« August 2003 | Main | October 2003 »

September 30, 2003

Another line of speculation...

ABC's "The Note" suggests reading this section of today's Washington Post article on the Plame scandal "very s-l-o-w-l-y"

Another journalist yesterday confirmed receiving a call from an administration official providing the same information about Wilson's wife before the Novak column appeared on July 14 in The Post and other newspapers.

The journalist, who asked not to be identified because of possible legal ramifications, said that the information was provided as part of an effort to discredit Wilson, but that the CIA information was not treated as especially sensitive. "The official I spoke with thought this was a part of Wilson's story that wasn't known and cast doubt on his whole mission," the person said, declining to identify the official he spoke with. "They thought Wilson was having a good ride and this was part of Wilson's story."

In addition to Novak's column, an administration official told The Washington Post on Saturday that two White House officials leaked the information to several journalists in an effort to discredit Wilson.

An article that appeared on the Time magazine Web site the same week Novak's column was published said that "some government officials have noted to Time in interviews . . . that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." The same article quoted from an interview with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, saying that Cheney did not know about Wilson's mission "until this year when it became public in the last month or so."

The Note's analysis:

One obvious implication of this is that the oft-press shy Libby was taking journalists' calls during the period when [Wilson's wife]'s name was named, but, of course, that doesn't mean that Libby had anything to do with it.

Of course, the Post printing that pretty much non-sequitarial paragraph COULD suggest two things:

A. The Post has its suspicions … .

B. Maybe Mr. Libby should have played nicer with the intel boys during the run-up to the Iraq war … .

I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, but I thought it was interesting enough to at least make note of. There may be nothing to it - right now, any discussion of who may or may not be the leakers is entirely speculative - but it's interesting to see where some of the speculation is heading.

The Note also quotes the question from at least one Democrat earlier today, regarding the fact that the DOJ notified Alberto Gonzales at 8:30pm last night but told him he didn't need to notify the White House or tell them to preserve documents and other evidence until this morning:

"There's absolutely no basis for that kind of heads-up. (Imagine if that was the Clinton White House.) Unprecedented, completely out of line and over the top. DOJ should not have given any direction to the target of an investigation about when they should preserve documents."

And they also remind us - in a quote from The Wall Street Journal (no link provided) of John Ascroft's recent comments about the leaking of classified information:

"The problem may be especially acute for Mr. Ashcroft, who earlier this year created a task force to review sanctions governing leaks of classified information. 'Leaks of classified information do substantial damage to the security interests of the nation,' he said at the time. 'As a government, we must try to find more effective measures to deal with this damaging practice, including measures to prevent it.'"

Posted by thorswitch at 10:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

White House counsel's notice to White House employees

Here is the text of the notice that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales sent to all White House employees this morning:

PLEASE READ: Important Message From Counsel's Office

We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee. The Department advised us that it will be sending a letter today instructing us to preserve all materials that might be relevant to its investigation. Its letter will provide more specific instructions on the materials in which it is interested, and we will communicate those instructions directly to you. In the meantime, you must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the Department's investigation. Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Associate Counsels Ted Ullyot or Raul Yanes in the Counsel to the president's office. The president has directed full cooperation with this investigation.

Alberto R. Gonzales
Counsel to the president

Posted by thorswitch at 10:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Pre-war Intelligence on WMD

David Corn (of The Nation on his discussion with Scott McClellen during yesterdays press briefing about the House intelligence committee's letter on pre-war intelligence:

At one point at the press conference, the subject shifted to a letter recently sent to Tenet by the House intelligence committee reporting on the committee's review of the prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMDs and ties to terrorists. The committee found that this intelligence--which Bush has said was a solid basis for going to war--was predicated on fragmentary, circumstantial and out-of-date information and contained "too many uncertainties." McClellan noted, "Let's look at what we knew. We knew, just like the United Nations Security Council and intelligence agencies across the world and previous administrations, that Saddam Hussein...had large, unaccounted for stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons....We knew all these facts. Then came September 11th."

Wrong. And since I was there in the White House briefing room, I pointed out this was not the case, noting that Secretary of State Colin Powell had said in early 2001 that there were no stockpiles ("Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction"), that the Defense Intelligence Agency in September 2002 had concluded there was no "reliable information" on whether Iraq had chemical weapons stockpiles, and that the UN inspectors had not said there were WMD stockpiles. "Where are you getting your information?" I asked. Referring to the Powell statement, McClellan said, "That's not what he said....I think you're mischaracterizing Secretary Powell's comments." But it was what he said in 2001, I countered. McClellan then claimed "it was well documented by the United Nations Security Council that there were undocumented stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons." No, I said, and referred to Rolf Ekeus, the former executive chairman of the UN inspections in the 1990s. In a 2000 interview, Ekeus said, "There are no large quantities of weapons [in Iraq]. I don't think that Iraq is especially eager in the biological and chemical area to produce such weapons for storage. Iraq views those weapons as tactical assets instead of strategic assets, which would require long-term storage of those elements, which is difficult. Rather, Iraq has been aiming to keep the capability to start up production immediately should it need to."

McClellan did not counter facts with facts. Instead, he tossed out rhetoric: "America is safer, the world is better, the world is safer because Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime have been removed from power."

Ah yes, the old "well, it doesn't matter if we lied, Saddam is gone" defense, eh? Sorry, but it's not good enough Scott.

The rest of Corn's column is interesting as well. Corn is the journalist who first pointed out the implications of Robert Novak's original article naming Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, and discusses some of the spin and other aspects of the White House's reaction to the increased scruitny on that matter.

Posted by thorswitch at 05:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Protect financial-records privacy

I just got this from the ACLU - read over it and if you agree this is an important issue, please click on the link and send a fax to your Senators:

In reaction to a strong financial privacy law adopted earlier this year in California, big banks, insurance companies and other financial firms are pressuring Congress to pass legislation that would set a low national standard for our financial privacy.

Current federal law allows widespread distribution of your private information among financial institutions. Under legislation being considered by the Senate, financial institutions would be able to continue selling and sharing details of your personal financial life without your approval. This includes all of the financial and personal information that banks, mortgage companies and other financial institutions possess.

But some Senators are fighting back. A proposed amendment to the bill would restrict the amount of information available for sharing and would allow you to indicate that you do not want your information to be released.

Take Action! Help ensure your financial records are kept private and secure.

Click here for more information and to send a free fax to your Senators: http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=13719&c=40

Posted by thorswitch at 05:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Un-fucking-believable

Glenn Reynolds has a rather bizarre comment on the Plame scandal:

THE REAL WILSON SCANDAL: Forget Valerie Plame, the big scandal is why anyone in the Bush Administration would ever have tasked a guy with Wilson's views with an important mission.

Whatever views may be held by Wilson, there's no excuse for what the White House did. Perhaps Wilson wasn't the best choice to send on this mission. For the sake of this discussion, I'll even grant Glenn that point. It still doesn't excuse anyone for blowing his wife's cover.

If there was an issue with Wilson's view or his suitability for having been sent on the mission, that's the argument that should have been made. Have the critics point out what they find objectionable in what he's said. Point out every reason why he was unqualified to go to Niger. Show why his conclusions are wrong. Those are all perfectly fair and justifiable ways of countering his criticism of the Bush White House.

But releasing classified information about his wife, putting her, her missions and her contacts in danger, and committing a felony in the process? No, that is not something that should be forgotten. Regardless of what Bush's supporters may want you to think, that is the real scandal, and to try and dismiss it on the logic that Wilson shouldn't have been sent in the first place is reprehensible. It's also childish. "He shouldn't have gone, so it doesn't matter what we did. Nanner-nanner-boo-boo" Sorry Glenn, it doesn't work that way.

True, we wouldn't have this scandal today if Wilson hadn't been asked to go - but that's only because he wouldn't have been in the public eye and wouldn't have been in the position to say anything that would incur the wrath of the White House. But he was sent, he did speak out, and someone - apparently someone in the White House - decided that the best way to try and discredit him as well as scare others into keeping quiet was to take a very serious shot as his wife, and there's nothing about Wilson or his trip that can justify that kind of reaction.

Posted by thorswitch at 04:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Preliminary investigation becomes full Justice Department probe

The Justice Department has decided to instigate a full-blown investigation into the Plame scandal. The White House staff was notified of the investigation by e-mail after the Justice Department decided late Monday to move from a preliminary investigation into a full probe. It is rare that the department decides to conduct a full investigation of the alleged leak of classified information.

White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales told the staff: "You must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the department's investigation." Presumably that would include telephone logs, e-mails, notes and other documents.Interestingly, while the White House counsel was notified last night of the investigation, the Justice Department told them that the "White House could wait until the next morning to notify staff and direct them to preserve relevant material, McClellan said." In addition, McClellan said that the President has instructed his staff to "cooperate fully with this investigation" and that he "wants to get to the bottom of this."

McClellan also says that the "The White House said that leaking classified information was a serious matter that should be "pursued to the fullest extent" by the Justice Department." This is good to hear, but if it's true, then why has it taken this long for them to show any interest in the case at all? It's been known that there have been suspicions that the leak came from the White House since the story broke in mid-July, and as reports since the CIA's request for an investigation became known on Friday have made clear, Bush has shown no interest at all in even asking his staff if they were involved in any way. Pledges of cooperation and concern at this point appear to be based on political expidiency rather than any genuine belief that this is actually a serious matter (which it is).

The article also notes that Wilson is backing off his accusation that Karl Rove was the leaker.

Wilson backtracked Monday, saying he had not meant to imply that Rove "was the source or the authorizer, just that I thought that it came from the White House, and Karl Rove was the personification of the White House political operation."

But Wilson also said in a telephone interview that "I have people who I have confidence in, who have indicated to me that he (Rove), at a minimum, condoned it and certainly did nothing to put a stop to it for a week after it was out there."

Some conservatives seem to be trying to spin Wilson's semi-retraction as evidence that this is somehow not a real issue. At this point, however, the story doesn't rest on Wilson's personal credibility. In fact, Wilson's credibility doesn't have much to do with it at all. There is little doubt that Plame was a covert operative, nor that her cover was blown by Robert Novak's article. The CIA has done an internal investigation and have determine that, in their opinion, there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. Wilson's need to take back of some of what he's said may not make Wilson look very good, but it doesn't change the basic facts of the case.

Posted by thorswitch at 02:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The wagons are circled

Kevin at CalPundit has a good look at the various defenses being offered by Bush's supporters and why most of them don't work well as defenses.

Posted by thorswitch at 07:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A bit more on Novak

One more bit on Robert Novak's comment on crossfire yesterday. This is from Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo

Another big problem with Novak's comments on Crossfire today. Today he said ...

Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.

But then there's this passage in a July 22nd article in Newsday ...

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

I'd say the story's changed.

Here's my thoughts on it: I may be missing something, but I'm not sure his two statements are inconsistent. Initially he said that the information was "given" to him by a source. Now he's saying that he was told this by someone he was interviewing. It's possible that he was given the information during the interview. Essentially, I think that he may have had an interview set up with whomever was trying to get this information out (most likely about some other subject), and during the course of that interview, his source brought up the Plame information and presented him with the idea that Wilson's credibility was allegedly shaky because of the "nepotism" angle. He then contacted a different senior administration official to confirm the story and called the CIA.

The only thing that might contradict that kind of a scenario is his comment that a source "brought" the story to him - but even that could be an accurate way of describing some information brought up voluntarily by the person he was interviewing, especially if the interview was basically covering an unrelated (or only semi-related) topic.

Remember, though, I'm just speculating, and its possible that Josh, having experience as an actual reporter, may be aware of something in Novak's statement that has a specific meaning I don't know anyhting about. But I think its possible, at least, that the statement's do make sense together.

Posted by thorswitch at 06:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The Rove/Ashcroft connection

The ABC Note that I quoted in the entry right below this one made the semi-cryptic comment that "students of recusal politics will have to consider the Rove-Ashcroft history". Curious, I went to the Time article the item links to, and found this:

Bush knew Ashcroft mostly by reputation when the Missourian flew to Austin on Dec. 20, but had long considered him the kind of guy he wanted for AG. Bush's father knew Ashcroft well, and Rove had done campaign work for him since 1985 and assured Bush that Ashcroft was solid. In the meeting, Bush made it clear that he expected his Cabinet members to be team players, not independent operators.

I don't know what the legal rules are on recusal, but since Rove is at the center of the speculation, and since Rove has worked on Ashcroft's campaigns for almost 20 years, I'd say there even if it doesn't fit the legal definition of a conflict of interest, it certainly fits the concept of a "perception of a conflict of interest", and are they supposed to avoid that, too?

This may be just a bit more ammo for the effort to get Ashcroft to turn this over to an independent investigator.

Posted by thorswitch at 05:06 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Monday's ABC Note on the Plame Scandal

Some interesting stuff from ABCNEWS.com's "The Note" about the Plame Scandal, including a look at what journalists are thinking.

It might not be fair and it might not be right, but 480 members out of the Gang of 500 have the same theory about what happened, and The Note's strong belief in the First Amendment makes us duty bound to tell you about this operating premise.

Based on the original Novak story; on the language in yesterday's Washington Post story; on the "kind" of people Novak talks to; on the prophetic warnings of Wayne Slater; and on the fact that CIA agents have memories and the capacity to hold grudges nearly as long as the Bush family — based on all that, here's what people are thinking:

Two White House officials lashed out at Wilson, hoping to smear him in the minds of enough elite reporters to discredit him before his platform grew. They didn't want his wife's name out there in the public domain, so much as they wanted it in the brains of gatekeeping reporters.

Again, it might not be right or fair, but we dare you to find a member of the Gang who doesn't think the Post 's source was someone familiar with George Tenet's thinking.

[...] Since several of you have asked: the THEORETICAL reason the White House would have had to try to nip Wilson stories in the bud by putting out the fact that his wife is a CIA operative would be to try to discredit Wilson by saying he only got the assignment because of his wife, and that he would have been too captive to the CIA mindset on (read: against) the war.

Other tidbits of note:

• Wilson on Good Morning America admitted that he got a bit carried away in his froggy speech in naming Rove.



• One veteran of the Clinton legal controversies asks all these questions, some of which were addressed at the gaggle:
  
  
  • Has President Bush made clear to the White House staff that only total cooperation with the investigation will be tolerated? If not, why not?
  
  
  
  • Has he insisted that every senior staff member sign a statement with legal authority that they are not the leaker and that they will identify to the White House legal counsel who is?
  
  
  
  • Has Bush required that all sign a letter relinquishing journalists from protecting those two sources? Has Bush said that those involved in this crime will be immediately fired? If not, why not?
  
  
  
  • Has Albert Gonzalez distributed a letter to White House employees telling them to preserve documents, logs, records? If not, why not?
  
  
  
  • Has Andy Card named someone on his staff to organize compliance? If not, why not?
  
  
  
• White House officials who might have legal or political exposure on this are going to have to decide whether to hire lawyers or not, and the White House counsel's office is going to have to decide what legal help they can and should provide to officials if and when the DOJ wants to talk to them.
  
  That means that the '90s practice of every Washington bureau of calling members of the bar to see who has hired whom is about to heat back up. The first one to report someone hiring a criminal lawyer wins a prize, as does the first person who develops that lawyer as a source on all this.

And some handy links:

A reminder that students of recusal politics will have to consider the Rove-Ashcroft history: LINK

All of today's stories, eating the dust of the Post 's Sunday story:

• New York Times : Carl Hulse and David Sanger LINK



• Washington Post 's Mike Allen, taking a second-day victory lap with a phony lead. LINK



• Howie Kurtz on the media angle. LINK



• The Wall Street Journal 's Cloud, Hamburger and Fields have a very balanced story. [No link provided]



• The Los Angeles Times' Richard Schmitt doesn't advance the story any, but he brings his Los Angeles Times readers up to date. LINK



• USA Today : Barbara Slavin LINK



• Boston Globe : Mary Leonard and Bryan Bender LINK



• Dictionary.com: frog march. LINK

Be sure to check out the Note daily for some good "insider"-type information on political journalism, and the politics of journalism.

Posted by thorswitch at 04:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

One small request

Can we PLEASE find something to call the Valerie Plame scandal OTHER than "Plamegate", "Wilsongate", "Leakgate" or anything else-gate? We've got to be more creative than that!

My suggestion?

The Plame scandal. Simple, short, to the point, and all gates are closed. :)

Posted by thorswitch at 04:22 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Is Novak lying?

I found a quote from Robert Novak at Jane Galt's "Asymmetrical Information". The contention there is that Novak's comment sufficiently contradicts what we have been told about the Plame situation thus far, and someone must be lying. I'm not so sure its that clear cut. Here's what Novak had to say, apparently on Crossfire:

'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'...

First, lets address the obvious issue. Here he says that Plame (Mrs. Wilson) was an analyst, but in his original story, he said that she was an operative. One statement or the other is incorrect, and so far, the information I've seen indicates that she was a covert operative, who's cover was that she was an energy analyst. It is possible that when he called the CIA in July to get information on Plame that they, in following with her cover, said she was an analyst - I don't know - but it is possible. I've never tried to call the CIA to find out the status of someone who might be working for them, so I don't know what they say or how they would handle that, but I can't imagine that if someone - even Robert Novak - called them up and said "I was told so-and-so is a covert agent, is that true" that they're going to say "yes, she is." They did, however, ask him not to use the name, so that might be indicative of something - but at the moment, the analyst/operative issue is the only one I see as being a real conflict between what Novak has to say and what else has been reported.

As for the rest of his statement, I've seen posts around the blogosphere indicating that since Novak says he wasn't called with the story that "someone" must be lying. I don't think so. Novak says only that he wasn't called. He doesn't say no one was called, nor does anything in his statement rule out the idea that the senior administration officials in question could have or did call other reporters.

The Washington Post report says that the two senior administration officials called "at least six" reporters and gave them Plame's name. It doesn't say whether or not this includes Novak, so its possible that there are six others with the information in addition to Novak. In addition, Novak doesn't deny that he got the information from two senior administration officials. He said that in his initial report and he says again here thats who he got it from. He also notes that the information was given to him by one of the officials during an interview and he confirmed it by calling the 2nd. Again, nothing in that contradicts the Washington Post report.

It's very simply, really. The senior administration officials could have been calling other reporters seeing if anyone else would pick up the story. One of them had an interview with Novak and gave him the information during that interview, and Novak called the other to confirm it. It's likely there was no need for the senior administration officials to call Novak because they were able to given him the info through the interview and confirmation process.

So, unless I'm missing something major, I'd say Novak's statement doesn't cause any problems in regards to what the Washington Post reported.

Posted by thorswitch at 04:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

One possible side effect....

There were just too many good ones to share today -- enjoy :)

Posted by thorswitch at 02:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Take Two

Posted by thorswitch at 02:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The real WMDs

Posted by thorswitch at 02:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A politician in training?

Posted by thorswitch at 02:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 29, 2003

PFAW petition demanding an independent investigation

People For the American Way have a petition they're asking people to sign demanding an independent investigation into the Plame situation. The text of the petition reads as follows:

We the undersigned demand that Attorney General John Ashcroft name an independent investigator to determine and prosecute the Bush administration sources of illegal national security disclosures last July revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent.

If you agree that John Ashcroft is not the best person to decide if this investigation should go further or not, please click on the link and sign the petition.

Posted by thorswitch at 11:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Info on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act

The Washington Post tonight is running a story that offers some good background on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law most frequently cited as having been broken by whomever leaked the name and CIA status of Valerie Plame.

The law was passed as a reaction to Phil Agee, a former CIA agent who had written a book and wrote a column for the "Covert Action Information Bulletin", both of which revealed the identity of undercover operatives. The article notes that if the law has been used at all since it was passed, it's been used very rarely. Most think it hasn't been used at all.

The law enacted to stop Agee and others imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines for the unauthorized disclosure of covert agents' identities by government employees who have access to classified information.

The statute includes three other elements necessary to obtain a conviction: that the disclosure was intentional, the accused knew the person being identified was a covert agent and the accused also knew that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

The law says no person other than the one accused of leaking the information can be prosecuted, a provision that would protect journalists who report leaked classified information identifying a covert agent. But there is one exception to that protection.

The measure says people who engage in a "pattern of activities" intended to identify covert agents and who have "reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States" can be prosecuted. Smith said that language was aimed at the publishers of the Covert Action Information Bulletin and others who made it a practice to identify undercover CIA agents.

This, of course, opens up a possible line of defense if whomever named Plame is ever identified. If they can raise reasonable doubt (or if the prosecution can't prove) that they meet all three criteria, then there may not be a prosecutable crime under this law.

However, as noted yesterday, Ashcroft has been successful in at least one case using Title 18, Part I, Chapter 31, Section 641 of the US Code, which makes it a crime to

...embezzle[s], steal[s], purloin[s], or knowingly convert[s] to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sell[s], convey[s] or dispose[s] of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof...

to prosecute someone who leaked non classified information to the British press, claiming that the information passed on was the "thing of value". Richard Nixon also tried using this statutes along with the 1917 Espionage Act to prosecute Daniel Ellsburg for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, but that case was dismissed. Ronald Reagan's justice department also used those same statutes to prosecute Samuel Morison for sending classified photos of a Soviet sub to Jane's Defence weekly.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but even if a case can't be made under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it may be possible using the general theft statute (I would imagine that the identity of a covert agent would be considered a "think of value" to the CIA, which is an agency of the United States), plus one or more other laws creatively, such as Ashcroft has already done, to find a statute under which the leaker could be prosecuted.

Whether the leaker is in the White House or is some low-level flunky who just grabbed onto some interesting information, whomever did this needs to be identified and prosecuted. And sure, I'd love to see this damage the Bush administration - but even if it turns out that somehow this was a setup job done by someone just trying to make the Bushies look bad, the truth needs to come out and the guilty party needs to be punished. It really that simple.

Posted by thorswitch at 11:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The press gaggle tap-dance

Josh at Talking Points Memo has the transcript of this mornings press gaggle where the press was trying to get a straight answer from Scott McClellan in regards to several question son the Plame situation. This is just one portion of it, but it shows just how hard it can be to get even a simple yes or no kind of question answered. (The comment about clairvoyance is priceless, BTW):

QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he --

McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've -- and I've spoken clearly to this publicly that -- but it's -- yes, I've just said it's -- there's no truth to it.

QUESTION: But I mean --

McCLELLAN: So I think it doesn't --

QUESTION: But is the President getting his information from you? Or did the President and Karl Rove talk, and were there assurances given that Rove was not involved?

McCLELLAN: I've already provided those assurances to you publicly.

QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this --

McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.

QUESTION: How does he know that?

QUESTION: How does he know that?

McCLELLAN: The President knows.

QUESTION: What, is he clairvoyant? How does he know?

QUESTION: You spoke specifically -- you spoke to Rove specifically about this matter, correct?

McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: You spoke to Rove specifically about this matter? You asked him whether or not he was the leaker, or --

McCLELLAN: I don't know what the relevance of getting into every private conversation, John -- is, John. I've made it very clear that it's simply not true.

QUESTION: Based on what?

QUESTION: Based on what?

QUESTION: What are you basing -- what are you --

McCLELLAN: Someone asked me if I had spoken with him, and I said, yes.

QUESTION: And you spoke with him about this issue?

QUESTION: Did you ask him, directly?

McCLELLAN: I have spoken with him, yes.

QUESTION: But the President hasn't spoken with him directly about this issue? You have and the President hasn't?

McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Keith.

QUESTION: Well, that was the question.

McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: You spoke directly with Rove about this?

McCLELLAN: I have spoken -- I speak to him all the time, on a lot of things.

QUESTION: He categorically denied to you --

McCLELLAN: I just told you, it's simply not true.

QUESTION: Yes, but you refuse to say whether or not it was Rove who told you it's untrue.

McCLELLAN: No, no, I spoke to Rove. I spoke to him about -- no, I spoke to him about these accusations, I've spoken to him.

QUESTION: And Rove told you that they were not true --

McCLELLAN: That's why I would be telling --

QUESTION: -- or is it just you --

McCLELLAN: That's why I would be telling you what I did.

QUESTION: -- or is it just you who is telling us?

McCLELLAN: No, I have spoken to him and been assured. And that's why I reported to you and reported to the media that it is simply not true. I like to check my sources, just like you do.

Go read the rest, it's fascinating. I didn't know it was possible to tap dance that fast for that long....

Posted by thorswitch at 06:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

White House says Rove isn't the source of the Plame leak

The White House today has said that Karl Rove is not responsible for the leak of Valerie Plame's identity.

...the chief White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said today that he had spoken to Mr. Rove and had been assured that it was "simply not true" that Mr. Rove had had anything to do with the leak.

"The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved," Mr. McClellan said at a midday news briefing. Pressed on just how the president knew that, Mr. McClellan said, "Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place," adding, "It is simply not true."

The Times article also notes that the initial request for the Justice department to look into whether any administration officials were invovled in the leak or not was first made back in July by the CIA's office of general counsel. This recent burst of attention to the scandal has come about because of a report on Friday that the CIA had made such a request. Right now, however, I'm not sure if the request referred to in Friday's story is the one from July, and someone in the CIA just got tired of the Justice Department sitting on the matter, or if the initial request was somehow deficient and the CIA had to do additional investigating before resubumitting their inquiry request to the Justice Department. I'll let you know if I find out what the timeline on this is.

Additionally, the article comments on numerous Democrats calling for someone other than John Ashcroft to be responsible for deciding if this goes to the FBI or not and, if it does go to the FBI, to oversee the course of the investigation. There is widespread concern that Ashcroft won't be able to remain neutral enough to run a fair investigation.

"This administration has played politics with national security for a long time, but this is going too far," one of those Democratic hopefuls, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, told Reuters, suggesting an independent commission look into the accusations. "I don't think, in this administration, the Department of Justice will have the credibility it needs to reassure American allies abroad, and people around the world, about this matter."

Posted by thorswitch at 05:59 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Categories!

Well, it's taken a while, but I finally have all my entries categorized. I may need to refine some of the categories at some point - there enough entries on the RIAA and Digital Rights along with enough entries on the Columbia explosion that they probably deserve their own categories - but it'll probably be a bit before I tackle that. In the meantime, the category list is over on the sidebar, so if you're looking for posts on a certain topic, it should help make it easier to find them.

Posted by thorswitch at 04:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Prior bad acts?

Found at Talking Points Memo

Sources close to the former president [George H.W. Bush] say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.

"Why Are These Men Laughing?" Ron Suskind
Esquire
January 2003

Now, this doesn't prove anything at all - and there may still be some explaination that we're not expecting which clears everyone in the White House of any wrongdoing - but it sure doesn't look very good.

Posted by thorswitch at 02:05 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 28, 2003

Frog-Walking updates

Take a bit of time today and go read Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. He has some great stuff on the Valerie Plame situation, including Condi Rice's full response on ABC's "This Week" show, which takes the art of non-denial denials to a whole new level. He also reminds us why it shouldn't be too difficult to get a look at Karl Rove's phone recoreds, and W's daddy's opinion on people who reveal the names of our intelligence sources, among other astute analysis and commentary.

The Washington Post has another good article on the situation today, which notes that reporters from three national networks have told Joseph Wilson (Plame's husband) that someone from the White House had tried to contact them in July and revealed Plame's name and status to them at that time. He has only named one of these reporters so far, and that's NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

A second Post article notes that the White House has said they will cooperate with any investigation, but that

...Bush has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role in revealing the name of an undercover officer who is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, one of the most visible critics of Bush's handling of intelligence about Iraq.

Earlier today, I'd posted an entry about John Dean's article on how the Justice Department is trying to use laws that were never intended to be applied to government officials leaking information to reporters to try and prosecute exactly that. Its also no secret that the Bush administration in general has been trying to put the kibosh on leaks throughout most of his term.

Yet here we have perhaps one of the most serious leaks - the identity of a covert agent - and even though the leak has been known about for over 2 months, both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are claiming they know nothing about it, and Bush has so far not ordered any kind of an internal White House investigation, nor does he have any intention of doing so.

Does that strike anyone else as just a little bit strange?

Posted by thorswitch at 11:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

More Honesty and Integrity from the Bush Admin

The St. Petersburg Times (Florida) is reporting that the Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base falsly inflated their budget proposals to help hide $20 million the Pentagon wanted to ahve available, but didn't want Congress to know about.

The plan, according to defense officials and documents obtained by the Times, called for Special Operations to pad its proposed budget by $20-million so the money could be used later by the Pentagon for some other purpose. The Pentagon initially wanted Special Operations to hide $40-million. The Special Operations Command, which oversees the nation's secret commando units, refused.

It is unclear what the Pentagon intended to do with the $20-million, or what became of the money. Young surmised that the money could have been used as a contingency fund, available to Rumsfeld to use at his discretion. While $20-million is relatively modest in a Pentagon budget of almost $400-billion, Young said, if all the armed services are doing it the amount could grow significantly.

This is more than just an idle accusation, apparently, there are e-mail messages that back up the allegation.

The agreement between the Pentagon officials in Washington and Special Operations officials in Tampa is spelled out in an e-mail distributed by SoCom comptroller Elaine Kingston to colleagues on Feb. 11, 2002.

In the e-mail, Kingston wrote that she received a call from someone in the Pentagon comptroller's office. The caller, who is not identified in the e-mail, asked if the Special Operations Command could "park" $40-million of research and development money in its proposed budget for the 2003 fiscal year, which ends Tuesday.

"They needed an answer in 5 minutes," Kingston wrote. "The agency they had it parked with had a problem and couldn't do it."

Kingston wrote that "there was no way for us to park $40M." She wrote that she and Deborah Kiser, SoCom's investment appropriations budget chief, found six programs where they could add $20-million.

The programs listed in the e-mail include improvements to missile warning systems on Special Operations aircraft, infrared equipment on helicopters and radar systems. The $20-million was distributed in amounts as small as $2-million and as large as $5-million.

In her e-mail, Kingston coached colleagues on how to account for the additional money and avoid attracting attention to it in congressional briefings.

"I just wanted to follow up with an e-mail to ensure that the staffer briefing slides for these programs DO include these funds and that the briefer not highlight or discuss them during the staffer briefings," she wrote.

So, basically, the Pentagon wanted more money, but it didn't want to tell Congress what it wanted or why, so they asked MacDill Air Force Base's Special Operations Command to artificially inflate their budget request so that they would get $20 million more than they actually needed, and SOC would keep it on hand to give back to the Pentagon at their request.

It's unclear at this point how common of a practice it is for the Pentagon to "park" money at bases, or if any other bases were involved (though my personal guess would be that there may well be at least one more since the Pentagon wanted to part $40 million and MacDill SOC could only accomodate $20 million of that), but even if this is an isolated incidence, there's something fundamentally wrong about the Pentagon wanting to keep money hidden from Congress and an Air Force Base going along with it.

Link via Atrios

Posted by thorswitch at 09:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Project Frog-Walk update 1

Ok, we've got a thread started at the Freedom 2004 Forums for Project Frog-Walk. Check it out and help us keep the story alive so that the truth - whatever that may be - can be found.

Posted by thorswitch at 07:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Rice, Powell don't deny Plame allegations

On the Sunday talkfests today, Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell said that they were unaware of any leaks from the White House related to Valerie Plame but neither did they flatly deny them.

Rice told "Fox News Sunday" the same thing, in almost identical language. "I know nothing of any such White House effort to reveal any of this, and it certainly would not be the way that the president would expect his White House to operate."

Secretary of State Colin Powell said he knew nothing about the matter. Powell told ABC's "This Week" that he thought that if the CIA believed the identity of one of its agents have been revealed, it had an obligation to ask the Justice Department to look into the matter. But he added: "Other than that, I don't know anything about the matter."

Obviously, this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but I do find it interesting that they're being somewhat cagey in their responses, rather than saying "No, this didn't happen." It's not like there hasn't been time for them to find out in order to give a flat denial if one were available.

Posted by thorswitch at 06:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bush admin going after leakers - at least some

In another interesting article from John Dean, he points out how John Ashcroft and the Bush administration are trying to use laws never intended to limit leaks from government sources to reporters to punish exactly that.

Except in a few highly egregious circumstances relating to national security information (espionage and atomic secrets), the U.S. Congress has, in the past, never made it a crime to leak information to the news media. As a result, for over two hundred years, our government has operated without an "official secrets act."

In contrast, Great Britain and other nations have long criminalized the disclosure of government information. But there's a crucial difference between them and us: They lack an equivalent of our First Amendment.

Despite the free speech costs, President George W. Bush has created the equivalent of an official secrets act for America - and it is only growing stronger. Indeed, by cobbling together provisions from existing laws, Bush's Justice Department has effectively created one of the world's most encompassing, if not draconian, official secrets acts.

If Attorney General John Ashcroft has his way, we will see many more prosecutions of this ilk. Ashcroft has told Congress he wants a "comprehensive, coordinated, Government-wide, aggressive, properly resourced, and sustained effort" to deal with "the problem of unauthorized disclosures."

It's important to watch Ashcroft's lips here: He said "unauthorized" disclosure - not, say, disclosures of classified information relating to national security, which would be a very different matter. Plainly, he is targeting anyone who leaks information the Bush Administration would rather not have made public - even when security is in no way at risk.

In light of the current situation with the leaks about Valerie Plame's stats as an undercover operative, this could really put Ashcroft in an interesting bind. According to Dean's article, at least one person he's prosecuted for leaking information to a reporter, the severity of the leak was questionable.

The information was not classified. It did not compromise any investigator, investigation, or investigative method.

In the Plame case, one would assume her status as an undercover CIA operative would be classified, and it did compromise the CIA's ability to get information in her area of expertise - Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was also illegal under existing laws, which means that, unlike the case profiled in Dean's article, no one would have to try and repurpose the available laws to make prosecution viable.

Given that Ashcroft and the Bush Administration have, on a number of occasions, complained about people leaking information to the press, and especially in light of Ashcroft taking legal action against someone for leaking unclassified information that had no impact on any investigations or, for that matter, national security, it should be that much harder for him to attempt to bury the Plame investigation.

Posted by thorswitch at 04:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Angry parents

The Guardian is reporting that some parents of American soldiers are getting quite angry about the war and the lies leading up to it. They noted that, during a press converence intended to publicize upcoming anti-war demonstrations, it was announed that about 1,300 parents have gotten togther to begin a movement opposed to the Iraqi occupation. Other parents are trying to make their case even more publicly:

In another sign of the growing protest movement, the father of two soldiers serving in Iraq used a full page advertisement in yesterday's New York Times to demand the sacking of the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

The ad accused President Bush and his administration of misleading the public about weapons of mass destruction.

"Donald Rumsfeld Betrayed My Sons and Our Nation. It's Time For Him to Go," said the headline of the ad, which was signed by Larry Syverson from Richmond, Virginia.

The ad was paid for by MoveOn.org, an internet-based organisation in San Francisco, and the Win Without War coalition. It is not known how much they paid for the ad, but the market rate is $139,000 (£83,700).

I truly hate seeing the situation get so bad that the families of our soldiers are getting angry at the administration, but if there is an upside to it, it does make it much harder for conservatives to claim that we are demoralizing the troops if we are protesting the occupation. I just wish it wasn't even an issue...

Posted by thorswitch at 03:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Oops....

Posted by thorswitch at 03:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Project Frog-Walk

Be sure to keep an eye on the Freedom 2004 - Build-a-Meme Project forums for information on Project Frog-walk.

Rayne has suggested that as many of us as possible band together to help keep the pressure on about the Valerie Plame story and investigation, to see if we can't keep it from being swept under the rug. She will be posting information at the forums soon.

You can also check back here at different strings or at her site Rayne Today for more information as the project gets underway. Also, The Agora and Emphasis Added are posting on the issue as well.

Remember, the blogosphere was credited with helping keep the Trent Lott story alive long enough for the media to pick up on it and see him pushed out as the Senate Majority Leader. The fish in this case are much bigger, but that also means they're more important. The story may not turn out the way we hope it will, but regardless of what the final outcome is, we have a chance now to try and make sure that the full story gets told and that an honest investigation is done.

We also have a chance now to show that the blogosphere can be a true force in American politics. Shall we?

Posted by thorswitch at 02:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A look at the White House's early response to the Plame situation

Former Presidential counsel John Dean did a piece for FindLaw's 'Writ' back in August when the Plame story broke for the first time. In his column, he provides a solid overview of the legal issues involved and explaines why the blowing of a CIA agent's cover is considered to be a serious offense.

He also looks at how the White House initially responded to questions about the leak. His words are worth keeping in mind as the White House is forced to respond again to these latest charges - especially now that the story is likely to get more play (especially if we citizens can keep the pressure on the media to stay on the story). Most interesting is that even when faced with rather direct questions about the possible involvement of the White House in revealing Plame's identity, it was hard to get a flat "no" out of Scott McClellan, the Presidents press secretary:

In the past, Bush and Cheney have gone ballistic when national security information leaked. But this leak - though it came from "two senior administration officials" - has been different. And that, in itself, speaks volumes.

On July 22, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was asked about the Novak column. Offering only a murky, non-answer, he claimed that neither "this President or this White House operates" in such a fashion. He added, "there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step."

So was McClellan saying that Novak was lying - and his sources were not, in fact, "two senior administration officials"? McClellan dodged, kept repeating his mantra, and refused to respond.

Later, McClellan was asked, "Would the President support an investigation into the blowing of the cover on an undercover CIA operative?" Again, he refused to acknowledge "that there might be some truth to the matter you're bringing up." When pressed further, he said he would have to look into "whether or not that characterization is accurate when you're talking about someone's cover."

McClellan's statement that he would have to look into the matter was disingenuous at best. This ten-day old column by Novak had not escaped the attention of the White House. Indeed, when the question was first raised, McClellan immediately responded, "Thank you for bringing that up."

As David Corn has pointed out, what McClellan did not say, is even more telling than what he said. He did not say he was trying to get to the bottom of the story and determine if it had any basis in fact. He did not say the president would not tolerate such activities, and was demanding to know what had happened.

Indeed, as Corn points out, McClellan's remarks "hardly covered a message from Bush to his underlings: don't you dare pull crap like this." Indeed, they could even be seen as sending a message that such crimes will be overlooked.

Frankly, I am astounded that the President of the United States - whose father was once Director of the CIA - did not see fit to have his Press Secretary address this story with hard facts. Nor has he apparently called for an investigation - or even given Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson a Secret Service detail, to let the world know they will be protected.

This is the most vicious leak I have seen in over 40 years of government-watching. Failure to act to address it will reek of a cover-up or, at minimum, approval of the leak's occurrence - and an invitation to similar revenge upon Administration critics.

Posted by thorswitch at 01:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Who's zooming who?

From Reuters 9/28/2003:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday there was new U.S. intelligence obtained before the Iraqi war about Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction programs, despite an assertion to the contrary by key congressional leaders.

"The president believes that he had very good intelligence going into the war," Rice said on the "Fox News Sunday" program.

The top aide to President Bush dismissed the finding by leaders of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee that much of the information relied upon was fragmentary or dated back to when U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998.

"There was enrichment of the intelligence from 1998 over the period leading up to the war," Rice insisted. "And nothing pointed to a reversal of Saddam Hussein's very active efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

"... It was very clear that this continued and it was a gathering danger."

"Yes, I think I would call it new information and it was certainly enriching the case in the same direction," she added.

From the Boston Globe, 7/9/2003 (original story no longer available):

He leaned forward on a podium shared with President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and said angrily: ''Imagine a world in which this tyrant had a nuclear weapon. In 1998, my predecessor raided Iraq, based upon the very same intelligence. And in 2003, after the world had demanded he disarm, we decided to disarm him.''

From ABC News.com, 7/8/2003:

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit" of weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light — through the prism of our experience on 9/11."

From the US Department of State website transcript of a 2/24/01 press conference by Colin Powell regarding a trip to Egypt:

the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

[...] May I just add a p.s. that if I was a Kuwaiti and I heard leaders in Baghdad claiming that Kuwait is still a part of Iraq and it's going to be included in the flag and the seal, if I knew they were continuing to try to find weapons of mass destruction, I would have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States or at others. Yes, I think we should...he has to be contained until he realizes the errors of his ways.
[Emphasis added]

Posted by thorswitch at 12:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Other good Plame entries to check out

Several other bloggers have some good information on the Plame situation.

Billmon notes that from the way the Washington Post story is phrased, it appears likely that the person they spoke with may well be George Tenet, and that he knows who the White House officials that leaked the information are.

Kevin Drum offers a solid recap of what has now been revealed in the last 24 hours, and there's some excellent discussion of the implications of this turn of events in his comments section.

Mark Kleiman offers some good analysis of the story, plus he has links to his excellent earlier work when the story first broke, and to several other resources as well that are worth checking out.

And, of course, Josh Marshall is on top of the story and the media reaction to it. He also has an excellent interview with Joseph Wilson (Plame's husband), whose article about his mission to Niger triggered the firestorm earlier this summer over the President's State of the Union Address, which is the incident that the outing of Plame is said to be in retalliation of.

Marshall also notes that, while some of the stories are reporting that the White House have denied the allegations that someone from the White House was responsible for the leak, the answers that were given when Scott McClellan, the Press Secretary, was asked about it, were really little more than "non-denial denials".

Posted by thorswitch at 02:54 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

More press picking up Plame - Washington Post gets basic confirmation of allegations

The Washington Post has a big, front page story today on the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a cover agent for the CIA. In the article, they include information from a senior administration official confirming most of the basic speculation about the case - that the leak came from within the White House, that it was shopped around to other journalists before Robert Novak published it and that it was done as revenge for Joseph Wilson's article that caused the President so much embarassment.

A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. That was shortly after Wilson revealed in July that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account eventually touched off a controversy over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers' allegation was that Wilson had benefited from nepotism because the Niger mission had been his wife's idea. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."

The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said he had no indication that Bush knew about the calls. Columnist Robert Novak published the agent's name in a July column about Wilson's mission.

It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."

By the way, if you haven't already done so, Atrios suggests that we all go to the MSNBC site and rate their Plame story highly, so that they'll know people consider it an important story for them to continue following. You can find the story here, and then scroll to the bottom of the page, and click on the large number "7". The more pressure we can put on the press to keep this story in the spotlight, the harder it becomes for anyone to try and sweep it under the rug (though the Post's story certainly helps with that as well.)

Posted by thorswitch at 02:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 27, 2003

More coverage for Plame story

CBS News has now picked up on the Valerie Plame story. They have an article posted tonight that offers a basic overview of the situation, including the fact that the CIA's request to the Justice Department for an investigation.

The article, titled "A Vengeful White House?", while careful not to make an direct charges or allegations, certainly treats the idea that the White House may have leaked Ms. Plame's status as an undercover operative as a way of retaliating against her husband for having caused embarrassment when he wrote that the White House has been notified well before the State of the Union Address that the claim Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger was false.

It was an embarrassing mistake when White House officials admitted that there was an inaccuracy in President Bush’s State of the Union address, but now, the fallout from that mistake could lead to criminal charges, CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston reports.

[...]

Revealing the names of CIA operatives is a felony, and the CIA has asked the Justice Department to begin a probe, Pinkston reports.

Congressional sources say there may also be calls for the appointment of an independent investigation to determine if Bush administration officials blew Plame’s cover.

Time Magazine has also picked up the story, and is noting that Justice has opened a preliminary inquiry:

CIA and Justice spokespersons declined comment, but an Administration official told TIME that the Justice is conducting a preliminary inquiry to "determine whether or not there should be an investigation" by the FBI.

The story still deserves even wider coverage than this, but it's good to see it starting to get out there.

Also of interest is Mark Kleiman's assessment of what is likely to happen as a result of the CIA's request - especially given how many are skeptical that Ashcroft may try to bury the investigation in order to protect the White House.

Formally, as Josh Marshall notes [*], Ashcroft has to make a decision whether to refer the matter to the FBI for investigation. But if he tries to refuse, he will face a firestorm, internally as well as externally. Six months or a year ago, with Bush riding high, Ashcroft might have been able to get away with it. But not now.

[...]

Once Ashcroft asks for an investigation, it gets carried out by career people in the FBI, people with reputations to protect. Someone will ask Rove the straight-up question whether he ever talked to Novak or anyone else about Plame, and whether he knows of anyone else having done so. When Rove answers those questions, he will know that lying to the Bureau is itself a federal crime. He will also know that the press shield laws may not apply in this case, and that reporters who refused the bait may not feel as bound to protect their sources as Novak does.

Wilson's stated ambition to "see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs" no longer seems out of reach.

One can hope, eh?

Posted by thorswitch at 09:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What liberal media?

It's been almost 20 hours since MSNBC and NBC News broke the story about the CIA seeking an investigation into the White House's possible involvement in blowing the cover of one of their undercover operatives. This is a serious federal crime, punishable by 10 years in prison, and before the CIA can ask Justice to investigate, they have to have already done their own investigation, indicating that there is sufficient reason to believe that a federal investigation and possible prosecution is warranted. Since they've made that request of Justice, it means they've got reason to believe that the White House is involved. This isn't just a random accusation.

One would think that the CIA essentially accusing someone in the White House of burning one of their covert operatives would be big news - yet according to Google News no other papers, magazines or other news outlets have picked up on the story yet. There's nothing at the MSNBC site to indicate that there's any problem with the story, yet there seems to be no interest in it anywhere else - even at MSNBC's partner sites, The Washington Post and Newsweek.

Posted by thorswitch at 04:32 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

More 'call at home' fun

Looks like it's not just Fox News encouraging people to call someone at home. Apprently, the hone phone number of US District Judge Lee R. West has been posted on websites, and many talk show hosts, columnists, bloggers and others have been exhorting people to call him there and make their displeasure with his decision to stop the FTC's "Do Not Call" list from going into effect.

Egged on by talk show hosts and angry Web sites, people have flooded West's office and home with calls and faxes, apparently trying to show him why they wanted to ban unsolicited sales calls.

"They are just calling to tie up our lines," said Rick Wade, operations manager at the district clerk's office. "They just keep calling to harass us, like the telemarketers harass them, I guess."

The phones at the federal courthouse were jammed Thursday morning and voicemail boxes were stuffed with messages blasting West's ruling that the Federal Trade Commission lacked authority to create and operate the registry.

West's home and office telephone numbers were posted on the Internet, and consumers angry with the ruling were encouraged to call. Calls by The Associated Press to West's home seeking comment were blocked by busy signals.

It's really no more acceptable to encourage people to call this Judge at home than it was for Fox to give out his Tucker's number. While I know that calling the judge at his office to register displeasure ends up making more work for everyone there, if calls have to be made, that would be the more appropriate place.

Posted by thorswitch at 01:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 26, 2003

CIA asks Justice to investigate possible White House role in Valerie Plame leak

According to MSNBC and NBC News, the CIA has requested an investigation into the White House's role in last summer's leak which blew the cover of Valerie Plame, wife of former diplomat Joseph Wilson, who angered the White House earlier this year by revealing his role in discrediting the claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to obtain uranium from Niger. That revelation launched a brief firestorm over the administration's honesty in presenting their case for going to war against Iraq and helped to damage the President's credibility.

The White House had tried to blame the CIA for failing to remove the information from the State of the Union address, and CIA director George Tenet did accept responsiblity for it, but Wilson's story made it clear that people in the White House had also been aware that the informtion was bogus prior to the SOTU speech.

Plame's identity as an undercover operative (whose speciality is weapons of mass destruction) was revealed in a column by Robert Novak that was published about a week after Joseph Wilson's article about his findings in Niger.

The White House has denied being Novak’s source, whom he has refused to identify. But Wilson has said other reporters have told him White House officials leaked Plame’s identity.

NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell reported Friday night that the CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate whether White House officials blew Plame’s cover in retaliation against Wilson. Revealing the identities of covert officials is a violation of two laws, the National Agents’ Identity Act and the Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act.

Speculation has centered on Karl Rove as being the one responsible for the leak. If the investigation is run properly (and not muffed for political reasons), and If Rove - or others in the White House - are behind the revelation, this could be huge.

UPDATE - 11:29pm 9/26/03: Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has a good post about this situation - including the following information on how investigating something of this nature works:

The way this works is that the CIA does its own investigation to determine whether there is reason to believe laws were broken. But the CIA has no law enforcement powers itself. So it makes a referral to the Justice Department, which obviously does have law enforcement powers. If the folks at Justice concur in the Agency's determination that there is reason to believe that laws were broken, they then task the FBI with mounting a formal criminal investigation.

[...]

On it's face, this news tonight almost certainly means that the CIA's internal investigation concluded that laws were broken or that there was sufficient evidence of wrong-doing for a criminal investigation to be undertaken.

Posted by thorswitch at 11:06 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Bushspeak: "Mission Accomplished" means "Mission NOT Accomplished"

From US News and World Report: `Mission accomplished': Bush brag or Demo fib?

After weeks of Democratic assaults that President Bush was a nitwit for declaring "mission accomplished" in Iraq during his May 1 landing and victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, the White House is bidding to set the story straight. The issue should be a simple one: Bush never uttered those words. "The president," argues communications boss Dan Bartlett, "said exactly the opposite: The mission continues." But Bush stood under a banner declaring "mission accomplished." Why? Bartlett says that the Lincoln's captain had the banner made up to thank his crew for the longest-ever carrier tour, not to declare the war over. "It is something the troops are really proud of," says Bartlett. "Of course they can hang the banner." But the picture was all the Demos needed. "On TV," he says, "they never play the [sound] bite of the president, they just show the image with the banner." Democratic polls show that the public buys their spin, which doesn't really surprise Bartlett. "Look, perception becomes reality," he says. "But the facts don't back it up."

There's so much spin there I'm feeling rather dizzy....

Seriously, though, if the message was being misinterpreted, why did it take over 4 months for someone to point it out? These folks just don't know when to stop.

Posted by thorswitch at 04:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Costs for rebuilding Iraq

Of the $87 billion President Bush has requested for our efforts in Iraq, $20.3 billion is for reconstruction. The Washington Post provides some examples of what's included in those reconstruction costs.

A new curriculum for training an Iraqi army for $164 million. Five hundred experts, at $200,000 each, to investigate crimes against humanity. A witness protection program for $200,000 per Iraqi participant. A computer study for the Iraqi postal service: $54 million. ...$100 million to build seven planned communities with a total of 3,258 houses, plus roads, an elementary school, two high schools, a clinic, a place of worship and a market for each; $10 million to finance 100 prison-building experts for six months, at $100,000 an expert; 40 garbage trucks at $50,000 each; $900 million to import petroleum products such as kerosene and diesel to a country with the world’s second-largest oil reserves; and $20 million for a four-week business course, at $10,000 per pupil. ...$400 million to build two 4,000-bed prisons at $50,000.

Certainly, some of those costs are justified, but $900 million to import petroleum products? And part of the $400 million for the prisons is, according to Paul Bremer, for importing cement to make concrete.

Even more troubling, though, is the fact that we are now, apparently, are responsible for Iraq's $200 billion in foreign debt to countries including France, Germany and Russia. That, obviously, isn't included in the $87 billion request Bush made, and while we're trying to get them to forgive the debt, there's no guarantee that they will.

This whole mess is really a no-win situation. There are some, apparently, who believe that we should make any money we spend on rebuilding Iraq a loan that the Iraqi people will have to pay back to us - despite the fact that we're the ones who decided this war was necessary and we're the ones picking all the contractors and detemining how the money will be spent. I don't know about you, but if someone destroyed my house - even if they thought they had good intentions in doing so - I would not be at all happy if they determined how they were going to rebuild my house, without any input from me as to who should do it or how much they spent, and then expected me to pay them back for it.

At the same time, I don't think the American budget can afford to rebuild Iraq - not at the costs they're quoting - at least not without rolling back the tax cuts Bush instituted. Even then, there will still be a lot of things Americans need that we won't be able to afford to do because of this burden.

Sadly, I have no idea what the solution is... just this is a pretty big problem the Bush Administration has gotten us into. I just hope they can find a way out.

Posted by thorswitch at 04:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sensitivity 101

Maybe it's just me, but this comment by Paul Wolfowitz, made while trying to answer a question "about whether the administration plans to withdraw troops right before the 2004 presidential election," seems to be more than just a bit insensitive.

"These are national security decisions; they have to be made on that basis," he said. Wolfowitz said that doesn't mean that "we're not trying to, in fact, get more Iraqis on the front lines, get them dying for their country so fewer Americans have to."

Now, I don't want to see any more Americans die over Iraq - I think I've made that pretty clear. But then again, I want to see fewer people dying over Iraq in general, not just change the race of those who are.

Of course, the idiocy of Wolfowitz' statement - beyond the sheer insensitivity of it - is that the Iraqis who are doing the killing don't necessarily want to kill other Iraqis, though they will kill them if they're working with us. No, they want to kill Americans because we invaded their country and they want us gone. Americans keep dying because they're still there.

Of course, right now, it might not be feasible to remove our troops - there's still a lot of rebuilding that has to be done, and the situation there is rather chaotic. That I recognize that doesn't mean I like it, but we have to remember that this is our war. The Iraqi people didn't ask us for help - our leaders took it upon themselves to decide that for our safety Saddam had to go. We didn't do this for he Iraqis - regardless of how the administration tries to spin it - we did it for ourselves. And now we have one of our erstwhile leaders saying that more of the Iraqis who have decided to help us in our quest need to be the ones to die.

Wouldn't it be better to have as our goal less killing overall?

Posted by thorswitch at 03:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A special note for any Brits stopping by...

Posted by thorswitch at 12:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 25, 2003

Maturity in Journalism

During a discussion on Thursday's Crossfire (CNN) regarding telemarketing, a viewer e-mailed co-host Tucker Carlson, telling him he wanted to "direct market" some "junk" he had in his garage him. Tucker, who had been defending telemarketers, said he'd give the writer his home number.

Carlson praised the writer for his good idea, and co-host Paul Begala, egging him on, dared Carlson to give out his number.

"Get out your pen," Carlson said...

"You can reach me there anytime," Carlson said. "That's fine. I have defended telemarketers. Feel free to call me, someone is always there."

Notice those ellipses after "Carlson said"? Well, yes, I left out a bit there - and it's a good one. Carlson gave out a phone number, but it wasn't the one to his home. No, he gave out the number to the FOX News Channel's Washington bureau - who promptly got quite a number of calls.

Now, what Carlson did is juvinille at best. Giving out your rivals phone number so that they get a bunch of prank calls is something most people grow out of by the time they reach high school - or, at worst, college. But here we have someone who's supposed to be considered a national-level journalist pulling a childish prank on his competition. It gives me so much faith in our media to see stuff like that.

FOX, however, couldn't let it go. And while I can understand their desire for retribution, I can't say that I necessarily think that their response is a whole lot more mature. What did they do? Just what you might expect - they published Tucker Carlson's real home phone number on their website so that people can call him directly.

And I'm supposed to take these people seriously as sources of important information?

Posted by thorswitch at 11:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Like father, like son?

Jay Leno on the Tonight Show, September 24:

"It's going to be a problem for George Bush if he turns out to be a one term president. I mean, sure, his father was a one term president, but at least his father got elected once."

Posted by thorswitch at 10:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Report expected to say no weapons found

A New York Times report today says that according to "federal officials with knowledge of the findings" David Kay's interim report on the hunt for Iraq's alleged WMD has so far found no evidence of actual weapons.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Mr. Kay and his team had not found illicit weapons. They said they believed that Mr. Kay had found evidence of precursors and dual-use equipment that could have been used to manufacture chemical and biological weapons.

They also said that Mr. Kay's team had interviewed at least one Iraqi security officer who said he had worked in such a chemical and biological weapons program until shortly before the American invasion in March.

Of course, it vital that we not forget that we didn't go to war over dual-use equipment that could have been used for illicit purposes or over possible weapons programs. We went to war because the government swore up and down that Saddam had actual, ready-to-use, weapons that made it an immediate threat that had to be stopped.

This is, of course, the wasp in the pre-emptive war ointment. If intelligence is either flawed or manipulated, then the reasons for the war are non-existant, and the credibilty of those pushing for the war is lost. If we continue to turn up nothing in the search for Saddam's supposed WMDs, it's either going to take a long time, a new President or both before other countries of the world are going to be willing to follow our lead if we can't hand them concrete proof of why they should.

The article also contains yet another example of Cheney's need to get acquainted with the truth. He's apparently still claiming that the mobile trailers that were found earlier this year - which, after a hands-on investigation were determined to be for the manufacturer of hydrogen for use in artillery balloons are evidence of WMDs.

[I]n a recent television interview, Vice President Dick Cheney called the trailers "mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack."

In early June, American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence disputed claims that the trailers were used for making deadly germs. They said in interviews with The New York Times that the evaluation process had been damaged by a rush to judgment.

Posted by thorswitch at 10:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 24, 2003

Out of the mouths of mothers....

My mom just sent this to me -- it's too good not to share :)

The Ten Commandments display was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building. There was a good reason for the move. You can't post Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Lie in a building full of lawyers and Politicians without creating a hostile work environment.

Posted by thorswitch at 06:25 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Australian newsman claims he can prove war rationale was a lie

In a report that has aired on British and Australian TV, Australian reporter John Pilger has claimed that he has proof that the Bush administration knowingly lied when they claimed Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Powell boasted this was because America's policy of containment and its sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.

Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.

I'm a bit concerned about this report, however, since Pilger apparently decided not to speak to either Powell or Rice to get their responses to his claims. While it is likely that they would either have ignored his request or tried to find a way to spin it, at the very least he should have made the attempt to get their side of the story. Failing to do so makes me, at least, question his credibility. I would also very much like to see the footage in question, though so far I've not had any luck tracking it down.

This is, however, a serious charge and one that needs to be thoroughly investigated. If, in fact, members of the Bush administratino were bragging about how well we had him contained and how he was not a threat to us, then the Bush Administration needs to answer to that - and explain how, when Rumsfeld and Bush have both said that we were not working with any "new" intelligence, but rather just looking at old evidence in a new light, and when both Bush and Rumsfeld have said that there is no evidence that Saddam was connected to the 9/11 attacks, Saddam went from being successfully contained to imminent threat that needed to be put down through pre-emptive war, seemingly overnight.

My guess is that they will try to claim that they re-evaluated Saddam's level of threat to the US in light of the 9/11 attacks. If they do that, however, they need to be pinned down on how that would make any difference in how Saddam is viewed if there's no evidence he's involved.

Posted by thorswitch at 05:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

$87 billion

I never believed the Bush Administration when they said that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction of the country. It didn't sound logical - mainly because it rested on the idea that the war would 'pay for itself', and I've found that very few things that say they'll 'pay for themselves' actually do. It's a nice fantasy, but rarely does it turn into a concrete reality.

So, as I was with everything else about this war, I was rather skeptical about how little it was supposed to cost. It was also obvious that, because this war was so controversial and had such a high profile, that the Bush administration wouldn't be able to get away with neglecting to include money for the rebuilding in the budget, the way they tried to provide no funds for rebuilding Afghanistan. Still, I didn't quite expect it to cost a billion dollars a week.

Tom Paine has put together a nice little list of what else that $87 billion could buy. I think one of the most telling items on the list looks at what that money could do in terms of jobs. Since Bush took office, our economy has lost 3.3 million jobs. For $87 billion, each of those people could be paid $26,383.

Another option? A recent Council on Foreign Affairs report noted that [a]cross the country, first responders simply do not have the money, equipment or training to adequately handle a devastating blow like the attacks on 9-11

The task force, chaired by former Republican Sen. Warren Rudman, issued its findings in June under the title ``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.''

The $27 billion budgeted by the federal government's Department of Homeland Security to fund emergency responders during the next five years falls more than $98 billion short of what is needed to provide training, equipment and technological upgrades across the country, the task force found.

The $87 Bush wants to spend in Iraq would sure help with making up for that shortfall - and note that the totals being discussed there aren't just for one year, they're for five.

On an even more practical level, $87 billion would be enough for the government to cut a check to every man, woman and child in the US for $300. And this time, we wouldn't have to deduct it from our tax returns at the end of the year.

Of course, the easiest way to come up with the $87 billion we need to rebuild Iraq would be to simply repeal even a portion of the tax breaks that the Bush administration has given to the wealthiest Americans. Since, in general, the wealthy support Bush - and, one would presume, his policies, it would make sense that they'd be willing to sacrifice a part of the huge tax cuts he's given them in order to see his vision for Iraq properly funded.

Posted by thorswitch at 03:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 23, 2003

What we have here is failure to communicate

Posted by thorswitch at 03:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 20, 2003

Bush's 9/11 admission and it's larger consequences

Editor and Publisher has a great article on how little attention Bush's admission that there is no link between Saddam and 9/11 is getting in the mainstream media. Unfortuantely, they made one small but consequential error in the article. This is essentially the text of a letter I sent to the reporter and the "Letters to the Editor" section, with the hopes that maybe they'll at least be abe to get some notice made of the fact that, even as he was trying to convince us that Saddam was involved in 9/11, he knew that there wasn't sufficient evidence to make that claim.

The article states that this is the first time that Bush has made such an acknowledgement. Back on January 31, 2003, however, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair held a joint press conference, the transcript of which is available at the official White House website.

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.

This was months before we actually started the war, and it was also prior to his sending notification to Congress that he intended to invade Iraq. Yet, even when writing that notification, he still went to pains to attempt to link Saddam and the 9/11 attacks - after publicly admitting that he could not claim such a link existed.

I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

The text in this notification does not specifically state that Iraq is one of the that falls under the "including those nations, organization or person who.... September 11, 2001", but there is no other purpose for that line to even have been included as part of his official justification for the war except to try and mislead people into think that a connection does exist - and making this impression is important as it is one of the conditions Congress placed upon the President for justifying the use of military force. It echoes the language used in Public Law 107-243 ("Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002") which gave the President authorization to attack Iraq on the conditions quoted below, but its purpose is still to mislead people into thinking that a link does exist.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

There were three conditions placed on the President in justifying the use of military force. Force had to be considered the only way to defend against the "continuing threat" posed by Iraq *and* to enforce the UN resolutions, and the President had to determine that attacking Iraq would be "consistent" with taking necessary actions against terrorists, including those who were involved in 9/11. At the time he submitted his determination to Congress, however, its becoming clear that Bush already knew that there was no evidence supporting the idea that Iraq was a threat (and that there was no reason to believe that continued inspections would not be of use) and Bush had already admitted that he knew knew there was no link between Saddam and 9/11 (or terrorists in general, to the best of my knowledge)

I initially blogged about this on March 24, 2003 and have been trying since then to get people to recognize that first admission for what it truly is - evidence that Bush knowingly took us into the Iraq war at least in part on false pretenses, and that he had no problem misleading the American people into believing something he, himself, knew wasn't true.

It's horrible that his admission from last week hasn't been more widely acknowledged, but it is quite frankly shameful that the media in general never picked up on his earlier, pre-war admission, or questions how he could have provided the notification he did to Congress when he knew that at least part of what it clearly implies was false. I think that, in and of itself, should be considered a very serious issue, and one that deserved more investigation that it's likely to ever get.

Posted by thorswitch at 06:06 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Geography 101

Posted by thorswitch at 05:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 19, 2003

More on the Bush Administration's lies

Robert Scheer writes a hard-hitting piece in todays LA Times giving more examples of how the Bush Administration knowingly lied and continues to lie in regards to the Iraq war. Some choice points:

"We know [Iraq] had a great deal to do with terrorism in general and with Al Qaeda in particular and we know a great many of [Osama] bin Laden's key lieutenants are now trying to organize in cooperation with old loyalists from the Saddam regime " Wolfowitz told ABC on this year's 9/11 anniversary.

We know nothing of the sort, of course, and the next day Wolfowitz was forced to admit it. He told Associated Press that his remarks referred not to a "great many" of Bin Laden's lieutenants but rather to a single Jordanian, Abu Musab Zarqawi. "[I] should have been more precise," Wolfowitz admitted.

He then goes on to note that even that correction doesn't quite provide the full picture either:

The Zarqawi connection has been a red herring since Colin Powell emphasized it in his prewar presentation to the United Nations Security Council, telling the world how Zarqawi was running a chemical weapons lab. Problem was, the site was not in Iraqi control but was in the U.S.-patrolled no-fly zone, and when reporters visited it in the days immediately after Powell's speech they found nothing that indicated anything like a chemical weapons lab.

The fundamentalist militia known as Ansar al Islam that controlled the area, meanwhile, was supported by Hussein's enemies in Iran.

He also makes note of Cheney's admission that he "misspoke" in his statement prior to the war that Iraq had reconstituted it's nuclear weapons.

One thing I must say that I've found disturbing lately, however, is that on more than a few liberal-oriented sites, I've seen comments to the effect that all Cheney had to say about that matter was that he had misspoken, and that they fail to note that he actually went further than that in making his clarification. In addition to admitting he "misspoke", he also said "We never had any evidence that [Hussein] had acquired a nuclear weapon."

It strikes me that some of the sites I've seen saying that he "simply" said he "misspoke" are trying to portray Cheney as brushing the whole issue off casually, which may be a fair characterization - not having seen the segment in question, I'm not sure - but by leaving off that fuller part of the admission - stating that we never had any evidence that Saddam had nukes, they're ignoring one of the most important parts of the statement. Cheney didn't just misspeak. If we never had any evidence that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program, then by saying that we "knew" he had, Cheney was, without a doubt, and with no room for hedging, flat-out lying on national television to the American people. In my opinion, that's a much bigger deal than Cheney saying simply that he "misspoke".

The Scheer article also notes this comment by Vincent Cannistraro, who used to head up the CIA's counter-terrorism operations and analysis:

"There was no substantive intelligence information linking Saddam to international terrorism before the war. Now we've created the conditions that have made Iraq the place to come to attack Americans."

That, I think, hits the nail on the head. Since the Bush Administration seems to be unable to demonstrate that they actually had any pre-war justification for invading Iraq, it's almost like they're now trying to manufacture conditions they can point to and say "See? It's as bad as we said it was!" even though it would be so bad if we hadn't invaded in the first place. Talk about revising history!

Posted by thorswitch at 05:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 18, 2003

Cheney's lies

The Minnesota-based Star-Tribune has an excellent analysis of the lies Dick Cheney told when he appeared this past Sunday on "Meet the Press".

Dick Cheney is not a public relations man for the Bush administration, not a spinmeister nor a political operative. He's the vice president of the United States, and when he speaks in public, which he rarely does, he owes the American public the truth.

In his appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Cheney fell woefully short of truth. On the subject of Iraq, the same can be said for President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. But Cheney is the latest example of administration mendacity, and therefore a good place to start in holding the administration accountable.

The article then goes on to describe a number of the lies that Cheney told during his interview, refuting each. These include his claim that America ignored the threat of terrorism before September 11th; that we "don't know" whether Saddam was involved with 9/11 or not (while both Bush and Rumsfeld have admitted this week that there is no evidence at all to say that he was), that the connection between Saddam and 9/11 is supported by a supposed meeting between Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague (which Czechloslovakian president has said they've determined never happened, and which supposedly occured at a time when the FBI has concluded Atta was in Florida); that Iraq is the supposed "geographical base" for terrorism; and a number of misleading claims about what information we had on Saddam and his alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction.

It's astounding that even as more and more information is coming out showing us the true extent of the administration's deception - Cheney is still out there pushing the same crap he has been all along, even though some of it has long since been discredited.

In addition, the Star-Tribune has provided a list of links to their sources for the article, which can be found at http://hoster.startribune.com/nuke/html/index.php/. You'll want to scroll down the page a bit, and look for the headline reading "Links for Strib Sept. 17 editorial on Dick Cheney". This will allow you to check out their resources and verify the context of their information for yourself.

Posted by thorswitch at 10:03 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 17, 2003

Bush and Rumsfeld admit Saddam not part of 9/11 plot

I've mentioned several times that in January of this year, Bush - during a joint press conference with Tony Blair - said that he could not make the claim that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. Yet even though Bush himself indicated he could not make that link, a recent poll showed that 70% of Americans believe that Saddam was responsible for them.

Maybe this will help. So far this week, both Bush and Don Rumsfeld have admitted that they have no evidence of such a link. The issue became somewhat hot again this weekend after Dick Cheney went on "Meet the Press" and apparently made some ambiguous statements that Bush and Rumsfeld were then asked to clarify in subsequent press conferences. Today, Bush said:

"No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he [Saddam] has been involved with al-Qaida. ... There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties.

When asked about the matter on Tuesday, Rumsfeld had responded:

"I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

Posted by thorswitch at 10:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Witches' Weekly

Time for Witches Weekly again! :)

What is your favorite pagan related website?

I really like Witches' Voice just because they have so much good information, including information you can give to educators, police in your community and others who might need to have a better understanding of Paganism and Witchcraft as part of their official duties. My favourite Norse-based site is Irminsul which is a clearinghouse of information on varoius Norse oriented groups, sites, resources and other information. Both of these sites seem to be focused on helping educate people and helping Pagans and Heathens connect with each other, which really fills a need for the community.

Do you have a 'Magical Name,' if so, what is it and why? If not, do you think they're necessary?

Well, I don't have a "magickal" name, Kriselda Jarnsaxa is a name that I adopted because of my spirituality, similar to how some who convert to other faiths will take a name that represents the "new" person they are in that faith (probably most frequently seen in converts to Islam who adopt a Muslim name, but certainly not limited to them).

Magical names are often described as names known only to you and your God(s), or possibly you, your God(s) and coven elders (in some Wiccan traditions), and is used to represent that special relationship that exists between the individual an the divine. I think its kind of an interesting concept, but it's just not something that's used much in the Norse paths, and, while I do still retain some Wiccan-oriented practices, it's one I've just never adopted.

Heathens in general, though, tend to be a lot more pragmatic and less "mystically"-oriented than some of the more esoteric paths. Just as a Heathen blot (basic worship service) is much simpler in structure than a Wiccan circle, so our naming traditions tend to be simpler. I do, however, feel that for people who wish to follow the true Wiccan path, as it has been established, it probably is quite necessary to have a Magickal name. That's just part of faith as a whole, and I respect that.

What element do you think best represents you as a person and why? Do you feel that multiple elements represent your personality?

That's a hard one to answer because with me, it often depends on what day you ask me. Today, I've feeling very strongly connected to Fire and Air - which are two I relate to quite frequently, being the elements that represent passion and temperment (Fire) as well as mental skills and intelligence (Air). If you've read this blog much, you know that I tend to read a lot, think about stuff, get pissed off and then write. Usually a lot. Other days, though, I much more grounded and practical (which are represented in Earth) or I just go on emotions (Water).

I've seen several of those fun little quizzes that are supposed to tell you which element represents you, and I get different answers all the time. Most people would say that's an indication that you're fairly well balanced, but if I'm balanced it's only because I spend so much time running from one point to another than it averages out that way *g*.

Posted by thorswitch at 09:59 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

different strings turns one today

It's been 12 months now since I started this blog - 12 months, 1165 entries, and 35,535 visitors later and I'm still at it. This is actually rather impressive for me - aside from my personal Live Journal (which just turned 3 the other day), I usually haven't been very good about keeping blogs updated when I've tried to. Of course, the fact that there's been so much grist for the mill over the last year has helped, though given the choice, I think I'd rather have had another failed attempt at blogging than all the stuff I've had to write about.

At any rate, I just want to thank all of you who've been reading, commenting, teaching and encouraging me with this site. It means more than you know!

Just for nostalgia's sake, I thought I'd go ahead and re-post my very first entry again:

Forbidden thoughts about 9/11. From gloating about getting off work to enjoying the "country road" ambience of lower Manhattan to hating on-the-make firemen: A spectrum of improper responses to the terror attacks. [Salon Headlines]

In all the hubbub surrounding the 9/11 anniversary, it's sometimes hard to deal with not having all the required patriotic thoughts that we're expected to have.  Being human, we sometimes have thoughts that seem out of place, inappropriate or just downright wrong. But being members of a society that, in spite of all its protestations of freedom, expect conformity, we don't always know what we're supposed to DO with those thoughts.

For me, one of the most forbidden thoughts I've had has been, isn't in convenient how all this worked out - George manages to get an election that he arguably should have lost, and then gets a tragedy that allows him to start changing all our rules to mesh in with his "jokingly"-stated belief that things would just be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship and he were the dictator.

Now, I'm not accusing anyone of anything.  I don't even necssarily think (or, at least I don't necessarily WANT to think) that the government had any hand in planning this or foreknowledge of it - but at the same time the coincidence factor is pretty high, you know?

As for the near-mandetory patriotism that's grown out of the tragedy, I've found myself being quite cynical.  Waving a flag while we watch our leaders chip away at our rights and freedoms does nothing to support this country...  and all those flags seem to be keeping some people from seeing what's going on.  With it being so verbotten to question what our government wants to do (patriots always support the government, after all), its much harder to find ways of communicating appropriate concern for the treatment of potential terror suspects, plans such as the TIPS program, the holding of suspects without charges and with no judicial review of their cases and the other ways the government has stepped out of bounds.

At least once a day I see that "public service announcement" about how the terrorists thought they would change America forever - cut to a picture of a neighborhood with more flags than houses with a voice over telling us how they did.  But what have those flags really done for us?  Are we a more united country than we were before?  Well, we have waitresses accusing obviously Muslim men of being potential terrorists because she thought they were "joking" around about 9/11 (heaven forbid anyone do that!) and might have made a couple statements that could be interepreted as possibly being terroristic in nature - claims they flatly deny.  We have more hostility towards Muslims, Arabs, and those who look as if they could be Muslim or Arabic.  We have extreme anger because a man wants to return the Pledge of Allegiance to the way it was before Congress changed it in the 50's.  How dare someone think that it might be appropriate to rectify a violation of the separation of church and state?  We have people watching and listening to their neighbors with more suspicion than they used to, especially if that neighbor is a bit "odd" or "different" somehow.  The gaps between hawks and doves, liberals and conservatives, Christian and non, Republican and Democrat, and white and minorities seem to be growing daily.  Rhetoric is more contentious, and there's a sense of "either you're with us or your're against us".  So no, I don't think our sense of "patriotism" has helped unite us more than we were before 9/11.

Has it helped with supporting the economy?  The gulf between rich and poor keeps widening, and there's no sign to the end of the current recession.  Corporations are falling left and right to various accounting schemes and other forms of dishonesty.  Investors are worried, weakening the stock market, and consumers seem to be more interested in getting the most for their dollar than in buying American. 

In all honesty, I've seen very little benefit from the new patriotism. Sure, TV networks (including my beloved MSNBC) have begun their own flag waving to gain bigger audiences, and many products are being pitched with patriotic themes, but I can't say I feel any safer, any freer, any better off or any more secure than I did before 9/11, in spite of the near-constant reminders that I live in the greatest country in the world.

But I'm not supposed to say any of this, am I?

You know what's sad? Not a whole lot has really changed since I wrote that - except that I no longer consider MSNBC to be "beloved" - it's gotten to where I can barely stand to watch it. But as for the rest? Some of the forced "patriotism" had died down, and the failure thus far to find any signs of WMD have made it somewhat easier to speak out against what the government has been doing, but I still don't see this country as being more united because of our experience than we were before, I still think that the timing and situation is a bit more coincidentially convenient than I'm comfortable with, though I still don't buy much into the various conspiracy theories out there, the economy still sucks, the government is still eating away at too many of our civil rights, and I'm still pretty damn cynical about a lot of things.

But I also think I have a bit more hope now than I did a year ago - like maybe, just maybe, there's a light at the end of the tunnel. We don't know what his or her name is yet, Clark, Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, Leiberman, Edwards, Graham, Sharpton, Mosley-Braun, Gephardt or those two who insist they're not running but still manage to poll pretty well, Clinton and Gore, but it's just possible that one of them might be able to help bring us out of these dark days and get America back to being the kind of country its supposed to be, instead of the neo-con fantasyland it current seems to be.

Posted by thorswitch at 07:54 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Getting buried in the chickenshit

Posted by thorswitch at 07:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Yeah... that's the ticket....

Posted by thorswitch at 07:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Kansas AG opposes equal treatment for young homosexual and heterosexual couples

You know, between the "kids don't need to know about evolution" debacle and Fred Phelps being based here, I've had a strong desire to just pretend I don't live in Kansas anymore for quite a while. In fact, if it weren't that my husband's job is here and the fact that, since I can't get out of the house, getting out of the state would probably be a bit tricky, I'd love to move someplace a bit more reasonable, like, say, Canada. But do we really have to have our Attorney General doing his best to make sure we continue to look like backwards, uneducated hicks?

A few years back, Kansas modified their statutory rape law, making it what some call a "Romeo and Juliet" law instead. What this means is that when two people engage in consensual sex where one person is over the age of consent and one person is under the age of consent, but the age difference is less than a certain number of years (I believe it's 5, but I'm not positive), the penalties for statutory rape are significantly reduced. The logic behind it is that there will be situations where, say, and 18-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl end up having sex, where the activity was consensual and there's no need to severely punish or try to rehabilitate the older partner - kind of a "kids will be kids" thing. The more severe penalties are reserved for cases where you have an adult who has taken advantage of a kid.

The problem, however, is that in Kansas - forward thinkers that we are here - made the "Romeo and Juliet" provision apply only to heterosexual teens. So, if the hypothetical 18-year-old boy mentioned above gets nailed for, well, nailing the 14-year-old girl, he'd get about a year in prison. If you change that 14-year-old girl to a 14-year-old boy, however, and the sentence increases from 1 year to 17. And that's what happened to Matthew Limon. He got caught having sex with a 14-year-old boy and got 17 years in jail for it.

In the wake of the recent Texas sodomy decision, however, the ACLU has filed an appeal in Limon's case - which makes sense. The basic principle of the Supreme Court's decision seems to be that it's unconstitutional for the same acts to be treated differently under the law for heterosexuals and homosexuals. In that case, the problem was that homosexuals could be arrested and prosecuted for committing consensual sodomy, even in the privacy of their own homes, but heterosexuals had no such concern. They could legally sodomize each other all they wanted and the law couldn't do a thing. The Court correctly ruled that that kind of discrimination wasn't right and struck down the law.

One would think, then, that the Limon case would be a no-brainer. We're talking about a situation where the exact same behaviour between two people is subject to two different kinds of laws, depending entirely on whether the couple involved is heterosexual or homosexual. I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like the Texas precedent would be pretty much on point here, you know? Well, our 'esteemed' Attorney General doesn't seem to think so:

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline says that the state's sodomy law must be maintained to stop gay marriage, incest, and sex with children.

[...]

Kline calls the ACLU position an assault on the state's prohibition of same-sex marriage and Kansas laws against polygamy, incest, bestiality and sex between adults and children.

He said the ACLU's position was that all people, no matter their sexual orientation, were protected from discrimination. Kline said that would lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage -- as well as marriages with multiple partners, incestuous marriages and bestiality.

"The argument in the ACLU brief is a direct assault on the institution of marriage and also various criminal laws that protect children from sexual exploitation by adults," Kline told reporters Monday.

ACLU lawyer Tamara Lange called Kline's reasoning "absurd, flawed and wrong."

I think Lange calls it right, there. See, here's what I don't get: No one seems to be arguing about whether or not the law that allows horney heterosexual teens to have sex and not be sent to prison for 17 years would encourage incest, sex between adults and children, beastiality, multiple-partner marriages or other such things - only that expanding it to cover horney homosexual teens would do so.

Sorry, but I don't buy that in the least. If Kline's argument held the least bit of water, then the same arguments should have been made to prevent the law from being changed in the first place. I can see where there could be legitimate concern that loosening the restrictions on statutory rape in general could possibly have some unforeseen consequences.

The "Romeo and Juliet" law seems to assume that someone who's 18, 19 or 20 can't or won't manipulate a 14- or 15-year-old into having sex the same way an older adult could, or that if they do, it's somehow not as bad for the younger partner, but wouldn't that equally apply to both homosexual and heterosexual liaisons? It's not the orientation of the couple that's creates the potential for problems, but rather that the law makes assumptions that may or may not be true across the whole sexual-orientation spectrum.

On top of that, Kline seems to be arguing that allowing young homosexual couples the same protection that is being granted to young heterosexual couples would somehow have an impact on the state's marriage laws. Excuse me? This law has nothing to do with marriage. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't change any provisions of the current marriage laws, such as allowing younger couples to get married without parental consent or anything of that nature, so I fail to see how it could possibly have an effect on whether homosexual marriage is allowed or not. They are separate issues and separate laws. Sure, I'd love to see Kansas legalize homosexual marriage, though I'm sure not holding my breath, but I don't see any way that treating young homosexual and heterosexual couples the same under the "Romeo and Juliet" laws would take us anywhere closer to that than we are now.

All Kline's arguments manage to show is that he's a short-sighted bigot who's more than willing to let his personal prejudice affect his professional judgment. I know I'll be remembering that next time I vote, and I hope other Kansans will as well. I know I'm not the only liberal here!

Posted by thorswitch at 06:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 16, 2003

Clark to enter race tomorrow

Retired General Poised to Seek Democratic Nomination in '04

From what I've seen of Gen. Clark so far, I must say I'm impressed. He has acknowledged that he does have some learning to do in regards to domestic issues, but he has struck me as someone who has a fairly level head on his shoulders and good instincts.

I'm still not entirely sure who I would vote for at this point - I also like both Dean and Kerry, but I'm glad to hear that Clark is going to enter the race as well. I certainly like the idea of having him as one of the choices.

Posted by thorswitch at 04:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More on the Kay Report; Powell, Saddam and the 15-year gap

In an article on Colin Powell's visit to Baghdad, CBS News notes the lack of progress in finding any solid evidence that Iraq had any WMD at the time the war was started and counters the Washington Times/Sunday Time of London articles that claim that David Kay's report on the WMD search may be delayed.

Powell's visit comes amid continuing doubts over the validity of the case for war, and the way intelligence was used to justify it.

The administration has reported finding no illegal weapons so far. The CIA says two trailers discovered in northern Iraq may have been biological weapons factories, but State Department analysts disagree. The White House has withdrawn the claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.

An interim report on the search for Iraqi weapons is due soon, but there are indications the reports findings might be inconclusive.

In July, David Kay, the survey group's leader, suggested that he had seen enough evidence to convince himself that Saddam Hussein had had a program to produce weapons of mass destruction. He expected to find "strong" evidence of missile delivery systems and "probably" evidence of biological weapons.

But last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he had met with Kay, and that the onetime weapons inspector had not informed him of any finds.

The Times of London reported this weekend that the report had been postponed because of lack of evidence. But CBS News has learned there is no delay.

The article also notes that former UN weapons inspectors are saying that the "unaccounted" for weapons that apparently were part the large quantities Bush claimed in his State of the Union Address that Saddam still had may have been paperwork "glitches". I haven't been able to find the article I originally read making a similar suggestion, the gist of which was that Saddam had probably destroyed many of the weapons he did have at one point, but failed to create the proper paperwork. As a result, inspectors wouldn't be able to find those weapons, since they no longer existed, but neither could they consider them "destroyed" since they had no real proof of that. Whether this is the case or not, obviously, I can't say, but it is one of the possible explainations for our inability to find all the gallons and tons of weapons materials that Bush claimed Saddam had.

The other point the article brings out is that Powell is now claiming that Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in 1988 is sufficient justification for the war in 2003.

"If you want evidence of the existence and the use of weapons of mass destruction, come here now to Halabja today and see it," Powell said after visiting the museum. "What happened over the intervening 15 years? Did (Saddam) suddenly lose the motivation? Did he suddenly decide that such weapons would not be useful? The international community did not believe so."

Amazingly, Powell seems to have forgotten that between 1988 and 2003, America fought a war in Iraq (1991, under Bush the First and largely led by Powell himself), and made bombing runs during Clinton's regime. In addition, Saddam faced sanctions from the UN and periodic arms inspections. In other words, a lot happened during those 15 years.

Posted by thorswitch at 04:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Update

As you may have noticed, I'm not posting quite as much. I don't know if I mentioned it here yet or not (and I couldn't find it if I had, so please forgive me if this is a repeat), but one of the biggest reasons is I've rediscovered the joys of playing the guitar - something that for the first part of my life was one of my biggest passions, but which got shoved aside when I had to go forth into the "real" world, didn't have the money for lessons, didn't have enough time to practice, and had to sell most of my guitars because I wasn't making much money.

Recently, my husband discovered that he not only wanted to learn to play guitar himself, but that he'd like to go into music as a career - not the whole "rock star" dream, but possibly running a shop, giving lessons, doing studio work locally and things of that nature. Listening to him practice and seeing the joy in his eyes reminded me of how much joy I used to get from playing. So, I got a new guitar (a really sweet Epiphone Goth Les Paul) and have started practicing again. It's taking up a lot of time, but I'm much happier than I've been in a while.

At any rate, if anyone's interested in me and my musical obsessions, I've started a new blog focusing on Progressive Rock, Goth, Metal and Electronica/Ambient music that I really enjoy and talking about how my playing is coming. If I can ever get my hubby to pick up the adapter I need for my amp, I'll also be recording stuff as I go, so all you masochists can listen to me play, too. It's called "Shadowed Souls" and can be found at http://www.shadowedsouls.com. There's also a message board for discussion of you musical interests as well, available at http://www.shadowedsouls.com/chronicles. I hope you'll stop by!

Posted by thorswitch at 03:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Cheney admits he was wrong in pre-war 'Meet the Press' interview claim

Dick Cheney admited this week that he 'misspoke' when asked about Iraq's nuclear weapons on the March 16th "Meet the Press". During that interview, he said:

Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

According to the LA Times, Cheney recently appeared on "Meet the Press" again, and acknowledged that his original statement was wrong.

Questioned by host Tim Russert, Cheney acknowledged that he had been wrong to claim, as he did on "Meet the Press" before the war, that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons.

"Yeah, I did misspeak," Cheney said. "I said repeatedly during the show, 'weapons capability.' We never had any evidence that [Hussein] had acquired a nuclear weapon."

It's not much yet, but it's a start.

Posted by thorswitch at 02:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Of course, there are other reasons to still consider him mad....

Posted by thorswitch at 04:41 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

WMD Report possibly delayed

The Washington Times, generally viewed as a paper with a strong conservative bias, is reporting that according to The Sunday Times of London, David Kay's promised update on the search for WMD in Iraq is being delayed and may never be released. Interestingly, however, I've not seen much reporting about this in any other sources. Given the Washington Times' general bias, however, I tend to consider a report from them indicating that Kay's update may not support the Bush/Blair administration's claims as more likely to be accurate than I would a similar article stating that the report would support them, but I'm still a bit trepidatious about their reliability on this, and will be keeping an eye out for additional information.

Obviously, if the report is delayed and the contents withheld, it will be bigger news in London, where there are increasing calls for Tony Blair to resign over charges he misled his nation into joining Bush's war on Iraq that it likely will be here, especially considering that any report further undercutting Blair's case could put him in a position of being forced to resign.

Back in August, Reuters reported that Kay claimed "solid progress" was being made in the WMD hunt.

"We are making solid progress. And as is with most progress it is preliminary. We are not at the final stage of understanding fully Iraq's WMD program or having found WMD weapons," said David Kay, who recently returned from Iraq where he was sent as a CIA special adviser to develop a strategy for finding weapons of mass destruction

[...] Kay said Iraqi scientists who were "collaborating and cooperating" and freshly unearthed documents have led the WMD hunting team to new, previously unknown sites in Iraq. Physical evidence has been collected, but he declined to describe it.

"We are taking this apart as if it were a criminal conspiracy, which in many ways it is. So you start with taking apart the various elements of the program to get you to the end which we all want to find out -- if there were weapons and, if so, what happened to those weapons," Kay said.

Additionally, according to the UN News Wire: Kay and Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee had sounded fairly confident that they would have a "surprise to report", and at the time, it was expected that the "surprise" would be revealed in September.

Conservative columnist Robert Novak recently indicated that Kay's upcoming report will aim to take the heat off the administration: "Former international weapons inspector David Kay... has privately reported successes that are planned to be revealed to the public in mid-September."

The UN Wire article did note that Kay did, however, caveat the possible announcement of a surprise.

Kay cautioned, though, that no significant find will be made public unless three criteria are met: multiple Iraqis providing information about the find, multiple documents explaining it and physical evidence showing a connection to weapons of mass destruction activities.

A week ago, Thomas Paine.com did an overview on David Kay and his career, and concluded that he sounded like "the perfect 'yes' man" for the administration to serve as the special advisor for the weapons hunt, and indicated that Kay has what appear to be some conflicts of interest and a possible pre-disposition to finding evidence of WMDs.

"Kay's experience and background make him the ideal person for this new role," Tenet said when he announced the appointment. "His understanding of the history of the Iraqi programs and knowledge of past Iraqi efforts to hide WMD will be of inestimable help in determining the current status of Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons."

Kay's no stranger to the CIA. In fact, he was fired from his position as deputy director of UNSCOM's Iraq Action Team in the early 1990s because of his contacts with the U.S. intelligence community, according to Gordon Prather, the army's chief scientist during the Reagan years.

[...] Kay is also involved with one of the nation's major defense contractors, serving as a senior vice president for the San Diego-based Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), which received about two-thirds of its $6 billion revenue last year from the U.S. Treasury, according to a report by Katrin Dauenhauer and Jim Lobe in Asia Times.

Aside from homeland security projects, SAIC has already won several reconstruction contracts in Iraq, and Kay along with other former company employees are firmly planted in country. The company has headed up the Iraqi Reconstruction and Development Council (IRDC) since the Pentagon established the body was in February, according to the Asia Times report, and also runs the recently established Iraqi Media Network (IMN) project, charged with building a new information ministry, complete with television, radio and a newspaper. SAIC is also a subcontractor under Vinnell Corporation, which has been training the Saudi National Guard for a long time, and is now responsible for pulling together and training a new Iraqi army.

So David Kay has some personal interest in keeping up U.S. appearances in Iraq, including the image that we invaded the country for legitimate reasons. That and his die-hard loyalty to the Bush administration means he'll be spinning the upcoming report as hard and as positively as he can.

If this is an accurate analysis of Kay's potential outlook on the project, a report from him showing that there is little to support the Bush/Blair contentions could be that much more devastating. It would, at the very least, make it harder for conservatives to dismiss the report as suffering from a liberal bias or desire to make Bush look bad.

Still, all of this is at least somewhat speculatory unless the report is actually released to the public, but it'll be interesting to watch and see what other information comes out about it.

Posted by thorswitch at 02:16 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 14, 2003

Oh, if only....

Posted by thorswitch at 12:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sad thing is, he probably doesn't think he should, either...

Posted by thorswitch at 12:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The 'Flypaper' Blasphemy

Tom Tomorrow heartbreakingly points out yet aother reason why the "Flypaper theory" is not only crap, but downright evil. To quote:

"anyone capable of referring casually to these people as "flypaper" is a walking moral abyss."

If you're not familiar with the "Flypaper theory", its one of the big things making its way around the conservative blogs, and at it's most basic is the idea that is by having our troops in Iraq we give terrorists a target that isn't the US or Israel.

I've mentioned a few times (ok, often) that I think the theory is bullshit because (1) there's no finite number of terrorists that we can either keep busy or kill so that there'll never be any terrorists who can come over to the US or (theoretically) go to Isreal and cause us any trouble, and (2) there's absolutely no moral justification for deciding that the Iraqi civilians, who are injured or killed in the terrorist attacks now happening within their country, are somehow more expendable than people of any other nationality. Mind you, I don't like seeing Americans or Israelis die, and I have no desire whatsoever to see another terrorist attack on our soil. That said, however, I cannot accept the idea that it's better to encourage terrorists kill Iraqis or people of any other nationality, either. It's not an equation that we can justifiably make.

Posted by thorswitch at 12:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 13, 2003

Making the sacred sacreligious

Ellen Goodman has a particularly poignant piece on how 9/11 has become the "catch-all" excuse for everything.

Sunday night we saw a sober president admitting that the scenario of swift victory in Iraq was far too rosy. This was no flight deck photo op. The "Mission Accomplished" speech of May has become the "Mission Prolonged" speech of September -- with an $87 billion price tag.

But repeatedly, deliberately, the president connected the dots between Sept. 11 and the war in Iraq. Since "those deadly attacks on our country," he said, "we have carried the fight to the enemy." "For America," he said, "there will be no going back to the era before Sept. 11 -- to false comfort in a dangerous world." And finally, he told Americans that we are fighting the enemy today, "so that we do not meet him again on our own streets in our own cities."

The trouble is that the dots he connected are cartoon bubbles drawn by the White House and its speechmakers.

Nevertheless, Americans have followed them. A Washington Post poll recently showed that 69 percent of Americans still believe it's likely or very likely Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11.

[...] When does the small, repeated exploitation of this belief become the big lie? What do we make of a patriotism of fear?

In my Cold War childhood, "godless communism" was the unifying all-purpose enemy that justified everything from an overkill arsenal of nuclear weapons to a host of unsavory allies. Sept. 11 not only ended the end of the Cold War, it ushered in a new all-purpose enemy: terrorism.

So this is how we commemorate Sept. 11, 2001, two years later. The preemptive, preventive war with Iraq has not made us safer. North Korea and Iran lurk in the nuclear imagination. Patriotism is calibrated by a willingness to follow the dots of propaganda.

On the calendar a sacred space has become a sacrilege. The White House has sent Sept. 11 spinning.

Ann Coulter, who I have never had any respect for, and whom I wish all newspapers, talk shows, radio programs and other media would consign to the deepest darkest recesses of anonymity where she rightly belongs, provides an extraordinary example of just this kind of heinous abuse of the memory of 9/11 in her column this week:

In the wake of Dean's success, the entire Democratic Dream Team is beginning to sound like Dr. Demento. On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9-11, but Halliburton did.

No, Ann, the Democratic Party - and everyone who's actually been paying attention - holds the position that Saddam Hussein did not hit un on 9-11, but Osama bin Laden did. The reason why we old this position? It's because Saddam Hussein did not his us on 9-11. No matter how many times the Bush administration and conservative pundits try to imply otherwise (despite the fact that Bush himself admitted in January of this year that he could not make the claim that there was a direct link between Saddam Hussein and "the men who attacked on September the 11th"), there simply is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks at all.

Yet here Coulter states it as if it's a known fact that Saddam was behind the attacks, and proceeds to use this lie to try and smear the Democrats. Her goal, obviously, is to paint the Democrats as insensitive to the need to get "revenge" on Saddam for the 9/11 attack - something he had nothing to do with - but in doing so, she uses the memory of the people killed that day - and the emotional reaction most Americans (understandably) have when reminded of that day.

It frightens me that nearly 70% of Americans surveyed believe Saddam Hussein was involved, especially when the President's admission that he can't claim there is a direct link is availabe right on the official White House website in a transcript of the press conference, along with Prime Ministers Blair's confirmation of this fact.

There's no excuse for this level of ignorance, and even less for propogating the lie. Those who continue to spread it - whether through implication or direct statements - should be shamed and then ignored. Trying to tie the memory of that dark day to Saddam Hussein as a means of justifying a war that the neo-cons now in charge have been pushing for over the better part of the last decade (if not longer) is a disgrace, and desecrates the memories of all those who died that day.

Posted by thorswitch at 05:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Ahem

Posted by thorswitch at 05:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'Spooks' and real life

Lately, I've gotten hooked on the British show "Spooks", being shown on A&E as "MI-5". It's your basic spy stuff, all ponced up and glamourous, but quite engaging.

What I found tonight, though, is what I find the most interesting. At the BBC "Spooks" website, they have a "Political Guide" for each individual episode, looking at some of the issues being raised and whether some of the scenarios they've shown in the episode are realistic or not.

It's not the most comprehensive way to learn about world events, but it's certainly a good way to start, and I'm glad to see that they're using what is apparently a popular show to try and help educate viewers who check out the site.

Posted by thorswitch at 03:51 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 12, 2003

Johnny Cash

I have to admit, I'm not someone who ever listed to a lot of Johnny Cash. But I've always known that he is one of the big reasons I have the music I love to listen to so much. He always forged his own path with little regard to what was expected or popular, and blazed many trails that have remained for others to follow. When I first heard that he was doing a remake of Nine Inch Nails "Hurt", I could hardly stop laughing. The idea to me seemed preposterous - and if it had been anyone but Cash, I would have assumed that it was something being done by a desparet old man hoping for a little fresh glory in a fading career. But Cash was never the kind of person who would do that, and so even though it sounded hilarious, I wanted very much to hear it, and was quite impressed when I finally did.

One thing I've really appreciated today is the outpouring of kind words and high praise from many of today's artists.

Cash garnered acclaim most recently from a new generation of music fans thanks to his cover of Nine Inch Nails' "Hurt," which appears on his latest album, American IV: The Man Comes Around.

"To hear that Johnny was interested in doing my song was a defining moment in my life's work," said NIN's Trent Reznor. "To hear the result really reminded me how beautiful, touching and powerful music can be. The world has truly lost one of the greats. My heart goes out to his family and friends."

The Nine Inch Nails Web site, www.nin.com, was all black on Friday in tribute.

"Hurt" was the latest cover converted into a hit in the American series. With producer Rick Rubin at the helm, the Man in Black basked in a new wave of cool when American Recordings, the first LP in the series, dropped in 1994.

"He's an outsider, never been part of a trend," said Rubin, who also noted that he wasn't a country fan but a Johnny Cash fan. "A rock star is a musical outlaw and that's Johnny."

Audioslave's Chris Cornell agreed with Reznor that being covered by Cash is a great compliment. "Rusty Cage," by his former band Soundgarden, was remade for Cash's 1996 album, Unchained.

"The highlight of my musical career," Cornell called it. "When [Johnny] sings a song, you listen to what he has to say. And he draws from his own experience to make that song believable and get people to understand it."

While I may not always have liked the music he did - I'm just not a bit fan of country music in general - I have a great deal of respect for the skill he demonstrated in his performances, and am grateful for the mark he's left behind.

Posted by thorswitch at 03:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

self evident by Ani DiFranco

I've never heard this before, but a friend of mine posted it to her LiveJournal yesterday, and it moved me a great deal. One of the most devastating things I've read in a while...

yes, us people are just poems we're 90% metaphor with a leanness of meaning approaching hyper-distillation and once upon a time we were moonshine rushing down the throat of a giraffe yes, rushing down the long hallway despite what the p.a. announcement says yes, rushing down the long stairs with the whiskey of eternity fermented and distilled to eighteen minutes burning down our throats down the hall down the stairs in a building so tall that it will always be there yes, it's part of a pair there on the bow of noah's ark the most prestigious couple just kickin back parked against a perfectly blue sky on a morning beatific in its indian summer breeze on the day that america fell to its knees after strutting around for a century without saying thank you or please

and the shock was subsonic
and the smoke was deafening
between the setup and the punch line
cuz we were all on time for work that day
we all boarded that plane for to fly
and then while the fires were raging
we all climbed up on the windowsill
and then we all held hands
and jumped into the sky

and every borough looked up when it heard the first blast
and then every dumb action movie was summarily surpassed
and the exodus uptown by foot and motorcar
looked more like war than anything i've seen so far
so far
so far
so fierce and ingenious
a poetic specter so far gone
that every jackass newscaster was struck dumb and stumbling
over 'oh my god' and 'this is unbelievable' and on and on
and i'll tell you what, while we're at it
you can keep the pentagon
keep the propaganda
keep each and every tv
that's been trying to convince me
to participate
in some prep school punk's plan to perpetuate retribution
perpetuate retribution
even as the blue toxic smoke of our lesson in retribution
is still hanging in the air
and there's ash on our shoes
and there's ash in our hair
and there's a fine silt on every mantle
from hell's kitchen to brooklyn
and the streets are full of stories
sudden twists and near misses
and soon every open bar is crammed to the rafters
with tales of narrowly averted disasters
and the whiskey is flowin
like never before
as all over the country
folks just shake their heads
and pour

so here's a toast to all the folks who live in palestine
afghanistan
iraq

el salvador

here's a toast to the folks living on the pine ridge reservation
under the stone cold gaze of mt. rushmore

here's a toast to all those nurses and doctors
who daily provide women with a choice
who stand down a threat the size of oklahoma city
just to listen to a young woman's voice

here's a toast to all the folks on death row right now
awaiting the executioner's guillotine
who are shackled there with dread and can only escape into their heads
to find peace in the form of a dream

cuz take away our playstations
and we are a third world nation
under the thumb of some blue blood royal son
who stole the oval office and that phony election
i mean
it don't take a weatherman
to look around and see the weather
jeb said he'd deliver florida, folks
and boy did he ever

and we hold these truths to be self evident:
#1 george w. bush is not president
#2 america is not a true democracy
#3 the media is not fooling me
cuz i am a poem heeding hyper-distillation
i've got no room for a lie so verbose
i'm looking out over my whole human family
and i'm raising my glass in a toast

here's to our last drink of fossil fuels
let us vow to get off of this sauce
shoo away the swarms of commuter planes
and find that train ticket we lost
cuz once upon a time the line followed the river
and peeked into all the backyards
and the laundry was waving
the graffiti was teasing us
from brick walls and bridges
we were rolling over ridges
through valleys
under stars
i dream of touring like duke ellington
in my own railroad car
i dream of waiting on the tall blonde wooden benches
in a grand station aglow with grace
and then standing out on the platform
and feeling the air on my face

give back the night its distant whistle
give the darkness back its soul
give the big oil companies the finger finally
and relearn how to rock-n-roll
yes, the lessons are all around us and a change is waiting there
so it's time to pick through the rubble, clean the streets
and clear the air
get our government to pull its big dick out of the sand
of someone else's desert
put it back in its pants
and quit the hypocritical chants of
freedom forever

cuz when one lone phone rang
in two thousand and one
at ten after nine
on nine one one
which is the number we all called
when that lone phone rang right off the wall
right off our desk and down the long hall
down the long stairs
in a building so tall
that the whole world turned
just to watch it fall

and while we're at it
remember the first time around?
the bomb?
the ryder truck?
the parking garage?
the princess that didn't even feel the pea?
remember joking around in our apartment on avenue D?

can you imagine how many paper coffee cups would have to change their design
following a fantastical reversal of the new york skyline?!

it was a joke, of course
it was a joke
at the time
and that was just a few years ago
so let the record show
that the FBI was all over that case
that the plot was obvious and in everybody's face
and scoping that scene
religiously
the CIA
or is it KGB?
committing countless crimes against humanity
with this kind of eventuality
as its excuse
for abuse after expensive abuse
and it didn't have a clue
look, another window to see through
way up here
on the 104th floor
look
another key
another door
10% literal
90% metaphor
3000 some poems disguised as people
on an almost too perfect day
should be more than pawns
in some asshole's passion play
so now it's your job
and it's my job
to make it that way
to make sure they didn't die in vain
sshhhhhh....
baby listen
hear the train?

                     -- by Ani Difranco

Posted by thorswitch at 09:14 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

now THERE's an idea...

Posted by thorswitch at 09:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

My original comments on 9/11 as it happened

When the attacks first happened in 2001, I was keeping a personal journal at livejournal. Below are the posts I made that day watching the events unfold. There's a reference in there to a game called "Majestic" - it was a virtual online game that played out in "real time" - with you getting messages and faxes and such from the game with clues as you unraveled a fictitious government conspiracy. After 9/11, I couldn't play the game anymore at all, but it had some interesting effects on my initial thoughts about the events.

12:16p - Today I've only been awake about an hour now... Matt (knowing me to be a news junkie, and given the enormity of todays news) woke me up to tell me what was going on.. I knew he'd never joke about something this big, yet somehow I expected to turn on the TV and find out that it was something other than what he had said.

All I can do at this point it do whatever I can to keep my mind focused - part of me wants to fall apart in hysterical tears and fear, part of me wants to exact revenge. The best I can do, though, is call upon Thor, Tyr and Odin to help us to find the nithings who did this and to subject them to the full measure of Justice (with a big J) that they deserve.

At the same time, I can tell that Majestic has been getting to me - I know that Bush has been wanting to spend more on defense and I can't help but wonder (thought not actually think that it is at all possible) if some of this was "allowed" to happen as a justification for greater defense spending. No, I do not actually think he or any other American politician would be that callous, but for some reason, the question is still there.

My Hammer is close at hand, and I am finding some measure of comfort from the energies it contains. Knowing that we, the ordinary people of the world, have a defender in Thor is also comforting... sometimes horrors must happen, and I can't pretend to understand, or even have an inkling of comprehension, of why, but I have faith in our Defender, and it is in that from which I am finding the most comfort right now.

current mood: scared, shocked, numb
current music: MSNBC - and appreciating Brian Williams a great deal...

6:11p - More thoughts as the day goes on
These are some messages I posted in reply to comments on my mailing lists. I want to keep them to remember them again later.

I keep hearing the speculation that what has happened was due to Osama Bin Laden - which is admittedly quite likely - but I also remember all of the assumptions right after OKC that it was an Arab terrorist plot, and we know how that turned out. I honestly don't know what I think would be worse - a foreign attack or domestic. The enormity is just too much to grasp right now.

I'm glad that the networks are sharing/pooling resources rather than trying to make this a competitive event - its a small thing, but reassuring in a way. I know we'll be hearing many stories of tragedy and heroism - they were just commenting that there is speculation that the plane that crashed in PA may have been on its way to DC and the Capitol building or White House, and that the pilot may have downed it deliberately to prevent that. Given what else has happened, especially the Pentagon building, I wouldn't be surprised. If that is the case, that pilot may be one of the greatest heroes we've had
in this country - being able to keep enough control to down the plane like that rather than let the presumptive terrorists take it where they wanted may have saved a lot more than just the lives of the people in the eventual target - had it been going to the Capitol building, the impact would be almost incalculable, just because of the toll on our current House and Senate memberships.

Kriselda

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

===== QUOTE =====
> Hoping everyone out there is okay too. I didn't vote for Bush and was
> pissed when he won, but I'll tel you I'm glad it's him dealing with this
> and not Gore. There's a reason for the saying: "Don't mess with Texas."
===== QUOTE =====

I have to admit I'm torn on that point... while you're right about the "don't mess with Texas" attitude (which could be very helpful), I'm also a
bit worried that the way Bush reacts to this could make things worse - especially given how many countries he's been pissing off with his military/defense proposals and plans thus far... as much as we need to be tough right now, part of me wishes we had someone with a bit more
sensitivity in office right now. But at the same time, Bush hasn't shown us how he's going to handle this yet - he hasn't had time to - and I'm not going to pass judgment until there's a lot more info in. I will ask Thor, Odin & Tyr to guide him and give him their blessings, that he may lead us and serve the interest of Justice, Courage, and Honour.

Kriselda

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

===== QUOTE =====
> I've just been thinking about this and whoever is responsible has just
> crippled the defence offices and the financial district.. Is anyone else
> reading too much into this, or is it just my overactive imagination?
===== QUOTE =====

Keep in mind that for the last several weeks I've been playing a paranoid-conspiracy game that is handled in "real-time" and is exceptionally interactive (I get phone calls, faxes and IM's from the game, and it's designed to play out like a virtual reality), so my mind is sort of working
along those tracks, but no, I don't really think you're reading too much into it. I also have a feeling that there may well be something to the
speculation that the 4th plane - the one that went down in PA - may have actually been en route to Washington DC to target something like the Capitol or White House (part of the speculation is based on the fact that it was the largest of the 4 hijacked aircraft and therefore they think it may have been headed for a very large target), but that the pilot was able to retain enough control to ditch the plane before the terrorists could take over. *IF* that is the case (and, admittedly, it is *pure* speculation at this point), they could also have taken out the heart of the government - especially if they were targeting the Capitol. This was very much a strike intended to cripple a great deal of our domestic infrastructure -
financially and politically.

Kriselda

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

===== QUOTE =====
> They say it was Palestinians and that there are parties in the streets in
> Palestinian areas - is this true?
===== QUOTE =====

We have no evidence at this point as to who may be behind this. The primary assumption is that it is Osama bin Lauden, but we should keep in mind that after the Oklahoma City, we made the assumption that it was Arab terrorists initially, and then learned it was actually one of our own. In Palestinian areas, however, apparently, the citizens are assuming that it was an Arab terrorist, and, yes, they are celebrating. Bin Lauden had made threats in recent weeks that he was planning something very big, in retaliation for our support of Israel. Officially, however, Yassir Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, has denounced the attacks. So, the
Palestinian response is split between the leadership and the civilians.

Kriselda

This was one of the more interesting comments I posted, though, just 2 days after the event. I had commented in a post about Bob Barr trying to get the ban on state-sponsored assassination repealed, and one of my visitors was question what I wanted us to do if I didn't think we should go to war and opposed state-sponsored assassinations. This was my response:

If we can put together credible, hard evidence that bin Laden is behind this (and I believe we're close to doing that already), and given that we know the Taliban has been sheltering him (which in my mind is no different than saying they approve of what he does), then I have NO problem with our going to war. I view war as a very different thing than an assassination. If, during the course of the war, bin Laden is killed, then that's what happens. What I don't want to see happen is for us, on shaky or insufficient evidence, make a decision that we are going to kill bin Laden and then send in an assassin to "take him out" - such as what the CIA tried with Castro in the 60's.

My preference would be to see bin Laden captured, brought to trial and sentenced as the jury deems appropriate (and that it would be a death sentence, I have little doubt). I will support a war effort if we have the kind of evidence necessary to justify such an action (and I will accept the judgement of the international community in that - if NATO supports a war effort based on what evidence we have, then I consider that sufficient). I just don't want us to go skulking around in the dark, sneaking up on him and trying to kill him in secret.

At the time, I was more concerned about us using shaky evidence in going after bin Laden, but it was a bit surprising that even back then I was worried about us acting without solid evidence or the backing of the international community.

Something else I was realizing today. How often do we hear people accusing those of us who oppose the war in Iraq of supporting terrorism or hating the US? Yet I don't recall there being much of an outcry against the Afghani war - and I know that I, for one, was ok with what we did when we went in (though I am decidedly NOT ok with how we've handled things since the Taliban fell). The difference, of course, is that there was evidence of the Taliban supporting al Qaeda and helping hide Osama bin Laden, and taking the Taliban out made reasonable sense as part of an effort to weaken al Qaeda and bringing bin Laden to justice - though we've blown the opportunities we did have in the immediate aftermath of the war.

See, it's not just the concept of a war that so many are opposed to - or that we think we shouldn't go after anyone because we somehow think the US deserved this. Its the fact that the war in Iraq makes no sense in terms of reacting to 9/11 or in trying to deal with terrorism in general. As I said in 2001, I can support a war if there is sufficient evidence that we are going after someone who is a legitimate target in trying to bring those who attacked us to justice. But I won't support one where the evidence is weak or, worse, virtually non-existant, and which is neither just nor likely to do anything to contain the problem of terrorism in any real way.

Posted by thorswitch at 02:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 11, 2003

Peaceable Kingdom

A wave toward the clearing sky

All this time we're talking and sharing our rational view
A billion other voices are spreading other news
All this time we're living and trying to understand
Why a billion other choices are making their demands

Talk of a peaceable kingdom
Talk of a time without fear
The ones we wish would listen
Are never going to hear

Justice against the hanged man
Knight of Wands against the hour
Swords against the kingdom
Time against the tower

All this time we're shuffling and laying out all our cards
While a billion other dealers are slipping past our guards
All this time we're hoping and praying we all might learn
While a billion other teachers are teaching them how to burn

Dream of a peaceable kingdom
Dream of a time without war
The ones we wish would hear us
Have heard it all before

A wave toward the clearing sky
A wave toward the clearing sky

The hermit against the lovers
Or the devil against the fool
Swords against the kingdom
The wheel against the rules

All this time we're burning like bonfires in the dark
A billion other blazes are shooting off their sparks
Every spark a drifting ember of desire
To fall upon the earth and spark another fire

A homeward angel on the fly
A wave toward the clearing sky

           - Neil Peart, Rush (from the Vapor Trails album)

Posted by thorswitch at 07:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

In memory

A Nid Raised on the Terrorists Involved in the Horrors of September 11, 2001

I originally posted this nid the day after the attacks, and reposted it against last year. I will continue posting it each year on at least one of my sites until all of those who were responsible for the attacks and the deaths and destruction they caused have all been handed a full measure of Tyr's Justice for their dishonourable acts.

Part of my opposition to the war in Iraq has long been that there is no evidence at all that Saddam Hussein had anything at all to do with the 9/11 attacks. When we struck at the Taliban in Afghanistan, I supported that action because they Taliban was helping and sheltering Osama bin Laden and member of al-Qaeda. I do not, in any way, like how we've handled the situation since the Taliban fell - we've failed to provide the kind of funding necessary to actually rebuild Afghanistan, and there have been reports recently that not only is the Taliban in the process of reforming and getting ready to try and take control again in many parts of Afghanistan, but also that we may be in negotiations with them for their cooperation in running things there.

If we have any hope of ever making progress in the War or Terror™ then we must go about it in a much more intelligent way than we have been. If Saddam ever did have weapons of mass destruction - something I have yet to be convinced is true - we failed to protect the locations where we thought they'd be, and have no idea where they are now. They could easily be in the hands of the very people we were told we had to keep Saddam from giving them to (and if he never did have them, then we've wasted time, money and lives going after a target that was not an imminent threat to us.) Our actions are serving to do little but create more terrorists, and this nutball "flypaper" theory is doomed to failure as we can never attract all of the terrorists to one area so we can fight them there since there is a virtually limitless pool of new terrorists being created every day.

In addition, everytime the President or another administration official talks about how, by attracting "all" the terrorists to Iraq so we can kill them there and not have to fight them here, I have to wonder how they justify the idea that it's ok to put all the Iraqi people who may be caught in the acts of terrorism taking place now in their country in harms way just to save Americans. Do not misunderstand me - I do NOT want to see Americans killed or hurt - but I have to ask, what makes innocent American lives worth more than innocent Iraqi lives?

It is important to understand that the Nidstang does NOT stand against those who may have unknowingly aided in the training the terrorists obtained, such as those who worked at private and jet pilot training schools who were unaware of the terrorists goals and had no reason to be suspicious - they are, in their own way, victims of these criminals as well.

I also want to make it clear that this Nid is NOT intended to be placed against anyone on the basis or their race or religion alone. There are many, many, many in the Arab world and among the millions of Muslims around the world, who are every bit as shocked, saddened, sickened, angered and befuddled by these kind of actions as those of us in the US are, and who are hurting right now, not only for the obvious victims of these acts, but also for the name and honour of their people as a whole. Whether it is Osama bin Laden or someone else who is behind these atrocities, we need to remember that the reason "ordinary" citizens were targeted is that those who do these kinds of things believe that ALL Americans are "valid" targets, by virtue of our nationality alone - regardless of what our own personal beliefs may be. If we, in turn, take out our anger on Arabs and Muslims in general, rather than only taking it out on those who have earned the brunt of our wrath, we then act no differently than they have - and in doing so, we let them win.

"In the viking age the most spectacular way of cursing an enemy was by the Niding Pole (the Nithstong or Scorn-Post). They were poles about nine feet (2.75 metres) long upon which insults and curses were carved in runes. Ceremonies were performed to activate the destructive magic of the pole. A horse's skull was fixed to the top of the pole, and it was stuck into the ground with the skull facing towards the house of the accursed person. The pole channelled the destructive forces of Hela, goddess of death. These forces were carried up the pole and projected through the horse skull. The runes carved on the pole defined the character and target of the destructive forces. Among others, triple Thorn [Thurisaz] runes, 'the three Thurses], and triple Is [Isa] runes, were used to smite the enemy. when used maliciously, these had the effect of disempowering the accursed's will and delivering him or her to the forces of destruction. Here, the Thorn rune invokes the power of Thurs, the demonic earth-giant sometimes called Moldthurs. An example of this comes from Skírnismál, where the spell used by Skirnir against Frey's reluctant lover, Gerdhr invokes harm using the Thorn rune. This provides the power for three other runestaves: 'I shall inscribe Thurs for you, and three runestaves: lewdness, and rage and impotence.

Magically, the Niding Pole was intended to disrupt and anger the earth sprites (Landvaettir, Land-Wights or earth spirits) inhabiting the ground where the accursed's house was. These sprites would then vent their anger upon the person, whose livelihood and life would be destroyed. Niding Poles were also used to desecrate areas of ground. This technique is called álfreka, literally the 'driving away of the elves', by which the earth sprites of a place were banished, leaving the ground spiritually dead...

On the Niding Pole, the horse skull invokes the horse rune Ehwaz, using the linking and transmissive power of the rune for the magical working. The horse is sacred to Odin, god of runes and magic..."

Excerpt from Rune Magic: The History and Practice of Ancient Runic Traditions,
by Nigel Pennick. Harper Collins, 1993, ISBN=1855381052.

To put a "nid" on someone was a form of verbal curse, a magic ritual that was considered very powerful during the Viking age, and before that. The power of words was not taken lightly by these efficient warriors, so a curse of this kind was something very serious to send, not to speak of having a "nid" spoken over oneself.

In the Saga of Egil Skallagrimsson(an Icelandic/Norwegian story from the 10th century) a dispute is told about Egil and the King Eirik Blodyx ("Bloody axe"), who treated Egil wrongly, and also made him an outlaw. This turned out to become a rather bloody situation, with many dead on both sides.

When Egil has slain a large number of King Eiriks subjects and allies on the island of Herdla (outside Iceland), in anger he placed a hazelwood pole on the top of this island, and on the top of the pole he places a cut off horse's head, aimed towards land. On the pole he carves sacred runes, with a curse upon King Eirik. He also speaks this curse, this "nid":

"Here I place this "nidstang"("curse-pole"), and turneth it against King Eirik and Queen Gunnhild - turneth I this against all the gnomes and little people of the land, that they may all be lost, not finding their homes, until they drive King Eirik and Queen Gunnhild out of the country."

According to the legend, the curse soon had it's effect, and King Eirik and his Queen Gunnhild fled to the British Isles.

The Nid

Upon those who seek to strike
Under the cover of secrecy
Who will not show their faces
Or admit that they take these actions

Upon those who kill the innocent
Who consider "ordinary" citizens
Who do not make the decisions of the leaders
Who may or may not support those policies
Who may or may not even understand what those policies are
To be "valid targets" of their hatred and anger

Upon those who would trick other people
Into teaching them the skills they need to kill
Who take advantage of the willingness of strangers
To provide services that may not be available in other nations

Upon those who believe that to cut off the "head of the snake"
To strike at the heart of our symbols
To try and kill our leaders
To destabilize our economy
To break the spirit of our nation

Upon those who give knowing shelter and aid
Who protect these creatures of cowardice
And refuses to allow them to face the consequences of their action

Most specifically
Upon those who knowingly planned
Participated in
Sheltered
Or otherwise, with knowledge and intent,
Assisted those who brought about the decimation
of September 11, 2001, in the United States of America

I call upon these nithings the full wrath of Thor
The Protector and Defender of the common man
I call the fullest measure of the Justice of Tyr
Who allowed himself to be maimed in an act of courage and honour
In order to save the order of the Gods
I call the fullest judgment of Odin
The Allfather, the God of War
Who leads the Gods in the battles against the Jotuns
Including these Jotuns of hate
I call the dominion of Hella
Who keeps all nithings within the horrors of Nifelheim

May those who meet the criteria of this Nid
Never known the comfort and succor of their own God
Only the might, the wrath, the Justice and the punishment of mine

- Kriselda Jarnsaxa
September 12, 2001

Posted by thorswitch at 06:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Witches' Weekly

I forgot last weeks "Witches' Weekly", so you're going to get a double dose here :)

Questions for this week:

1. Do you think paganism will ever be nationally accepted?
   
   Yes, but not for a long time. Sadly, there's a lot of misinformation that has to be corrected, and we are fighting the tide of a revival of fundamentalist Christianity, which has a vested interest in seeing that Paganism never is accepted. But Paganism has been growing steadily for several years now, and its starting to become more widely recongized in popular culture, so there is hope.



2. What was your most successful work of magic?
   
   I don't do a lot of magick, but I have done a few things. Probably the most "successful" (though part of me still tends to chalk it up to coincidence) was when I did a prosperity spell with the intent of getting an answer back on my disability application. Four days later I got it - I was accepted on my first application, no need for appeals or anything else, and they had apparently decided I'd been disabled longer than *I* thought I had been, as they also awarded me several more months back-pay than I had though I would be eligible for. I called them at least 5 times to verify that it really was corect and make sure that I didn't need to send any of it back.
   
   The other one I've always considered a surprising "success" (though, again, I'm open to the possibility of coincidence being involved - though I have to admit, get enough coincidences going and after it bit it seems like it may be something else) was when we had a neighbor that lived behind us who was a cantankerous, miserable, vile bastard. Even though he had two dogs himself that he left out at all hours and let bark at whatever times they felt like it, if our dogs so much as barked once or twice (individual barks - not barking sets), in the middle of a sunny afternoon while he was out in his yard, he's start yelling obscenities and, on more than a few occasions, threatening to harm them if we didn't get them back inside. After one particularly nasty threat, I did a spell to protect our dogs, figuring it couldn't hurt anything. We'd filed a report of the threats with the local police, but there really wasn't anything they could do unless he actually tried to hurt the dogs, and I didn't want to wait for that. Within a few days, we learned that his house was up for sale. Within a month, he had moved elsewhere, and our new neighbors are absolutely delightful. The dogs, of course, are fine.



3. What do you imagine your Lord and Lady (or deities that you worship) to look like. Do you have a physical description?
   
   Big, rather hairy, lots of long red hair, big red beard, very big, dressed like a Viking, carries a big hammer, had a big chariot pulled by his goats. Basically, what most people would imagine Thor to look like. Did I mention he's big?

Questions for last week:

1. What is your favorite herb, it's use, and why?
   
   I don't really have "a" favourite one. I have some difficulty with strong fragrances, so using a lot of herbs doesn't work well for me, sadly.



2. What was the first herbal concoction that you ever made?
   
   The first, and still the best - Lavander oil, Rosemary oil and Eucalyptus oil - mixed in equal parts. It does a wonderful job of relaxing muscles and has been known to help relieve some of my bad tension and migraine headaches. It's not a miracle cure, but it smells better than Ben Gay and isn't nearly as scary to use as some of the drugs I've had suggested to me.



3. What is your favorite flowery/herbal scent? (I.E. Roses, Patchouli)
   
   Again, my sensitivity to fragerances can be a problem, but if I can find a light enough oil, or am able to mix the herb oil with a fair amount of carrier (like sweet almond oil, which dilutes it), I can enjoy jasmine and roses sometimes.

Posted by thorswitch at 01:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 10, 2003

Berkeley Breathed's Back!

From Jan at Secular Blasphemy we learn that starting November 23, The Washington Post (and Washington Post Writers Group) will be publishing a new, Sunday-only comic named Opus by Pulitzer Prize-winning Bloom County cartoonist Berkeley Breathed. I can hardly wait!

As you've probably noticed, I've been reading old Bloom County strips and have posted a few that are, sadly, still relevent all these years later. It will be wonderful to have his voice available again to speak on current matters.

Posted by thorswitch at 10:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

HR 2239 - Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003

I had recently written to my US Representative, Dennis Moore (D-KS) to express my concern over the possible shortcomings - including susceptibility to fraud and other tampering - that some of the new computerized voting machines posses. He responded with information on a bill now in the House Committee on Administration, called the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003.

He decribes the Act as follows:

...the bill would

1. require all voting systems to produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits and recounts;


2. ban the use of undisclosed software and wireless communications devices in voting systems;


3. require all voting systems to meet these requirements in time for the general election in November 2004;


4. requires that electronic voting systems be provided for persons with disabilities by January 1, 2006; and


5. require mandatory surprise recounts in 0.5% of domestic jurisdictions and 0.5% of overseas jurisdictions

These are excellent provisions that are a minimum of what needs to be done.

Please write your congressmen and women to support HR 2239 and ask that the do whatever they can to help get it out of committee and onto the floor for passage. If you're not sure who your Representative is or how to contact them, just plug your zip code into the nifty little "Contact Congress" box over on the sidebar that ate Cincinnatti (just click the link - its faster than scrolling *g*) and let them know what you think!

9/11/03 6:00pm - Update from Yuda posted to the comments section at Skeptical Notion:

I have it on good authority that this bill won't make it out of the Committee on House Administration. At present, they have not scheduled a hearing on it.

Comittee Members:

-Republican Members

Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-OH) Chairman
Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)
Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL)
Rep. John Linder (R-GA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-NY)


Democratic Members

Rep. John B. Larson (D-CT) Ranking Member
Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA)
Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA)


So these are the guys to hammer about it, first. 6-3 is a tough ratio to overcome.

Posted by thorswitch at 04:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bush Bedtime Stories



Posted by thorswitch at 08:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Redefining Treason



Posted by thorswitch at 08:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Career skill analysis



Posted by thorswitch at 08:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 09, 2003

I'll bet some conservatives would like use this logic on liberals - and vice versa



Posted by thorswitch at 05:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The more things change the more they stay the same




What year is it again?

Posted by thorswitch at 05:27 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

A criticism of the Meacher article

David Aaronovitch has an article in today's Guardian that raises a number of questions about the article by Michael Meacher that I posted about yesterday. While he does offer some solid criticism, there are some aspects of his rebuttal that I think should be explored.

Regrettably, Aaronovitch doesn't provide much indication of what sources he used for his information, so, unlike I did with Meacher's post, I can't really go through and look at the actual context of the comments and statistics he quotes. This doesn't mean that he doesn't have any, that his information is necessarily bogus or even that I couldn't find similar information elsewhere. It just means that I can't review his actual sources the way I could with Meacher.

In addition, he roughly dismisses all questios about whether the war was predicated on a desire for oil in order to fulfill the neo-cons desire for a global American hegemony. "The oil and PNAC arguments in points one and two are so complex and recondite that I'll begin at about point three, in which the US may create a pretext for attacks."

While he does address a couple of specific issues (including the quote from Richard Myer's that "the goal has never been to get bin Laden", which Myer did actually say, but as part of a larger comment about the overall goal of the war on terrorism, which I tried to convey in my quotes from Meacher's sources below), he seems to focus a bit more on how Meacher presented his theory than addressing the specific information Meacher provides. He also criticizes Meacher's response when asked on ITN Saturday about the article.

Questioned on ITN on Saturday Meacher denied that he was a conspiracy theorist, citing the "I'm only raising questions" defence. His information, he said, "comes from the collection of data that I have been doing meticulously. It comes from websites across the world."

The ones that suggest that the American agencies wanted an attack, so deliberately ignored the activities of terrorists in the US, and stood down their own air defences, in order to allow the worst terrorist atrocity in history to take place - all to secure oil and gas supplies. This act of treachery was accomplished with the complicity of military people, politicians and civil servants of all ranks, some of whose family members were on the planes and in the buildings.

While Meacher may well have gotten his information by reviewing websites, I think its important to note that the information itself is the product of the websites themselves or the people who run them, but are all from articles, originally published in the mainstream press, that were simply rebublished or quoted on the websites Meacher visited. In other words, Aaronovitch tries to make it sound like Meacher was getting his actual information from crackpots, when the information itself came from what most people consider to be reasonably reliable sources, even if they're published on sites run by crackpots.

As I said before, none of this means that Aaronovitch is necessarily wrong, just as the thorough source referencing Meacher provided doesn't automatically guarantee that he's right. I just think that Aaronovitch's article is perhaps a bit weak on which to base a denouncement of Meacher's article, lacking, as it does, any attempt to address the questions Meacher raised about the PNAC, the desire for oil being at the root of this whole escapade and America's imperial aims, and without further, sourceable information.

As I noted in a comment to Jan from Secular Blasphemy, I have serious doubts about the Bush administration's ability to pull off the kind of massive conspiracy Meacher said they did. Their incompetence in how they've handled everything else they've tried (and it's getting bad enough that even the invenerate conservatives and neo-cons over at Free Republic are taking pot shots and making complaints about how Bush is running the country) leads me to conclude that they'd never be able to pull something this intricate off.

By the same token, however, I do think that there's a lot more that's going on behind the scene's - both in terms of actions and motivations - than we might even suspect, and I do think that there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. I'm trying to approach the whole thing cautiously, though, because I think this is far too important of an issue to just be lightly glossed over or embraced as the greatest (or worst, depending on how you're defining the terms) conspiracy in American history.

Posted by thorswitch at 03:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The 'Republican's outsourcing jobs to India' controversy

I'm reposting this article that I initially wrote back in June because I've begun seeing more and more references to the Business-Standard and Rediff stories that the Republicans [often taken to mean specifically the RNC or Bush campaign in repostings I've seen around the web] are hiring a firm in India to do some fundraising for them. As a piece of propaganda, it's almost irresistable, demonstrating as it does the apparent disregard that the Republicans have for Americans and creating American jobs.

As noted below, I've had a very hard time finding much reporting beyond repeated repeated references to the original stories, and since writing this in June, I've found nothing yet that specifically identifies which "Republicans" it is that contracted for this service. It's a tantalizing bit of information, but is probably best used with a certain amount of caution.

From June 14, 2003
This is a story I've been hearing about for a while, but hadn't been able to track down an actual source for until now.

According to Business-Standard.com, the Republican party has hired HCL eServe, an Indian telemarketing firm, to do fundraising for Bush's presidential campaign, giving 75 jobs to people living in a different country, rather than hire actual Americans to do it for them.

HCL eServe, the business process outsourcing arm of the Shiv Nadar-promoted HCL Technologies, has bagged a project to undertake a fund-raising campaign for the US Republican Party over the telephone.

This is the first time such a project has been handed out to a company outside the US. The market research and public relations companies engaged by the party usually undertake such projects.

HCL eServe has put in place a team of 75 people to work on the project out of its call centres in Noida and Gurgaon. According to industry sources, the number of seats could be ramped up depending on the success of the campaign. These operators are required to call up people in the US seeking their support for President George W Bush and a donation for the Republican cause.

[...] According to the sources, the calling process involves high degree of automation in order to limit human intervention. “The process is designed in such a way as to limit human intervention. The company wants to complete the process using the integrated voice recording technology, which allows navigation using voice responses,” said the source.

The Republican contract comes on the heels of a successful anti-abortion campaign run by HCL eServe for a US politician.

This isn't a story that's been widely covered, however, despite the potential it carries for creating a great deal of outrage. I've only managed to find 4 other sources for it, two of which carry denials from the Republican National Committee that they've done any such thing.

The initial tip-off I got was in Newsweek's "Letters to the Editor" column a week or so ago, when a reader wrote in, responding to an article Newsweek had carried a week or two before that. The Newsweek article is available only if you pay for an archived copy (which I did, so I could read it for myself), and is focused more on the general phenomenon of companies hiring Indian IT firms to handle their telemarketing, customer service and "help desk" operations. It refers to the Republican Party's hiring of an Indian firm do to fund-raising for them only in a single line ["Indian citizens have even started handling phone-based fund-raising for the Republican Party."]

The story was also carried by Buzzflash with a link back to the Business Standard article. Personally, I don't find Buzzflash to always be the most reliable source, which is why you don't find them referenced very often in this blog. In this case, however, they seem to be relying entirely on the Business-Standard.com (also published on Rediff.com), and containes a later update referencing a UPI article in which the RNC denies that they are the ones who've hired HCL eServe to do telemarketing work for them.

The Republican National Committee, through spokesman Kevin Sheridan, completely denies the allegation, telling UPI, "Any report that the Republican National Committee has hired HCL eServe -- the firm mentioned in the original Business Standard article -- is a case of bad reporting, bad business practices or both. The RNC has no affiliation with HCL. Any inference to the contrary is flat out wrong. The RNC has informed both HCL and rediff.com of the inaccuracy of this report."

Buzzflash, however, notes that neither the original Indian article, nor their story on the situation mention the RNC specifically, and the RNC denial does not rule out that a consulting firm or other political group working for or with them may have been responsible for giving HCL eServe the contract.

Lastly, the Washington Times also reported on the story, noting both the original story from the Business-Standard.com (published via Rediff.com) and the RNC's denial that they are the ones who have hired the firm.

However, Kevin Sheridan, spokesman for the Republican National Committee, tells Inside the Beltway that the national party has in no way, shape or form enlisted the Indian company to conduct fund raising in the name of Mr. Bush or any other nationally elected Republican in Washington.

"Who are these Republicans?" he asks. "They are saying they are fund raising for Republicans, but we (the RNC) don't know who these Republicans are. It's certainly not the Republican National Committee. And I will add that we don't appreciate the inference."

[Like Newsweek, this story is only available via an archival purchase, which I did, so I could read their story first-hand also.]

So, what's the deal here? The story itself referrs to the "Republican Party", which many will probably assume means the "Republican National Committee". The RNC, however, denies it. I've found no retraction, however, of the entire story, nor have I found any stories claiming to "debunk" the entire situation. So it appears that someone, representing a group of Republicans - though apparently not the RNC itself - has contracted with an Indian company to do telemarketing.

Whether it's the RNC itself or another group trying to raise money for Bush's campaign, however, the principle is still the same -- rather than hiring Americans to do work towards raising funds for Bush's re-election, these Republicans think it's in their best interest to hire people in another country to do the work for them. This, in spite of the poor economy - due largely to Republican economic policy - and the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who are in need of a job.

Yes, a lot of American firms are hiring people overseas to do basic phone work for them. As with other jobs that have been outsourced overseas, it's cheaper. I don't like it, but in a capitalistic system, it's bound to happen - companies will find the cheapest way they can to obtain labour so they can make the most money possible.

For a politically-oriented group, however, that is having people call American citizens to give them a pitch on donating money to a Presidential campaign, to hire overseas workers to make those calls just rubs me the wrong way. Even if it's not a group representing the RNC, it reflects the Republican attitude that making money is more important than employing Americans.

Posted by thorswitch at 02:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 08, 2003

Irony in action

The Washington Post has a sharp-tongued review of what it describes as a very dull movie, Showtime's DC 9/11, a supposed chronicle of the President's actions on the day of the attacks, but really little more than an attempt to make Bush and his cabinet look like saints.

In one paragraph, the reviewer reports on some of the lines attributed to Bush, many of which were likely never actually said.

Bush repeatedly demands he be taken to the White House as Air Force One flies aimlessly about on that horrible September day: "I've got to get back to Washington because I'm not going to let those people keep me from getting home," he barks. And earlier: "Get me home! . . . The American people want to know where their damn president is." And still earlier: "People can't have an AWOL president!"

All I want to know is how any screenwriter with any knowledge of Bush's history could have written that last line with a straight face...

Posted by thorswitch at 08:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 07, 2003

Former UK MP: 'This War on Terrorism is Bogus' - reference companion

Michael Meacher, a Member of the British Parliament until recently, has written a very provocative article providing his analysis of the events leading up to 9/11, the War or Terror™, the failure of US forces to capture Osama bin Laden and the true goals of the Iraq war. It's a doozy.

Meacher works primarily from documents already in the public media, and the article lists the publications and dates he's gotten his information from, though it does not provide clickable links. As with anything that tends to get into conspiracy theory territory, I like to try and at least verify the information being provided and a sense of the context it was initially presented in, so I figured I should start checking what I could of the references he gave - and since I was going to do all that for myself, I figured I might as well provide some of what I find to you as well.

Understand - I have not yet made up my mind as to whether I find Meacher's theories credible or not, but given his recent position and how widespread this article is going to be (there are already about 5 pages at Google that are just links to reposts of this article at various sites around the world), it's at least worth looking at. The quotes below are from what I've judged to be the most likely part of each article he's referencing, and occasionally a bit addition to help provide context (especially where the additional material - in my opinion - either strongly supports or potentially weakens his arguments). As with anything, I strongly recommend that you read the entire article for yourself. You might also want to review the companion article "Meacher sparks fury over claims", also published in the Guardian, which provides a small amount of information on Meacher and comments by a few who disagree with his views.

Because of the nature of the claims made in this article, I feel it should be approached with caution. Meacher's standing as a recent member of the Blair Parliament gives his comments an extra veneer of crediblity such that many people will likely latch onto this article as proof of their worst fears. While it is possible that what he's saying is true (and if it is, we have been witness to one of the most heinous crimes in the history of mankind, paleing only - in my opinion - to crimes of genocide such as the Holocaust), it is also possible that he is seeing connections and links where there are none. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once wrote:

“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing.” ... “It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.”

That said, here are the quotes and links referenced in the article that I've been able to locate.

1. Daily Telegraph (UK), September 16, 2001 - Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks
   
   "The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.
   
   "They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official."
   
   
2. BBC Newsnight, November 6, 2001 - Has someone been sitting on the FBI?
   
   "PALAST: Newsnight has uncovered a long history of shadowy connections between the State Department, the CIA and the Saudis. The former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah is Michael Springman.
   
   MICHAEL SPRINGMAN: In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with silence.
   
   PALAST: By now, Bush Sr, once CIA director, was in the White House. Springman was shocked to find this wasn't visa fraud. Rather, State and CIA were playing "the Great Game".
   
   SPRINGMAN: What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets.
   
   The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 did not shake the State Department's faith in the Saudis, nor did the attack on American barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia three years later, in which 19 Americans died. FBI agents began to feel their investigation was being obstructed. Would you be surprised to find out that FBI agents are a bit frustrated that they can't be looking into some Saudi connections?"



3. Newsweek, September 15, 2001 - Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases
   
   "U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.
   
   Three of the alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,” according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.
   
   Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source.
   
   But there are slight discrepancies between the military training records and the official FBI list of suspected hijackers—either in the spellings of their names or with their birthdates. One military source said it is possible that the hijackers may have stolen the identities of the foreign nationals who studied at the U.S. installations. "



4. Times, November 3, 2001 - I was unable to find the article referred to here. Initially, the problem was that I didn't know for sure which "Times" he was referring to. A later reference, also attributed to "Times", however, was located in the Times Online (UK). I attempted to search their archives for this article, also, but was unable to find anything. It may be behind the archive wall. If anyone has a copy of this article or knows where one is posted, please let me know so I can add it to this list.



5. Newsweek, May 20, 2002 - Unheeded Warnings - [Note: The original source article is now behind a pay-per-view archive wall. The text of the article, however, can be found at "America's Intelligence Failures"]
   
   "The FBI has insisted it had no advance warning about the 9-11 attacks. But internal documents suggest there were more concerns inside the bureau's field offices than Washington has acknowledged.
   
   One FBI memo, written by a Phoenix agent in July 2001, warned about suspicious activities by Middle Eastern men at an Arizona flight school. Last week, in little-noticed testimony before a Senate panel, FBI Director Robert Mueller referred to another internal document that may prove more explosive: notes by a Minneapolis agent worrying that French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui might be planning to "fly something into the World Trade Center."
   
   The notes are especially eerie because Moussaoui faces charges that he was part of the 9-11 plot. Sources say the notes Mueller referred to were written in early September 2001-days before the attack. The author was part of a counterterrorism team desperately trying to figure out what Moussaoui was up to. He had been arrested in August on immigration charges after a Minnesota flight instructor reported that he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners."



6. AP - August 13, 2002 - Use of Military Jets Jumps since 9/11
   
   "The military sent fighter jets to chase suspicious aircraft 462 times between Sept. 11 and June, nearly seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from the same period a year earlier. More frequent scrambles are also faster in the tense new environment because the North American Aerospace Defense Command communicates better with the Federal Aviation Administration."



7. AP - April 5, 2002 [Note: I was unable to locate the actual AP article, however I did find the transcript of the CNN interview at the Department of Defense news site from which the quote "the goal has never been to get bin Laden" was taken. Here is the segment of the interveiw containing that quote.]
   
   "Hunt: The Big Question for General Myers: One embarrassment for the U.S. has been that, in almost seven months after 9/11, we still haven't captured Osama bin Laden. With the apprehension this week of one of his top lieutenants, have we gotten enough information to be any closer to maybe finally getting bin Laden?
   
   Myers: Well, if you remember, if we go back to the beginning of this segment, the goal has never been to get bin Laden. Obviously, that's desirable.
   
   Interesting, I just read a piece by some analysts that said you may not want to go after the top people in these organizations. You may have more effect by going after the middlemen, because they're harder to replace. I don't know if that's true, or not, and clearly we would like to eventually get bin Laden.
   
   But I think the fact that we've been able to disrupt operations, get a lot of the people just under him and maybe just a little bit further down, has had some impact on their operations. We know have disrupted, you know, four, five, six, seven active operations that they had planned and probably more that we don't know about.
   
   So we're going to keep the hunt on. Finding one person, as we've talked about before, is a very difficult prospect, but we will keep trying."



8. ABC News - December 19, 2002 - Primetime Investigation FBI Terrorist Cover-up [Note: The original piece containing the quote is a video story I located a transcript of the story, as broadcast, at Cooperative Research. Brian Ross is the reporter.]
   
   "BRIAN ROSS(Voice Over) Their story begins in the mid-1990s. With growing terrorism in the Middle East, the two agents were assigned to track a connection to Chicago, a suspected terrorist cell that would later lead them to an Osama Bin Laden connection.
   
   ROBERT WRIGHT:We had a cell in Chicago, right. And that was, that was the premise of how we got the investigation going.
   
   BRIAN ROSS:(Voice Over) But Wright says he soon discovered that all the FBI Intelligence Division wanted him to do was to follow suspected terrorists around town and file reports, but make no arrests.
   
   ROBERT WRIGHT:The supervisor who was there from headquarters was right straight across from me and started yelling at me, "you will not open criminal investigations. I forbid any of you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects."
   
   BRIAN ROSS:(Off Camera) You're on the Terrorism Task Force and you were told you will not open criminal cases?
   
   ROBERT WRIGHT:Yes.
   
   BRIAN ROSS: (Voice Over) In 1998, Al-Qaeda terrorists bombed two American Embassies in Africa, killing more than 200 people. The agents say some of the money for the attack led back to the people they had been tracking in Chicago, and to a powerful Saudi Arabian businessman, this man, Yassin Kadi, (PH) who had extensive business and financial ties in Chicago. Yet, even after the bombings, the agents say headquarters ordered no arrests.
   
   ROBERT WRIGHT:Two months after the embassies are hit in Africa, they want to shut down the criminal investigation. They wanted to kill it.
   
   BRIAN ROSS:(Voice Over) The move outraged the Federal Prosecutor in Chicago, who says Agents Wright and Vincent were helping him build a strong criminal case against Kadi and others.
   
   MARK FLESSNER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR : There were powers bigger than I was in the Justice Department and within the FBI that simply were not going to let it happen. And it didn't happen.
   
   BRIAN ROSS: (Voice Over) Mark Flessner,(PH) now in private practice, says he still can't figure out why Washington stopped the case, whether it was Saudi influence or bureaucratic ineptness."



9. Time Magazine - May 13, 2002 - This issue is now premium (paid) content at Time's archives, and I was unable to find any direct quotes from the article elsewhere. I haven't even been able to figure out the actual name of the article, so I'm not sure which article to buy at the Time site. The index page for that issue is here, and if you find a copy of the article or relevent quotes from it, please let me know.



10. Times - July 17, 2002 - Britian Backs US Plan for Attack on Iraq
    
    "There was a lesson from September 11. “We knew about al-Qaeda for a long time. They were committing terrorist acts, they were planning, they were organising. Everybody knew, we all knew, that Afghanistan was a failed state living on drugs and terror. We did not act.
    
    “To be truthful about it,there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.
    
    “There is a threat, the threat has changed in the way that I have described post-September 11. The options are open, but we do have to deal with it. How we deal with it, however, is, as I say, an open question.”
    
    He added: “And that is why I constantly say to people there are no decisions that have been made in relation to Iraq at all, but there is no doubt that Iraq poses a threat in respect of weapons of mass destruction.
    
    “And there is no doubt that this issue is an issue that must be dealt with.”'



11. Time Magazine - May 13 2002 - See note on #9



12. Sunday Herald - October 6 2002 - "Official: US Oil at the Heart of Iraq Crisis" (This link is to the Common Dreams mirror of the article. The full "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century" report is available online at The Baker Institute site.)
    
    "President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary.
    
    Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on 'energy security' from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Sr.
    
    The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: 'The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de- stabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.
    
    'The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.'
    
    Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, the former chief executive of Texas oil firm Halliburton, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, the US energy giant which went bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud.
    
    The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco. Another name linked to the document is Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the Baker Institute."



13. BBC - September 18, 2001 - "US 'Planned Attack to Taleban'"
    
    "A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.
    
    Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
    
    Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
    
    Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
    
    The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah."



14. Inter Press Service - November 15, 2001 - POLITICS: U.S. Policy towards Taliban Influenced by Oil - authors [This also is located at Common Dreams. The original article is available at Inter Press Service, but is available by subscription only.]
    
    "In the book ''Bin Laden, la verite interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.
    
    Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. Oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''.
    
    The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.
    
    They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.
    
    Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''.
    
    But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim.
    
    ''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris."



15. Guardian - October 30, 2002 - BP chief fears US will carve up Iraqi oil riches
    
    "Lord Browne, chief executive of BP and one of New Labour's favourite industrialists, has warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of any future war.
    
    The comments from the most senior European oil executive, who has impeccable political connections in the UK, will be seen by anti-war protesters as further proof that US president George Bush has already made his mind up about an early attack.
    
    They will also serve to underline concern that the US is primarily concerned with seizing control of Saddam Hussein's oil and handing it over to companies such as ExxonMobil rather than destroying his weapons of mass destruction.
    
    Britain's biggest company is reviewing what impact a regime change in Baghdad would have on its own business and global crude supplies.
    
    Both London and Washington have been lobbied by the UK oil giant, which is concerned that European companies could be left out in the cold.
    
    "We have let it be known that the thing we would like to make sure, if Iraq changes regime, is that there should be a level playing field for the selection of oil companies to go in there if they're needed to do the work there," said Lord Browne yesterday at a briefing on the company's results."



16. BBC Online - August 10, 2002 [Note: The article I was able to locate with the relevant quote is actually dated August 8, 2002.] - Libya Hints at Lockerbie Payout
    
    "Regarding the fight against terrorism, Mr O'Brien said the UK authorities were already cooperating with the Libyans.
    
    "They know they are as much at risk from the extremists of al-Qaeda as any western country is," he said.
    
    "They have made promises and we will look at whether they deliver on this," Mr O'Brien added.
    
    Libyan Foreign Minister Mohammed Abderrahmane Chalgam, for his part, stressed his government's willingness to cooperate in the fight against al-Qaeda.
    
    "The fundamentalists are against our project," he said. "They are against the freedom of women, they are against technology."
    
    Libya had shown its desire to move from "pariah" to a state complying with international law by handing over the Lockerbie bomb suspects, said Mr O'Brien.
    
    The UK was keen to boost ties that have been cautiously improving since diplomatic relations were restored three years ago.
    
    Libya is keen to re-enter the world economy and the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts.
    
    Sanctions against Libya have been suspended but Colonel Gaddafi wants them lifted permanently."

Posted by thorswitch at 03:46 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 06, 2003

'You want me to put a sign on it in fifty languages, 'I am a troop carrier, not a tank. Please don't shoot me?' '

Newsweek is reporting that the Army's new Stryker troop carriers have a rather serious problem: The German subcontrator that General Dynamics used to make ceramic tiles (which are supposed to protect the lightweight steel and aluminum skin of the Stryker) didn't always make them according to specs, resulting in some batches of tiles that fail to protect either the vehicle or - more importantly - the troops inside.

The bad tiles are weak enough that they leave the Stryker vulnerable to attacks from RPGs or machine gun fire - both of which are frequently used by Iraqis attacking the US forces.

Worse still: the Army has known it might have a problem since February, but has kept quiet about it. An Army memo sent yesterday to the head of the Stryker program, and obtained by NEWSWEEK, reports: "Evidently this issue was first raised in February 2003. Am unsure how this issue escaped public scrutiny for six months." Not even Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was told, NEWSWEEK has learned. “Understand that ARSTAF [Army Staff] have been told to treat this issue as if it were ‘classified’,” says the memo, which is addressed to Lt. Gen. John Riggs, the head of the Stryker program.

The Stryker has been "advertised as the first fruit of the Army’s plan to transform itself into a lighter, go-anywhere-fast force," but the program has been controversial from the start.

Many of the Army’s most senior officers privately consider the Stryker far too large—it’s as big as a school bus—and far too vulnerable either in open combat or in the confined spaces of urban warfare. (Even with its ceramic cladding, certain spots on the Stryker remain unprotected against an accurately aimed RPG or even rifle fire.)

The Army's contract with General Dynamics is for 2100 vehicles of which more than 600 have been delivered. A study of the database related to the making of the vehicles shows that “'[a]ll Strykers in combat brigades and at test sites—more than 600 vehicles—are equipped with some [potentially faulty] armor panels' and will need retesting, says the memo to Riggs."

The only sure remedy will be to replace all of the bad tiles, but in the meantime, "the emergency fix that the Army has decided for the Strykers bound for Iraq is to glue a sheet of ultrahard steel behind each faulty tile." The downside to this remedy is that the Strykers - which are supposed to be lightweight and fast - will be made that much heavier by the added steel plates.

I'm not exactly sure why, but for some reason, the use of a foreign subcontractor strikes me as a less-than-wise move, though I'm sure it's SOP in the defense industry.

What's even more troublesome, though, is that a subcontractor - regardless of where they're located - would decide to disregard the specifications of the equipment that they're making and change the forumula/recipe apparently on their own initiative, and without regard for the effect it has on the safety and useability of the final product.

It never ceases to amaze me how frequently we hear about problems with equipment that our men and women - who are already risking their lives for this country - are depending on to protect them. Defense contractor scandals are pretty mush standard operating procedure for Washington, but why anyone accepts the status quo is beyond me.

Posted by thorswitch at 11:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Bravado

If we burn our wings
Flying to close to the sun
If the moment of glory
Is over before it's begun
If the dream is won
Though everything is lost
We will pay the price,
But we will not count the cost

When the dust has cleared
And victory denied
A summit too lofty
River a little too wide
If we keep our pride
Though paradise is lost
We will pay the price,
But we will not count the cost

And if the music stops
There's only the sound of the rain
All the hope and glory
All the sacrifice in vain
And if love remains
Though everything is lost
We will pay the price,
But we will not count the cost.
           - Neil Peart (Rush), Bravado

Posted by thorswitch at 07:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 05, 2003

Another good reason to register to vote

And the men who hold high places
Must be the ones to start
To mould a new reality
Closer to the Heart
           - Neil Peart (Rush) "Closer to the Heart"

Only by voting can we make sure that the men in those high places are the right ones for the job.

The more liberals and progressives we can get to the polls, the better chance we have of defeating the neo-cons. If you haven't already registered to vote, please go to https://ssl.capwiz.com/congressorg/nvra/.

I know I've been quiet for a few days. I've gotten back to reading the news again, and I'm just not sure what to make of it anymore. There's so much going on that's just so wrong... the war (though I'm glad to see that there's - finally - some acceptance of the notion that we might actually need help in Iraq), the economy, the lies on just about every topic imaginable... that I hardly know where to begin. I feel like I'm not writing enough, about all that's out there, and yet I realize that even with the abundent time I have on my hands, I don't think anyone could have enough time to write about it all.

I'm probably going to be a bit quieter for a while. One thing that's always been a part of my life and has long helped me to deal with stress, anger and other such emotions is playing music. I'm getting a new guitar soon, though, and plan to spend quite a bit of time working on it. I'll still be here, and I'll still be ranting - but maybe not as much as I have been. My primary goal, though, is to see Bush thrown out of office - legally - either though our electing someone better or through impeachment proceedings, so I'm certainly not going to give up the fight.

Remember, as the song says, is the men who hold high places who must be the ones who start - and we have to put the right men (and women) there so they can do the work we need them to. Even if you don't feel you can do ANYTHING else:


VOTE

Posted by thorswitch at 12:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 03, 2003

Blog Update

Just a note to let you know I'm still here - I've just been in too good of a mood the last few days to want to read the new or write about it. When I return to my normally pissed-off state, I'll be writing again more...

Kriselda

Posted by thorswitch at 06:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack