Force, check. Wimpering, check.Whew! I feel so much better.
Thanks, Doc. Check's in the mail.
You've probably all heard by now that the "Global War on Terror" is now the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism."
Are we now in a declared state of national struggle?
Have we switched to a struggletime footing?
Will there be a new series of special presidential struggle powers?
Will the detainees at GITMO be granted prisoner of struggle status?
Will the Treasure department issue struggle bonds?
Is there such a thing as The International Law of Armed Struggle?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The State Department reversed itself on Thursday night and acknowledged that President Bush's U.N. ambassador nominee gave Congress inaccurate information about an investigation he was involved in.
The acknowledgment came after the State Department had earlier insisted nominee John Bolton's "answer was truthful" when he said he had not been questioned or provided information to jury or government investigations in the past five years.
"When Mr. Bolton completed his form during the Senate confirmation process he did not recall being interviewed by the State Department inspector general. Therefore his form as submitted was inaccurate in this regard and he will correct the form," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, confirmed that the Senate would not act on Bolton's nomination in the remaining hours before the recess, "and therefore we will address it after the recess."
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State Washington, DC 20520
Dear Madam Secretary:
It has just come to my attention that then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton was interviewed on July 18, 2003 by the State Department Office of the Inspector General in connection with a joint State Department/CIA IG investigation related to the alleged Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Niger. This information would appear to be inconsistent with information that Mr. Bolton provided to the Committee on Foreign Relations during the Committee's consideration ofms pending nomination to be Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
The Committee on Foreign Relations expects all nominees to provide to it accurate and timely information. Indeed, in submitting the Committee's questionnaire, all nominees are required to swear out an affidavit stating that the information provided is "true and accurate."
Q Scott, last night on the Tonight Show, Jay Leno, who apparently is subbing for Johnnie, displayed a video of the President at the Capitol yesterday. In that video, the President walking away from the press lifts his hand and raises a finger. Mr. Leno interpreted it as, shall we say, a finger of hostility. Each of our fingers has a special purpose and meaning in life. (Laughter.) Can you tell us what finger it was he held up?
MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I'm not even going to dignify that with much of a response. But if someone is misportraying something, that's unfortunate.
Q Well, it was not a finger of hostility?
MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I was there with him, and I'm just not going to -- I'm not going to dignify that with a response. I mean, I haven't seen the video that you're talking about, but I know the way the President acts. And if someone is misportraying it, that's unfortunate.
Q Has Karl Rove offered to resign, in view of his problems?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you keep asking these questions that are related to an ongoing investigation --
Q Does he still have his security clearance?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and those are questions that have already been addressed.
Q No, they -- I've never heard this before. Have you?
MR. McCLELLAN: The question has been asked before.
Q We haven't heard an answer.
Q What was your answer?
Q There hasn't been an answer.
Q Scott, why is it that you continue to cushion John Roberts' work during the Reagan administration --
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't cushion John Roberts -- oh, wait, Judge Roberts, okay, sorry. (Laughter.)
Q You continue to say, he was young. You've used those words consecutively for a couple of days. Are you aware of something that is getting ready to come out in the 65,000 documents from the Reagan era that will make this administration say, well, that was when he was young and he has now changed his mind, because there's a major --
MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, let me address that -- let me address that very quickly: No. (Laughter.)
Q Well, why do you continue to preface, he was young, then? Why do you continue to say that, because you lead us to believe that --
MR. McCLELLAN: Because I'm stating a fact.
Q Don't be smart about it. I'm looking for a serious answer.
MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, go ahead.
Q No, no, no, I'm looking for a serious answer, not anything just off the cuff. I want to know why you continue to say this man was young. We don't know anything about his philosophy, and it seems that you are trying to preface this now, so when this happens --
MR. McCLELLAN: At the period of the early '80s?
Q This administration must know something that is coming out to preface us, to get us to understand this was when he was young, and he may have changed his mind.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, not all.
Q What are you aware of? Is it about abortion, Roe v. Wade?
MR. McCLELLAN: Not at all, April.
Q This is a profound discussion of the separation of powers in this dialogue today. To what extent is the administration's position in the context of Judge Roberts consistent with the executive privilege law as it stands, post-U.S. v. Nixon?
MR. McCLELLAN: Post U.S. v. Nixon?
Q In 1974, the tapes, and so forth.
MR. McCLELLAN: Haven't really thought about it.
Q Could you look into that for us?
MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't even thought about it.
In a sick way, the end of Roe v. Wade may turn out to be a net positive for America. For one thing, Roe was a legally dubious decision based on flawed constitutional logic. Rather than pass abortion rights into law, 14 cowardly congresses and seven weasely presidents have relied on the 1973 ruling to avoid taking political fire from the Bible-thumpers.On Treasongate:
Besides, a party-line overturning of Roe would validate years of liberal prophecies that the right plans to take away our freedoms. Every news story about a cheerleader bleeding to death in an Alabama high school locker room will remind Americans, especially the women who make up an increasing share of the swing vote, that the fundamentalist Christianists are happy to replace the necessary evil of legalized abortion with the optional horror of despair.
As things stand, Treasongate isn't going away. Now it's about Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's right-hand man and apparently the primary source for the Plame leak for which Rove served as confirmation. If prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald nails Libby, Cheney--who must have approved the betrayal of Plame--could become his next target.
Q We're approaching the four-year anniversary of 9/11. And right after 9/11 the President said he wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive. Do you consider it a failure by either the military or the intelligence that four years later Osama bin Laden is not only on the loose, but is still being tied to terrorist activities extending into Spain, Egypt, Iraq and England?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, I don't think you're trying to draw conclusions about who exactly is responsible for those attacks. Those investigations are continuing, and I don't think they're -- we're in position to draw final conclusions about who exactly is responsible for those attacks, and what people in other parts of the world -- what role they may or may not have had.
In terms of Osama bin Laden, he is someone that is on the run. We have made significant progress in dismantling the al Qaeda network. We continue to pursue him. He will be brought to justice. We have brought to justice a number of his leaders, and that has been an important success in our efforts to better protect the American people and to prevent attacks from happening in the first place. We have learned a lot of valuable information from some of the leaders that we have gone after and captured to help us disrupt attacks or prevent attacks from happening in the first place.
But there has been significant progress. The war on terrorism is broader than any one person. But he is someone we continue to pursue, and he will brought to justice. And you have to look at the overall progress that we've made in the war on terrorism. We've made substantial progress to prevail in the war on terrorism.
But this is a long-term ideological struggle. We are up against a group of people who have no regard for human life. They seek to spread an ideology that is based on hatred and based on fear and chaos and violence. They seek to dominate a part of the world and dominate people of a certain religious background. But they don't represent any religion; they represent a hateful ideology that will be defeated as we work to spread freedom and democracy.
The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence could hold hearings on the use of espionage cover soon after the U.S. Congress returns from its August recess, said Roberts spokeswoman Sarah Little.
Little said the Senate committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years.
Q Yes, thank you. There has been a lot of speculation concerning the meaning of the underlying statute and the grand jury investigation concerning Mr. Rove. The question is, have the legal counsel to the White House or White House staff reviewed the statute in sufficient specificity to determine whether a violation of that statute would, in effect, constitute treason?
Today's Press Briefing with White House Press Briefing has concluded. Video from the Press Briefing will be available on the web site shortly.
And here’s the best part… we’ll take all the pro-American artwork submitted to us, along with your notes to the troops and we will send them overseas to the men & women serving in Iraq & Afghanistan the following week along with shipments of coffee & cookies!
FLASH: SENATOR, DEMS PLAN PRESS CONFERENCE OVER GONZALES' ROLE IN LEAK CASE: 330PM...
The size and impact of this deception defies imagination. And yet, it looks more and more like there was hardly a key figure in the Bush administration who wasn't in on it.
"I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearance I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment..."
Stephanopoulos: Do you believe that this agreement should be abided by?
McCain: I do, but that also implies that someone knowingly revealed...
Stephanopoulos: This covers negligent disclosures
McCain: Again I don't know what the definition of "negligent" is.
Bush Administration Files 11th Hour Papers Blocking the Release of Darby CD Photos and Video Of Abu Ghraib Torture
The work done by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby on the Tenet statement during this intense period has not been previously disclosed. People who have been briefed on the case discussed this critical time period and the events surrounding it to demonstrate that Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby were not involved in an orchestrated scheme to discredit Mr. Wilson or disclose the undercover status of his wife, Valerie Wilson, but were intent on clarifying the use of intelligence in the president's address. Those people who have been briefed requested anonymity because prosecutors have asked them not to discuss matters under investigation.So many villians... Ari...Hughes.... and one who's monumentally fucked:
The special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has been examining this period of time to determine whether the officials' work on the Tenet statement led in some way to the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity to Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist, according to the people who have been briefed.
The effort was striking because to an unusual degree, the circle of officials involved included those from the White House's political and national security operations, which are often separately run. Both arms were drawn into the effort to defend the administration during the period.
In addition to ferreting out the original leak, the grand jury is examining the truthfulness of its witnesses, comparing each account with previous testimony. One apparent area of interest is the conflicting accounts given by Mr. Rove and Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine correspondent who has said he spoke to Mr. Rove about Ms. Wilson, about why they spoke on July 11, 2003.It's July. Fitz has till October to put up. How wide a net is he casting?
Mr. Rove, according to a source familiar with his testimony, told prosecutors that the conversation began under the pretext of discussing welfare reform.
But Mr. Cooper said he had no record or memory of actually talking to Mr. Rove about welfare reform, instead only discussing the Wilson case in their brief chat. The grand jury focused on that apparent discrepancy, Mr. Cooper wrote in an account in Time this week.
WHEN: 10:00 AM, Friday, July 22, 2005 - (Tomorrow morning)
WHERE: Room 138 - Dirksen Senate Office Building, United States Senate, Washington, D.C.
July 22 (Bloomberg) — Two top White House aides have given accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to persons familiar with the case.
Lewis “Scooter'’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson. Novak, according to a source familiar with the matter, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor.
These discrepancies may be important because one issue Fitzgerald is investigating is whether Libby, Rove, or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation.
MONTREAL (CP) - The United States will face tough competition from Canada on Friday but this time it has nothing to do with hockey or softwood lumber.
The two countries are going head-to-head for top honours at the World Stupidity Awards, where doofuses get their due.
Bush dominated last year's awards, taking the stupidest man prize and the award for reckless endangerment of the planet. Nerenberg admitted the organizers do limit the number of categories featuring the controversial Texan.
"He would essentially be nominated in every category had we not interfered," Nerenberg said. "We want to give other people a chance. We just feel some of the other great stupidity in the world would go unrecognized if Mr. Bush was allowed to run rampant. But he is doing very well."
Besides Bush and Kuchma, contenders for stupidest man include U.S. Senator John Kerry, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and Players Association director Bob Goodenow (shared) and Conservative columnist Ann Coulter.
"Initially, we were confused but as some people pointed out, if you read what Miss Coulter writes about without looking at her picture, she sounds like the classic bigoted male," Nerenberg said.
Is it right to be alarmed that I (and the bulk of my friends and family) am more intelligent than the Leader of the Free World?
It is my personal preference to be led by people who are, shall we say, my intellectual superiors. So you can imagine my continuing dismay. I am dismayed that my President speaks in cowboys-and-indians terms about soldiers killing and being killed, and smirks while he does so. I am dismayed that he attempts to deny and spin videotaped statements he made about firing dishonest staff members. I am dismayed that half the country is NOT dismayed! How can he be fooling any American with a brain?
"Is it true that Karl Rove was the first person to leak John Roberts' nomination to the press yesterday?"heh. I wonder...can a White House Press Secretary perform his duties without the respect of his peers? And if so, for how long? Me thinks Scotty may be itichin' to spend more time with his family, real soon.
The Defense Department quietly asked Congress on Monday to raise the maximum age for military recruits to 42 for all branches of the service.Widening the net....
A column penned by the doyenne of right-wing rhetoric Ann Coulter has come under fire for alleged plagiarism, RAW STORY has learned.
Much of Coulter's Jun. 29, 2005 column, “Thou Shall Not Commit Religion,” bears a striking resemblance to pieces in magazines dating as far back as 1985—and a column written for the Boston Globe in 1995.
A RAW STORY examination found Coulter's work to be at worst plagiarism and at best a cut-and-paste repetition of points authored by conservative religious groups in the early 1990s.
My colleague John Gibson thinks Rove was heroic in exposing the political agenda of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who wrote an article slamming the Bush administration's pre-Iraq War strategy.
Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, had ties to the Democrats, which Rove wanted exposed.
Now Gibson's a smart guy, but I disagree with him on this. Karl Rove wasn't doing anything heroic when he dished to reporters about Wilson. He was protecting his boss, President Bush.
White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed CIA officer Valerie Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper during Rove’s first interview with the FBI, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
The omission by Rove created doubt for federal investigators, almost from the inception of their criminal probe into who leaked Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak, as to whether Rove was withholding crucial information from them, and perhaps even misleading or lying to them, the sources said.
The document was prepared in June 2003 at the direction of Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research, for Marc Grossman, the retired official said. Grossman was the Undersecretary of State who was in charge of the department while Secretary Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, were traveling. Grossman needed the memo because he was dealing with other issues and was not familiar with the subject, the former official said.
"It wasn't a Wilson-Wilson wife memo," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way. "It was a memo on uranium in Niger and focused principally on our disagreement" with the White House.
Armitage called Ford after Wilson's op-ed piece in The New York Times and his TV appearance on July 6, 2003 in which he challenged the White House's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger.
Armitage asked that Powell, who was traveling to Africa with Bush, be given an account of the Wilson trip, said the former official.
The former State Department official stressed the memo focused on Wilson's trip and the State Department intelligence bureau's disagreement with the White House's claim about Iraq trying to get nuclear material. He said the fact that the CIA officer and Wilson were husband and wife was largely an incidental reference.
The June 2003 memo had not gone higher than Grossman until Wilson's op-ed column for The New York Times headlined "What I Didn't Find In Africa" and his TV appearance to dispute the administration. Wilson's article asked the question: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion?"
I was informed of this fact by Rush Limbaugh. And Thomas Sowell.
And Ann Coulter. And Rich Lowry. And Bill O'Reilly. And William Safire.
And Robert Novak. And William F. Buckley, Jr. And George Will.
And John Gibson. And Michelle Malkin. And David Brooks. And Tony Snow.
And Tony Blankely. And Fred Barnes. And Britt Hume. And Larry Kudlow.
And Sean Hannity. And David Horowitz. And William Kristol. And Hugh Hewitt.
And Oliver North. And Joe Scarborough. And Pat Buchanan. And John McLaughlin.
And Cal Thomas. And Joe Klein. And James Kilpatrick. And Tucker Carlson.
And Deroy Murdock. And Michael Savage. And Charles Krauthammer.
And Stephen Moore. And Alan Keyes. And Gary Bauer. And Mort Kondracke.
And Andrew Sullivan. And Nicholas von Hoffman. And Neil Cavuto.
And Matt Drudge. And Mike Rosen. And Dave Kopel. And John Caldara.
In a Jan. 9, 2004 interview, Mr. Cheney referred to a story that appeared in The Weekly Standard's November 24, 2003 issue that discussed a Defense Department memo which included a list of CIA, NSA and Defense Intelligence Agency raw reports regarding possible links between Al Queda and Iraq.
Mr. Cheney, responding to a question regarding the relationship between Iraq and Al Queda, called the Standard's story "the best information out there." Mr. Cheney’s comments conflicted with the Pentagon's November 15, 2003 press release stating that news reports that characterized the contents of the memo were "inaccurate" and excoriated the leak as "deplorable and maybe illegal." The Pentagon also stated that leaking such information does "serious harm to national security."
"Mr. Cheney's reference to classified information and Mr. Rove’s confirmation of Ms. Plame’s identity, accompanied by the ensuing silence from the White House, shows a distinct pattern: leaking classified information that the administration deems beneficial, without any consequences for those who disclose, is standard operating procedure," Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of CREW said today.
Prosecutors in the C.I.A. leak case have shown intense interest in a 2003 State Department memorandum that explained how a former diplomat came to be dispatched on an intelligence-gathering mission and the role of his wife, a C.I.A. officer, in the trip, people who have been officially briefed on the case said.
The memo was sent to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, just before or as he traveled with President Bush and other senior officials to Africa starting on July 7, 2003, when the White House was scrambling to defend itself from a blast of criticism a few days earlier from the former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, current and former government officials said.
The information contained in the State Department memo generally tracked the information Mr. Novak laid out for Mr. Rove in their conversation about the matter, according to the account of their exchange provided by the person briefed on what Mr. Rove has told investigators.
But it appears to differ in at least one way, raising questions about whether it was the original source of the material that ultimately made its way to Mr. Novak. In his July 14, 2003, column, Mr. Novak referred to Ms. Wilson as Valerie Plame. The State Department memo referred to her as Valerie Wilson, according to the government official who reread the memo on Friday.
After mentioning a CIA operative to a reporter, Bush confidant Karl Rove alerted the president's No. 2 security adviser about the interview and said he tried to steer the journalist away from allegations the operative's husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence. The July 11, 2003, e-mail between Rove and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is the first showing an intelligence official knew Rove had talked to Matthew Cooper just days before the Time magazine reporter divulged CIA officer Valerie Plame's secret identity.
The coverage underscores the secrecy surrounding Fitzgerald's grand-jury investigation. The few leaks that constitute public knowledge of the investigation's progress have largely come from one side: the defense attorneys'. And what they have to say is oftentimes self-serving, misleading, and in some cases untrue. Their all-too-willing collaborators have been the nation's leading newspapers.
In the meantime, however, what has propelled the investigation -- and led to the extraordinary jailing of the Times’ Judith Miller -- has been the strong belief by federal investigators that Rove, Novak, and others may have misled them and the public, and that one or more of the participants may have devised a cover story with others to avoid public or legal culpability.
Q Will Karl come back and talk to us at the event?Flip flop! Flip flop!
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't expect that today.
Q Why not?
MR. McCLELLAN: I just don't -- there's no plans for him to do that.
Q How long is he going to stay on the staff?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I expressed the President's views yesterday, when it comes to Karl.
Q Remind me, how long is he going to stay on the staff?
Q Does the President believe it's appropriate for the RNC to continue to weigh in on this matter? They put out another memo today, with a top-10 Joseph Wilson lies. If indeed it's an ongoing investigation and it's improper for the White House to discuss it, does he think it's proper for the Republican Party to weigh in on it?
MR. McCLELLAN: You know, Geoff, I appreciate the question, and as you heard me say yesterday, we are not going to prejudge the outcome of the investigation based
on media reports. And I'm not going to get into --
Q What about the RNC, though, Scott?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said, I'm not going to get into discussing matters relating to an ongoing investigation. We'll let the investigation come to a conclusion, and then I'll be more than happy to talk about it, as will the President.
Q Does the President -- did he yesterday get his --
MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm telling you is that those are all questions relating to an ongoing investigation.
Q Did the President get his news yesterday about Justice Rehnquist's health from media reports?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Andy Card and I did, and Andy Card and I informed the President in the Oval Office yesterday, shortly after the news reports came out. I think that that was the case previously, when the Chief Justice went into the hospital, we didn't have any advance notification either.
Q So why is it acceptable for him to base his information about the Chief Justice's health on news reports, but not about an investigation within the West Wing? What's the distinction there?
White House officials told The Washington Post they fear someone in the Bush administration may be indicted regarding the leak of a covert CIA operative's name.Christmas is coming early.
The Post report Thursday did not name its sources, saying "officials acknowledged privately" that an indictment naming a member of the administration could come this year.
"I think he should resign," said Jim Holt, a GOP state senator from Arkansas who is running for lieutenant governor. He joked, "I hope Karl Rove doesn't come gunning for me."
ATTENTION TRUE PATRIOTS: Once again, the hateful Democratic attack machine has shifted into high gear, intent on abusing facts and iron-clad evidence to turn Americans against beloved Presidential pal and über-patriot, Karl Rove. You can do your part to soften the trauma of this travesty by sending Karl a personalized e-mail of support and understanding. Simply click the link below to tell Karl how you're positive that he's INNOCENT – and even if he had, say, determined that compromising our nation's security by outing some globe-trotting bitch in a power suit whose farts stink like foie gras and martinis just to even a petty score, well then good on him, buster!Not sure DWD is with the program:
Here's an idea for support: take your middle finger. Shove it all the way up your asshole. Spin madly.
From: Howard Dean
Subject: I agree with George Bush
Dear Fellow Democrat,
Politics drove someone in the White House to do a treacherous, potentially criminal thing: a senior administration official leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative. They endangered the agent's life and compromised our national security in a time of war.
Here's what former president George H.W. Bush said about that kind of crime: "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." That's from a speech on April 26, 1999.
I agree. But as it became clear this week that Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove is a subject of the criminal investigation into the leak, the second Bush administration has gone silent. And its operatives have launched a cover-up and smear campaign against anyone raising questions.
This is bigger than politics -- every American should agree that this administration needs to come clean immediately about this leak, and any White House official's role in it. The only way to pressure this administration is to show that Americans will not tolerate this -- and that every American regardless of party will unite and publicly demand that they come clean:
We will publish comments from Republicans, Democrats and independents across the country -- demonstrating that our party won't play politics with this, but keeping the pressure on this administration to do the right thing. And we will do it until they come clean.
When former President Bush made the remarks above, he wasn't speaking as a Republican. He wasn't even speaking as a former president -- he was speaking as a former CIA director who understands the sacrifice of our covert operatives and the danger of their work.
What happened here is even worse than what former President Bush describes. That's because the leak was not an accident -- it was part of a campaign to try to discredit anyone, including those inside the CIA, who questioned the administration's claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Other former CIA officials agree. Three former operatives (who are also registered Republicans) gave this joint statement in testimony on October 24, 2003: "This has set a sickening precedent. The 'senior Administration officials' who did this have warned all U.S. intelligence officers and the Intelligence Community that any one individual may be compromised if providing information or factual analysis the White House does not like."
This is a serious situation -- it goes to the heart of our national security, and what kind of standards we have for those entrusted with secret and potentially dangerous information. Forward this message to everyone you know -- Republican, Democrat, independent -- and ask them to add their name to the list of Americans demanding this administration come clean:
You don't have to be a former intelligence official to understand the implications of this crime.
Here's what former Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie had to say on 'Hardball' on September 30, 2003: "I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime." Asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews if it would be worse than Watergate, he said, "Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it. It's not just politics."
George W. Bush said when this leak became public that he "welcomed the investigation" and called the leak a "criminal action." He pledged that anyone found to be the source would be "taken care of".
But the New York Times reported that when asked yesterday if he would fire Karl Rove, the question was met with a "stony silence".
Will George W. Bush keep his word and demand that everyone in his administration uphold the trust of their office? This is his chance to rise above politics and do the right thing for our security and for our country.
Our party will rise above politics by asking all Americans, regardless of party, to publicly ask the administration to come clean about this serious situation:
Please get this message out to as many people as possible. Americans of all political persuasions should agree that we need to get the truth -- and take responsibility for publicly demanding it.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Chairman, Democratic National Committee
Q I'm going to go to another question, somewhat on the same subject, but a different vein. Let's talk about the Wilson family. Is there any regret from this White House about the effects of this leak on this family?
MR. McCLELLAN: We can continue to go round and round on all these --
Q No, no, no, no. This has nothing to do with the investigation. This is about the leak and the effects on this family. I mean, granted there are partisan politics being played, but let's talk about the leak that came from the White House that affected a family.
MR. McCLELLAN: And let me just say again that anything relating to an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to get into discussing. I've said that the past couple of days.
Q This is not -- this is about -- this is a personal -- this is not about the -- I mean about the investigation. This is about the personal business of this family, an American family, a taxpaying family, a family that works for the government of the United States. And the executive branch -- someone in the executive branch let this family down in some kind of way, shape, or form. Is there any regret from the White House that this family was affected by the leak?
MR. McCLELLAN: It doesn't change what I just said.
Q Well, the President has never been restrained at staying right in the lines of a question, as you know. (Laughter.) He kind of -- he says whatever he wants. And if he had wanted to express confidence in Karl Rove, he could have. Why didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: He expressed it yesterday through me, and I just expressed it again.
Q Well, why doesn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: He was not asked that specific question, Terry. You know that very well. The questions he were asked -- he was asked about were relating to an ongoing investigation.
Q But, Scott, he defended Al Gonzales without even being asked --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll come to you in a second. I'll come to you in a second. Go ahead.
Q Yes, he defended Al Gonzales without ever being asked. (Laughter.) Ed brings up a good point. Didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think he was asked about the Attorney General.
Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?
I gotta tell you, Kossacks, this kind of effort bears all the hallmarks of my former boss back in the days in Kyrgyzstan, Matthew Freedman. Backchannel sources say Matthew, always the man in black at the back of the room, is most discomfited by the loss of his six-figure-a-year suck on the Uncle Sam sugar-tit -- a four-year consulting contract he owed solely to the beneficence of his long-time asshole buddy Crazy Von Mustache.
Watch for Matthew to keep spinning more observations that Bolton is now ready to accept a recess appointment - crossing his greedy, grubby little fingers all the while.
Matthew Freedman will definitely be spinning like hell to keep Bolton's nomination --and his consulting prospects -- alive over the coming weeks.
President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond.I'll bet he frowned. I'll bet he smirked. I'll bet he looked like a complete moron sitting there and saying nothing while the cameras clicked away. I'll bet he looked like he did on September 11th in that classroom in Florida: lost.
McClellan refused even to say who Karl Rove was. But it wasn't just Rove that McClellan wouldn't discuss Monday. Scott McClellan wouldn't say much about Scott McClellan, either -- including, for instance, whether Scott McClellan himself has consulted with an attorney about the Plame case.
McClellan's reluctance to talk is understandable. Back in the fall of 2003, McClellan made it as clear as he possibly could that Karl Rove wasn't involved in the outing of Valerie Plame; he called the allegation "ridiculous" and said that there was "simply no truth" to it. As we know now, there's a lot of truth to the allegation and not so much truth to McClellan's denials. But is McClellan's sudden refusal to talk about the Plame case driven by something more than Rove's legal problems and McClellan's own embarrassment? Maybe.
...is Rove guilty of obstructing justice? Is McClellan guilty of conspiring with him to do so? We've got more questions than answers on this front for now. Did Rove lie to McClellan when he said he wasn't involved in the Plame leak, or did McClellan lie to the press about what Rove told him? Was the Justice Department conducting a criminal investigation into the Plame leak at the time Rove spoke to McClellan? Could Rove have anticipated that McClellan would be appearing before a federal grand jury in the Plame case? Did Rove tell other potential grand jury witnesses that he wasn't involved in the Plame leak? Did McClellan spread the story about Rove only at White House press briefings, or did he share it with other potential grand jury witnesses in the administration? And when McClellan himself appeared before the grand jury on Feb. 6, 2004, what did he say there? Did he say that the Rove allegation was "ridiculous" when he was testifying under oath? Did he tell the grand jury that Rove had told him that he wasn't involved in the leak?
Those are the kinds of questions that McClellan and Rove and any other White House officials involved in the Plame story might want to be discussing with a lawyer just about now.
Now that we know that Rove told Cooper about "Wilson's wife," who told Rove? Rove had to find out about Plame and her job from someone. Where did this information come from?
Who in the Bush Administration told Judith Miller about Plame? The information cannot have come from Rove, since Rove has "released" Cooper from confidentiality. If Rove were Miller's source, wouldn't he do the same for her? So who was Miller-a reporter working on WMDs-talking to?
Did Rove commit perjury in front of the grand jury? We know his initial public statements and his statements to Scott McClellan were false. And we know that after testifying once, they called him back. Did Rove change his answers to the grand jury the same way he changed his answers to the press?
MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.
QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.
You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?
MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.
QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...
... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.
Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.
First question out of the box -- does the President stand by his pledge to fire the leaker?
Answer - no comment. That's always been our policy, not to comment.
Second Question (John Roberts, CBS) - Points out the contradiction that McClellan and Bush have both commented on the issue in the past during the ongoing investigation.
Answer - rambling no comment
Third question - Did Rove commit a crime?
"It was important to state what we consider to be a statement of fact that the United States considers North Korea a sovereign state -- after all, the North Koreans are members of the UN and (have) held negotiations along with other sovereign states," she said.Pssssssst. Condi. Yeah, over here. Um....didn't Donald Rumsfeld hold negotiations with Sadaam a while back? Yes, yes he did. Why I remember that infamous picture of the two men smiling, shaking hands. Don't you? And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Iraq a sovereign state too?
Forget for a moment that Sarasota, Florida is about 860 miles from Washington, DC, roughly twice the distance that Gleneagles, Scotland is from London. Forget for a moment that after the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, President Bush continued to read to schoolchildren until he was taken on a multi-state flight around the United States, while Tony Blair yesterday rushed back to London to assure his nation before rushing back to Scotland to assure that the work of the G-8 Summit would be accomplished. Forget that Bush's first words to America on 9/11 were to thank the school children, declare it a tragedy, and offer a moment of prayer, while Tony Blair, before leaving for London, spoke to the UK about terrorism, resolve and the world. Forget that Bush's speech to the nation that fucked-up day was given by a man looking like a deer in headlights, including a reassurance that capitalism was fine and a Bible quote, while last night in England, Blair gave a speech that's been described as Churchill-like in its rallying call and was also compassionate towards Muslims.Come what may.
Forget all that. And think about Tony Blair for just one moment: dicked over time and again by George Bush and the United States on every world issue except for the war in Iraq. Think about the Prime Minister, coming back to London from that fine resort in Scotland, ready to hear about and talk about carnage. And let us think that, for a moment, he may have wondered if he's been played for a sucker by the neocon right and the White House. As the death toll rises, perhaps a thoughtful man, which we here in the U.S. with our thoughtless leaders often hope Blair is (in the same way we thought Colin Powell was an honest man), couldn't be blamed for second-guessing himself. Oh, no, he can't show it. But perhaps, in his sickened heart of hearts, as the police try to dig out the shattered corpses from the tunnels, Blair knows, fucking knows he's walked down the garden path with the very man who would put a bullet in the back of his skull if such an act would benefit the powerful in the United States, that he's tossed his chips onto a table filled with cheaters. Sure, he tried to bluff with sexed up documents and lies of his own, but he had no idea who he was dealing with.
In the end, Blair knows that once you've tossed in your ante, there's no gettin' out until the pot is played.
Q Was there any discussion of Iraq in the context of what happened yesterday, as far as you know?Um, Scottie, about that disconnect from reality.... The "Nothing to see here, move along" meme is really, really, REALLY getting old.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Was there any discussion of Iraq, in the context of events?
MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. Obviously, Iraq was part of the discussions at the G8 summit.
Q What's Ed Gillespie's job going to be, exactly?Awww, Ed's going to help Mr. Preznit out of the goodness of his black heart. No compensation.
MR. McCLELLAN: You all called this back in, I assume, and I wanted to get that to you before we took off, but let me just kind of walk back through that, so we have it on the transcript for everybody.
The President has named Ed coordinator of the confirmation process for the White House. So he will be coordinating the White House efforts on behalf of the nominee throughout the confirmation process. He will be working out of the White House; he will have an office in the West Wing. He's not going to receive any compensation.
Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli of the right-wing Northern League party said Friday the time had come for the United Nations to begin discussing "the progressive withdrawal of troops, beginning with our contingent, perhaps by September."Arrivederci!
"It's evident that after New York, Madrid and London, Italy represents the most probable next objective of the terrorists," he said. "The time has come to begin to think also about our house, and to use the same resources currently committed in Iraq to prevent and combat possible attacks on our territory."
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. and Iraqi forces have "mostly eliminated" the ability of insurgents to conduct sustained, high-intensity attacks in Baghdad, the top U.S. commander in the Iraqi capital said Friday.
Maj. Gen. William G. Webster Jr. said in a video-teleconference interview from Baghdad with reporters at the Pentagon that offensive operations by U.S. and Iraqi troops in recent weeks had sharply reduced the number of insurgent bombings. But he cautioned against concluding that the insurgency has been broken. "It's very difficult to know it's over," Webster said.
There were 14 to 21 car bombings per week in Baghdad before the May 22 start of the U.S. portion of the latest offensive,dubbed Operation Lightning, he said. That has dropped to about seven or eight a week now, Webster said, attributing the improvement to the disruption of insurgent cells and the availability of more and better intelligence.
"There are some more threats ahead," he said. "I do believe, however, that the ability of these insurgents to conduct sustained, high-intensity operations as they did last year, we've mostly eliminated that."
On the other hand, he predicted that, "in the next couple of months we will not see sustained, long bloody months in Baghdad."
Hurts so good.
Vice President Dick Cheney will undergo a routine exam Friday to check the condition of a high-tech pacemaker that was placed in his chest in June 2001.
"It's a routine physical," she said. She said the vice president also would have a colonoscopy later this month.
Nov. 17 - The latest analysis of evidence that led to last summer’s Code Orange alert suggests that Al Qaeda operatives were plotting a “big bomb” attack against a major landmark in Britain—but had no active plans for strikes in the United States, U.S. intelligence sources tell NEWSWEEK.
The new view is that there was indeed an active Al Qaeda plot underway earlier this year—one that involved coded communications between high-level operatives in Pakistan and a British cell headed by a longtime associate of September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
Some U.S. law-enforcement officers based in London, NEWSWEEK has learned, have become extremely concerned about evidence regarding possible active Al Qaeda plots to attack targets in Britain. According to a U.S. government official, fears of terror attacks have prompted FBI agents based in the U.S. Embassy in London to avoid traveling on London's popular underground railway (or tube) system, which is used daily by millions of commuters. While embassy-based officers of the U.S. Secret Service, Immigration and Customs bureaus and the CIA still are believed to use the underground to go about their business, FBI agents have been known to turn up late to crosstown meetings because they insist on using taxis in London's traffic-choked business center.
Losing the War on Terror
"There is no one responsible for today's attacks on London except the murderers themselves. But it should be clear to everyone that we are losing the war on terror.... I've grown so weary of listening to the president and his minions pretend as if they are the only adults in the room who have any sense when they castigate liberals for wanting to use police powers in order to catch these people rather than armies."
War Must be Declared on those Against us
"Pamela aka Atlas says BASTA! Enough hand holding, appeasing, talking "their" talk..........THE BUSH DOCTRINE................either you're with us or against us. I say, first Declare War on Syria with our Coalition (Brits, Japanese, Baltic Nations, Israel, Australia) with a tactical approach to moving into Iran. The young people Of Iran (75% of the population) will rise and fight with us."
...even if we hate to admit it, we found ourselves thinking pretty quickly this morning about what the London attacks will mean for George W. Bush.
We're sure that the president, like all of us, is deeply concerned for the victims of the attacks -- the families who have lost loved ones, the hundreds of bus passengers and train riders who have suffered injuries, and the 7 million Londoners who are suddenly feeling the kind of shock and vulnerability that the residents of New York and Madrid know all too well. And yet, it's hard to imagine that Bush and his advisors aren't feeling something like a sense of relief this morning, too.
With the need for a strong stand against terrorism fading from our TV screens and our national consciousness -- a Gallup poll released late last month showed that only 35 percent of us fear an imminent terrorist attack, the lowest number since 9/11 -- Americans were beginning to look at what else the Bush administration had to offer, and they weren't happy with what they were seeing. They weren't satisfied with the economy, they were alarmed by the president's plans for Social Security, and -- despite the president's repeated protestations to the contrary -- they were thinking that the war in Iraq was a mistake in the first place and wasn't worth the 1,751 American lives that have been lost fighting it. The president's approval ratings were tanking; as of last week, 53 percent of Americans disapproved of the job Bush was doing, and that was before they came face-to-face with the notion that he may get to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with an anti-abortion extremist or began grappling with the news that Karl Rove may have been the one who broke the cover of a CIA agent for the president's political gain.
With attacks on America's closest ally -- on people with whom Americans can identify -- Bush gets the benefit of the fear of terrorism without the risk of having to take responsibility for letting it happen again here.
The president, still in Scotland for the G-8 summit, just spoke briefly about the attacks. He sent his condolences to the people of London, and he reminded Americans that he's doing everything he can to prevent attacks back home. "The war on terror goes on," Bush said, and it was hard not to think that he likes it that way.
(cur) (last) 6 July 2005 21:15 Everyking (you can't vfd this)Back to front, mine.
(cur) (last) 6 July 2005 21:16 126.96.36.199 (I just did, live with it)
(cur) (last) 6 July 2005 21:19 Android79 (rvv)
(cur) (last) 6 July 2005 21:19 Friday (removed vfd)
(cur)(last) 6 July 2005 21:30 188.8.131.52 (It's a real VFD, so either vote or don't, but don't keep removing the tag)
I can't wait to once again come home after a long day of teaching and coaching, walking in the door and have the kids yelling "DADDY", and come running up to hug me. I can't wait to walk across the house to kiss my wife on the cheek and ask her how her day was. I can't wait to tuck my kids into bed at night and pray their nightly prayers. I can't wait to hold my wife's hand wherever we go. I can't wait to cut the grass and smell the sweet smell of spring. I can't wait to walk down to my folks house to ask my dad if I can borrow tools (believe it or not, as a guy, I have no tools). There are a lot of things I can't wait for. Most of all, I can't wait to tell my wife that I love her face to face, because then and only then will I truly feel like I am back home.
The most fascinating thing I find in war, is not the destruction and anguish it causes, as that is quite obvious, but the loss of all sense of time. War doesn't stop for breakfast or lunch, doesn't stop for weekends, and certainly not for holidays. There is no real schedule as things change hour by hour and second by second. When you think your day is over, sometimes, its only just begun. Monday is Saturday and Tuesday is Friday and who knows when Wednesday might be, because then I am supposed to be off. There is no Memorial Day or Veteran's Day, except a cake in the dining facility. Birthdays, what are those, and who knows what you may do on your anniversary, but maybe don your protective gear and pray no one has been hurt. Christmas, Easter, and the 4th of July are only days that you celebrate personally or with the TCN's (Third Country Nationals) at the chow hall. Your day may be 12, 18 sometime 36 hours long before you can start thinking about sleep. When does my day begin and end, I am not sure I will ever know until I'm back in the comfort of my own home in the good ole U. S. of A.
I'm not complaining mind you as it doesn't begin to compare to the Iraqi people who are trying to get their lives back in order. How do they do that, when every day they wonder if they will be the ones standing beside the next car bomb. Wondering if, when they go to the market for food, they will be able to return home unharmed.
If we are here by honorable means or deceptive intentions is no longer my concern, for my concerns now are about how we finish.
July 5th, 2005 in Iraq...
The weather over the past couple of days has been horrible. The dust has been so thick, you can barely see 100 feet in front of you. When you go anywhere, whether it be to work or the the chow hall, you are covered with a fine layer of sand and have grit in your mouth. It wouldn't be so bad if it were not for the suffocating heat, as being outside for any length of time cause your uniform to wilt and your body to be soaked with sweat. Add the two of these together, and you can imagine the result. On my way back from lunch today, the sweat was pouring down my face, coupled with the blowing sand, I was a mess before I returned. If you can imagine sweating mud, that would be a close to my day.
With that said, while at lunch I was dining with an Air Force fireman who volunteers at CASF, talking with the injured soldiers. He was telling me, as we were sharing stories of the different soldiers we had talked to, how he has been having a tough time lately. He said, "It's so hard sometimes to look them in the face when they are so badly burned, or missing eyes, limbs, etc..." I was so thankful that God had placed him with me today at lunch, because I was dealing with some of the same issues. We were able to talk through some of the issues that had been bothering us and we both felt better for discussing it. I can only imagine what the soldiers in the field go through each day, if this Airman and myself deal with issues just sitting and talking with injured soldiers. I can only imagine their anguish and permanent emotional scars they will carry for years, possibly for life. I will have a hard time putting behind me the things I have seen and dealt with being here, I can only pray these soldiers will find peace someday.
"They can kill the revolutionary but they cannot kill the revolution."We'll be here when you get back; we'll leave the light on for you.
A contingent of conservatives talk radio hosts is headed to Iraq this month on a mission to report "the truth" about the war: American troops are winning, despite headlines to the contrary.
The "Truth Tour" has been pulled together by the conservative Web cast radio group Rightalk.com and Move America Forward, a non-profit conservative group backed by a Republican-linked public relations firm in California.
If the Iraqi insurgents are smart -- and most of them are fucking geniuses compared to your average right-wing talk show host -- they'll spread the word: Leave these particular dumb ass infidels alone. (Not that any of them are likely to poke their porcine snouts outside the green zone without a brigade-strength escort. But you never know where the odd mortar round is going to land.)
Why? Because collectively, these guys are an enormously valuable asset to America's enemies -- both because of their utterly brainless support for Al Qaeda's strategy of turning the war against terrorism into a crusade against Islam, and because they've done such a splendid job of setting up the American people to be demoralized and disillusioned by the truth.
For purely professional reasons, we'd welcome the prospect of a perjury prosecution running alongside the Supreme Court confirmation hearings this summer. Solely as an exercise in better understanding our fellow man, we'd be interested in hearing how someone who accuses liberals of wanting to put U.S. troops in "greater danger" explains away a decision to reveal the identity of a CIA agent for political gain. And if getting that kind of insight requires us to see Turd Blossom in handcuffs and leg irons, well, it's a small price to pay for bringing us all together as human beings, isn't it?
A propaganda video purportedly made by al-Qaida-linked terror suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shows suicide attacks against U.S. soldiers and Iraqi forces and emphasizes that the war being waged by Iraqi insurgents is in retaliation for America's war against Islam.
"The American soldier is a coward and an easy target for the holy fighters," says a speaker said to be al-Zarqawi, on the undated video, posted on militant Web sites Wednesday.
The 46-minute video opens with old footage of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden walking in a mountainous area before moving to clips of suicide operations across Iraq. The authenticity of the voice couldn't be immediately verified, but the recording sounded similar to al-Zarqawi's previous audio tapes.
He called President Bush an "idiot" for announcing an end to major hostilities in May 2003, saying the war "has just started."
Hollywood insiders report that in an interview with Vanity Fair for an upcoming edition of the magazine, Jennifer Aniston gets all up in the face of U.N. ambassador, rival actress and purported "other woman" Angelina Jolie, accusing her of "putting a pretty face on the oil-for-food scandal."Jen and John, two misunderestimated souls. The U.N. stood in the way of defending ourselves? John Bolton is the American face of diplomacy?
Declaring the U.N. thoroughly corrupt and desperately in need of reform (wait, you didn't know she was an expert on the subject?), Aniston also argues the organization
"basically stood in the way of the U.S. when we needed to defend ourselves," says a source close to the actress.
Aniston also reportedly put in a plug for President Bush's nominee to the U.N., John Bolton. The actress allegedly tells Bolton to "hang in there" and not let "all the negativity" get him down.
"She knows what it's like to be the focus of a smear campaign," says a friend of the actress. "She thinks that he would bring a fresh air to an institution that is definitely in need of a shake-up, but she can also just really relate to what he's going through."
Hi Allison--What did make it past the whitehouse.gov gatekeepers?
To truly support the brave men and women serving in Iraq, shouldn't our President be impeached for sending them into harm's way for non-existent WMDs?
Marilyn, from Texas writes:Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Dying never crosses their minds.
Is there a way to get through to the media that when they are so condeming of President Bush and US policy that it not only hurts President Bush but that it hurts the troops and how other people look at us. After all it must be very hurtful to the troops when they see all those condemning reports and it must really look weird from other countries to see that. Can you convince the reporters to report more sensibly?
Marilyn, your concern for our troops is wonderful, and so appropriate during this 4th of July weekend. Your question gets to the very heart of the America Supports You program. If you ask any soldier on the battlefield what his #1 concern is, you won't hear complaints about heat or workloads or fraught filled night patrols. What you will hear is concern for loved ones, concern that the American people are standing behind our service members and their families back home. Focusing on the troops, on communicating directly to them and their families, is what America Supports You is all about.