RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events "It's not about oil or Iraq..."

quote:

---

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), a candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he also continues to believe that Iraq had, or was capable of quickly producing, weapons of mass destruction.

"I didn't just take the president's word for this," he said. "I went out to the CIA three times. I talked to top people. I talked to people that had been in the Clinton administration And I became convinced, from that, all of that, that [Hussein] either had weapons of mass destruction or he had components of weapons or he had the ability to quickly make a lot of them and pass them to terrorists." (whomod: Most of that sounds as if they really didn't know what exactly he had if anything at all. Just a lot of speculation. I take it that the final bit about terrorists is all speculatory on his part too. Still, he is being incredibly generous in his support of the Administration position.)

But Gephardt called for an investigation examining whether the intelligence data on Iraq were misleading or wrong.

"The American people have to understand and believe that the information they're getting from their government is credible," he said.

"And if there was a failure of intelligence, we've got to have more than just the intelligence committees look at it. We've got to have a blue-ribbon commission. We've got to get to the bottom of it."

---

quote:

---

"I am in earnest - I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat a single inch - and I will be heard!" - William Lloyd Garrison

---

As far as the whole CIA/Wilson scandal, I've been combing the news sites all day to find verification of what I heard on Sean Hannity's show yesterday afternoon. Novak now says that it was Wilson himself who told him his wife was in the CIA and not the White House (according to Hannity). Of course if Hannity say's it's true then it must be so! The spin was laughably pathetic but the remarkable thing was that you had the usual yokely sounding nitwits calling up agreeing and blaming the whole thing on the "liberals" and Hannity repeating over and over "SO WHAT?? WHERE'S THE SCANDAL?? WHO CARES!". Sad. Who cares? Well... George H.W. Bush for one. He called those who leak the names of undercover operatives 'the most insidious of traitors'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
Rob. Pro War/Us. Anti war/US? Are you suggesting that people who were against this war ane anti american?

---

quote:

---

Guantanamo Translator Arrested at Boston Airport
By CURT ANDERSON, The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (Sept. 30) -- A physician working as a translator at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was arrested Tuesday, authorities said, in the latest of a series of apprehensions that have raised questions about security at the center for terror suspects.

Dennis Murphy, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the arrest came at Boston's Logan International Airport. A senior law enforcement official, discussing the case on grounds of anonymity, identified the suspect as Ahmed Mehalba. This source said that Mehalba had stopped in Boston Monday after arriving on a flight from Cairo.
Agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement noticed documents that appeared to have come from the prison camp and that they suspected of being classified. The FBI was called in to interview Mehalba, who denied the documents were his, the official said.
After the interview, the FBI arrested Mehalba on charges of making false statements. He was being held in Boston and further charges are possible, said the official, who declined to describe the nature of the documents in Mehalba's possession.
Earlier, authorities charged an Air Force enlisted man, Ahmad I. al-Halbi, with espionage for allegedly sending classified information about the Guantanamo facility to an unspecified ''enemy.'' He also was accused of planning to give other secrets about the prison to someone traveling to Syria.
A military investigator said last week that Al-Halabi had been under investigation before he arrived at the base.
The Air Force Office of Special Investigations began looking into his case in November 2002 while he was a supply clerk at Travis Air Force Base in California, the agent wrote in court documents. Al-Halabi was sent to the Cuban base weeks later as an Arabic language interpreter for the al-Qaida and Taliban suspects there.

Another suspect is Army Capt. Yousef Yee, a Muslim chaplain who is being detained without charge at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. Al-Halabi is behind bars at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., forbidden to speak Arabic.
Army Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, a spokeswoman for the base, said last Friday that military authorities strengthened security at Guantanamo Bay in the wake of the arrests.
She said that officials were making certain that restrictions on handling documents, making phone calls and sending e-mails are being followed.
Al-Halabi had said that he is innocent. One of his lawyers, Air Force Maj. James Key III, said al-Halabi is a naturalized U.S. citizen and a patriotic American.
The most serious of the 32 charges against al-Halabi carries a possible death sentence. The implication is that al-Halabi was helping the prisoners communicate among themselves and with the outside world.

09/30/03 10:26 EDT

---

quote:

---

Originally published by Gen. Wesley K. Clark

In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, many in the Bush administration seemed most focused on a prospective move against Iraq. This was the old idea of “state sponsorship”—even though there was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever—and the opportunity to “roll it all up.” I could imagine the arguments. War to unseat Saddam Hussein promised concrete, visible action.

I WENT BACK through the Pentagon in November 2001, and one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about “draining the swamp.” It was evidence of the Cold War approach: Terrorism must have a “state sponsor,” and it would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969671.asp?0dm=s236k

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969047.asp?0dm=s216k

---

quote:

---

For the past six months, I have been participating in what I believe to be the great modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom. After the horrific events of September 11 2001, and throughout the battle in Afghanistan, the groundwork was being laid for the invasion of Iraq.




"Shock and awe" were the words used to describe the display of power that the world was going to view upon the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was to be an up-close, dramatic display of military strength and advanced technology from within the arsenals of the American and British military.



But as a soldier preparing to take part in the invasion of Iraq, the words "shock and awe" rang deep within my psyche. Even as we prepared to depart, it seemed that these two great superpowers were about to break the very rules that they demanded others obey. Without the consent of the United Nations, and ignoring the pleas of their own citizens, the US and Britain invaded Iraq.



"Shock and awe"? Yes, the words correctly described the emotional impact I felt as we embarked on an act not of justice, but of hypocrisy.



From the moment the first shot was fired in this so- called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned.



After the broadcasting of recorded images of captured and dead US soldiers on Arab television, American and British leaders vowed revenge while verbally assaulting the networks for displaying such vivid images. Yet within hours of the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons, the US government released horrific photographs of the two dead brothers for the entire world to view. Again, a "do as we say and not as we do" scenario.



As soldiers serving in Iraq, we have been told that our purpose is to help the people of Iraq by providing them with the necessary assistance militarily, as well as in humanitarian efforts. Then tell me where the humanity is in the recent account in Stars and Stripes (the newspaper of the US military) of two young children brought to a US military camp by their mother in search of medical care.



The two children had, unknowingly, been playing with explosive ordnance they had found, and as a result they were severely burned. The account tells how, after an hour-long wait, they - two children - were denied care by two US military doctors. A soldier described the incident as one of many "atrocities" on the part of the US military he had witnessed.



Thankfully, I have not personally been a witness to atrocities - unless, of course, you consider, as I do, that this war in Iraq is the ultimate atrocity.



So what is our purpose here? Was this invasion because of weapons of mass destruction, as we have so often heard? If so, where are they? Did we invade to dispose of a leader and his regime because they were closely associated with Osama bin Laden? If so, where is the proof?



Or is it that our incursion is about our own economic advantage? Iraq's oil can be refined at the lowest cost of any in the world. This looks like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination, but a crusade to control another nation's natural resource. Oil - at least to me - seems to be the reason for our presence.



There is only one truth, and it is that Americans are dying. There are an estimated 10 to 14 attacks every day on our servicemen and women in Iraq. As the body count continues to grow, it would appear that there is no immediate end in sight.



I once believed that I was serving for a cause - "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States". Now I no longer believe that; I have lost my conviction, as well as my determination. I can no longer justify my service on the basis of what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies.



With age comes wisdom, and at 36 years old I am no longer so blindly led as to believe without question.



From my arrival last November at Fort Campbell, in Kentucky, talk of deployment was heard, and as that talk turned to actual preparation, my heart sank and my doubts grew. My doubts have never faded; instead, it has been my resolve and my commitment that have.



My time here is almost done, as well as that of many others with whom I have served. We have all faced death in Iraq without reason and without justification. How many more must die? How many more tears must be shed before Americans awake and demand the return of the men and women whose job it is to protect them, rather than their leader's interest?



· Tim Predmore is a US soldier on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division, based near Mosul in northern Iraq. A version of this article appeared in the Peoria Journal Star, Illinois

---

quote:

---

COMMENTARY
Cold War II: America needs you, Harry Truman
By Walter A McDougall*

The first Cold War crept in slowly and was not at all evident to most average Americans when President Truman addressed a joint session of Congress in March 1947. No US forces overseas, much less the United States itself, had been attacked, and Americans were obsessed with demobilizing from World War II and preventing a return of Great Depression conditions. So if Truman were to arouse the nation to resist world communism, he had to do what Senator Arthur Vandenberg recommended, which was to "scare the hell out of the American people"

The president explained that a moment in history had come when nearly every nation had to choose between freedom based on majority rule and human rights, or tyranny imposed through terror and oppression. He declared it the policy of the United States to support all peoples threatened by internal subversion or outside pressure and warned that an American failure to lead might endanger world peace and would surely endanger the welfare of the United States.

But the $400 million in aid that he requested for Greece and Turkey was only the ante the poker-loving Truman required to get America into the game. The ultimate cost of calling every Soviet bet and bluff in a game lasting years, perhaps decades, was bound to be immeasurably higher. What is more, this poker game carried the greatest of risks, not excluding that of nuclear war, and offered the American public no instant gratification or assurance of a future catharsis.

Walter Lippmann gave the conflict its name - the Cold War - and a left-to-right spectrum from Henry Wallace to George Kennan to Robert Taft immediately warned that a protracted conflict against the communist conspiracy might draw the United States into unlimited commitments, Machiavellian ploys, and collusion with all manner of foul bedfellows. But the Congress and public stood up almost as one behind the Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan, NATO, and the Korean War.

The second Cold War may also have crept up on us slowly. Leaving aside introspective domestic recriminations to the effect that America deserved the attack of September 11 (a matter best left to the purveyor of "infinite justice"), historians are certain to clash over questions of causality and blame. Did Americans' energy-guzzling habits, hence dependence on Persian Gulf oil and support for authoritarian Muslim regimes, create fertile soil for Islamic fanatics? Did American disengagement from Afghanistan following the expulsion of the Soviets permit the Taliban to seize power? Did American support for Israel and the 1991 war on Iraq validate in the bazaars an image of the United States as the Great Satan? Did the George H W Bush administration's display of irresistible military might but reluctance to finish off Saddam Hussein all but invite rogue states to wage asymmetrical warfare, including sponsorship of terrorist groups, to promote their agendas? Did the Clinton administration's penchant for poking, but not killing, the dens of rattlesnakes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan only stiffen their determination to show Americans how it feels to be defenseless before random assaults? Were US defense and intelligence agencies just not up to their job, in which case an entirely different set of questions dating back to Vietnam and Watergate needs to be asked?

Whatever the long-range causes of our second Cold War, public cognizance of it came in a flash and George W Bush had no need to scare the hell out of the American people when he addressed Congress on September 20. Otherwise, he faced the same task as Truman, which was to channel the public's fear, anger, and vengefulness into reservoirs to be husbanded, replenished in need, and gradually released to sustain public support for a conflict of unknown duration, cost, and risk. As in Truman's time the enemy is an abstraction - terrorism in place of communism - but one given sanctuary and support from sovereign states. As in Truman's time the president prefers not to declare formal war on those states, but rather puts them on notice as to the rules of engagement the United States intends to enforce in the protracted conflict to come. Truman did not expect to convert the Soviets to democracy, but he put them on notice that subversion and aggression were unacceptable weapons in the ideological contest. Likewise, Bush does not expect (as perhaps Clinton did) to persuade our adversaries to love Coca-Cola, Disney and Playboy. But he put them on notice that terrorism is an unacceptable weapon in the clash of cultures, estimated that terrorists lurk in no less than 60 nations, named the Islamic fundamentalists the heirs to all the murderous ideologues of the 20th Century, and vowed that the war would not end until every terrorist group of global reach had been crushed. Bush also specifically condemned neutralism ("Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists (1)), implied that all states who practice or abet terrorism are subject to retaliation in times and places of our own choosing, and cautioned that a long, twilight struggle lies before us. Thus did he conflate in his speech not only Truman's message, but Eisenhower's and Kennedy's as well.

Just as in the late 1940s, critics across the political spectrum warned that the Bush doctrine would require the United States to make unlimited commitments, adopt an amoral realpolitik, prop up "friendly tyrants," provoke still more hatred of America, and thus ratchet up the cycle of violence. But again, just as in 1947, the Congress and people declared themselves, almost unanimously, ready to ante up and get into the game, whatever the risks down the road.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
Frankly, I've had it up to here with Dave's constant and incessant paranoia over the "liberal" menace. I mean DAMN! When you take Hal Lindsey's word for news and events over Time, Newsweek, the Washington Post, CNN, Etc. Etc. Why fucking bother trying to talk reason? The irony is that when the AP runs a story that supports his mindset, suddenly THAT is worth posting. Most of the time though i'm sure they are the dreaded mouthpeice of the "liberals". Some people are just dug in holy warriors whether they choose to acknowledge their own bias or not. Hell, why bother even having an election next year? I'm sure that falls under treasonous activity as well in his mind.

---

• NOT BUILDING LARGE PRE-WAR RESERVES.
  I think we should have a much larger military reserve force, of 200,000 to 400,000, so that if we need to fight another regional war, we have the reserves to respond as we should, such as in North Korea or Iran.
  ( Iran is near the point of revolution, where just the uncertainty that the U.S. might come in on the side of pro-democracy revolutionaries, could prevent Iranian pro-democracy protestors from being slaughtered, as Chinese students were slaughtered in Tianaman Square in 1989.)
  The mere POTENTIAL for the U.S. to intervene could save lives in Iran, if we had a reserve that could potentially be deployed. Not even U.S. action, but the mere potential, could change the outcome in Iran.
  We have adequate forces now for Iraq, despite the unexpected cost, but the U.S. can presently provide no deterrant elsewhere.
  And I think Bush should have the military immediately recruiting enlistment of 200,000 or more, to relieve our overworked reservists, who were called to duty under Clinton repeatedly, and have continued to be re-deployed over and over under Bush.
• If Bush had adequate reserves, he could complete the job of democratizing Afghanistan, and training/strengthening a strong and stable central government in Afghanistan.
  I think we all know that Kharzai is referred to as "the mayor of Kabul", because Afghanistan has no central government, and President Kharzai has virtually no authority outside the capital city of Kabul.
  The rest of the country is run by warlords, as it was before the war. And Al Qaida is argued to be getting stronger again.
  Afghanistan has basically been put on hold, to focus U.S. military forces on Iraq. We should have military forces to do both, and have recruited these before the Iraq invasion, and be recruiting more reserves now.
• THE TIMING OF THE INVASION.
  I think the Iraq invasion should have occurred toward the end of Summer this year, instead of 3/20/2002, which is 20/20 hindsight for me.
  But any military strategist should have seen BEFOREHAND the unrest that being without electricity and water for millions of Iraqi citizens would cause in 120 degree Summer heat.
  Being without power in any months but the scorching Iraq summer weather would have caused far less discontent for Iraqis, and for our own troops as well.
• THE URGENCY FOR INVADING IRAQ, WHEN NORTH KOREA IS THE GREATER AND MORE IMMEDIATE THREAT.
  North Korea, since December 2002 (and actually, 10 years prior), has been developing nuclear weapons, and has missiles to carry them. They were believed in December to have 1 or 2 nuclear bombs at most, and if left unchecked could develop 6 weapons by June 2003.
  During the time we invaded Iraq, North Korea had time to process uranium from the re-opened nuclear reactor and turn these into weapons.
  And North Korea has the missiles to deliver these nukes, and have previously been proliferators of missile technology. A very scary prospect is if they were to proliferate NUCLEAR MISSILES, which I consider a good possibility, based on their prior proliferation of missiles.
  Bush appears to be using China and Russia, to put pressure on North Korea to abandon these weapons, which might yield fruit in a non-combative solution, but so far there is no evidence that is going anywhere.
  Again, I'd argue that maintaining a strong deterrant force would be useful in negotiating a solution with North Korea. But Bush has not built a deterrant there.

quote:

---

"'Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists,' President Bush said in Cincinnati on October 7.... But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE, which began circulating October 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States." - Walter Pincus; The Washington Post (July 21)

---

quote:

---

Political Intelligence:
The agenda behind the kerfuffle over Joe Wilson's wife.

Wednesday, October 1, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

We've been knocking our heads trying to figure out how a minor and well-known story about an alleged CIA "outing" has suddenly blossomed into a Beltway scandal-ette.

The light bulb went off reading Monday's White House press briefing.Right out of the box, Helen Thomas asked if "the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?"

OK, the point of this exercise is to get President Bush to fire someone. But whom? That answer became clear when the press corps quickly uttered, and kept uttering for nearly an hour, the name "Karl Rove."
Of course!

The reason this is suddenly a story is because Mr. Rove, the President's political strategist and confidant from Texas, has become the main target. Joseph Wilson, the CIA consultant at the center of this mini-tempest, had recently fingered Mr. Rove as the official who leaked to columnist Robert Novak that Mr. Wilson's wife works for the CIA.

Mr. Wilson has offered no evidence for this, and he's since retreated to say only that he now believes Mr. Rove had "condoned it."

The White House has replied that the charge is "simply not true." But no matter, the scandal game is afoot. The media, and the Democrats now slip-streaming behind them, understand that the what of this mystery matters much less than the who.

It's no accident that Tony Blair's recent and evanescent scandal over WMD evidence concerned his long-time political aide and intimate, Alastair Campbell. We're also old enough to recall what happened to Jimmy Carter's Presidency once his old Georgia friend Bert Lance was run out of town.
If they can take down Mr. Rove, the lead planner for Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, they will have knocked the props out of his Presidency.

The political goals must be paramount here because the substance of the story is so flimsy.

The law against revealing the names of covert CIA agents was passed in 1982 as a reaction against leaks by Philip Agee and other hard-left types whose goal was to undermine CIA operations around the world. This case is all about a policy dispute over Iraq.

The first "outing" here was the one Mr. Wilson did to himself by writing an op-ed in July for the New York Times. An avowed opponent of war with Iraq, Mr. Wilson was somehow hired as a consultant by the CIA to investigate a claim made by British intelligence about yellowcake uranium sought in Niger by Iraqi agents. Though we assume he signed the routine CIA confidentiality agreement, Mr. Wilson blew his own cover to denounce the war and attack the Bush Administration for lying.

Never mind that the British still stand by their intelligence, and that the CIA's own October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, since partly declassified, lent some credence to the evidence.This is the context in which Mr. Novak was told that Mr. Wilson had been hired at the recommendation of his wife, a CIA employee.

This is hardly blowing a state secret but is something the public had a right to know. When an intelligence operative essentially claims that a U.S. President sent American soldiers off to die for a lie, certainly that operative's own motives and history ought to be on the table. In any event, Mrs. Wilson was not an agent in the field but is ensconced at Langley headquarters. It remains far from clear that any law was violated.

The real intelligence scandal is how an open opponent of the U.S. war on terror such as Mr. Wilson was allowed to become one of that policy's investigators. That egregious CIA decision echoes what has obviously been a long-running attempt by anonymous "intelligence sources" quoted in the media to undermine the Bush policy toward Iraq. Mr. Bush's policies of prevention and pursuing state sponsors of terror overturned more than 30 years of CIA anti-terror dogma, and some of the bureaucrats are hoping to defeat him in 2004.

As recently as Monday, the New York Times hung its lead story around a leak that the Pentagon had somehow not got its money's worth from the $1 million it had spent mining some of Ahmed Chalabi's intelligence tips.
We'd love to see a declassified bang-for-the-buck analysis of the tens of millions the CIA has spent paying sources who claimed to have Saddam Hussein in their sights. If CIA Director George Tenet can't control his bureaucracy, then President Bush should find a director who can.

Which brings us back to the politics.
The Democratic Presidential candidates are naturally all over this pseudo-story, calling for a "special counsel" and Congressional probe. They can suddenly posture as great defenders of the CIA and covert operations, though some of them spent the decades before 9/11 assailing both. And if they can't get Mr. Bush to give up Mr. Rove, perhaps they can keep the story going through next November.

At least we can be thankful that Democrats buried the independent counsel statute during the Clinton years. "Leak" investigations are notoriously fruitless in any case and typically a waste of Justice Department resources. It's especially amusing to see the media whose lifeblood is leaks feigning outrage.
We trust that Mr. Bush and Republicans on Capitol Hill understand that if they throw Mr. Rove over the side, the blood in the water will really be theirs.

---

quote:

---

mine shows how some things are bad and how some things are good. a (seemingly) honest perspective. jq's show bad things without highlighting any of the good -- even for a devil's advocate view point (i'm not targeting the posters, just the articles).

---

quote:

---

again, i don't mind the concept of "exposing the bad." not only is that important, its necessary. however, i'm hoping to not receive an exposed view, but rather, an exposed truth; facts. and, if you're going to print the facts that make things look bad, i want equal "air time" for the facts that make things look good.

---

quote:

---

i mean, i dont like my boss or the things my company does too much... but i'm not about to publish that information in a newspaper! all that would accomplish is to:

1) annoy my co-workers who disagree with me.
2) surely infuriate my superiors.
3) make my life hell. or at least an unemployed variation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JQ:
"After the broadcasting of recorded images of captured and dead US soldiers on Arab television, American and British leaders vowed revenge while verbally assaulting the networks for displaying such vivid images. Yet within hours of the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons, the US government released horrific photographs of the two dead brothers for the entire world to view. Again, a "do as we say and not as we do" scenario."
-I'd never actually thought about this.

---

quote:

---

What about the truth? Hypothetically speaking, lets say we knew as a fact everything in Iraq was qoing good. Would it be honest to jam in "bad" stuff too? Why not just print the facts that make things "look like" they really are. Watch most analysts on TV, they stick to a point and provide evidence to back it up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JQ:
[QB]

quote:

---

i mean, i dont like my boss or the things my company does too much... but i'm not about to publish that information in a newspaper! all that would accomplish is to:

1) annoy my co-workers who disagree with me.
2) surely infuriate my superiors.
3) make my life hell. or at least an unemployed variation.

---

That doesn't work. You're not working for the biggest military in the world, your boss doesn't make what are probably the most important decisions in the world, and your company doesn't have a direct and inderect effect on the well-being of hundreds of millions of people. Your not being told to risk your life, and your co-workers; But I understand what you were trying to say.

---

quote:

---

Bruce SPRINGSTEEN - Value of Dissent

Published on Thursday, October 2, 2003 by the Madison Capital Times

Reaction to Springsteen Reinforces Value of Dissent

by Judy Ettenhofer


"Ladies and gentlemen," Bruce Springsteen said to 40,000 fans at Miller Park Saturday night, "it's time to impeach the president."

With a grin, the Boss continued his introduction of saxophonist Clarence Clemons, suggesting "the Big Man" could replace President Bush and be "somebody who knows what he's doing."

Some in the exuberant audience missed the line. But the woman behind me heard it loud and clear - and wasn't laughing. In fact, she convulsed in anger. For the next 10 minutes she ranted nonstop, gesturing wildly toward the stage in center field. "You can't say that about my president!" she screamed. "You can't criticize President Bush that way!" Later, when Springsteen dedicated "Land of Hopes and Dreams" to "our men and women fighting in Iraq and for peace for the Iraqi people," the woman yelled, "I have a nephew over there!"

Listening to the woman's ravings, I stopped chuckling and grew annoyed. Here we are at a dynamite rock 'n' roll show, and she's throwing a hissy fit? Get a grip, I thought. The more I listened to her, however, the more I realized she exemplifies a number of my fellow Americans. You know who I mean - the ones who shout down anyone who dares to question Bush's policies or the wisdom of the Iraq war. They're hosting radio and TV shows; they're writing letters to the editor and opinion columns. They're highly offended at the "traitors" who don't fall into lockstep with the president. They ceaselessly wave their little American flags. Those of us who don't share their fervor are scorned as unpatriotic. We're even told to leave the country, to go live "with the terrorists." I hear echoes of the Vietnam War era all over again. I lived through those accusations as an anti-war teenager and later as a member of the 19 percent who opposed the first Gulf War, though the criticism we received then was more muted.

Saturday night I fought the urge to grab the woman behind me and shake her, to tell her we Americans are not clones, but individuals with differing beliefs. That's the beauty of America, the bedrock of freedom on which this nation was founded.

President Bush says he wants to bring democracy to Iraq and reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on America. If this woman believes her president, then she needs to realize he's put her nephew in harm's way to protect and uphold what America stands for, which includes not only her right to scream at Bruce Springsteen, but, more important, his right to question the president's actions.

Two centuries ago, President Thomas Jefferson knew the idea of such freedoms would need some getting used to in our fledgling republic. In his first inaugural address in 1801, he reminded the citizenry:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."

It's sad and troubling that, today, some Americans still seek to oppress rather than to protect the right of dissenters to speak their minds.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1002-08.htm

Amazon.com essential recording
Born in the U.S.A. is an album painted in big, broad strokes. But it was still too subtle for some--namely politicians who tried to tap the title track as a jingoistic anthem when it is in fact a bitter diatribe by a Vietnam War vet whose country forgot him.

---

quote:

---

THE NATION
Judge Backs Student in T-Shirt Protest

DETROIT — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a Detroit-area school acted improperly in barring a student antiwar protester from wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with a picture of President Bush and the words "International Terrorist."

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in March claiming that the constitutional rights of student Bretton Barber were violated a month earlier by Dearborn High School when it ordered him either to wear the T-shirt inside out or to go home.

In a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan in Detroit said the school had failed to back its claim that the T-shirt threatened to create a "disturbance or disruption" at Dearborn High.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:


even worse, if his statements have backlashes with his higher ups, he's facing more serious consequences than simply being fired. i mean, the guy is more or less stuck in one of the least pleasant locales on the planet. and, the military isn't known for being too keen on dissenting opinoins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
Still, I think an argument could be made that dissent against Bush and his policies is being viewed as treasonous, you only need to look at a few choice posts and listen to a few commentators and authors to get that impression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:

their point.

some analysts say the war effort is going horribly. some say wonderfully. the reporters, and the channels in general, have agendas. they're telling news stories.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:


even worse, if his statements have backlashes with his higher ups, he's facing more serious consequences than simply being fired. i mean, the guy is more or less stuck in one of the least pleasant locales on the planet. and, the military isn't known for being too keen on dissenting opinoins.

---

I've heard some people saying that revealing the name of Wilson's wife was pretty much a "hit" being put out on her by the White House in retaliation for Wilson's op-ed peice. You just pretty much said the same thing, y'know. Dissenting or unpopular opinions and facts will be punished accordingly. Which sort of reminds me of Ann Coulter now that I think about it more...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JQ:

quote:

---

originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

Whomod, as usual your shrill liberal rhetoric does have a thin toehold in fact. But again, it strays far from the facts and jumps to wild conclusions.
Whereas if the Clinton administration had done the same things, you'd be praising their courage and defense of our freedom.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, unpatriotic as it is. I've spent a considerable portion of this topic laying out my own perspective, obviously falling on deaf ears.

And regarding the Islamic world, I firmly believe it's not a "radical sect" but the whole of Islam itself that is our enemy. As I've pointed out with articles to back it, a majority of Islamic world is hostile to us, and openly praises al Qaida terrorism.
Brutal governments, wars, suicide bombings, poor treatment of women, and other conditions that give pause to foreign investors and internally repress and stall economic growth, are all rooted in Islamic beliefs and culture, that is holding nations of the Islamic world down, and threatening other countries, as their gospel is spread through Islamic fundamentalism and terror (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan, Chechnya, The Phillipines, Indonesia, etc.)

The more true Muslims are to their beliefs, the more dangerous they are to the rest of the world, and to themselves.
Again, my eternal image of Islam is 9/11/2001. And more so the 90% of the Palestinian population cheering the deaths of 3000 Americans in the West bank and Gaza, rather than the fanatics who flew jets into buildings.
There was a cover story in TIME magazine a few months ago questioning whether Saudi Arabia is our friend or enemy. And discussing the Saudi sect of Islam called Wahabism, and how spread of wahabism through missionaries has brought terrorism to every corner of the Muslim world and beyond, including al Qaida, Chechnya and the Phillipines.

---

Your arguements are really becoming paranoid, ethnocentric, and hypocritical. It's you who spews rheotoric, propaganda and insults!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thedoctor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
Still, I think an argument could be made that dissent against Bush and his policies is being viewed as treasonous, you only need to look at a few choice posts and listen to a few commentators and authors to get that impression.

---

And I can show you posts and commentators who yell that people who support the war or other Bush policies are mindless, warmongering conservatives who are blindly following the Bush Administration. The street runs both ways. Both sides are getting uppity and defensive, as well as offensive in many statements. It's the same ole game that's always been played. Emotions are just a little more on edge and heightened for the most part.

---

quote:

---

October 3, 2003

THE WORLD
Inspectors Find Aims, Not Arms
Interim report appears to undermine prewar White House and CIA claims about Iraq. Hussein may have hoped to acquire the weapons.

By Bob Drogin and Greg Miller, Times Staff Writers


WASHINGTON — The top U.S. weapons hunter in Iraq told Congress on Thursday that he had found no weapons of mass destruction but that Saddam Hussein "had not given up his aspirations and intentions" while he ruled the country to acquire chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

The long-awaited report by David Kay, the CIA special advisor, appeared to undermine prewar claims by the White House and the intelligence community that Hussein had recently produced large stockpiles of poison gas and germ weapons and was working to produce nuclear bombs.

Kay acknowledged that it is still unclear whether Hussein's regime possessed unconventional weapons before the war.

"We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist, or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone," Kay said, according to a 13-page unclassified statement released by the CIA.

Kay, who heads the 1,200-member Iraq Survey Group, testified behind closed doors for most of the day to the House and Senate intelligence committees. His interim report, which ran several hundred pages, was kept secret. Kay said he would issue another interim report in three months but that he might need six to nine months to reach definitive conclusions.

Few seemed satisfied with the report. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was disappointed with the uncertain findings six months after the United States went to war.

"I'm not pleased by what I heard today," said Roberts, usually a stalwart supporter of the White House and the CIA. "I am concerned, like my colleagues, in regard to the lack of results There has not been a breakthrough."

The committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, sharply questioned the intelligence that suggested Iraq had posed an imminent danger.

"Did we misread it or did they mislead us, or did [we] simply get it wrong?" he asked. "Whatever the answer is, it's not a good answer."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld indicated he was still waiting to see whether the prewar intelligence was accurate.

"It's not clear that it was off by a little bit or a mile at this stage," he said. "If it is off by a lot, that will be unfortunate and we'll know that."

Kay's report suggests that at least some of the prewar intelligence was deeply flawed. A National Intelligence Estimate prepared last October, for example, warned that Hussein had renewed production of mustard, sarin and VX agents, and "probably has stocked" 100 to 500 tons of chemical weaponry, "much of it added in the past year."

But Kay said "multiple sources" indicated that Iraq did not have an ongoing chemical weapons program after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

"Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce and fill new [chemical] munitions was reduced — if not entirely destroyed — during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections," Kay said.

Interrogation of Iraqi scientists and officials, Kay said, showed that Hussein "remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons" and that the dictator "would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point."

Kay said such testimony "should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons."

But Kay revealed little evidence to substantiate the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear arms programs.

Speaking to reporters after briefing senators, Kay indicated that he had found little more than vestiges of Iraq's nuclear ambitions.

"The evidence we've found on the nuclear program at most right now would suggest a very tentative restart on the program at the very most rudimentary level," Kay said. "It clearly does not look like a massive resurgent program."

Kay noted, however, that the nuclear program was the one inspectors knew the least about after months of searching. Iraq's alleged nuclear threat was a linchpin of the administration's case for war.

In a speech in Cincinnati last October, Bush warned that Hussein "could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year" and said that unless the United States acted, the final proof of Iraq's nuclear ambitions "could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

The report is also at odds with White House, State Department and CIA claims that Hussein had a fleet of modified trailer trucks that Iraq used to produce biological agents.

"We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile [biological weapons] production effort," Kay said, adding that two large trucks found in April could have been used to produce either hydrogen for military weather balloons, missile propellant or biological agents. But the trucks were not "ideally suited" for any of those activities, he said.

Bush had touted the two trucks as proof of the administration's prewar claims. "We found the weapons of mass destruction," he said in May. "We found biological laboratories."

Kay's report also calls into question intelligence that convinced the Pentagon that U.S. forces were likely to face chemical attack around Baghdad.

"We have not yet found evidence to confirm prewar reporting that Iraqi military units were prepared to use [chemical weapons] against coalition forces," Kay said.

The White House sought Thursday to play down the significance of the report, stressing its interim nature. "This is a progress report. Keep it in perspective," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. He said Kay's group was going through "massive" amounts of documents and interviewing many Iraqis who might have knowledge of Hussein's weapons programs.

"The president believes [Hussein] had weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass destruction programs, and that the truth will come out," McClellan said.

Rolfe Ekeus, the Swedish diplomat who headed the United Nations' weapons inspections in Iraq from 1991 to 1997, said the Kay report contained "no surprises." U.N. experts long ago had concluded that "Iraq was just working on preserving their capability to eventually reestablish their weapons," Ekeus said in a telephone interview.

"I think the Americans were misled" about allegations of recent arms production, he said.

Kay said his investigators had discovered "dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment" Iraq had concealed from U.N. inspectors earlier this year. But Kay said that most of the finds were still under investigation and that none clearly pointed to production of illegal arms.

He said the search was severely hampered by the deliberate destruction of potentially crucial documents, computer hard drives and other valuable materials.

"It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two-car garage," he said.

Kay said the evidence so far suggests that after 1996, Iraq focused "on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production" of biowarfare agents.

He said Iraqi scientists had conducted new research on deadly microbes, including ricin and aflatoxin, and that a vial of one organism — live C. botulinum Okra B — had been found in a scientist's home and could be used to create a biological weapon.

He also said Iraq had built, but not disclosed, unmanned aerial vehicles that could fly farther than permitted by U.N. resolutions and had "continuing covert capability" to manufacture fuel propellant for proscribed long-range missiles. But he said it was an "open question" whether the drones were meant to spray poison gas or be used for surveillance or as decoys.

Kay's report came as the CIA was struggling to defend its prewar assessments of Iraq. The leading members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence recently sent a letter to CIA Director George J. Tenet faulting the agency for relying on "outdated" information with "too many uncertainties" to justify its judgments on Iraq's activities.

Tenet sent a sharply worded rebuttal Thursday to Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), the committee chairman, and vice chairman Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice).

"The suggestion by the committee that we did not challenge long-standing judgments and assessments is simply wrong," Tenet said.

The judgments and tradecraft of the agency's Iraq analysis "were honest and professional, based on many years of effort and experience," he said.

Harman issued a statement saying the committee's views were only reinforced by Kay's report.

---

quote:

---

October 3, 2003


THE WORLD
A Critical Annan Urges 'Radical Change' in U.N.'s Iraq Role

By Maggie Farley, Times Staff Writer


UNITED NATIONS — In an unusually critical response to a new U.S. draft resolution on Iraq, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued an ultimatum Thursday: Either give the United Nations a leading role in the nation's political transition or the world body won't be involved in Iraq at all.

Steeled by two attacks on the U.N.'s Baghdad headquarters in a month, Annan said that a new resolution must provide "a radical change" that could safeguard the U.N.'s staff and the mission's independence from the U.S.-led occupation, said diplomats and U.N. officials who attended the session. And he said that the changes offered by the Bush administration do neither.

"Obviously, it's not going in the direction I had recommended," he told reporters earlier Thursday.

In a closed-door luncheon with the Security Council after the 15 members discussed the U.S. proposal, the diplomats and officials said the usually soft-spoken Annan delivered a stern message to the group: They should pursue a resolution they all can support, but he was not going to risk his people for a marginal role.

"It was like a cold shower," said Chilean Ambassador Heraldo Munoz. "He was very realistic about how he feels about the U.N. role."

Annan had suggested that to reduce the hostility in Iraq toward the occupying powers and others, such as the U.N. staffers, who were perceived to be helping them, there should be a symbolic shift of sovereignty within a few months to an Iraqi provisional government. Then the U.N. or the U.S.-led administration of Iraq — but not both — could work with the Iraqis on drafting a constitution and setting up elections. The Iraqis would invite a U.S.-led multinational force to stay and help stabilize the country.

"Obviously, that is not what is in the draft," Annan said after the luncheon. "This had been my suggestion in the sense that it may change the dynamics on the ground, in terms of the security situation, and send a message to the Iraqi people and also to the region."

Annan's message chilled the council's reaction to the new draft, which was circulated by the U.S. delegation Wednesday after weeks of consultations with nations who opposed the war and have resisted aiding the occupation. The version offers several concessions, including an expanded but not central role for the U.N., and a multinational force under U.S. command that would make progress reports to the Security Council. It also calls for an accelerated transition to self-rule, directed by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, with help from the world body and the U.S.-led coalition.

But it did not include the significant changes that Annan and many nations were looking for — especially a symbolic end to the occupation.

Annan rejected the idea that both the world body and the occupying authorities could guide the political transition, comparing it to "a horse with two jockeys," a U.N. official said.

Squaring off with the U.S. pains the normally nonconfrontational Annan. But shaken by the attacks on his organization in Iraq, and faced with a revolt within the U.N. staff, he was moved to take a firm stand.

Even before the session with Annan, reaction to the new resolution had been lukewarm. The strongest criticism had come from France and Germany, which complained that none of their joint proposals had been incorporated in the new text.

After the luncheon, diplomats from France, China, Russia, Mexico and Germany said they needed fresh instructions from their capitals because it made no sense to pursue a resolution that Annan found so unsatisfactory.

"This changes the whole thing," said one council diplomat. "It puts everything on hold."

U.S. officials said Thursday that they may seek a vote on the resolution toward the end of next week but at this point still anticipate at least six members choosing to abstain. A resolution needs nine of 15 votes in favor, and no vetoes, to pass, so one more abstention would kill it.

"There's still a lot of work to be done," said an American official who requested anonymity. Discussions will resume Monday.

Despite the resistance, there was no sign of a pullback from Washington on Thursday. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell dismissed the idea of handing even nominal authority to an Iraqi provisional government before a constitution is drafted and elections held. The U.S. assumed the responsibility to administer the country as a result of the conflict, he said, and would hold on to it.

"This isn't an effort at our part to hang on for as long as we can," he told reporters at the Foreign Press Center in Washington. "We want to move this process along as quickly as possible.

"But I think it's a bit naive to suggest that anytime in the next couple of weeks or months you can simply say, 'Here are 25 people. They seem to be getting along. Let's give them responsibility for the country.' They don't have the ability to exercise responsibility or authority over the whole country yet".

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-un3oct03000436,1,1991451.story?coll=la-news-a_section

---

quote:

---

October 3, 2003


THE WORLD
U.S. Tries to Stop a Key Iraqi Official From Embarrassing Bush

The White House reportedly tells Chalabi to halt his calls for a rapid transfer of power.

By Robin Wright and Maggie Farley, Times Staff Writers


WASHINGTON — After supporting Ahmad Chalabi for years, the United States has grown disenchanted and made a serious effort during the past two weeks to rein in the former Iraqi exile leader, pressing him specifically to stop embarrassing President Bush with calls for a speedy handover of power in Baghdad, according to senior U.S. officials.

Administration officials are questioning his credibility and growing increasingly concerned about the positions he is taking on Iraq's future.

National security advisor Condoleezza Rice confronted Chalabi in a meeting last week in New York with him and two other members of the Iraqi Governing Council, and again Tuesday in Washington, on recent statements calling for greater Iraqi control over both political power and the economic reconstruction, the sources said.

"She was instructed to tell him to behave. She stressed how unhelpful it was for Iraqis to be enunciating positions that were personally embarrassing for the president, who was the strongest advocate of a new regime in Baghdad," said a senior U.S. official. "She was blunt."

The Bush administration's pressure on Chalabi, a Shiite Muslim, comes as he increasingly emerges on the world stage as the face of the new Iraq, speaking at length before the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday on behalf of the 24-member Governing Council.

Until recently, Chalabi, who had not lived in Iraq since 1958, had been the political favorite of many in the Bush administration, with top Pentagon policy-makers backing him to lead postwar Iraq. Chalabi, born in 1945 to a wealthy banking family, was airlifted by U.S. military forces into southern Iraq in early April and was eventually selected to serve on the Governing Council, whose members were appointed in July after weeks of discussions with the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.

In a crucial meeting of Cabinet-level officials shortly before the president spoke at the United Nations on Sept. 23, even Pentagon officials conceded that Chalabi had gone too far and was endangering American efforts, U.S. officials said.

In recent talks with Middle East leaders, Bush has expressed anger — in tough language — at Chalabi and his political lieutenants for undermining the U.S. effort to return stability to Iraq, according to Arab and U.S. officials.

L. Paul Bremer III, the American civilian administrator of Iraq, has also become increasingly frustrated with the U.S.-educated former banker, senior U.S. officials say.

The White House was particularly angered by Chalabi's position on Iraq's future because it in effect supported France's call to hand over power to a provisional Iraqi government within weeks and hold national elections as soon as December — a timetable that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has repeatedly called "unrealistic."

The Bush administration instead wants Iraq to write a new constitution that outlines a power-sharing arrangement to avoid friction among Iraq's ethnic and religious factions when full sovereignty is eventually returned by the U.S.-led coalition.

Some U.S. officials have suggested Chalabi's call for greater immediate control by the Governing Council is a bid to ensure that he gains the top leadership position, since he has emerged as the dominant figure on the council but so far has not rallied enough national support to gain position through elections.

The State Department and CIA have long had doubts about Chalabi, stemming in part from accountability problems with U.S. funds provided to the Iraqi National Congress, which he founded and long controlled. That disillusionment has grown in other sectors of the administration in the postwar period because information he supplied on politics and weaponry proved either faulty or unrealistic.

"Chalabi has a very serious credibility problem. And the failure to find weapons of mass destruction hasn't helped," said an administration official.

Added Henri J. Barkey, a former State Department policy planning staffer who worked with Chalabi, "He didn't deliver. Once we got into Iraq, intelligence provided — whether on weapons of mass destruction or other issues — could be tested. We began to realize that all these things he was telling us were not exactly correct."

Since the meetings with Rice, Chalabi has backed down somewhat, not speaking out on the sovereignty issue in public or in meetings in Washington this week, say both U.S. and Iraqi officials involved in the discussions. But administration officials worry his current position on Iraq's future may not last.

With characteristic ambition, Chalabi took a major step Thursday toward the goal of leading Iraq by quietly wrangling a place on the U.N. stage as the country's representative. Speeches to the General Assembly are usually reserved for a nation's highest-ranking official. Not only is Chalabi not the president of Iraq, he is no longer even the president of the Governing Council — his one-month term ended Tuesday.

But absent an organized opposition, he staked his claim to be the face of Iraq, much in the same way, diplomats say, as he is trying to wrest control of Iraq's acting government.

Chalabi delivered an extended speech outlining the new Iraq. Although there are deep differences within the Governing Council about what kind of federal system Iraq should have and the role of Islam in the government and society, he declared that the country will have a representative democracy, with no ethnic or religious quotas.

He emphasized Iraq's unity, implying there will be no separate Kurdish entity. And he said that religion cannot be separated from the state.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-chalabi3oct03,1,6192893.story?coll=la-news-a_section

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:


even worse, if his statements have backlashes with his higher ups, he's facing more serious consequences than simply being fired. i mean, the guy is more or less stuck in one of the least pleasant locales on the planet. and, the military isn't known for being too keen on dissenting opinoins.

---

I've heard some people saying that revealing the name of Wilson's wife was pretty much a "hit" being put out on her by the White House in retaliation for Wilson's op-ed peice. You just pretty much said the same thing, y'know. Dissenting or unpopular opinions and facts will be punished accordingly. Which sort of reminds me of Ann Coulter now that I think about it more...

---

That's misrepresentative.

Former Iraq ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was not --and is not-- a CIA field agent, she's an analyst. There is some concern that some of the people she had meetings with in other countries could be compromised, but even that is a longshot.

And there is also no evidence that the person who leaked her identity to reporter Robert Novak thought she was a field agent. For the leak to be a criminal offense, the source leaking her name would have to know that she was a field agent to be guilty of criminal behavior. (See the Wall Street Journal editorial I posted above in its entirety, at the bottom of page 10 of this topic.)

---

quote:

---

October 3, 2003


COMMENTARY
The Laws of the Father Are Visited Upon the Son
Elder Bush urged legislation cited in White House-CIA probe

By Philip Agee
The current brouhaha over the outing of an undercover CIA officer brings to mind vivid memories and comic ironies. The 1982 law that now threatens Karl Rove, or whoever it was who leaked the officer's name, is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act — and it was adopted to silence me.

I was a CIA agent for 11 years in Latin America, but I quit in 1969 and wrote a book that told the true story of my life in the agency.

In the 1970s, some colleagues and I followed up with a campaign of "guerrilla journalism" to expose the CIA's operations and personnel around the world because we thought we could combat the agency's role in support of so many murderous dictatorships at that time, including those in Vietnam, Greece, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a felony to expose a covert intelligence agent, was designed to stop us.

Here's the first irony: It was President George H.W. Bush who fought to get that law passed when he was CIA director in 1976-1977 and later as vice president.

To justify the law's restriction of 1st Amendment rights, Bush the elder and other CIA officials repeated the same lie many times over: That by publicly identifying Richard Welch, the CIA chief in Athens who was assassinated by terrorists in December 1975, I was responsible for his death.

Bush repeated that lie long after Congress passed the law, during his term as president and even afterward. His wife, Barbara, also repeated it in her 1994 autobiography — and I sued her for libel. As part of the legal settlement, she sent me a letter of apology containing the admission that I had not identified Welch.

In fact, I'd never met Welch, didn't know he was in Athens and had never published his name or given it to anyone.

But Bush's campaign in the 1970s was effective. While he was CIA director, the agency worked with friendly intelligence services in Europe to label me, at different times, a security threat, a defector and a Soviet or Cuban agent, and they succeeded in having me expelled from five NATO countries.

Fast-forward to today. The son of George and Barbara is now a sitting American president with a harsh, neo-imperialist agenda, including waging war to ensure U.S. control of Middle East oil.

In order to sell this war of choice as a war of necessity, the younger Bush concocts a pack of lies. But when former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV pokes a small hole in Bush's farrago of justifications, someone in the White House outs Wilson's wife as a CIA officer in retaliation, a clear attempt to ruin her career.

One has to wonder what Papa Bush thinks of this clear violation of his law in his own son's office.

We were right in exposing the CIA in the 1970s because the agency was being used to impose a criminal U.S. policy. Today I continue to believe that the agency's operations should be exposed in places like Venezuela, where it is doubtless working overtime to organize and support the forces bent on overthrowing the twice-elected President Hugo Chavez. His apparent crime is to develop programs that will finally bring the benefit of that country's fabulous oil wealth to the common people.

But instead of that appropriate kind of exposure, U.S. intelligence officers are being outed, and the law violated, by the Bush administration itself as part of a cheap political tactic to punish an enemy and to maintain support for a dishonest and indefensible war.

The ironies are depressing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-agee3oct03,1,5866390.story?coll=la-news-comment

---

Why did Robert Novak mention Wilson's wife in his July 14 column at all? It is curious. Wilson's wife's involvement is largely irrelevant to the story. At any rate, her name is certainly irrelevant. Makes you wonder why it's there. In the column, Novak explicitly identifies Wilson's wife as a CIA operative (not merely an "analyst," as he now claims he understood her to be). Even I know that publishing the name of a CIA operative is a bad idea. Perhaps because he is a fellow pundit, Novak has been getting a free ride in the press, but his behavior was at best reckless. Novak has even admitted that the CIA asked him not to disclose the name. It's time for him to stop waffling, accept responsibility for what he's done and take his lumps.

Latest:

Wilson: CIA Leak Endangered Wife's Life

The only people i've heard that swear that Wilson's wife was merely an analyst are Novack and Sean Hannity who of course try to spin this as a non-issue hatched by (who else) THE "LIBERALS" that should be beneath anyones interest level. Every other news source I've read has her as an operative. But of course these guys on AM talk radio (and of course Novak) are imapartial and would never ever lie or mislead.

Finally to go back to my "ends do not justify the means" comment; did anyone happen to catch the CNN documentary on Pablo Escobar?? The last bit in that EXCELLENT documentary touched on this as "the pepe's" that eventually drove Escobar out of hiding and towards his ultimate demise were rumoured to be Government policemen working clandestinely. All the Columbian leaders and CIA interviewed were happy Escobar was brought down but lamented the illegal means they were reduced to to acheive that goal. If you happen to see it listed, I strongly recommend watching it. To me, truth is always more interesting than fiction. So this docu rates way above Traffic, Scarface or Casino in watchability value. Some of the stuff documented here is more amazing than the fiction in those films.

Killing Pablo:

Unfortunately I can't find any air dates right now. The only thing I found was "The true story of Killing Pablo" ("killing Pablo was of course originally a book)Thursday at 5:00 pm PT on the History Channel. I'm going to watch this one as well but I can't guarantee it wil be as good as the CNN docu.

quote:

---

NPR October 2, 2003 (Morning Edition with Bob Edwards)

"Poll Supports Independent Probe of CIA Leak"

Bob Edwards: Attorney General Ashcroft is resisting the idea of some sort of independent counsel. Do you think he'll be able to maintain that position?

NPR legal correspondent, Nina Totenberg: Well no administration ever wants an independent overseer, and there are very good career people who are in charge of this investigation, but it could get hairy. Yesterday I talked to a former justice department official who wondered to me why the White House had asked the Justice Department if they could wait a day, earlier this week, before directing the White House staff to preserve all phone and email records, and why, similarly, the Justice Department had agreed to let the White House wait that day. In the last analysis career people can't make some of the decisions that will have to be made, like whether to call a reporter before a grand jury. The Attorney General under Justice (Department) regulations is required to make that decision. A career person can't make it. And if a leaker is identified and not prosecuted it could raise problems with the CIA. Will the agency believe that a decision not to prosecute was made fairly, or will it, as one former Justice Department
official put it to me, open a chasm of distrust between the two agencies. As I said no administration likes to open itself up to outside investigators. And the temperature isn't that hot yet, despite that poll you cited at the beginning, but it could get that hot, and we just can't know right now whether the temperature will get that hot for a long time and make it impossible to continue the course that the administration now has chosen
to take.

---

quote:

---

The Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department has opened a full investigation into the White House's alleged leak of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

The [Justice] department notified the counsel's office about 8:30 p.m. Monday that it was launching an investigation but said the White House could wait until the next morning to notify staff and direct them to preserve relevant material, McClellan said.

Since when does the Justice Department give people a several-hours head start to destroy evidence before an investigation begins?

Clearly, it's time for Ashcroft to appoint an independent, special counsel to conduct this investigation. Democratic Senators Tom Daschle (D-SD), Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Biden (D-DE), and John Rockefeller (D-WV) wrote a letter to John Ashcroft demanding that he appoint a special counsel:

However, we do not believe that this investigation of senior Bush Administration officials, possibly including high-level White House staff, can be conducted by the Justice Department because of the obvious and inherent conflicts of interests involved. Therefore, we strongly urge the immediate appointment of a special counsel to investigate this matter. Although a special counsel is appointed by the Attorney General, it is the best possible means of avoiding serious conflicts of interest.

---

quote:

---

The company's identity appears in Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) records because the CIA operative, using her married name Valerie E. Wilson, contributed $1,000 to Al Gore (news - web sites)'s presidential primary campaign in 1999. Her husband contributed to both the Bush and Gore presidential campaigns.


The company that appears in FEC records, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, had been a CIA front for Plame, according to The Washington Post. That account was confirmed Saturday, only on condition of anonymity, by an official who recently left the government.


White House Calm Facing CIA Probe Deadline

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Khamphausen

as far as my experience in public school, school was a time for learning (*cough*), not personal statements.

---

Speak for yourself! High School was ALL ABOUT making personal statements for me. Which is probably why i'm writing here on your message board as opposed to the Los Angeles Times. :lol:

quote:

---

originally posted by Whomod:

The only people i've heard that swear that Wilson's wife was merely an analyst are Novack and Sean Hannity who of course try to spin this as a non-issue hatched by (who else) THE "LIBERALS" that should be beneath anyones interest level. Every other news source I've read has her as an operative. But of course these guys on AM talk radio (and of course Novak) are imapartial and would never ever lie or mislead.

---

quote:

---

South Florida Sun-Sentinel, editorial page, Sunday, October 5, 2003, page 4-J:

BIG STORY WASN'T BUSH'S ADMISSION

A letter writer [in a previous editorial page] complained that the story in which President Bush acknowledged that there was no proof that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11th attacks should have been on the front page.
Actually, that story was not big news because the administration never claimed such a connection in the first place.
Although there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the planning of September 11th, there is considerable evidence of links between him, al Qaida, and Iraqi training camps for terrorists.

The Bushg critics are apparently unaware that in a May 7 ruling on a lawsuit brought against Iraq by the families of September 11th victims, George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, Manhattan District Judge Harold Baer ruled there was proof Baghdad played a role in facilitating the attacks. He considered evidence that radical Islamists were trained to hijack U.S. airliners at Salman Pak, an Iraqi terrorist training camp.

Evidence has also been found that in Iraq connecting al Qaida and an Iraqi to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Documents have now been found in Iraq that show Saddam Hussein provided monthly payments and a home to that Iraqi, whose name is Abdul Rahman Yasin.

It is clear that the administration has taken a conservative path in not claiming a direct tie between Iraq and September 11th, even though there is clear circumstantial evidence of such ties.
It is also clear that Saddam Hussein has supported terrorism in Israel, which has resulted in the deaths of many Israelis, and some Americans.

Thankfully, we have a president with the courage to do what is needed to combat terrorism's threat, which should be identified as World War III.

The real story that should be on the front pages is the large amount of evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaida.

For some reason, the major media are concentrating only on the negative aspects of the fight against terrorism, and not against the many positive aspects of it.

RICHARD CROFT
Lake Worth, FL

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

quote:

---

originally posted by Whomod:

The only people i've heard that swear that Wilson's wife was merely an analyst are Novack and Sean Hannity who of course try to spin this as a non-issue hatched by (who else) THE "LIBERALS" that should be beneath anyones interest level. Every other news source I've read has her as an operative. But of course these guys on AM talk radio (and of course Novak) are imapartial and would never ever lie or mislead.

---

And the Wall Street Journal, which is conveniently ignored.

(see the editorial I posted at the bottom of page 10 here)

The Wall Street Journal's take is that Joseph Wilson went on a secret mission for the CIA in Niger. And when Wilson outed himself, with his New York Times editorial, accusing the Bush administration of lying and wrongdoing, WILSON HIMSELF drew public attention to his work for the CIA, who sent him to Niger, etc., and drew public investigation to the person (within the CIA) who recruited Wilson for the mission, and that it WAS HIS WIFE.

When Wilson slanders the President, that requires the media to investigate Wilson and his mission, and his allegations. So Wilson himself drew attention to his wife, and if he wasn't prepared for that kind of investigation, then he shouldn't have gone public.

Conversely, it is of concern for me that four former CIA operatives went on ABC's Nightline last Thursday to criticize the Bush administration for disclosing Wilson's wife's name. But that is four operatives, I don't know that the entire CIA feels that way.

And Wilson likes to pass himself off as non-partisan as well, but as I discussed on another topic, Wilson spent a fair part of his career working directly for Gore, and other high-level partisan Democrats. It has yet to be discosed what biases these four operatives, out of the thousands in the CIA, might have against Bush's White House. The question is not even asked.

Once again, I get the feeling that this is the slanderous-accusation-of-the-week aimed at Bush, just the latest trumped-up charges in a slanderous three-year string. When there is hard evidence, I'll believe it.

I get the impression only the Bush-bashing side of this story has been told, and there's another side that would vindicate Bush's White House, that's just screaming to be told, and perhaps even HAS been told but not reported, that is not given exposure in a media eager to lynch Bush and downplay anything that would vindicate him.

I caught a few minutes of the 700 Club today, and they discussed the level of bias with which the L.A. Times is covering the governor's election in California.
It reported that the L.A. Times is at the core of all these sex allegations and Nazi allegations surfacing just days before the California governor's election.

The report said about 1000 people have cancelled their subscriptions to the L.A. Times in protest to the one-sided coverage.
I saw L.A. Times reporter Robert Scheer interviewed on PBS News last Friday, who really hyped Gray Davis, and laid into Schwarzenegger, in a one-sided fashion that I've come to expect from the L.A. Times.
With the same allegations against Clinton, the liberal media and reporters sneered at Republicans and conservatives, saying that his private sex life has nothing to do with his job performance.
Again, that double-standard.

And 700 Club story also reported that The L.A. Times has two teams of reporters working tirelessly on the sex allegations against Schwarzenneger, and simultaneously has NO REPORTERS, NONE investigating incumbent Governor Gray Davis, despite allegations that Davis has been verbally abusive to women staffers in his office, and even grabbed a female employee at least once, in a fit of rage.

Another example of the Democrat-biased media playing favorites. The National Organization for Women (NOW) also vitriolically protests Schwarzeneeger's candidacy, whereas they ardently supported Bill Clinton against similar allegations, by women who came forward with sexual harrassment charges against Clinton.

You just have to laugh at that double standard, where allegations Liberals are always portrayed as "overblown", and allegations against conservatives are always assumed to be true, and warrant being nailed to a cross, or calls for impeachment.

And no doubt this bias carries over to the flavor-of-the-week allegations against Bush as well.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Matter eater Man:
The Wall Street Journal's editorial doesn't sight any source does it? It just says she's an analyst with no source mentioned. So they know this how? Also not sure how Wilson slandered the President.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Matter eater Man:

The info Wilson came out with has embarrassed the administration but it's info that seems to be true.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Matter eater Man:
Even they said [presumably you mean the Bush administration] that bit referencing it shouldn't have been in the State of the Union address.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Matter eater Man:
Can't really slander somebody if they end up agreeing with you.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Matter eater Man:

This weekend on Meet the Press, Wilson said he was a Democrat. Nothing too ambiguous there.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Matter eater Man:

According to Novak, 2 Senior White House officials gave him Wilson's wife['s] name. It doesn't look like they're coming forward despite it becoming a criminal matter. This is not honorable or noble behavior.

It would have been one thing if a reporter had dug out her identity but quite another for the government to give out a covert operative name.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Matter eater Man:
For somebody who likes to shout treason at the liberal boogie men I would think it would deeply disturb you too that this administration would resort to such dirty tactics.

---

quote:

---

Published on Saturday, October 11, 2003 by The Olympian (Olympia, Washington)
Many Soldiers, Same Letter
Newspapers Around US Get Identical Missives from Iraq

by Ledyard King, Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON -- Letters from hometown soldiers describing their successes rebuilding Iraq have been appearing in newspapers across the country as U.S. public opinion on the mission sours.

And all the letters are the same.



A Gannett News Service search found identical letters from different soldiers with the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, also known as "The Rock," in 11 newspapers, including Snohomish, Wash.

The Olympian received two identical letters signed by different hometown soldiers: Spc. Joshua Ackler and Spc. Alex Marois, who is now a sergeant. The paper declined to run either because of a policy not to publish form letters.

The five-paragraph letter talks about the soldiers' efforts to re-establish police and fire departments, and build water and sewer plants in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, where the unit is based.

"The quality of life and security for the citizens has been largely restored, and we are a large part of why that has happened," the letter reads.

It describes people waving at passing troops and children running up to shake their hands and say thank you.

It's not clear who wrote the letter or organized sending it to soldiers' hometown papers.

Six soldiers reached by GNS directly or through their families said they agreed with the letter's thrust. But none of the soldiers said he wrote it, and one said he didn't even sign it.

Marois, 23, told his family he signed the letter, said Moya Marois, his stepmother. But she said he was puzzled why it was sent to the newspaper in Olympia. He attended high school in Olympia but no longer considers the city home, she said. Moya Marois and Alex's father, Les, now live near Kooskia, Idaho.

A seventh soldier didn't know about the letter until his father congratulated him for getting it published in the local newspaper in Beckley, W.Va.

"When I told him he wrote such a good letter, he said: 'What letter?' " Timothy Deaconson said Friday, recalling the phone conversation he had with his son, Nick. "This is just not his (writing) style."

He spoke to his son, Pfc. Nick Deaconson, at a hospital where he was recovering from a grenade explosion that left shrapnel in both his legs.

Sgt. Christopher Shelton, who signed a letter that ran in the Snohomish Herald, said Friday that his platoon sergeant had distributed the letter and asked soldiers for the names of their hometown newspapers. Soldiers were asked to sign the letter if they agreed with it, said Shelton, whose shoulder was wounded during an ambush earlier this year.

"Everything it said is dead accurate. We've done a really good job," he said by phone from Italy, where he was preparing to return to Iraq.

Sgt. Todd Oliver, a spokesman for the 173rd Airborne Brigade, which counts the 503rd as one of its units, said he was told a soldier wrote the letter, but he didn't know who. He said the brigade's public affairs unit was not involved.

"When he asked other soldiers in his unit to sign it, they did," Oliver explained in an e-mail response to a GNS inquiry. "Someone, somewhere along the way, took it upon themselves to mail it to the various editors of newspapers across the country."

Lt. Col. Bill MacDonald, a spokesman for the 4th infantry Division that is heading operations in north-central Iraq, said he had not heard about the letter-writing campaign.

Neither had Lt. Cmdr. Nick Balice, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla.

A recent poll suggests that Americans are increasingly skeptical of America's prolonged involvement in Iraq. A USA Today-CNN-Gallup Poll released Sept. 23 found 50 percent believe that the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, down from 73 percent in April.

The letter talks about the soldiers' mission, saying, "one thousand of my fellow soldiers and I parachuted from ten jumbo jets." It describes Kirkuk as "a hot and dusty city of just over a million people." It tells about the progress they have made.

"The fruits of all our soldiers' efforts are clearly visible in the streets of Kirkuk today. There is very little trash in the streets, many more people in the markets and shops, and children have returned to school," the letter reads. "I am proud of the work we are doing here in Iraq and I hope all of your readers are as well."

Sgt. Shawn Grueser of Poca, W.Va., said he spoke to a military public affairs officer whose name he couldn't remember about his accomplishments in Iraq for what he thought was a news release to be sent to his hometown paper in Charleston, W.Va. But the 2nd Battalion soldier said he did not sign any letter.

Although Grueser said he agrees with the letter's sentiments, he was uncomfortable that a letter with his signature did not contain his own words or spell out his own accomplishments.

"It makes it look like you cheated on a test, and everybody got the same grade," Grueser said by phone from a base in Italy where he had just arrived from Iraq.

Moya Marois said she is proud of her stepson Alex, the former Olympia resident. But she worries that the letter tries to give legitimacy to a war she doesn't think was justified.

"We're going to support our son," she said. But "there are a lot of Americans that are not in support of this war that would like to see them returned home, and think it's going to get worse."



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1011-08.htm

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1012letters12a.html

---

quote:

---

....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne
Meditation XVII: No man is an island...

---

Quote:

---

Did Dems Mislead on Saddam's WMD Threat?

.
Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 10:50 a.m. EDT
.
Even if it turned out that Saddam Hussein never possessed a single weapon of mass destruction (and it won't), Democrats have a huge problem trying to sell the idea that President Bush misled the nation when he warned about Iraq's WMD threat.
.
Why? Because they voiced the same warnings repeatedly as far back as 1998.
.
Fox News Sunday host Tony Snow did a deft job yesterday carving up war critic Sen. Jay Rockefeller, resurrecting rhetoric from the West Virginia Democrat's 2002 addresses that sounded like they could have been written by Dick Cheney's speechwriters.
.
Today Andrew Sullivan's Web site offers a few more blasts from Democrats' recent past, comments that make their current complaints about the White House's Iraq war "fraud" sound downright hysterical.
.
Here, for instance, is what anti-war Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle and John Kerry had to say on Oct. 9, 1998, in a letter to the White House:
.
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions [including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites] to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
.
Two months later, peacenik and current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi offered her own two cents on the threat posed by Saddam:
.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
.
Then there's Sen. Hillary Clinton, who in November of last year tried to argue that the Bush family merely wanted to settle an old score with Saddam. A month earlier, however, the former first lady warned:
.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
.
Here's more from Sen. Kerry, who called on Bush to apologize yesterday for misleading the nation about Saddam's WMDs, but two months before the U.S. attacked was urging action:
.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction ...without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. ...He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real. ..."

---