“What is surprising, is how little attention [the memo] has received in some of the most important news media in the United States despite its being an official document that contradicts the North American version of the beginning of the war.” —Jorge Ramos Avalos, Washington correspondent for Univision. The Downing Street Memos have provided an unexpected fright for the minority of… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (151)Page 1 of 1 pagesThanks to “In These Times” for running this story. It provides an excellent critique of the media’s mishandling of the Downing Street memo issue. Any conservative rants about a “liberal” media are now officially bunk as the corporate press’ treatment of this story has been virtually non-existent so far. I know several conservatives who whine that the Washington Post is liberal. Well, now I can direct them to this story, which exposes Dana Milbank for the conservative mole he is.
Personally, I was so upset about the media’s non-coverage of the memos that I began handing copies of the memo out to the general public during my weekly anti-war protests. If the media refuses to cover this story, then the citizenry must picket, march, and rally until the complacent mainstream media does its job.
Posted by Bud on Jul 13, 2005 at 8:10 PM Yea, the lack of will for the MSM to expose the seriousness of the Downing Street Memos says volumes. The sad thing is that it is no surprise.
I saw much of the coverage of the Conyers hearing on C-Span that took place in the basement. They were investigating to see if there needs to be an investigation! It was a breath of fresh air to hear the truth and to find some voices of honesty and reason left in our overly corrupt gov’t.. Here are some members of Congress willing to listen to the public and to take seriously the infractions of public trust. It’s a real shame that the mainstream media is so complicit in the dishonest world of war propaganda.Between this, and the CIA leak, and a thousand other reasons, this administration demonstrates an inability to put our nation before their own political agendas.
Sick of it? Vote to Impeach!
http://impeachbush.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=VTI_homepage
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 13, 2005 at 8:32 PM While reading this article, the following questions came to my mind:
1) Is it true that we (the US and international intelligence community) “knew” that Saddam had WMD? (For instance, did we “know” during the Clinton administration?)
1a) Does anyone know what happened to the WMD that Iraq had and inspectors cateloged? (Were they destroyed in secret? Shipped to terrorists? Or?)
2) Is it true that UN sanctions were imposed on Iraq due to WMD - and that these sanctions coupled with Saddams complete indifference to the suffering of his people - led to 100’s of thousands of deaths (many of which were children)?
3) Is it true that Saddam gassed (WMD) his **own** people?
4) Is it true that his torturing of Iraqis was hundreds (thousands. millions?) of times worse than anything the US is suspected (or proven) to have done in Iraq (including feeding people into plastic shreders)?
5) Is it true that UN inspections did not work, since Saddam would pretend to cooperate and then change his mind?
6) Is it not true that the US (or any other country, for that matter) has very little experience in nation building, and hence planning for it is very difficult? (I do recall we had some difficulties in reconstructing Europe after WWII.)
7) Finally, is it not true that many Muslims are being led by madman, whose main agenda is to kill infidels (a perfect example is the killing of Van Gogh recently - the killer was very vocal in his reasons and intentions).
(In tregards to “the war starting a year early” - is this a reference to the increased patrols in the no-fly zone?)
While i am not “pro-war” i wonder: what would have been a better alternative? To do nothing and allow Saddam and sanctions to further destroy Iraq? To lift sanctions and allow Saddam to pursue his agenda (anyone doubt he wanted to build WMD?) and continue to kill his own population (including his sons in law!!!)? Or???
Please don’t flame - take this at face value. I would love to be persuaded that a better alternative existed. . . i just really don’t see it.
Posted by Thomas on Jul 13, 2005 at 9:00 PM Thomas,
The reference to starting the war a year earlier deals with a massive increase in U.S. sorties against Iraqi military infrastructure. The bombings targeted sites that had nothing to do with the reason the no-fly zones were imposed in the first place, such as naval and communication facilities. Furthermore, the Downing Street memos give evidence that the U.S.-U.K., if they could not establish a pre-existing legal rationale for invasion, would attempt to induce Saddam into attacking western aircraft, thus giving a “casus belli” for an invasion.
Second, the U.N. weapons inspectors destroyed Iraqi WMD on-site throughout the 1990s. Saddam was a murderer, but not suicidal. So it is implausible that he would readily give away his WMDs to Muslim fanatics like Al- Qaeda and thus lose his only bargaining chip with the western world.
Finally, in 2001 the U.S. agreed to modify the sanctions against Iraq, the so-called “smart sanctions.” These would have prevented goods clearly compatible with military use from entering the country, but would have allowed civilian necessities like medicine and pencil erasers into Iraq.
Posted by Bud on Jul 13, 2005 at 10:24 PM Thomas,
To expand on my last posting:
First, on average, Saddam obstructed the U.N. weapons inspectors about once a month. Given that UNSCOM was traveling everywhere in Iraq and visited thousands of facilites, I would hardly say that Iraq was being “uncooperative.” In addition, if UNSCOM accounted for 95% of Iraqi WMD, then Saddam did not do much obstruction at all in the end!!
Second, the sanctions devastated the Iraqi people, not Saddam’s own policies. Prior to the 1990-1991 U.S. airstrikes which obliterated the domestic infrastructure, Iraq was a fairly developed and modern state whose universities were attended by students all across the Middle East. I am not downplaying Saddam’s atrocities, rather I am just comparing Iraq before and after the first Gulf War. A consequence of the sanctions was a 160% spike in the infant mortality rate, according to UNICEF. We all know that Saddam did not suddenly begin killing babies, so the sanctions are to blame.
Third, what Clinton thought about Iraqi WMD compared to Bush II are incomparable, since we know for certain that by 2002-03, Iraq had absolutely no WMD. Clinton left office in 2001. It is also known that in 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, admitted that he had personally overseen the destruction of all of Iraq’s biological, chemical, and nuclear programs. Clinton presided over a different Iraq than Bush II. Kamel is the source Dick Cheney cited as he made his erroneous WMD claims. Looks like Cheney only told people certain parts of Kamel’s testimony.
Finally, it is true that Saddam gassed his own people, those being the Kurds. But since when does the U.S suddenly care about the Kurds, given that Turkey also massacred its domestic Kurd population, and that country is one of the largest recipients of U.S. military aid? Saddam killed all known communists and left-wing elements of his Baath party when he came to power. Those people account for the bulk of Saddam’s civilian massacres. I guess that’s why the U.S. did not seem to care at the time.
Posted by Bud on Jul 13, 2005 at 10:55 PM David Michael Green is correct that the media have allowed the Downing Street Memo to fade out. The Bush administration once again has been successful in deflecting the damning evidence that the WMD propaganda was “fixed” to suit their facts, brushing it off as “old news” which is just being warmed over.
Of course, that is the same way they treated the Karl Rove traitorous leak of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame’s identity. They first downplayed it by saying that Rove was not involved in that disclosure and brushed it off as simply another Democratic attempt to smear Rove while Bush’s press secretary, Scott McClellan, called it “ridiculous.”
Now, we have been given another “leaked” memo, ostensibly from the Pentagon. The recent news a few days ago, based on a memo written by Robert Burns of the Associated Press, stated that the “Pentagon is eager to pull some of its 135,000 troops out of Iraq in 2006, partly because the counterinsurgency is stretching the Army and Marine Corps perilously thin.” The kicker is in the next statement that says that the troops strength will be cut to 66,000 by the middle of next year, timed just at the right moment to appease a few of those fence-sitting voters who may be inclined to boot out Republicans if they think Bush’s war will continue unabated with no exit plan in sight.
It’s bad enough that the current U.S. military in Iraq is undermanned and under-equipped but to leave over 60,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq to quell a growing insurgency and civil war there is absolutely unconscionable—or should I say, genocidal?
Yes, the Downing Street Memo should be evidence enough for the public to demand a full investigation by the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress, but like everything that Bush has been able to get away with, from lying about WMD to launching a vanity war of his personal choice, the stunning corruption and bribery activities of congressmen Tom DeLay and Randy “Duke” Cunningham, the threats against state and federal judges by Tom DeLay and other Right Wing extremists and the breathtaking lies spewed out by the traitorous Karl Rove and his White House defenders, all can be blamed on the weak, intimidated and jelly-spined, milquetoast mainstream media.
Any one of these egregious breaches of their oath of office would have been enough to impeach Bush and his entire administration. They are all outright liars, swindlers and corrupt government operatives who have put their self-interest and greed above the interests and security of the citizens of the United States. When the mainstream media can’t do their jobs and expose these horrific abuses of power and hold the out-of-control government to account, we have lost our democracy.
Posted by Richard on Jul 13, 2005 at 11:19 PM Richard,
Excellent post. I totally concur. In my opinion, national security is the ONE federal policy, at the very least, that should never, EVER, be politicized. The reason: lives are at stake. I have heard about that recently leaked British memo, and it makes perfect sense that 2006 would be the time to decrease troop strength given the upcoming midterm elections. It is sad indeed, that we have come to expect our politicians to put politics ahead of the national interest. Democracies do not do this sort of thing.
Posted by Bud on Jul 13, 2005 at 11:28 PM One thing I can’t figure out is why no one has yet organized a march on a major media outlet? How would it look when Al Roker took his morning walk into the Today Show crowd if he was met by thousands of faces and signs demanding a real media again?
Posted by Todd on Jul 13, 2005 at 11:48 PM Todd,
Good point. I bet that if the Washington Post or the New York TImes had 10,000+ people right outside demanding real coverage of the memos, they would capitulate. The article did point out some encouraging signs of grassroots activism, such as all the angry emails the Post received in response to Milbank’s column.
Posted by Bud on Jul 14, 2005 at 12:01 AM Our friend, Thomas, sounds like a “Push Pollster” to me. Push Polls were devised by Karl Rove mentor, Lee Atwater (Daddy Bush’s Karl Rove), a campaign/marketing technique designed to make suckers out of voters/consumers. It only works on conservatives, BTW.
A push poll is a brainwashing technique masquerading as a political poll. It is always based on a false premise - the conservative stock in trade. Examples of Karl Rove push poll questions are:
“Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”
“Do you approve of President Bush’s plan to feed starving children in Africa?”
Nice try Thom. But all of your questions are frauds on their face.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 14, 2005 at 1:12 AM Pick of the Litter, I don’t think it’s a lack of will. I think it’s a purposeful coverup.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 14, 2005 at 1:46 AM Clearly, most of Thomas’s seven points can be viewed in hindsight and most of us would agree that Saddam Hussein’s departure was a good thing. But that was then and this is now and Saddam has been in jail since his capture in December 2003.
The questions I have don’t have anything to do with what Saddam Hussein did over 20 years ago and what a dictator he was.
After all, if one wants to argue getting rid of dictators and tyrants in this world is what our foreign policy should consist of, there is a dictator about 60 miles from the U.S. mainland, Fidel Castro. Throw in a few of the latest additions to that selective company and you could also make a case for ousting Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I had to Google to get the spelling right), Pakistan’s dictator Pervez Musharraf, Saudi Arabia’s entire Faud monarchy, Kuwaiti’s entire al-Sabah family of monarchs, Syria’s Bashar al-Asad, who also is a Sunni Baathist like Saddam Hussein’s ruling party, and, well, maybe I’ve gone a bit far if I toss in Valdimir Putin, aka Pootie Poot to Bush Jr., whose iron fist government rule has slipped ever closer to a dictatorship.
And, let’s not forget that preemptive war rationale if you believe that China is well on their way to becoming a superpower and could, down the road (who knows how many years), even if they’re only thinking about it, be an imminent threat to our security. Certainly, given that Bush war hawk group think, China would qualify for a good old fashioned “shock and awe” treatment by G. W. Bush.
The point I’m making here is that if getting rid of the world’s ruthless dictators is the noble goal of the Bush administration and in particular, his proclamation that he wants to democratize the entire Middle East, he is going about it in a very expensive way. Just ask the families of the 1,755 U.S. soldiers who have come home in body bags, over 13,000 U.S. military wounded, almost half of whom suffered permanent injuries such as loss of limbs and eyes, including many paralyzed for life, and ask the U.S. taxpayer who have ponied up $200 billion (so far) for Mr. Bush’s war-minded adventures (currently running at about $5 billion per month).
And while some may applaud all the “good things” we’re doing in Iraq, whatever happened to all those fine words about America not being the world’s policeman and whatever happened to those same admonishments that Bush spouted that we should not be getting into nation-building?
So, how come we’re still in Iraq? Or, to ask the question that was asked in Time Magazine’s July 11 issue under the article heading, Letter From Baghdad, “One year on, Iraq has sovereignty, but what about power, water or security?”
Posted by Richard on Jul 14, 2005 at 2:36 AM The White House press corps seems to(in the last couple of days)have shown that they actually have some journalistic balls in their grilling of White House press secratary Scott McClellan.It’s about time.It’s also about time for our mainstream media to realize that they have been touting a losing horse.Between the Downing Street Memo and now,the Karl Rove leak job,this administration doesn’t pass the smell test by any definition.By comparison,Nixon was a jaywalker,and Clinton got a citation for pissing in the park.Facts don’t lie;G.W.Bush is a mass murderer.In fact, The whole administration should be impeached and prosecuted for treason.By the way,Neo-Conservatives are not Republicans.
Posted by Dr.D on Jul 14, 2005 at 2:59 AM The Republican House Majority wouldn’t give John Conyers a room to hold his meeting, but not too long ago, Republican Sen. John Warner allowed the Rev. Moon and his Moonies to use his senatorial office for a “coronation ceremony” of the Rev. Moon.
Posted by kelly gialousis on Jul 14, 2005 at 5:32 AM Look folks, It’s all well and good that more and more people are starting to open their eyes, but who in Congress is going to start impeachment of their glorious leader? And just how many of those corporate-owned politicians are going to sign up? We have a one-party dictatorship going here, and it’s getting stronger every single minute. Yes, it’s becoming (or is) a dictatorship, fascism in it’s most virulent form which after all is only an extreme form of capitalism, and you and I and our kids etc are going to experience the worst form of government imaginable in the very near future. Who controls the counting of votes? Who controls the picking of the candidates? Who controls the lack of jobs and lack of medical care and lack of historically accurate education of our young people? Who controls the military, the police, the National Guard who gunned down protesters just a couple of decades ago? We’ve got an attorney general who thinks torture is only when you die and the Geneva Conventions are quaint, a supreme court that is changing and destroying the very foundations of this country (not that the US has ever lived up to those ideals, read Howard Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States 2003 edition and then pass it on). We’re already well on our way to Germany of the 1930’s and it should scare the hell out of you.
What can we do about it? No good answers but you can read the Constitution about what citizens should do when the government becomes corrupt. Oh yeah, I forgot, that document isn’t valid anymore. I’m such a pessimist.
Posted by historyreader on Jul 14, 2005 at 6:03 AM Where are the reporters who ask deep, provocative questions?..We who read, listen or watch, the news have been anxiously waiting for the Woodward of today…thank heavens for Conyers….but CSpan was the only station that dared to cover it…It is so scarey….we must be further down the road to losing our Democracy than any of us have understood. Everyday we learn of more lies, deception, dishonesty, by this governing group. yet no actions…..it seems there must be evidence that calls for impeachment ..how can we begin?
Posted by Donna on Jul 14, 2005 at 7:21 AM The U.S. not been a Republic or a Democracy for over a century with corruption of both its founding beliefs and those who administer its governing functions growing in proportion to growth of its populations wealth.
The majority of its populace has never voted in any election, with the corporate or financial instituions always having the most influence upon governing regulations and peoples. The growth of departments within original framework have always been in response to needs of finacial interest, no matter the wordings of how it serves the populace. The only real break with the traditional management of government for those interest came during the Depression and into the World War era, as government first during depression with large projects, TVA, C.C.C. and others included vast amounts of populace working directly under government financed Corporate projects with an increased bureaucracy to administer programs.
It took a reworking of tax structures outside of Constituional restraints to help finance, with the difference being the amounts Government could borrow also increased , with the money coming from the very instituions who were getting the contracts because they now had a guaranteed income from the taxes, soc sec, income various local energy gas etc.
The political fervor of patritotic americans caried over until the fifties with Eisenhowers highway infrastructure programs and the military hyping the unpreparedness of Pearl harbor and the convenience of Communisms growth elsewhere.
Communism had been around from the twentys and thirtys in the states but had been mostly a localized situation with industry using us troops and local police to control its political and economic growth. the fear of communist now was used to increase the intelligence and military branches of government, as it was now a National threat.
The media, and its corporate board of directors, which was used to propagandize governments good intentions since the thirtys, never stopped being used as such. No matter the war, police action or political interfering in other countrys political systems it has stood behind “Official Government Actions”. It was only later during or after such actions had been undertaken did individual journalist report facts of industrial collusion and social abuses that occured because of our government interference and only when and if enough journalist could get the truth into print by the independent and smaller journals to build a mass of protest did they respond; not to end abuses but to diffuse the information and channel it away from corporate instigators.
The corporate media became a recreational media and by its increased wealth incorporated almost every small journalistic outlet under its umbrella.It having always served the minority interest now was part and parcel of that same interest and dependent upon the corporate, through tax and influence to continue to exist.
the governemtn meanwhile to try and conttol civil unrest due to imbalance of corporate growth at expense of domestic populace went into social s programs touting it as a democratic principals but in reality it was social restructuring and controlling.
To cut this long rambling essay short, If anyone had the tremity to say the US was heading towards a facist form of governmetn they were immediately labeled conspiracy nuts, foreign terrorist or an unpatriotic nutball. If one reads the history of Facism in Germany, Italy, Egypt and Latin American countries one can find that as Musollini once said,“Facism can best be defined as Corporatism”.
We had became what we had set out to destroy in World War Two, a Facist entity.
It therefor is not surprising that there is no outcry against U.S and Bush group tactics for they are the same as actions by both Democrats or Republicans and a complacent american public for many years.
The Truth has always been out there but who would want to admit we had become our own worst enemy.
Posted by Michael D. Chattick Sr. on Jul 14, 2005 at 10:55 AM the kurds were gassed with mustard gas, something that the iranians had, but saddam didn’t. the kurds were intent on an independent state, while saddam was willing to offer them autonomy. from an outside view saddam’s offer seems reasonable. that in the iranian war, the iranians dropped gas on the kurds, later to be trumped up by kurds as a saddam atrocity, is not anything totally unbelievable.
Posted by heirabbit on Jul 14, 2005 at 11:07 AM i’m sorry but i’m a cynic; i’ve tracked the migration of the DSM from the UK to the US and to an outsider, i see only blogosphere indignation (and left of centre one at that).
I think Cindy Sheenhan’s (sp?) assessment is spot on; that many people now see the error of the iraq war but lack the personal integrity to admit that and hold someone reponsible. over here in the UK, we’d rather not talk about it.
As for the Rove matter…well, if you can’t convince fence sitters or red-staters that the DSM hint at a massive disinformation campaign perpetrated by the adminstration on the general public, then how could they be convinced that Rove’s actions were, at the very least, worthy of sacking?.
It seems to me that part of the problem is that the opposition has no central figure that can rally all these different strands of discontent. Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Edwards-all paper-weights and all compromised by their previous enthusiasm for a bad policy. Dean? Too abrasive. Hillary? Too ‘moderne’ (latte-liberal?). I just can’t see anyone with the formidible intellect, personal integrity and televisual appeal to put one over GW. No ‘new Labour’ which heralded the arrival of Tony Blair (not that he’s done us any good mind).
Posted by jonathan on Jul 14, 2005 at 11:08 AM Richard,
I don’t know what you mean when you say that “Thomas’s seven points can be viewed in hindsight.” If the implication is hindsight is 20/20 - that the seven points are factually true, there is nothing clear about that. They are classic “push poll” lies, based on false premises, designed to brainwash suckers.
Second, most of us, who are capable of independent thought, do NOT agree that “Saddam Hussein’s departure was a good thing.” Not compared to who’s in charge in Iraq now - who has allowed it to become a staging ground for al Qaeda.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 14, 2005 at 12:46 PM This commentary forum might interest some of you as it sees right thru the bullshit:
http://mediamatters.org/comments/latest/200507080006
“The US INVASION of Iraq is a resounding success!!!!!!!!!!!!.............. Huh?
Contrary to the suppositions that the Administration fraudulently conjured up for the reasons which have led US into a LOSE-LOSE situation, ie WMD ,Saddam hates US, and now the evolving and bogus rationale of and I will digress here to the’ Texan vernacular’ ” Bringin Freedumb” to the Iraqis, NeoCon strategists can now rejoice with glee!! Why, well, despite the daily reports of carnage and despair flowing out of Iraq like a tragedy with no end, the REAL REASON for our folly has resulted in a NeoCon dream come true and that is the” The “Balkanization” of Iraq or in more defined prose,‘Civil War’ with our ECONOMIC INTERESTS well suited for by the likes of Halliburton et al.
It is my contention THAT the NeoConmen strategists knew full well what our invasion of Iraq would result in given the indisputable condition that there is no universally defined ‘Iraqi’ personna as defined by what we know as an’American’, a ‘Britisher’ or other national identification. A Shia predominance now prevails and the Sunnis with some help from ‘Jihadists’ are now responding to a loss of power as a result of OUR disenfranchising such in the aftermath OUR toppling the Baathist regime. So, in essence, WE simply added fuel to the fire among warring factions WHO have seem fit to ‘do each other in’ for decades according to tribal, religious and power-cenric circles . And let US not forget the Kurds who for all practical purposes are operating a ‘de facto federation’ independent of the designs of US puppets in Baghdad.In the southern provinces, Shia Law is the RULE with Taliban-like constraints in full swing on a muncicipal level. WHY one US soldier is held hostage to such a ‘witches brew of civil unrest’ is contemptible! But the fractious and what appears NOW to be a never-ending cauldron of “CIVIL WAR” suits the NeoConmen just fine and the other’ partners-in -crime, ie, Halliburton, Blackwater Corp, etc STAND to gain big! But in any enterpise level subterfuge, There are Losers…..... WHO? The American people and the people of Iraq!!!
by Navy Guy - Monday July 11, 2005 10:08:27 AM EST
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 14, 2005 at 2:01 PM I also think that the mainstream U.S. press code of ethics depend upon their fat corporate paychecks and we know that Bush is the corporations’ best friend.
This is a good article (lengthy):
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/063005X.shtml
” The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | PerspectiveThursday 30 June 2005
Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations.
—Andrew Jackson, farewell address, 04 March 1837 ”
last paragraph:” In the end, the existence of incredibly powerful entities that enjoy the status of citizens demote the vast majority of average citizens to second-class status. If the ideals we hold sacred have any truth to them, if the myths we sleep by have any basis in reality, such a division is intolerable and must be changed. “All men are created equal” once excluded vast swaths of Americans from their basic rights. Battles were fought to change that. Today, a battle to realign the balance of power between the citizen and the super-citizen must also be fought. It must be won. ”
” William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence. “
I also recommend checking out Norman Solomon’s new book “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death” see: http://www.warmadeeasy.com/
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 14, 2005 at 2:11 PM Of course the DSM is a failure. The country has to come to grips with the fact that democracy here is utterly ‘gone’ now that the press is so politicized that it’s not ever likely to report any ‘truth’ that the Bush cabinet hasn’t cranked out on it’s xerox machine. What’s even more alarming is that given the severity of the crimes committed (TREASON), it’s also quite startling that nobody is screaming to re-institute the INDEPENDENT COUNSEL mechanism at a time when it most desperately is needed. This last five years has been like a very very bad dream in that virtually all vestiges of legitimacy of our government have faded into history, and we now live in a republic where a small group of neocon’s
can break any law with no fear whatsoever that they will either be investigated, indicted, or brought to trial. Sad thing is, let any of the rest of us do so much as steal a can of SPAM at a convenience store, and we’re going up the river for that one. This is the administration, if you can glorify it with that title, that will be the undoing of america’s freedom and it’s goodness, and this nation will itself someday face civil war strictly because at some point, centralized dictatorial government will have to be soundly and resoundingly rejected by the sheeple. These are very dark days for us and they are unlikely to brighten anytime in our lifetimes with this slime holding the power levers.
Posted by dennis on Jul 14, 2005 at 2:47 PM The US Government and its Corporate State Controlled Media should be tarred and feathered for lying us into illegal Wars of Conquest/Territorial Pissings in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan!
Posted by crusader bunnypants on Jul 14, 2005 at 3:17 PM Thanks Bud for the update. It is refreshing to be able to discuss the issues, as opposed to merely making assumptions (e.g., Lefty and pick of litter responses). At least the discussion did not degenerate into a name calling festival (which occurs far too often, imho).
I assume the smart sanctions you refered to is the Oil for Food program?
I still wonder what better alternative existed. Would the world really have been better off if we simply did nothing? Or was there a better solution out there, one that we can now see with the benefit of having hindsight? (If so, i am unable to see it.)
Posted by Thomas on Jul 14, 2005 at 3:33 PM Lefty, I agree with you that the person “who’s in charge in Iraq now - who has allowed it to become a staging ground for al Qaeda.” And as far as Thomas’s seven points, I also agree that framing questions in a way to get the desired results is a favorite of many of the pollsters who you also accurately call “push-pull.”
But, taking each of Thomas’s points on one-by-one is a waste of time. Anyone can go back to 20 years ago to prove that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to “gas his own people” but few of the Bush acolytes will admit that it was a Republican Reagan-Bush administration that armed and sided with Saddam Hussein against Iran and supplied the helicopters that were used to gas the Kurds in northern Iraq, then simply turned the other way.
See how much space that explanation on Thomas’s point #3 took up?
But, I do not side with those who believe that keeping Saddam Hussein in power would have been a good thing. The method of getting him out of power was not. One way or another the severe 12-year UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq were bound to come to a head. It’s quite possible that the Iraqi people may have evenutally risen up and gotten rid of him. But Bush senior thought the same thing and that was when he had over 500,000 troops on the ground in the Gulf War and chose to let the Republican Guard escape, allowing Hussein to remain in Baghdad. He was wrong.
The way I see it, the oil wealth in Iraq is still there, much of it in untapped, undeveloped oil fields. All that wealth can still help the Iraqi people and take a lot of pressure off of the rest of the industrialized world that is consuming more of it. The Chinese, whether we like it or not, have already increased their demand by over 30% in the last five years and it’s going to increase even more as they emerge as the next global superpower.
But, I agree that the Bush preemptive war policy has been a disaster because his use of unbridled military might has inflamed the Arab world and resulted in recruiting more Islamic militants.
I have no idea what things would be like if Saddam Hussein was still in power so I’ll leave that one to Thomas to figure out. That’s hindsight for sure.
Posted by Richard on Jul 14, 2005 at 4:03 PM You think the US media is bad, it took the Stop the War Coalition (STWC) here in the UK until 22nd June before they posted an article about the DSM. The left wing papers of groups such as the ‘Socialist’ Workers Party ignored it, but then again the convenor of STWC is on central committee of ‘S’WP. Both have reiterated their calls for troops out of Iraq completely missing the issue that the US wants UK Troops to move to Afghanistan. Their answer about the DSM is that we knew BLiar lied so what!
The only issue they were writing about was the George Galloway piece of theatre at the Senate hearings. It really does make you think ‘which side are the ‘S’WP on.
More of a mystery is why Rupert Murdoch would give permission for the original DSM to be published in one of his better known papers. As with the recent bombing in London the question is who benefits, with London it is easy to see from the reactions of the US/UK/Israel that they benefited, but how does Murdoch benefit from releasing a memo that should by rights destroy the Administrations of Bush, Blair and all the other Administrations of the ‘coalition of the killing’.
Posted by Mick on Jul 14, 2005 at 4:11 PM Thomas,
The smart sanctions were different than the oil-for-food program, which was started in 1996 as a way for Iraq to pay off its reparations to Kuwait for the 1990 invasion. Part of the proceeds from Iraqi oil sales went into an escrow account fo that purpose, and the rest paid for ostensibly civilian goods. While it is true the program was rank with corruption, it is a much smaller financial scandal in comparison to the lack of transparency the CPA had in its dealings with the roughly $24 billion in Iraqi reconstruction money alloted to it in the wake of the invasion. I have heard that as much as $8 billion of that money cannot be accounted for by the coalition.
Final note: the U.S. and U.K. had veto power over any contract under the oil-for-food program that they did not like, but NEVER exercised that authority. So those corrupt contracts were essentially given approval by the U.S. and U.K.!!
Posted by Bud on Jul 14, 2005 at 4:13 PM The American media have blood on their hands as they are just as much to blame for the illegal Iraq war as Bush does.
Posted by Dorian Grey on Jul 14, 2005 at 4:28 PM Richard,
Bush I was prescient enough to understand the consequences of following Saddam into Baghdad and getting rid of him. If you check out his post-presidency biography written before the invasion, his predictions of what would have followed such an invasion foretold exactly what is happening now in Iraq. That is why Bush I did not topple Saddam and that is why he opposed Gulf War II.
Posted by Bud on Jul 14, 2005 at 4:29 PM Thomas,
You have asked what else could we have done, and would the world be better off if Saddam were still in power. I recently read a very good article concerning that subject, and I wish I could remember the name of the author in order to give credit. However, since I can’t remember where I read it, I’ll just cover the premise.The article compared the ousting of Saddam by destroying the country and killing its people to the following scenario (paraphrased and retold very loosely):
Suppose my spouse discovered a poisonous spider in our house and responded to it by jumping in the car and ramming into the wall at 100 miles per hour, not killing the spider, but running over our pet cat, smashing furniture, irreparably ruining all the photographs and priceless artwork hanging on the walls, and sending the spider into hiding where it had to be searched out and put in a cage to be handled later. Then if I criticized my spouse, he might say “Well! I guess you’d be happier if that spider were still here endangering our children.”
No. I’d be happier if my house were still intact, my pictures of my kids and the rest of my belongings were safe, and my cat were still alive.
I hope this clears up some of the misunderstanding.
I think the world would also be a much better place without Karl Rove, Richard Perle, and the myriad neo-con hoards that now run our government. But I don’t advocate bombing Washington to the ground to ensure their demise.
There are dozens of dictators out there without whom the world would be a better place. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but Iraq is not in better shape for his ouster, due to the mishandling and gross overkill of the US war. Using that 20/20 hindsight, we could have done much less to assist Saddam back in the 80s (ever see the photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with SH?) when our government supported him. He was just as evil when the US considered him to be a friend. It was only when his agenda did not suit American purposes that he became an enemy. And don’t forget that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, they sent out feelers to our government who told them that we would not be involved in their affairs. Something (I’m not aware of what that something was, so maybe someone can inform me) changed our minds. I assume it had something to do with oil.
We, as a country, are not innocent of Saddam’s crimes. And destroying Iraq in order to save it was not the answer, nor does it atone for our complicity. Our middle east policies are at least partly to blame for the conditions that brought Saddam to power, along with much of the rest of what is wrong in that part of the world and the resentment of the Muslim community.
For some reason, our society looks upon diplomacy as a cop-out wimpy path to peace and reconciliation. The Bush administration attempted in several ways to provoke the Iraqi government to war. When those attempts failed, shock and awe were the result. This war was not the only way, and other ways were not even really tried. Is there anyone out there who still believes that the war is about freedom and removing a dictator rather than about free-market ideology and monetary (read oil) issues?
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Jul 14, 2005 at 6:23 PM LeeAnn,
To the best of my knowledge, the Bush I administration was not expecting Saddam to actually overhtrow the Kuwaiti government. My impression was they thought Saddam was using his military to stop the Kuwaiti’s from siphoning off Iraq’s oil. When it became clear that Saddam was independent minded and followed his own course, the Bush I administration realized he would no longer serve as a puppet for the U.S. That is when all of the harsh rhetoric about “aggression” and the false stories of baby-killing began to surface.
Posted by Bud on Jul 14, 2005 at 7:10 PM LeeAnn - I have seen the pics of Rummy shaking hands with SH - pretty disgusting. I am all too aware of our support of him in the Iranian-Iraqi war, also disgusting. It seems all too ofter the US, with the best of intentions, supports an evil dictator, in hopes that that dictator is somehow the lessor of two evils. . .
I like your analogy. However, it seems to me that the house was mostly destroyed before the war, partly by the spider (SH) and partly by sanctions (and possibly by the increased sorties under the no-fly zone as pointed out by Bud earlier in this thread).
Perhaps on the eve of the war, the choices taken were already such that no good solution existed? Invade and we get the mess we see, keep the status quo (i.e., keep the UN sanctions) and SH was free both to kill his people with impunity added to the misery that the sanctions imposed, or lift the sanctions and let SH persue his agenda which his past record made ptetty clear?
The one thing that is crystal clear to me is that we should not give the middle east technology or dollars - it is like giving guns to children! Rather we should spend whatever it takes (~10’s of billions of $$$ / year) to break our addition to oil and distribute it to the rest of the world. Then the middle east can come out of the middle ages at its own pace, without endangering the rest of the planet.
Posted by Thomas on Jul 14, 2005 at 8:27 PM It seems odd to me that someone who positively identified an individual as someone’s wife that that information wouldn’t be precisely the same thing as revealing that person’s name. Do the Bush propagandists still think everyone is as stupid as they are?
Apparently so because the Bush mob, staying on message, aka staying on the lie, is still playing that silly little game they played when trying to cover for their lies over the false claim of WMD. They figure if you keep “catapulting the propaganda” (Bush’s words) long enough people will believe it.
What if I said that LB told a scurrilous joke in front of a White House correspondents’ dinner about “milking” a male horse, referring to herself as a “desperate housewife” and that GWB maybe couldn’t tell the difference between a male horse and a mare? Gosh, I sure didn’t mention any names now, did I?
Well, did KR know that JW’s wife, was a CIA covert agent who sent JW off on a trip to Niger to investigate whether SH procured yellowcake uranium from that country? And how else would KR have known that JW’s wife, who may have been named either VP or VW, even worked for the CIA to begin with?
How presumptuous of me to think that anyone could possibly draw the conclusion that I was referring to anyone in particular?
Posted by Richard on Jul 14, 2005 at 8:35 PM Cui bono? Only one country in the whole world has benefitted from the ‘War on Terror’ launched by the US/UK. And when you look at who owns and edits the ‘Mainstream Media’ in the US/UK, you find an awful lot of people who have relatives in that ‘Only Democracy in the Middle East.’ Suppressing the memo, particularly in the U.S., is of benefit to the interests of one ethnic group exclusively. You know, the one that proclaims in the US/UK that ‘we are all brothers’ and ‘race does not exist’ while they build an apartheid wall on stolen land adjacent to their own country. Don’t count on their ethnic brethren on the political left pointing out who controls the corporate media filters.
Posted by wp on Jul 14, 2005 at 9:49 PM The only question in my mind is: “Did KR know Plame was *covert*, or did he merely know she worked for the CIA?”.
If he knwe she was covert, his was a criminal act. Otherwise, not.
Posted by curious on Jul 14, 2005 at 9:57 PM Curious, looks like your’re asking a question that will be the automatic out for Rove if people buy it. It’s the old rope-a-dope angle when people caught in potential scandals are asked, “what did you know and when did you know it?”
The fact is, Karl Rove as White House deputy chief, is high enough up in the administration to have known precisely what he was doing. He was counting on anonymity from Matthew Cooper in order to have his cake and eat it too.
Putting his and Bush’s partisan smear tactics ahead of the security of the United States without checking first to see if Plame was a covert agent, he should still should be fired outright for abusing his office for strictly partisan political reasons. Use all the nuances you want, but any way you cut it, Rove committed a traitorous act.
There is no doubt in my mind that he knew Plame was a covert agent and simply didn’t care as long as he thought could hide under the cloak of his perceived immunity.
The question I have, especially after all this time that has gone by is, “What did Bush know, and when did he know it?” Put this little twit under oath and ask him that question. He has Liar written all over his face. Bring on the impeachment!
Posted by Richard on Jul 14, 2005 at 10:17 PM We need to keep this alive as much as we can we need to fight for our Country. What was done was wrong and it should not go unpunished. This man needs to be thrown out of office and put in jail. I know that we need a democratic congress in order to achieve this and next year we will have it, but in the mean time we need to get The Minutes to everyone we can, and we need to keep bringing it up and not letting go. Let’s put up a good fight everyone, this is for our Country.
Posted by k austin on Jul 15, 2005 at 3:03 AM The american people had better wake up to the fact that the main stream news media is not going to report on crimes committed by republicans. The Downing Street Memo is a classic example of how the news media will cover up anything in their support of the lying George W Bush and his love for war. Until the american people starts to to campaign against the news media, the news media will continue to help the republicans with their lies and attack and smear campaigns. As of 7-14-05 just 41% of the american people think George W Bush is an honest president but the news media supports him 100%. Doesn’t that add up to a terrorist attack against this country like the one that happened in London?
Posted by Thomas Jelf on Jul 15, 2005 at 3:11 AM I can’t even get my republican family to read one simple article that describes the Downing Street Minutes much less have a discussion about how BUsh began the war 9 months before the public knew about it and diverted $700 million dollars without consulting with congress. Rove should go down no doubt but I’m exhausted.
The people who should listen just refuse. The one’s who seem to get it just want to go about their business and then there is people like me who can’t sleep at night and actually breakdown on a regular basis. It’s as though this huge amount of people just can’t be bothered by any of this.
The one thing I don’t get is why the Washington Press Core is going after Rove like nobodies business when they just let the Downing Street Memo stuff just float past.
Posted by Mike on Jul 15, 2005 at 3:20 AM The mainstream media promoted this war and now fails to seriously address the Downing Street Memo and even the Rove scandal has not been put into context. The mainstream media seems preoccupied with the notion of whether Rove leaked the name Valerie Plame or simply stated “Wilson’s wife,” as if this were relevant.
Rove’s confession to being one of the sources of the leak shows that the Bush administration was willing to go to any lengths, even possibly criminal lengths to silence or discredit anyone who challenged the prewar hype based on false intelligence.
It’s somewhat heartening to hear the White House press corps lay into Scott McClellum for refusing to comment on his blatant lies in 2003 concerning ROve’s role in the leak. But up until now, the mainstream press has been more concerned about reporting missing teenagers in Aruba, fallen pop stars, and summer rainstorms. The television media justifies their actions by claiming themselves to be a form of entertainment, but since why is news supposed to be entertainment?
Posted by Brian Miller on Jul 15, 2005 at 3:22 AM Thomas Jeff, don’t read too much into that WSJ/NBC poll. Even at 41% approval, Bush’s lowest in his tenure, congress is even lower.
As to K Austin’s comments about needing a Democratic congress to bring back some semblance of checks and balances, don’t bet on it. Look at the total number of seats that are up for grabs in the U.S. Senate. I believe it’s around 32, with Democrats needing to defend 17 and the Republicans 15. In just about every election 95% of the incumbents win. Unless there is a sea change in the voter mentality and mood, don’t count on Democrats winning either the House or the Senate.
I know I was not alone in predicting (correctly) that the Democrats would lose all five Democrat Senate seats up for grabs below the Mason-Dixon line in 2002 and 2004. I think the Democrats can forget about the Dixiecrat, Bible Belt South because the Republican apparatchik has that entire part of the country in their back pockets.
The economy doesn’t mean squat down there anyway when you consider that 26 out of the poorest 28 states all voted for Bush. You know, it’s “moral values” and what that means is any Republican is better than any Democrat in that part of our country. Even an Adolf Hitler would win in the South if he ran as a Republican (what else)?
Democrats could win Sarbane’s seat in Delaware but that’s only staying even. Democrats could also win in Pennsylvania once the voters there get a load of Santorum’s anti-privacy, anti-Fourth Amendment statements and his overall disgustingly moralistic, tolerance-for-none stance and his blind loyalty to Bush. Hillary Clinton should win easily and so should Dianne Feinstein in California. Robert Byrd will be 88 and West Virginia has been leaning more solidly Republican. Bush won there in 2000 and 2004 and Byrd may get the boot. But gaining enough to win back the Senate? It will take a miracle.
Just my thoughts, so now I’m ready for the slings and arrows.
Posted by Richard on Jul 15, 2005 at 3:37 AM Some excellent comments on the weakness of our media. But where is our craven congress in the Iraq atrocity and Bush/Rove lies? They voted a “resolution” giving Bush war-making authority instead of taking seriously their duty to declare war. A similar congressional cop out 40 years ago put me in Viet Nam just in time for Tet. Also, we need to clean out the bunch of traitors who put this over on an ignorant president and weak congress. They are the so-called “neo-conservatives”
Posted by rolland on Jul 15, 2005 at 3:37 AM Brian Miller, you wrote, “The mainstream media promoted this war and now fails to seriously address the Downing Street Memo and even the Rove scandal has not been put into context. The mainstream media seems preoccupied with the notion of whether Rove leaked the name Valerie Plame or simply stated “Wilson’s wife,” as if this were relevant.”
I think that’s the crux of the problem that the msm have in glomming on to whatever is the story du jour and hanging their hats on Nielsen numbers. “Well”, they’re saying, “what is the hottest story of the day, Karl Rove or still the London bombings?” Bush/Rove are laying low with the confidence that the Rove story will be seen as just another catfight between Republicans and Democrats.
Look what happened to CBS’s Dan Rather of 60 Minutes. It’s now referred to as Rather-gate and the story of Bush’s failure to produce records of his final year of military obligation have evaporated.
The real story was and still should be, what happened to G. W. Bush’s last year of Texas Air National Guard that there is no record of him completing? On the contrary, he flunked his physical, lost his flying status and nobody can remember him reporting to any Guard unit either in Alabama or Texas. But the media story was CBS and the fake documents and the rest all faded away concerning Bush’s military records.
The same thing is happening now with the DSM. Karl Rove is a temporary glitch for the White House and the DSM has conveniently faded away for Bush unless the media pursues both of these and stays on top of them. But, at least the msm isn’t afraid to start asking questions as they did with Scott McClellan. But getting McClellan to squirm is no big deal. After all, he’s paid to lie, and if he has to squirm for the media that’s all part of his job.
Posted by Richard on Jul 15, 2005 at 3:58 AM I have enjoyed reading your posts Richard among others. I don’t think, however, that everbody in the Southern states love Republicans. The ratio of votes have been similar to the national election, almost 50/50 with slim margins for winners. But the repubs run dirty tricks and use smear tactics all the time. Crazy religious extremists send many letters to papers demonizing Democrats and they actually question people’s faith based on political affiliation. Remember the Baptist church schism in Waynesville, NC?
It is so insane, it’s like the Hatfields and the McCoys!btw, Media Matters for America is doing an excellent job of covering MSM’s handling of the Rove scandal, exposing the efforts of pundits and reporters who just echo RNC talking points rather than do their jobs.
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 15, 2005 at 2:26 PM I have enjoyed reading the posts by Richard on the Plame-leak as well. It is true that the SOuth is out of bounds for Democrats because of the “values” issue, whic has been warped by the GOP into two narrow categories: abortion and gay marriage. There are so many southerners who vote for a candidate based solely on their standpoint with respect to abortion. The hope for the Democratic party lies in the interior western states that narrowly went to Bush in 2004 such as New Mexico and Nevada. The main issue for voters out there is gun control. Dems in those states have been getting elected by ceding their party’s stance on gun control so they can focus on other issues such as the environment, healthcare, and education. A lot of the voters in these states are outdoorsmen who want to protect the environment, but vote republican becuase of their opposition to gun control. If Kerry took Nevada and New Mexico in 2004, he would have had another 10+ electoral votes and may be in the Oval Office now. Colorado is another swing state as well, given the election of Ken Salazar to the Senate in ‘04. While he may not be the most progressive of democrats, he is still better than any republican I can think of.
Posted by Bud on Jul 15, 2005 at 4:16 PM pick of the litter, I agree totally with your statement, ” I don’t think, however, that everbody in the Southern states love Republicans.”
All one needs to do is look at the presidential returns and even in Bush’s home state of Texas over 2 million people voted against him.Having said that, I’ll still say Democrats’ chances of winning major public offices in the South are next to nil. Barring any catastrophic political bombshell for the Republicans, any Democratic candidate running for the presidency in 2008 will start off with almost a 200-electoral vote deficit, most of it all in the Bible Belt South. You can throw in automatic Republican electoral votes in Utah (one of the biggest Bush win margins), Idaho, Wyoming and even Colorado where Bush won easily.
The situation for Democrats is not as cut and dried with only a couple of slam dunk Democrat electoral vote states such as California, New York and Massachusetts.
Democrats will still have trouble winning in so-called swing states like Ohio (20 electoral votes) which is traditionally conservative but which now has one of the most corrupt state governments in the country. I believe Republican Governor Taft has less than 30% approval there plus there’s that messy little coin-gate scandal that just grows and grows. Florida with its 23 electoral votes will stay in the Republicans’ win column because Jeb Bush is popular there and may even run for the presidency in 2008.
And I know that everybody isn’t as big a political junkie as I am or others on this forum who try to stay on top of the news. But what is appalling to me, in spite of those who cherry pick polls like the recent WSJ/NBC poll showing Bush’s honesty (what a joke!) ratings at 41% the other parts of the poll show by 61% to 34% the public agrees with Bush ‘s assertion that the war in Iraq is part of the broader war against terrorism. Bush loves numbers like that because it ratifies what he’s doing in Iraq and gives him a green light to continue this slaughter in Iraq of both U.S. military and civilians which we read about daily. I’m adding this report which some of you may have read but I believe it underscores one of the big reasons why Republicans with their well-oiled political apparatchik know how to tap into the voter psychology.
February 1, 2005
WASHINGTON – Most American high school students lack a full understanding of the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a survey released yesterday said.
Seventy-five percent of 112,000 students surveyed said it is illegal to burn the American flag as a means of political protest, and nearly half believe that the government can censor the Internet.The survey, commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, includes responses from 544 randomly selected public, private and parochial high schools.
The survey found that 36 percent of the students believe that newspapers should not be allowed to publish without government approval of stories, and 17 percent of the students believe that the public is prohibited from expressing unpopular opinions.
Overall, the survey found that high school students express little appreciation for the First Amendment’s tenets: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble and the right to petition the government.
Nearly three-quarters of student respondents said they either don’t know how they feel about First Amendment freedoms or take them for granted.
The survey’s findings are “distressing,” said Michael Maidenberg, vice president and chief program officer at the Knight Foundation.
Noting President Bush’s recent call for expanding democracy around the world, Maidenberg said it is critical that American youth understand why the First
Posted by Richard on Jul 15, 2005 at 4:20 PM pick of the litter, I called up that link you provided to Media Matters. Though I make it a point of tuning out Limbaugh I couldn’t help but note the opening words of a story that appeared there: “Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh blasted RNC chairman Ken Mehlman’s plans to apologize for his party’s notorious Southern Strategy at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Responding to Mehlman’s planned renunciation of the race-based electoral strategy, Limbaugh—whom Bush described as a “good friend” in an August 2004 appearance on Limbaugh’s show—accused Republicans of planning “to go bend over and grab the ankles.”
What is particularly odious to me and representaive of the entire Bush mob is their strong reaction to anyone or anything that criticizes them in any way. I remember Bush last year going to the Martin Luther King memorial to put in his obligatory appearance but was audibly booed by spectators. Bush’s immediate response to this rebuke of him was to use his recess appointment authority to place the racist, bigoted Charles Pickering on one of the appeals court vacancies. This was a nominee vehemently opposed by civil rights and environmental groups who saw Pickering as a person hostile to individual liberties. Although Pickering eventually left that position knowing that he would still be filibustered by Democrats on the committee after his year was up, the gesture by Bush was blatantly and transparently vindictive on his part.
The point is, Bush appointed Pickering out of personal revenge, mainly to get back at blacks, the majority of whom perceive Bush as anti-affirmative action and anti-civil rights. It was no coincidence at all that Bush made this appointment as an in-your-face slap at those who had the audacity to boo him in public.
Posted by Richard on Jul 15, 2005 at 4:42 PM This is interesting:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071405B.shtml
Election Fraud: Team Bush Paid $8 Million for Dirty Tricks to Suppress Votes - and Tried to Hide It
By Mark Crispin Miller and Jared Irmas
The Baltimore ChronicleWednesday 13 July 2005
a couple excerpts below:
” In the months before the 2004 presidential election, a firm called Sproul & Associates launched voter registration drives in at least eight states, most of them swing states. The group - run by Nathan Sproul, former head of the Arizona Christian Coalition and the Arizona Republican Party - had been hired by the Republican National Committee.Sproul got into a bit of trouble last fall when, in certain states, it came out that the firm was playing dirty tricks in order to suppress the Democratic vote: concealing their partisan agenda, tricking Democrats into registering as Republicans, surreptitiously re-registering Democrats and Independents as Republicans, and shredding Democratic registration forms. “
” In any case, all the payments by the RNC to Sproul add up to a whopping $8,359,161 - making it the RNC’s eighth biggest expenditure of the 2004 campaign.Sproul is currently under investigation by the Oregon Attorney General’s office, for altering the voter registration forms of several thousand students in that state. Whether the new numbers are in part mistaken, they represent a huge expense for the Republicans. Given Sproul’s history of serious electoral mischief, affecting countless Democratic voters in the last election, it is important that we ask some sober questions: Where did all that money come from? Why did the RNC suppress their real expenditures? And what exactly did Sproul do for all that pay? If we’re going to get some reasonable answers, the FEC must undertake a very thorough audit of the books. “
Is it any wonder that the RNC wins elections when they pay people to cheat? Not to mention the paperless voting machines made by Diebold.
That study/survey of high school students is a sad reflection of our future and it shows why the public is so easily duped.
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 15, 2005 at 4:57 PM Mike said: “. . . It’s as though this huge amount of people just can’t be bothered by any of this. . . .”
Isn’t it though. I don’t understand it either. And then there are even more people who torture logic to defend this miserable piece of human sewage masquerading as president.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 15, 2005 at 5:58 PM Richard said: “As to K Austin’s comments about needing a Democratic congress to bring back some semblance of checks and balances, don’t bet on it. Look at the total number of seats that are up for grabs in the U.S. Senate. I believe it’s around 32, with Democrats needing to defend 17 and the Republicans 15. In just about every election 95% of the incumbents win. Unless there is a sea change in the voter mentality and mood, don’t count on Democrats winning either the House or the Senate.”
Richard, don’t count on democrats winning much of anything as long as private corporations, like Diebold, are tabulating and counting the votes.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 15, 2005 at 6:02 PM Richard said: “The real story was and still should be, what happened to G. W. Bush’s last year of Texas Air National Guard that there is no record of him completing? On the contrary, he flunked his physical, lost his flying status and nobody can remember him reporting to any Guard unit either in Alabama or Texas. But the media story was CBS and the fake documents and the rest all faded away concerning Bush’s military records.”
My understanding is that Bush didn’t show up for his physcial because he couldn’t pass the drug screening - he was hooked on cocaine.
In an interview, I heard Bush explain the reason why he drank so much whiskey was because: “I lahked du way it tehsted.” Unfortunately, the interviewer didn’t have the balls to ask him why he snorted so much cocaine. I can hear the answer anyway: “B’cuz ah lahked du way it smells.”
Posted by Lefty on Jul 15, 2005 at 6:07 PM My thinkng is that certain members in the CIA has been waiting for this moment. This administration has been using the agency like rag-dolls from the beginning - it’s pay-back time. Getting Rove is huge. Once he’s out of the way then the Downing memo’s become important along with all the other crimes that will spill forth without Rove around to control the message. Not to worry.
However, if Rove can somehow slime his way out of this mess - than forgetaboutit - pack your bags and leave because anywhere but here would be preferrable.
Posted by Gonnuts on Jul 15, 2005 at 6:07 PM Please ignore all comments by “Lefty” on this board, he is sponsored by the CATO Institute to
give the left a bad name.
All answers to all the world’s political problems
are found in my books. I have always been right on
everything and that is why I am the Pope of the American left. The USA and Israel are the big and
little satans and are responsible for ALL the world’s problems.
Only the very naive or willingfully ignorant refuse to acknowledge my absolute perfection and
the fact that I have the answers to all the world’s problems. Do not waste your time on the
Democratic Party, Watergate was less important than Nixon, our last liberal President, indicated.
JFK’s assasssination was no more noteworthy than a
Saturday night shooting in the Roxbury section of
Boston.
I am the most precious intellectual alive and only
the Bible has been quoted more.
Only Z Magazine is worth reading on the left.
Posted by Noam on Jul 15, 2005 at 8:27 PM gonnuts said: “My thinkng is that certain members in the CIA has been waiting for this moment. This administration has been using the agency like rag-dolls from the beginning - it’s pay-back time.”
From your mouth to God’s ear, GN. One little problem with that theory. Remember when Bush appointed Porter Goss (Bush flunky) as the new head of the CIA, and then Goss required all CIA agents to sign oaths of loyalty to Bush, or be fired, and many resigned? ‘Member dat!
What I want to know is, when a dem gets elected in 08’, will he then fire every agent that signed the oath of loyalty to Bush on the grounds that they have a conflict of interest in the investigation of the Bush crime family?
Posted by Lefty on Jul 15, 2005 at 9:00 PM Noam is really Michael Hardesty, aka Martin, Steverino, Mikey, Peter, Jack Barnes, etc., etc., is a paid conservative TROLL who posts under numerous names (including hijacking other posters’ screen names, like mine), and has conversations with himself in order to disrupt liberal discourse. JUST IGNORE HIM.
Do a Google search for Michael Hardesty. You’ll find that he does the same thing on other liberal message boards.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 15, 2005 at 9:02 PM Richard said: ” “‘What did Bush know, and when did he know it?’ Put this little twit under oath and ask him that question. He has Liar written all over his face. Bring on the impeachment!”
Like his brother, Jeb, when he speaks in public he can barely contain his laughter at what a bunch of idiots the electorate is. They just can’t believe how easy it is to be the biggest crooks in America, and be cheered for it.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 15, 2005 at 9:21 PM Wow! That schizoid jerk is still following us around, eh, Lefty?!
Whatever…couldn’t care less. He is a waste of air.
But back to Downing Street, I think we won’t see a great wave of change happen until the election campaign of ‘06. Then Democrats and Independents and the few moral Republicans that still exist will start to call the Roves, DeLay’s and their slimey ilk out on the carpet for their crimes in an attempt to distance and differentiate themselves.
The MSM WILL be covering that because it’s a critical election. I think a lot of education is going to be quickly done in a side-stream manner at that time for the public. Personally, I can’t tell you how many Republicans I know who are getting pretty fed up with Bush and the GOP in general.
I think that the Democrats will make some good inroads into Congress, and will undertake official House investigations in Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld and DeLay at that time. Since the Plame case dovetails into the Downing Street memos and related papers/releases, I think it will be reactivated at that time to excellent effect.
One can certainly hope!
Posted by Margaret on Jul 15, 2005 at 11:29 PM Well, it just keeps getting worse. Just when I thought Karl Rove couldn’t tell any bigger lies than his claim that he didn’t know the name of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame, once again, he’s topped himself.
Here’s the latest whopper: Source Says Rove Testified He Got Agent’s Identity From Reporter. But Rove Didn’t Recall Who According to a source, the top Bush aide told the grand jury that by the time reporter Robert Novak gave him the agent’s name, he recalls having had similar information from another member of the news media.
So, Rove, McClellan and the Bush White House initially swore they had no involvement in the leak of the name of a CIA agent’s cover. Then two days ago Rove said he spoke with Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about the CIA agent but didn’t mention her by name. Today, he admits talking to Robert Novak but that he had gotten “similar” information from another unnamed member of the news media. And here it gets even more ludicrous because Rove now claims he doesn’t remember the name of that mysterious reporter. Is it possible that it might have been Judith Miller who is now in jail and swears she will take this information to her grave? One would think that even Karl Rove wouldn’t be so stupid as to think the public would think he really forgot her name.
So, who is this unnamed reporter and why can’t we know who it is who jeopardized national security?Why, I ask, is it that a shadowy, as-yet-to-be-named reporter has access to classified national security information, including the names of undercover CIA agents, but yet Karl Rove doesn’t have that information?
This presents a bigger problem (and bigger lie) than if Rove had just admitted that he inadvertently blurted out Valerie Plame’s name without thinking.
Now we have some reporter revealing top secret information compromising national security while White House deupty chief Rove sits idly by instead of becoming furious that this unnamed reporter had such easy access to classified information. If this is Bush’s idea of Homeland security that undercover CIA agents’ names are common knowledge that any reporter can get hold of, we are all in deep, deep doo-doo.
Karl Rove, in not acting on this damaging information immediately is not only derelict in his responsibility to protect our country, but he is even more complicit for not going to the CIA to demand a full investigation immediately.
Instead, the public only recently learned of Rove’s direct involvement, in total contradiction to everything the White House claimed in July 2003. This is a gargantuan coverup of a political smear campaign that is backfiring on the Bush administration big time.
But, Rove is betting that Bush will once again put personal loyalty and politics ahead of the security and welfare of the citizens of the United States.
Will our 10-second MTV attention span mainstream media once again relegate this story to the dust bin of yesterday’s papers? Probably. And that’s Bush’s ace in the hole.
Posted by Richard on Jul 16, 2005 at 2:22 AM Well, ya know, Richard, if they covered unimportant news like Rove’s treason, we might miss the vital stuff like what’s happening with Natalee Holloway in Aruba…
Posted by Margaret on Jul 16, 2005 at 3:00 AM Richard said: “But, Rove is betting that Bush will once again put personal loyalty and politics ahead of the security and welfare of the citizens of the United States.”
Rove is right. Bush would defend Rove if he was caught on tape with a kitchen knife in one hand and Valerie Plame’s head in the other.
Bush is a pimp of the highest order, and so is Rove.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 16, 2005 at 5:38 AM Ronald Reagan once compared the function of a politician to that of (what else) a cowboy: ride around the range until you find a stampeding herd of cattle and then gallop to the head of the herd, shouting, “Follow me, boys!” Aside from his obviously demeaning comparison of voters to cattle, which virtually every politician shares, he meant to imply that any successful politician needs to determine the over-riding concerns of his or her constituents before even considering the possibility of campaigning for the office, and then appeal to those concerns during the campaign.
The general demographic trend for at least the last thirty years has been the migration of blue collar workers from their traditional urban centers in the Northeast, Midwest and the West Coast (the blue states) to the South and the West (the red states), where the cost of living is lower and the costs of production are more attractive to those who own the means of production and can afford to move them there. The majority of these migrants tend to be working-class whites, less educated or skilled, and highly receptive to Republican racist and religious appeals to their resentments and grievances against illegal immigrants, atheistic liberals, union corruption and the crime, drug addiction and welfare-induced indolance of the blacks who originally migrated north to obtain employment in the industrial centers of the Democratically-controlled cities. That they were forced to compete against their white, unionized counterparts served to exacerbate the hostility and racism that already existed between them.
The point is, most people don’t have the time to evaluate the moral implications of the Downing Street Memos, which were released by Murdoch to revive the prospect of an eventual Tory victory over the Liberals, or Rove’s complicity in the Plame controversy, which was initiated to divert attention from the Downing Street Memos. Most people are too busy working their butts off at two or more underpaid jobs in order to pay off their bills, or their children’s college tuition, or worrying about losing what job security they currently possess. They don’t enjoy the luxury of an analytic perspective which you seem to believe is required, and resent the people who do.
Posted by Get Real on Jul 16, 2005 at 2:49 PM It seems to be hugely overstating the case that “Rove jepordized national security” by his actions. While there is no doubt that he and the White House have been dishonest, it is not at all clear that any law has been broken. It is certainly not illegal to say someone works for the CIA **UNLESS** they are being outted as a spy (actually the test is a bit more stingent that this). Nothing i have read compels me to believe that Rove outted Plame - he merely said she worked for the CIA (but did NOT identify her as a covert agent - in fact, Wilson sorta did that).
The real crime is putting people in jail over this. It boggles the mind that the a prosecutor is willing to imprision a reporter on such a thin case.
Final note - i am no fan of Rove or the current occupants of the WH. But i do know that lying is a way of life of politicians or all stripes and all parties. Playing hardball with the little people (reporters) serves no one.
Posted by Beth on Jul 16, 2005 at 3:38 PM Beth,
Yes, most politicians are basically self-serving liars.
But to understand why our national security WAS grossly compromised by Rove’s actions, you have to understand Valerie Plame’s job within the CIA and with whom she trafficked.
She was assigned to a special forces group to find Weapons of Mass Destruction worldwide. She would be sent to a certain area to maintain old and develop new moles within whatever place she was. Through these moles, she would gather intelligence regarding that state’s nuclear, chemical, viral, etc. technologies, as well as their intentions to use these technologies.
When she was outed, she was “hot”, that is, actively undercover in hostile territory. So not only did everyone know her identity and what she was doing, but all her contacts were then “outed”. So the governments and any terrorist factions immediately knew who was associated with Valerie Plame, and we don’t know how many of them were arrested, tortured, killed.
Any leads that they had at that time were abruptly cut off, and who knows what terrorist acts went forward unfettered because of this leak. Our country suddenly was left wide-open to terrorists from that area because no one was watching the store anymore.
So, in summary, Rove’s outing left our agent wide open, our contacts wide open and our country wide open to anyone who wanted to move fast and take “the bomb” through that unwatched area quickly.
How do you know that the Madrid bombers didn’t use that gap? I don’t know either, but I’m sure you get my drift.
Not only that, it is a felony to out an undercover agent. Hope the gravity his of misdeed is clearer to you now.
Posted by Margaret on Jul 16, 2005 at 4:17 PM Beth, you wrote, “It seems to be hugely overstating the case that “Rove jepordized national security” by his actions”
Well, let me say that years ago I may have thought that was a nice way of saying, “Gee, can’t we all just get along?” Oh yes, you’re right that having a measured, kindly and logical debate is a good and healthy thing for our democracy. But that all went down the toilet with Karl Rove and the rest of the smear mongering Republicans who made it a point to politicize both our American flag and Religion (captial R intended). These slime balls want to hear the Democrats or any opposition talk just like your post—practically grovellling and apologizing for demonizing poor Karl Rove, Bush’s doppelganger who is hired to do to Democrats all the things you revile.
Republicans no longer represent anything to me but Evil personified. They trash every person’s character as soon as possible, run Swill Boat smear ads like the ones they used against John Kerry who they accused of being a traitor and then got their proxies on Screech Radio to disseminate their slime. Recently, the same pukes ran a floater ad against AARP depicting the 35 million members of that organization as hating our military and supporting gay marriage—all filthy lies and disgusting, inflammatory propaganda.
Beth, you need to wake up and realize that “take no prisoners” is exactly what James Carville meant when he urged Democrats to fight back, don’t give in to one issue, don’t say, “Well, gosh, I guess you have a point there and we should discuss this.” Carville says, “Crap!” to that, take on these lower-than-whale-crap Republicans every chance you get, go for the jugular and don’t concede one single issue or point.
We won’t win squat until we begin to realize the fact that Republicans attack everyone with a furor and virulence exactly as if they are waging a full-on war. We have the weapons to fight back. Use them!
Do yourself and your friends a favor, get the book written by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, The Banana Republicans. Of all the books on political tactics, this is the best one I’ve ever read and one which I recommend to anyone wanting to understand the Politics as War mentality of what we’re up against with these vicious, anti-democracy, anti-civil liberties and anti-U.S. Constitution Republicans who now control every branch of our government.
Maybe I’ll tell you what I really think sometime. Ha, ha.
Posted by Richard on Jul 16, 2005 at 7:23 PM Thomas
One thing’s for sure. The U.N. weapons inspectors were not allowed by Bush to finish their work this last time because the only reason Bush and Blair proposed having the UN send them back was in the hopes that Sadaam would refuse to allow them, thus providing an excuse to invade. The Downing Street Memos make this pretty clear. Face it Thomas, Bush was determined to invade even before he stole the election of 2000 and would engage in any subterfuge necessary in order to be able to do it. This is an abominable subversion of democracy.
Posted by Louis Rue on Jul 17, 2005 at 6:02 AM Beth,
If it looks like sh** and smells like sh**, it is sh**. Joe Wilson publicly called Bush a liar concerning Iraq’s aquisition of nuclear material from Africa. The next thing you know, Joe Wilson’s wife’s cover is disclosed by Robert Novak. Robert Novak testified that he got the Information from Rove and another of Bush’s staff. Plame’s life was endangered by the leak, which sole purpose was retaliation for calling Bush a liar.
You don’t have to be a genius to connect the dots Beth. There are 3 items of direct evidence that Rove disclosed Plame’s name: 1) the testimony of Novak, 2) the testimony of Time reporter, Cooper, and 3) an email from Rove to Cooper. And there is circumstantial evidence that he did it for the purpose of retailiating against Joe Wilson and to send a message to anyone else who publicly disagrees with Bush, that Rove was willing to commit a federal crime, and possibly treason, to exact revenge against any and all political enemies.
Classic Rove tactics. It’s got Rove’s fingprints all over it.
Do WH Deputy Chiefs of Staff get lifetime Secret Service protection? Rove’s going to need it, if he doesn’t end up in prison, where he and his 2 bosses belong.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 17, 2005 at 6:27 AM Margaret wrote:
>When she was outed, she was “hot”, that is, actively undercover >in hostile territory.
I’d never heard that before, Margaret. If true, it makes whatever involvement Rove had in the matter much more relevant. I’m curious as to your source for this information. Will you provide?
Thanks
Posted by Natalie on Jul 17, 2005 at 8:35 PM Natalie,
Just to make life simpler:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9480.htm
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/novaks-own-statement-contradicts-stor ry.html
There’s plenty more, but I have to go practice-driving with my 16-year old son right now.Enjoy!
Posted by Margaret Billard on Jul 17, 2005 at 9:35 PM Bill Moyers recently said, “Money ruined democracy in America. Washington is gone. Grassroots is our only hope”. Thank God for the internet. It may be our last, best hope to save OUR democracy from the fascists who have stained OUR White House.
Posted by Mark Cartwright on Jul 18, 2005 at 1:57 AM Margaret,
I trust you made it back from your drive safely. Glad I’ve got a few more years before I must face such terror. ;-)
I looked at your links, (second one had a slight typo, but figured it out) but did not see any reference to Plame being “hot and actively undercover in hostile territory”. Perhaps I missed it.
I wasn’t too impressed with the journalistic accuracy of the piece by Jason Leopold, as he kept saying that Bush claimed that Iraq had bought Uranium in Niger, not “sought”.
He has either no knowledge of or no curiousity about the fact that much of what Wilson claimed in op-eds and on TV upon returning from Niger was at variance with his actual CIA report.
I remain curious, however, about your source for the “hot actively undercover in hostile territory” reference.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 18, 2005 at 6:57 AM Mark said:
“Bill Moyers recently said, “Money ruined democracy in America. Washington is gone. Grassroots is our only hope”. Thank God for the internet. It may be our last, best hope to save OUR democracy from the fascists who have stained OUR White House.”
Mark, it’s all mental masterbation when the conservatives in power have given over the collection and tabulation of the vote to corrupt, biased private corporations like Diebold. It doesn’t matter what the majority thinks, or how they vote, if the vote count is a fraud.
Based on what happened in Ohio and in Florida (in the last 2 elections), I have no confidence in the accuracy of the vote count.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 18, 2005 at 12:22 PM Hi Margaret - Thanks for the post. I had just read in my local paper that Plame was no covert when the leak took place (i have no reference, it was probably an AP story). Anyway, i too would like to see more on her actual status at the time of the leak.
And is there nothing that can be done with the troll who obviously is impersonating people? He/she adds nothing but noise and confusion to this site. Fortuanately, s/he is pretty transparent. . .
Posted by Beth on Jul 18, 2005 at 2:40 PM from: http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150009
” It’s super-double-secret information for a reason: Outing covert agents has consequences
Too often lost amid the irrelevant noise about whether Rove said Plame’s name, whether he was trying to warn reporters away from incorrect stories, or how often Valerie Plame went to Langley, is any substantive discussion of the consequences of Plame’s outing. Covert agents, after all, are covert for a reason, and disclosing their identity has real-world implications.
In October 2003, Time magazine reported that Plame was a “CIA spy tracking weapons of mass destruction (WMD).” Former CIA officer Jim Marcinkowski told Time, “Her career as an undercover operative is over. ... She will no longer be safe traveling overseas.” In other words, the outing cost the CIA an intelligence asset—and may have put Plame’s life at risk.
But that’s not all, as Time explained:
[I]n this case, the officer was one who was working on the most vital security issue of all, the proliferation of WMD. At a time when good intelligence and successful spying has never been more essential to the nation’s defense, the deliberate unmasking of a spy sent shudders through the secret web of spooks worldwide. When a U.S. operative is unmasked, foreign spy agencies go back, retrace his steps, review his contacts and try to figure out how the CIA operated in their country. “Anyone who was seen with her overseas is tainted now,” warns a former officer who knew Plame. “If she went to the grocery store and talked to the grocer, people will say, ‘I wonder if he was working for her?’”
In Plame’s case, the damage may go even deeper. Plame was an NOC, meaning she did her job overseas under nonofficial cover and not out of an embassy or government office. Many in her family did not know she worked for the agency. Such unofficial covers are often with private companies to further disguise an operative’s real work. Plame had worked with Brewster Jennings & Associates, an obscure energy firm that may have been a CIA front company. Deep covers take time, luck and work to develop; the outing of an NOC also blows the cover of the involved business or private entity.
Maybe that’s why former President (and Director of Central Intelligence) George H. W. Bush said at the 1999 dedication of a CIA building named for him, “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.” ”
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 18, 2005 at 2:41 PM That last post under my name was not me at all. Clearly, it was just someone impersonating my likeness in a puerile smear campaign. Ignore the impostor!
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 3:00 PM from: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml
“What I Told The Grand Jury”
By Matthew Cooper
Time MagazineMonday 25 July 2005 Issue
“Matthew Cooper reveals exactly what Karl Rove told him—and what the special counsel zeroed in on.”
last paragraph:
” So did Rove leak Plame’s name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the “agency” on “WMD”? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don’t know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I’m as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has.”
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 18, 2005 at 3:51 PM from: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705B.shtml
“Follow the Uranium “
By Frank Rich
The New York TimesSunday 17 July 2005
excerpts:
” Even so, we shouldn’t get hung up on him - or on most of the other supposed leading figures in this scandal thus far. Not Matt Cooper or Judy Miller or the Wilsons or the bad guy everyone loves to hate, the former CNN star Robert Novak. This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players.
To see the main plot, you must sweep away the subplots, starting with the Cooper e-mail. It has been brandished as a smoking gun by Bush bashers and as exculpatory evidence by Bush backers (Mr. Rove, you see, was just trying to ensure that Time had its facts straight). But no one knows what this e-mail means unless it’s set against the avalanche of other evidence, most of it secret, including what Mr. Rove said in three appearances before the grand jury. Therein lies the rub, or at least whatever case might be made for perjury. “
and: see next post
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 18, 2005 at 4:05 PM “This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit - the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes - is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That’s why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative who posed for Vanity Fair.
So put aside Mr. Wilson’s February 2002 trip to Africa. The plot that matters starts a month later, in March, and its omniscient author is Dick Cheney. It was Mr. Cheney (on CNN) who planted the idea that Saddam was “actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.” The vice president went on to repeat this charge in May on “Meet the Press,” in three speeches in August and on “Meet the Press” yet again in September. Along the way the frightening word “uranium” was thrown into the mix.
By September the president was bandying about the u-word too at the United Nations and elsewhere, speaking of how Saddam needed only a softball-size helping of uranium to wreak Armageddon on America. But hardly had Mr. Bush done so than, offstage, out of view of us civilian spectators, the whole premise of this propaganda campaign was being challenged by forces with more official weight than Joseph Wilson. In October, the National Intelligence Estimate, distributed to Congress as it deliberated authorizing war, included the State Department’s caveat that “claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa,” made public in a British dossier, were “highly dubious.” A C.I.A. assessment, sent to the White House that month, determined that “the evidence is weak” and “the Africa story is overblown.”
AS if this weren’t enough, a State Department intelligence analyst questioned the legitimacy of some mysterious documents that had surfaced in Italy that fall and were supposed proof of the Iraq-Niger uranium transaction. In fact, they were blatant forgeries. When Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said as much publicly in the days just before “shock and awe,” his announcement made none of the three evening newscasts. The administration’s apocalyptic uranium rhetoric, sprinkled with mushroom clouds, had been hammered incessantly for more than five months by then - not merely in the State of the Union address - and could not be dislodged. As scenarios go, this one was about as subtle as “Independence Day” and just as unstoppable a crowd-pleaser.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705B.shtml
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 18, 2005 at 4:06 PM Ignore the Fake Bud above. Any consistent follower of this thread or previous threads knows that I like Chomsky and find him to be a credible source. Michael hardesty (Martin) is a Chomsky-basher, ignore him please.
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 6:45 PM Beth,
He’s baaaack! The paid conservative TROLL is Michael Hardesty, aka Martin, Mikey, Peter, Jack Barnes, and many other pseudonyms (including using others’ screen names - like mine), whose sole purpose is to hijack threads and disrupt liberal dialogue. JUST IGNORE HIM.
Do a Google search for “Michael Hardesty” and you’ll see he does the same thing on other liberal message boards.
His posts are usually formatted to the left 1/2 of the text field, but not always. He can also be detected by his childish, sometimes obscene language, references to Ayn Rand and libertarianism, use of words like “wordsalad,” and overt racism. The obscenity and racism should be enough to get him banned.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 18, 2005 at 7:08 PM In the mean time, the Downing Street Memo is just the the hard evidence that Bush is a war criminal. Many, formerly in the government during Bush’s first term, like Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil, have reported that Bush’s first order of business after the 2,000 election was to try to find some excuse to invade Iraq.
Bush has committed the greatest breach of public trust in U.S. history. If going to war for personal gain is not a high crime, then there is no such thing.
Bush should be impeached, and along with his family, the Saud family and his cabinet be tried for treason, and after a fair trial given 20 years in the electric chair, and then hung by their necks. JMHO. LOL.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 18, 2005 at 7:14 PM David Michael Green said:
“And fifth, that the administration did almost no planning for the aftermath of the invasion.”
That’s exactly right. Why should Bush care about that. He has made his war profiteering money. Someone else is going to have to clean up the mess.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 18, 2005 at 7:19 PM Whether she was technically out-of-the country or not, she was still a current and active CIA agent. Rove/Novak’s outing of her is clearly a concerted effort to tarnish Ambassador Wilson’s credibilty.
To reveal an active covert agent, which CIA operatives are always regardless of physical location, is a high crime. Whether she was in the States or not at that particular moment, it is still treason to reveal the name of an active, covert agent. All our moles in those foreign countries which were in her repertoire were instantly thrown into a situation of grave danger. The “bad guys” knew EXACTLY who had been tattling. Not too good for National Security, which the Bush Administration is ALL about, right?
I do realize that the Republican filth will try to wiggle out of this the way Clinton did with “is”. But hopefully, the public/press won’t let it go. It’s gotta happen sometime.
By the way, the obvious and infantile-devised messages a few blogs back were not me. Just Satan out for his daily walk.
Posted by Margaret on Jul 19, 2005 at 5:35 AM I am the true Bud, a Chomsky believer. I started posting on July 5 and was a clear liberal. Only recently has an anti-Chomsky troll hijacked my screenname to spread libertarian filth. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by bud on Jul 19, 2005 at 5:13 PM Thank you, Margaret, for your “covert” admission that your statement regarding Plame’s whereabouts and status when “outed” was well….imagined I guess. I say that because you offer no explanation, no apology, no accounting for why you would make such a concise and authoritative statement that is so obviously false:
“When she was outed, she was “hot”, that is, actively undercover in hostile territory.”
You seem to believe that anyone identifying a covert CIA agent is committing a felony or is guilty of “treason”, or a “high crime”. Surely you know from recent news coverage that there are very specific conditions that must be met in order for an outing to be a crime. Rove may or may not satisfy those conditions, but making statements such as:
“Not only that, it is a felony to out an undercover agent.”
misrepresents the law regarding the outing of CIA covert agents. The very people who wrote the law that applies here, which incidentally was voted against by Wilson’s supposedly new buddy Chuck Schumer and 31 other Democrats, say that Rove has probably not gone astray of it. If he has gone astray of this or any other law, good riddance, Karl. You can chat between the bars with Judith. Why is she still in jail, BTW? Why aren’t journalists more curious about that?
Plame has been outed repeatedly by the CIA itself, by foreign agents, in effect by herself in her marriage to high profile Wilson—long before Novak started writing about her—so her “covertness” is questionable. It was common knowledge in journalistic and other elite circles who she was. It’s comical to see all the faux outrage about Rove mentioning her connection to Wilson at the tail end of a conversation that he didn’t even initiate, when the real blame should be laid at the feet of Plame and Wilson themselves for their unprofessional and disingenuous behavior. Recommending an unqualified, non-CIA person (a diplomat that just happens to be your husband) to gather intelligence? Writing a controversial editorial for the New York Times filled with falsehoods and knowing that plenty of journalists know about your CIA wife?
Faux outrage because people suddenly sounding so concerned (Chuck Schumer) about the effectiveness and safety of CIA agents have done everything in their power to compromise both in the past. Does the name Frank Church ring any bells? Robert “choir boys only for agents” Toricelli? John “let’s abolish the CIA” Kerry? Jamie “the wall” Gorelick?
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America, the Washington Post, the Tribune Company (which publishes the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun, among other papers), and the White House Correspondents (the organization which represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the executive branch). all argued in court that no law had been broken in the so called outing of Plame:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp
I would encourage you to read the brief submitted by these news organizations which is linked to in the above article.
Now, your “conservative” media is loath to mention such embarrassing things as they pursue their target, the baby-faced devil Karl Rove. Hmmm….I’m surprised a conservative media’s attention wouldn’t be focused elsewhere.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 20, 2005 at 4:18 PM The “conservative” media has barely even touched the Downing Street memo, which is what this discussion is about in the first place. Natalie, if you need a litany of examples of the conservative media in practice, go to http://www.mediamatters.org for more information. This instance with Rove is far more grave than Monica-gate which the establishment media harped on constantly. Anways, with respect to Rove, the media barely touched the leak until news broke that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate it. Need evidence of Rove’s direct involvement? Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff was able to obtain a damning email that Matt Cooper wrote three days before Novak’s column appeared. That email noted that Cooper had spoken to Rove on “double super secret background” and that Rove had told him that Wilson’s “wife…apparently works at the agency on wmd issues.” This was the first documentary evidence that Rove had been involved in the leak. His lawyer’s immediate spin was that Rove had not mentioned Valerie Wilson/Plame by name. A very weak defense indeed. The White House stonewalled, absurdly refusing to answer any questions about Rove or its previous statements on the leak. Angry White House reporters rightfully accused the White House of having misled the public. The issue is not only whether Rove engaged in criminal behavior. It’s also what the White House will do about Rove and Libby- the two aides involved in the leak. The Cooper email proves that Rove leaked national security information to undermine a critic. And if Rove didn’t know Valerie Wilson was undercover, he leaked without checking, which means he handled secret information recklessly.
With respect to the validity of Wilson’s asserions, they have proven to be accurate. Wilson was qualified to go to Niger, having not only been the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, but had also served as a diplomat to several African nations in the same region as Niger as well. What Wilson found was that all uranium mining in Niger was under the tight control of a French-led consortium, so it would be known quickly if Iraq had attempted to acquire such fissile material. Also, the documents purporting to verify such a transaction were clear forgeries, with French words mispelled and inaccurate dates. One of the signators had been out of public service for a long time, so it was impossible that he could have signed the document. Try doing some actual research Natalie and you will see Wilson was dead accurate in his conclusions. He went to the White House first to tell them about his findings but he was ignored, so he then went public with his results. The Vanity Fair appearance was made well after the leak, and if you looked at the article as I did, Plame was wearing dark sunglasses with her hair tucked under a bonnet. She was not identifiable. The National Review is a right-wing rag. You cannot get credible information from that filthy piece of propoganda.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 20, 2005 at 8:34 PM Natalie is a practitioner of the conservative art of pulling facts out of . . . . That, or she just parrots what is spoon fed to her by the corporate media, you know, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Thavage [he said, tongue in cheek].
Posted by Lefty on Jul 21, 2005 at 1:01 PM Natalie,
Nice try, but no cigar.
I am admitting nothing. When I was explaining to Beth that Valerie Plame was “hot”, I used the phrases to explain what hot meant. She may or may not have been actually out of the country at that moment, but all her contacts/moles were “hot”.
Also, according to the special prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, this is a high crime, one that is a felony and also is called treason. So sorry that you got it wrong on that count. I don’t give a monkey’s what the press says, the courts say differently.
Of course, Rove, being the slimeball he is, will wiggle and posture and use all kinds of legaleese to make it seem like he “accidentally” spilled the beans, but I don’t think this prosecutor will buy that.
Has it been proven yet? No, so I have to sit back and let the law do it’s job. But the evidence certainly points to an intentional outing. I don’t even get how you can’t see that.
You are to Christian honesty what Vichy France was to French nationalism.
Posted by Susie Q on Jul 21, 2005 at 2:48 PM p.s.
Some jerkwad stole my name so when I tried to log on, it said it was already taken. So I’ve had to go back to my childhood nickname, but it is me, Margaret.
Posted by Susie Q on Jul 21, 2005 at 2:49 PM Please, Liberal, don’t fall for this fallacy that the media is conservative. You can believe it if you want, but any time you base your opinions and arguments on a false premise such as this, you can’t help but go terribly wrong down the line.
Reporters and their editors (former reporters) are almost universally liberal. They are even more liberal than the average Democrat. Poll after Poll and study after study confirm this. Walter Cronkite admits it. Not only their ideology, but how that affects their treatment and selection of the news and who is allowed access to their forums. The Swiftvets were simply not allowed on these people’s airwaves, and if they were, it was only to be shouted down or ganged up on. Bernard Goldberg was similarly snubbed. Would a conservative media behave this way? Explain that to me. I doubt you can. The media simply will do all it can to prop up the Democratic party while still maintaining basic credibility.
I think perhaps the fact that the media is sometimes not willing to cover ultra-left fringe issues is a reason liberals confuse them with being conservative. But the media know that reminding people of the Democratic party’s solidarity with those pushing these issues is not generally good for them electorally. They hope and pray for Democrats to get elected, but they are smart enough to know that the country is basically center-right conservative and is not receptive to most of what the ultra-left proposes.
The DSM is a case in point. If there was anything there to latch onto, they would be all over it. If it were something sexy like “Bush was awol from the TANG”, or “Karl Rove outed a CIA covert agent”, there would be coverage. But the memos don’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I think most people understood that Bush was going to invade regardless, after the massive deployment, and had ample reason to. To back down after that would have been worse than a thousand Mogadishus, and I believe a far better recruiting tool than the actual invasion has been.
Plus, the memos illustrate how concerned the British were as well about Saddam having WMD. Hardly good ammunition for perpetuating the myth “Bush lied”.I’m suspicious you didn’t even read the NRO article because you totally ignored its point: Why is it that the media does not inform you of the position it took in court seeking to de-criminalize the “leak” during its coverage of the Karl Rove controversy? I know….because it’s conservative, right?
The article simply summarizes (and links to) the arguments put forth by the media in its brief. That you consider one of the premier sources of conservative thinking a right-wing rag and propaganda is another example of operating under a false premise which results in preventing yourself from understanding how a huge percentage ( I would even say a majority) of Americans think. This kind of blindness can only handicap the left in its effort to broaden its appeal to the average voter.
I may be wrong, perhaps Wilson was qualified to go to Niger, at least on face value. However, when the partisan leanings of he and his wife become obvious, and he misrepresents his experience in Niger in the New York Times, the whole scheme becomes suspect. Wilson never mentions in his op-ed, as he did when he was debriefed by the CIA, the testimony of Niger’s former Prime Minister indicating that Iraq had indeed approached Niger with what he assumed to be the intent of procuring yellowcake.
So the sixteen words were exactly accurate, according to Wilson himself. I’m shocked that such a conservative media wouldn’t be more aggressive in pointing that out.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 21, 2005 at 4:25 PM Pretty lame explanation, Margaret. You made a very specific unambiguous statement, for which I gave you ample time to support and explain. I think you’ve been “outed” in your attempt to present misleading information in order to advance your political agenda.
Just like Mr. Wilson!
I don’t dispute that Rove may be guilty of some crime. However I do dispute your blanket statements on treason, high crimes, and felonies, which I don’t think are supported by the law.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 21, 2005 at 5:12 PM Natalie, you say you have “evidence” that the media is liberal but you do not provide it. The truth is, any systematic examination of reporting by the MSM does not reveal ANY liberal bias. The downing street memo is a big issue. At the time it was conceived, the administration said it wanted to go to war with Iraq only as a last resort. The case for invasion was thin, read my earlier posts in this thread under the alias “Bud.” What the memo reveals is an impeachable offense, misleading the Congress and the public over matters of war and peace, acts far more severe than getting a bj in the Oval Office a few times by a consenting adult.
William Kristol has admitted that the conservative accusation of a liberal media is not true and fromer RNC Chairman Rich Bond admitted that the charges were an effort by the right to “work the refs” in order to receive more favorable coverage. As you can see, the right is using the “liberal” charge as a political tool.
Those sixteen words are NOT true. The State Department labled the yellowcake-Niger charge as “highly dubious.” Are they partisan hacks as well? George Tenet took the yellowcake charge out of the president’s speech in Cincinnati on October 7th, but they somehow reappeared in his State of the Union address three months later. That accusation was still not true. Open your eyes Natalie, your case is the one that rests on a “false premise.”
Posted by Liberal on Jul 21, 2005 at 7:24 PM Regardless of what you think of Wilson, that still does not justify what Rove did. I thought this nation was ruled by adults, not children who operate out of a visceral desire for revenge.
In 2000, the majority of newspapers supported Bush over Gore. How is that liberal? The MSM propogated the GOP propoganda that Gore said he “invented the internet.” They never called Bush out when he said he never lived a day of his life in Washington, D.C., despite the fact that he HAD. Bush lived for eighteen months in northwest D.C. as a paid political consultant to his daddy’s 1988 presidential campaign.
The MSM has consistently presented GOP talking points about the Plame investigation as truth, despite their inaccuracy. The AP had to correct a story it ran on the issue when it turned out it misrepresented a statement by Wilson regarding his wife’s status as a CIA agent. The Washington Post had to retract a story it ran on the Downing Street Memo by Dana Milbank because it was blatantly false and partisan. The New York Times let Judith Miller write a series of influential WMD stories on its front page despite the fact that Miller was spoon fed her info by DOD whore Ahmed Chalabi. Nothing that douchebag said has proven to be true.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 21, 2005 at 8:12 PM Natalie,
You are so far-off base, it’s really sad.
A CIA agent who has ongoing, current covert activities is HOT. It is not a question of her geographic location. You seem unable to understand the concept that when she was outed, she could no longer, or ever again, move within those covert circles to gather intelligence of extreme importance to our country. Rove imperiled national security by his outing.
Also, the Rove case was on the upper-half fold of the Washington Post today. It also will be on CSpan for at least 4 hours tomorrow. CNN plans on covering the demonstrations in LA and possibly NY about the DSM, which dovetail into Rove’s issue.
Sorry to tell you, but it is getting a lot of coverage. A Gallup poll a few days ago stated that 50% of the respondents have been following it.
I’m glad you’re a patriot, but you need to wake up. You’re supporting the devil’s team.
Posted by Susie Q on Jul 22, 2005 at 12:16 AM Natalie,
If anyone has been outed for being unable to support her facts, it’s you. You cannot, and have not, support any of the facts you rely on with authoritative sources. To me, your “facts” are clearly false propaganda to anyone who gains information outside of the main stream corporate media whores you so jealously rely on. You are either a conservative troll, or a brainwashed automaton.
How does that grab you?
Furthermore, it’s hilarious the way conservatives are so ready to eat their own, like Joe Wilson, republican. I guess he’s not conservative enough - read: willing to be a wholesale liar.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 22, 2005 at 2:05 PM Natalie,
If the MSM is so liberal, where are all the 24/7 CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, reports about the greatest breach of public trust in U.S. history - Iraqgate, the war that has no other purpose than the personal enrichment of the Bush family and their friends. Why did it take over a month, from the time ITT and other true liberal media reported objective evidence of fruad - the Downing Street Memos, before a single MSM reported on it? Why have they stopped discussing it? Yet, when Clinton lied about getting a blow job, the story received 24/7 coverage for 2 years from the entire cable MSM.
You state as fact that reporters and editors are mostly liberal, and cite Walter Cronkite as your source. Assuming, arguendo, that this is all true (which, knowing you are a conservative, I do not take for granted), and that WC actually said that, that’s not the end of the analysis, Natalie. Despite the alleged liberalness of MSM’s reporters and editors, the product of the MSM is not liberal. It is a gigantic cover-up of the crimes of Bush and the conservative government in power.
The undisputed fact, Natalie, is that the MSM has been 100% bought up by conservative corporations who support Bush and the conservative government. That would explain the MSM coverup and diversionary tactics. Further, your implied premise that liberal reporters produce liberally biased work product is unfounded. Being liberal means being open and honest and reporting the facts as you see them, even if that means your political side may be harmed by it. By contrast, it is reasonable to conclude that conservative reporters (you know, Hannity, Limbaugh, Thavage, Drudge, O’Reilly, Blitzer, etc. etc.), have proven themselves to be not only biased, but to be guilty of engaging in well organized smear campaigns, coverups and frauds on the public. Conservative reporters are propagandists by definition, well paid to be just that by their corporate employers.
IF ANYTHING IS LAME, NATALIE, IT’S YOUR ANALYSIS.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 22, 2005 at 2:22 PM I second the statements by Susie-Q (Margaret) and Lefty. The conservative accusation of a liberal media is patently false. See “The Repubican Noise Machine” by David Brock and “Big Lies” by Joe Conason for further info.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 22, 2005 at 3:29 PM Natalie,
Did you watch the coverage on CSpan?
It seems that all the former CIA Case Managers and the very, very highly qualified and distinguished retired military men that were on the panel said that irreperable damage has been done to American intelligence and that decades of setting up contacts to be our eyes in the African/Middle East arena have been permanently lost because of Rove/Novak.
They verified everything I have said on this thread. Now, an atomic attack of the U.S. could be in the work in that region, and we now have no eyes or ears because of that malicious bit of political retribution. They all demanded that Rove be tried for treason.
Irrelevant? I don’t know, Natalie, why don’t you ask those people blown up in London? Who could have leaked clues warning us and the Brits about that? Oh, yeah, that’s right…no one will spy for us now because they understand that petty White House officials are allowed to “out” them if it suits their political purposes, and they just don’t feel like having their wives and children toturted to death in front of them for their cooperation with the Americans.
Posted by Susie Q on Jul 23, 2005 at 4:50 PM Here are some transcipts of that hearing, just for your convenience. It may be quite eye-opening for you to hear what someone who actually knows what they’re talking about gives the straight story instead of the GOP “Talking Points” that are being delivered all over the media by people like McCain and Bush.
http://www.davidcorn.com/2005/07/a_cia_vets_mess.php
Posted by Susie Q on Jul 23, 2005 at 5:24 PM According to an article which appeared today in the Los Angeles Times “Prosecutors could have an easier time winning a conviction under another law that makes it a crime for officials with security clearances to disseminate certain information. According to that statute, it could be a crime to have confirmed that Plame was a CIA agent if she was operating undercover.”
The main focus of Justice Department investigator Patrick Fitzgerald may still be on Karl Rove but additionally the perjury statements of both Rove and Irv Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff, are equally important because it is now clear that either Libby lied, Rove lied or possibly Tim Russert of MSNBC lied.
According to the L.A. Times, “Libby, according to a person familiar with events, told investigators that he learned Plame’s name from a reporter, apparently Tim Russert of NBC-TV.
But Russert, who spoke with Fitzgerald last summer after Libby released him from a pledge of confidentiality, said he did not give Plame’s name to Libby, according to a statement issued by NBC at the time.”
Even if the Bush mob manages to stonewall this blatant attempt to hide the truth Bush cannot in any way escape unscathed nor can he be absolved in the coverup of an exercise in political smearmongering for which he alone is responsible. After all, it was his and his war hawks’ decision to wage war based on fictitious claims of Iraq’s possession of WMD has put tens of thousands into their graves, both U.S. military and Iraqi citizens.
There is no way on God’s green earth that after two years Bush could not have known about his senior officials’ involvement nor can he have not discussed strategies to cover up their lies with his White House cohorts including Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan, Karl Rove, Irv “Scooter” Libby and Dick Cheney.
They all conspired together and they should all be made to answer to the American people, including where the buck stops—with Bush who sits in the Oval Office.
But G. W. Bush is so vindictive and so completely engrossed in his own self-aggrandizement that he will launch yet another war, probably against Iran, if for no other reason than to take himself off the hot seat for his insidious and vindictive acts of partisan politics in which he is so deeply immersed.
We have heard this so many times,“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.”
Posted by Richard2 on Jul 23, 2005 at 6:22 PM Thanks for the concise update, Richard. Hopefully the woefully misled may finally start to see some light through that dark veil they’ve placed over their own eyes.
Posted by Susie Q on Jul 23, 2005 at 8:39 PM I’m so gratified to see what I hope is genuine concern on the part of the left, represented here by Susie, Lefty, Liberal and Richard times two about the value and importance of human intelligence. I’m afraid however, that it might be merely political. I’d be interested to hear an explanation as to how one squares their fuming furious outrage about the supposed outing of a supposed covert agent with their allegiance to a party that has been hardly a supporter of the CIA in general, and largely responsible for the systematic de-valuing of human intelligence over the last several decades.
The CIA has suddenly gone in the mind of the left from being the evil force behind the empowerment of Saddam, the Contras and Satan himself to an organization vital to national security who’s agents are brave heros and need to be protected. Quite a transformation.
Was there similar outrage coursing through your veins when the New York Times recently blew or at least substantially contributed to the blowing of the cover of a covert CIA airline operation? Outing this CIA operation exposed secret agents operating in the field that were “hot, that is, actively undercover in hostile territory”, Susie, in circumstances of great personal danger, not a civilian desk employee.
http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/1397
Were there any laments about of the possibility of national security being compromised by a president carrying on an illicit affair making him highly suseptable to blackmail? How about for allowing missile technology to be traded to China for campaign cash? A little consistency is all one would hope for.
Like I’ve maintained from the start, if Rove or any other Whitehouse officials are found guilty of crimes, I will be right there with you demanding they be fired. However, it certainly doesn’t seem that Rove was actively trying to out an agent. Maybe I’m partisan, but Judith Miller appears to be acting more like a guilty party than Rove, who has cooperated from the start and signed blanket releases to journalists to quote him.
In the meantime, I can’t help but notice some glaring omissions and lack of curiosity about certain things on the part of the “conservative” (LOL) media. Failure to adequately focus on the partisanship and misdirection of Wilson and Plame and how THAT contributed to Plame’s identity and relationship being revealed. Why won’t Judith Miller testify? Might her sources include Wilson or Plame themselves? Could she be the one who had knowledge of Plame’s identity through her reporting on WMD, and been the first to “out” her?
Why is it up to the right wing blogosphere to point out the glaring inconsistency between the media’s court brief arguing against criminality and all their headlines asking the probing question: “Did Karl break the law?” Why is it never asked of Wilson why he omitted the details from his op-ed that led the CIA to be even more convinced of the likelihood that Iraq had indeed approached Niger about procuring yellowcake, as Bush legitimately stated in his SOTU speech:
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
I don’t put too much stock in a partisan unofficial hearing calling likely partisan sympathetic witnesses, any more than liberals would if the roles were reversed. There are partisans in the CIA (and the FBI for that matter) on both sides of the aisle, and it’s been amply demonstrated that they are often willing to exercise that partisanship to further their agendas or quench their desire to contribute to the debate. (Michael Scheuer, Mark Felt)
Posted by Natalie on Jul 25, 2005 at 1:39 AM Regardless of what liberals think about the CIA, we NEVER advocated disclosing the names of covert agents for revenge. At that Senate Democratic Caucus hearing on C-SPAN, if you cared to watch, there were former intelligence officers WHO VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2000 testifying. They do not sound partisan to me. Rather, it seems they were motivated to speak out because they could no longer sit idly by and see a national security asset exposed for political revenge. Plame was working on WMD non-proliferation issues. She was not involved in overthrowing elected governments or any of that garbage. She was in a field that is not controversial across the political spectrum. Wilson, I WILL SAY AGAIN, is not a partisan hack. His conclusions were buffered by the State Department and other government officials. WILSON GAVE $1000 TO THE BUSH CAMPAIGN IN 1999!! If he was partisan, it was for, not against, Bush.
The most insane part of your last post is trying to compare what Clinton did with Lewinsky to what Rove did. Clinton did not disclose any confidential information to Lewinsky that could later be used against him. Lewinsky was a power whore, she did not have ambitions beyond screwing someone powerful. You really are desperate aren’t you, Natalie?
Posted by Liberal on Jul 25, 2005 at 5:35 PM Natalie, Judith Miller did not report about Plame AT ALL, so she did not do any disclosing. She is stonewalling the special prosecutor likely because she has even more damning evidence against Rove and Libby but is too partisan to disclose it to Fitzgerald. She is no liberal, read her preinvasion WMD reporting and her more recent U.N. reporting if you are still unconvinced. It is a legitimate question to ask if Rove broke a law. Maybe the media is focusing on this issue now because the Bush administration has changed its own criteria from dismissing anyone involved in the leak to anyone who broke a law. Wipe the crap from your eyes Natalie, you’ll see a lot better.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 25, 2005 at 5:41 PM THE WAR ON TERROR:
Several articles have brought lively discussions on this, but whatever our political leanings we need to grasp the major global change we have witnessed. “In These Times” one evil person is capable of more than an entire army in times past.
Those who have declared themselves to be our mortal enemies recognized no “innocents.” They have no country. No nationality. Recognize no alternate view — no compromise — no appeasement. This is about power. They had it centuries ago and that memory is kept alive in their teachings. Anyone who does not accept their narrow view of life and afterlife, is a target. They believe (and rightly so) western ways are a threat to their way of life. Their goal is to end ours.
The administration has done a dismal job of making a case for our military actions. As a result they have alienated other countries more than usual. Whether out of fear of creating panic or to keep financial markets happy, they have declared a war and encouraged business as usual. Unless, of course, you or a loved one is in a combat zone, this is how most are treating it.
They have done nothing to prepare people to defend against chemical, biological, or radiological attack. I served in an army chemical unit and could identify several symptoms. We should be teaching identification and appropriate action. Decontamination stations should be set up. Our retired population has many skills — military, teaching, law enforcement and as volunteers could train others, thus freeing up first responders.
This week in London the normally gun shy Brits shot and killed a man who refused the order to halt. No doubt this will bring media repercussions. Whatever his reasons for running turn out to be, the police had to make an instant decision.
We must put ourselves into the time and place when judging this action. What if his bulky jacket did cover a bomb? It could have been a dirty bomb. (The BBC presentation DIRTY WAR this spring presented such a scenario.) If the officer had not shot him and such a bomb exploded, the officer would be dead, a large number of innocent people killed, and a major city contaminated forever.
Similarly, what if our President did not go after the WMD Saddam was believed to have? (UN inspectors and several other major countries were convinced still he still had some.) What if such an attack followed the 9/11 attacks? Whether our invasions were the best thing to do or not, wherever these extremist are, we must hunt them down and world cooperation is needed.A couple of the books which I recently read give detailed incites into the Middle East situation. THE CRISIS OF ISLAM, by Bernard Lewis, is a overview of the Muslim extremists’ history, reasoning, and tactics.
MARTYRS’ DAY, by the late Michael Kelly, is a first hand account of the first gulf war (He was killed in the current one.) He writes of the Kurdish disillusionment when President G.H.W. Bush did not remove Saddam. Also he covers the use of gas and later methodical eradication of thousands of Kurds by Saddam.Unlike a totalitarian system, ours does not operate with the consistancy of an individual. We have made what now seem to be stupid policy decisions in the past (backing Saddam — the Cold War made strange bedfellows), but a Balance of Power approach is not effective against the current threat. We need to ignore a variety of topical and political disagreements and develop a rational, effective defense of our society.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 25, 2005 at 6:11 PM Natalie,
If you’re so concerned about squaring the treatment of the CIA, why aren’t you outraged at the disassembling policy currently underway by Porter Goss, Bush’s appointee, who now has no real power at all? It has been given to Negroponte, that purveyor of Central American death squads.
You are really getting desparate. Do us all a favor and follow the news for the next month and see what Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald comes up with in indictments. Seems to me that obstruction of justice and perjury are exactly what your party got Clinton on for his blow job.
Fortunuately, no one died because of that. Your party has blood all over you on this one. And, obviously, you didn’t watch CSpan or talk with anyone ever involved with the CIA, as Valerie was “hot” and “covert” because of her established network of spies in the Middle East. You just really don’t get anything that doesn’t jibe with your fantasy world, do you?
Posted by Susie Q on Jul 25, 2005 at 10:36 PM Whattheheck, you make it seem that almost everyone believed Iraq had WMD. Tell that to Scott Ritter who correctly stated that the administration HAD NO CASE FOR IRAQI WMD. He was teated as a traitor in the mainstream media. Just read the transcripts of the interviews conducted with him on CNN and FOX. Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, before his country was bombed back to the stoneage by the U.S., before dehabilitating economic sanctions were imposed, and BEFORE U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTORS DESTROYED EVERYTHING, as history has proven to be 100% accurate. Hussein Kamel stated in his debriefing before CIA officials when he defected that he had personally overseen the destruction OF ALL OF IRAQ’S CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS!! Iraq never kicked the inspectors out, the U.S. removed them prior to the unjustified Desert Fox operation which targeted Saddam personally and not his supposed weapons in clear contravention of international law and U.N. Security Council Resolutions. You only think there was a consensus because the media portrayed it that way. In other countries, where the media is more democratic and patriotic, the populace was far more skeptical of U.S. assertions of Iraqi WMD possession, and it turns out their skepticism was justified!!
The Downing Street Memos proves that the U.S. was making up intelligence to justify an unnecessary war and in fact began the air campaign against Saddam MORE THAN EIGHT MONTHS before the first U.S. ground troops entered that country. The “sources” Bush had for Iraqi WMD were exiles who had a vested personal interest in seeing Saddam deposed. EVERYTHING THEY SAID WAS FALSE!!!! BUSH KNEW THAT!!!!
Posted by Liberal on Jul 26, 2005 at 1:32 AM Natalie,
I have said, several times, that a conservative cannot make an argument without the aid of a false premise. Let’s count the false premises in your last post, express and implied, shall we:
1. “supposed outing”
2. “supposed covert agent”
3. “a party that has been hardly a supporter of the CIA in general”
4. “largely responsible for the systematic de-valuing of human intelligence over the last several decades”
5. “The CIA has suddenly gone in the mind of the left from being the evil force behind the empowerment of Saddam, the Contras and Satan himself”
6. “in circumstances of great personal danger, not a civilian desk employee”
7. “the possibility of national security being compromised by a president carrying on an illicit affair making him highly suseptable to blackmail” [Blahahahahaha, you’re so predictable Natatlie. Let us please forget about the ACTUAL compromise of U.S. security that occurred under the imbicile Bush’s watch, and lets dwell on what might have happened under Clinton. Blahahahahahaha]
8. “missile technology to be traded to China for campaign cash”
9. “it certainly doesn’t seem that Rove was actively trying to out an agent” [Actually, Natalie, that’s exactly what it seems like]
10. “Rove, who has cooperated from the start and signed blanket releases to journalists to quote him” [Blah, Blah, Blahahahahahaha . . . help, I’m laughing so hard I think I pulled a muscle]
11. “partisanship and misdirection of Wilson and Plame” [Oh? Those two Republicans bashed some liberals and Rove decided to retaliate agians them and commit a federal felony? Is that your premise?]
12. “Why won’t Judith Miller testify? Might her sources include Wilson or Plame themselves”
13. “Why is it never asked of Wilson why he omitted the details from his op-ed that led the CIA to be even more convinced of the likelihood that Iraq had indeed approached Niger about procuring yellowcake, as Bush legitimately stated in his SOTU speech” [Whoa Natalie! You mean that pesky little detail about Bush and Cheney “fixing” the intellegence to fit the policy]
14. “There are partisans in the CIA (and the FBI for that matter) on both sides of the aisle, and it’s been amply demonstrated that they are often willing to exercise that partisanship to further their agendas or quench their desire to contribute to the debate” [Not any more Nat. You forgot those oaths of loyalty Bush lacky and new CIA director, Porter Goss, required all CIA agents to sign as a condition of their continued employment. Mark Felt! that’s it, it’s all his fault]Lying, the conservative stock in trade.
Natalie, I don’t remember when I’ve read such a density of lies before. Soon you’ll qualify to write for Fox News.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 26, 2005 at 4:52 AM For some reason I’ve been getting relies addressed to Natalie from Suzie Q
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 26, 2005 at 2:45 PM Dear Liberal,
Thank you for your view of recent history. But my point is — regardless the WMD issue and who believed what and when — we need a unified effort to get these radical Muslims before they do massive, long term damage. This didn’t start with 9/11.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 26, 2005 at 2:53 PM I agree that we need to purge the world of radical Islam, but the only way to permanently do so is to address the root causes of terrorism thereby destroying the base of recruitment for those that would do s harm. You can kill all the insurgents you want in Iraq or anywhere else but they will keep coming. The U.S. must find new forms of energy production and increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles to decrease our reliance on Middle East dictatorships for oil. Our support of Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest reason why Osama Bin Laden began to target American interests. In addition, if the U.S. uses its immense international leverage to negotiate a legitimate, and amicable resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, that will destroy a major recruitng tool for Islamic terrorists. Oh, and finally, DO NOT INVADE AND OCCUPY A MUSLIM NATION AND TORTURE THEIR PEOPLE!!!!
Posted by Liberal on Jul 26, 2005 at 3:37 PM Liberal,
Point of clarification. Please distinquish yourself (and other liberals) from Bush and his ilk. “We” don’t support Saudi Arabia, the Bush family does. We didn’t make an enemy of Osama Bin Laden, the Bush family did. And although you didn’t say so, it was implied that you meant “we” invaded, occupied and tortured. We didn’t, Bush did.
My point is that liberals have this habit of taking the blame for the crimes of conservatives. Why? Why when some fascist dictator commits an international crime, liberals say “we” did it. We didn’t do it. “They” did it.
I think it’s an important point.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 27, 2005 at 3:05 AM My mistake, Lefty. When I used “we” I was referring to the government, not the people. I guess I still subconsciously believe that the goverment acts (or should act) in theory on behalf of the American people. How naive of me.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 27, 2005 at 8:38 PM A few key things need to be clarified with regard to the Rove affair and the entire war in general. I have actually read a little of Wilson’s fascinating book and what struck me most about his trip to Niger was not only the obvious fraudulent nature of the documents presented as evidence by Powell in the UN but the obvious conditions which Wilson encountered in Niger during his trip. By the time Wilson made his now famous trip to that African country, France, Niger’s main customer for nuclear fuel as well as about every other industrialized country that ever used significant stocks of uranium yellow cake for energy or weapons production, had dramatically reduced its nuclear energy usage and began to switch to alternatives due to political pressures that built up during the late 1970s and early 1980s that had been generated by such disasters as TMI in Harrisburg and Chernobyl. Thus, the entire uranium mining industry was in total disarray to say the least and had atrophied enormously! A simple visit to the formerly active uranium strip mining sites in Niger would have revealed that the machinary, migrant workforce and their structural amenities, managerial personell, and transport equipment and facilities were inactive or absent thus rendering the kind of mining operation claimed by the Bush Administration was impossible given the obvious dormant nature of the current state of the industry at the time it was claimed that Niger was to be providing the supposed large stocks of material to Iraq. A simple investigation of that country’s mining operations at the time of the accusations could have verified this point. It is suprising that there was no attempt to even fact check the Nigerian industry on the part of the Bush Administration to make their story plausible. Rove’s behaviour was criminial beyond words and any decent administration would have removed him just out of a sense of integrity. It is odd that the GOP which harps on Charactor has absolutely NONE! As for the alleged political bias of Joseph Wilson, it is well known by all that he served equally admirably in both Democratic and Republican administrations and is considered a moderate Republican whose concerns for national security are unimpeachable and who even donated $1000.00 to the 2000 Bush campaign out his commitment to the GOP and their political success! Karl Rove endangered US national security and the life of a dedicated operative in the line of duty! He is nothing but a two-bit fascist and an ultra-partisan liar with no tolerance for democracy or anyone who deviates from his ultra-extremist political line! The Rove scandal is indicative of the entire phoney war on terror and the desparation of the Bush Administration to get into Iraq on bogus political grounds. As the recent terrorist bombings in London bring the world close to nearly 5,400 deaths due to terror in the last year (many times the number that occured between 9-11 and the start of the Iraq invasion in March 2003) we see the folly of focusing on a regime that while brutal actually repressed fundamentalist terror. Iraq is now an open arena for terrorism and terrorist recruitment and training created by the widespread anger at US colonization of a sovereign country! Let us hope that the Rove scandal is the beginning of the end for the disasterous Bush Regime.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jul 27, 2005 at 10:28 PM Good comments, cabdriverinchicago. Too bad Natalie cannot get the ridiculous idea out of her head that the sixteen words in Bush’s SOTU address in 2003 were accurate. I tried explaining it to her but to no avail. Maybe she will listen to you.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 27, 2005 at 11:01 PM Liberal wrote:
Regardless of what liberals think about the CIA, we NEVER advocated disclosing ......
Something tells me I’ll eventually find out otherwise, but I’ll take your word for it for now. Besides this key distinction, and ignoring that the accuracy of your accusation is yet to be proven, you are noticeably lacking in your defense of the left when it comes to the CIA. What does the left think of the CIA? I don’t think they want me to itemize it. At least not now while they’re in the midst of their new found love affair with the CIA and all it’s vital human assets.
I’m sorry, I didn’t catch the testimony on CSPAN. I’m confident however, that the folks sponsoring the event didn’t invite anyone that disagreed with their point of view. I’m also confident that none of the attendees has read the special prosecutor’s mind and knows who told who what and exactly what impact these conversations might have had on national security. Consider for a moment that there might just be motivations for testifying on TV other than simply being concerned about the integrity of the CIA. I’m not totally dismissing their testimony, but as in everything, all is not as it appears.
Wilson’s partisanship is quite evident. Just because he gave money to Bush doesn’t necessarily mean he likes him, but it may mean he’s covering his bases in the event he’ll need access to a possible Republican administration. He also gave 2000 to Gore and 1000 to Ted Kennedy during the same cycle. He’s given much more to Democrats than to Republicans since 1999.
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Joe_Wilson.php
I believe he IS a partisan hack. Exhibit A is the fact that he purposefully concealed what he learned in Africa for his little op-ed, and signed up on the Kerry campaign until the Intelligence committee “outed” him and he was dropped from the lineup. He’s been ranting and raving against Bush like a Michael Moore might.
Why is Wilson treated by the media as some kind of guardian of the truth for well….not telling the truth? Must be because the media’s so conservative, is all I can figure. That’s what I’m told, anyway.
Plame’s partisanship is evidenced by her putting her need to contribute to Gore in 1999 over protecting her covert status by listing her front company thus opening it up for public scrutiny. I would think that if she or the CIA were so concerned about her cover, the contribution simply would not have been made. Is this standard “deep cover” proceedure?
She more recently gave money to America Coming Together, and lied about her employment on the disclosure form. I would assume both she and Mr. Wilson attended the anti-war, anti-bush Springsteen concert with the tickets the contribution bought.
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Valerie_Plame.php
You’re totally obfuscating my point about Lewinsky, and in doing so you only add to the mountain of evidence that the left cares or understands little about national security. By indulging in what he did, Clinton opened himself up to being prisoner to who knows who that might have gained knowledge of the affair. And we all know the lengths he was willing to go to hide the truth from the nation. Could that willingness have lent itself to agreeing to some nefarious demand from an unsavory sort? And of course, like you now, the left didn’t have any problem with it from a national security point of view.
Sharing information with Lewinsky? That’s not the concern. The fact that knowledge of the affair could have been used to manipulate Clinton is. He was willing to lie to the nation, his administration, and to the grand jury. What makes one think he wouldn’t have granted some concession that might have had negative national security implications in order to keep the affair quiet?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 27, 2005 at 11:07 PM Liberal wrote:
>Wipe the crap from your eyes Natalie, you’ll see a lot better.
Crap from my eyes? What are you, twelve? :-)
>Natalie, Judith Miller did not report about Plame AT ALL, so she did not do any disclosing.
Rove didn’t write in the paper about Plame either, so are you saying that he couldn’t have done any disclosing either? Logic check. I’m really not sure about Judith Miller’s politics, but I do know that the New York Times is far from a conservative organizaton, and they seem to be standing with her in her stonewalling stance. If she had damning evidence about Rove, I don’t doubt for a minute they’d signal their O.K. for her to testify. The pre-invasion WMD reporting wasn’t merely based on Miller’s information. The position of the Times was that they believed WMD’s to exist, based on a variety of reports by Intelligence organizations worldwide. They apologized for getting it wrong in a house editorial, as I’m sure you’re aware. (?)
Posted by Natalie on Jul 27, 2005 at 11:08 PM whattheheck wrote:
“Unlike a totalitarian system, ours does not operate with the consistancy of an individual. We have made what now seem to be stupid policy decisions in the past (backing Saddam — the Cold War made strange bedfellows), but a Balance of Power approach is not effective against the current threat. We need to <<ignore a variety of topical and political disagreements>> and develop a rational, effective defense of our society.”
In other words, constructive respectful criticism when it comes to troops in harm’s way is helpful and needed, as practiced in this post by whattheheck. However, the brand of “dissent” being practiced by most of the left today is only helpful to those who wish us harm. Evidenced by they’re being echoed on the pages of al Jazzeera.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 27, 2005 at 11:10 PM Margaret (Susie) wrote:
“If you’re so concerned about squaring the treatment of the CIA, why aren’t you outraged at the disassembling policy currently underway by Porter Goss, Bush’s appointee, who now has no real power at all? It has been given to Negroponte, that purveyor of Central American death squads.”
No, the real purveyors of death in Central America were the communists. Do you pine for their return? I hadn’t heard about Porter Goss’s vanishing influence. Please provide links for proof. I’m becoming ever more wary about your proclamations since you translated the statement: “When she was outed, she was “hot”, that is, actively undercover in hostile territory.” into “she was at her desk, but still had contacts that were in hostile territory”.
“You are really getting desparate. Do us all a favor and follow the news for the next month and see what Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald comes up with in indictments. Seems to me that obstruction of justice and perjury are exactly what your party got Clinton on for his blow job.”
Careful, it’s not permissible to even hint that the case against Clinton was about anything other than sex. Have I not maintained that is exactly what I will base my conclusion on…the special prosecutor. Have I not maintained from the start that I am perfectly willing to accept his verdict and do not wish Rove to be part of the administration if he is indeed found guilty of wrongdoing? Is it permissible to think outside the box that says: “Rove is evil”
“Fortunuately, no one died because of that. Your party has blood all over you on this one. And, obviously, you didn’t watch CSpan or talk with anyone ever involved with the CIA, as Valerie was “hot” and “covert” because of her established network of spies in the Middle East. You just really don’t get anything that doesn’t jibe with your fantasy world, do you?”
I could probably say the exact same thing about you in reverse, Margaret. What’s the point?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 27, 2005 at 11:12 PM Lefty wrote:
“Lying, the conservative stock in trade.
Natalie, I don’t remember when I’ve read such a density of lies before. Soon you’ll qualify to write for Fox News.”
You’re very good at copying and pasting, lefty, but I see precious little substantive rebuttal. It would seem that this a habit of yours.
Speaking of lying and false premises, care to enlighten us once again on your theory about conservatives and chickenhawks?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 27, 2005 at 11:13 PM Yes, wipe the crap from your eyes, Natalie. It is a way of saying open them. Clearly such humor fell on deaf ears. I’ll let Lefty, Susie-Q, and others respond to your “rebuttal” of their statements. I cannot speak for them. All I can say is personally I never held positive views at the CIA for its past election rigging and acts of terrorism against left-leaning governments. However, my view of how to change that is through the electoral process.
Once again, since the Clinton/Lewinsky affair was such small potatoes compared to Iran/Contra, I doubt Clinton would have felt threatened if soneone else found out about it. Lying to a grand jury about one’s involvement in leaking the name of a covert CIA operative is far more severe than lying about getting your wand waxed, if you catch my drift. Conservatives have been on Clinton since 1993 and the “haircut” aboard Air Force One. I will say this once: NONE OF THEIR ACCUSATIONS OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY CLINTON’S ADMINISTRATION FROM VINCE FOSTER’S SUICIDE TO WHITEWATER HAVE BEEN PROVEN ACCURATE. If you are so incensed by Clinton’s lying to a grand jury, why the lack of outrage that Bush/Cheney would not testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission? Could it be that they did not want to tell the truth either?
Posted by Liberal on Jul 28, 2005 at 12:17 AM Natalie,
I thought I had posted a response but apparently it didn’t post.
The substance of my posts are apparent to any honest, thoughtful reader. As for the axioms about conservatives that I occasionally repeat on this forum, you’ll admit, if you are honest, that they are MY axioms. The false premises that you parrot are quite familiar. They are the same talking points spoon fed to you by the conservative noise machine that has been clogging conservative brains with effluent for the past 25 years.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 29, 2005 at 1:30 AM Liberal wrote:
“Yes, wipe the crap from your eyes, Natalie. It is a way of saying open them. Clearly such humor fell on deaf ears.”
Humor? As in funny? Funnny strange, or funny Ha Ha? (clue….I shouldn’t have to ask)
“All I can say is personally I never held positive views at the CIA for its past election rigging and acts of terrorism against left-leaning governments.”
I see you pine as well for the return of communism, marxism and fascism. So sorry for your loss.
“Once again, since the Clinton/Lewinsky affair was such small potatoes compared to Iran/Contra, I doubt Clinton would have felt threatened if soneone else found out about it.”
So when Bubba was getting his jollies, he was thinking…“this ain’t nuthin compared to Reagan’s scandal….I’ll just laugh if anyone threatens me”.
Hmmm…. He certainly seemed threatened to me when he spoke red faced to the nation, the world and Osama bin Laden*: “I never had sexual relations with that woman…Miss Lewinsky….and I never told anyone to lie…not a single time! Does that sound like a statement from someone you could trust not to give in to demands from someone threatening to break the news to the nation for the first time?
“Lying to a grand jury about one’s involvement in leaking the name of a covert CIA operative is far more severe than lying about getting your wand waxed, if you catch my drift.”
You’re maintaining your devotion to the CIA and it’s valuable human intelligence assets. Is this love? Or am I just another pretty face soon to be discarded? I don’t think lying to a grand jury is acceptable regardless of what it’s about. If Rove did, he should fry. It’s called consistency.
And just a little reminder. Clinton lied to a grand jury to the detriment of the case of a woman seeking redress on a charge of sexual harrassment. Normally, that would be a pretty serious offense to those on the left, but their outrage was “consistently” lacking.
“Conservatives have been on Clinton since 1993 and the “haircut” aboard Air Force One. I will say this once: NONE OF THEIR ACCUSATIONS OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY CLINTON’S ADMINISTRATION FROM VINCE FOSTER’S SUICIDE TO WHITEWATER HAVE BEEN PROVEN ACCURATE.”
Now you’re not going to make me go back and retrieve accounts of all the indictments and convictions of Clinton cabinet officials and those involved in whitewater, are you? I’m very tired.
“If you are so incensed by Clinton’s lying to a grand jury, why the lack of outrage that Bush/Cheney would not testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission? Could it be that they did not want to tell the truth either?”
I’ll match YOUR outrage about Clinton and Gore not testifying under oath to the commission, either. There’s that consistency thing again.
* “Who can forget your President Clinton’s immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he ‘made a mistake’, after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?”— the quotable Osama bin Laden in his “Letter to America”
Posted by Natalie on Jul 29, 2005 at 6:36 AM Lefty wrote:
“As for the axioms about conservatives that I occasionally repeat on this forum, you’ll admit, if you are honest, that they are MY axioms.”
So you’re saying that the false notions you put forth about conservatives are all of your own invention?
But, but…..
I could’ve sworn your list of conservative “chickenhawks” looked mighty familiar upon cruising those lefty blogs. Maybe they got it from you?
I could’ve sworn I remember you quoting Elbert Hubbard to the effect that conservative equals chickenhawk. Is that you, Elbert?
You are the beneficiary of the doubt. Honestly.
Editor: a person employed by a newspaper, whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see that the chaff is printed.—Elbert Hubbard, prophesying about the New York Times, the CBS Evening News and In These Times.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 29, 2005 at 8:43 AM What indictments, Natalie? The special prosecutor appointed to head up the Whitewater investigation, a republican, could find NO EVIDENCE of any wrongdoing by anyone of the Clinton’s. Jim McDougal messed up on his own. The Clinton’s had no part in his affairs. If you want to spend time investigating a scandal, look into Bush’s insider trading of his shares of stock in Harken Energy right before the company reported a loss of $23 million for the year. Bush sat on the audit committee, so he must have known what was going down.
And finally, if the U.S. is truly going to support democracy, it must support it when it brings leftist governments to power. The U.S. has never met a fascist dictator it didn’t like. Do Mussolini and Pinochet ring any bells?
Posted by Liberal on Jul 29, 2005 at 5:50 PM Yet more false premises from the pen of the conservative Natalie. When I quote someone else, I give them credit, like Elbert Hubbard. How else would a ditto head like you know who wrote what I quoted. You on the other hand sound like the conservative talking points automaton that you are. As for the notions I put forth about conservatives, you are living proof that they are true.
Natalie, you are a pathological liar. (Seems I’ve observed that about you before). You simply cannot help yourself. Every post you have written has been a pack of false premises and lies. You continually find yourself in logical labirynths of your own making and have no way out but to accept your opponent’s arguments or, lie. So far, your sole choice has been to lie.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 30, 2005 at 8:46 PM Liberal,
Please don’t say that “the U.S.” has never met a fascist it didn’t like. Bush and his CIA have never met a fascist they didn’t like. The sooner Bush is dead, the sooner the CIA will serve the interests of U.S. citizens instead of the interests of Bush and his corporate whores.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 30, 2005 at 8:49 PM Read the new amercan project for the 21’st century. Penned by Chenney, Rumsfeld, Woosley Bolton, Libby. Chilling. This was written in 1998. Look at the Downing street Memos and see the pattern.
Posted by noma on Aug 28, 2005 at 9:34 AM I strongly believe that the D.S.M. is just the “tip of the iceberg”, so to speak, of what the Bush adminstration has in store for the American People. Since most of the national media outlets are now owned by corporations and corporations are now intertwined with the present Republican Government, the American People will simply never be informed about the true goings on of our government. The truly sad thing is that the people have traditionally relied on the media to keep tabs on the dealings of the government in an effort to “keep it honest”. So many of us fail to recognize or admit that that is no longer the case. Most of the media is just a microphone for the government. the bush family has always been associated with Fascist Militaristic Nations from the NAZI Party where they got their “seed” money for their present fortunes straight through today where they are so closely tied to bin Laden before 9/11. With the Republicans now controling all 3 branches of government they are in the perfect position to create a Fascist Police State here and have wasted no time in doing so. The majority of the people here are turning a blind eye to the great restrictions and revocations of our freedoms here in America, just as the German people did when Hitler and the NAZI Party first rose to power. We, like the German People, also assume that since the changes in the laws, as presented by the Government, do not affect us personally they can do no real harm. We fail to recognize that all these changes, from the desolving of Habeas Corpus to proposed changing of the Posse Comitatus affects us all if, for any reason, we should come under the malevolent eye of the Government. The possible rigging of the 2004 elections are most frightening as voting is now our only hope of regaining control of the government again and re-inserting our lost freedoms.
Posted by reddragon696 on Sep 14, 2005 at 6:48 AM I miss Kay Graham.
Two great papers we count on to keep watch on washington: the wash post and the NYT.
Both have dissapointed in recent years.
A Woodward quote a few years ago bothered me. It was something to the effect of young journalists going gaga for investigatory journalism after watergate and not understanding that his investigations grew out of solid beat reporting. What he said was OK except for a few things. First, it sounded kind of like the richie who buys a piece of land in a nice place and wants to slam the door behind him. It isn’t good to discourage investigative journalism. Second, his quote seemed to characterize the young journalists who admired him as totally unlike him. Instead, as journalists with preconceived notions who went out to grab and bend any evidence to support their views and unwilling to do beat work. I didn’t think that was fair or true of all of them.
Posted by marge on Sep 17, 2005 at 4:41 PM Here is an excerpt from something I wrote in an online journalism forum:
The press right now in the US is in a disgraceful state. I don’t think there is any informed party who feels that needs to be debated.
Antitrust, one word, is responsible for all of it. Antitrust is weak, consolidation has mounted. There are many reasons the Bush administration favors it. I am sure a disintegration in the quality of information is one of them, as it is a fact that follows as sure as any other from it.
The very credibility of the top, heavily consolidated outlets is being questioned, which of course would follow, and I sometimes think I sense a hint of stridency and defensiveness about it among journalism royalty. Good. I think some of the 7 figure figures should feel uncomfortable. They made a choice and sense they’re being judged for it. But it’s just buzz.
They can’t really deal with it until they see the decisions they made featured above the fold in the NYT or on network news, exactly where they won’t be seeing it.
They aren’t going to do the right thing if it means giving up stature and being exiled in a sense, because there, they can’t do any good at all. They would sooner drink hemlock.
Posted by marge on Sep 17, 2005 at 4:46 PM Downing Street Memos, Fitzgerald Enquiry.
Valerie Plame affair.All nails sure but it is a very big coffin to get all these dirtbags inside.
Now Rabbit sees it is awhile since this thread started and it is a credit to ITT that their format allows such threads to stand the test of time.
Downing street memos have become a household word but with many still not clear of what exactly they were about.
George Galloway Rocks on, God bless the Man among the mice.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 26, 2005 at 10:01 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Michael Green
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
