Mr. David Corn,

I thought it was common knowledge that "Curveball" was a nut? I am sure I read that long ago. Maybe I read it on a wacko website or something but I am sure I read it.

I look forward to your AEI update(s).

Thanks for all of your work.

Kirk

WOW David, passing the buck is becoming a frantic pastime for those losers! I am certain there was no misleading involved. This is all coming unraveled sooner then they thought it would. I'm dizzy from the spin!

The charges of the Democratic critics ARE "dishonest" and "reprehensible" and they ARE undermineing and causing the additional deaths of many of the troops.

There is a small minority of left wing ignorant loons who choose not to see it.

Those same ignorant Left wingers care more about hating the President than they care about American soldiers being placed in the additional harms way the left wings actions place the soldiers in.

Transcript of ElBaradei's U.N. presentation
Friday, March 7, 2003 Posted: 12:39 PM EST (1739 GMT)

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei presents his report Friday to the U.N. Security Council.

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

Story Tools

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

TRANSCRIPTS

Transcripts of Friday's presentations to the United Nations on Iraq
• Blix's report
• ElBaradei's report
• Powell's response
• Aldouri's remarks
• Villepin's remarks

SPECIAL REPORT

• Interactive: Council on Iraq
• Latest: Iraq Tracker
• Explainer: Al Samoud
• Special Report: Showdown Iraq

(CNN) -- Following is a transcript of International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei's March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council on the progress of the inspection effort in Iraq.

ElBaradei: Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, my report to the council today is an update on the status of the International Atomic Energy Agency's nuclear verification activities in Iraq pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1441 and other relevant resolutions.

When I reported last to the council on February 14, I explained that the agency's inspection activities has moved well beyond the reconnaissance phase -- that is, re-establishing our knowledge base regarding Iraq nuclear capabilities -- into the investigative phase, which focuses on the central question before the IAEA relevant to disarmament -- whether Iraq has revived or attempted to revive its defunct nuclear weapons program over the last four years.

At the outset, let me state on general observation, namely that during the past four years at the majority of Iraqi sites industrial capacity has deteriorated substantially due to the departure of the foreign support that was often present in the late '80s, the departure of large numbers of skilled Iraqi personnel in the past decade and the lack of consistent maintenance by Iraq of sophisticated equipment.

At only a few inspected sites involved in industrial research, development and manufacturing have the facilities been improved and new personnel been taken on.

This overall deterioration in industrial capacity is naturally of direct relevance to Iraq's capability for resuming a nuclear weapons program.

The IAEA has now conducted a total of 218 nuclear inspections at 141 sites, including 21 that have not been inspected before. In addition, the agency experts have taken part in many joint UNMOVIC [U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission]-IAEA inspections.

Technical support for nuclear inspections has continued to expand. The three operational air samplers have collected from key locations in Iraq weekly air particulate samples that are being sent to laboratories for analysis. Additional results of water, sediment, vegetation and material sample analysis have been received from the relevant laboratories.

Our vehicle-borne radiation survey team has covered some 2,000 kilometers over the past three weeks. Survey access has been gained to over 75 facilities, including military garrisons and camps, weapons factories, truck parks and manufacturing facilities and residential areas.

Interviews have continued with relevant Iraqi personnel, at times with individuals and groups in the workplace during the course of unannounced inspections, and on other occasions in pre-arranged meetings with key scientists and other specialists known to have been involved with Iraq's past nuclear program.

The IAEA has continued to conduct interviews, even when the conditions were not in accordance with the IAEA-preferred modalities, with a view to gaining as much information as possible -- information that could be cross-checked for validity with other sources and which could be helpful in our assessment of areas under investigation.

As you may recall, when we first began to request private, unescorted interviews, the Iraqi interviewees insisted on taping the interviews and keeping the recorded tapes. Recently, upon our insistence, individuals have been consenting to being interviewed without escort and without a taped record. The IAEA has conducted two such private interviews in the last 10 days, and hope that its ability to conduct private interviews will continue unhindered, including possibly interviews outside Iraq.

I should add that we are looking into further refining the modalities for conducting interviews to ensure that they are conducted freely and to alleviate concerns that interviews are being listened to by other Iraqi parties. In our view, interviews outside Iraq may be the best way to ensure that interviews are free, and we intend therefore to request such interviews shortly.

We are also asking other states to enable us to conduct interviews with former Iraqi scientists that now reside in those states.

Mr. President, in the last few weeks, Iraq has provided a considerable volume of documentation relevant to the issues I reported earlier as being of particular concern, including Iraq's efforts to procure aluminum tubes, its attempted procurement of magnets and magnets-production capabilities and its reported attempt to import uranium.

I will touch briefly on the progress made on each of these issues.

Since my last update to the council, the primary technical focus of IAEA field activities in Iraq has been on resolving several outstanding issues related to the possible resumption of efforts by Iraq to enrich uranium through the use of centrifuge. For that purpose, the IAEA assembled a specially qualified team of international centrifuge manufacturing experts.

With regard to the aluminum tubes, the IAEA has conducted a thorough investigation of Iraq's attempt to purchase large quantities of high-strength aluminum tubes. As previously reported, Iraq has maintained that these aluminum tubes were sold for rocket production.

Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81-millimeter tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets.

The Iraqi decision-making process with regard to the design of these rockets was well-documented. Iraq has provided copies of design documents, procurement records, minutes of committee meetings and supporting data and samples.

A thorough analysis of this information, together with information gathered from interviews with Iraqi personnel, has allowed the IAEA to develop a coherent picture of attempted purchase and intended usage of the 81-millimeter aluminum tubes as well as the rationale behind the changes in the tolerance.

Drawing on this information, the IAEA has learned that the original tolerance for the 81-millimeter tubes were set prior to 1987 and were based on physical measurements taken from a small number of imported rockets in Iraq's possession.

Initial attempts to reverse-engineer the rockets met with little success. Tolerance were adjusted during the following years as part of ongoing efforts to revitalize a project and improve operational efficiency. The project language for a long period during this time became the subject of several committees, which resulted in the specification and tolerance changes on each occasion.

Based on available evidence, the IAEA team has concluded that Iraq efforts to import these aluminum tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuge, and moreover that it was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program.

However, this issue will continue to be scrutinized and investigated.

With respect to reports about Iraq efforts to import high-strength permanent magnets or to achieve the capability for producing such magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment program, I should note that since 1998 Iraq has purchased high-strength magnets for various uses.

Iraq has declared inventories of magnets of 12 different designs. The IAEA has verified that previously acquired magnets have been used for missile guidance systems, industrial machinery, electricity meters and field telephones.

Through visits to research and production sites, review of engineering drawings and analysis of sample magnets, the IAEA experts familiar with the use of such magnets in centrifuge enrichment have verified that none of the magnets that Iraq has declared could be used directly for centrifuge magnetic bearings.

In June 2001, Iraq signed a contract for a new magnet production line for delivery and installation in 2003. The delivery has not yet occurred, and Iraqi documentations and interviews of Iraqi personnel indicate that this contract will not be executed.

However, they have concluded that the replacement of foreign procurement with domestic magnet production seems reasonable from an economic point of view.

In addition, the training and experience acquired by Iraq in pre-1991 period make it likely that Iraq possesses the expertise to manufacture high-strength permanent magnets suitable for use in enrichment centrifuges. The IAEA will continue, therefore, to monitor and inspect equipment and materials that could be used to make magnets for enrichment centrifuges.

With regard to uranium acquisition, the IAEA has made progress in its investigation into reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in recent years. The investigation was centered on documents provided by a number of states that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001.

The IAEA has discussed these reports with the governments of Iraq and Israel, both of which have denied that any such activity took place.

For its part, Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries, including Niger in February 1999, which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports.

The IAEA was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the government of Niger and to compare the form, format, contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence if it emerges relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials.

Many concerns regarding Iraq's possible intention to resume its nuclear program have arisen from Iraq's procurement efforts reported by a number of states. In addition, many of Iraq's efforts to procure commodities and products, including magnets and aluminum tubes, have been conducted in contravention of the sanctions specified under Security Council Resolution 661 and other relevant resolutions.

The issue of procurement efforts remains under thorough investigation, and further verification will be forthcoming. In fact, an IAEA team of technical experts is currently in Iraq, composed of custom investigators and computer forensics specialists, to conduct a -- which is conducting a series of investigations [through] inspection of trading companies and commercial organizations aimed at understanding Iraq's pattern of procurement.

Mr. President, in conclusion, I am able to report today that in the area of nuclear weapons, the most lethal weapons of mass destruction, inspections in Iraq are moving forward.

Since the resumption of inspection a little over three months ago, and particularly during the three weeks since my last ordered report to the council, the IAEA has made important progress in identifying what nuclear-related capabilities remain in Iraq and in its assessment of whether Iraq has made any effort to revive its past nuclear program during the intervening four years since inspections were brought to a halt.

At this stage, the following can be stated:

One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuge out of the aluminum tubes in question.

Fourth, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet-production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in centrifuge enrichment program.

As I stated above, the IAEA will naturally continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.

We intend to continue our inspection activities, making use of all additional rights granted to us by Resolution 1441 and all additional tools that might be available to us, including reconnaissance platforms and all relevant technologies.

We also hope to continue to receive from states actionable information relevant to our mandate.

I should note that in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its cooperation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that could contribute to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern. I do hope that Iraq will continue to expand the scope and accelerate the pace of its cooperation.

The detailed knowledge of Iraq capabilities that IAEA experts have accumulated since 1991, combined with the extended rights provided by Resolution 1441, the active commitment by all states to help us fulfill our mandate and the recently increased level of Iraqi cooperation should enable us in the near future to provide the Security Council with an objective and thorough assessment of Iraq's nuclear-related capabilities.

However, credible this assessment may be, we will endeavor, in view of the inherent uncertainties associated with any verification process, and particularly in the light of Iraq past record of cooperation, to evaluate Iraq capabilities on a continuous basis as part of our long-term monitoring and verification program in order to provide the international community with ongoing and real-time assurances.

Thank you, Mr. President.

US relied on 'drunken liar' to justify war

'Crazy' Iraqi spy was full of misinformation, says report

Edward Helmore in New York
Sunday April 3, 2005
The Observer

An alcoholic cousin of an aide to Ahmed Chalabi has emerged as the key source in the US rationale for going to war in Iraq.

According to a US presidential commission looking into pre-war intelligence failures, the basis for pivotal intelligence on Iraq's alleged biological weapons programmes and fleet of mobile labs was a spy described as 'crazy' by his intelligence handlers and a 'congenital liar' by his friends.

The defector, given the code-name Curveball by the CIA, has emerged as the central figure in the corruption of US intelligence estimates on Iraq. Despite considerable doubts over Curveball's credibility, his claims were included in the administration's case for war without caveat.

The Americans never had direct access to Curveball - he was controlled by the German intelligence services who passed his reports on to the Defence Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon's spy agency.

Between January 2000 and September 2001, Curveball offered 100 reports, among them the claims of mobile biological weapons labs that were central in the US evidence of an illicit weapons programme, but subsequently turned out to be trucks equipped with machinery to make helium for weather balloons.

The commission concluded that Curveball's information was worse than none at all. 'Worse than having no human sources,' it said, 'is being seduced by a human source who is telling lies.'

*****end of clip*****

They did use the word crazy. I think I read something years ago (specifically about Curveball being nuts) but have not found it yet.

capt

"it's not over yet" Fitzgerald

" The aspen are turning". Libby

Let's just hope, pray and stay active that what Fitzgerald said is true.."that truth is the engine of our judicial system".

I still have my fingers crossed that the tidal wave is still coming.

The Sunday Times - World



The Sunday Times November 20, 2005

Security adviser named as source in CIA scandal
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter



THE mysterious source who gave America’s foremost journalist, Bob Woodward, a tip-off about the CIA agent at the centre of one of Washington’s biggest political storms was Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser, according to lawyers close to the investigation.
Woodward, the Washington Post reporter who broke the Watergate scandal that forced President Richard Nixon out of office, has refused publicly to divulge the name of his informant without permission, which has thus far been withheld.

The naming of CIA agent Valerie Plame as the wife of Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador sent to Niger to investigate disputed claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium yellowcake for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, led to the indictment last month of Vice-President Dick Cheney’s top aide, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, for lying to a grand jury.

It is an offence in America to reveal the identity of a covert agent, although doubts remain about Plame’s precise status.

A spokeswoman for the National Security Council (NSC) denied that Hadley was the journalist’s source. However, in South Korea on Friday during an official visit with President George W Bush, Hadley dodged the question.

“I’ve also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources,” Hadley said with a smile. Asked if this was a yes or no he replied: “It is what it is.”

A White House official said the national security adviser’s ambiguity was unintentional and repeated that Hadley was not Woodward’s source. But others close to the investigation insisted that he was.

If so, according to Woodward’s timeline, he will have disclosed the information in mid-June 2003, roughly a week before Libby talked to other reporters on June 23. Supporters of Cheney’s disgraced aide are jubilant that this casts doubt on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s contention that Libby was the first to spread the word about Plame.

When Woodward realised this, he went back to his informant. “My source said he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor. I said, ‘If you do, am I released?’ The source said yes, but only for the purpose of discussing it with Fitzgerald.” Woodward testified under oath to the special prosecutor last Monday.

Woodward said the unnamed official told him about Plame in “an offhand, casual manner . . . almost gossip” and “I didn’t attach any importance to it”. He never wrote up the story.

With more journalists in the loop than previously identified, it will be harder for Fitzgerald to prove Libby was deliberately lying when he said he first learnt of Plame from a journalist rather than the CIA.

Two years ago, when Plame’s identity was first revealed, Hadley was Condoleezza Rice’s deputy at the NSC. He is also thought to have been a key source for two books by Woodward on the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Other potential suspects have been denying they are Woodward’s source. Cheney has come under suspicion, although sources close to the investigation claim he is not in the frame.

Fitzgerald may want to interview Woodward’s informant and declared in court filings on Friday that proceedings would continue under a new grand jury. Supporters of Karl Rove, the top White House adviser known as “Bush’s brain”, also fear Fitzgerald may still be investigating him.

Woodward declined to confirm or deny that Hadley had leaked him the information.

It is familiar territory for the Washington Post journalist, who kept the name of Deep Throat, his Watergate informant, secret for more than three decades until Mark Felt, the former deputy director of the FBI, outed himself this year.

Yet colleagues at the Washington Post have been criticising him on their internal message board. One accused Woodward of being the “800-pound elephant in the room”, adding: “I admire the hell out of Bob, but this looks awful.”










ALSO IN THIS SECTION


Bali bomber shot as he plotted new blitz

20 November 2002

From: The UK Mirror

WAR, WHATEVER
Bush aide: Inspections or not, we'll attack Iraq
Exclusive By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor

GEORGE Bush's top security adviser last night admitted the US would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons.

Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a "clean bill of health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not halt America's war machine.

Evidence from ONE witness on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme will be enough to trigger a fresh military onslaught, he told an all- party meeting on global security.

Former defence minister and Labour backbencher Peter Kilfoyle said: "America is duping the world into believing it supports these inspections. President Bush intends to go to war even if inspectors find nothing.

"This make a mockery of the whole process and exposes America's real determination to bomb Iraq."

The chairman of America's defence policy board said: "Suppose we are able to find someone who has been involved in the development of weapons and he says there are stores of nerve agents. But you cannot find them because they are so well hidden.

Mr Kilfoyle said MPs would be horrified at the admission. He added: "Because Saddam is so hated in Iraq, it would be easy to find someone to say they witnessed weapons building.

"Perle says the Americans would be satisfied with such claims even if no real evidence was produced.

"That's a terrifying prospect."
------------
There you have it, straight from the horses mouth. Curveball was their man. Are we to believe the dems were completely oblivious to this meeting and had no clue what the policy was at that point? I sure as hell don't believe that.

"...straight from the horse's mouth." Sal, since we're talking about neocons, wouldn't the other end of the horse's digestive system be more appropriate?---IBW ;)

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

And from WRH:
US relied on 'drunken liar'
to justify war

An alcoholic cousin of an aide to Ahmed Chalabi has emerged as the key source in the US rationale for going to war in Iraq.
According to a US presidential commission looking into pre-war intelligence failures, the basis for pivotal intelligence on Iraq's alleged biological weapons programmes and fleet of mobile labs was a spy described as 'crazy' by his intelligence handlers and a 'congenital liar' by his friends. [Guardian]

"We didn't lie. We were all fooled by this drunken bum!"

"The President was fooled by this drunken bum!"

"The Vice President was fooled by this drunken bum!"

"The guy looking at photos of balloon inflators and claiming they were mobile biological laboratories was fooled by this drunken bum!"

"The CIA was fooled by this drunken bum!"

"The FBI was fooled by this drunken bum!"

"The entire United States Congress was fooled by this drunken bum!"

"ABC was fooled by this drunken bum!"

"NBC was fooled by this drunken bum!"

"CBS was fooled by this drunken bum!"

"FOX was fooled by this drunken bum!"

"CNN was fooled by this drunken bum!"

"Newspapers were fooled by this drunken bum!"

"Clear Channel was fooled by this drunken bum!"

"The weapons inspection teams who scoured Iraq over and over and over and over without finding anything were fooled by this drunken bum!"

"The boys who made the fake Osama video tapes were fooled by this drunken bum!"

"The Mossad agents arrested while cheering the collapse of the World Trade Towers were fooled by this drunken bum!"

"Yessirrebob we were all fooled by this drunken bum. It's all his fault. Honest. Really. None of us did anything wrong."

Ivory Bill, believe me, I considered using that, but I am trying to keep this civil! How ya been?

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, [Paul Wolfowitz] said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." [Guardian 4/6/2003]
----------
Isn't it odd that they can come right out and admit what they're up to, yet so many people still don't get it!

Well, my work here is just about done.

By last Thursday, I had developed a sense there was panic in the air and blood in the water, but frankly I thought Roger was made of sterner stuff. This may all be High School, but he’s the CEO of the company that going to revolutionize journalism and the blogosphere. He can’t afford to be playing High School games, irrespective of whether I can. And if Roger knew what he was doing, he’d know that. Once again, he’s gotten it all wrong. OSM™ is a train wreck of a web site, he and the company have committed a number of very public gaffes, and instead of coming up with a strategy to improve the site, tighten operations and restore some confidence in the venture, he’s over at his web site getting all huffy about me... crazy little old me.

I have my pound of flesh.

My last act in this farce? Give you the story in some detail:

It must have been some time back in mid-2003 that I started visiting Roger’s blog. I liked what I saw, and liked even more the fact that he chose to write a post praising the first comment I made there. Flattery can get you somewhere with me. Anyway, I became a regular at Roger’s site and ended up, in rather short order, as a regular commenter. And, as I am less than completely shy and retiring, I also ended up, and also in rather short order, as one of the site’s more fearsome Fool Killers (Iowahawk described me as a “comment section samurai”, which is probably as accurate as anything I could think of). Over the course of time Roger and ended up passing a few private emails back and forth, but we never had any meaningful contact with each other.

Some time in July or early August of 2004, Roger wrote a post lamenting the fact that he was getting all sorts of traffic at his site, but that it wasn’t making him any money. Well, that aroused the businessman’s curiosity in me, and I sent him a private email asking if he would mind telling me what his expenses and revenues where. He responded quite graciously by sending me the details what his site cost to start and run, and what he was making from BlogAds. After seeing the numbers, I emailed him my condolences and the rather offhand comment that there should be some better way of transforming his site traffic into advertising revenues. For me, that was that. I wasn’t blogging, so it was all an academic exercise to me.

I had basically forgotten all about it when about a week later (I’m working from memory here...all the documents relating to this are archived and at my attorney’s office) I received an email from Roger with the heading of “A Modest Proposal”. In a nutshell, Roger was offering to pay me a direct commission for any advertising or sponsorships I could rustle up for his site. It was an interesting proposal, but not a particularly practical one: I’m a C.P.A. working in public accounting as a sole practitioner, and therefore am less than completely well versed in the ways of the advertising industry. I informed Roger of my complete lack of qualifications for such a task, and then offered a proposal of my own: Let’s see if we can develop a business model that would allow us to bring advertising (and advertising revenues) to bloggers in a manner more sophisticated than BlogAds. Then he could have his cake and eat it, too.

Roger jumped at the proposal and soon we were doing research; I was trying to figure out the advertising industry and Roger was canvassing other prominent bloggers for information. Rather early in the game Roger came to me with the suggestion of bringing Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs) into the fold. Given Charles’ formidable skills in site design, programming and all things technical, not to mention being one of the true 800 pound gorillas of the blogosphere, I readily agreed. By September it was clear we needed to add someone else to our team...that being someone who really did know the advertising industry. At Roger’s suggestion, I began attempting to recruit an ad pro in Central Ohio who would be willing to join our venture.

Well, that wasn’t easy. I talked to a variety of folks at various agencies both large and small and could not find anyone interested in joining us. Finally, I talked to a gentleman I had done business with, who I’ll call Rocco, who had an extremely successful business in small business marketing. Rocco wasn’t a perfect fit, in that he wasn’t a marketing professional working with ad agencies and the like, but he was a very successful businessman in his own right, serious about making money, and willing to take the risk with the rest of us. Remember this one thing: I gave Roger final say on Rocco. He could have said ‘no’ and that would have been that. What Roger said, however, was ‘yes’.

By October we had progressed far enough to feel the need for a face-to-face meeting. It made sense to all of us that I should fly to L.A. rather than to have Roger and Charles fly to Columbus. So I ended up spending one mid-October weekend in Hollywood with Roger and Charles. We met for dinner on Friday and got down to business at Roger’s house on Saturday. That day was passed brainstorming at the dining room table. The critical spark came from Sheryl Longin/Simon’s description of a clothing retailer’s web site that she found interesting. Within two hours, Roger, Sheryl and I had worked out, in only the broadest of senses, the idea that we would use to sell advertising on the internet. Charles showed up in the afternoon (evidently his bike rides wait for no man) and we began quizzing him over the technical aspects of what we wanted to do. Sometime that afternoon Roger came up with the name of our venture: Tulip Advertising.

We spent Sunday refining our ideas and figuring out how much it would cost us (the guess then was $25,000). To keep costs down, I was tasked with recruiting artistic and legal talent who would be willing to work on spec. Rocco and I were to start developing the system we would use to sell advertising firms and corporations on the concept of advertising through Tulip. Roger and Charles were going to develop contacts with various prominent bloggers, as well as explore the infrastructure requirements necessary to make Tulip work. I flew back to Columbus that evening.

The next two months, through mid-December, were very busy. Rocco and I were learning just how little we knew about the advertising industry and large-scale advertising in general. Roger and Charles continued to work the blogosphere, quizzing people and gathering ideas and feedback. In early December we all agreed it was time to incorporate, so I had my attorney draft incorporation papers. In them ownership was divided evenly between the four of us. Rocco and I signed them and sent them off to Roger. And that’s when everything started to Go South.

I didn’t really think much of the fact that the incorporation papers hadn’t arrived back by early January. They’d been sent out, if memory serves, sometime in the third week of December. That’s not the best time of year to try to get a lot of things done. When I finally did call Roger in mid-January, I was told that he was going to hold onto the incorporation papers because he thought they were going to be reworked. He said Glenn Reynolds was going to come in as a partner. I was surprised, but not unhappy. My thought was if we’re going to sell advertising, here’s Mr. Traffic himself. I told Roger that was fine, and that I’d pass the news on to Rocco. In the meantime, Rocco and I continued working on our tasks.

This set the pattern of much of what was to transpire throughout February and March. Communication, be it by telephone or email, became more infrequent and cryptic. Given that Roger had health issues in February, I really didn’t think much of it, but the change was apparent. Other trends were also becoming noticeable. The most troubling of these had to do with Rocco. Roger was having second thoughts about his participation. Why this was so, I am not sure, because Roger had virtually no communication with Rocco, and didn’t really expend any effort to find out from me what he was doing and how well he was doing it. All I knew was that, irrespective of the reason, Roger was having serious doubts.

A second trend, which in retrospect was actually much more serious, was that Roger’s focus was starting to shift away from advertising and towards media, by which I mean a combination of blogging, journalism and advertising. We had several conversations about what Tulip should be, and I was very clear that what I was interested in was building an internet advertising company for bloggers and web sites. Roger never came out and disagreed with me, what he did was say he was developing contacts with some Silicon Valley advertising firms and venture capitalists. It was all hush-hush, he said, and would give the details when he could. I was not entirely comfortable with this, but I knew I had to give Roger the latitude to follow up on different aspects of what we might end up doing. We were all making this up as we went along, who was I to tell another partner what he couldn’t do?

However, by mid-April it was clear to Rocco and I that something was up. Communication was at a minimum, and what came our way had little to do with advertising. Now my discussions with Roger centered around media and venture capitalists. I kept coming back to Roger about his commitment to building an advertising company, and he kept assuring me it was all part of the master plan. I chose to take his assurances at face value. Rocco, however, did not.

The two of us had a series of long talks in mid-April about Tulip Advertising. He was of the opinion that we should seriously consider going to Roger and offering to take the advertising portion of the business off his hands: Roger and Charles could concentrate on media and journalism, we could concentrate on advertising. And while I basically agreed with everything Rocco said, I asked him to be patient and see what it was that Roger and Charles would bring to us. I remember the exact words I used: I want to be patient about this. I want to ride this horse to the end.

And I did. On April 29th I spent most of my day at a client’s. By the time I got back to my office it was mid-afternoon. I fired up the computer and started in on emails. When I got to one from one of my DTP readers, I got a jolt: It was asking for my opinion on the Pajamas Media announcement on Roger’s site from the day before. That email was the first time I had ever heard of the name Pajamas Media. I re-read the email, went to Roger’s site and read the announcement post, then went in the bathroom and threw up.

On that day, via that internet announcement, I learned each of the following for the first time:

1. The name “Pajamas Media”,
2. That a Marc Danzinger was Roger and Charles’ partner in Pajamas Media.
3. Marc Danzinger himself. I had never heard Roger utter the name.
4. That there was to be an “Editorial Board”,
5. The subscription-based news portal,
6. The media web site,
7. And that Rocco and I weren’t worthy of mention

Then I called Rocco and told him what had happened. He asked what I was going to do. I said I didn’t know.

It took several hours for me to calm down enough to decide on what to do: I sent both Roger and Charles a short email announcing I was terminating my association with Tulip Advertising, Pajamas Media and with them. Within an hour I had a terse email from Roger stating that I was “overreacting”, and that he would call me Sunday, the 1st of May.

I remember that telephone conversation very well. It was tense. I was angry with him, and he wasn’t in the mood to put up with it. And the fact of the matter was, he didn’t have to put up with it. He held all the cards. The conversation was short and simple: Rocco was out completely and I was to be given a chance to “work” for an unstated percentage of Pajamas Media. And then we both lied to each other. Roger told me he wanted me on board, and I told him I was interested in being on board. That was the last communication I had with Roger until the first week of August.

May was not a good month. These were some of the things I got to do:

1. Tell my wife the business I’d spent half and year and thousands of dollars on had been cut out from under me by my “partners”...
2. Tell my father, a successful businessman and multimillionaire, of my great success when he asked how Tulip Advertising was going...
3. Tell Rocco, a business associate I like and respect, that the business venture I had invited him into had ended with him getting screwed out of 25% of the company that had been promised to him by myself, Roger and Charles...
4. Tell a lawyer and graphic designer, both personal friends, that I’d asked to do Tulip Advertising projects on spec so Roger and Charles could forego putting up cash, what had happened and offer to pay them out of my pocket for what they were due...

As it was clear to me within weeks that Roger had no intention of involving me in Pajamas Media, I gathered up the emails, letters, and documents and hauled them to my lawyer’s office and asked a simple question: Do I sue them? He came back this an answer and some advise: A successful lawsuit would be difficult and expensive, and the advise was to let it drop. It was wise council and I took it... for the time being.

It wasn’t until Roger’s little dust-up with Ann Althouse in late July/early August that I roused myself to comment on Dennis The Peasant about my experience with Pajamas Media. Given that my site traffic was around 200 page views a day, and that I didn’t really say all that much (it’s the first in the ‘Ragging on Roger Simon’ category, by the way), I promptly forgot about it. Well, somehow that post got to Roger L. Simon, because the following Sunday morning there he was on the telephone, asking me why I had done what I had and telling me how deeply hurt he was that I could do such a thing to him. He went on to state how much it hurt him that I had forsaken our friendship.

I was at first angry and then repulsed. He told me that Tulip never would have worked anyway because we were in Ohio and they were in California, and that he’d meant to tell me about Danzinger and the rest, but couldn’t because of confidentiality restrictions placed on him by his venture capitalists. When I asked about Rocco, he said Rocco hadn’t worked out and meant nothing to him. And when I asked him why he hadn’t come to us before the announcement, and why he wouldn’t honor our original agreement, he said “That’s business, Ken.” Indeed. There was only one question Roger would not answer, although I asked it several times: What do you want, Roger? That one he wouldn’t touch. He closed with an emotional plea for me to refrain from further criticism and attempt to renew our friendship. I told him I was upset, which I was, and needed some time to think it over. I told him I’d either call or write him.

Which I did. On August 10 I sent Roger a letter. In it I told him I considered him a liar and a cheat, that I resented the way he had treated Rocco and me, and that I had no interest in being his friend. I also told him that if I wished to post about Pajamas Media I would, and that any attempt on his part to answer my criticism would end up with me dumping everything about the venture on the internet. I gave him the name and telephone number of my attorney and told him that if he needed to communicate with me, to do so through him.

And that was that. I thought that was the end of it.

But then came that second weekend in October. It wasn’t even until sometime Saturday of that weekend when I realized that one year earlier I was in Hollywood being wined and dined by Roger L. Simon. Upon that realization, I became enraged. I have been in a 24 hour-a-day Red Rage since then.

I make no apologies for what I’ve done. If this ends up a Pyrric Victory, it still counts, in the final analysis, as a victory. My only other choice was to simply admit defeat and slink away. I could not do that. This isn’t about money or Pajamas Media. This is about my self-respect. This is about getting rid of the nagging feeling that the first time Roger L. Simon saw me, he said to himself, Jethro Bodine, and sized me up as someone he could use and throw away at his leisure. Without consequences. For my own sake, I need to know that Roger L. Simon will regret that judgment for the rest of his life. Now I think he will.

I have been very conflicted about just how far to take this, but instinctively I knew I had to get Roger to respond before I could put this post up. When he posted “Words”, I knew I had him. With “High School”, I feel I have what I need; a post of his that others could compare and contrast to this post. And I knew he’d be as manipulative of others when he did respond as he was with me throughout this affair. I think it shines through.

My contention is simple: The appropriate time for Roger L. Simon to end our business association was when he first realized he no longer wanted to work with me, and the appropriate way to tell me that was by picking up the telephone and calling me. The only thing required in that is basic human decency.

Had I received that telephone call in February, March, or anytime before April 28 I would have been upset and angry, but I would have let it go. But in my opinion Roger L. Simon thought so little of me that he felt he could do with me as he pleased, and then fast-talk his way out of any possible problems. After all, I was Jethro Bodine and nothing more.

I am closing comments on this post. I want it to stand on its own, without distraction. And I will probably not be posting for several days at the very least. I am no longer enraged. I am tired.

Kenton E. Kelly

US intelligence on Iraq chaotic and incompetent, says Bush commission

Julian Borger in Washington
Friday April 1, 2005
The Guardian

A presidential commission investigating the intelligence debacle that preceded the Iraq invasion reported yesterday that the damage done to US credibility would "take years to undo".

American intelligence was described by the report as being in chaos, often paralysed by the rivalry of 15 different spy agencies and affected by unchallenged assumptions about Baghdad's supposed weapons of mass destruction.

The incompetence described in the report occasionally descends into farce, particularly over an Iraqi defector codenamed Curveball, whose fabricated tales about mobile biological laboratories and their influence on US decision-makers were reminiscent of Graham Greene's accidental spy in Our Man in Havana. Despite warnings that he was "crazy", "a waste of time", and that he had not even been in Iraq at the time of an event he supposedly saw, his claims became the subject of almost 100 Defence Intelligence Agency reports and a focus of the National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002.

*****end of clip*****

Of course the post from Saladin cuts to the only meaningful issue. We were going to invade Iraq no matter what Curveball said.

Seems like the UK papers had him nailed as crazy.

capt

I've been on vacation, but I gotta go back to work tomorrow night. Those trees won't peck themselves, you know. At least I get this Thursday night off. I've been enjoying watching Dubya's approval ratings drop faster than his predecessor's trousers. It's amazing that roughly 1/3 of the populace still supports him. I get the feeling Caesar Doofus Maximus could commit pederasty on the White House lawn at high noon and the brain-dead 1/3 would call it "strong leadership". As always, I marvel at the strength of the Kool-Aid.

Cherry was always my favorite flavor, Ivory Bill Woodpecker

NONE OF THIS MATTERS, whether Bush 'misled' us or not. For historical purposes, yes, this matters. But for the practical realites, it does not. The rationale for this war was....Saddam Hussein was an "imminent threat" to the USA. It is now abundantly clear.....he was not. Also, he has been captured. So, whatever rationale there was for war...it no longer exists. Therefore, let's get the hell out of there. Remember when we railed against Libya for harboring terrorist training camps? Hey, we have turned the ENTIRE COUNTRY OF IRAQ INTO A TERRORIST TRAINING CAMP. Iraq is now the premier graduate school of terrorism in the world. And it shows...the insurgents are getting more sophisticated every week. Thousands of new terrorists are getting an excellent education, thanks to the Chimp and his trainers. We are making things so much worse, rather than better. Bob in North Dakota

Bob,

ECHO! (I would say the same thing)

The most important point is "We are making things so much worse, rather than better."

no doubt

capt

David,

If this Curveball information pans out, this should go down as the most serious intelligence blunder of all time.

KOPPEL'S BUSH BASH

By DON KAPLAN

WITH one foot out the door at ABC News, anchorman Ted Koppel is ripping the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war.

"I think there's been one fiasco after another," the "Nightline" host tells the latest edition of GQ, just weeks before his exit from network news.

"I think they brought the wrong number of troops in the first place. I think they miscalculated the consequences.

"We never like to see it as an occupation, but from the point of view of many Iraqi citizens, if you have 150,000 foreign troops in your country and they have announced they are going to stay until they determine that it's the right time to leave —†I'm sorry, folks, that's an occupation," he said.

Koppel's unique perspective on the war is partially derived from his hard-core experiences and close ties to front-line troops.

Many of those relationships were developed when he was embedded with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at "the tip of the spear," in the first armored columns that led the U.S. Army's 480-kilometer charge across Iraq to Baghdad in 2003.

"I am of the opinion that when a nation goes to war, in one form or another the entire nation goes to war," Koppel said. "It's not something you do on the cheap. It's not something that permits you to say, 'Well, let's let the kids who can't afford to go to college, who can't get a student deferment, let's let them go fight the war.' . . . And I don't want you folks to feel that you can't travel the way you could travel before —†do all of the things that you could do before.' In that respect, I do take issue with the administration."

*****end of clip*****

The point I see from this piece is: Only when one foot is out the door can they speak with candor about the failings of the WH and Bush policies.

The only reason that could happen is if these people have some pressure not to speak with candor if they want to keep their jobs.

I think the dynamics speak more clearly than the words ever will.

capt

The only real winners of this war will be the ayatollah regime in Iran, since the Iraqi Shi'ites are dominated by their proxies. They've infiltrated the Iraqi Shi'ite population since way back in Saddam's day. Oh, and lest we forget, Iran's been improving its relations with Russia--the one foreign nation that still has a nuclear arsenal that can make our chickenhawks sit up and take notice--and China, the nation that could collapse our economy, and hence our ability to project military power, just by calling in our debts to it.

The coming Iranian dominion of Iraq would not be possible without the neocons' removal of Saddam.

Likewise, the Chinese leverage over us would not be possible without the vast debts run up by the irresponsible tax cuts for fat cats, another neocon policy.

In just 5 years, the neocons have taken this country from the world's strongest economic and military power to a massively indebted nation with a military force our senior military officers are warning is nearly broken.

Yet, despite massive evidence of the failure of their policies, these deluded Napoleon-wannabes think they are a Straussian brotherhood of Platonic "Guardians", visionary geniuses.

It seems no failure of the "Guardians" can shake the faith of the stoop-browed, knuckle-walking, televangelist-worshipping, cousin-marrying yahoos who comprise their political base, never realizing that the politicians and pundits who manipulate them despise them for their gullibility.

(If you think I'm nasty, check out driftglass.blogspot.com--he never takes off the brass knuckles. I hardly ever see any trolls on his site; maybe they fear him.)

From the swamps of Arkansas, Ivory Bill Woodpecker

US to withdraw 60,000 troops from Iraq

Correspondents in Washington and Baghdad
21nov05

US military commanders have drawn up a plan for the withdrawal of more than 60,000 troops from Iraq by the end of next year, starting the pullout after Iraqi elections next month.

The plan, submitted to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, would effectively mean a third of the American troops would be returning home.

According to US television reports at the weekend, the total number left in Iraq would fall from 161,000 to below what defence experts call the "magic number" of 100,000.

The revelation came as at least 30 people were killed in Iraq when a suicide bomber ploughed his car into a tent full of Shi'ite mourners, pushing the death toll from two days of violence in Iraq to more than 130.

At least 200 people, mainly Shi'ites, have been wounded in the string of bombings.

The latest incident took place in Abu Saydah, 100km northeast of Baghdad. It was not far from Khanaqin, a Kurdish town where 78 Shi'ite worshippers died when suicide bombers blew themselves up among their victims on Friday as they prayed in two mosques.

The surge of bombings comes less than four weeks before general elections to choose a government for four years, the final step in the political transition following the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein in April 2003.

The Pentagon refused to confirm the troop withdrawal proposals yesterday, but a senior British Ministry of Defence source said they appeared to "match our own plans" for a phased withdrawal under which most British troops will have left Iraq by the end of next year.

Officials expect British numbers to be cut by 5000 from the present level of close to 8500.

*****end of clip*****

Now, since they are always right, never made a mistake, and never lied. Let us see this WH insult their own military commanders and compare them to Michael Moore and the "Far left loons" and such.

Let us see the leadership[sic] in congress come up with a piece of BS legislation to try to smear our military commanders.

The public is general not stupid and many see this and regret ever supporting such slugs.

The only Bush supporters left are the ones that are afraid a different politician would do worse.

capt

IBW!

You go bird-bro!

Rockin' post!

capt

TRH, intellegence blunder? PUUUHLEEEASE! This was no blunder, perle laid it on the line. saddam and Iraq were going down, threat or not, because, after all, the place is swimming on a sea of oil, it's the economics, dontcha know?
Ivory Bill, the way we have had one disaster after another has the feel of deliberateness rather than incompetence. I haven't quite figured out what they will gain by destroying this country, though I have a couple theories which I am sure the bushbots will be eager to label "conspiracies!"

Capt, just in time for the elections! See, they really do support the troops, especially when their jobs are on the line!

Game show host responsible for T or C’s name dies

Last Update: 11/16/2005 1:15:22 PM
By: Reed Upton

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Broadcasting pioneer Ralph Edwards died today of heart failure. He was 92.

Edwards first hit it big in radio in 1940 with "Truth or Consequences." It was a novelty show in which contestants who failed to answer trick questions -- the "truth" -- had to suffer "the consequences" by performing some elaborate stunt. The show later moved to television.

In 1950, he dared the New Mexico town of Hot Springs to adopt the name of the show. Residents voted to change the town’s name as a way to gain free publicity.

As part of the deal, Edwards visited the town in 1950 and later that year as residents lived up to their end of the bargain.

Edwards made it a practice of visiting T or C during the town’s May Fiesta. The town’s Civic Center auditorium and a park are named for Edwards.

*****end of clip*****

I am sure most have heard him. He did all kinds of voice over and TV stuff (classics).

RIP Ralph.

capt

Funny that some would swear by the "report" in one case and dismiss it in the other.

No backbone makes for very pliable political positioning.

Where are those calls about our current military commanders being like Michael Moore?

(crickets chirpping)

capt

Maybe Cheney can clear the issue when he takes questions at the AEI thing?

Sounds like our current military commanders think the same things the old leather-neck, the honorable Representative John Murtha.

Nothing "left" to say the military can not do more. They won the war and many battles after the war was declared "Mission Accomplished" then handed over, the voted on.

Sadly the game is: announce a plan to draw down the numbers then send more troops under the guise of temporary necessity.

I wager that is what they are doing again.

There is a limit to getting away with saying one thing then doing the opposite. Eventually people get a little miffed because it makes it impossible to support the words when the deeds are the opposite.

I feel badly for the supporters caught in the web of lies. It must be disheartening.

capt

http://thinkprogress.org/

Murtha on Meet the Press: "I have never seen such an outpouring — in the 32 years I’ve been in Congress — of support, and people with tears in their eyes, people walking along clapping when I’m walking through the halls of Congress, saying something needed to be said. So they’re thirsting for a solution to this and the president can’t hide behind rhetoric and neither can the vice president."

Corruption Inquiry Threatens to Ensnare Lawmakers

November 20, 2005

By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 - The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most.

The inquiry has already reached into the White House; a White House budget official, David H. Safavian, resigned only days before his arrest in September on charges of lying to investigators about his business ties to Mr. Abramoff, a former lobbying partner.

Mr. Abramoff's lobbying work was not limited to the casinos, though. Newly disclosed documents from his files show that he asked for $9 million in 2003 from the president of Gabon, in West Africa, to set up a White House meeting with President Bush; there was an Oval Office meeting last year, although there is no evidence in the public record to show that Mr. Abramoff had a role in the arrangements.

*****end of clip*****

This issue should be of the most concern because it involves the money, lobbyists and corrupt officials and politicians.

capt

Bush Tones Down Attack on Iraq War Critics

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
Sunday, November 20, 2005

(11-20) 11:46 PST BEIJING, China (AP) --

After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible."

The president also praised Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., as "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible.

"I heard somebody say, `Well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position.' I totally reject that thought," Bush said.

"This is not an issue of who's patriotic and who's not patriotic," he said. "It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."

*****end of clip*****

Attention trolls and Bunnypants supporters: Nevermind what Bush said about Murtha, he is admitting to making a major error of judgment. Time for you all to do the same.

capt

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters: Noah Webster

=
The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means -- to declare that the government may commit crimes -- would bring terrible retribution: Justice Louis D. Brandeis

=
A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security: John Adams

=
Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -­ kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervour -­ with the cry of grave national emergency. Always, there has been some terrible evil at home, or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it: General Douglas MacArthur

=
" Whenever a people... entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.": A Framer

=

Thanks ICH newsletter!

"Nevermind what Bush said about Murtha, he is admitting to making a major error of judgment."

capt...surely you jest! Bush doesn't make mistakes.

So let's watch President Bush do damage control against the German intelligence agencies. I suppose he can accuse them of rewriting history.

In the end, Bush is revealed for who he really is.

Our country is in bad shape because of this war - not today but in the future. We will have to pay for this war whether you like it or not. At this point - no one in America is being asked to make a sacrifice. The volunteer army wasn't up for this and it shows.

Saladin: "TRH, intellegence blunder? PUUUHLEEEASE! This was no blunder, perle laid it on the line. saddam and Iraq were going down, threat or not, because, after all, the place is swimming on a sea of oil, it's the economics, dontcha know?"

Saladin, maybe we should just go along the TRH's version of reality. Blame it all on George Tenet and the CIA, the whole bloody calamity, including 9/11. Tenet will almost surely feel compelled to defend his reputation by writing his $4.5 million book, which will detail precisely what Bush and the neocons were told before 9/11 and the invasion. And if he doesn't, the CIA will unleash a nice steady stream of leaks that will accomplish the same end. Maybe the announcement of the Pentagon's investigation of Feith is just an indication of things to come.

I don't think we can really lose on this. If enough people like TRH keep blaming the CIA to deflect blame from Bush, I suspect all hell will break loose -- and sooner than later, months not years, as these people like to say. At this point, Bush and mob are probably just hoping they can keep the lid on until after the Nov. '06 elections, just as they did last year. But I think there's just too much at stake now for the "intelligence community" to let that happen again.

I think it's going to be a very interesting year.

Just being a bit presumptuous.

Although, now that you mention it, Bunnypants has been admitting to errors, just blaming them on others. *sigh*

capt

Capt: "The president also praised Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., as "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible." Guess he's not too stupid to realize when he's showing his true colors a little too brazenly. Either that or Rove strapped the scapula box back on him.

It's hard to believe the white house can turn it around regardless of how much spin they generate. Basically a small but growing majority has concluded that the Iraq fiasco is futile and wants to cut our losses. The GOP knows this and are desperately looking for an out which leaves the minimum of finger prints. I suspect that the whole Bush push back is as counter productive as the whole Iraqi enterprise so I hope they keep it up but then they have to be kept on the defensive by the Democrats and other opinion makers. There will be no shortage of evidence like the German curveball story and there was a very good op ed by Bob Graham in post this morning. I hope he gets some talk show invites since he is uniquely positioned to comment and is also articulate and personable. This is a sinking ship, most of the rodents on board know it and are looking for life rafts.

drewp, I'm sure it's all just a coincidence that this seems to be right out of the luttwak playbook!

There will arise, Luttwak says, "the inevitable suspicions that the coup is a product of the machinations of the Company [American slang for the CIA]. This can only be dispelled by making violent attacks on it...and the attacks should be all the more violent if these suspicions are in fact justified.... We shall make use of a suitable selection of unlovely phrases [for example, anti-Americanism? Anti-Semitism?]. Even if their meanings have been totally obscured by constant and deliberate misuse, they will be useful indicators of our impeccable nationalism."

So basically what you are saying is The Democrats who voted FOR THE WAR we too stupid to figure out they were duped?

Gee, and you guys called George Bush an intellectual moron? To steal a line from Star Wars, 'who's the fool, the one fool leads or the one who follows the fool?'

It's tragic to me that smug self-absorbed elites who think themselves to be for the little guy want to cut and run in the middle of a fight that has a very good chance of changing the landscape for the better in an area of the world that is populated by disenfranchised people who are goverened by tyrants!

I have no doubt our Founding Fathers would have actually been in favor of this war...try reading this...

Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Of all the ideas that have become a revolution, this one statement in the Declaration of Independence is at the heart of a revolution that began in 1776 and has continued over the course of the last 230 years. It is a revolution that has slowly spread out across the globe. It has succeeded because it is the resolution of the conflict between governing and being governed. It is the solution to the axiom that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is the idea that wages itself against despotism and tyranny. It is the door that led to the concept of a nation governed by laws not by men. If we look back to this one document we see it as the seed that not only spawned a nation but a notion that has taken hold everywhere it has been sown and cultivated.

The war between freedom and tyranny has not ceased but goes on to this very day. We have seen it in our own history as the war between the states where freedom finally cast off the bonds of slavery. Or in woman’s suffrage. We see it in World War II where the tyranny of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan waged war in an attempt to bring the globe into bondage. We saw it in the Cold War were the lie of Communism sought to pervert the concept of Democracy and subvert the rule of law by rule of the party. And today, where do we see this war waged today if not in the Middle East and against those who seek to use terror to tyrannize?

Was the war in Iraq a just war? ABSOUTLY! Was one of the many rationales for going to war there the threat of WMD’s? Yes! The fact great stockpiles were not found does not mean we were not justified in going to war, especially in light of the facts Saddam had the capability to make these weapons and small amounts of them were indeed found. It only means there weren’t stockpiles, not that Saddam had no intentions of using such weapons against us or providing them to those who would.

If we are to regards these great words found in the heart of the document that describes WHY America was birthed with the respect do them, how can we not see that just as our Founding Fathers stood against a Tyrant and fought for the rule of law that we too today are standing against tyranny!

Saddam was not only a tyrant towards his own people he was also a tyrant against his neighbors and anyone who opposed his lust for power. Saddam not only had the capability of making WMD’s he also exhibited the behavior that indicated that he would not hesitate in providing such weapons to those who would use them against us. Certainly here the saying is true, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. Can anyone deny that America, the nation that stands at this revolutionary idea of being governed by law rather than men, is/was the common enemy of tyrants? Can anyone deny that both Saddam and Bin Laden have tyranny in their hearts?

But notwithstanding this, that indeed we were justified in going after this tyrant to defend the cause of freedom, those inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration and the idea of nations governed by law rather than men, the seed of this revolution has now been planted in the hearts and minds of peoples who have suffered so greatly under tyranny. And everywhere we have seen this seed planted and cultivated it has taken root and grown! This then is not only the justification but also the hope for the war in Iraq and the global war on terror. That Iraq presents the opportunity for a future worth building.

Some are incapable of grasping this truth and argue incoherently with slogans and catch phrases like, ‘no one died when Clinton lied’. They do not realize their own perversity. Worse yet some are unwilling to walk in the light of the truth they see and are only interested in personal gain. They would sacrifice that which is noble for their own self-righteousness, for the personal cherry of saying ‘ah-ha’. Nevertheless, those of us who do grasp this truth and cleave to the nobility of it must stand with the same conviction and courage that our Founding Fathers also cleaved to it. To that very noble truth they stood upon and so powerfully enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. That when good men are confronted with tyranny it is their right AND their duty to cast it off and do what is necessary to provide new guards for their future security.

Neo-crazy coup d'etat

Posted: August 9, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Perhaps you haven't noticed –†certainly the neo-crazies hope you haven't –†but we have just experienced a coup d'etat.

What's a "coup d'etat"?

Well, according to Edward Luttwak, author of "Coup D'etat: A Practical Handbook," "A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder."

Although neo-crazy media sycophant Melanie Kirkpatrick, associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, doesn't actually say a Luttwak-like "coup d'etat" has taken place, she effectively does.

Douglas Feith's sin is being Donald Rumsfeld's ideas man and one of the brains behind some of the most significant foreign policy and national security advances of the Bush administration. As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Mr. Feith has transformed a once relatively obscure corner of the Pentagon into the world's most effective think tank. The fact that the president has adopted many of the ideas brewed there infuriates those who see Defense usurping a role that rightly belongs to the State Department.

"Without a doubt, the policy division has the most significant intellectual capabilities in the government," says former Defense Department official Richard Perle, who hired Mr. Feith for the Reagan Pentagon and now sits on the Defense Policy Board. "It's a creative shop that produces a lot of good ideas," says Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser and one of the policy group's main customers. "They are prepared to think differently."

Perhaps you're wondering how all this sinning began?

In 1981, at the beginning of the Reagan Revolution, the Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy was created in the Pentagon –†at the behest of Sen. Scoop Jackson –†for Richard Perle.

Jackson, who died in 1983, and his right-hand man, Perle, had stood out among Democrats in the Carter years, being fiercely anti-Soviet, pro-Israel, and pro-ABM.

Now, the Pentagon does not make U.S. foreign policy. Even military alliances –†such as NATO –†are negotiated by the U.S. State Department, entered into by the president, and approved by Congress, with very little Pentagon input.

Until neo-crazy Perle was planted in the Pentagon's Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, its principal "mission" had been explicating to the Secretary of Defense the military implications of various U.S. military alliances on our National Security. It was not supposed to concern itself with the political or foreign relations consequences.

The policy office did manage the Pentagon's Foreign Military Sales programs, conducted in support of our military alliances. For example, it managed the billions of dollars worth of arms and military equipment we provide each year to Israel.

The office newly created for Perle subsumed those responsibilities for NATO and Israel, but Perle was given significant new roles and missions, as well.

Perle was to "develop, coordinate and oversee the implementation" of "policy related to arms control negotiations, implementations, and verification," as well as "policy related to U.S. nuclear offensive and defensive forces, including the structure, requirements, and posture of strategic forces, strategic reserve forces, theater nuclear forces, and warning systems; surety, reliability, safety, and security of nuclear forces; and strategic and theater missile defense."

Wow!

Now, establishing Perle's office essentially amounted to a reorganization of the Pentagon, and that required the approval of Congress. Once the reorganization plan had been sent to Congress and approved, President Reagan had then to nominate Perle and the Senate had then to confirm or reject him.

Rarely has any action requiring so much roiling of Pentagon, State Department, White House and congressional turf been accomplished so speedily.

Incredibly, Perle was in office well before June 11, 1981, when eight U.S.-supplied Israeli F-16 aircraft –†escorted by six U.S.-supplied Israeli F-15 fighter escorts –†preemptively destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osiraq reactor.

Perle became Chairman of the NATO High-Level Group and was soon a strap-hanger –†and allegedly more –†at Reagan-Gorbachev summits.

When Perle left, he attempted to have his neo-crazy understudy, Frank Gaffney, succeed him, but the Senate wouldn't have it. But when George Bush became President, a gaggle of neo-crazies –†Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Stephen Hadley and others –†took over the Pentagon policy shop.

They tried –†but failed –†to get Bush the Elder to inflict "regime change" on the Islamic world. Now, they've succeeded with Bush the Younger. In succeeding, they've liberally cribbed from Luttwak's book, appearing to have embraced this maxim:

"Our first objective will be achieved by conveying the reality and strength of the coup instead of trying to justify it. ..."
----------
Finding this on World Net Daily is shocking, to say the least!

"Some are incapable of grasping this truth "
And some people are so gullible they believe even the most obvious of lies. You really believe that bushco gives a damn about democracy? You really believe WE have a democracy? F**KING PATHETIC!

Any discussion of Cureball should be followed by a reminder not to forget the warnings on the credibility of Iban al-Shaykh al-Libi that was revealed in the parts of DITSUM #044-02 that were declassified at the request of John D. Rockefeller IV.

"SLAM DUNK" could be a myth? Fabrication? Lie? Bullshit? Bushism? Woodwardism?

Someone told me that the "slam dunk" comment attributed to George Tenet has never been verified and there is no verifiable record of that statement. I'm no sticking up for George Tenet, but....

According to wikipedia, George Tenet has refused to confirm that he said "slam dunk"

According a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about Weapons of Mass Destruction WMDs in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002 he is said to have assured the President that the evidence against Saddam amounted to a "slam dunk case," although Tenet has refused to confirm that he said this.

Bob Woodward, interviewed on "60 Minutes" about his book, didn't sound so cocksure about the "slam dunk" comment

"According to Woodward, Tenet reassured the president that "it's a slam dunk case" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

In his CBS interview, Woodward said he "asked the president about this, and he said it was very important to have the CIA director, 'slam-dunk' is as I interpreted it, a sure thing, guaranteed."

David Corn: What's in a name?

Furthermore, bush, cheney et. al. were talking about WMDs as a SURE THING long before the December 2002 meeting in which Tenet allegedly uttered those now-famous words.

Rocky: "It's tragic to me that smug self-absorbed elites who think themselves to be for the little guy want to cut and run in the middle of a fight . . . "

The really tragedy is that people like you are too thick to realize that we're no longer in the middle of a fight. The fight is over. We lost. More than 80% of Iraqis want us out of their country. We've done little but deepen the hatred between the sects and make Iraq safe for Al Qaeda. Congratulations. Now get the hell out, thank you.

If the U.S. wants any chance of departing gracefully, though, it will have to start tearing down anything that looks like a permanent U.S. military installation. Even the appearance of permanent bases will continue to fire the insurgency. The U.S. should make due with temporary facilities and withdraw gradually, over several months, as the Murtha recommended.

But of course Bush won't do that, because the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases was the whole point of the invasion. It wasn't that a "democracy in the heart of the Middle-East" would promote democracy in the region as a whole. It was that U.S. bases in the heart of the Middle-East would prevent any of the local autocrats from gaining control of the ME oil supply and "blackmailing" the U.S., as Bush put it. We were under growing pressure to pull out of Saudi Arabia, which made Iraq look pretty appealing. Not to mention the potential benefits of controlling Iraq's oil supply, and thus OPEC prices, through proxies in the new Iraqi government. And of course there were also the security benefits to Israel.

But that dream is now shattered. Nevertheless, the neocons will never willingly allow the permanent bases to be torn down -- as long as they're in any positions of power.

so is it all coming unraveled? america better watch out if it is....

GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline

this memo makes it seem like not only would the GOP welcome a new terror attack.... they might actually create one.

this article is really quite something . . . you'd have to read between the lines and maybe see yet another link in the 911 chain -

"...the so-called Twin Towers at the World Trade Center were hated by many New Yorkers...the Twin Towers were always money-losers...and required huge subsidies from the State...the WTC complex was ludicrously costly to heat and light...In New York City, obsolete buildings are infrequently saved...The only thing that saved the Twin Towers from demolition was the fact that they were filled with asbestos, which would be released into the air if the buildings were destroyed by controlled explosions. In 2000, the Port Authority calculated that it would cost $1 billion...to remove the asbestos..."

A New Garden Of Eden

James Ha, Describing the comtemplation of a terrorist attack as "blue sky thinking" strikes me as pretty callous. Gives you a hint of how these freaks think.

The skies in NY and D.C. were very blue on Sept. 11, 2001, as I recall.

And even these GOP officials acknowledge that many Americans no longer trust Bush. I guess the cons that hang out here are just hopelessly impaired.

Micki,

The "Slam dunk" quote was attributed to Tenet but I heard it is taken out of context. I cannot remember where I read it but I was not surprised.

Like a leak, they just take q quote from a conversation that is classified, so the words were spoken but nobody can ever tell the truth in context.

Makes for future book sales. Now who would favor that, Hmmmmm

capt

Bush aide says Iraq withdrawal bad for Israel

In remarks prepared for delivery to the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) summit, Stephen Hadley said building democracy where Saddam Hussein's regime once stood would help that staunch US ally.

If freedom prevails in Iraq, others in the region -- including Syria and Iran -- will be under greater pressure to open up their repressive political systems. And that is good news for Israel," said Hadley.

"For Israel should not be condemned, in the name of stability, to live in a region where despots threaten to 'wipe them off the map,'" he said, quoting comments by hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"The spread of democracy will make the Middle East a safer neighborhood for Israel.

^^^^^^^^^^6

so, does anyone know the number of Israeli troops, if any, in the 'coalition of the willing'?

Bob #16, Capt #17:

The exit is apparent, you are both correct, but there is just one thing left to do. Halliburton and ExxonMobil (plus friends) have to get control of that "ocean of oil" we went there for in the first place.

DrewP, ya, impaired - they just don't see it at all - from the smallest things up to the scary ones, like terror attacks, - bushco just can do no wrong in some people's eyes -

From today's Wash. Post story on Bush in China, at the end of his fruitless Asia tour (he did get some cycling in, though):

"Honestly, human rights issues made up a tiny, tiny, tiny part of the meeting between the leaders of the two countries," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan."

I'm continue to be amazed at Bush's shameless cowardice. Just a few days ago, he stood in Kyoto, Japan and gave one of his typical tough-talk speeches about freedom in China, complete with the inappropriate smirks he likes to throw in when he's in full condescension.

I bet me wife then that he'd say little if anything about it once he was actually on Chinese soil. Looks like I win. Sounds like he didn't even press for clarification of China's currency exchange policy, which cons in Congress have been railing about for months now.

The guy is just so predictable. Character really is destiny. And of course the Chinese aren't stupid. They knew that Bush really has no power any more, so they could treat him like any tourist.

Bush has made plenty of blunders on his own. I've never claimed Tenet is to blame for Bush failures. It has been quite a while since I last defended GB on this site and I don't intend to start anew.

David, bush didn't discipline anyone for this monumental screw-up because the "intelligence" was window dressing. He didn't give a flying f**k how reliable or unreliable the intel was.

As he marched the country to war, bush (the *good* Christian) said war was a last resort. But, a full year before the war in March 2002, Time magazine reported Bush told three U.S. senators, "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."

Bush said this as he popped his head in the door of a WH meeting between (then) National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and three senators who were discussing ways for dealing with Iraq through the UN. The senators laughed uncomfortably at Bush's remark, Time reported.

The rest, as they say, is history...until it's re-written that is.

INVESTMENT OR DIVESTMENT:

Citizens, Financial Choice, and the Future of Israel/Palestine

CNI Public Hearing

Russell Senate Office Building,
Room 385

Monday, November 21, 2005
2:00 to 4:00 PM

American financial involvement in Israel and Palestine goes far beyond massive yearly foreign aid packages. US private corporations generate billions of dollars of revenue from foreign direct investment (FDI) and sales, as well as charitable tax exempt contributions flows, including Israeli bonds, to projects in Israel and Israeli occupied territories. Calls for tighter control over financial flows have been heard in both the US and Israel. Israeli prosecutor Talia Sasson uncovered and reported illegal activities in Israeli occupied territories perpetrated by entities funded by American tax exempt contributions.

Many American religious and campus groups have called for full or selective divestment in US companies contributing to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, as well as targeted investment in Palestine. This has generated much debate amongst churches, students and American communities, and prompted a strong reaction from supporters of Israel.

Join us for a panel discussion of investment/divestment choices. Speakers include:

Stephen Sizer, Anglican Vicar, Virginia Water, Surrey, England
Grant Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy
Noura Erakat, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation

To make a reservation, call 202-863-2951 or send an email to inform@cnionline.org

Council for the National Interest
1250 4th Street, SW, Ste WG-1
Washington, DC 20024

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

To make a tax-deductible contribution to the Council for the National Interest Foundation click here:

The claim that "Bush Lied" that the democrats ran on for last year's presidential campaign did NOT work for them, and it won't work today either.

What you leftist elites don't get is, the American people aren't stupid like you think they are. They know the difference between a mistake and a lie.

So far, it has not been factually proven that Bush lied. And I don't get this liberal logic, if you could use those 2 words together(!), but if Bush lied, then that would mean France lied, Russia lied, Britain lied, Australia lied, China lied, Egypt lied, and Jordan lied. These countries all had intelligence indicating Iraq had WMDs. But liberals never call these countries liars.

But wait, I know your arguement! It's "well Bush took us to war"! True, but that does NOT excuse the fact that these countries also had intelligence indicating Iraq had WMDs.

The Clinton administration believed up until 2000, when they were replaced by the Bush administration, that Iraq had WMDs.

So what is that, 9 sources all saying the same thing!?

HA HA HA
Locked doors thwart Bush's bid to duck question

BEIJING (Reuters) - Irked by a reporter who told him he seemed to be "off his game" at a Beijing public appearance, President George W. Bush sought to make a hasty exit from a news conference but was thwarted by locked doors...

...When the reporter asked for "a very quick follow-up", Bush cut him off by thanking the press corps and telling the reporter "No you may not," as he strode toward a set of double doors leading out of the room.

The only problem was that they were locked.

"I was trying to escape. Obviously, it didn't work," Bush quipped, facing reporters again until an aide rescued him by pointing to him toward the correct door.
------------
And for a visual

No Exit

Jeanne, if you were a conservative president and you were hounded day in and day out by the liberal media, I'm sure you would get frustrated too and be edgy.

Crooks never believe they lie. It is very important to believe the deceit to make it work, therefore they truly believe the validity of the con they are trying to perpetrate. Bush believed the lies he was pushing.

The "Shock and Awe" Photo Gallery Archive

March 22 | March 23 | March 24 | March 25 | March 26 | March 27 | March 28 | March 29 | March 30 | March 31 | April 1 | April 2 | April 3 | April 4 | April 5 | April 6 | April 8 | April 9 | April 10 | April 12 | April 15 | April 16 | April 17 | April 18 | April 19 | April 20 | April 21 | April 22 | April 23 | April 25 | April 27 | April 28 | April 29 | May 1 | May 4 | May 5 | May 6 | May 7 | May 8 | May 9 | May 10 | May 12 | May 14 | May 15 | May 16 | May 17 | May 18 | May 19 | May 20 | May 21 | May 22 | May 23 | May 25 | May 26 | May 28

_________________________________________________________________

A Witness to History

The March For Justice is dedicating its "Shock and Awe Gallery" as an authentic historical documentation and evidence of the U.S./British Crime of the Century. As attacks on freedom and the free have become characteristic of contemporary America, we advise and encourage all those who support Truth and Justice, to save our material and to make the utmost use of it, as its intended objective is revealing facts and reality. Should our voice be silenced, we pray that our efforts will contribute to the awakening of the human conscience, yearning for a world of Justice and Peace. To all of the heroes who visited our site, who responded with disagreement or with agreement*, and who care for truth and a world without killing, tyranny or oppression, we remain eternally grateful, for they are the hope for all of us and a sign of good things to come.
Sincerely,
Your March,
The March For Justice

NOTE: We will continue updating and developing our work by any and all peaceful means and for as long as we are able to.

*Visit our Feedback page.

________________________________________________________________

Read comments/feedback on our "Shock and Awe Gallery" and other website features on our Feedback page.
________________________________________________________________

“I say it publicly: the invading troops in Iraq and those who sent them
are not Christians and have nothing to do with Christianity."

- Orthodox Church Spokesman Archimandrite Attallah Hanna, April 1, 2003

________________________________________________________________

*The brutal "Shock and Awe" military strategy devised by Pentagon's well-known Pro-Israeli Harlan Ullman is taking a horrific toll on the Iraqi children of Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. He was the Navy's “head of extended planning” and taught at the National War College. One of his students was Secretary of State Colin Powell, who says he “raised my vision several levels.”

The world is not being shown the horrific devastation that the massive tons of bombs and missiles are causing to Iraqi civilians. We continue to compile pictures from the International media to show the horrible slaughter of Iraqi people.

_________________________________________________________________

The 'Shock and Awe' Experiment: a compilation, analysis, and discussion of available information on the Pentagon's Shock and Awe battle plan especially as it affects civilian infrastructure and the civilian population by Jaime Havenar

________________________________________________________________

This Is War
An unblinking look—in words and images—at the reality

China more popular than U.S. overseas
New poll finds Iraq war a key factor in tattered image of U.S.

WASHINGTON - The United States's image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that China, which is ruled by a communist dictatorship, is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many coun