July 13th, 2005, 06:53 PM
...A REAL AUDIO REPORT:
...LEAKED UK MEMO WARNED IRAQ WAR A KEY CAUSE FOR GROWTH OF 'EXTREMISM' IN BRITAIN.
W go to Britain to speak with author and activist Milan Rai about how a leaked British government study concluded that British foreign policy, and the Iraq war in particular, was a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism.
Go on site and find this article as well:
A WAR BETWEEN NORMAL HUMAN PEOPLE AND SAVAGES?
by Abid Ullah Jan
The corporate terrorist of the Multinationals have invisibly joined hands with the religious zealots who have a mission to transform the Muslim world in their own image.
The Label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA
Fundamentaism is often a form of nationalism in religious disguise
We cannot hope to convert Osama bin Laden from his vicious ideology, our priority must be to stem the flow of young people into organizations such as al-Qaida, instead of alienating them by routinely coupling theur religion with immoral violence. Incorrect statements about Islam have covincecd too many in the Muslim world that the west is an implacale enemy.
Seems to me I remember Catholics being portrayed as the ones to blame in that conflict.
July 14th, 2005, 06:34 PM
........THIS ISSUE STILL HAS LEGS, IT HASN'T DIED ON US YET
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 CHRONICLE
WEDNESDAY 13 JULY 2005
.....In the months before the 2004 presidential election, a firm called Sproul & Associates launched voter registratin 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.
The scandal got a moderate amount of local coverage in some states - and then the election was over. Now anyone who brought up Nathan Sproul, or any of the other massive crimes and improprieties commited on or prior to Election Day, was shrugged off as a dealer in "conspiracy theory."
It seems that Sproul did quite a lot of work for the Republicans. Exactly how much did he do? More specifically, how much did the RNC pay Sproul & Associates?
If you went online last week to look up how much meoney Sproul received from the Republicans in 2004, you would have found that according to the party (whose figures had been posted by the Center for Responsive Politics), the firm was paid $485,957.
In fact, the RNC paid Sproul a great deal more than that. From an independent study of the original data filed by the Republicans with the Federal Electrion Commission, it is clear that Sproul was paid a staggering $8.3 million for its work against the Democrats. How the true figures came to be revealed. On Dec. 3, 2004, the Republican National Committee filed their Post-General Report with the FEC, accounting for all expenditures between Oct. 14, and Nov. 22.
Among the Itemized Disbursements, there were listed six expenditures to Sproul and Associates, amounting to a total sum of $4.5 million. Three of them were for "Political Consulting," and the other three were for "Voter Registratin Costs." The RNC paid Sproul the biggest amount on the day before the electrion. $1,668,733.
On Jan. 7, 2005 and again on May 3, 2005, the RNC sent in revised reports. Those items were unchanged in all of them.
After they received the RNC's second revised report, the FEC expressed dissatisfaction with the vague phrase "Voter Registratin Costs." In a May 18 letter to Michael Retzer, Treasurer of the RNC, the FEC requested that itemized disbursements labeled thus be further clarified.
On June 17, the RNC submitted a (third) revised report. In it, those three suspicious Sproul expenditures labeled "Voter Registration Costs" had been changed to "Political Consulting." As a "clarificatin," it was as vague as possible. Although it only raised more question, there seems to be no letter in the FEC database concerning that unedifying correction.
Moreover, there are some big surprises buried in the paperwork. It turned out that the RNC paid Sproul not only for their pre-election work, but also paid them for work after the election. According to their Year-End Report, filed on Jan 28, 2005, the RNC paid Sproul for "Political Consulting" in December - long after all the voter registration drives had ended.
And two months later when the RNC filed heir amended Year-End Report o May 3, the dates of those December expenditures mysteriously changed. A payment of $210,176, once made on Dec. 20, was changed to Dec. 22. A payment of $344,214, initially recorded on Dec. 22, was changed to Dec. 9.
As to why Sproul was being paid in December, and why the dates were changed, one can only speculate. But it may be worth noting that the Ohio recount took place from Dec. 13, through Dec. 28.
Because these amendments were made in 2005, the Center for Responsive Politics' website mistakenly allocated that money to the 2006 cycle. When we informed them of these missing numbers yesterday, CRP was quick to adjust them. They also included two more expenditures: a $323,907 payment for more "Political Consulting" (10/12/04) and $450,257 for "Mailing Costs" (10/04/04)
There was more -- much more. Fuzzy math. The documents also suggest that the RNC may have changed the dates of nine payments to suggest expenditures in 2005, thereby shifting focus from the 2004 election.
In going through the documents, CRP located nine expenditures from the future. Sproul somehow received a total of $1,323,154 between Sept. 2 and Sept. 29, 2005. Another $472,642 is hidden in 2005. Four of those prospectrive items were (or will be) for "Generic Media Buys" or "Lodging, Transportation." The other four are (or will be) for "Voter Registration Efforts" - surely an expense incurred in September of last year, not this year.,
Larry Noble, executive director of CRP, considers such future expenditures for , say "Lodging, Transportation" rather odd, but the gives the RNC the benefit of the doubt. "My guess is that it's an error," he suggests. "It's possible that they're cleaning up voter registration lists in September, but it's also possible they made a mistake."
Even if that mistaken date is just a typo, it is to say the least, not likely that they made the same mistake in nine uniquely dated items for 2004.
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 the pay? If we're going to get some reasonable answers, the FEC must undertake a very thorough audit of the books.
Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of culture and communication of New York University, is author of several books, including Boxed In. The Culture of TV, Mad Scientists: The Secret History of Modern Propaganda, the Bush Dyslexicon and Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order
Jared Irmas is a junior at New York University.
Go to the following link and click on it to access this story and much more:
July 14th, 2005, 09:03 PM
....BUSH AIMS TO WOO BLACKS AT INDIANAPOLIS
Bush hasn't spoken to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored people since he first ran for president in 2000 and the NAACP National Voter Fund ran an ad that portrayed him as unsympathetic to the dragging death of a black man in Texas.
Instead he has reached out to minority audiences less critical of his policies. This year, he accepted an invitation to speak to the Indiana Black Expo, which presented him with a lifetime achievement award for his efforts to help former prisoners become productive members of society and other programs benefiting minoorities. The NAACP convention was underway 250 miles away in Wisconsin. (Go to Yahoo.com News to see this article in it's complete form.)
What in the Sam Hill is going on? Has he come to the conclusion he's found their stupid button like so many of us seem to have when it comes to this man, his policies and his actions? Don't you think we couldnt' have been any more stupid than we've already been? Surely the blacks won't be falling for it like the Hispanics just because he utters what they want to hear in their language?
But actions speak louder than words, so with GW, hand him that bull horn, and put up a sign behind him saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and we go hopping and skipping down the path to our own demise, singing his praises.
Come-on, we all need to know how to read between the lines and listen to the words coming out the other side of his mouth. SRH
July 15th, 2005, 03:03 PM
...........KARL ROVE'S AMERICA
BY PAUL KRUGMAN
THE NEW YORK TIMES
FRIDAY 15, JULY 2005
John Gibson of Fox News says that Karl Rove should be given a medal from the American Political Science Association for his pioneering discoveries about modern American politics. The medal can, if necessary, be delivered to his prison cell. (Sounds fitting to me. SRH)
What Mr. Rove understood, long befoe the rest of us, is that we're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth. In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: the faithful will follow the twists abd turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern.
I first realized we were living in Karl Rove's America during the 2000 presidential campaign, when George W. Bush began saying things about Social Security privatization and tax cuts that were simply false. At first, I thought the Bush campaign was making a big mistake -- that these blatant falsehoods would be condemned by prominent Republican politicians and Republicans economists, especially those who had spent years building reputations as advocates of fiscal responsibility. In fact, with hardly any exceptons they lined up to praise Mr. Bush's proposals.
But the real demonstration that Mr. Rove understands American politics better than any pundit came after 9/11.
Every time I read a lament for the post 9/11 era of national unity, I wonder what peole are talking about. On the issues I was watching, the Republicans exploitation of the atrocity began while ground zero was still smoldering.
Mr. Rove has been much criticized for saying that liberals responded to the attack by wanting to offer the terrorists therapy - but what he said about conservatives, that they "saw the savagery of 9/11 before using it to cast the Democrats as weak on national security. After all, there were no facts to support that accusation.
But Mr Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant. For one thing, he knew he could count on the administration supporters to obediently accept a changing story line. Read the before and after columns by pro_administratin pundits about Iraq: before the war they castigated the CIA for understating the threat posed by Saddam's W.M.D., after the war they castigated the CIA for exaggerating the same threat.
Mr Rove also understands, better than anyone else in American politics, the power of smear tactics. Attacks on someone who contradicts the offical line don't have to be true, or even plausible, to undermine that person's effectiveness. All they have to do is get a lot of media play, and they'll create the sense that there must be something wrong with the guy.
And now we know just how far he was willing to go with these smear tactics, as part of the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson 1V, Mr. Rove leaked the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. I don't know whether Mr. Rove can be convicted of a crime, but there's no question that he damaged national security for partisan advantage. If a Democrat had done that, (like Noj here on AAJ has pointed out. SRH), Republicans would call it treason.
But what we're getting, instead, is yet another impressive demonstration that these days, truth is political. One after another, prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have declared ther allegiance to the party line. They haven't just gone along with the diversionary tactics, like the irrelevant questions about wheter Mr. Rove used Valerie Wilson's name in identifying her (Robert Novak later identivfied her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame). or the false, easily refuted claim that Mr. Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. They're now a chorus, praising Mr. Rove as a patriotic whistle-blower.
Ultimately, this isnt' just about Mr Rove. It's also about Mr Bush, who has always known that his trusted politiacal adviser - a disciple fo the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped Presidnet Bush' father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.
Most of all, it's about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?
Then there is this, a story which conincides with the previous article.
====IT'S CLEAR THE LEAKERS KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING
BY JOSH MARSHAL
FRIDAY 15 JULY 2005
Strip away all the stress and the fury on both sides of the aisle this week and you'll find one key question at the heart of both the legal and political storm surrounding the president's top politiacl adviser.
That is, did Karl Rove and other top administraion officials, for whatever reason , knowingly reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent or were they unaware of her covert status? As prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would no doubt tell us if here were at liberty to speak, divining, let alone proving, knowledge and intent in such a case is a very tricky businness. But there's a good bit of circumstantial evidence pointing to the conclusion that Rove and others knew exactly what they were doing.
Allow me to explain.
The best evidence for the "they knew" version of events has always been the column that started it all - Robert Novak's July 14 column in which he named Valerie Plame as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
In intelligence jargon, "operative" has a very specific meaning. It means a covert or clandestine officer. Novak's been a journalist for 50 years. So clearly he used that term because he knew Plame was covert. And if he knew, the logical assumption is that he knew because his sources, - "two senior administration officials" - told him.
That much seemed clear. But not long after the Plame case stormed onto the front pages almost two years ago, Novak changed his story. He said that he made a mistake when he used the word "operative" He didn't know she was covert, and neither did his sources.
Here's what he told Tim Russert in October 2003.
"The one thing I regret I wrote, I used the word 'operative,' and I think Mr [David] Broder ['Meet the Press' panelist] will agree that I use the word too much. I use it about hat politicians. I use it about people on the Hill. And if somebody did a Nexis search of my columns, they'd find an overuse of 'operative.' I did not mean it. I don't know what she did. But the indication given to me by this senior official I checked with was not that she was deep undercover."
Is this really true? Was it just Novak's laziness or sloppiness that started this whole train running down the tracks? Quite a lot depends on the answer.
There's a good deal of circumstantial evidence - thus far largely ignored - that points storngly to the conclusion that Novak is being much less than honest.
First consider timing. What Novak told Russert was not only after the story had caught fire in the media but, probably even more important, after it had spawned a Justice Department criminal investigation.
What about what he said earlier? It turns out we have some good evidence for that.
The first newspaper article written about Novak's role in exposing a covert agent was a July 22, 2003, Newsday article by Timothy Phelps and Newt Royce. That's about a week after Novak's comumn ran and well before the story caught fire in Washington. The article focuses squarely on the controversy over and damage caused by the exposure of a covert agent. Phelps and Royce interviewd Novak for the column, too. And he said nothing about any misunderstanding about Plame's status.
What he told them was this: "I didnt' dig it out. It was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name and I used it."
If Novak then thought he or his sources didn't know Plame was covert, he didn't think to mention it. And it was the whole point of the article he was being interviewed for.
Then there's another clue. Novak's story has always relied on the belief that he committed a monumental act of sloppiness or carelessness - a claim hard to credit about a reporter who's been doing this as long as Novak.
As I said above, "operative" has a very specific meaning in intelligence argo. So how does Novak usually use the word?
Not long after Novak's appearance on Russert's show, I used the Nexis database to find all the examples I could in which Novak used the word "operative" in the context of intelligence work or the CIA. Not surprisingly, in every example I found the used the term "operative" to refer to clandestine CIA officers. And that makes sense, since the term has a specific meaning in the context, and he's a veteran reporter.
Novak wants us to believe that on this one occasion he lapsed into the colloquial meaning of the word and used it to mean no more than you might if you were referring to a Democratic or Republican "operative." With all due respect to Novak and his decades as a Washington reporter - indeed, precisely because of them - that's just not credible.
There's no way to get inside someone else's mind. But all the available evidence points to the conclusin that Novak's claims on Russert and elsewhere are an after-the-fact attempt to get himself and his sources out of a very uncomfortable bind.
Josh Marshall is editor of:
His column appears in The Hill each week
July 15th, 2005, 04:57 PM
........CHINA HASN'T REACHED THE PINACLE OF IT'S TALKED ABOUT STATUS AS A WORLD POWER, (WHICH IS ON THE MARCH), AND ALREADY THEY ARE THREATENING ATOMIC RETALIATION IF WE WERE TO HELP TAIWAN. THIS FROM GENERAL ZHU WHO IS CONSIDERED A HAWK.
CHINESE GENERAL THREATENS USE OF A-BOMB IF US INTRUDES
BY JOSEPH KAHN
THE NEW YORK TIMES
FRIDAY 15 JULY 2005
General Zhu, considered a hawk, stressed that his comments relected his personal views and not official policy. Beijing has long insisted that it wll not initiate the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict.
But in extensive comments to a visiting delegation of correspondents based in Hong Kong, General Zhu said he believed that the Chinese government was under internal pressure to change its "no first use" policy and to make clear that it would employ the most powerful weapons at its disposal to defend its claim over Taiwan.
"War logic" dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to defeat a stronger rival, he said, speaking in fluent English. "We have no capability to fight a conventional war against the United States," General Zhu said "We can't win this kind of war."
Whether or not the comments signal a shift in Chinese policy, they come at a sensitive time in relations between China and the United States.
The Pentagon is preparing the release of a long -delayed report on the Chinese military that some experts say will warn that China could emerge as a strategic rival to the United States. National security concerns have also been a major issue in the $18.5 billion bid by Cnooc Ltd., a major Chinese oil and gas company, to purchase the Unocal Corporation, the American energy concern.
China has had atomic bombs since 1964 and currently has a small arsenal of land-and sea-based nuclear-tipped missiles fhat can reach the United States, according to most Western intelligence estimates. Some Pentagon officials have argued that China has been expanding the size and sophistication of its nuclear bombs and delivery systems, while others argure that Bejing has done little more than maintain a minimal but credible deterrent against a nuclear attack.
Bejing has said repeatedly that it would use military force to prevent Taiwan from becoming a formally independent country. President Bush has made clear that the United States woud defend Taiwan.
Many militray analysts have assumed that any battle over Taiwan would be localized with both China and the United States taking care to ensure that it would not expand into a general war between the two powers.
But the comments by General Zhu suggest that at least some elements of the military are prepared to widen the conflict, perhaps to persuade the United States that it could no more successfully fight a limited war against China that it could against the former Soviet Union.
"If the Americans are determined to interfere, then we will be determined to respond," he said. "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destructin of all the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."
General Zhu's threat is not the first of its kind from a senior Chinese military official. In 1995, Xiong, Guangkai, who is now the deputy chief of the general staff of the People's Liberation Army, told Chas W. Freeman, a former Pentagon official, that China would consider using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan conflict. Mr. Freeman quoted Mr. Xiong as saying that Americans should worry more about Los Angeles than 'Taipei.
Foreign Minstry officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment about Generaal Zhu's remarks.
General Zhu said he had recently expressed his views to former American officials, including Mr. Feeman and Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the former commander in chief of the United States Pacific Command.
General Zhu has given us a clear picture as to how China is preparing to conduct the business of state. Generals in any army, (unless they want to be fired or worse, like has happned to generals in the past, and famous ones at that), don't voice their personal military beliefs and so we have to believe that this is just a message crafted to back us off, a message which is only a scare tactic, or it's real enough for us to give this more serious thought.
Lets be careful out there.
Remember we are in Afghanistan, & Iraq, and the idea is being bandied about by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfed & Rice that we might go into Iran and other countries in the area, oh, and let's not forget Venezuela & Korea! Now the saber rattling is being carried out by China? Will they all band together and cause ou grief? Not a plesant thought. It seems we're stirring up hornets nests eveywhere we turn, and China with the bomb? Nothing more needs to be said. Not a plesant thought, not a plesant reality. SRH
July 15th, 2005, 07:05 PM
ENOUGH TO MAKE YOUR HEAD SPIN
TRUTH FLIES OUT THE WINDOW AS GOP SPRINGS TO THE DEFENSE OF KARL ROVE.
AUSTIN, Texas -- As the judge in the Judith Miller -Matt Cooper case said, it just gets "curiouser and curiouser."
For starters, Judy Miller of The New York Times, who never wrote a word about Valerie Plame, is in prison, while Robert Novak, who broke the story and printed the name, may be weekending at his posh house on Fenwick Island, Del.
Meanwhile, a truly phenomenal case study in the art of spin has been launched on behalf of Karl Rove, aka Bush's brain, (...I call him "MR. PINK" from Reservoir Dogs, as he is everybit as low down, dirty, and devious in my opinion, SRH), now that we know he was Cooper's source on the Plame affair. We have long known that Rove made the repulsive statement to a reporter that Plame, a former CIA udercover operative, was "fair game." Rove was out to smear her husband, Joseph Wilson, who told the truth about Busn's phony claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium in Niger. What. A. Mess.
According to The Washington Post: "Republicans mounted an aggressive and coordinated defense of Karl Rove Tuesday, contending that the White House's top political adviser did nothing improper or illegal when he discussed a covert CIA offical with a reporter. ... The emerging GOP strategy---devised by (Ken) Mehlman (chair of the Republican National Committee ) and other Rove loyalists outside the White House -- is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selecton to drown out the controversy, according to several high-level Republicans."
Actually, Rove and the White House got into trouble in the first place by trying to discredit a critic of the administration. They might want to rethink this strategy. For one thing the spin is so factually challenged it makes your head hurt. For example, Wednesday's Wall Street Jouranl editorial on the subject consists of one stunning misstatement after another. And these are the people who have been given their own program on PBS?
A consistent theme of the spin is that "no crime was committed," that outing Plame as a CIA agent meant nothing since she was then working as an analyst in Langley.
Unfortunately, Plame spent years overseas for the CIA working for a civilian firm without benefit of a diplomatic passport, meanng that she was especially vulnerable, could have been executed if caught and showed special courage. True, she was not working undercover when Novak named her in his column. However, as many CIA officers have pointed out, the outing left her former company and colleagues vulnerable. That this was done for petty political revenge is unforgivable. It is a result of being so focused on your political opponents that you take them more serously than you do the country's real enemies
Frankly it reeks of Rove -- and it is what's wrong with much of politics today. If the prosecutor cannot prove a crime, Rove should still be fired, not just because Bush said he would fire anyone involved in the leak, but also because what Rove did is ethically disgusting. (Isn't it though? SRH)
Many of my colleagues in the media are having trouble getting a grip on all this. Some have abandoned Judith Miller because she did so much bad reporting on WMD before the war. As the Times itself later admitted, much of the pre-war coverage consisted of "breathless stories built on unsubstantiated 'revelations' that, in many instances were the anonymity-cloaked assertions of peole with vested interests." But that, friends, is a different case.
Of course a reporter does not have an absolute right to shield a source -- even lawyers don't have such a right. But many other professionals have limited rights to confidentaality, including preachers, psychiatrists and councelors. A journalist's limited right to protect confidentiality is recognized by 31 states and the District of Columbia.
Look, reporters come armed with a notebook and a pencil! They do not carry guns, they do not have the power to arrest people, they do not have subpoena power, they cannot force people to talk by holding them as material witnesses, they cannot sneak into their homes and read their computers. Generally speaking, if the law can't make a case without help for a reporter, they're incompetent.
Milelr is not protecting a noble whistleblower who dared to go to the press because his sense of integrity had been outraged by official misconduct and he had no other option. That woud be your basic Deep Throat. She is, we can assume, protecting some politically motivated hatchet-man who was part of the smear campaign against Plame's husband for telling the truth. And that, too, is irrelevant to the principle involved.
The larger point is that journalists have a constitutionally protected responsibility to find and publish the truth (as dubious as many of our efforts are). Particularly in covering government and politics, that purpose is often served by protecting slimeballs, or at least people whith questionable motives. Just becase Karl Rove has forgotten about the public interest is not reason for Judy Miller to do so.
Check out their other articles and their political cartoons, lots of interesting articles new today and archieved..
..BuzzFlash interview: James Moore....Texas journalist, or favorite specialist on Karl Rove.
Will Durst: Roving target, Scott McClellan ponders how to address the Rove investigatin.
Greg Palast: Mr. Rove and the access of evil. Tell us your source, " Judy
Robert Scheer: The real Rove scandal. If you can't shoot the messanger, take aim at his wife.
WHILE ON-SITE, check out this story and brace yourself for winter:
There goes the electrical grid. Repeal of the PUHCA could let big oil jack up electric rates. (Will they never quit? With the sealing of presidential and vice presidential papers and their meetings which were recorded, will we ever know the extent of how really crooked this administration really is. We have a pretty good idea, but shouldn't these papers and minutes be made available to us, the public, after all they are our property, we paid for it all, andl we deserve to know the truth behind all of the rumors and our somewhat educated guesses, which it seems are based more on fact than imagination. SRH)
July 16th, 2005, 03:56 PM
......CLUES TO WHO MIGHT BE AT/NEAR THE SOURCE OF THE ROVE LEAK SCANDAL
REAL WORLD WISDOM FROM OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY
I'm not one who likes to engage in a lot of speculation, but the Karl Rove/leak scandal has really gotten me thiking: why won't they just fire Rove? The answer is not that Rove is innocent, or even that they can't because he's too powerful - I'm starting to think the reasonis because while Rove was definately involved and definitely deserves to face legal consequences, he wasn't the root. Somebody else was the root of this leak and that somebody is likely person the Bush administration can't just cut loose like they could even Rove, who is afer all, a staffer, It must be somebody even higher up on the food chain.
Before I tell you who I think it might be, lets just go through what we know. Rove now admits he learned of the classified information from a journalist (link provided on site), (which of course does not excuse him from going and confirming that information to another "journalist" like Bob Novak). It's very possible that person was Judith Miller, but that's not realy important - what is important is that the journalist got the information from someone else ...someone higher up.
Novak has given us a clue about who this higher-up is. He says "no partisan gunslinger." (link provided) Not that Novak's description should be taken as 100 percent credible. he is a partisan hack after all. But still, the question is who would someone like Bob Novak make that description of?
I'd like to think it was Vice President Cheney, but even Novak wouldn't describe him in those terms, and I do believe Cheney is too smart and too keen to his own self-preservation to get himself directly involved in something like this. So again, who is an official who is up in the White House stratisphere that can't just be fixed, that isn't a "partisan gunslinger?"
I'm thinking we need to start asking Condoleezza Rice some questions. Now I say that having no proof at all that she was involved. I'm just saying to read what we do know. And if you think about it, Rice really should be on the hot seat. Here is a person who came out of academia and who might not have the appreciation for how quickly you can get burnt down for leaking classified info, and who might think that's all part of "how it's done" in Washingron's partisan battles.
Furthermore, Rice is not well known as a "partisan gunslinger" (even though she is). Also, she was the face of the Bush administration in the lead up to war - she was the front person in defending all the administration's WMD claims, she was talking to all sorts of reporters trying to make the WMD threat seem as menacing as possible. She was the one she allowed Bush's reference to Iraq supposedly buying uranium from Niger to get into the State of the Union address, and then denied it by laughably pretending she never read the intelligence reports (link provided) debunking the claim - as if we are expected to believe that.
Then suddenly, Joe Wilson comes along and debunks the whole thing. That means Rice would have had not only a broad motive to defend the White House, but for a personal motive to defend her own competence: Wilson's proof that the Iraq uranium Niger thing was bogus was a direct indictment against Rice, because she was personally supposed to vet the State of the Union address and the specific claims in quetion before they were aired. And, as we know, the leak of Wilson's wife's name came as a means to discredit Wilson's debunking of the Iraq claim.
Again - this is all speculation. I'm trying to use the skills I acquired as child player of the board game Clue to try to figure out what's going on - and I have no proof that Rice was involved. But someone with her profile and position raises questions: she is someone who isn't known as a "partisan gunslinger," she is someone that, because she is now Secretary of State they can't just fire easily; and she had not only a broad ideological motive, but a very personal one. And now, at the end of the day, we find out that Rice's number two, Stephen Hadley, may be implicated in the scandal.
So the real question at the end of all of this is simple: Has anyone asked Condi Rice about her involvement in the scandal?
July 16th, 2005, 05:21 PM
.....LOVE ME TENDER
by Chris Floyd
07/15/05 "Moscow Times" (link provided on site) - - They were still scraping body parts out of the blasted carriages in the London Underground last week when the terrorist brazenly announced a harvest of blood fruits from their murderouos campaign. The declaration - - bone chillng in it's moral nullity, its brutal cynicism -- was made in the fearsome name of Jihad, That would be Asim Jihad, of course, spokesman for the Iraqi Oil Ministry. Yes, and just one day after London's agony, the state terrorists who perpertrated the ongoing mass atrocity of aggressive war in Iraq celebrated an important victory in their campaign of violence and fear: 11 juicy oil fieds are geing u up for tender to international investors, AdnKronos International reports.(Part in parcel of "The PLAN" All devised before 9/11? SRH )
The corporate cornucopia of these fertile fields in oil-laden southern Iraq - 3 million barrels per day, said Jihad -- will surpass the nation's entire current output of 2.2 million bpd: rich pickings for the oil barons whose branch office in the White House has done such outstanding advance work for them. With oil prices soaring past $60 per barrel - - on their way to the $100 mark in the near future, some experts say -- the $25 billion ante that the Iraqis are seeking will be a small price to pay for a seat at this game.
But goodness gracious me -- as Pentagon pump-jockey Don Rumsfeld would say, in that prim spinster patois he likes to affect when wiping blood off his hands -- nobody in their right mind believes all that money will actually go to the OIl Ministry, which will maintain ostensile control of the sold-off fields for the alleged benefit of the Iraqi peole. Heavens to Betsy, no!
Some of the loot will be skimmed by Bushiest-favored bagmen in the new Baghdad regime. Some will be siphoned off to fund the death-dealing, torture-happy goon squads now operating on behalf of various factions in the government. Some will be kicked back to the oil barons. And some will be smuggled into slush funds for covert ops, mrecanaries, campaign hijinks in the Homeland and "retirement packages" for good and faithful servants of the Bush war machine.
How do we know this will happen? because it has already happened to Iraqi oil money that fell into the hands of the profiteer-in-chief, President George W. Bush. According to detailed audits and investigations by Congress, the Pentagon, the General accountability Office, the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, and the Specail Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, more than $8.8 billion in Iraqi money under Bush's control simeply went walking between October 2003 and July 2004, the London Review of Books reports. These were revenues supposedly earmarked for the Iraqi government -- but no one knows where they actually went, except for a few dollops that investigators found were bankrolling many of the worthy endeavors outlined above.
And this epic rapine -- looting on a scale not seen since the days of the Mongol Horde -- is just a single rivulet in the vast delta of corrupiton draining the conquered land. Christian aid estimates that an additional $4 billion in unmetered oil export revenue was sold off under the counter, Saddam-style, to coalition cronies. Then there were the planeloads of cold cash spread around by Bush's "Provisional Authority" -- off the books, natch -- to "couriers," brokers, Western contractors, tribal leaders, "intellighence assets" and anyone else who had the moxie to put their hands out at the right time.
All of this money was stolen from the Iraqi people. In fact, everybit of Iraq's oil money was seized by Bush and transferred to New York's Federal reserve Bank in May 2003. Perhaps this was the oepration Bush was referring to in his ballyhooed "Mission Accomplished" declaration that same month. (He certainly couldn't have been talking about the military mission -- not with "major combat operations" still being launched even as we speak." And oil revenues kept fowing to Bush's bank account after the conquest. all told, by the time Bush's personal viceroy, Jerry Bremer, did his "last days of Saigon"bug-out from Baghdad last year, the Crawford Caligula had run through $20 billion of Iraq's oil money.
No one has been brought to justice for their monstrous -- indeed murderous -- thievery. And the oil barons preparing to feast on the new leaders needn't worry aobut such "quaint" notions as legality either. That's because Bush -- hugger-mugger as usual -- recently renewed his infamous Executive Order 13303, the blanket immunity for all U.S. corporate interst involved in any way with Iraq's oil, the Deep Blade web log reports. The original edict was issued in that fateful, fruitful month of May 2003.
Bush's ukase applies to all traffickers in Iraqi oil -- as long as their loot finds its way, by hook or crook, into the coffers of "United States persons or entities." Bush declares flatly that any "judicial process" launched against these protected entities -- not excluding criminal proceedings for, say, fraud, corruption, extortion, even murder -- "shall be deemed null and void." But what if some rogure nation still clinging to the outmoded principle of law and order tries to take Bush's cronies to court? Not to worry: one of fhe many agencies authorized to "employ all powers" to "carry out the purposes of this order" is none ther than Spinster Rumsfeld's own little parlor -- the Pentagon.
Money and power grabbed through violence and deceit: that's the real point -- the only point -- of bush's "war on terror." It is in fact a war of terror, where both sides use senseless murder and mass slaughter to advance their degraded ambitions. No doubt the innocent victims of the London bombing are happy to have died in the service of such a noble cause.
Check out the following site for this story and for Annotaitions, there are eight of them. Just click on it:
Check their archives for many more stories about Iraq and other areas of interst.
July 17th, 2005, 08:35 PM
Store owners in Sacramento County, California will face criminal charges if they sell booze to known homeless alcoholics. Store owners will be given binders containing photos of habitual drinkers. If they're caught selling alcohol to someone pictured they face a $1,000 fine or a year in jail.
I wonder how succesful this will be, and how belligerent the habitual drunk will become? Better have a cage around the clerks station.
July 17th, 2005, 08:55 PM
Clear and Present Danger
U.S. Army Lt. Greg Miller received a Purple Heart after he was shot in the jaw while in Afghanistan. Doctors wired his jaw shout to let it heal. They gave him a small pair of wire cutters and told him to always keep them with him. They would be used to cut the wires in case he was choking. But security guards at San Francisco International Airport confiscated the tool when Miller tried to board a plane.
Another odd bit of news, probably quite old, but still in the scheme of things - new.
A Saudi court sentenced Danilo de Guzman and Benjamin Diaz to a month in prison. A higher court later added 150 lashes to their sentances. What crime did the two Filipino workers commit? They were found to have a Bible and some Christain CDs. The tow were denied a lawyer during their hearings. They were never lashed, but after serving their sentence, they were fined and deported.
......We hear horrendous stories from foreign workers in Arab countries. It seems they are thought of as property, and treated more like slaves than hired domestics. They are subjected to any number of abuses, emotional, physical, and sexual.
When the Saudi's, were buying so much lumber from a mill in Bend Oregon, they would arrive with high priced hookers on each arm and eunichs, can you imagine? The price of the hookers were astronomical and they would brag up that fact and talk of their "Eunch" which I could only imagine was a slave. I wonder if these sorts of goings on will ever be looked upon as backward by them, well, forget the thing about the hookers, as that's here to stay, but a bit of humanity? That needs lots of work. SRH
July 18th, 2005, 03:42 PM
......."A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow
"The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded." C.I. De Montesquieu - [Montesquieu, Charles Lousi de Secondat} (1689-1755) Baron de Montesquieu - Source. The Spirit of the laws, VIII, 1752 (Our country was founded on many of the writings of this man. SRH)
"I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave." H. L. Mencken
"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." Thomas Jefferson
July 18th, 2005, 04:46 PM
Now it is surfacing (where one would have thought it all came from in the first place and that is Dick Cheney and Karl Rove) that Rove and Cheney chief of staff were intent on discrediting CIA agent's husband prosecutors have been told.
[It has been so very obvious from the start, how could have anyone been surprised at this turn of events? Even Nixon says it was the cover up which did him in, more than the facts of the matter. Well people could have been killed over this one and a method of operation has dried up. Intelligence has dried up with the actions of fhese vindictive mean little men. How not to raise your children to be if you want to feel a deep pride in them. SRH]
=Top Aides Reportably Set Sights on Wilson=
Rove and Cheney chief of staff were intent on discredition CIA agents husband, prosecutors have been told.
By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
Top aides to President Bush and Vice Presidnet Dick Cheney were intensely focused on discrediting former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV in the days after he wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times suggesting the administration manipulated intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq, federal investigators have been told.
Prosecutors investigating whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Wjilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief of staff, L. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility, according to people .
Althought lower-level White House staffers typically handle most contacts with the media, Rove and Libby began personally communicating with reporters about Wilson, prosecutors were told.
A source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said Rove's interesat was so strong that it prompted questions in the White House. When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove reportedly responded: "He's a Democrat." Rove then cited Wilson's campaign donations, which leaned toward Democrats, the person familiar with the case said.
The disclosures about the officials' roles illustrate White House concern about Wilson's July 6, 2003, article, which challenged the administrations's assertion that Iraq had sought to purchase nuclear materials. Wilson's article appeared as Rove and other Bush aides were preparing the 2004 reelection campaign strategy, which was built largely around the presidents response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
It is not surprising that White House officials would be upset by an attack like Wilson's or seek to respond aggressively. But special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgearald is examining whether they or others crossed the legal line by improperly disclosing classified information, or where they perjured themselves in testifying later about their actins. Both Rove and Libby have testified.
News of the high-level interesat in discrediting Wilson comes as White House defenders, notabaly officials at the Republican National Committee, argue that Rove has been vindicated of suspicion that he was a primary source of the leak. Knowingly revealing the identity of a covert operative is a federal crime.
Regardless of Rove's legal liability, the description of his roll runs contrary to earleir White House statements that Rove and Libby were not involved in the unmasking of Wilson's wife, and it suggests they were part of a campaign to discredit Wilson.
Wilson, a career Foreign Service officer who served in Iraq and several African nations, was sent by the CIA in 2002 to investigate whether Iraq had attempted to purchase nuclear materials from Niger. His New York Times article declaring that he had found no credible evidence of such an attempt despite the administration's continued claims that there had been one unleashed charged from White Hoiuse officials that he was a partisan.
White House officials contended that he had wrongly indicated that he was sent on his mission by Cheney. In fact, Wilson had said in the article that the trip was inspired by questions raised by Cheney's office.
Eight days after Wilson's article was published, a syndicated column by Robert Novak questioned the credibility of Wilson's trip, suggesting that it had been arranged with the help of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, at the CIA.
Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has cited recent news reports that Rove heard about Wilson's wife from reporters and the he was not an origianal source. Those reports said that Rove in fact sought to dissuade Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper --- one of the journalists with whom he discussed Wilson's wife --- from writing a piece about Wilson's charge.
"Based on the information that has come out over the last several days, the one thing that's absolutely clear is that Karl was not the source for the leak, and there's no basis for any additional speculation," Luskin said.
A White House spokesman, David Almacy, declined to comment Sunday. "This is an ongoing investigation, and we will be happy to talk about this once it is completed, but not till then," he said.
Prosecutors' intense questioning of witnesses about Rove and Libby casts doubt on assertions that the president's longtime political guru was not --- at least at some pint --- in Fitzgerald's sights.
Fitzgerald is expected to conclude his investigation this year with a detailed report.
Bush siad he would fire anyone for any illegal leaks. Democrats have called on Bush to fire Rove, now a deputy White House chief of staff, or at least to revoke Rove's security clearance.
Republican Natrional Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said Sunday on NBS's "Meet the PRess" that Rove and the White House deserved credit for cooperating with Fitzgerald. "Cooperate, cooperate, cooperate" was the policy, said Mehlman, who once was Rove's deputy at the White House.
Cooper, who testified last week before Fitzgerald's grand jury concerning his conversations with White House officials about Wilson, confirmed Sunday that prosecutors showed intense interest in the roles played by Rove and Libby in discussing Wilsons's wife.
In an article in the latest issue of Time magazine titled "What I Told The Grand Jury," Cooper writes that the grand jurors investigated his interactions with Rove in "microscopic, excruciating detail."
He says he called Rove after Wilson's article appeared and asked about it. "I recall saying something like, 'I'm writing abut Wilson,' before he interjected, " Cooper writes, "Don't get too far out on Wilson,' he told me."
Cooper writes that his frist knowledge of Wilsons wife came when Rove disclosed on "deep background" that she worked for the CIA, but that he did not learn her name until he read it in Novak's column several days later.
Novak was the first journalist to identify Plame by name, along with her role as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He wrote that two senior administration officials told him Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger.
"As for Wilsn's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which, " Cooper writes. "Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the 'agency' --- by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD' (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destructrion) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. this was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."
In his article, Cooper also recalls that Rove ended their conversatin with a cryptic caution: "I've already said too much."
"This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it coulld have meant he was late for a meeting or something else," Cooper writes.
To see the rest of this article go to the following site just by clicking on it:
Forgive any typo's.
July 19th, 2005, 01:02 PM
We're forever hearing about criminals with "genius", yet they are caught, and why is this? Because of their own perceived idea of themselves, this being they're so much smarter than anyone else, they believe this with such intensity,they just do stupid things, as they are all caught up in thier perceived infallibility. After all - they are smarter than the rest of us.
Don't you just get this drift from so many in this administration? I sure do. And to my way of thinking, Cheney, along with Karl Rove, head this list, so the very idea that they are too bright to have tried something as stupid as outing a CIA agent doens't hold water with me.
I believe that those who think they are smarter and more clever than anyone else, open themselves up for mistakes, they fall into the trap of their own making, that so many of "genius" do, they just never realize there are others out here who have as many smarts and perhaps even more than they. So to say that Cheney (or Karl Rove) is too smart to have pulled such an illegal act, well, we've seen foolish -- even stupid things -- coming from men who are every bit as smart as he.
July 19th, 2005, 02:20 PM
JIM HIGHTOWER: On Air or read these articles:
A BATTLE OVER A BATTLEFIELD READ IT ] HEAR
.....A casino is proposed down the road from Gettysburg.
A CONGRFESS CRITTERS STINKY DEAL
....San Diego congressman, a former top gun is in the hot seat.
MAD COW AGAIN
....Do we dare trust the government on this, and we are affiliated with the cattle business and were in it hot and heavy at one time, and imports need not be brought in at this time. Besides did you know that our own cattlemen are in the back of the bus when it comes to the processing plants, our own cattlemen have to wait untill the Canadians have processed their beef here in the states at our own facilities before we are able to use them, hurting prices for US cattlemen. Or so we've read and have been told. It may have changed, but at one time, this is how it was, and how I imagine it still is. Makes no sense to us or our freinds in the business.
BUSH'S WAR, NOT OURS
ROVE GETS LOOPY
IRAQ: IS IT WORTH IT?
DEANS DEMOCRATIC REVIVAL
CORPORATE MONEY GRAB
TSA SECRETLY SNOOP'S ON PASSENGERS
.....This is just ridiculous and why is there such a need to have files on all of us, expecially when it is illegal. They aren't followiong the guidelines Congress has set forth for them. How terrible a policy this is and a continued invasion of our rights by this administration.
NEUROMARKETING: AN ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE
THE ENRONIZATION OF THE SEC
.........There are more requests on this group of articles than I've even see on Jims writings and broadcasts, in fact I don't recall his having done this beore so he must have some pretty deep feelings about these issues to ask for our backing with action. He is asking you to support organizations who are trying to make changes and protect us as citizens, also he is wanting us to protect historical Gettysburg.
Click on the following link to access Jim Hightower's site:
July 19th, 2005, 03:15 PM
............MOLLY IVIN'S (AIN'T SHE A DANDY?)
YOU CAN'T NOT CARE
PLAMEGATE ISSUSTRATES PATERN OF DECEPTION IN BUSH ADMINISTRATION
AUSTIN -- Now it's getting funnier and funnier. There is an elephant in the living room and we're sitting around having a conversation about whether there's an elephant in the iving room.
"I think there's an elephant in the living room."
"Well, there's a lot of elephant poop around, but that doesn't prove there's an elephant in the living room."
The entire Republican Party is shocked (!) anyone would think that Karl Rove (!!) would leak a story to damage a political opponent. Oh, the horror. And Karl has always been such a sweet guy. Just to give you and idea, one time Rove was displeased with the job done by a political advance man and said, "We will f.... him. Do you hear me? We will f.... him. Well ruin him. Like no one has ever f...ed him!" (From an article by Ron Suskind). And that was a guy who was on his side.
Attacking an opponent's wife is standard operation procedure for Rove. Have Republicans actually convinced themselves that he wouldn't do such a thing? People, sometimes party loyalty asks too much.
Actually, we are missing the point here. The point being that Joseph Wilson is merely one of the many people who provided one of the by now innumerable pieces of evidence that this administration lied about why we went to war in Iraq. When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill wrote that Bush planned to invade Iraq from the day he took office, the administration went after O'Neill. When Richard Clarke disclosed that the Bushies wanted to use Sept. 11 to go after Saddam Hussein from Sept. 12 on, they went after Clarke. They went after Gen. Zinni, they went after Gen. Shinseki and everyone else who opposed the folly or told the truth about it. Afer they got done lying about weapons of mass destruction and about connections to Al Qaeda, they switched to the stomach churning pretense that we had doen it all for democracy. Urp.
We suffer the worst attack on the country since Pearl Harbor, and the Bush administration sends the FBI after the American Civil Liberties Union, The ACLU exists to protect every citizens rights as defined in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States. The ACLU works solely through the legal system: It does not advocate violence, terrorism or any other damn thing except the Bill of Rights. Since when is that extremist? Why in the name of heaven are we wasting the FBI's time on this idiocy? I don't pretend to be an expert on counter-terrorism, but if it were up to me, I wouldn't start looking for violence-prone in pacifist groups either. Your pacifists, you see -- oh, just look it up.
I know that the sludge-for brains like Bill O'Reilly attack the ACLU for being un-American," but when Bill O'Reilly's constituitional rights are violated, the ACLU will stand up for him, just like they did for Oliver North, Communists, the KKK, atheists, movement conservatives and everyone else they've defended over the years. The premise is easily understood. If the government can take away one persons rights, it can take away everyone's
We are living in a time when our government is investigating an organization that stands for the highest and best American ideals. And claiming the mantle of patriotism while they are about it. This is cuckoo -- and such an idiotic waste of the FBI's time and the taxpayer's money that whoever thought up this idiocy should be fired yesterday.
((((....I'll finish this in a bit and forgive any typo's......)))))
In the meantime, go to this address to look up the rest of Molly Ivans article. The saying "Ain't she a dandy" came from an old horsetrader we knew, and he was saying it about a friend of ours, Jack Plumley, that's another funny story in it's self.
Just click on the link, and while there check out other articles about Karl Rove and this administration,
SPONSOR: ArtistShare | LEARN MORE
Download the Jazz Near You app - Free!
Never miss another show again! Jazz Near You is a simple yet powerful way for fans to discover who is playing where and when. View local jazz events by date, by venue, or by musician; map to venues, share events on Facebook and Twitter, and more. Jazz Near You is your complete guide to jazz music near you!
All About Jazz | Jazz Near You | Free MP3s | Musician Database | News | Photo Gallery