Thursday, February 15, 2007
Pelosi Says Bush Lacks Authority To Invade Iran
Don't be so sure, Nancy!
Congress needs to act to prevent it.
The way his lawyers interpret the Constitution, he thinks it's quite alright to invade Canada
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.
Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."
At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."
Pelosi spoke in an interview in the Capitol as the House moved through a third marathon day of debate on a nonbinding measure that disapproves of the military buildup in Iraq while expressing support for the troops.
Passage of the measure was expected Friday, and across the Capitol, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) unexpectedly announced plans to hold a test vote Saturday.
Partisan bickering has prevented a Senate vote on the troop increase, with Republicans insisting on equal treatment for an alternative rules out the "elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field."
Pelosi and other Democrats have said approval on the nonbinding measure would mark the first step in an effort by the new Democratic-controlled Congress to force Bush to change course in a war that has killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops.
Bush administration officials and their allies are resigned to House passage of the resolution and have worked in recent days to hold down defections by GOP lawmakers.
But Bush took a swipe at his critics during the day.
"This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle," the president said.
The Senate unanimously confirmed Lt. Gen David Petraeus last week to take over as the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Bush said at a news conference Wednesday there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American troops in Iraq. But he backed away from claims the top echelon of Iran's government was responsible.
Administration critics have accused the president of looking for a pretense to attack the Islamic republic, which is also at loggerheads with the United Nations about what Tehran says is a nuclear program aimed at developing energy for peaceful purposes.
Defending U.S. intelligence that has pinpointed Iran as a hostile arms supplier in Iraq, Bush said, "Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops."
Bush has asked Congress to approve $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congressional Democrats are hoping to insert provisions that would make it harder for the administration to follow through on its plan to deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops to Iraq.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who is leading the effort, has said the measure may be changed to require that any troops deployed must meet formal Army readiness standards.
Murtha also said the measure may be changed to prohibit any military action against Iran without specific congressional approval.
Asked about Murtha's remarks, Pelosi said, "I fully support that." She added that she would propose it as stand-alone legislation if it is not included in the bill that provides more money for the Iraq war.
Bush has said he intends to go ahead with the troop buildup regardless of nonbinding expressions of disapproval in Congress.
But, Pelosi said, "I don't think that the president can completely ignore it."
She spoke down the hall from the House chamber, where Republicans and Democrats alternated turns at the microphone in a debate on the war.
"The enemy wants our men and women in uniform to think their Congress doesn't care about them," said Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war during Vietnam. "We must learn from our mistakes. We cannot leave a job undone like we left in Korea, like we left in Vietnam, like we left in Somalia," Johnson said.
Added Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., a West Point graduate who was a flight commander with the Army's 82nd Airborne: "This nonbinding resolution serves no purpose other than pacifying the Democrats' political base and lowering morale in our military."
When his turn came to speak, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas., said,
"There is a better way of protecting our troops than sending more of them to be killed."
Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, a member of the Democratic leadership, said the victory to be won in Iraq "is not a military conquest."
"The victory we seek is earned through the restoration of America's role as peacemaker, not warmonger," he said.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Democrats Ramp Up Pressure, as Polls Show Americans Behind Them
By Richard Cowan and David Alexander
Reuters
Thursday, February 15, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats stepped up pressure on Thursday for President George W. Bush to halt his Iraq troop buildup, and the president warned Congress against undercutting his military strategy.
Rep. John Murtha, a war critic who chairs the House of Representatives panel that oversees military spending, said he planned to restrict war funding in a way that would effectively stop the 21,500 U.S. troop buildup, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid scheduled a new vote to confront Bush over Iraq.
The political maneuvering came as a new poll showed public support for the Iraq war continuing to fall, with 53 percent of Americans believing the United States should bring its troops home as soon as possible, a five percentage point jump in one month and the highest level since the war began.
Bush, in an address in Washington, warned U.S. lawmakers against taking action that would restrict his $93.4 billion emergency troop funding measure.
"Our men and women in uniform are counting on their elected leaders to provide them with the support they need to accomplish their mission," he said. "Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need."
With opposition to the Iraq war beginning to run deep in Congress, Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives and Senate are trying to assert their power of the purse in ways that they think could diminish the U.S. military involvement, while also providing funds to support troops already there.
Murtha hopes to choke off the 4-year-old war in Iraq by placing four conditions on combat funds through September 30. "We're trying to force a redeployment not by taking money away, by redirecting money," the Pennsylvania Democrat said.
The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are "fully combat ready" with training and equipment; troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments; combat assignments could not be extended beyond one year, and a "stop-loss" program forcing soldiers to extend their enlistment periods would be prohibited.
"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work," Murtha said.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, blasted Murtha's proposals.
"While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," Boehner said.
The House was expected to approve a resolution on Friday opposing Bush's 21,500-troop increase for Iraq. The House took up the measure, which does not force Bush to act, after the Senate failed in its initial effort to bring a similar resolution up for debate.
Reid announced he was scheduling an unusual Saturday Senate vote on whether to begin debate on the resolution. Congress had been scheduled to take its first recess of the new session beginning on Friday, so the decision would force the Senate to remain in Washington, increasing pressure on senators to act quickly.
But Senate Republicans said they would continue to oppose Democratic efforts unless votes on their proposals were allowed.
A new poll by the Pew Research Center found Americans are increasingly skeptical about success in Iraq, with 47 percent believing the United States is likely to achieve its goals and 46 percent disagreeing. Three months ago 53 percent thought success was probable and 41 percent did not.
The poll was conducted February 7 to February 11 among 1,509 Americans and a margin of error of three percentage points.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Steve Holland)
....and the truth shall set us free.
Reuters
Thursday, February 15, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats stepped up pressure on Thursday for President George W. Bush to halt his Iraq troop buildup, and the president warned Congress against undercutting his military strategy.
Rep. John Murtha, a war critic who chairs the House of Representatives panel that oversees military spending, said he planned to restrict war funding in a way that would effectively stop the 21,500 U.S. troop buildup, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid scheduled a new vote to confront Bush over Iraq.
The political maneuvering came as a new poll showed public support for the Iraq war continuing to fall, with 53 percent of Americans believing the United States should bring its troops home as soon as possible, a five percentage point jump in one month and the highest level since the war began.
Bush, in an address in Washington, warned U.S. lawmakers against taking action that would restrict his $93.4 billion emergency troop funding measure.
"Our men and women in uniform are counting on their elected leaders to provide them with the support they need to accomplish their mission," he said. "Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need."
With opposition to the Iraq war beginning to run deep in Congress, Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives and Senate are trying to assert their power of the purse in ways that they think could diminish the U.S. military involvement, while also providing funds to support troops already there.
Murtha hopes to choke off the 4-year-old war in Iraq by placing four conditions on combat funds through September 30. "We're trying to force a redeployment not by taking money away, by redirecting money," the Pennsylvania Democrat said.
The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are "fully combat ready" with training and equipment; troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments; combat assignments could not be extended beyond one year, and a "stop-loss" program forcing soldiers to extend their enlistment periods would be prohibited.
"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work," Murtha said.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, blasted Murtha's proposals.
"While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," Boehner said.
The House was expected to approve a resolution on Friday opposing Bush's 21,500-troop increase for Iraq. The House took up the measure, which does not force Bush to act, after the Senate failed in its initial effort to bring a similar resolution up for debate.
Reid announced he was scheduling an unusual Saturday Senate vote on whether to begin debate on the resolution. Congress had been scheduled to take its first recess of the new session beginning on Friday, so the decision would force the Senate to remain in Washington, increasing pressure on senators to act quickly.
But Senate Republicans said they would continue to oppose Democratic efforts unless votes on their proposals were allowed.
A new poll by the Pew Research Center found Americans are increasingly skeptical about success in Iraq, with 47 percent believing the United States is likely to achieve its goals and 46 percent disagreeing. Three months ago 53 percent thought success was probable and 41 percent did not.
The poll was conducted February 7 to February 11 among 1,509 Americans and a margin of error of three percentage points.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Steve Holland)
....and the truth shall set us free.
The Shadow Puppeteer
We say again, Impeach Cheney!
The Shadow Puppeteer - Los Angeles CityBeat:
“Did his wife send him on a junket?” With these words, scrawled angrily by our sitting vice president in the margins of a New York Times article, Dick Cheney set into motion a scandal with deep, lasting implications for the White House, and the fraud and incompetence that finally sent the U.S. stumbling into war with Iraq.
Unfortunately, Cheney will not be taking the stand this week in the perjury trial of his former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. He will not have to face federal prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. But the trial has already shone an embarrassing light on Cheney’s unique role in this dark period of American history.
When it was revealed that the classified identity of a CIA employee had been leaked to members of the press, President George W. Bush assured us that anyone who would participate in the outing of a CIA agent would no longer be part of his administration. Of course, we now know that, even as Bush said those words, Cheney and high-placed administration minions Libby, Karl Rove, Mary Matalin, Ari Fleischer, and many, many others had been actively involved. None of them was fired, and Libby exited only after being indicted.
DOUGLAS FEITH AND THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS
How much more must the American people learn before impeachment is back on the table and the name on the articles is Richard B. Cheney?
REAL SPECIAL... DOUGLAS FEITH AND THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS:
The inspector general at the Department of Defense has issued a report [.pdf] criticizing the intelligence disseminated to senior policymakers in the run-up to war:
'The Office of the tinder Undersecretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers. While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the intelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the various with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. This condition occurred because of an expanded role and mission of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy from policy formulation to alternative intelligence analysis and dissemination. As a result, the Office of the Undersecretary for Defense Policy did not provide 'the most accurate analysis of intelligence' to senior decision-makers.'
: Cheney on the Griddle by James Ridgeway
This shows one just how long Cheney has been on the griddle, so to speak, and zero has happened to him as a consequence.
Now he is again lying all over the place to get us into Iran; either he is lying or he is clearly delusional.
Either way, he has got to go!
village voice > news > Mondo Washington: Cheney on the Griddle by James Ridgeway:
Too hot to handle
The Bush administration has always insisted it did not know the uranium documents sent it from Italian intelligence were forgeries.
But La Repubblica, the Italian newspaper, last Tuesday revealed that the documents came from Nicolo Pollari, head of that nation's military intelligence service.
The paper said Pollari met secretly on September 9, 2002, with Hadley, at the time the deputy security adviser. A month later, forged papers were cabled to Washington from the U.S. embassy in Rome. They had been delivered to the embassy by an Italian reporter.
Last week a spokesman for the National Security Council told reporters that the meeting between Hadley and Pollari amounted to no more than a 15-minute courtesy call.
The spokesman then made this waffling statement: 'The subject of Iraq's supposed uranium deal with Niger is not believed to have come up.' He added, 'No one present has any recollection of yellowcake being discussed.'
The CIA had repeatedly warned Hadley that the uranium story was dubious. George Tenet, then head of the CIA, even called Hadley and told him to watch out for the suspicious story. Pollari reportedly also worked his ties within the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, run by Doug Feith, Rumsfeld's neocon in residence.
CHENEY BEING TARGETED FOR IMPEACHMENT
Let's hope so.
CHENEY BEING TARGETED FOR IMPEACHMENT:
Around the world, as a second carrier group moves toward the Persian Gulf, and White House threats against Iran are repeated on a daily basis, it is recognized that the only certain path to stopping the planned attack on Iran is the impeachment of Dick Cheney, who today, just as in the case of the Iraq War, is running the 'team' and the policy for 'regime change' in Iran:' Michele Steinberg / Executive Intelligence Review
Make no mistake about it ~ Lewis Libby took the fall for Cheney in the plamegate indictments. But the greatest crime of this administration is their crime against peace ~ for which they have yet to be indicted.
CHENEY BEING TARGETED FOR IMPEACHMENT:
Around the world, as a second carrier group moves toward the Persian Gulf, and White House threats against Iran are repeated on a daily basis, it is recognized that the only certain path to stopping the planned attack on Iran is the impeachment of Dick Cheney, who today, just as in the case of the Iraq War, is running the 'team' and the policy for 'regime change' in Iran:' Michele Steinberg / Executive Intelligence Review
Make no mistake about it ~ Lewis Libby took the fall for Cheney in the plamegate indictments. But the greatest crime of this administration is their crime against peace ~ for which they have yet to be indicted.
Poll: Most Doubt Iraq Peace, Iran Threat
Seems Americans have, indeed, awakened from their propaganda induced comas, and are at long last, paying attention.
wfrv.com - Poll: Most Doubt Iraq Peace, Iran Threat:
CBS News) NEW YORK - Two-thirds of Americans say the fighting in Iraq may be beyond the U.S. military's ability to control, according to the latest CBS News poll. Just 25 percent say the military can be effective in lessening the violence between Iraqis.
The war continues to take a toll on opinions about President Bush – his approval rating for handling Iraq is just 27 percent, and his overall job approval is just 32 percent – but the public is divided when it comes to what Congress should do about the war.
While 63 percent disapprove of the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq, there's a nearly even split on whether Congress should pass a nonbinding resolution expressing disapproval of the troop buildup: 44 percent favor passage of the measure and 45 percent are opposed.
wfrv.com - Poll: Most Doubt Iraq Peace, Iran Threat:
CBS News) NEW YORK - Two-thirds of Americans say the fighting in Iraq may be beyond the U.S. military's ability to control, according to the latest CBS News poll. Just 25 percent say the military can be effective in lessening the violence between Iraqis.
The war continues to take a toll on opinions about President Bush – his approval rating for handling Iraq is just 27 percent, and his overall job approval is just 32 percent – but the public is divided when it comes to what Congress should do about the war.
While 63 percent disapprove of the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq, there's a nearly even split on whether Congress should pass a nonbinding resolution expressing disapproval of the troop buildup: 44 percent favor passage of the measure and 45 percent are opposed.
Can This War-Mongering Maniac President Really Be Planning Military Action Against Iran?
To any rational mind, it is almost inconceivable that the Bush administration would gin up excuses for yet another war, when the last one, based on lies and exaggerations, has turned out to be such a stupendous flop, by anyone's calculations, except Cheney's, of course.
No matter how irrational the thought, it appears that is exactly what they are doing.
The only question is; "can we stop the damn fools before they start WWIII?"
The Ostroy Report:
Can This War-Mongering Maniac President Really Be Planning Military Action Against Iran? : "The supplying of weapons. The state-sponsoring of terrorists. The threat to America. Sound familiar? It ought to. It's President Bush waving the red flag again, only this time it's not about Iraq (which he was 100% wrong about) but Iran. And why not. The rhetoric is easy to regurgitate. And all he needs to do is change one little old letter and he's got a whole new target.
No matter how irrational the thought, it appears that is exactly what they are doing.
The only question is; "can we stop the damn fools before they start WWIII?"
The Ostroy Report:
Can This War-Mongering Maniac President Really Be Planning Military Action Against Iran? : "The supplying of weapons. The state-sponsoring of terrorists. The threat to America. Sound familiar? It ought to. It's President Bush waving the red flag again, only this time it's not about Iraq (which he was 100% wrong about) but Iran. And why not. The rhetoric is easy to regurgitate. And all he needs to do is change one little old letter and he's got a whole new target.
Neocons Hate Liberty As Much As They Love War
They aren't known as the 'effing crazies' for nothing.
Glenn Greenwald - Salon:
Frank Gaffney, one of the country's most influential and well-connected neoconservatives, has a column in today's Washington Times in which he argues that the debate taking place in Congress over the war in Iraq constitutes treason. Gaffney specifically argues that the condemnations of Douglas Feith from Sen. Rockefeller Levin 'really should be a hanging offense.'
Gaffney begins his column by purporting to quote Abraham Lincoln. Gaffney claims that Lincoln said:
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
Italy foils 'arms for Iraq plot'
Who are these people and why are they trying to make things worse in Iraq?
No names given? Wonder if we would recognize any of them?
BBC NEWS | Europe | Italy foils 'arms for Iraq plot':
Italian police say they have broken up a major arms trafficking ring that was planning to supply thousands of weapons to insurgents in Iraq.
They say the group involved had connections in Malta, Russia, Libya and China and some of those arrested were wealthy businessmen working in exports.
This began as a routine drugs investigation.
But soon police in the central Umbria region realised they had stumbled across something far more significant.
So far they have arrested 16 people - 12 on suspicion of drug dealing but four on allegations they were intending to supply arms.
Janis Karpinski: Sen. Lindsey Graham and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib
Graham is a bootlicker from way back.
He wouldn't know real integrity if it bit him in the ass, and it just might, before all this is over.
The Blog Janis Karpinski: Sen. Lindsey Graham and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib The Huffington Post:
"Tuesday night's private screening of Rory Kennedy's Ghosts of Abu Ghraib in Washington may serve to haunt Senator Lindsey Graham for many days to come. It was such a great opportunity and Senator Graham was such a great target, but he has only himself to thank. It is so sad and unfortunate for him to say the things he said, not so much because he thought he could simply say what he did against me not knowing I was there, but because it made everybody painfully aware of his inability to comprehend what he saw in the movie and his ignorance of the big picture.
He condemns the complicity of Miller, Sanchez, Rumsfeld et al., including a remark against the President, but sidesteps his responsibility in pinning medals on each one of them and letting them retire.
He wouldn't know real integrity if it bit him in the ass, and it just might, before all this is over.
The Blog Janis Karpinski: Sen. Lindsey Graham and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib The Huffington Post:
"Tuesday night's private screening of Rory Kennedy's Ghosts of Abu Ghraib in Washington may serve to haunt Senator Lindsey Graham for many days to come. It was such a great opportunity and Senator Graham was such a great target, but he has only himself to thank. It is so sad and unfortunate for him to say the things he said, not so much because he thought he could simply say what he did against me not knowing I was there, but because it made everybody painfully aware of his inability to comprehend what he saw in the movie and his ignorance of the big picture.
He condemns the complicity of Miller, Sanchez, Rumsfeld et al., including a remark against the President, but sidesteps his responsibility in pinning medals on each one of them and letting them retire.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Bush a pathetic drunk: Al Zawahiri
By Maamoun Youssef
ASSOCIATED PRESS02/14/07
AP" -- -- CAIRO, Egypt – Al-Qaeda's No. 2 said President Bush was an alcoholic and a lying gambler who wagered on Iraq and lost, according to a new audiotape released Tuesday by a U.S. group that tracks extremist messages. The Washington-based SITE Institute released a transcript of the audio by Ayman al-Zawahri, which it said it had intercepted from Islamic militant Web sites where his messages are usually posted. “
Bush suffers from an addictive personality, and was an alcoholic. I don't know his present condition ... but the one who examines his personality finds that he is addicted to two other faults – lying and gambling,” al-Zawahri said in the audiotape.
Bush, who is now 60, has acknowledged he had a problem with drinking but gave up alcohol when he was 40 years old.
The Associated Press could not immediately find the audiotape independently on Web sites but found messages on a number of them that said an al-Zawahri tape was expected to be aired shortly.
IntelCenter, a U.S. group that monitors terrorism communications, said it also obtained the audio and that it was accompanied by a video that showed a still picture of al-Zawahri. SITE said the multimedia arm of al-Qaeda, as-Sahab, claimed to have produced the 41-minute audiotape.
On the tape, al-Zawahri said Bush has gone down in history as one of the world's “most notorious liars.”
“So pay attention before it's too late, and beware of Bush's losing gambler's lie which claims that he, with the corpses of your killed and limbs of your wounded, is spreading democracy around the world,” said al-Zawahri, apparently addressing the American people.
Al-Zawahri also said recent congressional elections in the United States that elected a majority of Democrats would change nothing.
“The people chose you due to your opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq, but it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss,” al-Zawahri said of the Democrats according to the transcript.
He repeated an earlier condemnation of the Palestinian Fatah movement led by Mahmoud Abbas for seeking to establish a secular state. “I'm not asking them to join Hamas, the Islamic Jihad or al-Qaeda, but rather, I'm asking them to return to Islam, in order to fight for the establishment of an Islamic state over all of Palestine and not for the establishment of a secularist state which will please America,” al-Zawahri said.
It was the fourth message by Osama bin Laden's deputy since the beginning of the year. The last was on Jan. 22, when he mocked Bush's plan to send an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq.
Al-Zawahri called what he described as Bush' failure in Iraq and the growing Taliban resistance in Afghanistan the “most important events” of the past year.
He also said that “the people cooperating with the United States in Afghanistan and in Iraq would be abandoned by the Americans once they fail, the same way they did in Vietnam.”
Muslims around the world, he added, should go to “Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria and Somalia, because your brothers the Mujahedeen are in need of men, money, materiel, opinion, expertise and information.”
....and the truth shall set us free.
ASSOCIATED PRESS02/14/07
AP" -- -- CAIRO, Egypt – Al-Qaeda's No. 2 said President Bush was an alcoholic and a lying gambler who wagered on Iraq and lost, according to a new audiotape released Tuesday by a U.S. group that tracks extremist messages. The Washington-based SITE Institute released a transcript of the audio by Ayman al-Zawahri, which it said it had intercepted from Islamic militant Web sites where his messages are usually posted. “
Bush suffers from an addictive personality, and was an alcoholic. I don't know his present condition ... but the one who examines his personality finds that he is addicted to two other faults – lying and gambling,” al-Zawahri said in the audiotape.
Bush, who is now 60, has acknowledged he had a problem with drinking but gave up alcohol when he was 40 years old.
The Associated Press could not immediately find the audiotape independently on Web sites but found messages on a number of them that said an al-Zawahri tape was expected to be aired shortly.
IntelCenter, a U.S. group that monitors terrorism communications, said it also obtained the audio and that it was accompanied by a video that showed a still picture of al-Zawahri. SITE said the multimedia arm of al-Qaeda, as-Sahab, claimed to have produced the 41-minute audiotape.
On the tape, al-Zawahri said Bush has gone down in history as one of the world's “most notorious liars.”
“So pay attention before it's too late, and beware of Bush's losing gambler's lie which claims that he, with the corpses of your killed and limbs of your wounded, is spreading democracy around the world,” said al-Zawahri, apparently addressing the American people.
Al-Zawahri also said recent congressional elections in the United States that elected a majority of Democrats would change nothing.
“The people chose you due to your opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq, but it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss,” al-Zawahri said of the Democrats according to the transcript.
He repeated an earlier condemnation of the Palestinian Fatah movement led by Mahmoud Abbas for seeking to establish a secular state. “I'm not asking them to join Hamas, the Islamic Jihad or al-Qaeda, but rather, I'm asking them to return to Islam, in order to fight for the establishment of an Islamic state over all of Palestine and not for the establishment of a secularist state which will please America,” al-Zawahri said.
It was the fourth message by Osama bin Laden's deputy since the beginning of the year. The last was on Jan. 22, when he mocked Bush's plan to send an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq.
Al-Zawahri called what he described as Bush' failure in Iraq and the growing Taliban resistance in Afghanistan the “most important events” of the past year.
He also said that “the people cooperating with the United States in Afghanistan and in Iraq would be abandoned by the Americans once they fail, the same way they did in Vietnam.”
Muslims around the world, he added, should go to “Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria and Somalia, because your brothers the Mujahedeen are in need of men, money, materiel, opinion, expertise and information.”
....and the truth shall set us free.
Psycologists And The Bush Administration.
Why hasn't there been more of an outcry from professional psychologists about the practice of torture in the 'war on terror'?
By Peter Kinderman
02/14/07 "The Guardian" -- -- There is substantial evidence that the so-called "war on terror" has inveigled psychology and psychologists into its abusive systems. Last year's UN report on the abuse of detainees in Guantanamo Bay contained a reference to the extensive use of psychological methods and also referred to the role of psychologists and psychiatrists in interrogation techniques. It is profoundly worrying that such techniques are used, frightening to observe that they may be becoming more widely used, and depressing not to hear more condemnation of the involvement of professional psychologists and psychiatrists in their deployment.
CIA interrogation manuals written in the 1960s and 1980s describe the coercive techniques such as those used to mistreat detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and in Guantanamo Bay. The CIA manual, Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983, was originally obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Baltimore Sun in 1997. It lists a wide range of psychological techniques now widely observed in the "war on terror". The document is freely available in downloadable form from academic libraries in the US. It is clear that psychological expertise contributed to this "training manual". UK and US personnel trained in psychological techniques are involved in the R2I (resistance to interrogation) programmes taught to British and US military specialists. Psychologists, of course, study all aspects of human behaviour, including coercion and torture. Equally, members of the UK armed forces are likely to be exposed to danger and they should be prepared for that. But there are aspects of the present situation that are deeply troubling.
The US government has tried to excuse the CIA and the US military from laws prohibiting the use of torture, and defines torture in a very limited manner that refers explicitly to pain and tissue damage. And it is clear that American and other interrogators are abusing psychological knowledge. Terrorism suspects are disorientated and rendered anxious (even terrified). People are humiliated and degraded. Cunning plans appear to have been developed to use psychological approaches to adversely affect the victim.
One example given in the recent UN report involves a female interrogator sexually taunting an observant Muslim subject, including removing her clothes, then putting her hand down her knickers and removing what appeared to be menstrual blood, which she then smeared on the subject's face (it was, in fact, red marker-pen ink). For a clinical psychologist, this behaviour is psychological abuse, and is either designed to, or in any case will, harm the individually psychologically.
The psychological impact of psychological torture, degradation and abuse is well known. Indeed, the CIA itself has admitted as much, warning in its 1983 Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual that: "Extreme deprivation of sensory stimuli induces unbearable stress and anxiety and is a form of torture...there is a profound moral objection to applying duress beyond the point of irreversible psychological damage". The forms of psychological abuse reported as occurring in the "war on terror" can be devastating on the mental health of victims. Amnesty International has documented these consequences extensively, and academic mental health workers have commented on the severity of the possible consequences. In the UK, in a different context, it is possible to achieve a conviction for grievous bodily harm as a result of purely psychological abuse. It is highly likely - as indeed the CIA itself admits - that hooding, sensory deprivation, sexual humiliation and intense fear will harm the victim.
International law, of course, is clear. The Geneva Convention of 1949 bans "physical or mental torture, or any other form of coercion [...] threat[s], insult[s], or [...] any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind". The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlaws "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Psychological abuse such as that carried out at Guantanamo Bay will not only cause harm, it is illegal.
The US Government has attempted to hide from this fact. Alfred McCoy from the US History News Network has detailed the legal labyrinths that the administration has constructed to exempt such psychological abuse from their prefer definitions; such that "severe mental pain" is defined only as "drug injection drug injection; death threats; threats against another; and extreme physical pain". Clearly there are a vast number of unacceptable practices - physical practices such as stress positions and even "waterboarding" and psychological practices such as sexual humiliation, disorientation and the exploitation of phobias - that fail to meet this useful definition but remain abhorrent.
We are all aware of the failure of many governments to act appropriately to remove the scourge of torture. The prevalence of psychological techniques perhaps warrants particular attention. In addition to protecting people against physical harm, people's mental well-being must be protected. People must be protected against indefinite detention - itself testified to lead to serious mental health problems. People need protection from techniques such as routine hooding and sensory deprivation techniques. And people, of course, need protection from the techniques reported by the UN as being used in a variety of international facilities.
The impulse to resort to torture seems depressingly common. A recent BBCWorld Service poll found that up to a third of people think torture is justified under certain circumstances (the "ticking bomb suspect" scenario, for instance).
It's just this kind of dramatic circumstance that Jack Bauer portrays in the new series of 24 - so realistically that the US military has appealed to the producers to tone down the torture scenes because of the impact they are having on troops in the field and America's reputation.
Action is required by international bodies and governments. But relevant professionals must also do something. It is noticeable that there has been relatively little outcry from professional psychologists and psychiatrists about the trend. Most professional bodies require their members to repudiate torture, and forbid their involvement in torture.
The British Psychological Society is, in fact, a positive example in this regard. It would be naive to expect the US Government to change its practice following pressure from obscure professional groups, but it might help generate democratic pressure if mental health professionals were more out-spoken.
Copyright The Guardian
....and the truth shall set us free.
There has been an enormous outcry.
No one is listening!
More mental health professionals have spoken out, in warning, regarding this president and his co-conspirators than I have ever seen.
By Peter Kinderman
02/14/07 "The Guardian" -- -- There is substantial evidence that the so-called "war on terror" has inveigled psychology and psychologists into its abusive systems. Last year's UN report on the abuse of detainees in Guantanamo Bay contained a reference to the extensive use of psychological methods and also referred to the role of psychologists and psychiatrists in interrogation techniques. It is profoundly worrying that such techniques are used, frightening to observe that they may be becoming more widely used, and depressing not to hear more condemnation of the involvement of professional psychologists and psychiatrists in their deployment.
CIA interrogation manuals written in the 1960s and 1980s describe the coercive techniques such as those used to mistreat detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and in Guantanamo Bay. The CIA manual, Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983, was originally obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Baltimore Sun in 1997. It lists a wide range of psychological techniques now widely observed in the "war on terror". The document is freely available in downloadable form from academic libraries in the US. It is clear that psychological expertise contributed to this "training manual". UK and US personnel trained in psychological techniques are involved in the R2I (resistance to interrogation) programmes taught to British and US military specialists. Psychologists, of course, study all aspects of human behaviour, including coercion and torture. Equally, members of the UK armed forces are likely to be exposed to danger and they should be prepared for that. But there are aspects of the present situation that are deeply troubling.
The US government has tried to excuse the CIA and the US military from laws prohibiting the use of torture, and defines torture in a very limited manner that refers explicitly to pain and tissue damage. And it is clear that American and other interrogators are abusing psychological knowledge. Terrorism suspects are disorientated and rendered anxious (even terrified). People are humiliated and degraded. Cunning plans appear to have been developed to use psychological approaches to adversely affect the victim.
One example given in the recent UN report involves a female interrogator sexually taunting an observant Muslim subject, including removing her clothes, then putting her hand down her knickers and removing what appeared to be menstrual blood, which she then smeared on the subject's face (it was, in fact, red marker-pen ink). For a clinical psychologist, this behaviour is psychological abuse, and is either designed to, or in any case will, harm the individually psychologically.
The psychological impact of psychological torture, degradation and abuse is well known. Indeed, the CIA itself has admitted as much, warning in its 1983 Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual that: "Extreme deprivation of sensory stimuli induces unbearable stress and anxiety and is a form of torture...there is a profound moral objection to applying duress beyond the point of irreversible psychological damage". The forms of psychological abuse reported as occurring in the "war on terror" can be devastating on the mental health of victims. Amnesty International has documented these consequences extensively, and academic mental health workers have commented on the severity of the possible consequences. In the UK, in a different context, it is possible to achieve a conviction for grievous bodily harm as a result of purely psychological abuse. It is highly likely - as indeed the CIA itself admits - that hooding, sensory deprivation, sexual humiliation and intense fear will harm the victim.
International law, of course, is clear. The Geneva Convention of 1949 bans "physical or mental torture, or any other form of coercion [...] threat[s], insult[s], or [...] any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind". The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlaws "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Psychological abuse such as that carried out at Guantanamo Bay will not only cause harm, it is illegal.
The US Government has attempted to hide from this fact. Alfred McCoy from the US History News Network has detailed the legal labyrinths that the administration has constructed to exempt such psychological abuse from their prefer definitions; such that "severe mental pain" is defined only as "drug injection drug injection; death threats; threats against another; and extreme physical pain". Clearly there are a vast number of unacceptable practices - physical practices such as stress positions and even "waterboarding" and psychological practices such as sexual humiliation, disorientation and the exploitation of phobias - that fail to meet this useful definition but remain abhorrent.
We are all aware of the failure of many governments to act appropriately to remove the scourge of torture. The prevalence of psychological techniques perhaps warrants particular attention. In addition to protecting people against physical harm, people's mental well-being must be protected. People must be protected against indefinite detention - itself testified to lead to serious mental health problems. People need protection from techniques such as routine hooding and sensory deprivation techniques. And people, of course, need protection from the techniques reported by the UN as being used in a variety of international facilities.
The impulse to resort to torture seems depressingly common. A recent BBCWorld Service poll found that up to a third of people think torture is justified under certain circumstances (the "ticking bomb suspect" scenario, for instance).
It's just this kind of dramatic circumstance that Jack Bauer portrays in the new series of 24 - so realistically that the US military has appealed to the producers to tone down the torture scenes because of the impact they are having on troops in the field and America's reputation.
Action is required by international bodies and governments. But relevant professionals must also do something. It is noticeable that there has been relatively little outcry from professional psychologists and psychiatrists about the trend. Most professional bodies require their members to repudiate torture, and forbid their involvement in torture.
The British Psychological Society is, in fact, a positive example in this regard. It would be naive to expect the US Government to change its practice following pressure from obscure professional groups, but it might help generate democratic pressure if mental health professionals were more out-spoken.
Copyright The Guardian
....and the truth shall set us free.
Douglas Feith; Enemy of The State!
By Robert Scheer
02/14/07
"San Francisco Chronicle" -- -
SOMEDAY, you are going to read a whole lot about the shenanigans of one Douglas J. Feith and an elaborate scheme to get the United States to invade Iraq. That is because Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has been determined to get to the bottom of this sordid tale and is now, fortunately, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee and thereby empowered to get at the truth.
Last week, his focus led to the partial declassification of a report produced by the Pentagon's inspector general. Although its shocking revelations did not get the coverage it deserved -- what with a jealous astronaut on the loose and the death of a certain voluptuous stripper/heiress -- efforts such as Levin's eventually will uncover the full picture of why President Bush committed to a war costing tens of thousands of lives and an expected $1 trillion that served no valid national security purpose.
The tale begins with Feith, who was appointed undersecretary of defense for policy in the Pentagon by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after Bush was installed in the White House in 2000 by the Supreme Court.
In that capacity, Feith's office manufactured an "Alternative Analysis on the Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship," which ignored the consensus of the intelligence community that the two natural enemies -- one a secular Arab government, the other a fundamentalist terror group bent on destruction of same -- were not, nor ever had been, working together, despite a shared enmity for the United States.
Most important, as the Pentagon's independent inspector general noted, the intelligence did not support any connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and the brutal Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, such an apocryphal connection was asserted repeatedly by the Bush administration based largely on cherry-picked information (compiled and presented by Feith's highly ideological group within the Pentagon)."[I]ntelligence indicates cooperation in all categories" and a "mature symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, Feith conveniently reported to superiors who had already decided on the need to overthrow Hussein and were seeking a way to link it to Americans' rage at Osama bin Ladin.
These alleged "multiple areas of cooperation" included "shared interest and pursuit of [Weapons of Mass Destruction]" and "some indications of possible Iraq coordination with al Qaeda related to 9/11."
All of those claims were known by the intelligence community to be false or completely unproven, as documented by the nonpartisan 9/11 commission.
Yet, they were presented by Feith's office "unbeknownst to the Director of Central Intelligence," according to the report, were "not vetted by the Intelligence Community" and were "not supported by the available intelligence."The most glaring distortion was Feith's indefensible reliance on a shaky, discredited report from a Czech intelligence agent that said 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had a meeting with a top Iraqi diplomat in Prague five months before Sept. 11, 2001.
As the 9/11 commission reported, there was never any good evidence of such a meeting, yet Vice President Dick Cheney continued to assert it as true, long after the facts were known. Cheney even called Feith's report the "best source of information" on the alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda after it was leaked to the neoconservative Weekly StandardSo was the White House in on this hustle? It is hard to imagine it wasn't, because Feith was selected by Cheney and Rumsfeld to run the "alternative" intelligence operation precisely because they knew he was an inveterate hawk, long committed publicly to a rollback strategy that would ensure Israel's security through regime change in the Arab world, beginning with Iraq.
That radical and dangerous notion, based on a deep hostility to the Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts pursued by all previous presidents, had been clearly outlined by Feith in a 1996 report he co-wrote with Richard Perle and other prominent neoconservatives called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," issued by an Israeli think-tank. The report spelled out a rosy scenario in which a new post-Hussein Iraq with a Shia majority would support a pro-Israel position.
The absurdity of that expectation has been well demonstrated by the close ties of the Iraqi Shia leadership with an Iranian government that is publicly committed to eliminating Israel. Of course, as a private citizen, Feith had the right to endorse such deeply erroneous views -- but why was a man given to such bizarre analysis placed in a position of critical importance in the federal government?More important, why did the president raise Feith's analysis over that of the government's lavishly funded intelligence agencies? That is the basic question begged by the report, and one that truth-diggers such as Levin eventually may be able to answer
E-mail Rscheer@truthdig.
....and the truth shall set us free.
02/14/07
"San Francisco Chronicle" -- -
SOMEDAY, you are going to read a whole lot about the shenanigans of one Douglas J. Feith and an elaborate scheme to get the United States to invade Iraq. That is because Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has been determined to get to the bottom of this sordid tale and is now, fortunately, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee and thereby empowered to get at the truth.
Last week, his focus led to the partial declassification of a report produced by the Pentagon's inspector general. Although its shocking revelations did not get the coverage it deserved -- what with a jealous astronaut on the loose and the death of a certain voluptuous stripper/heiress -- efforts such as Levin's eventually will uncover the full picture of why President Bush committed to a war costing tens of thousands of lives and an expected $1 trillion that served no valid national security purpose.
The tale begins with Feith, who was appointed undersecretary of defense for policy in the Pentagon by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after Bush was installed in the White House in 2000 by the Supreme Court.
In that capacity, Feith's office manufactured an "Alternative Analysis on the Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship," which ignored the consensus of the intelligence community that the two natural enemies -- one a secular Arab government, the other a fundamentalist terror group bent on destruction of same -- were not, nor ever had been, working together, despite a shared enmity for the United States.
Most important, as the Pentagon's independent inspector general noted, the intelligence did not support any connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and the brutal Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, such an apocryphal connection was asserted repeatedly by the Bush administration based largely on cherry-picked information (compiled and presented by Feith's highly ideological group within the Pentagon)."[I]ntelligence indicates cooperation in all categories" and a "mature symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, Feith conveniently reported to superiors who had already decided on the need to overthrow Hussein and were seeking a way to link it to Americans' rage at Osama bin Ladin.
These alleged "multiple areas of cooperation" included "shared interest and pursuit of [Weapons of Mass Destruction]" and "some indications of possible Iraq coordination with al Qaeda related to 9/11."
All of those claims were known by the intelligence community to be false or completely unproven, as documented by the nonpartisan 9/11 commission.
Yet, they were presented by Feith's office "unbeknownst to the Director of Central Intelligence," according to the report, were "not vetted by the Intelligence Community" and were "not supported by the available intelligence."The most glaring distortion was Feith's indefensible reliance on a shaky, discredited report from a Czech intelligence agent that said 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had a meeting with a top Iraqi diplomat in Prague five months before Sept. 11, 2001.
As the 9/11 commission reported, there was never any good evidence of such a meeting, yet Vice President Dick Cheney continued to assert it as true, long after the facts were known. Cheney even called Feith's report the "best source of information" on the alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda after it was leaked to the neoconservative Weekly StandardSo was the White House in on this hustle? It is hard to imagine it wasn't, because Feith was selected by Cheney and Rumsfeld to run the "alternative" intelligence operation precisely because they knew he was an inveterate hawk, long committed publicly to a rollback strategy that would ensure Israel's security through regime change in the Arab world, beginning with Iraq.
That radical and dangerous notion, based on a deep hostility to the Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts pursued by all previous presidents, had been clearly outlined by Feith in a 1996 report he co-wrote with Richard Perle and other prominent neoconservatives called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," issued by an Israeli think-tank. The report spelled out a rosy scenario in which a new post-Hussein Iraq with a Shia majority would support a pro-Israel position.
The absurdity of that expectation has been well demonstrated by the close ties of the Iraqi Shia leadership with an Iranian government that is publicly committed to eliminating Israel. Of course, as a private citizen, Feith had the right to endorse such deeply erroneous views -- but why was a man given to such bizarre analysis placed in a position of critical importance in the federal government?More important, why did the president raise Feith's analysis over that of the government's lavishly funded intelligence agencies? That is the basic question begged by the report, and one that truth-diggers such as Levin eventually may be able to answer
E-mail Rscheer@truthdig.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Can The Military Really Come to Our Defense?
Not without civilian help!
Is the Military Our Last Hope?
By Paul Craig Roberts
Is the high command of the US military breaking ranks with the Bush Regime?
02/14/07 "ICH" -- -- With the “mainstream media,” that is, the government’s propaganda ministry, bombarding the American public with “news reports” from unidentified sources that the US government has proof that “the highest reaches of the Iranian government” is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency, Marine General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, demurred.
General Pace told the Voice of America on February 12 that he has no information indicating that Iran’s government is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency. General Pace said that “Iranians are involved,” but “what I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this . . . I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.”
Unlike the New York Times, Fox “news,” CNN, and the TV networks, General Pace refused to lie for the Bush Regime.Perhaps America could regain its reputation if General Pace would send a division of US Marines to arrest Bush, Cheney, the entire civilian contingent in the Pentagon, the neoconservative nazis, and the complicit members of Congress and send them off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes. But he did the best he could and refused to lie for warmongers.
There is absolutely no doubt that Bush-Cheney and the neoconservative nazis are planning revenge against General Pace. We can only hope the general does not have a wife who works for the CIA. Bush’s support stands at 30% or less of the American population; Cheney’s at 20% or less. How can “leaders” who are not supported by public opinion or by a single fact escalate a war that is entirely based on lies while starting a new war that is entirely based on lies?Is America any longer a democracy where failed leaders are held to account?
Obviously not.
What has America become while it has been in the hands of the Bush Regime?
How can any patriotic American support a regime that has shredded the US Constitution, ignored the separation of powers, violated the Geneva Conventions, forced through a law legalizing torture, launched a war of aggression that has produced 26,000 American military casualties in service of a lie, murdered tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians, destroyed an entire country, and planned an attack on Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons?
Patriotism is loyalty to country and to the US Constitution, not loyalty to a criminal regime.
This criminal regime is in the hands of a tiny cabal of fanatical ideologues who would risk the very existence of human life for their perverted ideology that has no higher value than American and Israeli hegemony.
Bush and the congressional sheep say “support the troops,” by which they mean, of course, “continue the war.” But Bush does not support the troops. On February 12 the Associated Press reported: “The Bush administration’s budget assumes cuts to funding for veterans’ health care two years from now--even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.”
Bush is an ignorant warmonger. He doesn’t care who pays the price as long as the American people let him sit in the Oval Office and play Napoleon.
MoveOn, an organization that, unlike the Bush Regime, has redeeming virtues, is making a terrible mistake in trying to collect half a million signatures in behalf of saving federal funding for NPR and PBS. I cannot imagine a surer way of adding NPR and PBS to the Bush Regime’s ministry of propaganda. NPR and PBS desperately need to be totally independent of government and dependent only on their listeners.
Any organization dependent on government money belongs to the government. Such an organization has no independence. Just ask the many physicists who cannot express doubts about the 9/11 Commission Report because their careers depend entirely on federal government grants.We have witnessed a decline in the integrity of NPR reporting over the past six years.
The Bush Regime put an ideological commissar in charge of NPR and the result is that NPR sounds increasingly like Fox “news.” The few people with integrity that America has left in the news business desperately need their independence.
On February 13, I listened for two hours to NPR and did not hear a single report of General Pace’s contradiction of Bush/Cheney propaganda about Iran’s leaders. But I did hear a neoconservative from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a propaganda institution in Washington D.C., push the buttons for war with Iran.
The Clinton Administration permitted the destruction of independent news in the US when it allowed the extraordinary concentration of the media.
The American media is no longer run by journalists with a commitment to truth but by advertising executives who seek to protect profits by avoiding “controversy” and who seek to protect the value of the conglomerates, a value that depends on government-granted broadcast licenses, by accommodating the government’s line, whatever it might be.The only free and independent media in the US is online.
The best thing that could possibly happen to NPR is to lose all federal funding and to become totally independent of Washington. Then we could trust it again.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Is the Military Our Last Hope?
By Paul Craig Roberts
Is the high command of the US military breaking ranks with the Bush Regime?
02/14/07 "ICH" -- -- With the “mainstream media,” that is, the government’s propaganda ministry, bombarding the American public with “news reports” from unidentified sources that the US government has proof that “the highest reaches of the Iranian government” is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency, Marine General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, demurred.
General Pace told the Voice of America on February 12 that he has no information indicating that Iran’s government is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency. General Pace said that “Iranians are involved,” but “what I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this . . . I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.”
Unlike the New York Times, Fox “news,” CNN, and the TV networks, General Pace refused to lie for the Bush Regime.Perhaps America could regain its reputation if General Pace would send a division of US Marines to arrest Bush, Cheney, the entire civilian contingent in the Pentagon, the neoconservative nazis, and the complicit members of Congress and send them off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes. But he did the best he could and refused to lie for warmongers.
There is absolutely no doubt that Bush-Cheney and the neoconservative nazis are planning revenge against General Pace. We can only hope the general does not have a wife who works for the CIA. Bush’s support stands at 30% or less of the American population; Cheney’s at 20% or less. How can “leaders” who are not supported by public opinion or by a single fact escalate a war that is entirely based on lies while starting a new war that is entirely based on lies?Is America any longer a democracy where failed leaders are held to account?
Obviously not.
What has America become while it has been in the hands of the Bush Regime?
How can any patriotic American support a regime that has shredded the US Constitution, ignored the separation of powers, violated the Geneva Conventions, forced through a law legalizing torture, launched a war of aggression that has produced 26,000 American military casualties in service of a lie, murdered tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians, destroyed an entire country, and planned an attack on Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons?
Patriotism is loyalty to country and to the US Constitution, not loyalty to a criminal regime.
This criminal regime is in the hands of a tiny cabal of fanatical ideologues who would risk the very existence of human life for their perverted ideology that has no higher value than American and Israeli hegemony.
Bush and the congressional sheep say “support the troops,” by which they mean, of course, “continue the war.” But Bush does not support the troops. On February 12 the Associated Press reported: “The Bush administration’s budget assumes cuts to funding for veterans’ health care two years from now--even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.”
Bush is an ignorant warmonger. He doesn’t care who pays the price as long as the American people let him sit in the Oval Office and play Napoleon.
MoveOn, an organization that, unlike the Bush Regime, has redeeming virtues, is making a terrible mistake in trying to collect half a million signatures in behalf of saving federal funding for NPR and PBS. I cannot imagine a surer way of adding NPR and PBS to the Bush Regime’s ministry of propaganda. NPR and PBS desperately need to be totally independent of government and dependent only on their listeners.
Any organization dependent on government money belongs to the government. Such an organization has no independence. Just ask the many physicists who cannot express doubts about the 9/11 Commission Report because their careers depend entirely on federal government grants.We have witnessed a decline in the integrity of NPR reporting over the past six years.
The Bush Regime put an ideological commissar in charge of NPR and the result is that NPR sounds increasingly like Fox “news.” The few people with integrity that America has left in the news business desperately need their independence.
On February 13, I listened for two hours to NPR and did not hear a single report of General Pace’s contradiction of Bush/Cheney propaganda about Iran’s leaders. But I did hear a neoconservative from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a propaganda institution in Washington D.C., push the buttons for war with Iran.
The Clinton Administration permitted the destruction of independent news in the US when it allowed the extraordinary concentration of the media.
The American media is no longer run by journalists with a commitment to truth but by advertising executives who seek to protect profits by avoiding “controversy” and who seek to protect the value of the conglomerates, a value that depends on government-granted broadcast licenses, by accommodating the government’s line, whatever it might be.The only free and independent media in the US is online.
The best thing that could possibly happen to NPR is to lose all federal funding and to become totally independent of Washington. Then we could trust it again.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Libby Trial: Looking forward to appeals and a pardon!
David Corn
The Nation -- Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss.
As the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby perjury trial headed toward a finale, Libby's attorneys on Wednesday made several last-minute stabs to bolster its defense--and federal district Judge Reggie Walton shot each down.
The defense wanted to bring Tim Russert, the Meet the Press star, back to the witness stand. Russert had appeared as a key witness for the prosecution. When Libby, then chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, was questioned in 2003 and 2004 by FBI agents and a grand jury investigating the leak that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer, he claimed that at the time of the leak he possessed no official information about Valerie Wilson and her CIA employment and that he had only heard gossip from Russert about her. In his indictment of Libby, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald claimed this was a lie, and Russert testified that he had told Libby nothing about Valerie Wilson because he knew nothing about her.
So Libby's lawyers were hoping to get another chance to attack Russert's credibility. As a prosecution witness, Russert had testified for twelve minutes before Wells cross-examined him for five hours, nicking but not truly wounding the newsman. That was not good enough for the defense. Libby's lawyers argued to Judge Walton--outside the presence of the jury--that they should be allowed to call Russert back to the stand. The issue at hand was a statement Russert made during his testimony in which he said he didn't realize a grand jury witness is not allowed to have a lawyer present when testifying before a grand jury. Libby's legal team--combing print and video archives--had found NBC News clips from the days of Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater when Russert had informed viewers that a grand jury witness couldn't have a lawyer by his or her side.
Why did a contradiction between Russert's recent testimony and a nine-year-old television clip matter?
Ted Wells, Libby's lead lawyer, argued that because Russert had been allowed to give a deposition to Fitzgerald in a lawyer's office with his own attorney present--rather than appear as grand jury witness with no lawyer to help him--Russert had received a favor from Fitzgerald and might have consequently crafted his testimony to benefit the prosecution. Wells asked to be allowed to call Russert back and play those Clinton-era tapes for the jury.
Walton said no. "It's a totally collateral matter," he declared.
Wells and his crew desired something else from the judge: permission to enter into the record a statement covering the details of the national security matters that Libby was working on at the time of the leak, his two FBI interviews, and his two grand jury appearances. This statement--based on classified information--was drafted before the trial, and the judge and relevant government agencies vetted the document and agreed it could be presented in court so Libby's defense would not reveal classified material. But Fitzgerald argued that the document had been drafted only for use if Libby testified--to allow him to show the jury what was on his mind at these times without disclosing secret information. If he won't testify, the prosecutor maintained, the statement shouldn't be presented to the jury. John Cline, a Libby attorney, argued vigorously. Walton was not persuaded, noting that the statement "was supposed to be a substitution" for Libby's testimony. Without Libby testifying, Walton said, putting the statement into evidence would not be fair.
Next, the Libby lawyers made a bid to introduce as evidence details from intelligence briefings that Libby received about terrorist threats. The point: Libby was so consumed by hair-raising news of threats he could not be expected to care about or remember the minor Valerie Wilson matter. Fitzgerald objected. He argued that the defense was trying to suggest Libby's (overwhelmed) state of mind to the jury without placing their client on the stand and subjecting him to cross-examination. He also maintained that if the details from these briefings were introduced without context--that is, without explaining that Libby received such information on a daily basis--the jurors would not be able to evaluate whether the material was out of the ordinary and truly mind-bending.
Again, Walton sided with Fitzgerald and ruled against Libby. If he doesn't testify, the judge explained, he can't use this information. Instead, Walton allowed Cline to read a stipulation to the jury that repeated information already introduced. This stipulation noted that at a June 14, 2003 intelligence briefing--during which Libby mentioned Joseph and Valerie Wilson to his CIA briefer--he was presented information about a bomb being defused in Yemen, the arrest of a terrorist suspect elsewhere, a possible al Qaeda attack in the United States, Iraq's porous borders, demonstrations in Iran, developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a possible airport hijacking in England by a group linked to al Qaeda, a variety of potential terrorist attacks around the world, the 1920 Mesopotamia insurrection and its relevancy to the Iraqi insurgency, and other matters. Libby, according to the stipulation, requested additional information on two of the two dozen topics in the briefing.
Shortly after the stipulation was read, Wells told the judge, "The defense on behalf of Lewis Libby rests."
Team Libby concluded its case without offering any witness who was a direct party to the events at issue. It finished its presentation without producing any testimony or evidence to back up its assertion that Libby was the victim of a CIA plot, a State Department plot, a White House plot, an NBC News plot or some combination of these get-Libby conspiracies. It supplied little evidence that Libby was particularly forgetful. It offered no testimony to back up the notion that Libby had no motive to lie to the FBI and the grand jury. During opening arguments, Wells claimed he would show that Libby had no reason to fear for his job when he was questioned by the FBI and the grand jury. Wells said he could show that Cheney would have stuck by Libby no matter what and, thus, Libby had no incentive to cover up his involvement in the leak episode.
Yet Wells put no one on the stand--say, Cheney--to support this claim. And he presented only one witness--New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson--to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness: Judith Miller, a former Times reporter. Abramson was on and off the stand within minutes. Most of Libby's witnesses testified about events that were not part of the case.
And Libby said nothing. It was as if Wells didn't dare put his client on the stand to repeat the gymnastics he performed during his grand jury appearance when he essentially said, I forgot to remember what I had known but forgotten about Valerie Wilson. And Wells would not give Fitzgerald a crack at Cheney.
Nothing in defense presentation buttressed the dramatic statements Wells made at the start of the case. Libby's lawyers mounted a bombastic but skimpy defense: a lot of hat, not much cattle. This is not unusual in a criminal case. The defense has no obligation to present a case. The burden is upon the government. A defense lawyer can simply claim the prosecution fell short and leave it at that. Which is practically what Wells and his team are doing. As Wells said after resting his case, "There is no box on the verdict sheet [used by jurors] that says...did you tell the full story? It says guilty or not guilty." When the trial began, Wells claimed he and Libby had a story to tell. It turns out they don't.
Closing arguments are scheduled for next Tuesday.
....and the truth shall set us free.
The Nation -- Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss.
As the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby perjury trial headed toward a finale, Libby's attorneys on Wednesday made several last-minute stabs to bolster its defense--and federal district Judge Reggie Walton shot each down.
The defense wanted to bring Tim Russert, the Meet the Press star, back to the witness stand. Russert had appeared as a key witness for the prosecution. When Libby, then chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, was questioned in 2003 and 2004 by FBI agents and a grand jury investigating the leak that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer, he claimed that at the time of the leak he possessed no official information about Valerie Wilson and her CIA employment and that he had only heard gossip from Russert about her. In his indictment of Libby, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald claimed this was a lie, and Russert testified that he had told Libby nothing about Valerie Wilson because he knew nothing about her.
So Libby's lawyers were hoping to get another chance to attack Russert's credibility. As a prosecution witness, Russert had testified for twelve minutes before Wells cross-examined him for five hours, nicking but not truly wounding the newsman. That was not good enough for the defense. Libby's lawyers argued to Judge Walton--outside the presence of the jury--that they should be allowed to call Russert back to the stand. The issue at hand was a statement Russert made during his testimony in which he said he didn't realize a grand jury witness is not allowed to have a lawyer present when testifying before a grand jury. Libby's legal team--combing print and video archives--had found NBC News clips from the days of Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater when Russert had informed viewers that a grand jury witness couldn't have a lawyer by his or her side.
Why did a contradiction between Russert's recent testimony and a nine-year-old television clip matter?
Ted Wells, Libby's lead lawyer, argued that because Russert had been allowed to give a deposition to Fitzgerald in a lawyer's office with his own attorney present--rather than appear as grand jury witness with no lawyer to help him--Russert had received a favor from Fitzgerald and might have consequently crafted his testimony to benefit the prosecution. Wells asked to be allowed to call Russert back and play those Clinton-era tapes for the jury.
Walton said no. "It's a totally collateral matter," he declared.
Wells and his crew desired something else from the judge: permission to enter into the record a statement covering the details of the national security matters that Libby was working on at the time of the leak, his two FBI interviews, and his two grand jury appearances. This statement--based on classified information--was drafted before the trial, and the judge and relevant government agencies vetted the document and agreed it could be presented in court so Libby's defense would not reveal classified material. But Fitzgerald argued that the document had been drafted only for use if Libby testified--to allow him to show the jury what was on his mind at these times without disclosing secret information. If he won't testify, the prosecutor maintained, the statement shouldn't be presented to the jury. John Cline, a Libby attorney, argued vigorously. Walton was not persuaded, noting that the statement "was supposed to be a substitution" for Libby's testimony. Without Libby testifying, Walton said, putting the statement into evidence would not be fair.
Next, the Libby lawyers made a bid to introduce as evidence details from intelligence briefings that Libby received about terrorist threats. The point: Libby was so consumed by hair-raising news of threats he could not be expected to care about or remember the minor Valerie Wilson matter. Fitzgerald objected. He argued that the defense was trying to suggest Libby's (overwhelmed) state of mind to the jury without placing their client on the stand and subjecting him to cross-examination. He also maintained that if the details from these briefings were introduced without context--that is, without explaining that Libby received such information on a daily basis--the jurors would not be able to evaluate whether the material was out of the ordinary and truly mind-bending.
Again, Walton sided with Fitzgerald and ruled against Libby. If he doesn't testify, the judge explained, he can't use this information. Instead, Walton allowed Cline to read a stipulation to the jury that repeated information already introduced. This stipulation noted that at a June 14, 2003 intelligence briefing--during which Libby mentioned Joseph and Valerie Wilson to his CIA briefer--he was presented information about a bomb being defused in Yemen, the arrest of a terrorist suspect elsewhere, a possible al Qaeda attack in the United States, Iraq's porous borders, demonstrations in Iran, developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a possible airport hijacking in England by a group linked to al Qaeda, a variety of potential terrorist attacks around the world, the 1920 Mesopotamia insurrection and its relevancy to the Iraqi insurgency, and other matters. Libby, according to the stipulation, requested additional information on two of the two dozen topics in the briefing.
Shortly after the stipulation was read, Wells told the judge, "The defense on behalf of Lewis Libby rests."
Team Libby concluded its case without offering any witness who was a direct party to the events at issue. It finished its presentation without producing any testimony or evidence to back up its assertion that Libby was the victim of a CIA plot, a State Department plot, a White House plot, an NBC News plot or some combination of these get-Libby conspiracies. It supplied little evidence that Libby was particularly forgetful. It offered no testimony to back up the notion that Libby had no motive to lie to the FBI and the grand jury. During opening arguments, Wells claimed he would show that Libby had no reason to fear for his job when he was questioned by the FBI and the grand jury. Wells said he could show that Cheney would have stuck by Libby no matter what and, thus, Libby had no incentive to cover up his involvement in the leak episode.
Yet Wells put no one on the stand--say, Cheney--to support this claim. And he presented only one witness--New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson--to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness: Judith Miller, a former Times reporter. Abramson was on and off the stand within minutes. Most of Libby's witnesses testified about events that were not part of the case.
And Libby said nothing. It was as if Wells didn't dare put his client on the stand to repeat the gymnastics he performed during his grand jury appearance when he essentially said, I forgot to remember what I had known but forgotten about Valerie Wilson. And Wells would not give Fitzgerald a crack at Cheney.
Nothing in defense presentation buttressed the dramatic statements Wells made at the start of the case. Libby's lawyers mounted a bombastic but skimpy defense: a lot of hat, not much cattle. This is not unusual in a criminal case. The defense has no obligation to present a case. The burden is upon the government. A defense lawyer can simply claim the prosecution fell short and leave it at that. Which is practically what Wells and his team are doing. As Wells said after resting his case, "There is no box on the verdict sheet [used by jurors] that says...did you tell the full story? It says guilty or not guilty." When the trial began, Wells claimed he and Libby had a story to tell. It turns out they don't.
Closing arguments are scheduled for next Tuesday.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Scooter's un-testimony
Yet another conspiracy of silence!
Wednesday February 14, 2007 11:31 PM
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense attorneys misled the court into thinking that former White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby would testify in his CIA leak trial, a federal judge said Wednesday, as he blocked Libby from using some classified evidence in the case.
Libby is accused of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity. His attorneys have said for months in court papers that Libby would testify that he had important national security issues on his mind and that he simply forgot details about his conversations regarding the CIA employee, Valerie Plame.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald agreed to tell jurors about the terrorist threats, war planning and other secret issues that Libby faced at the time. The prosecutor said that he agreed to do this on the condition that he could cross-examine Libby at some point on just how seriously he considered these threats.
When defense attorneys abruptly announced Wednesday that Libby no longer planned to testify, however, Fitzgerald said that jurors hearing the case therefore should not be given a prewritten statement about Libby's briefings.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton agreed, and reversed an earlier ruling that the evidence could be admitted.
"My absolute understanding was that Mr. Libby was going to testify,'' the judge said. ``My ruling was based on the fact that he was going to testify.''
Walton appeared upset and seemed to stake his reputation on the decision. Libby's attorneys indicated they would appeal the decision if Libby is convicted.
"If that's what the Supreme Court is going to say (in any ruling on an appeal), they might as well say the government's not entitled to a fair trial and the defendant is,'' Walton said. "I think both sides are entitled to a fair trial. If I get reversed on that, maybe I need to hang up my spurs.''
Walton said he would consider allowing three CIA briefers to testify about what they told Libby during the mid-2003 intelligence briefings. Fitzgerald said that, too, should be excluded now that Libby isn't going to testify.
Walton said he would rule on that issue later Wednesday. He also was weighing whether to put NBC newsman Tim Russert back on the witness stand so Libby's attorneys could continue attacking his credibility.
Russert, who testified last week, is a key witness in case. Libby's attorneys want to show jurors three video clips that seem to contradict some of Russert's testimony.
Russert testified last week that he never discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame with Libby. Libby told investigators that Russert asked about Plame and said ``all the reporters'' knew she worked at the CIA. That dispute is at the heart of the case. Libby is accused of making up the Russert call to cover up other conversations he had with reporters and of obstructing the investigation into the leak of Plame's name.
The most recent effort to discredit Russert does not directly undercut his story. Rather it involves testimony over the arrangements prosecutors made in exchange for Russert's cooperation.
Russert was not put before a grand jury. Rather, he was allowed to testify in an interview alongside his lawyer. As Libby's attorneys tried last week to cast that as favorable treatment, Russert - a law school graduate and former Senate counsel - said he was unaware that grand jury witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys present.
Libby's attorneys found three old television clips that suggest Russert did know. In those clips, Russert describes the grand jury that was investigating members of the Clinton administration. In them, he notes that witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys in the room when they testify.
"His credibility, it seems to me, is crucial to this case,'' Walton said. ``He's probably, if not the most important, one of the most important witnesses.''
Fitzgerald said Libby's attorneys had their chance to cross-examine Russert and wanted a "do over.''
Russert was cross-examined for five hours after offering 12 minutes of direct testimony. Fitzgerald said it doesn't matter what Russert knew about grand jury procedure.
Defense attorney Theodore Wells said Russert got special treatment and he wants to use the tapes to show Russert was trying to conceal that.
Russert and Libby tell different stories about a July 2003 phone conversation. Libby says at the end of the call, Russert told him that Plame, the wife of prominent war critic Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA. Russert said that part of the conversation never occurred.
Libby subsequently repeated the information about Plame to other journalists, always with the caveat that he had heard it from reporters, he has said. Prosecutors say Libby concocted the Russert conversation to shield him from prosecution for revealing classified information from government sources.
^---
Associated Press writer Michael J. Sniffen contributed to this report.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Wednesday February 14, 2007 11:31 PM
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense attorneys misled the court into thinking that former White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby would testify in his CIA leak trial, a federal judge said Wednesday, as he blocked Libby from using some classified evidence in the case.
Libby is accused of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity. His attorneys have said for months in court papers that Libby would testify that he had important national security issues on his mind and that he simply forgot details about his conversations regarding the CIA employee, Valerie Plame.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald agreed to tell jurors about the terrorist threats, war planning and other secret issues that Libby faced at the time. The prosecutor said that he agreed to do this on the condition that he could cross-examine Libby at some point on just how seriously he considered these threats.
When defense attorneys abruptly announced Wednesday that Libby no longer planned to testify, however, Fitzgerald said that jurors hearing the case therefore should not be given a prewritten statement about Libby's briefings.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton agreed, and reversed an earlier ruling that the evidence could be admitted.
"My absolute understanding was that Mr. Libby was going to testify,'' the judge said. ``My ruling was based on the fact that he was going to testify.''
Walton appeared upset and seemed to stake his reputation on the decision. Libby's attorneys indicated they would appeal the decision if Libby is convicted.
"If that's what the Supreme Court is going to say (in any ruling on an appeal), they might as well say the government's not entitled to a fair trial and the defendant is,'' Walton said. "I think both sides are entitled to a fair trial. If I get reversed on that, maybe I need to hang up my spurs.''
Walton said he would consider allowing three CIA briefers to testify about what they told Libby during the mid-2003 intelligence briefings. Fitzgerald said that, too, should be excluded now that Libby isn't going to testify.
Walton said he would rule on that issue later Wednesday. He also was weighing whether to put NBC newsman Tim Russert back on the witness stand so Libby's attorneys could continue attacking his credibility.
Russert, who testified last week, is a key witness in case. Libby's attorneys want to show jurors three video clips that seem to contradict some of Russert's testimony.
Russert testified last week that he never discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame with Libby. Libby told investigators that Russert asked about Plame and said ``all the reporters'' knew she worked at the CIA. That dispute is at the heart of the case. Libby is accused of making up the Russert call to cover up other conversations he had with reporters and of obstructing the investigation into the leak of Plame's name.
The most recent effort to discredit Russert does not directly undercut his story. Rather it involves testimony over the arrangements prosecutors made in exchange for Russert's cooperation.
Russert was not put before a grand jury. Rather, he was allowed to testify in an interview alongside his lawyer. As Libby's attorneys tried last week to cast that as favorable treatment, Russert - a law school graduate and former Senate counsel - said he was unaware that grand jury witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys present.
Libby's attorneys found three old television clips that suggest Russert did know. In those clips, Russert describes the grand jury that was investigating members of the Clinton administration. In them, he notes that witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys in the room when they testify.
"His credibility, it seems to me, is crucial to this case,'' Walton said. ``He's probably, if not the most important, one of the most important witnesses.''
Fitzgerald said Libby's attorneys had their chance to cross-examine Russert and wanted a "do over.''
Russert was cross-examined for five hours after offering 12 minutes of direct testimony. Fitzgerald said it doesn't matter what Russert knew about grand jury procedure.
Defense attorney Theodore Wells said Russert got special treatment and he wants to use the tapes to show Russert was trying to conceal that.
Russert and Libby tell different stories about a July 2003 phone conversation. Libby says at the end of the call, Russert told him that Plame, the wife of prominent war critic Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA. Russert said that part of the conversation never occurred.
Libby subsequently repeated the information about Plame to other journalists, always with the caveat that he had heard it from reporters, he has said. Prosecutors say Libby concocted the Russert conversation to shield him from prosecution for revealing classified information from government sources.
^---
Associated Press writer Michael J. Sniffen contributed to this report.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Rice Lies About Iran Overture!
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Controversy over a possible missed U.S. opportunity for rapprochement with Iran grew on Wednesday as former aide accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of misleading Congress on the issue.
Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, said a proposal vetted by Tehran's most senior leaders was sent to the United States in May 2003 and was akin to the 1972 U.S. opening to China.
Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."
Reuters Pictures
Rice's spokesman denied she misled Congress and reiterated that she did not see the proposal.
Separately, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns warned Iran it risked further U.N. and other sanctions if it did not halt uranium enrichment as the U.N. Security Council demanded.
He stressed there was still time for diplomacy before Iran reached a critical point in its nuclear capability and said conflict with Iran was not inevitable.
Washington remains patient and committed to negotiations with Tehran and its carrot-and-stick approach with other major powers is influencing Iran's internal debate, Burns told the Brookings Institution think tank. Continued...
....and the truth shall set us free.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Controversy over a possible missed U.S. opportunity for rapprochement with Iran grew on Wednesday as former aide accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of misleading Congress on the issue.
Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, said a proposal vetted by Tehran's most senior leaders was sent to the United States in May 2003 and was akin to the 1972 U.S. opening to China.
Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."
Reuters Pictures
Rice's spokesman denied she misled Congress and reiterated that she did not see the proposal.
Separately, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns warned Iran it risked further U.N. and other sanctions if it did not halt uranium enrichment as the U.N. Security Council demanded.
He stressed there was still time for diplomacy before Iran reached a critical point in its nuclear capability and said conflict with Iran was not inevitable.
Washington remains patient and committed to negotiations with Tehran and its carrot-and-stick approach with other major powers is influencing Iran's internal debate, Burns told the Brookings Institution think tank. Continued...
....and the truth shall set us free.
Clinton on Iran and Bush
It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization.
Nor should the president think that the 2002 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.
The question remains. Will Congress roll over on Iran like they did in Iraq if this ever comes up. Everybody should contact their representatives now and demand that attacking Iran is unacceptable…
....and the truth shall set us free.
Nor should the president think that the 2002 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.
The question remains. Will Congress roll over on Iran like they did in Iraq if this ever comes up. Everybody should contact their representatives now and demand that attacking Iran is unacceptable…
....and the truth shall set us free.
Nadler, On The Floor, Kicking Booty
The Iraq War is President Bush's war.
The President deceived the American people and Members of Congress when he made the case for war. Every reason we were given for invading Iraq was false.
Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not there.
Saddam Hussein working hand-in-glove with Al Qaeda? Not true.
And the more information that leaks out, the more apparent it becomes that these were not mistakes, but deliberate lies.
I ask you: if the President had gone to the American people and said we must invade a country that poses no imminent threat to us, and sacrifice thousands of lives in order to create a democratic government in Iraq, would we have assented? I think not.
And as the President now says to us that we should continue indefinitely to expend American blood and treasure to support one side in a sectarian civil war, should Congress continue to consent? I think not.
We need to say "Enough already!"
Enough with the lies, and the deceit and the evasions!
Enough with the useless bloodshed.
We must protect our troops and ensure their safety while they are in Iraq
....and the truth shall set us free.
The President deceived the American people and Members of Congress when he made the case for war. Every reason we were given for invading Iraq was false.
Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not there.
Saddam Hussein working hand-in-glove with Al Qaeda? Not true.
And the more information that leaks out, the more apparent it becomes that these were not mistakes, but deliberate lies.
I ask you: if the President had gone to the American people and said we must invade a country that poses no imminent threat to us, and sacrifice thousands of lives in order to create a democratic government in Iraq, would we have assented? I think not.
And as the President now says to us that we should continue indefinitely to expend American blood and treasure to support one side in a sectarian civil war, should Congress continue to consent? I think not.
We need to say "Enough already!"
Enough with the lies, and the deceit and the evasions!
Enough with the useless bloodshed.
We must protect our troops and ensure their safety while they are in Iraq
....and the truth shall set us free.
Veterans face consecutive budget cuts
Heckuva job, Georgie, way to support those troops!
Veterans face consecutive budget cuts - Yahoo! News:
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now — even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.
Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012.
After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.
The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends — its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office — sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.
....and the truth shall set us free
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Constitution Restoration Act of 2007
Now, here some fine news.
The Blog | John R. Bohrer: Senators Dodd & Menendez to Introduce Bill Banning Torture | The Huffington Post:
Over at Blue Jersey, we've just learned that tomorrow, Senators Chris Dodd and Bob Menendez will introduce legislation banning torture. The bill, titled The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007, will restore habeus corpus rights, ban torture and uphold the Geneva Conventions.
You may recall that a few months ago, Senator Menendez was one of the Democrats who voted for the Bush administration's Military Commissions Act, which eliminated habeas corpus and legalized torture.
Politico's Simon: Romney "up close ... is almost overpowering. He radiates vigor"
OMG!
Excuse me while I go blow my brains out!
Are we really sick enough, as a nation, to vote for a pretty package, again? Run right out and cast our vote for someone right out of central casting?
My God, look what it has gotten us in the last, almost three decades!
If we can't discern genuineness, sincerity, authenticity, and smarts, yes all kinds of smarts, we are all really too dumb to live, and we will deserve what we get.
Seems Cabal News is already doing its part in the election process. Saying stupid crap, so people will believe it.
If it's on TeeVee it must be true, right?
First things first!
Mr. Romney needs to get a damn name. Mit? What kind of name is that?
Is that the male version of Muffy, Buffy, Fluffy, or whatever.
Media Matters - Politico's Simon: Romney "up close ... is almost overpowering. He radiates vigor":
In a February 13 column for The Politico, chief political columnist Roger Simon claimed former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 'looks so much like a president would look if television picked our presidents (and it does) that sometimes you have to ask yourself if you are watching the real deal or a careful construction,' as noted by blogger Atrios (Media Matters for America senior fellow Duncan Black).
Simon continued:
Romney has chiseled-out-of-granite features, a full, dark head of hair going a distinguished gray at the temples, and a barrel chest. On the morning that he announced for president, I bumped into him in the lounge of the Marriott and up close he is almost overpowering. He radiates vigor.
Richard Cohen - The Explanation Hillary Clinton Owes - washingtonpost.com
I'm not a huge Richard Cohen fan, and his motives for writing this column are probably different from mine in agreeing with him.
Nevertheless, I do believe we are owed an explanation from each candidate; a believable one would be nice.
Maybe we should put them all under oath, right before we put Bush and Cheney under oath.
How could 20 some odd senators have figured out that the whole Iraq thing was a boondoggle, and certainly not in the country's best interests and every last damn one of you were either fooled right out of your socks or voted for a war, you were pretty damn sure was bullshit, for political reasons.
Tell the damn truth!!!
Richard Cohen - The Explanation Hillary Clinton Owes - washingtonpost.com:
Yet another man has betrayed Hillary Clinton. This time it's George W. Bush, who not only deceived her about weapons of mass destruction but, when granted congressional authorization to go to war in Iraq, actually did so. This, apparently, came as a surprise to her, although in every hamlet and village in America, every resident who could either read or watch Fox News knew that Bush was going to take the country to war. Among other things, troops were already being dispatched.
Somehow, Bush's intentions were lost on Clinton, who then as now was a member of the United States Senate. This was the case even though she now rightly calls Bush's desire to topple Saddam Hussein an 'obsession.'
Bush's Friends, The Saudis
This is by far one of the most interesting things about 9/11 and everything that has happened since.
Does anyone really have a clue what the Bushites are up to? Because it sure as hell has nothing to do with their stated goals?
Is it ever a good idea to have a president whose family is so enter-twined with the heads of state of another country?
Will we ever know the whole truth about who played what roles in the nightmare of deception; smoke and mirrors, tear gas in the eyes, fog of war, whatever one wished to call it, we have been living in for the past 6 years?
Old Dead-eye was "summoned" by the Saudi Royals not all that long ago? Seems they were not at all happy with the status quo of chaos and civil war in Iraq. The official leak pretty much said that if the U.S. couldn't stop a Shia take-over of Iraq, they would be forced to. Seems they are scared of Iran, too, or so the story goes.
Bush's Friends, The Saudis [Oliver Willis: Like Kryptonite To Stupid]:
On 9/11, several Saudi Arabian citizens who were part of the Al Qaeda network killed over 3,000 innocent people at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and on United 93. Saudi Arabia faced no repercussions for their role and President Bush responded by holding hands with an old family friend (They've got numerous business dealings with his father and him in the past and I'm sure in the future. Apparently that Saudi money helps keep the family compound in Kennebunkport in tight shape).
In the last few days we've been subject to a p.r. campaign by the administration and their allies in the media focused on supposed Iranian funding of the Shiite faction in the Iraqi civil war. But at the same time, Saudi Arabia is funding the Sunni side. Once again, Saudi Arabia gets a pass.
Dave Lindorff: Inappropriate Behavior and Impeachment
"If there was any integrity in Congress..."
Yeah, well...can't say we've seen much, yet? Although anything this Congress does is 100% better than the last three Congresses.
That sure as hell ain't saying much.
Dave Lindorff: Inappropriate Behavior and Impeachment | BuzzFlash:
Douglas Feith, who headed up the insidious Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon that was created to develop, gin up, and manufacture 'evidence' to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq, has been reprimanded in a long-delayed report by the Pentagon Inspector General's office, which concludes that the whole OSP project, while perhaps not illegal, was 'inappropriate.'
Feith and the Republican establishment are taking that as the final word, and as an official okay for the OSP's activities.
But wait a minute.
When is the last time we heard the term 'inappropriate behavior' used?
Right.
It was Bill Clinton and his cigar in the Oval Office.
Yeah, well...can't say we've seen much, yet? Although anything this Congress does is 100% better than the last three Congresses.
That sure as hell ain't saying much.
Dave Lindorff: Inappropriate Behavior and Impeachment | BuzzFlash:
Douglas Feith, who headed up the insidious Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon that was created to develop, gin up, and manufacture 'evidence' to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq, has been reprimanded in a long-delayed report by the Pentagon Inspector General's office, which concludes that the whole OSP project, while perhaps not illegal, was 'inappropriate.'
Feith and the Republican establishment are taking that as the final word, and as an official okay for the OSP's activities.
But wait a minute.
When is the last time we heard the term 'inappropriate behavior' used?
Right.
It was Bill Clinton and his cigar in the Oval Office.
White House slams carpooling, new road fees better
So, now what?
We are going to have toll roads everywhere?
OK, how about a heavier tolls for heavier vehicles?
But no tolls on country roads, which are the only ones I like anyway.
The whole damn thing is stupid.
White House slams carpooling, new road fees better - Yahoo! News:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Carpooling won't do much to reduce U.S. highway congestion in urban areas, and a better solution would be to build new highways and charge drivers fees to use them, the White House said on Monday.
'It is increasingly appropriate to charge drivers for some roadway use in the same way the private market charges for other goods and services,' the White House said in its annual report on the U.S. economy.
While some urban areas have designated roads for vehicles with two or more passengers, those high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are often underused because carpooling is becoming less popular, the administration said.
Based on the latest data supplied by the White House, only about 13 percent of motorists carpooled to work in 2000. That compared with 20 percent of daily American commuters in 1980.
'This trend makes it unlikely that initiatives focused on carpooling will make large strides in reducing vehicle use,' the White House said.
Vice President Cheney will not testify at Libby trial
I don't believe they ever intended to call Cheney and they can't put their client on the stand, knowing he will commit perjury.
If Libby doesn't testify now, after his attorney said that he would, he is toast.
If Congress has been paying attention to the revelations of the Libby Trial, Cheney is toast as well, because if he isn't, Congress, as it currently exists, is.
Impeach Vice!
Vice President Cheney will not testify at Libby trial - CNN.com:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Neither Vice President Dick Cheney nor his former aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby will testify at Libby's perjury and obstruction trial in the CIA leak case, Libby's lawyer said Tuesday.
Defense attorney Theodore Wells said he advised Cheney's lawyer over lunch that the vice president's testimony would not be needed. Wells also said he planned to rest his case this week without calling Libby.
In December, Wells had announced he would call Cheney as a defense witness. Historians said it would have been the first time a sitting vice president would have sat as a witness in a criminal case.
Anger Issues Could Become Campaign Issues for Both GOP Frontrunners
McCain has already made a few trips into bonkers-land, Rudi will follow, just as soon as the pressure hits.
They both lean toward fascism.
Pensito Review » Anger Issues Could Become Campaign Issues for Both GOP Frontrunners:
Mayor Giuliani was so “mean and thin-skinned” he made criticizing him a criminal offense.
A GOP pol has called McCain a “vicious person.”
Campaigning for president is above all else an exhausting experience. The 2008 campaign will be the longest on record — it is underway now, and will ramp up in intensity over the next 21 months.
Bush Caught on Tape Lying about 2003 SOTU ‘16 Words’ - Media Yawns
It will be front page news when Bush is caught telling the truth, about anything.
Pensito Review » Bush Caught on Tape Lying about 2003 SOTU ‘16 Words’ - Media Yawns:
Prevaricator-in-Chief: The media is ignoring the revelation yesterday that it was Vice Pres. Cheney who knowingly inserted a false statement about Iraq’s nuclear program into the 2003 State of the Union speech.
They are also apparently uninterested in reporting that both Pres. Bush and his spokesman Scott McClellan lied on the record in July 2003 about how the infamous 16-word statement — “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” — came to be included in the speech.
Transcripts follow… (Read On ^)
McCain Has No Clue!
So, only the threat of more loss of American life is all that is upsetting Americans, eh?
Is this man playing with a full deck?
Couldn't possibly be that Americans are upset because they were deceived forty ways from Sunday about Iraq?
How about because they have a nitwit and various psychopaths and sociopaths running their country and threatening to start WWIII?
Couldn't possible be because we are up to our eyeballs in several layers o f debt, the cost of living is high and the cost of health care is outrageous?
Could it possibly be because billions of dollars have simply vanished in Iraq and the rest has gone to some of the most flagrant war-profiteers I have ever seen.?
Naw, none of us are upset that the most unique city in America was allowed to simply drown, with little to nothing having been done to reconstruct that city, because the money is all going to destroying other cities.
McCain, you are seriously disturbed.
USNews.com: Inside Washington: AP Article:
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful John McCain said Monday he fears an offensive by Iraqi insurgents similar to the Tet offensive by the Viet Cong that sent U.S. casualties soaring in Vietnam nearly 40 years ago.
McCain, a Vietnam war veteran who spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war, said in an interview with The Associated Press that it's not the U.S. presence in Iraq that upsets voters but rather the number of casualties and the possibility those numbers could rise.
The U.S. death toll is more than 3,100 in the nearly four-year-old war.
BuCheney: A Huge Credibility Problem
Did no one ever tell little Dick and little George about the little boy who cried wolf?
USNews.com: Political Bulletin: Tuesday, February 13, 2007:
Another Blow To Bush's Credibility?
Only one day after Administration officials briefed reporters on what they claimed was 'evidence' of Iran's involvement with the Iraqi insurgency, the story may be turning into a PR nightmare for the Bush team. Today's Washington Post reports Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, during a visit to Australia, appeared to cast doubt on the Administration's message, telling the Voice of America that while 'Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved,' he 'would not say...that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.' McClatchy says that 'neither the White House nor the Pentagon responded to requests for an explanation of the apparent contradiction between the nation's highest-ranking military officer and his subordinates in Baghdad.' Moreover, Pace's comment 'could make it harder for the Bush administration, its credibility about Iran questioned because of its false pre-war claims about Saddam Hussein, to make its case that Iranian meddling in Iraq is fueling sectarian violence and causing US casualties.
Gallup: Most Americans Want Congress to Go Beyond Non-Binding Vote on War
The people keep speaking, but is anyone listening?
They had damned well better be!
Gallup: Most Americans Want Congress to Go Beyond Non-Binding Vote on War:
NEW YORK: A new Gallup Poll released today -- as a landmark debate on the Iraq war begins in the House of Representatives -- finds that most Americans favor congressional action for a cap on, and then withdrawal of, troops. They are less excited about the current non-binding resolution against a 'surge.'
Still, 6 out of 10 oppose the 'surge' in troops.
'Many Americans say that their congressional representative's position on the war will be an important factor in their congressional vote next year,' Gallup reports, 'but most do not know what their representative's position on the troop surge is.'
Given a list of options, 63% opted for the cap and withdrawal by the end of next year. Some 51% backed the anti-surge resolution. Fewer, 4 in 10, want to cut off funds for the surge.
Surprisingly, 64% said they did not know what their representative's stand on the surge is -- but 42% said his or her position on the war would be a major factor in next year's vote for re-election.
Politico’s Simon: Libby Didn’t Commit A ‘Real Crime’
Who the hell is this guy and why is he lying through his teeth?
Think Progress » Politico’s Simon: Libby Didn’t Commit A ‘Real Crime’: (See video)
Today on Meet the Press, Politico reporter Roger Simon called the case against Scooter Libby “a nutty trial that nobody except the people involved in it and the people covering it care about.” Simon said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Libby merely because he “didn’t tell him the complete truth.”
Actually, Scooter Libby lied — under oath, to a federal grand jury. He is facing serious felony charges: obstruction of justice, making false statements to a grand jury, and perjury. But according to Simon, these aren’t “real crimes.”
Joint Chiefs chairman sees no evidence of meddling by Iran's regime
This is freaking insane, and everyone knows it.
Impeach the bastards, now!
McClatchy Washington Bureau | 02/12/2007 | Joint Chiefs chairman sees no evidence of meddling by Iran's regime:
"WASHINGTON - A day after the U.S. military charged Iran's government with shipping powerful explosive devices to Shiite Muslim fighters in Iraq to use against American troops, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday that he hasn't seen any intelligence to support the claim.
Marine Gen. Peter Pace's comment could make it harder for the Bush administration, its credibility about Iran questioned because of its false pre-war claims about Saddam Hussein, to make its case that Iranian meddling in Iraq is fueling sectarian violence and causing U.S. casualties.
At a briefing Sunday in Baghdad, U.S. military officials said the al-Quds Force, an elite Iranian paramilitary organization, is sending arms into Iraq that include bombs that shoot molten metal jets through the armor of American tanks and Humvees.
Immediate Impeachments: Preventing "The Guns of August" in Eurasia
Actually, from what we have been able to gather, from various constitutional scholars and attorneys, the Bushites can't even be stopped from striking Iran, unless Congress acts to prevent it.
In other words, it isn't enough for various Reps. and Senators to get up on the floor of their respective chambers and say that Bush can't go into Iran without Congressional approval, it will require an Act of Congress.
Even then, who knows if Bush and Cheney will abide by the law. They have shown no signs of being law abiding so far.
Immediate Impeachments: Preventing "The Guns of August" in Eurasia:
The Bush Jr. /Cheney refusal to obtain additional authorization from Congress for this substantial enlargement of U.S. armed forces in Iraq constitutes an impeachable offense under the terms of Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution for violating the Constitution’s War Powers Clause and Congress’s own War Powers Resolution
If President Bush Jr. and Vice President Cheney are not stopped immediately by means of impeachment, they could readily set off World War III in the volatile Middle East, Persian Gulf and Central Asia, where two-thirds of the world’s hydrocarbon resources are up for grabs among the United States, Russia, China, and India. The Guns of August indeed.
O n the evening of 10 January 2007 in a nationally televised address to the American people from the White House, President Bush Jr. announced that he was going to “surge” an additional 21,500 U.S. troops into Iraq. Both President Bush Jr. and Vice President Cheney also made it perfectly clear that they would initiate this “surge” against the manifest will of the American people expressed in the U.S. national elections of November 2006 and without obtaining authorization by the U.S. Congress.
Breaking News: Americans caught with Iranian Weapons in Iraq
As usual with the Bushites, there is something damn fishy going on here.
Global Security reports, you decide....
Breaking News: Americans caught with Iranian Weapons in Iraq
Global Security reports, you decide....
Breaking News: Americans caught with Iranian Weapons in Iraq
Monday, February 12, 2007
Rervolution, Please!
I want to get into solutions: Alternatine, renewable energy, diplomacy. fairness, honesty and truth.
Withdrawal from Iraq.
No attack on Iran.
Diplomcy. Please God, Diplomacy!
We are in this together. We share the same home.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Withdrawal from Iraq.
No attack on Iran.
Diplomcy. Please God, Diplomacy!
We are in this together. We share the same home.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Gates Counters Putin’s Words on U.S. Power
Hey Gates, who says it's going to be cold?
Gates Counters Putin’s Words on U.S. Power - New York Times:
"MUNICH, Feb. 11 — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, disputing a lengthy critique of American power by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, said Sunday at a European security conference here, “One cold war was quite enough.”
Doesn't Look Like Farsi To Me?
Excuse us while we do a mini-investigation.
We thought this was odd too, when we saw it on the TeeVee.
However, there is also a chance that these bombs came from Britain via the IRA
Doesn't Look Like Farsi To Me? | The Agonist:
Look, I admit, I don't know much about bomb-making. And I don't know much about how factories label bombs. But I do know that in Iran virtually all numbers were in the Farsi-Arabic script.
They were not and do not resemble our numbers. Now, I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the implication that this round captured in the photo is bogus. Color me very skeptical.
Any thoughts?
Anyone want to google this and other aspects of the story?
Steve has the same idea.
Couple questions spring to mind first: is this pattern of numbers to be found on other similar weapons, made by other countries? This Russian 82mm has the markings etched in Russian.
Are we sure that the Iranians use the 81mm round? Just in case I really embarrass myself by asking a tremendously stupid question, let me just add this (consider it troll repellent): there are no stupid questions.
The only stupid questions are those not asked. Otherwise how are we supposed to learn.
Markings on the Zelzal 2 rocket are in Farsi.
On a similar note, Juan Cole crunches some numbers. Result: implausible. Looks like the Zelzal 3 has markings in Farsi too. Here's an anti-ship missile with Farsi on it.
Finally, here are Persian serial numbers etched onto a handgun.
Read On ^
Treasonous Novakula Takes The Stand
Let's not forget that it was a leak from Rove to Novak that got Rove fired by Poppy Bush.
Which is one reason why I doubt that Armitage was the original source, not unless he was set up to be.
UPDATES: Novak Takes the Stand As Libby Trial Resumes:
"Then Robert Novak took the stand just after lunch. He named Karl Rove and Richard Armitage as the two sources for his famous 'outing' column.
Novak said Armitage, a key State Dept. official, was his primary source and Rove only a 'confirming' source. On July 8, 2003, Armitage referred to former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife as 'Valerie' and Novak then looked up his name in Who's Who to determine that he last name seemed to be Plame.
He also said that he had no idea she was covert and called her an 'operative' in his column probably because he was so used to using that term in relation to 'political operatives.' He talked to Libby around the same day and Libby did not mention Plame, Novak said.
The defense asked when he finished the Plame column and Novak answered around noon on July 11, 2003. He was then asked how quickly it is sent out by his syndicate and he said, pretty much right away. The defense is clearly suggesting that it could have been published or at least seen by someone before its July 14, 2003, publication date.
Novak said it was embargoed until the 14th but it's possible someone could have seen it come off the wire in a media office before then.
The Libby Defense Starts with a Bank Shot
Guess you have to go to court with the defense you have not the defense you wish you had; like an innocent client.
The Libby Defense Starts with a Bank Shot - Bench Conference:
So far, Libby's lawyers have not exactly blown away court observers with their first witnesses-- and of course you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Pincus told the panel that it was former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer who first told him about Valerie Plame Wilson, the CIA agent and wife of Joseph Wilson, the administration critic. Last week, you may recall, Fleischer testified that he was told about Plame Wilson by Libby. Meanwhile, Bob Woodward told jurors that he learned about Plame Wilson from Richard Armitage, now known to the world as THE original (and repentent and unindicted and official) leaker to the media of Wilson's identity. And Novak confirms Armitage as the leaker and says that Karl Rove confirmed the leak.
Interesting, sure. With gusts up to fascinating. But, you may resonably ask, what does any of this have to do with whether Libby lied to federal investigators and to jurors when questioned about Plame Wilson? And, so far, the answer is easy: not much.
Bush doesn't give a flip!
One has to wonder, WTF is Bush thinking?
It sure isn't spreading Democracy!
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall February 10, 2007 12:37 PM:
At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. 'I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers,' said Soroush, 'and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized.'
'I know,' President Bush answered.
'But does Vice President Cheney know?' asked Soroush.
President Bush chuckled and walked away.
Cronkite Warns Drive for Media Profits Poses Threat to Democracy
No Shit, Sherlock!
The MSM and corporate press are all complicit in the Iraq debacle and now they are serving the same "steno-Sue" role with Iran.
When the revolution begins, as it surely will, the news media should be among the tops targets.
Cronkite Warns Drive for Media Profits Poses Threat to Democracy:
Pressures by media companies to generate ever-greater profits are threatening the very freedom the nation was built upon, former CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite warned yesterday.
In a keynote address at Columbia University, Cronkite said today's journalists face greater challenges than those from his generation. No longer could journalists count on their employers to provide the necessary resources, he said, 'to expose truths that powerful politicians and special interests often did not want exposed.'
Instead, he said, 'they face rounds and rounds of job cuts and cost cuts that require them to do ever more with ever less.'
'In this information age and the very complicated world in which we live today, the need for high-quality reporting is greater than ever,' he told journalism students and professionals at Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism. 'It's not just the journalist's job at risk here. It's American democracy. It is freedom.'
The MSM and corporate press are all complicit in the Iraq debacle and now they are serving the same "steno-Sue" role with Iran.
When the revolution begins, as it surely will, the news media should be among the tops targets.
Cronkite Warns Drive for Media Profits Poses Threat to Democracy:
Pressures by media companies to generate ever-greater profits are threatening the very freedom the nation was built upon, former CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite warned yesterday.
In a keynote address at Columbia University, Cronkite said today's journalists face greater challenges than those from his generation. No longer could journalists count on their employers to provide the necessary resources, he said, 'to expose truths that powerful politicians and special interests often did not want exposed.'
Instead, he said, 'they face rounds and rounds of job cuts and cost cuts that require them to do ever more with ever less.'
'In this information age and the very complicated world in which we live today, the need for high-quality reporting is greater than ever,' he told journalism students and professionals at Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism. 'It's not just the journalist's job at risk here. It's American democracy. It is freedom.'
U.S. sending third carrier strike group to Gulf.
We've been knowing this for months.
Now that it is for sure that the Enterprise is one of the Carriers involved, a ship that is about to be decommissioned, a false flag op could "decommission" it to the bottom of the Arabian Gulf.
What Congressman or Senator would stand against Bush then, with our sailors in a watery grave?
Think Progress » U.S. sending third carrier strike group to Gulf.:
At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. “They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” says Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs. …
A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident’s spiraling into a crisis are higher than they’ve been in years.
The Brits See It Too
Independent Online Edition > World Politics:
The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.
The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.
Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as 'explosively formed penetrators' (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank.
The officials speaking in Baghdad used aggressive rhetoric suggesting that Washington wants to ratchet up its confrontation with Tehran. It has not ruled out using armed force and has sent a second carrier task force to the Gulf.
The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.
The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.
Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as 'explosively formed penetrators' (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank.
The officials speaking in Baghdad used aggressive rhetoric suggesting that Washington wants to ratchet up its confrontation with Tehran. It has not ruled out using armed force and has sent a second carrier task force to the Gulf.
Bush and Cheney Have Got To Go!
Hey Congress! Are you listening?
It's time for Bush and Cheney to go!
Consortiumnews.com:
George W. Bush had a point when he disparaged the Baker-Hamilton commission’s plan for gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq by saying “this business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever.” It’s now obvious that there can be no exit from Iraq – graceful or otherwise – as long as Bush remains President.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Scary Movie 2
Hard to believe the Bushites are planning to attack Iran, using the exact same MO they used with Iraq and the the god damned media are gain playing Steno Sue, yet again.
But then, we mutst remember who is calling the shots; Dead-eye Dick who think Iraq has been an enormous success.
Welcome to Pottersville: PAUL KRUGMAN: Scary Movie 2
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The Full Obama Speech
This is an amazing speech, a little short on specifics, but I imagine they will come out over the next few weeks and months.
I, personally, still do not know all I want to know about Obama, but I intend to make every effort to enlighten myself, early.
There is something about this guy. He reminds me of someone, but it isn't Lincoln.
BarackObama.com:
Let me begin by saying thanks to all you who've traveled, from far and wide, to brave the cold today.
We all made this journey for a reason. It's humbling, but in my heart I know you didn't come here just for me, you came here because you believe in what this country can be. In the face of war, you believe there can be peace. In the face of despair, you believe there can be hope. In the face of a politics that's shut you out, that's told you to settle, that's divided us for too long, you believe we can be one people, reaching for what's possible, building that more perfect union.
That's the journey we're on today. But let me tell you how I came to be here. As most of you know, I am not a native of this great state. I moved to Illinois over two decades ago. I was a young man then, just a year out of college; I knew no one in Chicago, was without money or family connections. But a group of churches had offered me a job as a community organizer for $13,000 a year. And I accepted the job, sight unseen, motivated then by a single, simple, powerful idea - that I might play a small part in building a better America. (Read On ^)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
