told Vice President Cheney to tell the vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to disclose highly classified information regarding Iraq intelligence in order to try and discredit legitimate criticism of the administration."

    this is very serious..and, if true, highly immoral. your defense of such actions seems to center on "yes, but it's legal." While I would certainly disagree with that assessment, as would many others far more "legally expert" than I, I would expect much more from someone who has postioned himeself on this board (many times) to be of higher moral stature.

    I will gladly defend legal and constitutional actions such as this one all day long.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/06/2006 @ 6:57pm | ignore this person

    Going foward, I'm sure this will be the mantra of the wingnuts on this one. "It was perfectly legal." It may or may not be legal (the basis of which lies solely on an Executive Order that the pResident issued in order to grant himself this power.) But this is wearing very thin on the American public and the world at large.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/06/2006 @ 9:03pm

56. No its only you traitors that are wearing thin on the REAL American people

    Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 9:12pm

57. "Libz" and "Liberty", The cute couple are soiling their trousers over the boy emperor's latest foray into the world of lying and leaking for political gain and for making a war with no point at all. The resulting death and mayhem makes the "emperor" a murderer. And you scum-bags who still wipe his ass are enablers, to be sure. The guy is caught! The worm has turned.

    Ah... Spring!!

    Love!!!

    Bloppy

    Posted by bloppy at 04/06/2006 @ 9:14pm

58. the so-called president does not have the authority to lie to the people. It's a miracle that Pinocchio Bush can fit into airforce one, his nose is so long.whether it's legal or not makes no difference, this will depress his already dismal ratings. what could possibly be the upside for the repugs?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/06/2006 @ 9:15pm

59. "The worm has turned"

    You the only worm...het the shit hitting the toilet BLOPPY?

    Love, LIBZSUCK

    Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 9:16pm

60. "what could possibly be the upside for the repugs?"

    THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD

    Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 9:17pm

61. Little Libby, Bordering on the incoherent aren't we? Learn to spell you drunken cracker idiot. Do you need a hug and a blanky?

    Love and kisses,

    bloppy

    Posted by bloppy at 04/06/2006 @ 9:22pm

62. Unable to come up with anything on her own, LIBZSUK provides us with the wonderful rantings of Andy McCarthy to justify the criminal deeds of Dear Leader. Mr. McCarthy's key point is that:

    It is crucial to note here, however, that there has been no accusation -- none -- that the President or anyone else was willing to reveal, much less actually revealed, classified information. It is irresponsible to say such a thing based on the current record.

    While this may indeed by "crucial to note", it is also ridiculously untrue, even by Bizarro Bush World standards. The recently filed papers (which McCarty claims to be responding to) directly assert that Libby testified that Bush authorized him (via Cheney) to release the NIE, which was, at the time, classified. So there is certainly an accusation that the President "was willing to reveal, much less actually revealed, classified information".

    Better twist up those panties just a bit tighter.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/06/2006 @ 9:24pm

63. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/06/2006 @ 9:15pm

    I personally think the defense put up by our two sociopaths from Hamsterland, liberty and libz, has passed absurdity and dove head first into co-dependency.

    I wasn't happy with my favorite president lying to a grand jury about a blowjob but it bothered me. These hamsters aren't even phased by the lies gee Dubya and company spew forth on a regular basis.

    I think the only humane future we can give them is a white room with soft walls, a jacket and a thorazen drip.

    (and I don't say this lightly)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/06/2006 @ 9:27pm

64. Liberty's argument that it was legal is retarded. If it was legal, why did they hide it? (what does that remind you of? NSA spying, perhaps? If the president does it, then it's not illegal, right???

    (LL, I have you on ignore so don't bother replying to me...unless you think you can get someone else to quote you.)

    Posted by Flarney at 04/06/2006 @ 9:27pm

65. This is amazing!

    By Michael A. Fletcher Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, April 7, 2006; Page A08

    Bush Leak Legal but Unusual, Experts Say

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR200604 0601806.html

    Posted by Munich at 04/06/2006 @ 9:50pm

66. WELL HATE TO POINT OUT ANOTHER FACT TO YOU CONSPIRACY NUTCASES...BUT IF BUSH WANTED TO.... HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DECLASSIFY ANYTHING HE WANTS TO PERIOD. THIS WHOLE THING IS A CANARD AND ANOTHER LIB WETDREAM THAT WILL AMOUNT TO NOTHING...SORRY MISSED AGAIN

    Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 9:58pm

67. To Flarney:

    For a good refutation ofthe unified exective theory, read The Federalist Papers. This is also recommended to LL.

    For a good modern response to the unified executive theory, check out the second article of impeachment against President Nixon. That is what is to be done with presidents who claim power under the unified executive theory.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/06/2006 @ 9:59pm

68. the one remaining option would appear to be to have either rove or cheney take the fall, ie, publicly pleading guilty to giving libby the information without presidential authorization. this would probably be cheney. then the fight is to get people to agree to consent to what cheney "did". otherwise, they leave bush holding the bag with his public claim that he had no idea what happened.

    this one is going to be hard to spin at all well. someone in addition to libby has to take a fall.

    Posted by ZERO 04/06/2006 @ 6:00pm

    Yeah, maybe Cheney won't stab Bush in the back as Libby just did both he and Bush. Maybe Cheney will stand up for what he believes in. Hey, wait -- isn't Cheney a legendary, draftdodging advocate of war? Like 99% of the Republican Party elite? He'll clam up and take the whole rap?

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/06/2006 @ 9:59pm

69. Libzsuck,

    I would take severe offense at your comments in this post and others if it wasn't so transparent how lonely you are. Why, who reads Katrina's blog more than you?

    And your furry has no sense. Each political argument is less coherent than the last. The only over-riding message is that you're pathological.

    If Katrina were to blog about planting turnips above an elevation of 1000 feet, you would stagger back from the ledge of blackout and sound the depths of your bellows, the rancid invective on the wind of your breath enough to pin back the ears of a Brooklyn tom cat.

    Posted by deanppowers at 04/06/2006 @ 10:04pm

70. Yes...this insult coming from someone who believes in Howard Dean...Somehow I feel a great warmth and solice from it all....The Nutcases rule the DIM party....Its a beautiful thing

    Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 10:08pm

71. I'm not even going to bother reading the "it's legal if Bush says it is" posts. They're pretty much all on ignore anyway. Why carry on a "conversation" with unsighted creatures who draw the nutritional sustenance of their minds from the consumption of dirt?

    I guess in their mirrorworld, if the President of the United States decides to give America's enemies classified information that will enable them to attack America then it's- why, of course, legal. That is, if that President is a Republican.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/06/2006 @ 10:09pm

72. Which is exactly what Bush did. Valerie Plame's very important job was to gather intelligence on and stop nuclear proliferation. What Bush has done is help those who are America's gravest threat. You know who I'm talking about, right- the Bush who is "fighting nuclear proliferation". They're traitors and the people supporting them should be treated as such, also.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/06/2006 @ 10:13pm

73. Yes...anothe dumb statement coming from someone who stated its ok for our dear beloved Cynthia to punch a Capital Cop as long as he is white....you libz are beautiful

    Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 10:13pm

74. "Valerie Plame's very important job was to gather intelligence on and stop nuclear proliferation"

    What a fucking joke....She was a paper pusher at the CIA who was only good at going to cocktail paties in D.C with her detestable husband...give me a fucking break

    Posted by libzsuk at 04/06/2006 @ 10:16pm

75. LL

    The Executive Order only indicates that the President may declassify, in which case the sections of the NIE would be open to the public. There's nothing in the statement of Libby's that the NIE was, in fact, declassified, only that he got the go-ahead from the White House to selectively leak it. If it is declassified, then where has it been released for public consumption?

    Further, the changes you reference in fact tighten classification and call for the reclassification of declassified documents, there is nothing in there that supports the argument that the NIE was declassified.

    1. Rove, Hadley & Tenet won't be witnesses Hardly important, since the issue at trial is did Libby lie. As Fitzgerald said on pgs. 15-16 "Nor has defendant established any connection between the documents defendant has demanded and any relevant testimony Mr. Rove or Mr. Hadley could provide. The trial in this case necessarily will focus on whether or not defendant committed perjury. While defendant may prefer to put the conduct of others on trial, he is not entitled to do so. Nor is defendant entitled to discovery so that he may examine witnesses at trial regarding their conduct and the conduct of others that is not germane to the issue of whether defendant lied and obstructed justice.

    2. Libby, Cheney & Bush knew NIE declassified From page 23 As to the meeting on July 8, defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was "pretty definitive" against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was "very important" for the key judgments of the NIE to come out. Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.

    In fact, this doesn't prove at all that the NIE was declassified. What it shows is that Libby knew it was classified at the time he was authorized to speak to Miller. The only basis for thinking that the NIE was declassified was one legal opinion saying that Presidential authorization to leak amounts to declassification. That's hardly the same thing as saying declassification occured pursuant to the relevant Executive Orders.

    Oops nothing about Plame and nothing noted by Fitzgerald about any problem with Bush declassifying the NIE.

    Oops, maybe that's because Bush isn't on trial and the question of if the document was legitimately declassified is irrelevant to the legal question of perjury--"Defendant is not charged with knowingly disclosing classified information, nor is he charged with any conspiracy offense."(p. 26). It isn't irrelevant, however, when judging the willingness of this administration to disclose classified info for political purposes. Further, the section you quote contains the phrase "he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials - including Cabinet level officials - were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE, the report about Wilson's trip and another classified document dated January 24, 2003."

    Why would these officials not be told that the NIE was already declassified, so they could stop working, unless the claim of declassification was a smoke screen.

    3. Bush knowledge of CIA name leak Given that the focus of the inquiry has always been on Cheney, Libby and Rove, how is this even remotely relevant.

    There is also nothing in the filing to indicate that VP Cheney had any involvement. This should also disappoint the left.

    Not yet, that rather depends on whether Libby wants to take the fall for Cheney. The filing does state that it was Cheney who told Libby of Mrs. Wilson's CIA employment, who authorized him to disclose the NIE and who told him to set up the conversations with Miller and Cooper.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/06/2006 @ 10:19pm

76. If our "if Bush did it, it's legal" crowd were in Italy in the 1930's they would be brownshirted members of Il Duce's brigades.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/06/2006 @ 10:20pm

77. Long story short....if this is the "Smoking Gun of Smoking Guns"...

    Russ Feingold should get more than 2 Democrats supporting a censure on it......Right?

    Posted by Mask at 04/06/2006 @ 10:20pm

78. Posted by LIBZSUK 04/06/2006 @ 10:13pm: Yes...anothe dumb statement coming from someone who stated its ok for our dear beloved Cynthia to punch a Capital Cop as long as he is white

    Whoa... She is really branching out with the "but Cynthia punched a cop" defense. What's wrong, LIBZ? Is the "but Clinton got a blow job" rap no longer working?

    you libz are beautiful

    Thank you kindly, maam.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/06/2006 @ 10:23pm

79. Ha, ha- I see from other posts that LOVE LIBERTY must be hard at work again defending America's enemies by lying for them in a public forum. What a truly unfortunate existence.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/06/2006 @ 10:24pm

80. this is a matter of no small confusion. one thing however is very clear, this is a huge political problem for the blood house and for the Republicant party in general, and I think the dialogue should reflect that. they're gonna have a big task to bump this off the headlines. oh wait, we just captured #2 guy of al qaeda, ha ha ha

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/06/2006 @ 10:25pm

81. Ladies and gents:

    I have refrained from posting on here recently for a number of reasons, some personal, others rooted more in the fact that much of what is said in here is worse than useless. This is not an attack, simply an observation.

    The reason I decided to break my silence is simple. I had an interesting conversation with a buddy of mine who is on active duty with the Marine Corps this afternoon, after it became clear that Bush and Cheney had authorized the leak of Valerie Plame.

    My friend, after discussing this new bit of information with some of his corps-mates, said to me that he felt completely sold down the river. In his words, he said, "How can I feel like my contribution is actually important, when at any moment, the administration in charge will simply sell us down the river if it becomes politically expedient".

    I considered his comments. I realized just how correct he was. This administration simply does not truly appreciate the contributions or the loss these men and women experience when fighting for what they are told is our defense. This conversation illustrated to me a groundswell of negative feelings in our armed forces against the current administration. While one person is a poor representative number for the armed forces, I believe this man to be extremely representative of the military at large, and the Marines in particular. Mark my words. This new information represents a watershed point for this adminstration. From this point on, this administration will do one of 2 things. It will either submit to the rule of law, and be punished accordingly, or, more likely, it will push its autocratic prerogative even further, and in all likelihood damage the relationship between the executive branch and the military. It may even resort to more extreme measures to enforce its will. Am I saying this is the end of the republic? No... but honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. I hope and fear, my friends, this could be the beginning of the end.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/06/2006 @ 10:35pm

82. how about a military coup? like those banana republics we more and more resemble?

    welcome back Jorchy, you were missed, why just the other day I said to libsuk, whatever happened to that Jorcheim?

    we all need to take a break sometime, and yes it is all quite useless, but so is playing cards, or staring into space, we all need to pass the time somehow, and we can't all be reading books or going to the opera.

    please permit me this goodnatured ribbing, you know how I stand vis a vis you.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/06/2006 @ 10:42pm

83. I have an idea. Let's just go ahead and concede the argument that it was legal to declassify the NIE...that way they can go ahead and admit it. That will bring us to the bigger point of WHY it was declassified, which is really the heart of the issue.

    Yes, let's go ahead and fast-forward to the discussion of how the declassification of the NIE was part of BushCo's plan to lie us into an illegal war (treason).

    Posted by Flarney at 04/06/2006 @ 10:44pm

84. JOHANNESROLF:

    It's all in good fun, bro. Completely appreciated.

    Honestly, I have been contemplating our position in history, and worry what we have become. It's not difficult to see what our current path portends. I have simply been trying to decide how exactly I want to participate in the history that is being made.

    A military coup honestly is a stern possibility. That is simply one of the scenarios I have been considering as possible. I have also seen the exact opposite. In the extreme, I could easily see a right-wing putsch. We'll see. It's not like it hasn't been tried in this country before.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/06/2006 @ 10:49pm

85. LL -

    I think taking off until Sunday is a swell idea. You obviously need a few days to come up with something better in defense of your king and jester than the legal mishmash you posted earlier. A few quotes of the relevant sections might have helped address your argument, rather than citing the whole executive order. I am always game to a debate with you, especially on legal issues (although you HAVE left me hanging on some of our recent back and forths). However, I do not see the point to even counter with an examination of the executive order you posted. I'll leave it to others to pick apart the executive order, but I truly think it is a red herring.

    Even assuming Bush's authorization to disclose the NIE was legal (maybe other posters will do the legwork to offer a good argument it was not; most accounts I have seen indicate it technically was legal), AND also that Bush followed the proper procedures to declassify the document or portions of the document (which I am not sure of, but will give him the benefit of the doubt, although I cannot seem to find the NIE online), what this reveals is very serious. Whether Bush illegally or improperly authorized a leak of classified information, or properly declassified and then authorized a leak of (previously) classified information, the result is the same - Bush allowed information that was previously classified to be disclosed to the public to achieve a political end. To attack the credibility of Joe Wilson, who had raised questions concerning the veracity of the administrations justifications for the war.

    Not only is this deplorable conduct for our Commander-in-Chief entrusted with the security of our country, but is suggests a pattern of conduct. A pattern of using classified information to discredit the dissenting views of Joe Wilson that were politically (if not legally) dangerous to the President. This pattern of conduct suggests that the leak of Plame's identity was not a mistake or mere oversight, but was intentional. I doubt that we will be seeing your defense that Bush properly authorized the declassification of Plame's identity before Libby and others disseminated it, so in the end, I fail to see how your citations to executive orders, and claims that the NIE was properly declassified really help your cause.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/06/2006 @ 11:52pm

86. what will it take 2

    The news media can write articles and voice opinions about how President George W. Bush has lied about this and that. (In fact, what took them so long to realize that.) But, this still means nothing. Such revelations of Truth have become the back and forth cackle of gossiping spin masters signifying nothing, as nothing has changed.

    Although give credit to Democrats in Wisconsin for finally taking action by voting for "impeachment".

    But no, the real deal is when one reporter, that first one, upon being chosen by President Bush to ask a question at one of his press opportunities, stands up and summons the Strength and Courage to ask, " Mr. President, when you lied about...!"

    That's what it will take --- before the rest of them will do the same. It's time for someone to say that the Emperor has no clothes.

    That's also when the evidence for impeachment will be brought forth before the American Public, and that's when it will mean something. Now we only hear the Truth as it is, "...twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools." (Kipling)

    Just as Republicans constantly accused Clinton of lying, together with Clinton's defense of his "private life" lie brought the Public into play, so can the Press bring out the Truth. And let's put Bush and Cheney under oath as well. Only then, will the Wisdom of Truth find its place in our great land.

    Until then, lying continues to be our government's national pastime. We have come to expect it. We take it for granted. We kill and die for it. And the shadows of sadness remain our constant companions..

    the end

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 04/06/2006 @ 11:53pm

87. AN UNFATHOMABLE SH*TLOAD OF MORE SNAKES:

    Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury New York Sun Web Exclusive

    By JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun April 6, 2006 updated 9:02 am EDT

    "A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case."

    "The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter."

    In Court Filings, Cheney Aide Says Bush Approved Leak

    By DAVID JOHNSTON and DAVID E. SANGER Published: April 6, 2006 New York Times

    "If Mr. Libby's account is accurate, it also involves Mr. Bush directly in the swirl of events surrounding the disclosure of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer."

    MORE SNAKES ARE SLITHERING OUT OF BUSH AND DICK. BUSH CAN RUN (WELL HE CAN'T RUN BECAUSE THIS IS HIS SECOND TERM), BUT HE CAN'T HIDE. DICK, OF COURSE, IS ALWAYS IN HIS BUNKER (WHEREVER IT IS). A FEW LEFT-WING NUTS ARE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT AN OCTOBER SURPRISE (2006? 2008? BOTH?) THAT WILL HELP THE WHITE HOUSE RETAIN ITS MAJORITY IN THE CONGRESS AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH (PLENTY OF EXECUTING HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE BY THIS CROOKED GALLOWS). ALTHOUGH THE CURRENT REVELATION (AS OUTLINED IN THE ABOVE REPORTS) IS HEARSAY AND INNUENDO, THE SHADES ARE DROPPING ON THIS NEOCON REIGN (AND THE DINGLEBERRIES ARE DROPPING ON THE BUSH!). CERTAINLY THE DEMOCRATS WILL MAKE HAY OF THIS CURRENT NEWS TO FEED TO ITS EQUINE CONSTITUENTS. LEAVE IT TO BUSH (NOT BEAVER) TO COVER UP, HIDE, SLIDE AND SMIRK AT THIS LATEST NEWS.

    Posted by Mad Plato at 04/07/2006 @ 12:31am

88. have I mentioned lately that conservatives are insane?

    Posted by Will C. at 04/07/2006 @ 12:36am

89. it's time for the end of the game now. george bush needs to leave office.

    Posted by ZERO 04/07/2006 @ 12:29am

    Zero

    On this point I whole heartedly agree with you.

    Time to clean house.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/07/2006 @ 12:40am

90. To late to talk here.

    Posted by Comanchero at 04/07/2006 @ 01:59am

91. Don't pick on Scott McClellan, after all his Daddy "proved" LBJ killed JFK!

    Posted by georgepweb at 04/07/2006 @ 02:43am

92. Holy bejesus, since this morning/afternoon/when this was posted. As I can tell, only Liberty and the resident paid troll bridge have posted in defense. I can respect LL, they at least try to represent the opposing beliefs and statements of the counter party. Libz, you've just been slinging mud, rhetoric, and shoddy logic into this. I am not particularly shocked.

    As for this. Well, it's showed up on Smoking gun, Fark, CNN, MSNBC (on television underscrolled), and that's all I caught it on tonight. I'm sure there's more. This means, 1 impartial fairly vicious and mercenary news source, 1 rightish leaning but decent source of random information, and two, not one, but two strong sources of everyday news.

    Yeah, that counts as a media coup. When about 80-90% of people hear about this, as would be expected in this media age, they're going to have to face a hard decision. Those who have dissented against Bush have faced scrutiny and difficulty. Higher-ups, especially republicans with a career, would not risk smear campaigns unless possible to prove or convince within a strong possiblity of redemption.

    So this makes for a Very, Very, Very touchy situation for the Republican party. This is the Plamegate affair, the one that actually counts as some sort of, if not actual Treason, a nearly Treasonous offense. I fully respect the CIA. I have been taught by their former agents, to great success, median compromise, and hard work. I want our country to succeed against terrorism, for I have no respect for hostility, violence, or hatred...

    but for the love of your various gods...

    isn't there some standard for competence in the leadership of a major branch of government?

    Posted by Megido at 04/07/2006 @ 03:29am

93. For Libz and Liberty:

    Just a question for you to ponder. If it wasn't illegal for him to declassify and/or leak this information, why did Bush/Chainey/Rove consistantly to lie about doing it? Why not just say,"I did it, and I had the authority to do it." He knew it was illegal. So did Rove, and so did Chainey. That's why they lied.

    Posted by fallenangel at 04/07/2006 @ 05:07am

94. Bush and Cheney under oath? I think they'll lie just the same. they have been willing to sell the country down the river, they won't hesitate to sell the repug party down same river, and it won't be to stay in power, it will be to stay out of court and perhaps jail. what an election season this is going to be.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 07:19am

95. very much so Megido. here's how they put it:

    "We're in an exceptionally challenging electoral environment," said Rep. Tom Cole (news, bio, voting record) of Oklahoma, a former GOP strategist.

    and that is music to my ears

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 07:28am

96. So...in the NEW REALITY...this, or any future President can get drunk and disclose the nuclear codes on international television, and in so doing, declassify the words as he speaks them, by the mere act of speaking them.

    Absurd concept, right?

    RIGHT!

    Just because Karl Rove calls the press to tell them it's all legal, doesn't make it so.

    I M P E A C H ! ! !

    Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 08:11am

97. JORCHEIM 04/06/2006 @ 10:35pm

    Always great to get an actual case study from the real world.

    Very few people realize how badly BushCo has alienated the military. It is an incredibly serious problem.

    All our complaints will amount to nothing unless Bush is punished. I don't think he'll be convicted, but I won't be satisfied with less than impeachment.

    Some say impeachment is unrealistic.

    Bush is a my-way-or-the-highway guy. You can take him or leave him. Taking him has worn thin. The alternative is disposing of him. There is no middle ground.

    There are two competing stories about the Bush era.

    One is that he restored dignity and competence to the White House, reversed a long slide into liberal indulgence, and decisively rebuffed our enemies.

    The other is that he was elected once illegally and once through gross misrepresentation, that he engineered a huge wealth transfer to his contributors on the guise of tax relief, that he was asleep at the switch on 9/11, and that he staged a war to cover it up.

    The only question is which story will be recorded as history.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/07/2006 @ 08:12am

98. Karl Rove INVENTED the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) for one purpose. TOTAL MESSAGE CONTROL.

    Rove is a genious...an evil genious.

    He can only be effective when he knows literally everything. He is the REALITY CREATION ARCHITECT.

    At any given time he can take a set of actual facts and use each of them to stitch together a totally false reality.

    Rove knew that the truth was the enemy of their conspiracy to conquer the Middle East (the PNAC plan). His job, every single day, is to convince you, me and the rest of the world that you didn't just see and hear what you just saw and heard...or if you did, it doesn't mean what your logical mind is attempting to tell you - because "we're in a post-9/11 world now" and black is white.

    Karl Rove is the single most destructive force in the US Government...the enabler of the entire evil scheme...THE ARCHITECT.

    The scheme includes 9/11 as the essential pretext. "9/11" ... how clever, Karl! Only someone with American sensibilities would select the number we have all memorized to call in the event of life threatening emergency as the date for this evil....

    KARL ROVE.

    The war plan to invade Iraq was written BEFORE 9/11. The Secret Energy Task Force meetings that Cheney had with Ken Lay and the other OIL HOGS during which they all decided how to divide up the oil fields of the Middle East...all of that was BEFORE 9/11.

    Now you see why Cheney insisted the substance of those talks remain SECRET.

    All of their schemes and conspiracies REQUIRED 9/11 as the essential trigger.

    Cheney outsourced the implementation of the FALSE FLAG OPERATION to Mossad...the FALSE FLAG experts. This explains why over 200 Mossad agents were operating in the United States prior to 9/11. This explains why five of them were arrested, having been observed filming the planes hitting the towers and their subsequent collapse - celebrating out worst nightmare.

    9/11 was not a bad day for those involved in the Conspiracy. It was their shining moment...their PRETEXT.

    One of them washed out...couldn't cope with the guilt. Ari Fleisher had to be replaced, and disappeared. Not dead, but out of sight.

    The outing of Plame was designed to destroy the best WMD intelligence the US had at its disposal regarding Iraq. Plame knew for a FACT that Iraq had no WMD. It was HER JOB to know. Therefore Rove perceived Plame (the truth) as his WORST ENEMY, and conceived of a plan to silence her. Rove is the individual who insisted that Wilson be sent to Niger.

    GUARANTEED.

    This was the only way to launch a smear program which appeared to be aimed at Wilson, but was intended solely to shut down the entire Brewster Jennings operation and bury their WMD evidence.

    THAT IS ALL ROVE.

    He invented WHIG:

    The group's members included Rove, Bush advisor Karen Hughes, Senior Advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, Deputy Director of Communications James Wilkinson, Assistant to the President and Legislative Liaison Nicholas Calio, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

    Every single one of these individuals is a co-conspirator in a concerted effort to defraud America into committing its troops and its treasure to invade a foreign country to the sole benefit of BIG OIL AND ISRAEL.

    The pending invasion of Iran is the next phase of the very same conspiracy. Karen Kwiatkowski let us know that Larry Franklin had set up an IRAN desk in the midst of the Pentagon's IRAQ planners. Larry Franklin has pled guilty for passing Top Secret Iranian Intelligence to AIPAC (Israel). Israeli Generals were free to come and go from the Cheney/Rumsfeld Office Of Middle East Invasion whenever they pleased, without need to sign the guest register.

    IT'S ALL THE SAME CONSPIRACY.

    9/11 - Afghanistan - Iraq - Iran - Syria.

    READ THE PNAC.

    A "New Pearl Harbor" was a REQUIREMENT for its implementation.

    Rove is running the entire PsyOps Machine to enable it.

    Hang them for TREASON.

    Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 08:12am

99. Seated behind Mohammad Atta on 9/11 was an Israeli Mossad agent, Daniel Lewin.

    WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

    STOP.

    THINK.

    Atta was sitting in seat 8D. In front of him were the two brothers, Wael and Walid Al-Shihri. Behind him was his comrade in his final days, 'Abd Al-'Aziz Al-'Omari. To Al-'Omari's left was the Israeli Mossad agent, Daniel Lewin, and right behind him, the man who would kill him, Sattam Al-Suqami.

    In those exact moments, a group of Mossad agents were waiting in Manhattan for the first plane. They had surveillance and filming equipment with them. Meanwhile, F-15 planes were on high alert in Otis air base, 150 miles away, not knowing in which direction to fly.

    It is noteworthy that in those moments, the Mossad agents here, according to eye-witnesses, were dancing and cheering in front of the WTC. The Israelis were arrested in New York. Later, they were moved to Washington, and from there to Israel, and the report was quickly suppressed.

    5 EMPLOYEES OF RAYTHEON WITH EXPERTISE IN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS DIED ON THREE SEPARATE FLIGHTS ON 9/11

    http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/raytheon-connection-to-9-11

    WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

    STOP.

    THINK.

    Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 08:13am

100. While Lay is on the stand and under oath, wouldn't it be great fun to ask him all about his meetings with George Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney prior to 9/11?

     Wouldn't it be great to ask him if the faux California Energy Crisis which his company manufactured just prior to the 2000 elections was actually a scheme cooked up by he and Poppie Bush to compel Americans to install some oil experts in the White House? But what was to be Lay's reward? After all, he was GW's largest contributor and best friend of Poppie Bush. Poppie never planned on Enron going bust, and that's when things started to fall apart.

     Wouldn't if be nice to learn the details of how Lay and Cheney were divvying up the oil fields in Iraq on a big map, even before 9/11?

     Wouldn't it be enlightening to hear that Lay knew for a fact that 9/11 was going to happen as the pretext for the war plan which he clearly had knowledge of prior to 9/11?

     Why would you sit around countless energy planning meetings dividing up the oil fields of Iraq in advance of 9/11 unless there were a plan in place to make it possible?

     Such a plan would by necessity be a war plan, and this war plan was actually in place prior to 9/11.

     Surely any good war plan requires at its core a starting point, a trigger if you will that provides a good "cover story" to implement it. Clearly you can't just go around invading countries without a good reason...you need to be attacked first, then retaliate.

     Was 9/11 simply part of the war plan?

     Why wouldn't it have been?

     You can't hit the "GO" button without a pretext.

     9/11 was the pretext for the invasion of the Middle East - all by design.

     CAN YOU SAY COVERUP?

     Remember how it was Andersen Consulting which took the brunt of the legal retribution for the Enron debacle? Michael Chertoff was responsible for that. He put them out of business:

     Andersen attorneys thought Chertoff was asking too much and said the firm would be better off going to trial.

     Chertoff then warned the Andersen team that if there was a trial, he would play to win. His prosecutors would take "head shots" at Andersen, Chertoff said.

     http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/enron/2002-06-17-chertoff.htm

     FYI: Taking "head shots" is a term of the Mossad. It is their tactic for dealing with suicide bombers wearing vests. Mossad has taught this same technique to police forces across the United States.

     After Andersen's conviction, the government's Enron investigation gains momentum. After Justice Department criminal division chief Michael Chertoff obtained an indictment against Andersen in March, the prosecutor became the target of public demonstrations by Andersen employees. As the firm's employees confronted the reality that the indictment would drive Andersen out of business, they and others demanded to know why Chertoff wasn't going after his principle target, Enron.

     Chertoff's obstruction-of-justice indictment of Andersen quickly broke the firm.

     http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/enron/2002-06-17-andersen.htm

     http://www.madcowprod.com/01122004.html

     Michael Chertoff, appointed by President Bush to head the Homeland Security Department, may have shielded from criminal prosecution a former client suspected by law enforcement of having funneled millions of dollars directly to Osama Bin Laden while in charge of the U.S. Government's 9.11 investigation.

     "At the FBI's insistence, the White House had already forced ICE to give up its Operation Greenquest program investigating terrorism financing -- and forced Ridge to sign a memo pledging to keep his department away from similar investigations."

     http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66175

     Chertoff allowed scores of suspected Israeli terrorists and spies to quietly return to Israel. In several cases, Israeli suspects working for phoney moving companies, such as Urban Moving Systems from Weehawken, N.J., were caught driving moving vans which tested positive for explosives. On September 14, Dominic Suter, the owner of the moving company, which was found to be a Mossad front company, fled to Israel after FBI agents requested a second interview.

     One group of 5 Israelis was seen on the roof of Urban Moving Systems videotaping and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center. These Israeli agents were returned to Israel on visa violations.

     ABS 20/20 Investigation:

     http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm

     http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column100.html

     FOX News 4-Part Investigative Series:

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

     Popular Mechanics:

     http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=86989

     Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher.

     But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. PM's senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.

     DOV ZAKHEIM:

     The CEO of Systems Planning's international division, Dov Zakheim, is a long-time DoD and Republican Party insider, and a founding member of the Neoconservative cult. While Bush was still Governor of Texas, Zakheim became one of his closest advisers, counseling him on defense technology and strategic aspects of Middle Eastern affairs. After the 2000 "election," Rummy rewarded Zakheim with a low-profile but strategically important position -- Comptroller, i.e. head money man, of the Defense Department.

     Zakheim also co-authored the Heritage Foundation's infamous tract, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," in which the Bush Administration's entire design for renewed global conquest was laid down a full year prior to 9-11. On page 63, the authors note that timely implementation of their ideas would require "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

     see for yourself:

     http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

     Dov S. Zakheim was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense on May 4, 2001.

     Left the Bush Administration in mid-2004 for Booz Allen.

     How Does Zakheim Fit In ?

     He helped mold the Mid-East policy, and controlled the Pentagon purse strings.

     Thanks to him, Israel, and their militia (Turkey), are awash in F-15's, F-16's, and the latest in offensive and defensive missile systems. Israel has a space program, ICBM's, nukes, and lots more.

     Zakheim, who is a dual Israeli/American citizen and a Shul Rabbi, has stalked the halls of US government for 25 yrs. He has set defense policy which influenced Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush Sr. and Jr. This rabid Zionist was the controller of the Pentagon when an audit discovered over a trillion dollars was missing.

     Most of Israel's armament was obtained thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified as military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.

     Zakheim is a rabid Zionist, who carries an Israel passport and is considered to be one of the top members of the secretive Illuminati . He predicts 9/11 and by sheer coincidence the Pentagon is hit by a remote controlled jet (Zakheim's ' SPC ' corporation is the premier company in the field).

     http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS

     During his tenure as controller at the Pentagon from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004, over one trillion dollars was unaccounted for.

     Military information is jeopardized, military contractors billed the US for Israeli items, $50 million fighter jets are classified as surplus and the list goes on and on. As the scandal of the missing 3 trillion dollars surfaces the Rabbi quickly resigns.

     Here's how it all came together:

     http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11385.htm

     Here's why:

     On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

     AND LESS THAN ONE MONTH LATER:

     On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."

     http://www.mediamonitors.net/khodr49.html

     Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 08:14am

101. The Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission states the following:

     "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.

     "And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.

     The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

     http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htm

     Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 08:14am

102. "One is that he restored dignity and competence to the White House, reversed a long slide into liberal indulgence, and decisively rebuffed our enemies."

     this one is going to be an extremely difficult sell, Paradigm

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 08:44am

103. Key point about all of this:

     Early on Zero brought up the question 'what did the president know and when did he know it' regarding Saddam's supposed attempt to purchase yellow cake. This is a fundamental question, as the answer to it may very well damn him in an official statement to congress (in other words, lying to congress, not to mention the rest of us).

     If Dubyak knew that there had been no attempt to purchase uranium ore prior to the 2003 SOTU address to congress, would this not constitute making a false report to the legislative branch (not that the blue-blood inbred cretin has any respect for any other branch of our government) in his official duties as president?

     Remember that the Constitution (that goddamn piece of paper) requires as an official duty of the Office of the President (note capitalization) that the executive make an annual report to congress on the state of the union.

     In a certain way, the president is subservient to congress in this regard, but at any rate, this is an official duty, and if the buggerer lied in the performance of such a duty, especially on a matter as important as this, it stands to reason that this rises to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'

     This is not the only dastardly act of this coward, but if it could be established that he knew he was bearing false witness, it would help in the cause to chuck his scrawny ass out.

     Posted by skeletonman at 04/07/2006 @ 08:52am

104. Strategically, what do you do now if you're Harry Reid?

     I say you

     1. introduce the motions to permit Fitzgerald to expand the scope of his investigation

     2. Call a vote on Feingold's Censure motion.

     3. Demand accountability and a progress report on Phase II (it's all connected to the leaking and wire tapping).

     4. All out media blitz with every single elected Democrat getting himself / herself on TV / radio / print media to talk about the culture of corruption and only electoral change can repair the rule of law to the country.

     Posted by freedomplease at 04/07/2006 @ 08:53am

105. What US Court decided that outing a covert CIA Operative and exposing OUR MOST CRITICAL Top Secret Intelligence Program during a TIME OF WAR is LEGAL?

     Prove it's LEGAL.

     Show me the proof.

     THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!

     IT IS NOT LEGAL!

     I don't give a good God Damn if Every Single Administration Official and talking head MEDIA SHILL declares that it is legal...IT'S NOT LEGAL!

     Prove to me that it was LEGAL on the day that Bush exposed it.

     They made sure to mention that Wilson was "A DEMOCRAT."

     That makes it POLITICAL.

     THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL.

     Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 09:06am

106. They made sure to mention that Wilson was "A DEMOCRAT."

     That makes it POLITICAL.

     THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL.

     Posted by PLUNGER 04/07/2006 @ 09:06am

     Well said.

     Posted by skeletonman at 04/07/2006 @ 09:11am

107. In her testimony, Rice said:

     "No one could have foreseen the hijacking of commercial aircraft and using them as missiles, flying them into buildings."

     On the morning of 9/11, Vice President Cheney, in concert with NORAD, was running a drill to simulate the hijacking of commercial aircraft and using them as missiles flying them into buildings.

     LIARS.

     GUILTY LIARS.

     GUILTY OF TREASON, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

     GUILTY OF 9/11

     THEY ALL KNEW.

     THEY DID IT!

     I M P E A C H ! ! !

     I M P E A C H ! ! !

     I M P E A C H ! ! !

     Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 09:18am

108. I guess we now know why president Cheney and his ventriloquist dummy refused to testify under oath in Ftiz' investigation.

     Posted by skeletonman at 04/07/2006 @ 09:21am

109. Skel

     You ever wonder if Cheney has to wear one of those long "farmers' gloves" to get the lips to move like that!

     ALL

     With all this bouncing around the following should be no surprise.

     Per MSNBC: "By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress." and

     "These numbers are scary. We've lost every advantage we've ever had," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said. "The good news is Democrats don't have much of a plan. The bad news is they may not need one."

     gotta love it....

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/07/2006 @ 09:28am

110. So where are all of the Bush apologists on this? I thought it would take nothing less than a sex scandal to bring this kind of silence.

     Posted by rain man at 04/07/2006 @ 09:32am

111. LL

     If true, the fact that Cheney passed on information he knew was classified makes him complicit.

     LibZ

     The fact that Bush said something, doesn't make it "declassified". There is a procedure (you know...follow proper procedures, like FISA filings...oops...didn't do that either). This would mean that someone BESIDES Dubya knew it was declassified. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.

     Maybe it was "double-secret declassified"!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/07/2006 @ 09:34am

112. Rain

     Maybe Bush'll give Cheney a BJ to divert attention...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/07/2006 @ 09:35am

113. LOC, that was rude. Next thing you know, somebody will be making up stories about fake White House reporters that run quasi-miliary gay porn websites. Try to keep it clean, please.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/07/2006 @ 09:40am

114. Skel

     You ever wonder if Cheney has to wear one of those long "farmers' gloves" to get the lips to move like that!

     gotta love it....

     Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/07/2006 @ 09:28am

     LOC -

     As to your question, to whose lips do you refer? His own, or Dubyak's? Either way, it's not a pretty image, is it?

     And yes, I gotta love it, but now is the time for the Dems to move swiftly and with authority into the void being created, though like someone once said of Yassir Arafat, (these) Dems have never failed to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

     Reid, et. al., need to get cracking, present a reasonable plan to extract us from the assholes of the Right, even if it is a work in progress, to the American people and then hammer away at what they will do to restore the dignity of our great nation. Feeding the conservative freaks a little humble pie would be nice, too, but that can wait.

     I notice that the republi-goons are eerily silent. Do you think that they are waiting for orders from the mothership? Or, do you think that the mothership has abandoned them to whatever fate lies ahead for them?

     Posted by skeletonman at 04/07/2006 @ 09:43am

115. Skel

     yeah...now is the time to stand and deliver. Gotta appreciate the grim comedy of a political "who's on first" scenario though.

     ALL

     If you've never called or EM'd your Congressmen before...NOW is the time. Remind them that they are vertebrates....got a spine? Use it!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/07/2006 @ 09:49am

116. MyPara

     ooops...my bad. Please don't send the black vans to get me again. I'm still smarting from the last cavity search.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/07/2006 @ 09:50am

117. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/07/2006 @ 09:50am

     Dude, that's just nasty.

     Posted by skeletonman at 04/07/2006 @ 10:02am

118. I am still waitng for formal charges and guilty findings in a court of law. Am I on the wrong blog? I thought only the evil Repubs rush to judgement, as in Iraq war, for example. Seems like all here already have 'em tried and fried.

     Very progressive...

     Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 10:23am

119. I am still waitng for formal charges and guilty findings in a court of law. Am I on the wrong blog? I thought only the evil Repubs rush to judgement, as in Iraq war, for example. Seems like all here already have 'em tried and fried.

     Very progressive...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/07/2006 @ 10:23am

     How many times must this be said? Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.

     Bush and the rest of his pack of scoundrels need not be charged with any crime, in any court, anywhere to be impeached by the House (and if convicted by the Senate, chucked without ceremony from office).

     That many on the left (myself most emphatically included) have already made up our minds about this clown is really an expression of human nature (and since we are all just spittin' in the wind on this site anyway, means precisely schmautz). NO DIFFERENT than what all y'all were saying and doing when WJC got his hummer (note the small 'h').

     So, JM, quit putting on the mantle of the aggrieved defender of the oppressed/wrongly accused. It doesn't become you (or anyone else on these boards, for that matter).

     Posted by skeletonman at 04/07/2006 @ 10:37am

120. MAASCH - I so agree with you about the rush to judgement. What you are ignoring is the appearance of guilt. The fact that these leaks are confirmed by the same people you "elected" to suppress freedom in the first place, that's just gotta hurt so bad, right MAASH?

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 10:37am

121. To John Maasch:

     When comes down to it, Mr. Bush and his aides should have their day court, as should Jose Padilla. Due process is a human right.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 10:44am

122. Maasch - there is to be sure the purely legal side, but it is not the only bar here. For example, if Bush lied to the public or Congress, technically, he cannot be proven guilty of perjury, because he was not under oath. It does not make it right, or it does not mean there are no grounds for impeachment - a political process.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 10:54am

123. JM

     that's odd....i coulda swore a few years back that lying to the public about a blow-job was illegal. Guess lying to the public about "unclassified, classified" war-supporting intelligence is OK though?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/07/2006 @ 10:58am

124. The public awakens...

     Every time this idiot opens his mouth, all he does is change feet. Every time his second acts publicly someone gets shot - what is wrong with America, can't people see the fools they've allowed to get into power. Every day there is new evidence that should tell a sensible person that something is wrong - but nothing happens. The media is complicit, it seems that those who are labelled mad conspiracy theorists are perhaps anything but and in actual fact just the opposite - the world has truly been turned on it's head and LIES bleeding.

     By: dick on April 07, 2006 at 10:28am

     From Huffpo

     Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 11:02am

125. As I said last night, apart from showing that Bush and Cheney were blowing smoke on this issue two years ago (probably why they refused to testisy under oath), this shows a damning pattern of conduct. The administration disclosed previously classified information to the press in an effort to attack a political advarsary. Whether or not the information (the NIE in this case) was properly declassified before it was released is immaterial to a large extent. It is evidence that Bush and Cheney use politics to dictate the secrecy they give to national security information. It is further evidence that the leak of Plame's CIA status was political, intentional and consistent with this pattern of conduct.

     (I supposed it is even still an open issue whether the "declassification" of the NIE was doen properly in this case; there IS a procedure to follow; Bush cannot declassify something by simple oral decree; but I will wait to hear more facts to pass judgment on this limited issue)

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 11:06am

126. Hman,

     I understand the political process and that may be the problem. Poor Clinton actually lied to a grand jury, as part of a legal process, and THEN was impeached. Am I missing something here? If we on ly defer to political process then every other president will be impeached by the party newly voted in..seems to0 low a bar. Most could care less if Clinton lied about blow jobs or broccoli, but rather that he lied to a grand jury. (I have been trying to use Clintons logic regarding BJs with out much sympathy. I happen to agree with old Bill on this one).

     I am open on this one regarding impeachment. It makes me uncomfortable with the process..

     Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 11:12am

127. Closing down our best source of covert intelligence on WMD in the Middle East by making its covert status public - during a time of war - is akin to revealing troop movements and positions to the enemy - during a time of war.

     It's TREASON on it's face.

     Doing so for POLITICAL reasons is IMPEACHABLE.

     BUSH, CHENEY, ROVE & LIBBY all knew that Plame was a covert agent - and a key enemy if their lies were to succeed. Everyone in the WHIG knew. They all conspired to prevent the truth about WMD from being made public

     When referring to Wilson, each of them at one time or another referred to him as "a Democrat."

     That's POLITICAL.

     That's ILLEGAL.

     Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 11:20am

128. Maasch -

     I might be oversimplifying, but impeachment is not a tool to use when the president or VP (as the case may be) merely has a different political philosophy. It concerns removing the president where his course of conduct has basically threatened the republic ("other high crimes and misdemeanors;" Bush has failed to "faithfully execute" his duties and to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.")

     You are correct in summarizing the grounds for Clinton's impeachment - Clinton lied in connection with a private civil suit.

     With Bush and Cheney, I see four main grounds for POSSIBLE impeachment (there could be more; there could also be less): (1) misrepresentations related to Iraq; (2) torture scandal; (3) the NSA warrantless spying programdetentions; (4) illegal detentions. The latest news fits into the grounds for the first ground. Bush and Cheney intentionally misrepresented the Iraqi threat, and tried to shield it by selectively disclosing classified information.

     So you tell me which course of conduct justifies impeachment proceedings. Like Jack Rabbit said, Bush and Cheney deserve their day in court - let it be an impeachment trial before the Senate. At a minimum, I think there is overwhelming evidence that demands at least an INVESTIGATION on whether or not the House should bring arcticles of impeachment.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 11:32am

129. Remember too Maasch -

     In your Clinton timeline, he was not convicted of perjury BEFORE he was impeached (nor after, for that matter). If people care so much that Clinton ALLEGEDLY lied to a grand jury, wouldn't or shouldn't they care even more if Bush and Cheney allegedly lied to get public and Congressional support for a war in Iraq?

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 11:38am

130. huh . . . I don't get it Zero. According to people like Love Liberty, the leak of the NIE document has nothing to do with Plame.

     So which is it?

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 11:44am

131. All

     It is odd that "the Nation" is taking umbrage that this release of declassified material was intended to discredit Wilson. Of course it was. What else could it be? Wilson was defaming the administration by saying that the president was a liar, in particular regarding the claim in the 2003 State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein's regime was seeking to acquire uranium in Africa. Wilson based this charge on the knowledge he had acquired during his February 2002 mission to Niger. He considered his information dispositive, and went public in July 2003. So the administration chose to fight back with the facts. They really had no other choice.

     Since the summer of 2003, we have learned more about Wilson's credibility. His mission to Niger was doomed from the start. It was cursory, unsystematic, and most importantly overt -- everyone he spoke to knew he was working for the U.S. government, thus would hardly be likely to admit they were engaging in illegal activities. The CIA report on Wilson's mission stated that it "did not provide substantial new information." Wilson gave the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigating prewar intelligence an exaggerated sense of the significance of his findings, but admitted that he "mis-spoken" to the press about what he had learned. His comments since then have been frequently conflicting, the only constant being his central role in these events, and his general importance to world affairs. The Senate committee concluded that it was not wrong of the CIA to try to exploit Wilson's alleged access in Niger, but considered it "unfortunate" that given the vast array of tools available to the Agency, spouse-on-junket was the "only option available."

     Besides Nation readers the POTUS can declassify what he wishes to, he has that authority, and did he tell him to leak Ms. Plames name? Remember your personal gut feelings dont count, so the POTUS wins again.

     Give them hell W.

     Posted by CPT at 04/07/2006 @ 11:58am

132. Zero

     Exactly....hence my "double secret declassification" quip.

     CPT

     I shudder when I entertain that people with your mindset might actually be responsible for protecting our nation when you defend a CIC that flushes the Constitution.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/07/2006 @ 12:10pm

133. ZERO:

     Great point. I am still trying to muddle my way through the executive order that gives Bush and Cheney the authority to declassify material. I must admit I am having trouble finding the relevant sections. In any event, I must assume that there is a PROCEDURE for the president or VP to do this (again, I am having trouble locating the sections dealing with any procedure). Was this procedure followed? You are right - the timeline is obviously critical.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 12:14pm

134. CPT:

     Thank you for conceding the motive.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 12:14pm

135. CPT, read your post twice and can't find the fact that at the time Bush made the statement which Wilson discredited HE KNEW IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY REAL EVIDENCE.

     You're a tough guy. Quit picking on the mouse and take on the man. I suggest you do it soon before recruitment goes from difficult to impossible.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/07/2006 @ 12:17pm

136. Republicans will forever excuse absolutely any action by W, no matter how criminal. There's just something about him that they love. Personally, I believe it's the underlying racist/homophobic agenda of the entire Republican party. Most of them simply can't admit that's where it's at for them.

     Posted by rmjlattanzi at 04/07/2006 @ 12:19pm

137. If you've never called or EM'd your Congressmen before...NOW is the time. Remind them that they are vertebrates....got a spine? Use it!

     Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/07/2006 @ 09:49am

     Two senators emailed. Took 5 minutes. To be repeated. Thanks for the reminder.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/07/2006 @ 12:21pm

138. ."i coulda swore a few years back that lying to the public about a blow-job was illegal."

     permit me to quibble, lying to the grand jury was illegal, lying to the public was stupid.

     Clinton should have taken a page from Nixon's checker speech, you youngsters are just gonna have to google this, act contrite, shed a crocodile tear and he woulda been fine. as it was he remained popular throughout

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 12:23pm

139. Eight years of (relative) peace and tremendous prosperity. Those were the Clinton years...

     Posted by rmjlattanzi at 04/07/2006 @ 12:25pm

140. You know....

     for "key Congressmen", it seems that John Conyers and Maurice Hinchey get ignored by 80-90% of the Democratic caucus in the House???

     Posted by Mask at 04/07/2006 @ 12:48pm

141. Love Liberty, when did you last stop to consider that if we are defending the President by saying he did nothing illegal, a crucial battle has already been lost?

     I will read your post again. But I think you have a serious forest vs. trees problem.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/07/2006 @ 12:50pm

142. LL

     BIDEN: By the way, it does. All he has to do is say I authorize declassification.

     But evidently he didn't. Otherwise the people moving to have it declassified would've known. Further, why did Libby need to go to the legal counsel to ask about declassification if Cheney had already conveyed that information to him.

     Posted by brunowe at 04/07/2006 @ 1:02pm

143. It is odd that "the Nation" is taking umbrage that this release of declassified material was intended to discredit Wilson. Of course it was. What else could it be? Wilson was defaming the administration by saying that the president was a liar, in particular regarding the claim in the 2003 State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein's regime was seeking to acquire uranium in Africa. Wilson based this charge on the knowledge he had acquired during his February 2002 mission to Niger. He considered his information dispositive, and went public in July 2003. So the administration chose to fight back with the facts. They really had no other choice.

     They did not fight back with the facts. First, the only evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium was a Nigerian minister's assumption that an Iraqi trade delegation was doing so. The subject never came up. Further, the sheer impossibility of Niger selling uranium, because the mines were under the tight control of an international consortium, also undercuts the possibility of such sales.

     Further, implying nepotism is hardly fighting with the facts. Joseph Wilson had worked in both Niger and Iraq. Valerie Plame's involvement was to say that her husband was available and to set up the introduction--hardly the use of influence to bring in someone unqualified. Of course, revealing her identity isn't fighting with the facts either.

     Posted by brunowe at 04/07/2006 @ 1:06pm

144. To CPT:

     That Bush league propaganda you repeated was refuted twelve ways to Sunday a long time ago.

     If Wilson was calling Bush a liar, there was a good reason for it. Perhaps Bush doesn't like being called a liar; I can sympathize with that. I am 5'3" tall and don't like being called "short", but I got used to it a long time ago. Mr. Bush should get used to being called a liar for the same reason I had to get used to being called short.

     Other than Mr. Tenet issuing a mea culpa on his own behalf for not deleting the infamous sixteen words when he had the chance, the Bush leaguers did not fight back with facts. They fought back with lies, innuendo and character assassination. The Wilson story presented a problem to them. This is interesting, since it did not by itself refute the case for war. After all, the only thing Wilson could say (and the only thing he did say, as a matter of fact) is that wherever Mr. Bush got his information, it wasn't from his report in Niger; he found nothing in Niger to suggest that Saddam was looking to buy yellow cake. It didn't address anything about WMDs or Saddam's ties to al Qaida or all the other pre-war claims that the Bush leaguers were tossing out.

     If the only thing wrong with the Bush leaguers' case for war against Iraq had been that sixteen words found their way into the 2003 SOTU that did not belong there, no one would have cared. Mistakes happen. If US and British troops had run up the Tigris and Euphrates and found Iraq drowning in weapons grade biological and chemical agents and found whole vaults full of documents relating to how Saddam was supplying al Qaida, no one would have cared about a little sloppiness in writing the 2003 SOTU. It would have been dismissed as human error.

     However, this was not the only thing wrong with the Bush leaguers case for war against Iraq. In fact, they managed to get everything wrong. That is more remarkable than getting everything right. Not one pre-war claim about the threat posed by Saddam to the west has panned out.

     Wilson's story isn't a problem in itself, it is a problem because it draws attention to how the Bush leaguers said they "knew" so much about Saddam's biochemical arsenal and his ties to terrorists and got it all wrong. Were these guys even looking for facts? or just talking points?

     The response of the Bush leaguers to the Wilson matter does not engender a great deal of confidence in them. Tenet's mea culpa should have been enough said, but they had to attack Wilson and his wife personally. If there anything improper about Mrs. Wilson recommending that her husband be asked about the mission, that is a matter that the White House aides who unmasked Mrs.Wilson should have taken up with the DCI, not Robert Novak. Moreover, Mr. Wilson was the acting ambassador to Iraq during the run up to the 1991 war, the former ambassador to Niger and a recognized expert on the African uranium mining industry. He was a more than qualified candidate for the assignment; this was not a "spouse-on-junket" mission as CPT characterizes it.

     Enough about that part of the story. Now let's talk about what CPT is missing about this part of it.

     For two years, Mr. Bush has claimed not to know who the leaker was and that if he knew, he would be "dealt with." As it turns out, Mr. Bush authorized the leak. If there was nothing wrong or illegal about that, he should have said so. Instead he said left the impression that he was in the dark.

     He wasn't in the dark. Bush is a liar.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 1:11pm

145. McClellan is tap dancing his ass off on CNN right now.

     Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 1:13pm

146. CPT is the NR cut-n-paster

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/07/2006 @ 1:19pm

147. Jack Rabbit,

     I do enjoy your posts....but, Libby's testimony does NOT implicate Bush in the Plame outing. Libby's testimony implicates Bush and Chenney in the leaking of a National Intelligence Estimate paper. If we belive Libby, then Bush is guilty of "declassifying" Top Secret papers for political gain. However, in no way has Libby stated that Bush knew anything about the leaking of Plame.

     But, the whole process is fascinating as the pack of cards is collapsing quickly. Hadley and Rove are weeks or perhaps days away from being indicted and they know it. Libby is staring at 20+ years. All three of them are feeling tremendous heat as Fitzgerald is playing them off each other very skillfully. Chenney is not clear as their is that annoying pesky disappearance of thousands of e-mails from the VP's office.

     The stench is becoming unbearable, which is why Fitzgerald needs to be authority to broaden the scope of his investigation.

     Posted by freedomplease at 04/07/2006 @ 1:27pm

148. To FreedomPlease:

     I am aware of that, and you are right to point it out. It needs to be stressed.

     Still, Bush had authorized the leak of the NIE, so he knew who had the information. And he still continued to pretend he didn't know.

     Yes, he is guilty of declassifying papers for political gain (actually, for a political vendetta). Even if that is legal, as several are claiming, it could be impeachable in this instance.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 1:39pm

149. Interesting assessment by John Dean [writ.news.findlaw.com]. Here are the last 4 paragraphs:

     Beyond the hypocrisy, however, is what the President, Vice President, Libby and no doubt others did to destroy the career of Valerie Plame. Maybe the administration has quietly settled with the Wilsons, who seem to have dropped out of the public eye. This would have been wise, because as the facts unravel, it increasingly appears that administration officials did indeed attack Mr. Wilson for his speaking out; the leak of his wife's identity does indeed seem to have been done in harsh retribution. Such a violation of civil rights is a crime.

     Finally, even if Bush and Cheney both get away clean of criminal charges, or even the suggestion of criminal conduct, this is still devastating for the Administration. Illegal or not, the President and Vice-President's actions, as recounted by Libby, are ugly in the extreme.

     After all, Fitzgerald's filings indicate that, at a bare minimum, these highest of officials played fast and loose with declassification rules as part of a scheme to take an uncalled-for revenge against a critic who dared to question an Iraqi war justification. Even more damning, is that the critic turned out to be right: Weapons of mass destruction have never surfaced, no uranium was sold by Niger to Iraq, and the Administration's call to arms was bogus.

     There will be more devastating revelations from the Libby case, I am certain. I have written of this matter in the past, and anticipate writing more in the future. The Commander-in-Chief-can-do-no-wrong veneer is wearing off, thankfully. For a nation that cannot hold its commander-in-chief responsible is something other than a democracy.

     Posted by dlg at 04/07/2006 @ 1:40pm

150. LL:

     As I said earlier, others and I are not hanging our hats on whether this latest news indicates Bush or Cheney acted ILLEGALLY. Thus, connect the legal dots all you want; your facts are not germane. The legal issues are peripheral, and speaking only of legal or illegal conduct is not the ONLY bar.

     So I will indulge you on the legal issues, just so you will hopefully move on to the critical ones. On the pure legal front, let's start with Bush. After researching the issue, I admit that that the president has the broadest declassification authority. At first I thought there might be some strict procedures that needed to be followed, and was puzzled why nobody else but Bush, Cheney and Libby seemed to know for a time that the NIE was "declassified." Tenet did not seem to know. Although I cannot find the specific procedure the President must follow pursuant to Bush's executive order (maybe you could pinpoint it for me), legal commentators seem to agree that Bush could declassify on "cocktail napkin" if he so chooses. Fine, I will assume that if Bush gave the word, it was legal.

     As for Cheney, I think the declassification authority is less clear. While Bush's executive order gave increased latitude for the VP to CLASSIFY material, it did not seem to do much in the way of giving Cheney the singular authority to DECLASSIFY at will. It seems to give Cheney declassification authority in situations not present here (and that Cheney would have to notify the "original classification authority"). So, Bush's involvement is pretty crucial to what Cheney told Libby - in a pure legal sense. If Bush refutes Libby's testimony, this would cause LEGAL problems for Cheney.

     So, Bush is faced with two choices. First, he could admit he gave Cheney the authority or delegated to Cheney the authority to declassify the NIE. Or second, he could say he did not and throw Cheney under the bus. I would guess he will do the first, but this still presents a terrible political problem for Bush, as well as potential legal troubles for Libby, Cheney, possibly Rove and anyone else touched by the Plame leak. As I said earlier, this indicates a pattern of conduct - the selective release, either through an illegal leak or technically proper declassification (either way it does not really matter in the end), of previously classified information to achieve a political objective. So, even if Bush and Cheney complied with the letter of law in this instance, they violated the its spirit. If Bush takes the first route, he will be admitting that he ordered the use of classified information to defend himself from political attacks concerning his purported justifications for war. It also clearly goes to motive and knowledge as it relates to the disclosure of Plame's identity. So even though the disclosure of the NIE did not relate directly to Plame - it is still very entwined with the central issues.

     Also damning are all of the President's prior statements on how serious his administration takes leakers (and I know this latest story does not deal with any directive given to leak Plame specifically). He is being pushed into a corner where he is in effect saying, "Nobody who leaks information will work in my White House, unless Cheney or I decide to selectively declassify something to selected, friendly reporters, for political reasons. That is ok."

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 1:40pm

151. LL:

     Sadly for you, I think this is just the beginning. The issue is not going away, no matter how hard you try. From what I read about Rove and Hadley's potential jeopardy, it is going to get worse. Once self-preservation mode kicks in, who knows what will be revealed.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 1:43pm

152. And once again, Leave Liberty (I simply cannot refer to him as "Love Liberty"...that was his old screen name. He is now "Lvliberty1" which, from reading his actual posts, can ONLY be translated as "LEAVE Liberty")posts his partial reading of the "facts" in preface to labeling us all as ingnorant and narrowminded.

     The rest of the transcript that you (purposely) neglected to post goes like this...

     BLITZER: All right.

     BEN-VENISTE: That's according to Scooter Libby, of course. He didn't have all that many superiors. We haven't heard from the superiors as to whether he was...

     DIGENOVA: Couldn't agree more we haven't heard from them. Couldn't agree more.

     BEN-VENISTE: ... in fact authorized. But that simply begs the question on the question you posed initially, was it a leak?

     Of course it was a leak. This is not the way you disclose classified information, to give it to one reporter secretly under various kinds of protections. I was only -- please identify me as a former Hill staffer and the like.

     BLITZER: All right.

     BEN-VENISTE: So, you know, this is not the way you would go about officially declassifying information. And that gets back to the cynicism of the way they leak information that they think will help if it's classified and are outraged when it doesn't help.

     According to what has been disclosed, Libby has testified under oath that he was authorized to leak CLASSIFIED information for political purposes.

     That this doesn't bother a Bush appologist like CPT is not surprising (although as LOC points out, I shudder to think that this man is supposed to be protecting the Constitution not applogizing for the adminstration that is shredding it.) However, I find it shocking that someone like Leave Liberty, who has made a habit of positioning himself as morally superior to the rest of us, can so easily dismiss such callous actions.

     Leave Liberty, defending these actions make clear that you have completely lost your moral compass. For shame!

     Posted by Lillian at 04/07/2006 @ 1:46pm

153. There seems to be no legal check on the president's authority to declassify information. The only true check would be an impeachment trial. So, if you are dealing with information that objective minds think should rightfully STAY classified (Plame's identity is arguably one example), there is little practical difference between (1) the president ordering others to leak classified information without declassifying it; or (2) declassifying the information then ordering others to disclose it.

     So, merely saying that what the presdient did was "legal" is not enough.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 1:49pm

154. "The Fitgerald filing makes it clear that the information Libby released had nothing to do with Valerie Plame."

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2006 @ 1:49pm

     So, why won't the White House "comment about an ongoing investigation" when asked questions about it?

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 1:54pm

155. Again, the right will excuse the gravest of misdeeds, even criminal actions, when it comes from one of their own. At the same time, they will attack the smallest wrongdoing from one of their sworn enemies. Hypocrisy at its best, 24x7.

     Posted by rmjlattanzi at 04/07/2006 @ 2:00pm

156. To LL:

     If you are trying to convince us that Bush didn't lie, then you ought to rely on something more convincing than a British government whitewash.

     No one is saying that Bush should stand alone at a docket in The Hague. Tony Blair has a great deal for which to answer and he, too, has spoken with a forked tongue.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 2:01pm

157. LVLIBERTY,

     I can assure you that sites that claim Rove is in the clear are very wrong indeed. He has testified on numerous occasions (even more than Libby) and has made contradictory statements. He is an unbelivably narcisistic person and has thus over estimated himself and under estimated Fitzgerald.

     The only reason that Fitzgerald hasn't already indicted him, is that Fitzgerald is still playing Hadley and Rove off on the depositions that Libby is making. Fitzgerald is doing this to get greater leverage.

     Posted by freedomplease at 04/07/2006 @ 2:05pm

158. Well we already knew he lies, this is just further proof that he's also always been:

     http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/4/6/221949/9668

     Today's revelation is simple and riveting--the effort to smear Joe Wilson went to the very top of the White House. This was not an operation of rogue political operators. Instead, we have a rogue President. If we can impeach a President for lying about a blow job from an intern, the time has come to impeach a President from giving the American people a line of bullshit about Iraq used to justify a war that has left almost 2400 American soldiers dead. George Bush did not leak to protect America. He leaked to cover his ass. That, my friends, is the definition of a coward.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/07/2006 @ 2:05pm

159. LL:

     But of course, the disclosure of the NIE had EVERYTHING to do with Joe Wilson - if not with Plame directly. Wilson talks off the record about Niger in May 2003. Libby and others acquire information about Wilson in May, learning in June about Plames' CIA status. Later in June, Libby, Rove and others leak Plame's status to reporters. Wilson's op-ed was published on July 6, 2003. Novak's column was on July 14. The NIE was released on July 18, 2003.

     See a pattern here? Are you saying that the disclosure of the NIE had nothing to do with countering Wilson's suggestions? And another thing: You say "McClellan spoke on the portion related to Libby releasing the previously classified information. That is of public record." Were you reading the same record I was? http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000317.php QUESTION: Scott, you raise an interesting point about the July 18th declassification of the NIE. A number of us had requested the NIE be declassified starting in -- sometime in mid June. Can you tell us by what date the actual declassification process of that executive summary had been completed? Because, obviously, given the discussion that's underway now, the date at which it was declassified is important.

     Scott McClellan: Understood, but I think that that is a question that's trying to go back to the issues being brought up in this legal proceeding, and I'm not going to do that.

     QUESTION: Scott, you were the one who raised the tactic, you declassified the document, and then it was released on July 18th. The relevant question here --

     Scott McClellan: That's all public record. I'm just reminding -- I'm just reminding people in this room -- many of you covered us at that time, including yourself, some others didn't cover us during that time. QUESTION: The important question is here, separate and apart from the case is, at what point was that considered to be a declassified document? Well, I'm just discussing the executive summary -- because I know at a number of times a number of us asked for it and were told that we couldn't have it because it was classified.

     Scott McClellan: Right. That doesn't change what I just said.

     QUESTION: That's right. At some moment there must have been a -- when things are declassified there's usually a stamp put on it, a date written on it, you know, "declassified as of" -- you've seen this many times. Could you find out for us what the date is of that declassification?

     Scott McClellan: No, David, because you're asking me that in the context of the legal proceeding.

     Scott McClellan: Right. That doesn't change what I just said.

     QUESTION: That's right. At some moment there must have been a -- when things are declassified there's usually a stamp put on it, a date written on it, you know, "declassified as of" -- you've seen this many times. Could you find out for us what the date is of that declassification?

     Scott McClellan: No, David, because you're asking me that in the context of the legal proceeding.

     McClellan also refused to answer questions on why the NIE was disclosed to Judy Miller 10 days in advance of it being released generally to the wider public.

     And you still have not even addressed the broader topics this implicates beyond the mere legalities.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 2:23pm

160. Again to LL:

     1. Once your Frat Boy is in a court of law standing trial for his crimes, then we'll be about his right to the due process he would deny to others; until then, feel free to draw our conclusions and express them.

     2. Concerning you response to Mr. Lattanzi, aren't you supporting some tin horn who claims under a piece of nonsense called the unitary executive theory the right to wire tap American citizens without a warrant? Who are you to lecture anybody on who is a threat to democracy?

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 2:27pm

161. You and those like you are a threat to democracy.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2006 @ 2:15pm

     So we're a threat to democracy but we're NOT your sworn enemies? You just can't stop the bile no matter how hard you try. The point is that you and your kind have made a practice of impugning the patriotism of anyone who doesn't agree with the Dear Leader. The threat to democracy is the idea of an Executive with untrammeled power, which your kind seem just fine with.

     Re JR, the British government didn't "learn" that Hussein had try to acquire uranium from Niger because he didn't (at least there's no evidence that he did). Here, the burden of proof is on someone trying to justify a war with claims that are, at best, inflated.

     Further, the Butler Report provides a flimsy basis for its conclusion: Point 493 said "In early 1999, Iraqi officials visited a number of African countries, including Niger. The visit2 was detected by intelligence, and some details were subsequently confirmed by Iraq. The purpose of the visit was not immediately known. But uranium ore accounts for almost three-quarters of Niger's exports. Putting this together with past Iraqi purchases of uranium ore from Niger, the limitations faced by the Iraq regime on access to indigenous uranium ore and other evidence of Iraq seeking to restart its nuclear programme, the JIC judged that Iraqi purchase of uranium ore could have been the subject of discussions..."

     Point 495 said: "During 2002, the UK received further intelligence from additional sources which identified the purpose of the visit to Niger as having been to negotiate the purchase of uranium ore, though there was disagreement as to whether a sale had been agreed and uranium shipped."

     So we have 1) a conjecture and 2) only the British govt's word that the sources were credible, etc. Was the source the Nigerian minister who simply assumed the Iraqis were after uranium. Was it someone in one of the Iraqi dissdent groups?

     Posted by brunowe at 04/07/2006 @ 2:32pm

162. Again to LL:

     1. Once your Frat Boy is in a court of law standing trial for his crimes, then we'll be more cautious about his right to the due process he would deny to others; until then, feel free to draw our conclusions and express them.

     2. Concerning you response to Mr. Lattanzi, aren't you supporting some tin horn who claims under a piece of nonsense called the unitary executive theory the right to wire tap American citizens without a warrant? Who are you to lecture anybody on who is a threat to democracy?

     (Man, do I wish we had a edit function.)

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 2:32pm

163. "You and those like you are a threat to theocracy."

     right

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 2:37pm

164. Jack, we have an ignore feature.that's all that is necessary, and freedom of choice

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 2:39pm

165. LL:

     If you answered my point about warrantless wire tapping being a threat to democracy in that last post, I failed to understand it.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 2:47pm

166. Jack Rabbitt:

     Get used to it. That is LL's MO.

     He'll conclude a week later that he has already explained himself (see above)

     :)

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 2:56pm

167. This hyper panty twist you LIBZ are getting yourself in once again is so fucking amusing....What silly niwits you really are...No ideas just anger...Impeachment calls for something that is totally legal. Another lib wetdram that goes nowhere

     Posted by libzsuk at 04/07/2006 @ 3:02pm

168. This hyper panty twist you LIBZ are getting yourself in once again is so fucking amusing....What silly niwits you really are...No ideas just anger...Impeachment calls for something that is totally legal. Another lib wetdream that goes nowhere

     Posted by libzsuk at 04/07/2006 @ 3:02pm

169. President Bush, 9/30/03:

     "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

     President Bush, 9/30/03:

     "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . . I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business."

     President Bush, 10/28/03:

     "I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information."

     President Bush, 6/10/04:

     Reporter: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"

     President Bush: "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."

     President Bush, 10/28/03:

     "I want to know the truth. ... I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."

     President Bush, 7/18/05 issue of USA Today:

     "If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

     White House Press Secretary, 9/29/03:

     "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

     White House Press Secretary, 10/7/03:

     "Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants . . .If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business."

     ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------

     Posted by freedomplease at 04/07/2006 @ 3:19pm

170. Because the president has stated over and over that the US is not wiretapping American Citizens.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2006 @ 2:57pm

     Say that again? That is certainly a new spin.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 3:19pm

171. "And re the British Intel and the Butler Report; you may have an opinion that it is flimsy or lacking or however you want to characterize it. However you and others do not have evidence that it is fabricated or wrong."

     Actually, I state it's flimsy because they cite no evidence supporting it. No indication of the type of source whatsoever; no Nigerian official coming forward and saying--Iraqis came to us a few years ago and asked for uranium. If you say you "learned" something, you are asserting it as a fact and carry the burden of proof.

     Posted by brunowe at 04/07/2006 @ 3:19pm

172. HMAN,

     What do you think LL thinks this means?

     Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales suggested for the first time on Thursday that the president might have the legal authority to order wiretapping without a warrant on communications between Americans that occur exclusively within the United States, the NEW YORK TIMES reports Friday.

     ---------------

     These guys are spinning so fast that they have no clue what today's story is!

     Posted by freedomplease at 04/07/2006 @ 3:25pm

173. Like I said yesterday, from my vantage point it seems that Scientology is less pathological that "Republican Apologism", but that's just a non scientologist, non apologist talking!

     Posted by freedomplease at 04/07/2006 @ 3:29pm

174. What most of you do is take out of context snippets and commentary from leftwing cites and stipulate them as fact...

     Just like someone did this morning on my posting from CNN. Ben-Veniste who is a lifelong Democratic lawyer admitted the President and VP had the authority to declassify the documents. But the so-called leftwing refuter responded in bold with Ben Veniste criticizing this as leaking. That was no longer a legal opinion, but if you read the context was his Demcractic talking points. Why, because he could only address the facts legal or illegal on authority to declassify. The rest would go to motive and that is opinion and conjecture which is subjective.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2006 @ 2:38pm | ignore this person

     Actually Leave Liberty, I was the "someone" who posted the reply to your CNN clip. What I did was to go to the same CNN site you did...not some "leftwing cites". And what I posted was the rest of interview transcript which provided the additional context that you so conveniently left out. (You see, proclaiming that you do something like "providing context" is NOT the same thing as actually doing it.)

     And, I did not represent the clip as anything other than what it was. While you complain that the comments were from "Ben-Veniste who is a lifelong Democratic lawyer..." you conveniently leave out that the OPINION outlined in portion of the clip YOU presented, was expressed by JOE DIGENOVA who made his fame defending Republicans like Dan Burton and Newt Gingrich and signing the praises of Ken Starr.

     ity or illegality of the

     Posted by Lillian at 04/07/2006 @ 3:30pm

175. Dangit...that should be "singing the praises of Ken Starr".

     and the "ity or illegality of the" is just leftovers from something else I was going to say to Leave Liberty but then decided not to waste the energy on.

     Posted by Lillian at 04/07/2006 @ 3:36pm

176. Leave Liberty is coming dangerously close to ending up on the "ignore" heap with Libzsuk, Nacl, and Barry/Bushman.

     Posted by Lillian at 04/07/2006 @ 3:38pm

177. "No one is saying that Bush should stand alone at a docket in The Hague"

     oohh, what a nice image/daydream!

     Posted by LClaire at 04/07/2006 @ 3:39pm

178. Digenova is a Fox shill. when a lawyer appears on a news show, that is NOT a legal opinion

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 3:40pm

179. To LL:

     [T]he president has stated over and over that the US is not wiretapping American Citizens.

     Again, if you want to convince abobody of anything, please cite a more reliable source than the fibber-in-chief.

     I really don't want to pursue this further here, since this thread is about the Fitzgerald investigation and not Fourth Amendment issues.

     However, since you seem to need some enlightening on the subject, I will link to the Wikipedia article about the NSA program and cite three statements that are at variance with claims that the US is not wire tapping American citizens.

     1. [T]he Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authorization.

     2. On February 5, USA Today ran a story that, according to seven telecommunications executives, NSA had secured the cooperation of the main telecommunications companies in charge of international phone-calls, including AT&T, MCI and Sprint, in its efforts to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls.

     3. [A]ccording to NSA whistleblower Russell Tice, the number of Americans affected by the range of NSA surveillance programs could be in the millions if the full extent of secret NSA programs is considered.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 3:49pm

180. I could swear the the postings here are in English but you wouldn't know it from some of the left commentary to me.

     LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2006 @ 2:58pm

     Pardon my French then ... but you and others have several times quoted that the Butler report finds the claim of Iraq attempting to purchase yellowcake is "well-founded". But what this is "founded" on always seems to be missing.

     Can you in fact substantiate that, on this point, the Butler report is more than mere deference to authority, that is, a whitewash? Or is the proof conveniently classified?

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/07/2006 @ 3:50pm

181. Everyone, including LL knows the Republican penchant for wire-tapping it's rivals: Watergate.

     To suggest today's GOP is more restrained when it comes to obtaining secrets illegally, or divulgiing them illegally is absolutely REDICULOUS. So, LL can dream on about how legal, eithical, moral and responsible it is to wire-tap Americans; the Nazi party must love him as much as the GOP.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 3:55pm

182. If your going to put words in CAPS at least spell them right

     Posted by libzsuk at 04/07/2006 @ 3:57pm

183. It's because history is repeating itself with another GOP led wire-tapping scandal, this time wrapped in the American flag and simmered over a kettle of terrorist paranoia (which is why this time it's so much worse than in Nixon's case!).

     It is precisely this history lesson that tells us why, without having to relive it, that the Patriot Act must be struck down, and why a)domestic spying and b) torture programs here and abroad; public and private, must end immediately!

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 4:04pm

184. I suppose, when I spelled REDICULOUS, I should have spelled REPUBLICAN. You are right, thanks!

     It was the italics that had a typo: divulging national secrets is something a right-winger like you knows how to spell, and does even better; so I won't challenge you on that one.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 4:08pm

185. Good grief...You LIBZ can't even admit when your wrong...I guess because it happens so often...Rediculous is spelled:

     ridiculous

     What a fucking fool you are

     Posted by libzsuk at 04/07/2006 @ 4:13pm

186. If your going to put words in CAPS at least spell them right

     Posted by LIBZSUK 04/07/2006 @ 3:57pm

     If you're going to nitpick nitwit, at least use the correct words.

     Posted by dlg at 04/07/2006 @ 4:14pm

187. So, what's the difference between an authorized disclosure of classified information and an unauthorized leak?

     Posted by woodyee at 04/07/2006 @ 4:14pm

188. they are reduced to quibbling about spelling, that shows the poverty of their argument and their minds.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 4:18pm

189. The really true, and sad irony in all of this is that:

     It's much more likely it's going to be a progressive, with balanced moral and ethical views, that allow them to succeed and operate unchecked in areas of public diplomacy, that in turn enables them to become even better covert agents for the CIA.

     Certainly, the GOP ability to attack a moderate because his wife is in the CIA is a more generic symptom of the Republican's inability to work with the enemy, against the enemy, as this is what spies do for a living.

     The Republican penchant for bravado, followed by bombs, doesn't open the door for diplomacy, which in turn, slams the door shut to their ability to operate spies in and around the globe.

     This weakness in Repbulican foreign strategy is so embarrassing to them, that they will cannabalize their own intelligence agency in exchange for devastating political payback.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 4:19pm

190. To WoodYee:

     So, what's the difference between an authorized disclosure of classified information and an unauthorized leak?

     As that renowned constitutional scholar and leading advocate of the unitary executive theory, Richard Nixon, once said: If the President does it, then it isn't illegal.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 4:19pm

191. LL

     "Because the president has stated over and over that the US is not wiretapping American Citizens." Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2006 @ 2:57pm

     Per CNN 12/17/2005

     " In acknowledging the message was true, President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday, saying that a newspaper jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11."

     The prosecution rests....

     LibZ

     How much freedom needs to be gone before you wake up and smell the stench of disgrace, dishonor, and disrespect from the man who's supposed to bew beyond reproach? If there's any panty-twistin going on...well, try not to giver yourself a wedgie!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/07/2006 @ 4:20pm

192. You are right, ridiculous - my spell checker was disabled....

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 4:20pm

193. Libzsuk and then she swallows, get the your panty-bunch out of your ass: Rediculous, as in what you red-voters are. Ha Ha!!! No misspeliings here...

     Posted by nathanhale at 04/07/2006 @ 4:21pm

194. I am happy to be the one non-NEOCON to be wrong about something, anything as in this case; hust so long as you can pump your ego enough to challenge me, or anyone else for that matter, on a real issue!

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 4:22pm

195. just so long... for the spell checker police

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 4:23pm

196. "you wake up and smell the stench of disgrace"

     I only smell that stench when I'm around you unwashed sickening LIB traitors whos only goal is the defeat of our country and aiding the enemy because your nothing but a bunch of out of power crybabies

     Posted by libzsuk at 04/07/2006 @ 4:24pm

197. July 18, 2003:

     REPORTER: When was it actually declassified?

     McCLELLAN: It was officially declassified today.

     QUESTIONS TO ASK:

     What does "Officially" declassified mean?

     Describe the entire process of Declassification.

     Clearly it does not occur simultaneously as the thought leaves Bush's lips, since the thought to declassify it occured some days prior to the 18th.

     Is there a category called "UNOFFICIALLY DECLASSIFIED" that occus somewhere in between the thought and the "OFFICIAL" designation, which in this case is claimed to have been attained on the 18th?

     Describe the review process and the paper work entailed to move Classified materials into OFFICIALLY DECLASSIFIED status.

     Who are the people that are typically involved in achieving OFFICIAL DECLASSIFICATION STATUS?

     Were these procedures followed in this case?

     On what day did the process begin?

     YOU GOT SUM SPLAININ' TO DO!

     Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 4:26pm

198. A NON ISSUE ONCE AGAIN...STRIKE OUT

     Posted by libzsuk at 04/07/2006 @ 4:27pm

199. JACK RABBIT - So, what's the difference between an authorized disclosure of classified information and an unauthorized leak?

     Posted by woodyee at 04/07/2006 @ 4:28pm

200. The bottom line...

     There is NO LAW that applies to King George.

     Name One.

     The rest of us are on our own - but he is the KING.

     Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 4:31pm

201. To WoodYee:

     To allude to the National Lampoon Watergate album (remember the conversation between Ervin the Grouch and Big Dick?), it is about the same as the difference between lying and misspeaking oneself or withholding evidence and protecting the presidency.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 4:32pm

202. LibZ

     That smell must be from that wedgie-fied panty-wad stuck up there. Bush-baby's on the ropes. Who's cryin' now!

     Plunger & Zero

     that's cause it was "double-secret" declassification (turn of phrase from Animal House, 1978.) Strictly on a "need-to-know" basis dontcha know! Apparently Dubya didn't think that anyone else needed to know it was declassified...even the people involved when it got "re-declassified" in July 2003!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/07/2006 @ 4:38pm

203. Ah yes, spelling critiques from someone who calls herself LIBZSUK.

     Classic. Thanks.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 4:44pm

204. Hello all, LIBSUCKS et al, will defend your president "till the cows come home" no doubt you all know this, as a "BRIT" who has read this blog for a long time, it is becoming absolutely hilarious how desperate you chaps try to dig yourselves out of the mess this administration has found itself in.

     Posted by nick164 at 04/07/2006 @ 4:52pm

205. Here is what Scott McClellan had to say on July 18, 2003:

     Q: When was it [the NIE Report] actually declassified?

     MR. McCLELLAN: It was officially declassified today.

     According to Fitzgerald's court paper – Libby disclosed information from the NIE to Judith Miller on July 8, 2003 – ten days earlier.

     So, what was the official status of the report for those 10 days? If it was declassified prior to or on July 8, why was it only shared with Judy Miller, and not released "officially" until July 18?

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 4:56pm

206. Nick

     What's the opinions on "your side of the pond" re: the Downing Street memo?

     Over here the Bush apologists treat it like a fairy tale....

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/07/2006 @ 4:56pm

207. To Hman:

     It's the modern Republican way. Commit a crime today; legalize the act tomorrow.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 4:57pm

208. LOC,

     But then again.....over here we also have Scientology!

     Posted by freedomplease at 04/07/2006 @ 4:58pm

209. LL:

     Sounds like you are all of of gas ol' boy.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 4:59pm

210. Like crime bosses in prison still doing business, I do believe that the far right delusionally insane will still be listening whilst the BC BS regime are behind bars claiming they're innocent and still pres and vp… Taking the playbook from Saddam. Now we just have to be willing to get dirty and dig the BC BS regime out of the deep hole they're in just long enough to impeach and imprison. Kinda has a ring to it, ‘impeach and imprison'; soon to be the chant of choice for millions coming to a city near you.

     Also, per a previous post a while back insinuating non-interest as to why there weren't millions in the streets protesting the occupation on the anniversary of the Iraq war, as compared to Vietnam or the now deflated immigration legislation. It's all about time and numbers. 11 million and family and friends will be immediately affected by any change in the immigration process, thus the size of the protests. And the Vietnam (pop. 40 mil) war was 14 years long, at its height 1/2 million+ committed US troops and lottery drafted, built up to affected most in the US, thus the size of the protests. That the 150K +/- committed US military occupying Iraq (pop. 27 mil) were voluntary and purposefully kept our troop level small-- I will contend to keep the level of mass protest down, easier to market with least affected - least resistance – least protest if the deception is fully realized as it now has and is being disseminated. I will also contend that more people in the US will ‘now' feel this lie, authorizing declassification to ‘Plamegate' while pleading ignorance of the leak-- now coupled with the ‘lies to war' by the BC BS regime, affects them on a more immediately visceral level than whether the Iraq occupation was right or wrong, simply because it has become specifically about W's administration propensity for lying and as their polls are already plummeting-- it's like adding gasoline onto a house already on burning down.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/07/2006 @ 4:59pm

211. Jack Rabbit:

     Like I have said before, I think the technical legality of the disclosure of the NIE report itself is immaterial to the larger issues, but I would be interested to know the answer.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 5:00pm

212. so now we have the first response from McClellan: Any information that "was released" was "in the public interest"!

     Hysterical! He can't acknowledge what Bush did, because that heats up the water to boiling. He also can't dispute it. In short, he has just has to say "anything released was released in the public interest"!

     This is some of the worst news management imaginable. Not that I think it is possible to defend against the indefensible.

     Posted by ZERO 04/07/2006 @ 4:28pm

     Actually, McClellan Acknowledged that the information was released SPECIFICALLY TO REFUTE THE DEMOCRATS CLAIMS that the administration had cherry picked intelligence information to lead us into war.

     McClellans use of the term "Public Good" must only have been for the good of Republicans, as no Democrats were helped by the LEAKING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WHICH SERIOUSLY DAMAGED INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES ON THE MOST RELEVANT SUBJECT (MIDDLE EAST WMD) DURING WAR TIME IN THE MIDDLE EAST...and he even CHERRYPICKED the information that was leaked, leaving the balance of the report which refuted the information that was leaked, CLASSIFIED.

     McClellan ADMITS that this was done for POLITICAL REASONS, and then claims that if it's good for the republican Party, it's good for the ENTIRE PUBLIC, half of who did not vote Republican.

     "Post-Leak Declassification?"

     Words escape me.

     Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 5:01pm

213. And LL:

     Gonzales has admitted that the president is not ruling that scenario out.

     But, I would be curious to see you elaborate on your wild claim that Bush is not conducting surveillance of American citizens without a warrant (through the NSA program at issue). I had thought that point was conceded.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 5:03pm

214. Freedom

     Watch out....afore old Georgie boy classifies Scientologists as a hereforeto unknown sect of Islam, ipso facto, terrorist sympathizers.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/07/2006 @ 5:05pm

215. Allright, we've had enough of you libs. I just phoned George and Cheney and all of you are now on the wiretap list.

     Now you will have all the ability to speak to GW and let him know how you feel; right up to the point where we come and herd you off to Gitmo.

     You mean I wasn't already?!? Hell, I'm a member of the ACLU. In the last few months I've purchased books on anarchism and Islamic militancy--what does it take?!?

     Posted by brunowe at 04/07/2006 @ 5:08pm

216. meant: ....already set on burning down.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/07/2006 @ 5:11pm

217. Here is what Scott McClellan had to say on July 18, 2003:

     Q: When was it [the NIE Report] actually declassified?

     MR. McCLELLAN: It was officially declassified today.

     According to Fitzgerald's court paper – Libby disclosed information from the NIE to Judith Miller on July 8, 2003 – ten days earlier.

     So, what was the official status of the report for those 10 days? If it was declassified prior to or on July 8, why was it only shared with Judy Miller, and not released "officially" until July 18?

     Posted by HMAN23 04/07/2006 @ 4:56pm | ignore this person

     When King George begins to form a thought in his mind about the prospect of declassifying information, even if during sex or while sleeping, the Classified Information in question begins to change status. The more he thinks about it, the less Classified the information becomes.

     The instant the thought takes form in his mind and manifests itself to the world in words, even if it occurs while he's alone, say, taking a dump or shaving in the morning, at the very moment that he hears himself say the words: "I think I'll declassify that" - the Classified Information comes flying back into the universe as "Officially Declassified."

     The King's minions then run frantically to go through the quaint details of preparing the burdensome documentation necessary to create a good cover story for the media about how and when the information changed form, but really it's just window dressing.

     "It's good to be King...it's good to be an anus!"

     Posted by plunger at 04/07/2006 @ 5:15pm

218. Hi LEFTOFCENTER, the DSM memo got reported pretty much the same as it did in the US. "Serious media,i.e the Guardian, Independent reported it, unfortunately our "alternative media" in other words, every other media entity pretty mutch gave it a wide berth. One thing the UK shares with the US is a "serious dumbing down of the media." Need I say anymore than UK, whoops American Idol et al?

     Posted by nick164 at 04/07/2006 @ 5:17pm

219. To LL:

     Allright, we've had enough of you libs. I just phoned George and Cheney and all of you are now on the wiretap list.

     Gee, next time I answer the phone, I won't say "hello," but I'll remember to say "repeal the Patriot Act" or "impeach Cheney first."

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 5:17pm

220. It's about time that someone confirmed what we all knew from the beginning . . . the scandals in this administration go all the way up to the "commando in chief". After lying about getting legal authorization for "domestic spying" on a case-by-case basis, and then having a temper tantrum when someone "leaked" knowledge of his illegal non-FISA spying, Bush had the nerve to leak phony intelligence in an effort to get even with Wilson for questioning the administration. Well, what goes around comes around, and Mr. Bush's righteous indignation about leakers (along with all the other transgressions this administration of "compassionate conservatives" has committed) may just come back to bite him on the butt. November is not too far off and it may just be a day of reckoning for this administration when the balance in the House and the Senate swings away from the "dark side". With the "Hammer" gone and Libby and others squealing like stuck pigs, even the well-oiled conservative machine may find that there are just too many holes to plug in those failing dikes. Hey Dubbya, don't misunderestimate those Democrats! With a majority come November, they may just find the "fortitude" to impeach your sorry behind. The hard part will be deciding which, of your many transgressions, should be the basis for impeachment. And last but not least, shouldn't "Libzsuk" be home watching "fair and balanced" Fox News instead of crying on this blog as his compassionate conservatives implode?!!

     Posted by skeptiq1 at 04/07/2006 @ 5:24pm

221. THE WHITE HOUSE CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD

     Sorry, couldn't resist.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/07/2006 @ 5:47pm

222. Man, if this doesn't leave a mark, nothing will. Censure doesn't seem like such a far-out notion to a lot of people now, I'll bet.

     -- Griper Blade - grumblings from the heartland [griperblade.blogspot.com]

     Posted by Wisco at 04/07/2006 @ 5:51pm

223. OH, but wait, here comes another falling shoe, damn octopus... It's worse than grapefruit size hail.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/07/2006 @ 5:57pm

224. Direction of the Country

     Right track/wrong track | Harris Feel Good Index | Harris Alienation Index See also: TIPP National Outlook Index

     Polls listed chronologically. Data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.

     Right Track/Wrong Track

     Associated Press/Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. April 3-5, 2006. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1. Data from 11/03 and earlier co-sponsored by Cook Political Report.

     . "Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"

     ________________________RightDirection__________WrongTrack______Unsure  

     4/3-5/06________________________28___________________69___________3

     3/6-8/06________________________30___________________67___________3

     2/6-8/06________________________35___________________61___________4

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/07/2006 @ 6:06pm

225. As far as I am concerned, the political partisanship in the US is just what is needed in the UK, yes I know it is nasty, but it seems to get people talking! In the UK, everything is so "PC!. I dislike most things that the Conservatives stand for,yet our "dear leader" can get elected with 36% of the popular vote! Yes i know in my country's voting system that a third party can get 20 or so % of the national vote. Just for disscusions sake, is this what is needed in the US?. Is there a viable third party in the US, or the beginings of such a movement,if not why?

     Posted by nick164 at 04/07/2006 @ 6:19pm

226. For those interested, here is a great post on the NIE document and the portions that Libby discussed with Judy Miller (and importantly, those he did not discuss with her):

     http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php

     In sum, but the author makes a pretty good case that Libby intentionally misrepresented the NIE to Miller in an effort to make it appear that the NIE refuted Wilson's claims.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/07/2006 @ 6:23pm

227. NICK164, the answer to your query is $$$$$$. The two major parties have it and to varying degress bought off by big business. No third party, assuming its not another pro-biz party, is going to have enough money to knock off one of the other two parties. So that, in a nutshell, is why we don't have third parties. Unfortunately.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 04/07/2006 @ 6:25pm

228. LIBZ - I'M GLAD YOU TOOK A BREAK. IT MUST BE UNDEARABLE TO CONSTANTLY RESPOND "NON-ISSUE" and "UNPROVEN", OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER AGAIN.

     Notice: the Evangelical Movement, complete with Darwin Book Burning and Prayer Before Class are the real non issues!

     Bush leaking a CIA operative's name out of spite and vendetta is one of the many real issues dogging the GOP and American people.

     Another issue is this Evangelizing of the US Government.

     The GOP's marriage of religion and politics is not only a huge misuse and abuse of religion and the Bible; it is more cynnical GOP zombie gas that is a patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL

     The rest of us feel mixing religion and politics as the GOP does is not just unethical, cynnical and amoral; but ALSO anti-American and Unconstitutional.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 6:28pm

229. Thanks for the reply Blue Texan, It is not mutch different over here. Like I have already said, I voted LibDem regarding the Iraq war, I knew it would make not one iota of difference to the outcome of the war as transpired. The only party in the UK that actually spoke out against the war was the LibDems. I guess what I am really trying to say is,for better or worse, at least I had the option of another choice,the worst thing is they where the only party that got it right! It is a royal pain in the arse to be proven right, yet your vote was/is a WASTE of time? Do you hold your nose and vote for the Conservative Party?, noing they where as complicit as the so called "working mans party?" I appreciate Americans can vote Greens etc, but it is so disheartening that this is todays political reality.

     Posted by nick164 at 04/07/2006 @ 6:50pm

230. Speaking as a relative outsider, do you not really consider LIBSUCK to be a "leftie" in disguise? If He/She is'nt is this really a mindset of a republican American? Yes i realize He/She maybe represents a "certain viewpoint"(How actually escapes me....)

     Posted by nick164 at 04/07/2006 @ 7:23pm

231. To Nick:

     Speaking as a relative outsider, do you not really consider LIBSUCK to be a "leftie" in disguise? If He/She is'nt is this really a mindset of a republican American? Yes i realize He/She maybe represents a "certain viewpoint"(How actually escapes me....)

     We (including some conservative posters) have speculated about that ever since he was known as Aludra.

     I keep him on ignore.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/07/2006 @ 7:28pm

232. Why does every little thing have to turn into Democrats vs. Republicans? The things that seem to be unfolding (if found to be true) are disgraceful no matter which party is responsible. Bringing up other disgraceful acts perpetrated by Democrats does nothing. It only means that there are even more corrupt people out there than we would like (on both sides). We should stay focused on the here and now. The topic is about what the current administration is doing. It only makes sense to focus on that topic. Anything else is nothing more than an attempt to sling mud and confuse matters...Hmmmmm...that really sounds familiar doesn't it???

     Posted by gigmonger at 04/07/2006 @ 8:03pm

233. Government leaks. Interesting. It seems that when "leaks", or whatever the administration wants to call them this week, are released by them, it is declassifying classified information. However, when good investigative news reporting finds a questionable practice in the administration, the "leaking" of this information is considered "un-American" by this administration. Something here smells, but if not smells it definitely reeks of inconsistency. I tire of this administration's excuse when it comes to defending its questionable practices uncovered by good reporting being attacked as being "un-American" or "partisan rhetoric" or "sorry, we cannot comment, since that is part of a current investigation." It seems that the only thing truly considered "American" by this administration is following its directions as lambs to a slaughter as many of our troops have been doing since 10:00 pm Eastern, March 13, 2003.

     Posted by fowlkesk at 04/07/2006 @ 8:41pm

234. For the Republican brownshirts here it's as simple as this: there was no infraction in the Clinton administration too small to hold an inquisition and there is no crime in the Bush administration too large to ignore.

     Posted by fromredbird at 04/07/2006 @ 9:10pm

235. The testimony of Mr. Libby is in no way a legal problem for President Bush. It is however a political problem. He gave the impression that he knew nothing about leaks, when, according to Mr. Libby he did. There is however a distinction between releasing part of the NIE report that contradicts Wilson's assertions and the giving out Valarie Plames name. Mr. Libby of course is not charged with releasing the name of Valarie Plame. He is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. One other point. Leaking is the nature of the beast in Washington and has been for decades. All administrations leak information that support their argument. I can see that the left is considering making this a liberal holiday in celebration of this revelation. Haven't been on the site for about a week. It has been refreshing to get away from the small mindedness displayed so often here on this site. I have been doing really important things like going to Augusta, Georgia and watching practice rounds and the first round of the Masters. If you don't think there is a God just visit Augusta National one time and it will change your mind.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 04/07/2006 @ 9:44pm

236. Questions asked---Questions answered QUESTIONS TO ASK:

     What does "Officially" declassified mean? ---What ever the President at the time decides it means.

     Describe the entire process of Declassification. Something is declassified when the President says it is declassified.

     Clearly it does not occur simultaneously as the thought leaves Bush's lips, since the thought to declassify it occured some days prior to the 18th. ---Clearly you are wrong. Items that are classified are declassified when ever the President wants. Also the President can release the declassified documents when he wants.

     Is there a category called "UNOFFICIALLY DECLASSIFIED" that occus somewhere in between the thought and the "OFFICIAL" designation, which in this case is claimed to have been attained on the 18th? No--there are declassified documents that have not been publicly pronounced declassified.

     Describe the review process and the paper work entailed to move Classified materials into OFFICIALLY DECLASSIFIED status. No paper work needed. It is an unchecked power of the President.

     Who are the people that are typically involved in achieving OFFICIAL DECLASSIFICATION STATUS? Who ever the President want to include. However, he/she need not include anyone.

     What people need to understand that not every power belonging to the President is checked by another branch. For example the Pardon power is not checked by the Legislative or Judicial Branches of Goverernemt. Determining the status of classified and unclassified documents is another example of an unchecked power that all Presidents have and have always had.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 04/07/2006 @ 10:08pm

237. LM

     Leaking is the nature of the beast in Washington and has been for decades. All administrations leak information that support their argument. I can see that the left is considering making this a liberal holiday in celebration of this revelation. Haven't been on the site for about a week.

     Couple of reasons why--When the story first came out, Bush got all sanctimonious about wanting to find the source of the leak. Beyond that, what Libby lied about was conversations with Miller and Cooper that tied in to Plame's status (the nepotism slur).

     Secondly, the issue isn't whether the President could declassify but did he do so. If so, was the information then available to the public? If so, why did Libby need to check with a VP lawyer as to whether Presidential permission to leak constituted declassification--why didn't Cheney just tell Libby that the NIE was declassified.

     Posted by brunowe at 04/07/2006 @ 10:54pm

238. Why do people such as 'libzsuck'(an insult for a moniker, evidence of a small, intolerant mind) and 'lvliberty' bother posting here? Do they feel they have somehow justified their political beliefs by furthering lies and (juvenily) insulting others? For example, 'libzsuck' is fond of calling people of a non-conservatve nature 'traitors', well, I am a Desert Storm veteran and have living relatives who were involved in every major conflict involving the U.S. since WWII, and neither I or any of those same relatives thinks the current government of this country should be allowed to run a lemonade stand. Are we traitors?? If 'libzsuck' or 'lvliberty', either one, are veterans I would be surprised, and if they are, they're probably of the personality type that most rational soldiers shun and hope leaves the service quickly. Save us from the small minded who think we can return to the 50's.

     Posted by mattfan at 04/07/2006 @ 10:57pm

239. Brunowe;'Bush got all sanctimonious about wanting to find the source of the leak.

     that is to me the crux of the matter, and that is the reason that this is a political disaster for the so-called pres, you are very right to point that out.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 10:59pm

240. this is just one of the thousand cuts that will finally bring down the Teflon Don Bush

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 11:01pm

241. LM

     Mr. Libby of course is not charged with releasing the name of Valarie Plame. He is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.

     He is charged about lying about leaking that information. Specifically, the indictment reads: "In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia, I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY," defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA."

     Posted by brunowe at 04/07/2006 @ 11:15pm

242. What do Libsucker, Maasch, CPT, Rio Bravo, and LoveLiberty have in common?

     Asses as puffy as cotton candy. Brains smaller than fucking lima beans. A penchant for "relations" with other species. Addiction to cheap liquor. Lives of little consequence. "Teenage Love" for a leader who is no better than they are. And lastly, cowardice without boundaries.

     Spring is a lovely time of year! All Hail to Charles Darwin. And may the aformentioned genetic aberrations be rendered extinct.

     Oh, The love that I feel!!

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 04/07/2006 @ 11:24pm

243. It has been refreshing to get away from the small mindedness displayed so often here on this site.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/07/2006 @ 9:44pm | ignore this person

     len, please be good to yourself. you deserve it len. never subject yourself to this small mindedness again. please, for the love of god, len, just don't do it. ever again.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/08/2006 @ 12:00am

244. Len, Len. Len: God, and golf enjoy some sort of special relationship? What???

     Maybe another website would be more appropriate for you. You seem out of place. I would strongly suggest the Wednesday afternoon circle jerk at love libertys, non-FEMA shanty town. (Be warned---It can get a bit "loosy-goosy" (if you know what I mean).

     Good luck to you in your quest for "the answer".

     Love, Love, Love,

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 04/08/2006 @ 12:15am

245. Len Mosse:

     Apart from the focus on Bush authorizing the disclosure (and I agree it is an unchecked power), there is potentially another problem with Libby's testimony for the administration. Go read the link I provided in my post at 6:23 p.m. (today). It provides an interesting analysis of the selective portions of the NIE that Libby revealed to Miller - as well as the portions of what he did not disclose.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/08/2006 @ 12:23am

246. It strongly suggests that the administration was indeed cherry-picking intelligence (in this case, previously classified intelligence) to support its purported justification for war. Apart from the political ramifications that call into question the veracity of Bush's prior statements concerning leaks and Bush's supposed lack of knowledge about a coordinated effort to discredit Wilson, I think the larger issue will circle back to the administration's misrepresentation of the intelligence they were truly aware of prior to the war - which is the lynchpin.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/08/2006 @ 12:32am

247. Swirling and turning end over end

     Falling and tumbling into darkness descend

     Reaching and clutching and grasping for holdfasts

     While reaping the whirlwind tossed by the tempest

     If only they had not taken us to the edge of the abyss

     They would never have fallen like this

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 12:47am

248. Hi Will,

     Was that you?

     How beautiful, (and timely)

     Spring is here,

     Love, (to those who deserve it)

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 04/08/2006 @ 01:00am

249. Love, (to those who deserve it)

     Bloppy

     Posted by BLOPPY 04/08/2006 @ 01:00am

     Bloppy !!!!

     I am shocked. You know we all deserve love.

     You ... me ... them ... everybody

     Posted by skeletonman at 04/08/2006 @ 01:02am

250. Yeah Skel, I suppose so.

     Best,

     And love,

     bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 04/08/2006 @ 01:41am

251. This from an article released today by John W. Dean,

     "Recently, Cheney made the public claim(to Brit Hume of Fox News) that he had authority to declassify national security information. Learning of this, Congressman Henry Waxman asked the Congressional Reference Service of the Library of Congress, which issues non-partisan reports, whether Cheney was right. CRS found that the Vice President has limited declassification authority, generally speaking. And their report shows Cheney had no authority in this instance - only in situations where the Vice President had been the authority to classify the material in the first place, could the Vice President have the authority to unilaterally declassify it."

     In this case, like most Washington scandals, the devil usually lies in the details just as surely as Brit Hume of FOX would gladly hand Cheney an opportunity to lie about those details. It's been a well established pattern with FOX to try to inject false information into the airwaves in an effort distort the context of the story in order to deflect any prolonged scrutiny on issues that shed any unfavorable light on the current administration. A word to the wise. If you got it from FOX, then it isn't news.

     Posted by undertow at 04/08/2006 @ 01:43am

252. Consider than if the BC BS regime thinks it's legal and moral for them to declassify national security info for purely political interest even though it jeopardized cover and WMD surveillance, how far is it really from them then rationalizing the wire tap of a political opponent for their national interest (of staying in power) and thus legal?

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 02:03am

253. Meant: Consider that...

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 02:04am

254. Isn't this like a 'Dead Zone' moment? Remember in the plot, the defining moment where the politician holds up a baby in front of himself as cover in order to protect himself from the assassin's bullet. He doesn't get shot, not by a bullet, but by a camera that captures a photograph of the politician protecting himself by jeopardizing a baby. Ergo the baby being symbolic of our future, similarly in a way one could say the CIA protects our future as a nation, thus the BC BS regime is jeopardizing our future, the US, to protect itself... Do you think this is simple enough for the MSM and the public to understand?

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 08:57am

255. It's the biggest character flaw for a leader to have, especially one in power...

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 09:03am

256. But isn't it ironic that W's the leader of those that fear the most. fear women to have rights over their own bodies, fear gays in love, fear other religions, fear people without a religion, fear being poor, fear not having a gun, fear not having an enemy, fear, fear, fear... Haven't we always really known the W's character flaw and isn't it the same one as the people that voted for him have and identify with and why some continue to cling to W so devoutly, isn't it the fear of exposure of that very same fear that feeds it; thus the manic and excessive secrecy to hide it. Is there no shame?

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 09:21am

257. No, only the fear of exposure.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 09:23am

258. Political cartoons: W dangles the baby in front of the crocodile. W dangles the baby over the balcony. Now he knows what it's like to be the baby, dangling.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 09:43am

259. Again, the baby is our future, i.e. cia, environment,... W dangles via ever dropping public opinion catching on to his BS.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 09:55am

260. For the Republican brownshirts here it's as simple as this: there was no infraction in the Clinton administration too small to hold an inquisition and there is no crime in the Bush administration too large to ignore.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 04/07/2006 @ 9:10pm

     Amen. For those rapture hungry people the ends justify the means. They want so badly to believe that Junior, their "chosen one" will bring about the rapture in their lifetimes. Quite intoxicating I suspect.

     Posted by dlg at 04/08/2006 @ 10:11am

261. Posted by MATTFAN 04/07/2006 @ 10:57pm

     Why do people such as 'libzsuck'(an insult for a moniker, evidence of a small, intolerant mind) and 'lvliberty' bother posting here?

     I'm one of those people, and I can tell you why I post here. Because it's obvious that so many of you have gone "'round the bend" left. It's the same general reason why people volunteer to help those with leprosy. Sure, it's not pleasant work, but someone's got to do it. And you just might save someone. Think of it as our form of charity work. Besides, it's no fun to talk to people who agree with you all the time!

     Do they feel they have somehow justified their political beliefs by furthering lies and (juvenily) insulting others? For example, 'libzsuck' is fond of calling people of a non-conservatve nature 'traitors', well, I am a Desert Storm veteran and have living relatives who were involved in every major conflict involving the U.S. since WWII, and neither I or any of those same relatives thinks the current government of this country should be allowed to run a lemonade stand. Are we traitors??

     No, you're entitled to a differing opinion as an American without being called a traitor, so long as it is held in good faith. You should be aware, however, that a good proportion of those on the left actually do hate America as it is, and are, in fact, traitors because they hate America more than its enemies. Talk to some of the people on this site or just listen for awhile, you will see what I mean.

     If 'libzsuck' or 'lvliberty', either one, are veterans I would be surprised, and if they are, they're probably of the personality type that most rational soldiers shun and hope leaves the service quickly. Save us from the small minded who think we can return to the 50's.

     I don't want to return to the '50s. What we want is to maintain the fundamental principles upon which this country, the greatest country in the history of the world, is based, which is the right to life, liberty, and property. These are all mutual and codependent rights; take away anyone and you have either anarchy or despotism. The left does not respect any of these rights, which is the fundamental problem. I don't want to trade my liberty for security, which is the basic thrust of most liberal/left ideas. I know that I will get neither, one day hopefully you will realize this too.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 10:15am

262. It's the same general reason why people volunteer to help those with leprosy. Sure, it's not pleasant work, but someone's got to do it.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 10:15am

     Kinda rather grandiose of you when it's more like dropping bombs from a few miles away-- don't you think. But then considering your name...it 'is' rather can you say FECUSAL of you. heheheh

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 10:30am

263. hail caeser!

     (and that explains the leprosy analogy... it was big Mojo back in Rome)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 10:51am

264. Posted by BUSHFOOLS 04/08/2006 @ 10:30am

     Kinda rather grandiose of you when it's more like dropping bombs from a few miles away-- don't you think. But then considering your name...it 'is' rather can you say FECUSAL of you. heheheh

     Hey BUSHFOOLS. How's your hero Chavez today? So far he has packed the Supreme Court, made it a criminal offense to criticize him or his government, and made himself President through 2020. But it's all good, I guess; he promises Universal Health Care to his slaves, just like Castro. Here's hoping that people like you, who admire dictators, stay on the fringe where you belong, or better yet, emigrate to Cuba.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 10:53am

265. Those who have zealously supported this disastrous Republican turn at office were once arrogantly proud of the fact that the majority of Americans sided with them.

     It's humorous to see that they have slowly but surely been seen through by the American people and become political lepers. And now, blankly insist that everyone else is a leper.

     Posted by fromredbird at 04/08/2006 @ 10:54am

266. Here's hoping that people like you, who admire dictators, stay on the fringe where you belong, or better yet, emigrate to Cuba.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 10:53am

     Hail Caeser!

     But dictators aren't elected multiple times against an intrenched commie loving conservative oppostion.

     It just doesn't work that way

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 10:59am

267. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 04/08/2006 @ 10:54am

     It's humorous to see that they have slowly but surely been seen through by the American people and become political lepers. And now, blankly insist that everyone else is a leper.

     Well, I'm glad to see you're having fun, but if it I was on the left, I'd be a little concerned when my Party has lost any substantial influence in every branch of government down to the State level because a majority of Americans know better than to accept leftist drivel. But hey, that's just me.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 10:59am

268. A word of warning for America's brownshirts:

     When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions . .

     - Shakespeare, Hamlet

     Posted by fromredbird at 04/08/2006 @ 11:01am

269. But hey, that's just me.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 10:59am

     Hail Caeser!

     Hey... a prediction.

     and the way things are going I bet you it comes true.

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:02am

270. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 10:53am

     Unless you still don't understand-- it's-- 'PIG' LATIN... You're such a PUNFECALNESS DISTRACTUS setting up straw men in your fantasy field. Better start running around screaming 'the plane, the plane'. Ooopps, sorry it's really-- 'the Plame, the Plame'.... heheheheh

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 11:04am

271. Posted by WILL C. 04/08/2006 @ 10:59am

     But dictators aren't elected multiple times against an intrenched commie loving conservative oppostion.

     It just doesn't work that way

     Yeah, and Saddam got 100 percent of the vote in his last electin in Iraq, which is a lot more than the fascist Bush got, right? And Saddam didn't even have Katherine Harris on his side, just think.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:05am

272. Posted by WILL C. 04/08/2006 @ 11:02am

     But hey, that's just me.

     and the way things are going I bet you it comes true.

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     Is that the way it felt for you at the last anti-war demonstration? Sorry.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:07am

273. Here's hoping that people like you, who admire dictators, stay on the fringe where you belong, or better yet, emigrate to Cuba.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 10:53am

     Rectificus, it isn't necessary to provide repeated illustrations of the preciseness of your name. In any case, there's nothing very exclusive about yourself- it isn't that hard to find someone whose brains are up their ass.

     Posted by fromredbird at 04/08/2006 @ 11:08am

274. Yeah, and Saddam got 100 percent of the vote in his last electin in Iraq, which is a lot more than the fascist Bush got, right? And Saddam didn't even have Katherine Harris on his side, just think.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:05am

     Hail Caeser!

     saddam held elections in Iraq.

     are you saying Gee dubya overthrew the only middle eastern arab democracy and replaced it with...

     you know they'll had lots of elections in osamas new bed and breakfast, but no government yet.

     Ahh the suspense.

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:10am

275. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 04/08/2006 @ 11:08am

     Here's hoping that people like you, who admire dictators, stay on the fringe where you belong, or better yet, emigrate to Cuba.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 10:53am

     Rectificus, it isn't necessary to provide repeated illustrations of the preciseness of your name. In any case, there's nothing very exclusive about yourself- it isn't that hard to find someone whose brains are up their ass.

     Gosh Redbird, I figured at least you would agree with a sentiment that leftist dictators are bad, your being someone in the public education community and all. Someone responsible is checking the educational materials in your district, I trust?

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:13am

276. Posted by WILL C. 04/08/2006 @ 11:10am

     saddam held elections in Iraq.

     are you saying Gee dubya overthrew the only middle eastern arab democracy and replaced it with...

     you know they'll had lots of elections in osamas new bed and breakfast, but no government yet.

     Ahh the suspense.

     Ah yes, the perfect is always the enemy of the good in left-world, Will. Thanks for reminding me.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:15am

277. all dictators are bad... left or right

     the great Liberal center of America (and of the world for that matter) doesn't support dictators.

     just you commie loving conservatives

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:16am

278. Ah yes, the perfect is always the enemy of the good in left-world, Will. Thanks for reminding me.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:15am

     Hail caeser!

     so now you're perfect

     (probably explains the inflated ego)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:17am

279. osted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:13am

     PUNFECALNESS really lives in Venezuela, thus his repeated and sincere interest in fertilizing the area with straw.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 11:20am

280. Posted by WILL C. 04/08/2006 @ 11:16am

     all dictators are bad... left or right

     the great Liberal center of America (and of the world for that matter) doesn't support dictators.

     just you commie loving conservatives

     Which explains why your pal BUSHFOOLS loves the leftwing dictator Chavez, or...what?

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:20am

281. Posted by WILL C. 04/08/2006 @ 11:17am

     so now you're perfect

     (probably explains the inflated ego)

     No Will, the concept was that because Iraq is not perfect today, does not mean we would have been better off having a mass-murdering dictator there.

     Put down the doobie, and calm down.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:22am

282. Which explains why your pal BUSHFOOLS loves the leftwing dictator Chavez, or...what?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:20am

     Hail Caeser!

     Lets see. Hmmmmmmmm.

     cyclic multi party elections wwhich select the leader getting more than fifty percent of the vote...

     gee Dubya's a dictator?!

     I'm shocked

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:23am

283. No Will, the concept was that because Iraq is not perfect today, does not mean we would have been better off having a mass-murdering dictator there.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:22am

     True

     mass murdering insurgencies are far superior.

     (no one to blame except... them Shhhhhhhhh)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:26am

284. chavez's approval ratings in his country are 80%. Bush's approval ratings are 36%.

     Will, I love the" a plame, a plame"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 11:29am

285. Ha Ha Ha Ha

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:30am

286. Posted by WILL C. 04/08/2006 @ 11:23am

     Will writes (pffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttt!!!)

     Lets see. Hmmmmmmmm.

     cyclic multi party elections wwhich select the leader getting more than fifty percent of the vote...

     gee Dubya's a dictator?!

     I'm shocked

     The facts are that Chavez has packed the courts, extended his possible term from 4 years to infinity, passed laws making it illegal to criticize him or his government, etc. And you guys on the left just loooove him.

     Hmmmm.

     See it all at Human Rights Watch, if you have the nerve.

     But that's really not the issue for you, is it Will? It's all about Bush hatred. Do you ever wonder why the American public has left you and your Party on the outside looking in? Probably not.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:30am

287. Which explains why your pal BUSHFOOLS loves the leftwing dictator Chavez, or...what?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:20am

     Notice no defending the BC BS regime cowardly outing a cia agent to politically protect itself from exposure to lying us into war... Means PUNFECALNESS is begging us on hands and knees for us not to go there. I like it.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 11:31am

288. by all accounts the mass murders took place in the 80s, when he was OUR mass murderer, and again after the first gulf war, when the southern Shia rebelled with our encouragement. would it not have been appropriate to intervene then, when lives could have been saved?

     when we bomb the shit out of a country, is that NOT mass murder?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 11:32am

289. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/08/2006 @ 11:29am

     chavez's approval ratings in his country are 80%. Bush's approval ratings are 36%.

     Wow, JOHANNES, are you also a Chavez admirer? Didn't figure you for one. You actually thought it was illegal for Clinton to lie to the Grand Jury, now I'm not sure why.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:33am

290. the US had no problem with and actively supported right wing dictators in central and south america, but a LEFTWING dictator, that's BAD. I do not concede that Chavez is a dictator, left wing or otherwise, I'm just for argument's sake follow the reasoning of the Tories

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 11:34am

291. The facts are that Chavez has packed the courts, extended his possible term from 4 years to infinity, passed laws making it illegal to criticize him or his government, etc. And you guys on the left just loooove him.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:30am

     I love my sweety

     and chavez isn't her.

     And since you've resarched all the details of these claims please feel free to cut and paste the translations of the relevant legislation or executive orders

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:34am

292. But that's really not the issue for you, is it Will? It's all about Bush hatred. Do you ever wonder why the American public has left you and your Party on the outside looking in? Probably not.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:30am

     hail caeser

     always trying to project red state hate onto the true blue children of god.

     (don't worry we'll take care of you in your old age... promise)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:36am

293. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:33am

     More Begging. Once again notice no defending the BC BS regime cowardly outing a cia agent to politically protect itself from exposure to lying us into war... Means PUNFECALNESS is crying streams of grade 'F' American blood tears begging us on hands and knees-- please oh please for the sake of gods all over the place please for us not to go there. I like it even more.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 11:41am

294. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/08/2006 @ 11:32am

     by all accounts the mass murders took place in the 80s, when he was OUR mass murderer,

     What made him 'ours'? The fact that we provided some support to him against the even-worse Iranians, before it became clear he was unreformable? Are you saying we should only support perfect governments in the world? A might short list my friend.

     and again after the first gulf war, when the southern Shia rebelled with our encouragement. would it not have been appropriate to intervene then, when lives could have been saved?

     That was Bush I's bow to the leftist antiwar position of sanctions rather than war, remember? And Bush I had no UN authority to take out Saddam. Remember?

     when we bomb the shit out of a country, is that NOT mass murder?

     Not always...how about Nazi Germany, was that mass murder. No, it's not always mass murder.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:46am

295. It is the Tories who continually bring up Chavez, just bait and switch, let's not talk about Bush's abuses, look over here, rhetorical three card monte.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 11:47am

296. Posted by WILL C. 04/08/2006 @ 11:34am

     And since you've resarched all the details of these claims please feel free to cut and paste the translations of the relevant legislation or executive orders

     No need, Will, human rights watch has already done it all. Just go to hrw.org and type Venezuela to get the scoop on BUSHFOOLS' hero. Notice BUSHFOOLS doesn't even try to deny either his admiration for Chavez or Chavez' dictatorship?

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:49am

297. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/08/2006 @ 11:47am

     It is the Tories who continually bring up Chavez, just bait and switch, let's not talk about Bush's abuses, look over here, rhetorical three card monte.

     Gotta call BS on that one, JOHANNES. You can't call Bush a fascist on the one hand and then support real fascists with the other. Not cool, or honest.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:51am

298. What made him 'ours'? The fact that we provided some support to him against the even-worse Iranians, before it became clear he was unreformable? Are you saying we should only support perfect governments in the world? A might short list my friend.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:46am

     yet you claim chavez belongs to the liberals. And we give him no support.

     so just to make sure I understand your thesis...

     give some support: no ownership

     give no support: he's all your's baby

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:51am

299. No need, Will, human rights watch has already done it all. Just go to hrw.org and type Venezuela to get the scoop on BUSHFOOLS' hero. Notice BUSHFOOLS doesn't even try to deny either his admiration for Chavez or Chavez' dictatorship?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:49am

     hail caeser!

     You're not practising to be a lazy corporate welfare queen are you?

     They're your claims. You do the work and support them.

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:53am

300. don't worry, by giving some support you won't get tarred with ownership

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:54am

301. Okay guys, it's been fun teasing the monkeys, but I've got to go. Someone has to work in this country for all of the liberal government programs you love. See ya. Take it easy on the crack.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:55am

302. unless you not supporting them because you want them all to yourself

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:56am

303. and..... he's outta there

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:56am

304. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:46am

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:49am

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:51am

     Yet even more BBBBegging. There's no defending the BC BS regime cowardly outing of a cia agent to politically protect itself from exposure to lying us into war... Means PUNFECALNESS isn't crying streams of grade 'F' American blood tears begging us on hands and knees-- please oh please for the sake of gods all over the place please for us not to go there, he's really in a catatonic state where the reality of the cowardice just can't seep into his brain. I like it most of all. He won't ever see it coming, the straitjacket, padded cell....

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 11:58am

305. bom bom bom (pop)

     another one bites the dust

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:58am

306. Posted by WILL C. 04/08/2006 @ 11:51am

     yet you claim chavez belongs to the liberals. And we give him no support.

     I never claimed admiration for Saddam, even when I supported arming him against the Iranians. In contrast, BUSHFOOLS makes it clear that Chavez is his hero, and I'll bet if you polled your fellow leftists on this site you'll find most of them admire him, even while they claim to hate Bush's 'fascism', which is nowhere near as bad as Chavez's or Castros. That's the difference, my friend.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2006 @ 11:59am

307. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:59am

     ahhhhhhh.. a new test

     admiration!

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     and another gets on and another gets on

     another one rides the bus

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 12:02pm

308. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 11:59am

     Yep, ironically it'll be a straw padded cell...

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 12:03pm

309. Hey!

     he's gonna sit by you

     another one rides the bus

     bom bom bom (pop)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 12:03pm

310. oops... hail caeser!

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 12:05pm

311. Posted by WILL C. 04/08/2006 @ 12:05am

     And straw padded bus seats too.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 12:07pm

312. straw from the straw man perhaps?

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 12:11pm

313. STRAWFECALNESS I hear you can make good bricks out of it. Thick.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 12:14pm

314. the US has a long ignomious history of supporting some of the most repressive regimes in the wolrd, all the while sanctimoniously lecturing everyone on human rights. ever since Bush pulled the human rights issue out of the hat, when all other justifications for "removing" Saddam faltered, the Tories have discovered human rights issues. what took you so long?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 12:15pm

315. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/08/2006 @ 12:15am

     It's called fishing. Use whatever bait the fish are biting at the time. I doubt if there's any sincerity there, except maybe in the 'sport' of reeling them in... jus' poltics donjano.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 12:24pm

316. I love fish

     Especially raw fish...

     thinly sliced and served on a small portion of sake and rice vineger washed rice

     yummy

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 12:26pm

317. what you are describing is called Chirashi, if served in a big bowl. in small individual pieces it's called sushi. just the fish without rice is called sashimi. the funny thing about sushi is that non japanese often try to eat them with chopsticks, when in Japan they are finger food, like hors doeuvres. they are eaten while hanging around drinking and conversing, with plenty of sake or good japanese beer.

     did I mention that in NYC here we have a street that is all japanese restaurants on both sides. we used to have a street that was all indian restaurants, but their spread all over the nabe and gentrification did many of them in.

     I like to order take out sashimi when I come home from work at midnight, as it is tasty and does not lay heavy in the stomach when sleeping. also I can eat it while at the computer catching up with all my mates on this blog.wish I had some right now, and I would drink a toast to you Will

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 12:38pm

318. one more culinary tip, if I may be permitted. that clump of green mustard is called wasabi, and is especially good when mixed with some soy sauce to make a creamy kind of dipping sauce for the fish.

     it's fun to sit at the sushi bar, order a la carte, and watch the chef make these morsels, and if he likes you, he might make a sailboat out of cucumber filled with raw sea urchin, which tastes like a seafood mousse. by the way not all sushi is raw fish, there's cooked egg, and shrimp is sometimes cooked lightly, but sometimes small shrimp are served raw, which is even better. smoked eel is also very good. stop me someone, I'm drooling on the keyboard.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 12:45pm

319. JR

     sushi

     and if you ever come out to seattle, there is the worlds best sushi restaurant within five miles from my house.

     I gotta take you there

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 12:45pm

320. Is DISTRACTICUS gone for good this time? Sure hope so. Anyway, I just read a yahoo news article, US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran [tinyurl.com].

     The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

     Who wants to bet that they will leave our Navy ships in the gulf like sitting ducks so that when Iran takes out the fleet the Bush Admin. will justify that as a reason for all out war?

     Posted by dlg at 04/08/2006 @ 12:48pm

321. Time for me to hit the trail to work too. Saturday programs are a pain. Later then. But you two did get me to eat before I left. ha

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 12:53pm

322. Will, I actually visit Seattle somewhat frequently, once a year, as my in laws live there, so I intend to take you up on that. I could use a guide to some of the hipper places in Seattle, as my septuagenerian in laws cannot be counted on for that, as terrific as they are.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 12:57pm

323. DLG, were the US to use nukes on anyone, they will be a pariah in international relations, infinitely more so than now, when we are unpopular. I don't think even Bush would dare that.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 12:59pm

324. Posted by DLG 04/08/2006 @ 12:48am

     Whoa, had to read it before I left. Looks like another war to deflect the lying us into Iraq and lying about outting a cia agent. Hope they're lying about this for a distraction, but probably not-- we can't wait for 2008. The whole bunch have got to go before they start WWIII just for more cover, they're lying and we;re dying. Hey senate wake up, damn it, car 54-- where are you?

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/08/2006 @ 1:02pm

325. JR, I sure hope you're right.

     Posted by dlg at 04/08/2006 @ 1:03pm

326. my septuagenerian in laws cannot be counted on for that, as terrific as they are.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/08/2006 @ 12:57am

     just post when you do.

     New job... I get my weekends off now

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 1:08pm

327. thanks for the link dlg. that makes me very worried. are these people insane? if seymour hersh is reporting it, there must be something to it. johannesrolf is right. we will be even more of a pariah than we already are. did anyone see the iranian ambassador to the u.s. on charlie rose the other day? he had some interesting points. i really hope we don't nuke iran.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/08/2006 @ 1:46pm

328. PONTIFICUS

     I don't want to trade my liberty for security, which is the basic thrust of most liberal/left ideas.

     So warrantless wiretapping, torture, extraordinary rendition are all liberal/left ideas? Gee, I had no idea that Rumsfeld, Bush, Gonzales et al. were on the liberal/left?

     Posted by brunowe at 04/08/2006 @ 2:34pm

329. As has been said here before, the level of corruption not only in the u.S. administration, but within the entire ruling class establishment, has reached such heights that a story like the Libby story makes no difference at all, so long as the imperatives of power are preserved. Attack Iraq, bomb Iran, what difference does it make? The hegemony of holy mother capitalism is preserved.

     Posted by redwingblack at 04/08/2006 @ 2:36pm

330. I just read a yahoo news article, US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran ( http://tinyurl.com/endag ).

     The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

     Who wants to bet that they will leave our Navy ships in the gulf like sitting ducks so that when Iran takes out the fleet the Bush Admin. will justify that as a reason for all out war?

     Posted by DLG 04/08/2006 @ 12:48am

     Who wants to bet that the opposition of the Democratic leadership to this new insanity will be exceedingly weak. That means it is not outside the realm of possibility by any means.

     Posted by fromredbird at 04/08/2006 @ 2:44pm

331. What the Department of Homeland Security really is. Or, should we say, "Fatherland"?

     A law unto themselves. [tinyurl.com] Anyone who thinks that attitudes like this don't flow from above and that they are anything, in essence, other than fascism, is in dreamland.

     Posted by fromredbird at 04/08/2006 @ 2:53pm

332. wow, fromredbird, that's a fucking horror story. is homeland security filled with wierdos and freaks? there are 2 child-molesters so far. one was some low level dufus that got caught by dateline a few months back. what these 2 creeps did to that teacher was completely fascist. i firmly believe these attitudes flow from above.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/08/2006 @ 3:32pm

333. ya brunowe, good points. and i remember after 911 an almost constant condescending lecture from the right re: u must give up some of your liberties in order to be safe. the world is a different place now.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/08/2006 @ 3:36pm

334. I don't want to trade my liberty for security, which is the basic thrust of most liberal/left ideas.

     this is hilarious. the trade of liberty for security has been the central platform of the mis-administration since 9/11. I don't know how many Tory senators have said civil liberties are no good if you're dead this shows conclusively that Ponzi has absolutely no contact with reality, and a pompous handle to boot.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 3:50pm

335. johannesrolf, u mentioned earlier something about gonzales saying that there may be warrantless wiretaps of american citizens talking to each other, here in the u.s. borders. i just watched a repeat of thursday's questioning of gonzales. rep. wexler from florida said he believes many americans have been classified as credible threats for no apparent reason. as a result of this classification, they are subject to warrantless wiretapping. he was really screaming his head off at gonzales. gonzales looked surprised at his vehemence and answered weakly and meekly. like a little mouse.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/08/2006 @ 4:09pm

336. that makes me very worried. are these people insane?

     Posted by LOVELOKI 04/08/2006 @ 1:46pm

     To rational people they would certainly appear insane!

     By the way, my comment about our Navy being sitting ducks in the gulf was inspired by a rawstory.com article [tinyurl.com]. This article [tinyurl.com] was linked to in the rawstory article. Interesting reads.

     Note to The Nation: Your length restriction for URLs is ridiculous!

     Posted by dlg at 04/08/2006 @ 4:12pm

337. Who wants to bet that the opposition of the Democratic leadership to this new insanity will be exceedingly weak. That means it is not outside the realm of possibility by any means.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 04/08/2006 @ 2:44pm

     If the past is any indication, sadly, you are correct.

     Posted by dlg at 04/08/2006 @ 4:15pm

338. Gee, we can 'declassify' information as we feel it is necessary. We can be 'crybabies' when Bush gets his hand caught in the cookie jar and it looks like there's crap on his hands. Look up, sheep. A lie is a lie. The dead from that lie are still dead. A leak is a leak. Fire yourself, George. After all, it WAS what you said. Man, adults take responsibility for their mistakes. And fools get people killed.

     Posted by nathan brazil at 04/08/2006 @ 4:21pm

339. liberty, i went to your wikipedia article. you're partially right. it does say that scott ritter said what u claimed. but it does not say seymour hersh said that. the wikipedia article says that seymour hersh:

     claimed in January 2005 that strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran and that during interviews he had made in December 2004 and January 2005,

     The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans' negotiated approach [regarding alleged nuclear weapons development] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act. "We're not dealing with a set of National Security Council option papers here," the former high-level intelligence official told me. "They've already passed that wicket. It's not if we're going to do anything against Iran. They're doing it."[8]

     so, i think you should reread your source. but thanks for the info. anyway.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/08/2006 @ 6:22pm

340. so liberty

     that would mean it's not the same Seymour Hersh

     (reading is fundamental... Rodney Allen Rippy)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 6:51pm

341. i skipped from page 3 to page 9. but i figured by the time i got here the hersh article would be in play...

     haven't read this piece yet, but i've heard him speak a couple of times on DN and UCTV. he's not bullshitting you.

     we're just about due for something BIG to pull dick and dubya's asses out of the fire. their situation is so desperate, the joyride is about to come to an end.

     ahmadinejad is the new hitler -- another bearded, false-god worshippping foreign leader on whom to project all our fears...

     there is no doubt that the loss of even one house of congress to the democrats -- as worthless and ineffectual as they are -- cannot be allowed to happen. no matter what the cost. the regime depends on absence of oversight so it can do as it pleases, answering to no one.

     earlier in the thread there was some talk about military coup. i think there are a lot of sycophants in the military establishment that would blindly follow orders. on the other hand, i think there are more who take their oaths seriously, and would balk at illegal orders like taking a war of aggression nuclear. the congress might be too weak to say no, but there is hope for the military.

     Posted by wpahnelas at 04/08/2006 @ 7:56pm

342. i think there are more who take their oaths seriously, and would balk at illegal orders like taking a war of aggression nuclear. the congress might be too weak to say no, but there is hope for the military.

     Posted by WPAHNELAS 04/08/2006 @ 7:56pm

     There's been decades of evangelic indoctrination in the US Airforce Academy.

     We have rapture maniacs sitting in our missile silos.

     I think they will be more than happy to destroy the earth

     (the action fits in nicely with the Hamsterland fantasy)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 8:01pm

343. LM

     re: "UNOFFICIALLY DECLASSIFIED"

     I would just like to say: bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!Whew, I feel much better now. How very Dean Wormer to make the call of "double-secret declassified." Is something "really" declassified if only the person who declassified it knows about it? Let me answer...Uh, NO! That's whey there is a procedure...you know, like going to FISA before you wiretap citizens.

     Dim apologists sitting in the corners counting their toes...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/08/2006 @ 8:19pm

344. zero, see dlg's post, page 8, i think around 12:45am. it's got a link.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/08/2006 @ 8:40pm

345. i really hope you're right zero. but bushco. has not demonstrated much good sense so far.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/08/2006 @ 8:59pm

346. Well perhaps we should wait for Iran to attack us either in Iraq or through a terrorist...I hope he does take out Irans nuke facilites before they test fire a weapon. Besides if it wasn't for your LIB nitwit Jimmy Carter the world would not be in this mess that were in right now. Thanks LIBZ, you gave us another loser...just like B.J Clinton who let Osama go on 3 occasions. Fuck the polls get them while its still possible. On a side note...let me guess how many of you traitors will go see the film "Flight 93"???A small percentage I'm sure compared with you seeing F-9/11. Pathetic

     Posted by libzsuk at 04/08/2006 @ 9:32pm

347. The Iranians are coming. The Iranians are coming

     :0 AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 9:35pm

348. Hey!!!

     Potty-"if-i-can", Are you queer? Are you old? You and some of the other "neo-fascists" express yourselves in a "funny" way. Kind of in the J. Edgar Hoover mold. I certainly have no quarrel with same sex relations. I would hope, however, that maybe if you just "relax" and come out, then all of this silly political stuff might prove to be not so burdensome.

     Spring is upon us!!

     and I have so much love in my heart!!

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 04/08/2006 @ 9:47pm

349. Oh, the excitement!!! Libsucker has just gotten up, poured himself a tall MD-20-20 and everclear, and he, ladies and gentlemen, appears to have something to get off us his pansy chest.

     Have at it Libby. We're all pullin for you.

     Oh the love that I feel,

     bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 04/08/2006 @ 9:51pm

350. Hey Libsucker, I must correct: " off us his pansy chest" should properly read: "of of his pansy chest". Sorry about the confusion. Now take a deep breath, and another slug of the MD, and tell us all what really matters.

     I am all ears!

     Love!! Love!! Love!!

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 04/08/2006 @ 9:58pm

351. Thanks to DLG and other interested parties for the latest Seymour Hersh article. I do not consider him a reliable connector of dots but as far as pointing out the dots, he is the best.

     May vermin infest the shorts of everyone who responded to Pontificus. What a cracker.

     Will is excused for the day for posting a poem. Two days if it was original. It was a nice signpost in a week when perhaps we have seen the sun come out after literally years of darkness.

     Of course we still have the infernal Harry Reid and that black cloud over his head. But ah, it's been a good week.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/08/2006 @ 10:27pm

352. Will C---you have a misunderstanding of the rapture. People who believe in the rapture do not want the end of the world. They believe that they will be taken up into heaven and after they are gone there will be seven years of tribulation, followed by the return of Christ. When Christ returns he will bring peace for a millenium. They have no desire for the end of the world only a desire to be taken into heaven and then return with Christ after the tribulation. By the way did you catch my post about the leak. The President has a few unchecked powers, among them are the right to grant reprieves and pardons. Also is the power to declassify material without a check of any fashion by any branch of government.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 04/08/2006 @ 10:29pm

353. two days it is

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 10:30pm

354. so len

     when they come back will that be reincarnation or semi tranparent apparition?

     and the seven years you are refering to will be taken up by the worldwide MTV beach bash celebration (if the rapture actually goes down with all the evangelics magically disappearing)

     and if that's they way it is going down, what's taking so fucking long?

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 10:35pm

355. myparadigm, i'm curious as to why u think hersh isn't too good at connecting the dots.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/08/2006 @ 10:38pm

356. Will====The seven years are described as the absolute worst time ever on the earth. Rivers of blood and such. Those who were not taken in the rapture (non believers) will have those seven years to accept Christ.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 04/08/2006 @ 10:42pm

357. Will-----Don't worry. If it happens almost everyone on this board will still be here posting. I am sure that somehow all the missing people will be blamed on Bush and the Republicans.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 04/08/2006 @ 10:49pm

358. LoveLoki: mainly because it leads to predictions that are unlikely to come true, and because it makes him sound like a doomsayer. I say sound, because I confess I have not read his work, only heard extended interviews on NPR. He does great reporting. I'd just like him to leave less ammo for his critics by sticking closely to the facts and let others draw the conclusions. You may have seen a fellow named Woodward on another thread who plays that game to perfection.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/08/2006 @ 11:00pm

359. I have to admit, I was wrong when I said the Democrats were clueless on national security issues. In fact, they have an awful lot to say about it. This thing should get them right back in the saddle, you betcha.

     Sure, it was risky, but when the stakes are high you've got to be willing to take some risks. And so with much fanfare the Democratic Party introduced yesterday a plan that has been years in the making, their own blueprint to ensure the safety of America. A set of proposals they call, "Real Security."

     In addressing the needs of a "21st Century Military," the Democratic plan starts off with what everyone was already thinking but were too afraid to say out loud: We need a "state-of-the-art military," that guarantees that our troops "receive the pay, health care, mental health services, and other benefits they have earned and deserve."

     This kind of bold talk has caused some nervousness in the party. "I don't know," commented one Democratic Congressman facing a tough reelection battle in a swing district. "You can take chances with this high-minded stuff when you're in a safe seat but they're calling for things like ensuring that the National Guard ‘is fully manned, equipped and available to meet missions at home and abroad.' I run on that and I risk being labeled as some kind of extremist."

     "I've got to either come out against gay marriage or start going to church more to counteract this."

     Possibly the most innovative part of the document is the section that addresses the "War on Terror." With calls to "eliminate Osama Bin Laden" and "destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda," the Democrats have challenged conventional thinking, catching Republicans completely off guard.

     "Look at this," observed a GOP strategist, "they propose to ‘redouble' efforts to halt nuclear proliferation. We thought about increasing our efforts by maybe 50% but no one thought to go for actually redoubling them. They've really raised the bar with this."

     Regarding Iraq, Democrats take a multi-pronged approach but in no way suggest that we should "withdraw" our troops as has been maliciously claimed by Republicans. Instead, Democrats seek a "redeployment" of our troops. Yes, redeployment does share some characteristics with withdrawal but it is important to point out that it is pronounced completely differently. Further, Democrats seek to not just encourage our allies and other nations to help out, but to "strongly" encourage them. Sure, that's tough talk, but these are tough times.

     And of course we must be careful that we don't stray too far from addressing our greatest national security threats: Halliburton and "big oil interests."

     Finally, Democrats propose that we strive towards energy independence. Remember disco? Remember bell bottoms? Laverne and Shirley? Well then you remember The Carter Energy Plan too. And so do Democrats. With calls for "conservation incentives," "enhanced energy efficiency" and "increased production of alternative fuels" (anything but actually drilling for, say "oil") you can almost here Abba in the background… "Dancing queen, long and lean only seventeen…"

     Republicans are scrambling to react, with some calling to "quadruple" efforts to stop nuclear proliferation and still others proposing to provide our troops with pay and benefits that are in fact "more than they deserve."

     But really there is only one thing they can do, the one thing that has worked reliably in times of political peril.

     Can you say, "Threat Level?"

     http://planetmoron.typepad.com/planet_moron/

     Posted by pontificus at 04/09/2006 @ 12:45am

360. NOW I know what Kerry meant by 'nuance'.

     Regarding Iraq, Democrats take a multi-pronged approach but in no way suggest that we should "withdraw" our troops as has been maliciously claimed by Republicans. Instead, Democrats seek a "redeployment" of our troops. Yes, redeployment does share some characteristics with withdrawal but it is important to point out that it is pronounced completely differently. Further, Democrats seek to not just encourage our allies and other nations to help out, but to "strongly" encourage them. Sure, that's tough talk, but these are tough times.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/09/2006 @ 12:47am

361. osted by PONTIFICUS 04/09/2006 @ 12:45am | ignore

     osted by PONTIFICUS 04/09/2006 @ 12:47am

     Still begging for more, DISTRACTUS PUNFECALNESS? Still don't want to explain the cowardice of the BC BS regime's outing of a cia cover for their own hiding in a hole on lying us to war? Naw, of course not latin scarecrow. You probably wanted to deport Cesar too because of his last name and the threat to your delusional roman status. HA

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/09/2006 @ 01:02am

362. Will====The seven years are described as the absolute worst time ever on the earth. Rivers of blood and such. Those who were not taken in the rapture (non believers) will have those seven years to accept Christ.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/08/2006 @ 10:42pm

     Interesting

     So when the evangelics magically disappear, red corpuscles also magically appear in the rivers. And what... keep magically appearing for seven year in the headwaters? Or do they wash out in a few days, weeks etc.

     And off course the people remaining are going to actually accept the shitbag that did this to them.

     Not me buddy

     But then when the non magical rapture occurs I will evaporate along with the rest of the good people here in Seattle and Tacoma and you hamsters will get to slowly rot away, starving, licking your puss filled blisters for sustenance when Hamsterland goes radioactive.

     And you won't have anyone to blame except yourselves.

     I wish I could be there to see it... too bad

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 01:09am

363. Will----Christ will have nothing to do with the blood in the rivers. That will come from mankind, those who are left after the rapture. Seattle and San Francisco will be almost completely untouched by the rapture (meant as joke--ha, ha). Life will go as usual until the plagues and fighting begins. At the end of the seven years of tribulation many who previously were not Christians will have accepted Christ. Christ will come to save us from ourselves. Will I am a Christian and I have excepted Jesus Christ as my savior, however, I am an agnostic on the rapture.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 04/09/2006 @ 09:11am

364. Will---at least now when you criticize Evangelicals about the rapture you will know what it is.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 04/09/2006 @ 09:12am

365. Freudian slip of the week:

     I am a Christian and I have excepted Jesus Christ as my savior ...

     A popular position among modern Republicans. Please take no offense Len, I just found it amusing.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/09/2006 @ 09:34am

366. In addition to the damning NYT story cited above (ZERO 04/09/2006 @ 02:38am) our beloved Paper of Record printed an execrable summary of the week's events in which the ridiculous Cynthia McKinney snafu was held up as the counterweight to the combined mass of DeLay's ignominous exit, the instant dissolution of Republican party discipline, and Bush being unambiguously exposed as a liar and a fraud where national security is concerned.

     Whatever. I guess Fair-n-Balanced is the rule everywhere these days.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/09/2006 @ 09:44am

367. Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/09/2006 @ 09:11am

     we put the blood in the rivers? Son when you folks all disappear, we're all heading to the beach.

     anybody want to limbo?

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 11:55am

368. Will---at least now when you criticize Evangelicals about the rapture you will know what it is.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/09/2006 @ 09:12am

     Son, these people are clueless about what God intended with the various religious texts. And that's what makes them dangerous.

     A wise man once said "Seek and you shall find". In looking to fulfill their misinterpretation, the evangelic church will open the doors to the apocalypse. And this particular little planet will be destroyed... for nothing.

     You're working on it right now.

     I'm going to stop you.

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 12:03pm

369. So, what makes any of us think that The Rapture hasn't already happened, and we're not the schlubs left behind?

     Bush's reign, now nearing it's 7th year, have been years of darkness and despair (this is true no matter whether you support him or not).

     Maybe we'll get lucky and impeach the bum in year 7, JC will come back and there'll be Skittles and beer for everyone (figuratively speaking, of course. To each her/his own).

     Posted by skeletonman at 04/09/2006 @ 12:11pm

370. Wolf Blitzer and Sy Hersch both mentioned that it is Israel that is pushing for a quick strike against Iran. Blitzer once worked for AIPAC, and many believe he still does.

     Israel has claimed that Iran may have a nuke within one year. It's a lie.

     Most intelligence estimates put the timeframe between 5-10 years.

     What's the rush?

     Israel wants it to happen now.

     PERIOD.

     The reason that there is no pressure coming from congress to hold bilateral talks with Iran rather than simply nuke them is that they are all owned by AIPAC - whether through bribes, blackmail, or both.

     AIPAC is the single most destructive force in America today.

     What are we to do when the entire process of elections becomes subverted, controlled by an outside force that takes US tax payer dollars, offshores them, then launders them right back into the political process thereby ensuring that only their hand-picked candidates become government officials?

     When all that cash is utilized to purchase media time to promote AIPAC's hand-picked candidates - the executives of the media companies can clearly see who they need to support in order to enrich themselves. The news departments are instructed to perpetuate the game for profit.

     Our tax dollars have been used to destroy Democracy. The electoral process is completely broken as a result of the money in politics. It is ironc that there is a new cry for publicly funded campaigns. They already are publicly funded...it's just that the entity responsible for distributing the public funding is AIPAC.

     While the vast majority of Americans are crying out for lobbying reform, every Jewish organization is actively campaigning against it - to protect AIPAC's grip on the system.

     Remember this?

     http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101704A.shtml

     In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

     The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

     - Ron Suskind "Without a Doubt"

     All that cash leads to that kind of arrogance. Frankly, I'd rather fix the problem now than study it later.

     DEPORT AIPAC and win back your Democracy.

     It really is that simple

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

     Hedrick Smith noted in his book Power Game that AIPAC had become a "superlobby ... [It] gained so much political muscle that by 1985 AIPAC and its allies could force President Reagan to renege on an arms deal he had promised to [Jordan's] King Hussein. By 1986, the pro-Israel lobby could stop Reagan from making another jet fighter deal with Saudi Arabia; and Secretary of State George Shultz had to sit down with AIPAC's executive director -- not Congressional leaders -- to find out what level of arms sales to the Saudis AIPAC would tolerate."

     "You are the most effective general interest group…across the entire planet." Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

     "Aipac has a lot of influence on foreign policy," says JJ Goldberg, editor of the Jewish newspaper The Forward. "They work hard to ensure that America endorses pretty much Israel's view of the world and the Middle East."

     "A great asset to our country". Condoleezza Rice describing AIPAC in March, 2003.

     "Fully three-fourths of America's foreign aid budget is devoted to Israeli security interests is a tribute in considerable measure to the lobbying prowess of AIPAC and the importance of the Jewish community in American politics." -- Prominent conservative lawyer and political commentator, Benjamin Ginsberg.

     "I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. "You see this napkin?" he said. "In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin." Jeffrey Goldberg (The New Yorker).

     "AIPAC's Israel lobby has the power to pump up to a million dollars into the campaign coffers of any friendly member of Congress, or into the campaign of the opponents of an unfriendly member." -- Richard Curtiss, executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

     "A lobby is a night flower, it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun." -- AIPAC research director Steve Rosen, 2001.

     "The friendship between Israel and the United States is a great asset to our country. And AIPAC is a great advocate for this vital relationship." White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

     "Congress is 'terrorized' by AIPAC... In practice, the lobby groups function as an informal extension of the Israeli government." -- "They Dare to Speak Out," -- Congressman (1961-1982) Paul Findley.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

     Posted by plunger at 04/09/2006 @ 12:27pm

371. Sy Hersh was just on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and was very impressive. He started out by accusing Bush of having a Messianic complex. It was delicious. They'll hang him out to dry for that of course. You know what they say, a gaffe is when someone slips and tells the truth.

     The rest of what he had to say was very clear, factual, and scary. Wolf helped him out with footage of Bush and Cheney acting their parts and, in context, threatening to use nukes against Iran.

     Normally I don't watch TV. Maybe I'll try again sometime.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/09/2006 @ 12:35pm

372. I recommend TIVO

     that way there's always something to watch when you want to watch TV

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 12:39pm

373. and you can fast forward through the commercials

     (that way I can ignore the corporate message on a daily basis)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 12:41pm

374. NICHOLS ON BUSH"S LEAK- When all is said and done, we have one undeniable bold fact staring us in the face. Our nation is led by criminals. When destruction of the administration's own personnel and revealing the name of their own operative takes place by our president, as Rumsfeld so correctly stated, this person should go to jail. As Congressman John Conyers has attempted for months to have some of Bush's illegalities examined and explained by him, he has shirked all efforts. The time is now that we can no longer permit any and all false configurations and disregard for our Constitution to go unheeded. President Bush's disregard for the laws of our land has, in effect, made himself the only law. Time after time, his laws have jeopardized lives and trust. On deceit and lies, they led us into war. At this moment in time, another war is on the table. This one against Iraq's neighbor, Iran. By any and all dictates of common sense and restraint, Bush must not be allowed a preemptive strike against a country who has given him no cause, no proof of intention to do harm to our nation. It's impossible for him to believe any findings of the UN because he knows himself to be a collasal liar, thereby forbidding him to believe anyone else. The honorable and decent move for President Bush right now would be to resign his station; taking along his vice president, Chief of Staff, Attorney General and every person who's had a part in concealing his wrongs and misdeeds against our country. Certainly, it would be a more effective decision on his part than to force Congress to drag him, kicking and screaming, from the White House and have this scene plastered across every newspaper in the world.

     Posted by uglyduckling at 04/09/2006 @ 12:46pm

375. Ducky, who would you have running the executive branch? not that I object to your suggestion.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/09/2006 @ 12:55pm

376. Will---was hurrying when I posted last---Forgive me --I said excepted rather than accepted. What you still don't understand about the rapture is that it is the first step before Christ returns and brings peace to the planet. No destruction or end of the world involved, just seven years of real bad stuff before he returns.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 04/09/2006 @ 1:03pm

377. I got tired of reading the various comments that are based on whether a person is liberal or conservative. Let's face it: The President is a war criminal. This is demonstrated by the fact that he doesn't care whether there is "just cause" to pre-emptively attack a sovereign country. By the way there was not and that's what the whole stink is about(falsely presenting "evidence" to promote a pre-emptive war). I think that George W. Bush is a serial killer(he blew up frogs with firecrackers for fun and games as a child) that needs to kill and that was used by Dick(war profiteer)Cheney to start this foolish war. He's the one who actually told Libby to release the information in the NIE report. Then HE got Bush to declassify the report to cover HIS butt(notice that the acutal release date is much laterthan when Libby released the covert information). I'll bet that Cheney actually told Libby to release the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. Then when the CIA revolted at the release of that information, and that's when the politcal mudslinging occurred. I agree that Rove probably set the whole thing up. Certainly, he will stop at nothing to stack the cards in Bush's favor. But it's hard to control a war criminal and now they're discussing bombing Iran, with NUCLEAR WEAPONS. All you conservatives, doesn't THAT even bother you?

     Posted by bloomfld at 04/09/2006 @ 1:07pm

378. this just in from our oxymoron department:

     Bush administration is pursuing a strategy of COERCIVE DIPLOMACY to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/09/2006 @ 1:15pm

379. I got tired of reading the various comments that are based on whether a person is liberal or conservative. Let's face it: The President is a war criminal. This is demonstrated by the fact that he doesn't care whether there is "just cause" to pre-emptively attack a sovereign country. By the way there was not and that's what the whole stink is about(falsely presenting "evidence" to promote a pre-emptive war). I think that George W. Bush is a serial killer(he blew up frogs with firecrackers for fun and games as a child) that needs to kill and that was used by Dick(war profiteer)Cheney to start this foolish war. He's the one who actually told Libby to release the information in the NIE report. Then HE got Bush to declassify the report to cover HIS butt(notice that the acutal release date is much later than when Libby released the covert information). I'll bet that Cheney actually told Libby to release the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. Then when the CIA revolted at the release of that information, and that's when the politcal mudslinging occurred. I agree that Rove probably set the whole thing up. Certainly, he will stop at nothing to stack the cards in Bush's favor. But it's hard to control a war criminal and now they're discussing bombing Iran, with NUCLEAR WEAPONS. All you conservatives, doesn't THAT even bother you?

     Posted by bloomfld at 04/09/2006 @ 1:29pm

380. myparadigm, i have not read seymour's books yet either. i too have heard him speak on npr. he has been saying bush has a messianic complex for quite awhile now. retired general anthony zinni said pretty much the same thing the other day on charlie rose.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/09/2006 @ 1:40pm

381. No destruction or end of the world involved, just seven years of real bad stuff before he returns.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/09/2006 @ 1:03pm

     right

     That's why the best selling left behind series of books and movies starts out with millions magically disappearing and the world dissolving into chaos.

     It wasn't a liberal who wrote those books.

     It was a evangelic hamster

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 1:45pm

382. think of the arrogance of the left behind concept...

     The world can't live without you.

     Trust me... we can.

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 1:47pm

383. and we will

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 1:47pm

384. well, i guess zinni didn't say messianic complex. he did say he thinks he's nuts though. fanatical crazed lunatic. and if u listen to hersh really explain his hypothesis about bush, it does make sense.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/09/2006 @ 1:55pm

385. johannesrolf, where did u hear about the coercive diplomacy thing? those are 2 awful big words for this misadministration. what no, "bring it on" or "go fuck yourself" or "we're takin em out"?

     Posted by loveloki at 04/09/2006 @ 1:59pm

386. re: "rapture"

     Apparently LM and others have watched "Left Behind" one too many times. Of course, maybe they ARE right....after all, Bush's reign is 8 years, right? maybe the first year doesn't count...before he went completely over to "the Dark Side" and the remaining 7 years ARE the times of tribulation!

     If so we'll luck out and "the mothership" or whatever comes by and sucks up all the nutjob Evangelicals. (To rescue, to feed on [old Twilight Zone episode] or whatever..) This leaves the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Unitarians, and pagans and other unspecified secular types (and perhaps non-Evangelical Christians and Mormons?....can't say as I know these "entry rules". Kind of like rides at Six-Flags..."You're soul must be this high to get on this ride") At any rate...I CAN'T FRICKIN' WAIT!

     Sounds like the start of good times if Falwell and all them other insane tongue-babblin, snake wavin', fire-n-brimstone brain dead Biblical Literalists are outta here. Shit, you guys need some gas money, maybe meet Jesus halfway or something? We'll pass the hat and help you all on your way...can't be too soon for me!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/09/2006 @ 2:00pm

387. hey christianloons, he ain't coming back. many here in Brooklyn believed the rabbi schneerson was the mosoich, but then he died. save your lboody sermons for church on sunday and stop polluting these threads with that bullshit

     loveloki, that was the headline in Wash post, I believe

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/09/2006 @ 2:41pm

388. .

     The Heart of the CIA Leak Case

     "The heart of the CIA leak case cannot and must not be ignored."

     But Nichols, that is exactly what you are doing, you're ignoring the substance. You're now pretending it's a question of whether or not the country's chief executive, who has the power to commit the army and navy to battle and to launch nuclear missiles, may make a previously guarded bit of information public. Every CEO decides daily what to tell and not tell his customers, suppliers, unions, investors and competitors. Of course a president can classify and declassify at his pleasure. That is not debatable, that is a toenail of this case, not its heart.

     At the crux of this CIA leak case is a contradiction between Libby's testimony to the special prosecutor and the testimony of two reporters about what he told them regarding Ambassador Wilson, and how he told them.

     That's all. The special prosecutor has not found the source of the leak, he has not found incriminating evidence. All he has is an aid to the VP, whose testimony was somewhat contradicted by two reporters. That Fitzgerald calls, obstruction of justice, and that is what his case has shrunk to.

     The affair began with a Robert Novak naming Valerie Plame as a CIA employee. But Libby is not accused of having been Novak's source. Rather, he is charged with having found out (from the VP it now turns out) who Joe Wilson's wife was, and having told Judith Miller who never wrote about it, and also having told Time magazine's Matthew Cooper, who only wrote about it after Mr. Novak's column. Also, Libby claimed to have told Tim Russert, but Russert denies this. That is what the indictment is about. It questions such fine matter as whether Libby told Cooper outright that Plame had been a CIA operative, or merely confirmed Cooper's question, whether that rumor was true.

     From such drivel the Iraq war's opponents have built this "scandal." The true scandal is how this story has been distorted.

     The real heart of the matter is whether it was responsible to worry about Saddam's nuclear ambitions. Were there new attempts to secure uranium ore in Niger? The White House asked the CIA to investigate. The CIA sent Ambassador Wilson. After the invasion Wilson wrote a NY Times op-ed claiming the administration had only pretended concern over Iraqi nuclear efforts. He had early on proved its concerns were unfounded.

     How an administration foe had been made the arbiter of Iraq's nuclear threat was explained by CIA and White House infighting. A CIA official hostile to the administration, had steered the Niger assignment to her husband. That is what Libby told the reporters. The husband had then used his findings to castigate an Iraq policy he opposed.

     How honest was that castigation? Wilson's op-ed was entirely partisan. He wrote it as a member of Kerry's campaign. And whom did the facts contradict? Wilson denied Novak's claim that his wife had recommended him for the job, but the Senate Intelligence Committee found that she had. Wilson claimed to have exposed forged Italian intelligence, but that material was only offered the intelligence community 8 months after Wilson's trip. Moreover, the committee found that the CIA considered Wilson's report as supporting, in a modest way, the possibility that Iraq was seeking ore from Niger. Finally, the independent British Butler inquiry found that President Bush's worries, as expressed in his 2003 State of the Union Address, about ore importation from Africa, were "well founded."

     Nichols' moral indignation and sneering tap dance are fake and malicious. He is a polemicist, not a journalist.

     Posted by nacl at 04/09/2006 @ 2:55pm

389. johannesrolf, yes it is in the washington post. thank u.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/09/2006 @ 3:07pm

390. Well, I'm glad to see you're having fun, but if it I was on the left, I'd be a little concerned when my Party has lost any substantial influence in every branch of government down to the State level because a majority of Americans know better than to accept leftist drivel. But hey, that's just me.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2006 @ 10:59am | ignore this person

     Pontifitard,

     Check the latest polls. Leave the safety of your trailer park and get out into the real world. Ask some folks. A majority of Americans are learning better than to accept your joke of a president, on almost every issue.

     And you are still one clueless idiot. How can you fit so much stupid in that skull of yours?

     I'd write more, loads more, but why bother? There's no getting through to those who have accepted George Dumbfuckya as their personal lord and savior.

     As someone asked earlier, what are you, Woodyee, CPT, Rio, Libz, and the other assorted apologist shills doing here at the Nation? Do you think you're hurting anybody here? Enlightening anyone here? Or do you just come here to throw around "terrorist" "unAmerican" "leftist" lefty", etc. like schoolyard taunts?

     You are intellectual failures, one and all.

     Set your brains on neutral and All Hail the Mighty W.

     Apologism makes me want to hurl as bad as blind faith does... and W's minions see them as the same thing.

     Alas, alas...

     Posted by New Dawn at 04/09/2006 @ 6:33pm

391. All he has is an aid to the VP, whose testimony was somewhat contradicted by two reporters. That Fitzgerald calls, obstruction of justice, and that is what his case has shrunk to.

     Lying to a grand jury about giving information regarding a CIA agen't status isn't flimsy, it's a felony. Since it was (alledgely) done to obstruct an inquiry into blowing Plame's cover, it's serious.

     Second, the issue isn't if the President had the authority to declassify information, but if he did or simply signed-off on selectively revealing classified information for purposes of political spin and, further, revealing information that was being called into question at the time.

     The real heart of the matter is whether it was responsible to worry about Saddam's nuclear ambitions.

     No, the heart of the matter is whether the Administration lied about Iraq's nuclear ambitions and its efforts in pursuance of them.

     A CIA official hostile to the administration, had steered the Niger assignment to her husband. That is what Libby told the reporters. The husband had then used his findings to castigate an Iraq policy he opposed.

     Where is your proof that she was hostile to the informations? As to steered, that overlooks the fact that Amb. Wilson was very well-qualified. He was the Acting Ambassador to both Iraq, had prior service in Niger and was the Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council from June 1997 until July 1998. In that capacity he was responsible for the coordination of U.S. policy to the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Of course you don't mention those qualifications because that would undercut the nepotism smear that you righties are indulging.

     Moreover, the committee found that the CIA considered Wilson's report as supporting, in a modest way, the possibility that Iraq was seeking ore from Niger.

     The Senate's report based the opinion that the uranium claims were supported on nothing more than a Nigerien minister's assumption that the Iraqi trade delegation was there to purchase uranium. Likewise, the Butler report simply made a conclusory assertion that intel supported the claim. This is the same administration that sexed-up the dossier. The vitural impossibility of surreptiously selling and transporting the unranium also supports Wilson's claim.

     Posted by brunowe at 04/09/2006 @ 8:11pm

392. Will C---Here is the good news buddy. Even after all that you have said and written you will still get more chances to get on board. You will still be allowed to join the home team during the tribulation. Christ gives everyone another chance, even you.

     Leftofcenter===all the groups that you mentioned will also get another chance for salvation. In keeping with your analogy, The Six Flags ride you mention is open to everyone and will be open to everyone while they are alive.

     There is no end of world result from the rapture, only a sudden and dramatic change in the world as we know it today. This change will be chaotic, and will bring about what is called the tribulation. After the seven years of the tribulation Christ will return and rule for 1000 years--a time of peace and prosperity.

     So now you guys know the facts and can criticize the religious beliefs of tens of millions of people and at least know what the heck you are talking about. I started this line of posting because of huge misconceptions concerning the rapture by many on this board. At least if you're going to criticize something you ought to know what it is. That way you can be truly insulting, arogant, condescinding, and elitest all at the same time, but at least you won't be uninformed.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 04/09/2006 @ 10:07pm

393. LM

     Actually I am pretty well informed on "Rapture" as well as Christianity (in a general sense) as well as Buddhism, Judaism, Confucianism, Shinto, some Pagan belief structures, and Hindu, Ba'hai, Zorasterism & Islam a bit less well. Blame that liberal college education...

     Of all I am more drawn to pagan structures and Hinduism for their reverence of natural phenomena, and Buddhism for their general enlightenment. Christianity does encompass some positive moral belief structures but its need (amongst biblical literalists) to supplant science wityh mumbo-jumbo, and its general condescension and disdain for any other religions amkes it mildly repugnant IMHO. Any religion that claims to be "the only true religion", in my estimation, has already claimed that it is the WRONG religion...kinda like the Mormons and their Heaven with "neighborhoods." Only real Mormons get "uptown" and the non-Mormons who have been saved, why they gets to stay in the projects!

     So thanks, but no thanks...you float away with the other snake-handlers...I'll take my chances here.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/09/2006 @ 10:28pm

394. leftofcenter===I agree with you, you do have a "general sense of Christianity" and I do blame it on a liberal college education. I was exposed to the same liberal college education in undergraduate and graduate school. The liberal indoctrination did not take.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 04/09/2006 @ 10:58pm

395. Will C---Here is the good news buddy. Even after all that you have said and written you will still get more chances to get on board. You will still be allowed to join the home team during the tribulation. Christ gives everyone another chance, even you.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/09/2006 @ 10:07pm

     boy you are one dumb son of a bitch. In addition to the world not being able to live without you, the rapture is also going to happen during your and my lifetime.

     question for you...

     when you snap your fingers exactly how high does God jump?

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 11:06pm

396. Liberty you have know idea what I accept or reject

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 11:28pm

397. nor do you have one clue what your favorite book is telling you

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 11:29pm

398. whoa liberty! dead to christ???? who pretends to be a minister on the nation blog? i've met some pretty ignorant ministers/priests in my time. but no real minister would ever say that. you're a fraud.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/09/2006 @ 11:38pm

399. he's a pastard

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 11:40pm

400. card carrying member of the evangelic abomination

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 11:41pm

401. Like PUNFECALNESS DISTRACTUS, LOVELYING liberally, is a repub operative begging us not to talk about the fact that the BC BS regime have cowardly outed a CIA cover, sacrificing our nation's future, security and WMD surveillance, just to protect themselves fearing exposure of their lying us to war. You could say indeed that-- BUSH is just cover for a Wussy.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/10/2006 @ 01:34am

402. "So now you guys know the facts and can criticize the religious beliefs of tens of millions of people and at least know what the heck you are talking about."

     The "facts" in a largely subjective (ask the Vatican) book written by men, not faxed down by God...

     BWAHhahahahaaHAHAHAhaahahahahaa

     Posted by New Dawn at 04/10/2006 @ 02:24am

403. Patrick Fitzgerald knows the truth.

     Bush is lying through his teeth when he claims that the information was declassified prior to Libby being told, and revealing it for Political AND Strategic reasons (to shut down the Brewster Jennings operation).

     http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/ legal_proceedings.html

     In the March 17, 2006 response, Fitzgerald states "in connection with an investigation concerning the disclosure to reporters of then-classified information regarding the employment of Valerie Plame".

     "THEN CLASSIFIED."

     Do you think he would have said that if it were not true? Listen to the ONE TRUE VOICE on this topic. If it had been declassified, don't you think at least one of the witnesses that he has deposed would have told him that - Under Oath?

     The Administration has the entire MSM parroting the line that it is not illegal because the President declassified it prior to the leak.

     THEY ARE ALL REPEATING A LIE WITH NO PROOF.

     Fitzgerald has the proof.

     This information WAS NOT declassified when it was leaked.

     Bush and Cheney are guilty of TREASON.

     Posted by plunger at 04/10/2006 @ 06:12am

404. http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm

     In the article posted above, it is stated:

     "The Zionist approach, that Jewish blood is the anointing oil needed for the wheels of the Zionist state, is not a thing of the past. It remains operable to this very day."

     This is the clearest statement pointing in the direction of the tactic that is used to achieve their ends. The tactic is False Flag Terrorism.

     Any Jew reading that statement should be fearful of Zionists.

     It is no secret that Israel sponsors frequent visits by US Senators and Congressman several times each year. Clearly, bus bombings and suicide bomb attacks of other sorts occur in Israel with frequency. It would be interesting to see a chart outlining the timing of these attacks, overlaid with the visits of US Officials to see the coincident relationship of each. A second chart showing the timing of such attacks coincident with votes on major legislation pertaining to the Israel/Palestinian conflict (whether in the United States Congress or at the United Nations) would also be interesting to review.

     "Coincidence Theory" may become a new field of study.

     Consider the following (an enlightening read):

     http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/3rd.html

     excerpts:

     As far as self perception is concerned, those who call themselves Jews could be divided into three main categories:

     1. those who follow Judaism.

     2. those who regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of Jewish origin.

     3. those who put their Jewishness over and above all of their other traits.

     Zionism, an International Network

     "Looking at Zionism as a global network operation would determine a major shift in our perspective of current world affairs:

     The Palestinians, for instance, aren't just the victims of the Israeli occupation, they are rather the victims of 3rd category Jews who decided to transform Palestine into a Jewish national bunker. The Iraqis, are better seen as the victims of the those 3rd category Jews who decided to transform the American army into a Jewish mission force. The Muslim world should be seen as a subject to some neo-conservative 3rd category tendency to make Nathan Sharansky's Democratic ideology into the new American Bible for the 3rd world.

     It is pretty depressing indeed.

     We are now starting to realize that Zionism shouldn't be seen merely as a nationalist movement with a clear geographical aspiration. It isn't exactly a colonial movement with an interest in Palestine. Zionism appears to be an international movement that is fuelled by the solidarity of 3rd category subjects. To be a Zionist means just to accept that more than anything else you are primarily a Jew.

     Obviously, the first two categories specify an harmless group of people. We do tend to respect religious people, as they are generally expected to be living inspired by their beliefs and are expected to abide by some sort of a higher spiritual code. Needless to say, we have no problem with the second category as well. One cannot choose one's origin. We agree that people must be respected and treated equally regardless of their origin or their racial and ethnic belonging.

     However the third category is largely problematic. Clearly, its definition may sound inflammatory to some. And yet, bizarrely enough, it is a general formulation of Chaim Weizmann's view of the Jewish identity as expressed in his famous address at the First Jewish Congress: "There are no English, French, German or American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany or America."[1]

     According to Weizmann, a prominent Zionist figure, Jewishness is a primary quality. You may be a Jew who dwells in England, a Jew who plays the violin or even a Jew against Zionism. But above all else you are a Jew. And this is exactly the idea conveyed by the 3rd category. It is all about viewing Jewishness as the key element in one's being. Any other quality is secondary."

     And thus we arrive back on the shores of the United States and examine the admitted Cabal of "Neocons" (code for "Zionists") who installed themselves in positions within our governmental structure to enable the successful attacks on 9/11 as the pretext for the implementation of their PNAC/Zionist plan.

     http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

     You know their names, and you know that most of them are Jewish. That some are afforded dual-citizenship in Israel is said to imply that they have dual-loyalties. Clearly this in not the case. Their loyalty is to Zionism. They just operate in the United States and hold US Citizenship (until we revoke it for their Treason).

     This is the same network that operated within the Department Of Defense under the watchful eyes of Dick Cheney (The Office Of Special Plans), to manufacture false "intelligence" with which to create the pretext for the invasion of Iraq while blocking actual intelligence from reaching the desk of the President.

     Mossad has the perfect cover to operate within America. It is legal for them to spy on us, in fact, according to Sharon, they "Control" us. The only recourse is deportation, and Zionist Chertoff has dutifully deported hundreds of Mossad agents when he found it politically necessary to. They are easily replaced. When over 200 Mossad were operating within the United States in the lead up to 9/11 (purportedly shadowing the real Arab terrorists) they operated with all of the freedoms afforded them within the United States. In the days prior to 9/11, it is said that Mossad alerted agents within the US government of a pending attack. Were these agents Zionists or loyal US Citizens? Was this purported "alert" a warning, or merely final planning and coordination?

     The results seem to speak for themselves.

     Considering that Mossad prides itself on operating in secrecy and by way of deception, it must have come as a massive shock to see the news accounts of their undercover agents celebrating and filming the attacks on 9/11. The Intersection of Big Oil, The Religious Right, The Military Industrial Complex and Zionism all caught on one precious video tape. The evidence of this crime was captured by the perpetrators themselves. Their actions, the subsequent behavior of the Zionists within our own government to cover it all up, and the subsequent "spiking" of all news accounts related to this event all serve as Evidence of their role in the greatest crime ever committed.

     http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column100.html

     Zionist Chertoff was not only tasked with quietly deporting these Mossad agents, he was additionally tasked with covering up the money trail. These facts are known to all who purportedly "serve" our interests in the halls of our government, yet when Mr. Chertoff was put forward as the nominee to head up our Department of Homeland Security, he was approved UNANIMOUSLY. Any vote against him or any question as to his loyalty would have resulted in the wrath of AIPAC – a career-ending position to be in.

     Control of the United States Government has been lost. Our destiny is presently in the hands of a foreign power (Israel) and an ideology (Zionism) as a direct result of a proven tactic (False Flag Terrorism) as proscribed by the "Roadmap for War" (PNAC).

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

     Posted by plunger at 04/10/2006 @ 06:35am

405. Will C----As to being a dumb sob---I am sorry that you feel that way. I have some degrees and an IQ test that disagees with you but that doesn't really matter, you are entitled to your opinion. When I said the word "you" I was referring to all people who are unsaved, not just you. I have no idea when the rapture will take place. I have made no such claim.

     New Dawn---I did give the "facts" concerning the rapture according to Evangelicals. That was the subject being discussed. Some posters on this board apparently thought they knew what was to happen during the Rapture (according to Evangelicals), they were incorrect. I tried to set them straight. Since the misconceptions have continued, it appeares that my efforts have largely fallen on deaf ears/blind eyes.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 04/10/2006 @ 07:44am

406. LM

     Funny thing....in my case "It did take" and I'm better for it...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/10/2006 @ 07:50am

407. LoveLoki, just so there's no misunderstanding I think Hersh's interpretation of Bush is absolutely correct and he's right to say so explicitly. And more or less based on that I think I'm changing my mind on the other conclusions he draws too. The more airtime this guy gets, the better.

     Kind of amusing we've got Messiah and Rapture sub-threads running independently here. I'll look for that Post story.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 04/10/2006 @ 07:51am

408. some degrees?

     I have 98.6 degrees

     and Len

     what makes you think that I was in any danger?

     Posted by Will C. at 04/10/2006 @ 09:34am

409. .

     BRUNOWE 04/09 @ 8:11pm

     Lying to a grand jury about giving information regarding a CIA agen't status isn't flimsy, it's a felony. Since it was (alledgely) done to obstruct an inquiry into blowing Plame's cover, it's serious.

     You misstate the situation. The perjury charge is unrelated to Plame or her job at the CIA. Fitzgerald said:

     ... we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR200510 2801340.html

     You also distort my words. I didn't say, perjury is a flimsy crime. I said Fitzgerald perjury charge centers on slight differences in Libby's recollection of a conversations with Miller, Cooper and Russert, and their recollections. That is flimsy, especially since, even if Libby's account had matched the reporters' perfectly he would not have incriminated himself and Fitzgerald would not have been any nearer to knowing who outed Plame.

     the issue is ... if he [Bush] did [declassify responsibly] or simply signed-off on selectively revealing classified information for purposes of political spin and, further, revealing information that was being called into question at the time.

     Be honest, neither you or Nichols are prepared to grant the possibility that Plame's declassification might have been legitimate, and certainly harmless. You proceed from the assumption that her status was changed in disregard of her safety or usefulness as an agent. But in fact, she had been fingered as a CIA agent by the Cubans and again in 1997, by the Soviets, via the CIA spy Ames, which had required her recall. She was no longer living abroad as an agent. She now drove daily to her office at Langley. She was openly identifiable as a CIA employee. Anyone watching the cars taking the spur into Langley and the turn into the parking lot would have been aware of her daily coming and going. She had become what most of the tens of thousands of CIA and DIA and NSA employees are, home based analysts, translators, code clerks, etc. With a desk job at the CIA she was no longer covert and no longer needed to be labeled a state secret. Moreover, there is no indication that Libby revealed or even knew that her job had at one time been that of an agent in deep cover.

     Posted by nacl at 04/10/2006 @ 09:49am

410. NACL -

     Libby's current charges are "unrelated" to Plame? Argue what you want, I guess, but that's a pretty ridiculous assertion.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/10/2006 @ 10:00am

411. .

     BRUNOWE 04/09 @ 8:11pm

     nacl: The real heart of the matter is whether it was responsible to worry about Saddam's nuclear ambitions.

     Brunowe: No, the heart of the matter is whether the Administration lied about Iraq's nuclear ambitions and its efforts in pursuance of them.

     By what calculus was it less important to know whether Saddam's nuclear ambition remained dangerous, than whether the govt exaggerated it? Explain your values.

     The reality is that ever since 1948 when the USSR exploded its first A bomb, something thought impossible for another decade at least, the US has ever been surprised by the technological leaps of her enemies. We were stunned when the USSR was almost first in developing the H bomb. Sputnik in 1957 came as a shock. So too China's A bomb in 1963 and H bomb four years later. We were caught underestimating the Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs, and the N. Korean. It turned out that Saddam was within reach of a nuclear weapon in 1980 and again in 1990. When Blix, who as IAEA head had given Saddam a clean bill of health was shown the data he said: he had us fooled. As late as 2002 the IAEA warned that Iraq retained a bomb and centrifuge design and a trained technical infrastructure which, if given the materials could quickly produce a bomb.

     The British Butler commission found that Bush's 16 words in the SUA were "well founded." But your main concern is US exaggerations of Iraq's nuclear abilities.

     Where is your proof that she [Plame] was hostile to the informations? As to steered, that overlooks the fact that Amb. Wilson was very well-qualified.

     I said, Plame was hostile to the administration, not to the information. That certainly was borne out by her husband serving as a close aide to Kerry. Moreover, I did not claim that Wilson was not an experienced diplomat, only that he was highly political. I.e., he approached the task with an agenda.

     the Butler report simply made a conclusory assertion that intel supported the claim. This is the same administration that sexed-up the dossier.

     That the dossier was "sexed up" was the accusation. The verdict of the investigation by the the respected, High Court Judge, Lord Hutton, was that the dossier was honest.

     The Senate Intelligence Committee found that Wilson's report gave modest support to the possibility of uranium sales.

     The vitural impossibility of surreptitiously selling and transporting the unranium also supports Wilson's claim.

     Tell the Pakistanis who managed to sell, buy, and transport across far flung regions, not only the ore, but centrifuges and entire SCUD missiles that what they did was "virtually imposible."

     The trouble is, you are mostly about a big mouth and rancor. The administration has both of that too, but in addition it has responsibility for the security of this country. It lives in daily fear that something dreadful will bust loose on its watch. It must seriously consider worst case scenarios. You give that no thought.

     Posted by nacl at 04/10/2006 @ 10:06am

412. NACL

     This is straight from the indictment

     "In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,

     I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY," defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA."

     "Be honest, neither you or Nichols are prepared to grant the possibility that Plame's declassification might have been legitimate"

     The point is, it apparently wasn't declassified when Bush authorized the disclosure.

     "You proceed from the assumption that her status was changed in disregard of her safety or usefulness as an agent."

     Actually, the CIA recently said that she was still covert. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek

     Posted by brunowe at 04/10/2006 @ 10:10am

413. NACL

     Tell the Pakistanis who managed to sell, buy, and transport across far flung regions, not only the ore, but centrifuges and entire SCUD missiles that what they did was "virtually imposible.

     We're not talking about the Pakistanis, where talking about a Nigerien mine that was under the tight control of a international consortium. Further, Pakistan had its own nuclear research program, the fruits of which they shared. Niger has neither. The invoke Pakistan instead of looking at the reality of Niger's situation only shows the paucity of your argument.

     That certainly was borne out by her husband serving as a close aide to Kerry. Moreover, I did not claim that Wilson was not an experienced diplomat, only that he was highly political. I.e., he approached the task with an agenda.

     He worked for Kerry after the administration outed his wife. That hardly suggests anti-Bush bias before they did that.

     It must seriously consider worst case scenarios. You give that no thought.

     I give that plenty of thought, that's how I know that the administration was deliberately misrepresenting the actual risks in order to justify a policy that was in the works before 9-11.

     By what calculus was it less important to know whether Saddam's nuclear ambition remained dangerous, than whether the govt exaggerated it? Explain your values.

     Because we can't make a valid judgement about Hussein's threat level is our government is lying to us.

     Posted by brunowe at 04/10/2006 @ 10:17am

414. Bush is a liar. All this blind faith in this "man" will lead you nowhere. Since some are speaking of religion, pray for Bush and pray for his supporters because obviously they don't kow evil when they see it. Also, I'm with Plunger on the Isreal-war with Iran tie. The longer we stay all up Isreal's ass, the further towards rock-bottom(if we haven't gotten there already) we will go. Let Israel fight their own damn battles. I'm tired of the U.S. being their bodyguards. What are they so afraid of anyway, don't they have the top Air Force in the world? Oh yeah, good morning people.

     Posted by k330k at 04/10/2006 @ 10:28am

415. will:"I have 98.6 degrees"

     hey, 98.6, it's good to have you back again..

     pop tune circa 60s

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/10/2006 @ 10:50am

416. .

     HMAN23 @ 10:00am BRUNOWE @ 10:10am

     Libby's current charges are "unrelated" to Plame? Argue what you want, I guess, but that's a pretty ridiculous assertion.

     HMAN, you have RRUNOW'S excerpt from the indictment.

     LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY," defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA."

     ... we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR200510 2801340.html

     Libby is not accused of outing Plame as a CIA intelligence agent. His perjury charge does not relate to what he said or did not say about Plame, but his recollection of what he said, as compared to the recollection of the reporters. That he lied is the issue, not that he lied about Plame.

     We're not talking about the Pakistanis, where talking about a Nigerien mine that was under the tight control of a international consortium. Further, Pakistan had its own nuclear research program, the fruits of which they shared. Niger has neither. The invoke Pakistan instead of looking at the reality of Niger's situation only shows the paucity of your argument.

     We are talking about a large world and a long history where everything is considered impossible and inconceivable until, in shock and with a dropped jaw, it is shown to have not only been conceived, but accomplished. The CIA has been at the center of these mistakes including its mis-evaluation of the USSR even as it was crumbling. The White House had a responsibility to be skeptical and distrustful with regard to Saddam's nuclear potential.

     He worked for Kerry after the administration outed his wife. That hardly suggests anti-Bush bias before they did that.

     Wilson did not turn anti administration after the Plame scandal but before it. He showed his hand with his tendentious July op-ed in the NYT.

     I give that [a worst case scenario] plenty of thought, that's how I know that the administration was deliberately misrepresenting the actual risks in order to justify a policy that was in the works before 9-11.

     You'll have to explain how that sentence makes sense.

     ... we can't make a valid judgement about Hussein's threat level if our government is lying to us.

     You start out with the assumption that the govt is lying. You do not start out considering that the govt has consistently underestimated the nuclear programs of everyone from the USSR to N. Korea, including that of Saddam in 1980 and 1990. (It even underestimated the nuclear danger during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The CIA assumed no warheads had yet been delivered to Castro, when in fact, as it turned out, they were already in place.)

     Your worry that the US govt is lying rather than that Saddam may get nukes comes down to this reality: You considered the US govt your enemy and Saddam your friend.

     Posted by nacl at 04/10/2006 @ 11:14am

417. Your worry that the US govt is lying rather than that Saddam may get nukes comes down to this reality: You considered the US govt your enemy and Saddam your friend.

     We'll I think that McCarthyite rant speaks volumes about the intellectual rigor behind your arguments. When all else fails, impugn the patriotism of people who disagree with you. Incidentally, I've never shaken hands with Hussein, unlike our current Secretary of Defense.

     His perjury charge does not relate to what he said or did not say about Plame

     Your argument was the "Libby's current charges are 'unrelated' to Plame", saying that he wasn't charged with knowing Plame's covert status doesn't refute that. The indictment clearly argues that Libby lied about knowing about Plame's CIA employment and about disclosing it. So, in fact he is accused about lying about Plame.

     The White House had a responsibility to be skeptical and distrustful with regard to Saddam's nuclear potential.

     You start out with the assumption that the govt is lying.

     The White House has a responsibility to not deliberately exaggerate the risks to execute an agenda that was already in the books. The fact that the Soviet Union was ahead of schedule has nothing to do with whether Iraq was. When Blix was doing the inspections in 2003, he constant went to sites that our intelligence said had WMDs, and constantly came up empty. Incidentally, that also indicates that I'm not assuming that the administration way lying; I know it.

     Wilson did not turn anti administration after the Plame scandal but before it. He showed his hand with his tendentious July op-ed in the NYT.

     The op-ed wasn't tendentious, nor an example of bias. He simply presented the very legitimate position that nothing in his trip to Niger supported the administration's contention that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from them. Only a right-wing ideologue like you would describe calling the administration like this as being an example of bias.

     I give that [a worst case scenario] plenty of thought, that's how I know that the administration was deliberately misrepresenting the actual risks in order to justify a policy that was in the works before 9-11.

     Simple, the worst-case scenarios wasn't the Iraq had nukes. The Blix inspections in 2003 were turning up nothing, time and again, even at the places which we said had incriminating evidence. Likewise, the aluminum tubes that Rice said could only be used for centrifuges were, in fact, for artillery. A worst-case scenario can't just be something you dream up to justify an invasion that people in the Bush administration were looking for a pretext for, it has to have some factual basis. It was precisely from looking at the information that was coming up that one may conclude that the admin. was mispresenting the issue.

     Posted by brunowe at 04/10/2006 @ 11:55am

418. .

     BRUNOWE 04/10/2006 @ 11:55am

     We'll I think that McCarthyite rant speaks volumes about the intellectual rigor behind your arguments. When all else fails, impugn the patriotism of people who disagree with you. Incidentally, I've never shaken hands with Hussein, unlike our current Secretary of Defense.

     McCarthyism is brandishing labels and emotions instead of facts and reasoned claims. What is behind my argument is this exchange:

     nacl: The real heart of the matter is whether it was responsible to worry about Saddam's nuclear ambitions.

     Brunowe: No, the heart of the matter is whether the Administration lied about Iraq's nuclear ambitions and its efforts in pursuance of them.

     What does that mean, other than whether Saddam has nukes is less of a concern to you than that our govt exaggerates Iraq's nuclear program.

     That your response is to accuse me of McCarthyism is demagogy. Moreover, so is this:

     I've never shaken hands with Hussein, unlike our current Secretary of Defense.

     In 1983 Iran's military threatened to break the Iraqi army and to seize the Gulf's oil fields. That would have given Ayatollah Komeini, for whom the US was the Great Satan, control of America's life blood. It would have been catastrophic for the entire West. Thus Reagan sent Rumsfeld to Baghdad in late Dec 1993 to reestablish diplomatic relations with Iraq, off since 1967 (they resumed in Nov 1984), and to help Iraq contain the Iranians, mainly with satellite intelligence. That was on the par with FDR sending Harry Hopkins to Moscow to help Stalin fight the German invasion.

     Your sneer at that Rumsfeld/Saddam handshake is the essence of McCarthyism. The truth is that Rumsfeld detested Saddam while you sided with him against the US were enraged by his ejection.

     The indictment clearly argues that Libby lied about knowing about Plame's CIA employment and about disclosing it. So, in fact he is accused about lying about Plame.

     For the third time, Fitzgerald, whose job was to indict the person who outed Plame, went out of his way to say:

     ... we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR200510 2801340.html

     Yet he did bring a criminal charge against LIbby. Thus it is fair to say, Libby was not faulted for outing Plame, but for something different: for misinforming the grand jury about what he had told the three reporters.

     The White House has a responsibility to not deliberately exaggerate the risks to execute an agenda that was already in the books.

     That sentence is indecipherable because you cannot explain your feelings logically, even to yourself.

     The fact that the Soviet Union was ahead of schedule has nothing to do with whether Iraq was.

     That the US consistently underestimated the nuclear and technological progress of its rivals should indicate, if anything, that US intelligence estimates are not give to exaggeration but the opposite.

     When Blix was doing the inspections in 2003, he constant went to sites that our intelligence said had WMDs, and constantly came up empty.

     Blix, in his book, Disarming Iraq, admits that he believed down to the eve of the invasion, that Iraq was hiding WMDs. Furthermore, in 1994 Blix admitted, in a Guardian interview, that he, as head of the IAEA had declared Saddam's nuclear program peaceful when subsequent documents revealed that it had been near to producing nuclear weapons. Blix said, "He had us fooled."

     I'm not assuming that the administration was lying; I know it.

     You know it though an itch in your liver. You have the information in your locked briefcase, but Mr. Chairman, you can't lay out the evidence in a reasoned and factual fashion.

     The op-ed wasn't tendentious,

     I explained in the next to last paragraph of my NACL 04/09 @ 2:55pm post, why it was tendentious. Answer that.

     Simple, the worst-case scenarios wasn't the Iraq had nukes. The Blix inspections in 2003 were turning up nothing, time and again . . . A worst-case scenario can't just be something you dream up . . . the admin. was mispresenting the issue.

     The worst case scenario was that, if he was not ejected, Saddam would, the moment the heat was off, reactivate his substantial nuclear infrastructure, trained scientists and engineers, weapon designs, a centrifuge prototype. By hook or by crook, he could acquire sufficient fissile material and then would be quite capable of quickly making a few bombs. That he had already been twice within reach of such an arsenal was no dream but real.

     You are misrepresenting the issue. You are doing so in complete disregard of the facts logic. You are a fanatic on whom all argument is wasted.

     Posted by nacl at 04/10/2006 @ 1:32pm

419. .

     CONTINUATION OF BRUNOWE @ 11:55am

     I did not have time to format the last part of the above post. But that is too confusing. So I am repeating the latter part of that post, formated.

     The fact that the Soviet Union was ahead of schedule has nothing to do with whether Iraq was.

     That the US consistently underestimated the nuclear and technological progress of its rivals should indicate, if anything, that US intelligence estimates are not give to exaggeration but the opposite.

     When Blix was doing the inspections in 2003, he constant went to sites that our intelligence said had WMDs, and constantly came up empty.

     Blix, in his book, Disarming Iraq, admits that he believed down to the eve of the invasion, that Iraq was hiding WMDs. Furthermore, in 1994 Blix admitted, in a Guardian interview, that he, as head of the IAEA had declared Saddam's nuclear program peaceful when subsequent documents revealed that it had been near to producing nuclear weapons. Blix said, "He had us fooled."

     I'm not assuming that the administration was lying; I know it.

     You know it though an itch in your liver. You have the information in your locked briefcase, but Mr. Chairman, you can't lay out the evidence in a reasoned and factual fashion.

     The op-ed wasn't tendentious,

     I explained in the next to last paragraph of my NACL 04/09 @ 2:55pm post, why it was tendentious. Answer that.

     Simple, the worst-case scenarios wasn't the Iraq had nukes. The Blix inspections in 2003 were turning up nothing, time and again . . . A worst-case scenario can't just be something you dream up . . . the admin. was mispresenting the issue.

     The worst case scenario was that, if he was not ejected, Saddam would, the moment the heat was off, reactivate his substantial nuclear infrastructure, trained scientists and engineers, weapon designs, a centrifuge prototype. By hook or by crook, he could acquire sufficient fissile material and then would be quite capable of quickly making a few bombs. That he had already been twice within reach of such an arsenal was no dream but real.

     You are misrepresenting the issue. You are doing so in complete disregard of the facts and logic. You are a fanatic on whom all argument is wasted.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 04/10/2006 @ 1:47pm

420. NACL:

     I know what Libby is charged with - thanks.

     I do not think it is all too controversial that his charges relate to Plame/Wilson - you for some bizarre reason cannot seem to admit that.

     Yes, he is not being charged with what he said about Plame to reporters - for the simple reason that he is accused of LYING about whether or not he even talked to reporters, and that he lied about the subjects he discussed.

     I'd say his charges ARE unrelated to Enron, the Boston Red Sox, or my kitchen plumbing, but they are clearly related to Plame. Because you cannot admit that simple fact, I cannot even justify reading the remainder of your posts.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/10/2006 @ 3:15pm

421. You are misrepresenting the issue. You are doing so in complete disregard of the facts and logic. You are a fanatic on whom all argument is wasted.

     You have neither provided facts nor logic.

     nacl: The real heart of the matter is whether it was responsible to worry about Saddam's nuclear ambitions.

     Brunowe: No, the heart of the matter is whether the Administration lied about Iraq's nuclear ambitions and its efforts in pursuance of them.

     What does that mean, other than whether Saddam has nukes is less of a concern to you than that our govt exaggerates Iraq's nuclear program.

     McCarthyism is accusing people who don't following your political line of subversion, sedition, being in favor of the enemies of this country. That is exactly what you have done. What my statement means, and I'm probably wasting my time since plain English is lost on you, is that the threat of if Saddam had nukes was deliberately exaggerated. Since there was no credible evidence to believe such a threat existed (no centrifuges, no uranium from Niger), the bigger issue because the series of exaggerations issued by the Bush administration. It is a bigger issue because that is real while the Saddam WMD "threat" was a phantom.

     "... we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. "

     All that phrase means is that they aren't charging that he knew she was covert. He is charged with lying about mentioning her CIA status to Miller and Cooper. Therefore the charges are Plame related. Further, the alleged lies had the effect of obstructing the investigation into who outed her, thus he is accused of covering the tracks of the culprit. Bear in mind that you didn't see he wasn't charged with intentionally outing a covert agent, you said the charges were unrelated to Plame, something entirely different.

     What matters is not what Blix assumed but what he found, or didn't find. Blix himself stated that he "needed evidence". He didn't find any. It is the facts of what was, or wasn't found, that are dispositive. You don't start a war on assumptions.

     The White House has a responsibility to not deliberately exaggerate the risks to execute an agenda that was already in the books.

     Simple, the White House had Iraq in their sights from the beginning of the Administration. They exaggerated the risks of Hussein's regime in order to justify that agenda. They had a responsibility to not do so.

     The truth is that Rumsfeld detested Saddam while you sided with him against the US were enraged by his ejection.

     Where is your proof of any sentiments of Rumsfeld towards Saddam at the time. Secondly, the enraged by his ejection statement is pure demagougery. I had no problem with his ejection. I do have a problem with a war that was based on lies, that had neither sufficient moral nor strategic justification and that has involved us in a quagmire and the very real possibility of Iran getting exactly what that aspired to in the 80s, a pro-Iran Iraq.

     I explained in the next to last paragraph of my NACL 04/09 @ 2:55pm post, why it was tendentious. Answer that.

     I did answer that. I asked for proof the Plame was against the invasion, you didn't provide it. I pointed out that the Senate report's conclusion that Wilson was wrong was based only on the assumption of a Nigerien minister that the Iraq delegation was seeking uranium and that the Butler report's assertion that intel sources support that assertion was purely conclusory.

     You know it though an itch in your liver. You have the information in your locked briefcase, but Mr. Chairman, you can't lay out the evidence in a reasoned and factual fashion.

     Let's see: Rice's assertion that the aluminum tubes could only be used for centrifuges Bush's 2002 assertion that Iraq was reconstituting its weapons program Bush's assertion that Iraq had UAVs that could spread chemical and biological weapons Bush's repeated conflation of al-Qaida and Hussein

     Posted by brunowe at 04/10/2006 @ 3:20pm

422. hey, 98.6, it's good to have you back again..

     pop tune circa 60s

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/10/2006 @ 10:50am

     I also have 10cc, 38 special and 4 non blonds.

     :)

     (i'm a big fan of non blonds)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/10/2006 @ 4:35pm

423. .

     HMAN23 04/10 @ 3:15pm

     I cannot even justify reading the remainder of your posts.

     Right, don't waste your time. Do yourself a favor, and me. Don't read any more of my posts.

     Thank you.

     '

     Posted by nacl at 04/10/2006 @ 7:01pm

424. Rep. Maurice Hinchey has been miles and years ahead of most of the Congressional leadership on so many vital issues. Of course, the war in Iraq, where he takes a back seat to no one except perhaps Dennis Kucinich. But also particularly on environmental issues. The steady and accelerating degradation of the natural world environment has not only doomed most non-human animals, but our turn is coming. The unbelievably short-sighted and selfish actions of the corporations and their greedy CEOs; and our stupidly militaristic world governments have ruined so much wild habitat, driven whales and dolphins to mass suicides (thanks to over-use of sonar that drives them insance, poor things), and polluted our air an water beyond saving. Rep. Hinchey is one of the few representatives who truly cares about such matters. When you hear or read his words, it makes one weep that such a fine man is not in a position of real power, such as the presidency.

     Posted by Eileen Fay at 04/10/2006 @ 8:35pm

425. NACL:

     No problem - ignore this person

     click!

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/11/2006 @ 12:03am

426. .

     HMAN23 04/11 @ 12:03am

     - ignore this person click!

     I will never understand how it is an advantage to make oneself blind and defenseless against an opponent who is not deprived of his punch.

     Posted by nacl at 04/11/2006 @ 02:05am

427. .

     BRUNOWE 04/10 @ 3:20pm

     You are convinced, the US govt has lied; that makes the US an unmitigated evil which justified siding with a fascist dictator who pulled out the tongues of his critics and mass murdered hundreds of thousands. That is your logic. That is your moral position.

     The conversation is pointless. I respond to one objection and you simply go on to another, and the next time you return to the earlier cavil as if it had not been discussed.

     Now you say:

     Let's see: Rice's assertion that the aluminum tubes could only be used for centrifuges Bush's 2002 assertion that Iraq was reconstituting its weapons program Bush's assertion that Iraq had UAVs that could spread chemical and biological weapons Bush's repeated conflation of al-Qaida and Hussein

     Surely you know that Bush acted on findings confirmed by every intelligence service in the West. Not even Russia or France demurred.

     Iraq had WMDs because the West and Russia and China had sold them to her. An inventory of everything she had purchased was compiled. The weapons and materials expanded in war were subtracted. So too what the inspectors had found and had destroyed. The conclusion was that a substantial arsenal remained.

     Saddam claimed he had wrecked and burned it all. Show us where, show us the documents. Every explosion leaves traces. Even the Big Bang of 13 billion years ago yet showes signs of its existence. That was the demand. Saddam shrugged. He refused to support his claims, and Bush refused to believe him.

     Should he have? One should believe a creature like Saddam on such a critical matter?

     None of the intelligence services believed him. Bush suspect Saddam of the worst. Because that was Saddam's record and because it was Bush's job not to be suckered, and not to take chances with the national security interests of the USA.

     Colonel John McLaughlin was Colin Powel's chief of staff. In an Oct 2003 speech he tried to explain why Powel had misinformed the Security Council in his Feb 2003 address. McLaughlin said:

     "I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't. I've wrestled with it. I don't know – and people say, well, INR [State Department Intelligence] dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios . . . I wasn't all that convinced by the evidence I'd seen that he had a nuclear program other than the software. That is to say there are some discs or there were some scientists and so forth but he hadn't reconstituted it. He was going to wait until the international tension was off of him, until the sanctions were down, and then he was going to go back – certainly go back to all of his programs. I mean, I was convinced of that.

     "The consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming. I can still hear George Tenet telling me, and telling my boss in the bowels of the CIA, that the information we were delivering – which we had culled considerably – we had culled it very much – we had thrown whole reams of paper out that the White House had created. But George was convinced, John McLaughlin was convinced that what we presented was accurate. And contrary to what you were hearing in the papers and other places, one of the best relationships we had in fighting terrorists and in intelligence in general was with guess who? The French. In fact, it was probably the best. And they were right there with us. . .

     "In fact, I'll just cite one more thing. The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by god, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments? We were wrong." Full Text.

     US intelligence has often been wrong. I have already reminded you of some of those past errors. I could have added, Pearl Harbor, the Yom Kipur war, the Manhattan Project. The US invested billions to make an A bomb on the supposition that the Germans had an advanced program. They didn't.

     How would FDR have defended that program, all of which was illegally funded behind the back of the Congress? He would have said, I had a responsibility. I had to consider worst case scenarios. I could not risk being caught flatfooted by a Nazi A-bomb. But you are disgusted with Bush and side with a fascist insurgency, because the president acted on the mistaken view of a danger all the intelligence services were sure was real.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 04/11/2006 @ 02:49am

428. NaCl

     re: "You are convinced, the US govt has lied; that makes the US an unmitigated evil which justified siding with a fascist dictator"

     The simple problem with your assessment it is has no supportable internal logic. Time and again you try and posit the argument that if someone says the US did something wrong (with respect to the build-up towar), that they are saying that they support Saddaam.

     ...and the dreaded aluminum tubes is laughable. The IAEC, US physicists, the US DOE, the State Dept, all told Bush the tubes couldn't be put to that use. Even Colin Powell doubted they could. Try this on for size: Intel

     It is evident that intent of the BushCo regime was to try and stabilize the mideast by invading Iraq well before 9/11 [Cheney Energy task force FOIA docs showing Iraq & Afghani oil fields and potential developers, Downing Street Memo and the newer US equivalent] and the evidence that the Admin is generically rife with corruption just keeps rolling off your back.

     You remain an erudite apologist who, for whatever unfathomable reason, cannot entertain the idea that the almighty Dubya acts amorally without pause.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/11/2006 @ 10:02am