David:

I'm a late comer to the the whole Plame incident....was a very minor issue (to me) until coming to your blog!

My guess is this `-gate', and your Lies book, brought you where you are today! Good for you; not that I agree with stirring up a pot of water on a cold stove!

the book is far more about the fraudulent selling of the war than the leak case.

good! the fraudulent selling of the war tends to be overlooked amongst the american idles of today.
----
meanwhile, the war on arabs continues.

STAYING THE COURSE OF COURSE!
bushco '08

bushco inc. we're your go-to guys!
specializing in:
strategic tower removals
depleted uranium seeding
budget and pension appropriations
now featuring no-bid contracts!

The `near impossible' for Ms. Sekula-Gibbs maybe just a tad less impossible! Now, that's what I call putting the ole Thinking Cap On! Gov. Rick Perry, you da Man!

How To Give A Write-In Candidate An Advantage?
Keeping Texas-22
By Erick

Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is not the easiest name to remember for a write-in, but she is the candidate the Texas GOP settled on to keep Tom DeLay's seat out of the hands of Nick Lampson. Ms. Sekula-Gibbs has two problems in this heavily Republican district: (1) she is running as Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, which is not exactly an easy name to spell and (2) she's a write-in candidate.

Today, Governor Rick Perry made things a little easier for her. He called for a Special Election to fill the remainder of Tom DeLay's term, which does not end until January. The Special Election will be held on November 7, 2006, the same day as the general election race to succeed him in the next session of congress.

Candidates have until Friday to pay a qualifying fee. That means Ms. Sekula-Gibbs' name will appear on the ballot, making it easier for people to write her in on the ballot in the separate race. The tactic might confuse some voters. It is not often one gets to vote for a listed candidate in one section of a ballot and then write in the same candidate in another section of the ballot. However, should the Sekula-Gibbs campaign and the Texas GOP work together to educate voters, things should turn out nicely for the GOP in Texas 22.
------------------------------------------------
spy,
Don't forget your favorite battle cry: "It's time to kill Islamo-Fascists in Large Numbers!"

Good call David. Don't take the bait.

How does Hitchens get his laptop computer inside that whiskey bottle? Oops Correction. Gin bottle.

1 Bourbon, 1 shot and 1 beer. . .

I would rather sit on a pumpkin, all by myself,
than share a velvet cushion.

#3 Didn't you just post this on the last thread?

[Hubris] the book is far more about the fraudulent selling of the war than the leak case.

I'd still rather sit on a pumpkin all by myself than share a velvet cushion.

In Memoriam

Talcott Williams Seelye (1922-2006)
By Andrew I. Killgore

FORMER AMERICAN ambassador to Tunisia and Syria, and eminent Middle East expert Talcott Seelye died at his home in Bethesda, Maryland on June 8. Born in Beirut, Lebanon to American parents who were professors at the American University of Beirut, Talcott early on absorbed the rhythms of the Arabic language. He later studied at the State Department?s Foreign Service Institute, where he became one of our best linguists.

Seelye had two Middle East-related assignments in the State Department: first as director of Arabian Peninsula affairs and then as the director of Arabian North affairs. He also was senior deputy assistant secretary of the Bureau of African Affairs. When Ambassador Francis Meloy, Jr. was assassinated in Beirut in 1976, President Gerald Ford appointed Seelye as special emissary to Lebanon. There he oversaw the evacuation of 200 Americans by the U.S. Navy?s 6th Fleet.

Talcott Seelye was proud of his New England heritage. In the early days the family was wealthy, but a consensus seems to have been reached among its members that the pursuit of wealth was not a worthy goal for a great family?which counted among its ancestors adventurer Robert Seelye, who came to Massachusetts with John Winthrop in the early 1600s. After that the family produced professors and college presidents.

Seelye?s great-grandfather was president of Amherst College in Massachusetts, from which Talcott graduated Phi Beta Kappa. His great uncle was the first president of Smith College. His daughter, Kate, a Beirut-based journalist, herself graduated from Amherst, which later honored her with a Doctorate of Humane Letters. His son, Talcott, Jr., also attended Seelye?s beloved Amherst. When Talcott?s father returned to the United States from Lebanon, he became the first president of Saint Lawrence University in Canton, New York. The rigorous sense of ethics that he absorbed from his New England heritage stayed with Seelye throughout his career and his life.

An example of his standing by his convictions occurred in 1953, when President Eisenhower assigned Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Producers Association, to divide the Jordan River waters between Israel and the Arab states. When Johnston reached Amman, Jordan, where Talcott was assigned to the American Embassy, the staff told Johnston that the Arabs politically could not agree with Israel.

Johnston took the staff?s answer to mean it disagreed with him personally, when in fact it had simply given its honest assessment of the situation. Johnston had everyone transferred, except Seelye. He stood by his guns and remained at the Embassy.

The Zionists did everything they could to undercut Talcott, saying his sympathies toward the Arabs were so great that he sacrificed American interests. This, of course, was a scurrilous lie. He was a patriotic American, with superb judgment, good sense and with deep skills in his craft. Gradually, through the years, as he appeared on radio and television programs about the Middle East, and through his writings, he became recognized as the leading spokesman for the State Department?s often maligned Arabists.

Talcott Seelye was married to the beautiful Joan Hazeltine. The Seelyes? three daughters, Lauren Harris, Amanda Salzman and Kate Seelye, paid homage to their father at a large memorial service held in Bethesda, Maryland. Two of their grandaughters, Kate and Anne Salzman, read exerpts from the Bible and the Qur?an.

Andrew I. Killgore, a retired foreign service officer and former U.S. ambassador to Qatar, is publisher of the Washington Report.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/August_2006/0608048.html

I don't have too much to say about Hitchens. The guy is not in control.

HUBRIS:
Did the minute men sell the idea to fight the British?
Did Lincoln sell the people on the Civil War?
Did Churchill sell FDR on the idea to help win WWII?
Did Bush's father sell the idea of removing Saddam from Kuwait?
Why don't you take you nursery rhymes to your kindergarten class?

NYT: Ohio officials prepare to destroy paper ballots from 2004 presidential election

Ohio officials will soon begin destroying the paper ballots from the 2004 presidential election despite objections from voter rights groups, according to a story slated for Wednesday's edition of The New York Times.

"Soon after the 2004 presidential election, questions emerged about how votes were tallied in Ohio, a battleground state that delivered the presidency to George W. Bush," Ian Urbina writes for the Times.

"Now, following a routine procedure, state officials are preparing to destroy the paper ballots from the election," writes Urbina.

"Critics say the ballots should be preserved for more study," the article continues.
--------------
Well, I know the election was stolen. Blackwell could prove me wrong by doing a recount but he would rather destroy the ballots. Pity. I will forever think of him as a thief and a person who has turned his back on democracy.

#9
Along with an upside down copy of 'My Pet Goat'.

NYT: Americans grow more pessimistic about economy

Americans are growing more pessimistic about the economy, according to a story slated for the front page of Wednesday's New York Times.

"Americans are more pessimistic than they have been all year about the state of the economy, according to a new report that reflects a widespread view that a period of brisk growth is coming to an end," writes Jeremy W. Peters for the Times.

The Conference Board said Tuesday that in its monthly survey, American consumer confidence fell sharply in August to its lowest level since last November. The latest index reading of 99.6 was below the 107.0 reported in July, and represented the steepest single-month decline since the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina a year ago.

"Ouch," wrote Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist with High Frequency Economics, in a research report on the index.

The pace of growth in the American economy has slowed by more than half since the first quarter, and many economists say they think the outlook will grow worse, not least because consumers sense the slowdown and are reining in their spending accordingly.

First Source of C.I.A. Leak Admits Role, Lawyer Says
By NEIL A. LEWIS
August 30, 2006

Ms. Wilson was a covert employee, and after Mr. Novak printed her identity, the agency requested an investigation to see whether her name had been leaked illegally.

More HERE

Re:(And a reminder: the book is far more about the fraudulent selling of the war than the leak case.)

Oh, how you would like to hide your previous rantings on the Valerie Plame case.

Your credibility-----ZIP

We're still waiting for the New Mexico company's report on WTC 7, but here's some new pictures I hadn't seen. Shows the big gouge on the south side went all the way to the top. See the explanation in several pictures of the east penthouse falling first.
As the collapse progressed down the sourtheast, the mass landed on the cantilevered section of the lower floors (7 seconds later) and pulled the 7th floor eastward, pulling columns out of alignment across most of the south and middle of the building at once:
Then it shows a diagram.

Check it out, it's a small post... not a looooong page to scroll thru...
new pictures of 7

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that Armitage and Rove both leaked this information? You said that Armitage was the original source to Novak. You then mention that Rove leaked it to Cooper and Libby confirmed the information. What I don't understand is why Rove is a 'leaker' and not a 'confirmer'? There is a very big difference between the two. One is illegal while the other is not. Is it not possible that Cooper learned this from Novak or from some other source (namely Woodward but possibly someone else)? How would Rove be a 'leaker' in this case? You seem intent on not having your original assessment to be proven wrong and have chosen to color it in a different light now that new information is available. You use words like 'might' to describe your original viewpoint but that's not how it came across when it was first posted. You are the journalist, re-read it and tell me where the 'might' is either written or implied. Your words were not only harsh and damning but misguided and misinformed. Had your article been called 'A White House Smear?' (notice the question mark), your current version of events 'might' seem a little more credible. I guess you have the right to continue alleging that the White House was somehow involved but you know that no one will be charged with breaking the law in this case. Since you seem to have forgotten, this whole issue was about whether a law had been broken. Now that your quiver is empty, I would suggest you put down your bow.

From the previous blog!

#70 Jeanne and Carey, we need to live a life of service, whether we are CEOs or domestic help. Whoever gets results should be awarded the contracts. Do you realize how much money the Nazis have wasted that could have benefitted people and these contracts were awarded to their bed partners? People for some reason complicate their lives with egos and selfishness.

#83 Jeanne, I give people credit who can swallow their pride and admit their mistakes. We all make mistakes. No one is perfect! An apology takes tremendous courage in the wake of dead and maimed bodies. Pride damns the soul and humility saves the soul.

Hitchens is a big nothing. He's from England! Does he have American citizenship? He is part of the slime that oozes out of Washungton.

alan that does appear to be quite a gouge! i still think that the manner and speed in which it fell were suspicious though, but i never was very big on 7 as any kind of proof -

Hang in there and keep your head steady and strong! Christopher Hichens isn't even an American - and everyone knows he always shoots from the hip! So what he does is nothing new.... Keep up the great work David! Rob

American Soldiers

2,964 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush and his lies.

16 I'm a little confused.
Posted by: David Ross at August 30, 2006 01:04 AM

More than a little.

hey originroc happy @3!
spy,
Don't forget your favorite battle cry:...

don't pin that bullshit on me when you know damn well who the source of that quote is!

March 2003: The United States invades Iraq.

October 2006: The world finds out why.

What was really behind the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq? As George W. Bush steered the nation to war, who spoke the truth and who tried to hide it? Hubris takes us behind the scenes at the Bush White House, the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department, and Congress to answer all the vital questions about how the Bush administration came to invade Iraq.

Filled with new revelations, Hubris is a gripping narrative of intrigue that connects the dots between George W. Bushís expletive-laden outbursts at Saddam Hussein, the bitter battles between the CIA and the White House, the fights within the intelligence community over Saddamís weapons of mass destruction, the startling influence of an obscure academic on top government officials, the real reason Valerie Plame was outed, and a top reporterís ties to wily Iraqi exiles trying to start a war. Written by veteran reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn, this is the inside story of how President Bush took the nation to war using faulty and fraudulent intelligence. It is a news-making account of conspiracy, backstabbing, bureaucratic ineptitude, journalistic malfeasance, and, especially, arrogance.

Hubris, the book, is far more fraudulent than the selling of the Iraq war or the CIA leak case.

It is truly amazing how many non-Americans screw up the American mind, Hitchens, Chalabi (spell), Hezbelloh with their efficient way of completing relief services that help people.

Do you suppose that Hezbelloh will garnish more and more converts for Islam?

WHAT A STUPID STATEMENT...BUT, I EXPECTED NOTHING BETTER FROM YOU....ARMITAGE WAS THE 'FIRST' LEAKER....DUH....THE FIRST IS THE ONLY LEAKER ALL THE REST ARE JUST REPEATING WHAT THEY HEARD.
YOU ALL SPEAK OF ESPIONAGE AND TREASON..HOW ABOUT SANDY BERGER STEALING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION SO THE PUBLIC WOULD NEVER SEE BILL CLINTON'S ROLE IN ALLOWING TERRORISM TO FLOURISH ...DID NOTHING WITH THE FIRST 1993 ATTACK....SOME PEOPLE WENT TO JAIL BECAUSE OF NY'S LAW ENFORCEMENT, IF THEY WAITED FOR CLINTON THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THAT MUCH DONE....THE BALI BOMBINGS BEFORE PRESIDENT BUSH TOOK OFFICE...BUT, YOU SAY HE STARTED ALL THE TERRORIST'S BOMBINGS...OH, WE HAVE TO FORGET THAT ONE AND THE TOWERS...AND BY THE WAY...THE U.S.S. COLE WHICH CLINTON DID NOTHING ON...DIDN'T EVEN MEET THE SAILORS WHO WERE KILLED IN THAT ATTACK....AND YOU SAY THAT PRESIDENT BUSH STARTED IT ALL..
HOW STUPID ARE YOU ALL ?
LET BERGER AND CLINTON BE TRIED ON TREASON SINCE IT IS THEIR SECRETS THAT LED US TO THIS POINT.
YOU ARE ALL TOO STUPID TO EVEN SEE THAT

Ronald Reagan is the father of modern CUT & RUN tactic in the war against radical Islam.

ROVE TO BE INDITED..... SOOOOOON!

Remember that post? Maybe CAPT, GERALD, or another of you corn-nutters can pull that up for us, so we can see who the real liars are!

You Corn-nutters have been taken for a ride, Weeeeeeeeh! You all hate America-and yourselfers so much you blindly follow the lies of the main stream corn-holes and others. I’m sure that you nutters have not be persuaded that, although the facts are false, the story is still true...RIGHT!

25-Do you suppose that Hezbelloh will garnish more and more converts for Islam?

Sure, by gunpoint.

Why were Libby and Karl Rove telling reporters about Wilson's wife, the covert CIA agent, in the first place?

Why did Libby lie about it to FBI agents? and The Grand Jury (you know, "I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.")

What does any of that have to do with Bill Clinton?

Why are all the trolls pissed off about this?

AND BY THE WAY...THE U.S.S. COLE WHICH CLINTON DID NOTHING ON...DIDN'T EVEN MEET THE SAILORS WHO WERE KILLED IN THAT ATTACK
------------------------------------------------
Clinton didn't meet the dead sailors? That's crazy.

If people took the time to read my posts, they would know that I wanted Rove indicted!!! However, I said that he would not be indicted!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy agrees, care to explain your comment?

Why bother explaining my posts to the Nazi rolls who are still reading the book, "See Dick and Jane Run?"

I don't care if Rove is indicted or not. I want Bush impeached for lying to congress (and the American people) to obtain war authorization for Iraq.

30-Why were Libby and Karl Rove telling reporters about Wilson's wife, the covert CIA agent, in the first place?

Maybe you don’t understand cause and effect, the first place would be the Armitage revelation, and the 2ND place would be Libby and Karl Rove confirming to reporters what Arbitrage already told. By the way if "Wilson's wife" was a "covert CIA agent” Why was Richard Armitage not prosecuted for outing" her.
Corn-nutters are worse than lemmings.

I'm a little confused.

Are you saying that Armitage and Rove both leaked this information?

What I don't understand is why Rove is a 'leaker' and not a 'confirmer'?

Is it not possible that Cooper learned this from Novak or from some other source (namely Woodward but possibly someone else)?

How would Rove be a 'leaker' in this case?

Posted by: David Ross at August 30, 2006 01:04 AM

-------------------
You seem more than a little confused.

Happy agrees, how could Rove have leaked information that had already been leaked? That is where I am confused. Please explain this and refrain from copying and pasting (that is if you can).

Our parish and I gave money for the Katrina victims. I do not mind helping people but I learned today $4.2 billion that was given to help the Katrina victims could not be accounted for!!! The next time anyone asks me for a donation I will be skeptical in giving any donation.

Libby told Judy Miller, she didn't inquire, he offered it. Rove confirmed it for Novak but offered it to Cooper. Cooper didn't inquire. All of this was before Novak's article was published. Armitages disclosure was the first disclosure of this classified info about a covert CIA emplyoee's status but it was not the only disclosure prior to the time it was published in the paper. Got that?

There is no dispute Valeria Plame's status with the CIA was classified nor the fact her status as an employee was covert nor that the CIA asked the Justice Deparment to investigate if a law had been broken when her status as a CIA employee had been made public.

But since you are not interested in what actually happened becuase you're more interested in being a Bush loyalist, right or wrong, you can do your own research on the facts surrounding the CIA leak case. You might buy a copy of Corn's book or check out firedoglake.com. Either way, you don't have much to add to the conversation.

Maybe you don’t understand cause and effect, the first place would be the Armitage revelation, and the 2ND place would be Libby and Karl Rove confirming to reporters what Arbitrage already told. By the way if "Wilson's wife" was a "covert CIA agent” Why was Richard Armitage not prosecuted for outing" her.

1. Novak didn't tell the other reporters, Rove and Libby did. duh! You think Novak would share his scoop, the fkn traitor. Summary: One leaked supposedly by accident, the 'second wave' were doing it for political gain.
2. Armitage wasn't prosecuted because he found out about Plame from Marc Grossman's memo, which didn't mention she was NOC. The law states you would have to leak an agent's identity while knowing it was a secret to be prosecuted.

32- However, I said that he would not be indicted!!!!!!!!!!!

No, the liar and master manipulator-David Corn stated that Rove would be indicted, were is you outrage that you were lied to by Corn.

Impeach David Corn

41-Novak didn't tell the other reporters, Rove and Libby did.

So Rove and Libby told Judit Miller?! I dont think so, the fact is there was never a crime commited, ask Fitzgerald

Gerald: Actually Hitchens is brilliant, from England, recently became an American citizen, is not slime and Washington is not in England.

Spy: "Humility saves the soul" just ask Gerald.

Rove confirmed it for Novak and told it to Cooper, Time magazine.

Libby told Judy Miller, then lied to FBI investigators, then lied to the Grand Jury under oath saying he learned about Valerie Plame from reporters when in fact he learned about her from administration officials, including Dick Cheney.

Hitchens is a flip-flopper. He was a liberal before he was a conservative. If Hitchens flips back, Mr. forward will be calling him an idiot.

What is a little fib between pals under oath?

First of all, Happy, I am a moderate and not a Bush loyalist as you charge. I used to work for a Democratic senator and voted for Nader (in NY so it didn't affect the electoral outcome). I find this case interesting, that's my interest in it. Your facts are a little off. Cooper called Rove, not the other way around. Also, just because an article wasn't published doesn't mean Valerie Plame's cover was protected, especially considering that Novak, a reporter, had that information. Her cover had been blown when Armitage slipped up. It really doesn't matter if one or one million people know - her cover was blown. The final say on this matter will come from Fitzgerald. No matter how you twist things, no law was broken when Valerie Plame's identity was revealed.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Sasha: THE FIRST IS THE ONLY LEAKER ALL THE REST ARE JUST REPEATING WHAT THEY HEARD.

First, quit yelling, asshole.

Second, giving a reporter information from classified State Dept. memo is not "JUST REPEATING WHAT THEY HEARD."

Read, dammit. Read.

Corn-trolls are so funny and predictable!

Clinton lied about sex and was impeached for it. The Senate found him not guilty (not guilty of lying about sex, they were pretty sure he got the blow job but a blow job was not illegal.)

mr. forward -
"Humility saves the soul"

humility is fine and dandy but it probably doesn't apply in this case:

I also pity you for your outlook on life.
- factchecker

It is now time to start killing them in large quantities.
Posted by: factchecker at August 13, 2006 11:41 PM

So Rove and Libby told Judit Miller?! I dont think so...

Yes, Libby told Judy Miller. He also leaked some of the NIE to her.

52-The Senate found him not guilty

So did he lie or not? You admit yourself that he did have oral"sexual relations" with at woman.
Just a bunch or liars sticking up for their HEAD LIAR,pun intended.
I’m just so HAPPY that your hypocrisy and stupidity shows, cornhole!

In regards to Cooper, it should be noted that it was Karl Rove who signed a waiver to allow him to speak to the special prosecutor without compromising his rights as a journalist. It comes as no surprise now why Rove was willing to do so.

Cooper called Rove, not the other way around. Also, just because an article wasn't published doesn't mean Valerie Plame's cover was protected, especially considering that Novak, a reporter, had that information. Her cover had been blown when Armitage slipped up.

Who initiates the phone call is irrelevent. Rove told Cooper. Cooper wrote an email to his boss about it. The email was supboened by the investigation.

Plames status was classified. Even though Armitage had already told Novak, Plame's status as a CIA agent was still classified.

Your assumption that there can't be multiple illegal disclosure of classified information is incorrect. Your interpretation of classified versus public information is incorrect.

Fitz's decision to indict depends on more than wether he believes a law was broken; it also depends on whether he can prove it. If you watch his press conference, you will learn more about that issue and other issues prosecutors take into account. You can find it on C-Span.

Tre, i fuc%ed your mother last night and she said you were a mistake.

David Ross: It really doesn't matter if one or one million people know - her cover was blown.

Of course it matters. If Novak had kept it to himself, no harm would have been done to Plame.

And even if Rove and Libby told reporters about or simply verified Plame's status for reporters after hearing about it from Novak, that violates the terms of their top-secret security clearance.

In other words, just because one guy with high-level clearance can't keep his mouth shut doesn't mean that anyone else with access to such information is free to blab to reporters.

54- So Rove and Libby told Judit Miller?! I dont think so...

Yes, Libby told Judy Miller. He also leaked some of the NIE to her.

So, Libby told her something that was already common knowledge, but he didn’t get prosecuted for that, which was supposed to be a crime, but Armitage who actually committed the deed that Libby was accused of told the truth, and , about the Wilson's and the lies they told, which was actually the truth, Valire did send Joe to Africa.....and the Bush administrations is accused of trying smear those who are clearly lying the Wilsons....It is clear now...yes lets impeach Bush

59-Of course it matters. If Novak had kept it to himself, no harm would have been done to Plame.

Apparenty there was no harm done to Plame, as no one has be indited on the charges of "outing" her!

But we are sitll wating on that Rove inditement....any day now, right CORN!

Alan. Bush declassified parts of the NIE on the spot, without the normal process.

Libby sited parts of the NIE to Judy Miller over breakfast and represented them as key findings, when in fact, the NIE said the intel claims he told her were not likely.

Why not go with the strong evidence rather than the weak evidence? Did Libby know the entire NIE would be declassified later? Was the WH worried their case for war was impreil?

Maybe this is the subject of the HUBRIS and the purpose of including the CIA leak investigation in it.

The moment Plame's name was out it was out. I don't think Novak had the proper security clearance that allowed him to know such a thing. Additionally, Cooper and Miller didn't run out and print it, Novak did. The only time this law was used to prosecute someone was an instance when a woman shared classified information with her boyfriend. The information she gave was never published or printed yet it still led to her prosecution. She told one person and that was enough.

In other words, just because one guy with high-level clearance can't keep his mouth shut doesn't mean that anyone else with access to such information is free to blab to reporters.

Posted by: Drewp at August 30, 2006 02:56 AM

When J.Miller finaly agreed to testify in front of the Grand Jury,why did she agree to only answer questions along the line of LIBBY, when now we know that it was clearly, Richard Armitage-per Wikipedia, "On August 29, 2006 Neil A. Lewis of The New York Times reported that Armitage is confirmed to be the first and primary source of the CIA leak investigation.[7]"

Wonder if Miller did not already have the info from Armitage before that breakfast with Libby.

Drewp: You are the one that suggested that if Novak didn't report it that there would be no problem. You seem to believe that it is okay to share info as long as nobody tells (or you at least apply that to Armitage and not Libby or Rove). My posts refer to the legal statute that is being applied in this case. The fact remains that her identity was accidently, not illegally, revealed by Armitage. Once an agent's identity is revealed in any way, the statute simply does not apply.

Once an agent's identity is revealed in any way, the statute simply does not apply.

Posted by: David at August 30, 2006 03:24 AM

you continue to make this claim repeatedly but you are wrong. say it again. no one cares what you think. you're wrong.

Exacty what are your dreams of Happt?

David: Once an agent's identity is revealed in any way, the statute simply does not apply.

You sure about that? I can't remember the wording of the statute, so you'll need to give me link.

Did Rove and Libby even know that Armitage had already leaked to Novak? If not, how would they know that what they were doing was legal?

Regardless, though, Rove and Libby did provide classified information about Plame to reporters. That's a matter of record. Their motive is a matter of speculation, but they clearly didn't intend to help Plame's career.

Good morning!
Here is another pice on Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld: US military can handle other threats despite Iraq
08-29-2006, 05h23
FALLON, United States (AFP)

The US military could handle another war despite deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. "I get asked from time to time, if your forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the US military sufficiently stressed or strained that it really couldn't deal or cope with a problem in another part of the world," Rumsfeld told troops at an air force base in Nevada.
"The answer is no, that's not correct. We are capable of dealing with other problems where they occur," he said, answering a question about military options for the nuclear crisis with Iran. "I feel comfortable ... our country is able to fulfill the responsibilities the American people expect of us and that the president is charged with," he said. Rumsfeld warned potential enemies that the United States remained ready to take military action to defend its interests. "It would be unfortunate if other countries thought because we have 136,000 troops in Iraq today that therefore we are not capable of defending our country or doing anything that we might need to do," Rumsfeld said. The Pentagon has recently extended tours of US troops in Iraq and called up reserve Marines to quell violence in Iraq unleashed after the US-led invasion in 2003. Apart from Iraq, the US also has more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, and defense analysts say the deployments have put an enormous strain on the military. "We have a large active force, we have a large reserve force, we have that ready reserve that drills the selective reserve and we have a large number of individual ready reservists who have an obligation that runs to depending on the circumstance for the remainder of their six-year period and we have allies." Rumsfeld said that 42 countries were working with the US military in Afghanistan and 34 governments were "helping us in Iraq." He added: "You can't do everything and you can't do everything at once. "But some of the capabilities that we need the place where we are using most of the capabilities right now are the ground forces in Iraq. "Our naval forces are certainly not stressed, our air forces are certainly not stressed and those capabilities are available and exist," he said. Rumsfeld told troops that they were facing a "clever" enemy who was "actively manipulating the media in this country." "The constant drumbeat of the things they say often, which are not true, is harmful over time. It is cumulative. It does weaken people's will and lessen their determination and raises questions in their minds," Rumsfeld said.
However, Rumsfeld said he was personally immune to criticism that he was doing a bad job in Iraq. "I don't feel it myself because I read so much history and I am aware that in every conflict we have ever been in there has been heated criticism ... There always has been criticism in every conflict." Rumsfeld has come under severe criticism from retired US generals and lawmakers who have demanded his resignation for his handling of the war in Iraq, accusing him of dedicating too few soldiers to Iraq.
Later Rumsfeld told Americans that if they have patience, the situation in Iraq will eventually change for the better. "Today we will not tell 50 million Afghans and Iraqis that because the going is tough -- and it is tough, let there be no doubt -- that we will abandon them to the beheaders, the terrorists, the assassins, and 21st century fascists who seek to attack us abroad and here at home," Rumseld told the Veterans of Foreign Wars association. "History has shown time and again that if Americans have the patience and the perseverance to see an effort through -- no matter how hard or how difficult -- that we prevail," he said, adding that the goal now was "a safer and more secure world."
AFP

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

On what planet does this man live?
"a safer and more secure world"????
The "sabre rattling" in the Bush admin., to strike Iran, will surely set the world ablaze, if it's is put into action.
Safe and secure, my ass!!

Bush Offers to Meet With Sudan's Leader to Pave Way for U.N. Force in Darfur
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A20

President Bush has proposed meeting with Sudan's president, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan al-Bashir, as an incentive for Bashir to lift his adamant opposition to the introduction of U.N. peacekeeping forces in Sudan's troubled Darfur region, according to a Sudanese government spokesman and U.S. government officials. The offer of a high-profile meeting on the sidelines of next month's U.N. General Assembly debate was made yesterday by Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi E. Frazer in a meeting with Bashir in Khartoum. The Sudanese president had kept Frazer waiting since Saturday, citing a busy schedule, even though he knew that she was bringing a message from Bush. Sudan's Omar Hassan al-Bashir gets an overture. Two years ago, the Bush administration accused the Bashir government of genocide for allegedly abetting the atrocities in Darfur. Bush's willingness to meet with Bashir -- who human rights groups say should be charged with war crimes -- is yet another diplomatic gambit by the administration to encourage cooperation from Khartoum. The conflict broke out in early 2003 when African rebel groups attacked police stations and military outposts. The United Nations and human rights groups accuse the Arab-led central government of supporting militiamen, called the Janjaweed, in an effort to crush the rebellion. About 2,000 villages have been destroyed across Darfur; violence and disease have left as many as 450,000 people dead and 2 million homeless.
Agence France-Presse first reported on the invitation, quoting Bashir spokesman Majoub Fadl Badri. A State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Frazer carried a letter from Bush to Bashir, which generally discussed Bush's concern about Darfur. She told Bashir that cooperation on Darfur could bring many benefits for Khartoum, though the official declined to specifically confirm them. Bashir has long pushed for the lifting of economic sanctions related to Sudan's long support of terrorism. The official stressed that any incentives, such as a presidential meeting, would come only after positive actions by Sudan, such as the acceptance of a U.N. force. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Some analysts doubted Bashir would be impressed by the offer. "President Bush's expression of a willingness to meet with Khartoum's brutal leader inevitably works to confer international legitimacy upon his genocidal regime and policies," said Eric Reeves, a Smith College professor who closely tracks events in Sudan. "But the grim irony here is that this expediency, this moral capitulation, only emboldens the regime, convincing these genocidaires that they hold the upper hand and need not agree to a U.N. force."

What happens when the horror of Iraq become to much for a soldier to bear?
By Neil Makay

06/18/06 "Scotsman" -- -- MORE than 6000 men and women have deserted from the US army since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. In the British forces, the figure stands at around 1000. The soldiers are leaving because they are sickened by the bloodshed in Iraq; because they believe the war is illegal; because they are on the verge of nervous breakdown; and because they are having to buy their own boots or are not being given enough food and water. Labour MP John McDonnell says that troops are now “±uestioning the morality and legality of the occupation.
In Britain, deserters rarely –†if ever –†publicly explain why they have refused to fight. In the US, however, its a different story.
Some 25 GIs have applied for refugee status in Canada since the invasion of Iraq. At least 200 others are just living quietly , assisted by organisations such as War Resisters, and hoping that the US will forget all about them. Many of the Canadians helping them were once US citizens themselves. More than 30 years ago, they fled north, taking Canadian citizenship to escape being drafted to Vietnam. Many of these deserters are suffering from serious mental health problems, such as post-traumatic stress disorder brought on by prolonged exposure to the horrors of war. Britain’≥ Ministry of Defence recently revealed that in 2005, around 60 soldiers a month were found to be suffering from mental health problems. The total number of cases, 727, equates to almost 10% of the entire British military presence in Iraq –†and 66 were so badly affected that they had to be airlifted home. So far around 2500 US and 113 British soldiers have died in Iraq. One fear is that the recently elected right-wing government in Canada, under the premiership of Stephen Harper, will look less favourably on the US deserters claims than the previous liberal administration –†Harper is a lot closer to the government of US President George W Bush than his predecessor Paul Martin. So far no US soldiers have been granted refugee status, but the Canadian government is thought to be looking for a politically comfortable solution that allows the deserters to stay in Canada without offending the Bush administration. It is unlikely the deserters would be deported back to the US, but they may be sent to a third country if their appeals fail. Once a GI deserts, they lose all the perks : health insurance, pension and the right to a college education. When soldiers go on the run in the US, organisations such as GI Rights help and advise them. Peter Laufer, a respected US journalist whose forthcoming book Mission Rejected recounts the lives of Iraq war deserters, says GI Rights is so concerned about being monitored by the state that its volunteers have at times held discussions about soldiers cases in parking lots where they know they won't be bugged. There are people hiding in attics and cellars, says Laufer, because they are being sought by the military police. GIs who go public with their condemnation of the Iraq war are particularly targeted for arrest. Once a GI is listed as Awol absent without leave their name is put into the Federal Crime Database. That means if they so much as a run a red light and get stopped by a traffic cop their name will be flagged and they will be arrested. The punishment for desertion is a lengthy spell in military prison, but the US army retains the right to send a deserter before a firing squad to be executed although that has'nt happened since the end of the second world war. The US media barely covers the ever-growing phenomenon of desertion, and Laufers book is tipped to cause a sensation when it reveals just how virulently some American troops loathe the action into which they have been sent. Laufer says: The actions of these men and women is great ammunition against those who still support the war. You can't impugn the actions of a soldier who served their country. These people have stood up and said, this is wrong, I'm not going to do this any more in the face of severe penalties. They are brave and heroic and they deserve our support.

Wednesday, 30 August 2006, 10:36 GMT 11:36 UK

Arabic t-shirt sparks airport row

An architect of Iraqi descent has said he was forced to remove a T-shirt that bore the words "We will not be silent" before boarding a flight at New York. Raed Jarrar said security officials warned him his clothing was offensive after he checked in for a JetBlue flight to California on 12 August. Mr Jarrar said he was shocked such an action could be taken in the US.
US transport officials are conducting an inquiry after a complaint from the US Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. JetBlue said it was also investigating the incident but a spokeswoman said: "We're not clear exactly what happened." Mr Jarrar's black cotton T-shirt bore the slogan in both Arabic and English. He said he had cleared security at John F Kennedy airport for a flight back to his home in California when he was approached by two men who wanted to check his ID and boarding pass.
Mr Jarrar said he was told a number of passengers had complained about his T-shirt - apparently concerned at what the Arabic phrase meant - and asked him to remove it. He refused, arguing that the slogan was not offensive and citing his constitutional rights to free expression. Mr Jarrar later told a New York radio station: "I grew up and spent all my life living under authoritarian regimes and I know that these things happen. "But I'm shocked that they happened to me here, in the US."
After a difficult exchange with airline staff, Mr Jarrar was persuaded to wear another T-shirt bought for him at the airport shop. "We Will Not Be Silent" is a slogan adopted by opponents of the war in Iraq and other conflicts in the Middle East. It is said to derive from the White Rose dissident group which opposed Nazi rule in Germany.

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

What's next?? A T-shirt with "I love Bush" in Arabic. That would be funny!

Some contemptible soul is so envious of the real Happy, a conservative, that he has usurped his name. Of course, some liberals have no original ideas. All they can do is mimic and parrot the nomme de plume of others.

By the way, to Erling Krange:
About the last decent living thing coming out of Norway was Edvard Grieg. Your country is the genesis of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, the French. If it weren't good at surrendering, Norway wouldn't be good for anything at all. You and your ideas are symptomatic of why you are a cowardly nation, a truly worthless nation save your magnificent fjords, and we are a great nation.

We know the piece by Chris Hitchens is on solid logical ground because all the Cornuts can do is attack his person, not his ideas.

But, then again, the liberals are all about emotion and the conservatives are all about ideas.

And Chris is still solidly liberal on almost all other policies save the War on Terror.

And it is still time to start killing large numbers of Islamo-Fascists. See Charles Krauthammer's brilliant piece on Iran today.

Mr. Corn: I am no political gunslinger either, you have that reputation and I don't recall you using the word "might". Your articles on the "Leak" while interesting, we can now see lacked facts. Novak always maintained that when the identity of the leaker was disclosed, people would see it was no big deal. The leak was said in passing and was only a very small part of Novak's original article. It is time for Mr. Corn to take the high road and admit he was wrong. This investigation should never have occurred. By the way, why was Mr. Armitage never indicted for not telling investigators that he spoke with Woodward, what about this point Mr. Corn?

#74 Got you mad again? Foam in your mouth? If so, Mission Accomplished. This is the last time I adress you, so "Factchecker" or "Head Troll",
this one is for you:

"An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people. Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish. Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility. Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words. Some people —†particularly those who have been online for years —†are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants." It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved. Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.
Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash. The Internet is a wonderful resource which is breaking down barriers and stripping away prejudice. Trolls threaten our continued enjoyment of this beautiful forum for ideas."

Wowser,

Not one link to any of the "claims" ?

How about you trolls provide a link or a clip that supports your BS? (no can do because there are none)

Here I'll help you knuckleheads:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml

If I am not mistaken the only person that said Rove was indicted was the guy from truthout?

Any references to "might" and any reference to previous posts by Mr. Corn seem to be just more made up stuff?

"Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong." ~ Dr. Thomas Fuller (1654 - 1734), Gnomologia, 1732

capt

And now, before you all go off half-cocked:

The Bush Eye Chart

See if your vision is acute?

capt

Has the Bush doctrine failed?

Analysts say conflicts in the Middle East have halted aggressive US policy, and may hint at end of West's military superiority.

When President Bush unveiled "the Bush Doctrine" in a speech on June 1, 2002, to the graduating class at West Point, it was seen as providing a framework for US foreign policy for years to come. According to Wikipedia, the Bush doctrine "outlined a broad new phase in US policy that would place greater emphasis on military pre-emptive, military superiority ('strength beyond challenge'), unilateral action, and a commitment to 'extending democracy, liberty, and security to all regions.'"

Four years later, the San Francisco Chronicle reports in a news analysis piece that many analysts "across the political spectrum" believe the doctrine has failed rendered obsolete by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The United States may find it hard, if not impossible, the analysts say, to again try in the near future to topple a hostile regime. Its military is stretched, its moral standing diminished. Even democracy itself is tarnished, often equated now with car bombs and chaos, rather than peace and prosperity.

"The kind of thing people in the administration prided themselves in understanding, namely the use of power, was actually the very thing they proved not to be able to use effectively," said David Holloway of Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, which conducts research and training on issues of international security.

More HERE

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

Can anybody name anything that has not been a miserable failure from this misadministration?

Anything? (crickets chirping)

capt

U.S. Policies Hurt War on Terrorism, Say Americans

Many adults in the United States think their federal administration is hindering the global effort against terrorism, according to a poll by SRBI Public Affairs published in Time. 56 per cent of respondents think the U.S. policies in the Middle East are hurting the war on terrorism.

Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.

The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was launched in March 2003. At least 2,633 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 19,700 troops have been wounded in action.

On Aug. 21, U.S. president George W. Bush explained his foreign policy rationale, saying, "It's in our interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives. This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century. (...) The final history in the region has yet to be written. And what's very interesting about the violence in Lebanon and the violence in Iraq and the violence in Gaza is this: These are all groups of terrorists who are trying to stop the advance of democracy."

Polling Data HERE

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

OUCH! 56% say Bush's policies are HURTING the "war on terror".

But then again what does Bush care what the people think, eh?

capt

Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen.
Mort Sahl

The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.
James Michener

Bush: Anger over war won't change U.S. policy

President, conceding unpopularity, vows to stay the course in Iraq

NEW ORLEANS - Calling resistance against terrorism the "defining struggle of the 21st century," President Bush declared Tuesday that he would not let Americans frustration with the war deter him from finishing the job in Iraq.

In an exclusive interview Tuesday night on "NBC Nightly News," the president said history would vindicate his decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and remove President Saddam Hussein from power. But it would consign him to ignominy if he heeded the calls of critics and much of the public to pull U.S. troops home before democracy could be stabilized in Iraq, he said.

"If we lose our nerve and leave the Middle East before the job is finished, the world will be much worse off," Bush told "Nightly News" anchor and Managing Editor Brian Williams.

More HERE

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

And the BU__SH__ line about "before the job is finished" needs a little more explanation? What will be the sign that the job is finished?

Kill women and children until the Iraqi people actually break out the flowers and candy?

"he would not let Americans frustration with the war"

People are not frustrated they have come to the conclusion that Bush's policies have HURT us not helped us and staying the course is nothing short of denial or reality (Bush's forte).

What an idiot. That is how much he cares what people think, eh?

capt

I don't understand how a person at Armitage's level can be let off the hook, saying he's just a helplessly silly gossip.

Huh? People get fired at all levels of employment for that. Me thinks I smell another lame excuse from oour pals in DC.

But if indeed this is "the truth", how about terminating his career and access to high-level information for being a sloppy-mouthed moron.

David, you wrote the book. Do you think Armitage never heard the term Loose Lips Sink Ships? How does someone like this gossip with impunity?

These people have stood up and said, this is wrong, I'm not going to do this any more in the face of severe penalties. They are brave and heroic and they deserve our support.

These people are deserters, they weren't drafted, they joined the military of their own free will. When it was time to do there job they quit,( must be libs, when the going gets tough quit). I guess during Normandy our soldiers should have said, fuck this I'm not getting shot, no they did what they we're trained to do. Thats brave you dumb fuck. Figures a Norweigan telling us whats brave. Stick to ski jumping, thats about all you euro pusses are good at.

PS. How does it feel to be corn-holed Dave? A worthless book by a worthless partisan hack writer.

Source of C.I.A. Leak Admits Role, Lawyer Says

The Justice Department was quickly informed, and Mr. Armitage disclosed his talks with Mr. Novak in subsequent interviews with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, even before Mr. Fitzgerald's appointment.

The book quotes Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of the intelligence and research bureau at the State Department, as saying that Mr. Armitage had told him, "I may be the guy who caused this whole thing, and that he regretted having told the columnist more than he should have.

Mr. Grossman's memorandum did not mention that Ms. Wilson had undercover status.

Apart from Mr. Ford, as quoted in the book, the lawyer and colleagues of Mr. Armitage who discussed the case have spoken insisting on anonymity, apparently because Mr. Armitage was still not comfortable with the public acknowledgment of his role.

He was also the source for another journalist about Ms. Wilson, a reporter who did not write about her. The lawyers and associates said Mr. Armitage also told Bob Woodward, assistant managing editor of The Washington Post and a well-known author, of her identity in June 2003.

Mr. Woodward was a late player in the legal drama when he disclosed last November that he had the received the information and testified to a grand jury about it after learning that his source had disclosed the conversation to prosecutors.

More HERE

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

Anybody notice this interesting fact:

"Armitage disclosed [..] even before Mr. Fitzgerald's appointment."

Before Fitzgerald's appointment? HA!

That means Fitzgerald KNEW when Libby was lying from the get go. He knew who and how the leak was made, who confirmed it and which slugs were lying through their teeth.

It is all about the timing.

capt

The WSJ has spoken....Full Article!

Fess Up, Mr. Armitage
Time to put the Plame conspiracy to its final rest.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
The Wall Street Journal

From its very start, the ballyhooed case of who leaked the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak has been drenched in partisan politics and media hypocrisy. The more we learn, however, the more it also reveals about the internal dysfunction of the Bush Administration and the lack of loyalty among some of its most senior officials.

The latest news is that the Bush official who first disclosed Ms. Plame's identity was none other than former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. According to a new book by liberal journalists David Corn and Michael Isikoff, Mr. Armitage was Mr. Novak's primary source for his now famous column of July 14, 2003, that first publicly revealed Ms. Plame's CIA pedigree.

In other words, the leaker wasn't Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or anyone else in the White House who has been accused of running a conspiracy against Ms. Plame as revenge for her husband Joe Wilson's false accusations against the White House's case for war with Iraq. So what have the last three years been all about anyway? Political opportunism and internal score-settling, among other things.

Mr. Armitage, recall, was part of Colin Powell's team at State and well known as an internal Administration opponent of the "neo-cons" who supported the ouster of Saddam Hussein. The book alleges that Mr. Armitage knew as early as October 2003 that he was Mr. Novak's prime source, yet he kept quiet about it even as his colleagues in the Administration were dragged through years of criminal investigation and media accusations as the possible leaker. Even now Mr. Armitage hasn't admitted to being the leaker, though doing so would help to clarify several things about the case.
For starters, fessing up would put to rest the conspiracy theories once and for all. Bush opponents have continued to promote this myth, with Mr. Wilson writing in June 2004 that "the conspiracy to destroy us was most likely conceived--and carried out--within the office of the vice president of the United States." Not a word of that was true.

Mr. Novak hasn't himself confirmed that Mr. Armitage was his primary source, since Mr. Armitage hasn't yet given him leave to do so. But Mr. Novak has written that his source was not a "partisan gunslinger," and the columnist has also said that he himself put in the call to Mr. Rove to confirm what he'd first heard from his main source (presumably Mr. Armitage). The White House, in short, was not engaged in any campaign to "out" Ms. Plame.

All of this matters because it also casts doubt on the thoroughness and fairness of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's probe that began in December 2003. The prosecutor never did indict anyone for leaking Ms. Plame's name, though this was supposedly the act of "treason" that triggered the political clamor for a probe. Instead, he has indicted Mr. Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Mr. Fitzgerald has nonetheless also tried to spin an aura that Mr. Libby was responsible for outing Ms. Plame. In his press conference on October 28, 2005, the prosecutor asserted that "In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to [former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson." But we have since learned that Mr. Armitage also told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward about Ms. Plame--a fact that Mr. Fitzgerald never uncovered until Mr. Woodward came forward after he heard Mr. Fitzgerald make that false public assertion.

Strangely, Mr. Armitage never seems to have told Mr. Fitzgerald that he'd talked to Mr. Woodward. And Mr. Fitzgerald never seems to have asked to see Mr. Armitage's appointment calendar, which would have showed his meeting with Mr. Novak. It's all enough to make us wonder if Mr. Fitzgerald didn't buy into the liberal "conspiracy" theory of this case from the start and target the White House while giving Mr. Armitage a pass.

Meanwhile, according to the Corn-Isikoff book, Mr. Armitage never did tell the White House or his boss, the President, that he was the leaker. Instead, in October 2003 he told Mr. Powell, who told the State Department general counsel, who in turn told the Justice Department but gave the White House Counsel only the sketchiest overview of what he'd learned and didn't mention Mr. Armitage's name. So while Mr. Fitzgerald presumably knew when he began his probe two months later that Mr. Armitage was Mr. Novak's source, the President himself was apparently kept in the dark, even as he was pledging publicly to find out who the leaker was.

At a minimum, there appears to be a serious question of disloyalty here. By keeping silent, Messrs. Powell and Armitage let the President take political heat for the case, while also letting Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby and other White House officials twist in the wind for more than two years. We also know that it was the folks in Mr. Powell's shop--including his former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson and intelligence officer Carl Ford Jr.--who did so much to trash John Bolton's nomination to be Ambassador to the U.N. in 2005. The State Department clique that Mr. Bush tolerated for so long did tremendous damage to his Administration.

As for Justice, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the case in an act of political abdication. That left then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey in charge, and he also presumably knew about Mr. Armitage's role as the leaker who started it all. Yet if the book's account is correct, he too misled the White House with his silence. Mr. Comey is also the official who let Mr. Fitzgerald alter his mandate from its initial find-the-leaker charge to the obstruction and perjury raps against Mr. Libby that are all this case has come down to. Remind us never to get in a foxhole with either Mr. Comey or the Powell crowd.

There is more to be said at a future date about the specific case against Mr. Libby. But for now the Armitage news should concern one man in particular, and that's the President of the United States. How much differently would he have behaved had he known about Mr. Armitage's role in 2003? Would he have kept echoing the media-liberal spin that there was some nefarious White House leaker to discover, and continue to let the aides who most believed in his policies--Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove--be hounded by a special counsel? And why has he tolerated so much insubordination to his policies?
Someday we hope Mr. Bush will tell us. Meantime, as he absorbs the partisan and ultimately trivial truth of this case, why shouldn't he pardon Mr. Libby and put the entire sorry saga to rest?

Troll posts = Ad Hominem

What a waste of bandwidth.

capt

American Soldiers

2,965 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush and his lies.

#24
Hubris, the book, is far more fraudulent than the selling of the Iraq war or the CIA leak case.

---------
Have you read the book already?

David:

I hope you noticed that for the first time, your name was listed ahead of Isikoff's, twice I believe, in the Editorial piece by the WSJ!

Gee, David Corn is what again, too busy to respond to Hitchens juxtaposing what he said in July 2003:

'The Wilson smear was a thuggish act. Bush and his crew abused and misused intelligence to make their case for war. Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score. It is a sign that with this gang politics trumps national security.'

With what he and Isikoff are saying now:

'The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.'

Hitchens is exactly on target to point out:

'In the stylistic world where disclosures are gleaned and ironies underscored, the nullity of the prose obscures the fact that any irony here is only at the authors' expense.'

And, it obviously unanswerable. So Corn is just ducking.

#36
As I recall from the previous Corn posts Rove spoke to reporters BEFORE the article was published by Novak. So yes, Rove did leak the information to the other reporters. Now another issue is...what was Rove doing with the information? This question is two fold.
1. How did he have access to the information in the first place? He didn't have clearence.

2. What was his 'mission' when he went to Cooper and leaked the info? The mission was as far as I can tell to smear Joe Wilson and dilute his message. Now if the President believed it was ok to declassify the information that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent there needed to be a valid reason. Smearing her husband isn't valid.

This administration has absolutely no honor or understanding of the responsiblity that goes along with holding the highest office in the nation. The President is a disgrace. His white house is a disgrace.

#46 Happy, Hitchens is an opportunist. He was liberal during Clinton's term in office and now he is a conservative under Bush's term in office.

Clinton is no longer a great president. We must go on with our lives.

47 you're right! It's far more honest to refuse to testify under oath or allow any kind of documenting of your testimony then lie your ass off about everything while holding your VP's hand. Such integrity.
capt 80 failure is in the eye of the beholder. What we see as miserable failure they are taking to the bank, and laughing all the way.

I find it humorous that weak liberals can call people every name in the book, then have their tender sensibilities "shocked" when someone replies in kind.

This is why they sit in front of their computers all day, baying at the moon. They are afraid to engage in the real world, the give and take of ideas. And so they retreat to the "safe" world of the Internet.

Well, for Quislings and cowards and intellectual dwarfs, the Internet will no longer be a safe place. You will be challenged and condemned for the ideas you proffer.

Three wasted years

In fact, public support for the United States was a key factor in ousting the dictator's regime.

After the U.S. administration had achieved its major political objectives, it would have been prudent to wrap up its military presence in the region. The tasks of restructuring, rebuilding and redeveloping post-war Iraq could have been ceded to a third party like United Nations. If it had done so, the U.S. war on terrorism would now be regarded as more fair and internationally justifiable, and would now be confronting less opposition at home. In that event, the Rogue states would now be overestimating U.S. military capabilities and would not have become so destabilizing.

Great suggestion!!!

Feckless,

Right back at cha!

Now other than your OPINION, what have you got?

Anything?

capt

No Jeanne the previous residents of the White House we're the disgrace. Sandy Berger and the siutcase of Docs shoved down his pants, Your boys Bill and Al trading missle secrets for his library of disinformation, Hills fraudulent stock deals and cover-up of Vinces alledged suicide, total disregard for US security, Willies inability to try and stick his willy in anything that moves. Now thats a disgrace. Please let me hear the he lied and noone died bullshit. Bushs' problem was listening to the leftover Clinton rejects.

Gerald,
Once again, talking out of your gluteus maximus. Christopher Hitchens is still a liberal on every issue of the day (environment, redistribution of wealth, social justice, etc.) save the War on Terror.

Please get a clue, for a change.

Carnage continues in Bush's Iraq war

The carnage called President George W. Bush's war in Iraq continued Wednesday as insurgent bombing attacks across the devastated country targeted a market, an army recruiting center and a police patrol, killing at least 39 people and wounded dozens Wednesday, police said.

The deaths came as President Bush promised, once again, to "stay the course" in Iraq and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld called those who oppose the war supporters of fascism.

At least 24 people were killed when a roadside bomb went off at Baghdad's largest and oldest wholesale market district, said police Lts. Mohammed Khayoun and Bilal Ali Majid.

The Shurja commercial center, with its maze of streets and stalls, is usually teeming with vendors selling everything from satellite dishes to spices.

Thirty-five people were wounded in the attack.

In central Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad, a man posing as a potential army recruit detonated an explosives-rigged bicycle outside an army recruiting center, killing 12 people and wounding 28, said police Lt. Osama Ahmed.

Hillah was the site of one of the worst bomb attacks in Iraq, when a suicide car bomber in February 2005 killed 125 national guard and police recruits who were lined up to take physical tests.

In another incident in 2005, a bomb explosion killed 60 civilians who were lining up to apply for police jobs in the Kurdish city of Irbil in northern Iraq.

Insurgents have often targeted Iraqi army and police volunteers as they line up outside recruiting stations as a way to discourage people from joining the security services and keep the military and police weak.

In Wednesday's other attack, three police officers were killed and 14 people were injured when twin bombs —†including one planted in a car —†struck a police patrol as it drove by a line of vehicles waiting in a line for gas at a filling station in downtown Baghdad.

As death and carnage increased in Iraq, the Bush Administration stepped up its strident defense of the war. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the world faces "a new type of fascism" and warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement.

Rumsfeld alluded to critics of the Bush administration's war policies in terms associated with the failure to stop Nazism in the 1930s, "a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the Western democracies."

Citing Bush critics at home or abroad, he said "it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons." Aides to Rumsfeld said later he was not accusing the administration's critics of trying to appease the terrorists but was cautioning against a repeat of errors made in earlier eras.

Speaking to several thousand veterans at the American Legion's national convention, Rumsfeld said that as fascism and Nazism took hold in Europe, those who warned of a coming crisis were ridiculed or ignored. He quoted Winston Churchill as observing that trying to accommodate Hitler was "a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last."

"I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism," he said.

"Can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?" he asked.

"Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America —†not the enemy —†is the real source of the world's troubles?"

Rumsfeld spoke to the American Legion as part of a coordinated White House strategy, before the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, to take the offensive against administration critics at a time of doubt about the future of Iraq and growing calls to withdraw U.S. troops.

More HERE

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

Carnage continues - that is a fact.

See, facts not opinion, no name calling, no Ad Hominem.

(troll take notes you seem to have issues with the factual)

capt

#83
Capt,
I like that. It fits Bush to a tie. BU_SH_. Yep, that's Bush.

Five Morons

When the neocons launched the Bush administration’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and announced plans for invading Syria and Iran, I labeled Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice "the five Morons." With the passage of time I see that I over-estimated their mental capabilities.

In other words, Dr. Roberts, the five morons are actually functioning as idiots!

In terms of dumb, dumber, and dumbest, idiots are considered the dumbest of all people.

or to a tee.

We know . . .

it is still time to start killing large numbers of Islamo-Fascists.

Posted by: factchecker at August 30, 2006 08:22 AM
- - - - - - - - - -

The only problem with your plan is Islamo-Fascists don't fight in plain view and your policy is killing innocent muslims by the thousands. If you want to insure a long war with muslims, keep it up. They're tired of having their innocent wives and children murdered.

Jeanne 90, no doubt hundreds of thousands of innocents will lose their lives as a result of that fraud as well. What an idiot.

Frist lied to try and keep medical license active

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist admitted Tuesday the Tennessee Senator lied in an attempt to keep his medical license active by falsely claiming he had met all the requirements needed to keep his medical license active.

Frist, in paperwork submitted to the Tennessee Health Department, claimed he had met all the requirementseven though he gave paperwork to Tennessee officials indicating that he had.

The state of Tennessee requires its licensed physicians to complete 40 hours of continuing medical education every two years. Frist, a heart-lung surgeon who is considering a 2008 presidential run, submitted a license renewal with the Tennessee Health Department stating he has fulfilled that requirement.

Responding Tuesday to repeated requests from The Associated Press, a Frist spokesman said the Republican senator may not have done his continuing education after all, and had contacted the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners to see if corrective steps were necessary.

"As a result of a change in Tennessee's regulations several years after Dr. Frist came to the Senate, he may be required to complete additional continuing medical education hours," spokesman Matt Lehigh said in a statement. "A representative of the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners has been contacted, and Dr. Frist will meet every requirement of the Board."

Lehigh indicated that he thought Frist was unaware of a change Tennessee officials enacted in November 2002, which required continuing education for doctors who want to keep active licenses.

Starting with renewal applications filed in January 2005, the state required doctors to have completed 40 hours of continuing education in the two years that preceded their filing.

A renewal application Frist filed with the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners in February of this year specifically mentions the continuing education requirement and bears his signature.

Courses or programs are supposed to follow guidelines set by the American Medical Association or the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to Tennessee rules. Approved training generally includes attending accredited conferences or workshops and seminars.

Doctors in Tennessee are required to retain proof that they participated in such programs in case the Board of Medical Examiners decides to audit them. Doctors do not have to submit such evidence when they renew their license every two years.

Frist is retiring from the Senate at the end of the year to consider a presidential run. As a senator, Frist doesn't maintain a medical practice but routinely emphasizes his experience as a doctor.

Frist recently took blood-pressure tests on Iowans during a visit to the state that holds the first presidential caucuses. He also keeps the letters "MD" next to his name on his Senate office door and has been known to keep a doctor's bag and lab coat on hand on the campaign trail or in his Capitol Hill office.

Those sometimes come in handy. First has aided accident victims and sick tourists and also has gone on medical missions to Africa.

He was widely criticized last year for injecting himself into the debate over Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose feeding tube was removed. Frist viewed a videotape of the woman, then publicly questioned the diagnosis of her doctors. An autopsy later confirmed their judgment, not his.

Tennessee law states that doctors who fail to do their continuing medical education "will be subject to disciplinary action."

Dan Warlick, a Nashville lawyer who represents doctors in trouble with the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners, said a case such as Frist's would likely be taken seriously.

"They have been routinely revoking licenses for physicians who have misrepresented to the board what they have done," Warlick said.

"Medicine changes," Warlick added. "If you're telling them you're keeping up, and you're not, that would be a very significant problem for the board to have to deal with."

Lehigh said in a statement that Frist independently keeps abreast of medical developments.

"Dr. Frist regularly speaks with physicians on the cutting edge of medical research, reads numerous medical journal articles and attends medical meetings," Lehigh said.

More HERE

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

Frist lied - that is a fact.

See, facts not opinion, no name calling, no Ad Hominem.

It is not that hard. Just quit the pathetic name-calling and invective, useless insults because nobody care what your opinion is, here we care more for facts. You know those pesky little critters you avoid because they conflict with your beliefs and opinions. In the abstract facts are scary but you will embrace the truth and that is a fact, try it? (come on just once - post a fact)

capt

If Hitchens is still a liberal, let us know the facts through his words and articles that he may have written that backs up Hitchens' liberal stance.

Hitchens is A SLIMEBALL AND A SCUMBAG.

#99
You forgot the links that back all that information up.

Jeanne, I want to clarify, I didn't mean YOU are an idiot, but the idiot that posted that comment is an idiot :-)

The Five Morons Revisited

[..]

Now I get it. When Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilley assured us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that would be used against us if we didn’t strike first, they were being manipulated by Osama bin Laden, who used America to get rid of the secular Saddam Hussein and to create a new training and recruitment ground for al Qaeda and fundamentalist fanatics.

When the New York Times let Judith Miller serve as a propagandist for war with Iraq, the Times was being manipulated by Muslim terrorists, not by neocons.

When CNN, the networks and columnists like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin reassure us that we will win the war unless we pull out prematurely, they are being manipulated by terrorists. Finally I understand what the Weekly Standard, National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, AEI, and the online site Frontpage are all about.

The terrorists are so clever at manipulation that Americans cannot perceive that we have been sucked deep into a war that is creating the Islamic fundamentalism that we so desperately fear.

Obviously, I misjudged Rumsfeld’s intelligence. Anyone who can figure out the Muslim conspiracy is off the charts. What I can’t figure is why Rumsfeld is willing for America to continue to be sucked in. Don’t tell me that terrorists are manipulating Rumsfeld, too!

More HERE

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

This one is a little more complicated. It has facts and opinion in the same article. Can you tell which parts are fact and which parts are opinion?

Paul Craig Roberts is a conservative not a neocon. That might make it easier to understand why you have such a hard time with his insights. (call it an assist)

capt

Bushs' problem was listening to the leftover Clinton rejects.
Posted by: Euro trash at August 30, 2006 10:41 AM

Like Richard Clarke who Bush wouldn't meet with, who provided national security advice to three other U.S. presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton , consulting on issues of intelligence and terrorism, for 30 years. And then there was that little thing called 9/11. Oops.

Rove, Libby, Fleisher, Armitage, etc. "allegedly" leaked Plame's identity. They have all "allegedly" taken part in undermining our National Security.

"When a firing squad is assembled to execute someone who cares whose bullet hit first?"

They would all look good (the Bush administration) in orange and white striped jail clothing, or dropped down in the middle of Baghdad. (A New Reality show). This show would make millions maybe billions of dollars. People around the world would watch.

Hitchens lives in the "state of denial" (along with Bush) in his personal and professional life. People in denial are very very dangerous to themselves and all living creatures around them.

74
Some contemptible soul is so envious of the real Happy, a conservative, that he has usurped his name. Of course, some liberals have no original ideas. All they can do is mimic and parrot the nomme de plume of others.

Posted by: factchecker at August 30, 2006 08:18 AM
=============================================
factchecker, other fellow Conservative Regulars David, non-posting regular Readers and my spoofer `Happy':

As the most spoofed name on the Corn blog this year, I'll share some thoughts on this phenomenon. At first, it did annoy/bother me, as Regular posters know. Guess what? I've `grown' and adapted; life traits I've been blessed with to have achieved above-average success in all life endeavors.

Spoofing IS an interesting & complicated blog phenomenon! I believe it reveals/represents many personal/psychological traits of the spoofer; none are positive.

What kind of person would resort to this subterfuge and repress/hide-from his own identity? Is this type of a person you would look up to or want on your team for serious above-board work?
(I know who the the current dimwit Happy is, he m