I'm not sure who thought it was a good idea to higher retired Admiral John Poindexter - a lead figure in the Iran-Contra scandal who was convicted of lying to Congress and only had the conviction overturned because of an immunity agreement - but he's now expected to resign from DARPA in the wake of revelations of a planned project under his auspicies which would have created a market for betting on trends and events in the Middle East.
The departure had been demanded by lawmakers outraged over the notion that the Pentagon should set up a system enabling people to profit from predictions of terrorist attacks and other events. Poindexter, who has not spoken publicly about the initiative since it sparked a political firestorm Monday, has headed the office at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) responsible for developing the trading program.This isn't the first time he's been in hot water over a project from the Information Awareness Office he's overseen at DARPA.
Since joining DARPA in January 2002, Poindexter also has been embroiled in controversy over a computerized surveillance project to collect information about potential terrorist threats by scouring financial, travel, medical and other databases. After critics blasted the project for potential invasions of privacy, lawmakers and the Defense Department placed limits on it.That project was the infamous Total Information Office.
The official said that Poindexter had not been asked to resign, but added that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and senior aides had agreed the onetime national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan -- and a central figure then in the Iran-contra scandal -- had become too much of a political lightning rod. Poindexter is "working through the details" of his resignation and "expects to offer" it within a few weeks, the official said.
Last night, the local PBS affiliate in my area showed the new PBS special Watergate Plus 30: The Shadow of History. If it comes on in your area, you really should take a chance to watch it. The only really "new" bit in the story is Jeb Magruder's revelation that he witnessed the phone conversation in which President Nixon gave the authorization for the Watergate burglery and attempted bugging of the DNC headquarters to be done - the first time anyone's claimed that they knew Nixon was personally involved and aware of the operation. This comes in the very last few minutes of the program, and, while an interesting bit of news, it's not, by far, the heart of the program (something I'd been a bit concerned about when I read news stories announcing the claim in the days before the show debuted).
The program itself is very well done. They provide a good bit of background information on the atmosphere in America at the time, and looked beyond just the Watergate incident itself to things such as the attempt to break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in hopes of stealing information from the psychiatrist's files that could be used to discredit Ellsbert, who had angered Nixon greatly by leaking the Pentagon Papers to the press.
There are interviews with several of the key players who are still alive, and quite a bit of footage from the Congressional hearings on the entire incident.
One aspect of the show that was almost creepily eerie was how similar Bush II and Nixon are in the way they regard people who oppose them or disagree with their plans, policies or actions. They both tend to see opponents as "unpatriotic" and dissent as "unAmerican". They're both highly secretive and ego-driven, and they both seem to think that anything is justifiable in the furtherance of their agendas.
All in all, it was a very impressive show, and I highly recommend it to anyone who needs a reminder of just how bad it can get when a president considers himself to be beyond the law.
At least the government is gettig a bit better about admitting when they've made a mistake. First the Pentagon's "bet on upcoming terrorist events" plan got scrapped within hours of it becoming public, and now, less than a day after it was announced that the Transportation Security Administration would be cutting hours for Air Marshals and dropping them from any flights that would require overnight lodging (which meant they wouldn't have been on the most vulnerable flights), they've reversed the decision and rescheduled the air marshals for all previously scheduled flights.
The Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday blamed the confusion on a mixup in communication and said the department had been working with air marshal officials on Monday to correct the situation.It's too bad they had to mess it up first in order to do it right, but at least they did manage to get it right eventually. It's something of an improvement."America should know that every air marshal that we have is being deployed, and additional resources are being directed to that very critical mission," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Wednesday in a speech. Part of the plan to add resources includes a recall of 100 air marshals now doing other jobs with TSA, a spokesman for the said.
The dropping of marshals from flights that many experts consider to be at the highest risk of attack came to light Tuesday when several air marshals contacted by MSNBC.com confirmed that they were alerted via a "text message" on their TSA-issued cell phones to check their schedules for changes.
The Australian government isn't happy with us right now. Apparently, when we announced that there was intelligence to indicate that al Qaeda might be planning another 9/11-style attack, we said that Australia might be one of the potential targets. Australia says the intelligence doesn't indicate that they might be a target at all.
Australian Attorney-General Daryl Williams said intelligence indicated the country could be used as a base for an attack on the United States or elsewhere, but said the new U.S. warning that it could be a target was ''not an accurate reflection of the intelligence.''Interestingly, the article says that "the retraction comes at a potentially embarrassing time, with Washington already under fire for the accuracy of its intelligence." But looking at the Australian's objection, it isn't that there was a problem with the intelligence itself, but with how we portrayed it when making the announcement.He was speaking on the sidelines of a 2003 Homeland Security Conference.
Williams said U.S. authorities had promised Australia a correction to the advisory that warned the airline industry that al Qaeda was planning new suicide hijackings and bombings.
There is a downside, though, to having to make a retraction like this - some people may end up feeling like this is another episode of "crying wolf" in order to distract us. I doubt it'll have that kind of an effect on me, largely because I'm already concerned that it's an episode of "crying wolf", though I'm do consider it serious enough that I'm at least glad I can't go flying off anywhere ths summer (though if I could, I don't know if I'd go ahead and go or not...)
Well, despite months of predictions that once we were able to start talking to the scientists without their minders and with Saddam out of office, they'd be able to tell us a lot about Iraq's WMDs (more recently, they've modified that claim to WMD claims, since they seem to have realized that there's most likely no actual WMDs to be found), but so far, the scientists haven't been able to tell them a thing.
The sources said four senior scientists and more than a dozen at lower levels who worked for the Iraqi government have been interviewed by U.S. officials under the direction of the CIA. Some scientists have been arrested and held for months, others have made deals in return for information and at least one has agreed to be interviewed outside Iraq.The scientists have also maintained that the disputed aluminum tubes were for use in rockets, not enriching uranium. This, despite the fact that we've been using more aggressive techniques to try and get information, such as long detention and solitary confinement, even for scientists who have voluntarily come in to speak with officials.No matter the circumstances, all of the scientists interviewed have denied that Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program or developed and hidden chemical or biological weapons since United Nations inspectors left in 1998. Several key Iraqi officials questioned the significance of evidence cited by the Bush administration to suggest that Hussein was stepping up efforts to develop new weapons of mass destruction programs.
Amir Saadi, Iraq’s 65-year-old chief liaison with United Nations weapons inspectors since last year, has been held incommunicado since his voluntary surrender in Baghdad to U.S. military police more than three months ago, according to his wife, Helma.Helma says she has received only one letter from her husband since he surrendered, and that was written when the Red Cross visited him to ensure he was being treated properly. He commented in his letter that it was "nice to have someone to talk to", leading his wife to believe he's being held in solitary confinement. She also said that he did not work with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but instead worked on building rockets. Apparently, US officials believe he might know something about what (if anything) Saddam was working on regarding chemical weapons, and are continuing to try and get that information from him. Helma says he has no such information to give them.
The night before he gave himself up, Saadi saw himself listed on BBC satellite television as one of the men being sought by U.S. forces. In a recent interview at her home in Baghdad, Helma Saadi said that he told her, “I want to surrender. I want to cooperate. It will be just a matter of a few hours, and I’ll be back.’Just hours before his April 12 surrender, Saadi gave a television interview to a German television reporter during which he said, “There were no weapons of mass destruction, and time will bear me out.” [...]
Saadi’s surrender encouraged the wife and daughter of Gen. Hossam Amin, head of Iraq’s National Monitoring Directorate, to get him to surrender, and he, too, has not been heard from since, Helma Saadi said.
[...] His wife said she suspects her husband is being held out of sight because “he is telling the truth . . . They have realized there are no weapons of mass destruction and the quagmire they have created. They want to hold someone as a scapegoat.”
After hiring a lawyer, Helma Saadi sent a written request to L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator for Iraq. She did not receive an answer from Bremer to that letter or to one sent more recently. She did receive a response to a letter she sent asking whether her husband could be represented by a lawyer. On June 27, Col. Marc L. Warren of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps assigned to Bremer’s office, said her husband’s status “is being investigated” under the Geneva Conventions to see whether he is entitled to prisoner of war status or some other category.
Meanwhile, former government officials, scientists and professionals are still being arrested.
My question, though, is if we're going to do things like long-term detention and solitary confinement in order to try and "motivate" people to give us information on Saddam's alleged weapons programs, how are we ever going to know that the scientists are telling us the truth, especially if the absence of evidence to support any contetion that Saddam had WMD?
Of course, that question pre-supposes that they actually care about getting the truth, and right now it's hard to say if the administration does or not. They might be perfectly content to get phoney confessions to involvement in WMDs if they think it will bolster their case - and the President's flagging approval ratings.
I know that we have to put some effort into getting information from some of these people, for whom their previous lives under Saddam have made keeping secrets a matter of life and death. But using coercive techniques such as indefinate detention in solitary confinement, or, as reported the other day, kidnapping someone's wife and child to get them to come in, refusing to allow someone to turn themselves in and then breaking down the door to their home and arresting them under cover from a helicopter (and leaving his sons behind in plastic handcuffs), does nothing to ensure that the information we receive is in any way true.
I just learned about the Internet Pundit Fantasy Camp where us amateurs and wannabes can learn from the true giants of the "self-published, unsyndicated volunteer opinion columnist" ranks! I hope my Mommy will let me go - the list of camp features is impressive - and you even get your own, personal .jpg of a "signed, personally autographed photograph of the pundit of your choice (limit one per camper)". Wow! I could get my very own .jpg of Scott Rosenberg!
What more could one ask for from life? ::swoons::
I have to say, it's very hard to loudly sing with Savatage while in mid-laughing fit from reading Mad Kane, but it's definately worth it. Even without the Savatage it's worth it.
Never underestimate the power of good progressive metal at a loud volume to improve the outlook of ANY day.
[Just FYI: My wonderful husband recently earned a new speaker set from his job - they're getting a bit of a workout today, and boy am I feeling GOOD! hehe Blogging may be slow - I write best when I'm really, really pissed]
I have to be honest - I'm more than just a bit surprised by this - but Bush has actually taken personal responsiblity for including the line about Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from Africa in the State of the Union address.
It was the president's most direct response to questions about how his January State of the Union speech included erroneous allegations about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa. "I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course. Absolutely. I also take responsibility for making decisions on war and peace," he said.I'm glad to finally hear that, but it sure took him long enough.
This may be one of the only times you see me link to the New York Post, but this story is just too, er, punny.
In case you weren't aware, the obituary for Bob Hope that was published in the New York Times was written by Vincent Canby.
Canby died in 2000.
We all want to give our colleagues - and fellow working stiffs - their due, but isn't the practice a little unusual?There's more. Go. Laugh. You've earned it. :)Usually when an editor sends someone to the morgue, he means the area where long-ago clippings are stored.
Earlier today, I posted a message about the new warnings being issued on the possiblity of new jet hijackings from al Qaeda this summer. Tonight, this popped up on MSNBC. It appears that the TSA is pulling air marshalls from vulnerable flights in order to save money from hotel expenses.
WASHINGTON, July 29 - Despite renewed warnings about possible airline hijackings, the Transportation Security Administration has alerted federal air marshals that as of Friday they will no longer be covering cross-country or international flights, MSNBC.com has learned. The decision to drop coverage on flights that many experts consider to be at the highest risk of attack apparently stems from a policy decision to rework schedules so that air marshals don't have to incur the expense of staying overnight in hotels.Advanced training had also been cancelled recently.
It's amazing how security is important enough to cut back our civil rights, but not important enough to properly fund a cruicial program.
::sigh::
From today's Washington Post:
WASHINGTON, July 29 — U.S. officials said yesterday that they have learned of credible threats of possible new airline suicide hijackings by terrorists planned for the latter part of the summer.The information was developed in recent interviews with one or more high-level al Qaeda captives and corroborated separately by other means, including electronic intercepts, officials said. They described the possible scenarios as similar to the hijackings of four U.S. airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, that were crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania.
“The U.S. intelligence community has received information related to al Qaeda’s continued interest in using commercial aviation here in the United States and abroad to further their cause,” said Department of Homeland Security spokesman Gordon Johndroe. “The Department of Homeland Security issued an advisory regarding this information over the weekend to the appropriate airline and security personnel.”
Information about the possible attacks began emerging last week, government sources said. It could not be learned yesterday which al Qaeda captives had provided the information, but officials said they had taken steps to verify its credibility. “It didn’t just come from one place,” an intelligence official said.
“We are continuing to investigate the credibility of the information,” Johndroe said.
Sadly, with the way this administration has handled intelligence and warnings previously, the next question has to be "Is there really a reason for concern, or are they trying to distract us from the scandals that aren't going away?"
In Fallujah, a city that has hosted some of the worst of the fighting and anti-American sentiment, it looks like the military is trying some different tactics in hopes of reducing the violence against our troops and begin working toward the ability to cooperate in the rebuilding of Iraq. One of the bigger things they're trying is paying attention to the fact that for many Iraqis, retaliation upon American troops is a way for them to reclaim their honour after the loss or wounding of family members. Now, the idea of killing to satisfy a person's honour may sound outmoded to us in the West, but whether we like it or not, it is a part of their culture, and we'd be foolish to ignore it.
Their culture, however, apparently offers another way for honour to be redeemed - the payment of "blood money". Some may think is appalling to even consider giving people money for having killed or injured their families. Some may think it sounds a lot like what we do everyday in personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits. What matters, though, is if being willing to satisfy the honour of a family who has lost someone to the actions of the US Armed Forces without further bloodshed is a reasonable solution.
The way the military in the Fallujah area has handled it has been to offer offer formal apologies to the local tribal leaders and payment of $1,500 for each non-combatant killed and $500 for each non-combatant injured. I think it's important to stress that these payments are only for the death or injury of non-combatants and not for anyone who had taken up arms against our soldiers. That, I think, is very reasonable.
It's just one of the new tactics the military has tried in Fallujah.
Officers have ordered soldiers to knock on doors before conducting most residential searches. They have also permitted the mayor to field a 75-member armed militia and doled out nearly $2 million on municipal improvements instead of waiting for private American contractors to arrive.As of now, it remains to be seen if measures like this are any kind of a permanent solution or just a "quick fix", but they do seem to be having an effect.
In the most significant concession, the commanders have pulled soldiers out of every fixed location in the city, including the police station and city hall, leaving a police force run by Iraqis to man checkpoints and guard key installations.
In the turquoise-domed Abdelaziz Samarrai mosque, prayer leader Mekki Hussein Kubeisi used to rail against the presence of U.S. troops in this city. On Friday, he urged hundreds of men in ankle-length tunics to “be patient” and not to tolerate people who resort to violence.Other things they've been trying have been to come to town and speak with the religious leaders, whose opinions and very important to the Iraqis living in Fallujah.[...]
Even Saleh, whose right foot was amputated after the school shooting, has mellowed. “I have nothing against them now,” he said as he showed off five crisp $100 bills he received from the U.S. military by way of the mayor.
He said that U.S. soldiers have visited his house four times — to apologize, to provide a medical check-up and twice to assess damages to his property. “They’ve changed my opinions,” said Saleh, 41, who hobbles around on crutches. “I used to hate them, but now I realize they made a mistake and they really want to help us.”
The sheiks and clerics wanted the brigade commander to pull his troops out of the city. That request was immediately rejected. But instead of storming out, the sheiks made a series of alternative demands. They asked that tanks not be driven through residential neighborhoods at night. They beseeched soldiers not to frisk women or clerics. And they insisted that searches of cars and homes be conducted without a presumption of guilt that led to soldiers knocking down doors and dragging out occupants in handcuffs.By agreeing to make these changes - with the understanding that if a woman or cleric pulled out a gun and started shooting "all bets were off" - the military showed that they were willing to work with the people in the city rather than constantly working against them. They also managed to show the city's inhabitants that they could treat them with a basic level of respect, which tends to go a long way in any society.
The agreement to make payments for deaths or injuries wasn't an easy one to make. Some were concerned that it might make us look like we were admitting some kind of fault or failure, but because it appeared that many of the attacks on our soldiers were direct retaliation by the relatives of people we had killed, it sounded like it might be effective. In my opinion, even if it does make it look like we may have done something wrong (and, I have to say, that killing non-combatants isn't very high on my list of things that are 'not wrong' - even though at times it may be unavoidable if they're mixed in with others who ARE trying to kill our soldiers), swallowing a bit of our pride to save the lives of our soldiers is well worth it.
Another way in which we seem to be buying a bit of peace in Fallujah is the use of $2 million dollars to help with reconstruction around town. By being able to help do things like restore water service, hospital and schools to functionality, we've managed to show that we're serious about helping the people rebuild from the devastation our war created. That, I think, is a lesson that needs to be applied all over Iraq.
The Iraqis have so many reasons to be angry at us right now, but even if we'd handled other aspects of the war better, the amount of time it's taking to get basic functionality of things like electrical service and clean water restored is, by itself, reason enough for many Iraqis to be angry and uncooperative (though I don't think if our incompetence was limited to just providing utilities there'd be quite so many soldiers being killed). Imagine for a minute that it's the hottest part of the summer, and you have no electricity (and thus no air conditioning) and no running water. Even if you have a nearby hotel that you could go to and rent a room in for a few days, until power is restored, you're likely to be pretty grumpy about it (or at least every person I spoke to when I used to work customer service for a company that repaired things like electricity and water systems - and would pay for the hotel room while the work was being dine - were... I think I learned more swear words on that job than anywhere else, and had more than a few people say they wished they knew where our office was so they could come by and "pay us a visit").
Add that base level of frustration to the indignity of having your country's government overthrown by an arrogant group of blockheads (the President and his advisors, not necessarily our soldiers, though from some of the quotes I've read, I'm sure at least a few would qualify), and throw in everything else that's happened since we invaded, and it begins to become easier to understand why they've been so enraged. Showing even a bit of compassion, competence and respect can go a long ways under circumstances like that.
Still, even with the concessions we've made, things in Fallujah aren't perfect. We've helped establish and train a police force, a contingent of armed guards and a small (75 member) mayoral militia, so that most of the law enforcement and patrol duties are being handled by Iraqis, but US soldiers still run patrols as well, and not everyone is thrilled with the situation.
The reaction of people in the city has been cautious. Many who so ardently wanted American troops to leave now express deep reservations about the decision to allow the mayor — who was not popularly elected — to have his own militia. “This is the same thing Saddam did,” said Nadir Mukheef, the owner of a juice bar.Many are still unsure of our motives for having attacked their country in the first place, and question if we're really needed to keep the Ba'athists from regaining power.
A lot of what the military is doing there may be controversial. I expect that many - conservatives in particular - will find the idea of paying blood money for the deaths and injuries of even non-combatants too much of a concession, and letting the Iraqis police themselves too great of a risk. But on the whole, things do seem to be settling down a bit in the Fallujah area (though that can always change with one stupid move or misunderstanding on either side). I think it's great that these commanders decided that, rather than ratcheting up the violence and aggressiveness further, maybe backing off a bit would help win some cooperation. I also hope it continues to go well. If it does, maybe some of these tactics could be tried elsewhere in the country - and maybe our troops can be home sooner, and in greater numbers.
My Dad was a huge Bob Hope fan, and has, himself, always been a very, very funny person. I think Hope had a very strong influence on my Dad - who grew up during some of Hope's biggest years. Dad has that same kind of dry wit that Hope had; the kind you don't always see coming, and I don't think it was by accident that he ended up that way. (Up until maybe the last two years, he has always been a very large man. One day at the church, when he and my Mom were at choir practice, the choir director gave them a new song to work on, containing the line "And God rained fatness on the land." During a pause in the rehersal, shortly after having sung that line, my Dad just very quiety comment "I think I must have gotten caught in a cloudburst". The choir ended up laughing so hard every time they came to that line in the song that they ended up being unable to perform it.)
So, Thank you, Bob, for all the good memories you're a part of, and for the humour you brought to my life - both through your own work, and through the influence you had on people like my Dad. You certainly made your time here worthwhile!
We've been hearing a lot about how we're now getting better and more intelligence from Iraqis lately. Seems we're resorting to some criminal tactics in order to do so.
Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: "If you want your family released, turn yourself in." Such tactics are justified, he said, because, "It's an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info." They would have been released in due course, he added later.Yep, you read that right. Hostages. Not only it is wrong, and probably counter-productive, as CalPundit notes, but it's also a war crime, since it's pretty obvious the wife and daughter weren't being picked up or "detained" on the basis of any intelligence they might personally have.The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered.
I think I'm going to be sick. Our goverment already is.
Tom DeLay doesn't like the way Texas congressional districts are set up right now. He says they're drawn to give Democrats an advantage in gaining house seats, even though the state has been voting more and more Republican. This advantage is so bad and so unfair that right now, the Republicans hold the Governorship of Texas, and a majority in both houses. Gods forbid that the Democrats be allowed to keep that kind of power.
So, earlier this year, the Democrats in the Texas House of Representatives decided to try and stop the redistricting plan by taking off for a few days. By doing so, they deprived the House of enough members to form a quorum, which is required in order to vote on any measures. The Republicans worked themselves into a tizzy over that stunt, inappropriately made use of the Texas Division of Public Safety officers to try and track the Democrats down, got the FAA and even a division of Homeland Security involved and then had evidence of what they'd done shredded to make it harder to investigate.
The Democrats returned after the deadline had passed and the redistricting plan had been defeated. Or so we thought. Then the governor decided to call a "special session" of the state congress, specifically to work on the redistricting plan. It passed the House, but ran into a bit of trouble in the Senate, where a 2/3 majority have to agree to call a vote on a bill before it can actually be voted on. If more than 10 state Senators voted against calling it to the floor, it couldn't be voted on. Of the 11 Democrats in the State Senate, 10 of them made it clear they would not call for a floor vote on the measure, and when Bill Ratliff, an increadibly courageous Republican said he wouldn't vote for it either, the measure was defeated a second time, simply because there weren't enough votes to call it to the floor.
Well, this didn't go over good with the Republicans, so they've decided to call yet another "special session", and the leader of the Senate has declared that this time, he's just going to change the rules. Rather than the 2/3 majority needed to call an item to the floor for a vote, he's decided that a simple 50% +1 is all that's needed - which the Republicans can cover without any help at all from the Democrats.
But there's still the little matter of a quorum being required for the Senate to do anything. If they can't get 2/3 of the Senate to be physically present, they can't vote on anything, and this isn't a rule that the Senate president can just decide to change on a whim of things aren't going his way.
So, once again, Democrats are fleeing Texas - though its the Senate this time. Apparently, they've headed to New Mexico, which, the last time the Dems took off, indicated that they were welcome to take refuge there.
I really admire the Democrats for their willingness to stand up to the Republicans and their hardball tactics. Redistricting is typically done once a decade, following a census. Trying to do a second redistricting when we're only 4 years into the current decade is nothing short of a naked power grab. If a state redrew their districts everytime power changed hands, I doubt much else would get done (especially since it's not uncommon for redistricting plans to wind up in court to determine if they're legitimate and fair or not.)
To try and thwart this power grab, the Democrats have used extreme measures - fleeing the state - but they're measures that are legitimate and within the established rules for running the House and Senate. The Republicans, on the other hand, are now showing that not only are they willing to abuse the power they have (by misusing the state's Department of Public Safety as just one example), but now also by rewriting the rules in mid-stream when they legitimately lost the issue using the rules currently in place.
If this goes anything like last time, conservatives will likely throw a fit and try to portray the Democrats as cowards who aren't willing to face defeat like a man (or whatever the equivilent would be in today's modern cowboy parlance). Yet I think the Democrats are showing a significant amount of courage by being willing to face the ridicule of the nation's vocal and abrasive conservatives in order to prevent what they consider to be an unfair plan to redistrict the state.
I'm just not sure I want to see what happens next....
[Yes, I know, everyone's going to use that title, but it is so very appropriate....]
Lo, there do I see my mother, and my sisters, and my brotherMark at Virtual Occoquan is planning an issue on Death and Poetry and is asking for submissions.
Lo, there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning
Lo, they do call to me, they bid me take my place among them
In the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live...
forever-- The Thirteenth Warrior
I haven't been very good at writing for other special issues, mainly because the topics just haven't been things that I'm very good at writing about, but death? Death I can do! In fact, it's probably my 2nd best topic for creative writing - following depression/dispair/angst/et.al. (Hey, I was goth before goth was cool. Back then, we didn't have a name for it. I was just "weird").
In high school, I took a creative writing class. We were given an assignment to write a story using the phrase "Suddenly, everything was peaceful." The day it was due, we all took turns reading our stories out loud in class. Most people wrote nice little stories about people out on a picnic with bunnies hopping nearby and how "suddenly, everything was peaceful" and they knew how great life was ::happy sigh:: Basically, they all focused on the "peaceful" aspect of the phrase.
Me? I got hung up on the "suddenly". My story - which I have since lost (which is extremely depressing, because it was really quite good), was about a soldier in a war and how hearing the screams of his fellow soldiers around him as they were dying had worn him down to a point where he simply could no longer go on. Sitting in his foxhole one day, he hears a gun fire and the familiar whine of the bullet headed his direction and he decides to stand up. It was all written from the first person, and I had a really neat little section where I described the bullet going through the guy from his point of view, and then how his throat was now letting lose that awful scream that had so haunted his soul. "Then suddenly, everything was peaceful. It was the only way out."
My teacher sent me to talk to the school counselor.
I don't know if that's how the guys in the trenches ever feel. At the time I wrote it, I was only 16. I was too young to remember anything from the coverage from Vietnam, and we hadn't yet had any kind of a significant military conflict following it. I'm not sure why I even though to write about a soldier because, in the span of my life to that point, war wasn't that much of a reality, except for the spectre of nuclear war - and with that, the only impression I had was that everyone died pretty much immediately, so warfare with guns just wasn't part of my thought process.
But death was. And it still is in many ways. On one of the Norse Pagan lists I'm on, I usually don't have a whole lot to say, but since we started discussing how we want to be buried, I've been popping in the conversation a bit more and have been looking forward to reading the messages with a bit more entheusiam than usual. My favourite kind of books are True Crime storys, which almost always involve death, and if I can't find anything else on TV, I can always sit through hours of True Crime documentaries (not that they get my whole attention - I almost always am doing something else at the same time - like writting this, for example.)
But even with all that, I can't really explain why I have such an interest in death. When it gets right down to it, I'm quite frankly terrified of the concept. Much of that has to do with the way I react to anesthesia when I've had to have surgery. Rather than just drifting off to a nice, peaceful sleep, I seem to be acutely aware that there's a passage of time going on, but that none of my senses are working. It's almost like being trapped, falling into an infinite void in which I cannot see, hear, smell, taste or feel a thing - I can only "exist" and wait for something - anything - to change. I worry that this is death will be like, except that I'll have the knowledge that the "anything" will never come, and there will never be a change. Even writing about this right now, I can feel my heart pounding faster and my throat constricting just a bit.
And yet even though that's what I fear death will be like, I still hold to my faith that after death, I won't be enveloped in a conscious state of nothingness, but that I'll be with my beloved Gods, roaming the lands of Asgard and living in Thor's great hall of Bilskirnir, dining and drinking with my ancestors and reveling in all his glory.
The challenge, then, has been to find a way to reconcile my fear with my hope, so that by the time death comes - buy the time I can see the line of my kin, calling me to take my place among them, I will be able to go with a joyful heart, and not the dread that now goes so deep that there are times I've chosen to live with more pain than might really be necessary just to avoid the brief experience of surgery.
I think humanity in general, though, has always had kind of a weird relationship with death. While we may try to deter it or even avoid it all together, death is really just one more phase in the cycle of life - and it is the one force we have absolutely no power over at all. We just go to a lot of work to try and convince ourselves otherwise.
How often have you heard a news story talk about how "researchers have found that people who do [behaviour x] have a [y] percent greater risk of death than those who don't" or "[Behaviour x] has been shown to increase the risk of early death"? People make life altering changes based on such statements, and yet the statements themselves are all but meaningless. Doing or not doing [x] won't change a thing about when you die. You may be healthier until then, and you may feel better, but even if you don't end up dying from the negative effects of [x], there's always a Mack truck handy for death to drive your way.
One part of the problem is that we seem to have decided that since we know how long the average person lives, each of us are thus supposed to be able to live that long. If we don't, then we died early. Given the "entitlement" attitude that seems to permeate so much of this country, it's really not all that surprising that we'd also decide we are "entitled" to a certain amount of life, but the Universe has made no such bargain with us. When death decides it's our time to go, there's no negotiating, no compromise, and no option to extend our lease on life.
Yet even though I understand the above sentiments all too well, when my husband and I were planning on getting married, I made him promise me that he wouldn't try skydiving until we'd been married at least 15 years. I figured by then, I'd have had a good long time with him and if he died in the process (he's a bit of a klutz, so you'll understand my lack of faith), at least I wouldn't feel quite so cheated.
It seems to be a place where my instincts - my desire to avoid experiencing death (be it my own or someone else's) runs up against my beliefs, and it's a conflict that never quite gets resolved. I fear a void, but hope for peace and joy. I know it can't be stopped, yet I want to stop it from taking someone I love and avoid taking planes unless absolutely necessary. And none of that matters. Death will do what it wants to do, and what, if any, afterlife there may be will be what it is. Yet I still keep trying to understand, and I still keep wanting to know.
Death comes in and takes what's his
Leaving sorrow in his wake
But do not fear for peace is found
In the stillness of the night.-- Kriselda Jarnsaxa
Harry Potter and the War in Iraq?
Reading through a Newsweek article on the making of the third Harry Potter movie ("Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban"), and ran across a rather interesting quote from the film's director, Alfonso Cuaron ("Y Tu Mama Tambien", "A Little Princess") comparing characters in the Harry Potter story with current (or recently former) world leaders.
Cuaron's outspokenness is also new to the franchise. Does the evil wizard Voldemort still remind him of George W. Bush, as he said recently? "In combination with Saddam," he says. "They both have selfish interests and are very much in love with power. Also, a disregard for the environment. A love for manipulating people. I read books four and five, and Fudge - Rowling's slippery Minister of Magic - is similar to Tony Blair. He's the ultimate politician. He's in denial about many things. And everything is for the sake of his own persona, his own power. The way the Iraq thing was handled was not unlike the way Fudge handled affairs in book four."What's scary is he's really not that far off, when you think about it, though the way I see it has a bit of a reversal to it. In reality, Bush and Blair - who were on the same side, unlike Fudge and Voldermort - were apparently manipulating things to make Saddam seem like even more of a threat than he may have been. Fudge, especially in the most recent book - "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" - Fudge is trying to manipulate things to make people think Voldermort really isn't a threat at all. But I would have to agree with him about Bush. Short-tempered, petty, demanding absolute fealty from his "subjects", and pretty good at not admitting his own failures.Too bad Harry's not American-born and 35 - the Democrats could use him!
July 26, 2003
Man charged with making weapons of mass destruction in America
Now, that's a headline that would make a lot of people sit up and take notice. The kind of headline a ratings-hungry producer might use on a semi-sensationalistic local news show or that the editor of a tabloid might cook up. Using today's hottest phrase of menace, it brings to mind images of people in chemical warfare suits, skin blistering, a massive number of people dying in the streets and a myriad of other horrors. It's a story people would certainly want to read or watch.
Thankfully, in reporting the actual story, it looks like the newspapers and TV news shows in northwest North Carolina have a bit more restraint. Too bad their prosecutor doesn't. In a move guaranteed to attract attention - and which will also, hopefully, draw attention to the fact that this is just one of the ways in with our new, amped up anti-terrorism laws can be turned into something a bit different than they were initially intended to be - Watauga District Attorney Jerry Wilson has decided to charge Mardin Dwayne Miller with manufacturing a nuclear or chemical weapon - using a "weapons of mass destruction" law - for manufacturing methamphetamine.
Now I'm not going to pretend that meth isn't highly destructive. It is. The process of making meth in a home laboratory runs the risk of the various chemical compounds exploding. The sale of meth leads to any number of crimes - not just from users robbing people or stores to get the money to buy the drugs, but also the cuthroat competition that goes on between the dealers, and even some of the gang warfare plaguing so many inner cities. Then there are the lives it destroys through addictions, and the impact those addicts have on their families. So, yes, meth is an incredibly dangerous drug, and one that causes almost incalcuable devestation. As a metaphore, calling it a "weapon of mass destruction" even make some sense - even if it technically meets the requirements of the law being used, using the law in this way strikes me as inappropriate expansion of what is really meant by "weapon of mass destruction".
As for the law itself, here's what is says, in part, as included in the article:
...[T]he term nuclear, biological or chemical weapon of mass destruction applies to "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury and ... is or contains toxic or poisonous chemicals or their immediate precursors."Obviously, the law was written to be vague enough to include chemical weapons that be created in the future. Unfotunately, it's also vague enough to include a lot of other substances whose manufacturers I highly doubt will be charged with criminal conduct.I don't know about you, but I would be very surprised if a prosecutor anywhere - especially one in North Carolina - would consider charging someone who manufactures cigarettes under this law, yet it is a clearly a substance that can cause death or serious injury and contains toxic and poisonous chemicals. Pesticides could also qualify (and, indeed, many chemical weapons are very similar to pesticides in their composition). I'm sure many household cleaning products could qualify as well. I think you get the idea.
When, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, legislatures start creating laws intended to make it easier to prosecute terrorists and subject them to harsher punishments, many were concerned that the laws could then be used for purposes other than intended at the time. I think this case is a good example of just how real those concerns can be. It's not hard for a overzealous prosecutor to find a way to describe a set of actions in such a way that they can be made to fit into a law intended to be broad enough to cover situations we may not have yet imagined.
If we're going to have terrorism and weapons of mass destruction laws, then we need to use them judiciously and in the manner for which they were created. Drugs are a huge scourage - don't get me wrong - but we have drug laws under which the proper methods of prosecution are spelled out. If the legislature intends to have drugs punished in the same manner as terrorism, then let them write laws that do so.
Shades of Nixon
I've been sitting here this morning, watching (again) "All the President's Men", and thinking how much the behaviour of Bush and his White House has been reminding me of Nixion for quite a while. Then I came across this Dick Meyer column at CBS, entitled "George W. Nixon. Hmmm. Seems I'm not alone.
Fall guys, intimidation and leaked personal attacks on enemies are back in at the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. How Nixonian. How disappointing.While he eventually concludes that Bush, himself, is probably a bit more Reaganesque, the way the White House has been handling the MisLeader scandal (please, lets NOT use a name for it that ends in "gate" - there's already enough Nixon here!) is decidedly Nixonian.Maybe I should sit the White House folks down and make them watch this movie again themselves. Better yet, make them read the book - it has so much more detail. Then we can spend a few hours like a good Politics in Literature class and discuss the lessons of the book - the first of which would have to be "If you're in trouble, try telling the truth. It'll be less painful than if we have to pry it out of you." The second? "Far more often than not, the truth will out. Be prepared for the firestorm to follow."
July 25, 2003'a sovereign state of terrorists'
Tom DeLay is on his way to the Middle East to carry his message that Palestine isn't ready to have it's own state yet.
"I'm sure there are some in the administration who are smarter than me, but I can't imagine in the very near future that a Palestinian state could ever happen," he said in an interview today, as he prepared to leave for a weeklong official tour.To be honest, I don't write much about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict much because I have a very hard time trying to decide which side - if either - I agree with. In regards to DeLay's comment, though, I do have to ask: How do you expect the culture to change when the circumstances don't? As long as the Palestinians live in what they - understandably, I think - perceive as an intolerable situation, with no land they can call their own and under what appear to be both retalitory and aggressive attacks from Israel, the anger and resentment out of which they commit their terrorist acts isn't going to go away."I can't imagine this president supporting a state of terrorists, a sovereign state of terrorists," he said. "You'd have to change almost an entire generation's culture."
Now, this doesn't mean that I think what they do is right - I may understand why they feel they must act in the ways they do, but that doesn't mean I agree with it or support it in any way. By the same token, I understand why the Israelis feel the need to take some of the violent action that they do, but I don't think they're right all the time, either. Part of the problem is that both sides constanly claim that they are acting in defense of their people and their territory, and are the victims of the aggression of the other side - but they are both also being the aggressors on many occasions, engaging in terrorist acts they say are necessary to 'defend' themselves, but which serve only to keep the situation at full boil. (And keep in mind that what is defined as "terrorism" is often dependent on which side the definer agrees with. The Palestinians may use suicide bombers and the Israelis use their army, but the aggressive acts against the civilian populations of each country that both sides engage in are very much "terroristic" in nature.)
I have absolutely no idea what would be a reasonable solution. Absolutely none. I do, know, though, that demanding the Palestinians - and only the Palestinians - to change their ways as a pre-condition of establishing a sovereign state isn't going to accomoplish anything. The Israelis have to change as well. Just as both sides are right in some of what they want and do, both sides are very wrong in other ways.
I don't know if Bush's "road map" has much of a chance of working, but whatever chance that may be is only going to be damaged by having DeLay making comments like the one above which is insulting, and places no responsiblity on the Israelis for bring about the needed changes.
This will never be a "winner takes all" situation. If people keep trying to insist that it should be, there's no way anyone can ever win at all.
And if he were a liberal?
July 20th, the LA Time published this cartoon by Michael Ramirez.
Taking the image as, apparently, some kind of a perceived threat to George Bush, the Secret Service decided to try and question Ramirez. The thing is, Ramirez is a conservative cartoonist, and his point was that people are committing a "political assassination" of Bush by quibbling over those 16 little words. As a result, the Secret Service's action didn't go over well.
Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the Secret Service owed Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez an apology "and the public is owed an explanation both of how this happened and why it will not happen again."It's a bit amusing that Cox singles out the attempt to influence someone working for the Los Angeles Times, almost as if he worked for some other newspaper it would have been ok.
The use of "federal power to attempt to influence the work of an editorial cartoonist for the Los Angeles Times," Cox said in a letter to U.S. Secret Service Director Ralph Basham, "reflects profoundly bad judgment."The question I really want an answer to, though, is would anyone be calling for an apology or asking "how this happened" if the cartoonist had been a liberal?
July 24, 2003Sweet irony
I'm watching Jon Stewart interviewing Joseph Wilson, and Wilson says he thinks that maybe the White House has decided that it's time to let by-gones be by-gones, and that he'd just received a letter today from Dick Cheney - asking him to contribute to the Re-Elect Bush/Cheney campaign.
I haven't laughed that hard in a while :)
The latest on Valerie Plame
The Valerie Plame story (she's the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and recently had her identity as a covert CIA operative blown in an article by Robert Novak, who appears to attribute the information to "two senior administration officials"), is getting rather interesting.
On the 21st, Newsday confirmed the central point of the story:
Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday Monday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity -- at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.Both Tom Maguire and Mark Kleiman have been following the story closely, though with divergent viewpoints.For Maguire, one of the primary issues thus far has been in determining who it is that passed the information to Novak. Novak, for his part, was a bit cagey in how he reported the leak.
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.Note that the actual line stating that Plame is a CIA agent is not directly sourced to anyone. The presumptive sourcing comes in the next sentence where he refers to "two senior administration officials". This phrasing seems to have left open a great number of questions.In most of the news reports about this situation, there seems to be a bit of switching back and forth between using the terms "senior administration officials" (who would be understood to be deputy-secretary-and-above level officials who work in the White House) and "senior government officials" (also deputy-secretary-and-above level official, but from other agencies and offices). David Corn's original piece about the Novak story seems to have started some of the confusion with the following paragraph:
Novak tells me that he was indeed tipped off by government officials about Wilson's wife and had no reluctance about naming her. "I figured if they gave it to me," he says. "They'd give it to others....I'm a reporter. Somebody gives me information and it's accurate. I generally use it." And Wilson says Novak told him that his sources were administration officials.Note that he says Novak said "government" officials while Wilson - quoting Novak's conversation with him - said Novak's sources were "administration" officials. Furthermore, Time noted that they were given the information by "government" sources, and implied that Novak's sources were the same.[Note: Time has run two slightly different versions of this story. A portion of the original version of this paragraph is available at Tom Maguire's "Just One Minute" blog, and is quoted below, but the original story has been removed from the web and the original URL no longer works. The story itself was moved to a new URL when it was updated. First is the current version, then below that, the quoted section of the original story. I'm not sure how significant the change was or what other changes were made to the story, but wanted to provide this comparison.
[Ed note: as currently published] And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.So, what are we to make of this? It's hard to say because Novak, himself, wasn't clear in his initial report on the story.[Ed note: as originally published, before the above revision]...Some government officials, noting that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, intimate that she was involved in his being dispatched Niger...
Maguire makes quite an issue of this difference, and says that from his analysis of the various stories, he believes that there is some consistency with the use of "government officials" as being the ones who actually spilled the beans regarding Plame being covert CIA, and "administration officials" as being the ones who allege that she recommended her husband be the one who goes to Niger. He has suggested that the leaking of Plame's CIA status may have been the result of an internal fight within the CIA, taking the fluctuation between "government" and "administration" officials as the main clue that the source may not be from within the White House.
I had noted, in my posts, that if the CIA outed one of their own as part of an internal feud on the handling of intelligence, that is still a big story and bad for Bush. Bad in a different way then if the source was the White House, arguably not as bad, but still bad.Personally, I find that idea to be a bit hard to swallow. I could understand the CIA wanting to make Bush look bad, easy. They're not happy with him right now for trying to make them the fall guys for the whole Niger/uranium fiasco, and I can't say that I'd put it past them. I could even see the CIA maybe trying to smear the NSC - who until the last two days have been content to let their own part in the Niger/uranium story go by the wayside while the administration has piled on the CIA. Of course, that would presuppose that someone in the NSC would have had to have known that Plame was a covert officer or operative, which I suspect isn't very likely. But I just can't see the CIA burning themselves, even if they're undergoing some kind of internal feud.In contrast, Kleiman has consistently referred to Novak's sources as "two senior administration officials", which I would tend to agree with since Novak's original column, while not directly sourcing the information that Plame worked for the CIA to the "two senior administration officials", he does cite them as the source of the information that Plame suggested her husband to the CIA. The only reason that the idea Plame had suggested her husband to the CIA is at all newsworthy is because of the particular combination of relationships here; specifically that Plame is a CIA agent, that she and Wilson have a romantic relationship and that she made a recommendation. Take any one of those three away, and the tidbit becomes meaningless.
Looking at just the employment angle for a moment, if someone who had no special status, had called the CIA to suggest her husband as an envoy to investigate a claim like this, not only would it not be newsworthy, but it also would probably have been tossed aside with a shrug. By the same token, if the wife of a former ambassador, who had no other special status, made the call, I can't imagine it would get any warmer of a reception. There simply wouldn't be any reason for the CIA to pay attention to it. At most, the CIA may be thinking that the woman wants her husband to get some kind of a feather in his cap, or that they, as a couple, have something else to gain from the assignment - but unless she holds some kind of status that would increase the odds that the CIA would listen to her, there's hardly anything scandalous, or newsworthy, about it.
As a CIA employee, however, Plame would have the kind of status that might give the CIA reason to consider her request. As such, its only makes sense that whomever told Novak that she suggested the CIA use her husband would also explain why that request would be worth reporting: the implication that Wilson used his connection to the CIA, via his wife, to pull the Niger assignment. To get that point across, her status had to be revealed.
At this point, it's likely that there will be an investigation. Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, both members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (Rockefeller is the vice chairman) have said they feel an investigation is necessary and Senator Orin Hatch of Utah has "agreed the committee will probably investigate the matter, but he dismissed the charges of White House strong-arm tactics as "typical political talk; unjustified political talk.""
In the meantime, I think bloggers can be counted on to keep spinning out theories as to what may have happened. Today, Maguire posits that perhaps one reason the story hasn't received much attention in the mainstream press (so far, coverage by the New York Times and Washington Post has been virtually non-existent) is that they may be "smell[ing] a rat", specifically in the form of Joseph Wilson. Maguire notes that during interviews about the outing of his wife, Wilson has commented that "...the release to the press of her relationship to him and even her maiden name was an attempt to intimidate others like him from talking about Bush administration intelligence failures." He says that this complaint is misleading, however, since Wilson's own biography on the Middle East Institute says that "He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters."
Even if the fact that they were married and her maiden name weren't exactly a total secret, I could understand that he might be upset about the way that information was published in the Novak column. The focus of the story as written was not that Plame worked for the CIA (though that was a necessary component as noted above), but that Wilson and Plame may have tried to use her position with the CIA as a way of getting him the Niger assignment. Mentioning that she was his wife served as a slur against him without actually having to make any kind of accusation, following the standard line of thought: "Why would she suggest her husband be given the assignment? I wonder what's in it for them?"
As for the use of her maiden name, I don't know if she typically used "Valerie Plame" or "Valerie Wilson", but from the use of "former Valerie Plame" on his biography, my guess would be that she was commonly known as "Valerie Wilson". For friends and family, then, to suddenly see her mentioned in print as "Valerie Plame" could raise a variety of questions about the status of their marriage. I could understand a man being upset about that. While this concern would have nothing to do with any aspect of the actual story, it is still a bit of a personal fallout for a family already under stress.
Neither of those theories, though, would explain why he would have said that releasing that information to the press would be part of their attempt at intimidation, not only of him but also of others who might be tempted to step foward, unless he was trying to imply that he believes the White House would release that kind of personal information about other targets it might have.
That is, of course, speculation, and while I don't know whether I consider it to be likely or not, it is, at the least, as plausible as Maguire's apparent implication that Wilson, himself, is somehow responsible for the leak, in an attempt to discredit the White House.
Kleiman suggests another possiblity altogether. He starts by noting that the story itself doesn't really make much sense.
We're being asked to believe that an Administration that makes a fetish of security deliberately blew the cover of a secret agent who was gathering information about the acquisition by foreign governments of weapons of mass destruction, merely as a way of getting back at her husband for having embarrassed Bush. And you have to believe that they did so in a way that was completely traceable back to the Administration, even though burning one of our spies in that way would constitute an aggravated felony. Even if you think that the people around Bush are that thuggish -- which, even for me, was a real stretch -- it's hard to imagine they could have been so reckless.He suggest that possibly the incident is the result of gross incompetence and recklessness, but not maliciousness. Under this theory, someone in the administraiton was aware that the CIA has asked Plame to talk to her husband about possibly going on the trip (which seems to be what actually happened, rather than Plame lobbying "...to have her husband, the father of her two young children, sent to an unappetizing part of Africa on an unpaid secret mission."), but didn't realize Plame was a covert operative or official. As Kleiman explains it:[The reason I find it hard to believe that the Bush people would burn a spook, even though I believe that they've done lots of things I find equally repugnant, is that I don't think they regarded, for example, accusing John McCain of fathering an interracial bastard as really evil: to Bush and Rove, that was just good, clean fun. But my understanding of the Team Bush ethic would make burning a spook just about the worst thing one could do.]
Then, two weeks ago, when the order went out from the center to slime Wilson, someone remembered that detail and thought that the suggestion that Wilson had only gotten the assignment through his wife's influence might reduce his credibility a little. Without checking back with the CIA -- with which the White House is not, at the moment, on very good terms -- whoever it was then peddled the tale to Novak, and had someone else (these are two senior officials we're talking about) confirm it when Novak called to check.The purpose of the smear - that Wilson required his wife's assistance to get a job - would be to subtly suggest that Wilson isn't "a real man".I have to say, I think it's more plausible than the idea that Wilson decided to damage the White House by blowing his wife's cover himself, but I'm not sure I'm convinced, either. Honestly, I'm not sure what I think is actually going on or what the "real story" is, but it's sure interesting to look at all the pieces and try to figure out where they all go.
July 22, 2003Hey, kids! Let's make the budget crisis worse!
Rather disturbing news out of California today, if this article is right. Apparently, several Democrats were caught on an open mike talking about prolonging the California budget crisis as a way of showing people just how bad the situation could be, thus making it easier to raise taxes later.
Members of a liberal Democratic group met behind closed doors Monday unaware that a microphone was broadcasting their words throughout the Capitol on about 500 "squawk boxes" that serve legislative offices, lobbyists and reporters.Of course, both sides are spinning this just as fast as they can. The Democratic Assembly Speaker played it off as a "bull session", saying:
Several members were heard speculating that a prolonged budget crisis might improve the chances for a ballot initiative that would make it easier for the Democrats to raise taxes by lowering the threshold for passage from two-thirds to 55 percent."For anyone, Democrat or Republican, to think there is some political advantage in this crisis, I think they are wrong," he said.and Democrat Jackie Goldberg is reported to have said that her commentswere part of a larger discussion about whether it would be better to make deeper cuts this year -- as Republicans have proposed. The idea, she said, is give taxpayers a taste of how bad things would be without a tax increase.Now, I will say, I think it is possible that the comments made by the Democrats could, potentially, have been taken out of context.For example, I know there have been times when, feeling very frustrated, I will think or comment about manipulating a situation so that it will make a point to my hubby and hopefully make it easier for me to get my way. Right now, I'm on a campaign for us to get cellphones, primarily so that it's easier for me to get a hold of him when he's out shopping and such. One of the potential benefits I've mentioned to him is that with a cell phone, if I forget to mention I need him to pick up something while he's at the store, I could call him and just tell him, rather than having to wait for him to come home and then ask him to go back out again if it's something I need right away.
I have to admit, the thought has occured to me to perhaps "accidentially-on-purpose" forget to mention a few items here and there so that he'll see the value that much more easily. Yet, while I'll think of such things and even give voice to them on occasion, I don't actually go through with them. It's a good way to release tension, amusing to think about in a "serves him right" kind of way, but I know better than to actually try it.
It's possible that the Democrats discussion was along the same lines - a suggestion that makes for a good way to blow off some steam, but which wouldn't actually be acted on.
Of course, they may also have been entirely serious. I wasn't there, I haven't heard the tapes. And if, in fact, they were serious, then I'd actually have to [gasp] agree with the Republican Assembly Leader, Dave Cox:
"Their behavior is dangerous, hurtful and frankly mean-spirited," said Cox.
US saying they've confirmed that Uday and Qusay are dead
Again, not a whole lost more to say, but here's the NYT story on it. If it's true (and excuse me if I hedge a bit until the DNA tests are in, but they've been pretty confident of things before that didn't quite turn out to be what they initially said it was), it's good. As much as I hate taking pleasure in the death of anyone, there are some people who are so evil that I can make exceptions for them, and these two fit the bill.
While I'm glad they're dead, though, it still doesn't mean I feel the war was justified. I have no problem acknowledging that there is some good coming out of the war, but I also feel that much of that good has come at too hight of a cost - in lives, in America's credibilty, in added risk from terrorism, in the imparied ability for us to respond to other military needs and in damaged relationships with our allies.
But in spite of my reservations, todays outcome was good, and I offer my congratulations to the men and women who made it possible. Good work!
Call for a boycott of 'Hot Topic' stores over religious discrimination
Below is a news release published today by New Witch magazine. First, let me state that I'm not endorsing the magazine. I saw a piece about it at The Barbaric Yawp and was a bit curious to check it out, since the info he had quoted from the magazine in his piece seemed just a bit off from my own experience. (When I first started exploring Paganism, Wicca was the easiest of the Pagan paths to find information on, so that was where I started. As such, I have a fair amount of experience with Wiccan and "witchy" practices and beliefs.) Personally, the magazine is a bit "fluffy bunny" for my tastes, but the issue itself is one that deserves an airing.
An additional caveat: New Witch Magazine isn't an uninterested bystander in this case. The issue arose because New Witch was trying to get Hot Topic stores to carry their magazine, and Hot Topic indicated that they would not be able to because they had made a corporate decision not to carry any merchandise related to "Witches" or "Wicca" due to pressure from the Religious Right. If you decide to participate in the boycott or to write to Hot Topic's management to protest their decision, I would suggest focusing on the general issue of religious discrimination rather than on their specific decision not to stock New Witch. I think that such an approach would be more readily accepted by management as a legitimate market concern, as opposed to a "stunt" by a specific product maker who is trying to get their product stocked.
One last comment: I fully recongize Hot Topic's right to make such decisions about what products they will or won't stock. I'm actually quote surprised that Hot Topic would make such a choice since, as the release below notes, there is a significant overlap between Goth/Alternative Lifestyles demographics (Hot Topic's primary customers) and Pagans.
But while I do believe they have the right to make this choice, in this case, I strongly disagree with their having done so, and, as such, am happy to give publicity to an effort to change their minds, not through the force of law (such as via a lawsuit), but through the force of the market demands (letting them know that customers and potential customers want a certain category of products to be made available). New Witch magazine has not said anything to indicate that any kind of lawsuit is even under contemplation. They have said absolutely nothing, in fact, about using any tactics other than a boycott, publicity and a petition. This I can support wholeheartedly, and if you agree, I ask that you do also.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 21, 2003
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Dagonet Dewr Managing Editor, newWitch Magazine
(317) 916-9115
m_editor@newwitch.com"HOT TOPIC" STORES ADMIT TO RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN COMPANY POLICY
In an email sent July 15, 2003, to newWitch Editor-In-Chief Anne Newkirk Niven, California-based apparel and accessory retail chain Hot Topic (http://www.hottopic.com) admitted a company policy of religious discrimination in merchandise selection for their stores.
According to Papergoods Buyer Marissa Mitchell, "[newWitch] sounds great, and potentially would have been a good fit for our stores a few years back when we used to carry Wicca merchandise. Unfortunately, about 4 years ago we ran into some complicated issues and as a company, we had to make some difficult decisions. One of those decisions included not going forward with merchandise that reads the word 'witch' on it." In a phone conversation with Niven, Ms. Mitchell admitted that some of these 'complicated issues' involved pressure from the Religious Right to Hot Topic's management to ban all Wicca and witch-related merchandise from its stores -- despite the fact that there is a considerable demographic overlap between Hot Topic's customer base (goth and other alternative lifestyles) and Paganism. It appears that Hot Topic has chosen to give in to said pressure rather than insisting on equal religious rights for all their customers.
newWitch Magazine would like to encourage the Pagan community -- as well as all other persons who shop at Hot Topic and who believe in religious rights and the importance of tolerance in America today -- to respond in one or all of the following ways:
1) Boycott Hot Topic and its affiliated chain, Torrid (http://www.torrid.com);
2) Write letters to Hot Topic, encouraging them to forgo their discriminatory policy in favor of protecting the rights of all Americans to practice whatever religion they consider appropriate, and to provide Hot Topic with some idea of the number of Pagans and Pagan-sympathetic persons in Hot Topic's potential customer base;
3) Write emails to Hot Topic, with the same goal in mind. Or,
4) Sign our online petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/hottopicandreligion . This petition will be sent to Hot Topic's corporate management on October 31, 2003, the Third Annual Out Of The Broom Closet Day.
Do not call Hot Topic! Phone calls, while perhaps more immediately satisfying, are harder to document and more likely to anger the customer service people answering the phones -- who are not the people who made or who enforce this discriminatory practice. Also, please keep your communications with Hot Topic professional, polite, and respectful -- we're not going to get anywhere if we're rude or juvenile.
The boycott will continue until Hot Topic rescinds its company policy of entrenched discrimination against Wiccan, witch-related, and other metaphysical merchandise.
Hot Topic's mailing address is as follows:
Corporate Headquarters
Hot Topic Inc.
18305 San Jose Avenue
City of Industry, CA 91748Email can be reached off their website, http://www.hottopic.com. For more information, contact Dagonet Dewr, Managing Editor of newWitch Magazine, at m_editor@newwitch.com.
Administration 'reasonably confident' that Uday and Qusay Hussein have been killed
Here's the story at CNN. There's not really a lot to say at this point. They're conducting DNA tests to be sure.
Correction to info about the Dr. Kelly story
I finally found a full, written transcript of Andrew Gilligans first report on the "sexed up" dossier that started the current BBC/British Government firestorm and apparently lead to Dr. Kelly's death. In reading through it, I found that I've been mistaken on a fact that I had been passing along. In a few places, I've stated that the dossier in question was the "dodgy dossier" that was largly plagiarized from a journal article that was found online. Reading the transcript, however, I've found that, in fact, this is a different dossier.
This is the dossier that was published in September last year, probably the most substantial statement of the government's case against Iraq. You'll remember that the Commons was recalled to debate it, Tony Blair made the opening speech. It is not the same as the famous dodgy dossier, the one that was copied off the internet, that came later.I regret the error.Just to note, the main point in my having referenced it as the "dodgy dossier" was that with so many other problems that the "dodgy dossier" had, in particular, the use of the plagiarized material, it seemed to me that the government's use of other questionable information in that dossier wouldn't be that far of a stretch.
Something to keep in mind, however, is that of the claims made in the Gilligan reports - that the "45 minute" claim to the intelligence service through a single source and was uncorroborated by anyone or anything else, that it had not originally been included in the September dossier, and that it was included at the insistance of Alistair Campbell, the Secretary of Communications for Tony Blair, the first two have been confirmed by the government. The third point - that it was Campbell who wanted the info included - is what is still under debate.
A CIA agent unmasked
There's been a lot of speculation in the blogosphere about a recent report from Robert Novak in which he claimed two senior administration officials had given the name of a covert CIA operative in the context of revealing that she had recommended her husband, Joseph Wilson, go to Niger to look into the claims that Iraq was trying to buy Uranium from them. According to an interview with Novak, he "...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.""
The speculation, however, has centered on whether the accusation of her being a covert operative is true or not. In an article published on Monday, Newsday says that it is.
Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday Monday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity -- at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.In addition, Andrea Mitchell is reporting for NBC that:Wilson tells NBC News the White House deliberately leaked his wife’s identity as a covert CIA operative, damaging her future career and compromising past missions after he criticized the administration on “Meet the Press” and in the New York Times.As Wilson said, this definately damages her future career. Once your cover as a covert agent has been blown, it's rather hard to use you again, except for overt activities. What's worse is that as part of her cover operations, she had contacts - and since she was dealing with issues related to weapons of mass destruction, it's likely that many of those conacts were in areas that are hostile to the US - and now those contacts are also at risk.The White House, of course, denies that they had anything to do with this. I should hope they didn't. Whoever did, though, needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - and there is a law against exactly this kind of behaviour.
Wilson believes that her cover was blown in order to send a message to others who might have information about the leadup to and handling of the Iraq War to keep their mouths shut, lest they face the wrath of Bushco. If that's the case, I'll be very surprised if we don't start hearing about a new Presidential "enemies list" before too much longer...
Paul Krugman on Frank Gaffney's line of crap
Paul Krugman responds to Frank Gaffney's assertions that criticism of Bush's decisions-making process and handling of the Iraqi war bring aide and comfort to Saddam Hussen with a very sharp point (unlike the bludgeoning with a blunt instrument I peformed below):
Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden - who really did attack America - and Kim Jong Il - who really is building nukes.Yeah. That too.
Outrageous
Frank Gaffney has a lot of gall.
In an article in Canada's National Post, he claims that by criticizing President Bush's decision-making process and handling of the war in Iraq, we're only serving to - get this - make Saddam happy, and thus stronger. I know I usually try to avoid foul language in the blog - not so much because I have any personal objection to it, but because I consider it to be somewhat inappropriate to the kinds of things I'm writing about, but fuck it. This is complete and total bullshit. Absolute crap, and infuriating as well.
Here's the infamous opening to his article (which I'd seen parts of, but after having read a longer exceprt, I finally became angry enough to go read the whole damn thing. My blood is rushing through my ears right now, and I can feel the veins pulsing on my forehead. It's that bad):
Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations, second-guessing and political power-plays that are currently assailing his nemeses: U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.If anything is giving Saddam encouragement, it's not that people are pointing out how badly Bush screwed the pooch on this whole mess - it's the fucking mess itself! Saddam doesn't need to hear a word from anyone on this side of the world to know that the Iraqi people are pissed as all getout at the Americans occupying their country and want us the hell gone. If he is still in Iraq, all he has to do is have those who are still loyal to him look around and find those who are beginning to think life was better when he was in charge, or at least no worse.The hysteria surrounding charges that faulty British intelligence about one aspect of Saddam's nuclear weapons program -- and a Bush 2003 State of the Union allusion thereto -- may even be emboldening Saddam to believe the unimaginable: He might yet survive (physically and perhaps politically) the current pair of U.S. and British leaders, just as he did their predecessors in the wake of Operation Desert Storm.
It was pointed out a few weeks back - and I'm sorry, but I forget exactly where - that some areas where our troops are being attacked are Shi'ite controlled area. Now remember that Saddam and his Ba'athists are Sunni, and the Sunni's and the Shi'ites don't like each other at all. If, as the government alleges, the attacks on our forces are mainly by Ba'athists, it means that the Shi'ites are either letting them make attacks in Shi'ite territory or are just refusing to do anything to stop them (subtle difference, but I suppose some would find it important). If that's the case - and it appears to be - it says something about how little the Shi'ites like us.
Gaffney then goes on to say:
Unfortunately, such is the extent of the animus towards this President (especially among Democrats running to succeed him and their party's left-wing base for which they are competing) that a concerted effort is being mounted to savage his reputation. The focus of this partisan attack, not surprisingly, is Mr. Bush's stewardship of the one portfolio that has thus far seriously impeded efforts to unseat him -- namely, his outstanding performance as wartime Commander-in-Chief.Outstanding performance? WHAT OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE????? I haven't see any outfuckingstanding performance here, have you? Who the hell does he think he's fooling?
Ok, so Gaffney thinks criticism of Bush's "outstanding" performance is unwarrented and just a partisan attempt to score points? How, exactly, can criticism over the decision-making and handling of the war make our problems in Iraq any worse? Hell if I know, except maybe waking more people up to how badly this has been done, and create more pressure on the government to start doing a better job.
Maybe, just maybe, if the Bush administration starts to worry that it's days are numbered as the tide of public opinion turns against the job they're doing, they'll realize they need to do things differently. Maybe they'll realize they need to acknowledge that we actually do need help from the rest of the world, and that if it means we need to hand over control of the situation to the UN, so be it.
I don't give a flying fuck what the jackasses at the PNAC wanted to get out of the Iraq war. Obviously, their plan isn't going too well, is it? What we need now is just to GET OUT of Iraq - once we've managed to help get things to a point where they can have a functional nation. We aren't going to manage to do that by ourselves. I think we've demonstrated that pretty well. We need to welcome the assistance of the rest of the world, even if it means Bush and his cronies need to swallow their pride, give up their imperial dreams and admit that maybe, just maybe, they underestimated the reaction and resolve of the Iraqi people.
And excuse me, Mr. Gaffney, if I happen to think it's rather important to know if the government based its decision to go to war on something other than the evidence they presented to us and to the rest of the world, and which they maniuplated, exaggerated and "fudged" to try and convince others to go along with it. It's pretty clear that the reasons they've given us aren't all there is to it - and, considering that the PNAC have been wanting to overthrow Saddam since even before Bush took office, you'll excuse me if I don't think that the information they presented to us has little, if anything, to do with why they actually wanted this war. Since its my tax dollars paying for this fiasco, and since my fellow citizens are now risking, and far too often losing, their lives fighting it, I think I'm entitled to some answers.
So, as far as I'm concerned, all those who think we should just close our eyes, shut our mouths and pretend eveything is hunky dory can go fuck themselves - and each other for all I care. They can't go fucking any dogs, though, because I like dogs too much for that. You're "Bush said it, I believe it, that does it" approach to their faith-based intelligence and faith-based foreign policy hasn't done a damn thing. IF Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and we don't know where they are, odds are good someone we don't want to have them has got them. Instead of making the world safer, this war may well have made it more dangerous. You can't deny that there are enough angry Iraqis to give al Qaeda a whole new generation of recruits with a particular beef to pick with us. You can't deny that, aside from it not taking long to topple Saddam himself, none of the war-lover's predictions have worked out the way they said. You can't deny that, in spite of Fighter Jock GI President's simplistic "Mission Accomplished" photo-op that the mission is anything but accomplished. And you can't deny that more and more of our citizens are dying every day because of the complete mishandling of this entire situation.
When it comes down to it, when a President takes our country into war - regardless of any other factors, he is the only one who can decide if we should go, and it is incumbent upon him to make sure he truly knows what the situation is, what is likely to happen and why the war is being waged. Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for making a bad decision. Lying to justify you want a war that has little to no justificaion is no excuse for killing anyone. General incompetence is simply inexcusable.
When all is said and done, the President got us into this war. He needs to get us out, and do so quickly and efficiently, but without abandoning the Iraqis to the mercy of whomever is willing to try and fill the void left by our actions. If it goes well, the President gets the praise. If it doesn't, he gets the blame.
Whether he or anyone else wants to hear it.
July 21, 2003It's true....
A scientist with a sense of humour decided to find out if Kansas really is as flat as a pancake. It turns out, Kansas is even flatter than that.
Essentially, he took the elevation pattern of the state of Kansas and the elevation pattern of a pancake and using a "flattening ratio" looked at how they would compare if they were the same size. The pancake won. Even though he used serious methodology to make the determination, Mark Fornstad, a geographer at Southwest Texas State University acknowledged that he did the study "just for fun".
When we first moved to Kansas (when I was 11), we were coming from Illinois - not exactly renowned for topographical diversity, either - my Dad warned me that Kansas was flat, but I didn't believe him until the day we went on a trip and drove through the vaunted "Flint Hills". Dad told me where we were, and I recall looking around and asking where the hills were.
It really is that flat here.
Mark Fiore is on it
Mark Fiore has a nice little animation about Bush's problem with the truth. Check it out...
Soap opera to deal with harassment of pro-peace character
Much as I sometimes like to keep it my "dirty little secret", I have to admit I'm something of a soap opera fan. One of my longtime favourites is ABC's "One Life to Live", which has long prided itself on trying to deal with various social issues. It was one of the first soaps to deal with interracial romance, gang violence, literacy and racial prejudice, among others, and received wide acclaim when, in 1992, it did a story featuring a homosexual teen (played by a young Ryan Phillipe), homophobia and AIDS, and which culminated with a display of the Names Project AIDS Memorial Quilt.
They've got a new storyline they're just starting that I have to say I'm really looking forward to. Recently, they introduced a young woman named Marcie to the show. Marcie is unusual for a soap character. She started as a kind of dumpy outcast girl desparate for a friend who let herself be used by a very popular bitch. She was awkward socially and larger than anyone else on the show - yet there was something about her that really hit home with me (probably because I was also very socially awkward and have always been larger than most people around me). I must not have been alone, because what was supposed to have been a 5-episode part has now turned into a long-term gig. Marcie played a critical role in helping one of the show's "young hunk" characters (Al) in getting off drugs, and the two of them have begun something of a romance, dealing with issues regarding her insecurity and difficulting believing someone could really want to be with her. They've quickly become one of the most popular couples on the show, and Marcie is frequently voted as the favourite female character on the show in the weekly polls that some of the soap magazines run.
Now they've added another twist, and this one should be very interesting. Marcie decided to hang a flag with a peace sign on it in her dorm window. When she came back to her room, she found her room trashed and her peace sign flag torn. The show spoilers say that she will find her personal safety in danger from people opposed to her pro-peace stance, and will deal with her, her boyfriend, and one of the more powerful women in town's efforts to deal with the harassment she receives.
The main writers for the show, Josh Griffith and Michael Malone, are ones who have written many of the previously lauded social commentary storylines, and are well-known for tacking controversial issues sensitively and powerfully. I expect no less from them this time around. I love that they are taking one of the shows most popular heroines and putting her at the middle of this storyline because she's someone so many people identify with.
Interestingly, this isn't the first time they've tried to bring up the subject of the debate over the Iraq war. Initially, they had planned to have two other characters with a rather long and complicated history have a series of debates and tension over differing opinions of the war, and had even intended to have them tape some scenes closer to the air date than usual (there's typically a three-week lead time between taping and broadcast), but the "major combat operations" of the war itself were over so fast that they never really got a chance to implement it very well. As a result, they've decided to take this route instead - having a popular character suffer serious harassment for making her feelings against the war known.
So, here's a tip of the hat to the writers and actors on OLTL for being willing to take on yet another controversial subject, and to ABC for letting them (ABC owns all of it's soap operas, so they tend to have final say on what gets on the air and what doesn't). Here's hoping it's every bit as good as I know they can make it. I'll let you know how it goes.
UPDATE (8/6/2003 1:33 am): I just found out that one part of the above story came from an exceptionally well-written parody that I hadn't realized was a parody. The 2nd to last paragraph, about an earlier plan to tackle some of the same subject matter in a series of debates between two characters actually came from a message posted to a mailing list I read, written by Brad Beam. The rest of this post still stands though, based as it is on my actual viewing of the show *g*. Sorry for the misinformation - I was working from memory when I wrote it, when I should have made sure I knew where the information came from, first.
A stupid argument
I've heard this example given too many times, now, and it is just too stupid for words. Here's Casper Weinberger's version of it.
That we have not yet located huge deposits of weapons of mass destruction does not mean they do not or did not exist. After all, we have not yet found Saddam Hussein or his remains--but not even Democratic presidential candidates or the New York Times contend that he did not exist.Ok, now, think about that for a moment. There are at least two serious problems with this logic. First and foremost, we have evidence that, as of 2003, both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein existed. Secondly, hiding a person is much different (and considerably easier) than hiding enough biological or chemical weaponry to be a serious threat threat to the world.In the last year or so, we've seen Saddam and Osama on tapes and heard their voices. We may not know where they are, precisely (or even generally, for that matter), but we have current evidence that they do, in fact, exist. If the last time anyone had seen or heard from either of these men was 1998, it's pretty likely that more than a few people would be questioning if they were even still alive for us to find. And if people were saying "well, we know they were alive in 1991, and we have some information indicating they were probably still alive in 1998, but it's maybe a bit shakey and there hadn't been any contact with either of them in the last 5 years," well, most people would probably skip the "I wonder...." stage and go straight to the "You know, they're probably dead by now" stage.
Similarly, when it comes to hiding things, it's a lot easier to hide a person than it is to hide thousands of gallons of biological or chemical agents for use in weaponry. It's also easier to hide a person than it is to hide a Scud missle or 10. Just by the quanitity of what Bush said that Iraq had, it would have had a very difficult time trying to hide all traces of it. Saddam and Osama, on the other hand, just need a room in an out of the way house, or a cave in the midst of a mountain range.
I just wish conservatives would give up on this tired old saw, it doesn't make for any kind of serious discussion, and it doesn't make any real sense.
Dr. David Kelly Update
If you're interested in reading the full text of the BBC's confirmation that Dr. David Kelly was the primary source for Andrew Gilligan's report, and Gilligan's confirmation and explaination of his story, they is now available online at the BBC website. Just use the link above.
They've also made available the original audio report by Andrew Gilligan that started the firestorm, as well as two other reports by reporter Susan Watts. Watts reports much the same thing that Gilligan does, and the BBC has said that Dr. Kelly is also the source for those reports. Gilligan notes that even though the content of his report and Watts' reports are very similar, the are from separate interviews with Kelly - meaning that if there was an error in how the BBC reported what Dr. Kelly said, two different reporters erred in substantially the same way even though they did separate interviews.
In his original report, Gillian does stress that the biggest reason the "source" (now known to be Kelly) was upset that the "45 minute claim" had been included was because he knew it had come from only one source, and not from two as most of the other claims had done. Regardless of the question of who wanted this claim added to the report, it's important to keep in mind that the claim itself was very weak, and the government has acknowledged that it was confirmed for them by only one source. That same claim is giving Bush a bit of trouble as well, since he had cited it on two or three diffrent occasions as part of his case against Iraq, and the CIA never had cleared it as being valid or reliable.
The reports are available at:
Gilligan's original report - Audio
Watts' June 2nd report
Watts' June 4th report
July 20, 2003Um, Sorry Condoleeza, but...
In Sketchy Data, White House Sought Clues to Gauge ThreatBut it does make a difference if you're using 5-or-more-year old intelligence, but are painting it as "new". In fact, it matters quite a bit.Beginning last summer, Bush administration officials insisted that they had compelling new evidence about Iraq's prohibited weapons programs, and only occasionally acknowledged in public how little they actually knew about the current status of Baghdad's chemical, biological or nuclear arms.
[...] Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, said today that the question of new evidence versus old was beside the point. "The question of what is new after 1998 is not an interesting question," she said. "There is a body of evidence since 1991. You have to look at that body of evidence and say what does this require the United States to do? Then you are compelled to act.
In addition, it matters because old evidence is just that, old. Yes, taken as a whole, everything we know about Iraq from 1991-forward can be useful in looking for trends or possibly speculating on future actions, but when information that is based on such speculation is presented, it needs to be made clear that this is an extrapolation from 5+-year-old material. It help those the information is being presented to to judge the credibility of the conclusions. If I know a prediction is based on material gathered in 2002, I'm going to view that as more credible than a prediction based on info gathered in 1998, 1991 or 1950 for that matter.
Rice continued:
"To my mind, the most telling and eye-catching point in the judgment of five of the six intelligence agencies was that if left unchecked, Iraq would most likely have a nuclear weapon in this decade. The president of the United States could not afford to trust Saddam's motives or give him the benefit of the doubt," she said.But we were not sold a war on the basis of needing to prevent Saddam from using nuclear weapons he might have sometime this decade. We had to stop him from using the nuclear weapons he supposedly had now or would be making in the immediate future.It's interesting to contrast some of the then-and-now statements being made about our intelligence. From January, shortly before the State of the Union address comes this quote from Paul Wolfowitz:
"It is a case grounded in current intelligence," he told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, "current intelligence that comes not only from sophisticated overhead satellites and our ability to intercept communications, but from brave people who told us the truth at the risk of their lives. We have that; it is very convincing."Now, compare that to Donald Rumsfeld just a week ago:"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," he said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."
A worldwide scoop?
This is something else again. Apparently, the forged documents beind the Niger uranium claim was given to US diplomats by a reporter for an Italian tabloid that is owned by Silvio Berlusconi, the Prime Minister of Italy.
Corriere della Sera, an Italian daily, quoted Elisabetta Burba as saying her source "in the past proved to be reliable." Burba, who writes for the weekly Panorama, refused to reveal her source.At least someone recognized the implications of using forged materials."I realized that this could be a worldwide scoop, but that's exactly why I was very worried," Burba was quoted as saying. "If it turned out to be a hoax and I published it, I would have ended my career."
Corriere della Sera quoted the journalist as saying she went to Niger to try to check out the authenticity of the documents. Burba told the paper that she was suspicious because the documents spoke of such a large amount of uranium — 500 tons — and were short on details on how it would be transported and arrangements for final delivery.One thing I'd like to know is if, when turning the papers over to the US diplomats, she told them that she'd checked them out and that the paper had decided that they were too unreliable to use.On her return, she said, she told Panorama's top editor that "the story seemed fake to me."
Blaming the CIA
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has offers a great comparison to help explain why it is that after spending 2 years pushing the CIA to change how they gather and analyze intelligence, it's hard for the Bush administration to justify blaming them for intelligence failures in Iraq. He starts by recapping how Jim Hoagland had written in October about
...the way the Bush administration had muscled the intelligence community (and particularly the CIA) into giving up its "long-standing and deeply flawed analysis of Iraq." The White House was triggering, he went on to say, a battle between "officials whose careers and reputations were built on the old analysis of the Iraqis as a feckless, inert and inward-looking bunch of thugs against those willing to take a fresh, untilted look at all the evidence."From there, he offers a good analysis as to what the trouble is with this kind of a mostly-political approach to intelligence gathering. He then offers this comparison:Let's say a CEO took over a Fortune 500 company. Let's further say that his first act was to walk down to the advertising division and tell them they had no idea what they were doing and had to change the way they did business. He also told them he was going to bring in some outside consultants to comment on (read: second guess) their work. Now, the CEO and his new crew didn't have a huge amount of experience with ad work. But he talked a good game. So people thought he might have something up his sleeze. Then the new results come in at the end of the year and the company's revenues fell off the cliff.Not very long would be my guess, and the analogy is good one. In this case, the politicans came in wanted the CIA to look at things differently, and the Department of Defense set up its own intelligence office to "second guess" the CIA.Now, needless to say, the boss's cronies and sycophants would say that it was just an example of how bad the ad division was doing in the first place, or come up with some other such excuse. But how long do you think that CEO would hold on to his job?
UPDATE: (7/21/03 11:43pm) Rayne pointed out to me a small typo in the quote above... where it says "So people thought he might have something up his sleeze" instead of "...up his sleeve". She commented what a great Freudian slip it is, and I agree. Sadly, it's not mine. I had copied the text from Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo blog and pasted it in as it was. Josh has since corrected the error on his site, but I think I'm going to leave it here, just because it's such a perfect commentary on SO many things.... Thanks for the heads up, Rayne!
BCC Confirms Kelly was source
Well, since writing my last post, I've learned that the BBC has confirmed that David Kelly was the source of Andrew Gilligan's report that Alastair Campbell ordered the "dodgy dossier" be "sexed up". Given that Kelly denied having said that to Gilligan when he was questioned by the Foreign Affairs Special Committee, the BBC is going to have quite a few questions to answer of its own. In addition to having to explain Dr. Kelly's denial that he said anything about Campbell or the "45 minutes" claim, they also have to explain why the report referred to their source as a senior intelligence officer who had worked on the dossier's preparation.
It should be noted, however, that in the BBC's report, they did state that the 45 minute claim in the dossier had only one source, a statement which has been confirmed by the British government. What is in contention at this point if it was added at Campbell's insistance or not.
UPDATE: (8:45 pm) The Guardian is reporting that Andrew Gilligan has denied misquoting Kelly.
Last night Andrew Gilligan, the journalist at the centre of the controversy, claimed that he had not misquoted Dr Kelly, a clear implication that the 59-year-old weapons specialist had not given the full story about their conversations to the foreign affairs select committee.[...] The New York Times reported that Dr Kelly had told of "many dark actors playing games", in an email to one of its writers hours before his suicide. It said he appeared to be referring to defence and intelligence officials with whom he had sparred over interpretations of weapons reports.
But there was renewed speculation at Westminster that he may not have been wholly frank with the foreign affairs committee about his dealings with Gilligan, and that this triggered anxiety in a morally scrupulous man.
Naming sources and thoughts on conspiracy theories
In an overview of the players in the Dr. David Kelly saga, The Observer quotes Geoff Hoon, the Britis Defence Secretary as asking why the BBC won't rule out Dr. Kelly as their source.
'If Dr Kelly is not the source, why does the BBC not say so now? Their silence is suspicious. Their appeal to the principle of source protection is clearly bogus because, in this case, Dr Kelly came forward voluntarily.'To a certain extent his question makes sense, except for one thing. Were the BBC to say that Dr. Kelly is definately not their source for the story, it, by default, narrows the pool of people would could be the source, making it somewhat easier to guess who else it might be. There aren't that many people would could possibly be in posession of knowledge of that nature, and by refusing to confirm or deny anyone, the BBC is doing the only thing it can do to ensure that their source stays anonymous.One reason for this is that if the government realizes that they can name someone as a possible source and squeeze the BBC to deny that the person is the source, then if the BBC were to hesitate to clear someone, or if they got the pool of names down to only one, they'd be able to presume that they'd found their man. Only by refusing to comment at all, either way, can the BBC prevent the government from being able to 'guess' who the source is.
The next question, of course, is if their refusal to clear him is what pushed Dr. Kelly to his suicide. I don't know if it was or not. If, in fact, he did commit suicide (and I do believe that to be a credible and likely probability, absent additional information to the contrary), it wasn't just the BBC's refusal to clear his name that pushed him that far. It may have been a contributing factor, but remember that even Dr. Kelly couldn't - or wouldn't - say definitively if he was the source or not.
He told the Foreign Affairs Special Committee that he did not believe that he was their main source, but couldn't say that he absolutely was not. As noted in one of my posts on this yesterday, however, Tom Mangold, a family friend, author of books (including one on biological warfare), and journalist who is considered an expert on the CIA, was quoted saying that, privately, Dr. Kelly had told him that he thought it was possible that he might be the BBC's source.
"He was keen to explain that he felt the JIC [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessment was a little bit hyperbolic for his taste and that it wasn't quite as simple as the assessment appeared to show," Mr Mangold said.If true, it would help confirm the government's contention that Andrew Gilligan had exaggerated his own evidence on the government's exaggeration of theirs. (How's that for a bit of brain twisting irony?)"At the same time he certainly told me he never mentioned 45 minutes and he knew nothing about that."
Asked why Dr Kelly had told the committee that he was not the main source, Mr Mangold said: "I think his famous ... precision let him down there, because what he said to me was that there were parts of the Gilligan transmission that he did not recognise, but that did not mean that he wasn't the main source."
I find it odd, however, that someone who was concerned enough that he might be the source of the story that he would voluntarily go to his management and tell them that he had spoken to the journalist, a violation of Civil Service rules, would then turn around and tell Parliament that he did not believe he was the source if, as Mangold says, he thought he might be.
As to what Mangold would have to gain by claiming Dr. Kelly thought he was the source if he actually hadn't, beyond publicity or a possible story, I have no idea, though from what I've seen from looking up information on Mangold, he seems to be well-respected. So the idea that Mangold would be making that story up is rather 'iffy' itself. To me, though, it makes more sense to think that Mangold is perhaps confused than it does to think that Dr. Kelly, after voluntarily 'outing' himself for having spoken to the journalist, would then lie to the Foreign Affairs Special Committee.
That's what's going to make this story a hard one to figure out. The BBC is accusing the government of lying, and the government returns the same accusation against the BBC. A family friend raises the question of whether Dr. Kelly told Parliament what he actually thought. The BBC is holding silent on who their source actually was - which they pretty much have to do if they want to continue having sources trust them at all, and Dr. Kelly isn't here to answer any more questions. This is exactly the stuff conspiracy theories are born of. One can speculate that the government had Kelly killed to keep him from revealing any more secrets, or that the real source killed him to make him perhaps look more guilty or at least deflect suspicion from himself. Or the CIA could have done it to keep the British Parliament from digging too deep and perhaps revealing information that would damage Bush and his reliance on British intelligence for some of his own claims. You could even speculate that someone opposed to the war killed him to keep him from debunking the war critics' claims that the government exaggerated their evidence. Believe me, it's not hard to come up with ideas like this. Just because it's easy, though, doesn't mean any of them are right.
I've seen a number of references lately to the "string" of mysterious deaths among scientists - microbiologists in particular. And yes, it does look a bit suspicious when examined in isolation. That's also the problem - looking at it in isolation. To see if the number of "odd" deaths among scientists is really all that "odd", you'd have to first determine if that many deaths under suspicious circumstances in a given time period itself is unusual for scientists (by comparing it to other time periods - preferrably ones in which there was also a certain amount of political focus on scientific research and/or warfare), and then by comparing scientists as a category to other such job-related categories during the same time period, and factor it on a per-capita basis. It may be that the "mysterious death" rate of other occupations is just as high, but has gone unnoticed because, for conspiracy theorists, noticing a pattern among microbiologists is useful. Noticing a similar pattern among, say, milkmen, wouldn't be.
July 19, 2003'Dark Actors'
I finally found the NY Times copy of the story by Judith Miller and Warren Hoge about the death of Dr. David Kelly. While I have to admit to a bit of reluctance about any "big scoops" in a Judith Miller article after all the controversy regarding a number of her articles from Iraq and use of Ahmed Chalabi as an anonymous source, the information in this article is at least important enough to be given consideration until such time as it is either confirmed independently or disproved.
According to Miller and Hoge, before heading out on his final walk, Dr. Kelly sent a number of emails including a couple to reporters, mentioning both his concerns about the situation and his plans on how to handle his turn in the spotlight.
In an e-mail message to a reporter sent hours before he left for his walk, Dr. Kelly gave no indication that he was depressed. He said he was waiting "until the end of the week" before judging how his appearance before the committee had gone, and referred to "many dark actors playing games." Based on earlier conversations with Dr. Kelly, the words seemed to refer to people within the Ministry of Defense and Britain's intelligence agencies with whom he had often sparred over interpretations of intelligence reports.The reference to "dark actors" is certainly tantalizing, but it's hard to know who he would be referring to, or what, exactly, he thinks these "dark actors" are up to, without seeing the full e-mail or knowing the history of discussions between Dr. Kelly and the recipient. Perhaps more ominous, though, is the reference in the second message cited, regarding his desire to return to work in Iraq and his determination to get through the current scandal.Another associate who also received an e-mail message sent by Dr. Kelly shortly before he left the house said the message was combative and expressed a determination to overcome the scandal encircling him and an enthusiasm about returning to Iraq.
While it's very easy to conclude from these fragmentary statements that Dr. Kelly had no intention of killing himself, it's also important to remember that there are people who are intent on committing suicide who will intentionally avoid giving off any signals of their intentions and who will even make comments that would seem to indicate they have no plans on dying anytime soon, simply to avoid alerting anyone to their real plans, thus preventing them from being able to intervene and perhaps prevent the suicide. Again, without more complete information, its hard to know exactly what Dr. Kelly meant or what his plans were.
Expect that people who want to believe that Dr. Kelly was murdered, however, to cite this message as evidence that he had no plans to die and therefore his suicide must be faked. While that certainly is a possibility, right now I'm leaning toward the idea that he simply didn't want anyone to think there would be reason to go looking for him when it took longer for him to return than usual, thus making it more likey that he would be dead before searches were started. I suspect that most of us, when we think about someone committing suicide, are familiar with the typical scenario that involved a person acting morose, giving things away and otherwise taking action that, in retrospect, indicate that the person is attempting to tie up all the loose ends before their death. These behaviours are very common, and sometimes watching for them in a depressed person can help tip someone off to the fact that the person is contemplating or planning a suicide.
In many cases, though, those kinds of actions are actually intended to draw attention to the fact that the person is considering suicide, in the hopes that someone will stop them. Someone who takes steps to hide their intentions, however, is generally someone who is very serious about ending their own life, to the point of intentionally misleading people into thinking nothings wrong, so that it will be easier to find a time to commit the act when they're ready.
Some of this I know from personal experience. I've been dealing with clinical depression for as long as I can recall, and have previously tried to take my own life. I know that I was displaying many of the classic "warning signs" of potential suicide beforehand, and as I've reflected on it in the years since then, I've realized that I truly was making more of a desparate cry for help than having a serious intention to die. I also known that if I ever was truly serious about it, I would actually go out of my way to make it appear that everything was fine, just to avoid suspicion that I might be thinking about it. Obviously, my own experiences aren't everyone's experience. Many people who demonstrate the classic signs are extremely sincere in their desire to die - I'm not trying to say that no one ever is. By the same token, I also realize that if someone dies in an apparent suicide and hasn't given off any real indications they were considering it, that it very well might be foul play. But for the reasons outlined above, I do tend to believe that Dr. Kelly's death was a true suicide. Still, I remain open to the possibility I'm wrong about that.
I'm just not sure which outcome I would think is worse.
The death of Dr. David Kelly
According to an article by Warren Hodge and Judith Miller of the New York Times (the copy I found was published by SF Gate), Dr. David Kelly's wife has confirmed that the body found yesterday was his, and that the police have told her he committed suicide. She also noted that the police have asked her not to speak about the case.
I know most blogs have been reporting that it was him since yesterday, and it's been pretty obvious all along that it was, but on a story like this I'm trying to avoid jumping the gun on much of anything. It's going to be an explosive enough situation as it is - it doesn't need help from people passing on speculation as if it were fact. There's already a lot of haziness surrounding the story. After reading several reports in a number of British papers (The Guardian, BBC, Independent, This is London by the Evening Standard, and Financial Times), here is what I understand happened as of this point.
Andrew Gilligan, a reporter for the BBC who also works for the Daily Mail, issued a story indicating that the September dossier (which, I believe, is the same one that Bush and company are relying upon when they say that the British published a report saying that Saddam was trying to get nuclear materials from Africa), which had been compiled by the British intelligence service, had "sexed up" on the orders of Alastair Campbell, who is Prime Minister Blair's communications chief. In the story, the source was identified as a "senior intelligence official".
Immediately, Campbell started demanding that the BBC identify who had made the accusation, and demanding apologies and retractions. The BBC, however, choose to stand by the story and by Gilligan. Meanwhile, Dr. Kelly was concerned that he might have been a source for the story, and spoke to his manager at the Ministry of Defense. The MoD then gave his name to The Intelligence and Security Committee, and disclosed it to the BBC governors in a private letter. According to the Financial Times, if Parliament could show that Dr. Kelly has been the source of the report - and Downing Street felt very confident that he was - it would be very embarrassing for the BBC, because they had claimed their source was a "senior intelligence official" and that description could not be applied accurately to Dr. Kelly.
Dr Kelly's name then became public when the description of the MoD official who had admitted speaking to Gilligan was released. While his name wasn't mentioned specifically, there aren't many MoD officials who would fit the same description, so it wasn't difficult for people to figure out.
The phone calls to David Kelly's home and office from journalists began shortly after the BBC report which sparked the controversy over whether the Government had "sexed up" its Iraq dossier.One part of the story is a bit puzzling to me, because the information I've read about it seems to be rather contradictory. One article notes that Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of Defense and Kelly's boss, had said that Kelly had come forward to report that he'd had an unauthorized meeting with Gilligan, but that he had not mentioned Campbell in his interview. It then goes on to say that "[t]he BBC has not denied that, but did say that its source did not work for the Ministry of Defense", and notes that the "Oxford-educated microbiologist, Kelly, 59, has been the senior adviser to the Proliferation and Arms Control Secretariat in the Ministry of Defense for more than three years", which would seem to exclude Kelly as the source for Gilligan's story.At first the calls were tactful approaches from specialist reporters, many of whom Dr Kelly had spoken to unofficially over the past 10 years for guidance on the issue of arms control, to ask whether he was the "senior British official" cited by the BBC.
By early this week, the media maelstrom had become so intense that Dr Kelly moved to a secret address. To add to his discomfort, newspapers on Wednesday were full of reports lampooning his performance before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and pointing out his resemblance to Britain's most prolific murderer, Harold Shipman.
For the media, the notion of a mole within the higher echelons of Whitehall with the power to damage the Government was impossible to resist. Within hours of the original BBC report by Andrew Gilligan on 29 May a race was on to find the latterday "deep throat".
As noted above, however, another article says that Downing Street was confident that Dr. Kelly was the source of the report, but that "...Mr Blair's spokesman said the person who had made himself known to the MoD "did not work for the MoD . . . but was a technical expert who had worked for a variety of government departments, including the MoD, with whom he was currently working. His salary was paid by another department."
At any rate, Dr. Kelly ended up having to testify before a Parliamentary committee, something that seems to have been very difficult and very upsetting for him.
A soft-spoken civil servant in the Defense Ministry accustomed to working behind the scenes, Kelly was pressed repeatedly by committee members to say whether he was the "fall guy" in the bitter dispute that has pitted the government against the BBC.Meanwhile, a friend of Dr. Kelly's is now saying that, contrary to what Dr. Kelly told the committee, he did believe that he was the primary source for Gilligan's articles, though he maintained that he had not spoken of Alastair Campbell nor the British claim that Saddam could have weapons of mass destruction ready to use in 45 minutes after giving the order. If this is the case (which, unless Gilligan decides to reveal his sources, we'll really never know), it would mean that Gilligan had lied in writing his story (by adding that "his source" had told him that Alastair Campbell had insisted on adding the 45-minute claim, and that Dr. Kelly lied before Parliament yesterday when he said he didn't believe he was the primary source.The implication of the committee's questions was that the scientist had been set up by British Prime Minister Tony Blair's communications and security director, Alastair Campbell, to rebut BBC reports about possible government manipulation of intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
Tom Mangold, a journalist for the British news network ITV and a friend of David Kelly's, said that he had spoken on Friday morning to Jan Kelly, who said her husband had been "very, very angry about what had happened at the committee" on Tuesday.
"She didn't use the word 'depressed,' " Mangold said, "but she said he was very, very stressed and unhappy about what had happened and this was really not the kind of world he wanted to live in."
Mr Mangold said Dr Kelly had maintained that he had not spoken of Alastair Campbell adding the 45-minutes claim.Outside of Britain, the coverage gets almost bizarre. The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) in Iran is reporting that the Telegraph and Daily Mail are calling for at least Campbell and Hoon to resign (though I've not been able to find any online articles from either paper to support this), and the Turkish paper Zaman goes even further with a story that called Dr. Kelly's death a "murder" (despite no such finding - either way - having been released yet), says the BBC has confirmed that Dr. Kelly was their source (despite no other paper nor anything on the BBC site that I can find supporting that) and indicates that Britain's Sky media (owned by Fox's Rupert Murdoch) has said that "Campbell has no choice but to resign" and that Hoon is also at risk. It worries me that people will start repeating things from this Turkish story (or others like it), even though by looking at the British coverage, it doesn't appear that any of their claims have much current validity (though if any of them are true, my guess would be that their statement about Campbell and Hoon being at risk of losing their jobs is by far the closest of the three to being supportable at this time, though, of course, until more is known about how Dr. Kelly died and as the row between Campbell and the BBC continues, anything is still possible)."He was keen to explain that he felt the JIC [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessment was a little bit hyperbolic for his taste and that it wasn't quite as simple as the assessment appeared to show," Mr Mangold said.
"At the same time he certainly told me he never mentioned 45 minutes and he knew nothing about that."
Asked why Dr Kelly had told the committee that he was not the main source, Mr Mangold said: "I think his famous ... precision let him down there, because what he said to me was that there were parts of the Gilligan transmission that he did not recognise, but that did not mean that he wasn't the main source."
Mr Mangold's statement adds fuel to theories that Mr Gilligan may have "sexed up" his stories. The judicial inquiry may also present further concerns for Mr Gilligan and the BBC if they are asked to reveal his "major source".
Prime Minister Blair, who is traveling in Asia as the story broke, was questioned about Dr. Kelly and whether or not Hoon and Campbell should resign.
He was also asked if defence secretary Geoff Hoon or his communications chief Alastair Campbell would resign over the affair, but refused to be drawn.Blair has said that there will be an independent judicial inquiry into the death of Dr. Kelly."I don't think it is right for anyone, ourselves or anybody else, to make a judgment until we have the facts," he said.
"The person who can conduct this inquiry is someone who is highly respected and will get to the truth of what has happened."
This is a story that will likely take some time to unfold, and has the potential to have an impact on both sides of the Atlantic. Obviously, the effect will be greater in Britain than here, but since the testimony Dr. Kelly was called to give related to the September "dodgy dossier" that the British had published, and given that the dossier is what Bush is now relying on to help back up his "uranium from Africa" claim, if the investigation into Dr. Kelly's death turns up anything that discredits the September dossier further than it already has been - and in particular if anything is turned up that would refute the uranium claim, it would certainly have an effect here as well.
In the meantime, my heart goes out to Dr. Kelly's family. These last weeks have likely been hard on all of them, and for him to have died - and under circumstances like this - will only compound that a thousand-fold.
[Note: I republished this so that it would be above the cartoons and book ad. No text has been changed from the original publication, however]
Buy the Book
I've become a great fan of Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World comic and his This Modern World blog. He's got a book coming out soon, and trust me, you'll want to buy this one. :)
July 18, 20033rd ID update
A few days back I'd posted the news that the 3rd Infantry Division would be returning from Iraq soon. I neglected, however, to update the story when this sad coda came out. Due to continued "unrest" the 3rd Infantry Division is staying in Iraq. Soldiers are also being told to expect that tours of duty may last up to a year.
A decidedly non-comforting reassurance
This gem is courtesy of Atrios. Personally, I think this is one of the scariest things I've read in a while.
Los Angeles Times: Preparing for War, Stumbling to Peace[...] Still, he and other Pentagon officials said, they are studying the lessons of Iraq closely — to ensure that the next U.S. takeover of a foreign country goes more smoothly.
"We're going to get better over time," promised Lawrence Di Rita, a special assistant to Rumsfeld. "We've always thought of post-hostilities as a phase" distinct from combat, he said. "The future of war is that these things are going to be much more of a continuum
"This is the future for the world we're in at the moment," he said. "We'll get better as we do it more often."
It's not official yet, but everyone's acting like the body found is Dr. Kelly
The identity of the body found in the woods won't be official announced until either later today or, more likely, tomorrow, but the media and British officials are acting as if they are reasonably certain that Dr. David Kelly is dead.
Blair spoke to top officials about the case from aboard a flight to Tokyo from Washington.From what the article says, it sound as if Dr. Kelly was having a very difficult time dealing with being in the spotlight and under the pressure he's been under, even as officials were saying that they don't believe he was responsible for the leak, but instead had been set up as a "fall guy".
''The prime minister is obviously very distressed for the family of Dr Kelly,'' a spokesman said aboard the flight.
If the death is confirmed the defence ministry would hold an independent judicial inquiry, presided over by a judge with access to all government papers, he added.
Possible uranium enrichment going on in Iran
CNN is also reporting that uranium levels in samples taken from Iran are showing that it may be possible that Iran may be enriching uranium without having provided proper notification to the UN, and that the concentrations are significant enough to indicate that it may be weapons grade uranium.
Needless to say (but I'll be saying it anyway because I'm just like that), this is another area where we can't go jumping to any conclusions. How often during the war did we hear that preliminary tests indicated that something could be biological or chemical weapons only to later learn that, oops, it wasn't.
Again, it's something important to keep an eye on and see if we can find out what's really happening, but if the report is correct, it could indicate that Iran is working on nuclear weapons.
It does bring up a question, though.... if we can tell by examining these samples that Iran may be enriching uranium, and whether or not it would be weapons-grade uranium, then why haven't we heard anything about similar samples having been taken in Iraq or what the results of those samples are?
'It's too early to comment on any circumstances'
CNN just showed the very tail end of a press statement by David Pernell, the superintendent of the police in the area where Dr. David Kelly is believed to have gone missing. He confirmed that the body does match the description of Dr. Kelly and the clothing Dr. Kelly was wearing, but they have not yet confirmed the identity. He used the phrase "unexplained death" in describing the situation, but given that the post-mortem has not yet been conducted, it would certainly be premature for them to know or speculate on a cause for death, so I don't see that as any kind of a "clue" as to what's going on. Its one of those situations where the police just aren't going to say anything very meaningful until they get more information and evidence gathered, not only because saying the wrong thing now could cause problems with an investigation (such as tipping off a suspect to information they have), but - like the infamous 'white van' of the DC snipers last summer - it can come back and bite them on the ass if they aren't careful.
Basically, his main point was that it's really too early to comment on any circumstances, and may be a day or more before we have much info to go on.
Scott McClellan and the Buck That Never Stops
From Talking Points Memo by Joshua Micah Marshall comes this transcript of the July 17th morning press gaggle, in which reporters try to get Scott McClellan to say where it is that the buck stops in this administration. While no clear answer is found, it obviously stops someplace other than Bush's desk. My favourite line? QUESTION: And so when there's intelligence in a speech, the President is not responsible for that?.
You know, I think the answer to that one's just a little bit obvious.
QUESTION: Regardless of whether or not there was pressure from the White House for that line, I'm wondering where does the buck stop in this White House? Does it stop at the CIA, or does it stop in the Oval Office?Scott McClellan: Again, this issue has been discussed. You're talking about some of the comments that -- some that are --
QUESTION: I'm not talking about anybody else's comments. I'm asking the question, is responsibility for what was in the President's own State of the Union ultimately with the President, or with somebody else?
Scott McClellan: This has been discussed.
QUESTION: So you won't say that the President is responsible for his own State of the Union speech?
Scott McClellan: It's been addressed.
QUESTION: Well, that's an excellent question. That is an excellent question. (Laughter.) Isn't the President responsible for the words that come out of his own mouth?
Scott McClellan: We've already acknowledged, Terry, that it should not have been included in there. I think that the American people appreciate that recognition.
QUESTION: You acknowledge that, but you blame somebody else for it. Is the President responsible for the things that he said in the State of the Union?
Scott McClellan: Well, the intelligence -- you're talking about intelligence that -- sometimes you later learn more information about intelligence that you didn't have previously. But when we're clearing a speech like that, it goes through the various agencies to look at that information and --
QUESTION: And so when there's intelligence in a speech, the President is not responsible for that?
Scott McClellan: We appreciate Director Tenet saying that he should have said, take it out.
QUESTION: But it's the President's fault.
Scott McClellan: In fact, if you look back at it, I mean, we did take out a different reference, a reference based on different sources in a previous speech because it was said -- the CIA Director said, take it out.
QUESTION: Let me come back to your "nonsense" statement here, and let me slice it as thinly as I possibly can, just growing out of what Scott asked. Is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information included in the State of the Union and negotiated with the CIA to find a way to put it in to the State of the Union?
Scott McClellan: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information in the speech and went through negotiations with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: That there were discussions? Speech drafts go -- we've stated that these speeches go out to the principals, it goes out to the State, it goes out to DOD, it goes out to CIA, when it's going through the drafting process.
QUESTION: Scott, you said it was "nonsense" to say that the White House was pressuring the CIA to put this in the speech. Is it nonsense to say --
Scott McClellan: I think the question that you asked about was that someone was insisting --
QUESTION: Durbin said, a White House official insisted --
Scott McClellan: -- insisting that it be put in there in an effort to mislead the American people, I think is what --
QUESTION: You didn't explicitly give a motive.
Scott McClellan: And I said I think that's just nonsense.
QUESTION: I'm just trying to slice it a little bit narrowly, to say, is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: Are you asking me to characterize the discussions that occur going on during the speech drafting process? I don't --
QUESTION: I'm saying, does your "nonsense" statement apply to the idea that the White House wanted it in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: I think that it still goes back to, these drafts go to the various agencies, it goes to the CIA, this is an intelligence matter. It was based on information in the National Intelligence Estimate. That's the consensus document of the intelligence community, and that's what the information was based on in that speech.
QUESTION: So what I asked you about in that speech, your "nonsense" statement --
Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you --
QUESTION: You're trying to walk me out the door. (Laughter.)
Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you through this.
QUESTION: So your nonsense statement doesn't apply to what I just asked you?
Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you through the drafting process. And that's why I was trying to put it in context, so you understand how this occurs.
QUESTION: Scott, on Keith's question, why can't we just expect, basically what would be a non-answer, which is, of course the President is responsible for everything that comes out of his mouth. I mean, that's a non-answer. Why can't you just say that?
Scott McClellan: This issue has been addressed over the last several days.
QUESTION: Why won't you say that, though, that's, like, so innocuous and benign.
Scott McClellan: The issue has been addressed.
Energy Task Force apparently studying where everyone's oil was
Back in the 90's, Larry Klayman drove me nuts with all of his lawsuits against the Clinton administration or trying to get information from people. My assumption was that he was a partisan butthead trying to be a nusiance and possibly tying up the courts with frivolous crap.
It may be that I was wrong about some of that. He has been one of the driving forces behind the lawsuit into getting records from Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force, and appears to be going after the Republicans with the same zeal and tactics he used against the Democrats. I still don't know if I think all of his lawsuits are really justified, but at the very least, he's showing that his mission isn't a partisan one.
Recently, he was successful in getting some documents from the Energy Task Force, and while I'm not yet sure what, exactly, it means, he's now announced that among the records the Task Force had were "a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” " along with similar material on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirites. Below is their media release and a link to the maps.
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org.If I find out more of what's going on here, I'll be sure to make note of it. Tom Tomorrow at "This Modern World speculates that if this is on the level, it may be that one of the purposes of the Energy Task Force was to work out how to "divvy up" Iraq. He also posts a link to the transcripts from a Bill Moyers interview with Klayman, and notes that the suit referenced above was filed jointly with the Sierra Club, though they are not mentioned in the media release.The Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each country’s oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the projects, costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.
Judicial Watch has been seeking these documents under FOIA since April 19, 2001. Judicial Watch was forced to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) when the government failed to comply with the provisions of the FOIA law. U.S. District Court Judge Paul J. Friedman ordered the government to produce the documents on March 5, 2002.
The documents were produced in response to Judicial Watch’s on-going efforts to ensure transparency and accountability in government on behalf of the American people. Judicial Watch aggressively pursues those goals by making FOIA requests and seeking access to public information concerning government operations. When the government fails to abide by these “sunshine laws” Judicial Watch files lawsuits in order to obtain the requested information and to hold responsible government officials accountable.
“These documents show the importance of the Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the public,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Click here for: MAPS AND CHARTS OF OILFIELDS: CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE
More on Dr. Kelly
A poster as Eschaton says CNN is reporting that they've identified the body as Dr. Kelly's, but I've not seen or heard anything to that effect yet, so I'm still considering it unidentified and unconcerned. I'll be sure to note it when I do hear anything.
I also wanted to let you know that CNN International has a nice FAQ-style page with information about Dr. Kelly and the circumstances around his involvement with the Iraq/WMD questions. More updates as we learn anything.
I had posted a comment over at Eschaton (in response to their coverage of the story) about my concerns over people jumping to conclusions, and Scarpia posted this in reply to my comments:
Agreed, kriselda. But if there is any obstruction of the investigation of his death, or a lack of supporting evidence for the conclusion of "suicide," that would indicate a certain desire to close the case prematurely. Britons should be demanding a very public inquiry that leaves out no possibility.I would agree with that. Demanding that there be a thorough and accurate investigation into the situation is certainly the logical thing to do. I just don't want to start seeing the death/disappearance of Dr. Kelly listed as part of the "proof" that we've been lied to unless we have some strong, credible evidence to support that.
Possible 'mole' possibly missing
Here's a story that's likey to be getting a lot of play on the blogs today. It seems that a scientist, believed to be the man who told Andrew Gilligan, a BBC reporter, that Britian's infamous "dodgy dossier" had been "sexed up" did not return to his home last night. He had been questioned by Members of Parliment yesterday about what he might have told the reporter.
Dr David Kelly, 59, went missing from his home near Abingdon, Oxfordshire, at around 3pm yesterday after telling his wife he was going for a walk, Thames Valley Police said.A lot of people are going to jump on this as part of a possible conspiracy. I remember when the officer from Enron committed suicide, there was a great deal of speculation that maybe he'd been murdered, but to the best of my knowledge, nothing ever came of that.The family called police when he had failed to return by 11.45pm last night.
[...]
Dr Kelly was described by police as an avid walker with good local knowledge of the many footpaths surrounding his home, which is near the River Thames.
In this case, it's important to keep in mind that there may be any number of explainations as to what's happened, some benign (he ran into an old friend, they got to talking, he forgot to call home and lost track of time), some which could possibly bring a government down (he was kidnapped and murdered by members of the government to keep him quiet about whatever he might have known regarding the leadup to the war). It could even be something as simple as he took a bad fall and has been unable to let anyone know he's injured.
It's also important to remember that there really wouldn't be a lot of point in someone killing him now, as he's most likely already said whatever he was going to, and closing the barn door after the horse escapes doesn't keep it from getting out, eh?
In other words, until Dr. Kelly is found, there will probably be a lot of speculation that he "was disappeared" by the government because he "knew too much" about the evidence used to justify the war - but until we actually know something, we won't actually know anything [Gah! That's a bit more Rumsfeldian than I generally like to be, but I'm going to presume you know what I mean], and wild speculation isn't going to do anyone any good.
Hopefully, Dr. Kelly will show up soon and none the worse for wear.
UPDATE: (5:21 am) The Guardian just posted a story noting that police searching for Dr. Kelly have found an unidentified male body about 5 miles from his home. They also provided additional details about the situation and Dr. Kelly's testimony yesterday in Parliment:
With two MoD police sitting behind him, Dr Kelly confirmed he met Gilligan in a central London hotel on the same day that the reporter said he met his sole source at a central London hotel.UPDATE: (5:42 am) If you want to learn more about the situation Dr. Kelly was being questioned by Parliment about, the Guardian has a detailed timeline available.[...]
"I believe I am not the main source. From the conversation I had with him I don't see how he could make the authoritative statements he was making from the comments that I made," Dr Kelly said.
[...]
However, the Ministry of Defence has stood by its claims that Dr Kelly was the sole source of the story, pointing to Gilligan's evidence that he had relied on one source and that three other sources mentioned had not discussed the September dossier or had done so only later.
Dr Kelly has been under enormous pressure since he admitted making contact with Gilligan. He was officially reprimanded for having an "unauthorised" meeting with a journalist, and recently complained that his home was surrounded by journalists.
This morning a ministry of defence spokeswoman said that Dr Kelly had not been in work for the last couple of days, he had however been in regular contact with his line manager. She added that Dr Kelly's reprimand was considered the end of any disciplinary action.
[...]
Conservative MP Richard Ottaway, a member of the foreign affairs committee, said Dr Kelly had recently alluded to the level of pressure he was under.
"At the meeting last week he did hint at the sort of pressure he was under," Mr Ottaway said.
"He was asked to provide some evidence and he replied that he would do so but he could not get into his house because of the media pressure."
[...]
Police said it was not unusual for him to walk for two or three hours at a time, but unusual for him to do this alone.
July 17, 2003A message from MoveOn.org about the Senate and the FCC rules
I'm posting this in it's entirity because it's great news, and I can't write it up much better than they did. Thanks to everyone who helped send the Senate the message that the FCC ruling allowing greater media consolidation was a mistake and needed to be rolled back - looks like we one this round!
Dear MoveOn member,This isn't an email asking you to sign a petition or give money.
It's simply a celebration of a victory.
75 television executives from network affiliates descended on Capitol Hill yesterday to prevent the House appropriations committee from voting for a partial rollback of the FCC rule changes.
Because of you and thousands of others, Congress did something unprecedented yesterday. Republican committee member Frank Wolf urged his colleagues to vote their conscience, and stand up to the lobbyists. And they did just that, delivering a 40-25 vote against big media.
Conservative columnist William Safire wrote in today’s New York Times:
"Here is what made this happen: Take the force of right-wingers upholding community standards who are determined to defend local
control of the public airwaves; combine that with the force of lefties eager to maintain diversity of opinion in local media; add in the independent voters' mistrust of media manipulation; then let all these people have access to their representatives by e-mail and fax, and voilà! Congress awakens to slap down the power grab." (URL below)The rollback still has a long way to go, but this is another big step in our march to reverse the FCC and create a more diverse, independent and skeptical media.
Your active participation is working. Congress is listening. There will be more work in the weeks and months ahead. Stay tuned and stay involved. For more information on media reform efforts, go to http://www.mediareform.net or http://www.commoncause.org.
Sincerely,
--Eli Pariser
MoveOn.org
July 17th, 2003P.S. Check out William Safire's editorial and another article from today's New York Times on this win:
HOUSE PANEL ADDS VOICE TO OPPONENTS OF MEDIA RULE
By Jacques Steinberg, New York Times
July 17th, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/business/media/17FCC.html"The recent decision by federal regulators to loosen media ownership rules, already under fire in the Senate, took another blow in Congress yesterday. This setback was dealt by the House Appropriations Committee, which approved a budget amendment that would make it harder for big broadcasting companies to acquire more television stations.LOCALISM'S LAST STANDThe vote represented a defeat for Michael K. Powell, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, who has led the effort to change the rules. It was also a rebuke to the Republican House leadership and the Bush administration, strong supporters of the commission's efforts."
By William Safire, New York Times
July 17th, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/opinion/17SAFI.html?tntemail0
(See excerpt above)
Good analysis on the possible outing of a CIA agent
Mark Kleiman has written a very good analysis of the possibility that senior administrations officials may have outed a CIA agent, essentially as an act of revenge against her husband for embarassing the Bush administration. As I noted earlier, the accusation that the administration may have outed this agent has NOT yet been confirmed beyond the piece in The Nation that I linked to earlier, which broke the story.
It's an important story to keep an eye on, however, because if it is true, then the administration has done something truly dispicable, and, as Kleiman points out, may well have put not only her life in danger, but the lives of any contacts she made overseas in danger as well.
The credibility gap keeps getting a bit wider
A ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee has offered a bit of a preview of into the preliminary findings from their investigation.
On June 25, during the House debate on the intelligence authorization bill, Harman delivered an informal progress report on her committee's inquiry. Her remarks received, as far as I can tell, little media attention. But they are dramatic in that these comments are the first quasi-findings from an official outlet confirming that Bush deployed dishonest rhetoric in guiding the United States to invasion and occupation in Iraq. This is not an op-ed judgment; this is an evaluation from a member of the intelligence committee who claims to be basing her statements on the investigative work of the committee. Here's what she says:Now, obviously, unless and until she either choses to make a statement and offer additional support for her contentions or the committee makes a public report containing that support, we can't know for sure what she is basing these statements on - but she's in a position to know what she's talking about. I also think that we would have heard denials or denunciations from others on the committee if she was saying something that cannot be upheld.
- On Bush's prewar assertions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction: "When discussing Iraq's WMD, administration officials rarely included the caveats and qualifiers attached to the intelligence committee's judgments ... . For many Americans, the administration's certainty gave the impression that there was even stronger intelligence about Iraq's possession of and intention to use WMD."
- On the evidence upon which the WMD assertions were based: "The committee is now investigating whether the intelligence case on Iraq's WMD was based on circumstantial evidence rather than hard facts and whether the intelligence community made clear to the policy-makers and Congress that most of its analytic judgments were based on things like aerial photographs and Iraqi defector interviews, not hard facts."
- On the supposed Hussein-al Qaeda connection: "[T]he investigation suggests that the intelligence linking al Qaeda to Iraq, a prominent theme in the administration's statements prior to the war, [was] contrary to what was claimed by the administration."
Hopefully, there will be a public hearing in Congress on these matters and a public report that will get all of the information out in the open. I think it's important for that to happen - we need to not only know what all questions there are, but what answers the administration is prepared to offer.
'Administration officials' may have outed undercover CIA agent for intimidation purposes
If this is true, it could be explosive. Well, if the press pay attention to it, that is...
Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?The story provides a good background on both Wilson's trip and Wilson himself, and notes that the White House most likely hasn't been thrilled that Wilson stepped forward to provide evidence that there was reason for the administration to have known prior to the SOTU that the Niger/uranium story was questionable.It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.
Soon after Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad, the payback came. Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegation.As the article notes, it is not clear at this point if the statement about Wilson's wife is true or not, but either way, it has some serious implications. In addition, there seems to have been little reason for anyone to have revealed that Wilson's wife recommended him for the trip. The trip itself was unpaid, and at the time, there was little personal gain to be had from making the trip (especially since Wilson obviously had not intended to make it known that he had made the trip until he felt it was necessary in order to explain what he had done and what information he'd about the trip).[ ... ]
The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be "two senior administration officials." If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson's wife is such a person--and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her--her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames." If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.
This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a "pattern of activities" to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities. So Novak need not worry.
If this is what it appears to be - and keep in mind that it's not entirely clear at this point if it is or not - an attempt by the Administration to punish a man for having embarassed them, and to warn others not to do likewise, it's very serious. If not, then it needs to be cleared up as soon as possible for the sake of the woman involved and her family.
Either way, the press needs to get on this, and there needs to be some kind of investigation into the matter.
Soon.
This is almost unbelievable
A mailing list I'm a member of has been discussing the Niger uranium situation for the last few days. It's an interesting discussion because you've got people taking different sides, but we're actually talking about it, and not having one of the too-frequently-seen "flamefests" that most multi-partisan discussion seem to devolve into these days.
Anyway, this is a message I posted there earlier this evening about the new revelation that the CIA hadn't even seen the forged documents until after the State of the Union address.
I just have to wonder what the next surprise will be - and yet I'm not sure I want to know...
The things we're now learning....Reports from both Newsweek and the Associated Press are saying that, even though the CIA had looked into claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to get uranium from Niger over a year before the SOTU, they didn't actually get to look at the documents that supposedly supported that claim until after the SOTU. Here's the description of what happened from the Newsweek article (this is a much longer quote than I usually like to make, but the information is such that I think the completeness is necessary, and its complicated enough I didn't want to try and paraphrase it and wind up doing so inaccurately):
The disputed documents were first provided to Italian intelligence services in late 2001, and information about them was then passed along to allied intelligence agencies, including Britain's MI6 and the CIA.This is just bizarre - and I thought the whole mess was pretty weird to begin with. This is important, though, because the CIA's determination that the information was dubious was - we've now learned - not based on the documents being forgeries, but on whether or not the situation the documents described had any potential credibilitiy or not - and they found that it didn't. The forgeries were an entirely separate issue from the basic credibility of the story itself.
But the documents themselves didn't come into the possession of the U.S. government until nearly a year later, in October 2002, sources said, when a foreign individual - described by one source as a journalist - turned them over to the U.S. Embassy in Rome. The motivations of the foreign journalist are unclear but one U.S. intelligence official says he "may have been looking for money" - either for himself or a source who provided the material to him. (The sources did not disclose the identify of the journalist.)All sources agree that the U.S. Embassy did not in fact pay for the material. What is most baffling, however, is what happened after that.
The U.S. Embassy quickly passed the documents along to the CIA station chief in Rome - as well as the State Department's Office of Intelligence and Research. But the station chief didn't send them along to CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., apparently believing they were being sent instead through State Department channels.
In fact, CIA headquarters - including its nuclear-weapons analysts - never got the documents until four months later, in early February 2003 - well after CIA officials and White House aides had already had several discussions about whether the information about Iraqi attempts to buy Niger uranium was reliable enough to be mentioned by the president in his Jan. 28 State of the Union address.
Two sources said, at one point, State Department's INR division - which had long since concluded there was no reliable evidence that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program - offered the documents to the CIA.
But for reasons that are unclear, the CIA never followed up on the offer. One explanation, sources said, is that the CIA had gotten a report from the Italians about the documents, including what agency officials believed was a "verbatim text" and didn't believe it was necessary to have the primary source material themselves.
An agency official acknowledged "there were some discussions" between the State Department and the CIA about turning the material over to the agency, but no follow up took place. "It's unclear" why, the official said.
In any event, the failure has proven in retrospect to be a much bigger, if not catastrophic, bureaucratic foul-up. Throughout the fall and in the weeks prior to the State of the Union address, the CIA had tried to warn the White House that the intelligence reporting about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger was "fragmentary" and not reliable. At one point, CIA director Tenet himself personally advised deputy national-security advisor Steve Hadley to remove a reference to the uranium purchases from a speech Bush was preparing to give in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002.
But the idea that the documents themselves - which underlay the claims - was based on forged material did not become known until after Feb. 4, 2003, when the International Atomic Energy Agency asked the U.S. government to back up some of the allegations it was making about Iraq's nuclear program.
At that point, the U.S. mission to the United Nations turned the documents over Jacque Baute, an aide to IAEA executive director Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei who was responsible for monitoring Iraq-related nuclear issues.
Once IAEA forensic analysts got them, it became immediately clear that the documents were not genuine. "Within two hours they figured out they were forgeries," said one IAEA source familiar with the material.
The source explained that all the IAEA analysts really had to do was conduct a Google search. The documents purported to be letters between Niger and Iraqi officials in July 2000 and October 2000 that describe an agreement for the delivery of two lots of 500 tons of uranium over two years.
But the correspondence was on obsolete letterhead, including the wrong symbol for the presidency of Niger, and made reference to state bodies that no longer existed at the time that the letters were written. In addition, an Oct. 10, 2000, letter, allegedly signed by the foreign minister of Niger, had the signature of a man who hadn't served in that position since 1989.
So at this point, it's looking like we - somehow - found out about the allegations that Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Niger - apparently through the Brits, who learned about it from the Italians. Without seen the documents that were the source of this allegation, we started checking out. In early 2002, a 4-Star General with the United States European Command (which also handles much of Africa) named Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr. went to Niger to check out the allegations. He found there was no basis for them, and reported back - a report that made it to the Join Cheifs of Staff. A few weeks later, Cheney's office asked the CIA to check it out, so the CIA sent retired ambassador Joseph Wilson to check it out, and he, too, found no reason to believe the reports were at all credible.
In October of 2002, when Bush was getting ready to give his speech in Cincinnati, the CIA felt the information was too dubious to be used in the speech and intervened with Condoleeza Rice's deputy, Stephen Hadley, to get the information pulled. This was ALL before they OR the State Department had ever seen the documents themselves. In spite of the CIA insistence that the information be removed from the Cincinnati speech, the President still used it that same week when he met with Senators and Representatives in order to persuade them to vote to authorize him to go to war against Iraq. (I should also note in here that right about this same time - 12 days before the authorization vote, in fact - Bush learned that the North Koreans had announced their success in restarting their nuclear program - but the information was deliberately withheld from all but a few key Republicans until after the vote was taken, in order to prevent the North Korean situation from overshadowing Bush's desired authorization to go to war with Iraq)
Four months later, when it came time for the State of the Union address, the CIA still didn't want the info in, but agreed to the "Britian has learned" language. By that time, if I'm reading the above article correctly, the State Department (Powell's division) had a copy of the actual documents, but the CIA themselves still had not seen them. One thing this revelation does explain, though, is why it took 6 weeks for the US to turn copies of the documents over to the IAEA when they requested them in late-December/early-January (we didn't hand them over until mid-February - AFTER Powell's speech at the UN).
This really stirs the pot up quite a bit more. I find it incredible that the CIA official in Rome never passed the documents up the ladder, and that the CIA didn't seem to be doing more to get the actual documents while looking into the story. I suppose it's good that they came to the correct conclusion - that the information was bogus - even without the documents, but I suspect if they'd gotten their hands on those forgeries before the SOTU, the uranium claim would never have been made. I also have a lot of questions about why the State Department, since they apparently DID have copies of the documents, didn't pass them on to anyone else, even though they had to have known that the President was using the claim those documents purportedly supported as one of the main pieces of his case for claiming that Saddam had nuclear aims.
I still, however, find it very difficult to believe that President Bush wasn't aware of the dispute surrounding the claims, regardless of when the CIA got their hands on the documents. The very phrasing of the statement in the SOTU, in my opinion, makes it clear he had to know. Wouldn't he have wondered why he was making a claim in his speech - and not just any speech, but one that is actually a Constitutionally required report on the condition of the country and his actions on the people's behalf that must be delivered to the representatives of the American people - and sourcing it to the British and *not* to our own intelligence services? Especially if he'd previously used that information in trying to persuade Congressmen to vote for his war. To the best of my knowledge, when he spoke to the various Congressmen, he didn't caveat the information about Saddam trying to get uranium by saying it was information from the British, but now in the SOTU, that's how the line was being presented. I just can't imagine that he wouldn't have wondered why the change had been made - and given that Tenet, Rice, Powell and Cheney* pretty much had to have known by then that the information was at least questionable, I can't imagine that no one would have answered his question.
But like I said, this is just getting really, really weird.
[* Tenet was obviously aware that it was dubious as far back as October, so we know he knew. We also know that Rice's deputy, Hadley, knew because he was the person Tenet debated with about it in October. Since part of the National Security Council's job is to help vet the SOTU, Rice would have been involved in that, and I can't imagine that she wouldn't have talked to Hadley about it at all. Plus, Tenet's "mea cupla" from last week pretty strongly indicated that it was the NSC who wanted the info in the speech, and that it was from negotiating with the NSC that they ended up agreeing to the "Britian learned" phrasing. It was Cheney's initial request back in February of 2002 that had prompted the CIA to send Wilson to Niger, and he would have gotten a response. As for Powell, the State Department had the documents themselves, and Powell refused to include the information in his own speech 8 days later, even though, to date, there's been no mention of anything happening between the SOTU and the UN speech that would have caused him to form a different opinion. Since that has been an oft-asked question why he left it out when the President had used it such a short time before, I'd think if there was any such explaination it would have been proffered by now. So, logically, Powell had to have known at the time of the SOTU that the info was dubious.]
July 16, 2003TIA under fire
Earlier this year, Congress passed an amendment to a budget bill that banned the used of any funds for the implementation of the "
TotalTerrorist Information Awareness" program being developed by John Poindexter at DARPA without further authorization from Congress. Now Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, a Democrat from Hawaii wants to suspend funding for the program all together, and currently has at least the tacit approval from Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, who is the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.Without fanfare, senators debating defense spending for next year have proposed eliminating all money for the Pentagon's development of a vast computerized terrorism surveillance program that has raised privacy concerns.If this is passed by the Senate, there will have to be a conference with members from the House to reconcile the bills - currently, the House bill would only extend the current ban-without-further-approval for another year. Either would be an excellent move, but obviously the Senate version would do considerably more damage to the TIA program as a whole, and thus would be my choice.In the past, Congress has limited the Defense Department's ability to implement the system now known as Terrorism Information Awareness while allowing research to proceed, but the new provision goes further to ban funding outright.
"No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense ... or to any other department, agency or element of the federal government, may be obligated or expended on research and development on the Terrorism Information Awareness program," the provision says.I'm just glad, though, to see that Congress isn't just sitting back and letting this program get developed and implemented without taking the time to exercise caution about it and seriously consider if our tax dollars should really be spent on helping the Pentagon (or who knows who else) poke through every aspect of our lives.
Send this man a fruit basket
If Texas State Senator Bill Ratliff sticks to his guns, I just may send the man a fruit basket. As of now, he is the main hurdle to the Tom DeLay pushed Republican-oriented redistricting in Texas that the Democrat State Representatives fled Texas earlier this year to prevent.
After the "Flight of the Killer D's", as it's been called, Governor Rick Parry decided to call a special summer session to try and force the issue again. This time, the Dems stayed in the state. The plan, however, has to go to the Senate as well, and that's where Senator Ratliff comes in.
[Sen. Bill Ratliff (R-Mount Pleasant)] today issued a statement saying he is adding his name to a statement signed by 10 members of the Texas Senate stating "their unalterable opposition to any motion to bring a congressional redistricting bill to the Senate floor."Why is Ratliff against the redistricting? Believe it or not, he actually is listening to his consitutents, plus he doesn't feel that it's in anyone's best interest (something rather remarkable for a politician of any stripe these days). Tom DeLay is all hot and bothered for the redistricting because he wants to make sure that Republicans are able to keep the majority in both houses that they currently have, which is unusual in Texas.The rules of the Texas senate require a two-thirds vote of the 31 members - or 21 votes - to suspend the rules and bring legislation to the Senate floor for debate.
If the 11 senators who signed the statement stick to their guns, a congressional redistricting bill headed to the Senate floor is DOA.
In his statement, Ratliff noted that Senate Jurisprudence Committee Chair Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) has reported to the Senate that at statewide hearings, "the overwhelming majority of citizens appearing at these statewide hearings are opposed to such redistricting," and said those numbers include "many local activist Republicans and locally elected Republican officials."Of course, if the redistricting doesn't go through, Tom DeLay isn't going to be happy, so there's talk that if Ratliff kills it for this session, the Governor may call yet another special session, and some are even considering changing the rules in the Senate so that it wouldn't take so many people to bring an item to vote - essentially to get around Senator Ratliff. If they do that, however, it should clearly show just how far these people will go to get what they want.Ratliff said maps produced so far have indicated "a total lack of concern for the communities of interest in rural Texas." He said those driving the redistricting effort clearly have "no knowledge of, or regard for, the representative balance between the urban/suburban power base and the diminishing influence of the rural/agricultural community."
The Mount Pleasant Republican said the current congressional lines produce 20 Republican seats, 19 with GOP strength of at least 55 percent. He said the majority of both parties in the Senate have indicated "that the costs associated with this effort are not justified by the marginal gains to the Republican congressional delegation."
He said members also anticipate a huge financial burden on the state for litigation they feel "is sure to follow." However, he said their biggest concern is the level of "animosity and distrust" that will ultimately be harbored for members of the Senate as a result of "such a vitriolic battle."
What's said is how everything about this episode says that. Essentially, the whole plan is for the Republicans to change the rules of the entire districting process in mid-game by doing a redistricting now, just two years after the last redistricting was done. While there's nothing that requires them to only do redistrictings following a national census, redistricting in non-census years is very rare in any state. Most people have felt that redrawing the district lines once ever 10 years is enough.
But its not enough for Tom Delay who wants to ensure that as many districts as possible lean strongly Republican so that the Democrats can't win back a majority of the State Congress anytime soon.
The Democrats, desparate to stop it, fled the state to prevent a vote from beinga ble to be taken in the House - a tactic that the Repulicans had previously used themselves, back in the 70's. The Republicans, in turn, called in the state Department of Public Safety (which has since been determined to have been an illegal use of the DPS by a Judge brought in to examine the situation), which contacted a division of the Homeland Security Agency and the Federal Aviation Agency. As noted a couple days ago, there are still questions about the use of the FAA.
Since none of that worked to get the redistricting passed, now they want to change the rules by which a vote can come to the Senate floor - just to get this through (and echoing the threats made by Republicans in the national Senate about changing the filibuster rules to prevent Democrats from being able to use them to quash some of Bush's judicial nominees.)
The whole thing has been a disgusting, disgraceful mess, but even in all that, Senator Ratliff deserves recognition for his willingness to stand up to his party and do what he believes is right - not just to get attention or to promote his own career (indeed, he may have sunk it - as a Republican at least) - but because he believes it is the right thing to do. Glad to see there's at least one left (and yes, somedays, I do wonder).
More exaggerations
This time, the CIA is accusing John Bolton, the Undersecretary of State, of planning to present a report that would have contained exaggerated information about Syria's WMD capabilities.
U.S. officials told Knight Ridder that Bolton was prepared to tell members of a House of Representatives International Relations subcommittee that Syria's development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons had progressed to such a point that they posed a threat to stability in the region.The CIA appears to have managed to win this round, however, as Bolton's testimony has now been put off until September.The CIA and other intelligence agencies said that assessment was exaggerated.
Bolton had also caused a bit of a stir in May of 2002, when he claimed Cuba had a biological weapons program - another assertion disputed by the CIA.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm beginning to think that maybe the only country who's weapons capabilities they don't want to exaggerate is North Korea's - and there's doesn't need any exaggeration to be scary!
Somthing I'm testing out
If you're curious about the "Tip Bar" at the top of the page, it's a little something I'm testing out to see if I like it or not. The theory is that it's supposed to suggest a link to a related site so that you can maybe find someplace interesting to surf to (sort of like a webring, but, theoretically at any rate, it adjusts as new sites sign up). If you decide to try it out, let me know if it gives you a good suggestion or not - and if it messes up your ability to read this page at all PLEASE let me know. I'll want to fix that asap!
Just a small change...
"With multiple congressional investigations of the Iraq-related intelligence about to begin, some in the Bush administration are arguing privately for a CIA director who will be unquestioningly loyal to the White House as committees demand documents and call witnesses." -- USA Today, July 14, 2003
July 15, 2003Okaaaaayyyy....
As a disabled person, I all for disability access to public places. I'm also for common sense.
The Appalachian Mountain Club's recently built Galehead Hut, accessible only by a rugged five-mile hike over the jagged granite of New Hampshire's Twin Mountains, was required to have a wheelchair ramp to its front door under the Americans with Disabilities Act.... and if you get your wheelchair over that five-mile trail, I'm sure you'll want to have that ramp to get the rest of the way in the door.....To quote Jan: Uffda!
A start
Well, the first bit of positive news out of Iraq in quite a while came today; a governing council composed of Iraqis held their first meeting today.
The U.S.-backed council of 25 men and women is drawn from all ethnic groups in Iraq but is dominated by Shiite Muslims, whom Hussein tortured and killed, and who make up 60 percent of Iraq's 24 million people.Among their first acts, they abolished six holidays that had celebrated Saddam Hussein and his regime and created a new one to celebrate his downfall. Still, it's not going to be all smooth sailing.For many Iraqis, the fact that they were hand-picked by the Americans and have agreed to allow Paul Bremer to have veto power over any decision they make means that they're little more than an extention of American authority, as opposed to representatives of the Iraqi people. It was as recently as a couple weeks ago that Iraqis who had trained with and agreed to serve in the US-backed police force were killed by other Iraqis for cooperating with the Americans.
"The Americans chose those people, we haven't heard that the Iraqis selected any of them," said Tamar Sarkies, a saleswoman in a clothing store. "The Americans impose them on us.""From the beginning, they put the right of veto in Bremer's hand, so what if they make a decision against the Americans' benefit, of course Bremer will blow it up. This is not freedom," said Ali Abdul Amir, an orthopedic specialist.
Still, as politicians, professors and taxi drivers argue about the governing body's role, most everyone seems to agree that the nation's future could depend in large part on its success or failure. If Iraqis think the council is only a puppet organization and the United States will not return rule to Iraqis, then violence could worsen. At least 32* coalition soldiers have been killed since May 1, when major combat operations ended.
Another point that may lead to concern about the council is that Ahmed Chalabi is one of the Iraqis who has been appointed to him. While quite popular with the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense - and initially their choice to be the leader of Iraq after Saddam's ouster - he's not terribly popular with the Iraqis themselves, partly because of his close relationship with the US, partly because he has been convicted of fraud in absentia by Jordan (and sentenced to 20 years in prison), and partly because he hasn't lived in Iraq for many, many years. [The Boston Globe has a list of all 25 members of the council along with brief profiles of each one.]
The council is starting out with fairly limited authority and will gradually gain more authority over time.
My hope is that the council will be successful, that Bremer will give them the authority and power to make decisions in the best interest of Iraqis and will pay heed to their suggestions and requests - and take a "hands-off" approach to making use of his veto power. I also hope that the US will not try to use the concept of this council as an excuse to keep putting off elections and maintain control over Iraq. I think that is one of my greatest fears at the moment - that Bremer will say "but look! We gave them a council made up of Iraqis! It doesn't matter that they can't make any decisions I don't agree with..."
or, in other words...
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"
[Editor's note: actually, there have been 90 coalition soldiers killed since May 1st (80 of which are Americans). The 32 the article refers to are the "combat" deaths. The other 58 have been "non-combat" deaths, though it should be noted that none of the soldiers who have died would have been there had it not been for the war, so, in my opinion, distinguishing between "combat" and "non-combat" is a bit of an artificial distinction, which is why I'm putting this note here.]
...but I thought the inspectors WERE there....
Bush had this to say today:
The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.So, does Bush just not remember that Saddam did let the inspectors in - and that he was cooperating with them to a great extent - or was he somehow, in the words of his father, out of the loop?Hans Blix noted in his March 7th report to the Security Council:
Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.I'm having one of those days where I'm just so aghast at Bush's inability to actually tell the truth. I don't know if the man just doesn't care, or if somehow he things we won't notice. Either way, it's beyond disheartening, especially since there are still so many people out there who are of the opinion that he didn't deliberately mislead us into the war, or otherwise think that he's a "honest" person.I have no faith in this government. I haven't had for quite a while. I didn't necessarily have a lot of faith in the Clinton government, either, because he certainly wasn't all buddy-buddy with the truth, either, though it does seem that most of his lies were about personal problems and not major national policy. I don't know if I'll be able to have any faith in the next government, either, though. I know whoever becomes our next president - even if I support him or her for the position - is going to have to work hard to earn my full trust once s/he is in the job. It won't be automatic.
July 13, 2003Texas DPS should not have been used to search for missing Dems in redistricting dispute
The New York Times is reporting that the search by the Texas Department of Public Safety for the missing Democratic representatives during the original redistricting dispute was illegal.
Texas law "limits the role of D.P.S. to enforcing the laws protecting the public safety and providing for the prevention and detection of crime," [Visiting] Judge [Charles] Campbell [of State District Court in Austin] wrote in the ruling.Other aspects of the search are still being investigated. One review has said there was no wrongdoing in the use of a Department of Homeland Security agency to obtain informatio on the location of the plane, but there are still questions about the FAA's role in the search.The judge said state law overrode a House rule allowing for absent members to be arrested by the sergeant-at-arms or an officer appointed by him.
Meanwhile, the Governor of Texas has called a special session to try again to push the redistricting legislation through.
Wolf, Ritter, uranium, nuclear components, and questions
An interesting conversation between Wolf Blitzer and Scott Ritter regarding the Nigerien documents and the nuclear components that were buried in Mahdi Obeidi's backyard.
WOLF BLITZER:Let's focus some more on the controversy and the continuing hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Joining us now from Albany, New York, the former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He's also the author of a new book just about to come out entitled "Frontier Justice: WMD and the Bushwhacking of America."Bush apparently has declared that the discussion of the uranium incident is over, but I suspect he may learn that it's not up to him. There are more questions coming out all the time. With the news that the CIA blocked the inclusion of the Nigerien information from Bush's October speech, it's interesting to note that at about that same time, Bush was using that information with Congressmen and women to convince them to vote for his war.No great surprise there, Scott, what you're going to tell us. But tell us right now what you think of this uproar here in Washington over how this one line got into the president's speech? Is it just an honest mistake that happened?
SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: No, it's not an honest mistake. It's part of a larger effort of deception that was, you know, taken by the president, by his administration in regards to justifying this war with Iraq. It's not just the nuclear issue, although that's the one that got the majority of the senators and congressmen to change their vote back in October to support this war. It's about chemical weapons, biological weapons, the entire case that was made that Iraq has an ongoing program dedicated to manufacturing and concealing weapons of mass destruction that threaten the security.
BLITZER: But Scott, reference to the nuclear sale, if you will, of uranium from Niger to Iraq, that occurred in January after the October vote. So it wasn't specifically designed to get senators and congressmen to support the resolution.
RITTER: Will, actually, Wolf, you're wrong on that one. That piece of information, that intelligence was peddled by the CIA, in behind the door briefings, two senators and congressmen in late September, 2002, and it was that information amongst others, including the now what we know to be fraudulent claim that aluminum tubes were going to be used in a centrifuge program, that got many senators, including Dianne Feinstein, who sits on the Intelligence Services Committee or sat on the committee to change their vote. So it was just part and parcel of a larger problem.
BLITZER: Yes, but I was suggesting that the State of the Union address came after the congressional votes in the House and the Senate.
RITTER: Well, the State of the Union address is when the president made his case to the American people, and he perpetrated the fraud to the American people at that time. But this fraud was perpetrated to Congress back in September using the same information. So, you know, this is -- this is a very broad-based issue that needs to be delved into.
BLITZER: Let's get right to the issue at hand, though. Do you have any doubt that Saddam Hussein would have loved to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program?
RITTER: Well, you know, now, you're getting into speculation. What I have said is we have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting the nuclear weapons program. And I tend to believe that (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
BLITZER: Wait a minute, wait a minute. What about the equipment that was just discovered the other day buried in the backyard of a former Iraqi nuclear scientist that had been buried there since before the first war? They were supposed to give all that stuff up, as you well know, as a result of the cease-fire?
RITTER: You're right on one point. As I well know. I led the investigation into Mahdi Obeidi. I interviewed him for many hours, looking for just this material. In fact, had the United States not pulled the plug on the inspections I was trying to carry out in August 1998, we had plans to go to Obeidi's house with ground-penetrating radar, to look for this material.
But I believe you'll find that when you dig deeper into the Obeidi case, he's not telling the whole truth. Obeidi kept that material on his own volition. Qusay and the security services, you know, didn't hand it out. And the bottom line is, it's components of a nonexistent program. Nobody is trying to make the case that what Obeidi had is representative of anything that represents a viable nuclear weapons program worthy of war.
BLITZER: But that was a violation of what the U.N. -- the U.N. cease-fires had called for, hiding that equipment underground.
RITTER: First of all, it's not equipment. It's components. It doesn't constitute a viable centrifuge or centrifuge array (ph), and it's not part of a larger program. Obeidi was in violation for maintaining this. Does the fact that he maintained it represent a larger effort by the Iraqi government? We won't know until the investigation is carried out.
But what I'm telling you is based upon my investigation, which went on for many months and involved dozens of hours. Obeidi did this on his own. This wasn't something that ...
BLITZER: But Scott, you know the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. You lived there, you talked to these people. Did anything happen like that of a nature like that, Obeidi doing this on his own without getting approval or someone asking him keep this quiet? That was such a brutal regime. The guy wouldn't have had the guts to do that on his own?
RITTER: Actually, again, Wolf, you're wrong. We have several cases of Iraqi scientists who were very proud of the work they did. Remember, Obeidi was competing with Dr. Diah Jaffar Al-Jaffar (ph) over, you know, who was going to be the first to enrich uranium. He was proud of this program, and when he was ordered to turn it over, I think he maintained these components and these blueprints of his own volition, in a very similar manner that Iraqi scientists responsible for designing guidance and control equipment did the exact same thing.
BLITZER: One final question before I let you go, Scott. The two trailers, the semitrailers, the trucks they found that a lot of U.S. intelligence officials believe could only have been used to develop biological weapons, biological warfare, I don't know if you've had a chance to even examine those reports, but what do you make of that evidence?
RITTER: Again, it's not evidence of anything, Wolf. British experts who are very familiar with the Marconi hydrogen generation equipment sold to Iraq in the 1980s have reviewed these laboratories and says it is an exact replication of that. There's only one thing those labs could do, that is to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. Biological experts, who know about manufacturing biological agents say, you can not produce biological agent there.
So the president again has misled the American public and indeed the world. When, a month ago, he was in Poland and said, the fact that we had these two labs is proof that we have weapons of mass destruction. It's proof of nothing more than the president has mislead, has fabricated, we don't have a weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq to justify this war. What we have is a quagmire with Americans dying on almost a daily basis and no end in site.
BLITZER: Scott Ritter has got a new book coming out, I believe, next week "Frontier Justice: WMD and the Bushwhacking of America". We'll talk when the book comes out again. Thanks, Scott, very much.
RITTER: Thank you.
I simply don't see how it's possible that Bush and his advisors could not have known that the information was bogus if the CIA was telling them not to include it in the October speech. They really can't even try to say that the British inclusion of that information in one of their reports was what made the difference between October and January, since that particular report came out in September.
Also, keep in mind that not only did the Nigerien forgeries make it into the Bush State of the Union address, but also the claim that Iraq was trying to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes, which the White House maintained were for making centrifuges - even though experts had already explained that the tubes in question couldn't be used that way. I remember after reading about the SOTU and the inclusion of the aluminum tubes, wondering why they were bringing that up again, since I'd previously heard reports that the tubes weren't viable for WMD purposes.
I hope this story maintains its traction and that other questionable statements in the speech get put under the microscope as well.
July 12, 2003Oct - no, Jan - yes
According to an article in the NY Times, the CIA had pulled a reference to the Nigerien uranium story from Bush's October speech, but then it was included in the January State of the Union address, even though no new information had come in that would have changed anyone's opinion on the story.
There is evidence that there was concern in the C.I.A. about the credibility of the uranium information and that those doubts reached at least some White House officials months before the State of the Union address. Administration officials involved in drafting another speech Mr. Bush gave about Iraq, in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, said that at the C.I.A.'s behest, they had removed any mention of the central piece of intelligence about African uranium - a report about an effort by Iraq to obtain "yellowcake," which contains uranium ore, in Niger. No one has fully explained how, given that early October warning to the White House, a version of the same charge resurfaced in the early drafts of the State of the Union address just three months later, and stayed there, draft after draft.Makes it a bit harder to say no one in the administration knew, don't you think?
Old evidence in a new light
With all the controversy swirling around about the Nigerien documents (thank you Jan for finding that word for me - it makes sentence structure SO much easier!), a couple other comments haven't gotten quite the attention they might deserve. Between them, statements by President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld raise some interesting questions.
A couple days ago, while trying to defend himself from the accusations of using false information in the State of the Union address, Bush made the comment
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.''[Emphasis mine]Today, Donald Rumsfeld announced that there was no new evidence involved in the decision to go to war.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."If there wasn't any new evidence, as Rumsfeld indicates, and if we were using the same evidence that Clinton had used in deciding to bomb Iraq in 1998, as Bush indicates, are they saying the decision to go to war against Iraq was predicated on 5-year-old or older evidence?I've mentioned before the possiblity that whatever WMD Saddam may have had might have been destroyed in the 1998 bombings - but the admission from Rumsfeld that there was no new evidence used in making the decision to go to war makes that scenario even more likely. If that's the case, it could explain why there are no WMD to be found.
Remember, Bush said that Clinton had bombed Iraq "based upon the very same intelligence" - meaning it was intelligence gathered before the bombing occurred. Rumsfeld now confirms that they weren't using new intelligence to determine that Saddam was a threat, but older intelligence seen "in a dramatic new light".
Of course, it's been reported in several places that the neo-cons wanted this war for a very long time - even before Bush took office - but that doesn't mean using 5-year-old evidence, even if it's seen in a "new light", makes much sense.
This, of course, is still speculative at this point - but it does raise some very interesting questions. Rumsfeld has said that they used old intelligence, but they didn't say how old. It is Bush's statement that leads to the inference that it is 5 years old. And its possible that even if the WMD were destroyed in 1998, if Saddam was trying to rebuild his program, that he may have developed weapons during that 5-year period. There are a lot of things, in fact, that could have happened during those 5 years.
But that's also exactly the problem with what the combination of Bush and Rumsfeld's statement seems to be saying: A lot can happen in 5 years, and if they were relying on 5-year-old intelligence, then they'd have no way to know how much - if any of it - was accurate - and that's not the kind of intelligence you can depend on when operating on a basis of waging pre-emptive wars.
Justifying a pre-emptive war depends on specific, accurate and timely information. Seeing old intelligence in a new light doesn't qualify on any of those points, and should never be used for something this serious.
Whether one considers the result of the war to be sufficient justification for it having been waged or not, its still important that we understand exactly how and why we got into the war in the first place. Saddam being out of power is a good thing - there's no disagreement with that. But even Paul Wolfowitz acknowledged in his interview with Sam Tannenhaus from Vanity Fair (as taken from the DOD transcripts of the interview)
"[the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people] ...is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.We went to war because the President and his people assured us that Saddam was an imminent and intolerable threat to the safety of the United States. Now we're hearing that the decision was not based on new evidence and that the "very same" evidence was used to justify Clinton's bombing, can we really say that the threat was truly imminent?When it comes to waging war, the end cannot be used to justify the means - especially if we're waging a pre-emptive war. There's a lot more riding on this than just President Bush's image or even his presidency. We have to know what happened and why. The lives of our soldiers, the credibility of our nation, and our ability to obtain help from our allies if we are truly in need are at stake.
July 11, 2003'Getting cute with verb tenses'
LiberalOasis has a good piece on the weasely way some of the questions about the Nigerien documents are being answered - and makes a rather apropos comparison in the process.
JIM LEHRER: You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?BILL CLINTON: There is not a sexual relationship. That is accurate.
Q: Do you still believe they were trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa?
GEORGE W. BUSH: Right now?
Q: No, were they? The statement you made --
BUSH: One thing is for certain. He's not trying to buy anything right now. If he's alive, he's on the run.
Here's one thing that's really for certain:
When you have to resort to being cute with verb tenses, you're in real trouble.
Nigerien cherry trees
By the way, for great reporting on the whole Nigerien uranium debacle, be sure to stop by Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo. He's really been staying on top of the story.
Tenet take responsibility
CNN is reporting that George Tenet has taken responsiblity for the incorrect information about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa making it into the SOTU.
In a statement released Friday evening, Tenet said that the CIA had seen and approved the speech before it was delivered, and he took responsibility for the mistake.It's importat to note, though, that as part of his statement he also said"The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," he said.
The CIA director also said, "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency."
Tenet said that at the time the speech was delivered, the line was factually correct because British intelligence did indeed believe that it had evidence of such activity. But he said the CIA's own investigation of those same allegations had led the agency to decide that that the evidence was inconclusive."Concurred" with whom?"From what we know now, [CIA] officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct -- i.e., that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa," he said. "This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address.
"This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed." [Emphasis mine]
While Tenet goes out of his way to clear Bush, Cheney and "top administration officials", his statement that the CIA "concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct" indicates that there was someone making the argument that putting the sourcing of the information on the British would clear the White House of any claims that they lied on the justification we've been hearing that the statement was "technically true". As Joshua Micah Marshall puts it:
But all of this begs the obvious and singularly important question: the charge is that CIA didn't push hard enough to keep bogus information out of the president's speech. Who was pushing on the other side? Who was pushing to keep the bogus information in? And why?So George Tenet is taking the fall, though at this point he's neither resigned nor been fired. But I don't think this is the end of the matter. It sounds like there still was someone involved in writing the speech who knew the information was false, but wanted it in the speech anyway, and finally got the CIA to "concur" by putting the onus on the British. We need to know who that person is, and why they were so insistant that the information be included.UPDATE (10:48pm CDT): Added quote from Josh Marshall to main text
Keeping a Record
As I noted in an earlier post, CBS had changed the headline of their article originally titles "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False. They've now changed the article itself drastically. The new headline is "Bush: CIA OK'd Iraq Speech" and can be found at the same URL as the original article.
Interestingly, though, a link from the Google News search engine still goes to the slightly intermediate retitled version of the article - "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious". I'm going to make a screenshot of that full article so that I'll have a record of it as well. The text of that version of the article should be what is transcribed below, though after reading several versions of the same article, I have to say I am getting a big fuzzy, so you're welcome to compare them for yourself, if you wish.
The difference in the URL's is minor - in the one that had the original article and the new, totally revised version, the word "iraq" is one of the folder names, where as with the version that is simply retitled, that particular folder is named "eveningnews".
The screenshots of the page with the "Dubious" headline can be seen here, here and here.
Just so that the original article isn't lost, here is a copy of the complete text as it was originally posted.
Bush Knew Iraq Info Was FalseThe new version of the story includes Condoleeza Rice's comments from today where - despite saying she's not trying to blame anyone - she puts the blame for the problem squarely on George Tennet's head.Published on Thursday, July 10, 2003 by CBS News
by David Martin
Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President's mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
CIA officials warned members of the President's National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.
The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: "Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that's how it was delivered.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Mr. Bush said.
The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.Today at a press conference during the President’s trip to Africa, Secretary of State Colin Powell portrayed it as an honest mistake.
“There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people,” said Powell.
But eight days after the State of the Union, when Powell addressed the U.N., he deliberately left out any reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa.
“I didn’t use the uranium at that point because I didn’t think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world,” Powell said.
That is exactly what CIA officials told the White House before the State of the Union. The top CIA official, Director George Tenet, was not involved in those discussions and apparently never warned the President he was on thin ice.
Secretary Powell said today he read the State of the Union speech before it was delivered and understood it had been seen and cleared by the intelligence community. But intelligence officials say the director of the CIA never saw the final draft.
©MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc
About that CIA approval
Several news outlets are now reporting that the White House is saying that the CIA approved Bush's remarks on Iraq in the State of the Union address.
Something important to keep in mind. There's not much doubt that the CIA did approve the information in the SOTU. That's not the issue. The approval, however, came after Bush had changed the line about Saddam seeking uranium from Africa to be credited to the British, rather than being offered as a flat statement. Since the British did issue a report in September that included that information, so in attributing the claim to the British, the statement became "technically true" even though they knew that the claim made in the statement was false.
This is one situation where Bush and company are trying to counter the accusation that they deliberately included false information in the SOTU with the idea that the CIA approved it. The problem for them is that this isn't an either/or situation - both can be equally true. They could have deliberately included false information even after getting it approved by the CIA by phrasing it in a way that put the blame off on the British.
CBS changes headline and more on uranium
Earlier I quoted a CBS story headlined "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False". I went back recently to double check something on the article and discovered that the headline had been changed - to "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious". It's always interesting to see the media backpedal on something like that.
I got a couple screencaps just for reference - the first is the Google News Search Page showing the original title still in it's records, with the link URL listed in the status bar at the bottom of the page. The second is the revised CBS news page.
This isn't one of the more serious revisions, but it's still something to note.
In other news, the Washington Post is reporting that in early September, 2002, the CIA had asked the British to drop the claim about Saddam trying to buy uranium from Africa.
“WE CONSULTED about the paper and recommended against using that material,” a senior administration official familiar with the intelligence program said. The British government rejected the U.S. suggestion, saying it had separate intelligence unavailable to the United States.Tony Blair is still holding onto his claim that they have intelligence from an unidentified third country that Saddam tried to buy uranium from countries in Africa, and that they have not shared that information with us. Personally, if I were in the CIA right now, or if I were President Bush, I'd be on the phone trying to see that intelligence for myself.
At that time, the CIA was completing its own classified national intelligence estimate on Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Although the CIA paper mentioned alleged Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from three African countries, it warned that State Department analysts were questioning its accuracy when it came to Niger and that CIA personnel considered reports on other African countries to be “sketchy,” the official said.The CIA paper’s summary conclusions about whether Iraq was restarting its nuclear weapons program did not include references to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa.
Its kind of interesting that the administration is claiming that they included the information in the State of the Union speech because it was included in a British report, but the CIA tried to get the British to remove the information from their reports - and the British are trying to say they have solid information on it, but they just haven't shared it with us. Someone needs to get all this information together and figure out what's going on.
Quick question
Ok, I know that there's a difference between Niger and Nigeria. I also know that if I wanted to refer to something that was about or came from Nigeria, it would be "Nigerian". What's the proper term for something that is about or comes from Niger? I've been wanting to use something other than "The documents from Niger" or "The Niger forgeries", but the only word that comes to mind is Nigerian, and that's not the right one. Any suggestions?
Monster Limo Web Log
If you haven't started reading the Monster Limo Web Log yet, you really need to. They proved some wonderfully snarky takes on the news, usually making a good point along the way. This one, in particular, made me laugh - and points out, once again, the intellectual limitations of those in power. They can't even make a decent metaphor!
You People Need To Retake Geometry. One last time everyone, an axis is something with TWO points. The Axis Powers of WWII were named "Axis" because of Berlin and Rome, their TWO capitals. When Bush named three countries an "axis of evil" it was bad enough, but wanting to add a fourth point to a two-pointed figure is ridiculous. Let's gather up the ten worst uses of "axis" and form a hexagon of stupid.Oh, regarding that light blogging comment earlier? Yeah, I'm still working on the project (trying to update the content and improve the usability of some of my websites) but every time I sit down to start on it, I realize just how incredibly big of an undertaking it is, and decide I'm just better off reading more news and blogging more. So, maybe blogging won't be so light after all, but if it does get light, that'll be why. :)UPDATE: Husbands and puppies should NEVER be allowed to snuggle up and sleep next to each other. It's terminally cute. Were I diabetic, I'd be needing some insulin any moment now. By the Gods, I'm lucky to have to have the life I do! (OK, I'll go away now before I get outright maudlin *G*)
Ari and the logical impossibility
I think Ari Fleischer may be feeling a bit defensive with all the questions that are getting asked about the Niger documents and the WMD issue in general. In a recent statement, he issued a tough-sounding challenge that no one could possible take him up on.
"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."Now, I don't want to say that I don't think Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction - obviously, at one point he did. What I think is that, if he had any recently, they were nowhere near the threat that the White House made them out to be, nor do I believe that they were as plentiful as claimed. But, while I can't for the life of me figure out where the weapons disappeared to (unless it turns out that they were, in fact, destroyed in the 1998 bombings that Clinton ordered.)Still, I find the idea that Ari wants people who don't believe the weapons existed to tell everyone where the weapons are to be very amusing.
'Technically' true
CBS News | Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False | July 10, 2003 20:44:36Hmmmm.... let me make sure I understand this.(CBS) Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President's mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.
Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
CIA officials warned members of the President's National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.
The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: "Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that's how it was delivered.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Mr. Bush said.
The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.
Bush - "Ok, so I know it's not really true, but since I can define it as a British claim, I'm not really lying."
Clinton - "Ok, so I know she gave me a blowjob, but since I can define "sexual relations" a penile/vaginal penetration, I'm not really lying"
Why did they call Clinton "Slick Willy" again?
Sorry - but if "technically true" isn't good enough for discussions of a blowjob, it's certainly not good enough for justifying going to war.
July 10, 2003Wilkinson quote is bogus
Well, when I wrote this the other day, I'm really glad I paid attention to that little voice in my head that said not to trust it entirely, and prompted me to include a caveat on the information. It turns out that the story from Capitol Hill Blue about a CIA advisor who claimed he'd been at 2 meetings with President Bush where Bush was advised against using the Niger documents and said that Bush had responded angrily, saying that if the CIA couldnt prove the story was true, they should hire some people who could. It turns out that the the CIA adviser is something of a con man, and that Capitol Hill Blue got "had" on the story.
After the story ran, we received a number of emails or phone calls that (1) either claimed Wilkinson was lying or (2) doubted his existence. I quickly dismissed the claims. After all, I had known this guy for 20 years and had no doubt about his credibility. Some people wanted to talk to him, so I forwarded those requests on to him via email. He didn't answer my emails, which I found odd. I should have listened to a bell that should have been going off in my ear.What's important here, though, is that only the story at Capitol Hill Blue was based on what this particular guy reported. The other stories I had mentioned in my own post were from more "regular" sources (Financial Times, MSNBC, Joshua Micah Marshall via The Hill and the Washington Post) and match information that's been widely reported in the last couple of days.Today, a White House source I know and trust said visitor logs don't have any record of anyone named Terrance J. Wilkinson ever being present at a meeting with the President. Then a CIA source I trust said the agency had no record of a contract consultant with that name. "Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever heard of this guy," my source said.
I tried calling Terry's phone number. I got a recorded message from a wireless phone provider saying the number was no longer in service. I tried a second phone number I had for him. Same result.
Then a friend from the Hill called.
"You've been had," she said. "I know about this guy. He's been around for years, claiming to have been in Special Forces, with the CIA, with NSA. He hasn't worked for any of them and his name is not Terrance Wilkinson."
Anyway, I'd said I'd let you know when I found out anything, so I thought I'd at least get that updated.
Light Blogging Ahead
I've got a project I need to work on that's going to take up my attention for the next few days. I'll try to pop in if something catches my eye, but if you don't hear anything for a day or two, don't worry - I'll be back :)
July 09, 2003Soldiers headed home
This just in: the 3rd Infantry Division leaving Iraq.
(I've always wanted to do a "this just in" story *g*)
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rumsfeld said the division's 3rd Brigade has already reached Kuwait and will be heading home this month. The 2nd Brigade will be home in August and the 1st Brigade will return in September, he said. He said each of the final two brigades to leave Iraq will have been in the Gulf region for 10 months by the time they depart.I am so relieved to hear that, at the very least, the soldiers who have already been over there so long will soon be able to come back home. I have to say, though, I'm a bit concerned about where the thousands of international troops are going to come from. Last I heard, Bush and company were practically begging other countries to commit troops to the rebuilding effort, but hadn't been having much luck - though that could easily have changed since then.
In the immediate aftermath of the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime in April it was expected that the 3rd Infantry Division would go home by June. But they were kept longer because of a surge of anti-U.S. violence in Baghdad and elsewhere in central Iraq. That violence has killed at least 29 American troops since President Bush declared major combat operations over on May 1.The 3rd Infantry Division's headquarters is at Fort Stewart, Ga.
Rumsfeld said there are now 148,000 American troops in Iraq. He did not say whether the 3rd Infantry Division would be replaced by another U.S. unit, although he said he expects thousands of international soldiers to begin operating in Iraq by late summer or early fall.
I'll write more about this either later today or tomorrow - I want to do some additional research on the "international troops" aspect.
Henry Waxman and the Forged Nuclear Evidence
Representative Henry Waxman has been keeping an eye and asking questions about the forged nuclear evidence for quite some time. Not only does he have a web page devoted to the topic, he also has issued a number of detailed statements and written letters to various administration officials which not only provide a solid assortment of facts, but also the sources of those facts.
Since this issue has flared up again - and because it's one I think needs to be pursued thoroughly, I've gone ahead and uploaded copies of some of the .pdf documents in case you want to read more about the situation. Representative Waxman's information is clear, well-presented and solid backed by reports, quotes and news articles.
Something I found interesting in reading through Representative Waxman's letters and responses is how there have been so very may contradictions in the excuses offered by the White House for the information having been used. Obviously, I've been aware that some of the information has been of a conflicting nature - I've commented on it more than a few times - but seeing it all laid out in one letter (especially the letter to President Bush noted above) really shows the scope of whole thing.
A guide to electronic vote tampering possibilities
Over at This Modern World, Bob Harris points the way to a New Zealand site that has an article explaining just how easy it is to tamper with the Diebold electronic voting machines.
Apparently, their security isn't all that whoopy, and, it's auditing features are fairly easy to edit, passwords aren't hard to obtain or copy, and it makes use of multiple copies of the data that makes it easier to tamper with the data without it being easily detected.
I'm not sure this is exactly what I'd call progress.
Once again it's 'What did they know and when did they know it?' time...
There's a lot of information today flying around about the forged documents that were behind the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to get uranium yellowcake from Niger. Potentially the most devastating - if it's true - is a report that not only was Bush aware that the documents were not considered reliable but that he was determined to use them anyway. According to an article at Capitol Hill Blue, Terrance Wilkinson, who is described as a CIA adviser, says Bush was not only told on at least 2 occasions (which Wilkinson claims to have witnessed) prior to the State of the Union address that report of Iraq trying to purchase Uranium from Niger had been discredited, but that Bush's response was that if the CIA's current agents couldn't find any proof it was true, then they needed to hire some who could.
An intelligence consultant who was present at two White House briefings where the uranium report was discussed confirmed that the President was told the intelligence was questionable and that his national security advisers urged him not to include the claim in his State of the Union addressAdd that to the other contention that's been made recently - that while writing the speech, intelligence officials made their concerns about relying on the Niger documents known, and in response, the Bush administration decided to say that they got the information from the British - and it begins to look more and more like people in the higher levels of the Bush administration - and probably even Bush himself - knew that the Niger documents were fake, but were determined to make the accusation that Saddam was trying to get radioactive materials, even if they had no reliable evidence whatsoever to back it up. It also appears that they were willing to go to some length to try and make their accusation at least sound plausible for as long as possible in order to get the war underway."The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA adviser present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."
Bush's response was anger, Wilkinson said.
"He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."An interesting twist in the story comes from the Financial Times, which notes that when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) asked for information from the US about the claims that Saddam had tried to purchase uranium from Africa, the administration was very slow to respond.
The US government withheld from United Nations weapons inspectors evidence to back its claim that the Iraqi government had attempted to obtain uranium from Africa, despite repeated pledges to co-operate fully with the inspectors.No reason for the delay seems to have been provided, but if the administration was aware that the documents were forged, and if they had no other evidence to back up their claims, its not hard to imagine why they might have been less than eager to hand it over.In a letter released on Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it was forced to wait six weeks for the evidence - from December 2002 to early February 2003 - at a critical time, when it was investigating US charges that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear programme.
During that period, the US several times repeated the allegations, most notably in President George W. Bush's January State of the Union address.
On other occasions, when questions about the reliability of the Niger documents have come up, administration officials have answered that the forgery wasn't the only information they were relying on - there was additional information indicating that Saddam had also tried to obtain radioactive material from other African nations. Today's admission contradicted that information as well.
The White House on Tuesday sought to explain how a statement based on false information could have been included in the most important speech of the presidential calendar. The documents alleging a transaction between Niger and Iraq had been forged, a White House official confirmed, and said further reports of other Iraqi attempts to source uranium in Africa were "not detailed enough to be certain that such attempts were in fact made".For the White House to finally say that "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech" is all well and good. The question, however, is if knowing what they knew then, should they have included it? From the look of things, the answer is most likely, no.
ADDENDUM: A caveat. The website - Capitol Hill Blues - that pubished one of the articles referenced above is one I'm not terribly familiar with, but the way the article is written comes off as a bit more propaganda-ish than I'm usually comfortable with using as a sole citation for something. The information in the story sounds credible to me - I can easily hear Bush responding that way - and if it's true, it's also very important - but without further information on CHB or the story itself, I didn't want to offer it without at least noting that I have some minor reservations at the moment. If you happen to know anything about either the Capitol Hill Blues or the story itself, please leave a note or link in the comments section.On a forum for the CHB website, Doug Thompson, who runs CHB, was asked about the problems a Freeper had reported in trying to get information on Wilkinson. Here is the meat of Thompson's reply:
I've known Terry Wilkinson for 20+ years and his decision to go public was a painful one that I'm sure will bring recriminations. But he loves his country a lot more than any political party or politician. I've received some emails today regarding his comments and have forwarded them on to him. It's his decision as to whether or not he wishes to respond.Hopefully, there will be some kind of confirmation or refutation of this story within the next few days, but I thought the information was interesting enough to at least make note of it. I'll let you know if I find out anything further.But I don't feed anyone's desire for a witch hunt. When we ran the stories about Bill Clinton's sexual assaults on women, we identified a number of the women. I don't recall anyone at Free Republican demanding "proof" of their identity although I did have a number of liberal media types hounding me for more information.
I didn't pander to them and I won't to anyone else. I stand by the stories that run on our web site. You are free to read them or not read them, believe them or not believe them. It's a free world. We've been on the web since 1994 and we will be here 10 years from now.
July 08, 2003More on the "Freedom Center" groundbreaking part 2
An article at the New York Metro.com about how the Republicans seem to be able to politicise the September 11 attacks with impunity, but no one else can pointed out where the sorce of that mysterious reference to the "Freedom Tower" (aka the new WTC) cornerstone being laid during the Republican convention in the NY Times a month ago came from.
If you'll remember, back in June, I had posted about the story the NY Times published in their print edition and (for a short time) on the web about how the "Freedom Tower" planners were trying to push the environmental review quickly so that they could break ground during the Republican convention next summer. Not long after it was posted, the headline, which had referred to the groundbreaking, and the mention of the groundbreaking plans, were removed from the web copy of the article, and the next day, a correction was published indicating that, while the developers had contemplated the idea, they had decided against it.
It turns out that the initial reference to this plan was in the May 2nd New York Daily News. The full article is available only at cost via the archives, but here's the abstract, which says that the story came from the building's leaseholder and that according to him, the idea came from the governor's office.
Leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who has vowed to pay for the tower, said yesterday that the governor had a more immediate goal: "He wants to lay the cornerstone of the foundation of the Freedom Tower at the Republican National Convention," Silverstein told a group of Daily News reporters and editors.In today's article, New York Metro.com had this to say about the incident:On May 2, the Daily News’s excellent ground-zero reporters, Greg Gittrich and Maggie Haberman, broke the story that Pataki was “apparently” getting set to lay the cornerstone at ground zero in a ceremony to be held during the Republican National Convention here in the city next year—a ceremony, they noted, that Bush would be certain to attend. They had to throw in that “apparently” because they got the scoop in a slightly backhanded way: Ground-zero leaseholder Larry Silverstein was speaking to reporters and editors of the News, and it was he who released the cat from its bag, as it were. Their story noted that a gubernatorial spokeswoman declined to comment, and PR pasha Howard Rubenstein called the paper to “clarify” Silverstein’s comments and assert that maybe the developer misunderstood something Pataki had told him.It was about 6 weeks after the New York Daily News story that the New York Times picked up, printed the story, deleted it from the web and then issued their retraction.Lots of journalists seem to feel compelled these days, what with patriotic fervor and all, to take politicians at their word; it’s a sort of opposite Woodward-and-Bernstein effect, where the motive is now to invest leaders with credibility they may or may not in fact have (see “Iraq, imminent threat to U.S. of”). But trust me on this one—experience teaches that in this town, when a gubernatorial spokeswoman declines to comment and Howard Rubenstein calls unprompted to “clarify” remarks, the story is true.
From what I can tell, the Republicans have given up on the cornerstone-during-the-convention idea, but it's good to know where the story originally came. It appears that the idea was, at the very least, given some serious consideration and may have been a part of their actual plans, until the Times story came out and prompted a fairly loud outcry in a fairly short period of time.
Good article on Bush's lies
Orcinus has an excellent article up that examines George Bush's aversion to the truth. Not only does he look at matters surrounding the WMD, but also other issues, including his war record, the "trifecta" joke, and Enron.
One bit he points out that I was unaware of is that while Bush employed the "trifecta" joke (saying he wouldn't engage in deficit spending unless we had a national emergency, a war, or a recession - and lucky him, we hit the trifecta) as a means of blaming 9/11 and the resulting War or Terror™ for his returning the country to deficit spending, even before 9/11, the situation was such that the country would have been engaged in deficit spending and raiding the Social Security Trust to cover it.
Throughout the campaign, Bush had been insistent that budget surpluses would be continuing, and never does he appear to have told any public audience at any time that deficit spending might become necessary. Indeed, the only times that Bush ever seems to have brought up the subject of deficit spending were those when he accused Al Gore of planning to lapse back into the practice.It's a fairly long article, but well worth the time.Moreover, the story is fundamentally false as a purely chronological matter: Bush was already facing the certainty of deficit spending at the end of the summer of 2001, well before the attacks of Sept. 11. The surplus built up during the Clinton years -- some $4 trillion worth -- vanished over the spring and summer that year, and budget experts sounded the alarm about looming deficits then. The Congressional Budget Office warned Bush on Aug. 29 that Social Security funds would be needed to balance the books, forcing him to abandon a campaign promise not to use the retirement fund for other government spending.
Indeed, that is just what Bush proceeded to do in his actual budget, presented in January. According to the CBO, Bush’s budget plan would drain every dollar of the $527 billion surplus from the Social Security Trust Fund for the next two fiscal years even while creating a deficit. It would continue to raid the fund for varying amounts each year through 2012. Even with the fund’s help, the federal budget is expected to be in deficits through at least 2005.
Most serious economists peg the source of these nagging deficits on Bush’s tax-cut plan, the deepest portions of which have yet to kick in. The administration sternly denies this, with Bush offering a familiar defense: "This nation might have to run deficits in time of war, in times of a national emergency or in times of recession, and we’re still in all three," he told reporters in January. "It makes sense to spend money necessary to win the war."
Yet it’s clear that while Sept. 11 may have deepened and broadened the budget-deficit problem, the administration was faced with chronic budget deficits no matter what -- largely because of the Bush tax breaks.
Small steps in the right direction
Ok, it's not all good - a lot of people still seem to think that starting the war was the right thing to do, Democrats aren't picking up much popularity yet and there's not much faith they could do better on some issues than Bush is, but at least Bush's popularity is coming down, which is a good start.
Bush's approval ratings stood at 60 percent in the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, a significant drop from his 74 percent rating on April 9, the day the 40-foot statue of Saddam Hussein fell in Baghdad and U.S. commanders said the Iraqi ruler's reign had ended.Approval is also down on his handling of health care issues and his attempts at reviving the economy.The daily violence in Iraq since Bush announced an end to major combat also weighs heavily on the public, with the number of Americans saying the military effort in Iraq is going very well down to 23 percent from 61 percent in mid-April.
When it comes to the Democrat candidates for President, the news isn't very good at all. Joe Leiberman is running first in name recognition, but only 45% of those who've heard of him would vote for him. Worse, despite Dean's popularity in the blogosphere and the coverage he's gotten lately for his fund-raising, his name recognition was only 37% among registered voters, and of those, only a third would consider voting for him.
The other bit of good news is that a federal appeals court has held that a suit seeking to get into the records of Cheney's energy task force can go forward. The Sierra Club and Judicial Watch claim that representatives from the energy industry were, effectively, part of the task force while the administration maintains that only government officials were. The administration also claims that "the lawsuit would be an unconstitutional intrusion on the operations of the executive office of the president."
July 07, 2003Update to 'From his lips to their ears'
Reading this post at DailyKOS about why we are losing an average of a soldier a day, I was reminded of something I had intended to mention in my earlier post on the increase in violence and the ability of shooters to "escape into the crowd" and get away.
As I'd noted, the main thing we keep hearing from US officials is that these are angry individuals who are loyal to Saddam, and presumably to the Ba'athist party as well. Saddam's Ba'athist party was made up largly of followers of the Sunni branch of Islam, and there is a long history of rancour between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. The Shi'ites, however, make up the majority of the Iraqi population, and there have been concerns that Shi'ites may go into a heavy crackdown mode and attempt to get back at the Sunnis for the oppression they suffered under Saddam's regime, which the Sunnis were largly spared.
As Steve Gilliard points out, however, if these shooters are pro-Saddam loyalists who want to return him to power, their being able to evaporate back into the crowd after murdering one of our soldiers (or other westerners) would only be possible if the Shi'ite majority has decided to set aside it's animosity against the Sunnis and help them out - and the odds of that happening are pretty slim. In fact, I'd say that there'd be a better chance of the Republican Congress doing nothing to prevent a repeal of the 25th Amendment* so that Bill Clinton could try to get re-elected, and I think we all know how likely that would be.
Even if you set aside the issue of Sunni versus Shia, if the goal of these attackers is to be able to help Saddam come back to power, as our officials are maintaining, why would Iraqi citizens in general want to give them any kind of aid, even if it is just letting hide in a crowd to escape capture?
*[Just for the record, my comment about repealing the 25th amendment is for example purposes only, and should not be construed as any indication of support for such a measure. Thank you.]
From his lips to their ears
This weekend hasn't been a good one for US soldiers - or westerners in general - in Iraq. In the span of 12 hours, 3 soldiers were killed in Baghdad.
Insurgents threw a homemade bomb at a U.S. convoy in northern Baghdad early Monday, killing a soldier, said Sgt. Patrick Compton, a spokesman for the military.In that last killing, the soldier was reported to have been at the University with US officials. Apparently, his killer just walked up to him, shot him, and took off.Late Sunday, two assailants fired on another U.S. military convoy killing another soldier. Troops returned fire, killing one of the attackers and wounding the other, Compton said. The wounded suspect was taken into custody.
In the third fatal attack, an assailant shot a U.S. soldier in the head at close range as he waited to buy a soft drink at Baghdad University at midday Sunday.
In a similar incident, a British reporter was killed outside the Baghdad museum recently. At the time, he had nothing on or about him to indicate he was a reporter. A gunman came up to him, fired a bullet into the base of his skull and escaped into the crowd. As with the soldier killed at Baghdad University, and the one roughly a week ago where a soldier was killed while trying to buy DVD's, none of the witnesses or bystanders attempted to capture the killer as he took off.
There is now some growing concern that it may not be just US soldiers who are targets of Iraqi anger, but westerners in general, as well as Iraqis who are working with or alongside the US.
In another recent incident, 7 Iraqis who had just completed 5 days of training so that they could serve as part of the police force were killed, and many others injured, when a bomb exploded in the middle of their group while they were marching away from the building where their training had been held. People in the area said that the recruits had been warned against helping the Americans.
Our leaders keep trying to reassure everyone that these are just angry individuals, loyal to Saddam and desparate to try and return him to power, and that they're not part of any organized resistance or guerilla force. Somehow, I don't think it really matters, though, if they're organized or not, or if their goal is to bring Saddam back or just to get us out of there. When we have so little support that killers can walk up to westerners on the street, shoot them in broad daylight in areas that aren't exactly isolated, and then "escape into the crowd", the situation is decidedly grim.
July 06, 2003Presidential candidate selector
Select Smart offers a Presidential candidate matching tool which is supposed to help you see which candidates have the best match for your beliefs and views. Obviously, there's always going to be room for questions about accuracy, but most of the Select Smart tools I've used have - for me anyway - been pretty accurate.
Just for the fun of it, I thought I'd share my results with you. When using the selector, you can limit the field of candidates it tries to match you to by specifing whether or not you want to have candidates listed who have withdrawn from the race, whether or not you want to have candidates listed who have not yet announced their candidacy, and whether or not you want to have candidates listed who are not members of one of the two main parties. Just so you could see the range of candidates this thing covers, I went ahead and had it run a full match with no limitations.
When you get your results, a link is provided for each candidate to a page with info about them. Not only does this give you some ideas of what the candidates stand for, but it also gives you a peek at what kind of information their analysis of each candidate was based on - which you can use to get a feel for how accurate your score for that candidate was on the selector tool.
The percentage after each names is how closely their profile matches my answers.
Now, I don't plan to let an online quiz determine who I'm going to support, but it does give a bit of an insight into who I might want to look more closely at, and there were a number of surprises.
- Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (100%)
- Green Party Candidate (87%)
- Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (84%)
- Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (81%)
- Leahy, Patrick Senator, Vermont - Democrat (78%)
- Feingold, Senator Russ, WI - Democrat (77%)
- Jackson, Cong. Jesse Jr., IL - Democrat (76%)
- Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (76%)
- Biden, Senator Joe, DE - Democrat (73%)
- Clinton, Senator Hillary Rodham, NY - Democrat (71%)
- Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (71%)
- Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (71%)
- Daschle, Senate Minority Leader Tom, SD - Democrat (69%)
- Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (68%)
- Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (68%)
- Socialist Candidate (66%)
- Kaptur, Cong. Marcy, OH - Democrat (58%)
- Bayh, Senator Evan, IN - Democrat (54%)
- Feinstein, Senator Dianne, CA - Democrat (54%)
- Clark, Retired Army General Wesley K "Wes" Arkansas - Democrat (54%)
- Dodd, Senator Chris, CT - Democrat (53%)
- Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (53%)
- Gore, Former Vice-President Al - Democrat (31%)
- Libertarian Candidate (28%)
- McCain, Senator John, AZ- Republican (24%)
- Bush, George W. - US President (16%)
- Bradley, Former Senator Bill NJ - Democrat (14%)
- Hagelin, John - Natural Law (9%)
- Hart, Former Senator Gary, CO - Democrat (9%)
- Buchanan, Patrick J. – Reform/Republican (5%)
- Phillips, Howard - Constitution (-2%)
- Vilsack, Governor. Tom IA - Democrat (-4%)
- LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (-8%)
I still haven't decided who I'm going to support, and probably won't for quite a while. I've been leaning towards Dean lately, but I want to make sure that it's him I like and support, and not that I'm just getting caught up in the internet buzz he's creating. As for other candidates, there is a lot about Kerry I find intersting, also, and I've been planning to spend a bit more time reviewing his record and platform. After looking at this, I'll probably also give both Kucinich and Edwards a closer look.
At any rate, it's kind of a fun little tool to check out, so give it a whirl. You may even surprise yourself :)
A Shout-out and wish for luck to the Scottish Pagans
It may not seem like much, but if the Pagan Federation in Scotland is successful in their to get a recount of how many people indicated they follow a Pagan faith in the 2000 Scottish census, they may be able to get official recognition of Paganism as a relgion from the Scottish government. This would be a major step from Pagans everywhere - though obviously for Pagans in Scotland, most of all.
Scotland's Pagan community is set to gain official status as a recognised religion after raising funds for a recount of the 2001 Scottish census.While the change in status would obviously have no real effect for Pagans in the US, having a western nation recognize Paganism as a genuine religion, with all the attendant benefits thereof, helps increase Paganism's legitimacy, and that is important.Pagans were lumped into the 'other religion' category at the time of the original count. But they claim they have thousands of members in Scotland and that the faithful -- which includes witches, druids and healers, and is based around a connection with nature -- should have formal recognition within the Scottish landscape of religion. Their eventual aim is that the state should recognise weddings, funerals and other rites of passage within a Pagan context and that Pagans should be allowed to take holidays for events like the summer solstice without prejudice.
MSPs turned down their public petition to extract the data from the census at the Scottish parliament in February this year because of 'technical difficulties', but the Pagan Federation claim they are now almost ready to ask the Registrar General for a recount.
John Macintyre, spokesman for the Pagan Federation in Scotland, told the Sunday Herald that Paganism is the fastest-growing religion in Scotland and should be recognised at civic level.
The article notes that the Pagan Federation estimates that 4,000 to 5,000 Pagans live in Scotland, "which would put us on a comparable level with Hindus or Sikhs in Scotland." Unofficial counts, however, have indicated that it may be even more than that - even as high as 10,000, with as much as "100% year-on-year" growth. They estimate that there are roughly 108,000 Witches (a sub-set - or denomination - of Paganism) in the UK as a whole, with as many as 225,000 Pagans overall.
While I would never want to see the US start recognizing "official religions" the way that other countries do - not just because it would be a horrible violation of the anti-establishment clause, but also because it would quickly become politicized. The one drawback, however, of not having "official religions" is that there is little to no consistency in how ordinations are viewed legally.
For many Pagan churches, groves, covens, kindreds, hearth or other groups, there is no "governing body" that can set standards for or grant ordinations. The Priest or Priestess of the group is chosen by the group members, and serves at the pleasure of the God(s)/ess(es) that the group honours and worships. This works well on a spiritual level, but legally, it's a bit dodgy.
Some Priest/esses end up going through the Universal Life Church, which offers "instant ordinations" that are supposed to be legally acceptable in all states, but which are often viewed suspiciously (since there are no actual qualifications - you go to a website, fill out a form, and - congrats! - you're a minister), and, in some states, can't be used for things such a presiding over a wedding or a funeral.
Initially, I had gone this route, but have since renounced my ULC ordination. For one thing, spiritually, it just didn't feel right. While I do believe that Thor has called me to serve Him as a Priestess, I know there are still many things He wants me to learn before I am qualified to take that title. In addition, since I am disabled, I have been effectively rendered a solitary (for non-Pagans reading this, a solitary is a Pagan who does not belong to any coven, kindred, hearth, grove, church or other group), so there wouldn't be much I could do with an ordination at this point, anyway.
The good news is that I've seen several national Pagan groups start to try and develop clergy programs that would help by being able to offer standards for credentialing and ordination. I hope that more of this will continue, so that Pagans will be able to provide the same kind of services to their congregations that ministers of other faiths offer to theirs. Until then, many Pagans end up having to do things like have a spiritual marriage ceremony led by their Priest/ess as well as a civil ceremony performed by a Justice of the Peace in order to make their marriage legally binding.
This is one place where having countries like Scotland officially recognize Paganism can also help American Pagans. As our faith is recognized as legitimate in more places around the world, it becomes harder for American authorities to deny that it is a true faith path, to which followers are as sincerely devoted as those who follow more mainstream paths.
I would just like to take a moment to offer my best wishes to the Pagan Federation of Scotland and all Scottish Pagans in this endeavour. I hope that your efforts are successful, and I am truly happy that you have this opportunity - not just for what it might mean to Pagans here in the states, but just because I know its important to you!
God(s)/ess(es) bless!
Bravado vs Foolishness
While looking at Bill Hobbs blog for the previous post, I also noticed he had a post chiding liberals for their reaction to Bush's "Bring 'em on" comment.
President Bush is catching some grief from your garden-variety hysterical name-calling anti-Bushies for his "bring 'em on" comment in discussing the situation in Iraq, and the sporadic attacks by a few pro-Saddam remnants who have managed to kill a small number of U.S. troops since the major combat phase of the Iraq liberation ended two months ago.[The reference to the actions of the "last president" is in regards to our withdrawal from Somalia following the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Mogadishu.]Ignore them.
A little bravado from the president, which likely mirrors the bravado of the troops in the field, sure as heck beats the response of the last president to a few troops being killed by what were, essentially, terrorists. Each life lost is a tragedy, yet in the bigger picture these are flea bites on a grizzly bear.
As you may have noticed from my earlier posts, Bush's "bring 'em on" comment really bothered me a lot - flat out pissed me off, to put it bluntly. Not because I think we should be high-tailing it out of Iraq, or because he was, as Ari Fleischer put it, expressing "...his confidence in the men and women of the military to handle the military mission they still remain in the middle of". My anger was with the way he chose to make that expression - it was irresponsible and childish, to say the least.
I have never been in favour if the Iraq War (in case anyone missed that), but now that we're there - now that we've created a morass of chaos for the Iraqi people - we need to get the basic infrastructure working again - restore utilities, basic government services, get medical facilities working again and things of that nature - oversee democratic elections and the establishment of the new Iraqi-chosen government, and then get out of there. It's not going to be easy. Some of our priorities may need to be rearranged a bit, and we may not end up liking the government the Iraqis decide they want - but we have to remember, it's their choice - at least if we truly want them to have a democracy. And even if it's embarassing to the Pentagon, the Bush administration or anyone else to admit that we just don't have the force there to do the job that must be done, we need more troops there, and we need to send them, pronto.
No, I don't like seeing our men and women being attacked, injured and killed on a daily basis, and yes, I do want to see them returned home as quickly as possible. We have obligated ourselves, however, to help clean up the mess we created. We just need to go about doing so in the right way.
As for the President expressing confidence in our troops, I'm all for that. The men and women fighting in Iraq need to hear that. What they don't need, is to hear the President challenging those who are attacking them on a daily basis, to attack them even more!
Had the President gotten up and said that he had the utmost confidence in the men and women of our armed forces to face this challenge and to stand up to those who are attacking them and trying to force them out, that would have been good. If he'd said that he wanted to let the Iraqi insurgents know that America will not back down in the face of their attacks, and that we remain committed to doing whatever we must to help restore peace to Iraq and help them establish a truly free country for themselves, that would have been good. If he'd even warned those "who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," that his answer is "we will not run" (or something of that nature), I don't think anyone really would have complained. Hell, I'd have been fine if he'd said ""There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is: We have the force necessary to deal with the situation", which is his statement, minus the "Bring 'em on".
But there's a significant difference between making a statement indicating that our troops are tough and communicating the confidence we have in them and saying something that dares the opposition to try and kill more of them. The first truly is a message to the troops. The second is a foolish taunt. It does not speak to the troops at all, but to those who oppose them - and it serves not to make them afraid of us in any way, it only inflames them more. Which, of course, is the last thing any of us need.
Think, believe, want
Back in May, Ron Fournier wrote an article in the Chicago Sun-Times about Bush having filed for re-election. As part of his reporting, Fournier included the following statement:
Democrats, who are fielding nine candidates in search of the presidential nomination, think continued economic woes, problems in postwar Iraq, or even another terrorist strike on U.S. soil could change Bush's political fortunes.Bill Hobbs of Hobbs Online and the Nashville City Paper responded by posting a mildly tweeked version of the quote (changing "thinks" to "believes that"), and used that as a launch pad to claim that:Democrats don't want the economy to improve and will do anything to try to make sure it doesn't, including working to block or slim down the president's vital tax cut proposal. Democrats don't want postwar Iraq to become peaceful and democratic any time soon. Democrats wouldn't mind a terrorist strike before the election because they think it will hurt the president's poll numbers.South Knox Bubba was understandably outraged by Hobbs comments, and posted his own reply:Disgusting. No, worse than that.
An illegal war waged to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction that were a clear and present danger to the U.S. but now cannot be found. Thousands dead and a country in chaos. Three million people out of work in the last two years. Forty million people without health insurance. A Jackpot Congress deconstructing our environment and lining the pockets of their wealthy benefactors while borrowing against the hard work of future generations to pay for it.Recently, the subject came up again, and Bubba reposted his entry, which has brought up further discussion of the subject. I posted my thoughts to that comment thread, and decided to crosspost them here as well.And although Republicans are in control of the Administration, Congress, and the Supreme Court, Bill Hobbs contends it's the Democrats who are the problem
The article is clear in saying that Democrats "think" that if things stay bad or get worse it could reverse Bush's political fortunes. Well, duh! I'm sure Republicans think the same thing. Even using Hobbs' paraphrase that Democrats "believe that" if things keep going bad, it may be better for them politically, I think we can safely say that many Republicans also believe the same thing. From a purely logical standpoint, it only makes sense. If things go badly for those currently in power - in any situation - it stands to reason that things will go better for those who oppose them.It's getting from there to the idea that Democrats WANT bad things to happen - that we want to see unemployment numbers stay high, or for the economy to stay weak, or for the Iraqi situation to worsen or for there to be another terrorist attack - that is more difficult. It is an illogical leap that is not supported by the initial statement at all.
I may "think" that if my parents die, I'll get a nice inheiritance. I may believe that. Hell, I may even know that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Does this, however, mean that I want my folks to die? Hell no!
Or I may think, believe or even know, that if one of the companies that competes in the same industry that my husband works in were to go out of buisness, the company he works for would be able to pick up some of their customers, and he might not get laid off in a few months. Now, even though I would LOVE for my husband to not get laid off, does that mean I want a different company to go out of business, with all those other people losing their jobs, just so he can keep his? No! I'd rather he get to keep his job because the company he works for is able to attract new business or something of that nature that doesn't involve the displacement of who knows how many others.
In other words, it is perfectly possible - and even permissible - to acknowledge that bad things happening to other people might have positive benefits for yourself or your cause, without also wanting for those bad things to happen.
I must say, however, that it should be remembered who it was that made a joke out of our bad economy, the 9/11 attacks and our entry into war. In speech after speech, over a period of several months, Bush frequently commented on how he'd said that he would not engage in deficit spending unless we were at war, in an economic downturn, or in the face of a national disaster or tragedy - and how could have have known that he'd "hit the trifecta" (laughter). Personally, I don't find people out of work, retirement savings disappearing and businesses failing, 3000 people dying in the worst terrorist attack in recent memory or our soldiers off risking their lives in an ill-planned war with no exit strategy (something that applies equally to both Afghanistan and Iraq) should be a joking matter, but our President and many of his supporters obviously think otherwise. (In a great bit of irony, despite claiming that the "trifecta" was part of a campaign promise to not engage in deficit spending unless at least one of those specific conditions were met, no one has found any evidence that Bush, himself, ever made such a promise. There is, however, evidence that Al Gore, did.)
July 04, 2003Good satire
Oh, I wish I was good at writing satire. Sadly, I just haven't got the gift. Adam Felbar, however, does.
Mysterious Washed-Up Behemoth Identified as American DiplomacyRead the rest, it's good. Oh, and don't miss his take on Jerry Springer's claim that he can revitalize the Democratic Party by getting the media to cover him "every single day".The mysterious dead gigantic sea creature that washed up on a Chilean beach yesterday has now been positively identified by scientists as American Diplomacy.
The 40-foot long rotting grey creature was at first misidentified as a whale, but then proved to have no spine. "That was our first clue," said Dr. James Mead of the Smithsonian Institute. "Then we had to start asking ourselves - what gigantic old creature has died recently?"
Independence Day
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
- For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
- For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
- For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
- For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
- For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
- For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew ThorntonMassachusetts:
John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge GerryRhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William ElleryConnecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver WolcottNew York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis MorrisNew Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham ClarkPennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George RossDelaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKeanMaryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of CarrolltonVirginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter BraxtonNorth Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John PennSouth Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur MiddletonGeorgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
'No Blood For Cappuccinos'
I may get criticized for linking to this article today, but it's just too good. Partly-serious and partly-satire, this column by John O'Farrell gives an interesting look at America's new imperialistic aims.
There is a certain irony that today the American empire is celebrating an essentially anti-imperialist event. But, outside it, July 4 is becoming the focus for a new campaign - a declaration of independence from America. Today at US bases in Britain, such as USAF Fairford in Gloucestershire or at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, parties will celebrate the idea that maybe one day we could live in a country that does not automatically assist in the star wars programme, does not send British troops in support of US foreign policy and where we are not forced to call Marathon bars "Snickers".But being against US government policy should not be lazily extended to general anti-Americanism. If you're a US citizen please do not think I bear you any personal ill will (unless you yourself happen to be reading this, George W - which, let's face it, is unlikely, given the absence of pictures). So Happy Independence Day, America; you did a fantastic job throwing off the hereditary monarchy of George III. But now would it be okay if we declared independence from the hereditary presidency of George II?
July 03, 2003ROFL!
From Chris at readme.blog:
1) Go to Google and type "weapons of mass destruction" in the search field.
2) Press the "I am feeling lucky" button.
3) Soak in the vast right wing conspiracy.
The threat of heterosexual remarriage
Jeff Jacoby offers his opinion in today's Boston Globe on what he sees as "just a shred" of evidence that gay marriage can have a negative impact on heterosexual marriage.
Well, here's a shred of evidence: The Boston Globe reports that in the three years since Vermont extended near-marriage status to same-sex civil unions, nearly 5,700 gay and lesbian couples have registered their relationship. Of those couples, close to 40 percent, or more than 2,000, include at least one partner who used to be married.So, because 2,000 people who used to be in heterosexual marriages are now in a homosexual civil unions, Jacoby thinks this indicates that civil unions may have a detrimental effect on heterosexual marriages? I'm really not sure how he can come to this kind of a conclusion. There's simply not enough information to make any kind of an assumption about what the numbers themselves might mean.
Just a shred - but a jarring one. Of course, it doesn't mean that Vermont's civil union law broke up 2,000 straight couples. It does mean that where there used to be 2,000 traditional marriages, there are now 2,000 ruptured ones - and 2,000 gay or lesbian unions in their place. Were some of those marriages doomed from the outset? Probably. But it's also probable that some of them weren't. In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable.For example, we don't know when the original heterosexual marriages ended in divorce. If the divorces occured prior to the civil union law being put into effect, then it cannot be claimed that the civil union law had any impact on the heterosexual marriage at all. And even if the divorce happened subsequently to the law being passed, it doesn't prove that the civil union law played any part in it.
Keep in mind that for quite some time, now, this country has had a divorce rate of roughly 50%. Half of all marriages end in divorce, and I'd venture to say that most of those people end up in another relationship at some point, be it heterosexual or homosexual; a marriage, domestic partnership or civil union.
I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I would not be the least bit surprised if it turned out that a large percentage of marriages involved people who had been married before. Would Jacoby assume that heterosexual marriage, and the ease of getting remarried, is similarly responsible for breaking up marriages? Should heterosexual re-marriage be illegal as a result?
Jacoby is worried that civil unions create a situation in which the "stigmas" that helped keep people focused on "family stability" are weakened, and thus people are more likely to leave their marriage rather than trying to make it "work". Yet you rarely see similar concern that allowing heterosexual re-marriage can create the same vulnerability, even though the same logic - that the availability of a new and legally sanctioned relationship makes it easier to leave an old relationship that isn't working well - would apply.
Jacoby's reference to "stigmas", however, leads me to look at this from a somewhat different angle. Even with civil unions being legal in one state, homosexual relationships - along with homosexuality in general - is still very heavily stigmatized. Many gays and lesbians go through many years of denial about their sexuality before finally admitting to themselves that they truly are homosexual. It's not at all uncommon to hear a gay or lesbian speak about how they had gotten into a heterosexual marriage to try and cover-up their homosexuality, or as a way of "curing" their homosexuality. Some even think that by committing themselves to another person, they can "forget" about being gay all together. Typically, though, these marriages fail because the person finds they cannot deny who they really are.
If, however, the stigma of homosexuality was removed - if we, as a society, could find a way to accept homosexuality and homosexual relationships - including allowing gay marriage - gays and lesbians would no longer feel a need to hide or deny their own feelings, and they'd be less likely to enter into these doomed heterosexual relationships as ways of trying to deny their homosexuality to themselves and the world.
Now, obviously, this isn't going to eliminate divorce - I doubt it would make that much of a dent in the overall divorce rate - but it makes as much sense to think that acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relationships would help strengthen heterosexual messages by eliminating those marriages that are entered into for the wrong reasons, (thus preventing the divorces and broken families that result) as it does to think that legalizing gay marriage is going to break up numerous heterosexual marriages. Of course, that won't solve the problem of marriages breaking up because of ease of re-marriage, but it might be a start, eh?
Link via CalPundit (comments section)
What 'Bring[ing] Them On' looks like in action
From the day after Bush issued his challenge to the Iraqis to "Bring Them On"
Hover on image for description
(Image via Shock and Awe)
Context for 'Bring them on' quote
Just to avoid any questions of context (as are often warranted when isolated quotes are presented and critcized), here is the entire question asked of President Bush at the impromptu news conference he held on July 3, 2003 after announcing Randall Tobias to be the Global AIDS Coordinator, as well as his complete answer. This is taken from the whitehouse.gov site and is part of the official transcript of the press conference. I've bolded the "bring them on" quote itself.
I'll answer a couple of questions here today. Let me start off with Deb.My opinion of the statement hasn't changed. Its one thing to speak, with confidence, of our soldiers and our ability to handle the situation there. Its quite another to tell those out to kill our soldiers to "bring them on".Q Mr. President, a posse of small nations -- like the Ukraine and Poland -- are materializing to help keep the peace in Iraq. But with the attacks on U.S. forces and the casualty rates rising, what is the administration doing to get larger powers, like France and Germany and Russia, to join the American occupation there?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, we'll put together a force structure who meets the threats on the ground. And we've got a lot of forces there, ourselves. And as I said yesterday, anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice. There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case.
Let me finish. There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation. Of course we want other countries to help us -- Great Britain is there, Poland is there, Ukraine is there, you mentioned. Anybody who wants to help, we'll welcome the help. But we've got plenty tough force there right now to make sure the situation is secure. We always welcome help. We're always glad to include others in. But make no mistake about it -- and the enemy shouldn't make any mistake about it -- we will deal with them harshly if they continue to try to bring harm to the Iraqi people.
I also said yesterday an important point, that those who blow up the electricity lines really aren't hurting America, they're hurting the Iraq citizens; their own fellow citizens are being hurt. But we will deal with them harshly, as well.
July 02, 2003Yeah, George, we've heard it before....
From the same 'impromptu' press conference as the "Bring them on" quote:
"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," he said.Just like Osama and Saddam, eh?
'Bring them on'
I don't even know where to begin. I can't remember the last time I was this angry about much of anything. In an act of amazing irresponsiblity, arrogance and testosterone, Bush has actually challenged the Iraqis to attack our troops.
"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is: Bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."THIS is "supporting our troops"?I don't give a damn if we have "the force necessary to deal with the situation", I don't give a damn if we have three times the "force necessary". You don't get up there on the world stage and tell the people already attacking our troops - who are dying at an average pace of one per day - to 'bring it on'! Did Bush think we needed another look at his balls or something?
The cowboy-in-chief has crossed the line. It was bad enough that the White House and Republican Congress preach at us about "supporting the troops" while refusing to pay families who lose a loved one a reasonable "gratuity", cutting funding for base renovations, capping raises and otherwise shortchanging the men and women who have voluntarily made the decision to risk their lives in the service of our nation, but now this?
We've read in recent days about soldiers who are confused and angry and don't know why we're still in Iraq. We've seen the pictures of a man unsure if he can wear the title of "soldier" with any pride after watching us refuse to treat Iraqi children he tried to help. We've watched as the death toll mounts and our soldiers are targeted for retribution for acts where isn't not clear if they were at fault or not. Does Bush really want to make the job that much harder for them?
"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is: Bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."And when they do, President Bush, the blood of our soldiers will be on your hands and on your soul.Oh, and as for the upcoming election -- I hope you're prepared for your opponants to "bring [it] on" (politically) as well, because believe me, Mr. President, we will.
Cambone who?
I was reading through the comments over at CalPundit to Kevin's post about the quote from Time where Bush not only didn't know who was in charge of the search for WMDs or whether that person reported to the civilian or military authorities, but when he was given the person's name, Stephen Cambone, he didn't recognize the name, either.
One of the commenters noted that it was a bit ironic that Bush wouldn't know who Cambone is, since Bush had just nominated him in February to be the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
July 01, 2003Counting on a national case of short-term memory loss
Dana Milbank has an article in todays Washington Post featuring one of Bush's recent historical revisions.
Apparently, Bush, while on the campaign circuit, has started claiming that he inherited the recession from Clinton. This doesn't jibe, however, with either the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) or with some of Bush's own statements.
The bad news came on Nov. 26, 2001. The NBER, led by an informal economic adviser to Bush, Martin Feldstein, pronounced that economic activity peaked in March 2001, "a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began."More recently, however, he's started claiming the recession was in effect when he took office. Milbanks notes that the apparent source of this revision is a report from the Commerce Department that placed the start of the recession during the "first quarter" of 2001. The trick, of course, is that a quarter consist of three months - in this case, January, February and March.At the time, Bush accepted the verdict with perfect accuracy. "This week, the official announcement came that our economy has been in recession since March," he said in his radio address the next weekend. "And unfortunately, to a lot of Americans, that news comes as no surprise. Many have lost jobs or seen their hours cut. Many have seen friends or family laid off. The long economic expansion that started 10 years ago, in 1991, began to slow last year. Many economists warned me when I took office that a recession was beginning, so we took quick action."
The Commerce Department's report doesn't contradict or invalidate the NBER's starting date of March - since that IS within the first quarter of 2001. Bush, however, is using the range inherent in a "quarterly" report to claim the recession started at the beginning of that quarter - January - instead of acknowledging that it began toward the end of the quarter - March.
I think maybe people are starting to wake up
The latest CNN/USA Today Gallup poll is out, and it looks like maybe people are starting to wake up a bit.
The news isn't overwhelmingly good, but a couple of statistics jumped out at me as being better than I'd dared hope.
Question: Are you confident that the US will find weapons of mass destruction?That's a 30% drop in "Very Confident"s since March, and a cooresponding 30% rise in "Not Confident"s.Answers in March:
52% Very Confident
32% Somewhat Confident
15% Not ConfidentAnswers now:
22% Very Confident
31% Somewhat Confident
45% Not ConfidentBut I think this one is even better:
Question: Would it matter to you if Bush did mislead public [sic] on Iraqi weapons?People actually do care if Bush lied. The one thing I hope, though, is that even if we do, eventually, find some kind of WMD in Iraq, that people will realize that it doesn't mean the Bush administration didn't lie, exaggerate, etc., to get us into the war. There may well be something over there, but it clearly isn't the massive amounts of chemical and biological weapons we were told they "knew for a fact" Saddam had, and that they claimed he'd given his field commanders permission to use. It's just not practical to assume that only weeks before the war, Saddam had all these weaons at his disposal and was ready to use them, and then, all of a sudden, he not only decided not to use them, but also managed to hide them so thoroughly that even after nearly 2 months of unchallenged searching, we can't find anything.Great deal: 53%
Moderate Amount: 22%
Not Much: 11%
Not At All: 11%
Gay marriage and states' rights
Jan as Secular Blasphemy has a very well-written article about Sen. Bill Frist's declaration of support for an anti-gay marriage amendment. One of his visitors commented that marriage is a states' rights issue and what marriages are valid should be left up to the state.
I can, to an extent, understand the "state's rights" aspect of the issue, except that because of how mobile our society is, having a patchwork of laws regarding what kind of marriages are valid from one state to the next would become problematic as couples married in one state, and then moved to another which may or may not consider their marriage valid.
As it stands now, each state is required to recognize as valid any marriage that is considered valid in the state where it was performed, with the exception that they don't have to recognize a gay marriage if any state should choose to legalize them, thanks to DOMA.
The thing is, thought, under that kind of a system, a gay couple could find themselves having to decide between, say, staying in a state where there marriage is legal and recognized, where they can enjoy inheiritance rights, the ability to be considered 'next of kin' for each other when it comes to medical decisions and the other benefits of legal marriage, or being able to accept a promotion with their company (or a better job with a new company) that might move them to a state where their marriage would be considered void.
True, they wouldn't be forced as to which way to choose - they do have an actual option there - but it's a choice heterosexual couples are protection from having to make, as the law requires all states to recognize each other's heterosexual marriages. Otherwise, you'd most likely see interracial and interfaith couples faced with choices like this, as there are some states that I have no doubt would still have laws banning such on their books.
