 |
||||
|
|
October 16, 2005The New York Times and Judy Miller SpeakI just posted the below in my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com. If you've read it already, please scroll to other items below. Finally, The New York Times and Judith Miller speak, and the paper and reporter leave their readers with as many questions as answers. In Sunday's edition, the Times publishes a lengthy account by three reporters (Don Van Natta Jr., Adam Liptak and Clifford Levy) of what it calls "the Miller case" and a first-person account by Miller. Neither piece explains all. Miller spent 85 days in a federal prison after she refused to cooperate with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Bush administration leak that outed undercover CIA officer Valerie Wilson, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the Bush White House. She was released from jail after she received a personal waiver from a confidential source, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, that granted her permission to discuss their conversations with Fitzgerald. With that waiver in hand, she cut a deal with Fitzgerald that limited his questioning only to her discussions with Libby (not other sources) and that compelled Miller to turn over her notes of these conversations with Libby. The denouement of Miller's legal tussle with Fitzgerald was rather puzzling. Libby's lawyer indicated that Miller could have had the personal waiver a year earlier. And after Miller and the Times had spent months crowing that Miller--unlike other reporters--would stand on principle and not submit to Fitzgerald's zealous pursuits, her final settlement with Fitzgerald (which resembled that of the other reporters) was not in sync with the grand we're-protecting-journalism rhetoric the Times and Miller had hurled. Moreover, there were new and old questions about Miller's involvement in the case. Why had Fitzgerald subpoenaed her? How did it come to happen that she only recently discovered a notebook containing notes of Miller's first conversation with Libby about Joseph (and possibly Valerie) Wilson? What had Libby told her? What sort of relationship did she have with Libby? Was Miller eager to discredit Wilson because her prewar reporting on Iraq's WMDs had overstated and hyped the claim that Saddam Hussein presented a WMD threat? The Times' double-header does not clear up all the mysteries. Let's start with Miller's article, "My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room." Miller does not explain the disappearance and discovery of a notebook that contained notes of a June 23, 2003 conversation she had with Libby. This chat occurred two weeks before Wilson published an op-ed piece for the Times in which he revealed that after being sent to Niger in 2002 by the CIA he had concluded that it was highly unlikely that Iraq had been able to obtain weapons-grade uranium there. For weeks, Wilson had been talking to reporters--off the record--about his trip to Niger, and media stories regarding the trip had appeared without naming Wilson as the former diplomat who had gone on this mission. Miller's account of the June 23, 2003 discussion with Libby indicates that the White House was already looking to discredit Wilson's account prior to Wilson going public with his story--and that this was part of a White House effort to protect itself from intelligence leaks suggesting that the Bush administration had played up the prewar intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. This was, of course, occurring at a time when the absence of WMDs in Iraq was becoming a problem for the White House. It is not surprising that Libby tried to peddle to Miller the argument that the White House had not relied on skimpy intelligence to go to war. And in this conversation, according to Miller, Libby told her that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. How did Libby know this? Why did Libby know this? Miller may not possess the answers to these critical questions. But Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA was classified information. Wittingly or not, Libby was passing classified information to a reporter whom he obviously hoped would be sympathetic to the White House's cause. In a second meeting on July 8, 2003--two days after Wilson's op-ed appeared--Libby and Miller again discussed Wilson. Once again, Libby was telling Miller that the White House had based its claim that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger on solid intelligence. Miller writes that Libby cited the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq produced in October 2002 and said it had firmly concluded Iraq had been pursuing uranium. (It seems that Libby did not tell Miller that this NIE contained a dissent from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which said, "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.") At this meeting, Libby again referred to Wilson's wife, apparently telling Miller, according to her notes, that she "works at Winpac," the CIA office on Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control. Miller says she told Fitzgerald's grand jury that she believes this is the first time she had heard that Wilson's wife worked at Winpac. But she cannot recall--she says--why Libby was discussing Wilson's wife. That seems strange. It's not odd that someone would not recall the details of a conversation that happened two years ago. But six days after this conversation--when Novak outed her--Valerie Wilson was big news. Did Miller--who now says she was annoyed she had been scooped on the Plame/Wilson story by Novak--at that point not recall her six-day-old conversation with Libby on this matter and not develop a deeper impression of the portion of their chat that covered Valerie Wilson? There's more on this point. In the notebook in which she recorded her notes from this meeting with Libby, Miller wrote the words "Valerie Flame." Clearly, this was a reference to Valerie Plame. Was Libby the source for this name? Miller says she does not think so and that she told Fitzgerald "I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall." Again, it might be hard for a reporter to remember who told them what over two years ago. But isn't it difficult to believe that come July 14, 2003--the day the name Valerie Plame became public--Miller would not have recalled who had told her days earlier about this CIA officer? And isn't it hard to believe that she would no longer remember that? There is something else odd about her July 8, 2003 discussion with Libby. When the subject turned to Wilson, Libby asked Miller that he be identified in any story she would write as a "former Hill staffer." Previously the two had agreed that Miller would refer to Libby as a "senior administration official." Now Miller agreed that she would ID him as a "former Hill staffer." (Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill.) She assumed, she writes, that "Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson." But this shows the dishonest game that reporters can play. Technically, Libby was a former Hill staffer, but he was talking to Miller--and trying to undermine Wilson's account--as a White House official. Calling Libby a "former Hill staffer" in print would have been highly misleading. (Miller never did write a piece on Wilson.) Is this how the Times plays ball? This small slice of Miller's piece deserves a response from executive editor Bill Keller. In a notebook that chronicled a third pre-leak conversation with Libby--which transpired on July 12, 2003--Miller scribbled the words "Victoria Wilson." Miller writes, "I told Mr. Fitzgerald I was not sure whether Mr. Libby had used this name or whether I just made a mistake in writing it on my own. Another possibility, I said, is that I gave Mr. Libby the wrong name on purpose to see whether he would correct me and confirm her identity." She says she might have been calling others about Wilson's wife, but she is not sure on this point. There is a lot of don't-know in her account. Can Miller not answer a simple question: did you know Joseph Wilson's wife was named Valerie Wilson (or Plame) and did counter-WMD work at the CIA before Novak published his column? If so, how did you learn this? Miller's piece, fittingly, ends on a weird and uncertain note. When she was before the grand jury, she recalls, Fitzgerald asked her to read from a letter that Libby sent her last month while she was in jail. The letter encouraged her to testify and said, "The public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me." Miller told Fitzgerald that she was surprised by the letter because it might be perceived as an attempt by Libby to encourage her to testify that she had not discussed Valerie Wilson's CIA identity with him even though they had. Fitzgerald asked Miller about the letter's closing lines. "Out West," Libby had written, "where you vacation, the aspens will be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." What, Fitzgerald wondered, did Miller make of this reference to connected roots? In her Times piece, Miller says she answered Fitzgerald by recalling the last time she had seen Libby. In August 2003, she was at a rodeo in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached her and asked her about a conference she had just attended in Aspen, Colorado. She had no idea who this fellow was. "Judy," he told her. "It's Scooter Libby." And that was--literally--all Miller wrote. This may be a nice anecdote for ending an article, but it hardly was responsive to Fitzgerald's question. As for her readers, Miller fails them by not providing a clearer answer. Why did an editor not send this page back to Miller with the query: "Funny bit, but irrelevant; tell reader what you think odd sign-off in Libby letter means"? But given the article Miller has produced, it is, in a way, an appropriate conclusion. The news story that appears in the Times is less exasperating. But it too leaves one wanting more. It doesn't tell the reader anything else about the missing notebook, the "Valerie Flame" reference, or Miller's dealings with Libby. In a section covering Miller's history at the paper, the story quotes Miller on her WMD stories: "W.M.D.-I got it totally wrong," she said. "The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them--we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong. I did the best job that I could." The paper did not note that there were experts and journalists before the war who were skeptical of the WMD claims. For instance, Mohamed ElBaradeii and the International Atomic Energy Agency said before the war that there was no evidence Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program. The day after Colin Powell's infamous--and misleading--show at the United Nations, The Washington Post published several articles that quoted technical experts taking issue with his Powell's pronouncements. Miller was not wrong because everybody was wrong. She was wrong because she relied upon sources--administration officials, Iraqi exiles connected to Ahmed Chalabi--who had a reason to hype the WMD threat. But the Times gives her a pass on this, allowing her to spin away. The triple-bylined article does not advance the story much beyond the account presented in Miller's piece. Regarding who else might have told Miller about "Victoria Wilson," this article has no additional information and only notes, "In an interview, [Miller] would not discuss her sources." Well, thanks for cracking that nut. The article does dig slightly further into the dispute between Miller's legal camp and Libby's attorney over what happened during their negotiations. According to Miller, her attorney, Floyd Abrams, said that Libby's attorney, Joseph Tate, pressed Abrams to tell him what Miller would say to the grand jury should she testify. Abrams also claimed that Tate said that Libby had already testified that he had not mentioned Valerie Wilson's name or her undercover status to Miller. This raises the possibility that Libby was seeking to shape Miller's testimony, which could be illegal. Tate calls such an interpretation "outrageous." But the Times account does not sort this out as clearly as a reader--or a prosecutor--might like. The Times story also further undermines Miller's attempt to become the Joan of Arc for modern-day journalists. The article notes that her attorneys had tried early on to arrange a deal under which Miller would testify before the grand jury if Fitzgerald limited the scope of the questions. In public, Miller and the Times management struck an absolutist and noble-sounding stance. But in the suites, they were trying to reach a compromise. The article also chronicles how the Times was constrained in covering the Miller case and Fitzgerald's investigation: In August, Douglas Jehl and David Johnston, two other Washington reporters, sent a memo to the Washington bureau chief, Mr. [Philip] Taubman, listing ideas for coverage of the case. Mr. Taubman said Mr. Keller did not want them pursued because of the risk of provoking Mr. Fitzgerald or exposing Mr. Libby, while Ms. Miller was in jail. Mr. Taubman said he felt bad for his reporters, but he added that he and other senior editors felt that they had no choice. "No editor wants to be in the position of keeping information out of the newspaper," Mr. Taubman said. So much for without fear or favor. This is an awful acknowledgment for the nation's leading paper. Taubman and Jill Abramson, a managing editor, called the situation "Excruciatingly difficult." It was worse. As I've written before, Jayson Blair bamboozled his editors; Judy Miller handcuffed hers. If a deal could have been reached a year earlier, the Times would not be as embarrassed as it is today. No wonder, as the paper reports, when Miller made a post-release speech in the newsroom, claiming a victory for press freedoms, her colleagues "responded with restrained applause." When the Times reporters interviewed Abramson and asked her what she regretted about the paper's handling of the Miller case, she replied, "The entire thing." That was a refreshing shot of candor. But Miller's account and the paper's extensive take-out do not totally clear the air. They leave the impression that we're still not getting all the news that ought to be fit to print. Posted by David Corn at October 16, 2005 12:29 AM |
|
|
"HUBRIS is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." --Tom Brokaw |
Comments
Mr. David Corn,
Great post, I think the whole "jail" thing is very odd. Something else was going on or Miller was waiting for the wink and a nod.
Thanks for all of your work!
Kirk
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 01:05 AM
I don't understand what principle Miller was vindicating by refusing to testify about her ocnversations with Libby when she knew that he had already testified about those conversations. In the law of privileges (attorney-client privilege, for example) disclosure of the communication by the privilege holder (the client) waives the privilege. If the other party to the communication (the lawyer) is subpoenaed to testify about the conversation, he or she must comply because the privilege no longer exists. If that were not the law the privilege holder would have the ability to testify untruthfully and at the same time prevent the other party from relating the truth. That is precisely what Miller says she thought Libby was doing. So, according to Miller, her loyalty to her source requires her to refrain from contradicting the source's false testimony about their communication -- even when the communication may itself be a crime. I trust that this is not what they teach in the ethics course in journailsm school.
Posted by: John Hannah at October 16, 2005 01:09 AM
David, have you heard anything about...if Fitzgerald is going to ask for an extension? Also, I'd love to hear about any WH in-fighting going on as the pressure builds. Ahhh, will anybody fall on their sword to protect higher-ups??...or 'flip' for a lighter sentence, and take people dowwwwwn!
Posted by: Alan at October 16, 2005 01:52 AM
Rove Cancels Appearance at Fundraiser for Kilgore
Many Shrug Off Last-Minute Switch as Fairfax Republicans Hear From National Chairman Instead
By Ian Shapira
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 16, 2005; Page A07
If those attending yesterday's annual Republican "Pep Rally Breakfast" in Fairfax County did not pay much mind to the scrum of protesters outside, all they had to do was take a seat and flip open the program to see what all the ruckus was about.
There it was, smack in the middle of the first page: The man scheduled to deliver the keynote address in support of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore would be Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser who is embroiled in the investigation of a leak that revealed the name of a CIA operative. Tickets were hot. The press was barred.
But soon after party activists sat down inside the ballroom of the Sheraton Premiere at Tysons Corner, it was announced that Rove had been scratched from the lineup. No detailed reason was given. The 300 breakfasters listened instead to Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.
*****end of clip*****
WOW! Canceled a fund-raiser appearance?
That speaks volumes. I think Rover is in some very serious trouble, there is no other explanation.
Sure he will be pardoned but . . .
capt
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 02:02 AM
Bush to Blair: First Iraq, then Saudi
By Marie Woolf, Political Editor
Published: 16 October 2005
George Bush told the Prime Minister two months before the invasion of Iraq that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea may also be dealt with over weapons of mass destruction, a top secret Downing Street memo shows.
The US President told Tony Blair, in a secret telephone conversation in January 2003 that he "wanted to go beyond Iraq".
He implied that the military action against Saddam Hussein was only a first step in the battle against WMD proliferation in a series of countries.
Mr Bush said he "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation", says the letter on Downing Street paper, marked secret and personal.
No 10 said yesterday it would "not comment on leaked documents". But the revelation that Mr Bush was considering tackling other countries over WMD before the Iraq war has shocked MPs. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been close allies of the US in the war against terror and have not been considered targets in relation to WMD.
The confidential memo recording the President's explosive remarks was written by Michael Rycroft, then the Prime Minister's private secretary and foreign policy adviser. He sent the two-page letter recording the conversation between the two leaders on 30 January 2003 to Simon McDonald, who was then private secretary to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary.
Mr Rycroft said it "must only be shown to those with a real need to know ".
The revelation that Mr Bush told the Prime Minister Iraq should be seen as a first step comes in the American edition of Lawless World, a book by the leading international lawyer Philippe Sands QC, who is also a professor of law at University College London and senior barrister at Matrix chambers, which he shares with Cherie Blair.
*****end of clip*****
I wonder how this will play-out in the Saudi Palaces.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 02:08 AM
US "private military contractors" already in-country to "deal with" Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez Frias
Intelligence agencies are revealing that US private military contractors, active in Colombia "under various contract umbrellas, including counter-narcotics and counter-insurgency" are building up to yet another attempted coup d'etat against Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.
Intel sources are also revealing more paper trails linking George H. W. Bush to the now defunct Al Taqwa ("Fear of God") bank operated on behalf of Osama Bin Laden, his family, and some of his closest business associates.
The network of Swiss-based terrorist financiers is also linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and prominent European fascist leaders. The Al Taqwa bank was headquartered in the Italian Swiss enclave Campione d'Italia and had offices in the Bahamas. It ceased operations after assets were blocked by a US Treasury Department order, its assets were frozen by the Swiss government, and its banking license was revoked by the Bahamas.
Intel sources have also traced a possible second connection between the Swiss network connected to George H. W. Bush and other 9/11 hijackers.
The first connection concerned hijacker Fayyaz Ahmed and a US$50,000 check he received from a tranche connected to the Swiss network. The second is the listing of Ahmed Mesfer Ahmed Alghamdi as a shareholder of Al Taqwa on a Central Bank of the Bahamas document dated April 15, 2000. Ahmed Alghamdi and Hamza Alghamdi were two of the Saudi hijackers on board United Flight 175, which struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Saeed Alghamdi was one of the hijackers on board United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after being shot down by US military fighter planes (according to an NSA employee who was on duty in the National Security Operations Center on the morning of 9/11).
*****end of clip*****
This is a MUST READ!
The whole piece is very substantial and exposes the Bush crime family, their finances, a little history and a few predictions. Oh yeah, a little on Ken Starr too.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 02:34 AM
Whose Good? Who's Evil?
by Alan Morse
All who are married, raise your hands. Or are sisters or brothers. Friends. All of you who have any relationship with any human being, raise your hands.
In our partnerships, we share the load of becoming fully human. We gain stature--and peace--together as we give up parts of ourselves and assume aspects of others. We grow in respect and trust as we concede vital roles to those we love. We no longer need tend to the overwhelming whole, provided we remain safe in relationship. We are social.
As social animals we must do this to realize our human potential. The lone wolf is just another quadruped. The lone bee is merely a fly.
Being in a society of two--or of two billion--frees each of us to nurture what we love and do best, but does not absolve us of responsibility for the whole. In our marriages, we must be mindful of all aspects: physical, spiritual, emotional, and social, even as one or the other becomes more attentive to tending this pasture or that flock.
Marriages fail when natural divisions devolve into marked territories, with one partner fenced in, and the other fenced out. Societies fail the same way.
Our constitution recognizes that we are a spiritual...even pious...people, and yet individual in our religious expression. For some, piety takes the form of ethical, moral behavior with no organized religion as its framework. For others, organized religion is the spindle upon which the rest of life is sculpted.
In our country, and other fundamentalist religious nations of the world, the human quality of spirituality is as deeply fenced as territories in a failed marriage. One side claims the right to determine what is moral and good, while the other, aghast at the excesses of the religious, disclaims spirituality altogether.
But then there's the question of evil. Is evil a religious issue, or a spiritual--and thereby human--issue? Can those of us who align ourselves with the secular rather than religious still ponder evil? Does talk about evil carry a religious taint in secular discussion, or is addressing evil among us our human responsibility?
Our political and personal lives stink too heavily of evil to relegate that concept to a few, especially to those few who have embraced the territory of the spirit to mobilize evil for personal gain.
If evil is an inability to love or see beyond personal desire, what other word describes a class or a country which kills for oil, drowns the poor for real estate, educates for corporate gain, and invariably places personal benefit above collective good? What other word describes people who permit this in their names?
What about those who speak but do not act for change in themselves and their communities? Can we call that evil also?
We abdicate our humanity when we fail to label and address the evil among us. We lone humans, no longer tending the pack or the hive, become nothing but a biped scourge on the earth.
*****end of article*****
We are the only ones that can change the world. We bear the responsibility. With all of the divisions on so many levels the "love your enemies" drowns in the din of declarations about difference.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 03:04 AM
Capt,
Great link, thanks.
When I first got online, for reasons I no longer remember, I googled The Carlylse Group.
I followed this thread until I felt........
deeply uneasy.
Some weeks later I wrote an email titled : The Iranian Wedding Fiasco. About a photo shoot that went horribly wrong. An amusing piece.
I got a window (I don't think I was supposed to get) that made me very sure this email had been flagged and read by somone not named recipient.
Thats when I became a security junky.
This is corruption on an Epic level. It's the governmental equivalent of the most prevasive cancer we could imagine.
Im very tired of the country my father devoted his life to defending, being led by those who would have us live in fear.
I will NOT be meek, nor will I be silenced. Not unless they kill me.
I think Hunter Thompson did tell us something before he left.
Fourth ammendment stationary for his suicide note is chilling.
Hunter was ..........well probably a little insane.....but he was also completely real. He told us what he thought. Honestly.
Lately I have seen others who do this......not profit.
Ive seen even the concept of a free press become a moot point.
The republibots constantly scream about the Liberal Press. Where the Hell IS the Liberal Press? Media like everything else is pushed and pulled by one thing, and one thing only. $.
The article you linked was a very well defined look at all that.
Money and Media, Money and Power.
Happy news/sleasy entertainment.
This aint the Right..........
The Right ............Left.
This is right up the center........unmitigated GREED. All roads have always led to the Carlyle
(I have a mental block with the spelling of this, but you know what I mean) Group.
It's now an international imperitive to trace all the links see all the tentacles.
GHWB and GWB Are at war with this Nations Poor.
IT MUST STOP.
By the way, Im also BimmersandBrits, And Corky's mom. (not a nick)
Posted by: titchaba at October 16, 2005 03:36 AM
Interesting...I saw the following comment in a chat room...."I used to be agnostic, now Im an athiest". And I thought.........how dumb is that?
An intelligent gambler......hedges his bets.
My response was and will always be "a little faith never hurt anyone". There may be some sort of Diety, I don't know. Science has done a good job of speculation.......but not unlike relationships with anyone.....there is no conclusive proof in either dirrection.
Therefor its my choice to always view the possibility of a "Creator". This dude may have been called by many names. Works for me.
Would I ever style my life based on the assertions of one book? Highly unlikely.
The quote "There are no athiests in foxholes" I find very apt. My kid was a brittle diabetic I spent mad time in ambulances and ER's. I prayed.
We all do when we are profoundly frightened. It dosn't cost anything and sometimes its all you CAN do.
When I get a good outcome do I credit a Diety?, not so much.........but when I get a bad one, I don't blame one either.
When things are at their worst, and a nations poor are chanting "Help Us"......I didn't pray, I got on the net, and on the phone and looked for real time ways to help.
I wrote to our freeking President and I told him what I thought. LOL which may account for the number of sub 7's I seem to be attracting.
By the way Capt the article I referenced above came with spam. Seemed benign, but I didn't open it.(the spam)
Posted by: titchaba at October 16, 2005 03:56 AM
Please, David, you must know somebody who will spill a few beans??
WHAT happened AFTER the guy in cowboy hat & sunglasses reveals himself to be Scooter Libby?? (No memory-impairment here, by the way.) Were there entwinings of aspen roots? This is the damnedest puzzle. I have never read an odder communication in the history of politics. It's all COYNESS.
To end an article that way is not reporting -- it's Perils of Judy -- a stinking cliffhanger. It's the kind of thing you'd coyly write if you had a semi-forbidden crush on somebody. Really. If I wrote something like that, that's what it would imply -- "Oh, Scootie, we cannot meet, we must not meet, but I remember you in Jackson Hole etc etc."
There is no reason to describe him in these crushful tones(bluejeans, sunglasses, cowboy hat) unless you were still in the THROES of an adolescent crush. Trust me, it still happens at any age -- tho Scooter doesn't leap to my mind.
I am agog that Matters of State and Our Future were and are in the hands of such Odd Ducks.
Posted by: pogblog at October 16, 2005 06:47 AM
Good piece on a bad "couple 'a PIECES" David.
The whole thing smacks of collusion and ass-covering. Months in jail for no reason at all? Hints at romantic "entertwinings" on top of unrequited promises to "protect her source"?
Judy should be acrimonious at the WH for making her look like a schoolgirl-in-love ASS for her blind co-conspiracy to propagate the lies that have led to the meat grinder that Iraq has become. She, instead, cuddles up in the Asspen Grove, entertaining their "roots".
"All the truth that's fit to OBFUSCATE!" should scream from the banner, from now on, at the NYCrimes!
-T
Posted by: Hajji at October 16, 2005 08:56 AM
Plea deal will see Aziz walk free in exchange for his testimony on Saddam atrocities
Tariq Aziz, once Saddam Hussein's most trusted lieutenant, has agreed to testify against the ousted dictator during his forthcoming trial for war crimes, according to his lawyer and American officials.
In return for his co-operation, Aziz, 69, Iraq's foreign minister during the Gulf war and deputy prime minister throughout Saddam's 24-year rule, will have the most serious charges against him dropped and be allowed to spend his dotage in exile.
*****end of clip*****
What is the deal here? The case against Saddam is so weak they have to cut a deal with Aziz?
capt
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 09:41 AM
If Aziz turns on Saddam, publicly, he won't last a year, no matter how "protected" he is in Yuma, AZ's golf course communities.
It IS a good parallel to what Rove could to to Dubbya, someday!
-T
Posted by: Hajji at October 16, 2005 09:58 AM
This "Full Moon" ER day has started off gently... Waiting for the onslaught, soon...
-T
Posted by: Hajji at October 16, 2005 10:00 AM
From: Live Journal
2005-10-13 05:20
Bin Ladin crushed to death in earthquake
Osama bin Laden's hideout in northern Pakistan was struck hard by the earthquake. He did not survive.
Al-Qaeda's leader was crushed to death according to information received tonight from a number of intelligence sources.
-------------
Now wait just a darn minute. I thought he was in Iran plotting the nuclear destruction of all the infidels in the west? This is like, the 5th report I know of, that he is dead. They will have to think up a new boogeyman!
Posted by: Saladin at October 16, 2005 10:25 AM
David, I never expected anything less from the Times. Typical whorish media that they are, they will do whatever it takes to cover their own ass. Lying outright or by omission is what the MSM does. They know they are 50% responsible for that hellhole known as Iraq, they echoed the lies from the WH as if they were God's own truth because that was what sold the papers, and paid for all the commercials, that war was the endless flow of money. They have an ocean of blood on their hands and I hope they all drown in it. They are the scum of the earth and I don't miss them and their bullshit one little bit!
Posted by: Saladin at October 16, 2005 10:40 AM
As always, a solid, clear analysis. Many of your points are about the self-serving spin in what's said or not said in the articles.
I wasn't as disappointed, however. It wasn't total pap. To me, it simply points out the impossibility of self reflection - the Times, Judith Miller, the Administration.
At this point in time, none of them can satisfy us, no matter what they say.They all blew it, and let the country down in a profound way.
It's not the articles that are flawed. It's their shockingly flawed behavior that really sticks in the craw.
Posted by: Mickey at October 16, 2005 10:57 AM
I wrote my take, fwiw here: http://greyhairsblog.blogspot.com
/2005/10/what-hellmy-thoughts-too-updated.html&#
10;
I think a very important part of the story/s is what wasn't written. Besides Judy's "I don't recall" defense, there's also the other sources that Judy didn't want to expose. She tries to pooh-pooh it as irrelevant, but you gotta wonder. I'm guessing that those other unnamed sources are why she went to jail. If Libby's her least damning testimony, it means Fitzgerald may have missed a great opportunity. That is, unless he didn't need Judy's testimony anymore.... :)
Posted by: Mike at October 16, 2005 12:20 PM
One of the things that struck me about the NYT article is that Bill Keller claims he took Judith Miller off Iraq and WMD issues after he became editor in July 2003, but was quoted as saying "she kept drifting on her own back into the national security realm."
This makes me wonder if Keller was ever really in charge of her. Looks like Arthur Sulzberger was. How could she have "kept drifting on her own..." unless someone was giving her a pass.
Cronyism in the news room, courtesy of the Big Cheese!
Posted by: micki at October 16, 2005 12:29 PM
On a related matter, Condi said on Meet the Press:
"The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaedaor we could take a bolder approach...."
Huh? "We could decide..." "...or we could take a bolder approach..."
Parse THOSE words!
Posted by: micki at October 16, 2005 12:38 PM
Cutting off Aid
The Bush misadministration is cutting off aid to poor countries because they support the International Criminal Court. Yes, the United States of America, the Father of Goons and Thugs, does not want these poor countries to have justice. Bush can continue to murder and commit war crimes and not be tried for atrocities. America under Bush is worse than Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 12:51 PM
American Soldiers
2,217 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush's evil lies.
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 01:00 PM
David:
Masochistically, I routinely check blogs from various political persuasions on the leak matter. Cliff May at the corner continues to insist that you were the first individual to identify Valerie Plame as covert and he believes your source was Joe Wilson. See--
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_16_corner-archive.asp#079677
From my ongoing perusal of your reports, you have unequivocally denied this. Any way to resolve this?
best,
david
Posted by: david at October 16, 2005 01:06 PM
IRA Bombs
We must always blame Iran.
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 01:07 PM
micki, of the gang of vulcans, the one I would most like to see go down in flames is Rice. I have never seen her or Cheney ever spin anything close to the truth.
No one seems to be looking into her involvement with the oil for food scandel in Iraq. She has the free pass on 9/11 and her pretentious surprise that it went down.
And now, "take a bolder approach" like it was a tactical afterthought and not the original plan.
Now she is going around central Asia making alliances for the use of air bases. Since when is the role of Secretary of State to be the set up man for tactical assaults? And who are we going to assault? As if no one on this blog has a clue.
1. Bolton in the UN.
2. Cheney has an advance assault plan.
3. Condi in Central Asia for air base support.
4. AL Baradei gets the Nobel prize.
5. Russia keeps Iran out from under the security council.
6. 101st airborne off to Iraq after Thanksgiving.
"Cause it's 1,2,3 what are we fightin for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn. Next stop..." we'll be in Iran.
Posted by: geof01 at October 16, 2005 01:12 PM
Fitzgerald Targets Cheney
Can it be, can it really be that Cheney, a cold blooded murderer, will be indicted in Plamegate?
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 01:14 PM
Gerald, looks like Britain may involved in getting us to Iran as well.
Capt. good posts, I save them all.
In addition to Davids post on Miller and the Times, check out Slate Mag.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2127853/
The NYT Miller Revelations
Preposterous speculation got us this far ...
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Sunday, Oct. 16, 2005, at 4:42 AM PT
Instapundit's Katrina/Rita Relief donation list.
Miller Takeout:
1. Preposterous blog speculation congealed into conventional wisdom that turned out to be wrong: The idea that NYT reporter Judy Miller told Cheney aide Libby that Bush critic Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, rather than vice versa.
2. Preposterous blog speculation congealed into conventional wisdom that turned out to be right: The idea that Libby seemed to be coaching Miller in his infamous 'aspens are turning' letter, which noted pointedly that other reporters had testified "they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity" with Libby. Special prosecutor Fitzgerald actually asked Miller about this possible coaching, and Miller says the thought occurred to her too:
Posted by: geof01 at October 16, 2005 01:19 PM
Russia, US Clash
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 01:22 PM
geo01, Will the madness ever end? I have reconciled myself to a nuclear holocaust.
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 01:26 PM
Demons Are Winning on Skid Row
Steve Lopez
Points West
October 16, 2005
Columnist Steve Lopez is spending the week on skid row. His five-part series takes you there.
The call comes in at 11:18 in the morning. Possible overdose on skid row, just half a block from one of the busiest firehouses in the United States.
Firefighter-paramedic Dave Chavez, 42, grabs a blank incident report and marches toward his Rescue 9 ambulance with partner Juan Penuelas. At 11:20, they pull out of the station, and Chavez is taking in the devastation on San Julian Street in downtown Los Angeles.
People stumble and rant, they lie in filth, they trap you with eyes that threaten and plead. Roughly 10,000 people flop on skid row streets each night, up to half of them mentally ill. The landscape is relentlessly bleak, the stench of rotting trash and misery everywhere.
*****end of clip*****
Part one of a five part series. Heartbreaking and uplifting, some of the least of us and some of the very best we have. Untold stories of day to day heroes and the very real challenges we all face or turn away from.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 01:27 PM
Capt, I have an awful feeling that those numbers are about to go up. The new bankruptcy law goes into effect tomorrow. We will see how many lose everything because of this compassionate conservative law. The middle class are well along on the road to hell.
Posted by: Saladin at October 16, 2005 01:32 PM
There but for the grace of goodness we could all be.
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 01:39 PM
Russians helping Iran create Europe missile threat
AFP | 15 Oct 2005
Former members of the Russian military have been secretly helping Iran obtain the technology needed to make missiles capable of hitting European capitals, a British newspaper claimed on Sunday.
Citing anonymous "Western intelligence officials", The Sunday Telegraph said the Russians were go-betweens as part of a multi-million-pound (dollar, euro) deal they negotiated between Iran and North Korea in 2003.
"It has enabled Teheran to receive regular clandestine shipments of top secret missile technology, believed to be channelled through Russia," the newspaper reported in a front-page article.
The allegations came after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice feuded openly with her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov over Iran's nuclear programme while on a brief trip to Moscow on Saturday.
---------------
Deja vu? Now, where have I heard this before? We can expect mushroom clouds over major European cities any minute now!
Posted by: Saladin at October 16, 2005 01:42 PM
Geof01,
#25 This one is for you HERE!
capt
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 01:45 PM
THE LOBBYIST OCCUPATION OF IRAQ 2006 PROJECT CENSORED AWARD WINNER
Friday Oct 14, 2005
In his article "Adventure Capitalism," Greg Palast exposes the contents of a secret plan for "imposing a new regime of low taxes on big business, and quick sales of Iraqճ banks and bridgesѩn fact, ԁLL state enterprisesՑto foreign operators." This economy makeover plan, he claims, "goes boldly where no invasion plan has gone before."
This highly detailed program, which began years before the tanks rolled, outlines the small print of doing business under occupation. One of the goals is to impose intellectual property laws favorable to multinationals. Palast calls this "historyճ first military assault plan appended to a program for toughening the target nationճ copyright laws."
It also turns out that those of us who may have thought it was all about the oil were mostly right. "The plan makes it clear thatѥven if we didnմ go in for the oilѷe certainly wonմ leave without it."
In an interview with Palast, Grover Norquist, the "capo di capi of the lobbyist army of the right," makes the plans even more clear when he responds, "The right to trade, property rights, these things are not to be determined by some democratic election." No, these things were to be determined by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the interim government lead by the U.S.
Before he left his position, CPA administrator Paul Bremer, "the leader of the Coalition Provisional Authority issued exactly 100 orders that remade Iraq in the image of the Economy Plan." These orders effectively changed Iraqi law.
Update by Greg Palast:
In February 2003, White House spokesman Ari Fleisher announced the preparations for "Operation Iraqi Liberation"я.I.L.
I canմ make these things up.
Iխ not one of the those people who believes George Bush led us into Iraq for the oil but, from the documents Iնe obtained, itճ clear that we sure as hell arenմ leaving without it.
*****end of clip*****
This article goes with the card above.
Now come on, O.I.L ? Can they get more "in our face" with this stuff?
capt
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 01:52 PM
File under "Coincidences don't "just happen"
All at the same time as Condi and Bolton are out there to threaten and intimidate Iran, Louie Freeh comes out with his book blaminig Clinton for not pushing Iran harder to prosecute after Khobar Towers. He'd already admitted that HE'd held up the indictments until Clinton was out.
These fools think they can manipulate and turn the will of the American people for nepharious purposes at their whim.
Sadly, they've proven themselves right, in that regard, repeatedly...
-T
Posted by: Hajji at October 16, 2005 02:01 PM
David,
I loved the article. I have had some serious problems with the NY Times article and Judy Miller's article but could only guess why certain things bothered me. You made it more clear.
On This Morning with George Stephanopolis, there were comments made that really disturbed me. There were three reporters discussing the whole leak story and they were talking about classified material. They were making it sound like it was a really no big deal. Reporters hear things. George S was all over that and I was glad. If it's ok to break the law because it wasn't a big deal then the line becomes hazy. And why is it a reporters decision which law is important and which one isn't.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 02:08 PM
Rice: Criticism of Miers Is Unfounded
Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she remained open to voting to confirm Miers, citing in part the conservative criticism.
"The way she's being beaten up by the far right is very sexist. People should hold their fire, and give people an opportunity to come before a hearing," said Feinstein, D-Calif.
*****end of clip*****
So, Senator Feinstein would be open to any confirmation as long as the crazy far right is critical? That any criticism is sexist? She speaks in weasel words and carries this WHs foul fluids.
She has solid credentials as a dempublican.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 02:16 PM
swinestein is a notorious crook here in Cali and her husband, a partial owner in URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and engineering firm,
received a huge Govt. contract for 600 million dollars re: terrorism against the Iraqi people. Blood money galore for the traitors!
Posted by: Saladin at October 16, 2005 02:29 PM
Christian Fascists
Bush has said that we must fight Islamic fascists. Islam is not only a religion but also a political ideologue. The Christian fundamentalists and the Christian evangelicals have emulated the Islamic fascists by not only becoming the majority religion in the USA but they have also attached themselves to a political ideologue. Christian fundamentalists and Christian evangelicals are now Christian fascists similar to Islamic fascists. There are no longer any true religions in the USA. True Christianity is dead in America. In control of American morals are the Christian fascist terrorists who are enamored with hatred and killing.
If Bush and the majority of Americans are fighting the Islamic fascists, who will protect the rest of Americans from the Christian fascists?
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 02:36 PM
#20
Micki,
I had the same problem with that statement. This administration made a decision to invade Iraq as a 'broader approach'? So what's the next broader approach we have to deal with?
The whole thing was wrong, it isn't working, and it won't work. Give it up, Condi.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 02:37 PM
Project Bioshield
Little known but much too broad, Project Bioshield is a $5.6 billion program Bush signed into law in July 2004 that would apparently strip U.S. citizens of any recourse in the event that the feds decide on certain health-care remedies. These would presumably include the mandatory application of unproven vaccines to counter real or perceived health threats worldwide.
--------------
Mr. "The military is the cure for everything" signed this, I hate it automatically! First, whip the people into a panic frenzy, then force untested vaccinations on them, which is of course a windfall for big pharma. They can count me out.
Posted by: Saladin at October 16, 2005 02:46 PM
Bolder approach.
Another thing that bothers me about that statement is that the administration is trying to make what they did ok. The war was illegal.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 02:47 PM
What I sense happening, finally - though at a sickeningly slow pace - is that this administration and all of it's minions (i.e., Miller, Novak, etc.) are FINALLY losing credibility with the American public.
The Left have always known Bushco was utterly and completely full of shit, but now the moderates and centrists sense it to.
How can they not?
This bodes well for the 2006 mid-terms.
Posted by: Astroboy at October 16, 2005 02:51 PM
Chuckle or smile at:
http://pabloonpolitics.com/
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 02:53 PM
Israel Pushes for Syrian Regime Change
JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said it was in the world's interest to have a regime change in Syria, which he accused of being "up to its neck" in terror.
"Our interest is to tell the world that Syria is implicated up to its neck in terrorism, a terrorism that is directed not just against Israel but against coalition forces in Iraq," he told public radio on Friday.
"And this is why it is in the interest of the entire world that there is another state in Syria, one that is freer and more democratic," said Shalom.
--------
He means like that one we got going over in Iraq!
Posted by: Saladin at October 16, 2005 03:01 PM
The NYT gave up its integrity from the moment GW Bush ran for office. All during the Bush years they have omitted the news that the public is entitled to know. Here's an open letter, written earlier year to the NY Times'
Don't miss the vital graphics in this editorial that's asking "Where's All the News That's Fit to Print?
CLICK HERE
Posted by: Reg at October 16, 2005 03:07 PM
Judy gave her award to Mark Felt. I guess we're all glad she got it now. Ick.
Miller Presents Award to 'Deep Throat'
"Without Mark Felt there would have been none of the revelations that showed what began as a third-rate burglary was really a story of corruption and malfeasance," Miller said. Woodward and Bernstein refused to identify "Deep Throat" until after Felt revealed it himself this year.
In remarks dealing with her own case, Miller said that she still would be behind bars if her source, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, had not personally contacted her in prison and given her permission to testify.
"I am free today only because of a federal prosecutor's agreement to limit his questions to me and because my once confidential source wrote me a letter and called me in jail to say he really, really wanted me to testify," Miller said.
---------
Ish.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 03:09 PM
I'm reading the column in Time magaizine discussing the fact that Karl Rove will resign if indicted.
Contingency Plan
More question come up as the story unfolds.
"Another character in the drama remains unnamed: the original source for columnist Robert Novak, who wrote the first piece naming Plame. Fitzgerald, says a lawyer who's involved in the case, "knows who it is - and it's not someone at the White House.""
------
So who is it?
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 03:22 PM
"and a first-person account by Miller. Neither piece explains all." You linked a second time to the Natta, et al, piece, there. The Miller piece is instead here.
Posted by: Gary Farber at October 16, 2005 03:37 PM
so Judy Miller takes the Reagan defense -- "I really don't remember." (isn't she a little young for that excuse to fly?)
thanks, Corn, for deconstructing the timeline of her Libby conversations and the almost immediate outing of Plame by Novak from the point of view of a journalist.
it's a good point -- ordinarily one might not recall the specifics of a conversation two years after the fact, except that in this case whatever transpired in those conversations was undoubtedly spotlighted in her mind since Plame's name and occupation was suddenly all over the national news just a few days later.
would that the triad of NY Times writers could have been so clear in their commentary.
Alx
Posted by: Alx at October 16, 2005 04:32 PM
Great! The departmesnt in charge of keeping us safe has a significant morale problem.
Study Ranks Homeland Security Dept. Lowest in Morale
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 - At the Department of Homeland Security, the main government agency responsible for protecting the country against terrorism and responding to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, only 12 percent of the more than 10,000 employees who returned a government questionnaire said they felt strongly that they were "encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things."
Only 3 percent said they were confident that in their department, personnel decisions were "based on merit." Fewer than 18 percent said they felt strongly that they were "held accountable for achieving results." And just 4 percent said they were sure that "creativity and innovation are rewarded."
--------
A crony department for a crony administration.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 05:02 PM
Send this letter to a soldier you love
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 05:07 PM
A Few Questions: (For anyone with answers/opinions)
1.) When was Judy Miller first compromised by the White House/Bush/GOP operatives? What was the time/place or circumstance can anyone recall as the poteinatal starting point of this insidious relationship?
3.) Armstrong Williams = Judy Miller. Other than getting the scoop (classified information) or possiblly the Medal of Freedom can anyone see where Judy Miller may be benefitting financially? Now or in the future?
(Would anybody be suprised that Judy Millers soon to be publisher of her Memoirs has a strong GOP bent? What about her soon to be hired booking agent for her speaking tour?)
COLON POWELL UN Questions I never heard asked/answered:
(Can anyone help)
1. The computer graphics of mobile weapon labs in Iraq were very detailed and designed by a very skilled Computer Graphics designer.
2.) Who is/was he?
3.) What was and where did the original reference source material for interior of these lab designs come from?
4.) Was is it a written description if yes, then by who?
5.) Who made the corrections/revisions of the look of the lab before final printout?
Thanks all
Posted by: Rabble Rouzer at October 16, 2005 05:16 PM
Arianna Huffington: Judy Miller, Anderson Cooper, and Me: The Truth About Book Deals
Arianna Huffington
Tue Oct 4, 7:06 PM ET
Is there ever going to be anything clear, honest, and direct involving Judy Miller?
After the Huffington Post inconveniently broke the story about Millers $1.2 million book deal with Simon & Schuster yesterday -- just as she was about to address her already skeptical colleagues at the Times -- Team Miller went into damage control mode.
First came the blanket denials from unnamed "reps" (as Rush and Molloy put it) at the paper and the publishing house. Then, according to the Times Kit Seelye, Miller claimed "she was uncertain whether she would write her own account, either in the newspaper or in a book".
*****end of clip*****
Good for her, I guess.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 05:26 PM
Just think the fiscal conservative repugnants are wasting away money. Before Bush dies in the WH in 2045, he will have wasted money by 100 fold. The repugnants are the party of waste but no one cares because under Bush we are safe and secure. Don't you feel the warm fuzzies he gives you as our father-figure? Rather than calling God, Abba, we should call Bush, Abba. Bush is our father who will keep the bed bugs away.
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 05:27 PM
There are some very interesting comments made in this letter.
There's a scandal hidden in Miller's report
From BILL LYNCH, retired CBS News correspondent: There is one enormous journalism scandal hidden in Judith Miller's Oct. 16th first person article about the (perhaps lesser) CIA leak scandal. And that is Ms. Miller's revelation that she was granted a DoD security clearance while embedded with the WMD search team in Iraq in 2003.
This is as close as one can get to government licensing of journalists and the New York Times (if it knew) should never have allowed her to become so compromised. It is all the more puzzling that a reporter who as a matter of principle would sacrifice 85 days of her freedom to protect a source would so willingly agree to be officially muzzled and thereby deny potentially valuable information to the readers whose right to be informed she claims to value so highly....
....It strikes me that Ms. Miller's situation is the flip side of the NYT's Jayson Blair coin. He and the Times were rightly disgraced for fabricating. In my opinion, Miller also violated her duty to report the truth by accepting a binding obligation to withhold key facts the government deems secret, even when that information might contradict the reportable "facts."
If Ms. Miller agreed to operate under a security clearance without the knowledge or approval of Times managers, she should be disciplined or even dismissed. If she had their approval, all involved should be ashamed.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 05:34 PM
Criminal Arrogance
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 05:38 PM
Miller states Libby told her Cheney did not know who Wilson was. Again, she says Libby told her George Tenet did not know Wilson.
An ambassador who's wife works for the CIA is not known by these Beltway mavens? Excuse me.
Miller's article is a crutch for the so-called deniability all those stinking politicians crave to have when they make stupid decisions.
Posted by: Don Smith at October 16, 2005 05:45 PM
Don, it's amazing what they do and do not remember.
Posted by: Saladin at October 16, 2005 05:55 PM
Judy Miller's account of her grand jury testimony certainly raises more questions than it answers, and blurs the facts that we already know.
"My notes indicate..." "My notes do not show..." allows her to interpret them anyway she sees fit, without stating anything with certainty.
"It is also difficult, more than two years later, to parse the meaning and context of phrases, of underlining and of parentheses."
That's simply absurd. That's like claiming you don't recognize your own handwriting. She's a reporter, for Christ's sake!
And then she contradicts herself:
"The first entry in my reporter's notebook from this interview neatly captured the question foremost in my mind.
'Was the intell slanted?' I wrote, referring to the intelligence assessments of Iraq and underlining the word "slanted?"
She's still shilling for the Bush administration yet at the same time her priorty has seemed to shift toward her own journalistic integrity (which for many, and by now is fairly nonexistant) and her career.
Her article oozes obfuscation and drips mendacity.
Posted by: Astroboy at October 16, 2005 06:46 PM
Saladin #60:
It seems we might hit a critical juncture here at some point, but there's so much non-directional negativity. It's like chaos without a companion simplicity, or maybe it's me who doesn't see it. I ask these questions, like, Is world population too high and we're accommodating that reality with our unknowing death wishes spread all over the place? (Lemings?) Do we deliberately pose on the brink of disaster, teasing the elements?
And too many people like Gerald go teleological on us and refuse reality altogether.
As you can see, today is a thinking day.
Been reading your posts right along. Good brain food.
Don
Posted by: Don Smith at October 16, 2005 06:58 PM
David, thanks for not be willing (at least this time) to repeat the Judy Miller /New York Times and Lou Dobbs mantra "Judy went to jail to protect a source". She was released over a year ago, and the three judges who looked at Fitzgeralds evidence came to the same conclusion, she was "obstructing Justice". She was in negotiations...that is why she was in jail. Many said Fitzgerald was going to slam her with a "criminal contempt" charge.
I believe Judy shows real signs of being a "compulsive liar" and she continues to be in serious denial about her involvement in the lying in the run up to the war. We have seen some of the destuctive results of ( tens of thousands dead) of her use of this false intelligence. Her continued denial that she was "fucking wrong" in her reporting demonstrates her unwillingness to come clean.
From what Judy was willing to share with us, I was most intrigued with Fitzgerald's focus on the standing of her "national security status". And whether she or Libby were aware of her status when Libby allowed her to look at documents and shared other national security information. It seems, (according to what Judy reported) that this is what he is most interested in regard to her involvement with the use and dessimination of this classified information.
When he asked whether or not she had talked to others about this classified information,she said that she thought so but was not sure. Another convenient moment for her selective memory to surface.
It would appear that Fitzgerald is very interested in how Judy has used classified information, and whether she has legal status to do so.
The case that Fitzgerald has come into conflict with Judy with in the past...the calls she made to alert the Islamist charity (which I have read may not have been what it appeared to be). Where did Judy get that informatnion?
The acquistion and use of classified intelligence by Ahmed Chalabi in regard to Iran. Could Judy have had anything to do with this? Fitzgerald's interest in how she has used this intelligence was rather telling...I thought.
All of this possibly falls into the underminig of our naional security system. Hopefully this is the wider scope of Fitzgerald, that many of us are praying for.
I have been wondering a great, and trying to find the time to read more about the expansion of the "shield law" that Judy keeps pushing for. I have also been reading more about the "OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT" which the U.K. Implemented long ago. From my understanding this law can hold reporters and other media sources accountable for the mis-use of top-secret official documents....would you be willing to address this. Do we need an OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT IN THE U.S.
Could you explain from your experience and perspective...how the public will be protected in the future from this serious ABUSE of "journalistic standards" by Judy Miller and the Times?
I have read that Judy will be receiving an award from other journalist for her commitment to the first amendment.
I think the american public needs to give Judy and the New York Times an award...THE " YOU WERE FUCKING WRONG AWARD". Cindy Sheehan could present them this award.
Posted by: kathleen at October 16, 2005 07:42 PM
I DO NOT REMEMBER
These are the words you want to say, if you want to stay out of jail....or worse.
What did Reagan say about Iran Contra? I DO NOT REMEMBER.
What did Hillary say about Whitewater? I DO NOT REMEMBER.
So, it is no surprise to me that Ms. Miller has uttered these words. She knows that she is facing extreme circumstances if she tells all. So...the only safe thing to say is I DO NOT REMEMBER. Even if she has committed no crimes herself, if she has incriminating evidence on people much more powerful than herself..it's the only thing she CAN say, or end up dead, or equivalent. Obviously someone has gotten to her.
Bob in North Dakota
Posted by: Bob in North Dakota at October 16, 2005 07:45 PM
Reality
Reality is that most Americans look to Bush to protect them. People stay away from the answer that rests with Shalom. The problems that America faces in the next fifty years when our population doubles and we have no leadership can only be resolved through love and mercy and hatred and killing are not the answers. I have given you a blueprint that can ease the problems in America and throughout the world. America's worship of Bush will lead to her disaster. The moral demise of a nation precedes the ultimate demise of a nation.
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 07:46 PM
Venezuela Boots US Religious Interlopers
Caracas, Oct 15 (Prensa Latina) The Venezuelan decision to expel the US religious group "Nuevas Tribus" from the territory was mainly supported in this capital by specialists who reject the fundamentalist group?s missionary policy.
Margarita Laucho, an indigenous anthropologist, told Prensa Latina these missionaries? performance in Venezuela since 1946 has fostered "satanization" of all traditional indigenous religion.
She thinks the US evangelists have gone more than far enough in damaging local religions and it remains to be seen if they can be recovered.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced October 12, the Day of Indigenous Resistance, the expulsion of these missions, and accused them of being at the service of larger transnationals and US intelligence groups.
Saul Rivas, coordinator of the Guaicaipuro inter-cultural project, recalled how several years ago a group of researchers, shamans and indigenous people denounced the fundamentalism of this sect "that uses religion as a mask to justify a colonial plan."
The Venezuelan anthropologist said that parliamentary research proved in the 80?s they even had a network of airports and light aircrafts to come and go out of the country without the State control.
Venezuela?s Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel talked of the discovery of 29 airports belonging to the sect located on different sites around the country, many near mining sites.
According to evidence, "Nuevas Tribus" has carried out research on strategic mineral fields in the Amazon and Venezuela's other regions, as well as in South American, African and Asian countries.
Cardinal Rosalio Castillo Lara, termed by top officials one of the leaders opposed to Chavez, is included among those who support the decision.
The sect?s expulsion, said the religious leader, had been requested for 20 years by the National Catholic Church.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 07:46 PM
Another angle.
'Hidden Scandal' in Miller Story, Charges Former CBS Newsman
By E&P Staff
Published: October 16, 2005 4:00 PM ET
NEW YORK Since the posting of The New York Times lengthy article on Judith Miller's involvement in the Plame scandal Saturday night, much Web buzzing has ensued concerning the revelation that she had some sort of special classified status while embedded with troops in Iraq at one point.
E&P columnist William E. Jackson, Jr., had first raised this issue last year. Today, former CBS national security correspondent Bill Lynch posted his views in a long letter about it at the Romenesko site at poynter.org. Here is the letter:
*
There is one enormous journalism scandal hidden in Judith Miller's Oct. 16th first person article about the (perhaps lesser) CIA leak scandal. And that is Ms. Miller's revelation that she was granted a DoD security clearance while embedded with the WMD search team in Iraq in 2003.
This is as close as one can get to government licensing of journalists and the New York Times (if it knew) should never have allowed her to become so compromised. It is all the more puzzling that a reporter who as a matter of principle would sacrifice 85 days of her freedom to protect a source would so willingly agree to be officially muzzled and thereby deny potentially valuable information to the readers whose right to be informed she claims to value so highly.
One must assume that Ms. Miller was required to sign a standard and legally binding agreement that she would never divulge classified information to which she became privy, without risk of criminal prosecution. And she apparently plans to adhere to the letter of that self-censorship deal; witness her dilemma at being unable to share classified information with her editors.
In an era where the Bush Administration seeks to conceal mountains of government activity under various levels of security classification, why would any self-respecting news organization or individual journalist agree to become part of such a system? Readers would be right to question whether a reporter is operating under a security clearance and, by definition, withholding critical information. Does a newspaper not have the obligation to disclose to its readers when a reporter is not only embedded with a military unit but also officially proscribed in what she may report without running afoul of espionage laws? Was that ever done in Ms. Miller's articles from Iraq?
It is not hard to imagine a defense lawyer being granted a security clearance to defend, say, an "enemy combatant." When the lawyer gets access to classified information in the case, he discovers it is full of false or exculpatory information. But, because he's signed the secrecy oath, there's not a damn thing he can do except whine on the courthouse steps that his client is innocent but he can't say why. A journalist should never be put in an equivalent position, but this is precisely what Ms. Miller has opened herself to.
There are other questions. Does she still have a clearance? Did she have it when talking to Scooter Libby? Is that why she never wrote the Wilson/Plame story?
I am a former White House and national security correspondent and have had plenty of access to classified information. When I divulged it, it was always with a common sense appraisal of the balance between any potential harm done and the public's right to know. If I had doubts, I would run it by officers whose judgement I trusted. In my experience, defense and intelligence officials routinely share secrets with reporters in the full expectation they will be reported. But if any official had ever offered me a security clearance, my instincts would have sent me running. I am gravely disappointed Ms. Miller did not do likewise.
It strikes me that Ms. Miller's situation is the flip side of the NYT's Jayson Blair coin. He and the Times were rightly disgraced for fabricating. In my opinion, Miller also violated her duty to report the truth by accepting a binding obligation to withhold key facts the government deems secret, even when that information might contradict the reportable "facts."
If Ms. Miller agreed to operate under a security clearance without the knowledge or approval of Times managers, she should be disciplined or even dismissed. If she had their approval, all involved should be ashamed.
---------------
But what does she get? A f**king award!!
Posted by: Saladin at October 16, 2005 07:49 PM
The reality is that love and mercy save and hatred and killing destroy. Reality is that we let our possessions control us instead of we controlling our possessions. Reality is that we are too afraid to share the gifts of God with other people. Reality is that everything on this planet is on loan to us. What we do with God's gift to us will be our gift to God. The reality is that in the last chapter of the Bible we have the Book of Revelations and the people who have remained faithful to God will be the winners. That is the reality.
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 08:02 PM
Here's something else about Judy's security clearance. Is it Libby's defence?
Miller's Security Clearance
Having now waded through The Times's articles on Judy Miller, one new fact struck me as particularly bizarre -- Miller, by her own admission, was cleared to see secret information as part of her assignment as an "embedded" reporter in Iraq.
I had no idea journalists could receive security clearances -- and I had no idea that the mainstream media would allow their reporters to have such clearances. After all, one of the most important obligations of a person receiving security clearances is not to reveal that information at any time, while one of the most important obligations of a reporter is precisely to reveal information the public has a need and right to know.
Can someone explain why this glaring conflict of interest is acceptable? And does anyone know whether Miller's clearance was an exception or whether this is a common practice in journalistic circles, be it today or in the past? And, finally, as I note below the fold, could it be that this fact becomes the key to Libby's defense?....
....A couple of things to note. First, if Libby knew Miller was cleared to see secret information his discussing it with her might not be regarded as an unauthorized disclosure of classified information (which is one of the crimes Libby could be charged with). The fact that Miller was a reporter would be irrelevant, because she was cleared to receive secret information in order to be able to do her job (albeit as an "embedded" reporter).
Second, when Miller writes that she "expressed frustration to Mr. Libby that I was not permitted to discuss with editors some of the more sensitive information about Iraq," she made clear that any classified information he shared with her would not be revealed -- either to her editors or to the public. But how, under these circumstances, can she do her job as a reporter?
There is, in short, something seriously wrong here, which is deserving of much more debate.
-----------
Can you imagine what is going through Fitzgerald's brain right now? He's probably thinking "Get me out of here."
For a party that was going to bring in an era of clean government this makes Clinton's so called dirty politics look positively pure.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 08:10 PM
Shalom
Here is more reality!
Here is what America and the world need in order to attain peace and justice on our planet for all of God's children. Here is also what I believe God wants for His children and His vision for the world.
Shalom translated means peace but it is much more than peace. Shalom is a vision of social wholeness; a state of well being for all, where everyone has access to the goods of creation intended to meet the needs of all. Shalom is the substance of the biblical vision of one community embracing all creation where all enjoy the resources that make communal harmony joyous and effective.
Shalom is nothing less than God's intended vision of the world, a dream of God that resists our tendencies for division, hostility, fear, lust, and misery. If there is to be well-being, it will not be just for the isolated and insulated individuals, it is security and prosperity granted to the whole community - the poor, the widow, the orphan, the immigrant, the tax collector and the sinner, the despised and the rejected, young and old, the have and the have nots, the powerful and the dependent. We are in it together. Together we stand before God's blessings and together we receive the gift of life. Shalom comes only to the inclusive embracing community that excludes no one.
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 08:13 PM
The comments on the site I just posted are very interesting for those who are interested in the subject of Judy Miller's security clearance.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 08:17 PM
Judith Miller
Indictments
Remember, when Ollie North testified before Congress and he said absolutely nothing in the Iran-Contra Affair.
Now, Judith Miller is free to speak and she will say absolutely nothing to the Grand Jury. She will create more confusion regarding possible indictments. Liars know how to lie. Yet, the American people become very excited in these Soap Operas. Americans need to get a life and determine the true values in life.
War is not a video game. It is a real life experience. Spoiled Americans deserve what they get! Over a trillion dollars will be spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, little money is being spent on education, poverty, health care, etc.
In one of the articles I read Bush was talking about some person with a heart. How would he knows who has heart? Someone without a heart cannot know someone with a heart. But, Bush is worshipped as a god and so people believe whatever he says.
Americans and their belief system are similar to the Keystone Cops. Americans are spinning all over the place and going nowhere. The best view of America should be in reading articles from foreign newspapers because the MSM in America feeds into Americans' selfish egos.
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 08:25 PM
C'mon Gerald, what is it, a loan or a gift? Get real, man. Revelation? Hodge-podge. Better SF than Heinlein. Gobbledygook. Seven seals? Or is it 70 virgins?
Judy Miller writes with more clarity than John.
Posted by: Don Smith at October 16, 2005 08:26 PM
Whoever has a formula for a better world post it!!!!!
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 08:34 PM
Let us see some constructive thoughts for a better world!!!!!
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 08:36 PM
Whoever has better ideas for a better world post them!!!!! Let see those creative juices flowing for a better world.!!!!!
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 08:38 PM
Thanks Jeanie....the key question for me at this time... is. What was Judy Miller's security clearance at the time her roots were becoming further entangled with Libby's? What was her security clearance status at this time?
Who gave her this security clearance in the first place?
Posted by: kathleen at October 16, 2005 08:41 PM
Here is one of the postings from TPMCafe Millers Security Clearance. I posted it #69
---------
by Aquaria40
As others have pointed out, getting a security clearance isn't easy (the candidate investigations are expensive and time-consuming). In the 80s, it cost about $70K for a TS clearance. I'm sure it's a lot more now.
And yes, once you leave a position that gave you a security clearance, you no longer have that clearance. The clearance is tied to the POSITION, not to the person. However, you are bound to protect the information you acquired while you had access to it. Forever, if necessary.
A couple of people have also pointed out the Need To Know angle, which is really the crux of this whole matter. Nobody has access to everything. Not even Bush. Seriously. What does he need with the crypto codes on a high-security radio system? You have access to what you need to know, and no more. What you know, you can't give to just anyone. THEY have a need to know the data. And it's usually not your place to determine who needs to know. You're told who needs it. And everyone else is SOL. This is where Libby is F-R-I-E-D.
For speculation's sake, let's say Judas and Scooter had the same security clearance. Let's even say it's Top Secret. That does NOT mean that they can share what they know with each other. A Dept of State employee with TS clearance can't share info he posseses, not one scrap of it, with an AF pilot with that same clearance, unless the pilot has a need to know a particular piece of information. As someone else pointed out upthread, a sub guy in the navy can't even share his launch codes with a sub guy on another vessel. The fewer people who know things, the safer the info is. Ideally, that's the whole purpose of restricting access to the info.
There are procedures in place for all of this, and nearly everyone involved is very, VERY serious about adhering to them, not to mention having them enforced whenever there's a breach. But obviously not all of them. That's why we have laws about protecting national security resources.
And this is why Libby is in very, very deep trouble right now. As soon as Judy said she wasn't "sure" if her clearance was good, especially about info which was extremely sensitive (minimum for the data in AF1 memo was S--Secret), he needed to shut the hell up. I would be in jail if I'd done something like this when I was in the military. Most of us "ordinary" joes and janes would be.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 08:41 PM
A better world can never exclude the Creator of our universe!!!!! Perfection must always be included!!!!!
Posted by: Gerald at October 16, 2005 08:42 PM
Gerald, perfection, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Unless God is willing to come and set things right, we are on our own. And, being the imperfect creatures that we are, it doesn't look good!
Posted by: Saladin at October 16, 2005 08:52 PM
I still say that somebody got to her. To say "I don't remember" is the ultimate ass-covering cop-out....either to protect herself from jail, or a fate much worse at the hands of the Rove/Cheney Administration.
Bob in North Dakota
Posted by: Bob In North Dakota at October 16, 2005 09:04 PM
Supporting Hillary
by Cindy Sheehan
I would love to support Hillary for President if she would come out against the travesty in Iraq. But I don't think she can speak out against the occupation, because she supports it.
I will not make the mistake of supporting another pro-war Democrat for president again: As I won't support a pro-war Republican.
This country wants this occupation to end. The world wants the occupation to end. People in Iraq want this occupation to end.
Senator Clinton: taking the peace road would not prove you are weak. Instead, it would prove that you are the strongest and wisest candidate. As a mom, as an American, as a patriot: I implore you to have the strength and courage to lead the fight for peace.
I want to support you, I want to work for you, but like many American moms, I will resist your candidacy with every bit of my power and strength unless you show us the wisdom it takes to be a truly great leader.
Prove that you are "passionate" and reflect our nations' values and refusal to support imperialism, greed and torture.
Senator Clinton: come out against this occupation of Iraq. Not because it is the politically expedient thing to do but because it is the humane thing to do. If you want to make Casey's sacrifice count, bring the rest of his buddies home alive.
*****end of clip*****
I have had my fill of chicken-hawk democrats just as much as chicken-hawk republicans.
Enough is enough.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 16, 2005 09:11 PM
Capt,
I agree. I don't see Chelsea in uniform. I have two draft age kids and one who is closing in on that age. Cannon fodder they ain't.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 09:24 PM
Heard Barrack Obama on NPR's "Wait, Wait, don't tell me." today...
Too soon, but whatta guy!
-T
Posted by: Hajji at October 16, 2005 09:38 PM
Smart and articulate. Wow! Please make him president now.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 09:55 PM
CornPost is the best. The half-hearted weaklings at dailykos can't even take a little arguing before they ban you. Should have known better to object to the great Armando...
Well at least I know I can depend on the cornballs to banter without being all touchy and small-minded.
Posted by: ripple at October 16, 2005 10:13 PM
Obama is a good man right now, true enough. But how many men and women can resist the power of WashDC and its corruptive forces?
Term limits would help, with highly restrictive congressional rules and money rules.
We should not be looking for something better to follow or guide us. We need to reconcile to what we are and what we can do, not seek the greatest or highest or mostest. Too many neurotics there.
Posted by: Don Smith at October 16, 2005 10:21 PM
Get the lobbyists out of there.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 10:23 PM
Today Tom Friedman called Judy " a pioneer and an agent of change".
One of the things Fitzgerald is trying to figure out is just who Judy is an "agent of change" for? It has certainly been proven she is not working for the american public
Posted by: kathleen at October 16, 2005 10:32 PM
Jeanne:
Here, here! Lobbyists begone!
Excellent post on security clearances. It was a long time ago that I possessed a secret clearance in a USN radio shack, and it seems the rules are still the same.
I had a niggling of doubt that Miller would be able to show and tell, produce paper or witnesses to prove she had a clearance while embedded. The FBI sends people out to investigate and they get the hard facts about a person's life. I'm fairly sure J. Miller would be a skittish soul in light of that kind of search. And who paid for it? As you say, it ain't cheap.
Pentagon orientators may have warned her that while embedded she was going to come into contact with classified info which they would ask her to clear before writing it into a story. I guess she could give that an easy twist for boosting the ego or vanity.
Personally I wouldn't let her have my hat size.
Posted by: Don Smith at October 16, 2005 10:41 PM
Jeanne:
Here, here! Lobbyists begone!
Excellent post on security clearances. It was a long time ago that I possessed a secret clearance in a USN radio shack, and it seems the rules are still the same.
I had a niggling of doubt that Miller would be able to show and tell, produce paper or witnesses to prove she had a clearance while embedded. The FBI sends people out to investigate and they get the hard facts about a person's life. I'm fairly sure J. Miller would be a skittish soul in light of that kind of search. And who paid for it? As you say, it ain't cheap.
Pentagon orientators may have warned her that while embedded she was going to come into contact with classified info which they would ask her to clear before writing it into a story. I guess she could give that an easy twist for boosting the ego or vanity.
Personally I wouldn't let her have my hat size.
Posted by: Don Smith at October 16, 2005 10:42 PM
After Dinner Conversation:
Libby: Hey Judy one more thing before you go. You know Delay's Guy, Abramhoff?
Miller: Sure, the lobbyist, his partner is fingered in a murder for hire plot in Florida.
Libby: That's right Judy. Just checking. Now go ahead and write your little article.
Posted by: Rabble Rouzer at October 16, 2005 10:49 PM
That could cause a bad case of writer's block.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 16, 2005 10:56 PM
Obama supported bombing Iran, WTF? I say, stop bombing people! Why is no one talking about the British and American soldiers dressed as Arabs, ready to blow up civilian targets?? Goddammit! Where was this info about security clearances before? I found one and suddenly it's common knowledge. Why isn't Fitzgerald looking into this? Where the hell is the CIA? Are they completely sacless now?
Posted by: Saladin at October 16, 2005 11:23 PM
It seems some liberals are upset that it now has been proven beyond any doubt that Rove had
nothing to do with the information leak of Wilson's wife. All intelligent people finally realize the leak was by David Corn and Joe Wilson himself.
Now that the LEAK story is finally over, All honest Liberals have started apologizing to Rove and President Bush. There are still a few traitorous hard core left wing liberal that are slow to see that David Corn is nothing but a mindless boob.
The most ignorant of Liberals still haven't admitted to themselves YET, that the War against Saddam's Iraq was a brilliant success with very very very minor USA causalities. The current war against terrorism has been the most successful war with the least causalities of any war in history.
MORE POWER TO YOU PRESIDENT BUSH. Keep up the GREAT JOB, and Keep up the constant pressure against Terrorism until all terrorists are dead. WE WILL NEVER QUIT ON YOU, DON'T YOU QUIT ON US.
I apologize to you, President Bush, for all the TRAITORS to America that blog on this site. They are stupid and no not what they do. I am so sorry that people like David Corn and his mindless followers even exist. Pay no attention to them at all, they are traitors and care nothing about America. FUCK THEM, THEY MEAN NOTHING. THEY ARE THE LOWEST OF THE LOW.
Posted by: aammeerriiccaa at October 17, 2005 12:45 AM
Here's another article on the bird flu.
The Fear Contagion A Flu Quarantine? No, Sir
"For two years, a deadly strain of chicken flu known as H5N1 has been killing birds in Asia. While slightly more than 100 people are known to have contracted the disease, and 60 of them have died, there is still no sign that the flu has begun to spread from person to person."
---------
The article goes on the discuss the dangers of quarentine and the impracticality of it.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 17, 2005 12:49 AM
Frank Rich's column.
FRANK RICH: It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby!!!!
"Asked repeatedly about Mr. Rove's serial appearances before a Washington grand jury, the jittery Mr. Bush, for once bereft of a script, improvised a passable impersonation of Norman Bates being quizzed by the detective in "Psycho." Like Norman and Ms. Stewart, he stonewalled.
That stonewall may start to crumble in a Washington courtroom this week or next. In a sense it already has. Now, as always, what matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower, Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer. What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq. That conspiracy was instigated by Mr. Rove's boss, George W. Bush, and Mr. Libby's boss, Dick Cheney...."
Posted by: Jeanne at October 17, 2005 01:01 AM
way to waste your time aammeerriiccaa.
yes we're very sorry for hurting poor little man-child chimpy puppet president's feelings.
grow up, nationalism is dead.
Posted by: ripple at October 17, 2005 01:05 AM
Judas Miller is a washed-up has-been. She's a glorified member of that group of echolalic stenographers that used to be the "White House Press Corpse." Unless she is the journo who provided info to Libby and Rove about Plame (which she doesn't claim) anything she testifies to is irrelevant and probably a flat out lie.
The Plame case centers around what Novak wrote. He was the one who divulged info about Plame.
He (Novak) was given the same phony nonsense about Plame sending Wilson to Niger that other journos were given. He checked it out with CIA spokesman Holden who told him he was wrong and not to use Plame's name. Holden couldn't tell Novak that Plame was undercover since that would violate the laws against revealing classified information (which is the charge that Bill Kristol says will be dropped on Rove's doorstep soon).
As an NOC agent, Plame's cover (that she was an energy analyst / consultant) was blown when Novak wrote that she was a CIA operative. Her whole network was blown and a damage assessment has already been done in that regard. If no damage was done, we'd have already heard about that.
I want to know more about WINPAC and the role that Bolton and his stooge Fleitz (sp?) played in lying us into a war. I want to know if PLame knew what they were up to. When the Mayberry Machiavellis realized that Wilson and Plame were married, they tried to whack them. The morons got careless and they got caught.
Miller's story borders on mythology. Unless she claims that she was the source for Libby and Rove, she can peddle her hogwash somewhere else.
Capt, thanks for the updates. I have lost touch with the beautiful game. I missed the last 2 U.S. quallies. I haven't done that in over a decade. I hear that hockey's back in full swing. When did that happen?
Alan, I hear the 'Stros are winning. What are their chances?
I read that the Salah al-Din province in Iraq voted "no" on the new Iraqi constitution. That name rings a bell.
Posted by: Pandemoniac at October 17, 2005 01:09 AM
MAYBERRY MACHIAVELLIS !
I've never heard a more perfect term to decribe the rabel.
Posted by: ripple at October 17, 2005 01:18 AM
Ps. I didn't know that W(uss) had a little chat with Mr. Prosecutor. He wasn't under oath, though.
He wasn't under oath when he testified before the Senate Whitewash Committee and he wasn't under oath before Fitzgerald.
What a chickenshit liar. He doesn't even have the guts to lay his hand on The Bible. I wonder why. Faulty memory bank? Hajji, is there a medical term for alcoholic dementia?
Posted by: Pandemoniac at October 17, 2005 01:20 AM
It seems some neocons are upset that it now has been proven beyond any doubt that Rove had everything to do with the information leak of Wilson's wife. All intelligent people finally realize the leak was by George Bush, Bob Novak and Dick Cheney.
Now that the LEAK story is finally cooking, all honest Neocons have started apologizing to the world. There are still a few traitorous hard core right wing neocons that are slow to see that Bush is nothing but a mindless boob.
The most ignorant of neocons still haven't admitted to themselves YET, that the War against Saddam's Iraq was a mind-blowing screw-up with thousands of major USA causalities. The current war against terrorism has been the most screwed up war with the most unecessary causalities of any illegal war in history.
MORE IMPEACHMENT TO YOU PRESIDENT BUSH. QUIT VIOLATING THE LAW, and quit creating terrorism. WE WILL HANG YOU FOR YOUR CRIMES IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
I apologize to the world, for all the TRAITORS to America that blog on this site in support of your crime family. They are stupid and no not what they do. I am so sorry that people like Bob Novak and his mindless followers even exist. Pay no attention to them at all, they are traitors and care nothing about America. FUCK THEM, THEY KNOW NOTHING. THEY ARE THE LOWEST OF THE LOW.
I know I promised to quit being a small minded jerk and a troll but my word means nothing because I am a liar and a cheat and my word means nothing. I have no respect and am quite juvenile and childish.
Posted by: T. Troll at October 17, 2005 01:22 AM
"is there a medical term for alcoholic dementia"
Bush's Brain?
Posted by: Icarus at October 17, 2005 01:31 AM
#38
Capt, I enjoy your posts. However, I think you fell for poorly analyzed or biased reporting on this one.
The reporter, Hope Yen, is the one who says Feinstein remains open to confirm Miers partly due to conservative criticism.
Feinstein was more cautious in her words (then the reporter) and threw the same words back to the repubs that they used against the dems with the previous Supreme Court nomination. She was very safe in basically saying "people should be able to have their day in court". She said nothing about voting affirmative for Miers as a result of this conservative persecution and at the same time took a 'potshot' at repubs for being sexist. I think she thinks the dems have a lot to gain if Miers goes before the committee.
Posted by: yelnats at October 17, 2005 01:40 AM
YEHHH for Salah al-Din!! No brainwashing for Saladin!
Posted by: Saladin at October 17, 2005 01:57 AM
T. Troll, why is it that you are sorry?
Posted by: Saladin at October 17, 2005 02:03 AM
Nats,
The piece was writen by Hope Yen so the whole thing is what Hope Yen says.
No quotations around the line so that is what Hope Yen is saying D. Feinstein said.
I am sure if the reference was in error D. Feinstein would correct the record.
What exactly do you think I am "falling" for?
Checked Feinstein's site? No mention or correction?
"I think you fell for poorly analyzed or biased reporting on this one."
Please extrapolate? Or please explain how the piece (linked in #38) is poorly analyzed or biased?
capt
Posted by: capt at October 17, 2005 02:03 AM
#103
Although this clip is under a humor category, I can't help but wonder based on the many times I hear Bush speak whether it is true. It seems like he is literally losing logical brain functions.
If Scooter scoots and Rove roves away from the WH, and possibly Cheney (and Rice) too... as a result of Fitzgerald then Bush will have lost a good part of his 'brain' trust... and we got problems that make Pres Wilson's stroke and his wife running interference to be relatively minor... can we invoke the 25th ammendment section 4 at that time?
Posted by: yelnats at October 17, 2005 02:11 AM
#107
First, this is not a big deal.
The only quote in the article attributed to Feinstein is:
"The way she's being beaten up by the far right is very sexist. People should hold their fire, and give people an opportunity to come before a hearing," said Feinstein, D-Calif.
You said that Feinstein was weaseling and being a 'dempublican'. This might be justified in other situations, but I think in this case she was politic'ing and taking advantage of the Republican division over Miers.
The reporter wrote:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she remained open to voting to confirm Miers, citing in part the conservative criticism.
That is the reporter's take on what Feinstein said. Technically one could say Feinstein remains open to voting to confirm Miers, but what she actually said was that she wanted to let Miers have her hearing. In my opinion, the reporter read too far ahead in Feinstein's comment. Feinstein wanted the divisiveness of the Repubs to continue into a hearing and enjoy watching the fight.
I think that this mis-analysis or overstatement of Feinstein does not show up on the Senator's staff radar screen, so don't expect a correction or rather a 'protest' to the reporter's comment anytime soon. First, the reporter did not misquote Feinstein, the reporter summarized her comment and backed it up with the actual quote. And as is not too uncommon the actual quote does not reflect the bias shown in the reporter's summary of the quote... its a matter of her opinion of what Feinstein said.
Posted by: yelnats at October 17, 2005 02:24 AM
So what is it that I am falling for?
Or do you think my comment was over the top or un-justified by the linked piece in #38?
I have disliked DF since she was mayor of S.F. and the comment I made was not even based on her currect weasel words or the foul fluids she carries for the WH. DF has a long history (including fawning all over neo-condi)
I have to say, it seems more than obvious that we both know the difference between a quote ("") and a reporters words.
So what exactly am I falling for again?
Sure it is not big deal but your comment that I have fallen for biased or poorly analyized reporting is WAY off base and I still have no clue where you got that? Seems a bit offensive?
I stand by my commentary and would have made the same comment without ANY article.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 17, 2005 02:35 AM
#88 and others --- Lobbyists
Who doesn't want "lobbyists" to go away... when they aren't your lobbyists. It is a first ammendment right to petition the government to redress grievances (or in other words "lobby").
A more serious discussion would be on how the power of lobbyists should be managed within a democracy so as to represent the people, and also not to be abused by the majority to infringe on the rights of the minority.
It's not worth arguing professional lobbyists versus 'amatuers'? How many of you want to go to congress to petition your concerns versus sending money to people who represent your concerns well.
#69 Security Clearance
I haven't read through all the postings on this, but typically clearances are given for a certain scope. There are multiple levels and areas. In other words, its not like US security is based on one hard, tough wall and a chewy soft center... where you are either "cleared" or "not cleared". CIA agents especially ones not even in the Iraq theatre would not be within an embedded reporter's security clearance... but military actions and secrets regarding Iraq might be. Certainly a WH admin would want to know what Miller is cleared for, before giving information.
Posted by: yelnats at October 17, 2005 02:48 AM
BTW - The first person to use the "sexist" word was Mrs. Bunnypants. (might be wrong but I did read it somewhere)
If you want to know what a weasel DF is check out COSTCO, Blum and her voting record with regard to China, gun control, etc.
Check out:
http://www.calfraud.com/stacks/feinblum.htm
My opinion is: you are falling for her facade. Hope Yens reporting seems bona fide. The fact that the reporter paraphrased does not mean the reporter made this stuff out of whole cloth.
No big deal but I think you are expressing an opinion and avoiding the facts. But that is just my opinion.
HA!
capt
Posted by: capt at October 17, 2005 02:48 AM
Alan, I hear the 'Stros are winning. What are their chances?
===================
Pretty good, to get to the World Series, since we're up 3-games to 1 with another game here Monday, but I dunno a thing about the White Sox. Shyt, we've NEVER been to the W/S !!
Posted by: Alan at October 17, 2005 03:02 AM
Capt.
Really, I'm not necessarily against your conclusion. However, your post in #38 seemed to use this reporter's article as one more justification for your conclusion that may be well founded on other evidence.
I was only sharing what I think is a more reasonable analysis (using Occam's Razor) than what the reporter gave, and what I said you had fallen for. (I apologize 'fallen' might be too harsh of a word, maybe you overlooked the reporter's bias or poor analysis).
Here is your comments in #38 after referring to the article:
So, Senator Feinstein would be open to any confirmation as long as the crazy far right is critical? That any criticism is sexist? She speaks in weasel words and carries this WH's foul fluids.
She has solid credentials as a dempublican.
I offer a more simple analysis... all she said is she wanted to let the hearing happen and didn't accept "sexist" comments from Republicans to be a reason to stop a "fair hearing". She wanted to extend the republican feud even farther... besides why rush Bush to pick another nominee... (being HIGHLY OPTIMISTIC) maybe if we wait long enough the WH admin will be so discredited that public opinion will accept confirmation rejections until there is a change in the WH.
PS: I retract my word "fallen for" to be "possible overlooked the reporter's opinion versus what Feinstein intended". Is this a case where we are willing to allow each other to disagree on what this article really says about Feinstein?
Posted by: yelnats at October 17, 2005 03:02 AM
Just used a clip as a sounding board.
What the article says is very easy to agree upon:
The reporter wrote:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she remained open to voting to confirm Miers, citing in part the conservative criticism.
That is what it says?
My issue was clearly more to do with the "citing in part the conservative criticism" because my comment was "So, Senator Feinstein would be open to any confirmation as long as the crazy far right is critical?"
I am still falling for something in your book so fine and dandy randy.
I am sure I was not communicating effectively or clearly enough. My limitations with regard to the written word are obvious and endless.
I fall for stuff all the time. Especially stuff I read. All apologies.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 17, 2005 03:18 AM
#112
Not trying to defend Feinstein or her record.
We all know that politicians don't always say exactly what the mean... a hearing doesn't mean a vote in favor of. She did vote against Roberts, btw.
Taking Feinstein out of the equation for the moment... I would think every politically astute democrat is hoping to extend the Mier's feud for as long as they can... they don't want to encourage Bush to withdraw Miers... at least not yet... even rosier for democrat's strategy if the division in repubs is deep enough that they actually really wish Miers to go before the committee... 5 repubs/3 demos for, 5 repubs/5 demos against... now that would say something about the power restructuring going on... not that demos know how to take advantage of power vacuum.
I'm saying I think there is a more simple and likely analysis for Feinstein's quote (i.e. let's keep moving to a hearing in order to keep the feud going) than what the reporter gave (I'm more open to voting for her b/c some repubs don't like her).
Posted by: yelnats at October 17, 2005 03:18 AM
#112
Capt... I did read some of the links you posted and they are very interesting. So far what I saw was mostly on her husband, which is a viable conflict of interest and concern but also a highly vunerable one for any politician. Have there not been politically embarassing spouses before?
However, it is your BTW that caught my eye for this post The first person to use the "sexist" word was Mrs. Bunnypants. (might be wrong but I did read it somewhere)
I also do believe that sexism charges was inferred by Mrs. Bush's earlier comments... which actually demonstrates how safe and opportunisitic it would be for Feinstein or any democratic member of the Senate Judiciary committee to use that as a reason to keep the repbulican internal feud going. If a democrat first introduced sexism then they might become the lightening rod for conserative bloggers and pundits, but it was already on the table as a result of the feud.... kind of like throwing the mud that sloshed outside the fight ring back into it again.
the problem is repubs might pull themselves together... and remove Miers sooner than later.
Posted by: yelnats at October 17, 2005 03:38 AM
Peace in Iraq Still Elusive after Constitutional Referendum
Monday, October 17, 2005
Al-Hayat reports that 643,000 votes were cast in Ninevah Province (capital: Mosul). At the time it filed, 419,000 had been preliminarily counted, and the vote was running 75 percent in favor. Ninevah Province was the most likely place that Sunni Arabs opposing the constitution might be able to get a 2/3s "no" vote.
Several of my knowledgeable readers are convinced that the Ninevah voting results as reported so far look like fraud. One suspected that the Iraqi government so feared a defeat there that they over-did the ballot stuffing and ended up with an implausible result.
One of my Iraqi-American correspondents compared the turnout statistics from Ninevah and Diyala provinces last Jan. 30 to those coming out now, and found the current numbers completely unbelievable. He pointed out that the Iraqi Islamic Party had not garnered many votes in Ninevah last January, and its support of the constitution could not hope to explain the hundreds of thousands of "yes" votes the constitution appeared to receive on Saturday.
*****end of clip*****
Juan Cole has some real good stuff linked at the bottom of his current post.
I figure there must be some scandalous vote fraud going on in Iraq, we exported our kind democracy.
Judith Miller had 85 days to stew on who said what and when and she has not forgotten anything. I do not believe it for a second.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 17, 2005 03:46 AM
OUR MAN IN HELL
Monday, October 17, 2005
by Richard Nixon
Word of the president's problems is not playing well down here. Junior's been on the defensive ever since that bozo he hired turned New Orleans into, well, this place.
He's sitting on a massive deficit, an unwinnable war and poll numbers that look like Truman's in 1952 (which were lower than mine ever were!). Normally I'd say, "Burn the tapes!" But there's the rub.
So, here's what he has to do: resign. That's right. Get out. But not before dictating a carefully worded pardon to Cheney. Next year, during the Super Bowl, say, he can release a one-sentence announcement to the wire services.
In other words, it's over. Once they turn on you they're like ravenous weasels. Better to enjoy your later years with a nice fat book deal and wait to be rehabilitated after the next guy, or gal, screws up. Gotta go. John and Martha Mitchell are coming over for a barbecue.
(Mr. Nixon appears courtesy Hades News Service.)
*****end of clip*****
I cannot believe Ironic Times has tricky Dick on staff. I am sure it is fake because everybody knows there is no BBQ in hell.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 17, 2005 03:55 AM
If you're broadband, you need to see this...
Bill Maher kicks-azz
Posted by: Alan at October 17, 2005 04:20 AM
Times Report on Judith Miller: Key Moments, My Comments, and What the Blogs Say
Monday, October 15, 2005
from Jay Rosen's Pressthink
Miller cannot recall where the name at the center of the case came from? Wowzer. Sure to be the center of controversy over the next week. Claiming memory loss about the most important fact in the story is weak. Very.
Miller actually subtracts from public knowledge in this part, a feat. She introduces into the narrative a new "source" who must have been around to plant the name on her, and then promptly tells us she cannot remember anything about him. So we know less if we believe her.
*****end of clip*****
Some acute observations from Jay Rosen . The clip does not do justice to the whole piece.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 17, 2005 05:02 AM
just throwing this out for those who have been in the business for awhile..
America looked the other way with JFK and Marilyn Monroe, his addiction to pain killers, etc..
now, Clinton gets impeached from the consequences from something that was probably a common occurence during JFK..
is this whole Libby thing politics as usual and America just didn't care before the birth of the news ticker, or what?
Posted by: Stella at October 17, 2005 08:32 AM
What kind of threats did Judith receive while behind bars? Did Scooter use the right code words in his note to her? Someday her brains will be displayed at the Smithsonian right next to the Nixon tapes.
Lurking questions:
Will the President of Vice be im-peached or just im-peared?
Judith writing a book? Now that is a novel idea.
Posted by: MnMnM at October 17, 2005 08:34 AM
A Woman for all Seasons
A moral avenger!
Posted by: Gerald at October 17, 2005 09:31 AM
American Soldiers
As Bush sits in comfort drinking Jack and Jim as well as snorting coke, 2,218 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bushճ evil lies.
Posted by: Gerald at October 17, 2005 09:39 AM
An Endless War
Posted by: Gerald at October 17, 2005 09:46 AM
Nuclear War, Here We Come
Glorious times are here for the fundies and evans!
Posted by: Gerald at October 17, 2005 09:52 AM
An Angry America
By DOUG THOMPSON
Oct 17, 2005, 06:48
According to FBI statistics, crimes of violence rose sharply in the last year, coinciding with what pollsters say is an increase in anger in our society.
In searching for writings about America and anger, I came across these comments:
"For us to be loyal Americans, we can't be random and hypocritical about it. For years, being American has supposedly meant being unified as one and supporting equality on all levels, from gender to class to race. The land of the free and the equal seems to be the land of the confused and the phony. Let's get it together."
The words come from Brittany Garrett, freshman at Murray State University, writing in the campus newspaper. She continues:
"What I am calling in to question is the apparent hypocrisy that exists today in American life. We are angry only when we are allowed to be, patriotic when it's popular and are supposedly living under the great American ideals."
When our children see the problem so clearly, it is time for all of us to step back and think.
*****end of clip*****
Angry? Of course Americans are mad. We all hate being lied to, manipulated, then lied to again. We all hate it when our voices are loud and clear but politicians stuff dollars in their ears to quiet our concerns.
We all hate being leaderless and adrift on a foreign policy ship in an ocean of war and pestilence as our brave young men and women are lost in numbers to horrifying to count.
We all hate being embarrassed by feckless, heartless liars in high offices that use their position and power to deny their mistakes and lay blame on underlings shamelessly.
We all hate politicians that are drunk on their delusions of power and prove so by a body count from places remote to our way of living or our way of life.
Bottom line: Americans hate liars no matter what party or type and it has become obvious this administration is just a criminal enterprise that will say anything, anytime about anybody if it furthers their myopic cause.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 17, 2005 09:54 AM
We Were Set to Murder
Posted by: Gerald at October 17, 2005 09:55 AM
Bush set us up to murder and we now know that he is a murderer and a war criminal. Bush has committed crimes against humanity.
Posted by: Gerald at October 17, 2005 10:01 AM
Bush's eternal legacy is MURDERS and WAR CRIMES. For all eternity he will be known as a murderer and a war criminal.
Posted by: Gerald at October 17, 2005 10:04 AM
Could someone tell me how Novack got this information in the first place?
Posted by: maureen at October 17, 2005 10:17 AM
#108
Yelnats,
That clip is really scary.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 17, 2005 10:28 AM
Saladin -
Why is no one talking about the British and American soldiers dressed as Arabs, ready to blow up civilian targets??.......Where the hell is the CIA? Are they completely sacless now?
I submit that they have been completely sacless now for exactly 4 years and 36 days - ha
Posted by: James Ha at October 17, 2005 10:36 AM
Happy Monday,
Click me!
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 17, 2005 12:23 PM
Is it possible the real source being protected is Paul Wolfowitz?
Posted by: ed kriner at October 18, 2005 12:25 PM
Great job! It is apparent that Judy Miller was using the jail time as part of a smoke screen to put us in a sympathetic mood towards her and really to subvert us away from the possiblity of collusion with Libby and Cheney. Gregg in Portlsnd
Posted by: Gregory Schillinger at October 23, 2005 12:14 PM
THE KEY TO THE JUDITH MILLER CASE IS HER INSISTANCE THAT FITZGERALD AGREE TO LIMIT HIS GRAND JURY QUESTIONS TO THE VASLERIE PLAME AFFAIR.
BUT FITZGERALD CORRECTLY REFUSED. THEN SURPRISINGLY, AFTER 85 DAYS IN THE SLAMMER FOR MILLER, HE AGREED TO THE LIMIT.
JUDY MILLER THEN IMMEDIATELY AGREED TO TESTIFY.
THE QUESTION: WHY WAS MILLER SO FEARFUL OF QUESTIONS IN OTHER AREAS ?
SOME GOOD INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS SHOULD FERRET THIS ONE OUT.
Posted by: HERB MOSHER at November 5, 2005 11:48 AM