Wot Is It Good 4

That's all folks

2007-06-05T17:43:00.000+10:00

This blog is closed.

Please see the right hand side for links to some of my work on the Sibel Edmonds case.

I'm still working on the Sibel Edmonds case, and can be found at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak and Against All Enemies

See below this post for "What the heck is Sibel Edmonds' Case about? And why should I care?" - an overview of the case.

What the heck is Sibel Edmonds' Case about? And why should I care?

2007-06-04T23:38:00.000+10:00

Below is a short-as-possible piece which hopes to answer the burning question in Sibel's case: What the heck is her case about?

For a longer version, see my recent interview with Scott Horton

Please call the offices of Congressmen Waxman - (202) 225-3976 - and Conyers - (202) 225-5126 - demanding open hearings into Sibel Edmonds' case and the State Secrets Privilege.

-----------

Sibel Edmonds' case is about the intersection of illegal arms trafficking, heroin trafficking, money laundering, terrorist activities and the corruption of many "highly-recognizable, highly-known names" in and around the US government. Sibel says that the people involved will go straight to prison if we can get hearings into her case. Richard Perle, in prison. Douglas Feith, in prison. Dennis Hastert, in prison. Marc Grossman, in prison.

According to Sibel, the best place to begin trying to understand the case is a recent article by Phil Giraldi in the American Conservative. Sibel says “Giraldi has it 100% right; this I consider the most accurate summary of my case.”

Giraldi writes:

"Sibel Edmonds... could provide a major insight into how neoconservatives distort US foreign policy and enrich themselves at the same time. On one level, her story appears straightforward: several Turkish lobbying groups allegedly bribed congressmen to support policies favourable to Ankara. But beyond that, the Edmonds revelations become more serpentine and appear to involve AIPAC, Israel and a number of leading neoconservatives who have profited from the Turkish connection.
[]
Turkey benefits from the relationship by securing general benevolence and increased aid from the US Congress - as well as access to otherwise unattainable military technology. The Turkish General Staff has a particular interest because much of the military spending is channeled through companies in which the generals have a financial stake, making for a very cozy and comfortable business arrangement. The commercial interest has also fostered close political ties, with the American Turkish Council, American Turkish Cultural Alliance and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations all developing warm relationships with AIPAC and other Jewish and Israel advocacy groups throughout the US.

Someone has to be in the middle to keep the happy affair going, so enter the neocons, intent on securing Israel against all comers and also keen to turn a dollar."

Giraldi goes on to list some neocons who are "linked to Turkey" - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Marc Grossman, Eric Edelman, and Stephen Solarz - and he suggests that they "enrich themselves" via drug trafficking and arms dealing.

The American Turkish Council (ATC)
The main Turkish lobbying group in the US is an organization called the American Turkish Council (ATC) - one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country. The ATC is heavily stacked with former government officials - statesmen, lobbyists and 'dime a dozen generals' - lobbyists and representatives of the military-industrial-complex (MIC). Brent Scowcroft is the chairman, and heavy hitters from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrup Grumman and other 'defense' contractors populate the board.

It's perhaps not surprising, then, that Turkey is a major recipient of US military aid - running to the billions of dollars - with much of it financed by the US taxpayer. Giraldi suggests in his article that this largesse appears to be the result of bribes paid to congressmen - a suggestion that shouldn't surprise anyone - but there's much more to the story than the usual Iron Triangle / Revolving Door story that we're all familiar with.

In a 10-page article in Vanity Fair on Sibel's case, the ATC is described as "a front for criminal activity" involving "large-scale drug deals and of selling classified military technologies to the highest bidder." We'll discuss the drug side of the story shortly, but let's first take a quick look at the military technology element - not only are the MIC contractors bribing congress to ensure that military aid flows to Turkey (and Israel), the Turks and the Israelis are also illegally selling that technology to the highest bidder - which inevitably includes America's enemies, States, and terrorist groups.

Sibel's case also involves the nuclear black market - some Turkish members of the ATC have supplied Pakistan's A.Q. Khan network with hardware, as have American companies that Sibel overheard on the wiretaps. Perhaps even more disturbing, as reported in Vanity Fair, other wiretaps indicate that "Turkish groups had been installing doctoral students at U.S. research institutions in order to acquire information about black market nuclear weapons." Daniel Ellsberg says that, according to Sibel, bribes were paid to people at the State Department to facilitate this activity.

These are extraordinary claims, of course, and we have a lot of evidence to support the claims - including, but not limited to, the fact that Valerie Plame's front company, Brewster Jennings, had been conducting a counter-intelligence operation against the ATC for years.

One very interesting aspect of Sibel's case that has not really gained traction is that while the ATC is understood to be the key focus of her case, it appears that AIPAC is equally involved. In a terrific 2005 interview with Chris Deliso, Sibel said:

Essentially, there is only one investigation – a very big one, an all-inclusive one... But I can tell you there are a lot of people involved, a lot of ranking officials, and a lot of illegal activities that include multi-billion-dollar drug-smuggling operations, black-market nuclear sales to terrorists and unsavory regimes, you name it... You can start from the AIPAC angle. You can start from the Plame case. You can start from my case. They all end up going to the same place, and they revolve around the same nucleus of people.

And she went a little bit further in a great interview with David Swanson this week:

"AIPAC helped form the American Turkish Council - look at the board members, look at the people. You will see the same people involved in both fronts, because it is the same operation."

Reading between the lines (in a number of different places), it appears that Sibel was actively involved in 'the AIPAC investigation' as well as the investigation into the ATC. As she says, both the ATC and AIPAC are both 'fronts' for the 'same (criminal) operation.'

Drug Trafficking.
As I document in "Sibel Edmonds & the Neocons' Turkish Gravy-Train," Afghanistan supplies almost 90% of the world's heroin, and most of that goes straight to Turkey where it is processed, packaged, warehoused, and then re-exported to other countries for final consumption. Turkey supplies approximately 80% of Europe's heroin, and 15% of heroin in the US - worth approximately $40 billion at street prices.

Turkey is widely acknowledged to be controlled by a "Deep State." In 1996, a deadly car crash at a place called Susurluk blew this out into the open. In the car were four people who probably shouldn't have been in the car together:

"an MP, a police chief, a beauty queen and her lover, a top Turkish gangster and hitman called Abdullah Catli... Catli, a heroin trafficker on Interpol’s wanted list, was carrying a diplomatic passport signed by none other than the Turkish Interior Minister himself.
[]
The Susurluk Incident became Turkey’s Watergate, exposing the deep links between the Turkish state, terrorists and drug traffickers. It revealed what Turks call the Gizli Devlet, or Deep State – the politicians, military officers and intelligence officials who worked with drug bosses to move drugs from Afghanistan into Europe."

Sibel spells it out:

"The Turkish government, MIT and the Turkish military, not only sanctions, but also actively participates in and oversees the narcotics activities and networks."

As I outlined in the curiously-titled "Sibel Edmonds: America's Watergate," Sibel's case demonstrates that Turkey's Deep State 'owns' large parts of the American establishment, to the point where it appears that there also is a 'Deep State' in the US as well. ATC/AIPAC appear to be headquarters for this Deep State in the US, a cozy club where drug dealers, weapons traffickers and past-and-present government officials coexist. Happily!

And if that's not bad enough, we also know that:

"Heroin trafficking is also the main source of funding for the al-Qaeda terrorists. A Time Magazine article in August 2004 reported that al-Qaeda has established a smuggling network that is peddling Afghan heroin to buyers across the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, and in turn is using the drug revenues to purchase weapons and explosives. The article states: “...al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies are increasingly financing operations with opium sales. Anti-drug officials in Afghanistan have no hard figures on how much al-Qaeda and the Taliban are earning from drugs, but conservative estimates run into tens of millions of dollars.”

That is, our Turkish Deep State friends, the people we are directly providing with weapons, are outsourcing some of their distribution activities to al-Qaeda and the Taliban (and, while we're at it, to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA.))

When we are discussing issues such as al-Qaeda smuggling heroin through Afghanistan and the other 'Stans, sometimes it can seem remote and distant, so let's come back to something more concrete. In Adrian Gatton's terrific recent article, The Susurluk Legacy, he quotes Huseyin Baybasin, a Turkish heroin kingpin who is now in jail in Holland:

“I handled the drugs which came through the channel of the Turkish Consulate in England... I was with the Mafia but I was carrying this out with the same Mafia group in which the rulers of Turkey were part.”

Gatton also describes how anyone in the UK government who dared speak about the issue were immediately rebuked by the Foreign Office (the UK equivalent of the State Department.)

The parallels with Sibel's case couldn't be clearer. As 60 Minutes first reported (youtube) in 2002, and Vanity Fair later reported, the Turkish Embassy was directing a lot of the heroin trafficking activity - in conjunction with people at the ATC.

"Sibel also recalled hearing wiretaps indicating that Turkish Embassy targets frequently spoke to staff members at the A.T.C.
[]
In her secure testimony, Edmonds disclosed some of what she recalled hearing... Many (calls) involved an F.B.I. target at (Chicago's) large Turkish Consulate... Some of the calls reportedly contained what sounded like references to large scale drug shipments and other crimes."

And just as the UK Foreign Office silenced anyone in the UK who tried to speak out, Sibel says:

The Department of State is easily the most corrupted of the major government agencies.
[]
In some cases where the FBI stumbles upon evidence of high-level officials being involved in drug-smuggling, they're even prevented from sharing it with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency]. The Department of State just comes in and says, "Leave it."

Elsewhere, Sibel says:

"For years and years, information and evidence being collected by the counterintelligence operations of certain U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies has been prevented from being transferred to criminal and narcotics divisions, and from being shared with the Drug Enforcement Agency and others with prosecutorial power. Those with direct knowledge have been prevented from making this information available and public by various gag orders and invocation of the State Secrets Privilege. Why?"

Pay attention here, because the ATC is where the worlds of the MIC and the heroin trafficking collide. One of the key Turkish interfaces at the ATC is the Turkish Generals - people that Giraldi says own a stake in the companies through which the military spending is channeled. As described earlier, these exact same people, the Turkish Deep State, also control much of the global heroin market. In between the MIC and the heroin traffickers - are the "neoconservatives (who) distort US foreign policy and enrich themselves at the same time."

One of the difficulties in trying to unravel the Sibel Edmonds case is that we aren't sure where one case ends and another begins. We know that some of the wiretaps were from the ATC, and some from the Turkish embassy in DC, and some from the embassy in Chicago. We also know that many of the wiretaps involve conversations between the embassies and the ATC.
Some of the wiretaps relate to drug trafficking, some relate to the nuclear black market and other weapons trafficking, and some refer to terrorist activity - including 9/11.

Perhaps it's not surprising, then, when she says:

You have the same players when you look into these activities at high-levels you come across the same players, they are the same people.

Those 'same people' - at least on the American side - according to Giraldi, appear to be Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Marc Grossman, Eric Edelman, and Stephen Solarz. It appears that we can also add William Cohen and Joseph Ralston - and Dennis Hastert - to that roster, and I'm sure there are a few more that haven't yet been publicly identified.

If what Sibel says is true, and her claims are all backed by documents and wiretaps, and also backed up by other agents who have filed similar complaints, and are ready and willing to testify. All of these people should be in jail. For a long, long time.

Congress must hold hearings to get to the bottom of these crimes. If you agree, please call Congress, today, and demand public, open hearings.

(for more, see Who wants to gag Sibel Edmonds? And why? (with answers!))

Contact Information

Congressman Henry Waxman (contact page)

(Those calling Waxman's office should ask for Michelle Ash & David Rapallo.)

In Washington, D.C.
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-3976 (phone)
(202) 225-4099 (fax)

In Los Angeles
8436 West Third Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90048
(323) 651-1040 (phone)
(818) 878-7400 (phone)
(310) 652-3095 (phone)
(323) 655-0502 (fax)

House Government Reform Committee (contact page)
By Mail or Phone:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5051

Please also contact Congressman John Conyers, asking him to support hearings by Chairman Waxman.
(Those calling Conyers' office should ask for Elliot Mintzberg.)
Email: John.Conyers@mail.house.gov

Washington, DC
2426 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5126
(202) 225-0072 Fax

Sometimes fearmongering isn't enough (guest post by noise)

2007-06-04T16:15:00.000+10:00

Arkansas GOP chief Dennis Milligan:

He said he’s “150 percent” behind Bush on the war in Iraq.

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Milligan said. (1)

Clemons sez he is a big fan of Scott

2007-06-03T20:45:00.000+10:00

* Horton interviewed Steve Clemons. Clemons sez he is a big fan of Scott. Everyone sez that about Horton.

* Taibbi takes Giuliani apart.

* Jeralyn:

"My answer to the question as to whether Rudy is more dangerous than Bush: Of course he is. He's smarter and more Machiavellian.

A more apt question would be whether he's more dangerous than Dick Cheney. Probably not. But it's also why, happily, he won't be successful in his bid for the Presidency."

* scott interviewed Jim Lobe. Lobe says he thinks the Turks will ~~invade~~ conduct cross-border raids into Iraq "starting in a month or so."

* Other Horton:

"(Larry) Wilkerson’s parting comment is telling. “They are dangerous men who will lie about almost anyone or anything,” Wilkerson angrily responded by e-mail, singling out Feith, DiRita, Cheney and Rumsfeld for scorn."

* i'll be offline (my) monday

Postsecret

2007-06-03T17:52:00.000+10:00

Postsecret

US let Pakistan go nuclear: ex-CIA official

2007-06-03T13:55:00.000+10:00

Dawn (in Pakistan, in full):

"US let Pakistan go nuclear: ex-CIA official

WASHINGTON, May 3: The Reagan administration allowed Pakistan to continue its nuclear programme because it needed Islamabad’s support to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, says a former CIA official.

Richard Barlow was an analyst for the CIA, monitoring Pakistan’s nuclear programme during the Reagan era. In 1989, he moved over to the Pentagon, where he worked for then Secretary of Defence Richard Cheney.

In an interview to a Washington news site, Raw Story, Mr Barlow claims that he lost the job when he raised objections to his bosses about senior Pentagon officials allegedly lying to Congress concerning Pakistan’s emerging nuclear programme.

When Mr Barlow joined the CIA in 1985 as a counter-proliferation intelligence officer with particular expertise on Pakistan, he soon learned that US officials were aware of Pakistan’s efforts to establish a weapon-cable nuclear programme but chose to ignore them.

According to Mr Barlow, individuals at the State Department later actively facilitated procurement, tipping off targets of sealed arrest warrants in undercover operations and illegally approving export licenses for restricted goods.

In 1985 — following the arrest of a Pakistani agent in the US who attempted to procure specialised switches for nuclear detonators — Congress took steps to prevent Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons, passing bills that would cut off economic and military aid to Pakistan if it were found to be involved in nuclear activities.

“However, President Reagan wanted military and economic aid to continue flowing to Pakistan to ensure its ongoing support of his covert war against the Russians in Afghanistan,” Mr Barlow says.

In 1987, Mr Barlow engineered the arrest of some of Pakistanis in the US as part of an undercover operation. He says the arrests came with the full support and knowledge of the highest levels of the CIA and the Reagan administration.

The arrests sparked a firestorm. Proof of Pakistan’s proliferation activities would trigger the provisions of the so-called Solarz Amendment and put an end to Pakistani aid.

The amendment’s author, Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs Chairman Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-NY), called for a top-secret briefing by the CIA. Mr Barlow was sent to represent the agency.

Under orders from the CIA, he told the subcommittee that there were “scores” of illegal transactions that should have triggered the Solarz Amendment. He also claimed that the Pakistanis involved — including a retired general — were agents of the government of Pakistan.

While Mr Solarz and others in Congress favoured Mr Barlow, he claims that some senior officials of the Reagan administration tried to undercut his testimony. US officials running the covert Afghan war — the Directorate of Operations, the former National Intelligence Officer for Proliferation who had been responsible for briefing Congress and the State Department’s regional office — were particularly upset and tried to get him fired for engineering the arrests and spilling the beans, he says.

A US court, however, convicted the Pakistani nationals arrested for assisting their country’s nuclear programme and President Reagan triggered the Solarz Amendment for the first and only time.

Immediately afterward, President Reagan invoked a national security waiver provision in the law, nullifying the amendment.

Mr Barlow left the CIA and in early 1989, after George H. W. Bush became president, he joined the Pentagon’s Office of Non-Proliferation Policy."

Military equipment found in Turkish train wreck

2007-06-03T13:33:00.000+10:00

Turkish MSNBC (thanks Mizgin)

"Military equipment found in Turkish train wreck: Buyukanit

There has been speculation in the media, denied by Tehran, that a consignment of arms was being sent to Syria from Iran.

The chief of the Turkish general staff has confirmed that military equipment was found amongst the cargo of a freight train that was derailed by a terrorist bomb last week.

General Yasar Buyukanit said that while he would not comment in detail on the allegations that a cache of warms and munitions had been found at the site of the train derailment, he did say that there was military equipment aboard the train.

Claims that a cargo container on train that derailed in south eastern Turkey on May 24 after a terrorist group detonated a mine on the tracks was found to contain weaponry surfaced in the media soon after the incident.

“An investigation is already under way,” Buyukanit said. “If the cars of the train enter the country from the border without undergoing a detailed check, officials do not check them again. There is something wrong here. A car derailed and weapons appeared. It is impossible to say something before the investigation is completed. But I can say that there was military equipment.”"

an apology

2007-06-03T12:36:00.000+10:00

Yesterday I did something very stupid, and I linked to something that, rightfully, caused a lot of offence.

I asked the author of the video to pull it down, they agreed, and sent me this message:

The video is down. Too bad, I received a bunch of inquiries and phone calls from friends asking me who she is. I'd tried telling them before about her but nobody seemed to care. Suddenly, mix her story with pop culture crap and people open their eyes - go figure. Maybe it has something to do with how their brains have been re-wired over the last bunch of years with all the crap they watch on tv. Oh well, please pass on my apologies... and, please, tell her my intentions were sincere. I'll try to figure out another way to get people to open up to her case.

I understood that this was the intention behind the video, and I saw the video in that context. It is a common at youtube to use trashy 'pop culture' to bring attention to an issue in this way, and it is understood that there is no link between the actual content of the video, and the pop culture element.

Regardless, it was appalling judgement by me. Sincere apologies.

RIP

2007-06-03T08:28:00.000+10:00

Steve Gilliard, RIP.

Sibel Edmonds - still waiting for justice.

2007-06-03T07:43:00.000+10:00

This Is How I Protest The War

2007-06-02T16:30:00.000+10:00

* clemons:

"There are a lot of new good people -- working together finally -- in this administration. But Vice President Cheney, and his national security spearcarriers -- David Addington, John Hannah, and David Wurmser -- will be out there to sabotage and oppose him at every turn. These rivals can't be seduced to support David Gordon's logic. They need to be out run, embarrassed, exhausted, pushed out of the room, or crushed.

That's how one wins against Cheney's followers. David Gordon's appointment is a sign that smart realists are ascendant."

* Henry Rollins - "This Is How I Protest The War" (10 mins)

* Mizgin has a letter from a soldier. go read.

* your president speaks:

"Sometimes I'm not poetic enough to describe what it's like to be in the presence of the Holy Father. It is a moving experience. And I have not been in the presence of this particular Holy Father."

Repudiate Now.

2007-06-02T10:23:00.000+10:00

Scott Ritter:

"Impeachment is the constitutional remedy for a unilateral president whose governance is an insult to traditional American democratic norms and values. However, impeachment alone is simply a measure which addresses the symptoms of a larger malaise that has stricken America. The arrogance associated with the concept of the unitary executive is prevalent throughout mainstream American political life. The passivity of the legislative branch is one byproduct of the dominance of the unitary executive. It is also an indicator that the will of the people, as expressed through their election of the people's representatives to the Congress of the United States, no longer has the weight and bearing long associated with the American democratic experience.

Any effort to impeach Bush and any of his administration found to be engaged in activities classifiable as "high crimes and misdemeanors" would fail to rein in the unitary executive core of any successor. One only has to listen to the rhetoric of the Democratic candidates for president to understand that this trend is as deeply rooted among them as it is with President Bush. Americans today look for leaders without recognizing the absolute necessity of electing team players. The Founding Fathers deliberately designed the executive branch to be strong and independent, but also made sure, through an elaborate system of checks and balances, that it operated merely as one of three separate but equal branches of government.

The "in your face" efforts of the Bush administration to minimize the role of Congress and to achieve political control of the judiciary are simply more public manifestations of trends that occurred in a more quiet fashion in past administrations, Republican and Democratic alike. When America elects a leader who states clearly that he or she will work with their equal partners in governance, the Congress, for the good of the country, and who will acknowledge the supremacy of law set forth in the form of binding legislation passed by the will of Congress void of any limiting or contradicting "presidential signing statement," then we will finally have a leader who is truly worthy of the title "President of the United States of America."

But this will not happen of its own volition. The impeachment of President Bush would not in and of itself terminate executive unilateralism. It would only limit its implementation on the most visible periphery, driving its destructive designs back into the shadows of government, away from the public eye, and as such, public accountability. Impeach President Bush, yes, if in fact he can be charged with the commission of acts which meet the constitutional standard for impeachment (and I believe he could, if Congress only had the will to do its job). But to truly heal America, we must repudiate everything President Bush stands for, in terms of not only public and foreign policy, but also in terms of his style of governance, since the former is derived from the latter.

Repudiation is a strong term, defined as "rejecting as having no authority or binding force," to "cast off or disown," or to "reject with disapproval or condemnation." In my opinion, the complete repudiation of the presidency of George W. Bush is the only recourse we have collectively as a people to not only seek redress for the wrongs committed by the Bush administration, but also to purge society of this cancer that threatens to consume and destroy us as a whole, and which would continue to manifest itself in our system of governance even after any impeachment proceedings.

Like any cancerous growth, the Bush administration has attached its malignancy to the American nation in a cruel fashion, its poisonous tentacles stretching deep into our national fabric in a manner that makes difficult the task of culling out the healthy from the diseased. But we cannot truly repudiate something without its complete and utter elimination from our midst. As such, there must be a litmus test to help us differentiate the good from the bad, that which must be restored from that which must be eliminated. For me, there is only one true test: that of constitutionality. There will be those who argue, and have argued, that the time is well past for an oppressed people (and one would be a fool not to comprehend that under the Bush administration, the American people have in fact been oppressed) to rely on the niceties of legal argument, especially when the system of law we seek to use in our defense has been so thoroughly corrupted by those who seek to impose tyranny.
[]
Short of a complete and total abdication on the part of the Congress, the collapse of the judiciary system, and a shocking decision by those men and women who wear the uniform of the armed forces of the United States to lend force of arms to the will of a dictatorial president, I cannot ever envision a time in which conditions in these United States could deteriorate to the point that a violent revolution "of the people and by the people" would be required to restore constitutional legitimacy and authority. Having said that, I remind the reader that with so few Americans professing any working understanding of the Constitution, it is difficult to speak of people defending that which they remain ignorant of.

While I reject violence as a means of redressing social wrongs, especially when applied to issues of governance, and instead rely on the rule of law as manifested by the Constitution and those legitimate bodies empowered by the Constitution to remedy every situation, I cannot help but fear the moment when the foundation of legitimacy which defines who we are and what we are as a nation fades away into irrelevance amidst a sea of complacency and ignorance. There is no greater breeding ground for the forces of tyranny than the surrender of civic responsibility on the part of those entrusted with the defense of liberty. And in this I do not mean the Congress of the United States, but rather the people of the United States, the duly elected representatives of whom constitute the Congress.

I fear not the bloody rebellion of an outraged citizenry, but rather the passive submission of a shameful mass which betrays the cause of liberty and freedom through the abandonment of the Constitution, and the obligations of citizenship derived thereof, in favor of the narcotic of consumerism. Such a mass, foreswearing blind obedience to those who profess how to best construct a cocoon that immerses the occupant in transitory comfort, is the most pressing problem facing America today. In a nation whose defining document begins, "We the People," I find that it is we the people who constitute the greatest threat to the future of America. It is not through the force of our actions, but rather the vacuum created by our inaction and apathy, a vacuum all too readily filled by those who would have us exchange our hard-fought freedoms for a gilded cage of market-driven consumerism.

This is the main reason why I am not a proponent of the 'impeach now' mentality so prevalent in political circles that oppose George W. Bush. The expediency of impeachment simply replaces one source of tyranny (President Bush) with another (whomever replaces him). It is not the failures of an individual that have gotten us to where we are today, but rather the failure of the collective. So before we speak of impeachment and the notion of executive accountability, I would like to address the issue of repudiation and the necessity of civic responsibility.
[]
Today one only needs to observe the corruption of our rulers and the carelessness of our people to understand the significance of the Constitution when it comes to preserving these United States of America. The nefarious nature of the Bush cancer is that, in its infection of the American system, it seeks to draw legitimacy for its tyrannical actions by citing the very same Constitution it seeks to destroy. The promoters of this point of view cite the academic term "Unitary Executive Theory" when defining their philosophy. To me, it is nothing less than treason. The Founding Fathers, in discussing the concept of a "unitary executive," made use of the term in a manner reflective of their desire to restrain executive power, versus the extreme interpretation embraced by counsels to President Bush and Vice President Cheney who seek to expand executive power and authority to near dictatorial levels, especially during a time of war. The tendency on the part of President Bush to obviate the role of Congress is well documented, in matters pertaining to governance in times of peace as well as war. The unprecedented number of presidential signing statements issued by Bush speaks volumes to this trend. These signing statements, historically a device used by executives to protect presidential prerogative when it comes to how a bill might be interpreted in a court of law, have been used by the Bush administration to negate the legal impact of a given piece of legislation by clearly stating the intent of the president to act in a manner inconsistent with the letter of the law. That the president believes he has a right to conduct himself in this manner is the height of hubris; that Congress continues to facilitate this behavior unchallenged represents the depth of legislative depravity.
[]
Those who espouse the nobility of patriotism by extolling Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which addresses the issue of impeachment of the president and vice president, are all too mute about the remainder of that great document. Whether this silence is derived from negligence or ignorance, or a combination thereof, is not the point. What lies at the heart of this issue is that void of a solid foundation of "creed," as Thomas Jefferson put it, to fall back on in times of constitutional crisis derived from the abuse of power and authority. The American people have only a bottomless pit as their support, and this is no support at all. Impeach President Bush? Maybe, if due process dictates. Repudiate President Bush? Absolutely, especially if one aspires for an America that truly matches the visions and ideals set forth by the Founding Fathers.

Repudiate the notion of a "unitary executive."

Repudiate presidential signing statements.

Repudiate executive violation of Article 6 of the Constitution, which binds municipal law in America with binding treaty obligations incurred when the Senate ratifies a treaty or agreement by a two-thirds majority or better.

Repudiate "faith-based initiatives" pushed by any branch of government.

Repudiate a weak Congress.

Repudiate weak senators or representatives, especially those with a track record of abrogating their constitutional mandate.

Repudiate ignorance, especially that of the American citizen who knows little or nothing about the Constitution which empowers him or her.

Repudiate consumerism, especially the virulent form it takes in the selfish framework of American-centric capitalism.

Repudiate pre-emptive wars of aggression.

Repudiate American Empire.

Instead, embrace the empowerment of education. Embrace active citizenship. Embrace the rule of law, as set forth by the Constitution. Do all of this and, in the end, if conditions and circumstance warrant, impeach President Bush and any of those in his administration so deserving."

FARA Puts Some Records Online

2007-06-02T09:12:00.000+10:00

* CQ:

"Foreign Lobbying Database Up and Running
Tracking the efforts of foreign countries and organizations to lobby the U.S. government became easier this week. The Justice Department launched a searchable online database of filings under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) — including reports filed during the current month."

we'll see. Sunlight Foundation is more circumspect: "FARA Puts Some Records Online"

* Amy:

U.S., Russia Trade Barbs Over Missile Plan
The standoff over U.S. plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe continues to intensify. On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the U.S. policy was akin to “diktat” and “imperialism.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin: "Some members of the international community have a desire to dictate their will to everyone on any issue, without coordinating their actions with common norms of international law."

Meanwhile Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded to Putin during a visit to Germany.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "Democratic institutions and an open society are not a source of weakness. Nor is freedom of speech and freedom of the press a nuisance. They are pillars of modern society. When we differ with Russia, we will consult, we will address their views seriously and we will express our own views candidly. In that regard I have to tell you that I find Russia's recent missile diplomacy difficult to understand, and we regret Russia's reluctance to accept the partnership if missile defence that we have offered."

* Amy:

British Teachers, South African Trade Union Back Israel Boycott
In Britain, the main union of British college teachers has endorsed a call for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. The measure calls Israeli academia “complicit” in Israel’s forty year occupation of Palestinian lands. The congress of the University and College Union represents more than 120,000 British teachers. The move comes as South Africa’s largest trade union federation is preparing its own campaign to call for a national boycott on Israeli products and an end to diplomatic ties with Israel. Willy Madisha, president of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), said: “The best way to have Israel comply with United Nations resolutions is to pressure it by a diplomatic boycott such as the one imposed on apartheid South Africa.”

* Amy:

Dow Jones Considers Murdoch Bid for WSJ
In media news, Dow Jones has announced its now open to talks on selling the Wall Street Journal. The news comes just one month after Dow’s controlling family, the Bancrofts, rejected a takeover bid from News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch. Dow now says its open to Murdoch’s offer.

* Amy:

Ex-Rove Aide Resigns as Arkansas U.S. Attorney
And finally, the former top aide to chief White House strategist Karl Rove has stepped down as U.S. attorney for Arkansas. Tom Griffin’s resignation came just hours after Congressmember John Conyers had asked for information about Griffin’s role in a scandal first reported by the journalist Greg Palast for both the BBC and Democracy Now. Palast obtained internal Republican emails showing Griffin had sent so-called voter “caging-lists” designed to challenge voters from casting ballots. The caging lists were skewed towards targeting people of color, predominantly African-Americans.

The Crazies

2007-06-02T08:57:00.000+10:00

* NYT:

" Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought today to minimize any sense of division within the Bush administration over Iran after the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency delivered a pointed new warning against what he called the “new crazies” pushing for military action against Tehran.

“The President of the United States has made it clear that we are on a course that is a diplomatic course,” Ms. Rice said here. “That policy is supported by all of the members of the cabinet, and by the vice president of the United States.”

At the same time, President Bush today strongly criticized the Iranian government for holding four American citizens, and demanded their release.

Ms. Rice’s assurance on U.S. strategy came as senior officials at the State Department are expressing fury over reports that members of Vice President Cheney’s staff have told others that Mr. Cheney believes the diplomatic track with Iran is pointless, and is looking for ways to persuade Mr. Bush to confront Iran militarily.
[]
Reports about hawkish statements by members of Mr. Cheney’s staff first surfaced last week in The Washington Note, a blog run by Steve Clemons of the left-leaning New America Foundation. The report has alarmed European diplomats, some of whom fear that the struggle over Iran’s nuclear program may evolve into a decision by the Bush administration to resort to force against Iran.

In interviews, people who have spoken with Mr. Cheney’s staff have confirmed the broad outlines of the report, and said that some of the hawkish statements to outsiders were made by David Wurmser, a former Pentagon official who is now the principal deputy assistant to Mr. Cheney for national security affairs. The accounts were provided by people who expressed alarm about the statements, but refused to be quoted by name.

During an interview with BBC Radio that was broadcast today, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he did not want to see another war like the one still raging in Iraq five years after the American-led invasion there.

“You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say, ‘let’s go and bomb Iran,’“ Mr. ElBaradei said, in his strongest warning yet against the use of force in Iran. “I wake up every morning and see 100 Iraqis, innocent civilians, are dying.“
[]
During an interview with BBC Radio that was broadcast today, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he did not want to see another war like the one still raging in Iraq five years after the American-led invasion there.

“You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say, ‘let’s go and bomb Iran,’“ Mr. ElBaradei said, in his strongest warning yet against the use of force in Iran. “I wake up every morning and see 100 Iraqis, innocent civilians, are dying.“

Mr. ElBaradei, who has urged Western powers to consider allowing Iran limited enrichment on its own territory, is already facing criticism from Bush administration officials who say he should stick to monitoring Iran’s nuclear program and leave diplomatic policy to the six countries that have banded together to try to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

But several Western European officials also echoed his concern, and said privately that they are worried that Mr. Cheney’s “red lines” — the point at which he believes that Iran is on the brink of acquiring a nuclear weapon and a military strike is necessary — may be coming up soon. “We fully believe that Foggy Bottom is committed to the diplomatic track,” one European official said Wednesday. “But there’s some concern about the vice president’s office.”

In the BBC interview, Mr. ElBaradei said that one could not “bomb knowledge.” Asked who the “new crazies“ were, he replied: “Those who have extreme views and say the only solution is to impose our will by force.“"

I'd be happy to forgive Gore for 2000

2007-06-01T15:07:00.000+10:00

In the comments here I briefly mentioned Gore on Lehrer talking about whether violent revolution was appropriate in 2000.

From Lehrer:

"GWEN IFILL: Let me ask you one final question, which is, as you were putting this book together and assembling your thoughts about what you see as a broad-based collapse in a lot of the way we think and reason in our society, did you ever think to yourself, based specifically on the indictment that you make against the Bush administration, that perhaps you conceded too soon in 2000?

AL GORE: Well, there was -- I took it all the way to a final Supreme Court decision. And in our system, there is no intermediate step between a final Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.

So, at that point, having taken it as far as one could, then the question becomes, are we going to be a nation of laws and not people? Do I support the rule of law, even though I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision? I did disagree with it, and I think that those of us who disagreed with it will have the better of the argument in history."

Gore has used a similar formulation in the past. In an interview in New York Magazine, May 06:

"Does he, like many Democrats, think the election was stolen?

Gore pauses a long time and stares into the middle distance. “There may come a time when I speak on that,” Gore says, “but it’s not now; I need more time to frame it carefully if I do.” Gore sighs. “In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.”

Later, I put the question of Gore’s views on the matter to David Boies, his lawyer in the Florida-recount battle. “He thought the court’s ruling was wrong and obviously political,” Boies says. So he considers the election stolen? “I think he does—and he’s right.”"

SteveA sez:

"I did not see Gore on Lehrer. From what you said here, though, it seemed he understood that the election had been stolen. He might have been able to make a case if he had wanted. But, he figured he had two options only. He could either go along with the result as he was given it by the Bush people, knowing they had stolen the election, or he could have taken a course that would have inevitably lead to violence in the streets.

Is this why politicians on the left never do anything in this country?

They always think that doing something will get lots of people killed?

So, people on the Warren Commission planned to cover it up because if the general population knew that the assassination of their President was an inside job, then, they figured, there would be blood in the streets and we can't have that.

We can't challenge the efforts of republican operatives to steal elections because why? Democrats do the same things? The people who steal elections whether dem or rep are not against killing large numbers of Americans if it means preserving their hold on power?

Do we go along with making the 9-11 murders into some bogus act of war by foreigners when there were obvious questions about who had to be involved on the inside because to open up those questions would have lead to blood in the streets?

I do not think that fighting in the streets can get us anywhere where we want to be. So, I am very interested in finding some third alternative between "rule by gangsters" and the "blood in the streets" options Gore sees for us.

Did anyone ask Gore whether he thought the consequences to the country of his acquiecence to the coup would be worse than if he had decided to stand up for something? He could have just stated the facts as he saw them. Maybe he could have argued that we should not let the coup stand, nor should we start shooting up the place.

Did anyone ask him whether he thought that if the Bush people could have stolen the election, as he seems to have conceded, that they could have planned and carried out all that came afterward?

When the election in Mexico was stolen just recently, and the people were in the streets, there was not great bloodshed. Did Gore think that he couldn't risk even that kind of confrontation? What would he have been afraid of, that the government and the gangsters would have capitulated? That there would not have been enough people concerned about an honest election showing up. Does he think people basically go along with gangster rule and he doesn't want to expose that fact?

I could go on with my questioning. I will not consider Gore for any elected office unless I hear some kind of better excuse for what he did."

Good questions, all.

OTOH, I'd be happy to forgive Gore for 2000. Compared to the alternatives, he seems like a giant. Is there another Dem candidate that would even dare mention the theft of 2000? (or 2004 for that matter.) The theft in 2000 didn't 'happen to Gore' - it happened to all of us.

Im Piç

2007-06-01T12:36:00.001+10:00

With Turkey in the news again, calipendence sent me this little creation of his last week that I forgot to publish.

From Calipendence:

"Piç" = bastard
"im" = sign of
"Im Piç!" = "Bastard Sign!"

Rather than "Bastard Sign!", I'd be tempted to go with Sign of The Bastard - but let's impeach him anyhow.

Update from calipendence in the comments, in case i wasn't clear:

"Should note to non-Turkish speaking folks that "Im Piç!" sounds like "Impeach!" when pronounced in Turkish. Thus it should read something like "Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!" to us listening..."

a 12-dimensional hyperspatial jigsaw puzzle

2007-06-01T09:56:00.000+10:00

Starroute in the comments re Turkey et al:

"I happened to run across that rocket story at Google News yesterday and have been scratching my head over it ever since. Since the Turks claimed the missiles were bound for either Hezbollah or the Palestinians, my first thought was that it might be disinfo connected with the current US scheme to tilt towards the Sunnis (with Saudi support) and smash all Shi'ites that Seymour Hersh has been talking about.

Additionally, the Daily Star (is that Lebanese?), says, "The Iranian Embassy issued a statement Wednesday denying that the weapons belonged to Iran, and said the allegations were being made 'by circles' aiming to disrupt Turkey's close relations with Iran."

So -- are the Turks doing this, or are they being set up? Are they really smuggling weapons or is the whole thing an elaborate stage show? And would "circles" be a reference to the US, the Kurds, or Israel -- or an insinuation of all three doing ring-around-the-rosies together?

The damn thing is like a 12-dimensional hyperspatial jigsaw puzzle. Any way I try to fit it together, I come up a few pieces short."

thnx, as always.

I don't feel like I have a grip on what is going on either.

(and Yep, the Daily Star is from Lebanon)

update: Mizgin in the comments:

Let me tell you something . . . if you go to the Habur border crossing, which leads into South Kurdistan (N. Iraq), you will see commercial vehicles waiting in a line that is kilometers long, on both sides of the border.

Why is that? Turkish customs inspections.

So, now, the Turkish press wants me to believe that Iran just "covertly" slipped a train car with rockets across their border without anyone in the Turkish government knowing about it?

Please . . . tell me another one.

The Turkish government knows very well that Iran is transporting rockets across "Turkish" territory (oh, coincidentally, that's really Kurdish territory, territory that the Turkish military keeps a TIGHT grip on, i.e. OCCUPIES. They have a habit of kicking out journalists or human rights workers who get too "nosy" in "The Region" or too concerned with what goes on there.)

The question is: Why did the Turkish military permit the news to be published? What do they stand to gain from it? Are they giving a message to the US, reminding the US just how very valuable they (the Pashas) are to the US? After all, it was just last week that two US F-16s from Iraq happened to "stray" into "Turkish" territory. . . after two Turkish F-16s happened to stray into Iraqi Kurdish territory and TSK launched artillery into some Southern Kurdish villages.

Are the Pashas giving a message to Iran, because they've been conducting military operations in conjunction with Iran--funny that, NATO's second largest army conducting military operations with a member of the "Axis of Evil." I have no doubt they've got a number of other deals going on with Iran.

But then, everyone in "The Region" knows that Turkey's been getting it on with Iran for some time . . . just like they've been getting it on with certain Iraqi Sunni tribes and the Iraqi Turkmen Front (hehehe . . . and people wonder why there's so much violence in Kerkuk?)

There are even Turkish mercenaries, based in the US, operating in Kerkuk.

Or did the Pashas permit publication simply because they are dying to stick it to AKP?

Welcome to our world.

BTW - someone left an anon comment on the blog yesterday that CNN Turk was saying yesterday that 'oops, they made a mistake, there were no rockets on the train'

When you say Iraq is about controlling the oil

2007-06-01T09:46:00.000+10:00

* Josh:

"When you say (Iraq is) about controlling the oil, that's not the same as saying that the oil companies themselves -- ExxonMobil, Shell, etc. -- want to own the oil in the ground or want more generous concessions from the governments. They probably do. But I don't think this is what that's about. The oil companies, in case you haven't noticed, make a decent amount of money under the current system of working with the local oligarchies and kleptocracies in the countries in question.

This is about the US controlling the region itself, having troops on the ground and structures in place so that none of the nominal governments in the region can act on their own without US assent. That's a whole different question than which companies have the right to pump the stuff out of the ground."

maybe... maybe not

* Atrios:

"Why Do We Stay In Iraq?

Josh Marshall heads down the path to madness in order to try to answer that question.

The answer is unknowable because there isn't one. There are a variety of powerful actors who have different motives. It's as true, if not more true, for the continued occupation as it was for the initial invasion.

George Bush started the war because Saddam tried to killed his Dad and because he wanted to prance around on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit. He later got stubborn about the whole thing when those mean Democrats started criticizing him, and he began to buy into the transformational rhetoric due to his increasing messianic bent. And, now, it's about his "legacy."

Dick Cheney started the war because of his insatiable lust for the black stuff. Dick Cheney keeps us in Iraq because of his insatiable lust for the black stuff.

Don Rumsfeld went to war to prove that he could achieve any military result with 3 marines, an armed aerial drone, and his left pinky. He stayed in Iraq because George Bush told him to and because he still needed to prove his awesomeness.

AEI and Viceroy Jerry went to war because they were excited about their new libertarian paradise laboratory.

Paul Wolfowitz had grand dreams about transforming the Middle East into who knows what.

Tom Friedman and others went to war because they have the mentality of 5 years olds and they thought that the smartest thing we could do was whip out our giant schlong and wave it around for awhile. Tom Friedman and others stay in Iraq because they think that if they don't keep popping cialis ("If your occupation lasts longer than 6 months...") the world will notice our little tiny shriveled up thingy.

Karl Rove went to war so his boy could prance on the aircraft carrier and win re-election. He stays because leaving Iraq will anger wingnuttia.

Lots of other people stay in Iraq just because they don't like to admit they're wrong. Their egos are more important anything.

The sensible liberals at Brookings were so stupid they thought Saddam was a threat. They were the stupidest people of all, because that was about the only thing which had nothing to do with why we invaded Iraq. They stay in Iraq because they're unable to accept responsibility for their actions.

Democrats went to war because they were scared of losing their elections. They stay there because they're scared of losing elections.

Ultimately it's all centered around oil, the endless needs of the military industrial complex, and various other financial interests masquerading as ideology. But there isn't one reason, just a grand harmonic convergence of wingnuttery."

* amy:

"Israel Dismisses Truce Talks, Launches Attacks
In Israel and the Occupied Territories, Israel has dismissed the prospect of a truce with Palestinian militants and continued its bombing attacks on Gaza. On Wednesday, two Hamas militants were killed in an Israeli strike. Meanwhile the quartet of Middle East peace mediators urged support for the ceasefire at a meeting in Berlin.
UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon: "Looking ahead, the quartet discussed the calendar for the coming months to support and encourage progress on the bilateral and regional tracks. The quartet principles agree to meet in the region in turn with the Israelis and Palestinians to review progress and discuss the way forward. The quartet also agreed to meet in the region with members of the Arab League to follow up on the Arab peace initiative and efforts to advance the regional track."
The appeal came as Israeli forces carried out what is being described as an extrajudicial execution in the middle of a crowded Palestinian street. Witnesses say undercover Israeli troops ambushed an off-duty Palestinian security officer in broad daylight in Ramallah. The officer, Mohamed Abdul Halim, was shot twenty-four times. Halim was reportedly carring a weapon but never attempted to open fire. Palestinian information minister Mustafa Barghouti was present on the scene and had shots fired at his vehicle."

trying to provoke more Islamic violence

2007-05-31T19:41:00.000+10:00

Winter has this from Craig Murray:

"I am in general opposed to violence, except as a last resort. And I know that the police are not all fascists. Many policemen don't like the drive against civil liberties any more than I do. But, even granted that they are only doing their job, I can promise you this. The first policeman who stops me as I am peacefully going about my lawful business, and demands to know who I am and where I am going, will get punched on the nose.

As the government whittles away our basic freedoms, there comes a point where you either resist, physically, or we all lose our liberty. I think Reid and Blair's new proposal for a police power to "Stop and question" takes us to that point.

Of course, having skin of a regulation Scottish blue colour, I am not likely to be stopped. Jean Charles De Menezes was killed for having a slightly olive complexion and dark hair, and it is people of his hue and darker who will in fact be stopped and questioned.

The proposal is obvious madness - if the government was looking to provoke young British Muslims, no tactic would work better. Which does lead us, quite seriously, to be forced to question whether Reid and Blair are trying deliberately to cause an even further deterioration in community relations. There are two possibilities: either they are trying to provoke more "Islamic" violence, or they are very stupid.

Come to think of it, there is a third possibility. They may be trying to provoke more Islamic violence, and be very stupid."

Winter likes the third option, and notes that Murray "appears to be way too honest for the Foreign Service."

interview

2007-05-31T19:01:00.000+10:00

Sibel and I gave an interview on Peter B Collins show today. You can download it here if you are interested - there's not much new ( about 25 mins.)

We talked, in part, about whether Waxman's reluctance to hold hearings might be due to the fact that there are some Democratic ex-congressmen involved in the bribery scam.

Sibel says that there are at least two democrats involved - I said that Stephen Solarz' name comes up in the case.

Let this be a lesson.

2007-05-31T18:31:00.000+10:00

* Digby has this from The Italian Letter:

"Yet Rove had reason to be concerned. His own internal polling six months before the (2004) election showed that Bush would gain 3.5 percent more if Iraq, strongly identified with Cheney ceased to be an issue --- a critical margin in what would certainly be a close election."

If I'm not mistaken, in 2004, Rove was begging Democrats to focus on Iraq. Let this be a lesson.

* clemons:

"We were all very lucky that the thin-skinned former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist withdrew from contention. I have liked Frist from time to time -- mostly because he believes in science and rationality -- but recently had an odd personal battle with him that exemplified why the former Tennessee senator would have been a personnel disaster at the Bank."

huh?

* Horton has the youtube of a Dennis Miller / Ron Paul interview. Miller asks Paul why he didn't wanna go invade iraq: "didn't you think it was time to get it on with radical islam?" huh? is this a new one? Saddam as 'Radical Islam'?

Turkey-Iraq border tension grows

2007-05-31T13:23:00.000+10:00

BBC:

"Turkey-Iraq border tension grows

Tension is rising on Turkey's border with Iraq amid speculation Ankara may be about to launch an incursion to tackle Kurdish rebels.

Turkey is continuing a military build up and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has refused to rule out action.

Turkey blames rebels of the PKK group for a recent suicide bombing in Ankara and a landmine attack on troops.
[]
Last week two US F-16 fighter jets based in Iraq made an incursion into Turkish airspace that Turkish media said was an attempt to intimidate Ankara into refraining from any action inside Iraq.

The US said the violation of the airspace was "unintended" and was under investigation.

Mr Erdogan warned Washington there should be no repeat.

In an interview with the private NTV news channel he said Iraq the US and Turkey should carry out a joint operation against the PKK."

Mizgin is your go-to place for related news - and has been blogging on this all week.

Here's the AP this morning:

"Turkey has sent large contingents of reinforcement soldiers, tanks and armored personnel carriers to its border with Iraq as debate heated up over whether to stage a cross-border offensive to hit Kurdish rebel bases."

rewritten 9 hours later:

"Turkey has reinforced its border with Iraq with large contingents of soldiers, tanks and armored personnel carriers as it urged the U.S. to crackdown on Kurkish rebel bases there and debated staging a cross-border offensive."

The latter seems to be a little softer...

Mizgin also has this disconcerting news :

"The Turkish cargo train with serial number 55555, which was attacked and derailed by HPG forces (PKK’s armed wing) on May 25, was transporting 300 rockets from Iran to Syria
[]
Turkish intelligence service MIT is now investigating the matter. The final destination of the rockets is believed to have been the Lebanese Hezbollah or Palestinian organizations according to Turkish media."

Update:
mizgin in the comments:

"Thanks for posting a reference to the news of the Turkish-assisted rocket transport from Iran to Syria, Lukery, but the news is not originally mine. It comes from a comrade, the owner of DozaMe.

The Hurriyet article referenced at DozaMe makes the claim that the rockets were American-made.

We had a report of Turkey doing the same thing during the Lebanon war last summer, during which time they were using Turkish Red Crescent vehicles to transport the arms. Turkey had engaged in similar activity in South Kurdistan beginning in April, 2003 and culminating in the famous "bagging" incident of a Turkish special team (which led to the movie--Kurtler Vadisi Irak).

The news of the transport of rockets with Turkey as go-between for Iran seems to be consistent with Sibel's information, don't you think?"

re the last point, I don't know enough about the details to know whether it dovetails into Sibel's case - but who knows, maybe it is arms-for-drugs again...

amy good man edition

2007-05-31T10:35:00.000+10:00

* Amy:

"Bush Admin Taps Zoellick to Head World Bank
The Bush administration has announced plans to name former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick to replace Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank. Zoellick spent four years as the U.S. trade representative until 2005. He went on to the State Department before leaving to join the financial firm Goldman Sachs last year. Zoellick previously served as a paid advisor to the energy company Enron before its collapse. He was an early backer of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and a co-signatory of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century letter calling for Iraq regime change. Public health advocates are criticizing the appointment. Dr. Paul Zeitz, Executive Director of the Global AIDS Alliance called Zoellick “a terrible choice”, saying: “He has been a close friend to the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, and the trade agreements he has championed block patients access to generic medication… As a market fundamentalist he is also much less likely to stand up for a strong and effective public sector.”"

* Amy:

April-May Deadliest 2-Month Period of Iraq War for U.S.
In other Iraq news, the Pentagon has announced ten U.S. troops were killed in Iraq Monday. Their deaths make this month the third-deadliest for the U.S. military of the Iraq war. April and May now also mark the deadliest two-month period since the invasion, with at least two hundred and nine servicemembers killed.

* Amy:

Putin Denounces “Powder Keg” U.S. Missile Plan
Tension is increasing with Russia over U.S. plans for a new missile shield in Eastern Europe. On Tuesday, Russia says it had successfully test-fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile designed to overcome missile defense systems. The test came as Russian President Vladimir Putin warned a U.S. missile deployment would have consequences.
Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Our point is clear, we consider it harmful and dangerous to turn Europe into a powder keg and to stuff it with new weapons."

* Amy:

Iran Charges 3 U.S. Citizens With Espionage
In Iran, three American citizens have been charged with espionage and endangering national security. Haleh Esfandiari, director of the Middle East Program at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, has been jailed since earlier this month. Also charged are urban planning consultant Kian Tajbakhsh and journalist Parnaz Azima. All three face the death penalty if convicted. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice called the charges “a perversion of the rule of law.”

we get feedback

2007-05-31T10:14:00.000+10:00

priscianus jr in the comments:

I hope you will forgive me for the following comment, which I've wanted to make for a long time; I find this is as good an occasion as any.
[]
On the other hand, you have made it clear on many occasions that you are anti-religion, full stop. It's bad and it's all the same.

Now this is your blog, and that being the case, you may write whatever you like; but for this reader, at least, your writing on anything to do with religion, totally unlike your other stuff, shows an almost complete ignorance of, not to mention lack of sympathy with, the subject. It's kind of like your hobby horse, and in my opinion (at least in the uninformed way you handle it) has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the blog. So I overlook it. But I do find it a bit painful.

I suspect that priscianus jr speaks for most of you...

Islam taking root in Turkey's bureaucracy

2007-05-30T17:39:00.000+10:00

IHT (with some magic marker editing by me):

Islam taking root in Turkey's bureaucracy

The little red prayer book was handed out in a public primary school here in ~~western Turkey~~ America earlier this ~~month~~ decade. It was small enough to fit in a pocket, but it carried a big message: Pray in the ~~Muslim~~ Christopath way. Get others to pray, too.

"The message was clear to me," said a retired civil servant, whose 13-year-old son, a student at the ~~Yesilkoy Ibrahim Cengiz~~ ButtFuckNowhere School, received the book. "This is not something that should be distributed in schools."

This leafy, liberal city would seem like one of the least likely places to allow ~~Islam~~ Christianism to permeate public life. But for some residents, the book is part of a ~~subtle~~ shift toward increasingly public religiosity that has gone hand-in-hand with the ascent of the party of ~~Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan~~ Bushco.

The phenomenon is complex: The party has not ordered changes, but sets examples through a growing network of observant teachers and public servants (and lawyers) who have been hired since it came to power in ~~2002~~ 2000.

The shift goes to the heart of the question that has gripped this country for the past two ~~months~~ electoral seasons: As the party settles more deeply into the bureaucracy, will it bring ~~Islam~~ Xtianists with it? Or will it keep its roots in the past, and leave the public sphere as nonreligious as before?

The answer is as complex as ~~Turkey~~ USA itself. In more-religious ~~Turkish~~ cities, the party has had a moderating influence, persuading deeply conservative residents to ~~support the European Union~~ vote against their own interests. But here in ~~Denizli, a city situated closer to Greece than Iran~~ DC, which never voted for ~~pro-Islamic~~ Xtianist parties before ~~Erdogan's~~ Bush's, the party's new recruits seem to be laying the groundwork for a more ~~pious~~ Christopathic society.

The mayor, ~~Nihat Zeybekci~~, a charismatic businessman and a member of ~~Erdogan's~~ party, strongly disputes claims that the party has limited freedoms. ~~Alcohol is still sold near mosques. His party has women in local government.~~ Newspapers are allowed to publish. People can still usually gather in groups of three or more without a permit.

"I get offended when a lady says to me, 'When you have absolute control, will I still be able to ~~swim at the beach?~~' use satire?" he said. "It's like ~~asking if~~ they know I'm a thief."

But secular residents say that they see changes, and that they are the inevitable outcome of several decades of economic transformation. "In a very quiet, deep way, you can sense an ~~Islamization~~, Bible Thumping" said Bedrettin Usanmaz, a jewelry shop owner in ~~Denizli~~ DC. "They're not after rapid change. ~~They're investing for 50 years ahead.~~" They've invested for the last 30 years.

At the heart of the issue is a debate about the fundamental nature of ~~Islam~~ Christopatholgy and its role in the building of an ~~equitable~~ society. ~~Turks~~ like Zeybekci argue that their country has come a long way since ~~Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's~~ The Founders' secular revolution in ~~1923~~ 1787, and that it no longer needs to enforce controls such as of women wearing head scarves.

"It's like locking everybody in a stadium, when you know that only three are thieves," Zeybekci said in his office, hung with pictures of ~~Erdogan and Ataturk~~ Bush & Cheney.

But secular ~~Turks~~ Americans argue that ~~Islam~~ Christopathology will always seek more space in people's lives, and therefore should be reined in. They look to ~~the military~~ sensible people as secularism's final defender.

"~~Islam~~ Christopathology is ~~not~~ like other religions," said Kadim Yildirim, a history teacher in ~~Denizli~~ DC from an opposition labor union. "It influences every part of your life, ~~even~~ mostly your bedroom."

Yildirim is part of a number of concerned ~~teachers~~ lawyers who say that the new teachers hired in recent years, often from conservative backgrounds, are adding up to a change in the ~~education~~ legal system.

Last ~~month~~ year, the ~~Education Ministry~~ Department of Justice ~~relaxed~~ tightened requirements for appointing new ~~school principals~~ attorneys and immigration judges. It was later ~~annulled~~ frozen, but in the brief period it was in effect approximately 4,500 people in 40 cities across ~~Turkey~~ America were appointed as ~~principals and deputy principals~~ US Attorneys, ~~two-thirds~~ nearly all of whom were affiliated with ~~Erdogan's~~ Bush's party, according to an analysis by Egitim-Sen, an opposition education labor union.

According to a report to ~~Parliament by the education minister~~ Congress by the GAO, 836 people from the ~~government's Religious Affairs Directorate~~ Pat Robertson's Regent College have been transferred to the ministry's offices during ~~Erdogan's~~ Monica Goodling's tenure. That has also led to lifestyle changes in the bureaucracy: In ~~Denizli~~ DC, during the ~~month of fasting in Ramadan~~ Bush Presidency, ~~the lunchroom in the Ministry of Education no longer serves food, in an assumption that all workers are religious,~~ Morning Prayer Breakfasts are effectively mandatory, employees said.

Staff changes are a common feature of any change in government administration (Clinton Did IT!!1!!). But in~~Denizli~~ DC, as in other more secular ~~Turkish~~ cities, the shift is potentially society-changing. Most of the new workers are from an entirely different social class, having come to the city from the ~~surrounding towns and villages~~ South to work in ~~new textile mills~~ the Military Industrial Congressional Complex that started in the 1980s. In 40 6 years, the population of ~~Denizli~~ K-Street has grown ten-fold, according to Zeybekci.

"They are coming to power, and it scares the hell out of ~~the established elite~~, The Normals" said Baskin Oran, a professor of ~~international relations~~ Normalcy at Ankara ~~Georgetown University~~. The two groups "have nothing in common," he said. "Try to find a similarity."

The mixing has caused friction, which, in~~Denizli~~ DC, burst painfully into view last month, when the ~~Turkish military~~ Dirty Fucking Hippies, the backbone of the secular elite, publicly warned the local government that it had strayed too far from secularism. Its sins? Organizing an ~~Islamic singing performance of schoolgirls in full head scarves~~ Jesus Camp and a running ~~women's religious study group~~ a War on Christmas pageant in a public school in a village south of ~~Denizli~~ DC, called ~~Nikfer~~ Justice Sunday .

For Zeybekci, the transgressions were so minor that the rebuke had to have been about power, not religion. The ~~military~~ Dirty Fucking Hippies were simply trying to remain relevant, he said.

"They are very aware of what kind of power they are going to lose," he said.

But power has already changed substantially under ~~Erdogan's~~ God's Own Party, despite attempts by the secular establishment to stop it. Government candidates that were vetoed by the president have continued in the prospective positions as ~~"substitutes,"~~ "Interim Appointments or Recess Appointments" including ~~the head of the public television and radio, the Education Ministry director in the city of Izmir, and the director of research and training at the Ministry of Culture~~ John Bolton and Tim Griffin. In the ~~Education Ministry~~ Department of Justice alone, 536 are working without approval, according to the minister.

In ~~Nikfer~~ Justice Sunday, the ~~school principal~~ televangelist who allowed the religious study group was a ~~religion teacher~~ supporter of dictators, investor in blood diamonds. He has since ~~been transferred to another town~~ earned more millions, a punishment that Asiye Sozeri, a 33-year-old housewife there, regrets: Her teenage daughter no longer has a ~~religion tutor~~ college fund.

~~Koran~~ Old Testament classes ~~in Nikfer~~ across the country have proliferated in recent years, Sozeri said, but far from being politics-related, the reason can be found in the ~~deteriorating state of farming~~ need to the GOP to sell fear.

As villagers migrated to~~Denizli~~ DC to work they tried to put their children in ~~its~~ home schools, which were far better than ~~rural~~ secular ones. Many could not afford ~~apartments~~ not to hate, and as a result, the ~~student hostel~~ Old Testament became a central feature of ~~city life~~ their 'education'. Often supported by donations from religious groups, the ~~hostels~~ dark recesses of religious pathology were places where poor students ~~lived and studied~~ took refuge, ~~but had~~ with religious ~~under~~overtones: Chaperones, often ~~devout college-age Turks~~ their fathers, were the role models.

"~~Education~~ 'Education' is where the religious communities concentrate their efforts," said Gulay Keysan, a 31-year-old English teacher in~~Denizli~~ DC. In a school in the city's ~~Karaman~~ district, where she taught several years ago, a quarter of her students lived in ~~hostels~~ fear of Teh Devil.

Perhaps the most sensitive point for teachers like Yildirim are the changes they say are occurring in textbooks. Changes were already under way, part of an upgrade needed to join the ~~European Union~~ 21st Century, but some officials say that as ~~the nationalism~~ logic is taken out, a new ~~conservatism~~ ignorance is being put in.

One of the country's primary eighth-grade science books, for example, "Science Knowledge," has lost its detailed description of Darwin's theory of natural selection, and gained a reference to a theory that holds that living beings did not evolve but came into being exactly as they are today, attributed to ~~several ancient Asian scholars~~ Baby Jeebus. The reference was not there before, nor was the word ~~Islamic~~ "Intelligent" to describe them.

All education material, once vetted centrally, is now checked in a far looser fashion, according to one senior Ministry of Education official in ~~Ankara~~ California, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was afraid for his ~~job~~ life. A point system to rate textbooks has been loosened. The red prayer book, illustrated with pictures of small children praying, would probably not have been distributed in past years.

It is still unclear where today's changes will lead the country. Oran argues that although the ideology of ~~Erdogan~~ Bush and his allies "is inevitably ~~Islam~~ stupid," they are workers and tradesman who are ultimately motivated by profit. "They are very rapidly becoming bourgeois," he said.

"There must be a distinction between those who give the public service and those who receive it," he said. "The first ~~cannot wear head scarves~~ should not be pig-ignorant. But the second can go as they want."

Yildirim draws hope from a recent exchange among his students he overheard. One posed a dilemma: If you were rowing a boat with only one extra seat and passed by ~~a deserted island~~ Guantanamo with ~~the Prophet Muhammad and Ataturk~~ Vice President Cheney and Osama, whom would you save? Another answered: "~~Ataturk is resourceful. He can save himself. Take Muhammad."~~" Osama is only dangerous if Cheney has any power. Cheney is always dangerous. Take Osama."

I just want to make sure that the government's working

2007-05-30T16:14:00.000+10:00

* Waxman in the SFCron:

"I just want to make sure that the government's working."

- d'oh - how about Let Sibel Edmonds Speak
From the Chron is this little anecdote (which i didn't know):

"Waxman countered that when Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., was chairman, he had the word "Oversight" removed from the committee's title altogether. One of Waxman's first actions as the new chairman was to restore it."

* krugman:

"Here’s the way it ought to be: When Rudy Giuliani says that Iran, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is part of a “movement” that “has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,” he should be treated as a lunatic.

When Mitt Romney says that a coalition of “Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda” wants to “bring down the West,” he should be ridiculed for his ignorance.

And when John McCain says that Osama, who isn’t in Iraq, will “follow us home” if we leave, he should be laughed at."

* Le Drifte:

"2004 was a watershed year for a lot of people I know. Myself included. 2004 didn’t “radicalize” us in any sense – most of the people I’m thinking about haven’t changed their politics much in the last decade or so – but it “volatilized” us.

Or maybe “volumnized”.

We started using the word “fuck” a lot more, and a lot more loudly. As in “What the fuck are these morons thinking? Can’t they fucking read? Can’t they fucking rub two facts together and get anything but baffled? Oh, and who the fuck are these undecided freaks who, three weeks before the most important fucking vote of this generation, cannot make up their fucking minds?”

Like that.
[]
The Real Problem is that your Dear Leader built an entire Bullshit Bridge between the casus belli he got on 9/11 and the war he and his Neocon vultures wanted, and then cold-bloodedly pimped your grief, your fear and your patriotism to stampede you across it.

The Real Problem is that you and millions like you aren’t strong enough to face the truly terrifying truth that most of what you believe about the wider world is bullshit, and the people you trusted to lead your country are liars.

That men you trusted made you a chump.

A heavily-armed patsy, in the wrong country, for the wrong reason, killing the wrong people on the orders of treacherous cowards and thugs who have used you as cannon fodder for their Imperial ambitions, and for whom you no doubt proudly voted.

Twice.

The Real Problem is that, in the name of Holy Balance, journalists treat the patently and dangerously delusional adherents of Cult of Dubya as if their opinions were worthy of discussion.
[]
And when one’s delusions have been calculatedly stoked and weaponized by evil men, have been marched into the wrong fucking country, have caused the death of tens of thousands, the mutilation and suffering of hundreds of thousands, the displacement of millions, at the projected cost of trillions of dollars, then your wingnut fantasies no longer get to be elided over as merely creepy and eccentric.

Because now your delusions come with one of the biggest fucking price tags in American history. One that we will be paying down for generations to come.

Which is why those delusions no longer deserve anyone’s respectful attention, or any cravenly obsequious treatment by journalists in the name of “balance”.

The Real Problem is simply that journalists don’t have the nerve to ask the True Believers of the Cult of Dubya simple questions about their radical, ruinous and unshakable beliefs.

The Real Problem is that people who believe as Mr. Ites does are dangerously irrational, and the people who make a fat living propping up Mr. Ites’ dangerously irrational beliefs are depraved scum.

For the last thirty years many of us on the Left remained politely and tolerantly silent on these subjects we should have been loud and rude and demanded to know why dangerous, stupid, racist or crazy people keep getting treated with deference by the Lords of the Media?

Why people who are always wrong all the time about everything keep getting invited back into the national spotlight to share more of their idiotic insights, and people who have a track record of actually getting it right about Bush, Iraq and a hundred other thing are treated like kooks?

Why, when your country has been handed over to perverts and fascists by imbeciles and Christopaths, your press has collapsed into a pile of toadying hair, you treasury has been pissed away by criminals and your military hobbled by cowards and fanatics, it is somehow beyond the fucking pale to get angry about it?"

their sense of fair play, humanity or reason

2007-05-30T10:55:00.000+10:00

Uranus:

"In this post's comments Steve makes the compelling argument that just because we haven't found our way to the overwhelming rationale which makes the case for peace doesn't mean it can't be done, and meanwhile we shouldn't take the low road and resort to thuggishness or hit the streets, threaten people and so forth.

I thought about that long and hard.

I guess I've read most every self-help book I can find about how to deal with crazy people who are bent on your destruction for no reason. I tried putting that advice to work, because I've dealt with that much challenge since I was able to take my meals from a high chair.

I also have the ability to develop my own strategies, and am more than willing to listen to advice, and give it the old college try. I've tried anything and everything short of opening fire, and none of it worked.

I came to a partial conclusion, and it applies to the democrats in Congress as well as to myself. If you think there is any possible rationale or set of reasons you can propose that will persuade people bent on destruction to change their thinking or behavior, you are just mistaken, badly and completely.

Furthermore, you can stop thinking in those terms, because it just isn't going to work. And, any solution that actually works is probably only temporary, because nature has a way of making new people who think they're on a mission of destruction.

Bush and Cheney believe they can own and run the world by destroying it with nuclear weapons, effectively exterminating the human race. Do you really think some argument is going to just pop out of thin air and change their minds? It isn't, and the sooner people understand all that, the sooner they can start thinking in other terms. I already made the very self-evident statement that a world destroyed by nuclear weapons isn't worth having; however, that's just whistling in the wind. People don't really believe that's what's going on, and somehow think that even if it is, the day after global thermonuclear warfare, "we will rebuild."

No, we won't. There won't be any we. A thick, black cloud of radioactive dust will encircle the earth, keeping things dead for a long time. Then, it will deposit onto the surface, to be overlaid by strata of sediment deposited by water, wind and vulcanism, to record when human life on earth ended for anyone who might come looking, if ever. The Bush administration hopes to make this happen, and they are afraid they're running out of time.

If people in the world believed that, the conversation about war funding would take a very different tone. But people don't believe that. They still believe Bush tells the truth, and Cheney is a wise old soul and, working together, they are doing their best to protect America from the evil forces that want to blow up our buildings and steal our oil.

I can't say I know it will happen. But there can be little doubt in anyone's mind that America's extreme right thinks nuclear world war is inevitable, and a good thing, too, because it will establish America's rule for all time. They can't get to that point soon enough: the hope is Bush and Cheney will deliver any minute.

No one will come along and appeal to their sense of fair play, humanity or reason with words or even actions. I'm out of practical suggestions, so let me offer some pathetic recommendations. Awareness. Ridicule. Humiliation. Prosecution. Punishment. Behavior modification and genetic drug therapy. Perseverence. Vigilance. In the meantime, I hope greater minds than mine will come up with something better."

spraying the poppy crop

2007-05-30T10:46:00.000+10:00

* Kleiman:

"But the front page of the weekend Financial Times had one story about how the Bush crew had decided to pick a fight with the Merkel government in Germany over global warming, and another about how they'd decided to over-rule the Karzai government (and the Europeans, including the Germans, as well) and insist on spraying the poppy crop that accounts for a third of the GDP of Afghanistan. (Note that much more heroin made from Afghan opium goes to Europe than comes here.)

Don't worry, says one of the diplomats on the scene; we're not harassing the peasants, only the rich opium growers. Brilliant! While the fight between Karzai and the Taliban hangs in the balance, let's annoy both our remaining allies and a bunch of influential Afghanis, in the service of a drug-control policy (crop eradication) of thoroughly proven ineffectiveness.

It simply isn't the case that the size of the world's heroin problem is limited by the size of the poppy crop; opium makes up such a small proportion of the price of heroin that heroin refiners will always be able to find someone to sell them as much opium as they need to make all the heroin the customers want to consume. To make matters worse, opium is easily stored, so inventories in growers' and refiners' stocks can easily tide the market over any temporary production shortfall. (That's on top of the fact that an increasing proportion of the U.S. opiate-abuse problem involves synthetics such as oxycodone and fentanyl rather than heroin.)"

* Scott had a great interview with Dahr Jamail.

* Amy featured Norm Solomon's "War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" which is kinda interesting. One thing mentioned is all the techno-porn at the start of the war... We haven't heard ANY of that for years.

* emptywheel at CIF:

"And finally, this sentencing, now scheduled for June 5, takes place against the background of the Bush administration's purge of at least nine US attorneys, in at least one case at the behest of Republicans who complained that the US attorney didn't file charges against a Democrat before an election. We have every reason to suspect that Bush's supporters have inappropriately intervened in the administration of justice. Without seeing those letters, how can we be sure the same isn't happening here?

So long as Jeffress knows the names of Libby's supporters, but we don't, we have no way of ensuring that Libby's supporters have no ulterior motive in supporting Libby.

Jeffress' invocation of bloggers is a cheap attempt to dismiss precisely what bloggers bring: an appropriate scrutiny of the motivations and actions of those who lied us into war and outed Valerie Plame. In this case, it is Jeffress' mockery that is dangerous, not mine."

unknown...

2007-05-30T10:10:00.001+10:00

Kickin Back with Lukery: emboldening edition

2007-05-30T09:41:00.000+10:00

Does Memorial Day embolden terrorists? Discuss.

Speaking of emboldening, ya know how there's some kinda taboo about glorifying mass murderers ~~like the President~~ like school shooters and stuff in case it instigates copy-catters. Can we please extend that to (selected) missing cute white kids such as "Madeleine"?

Waxman: "you must do the oversight"

2007-05-30T08:58:00.000+10:00

This from Think Progress:

"Waxman explained that “you must ask the questions” and “you must do the oversight if we’re going to keep people honest, if we’re going to provide the checks and balances that our Constitution envisions.”

(Unfortunately he wasn't talking about Sibel)

their mission has been accomplished

2007-05-29T16:58:00.000+10:00

* Raimondo:

"As Ayn Rand once put it, don't bother to examine a folly – ask yourself only what it accomplishes. If we look at the public reasons for the Iraq war, it is clear that none of these have been accomplished, nor are they likely to be achieved in the near or even distant future. Iraqi "democracy" is a bizarre mutation of clerical domination, unimaginable corruption, and rule by death squads, and those "weapons of mass destruction" have returned to the netherworld of the neoconservative imagination from whence they emerged onto the front page of the New York Times.

If, on the other hand, we look at what is actually happening in Iraq, and throughout the region, we can discern the real goals of the invasion, and they are two: a civil war in the Muslim world (check!) and the positioning of U.S. military forces for a confrontation with the next victim of the regime-change game: Iran (check!).

This Memorial Day, then, while you're contemplating the 3,500 American dead, the tens of thousands of wounded (many of them horribly), not to mention the 650,000 Iraqi victims of U.S. state terrorism, you might wonder if Bush and his neocon advisors lose any sleep at night over what everyone else has deemed their huge "failure" in Iraq. The answer is: certainly not. They sleep deeply, and with a satisfied smile on their faces, because, as far as they're concerned, their mission has been accomplished."

looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican

2007-05-29T16:02:00.000+10:00

* Cindy Sheehan checks out:

"The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a “tool” of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our “two-party” system?

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the “left” started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of “right or left”, but “right and wrong.”

I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt “two” party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?"

* digby:

"Yes indeed. It's just the latest in a long line of fatuous slogans that are determinative in making huge decisions in our political life. We are in the midst of an intellectual crisis in this country where certain dogmatic and incoherent beliefs are allowed to dominate the discourse in spite of the fact that they are demonstrably false. It's one of the most difficult problems we face.
[]
So, we are stuck trying to work out reality based solutions in a political world that operates as if it is underwater. You can sort of see the vague outlines of what's in front of you, but it's distorted and wierd and everything moves in slow motion. For instance, one of the big questions that rarely gets asked by anyone is why in the hell we are "funding the troops" with emergency supplemental spending bills like this year after year in the first place? Why would a vastly powerful and wealthy country such as ours be unable to plan for the troops' basic necessities in a defense budget in the trillions? It's absurd, ridiculous, and yet everyone accepts the fact that the troops could be left foraging for food and bullets in the middle of Baghdad, and the only question is whether the Democrats and the President are to blame because they failed to pass a bill before Memorial Day.
[]
You see, the Pentagon is so strapped for cash --- every single year --- that they have to come begging for more money just to put shoes on the troops' feet. They do this on purpose so they don't have to cut any of that juicy delicious Military Industrial Complex pork. We know this. It's on the record, easily found in 30 seconds worth of Googling. But because of this absurdly cryptic, symbolic way we have of communicating in this country now, not to mention the ownership of our politics by big money interests, we aren't even allowed to bring it up. The yearly "supplemental" battle is really just the latest administration blackmail demand for more taxpayer money for their contributors, with Bush holding a gun to the troops' heads and saying "don't make me do it." We are arguing about a solution for a problem that wouldn't exist if the president didn't create it each and every year.

But that is such an obscure point that it isn't even relevant. Instead of questioning why we are funding anything in this clearly opaque and illegal way, we are stuck in this confusing feed-back loop of PR, marketing and spin, struggling forward to 2008 trying to see through the dirty political water to what is actually going on. It's difficult.

The only thing I know for sure is that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are not going to withdraw from Iraq. They are playing a rough game and would rather see the troops die without bullets and body armor than admit in any way that their occupation is a failure. The Democrats remain somewhat paralyzed in the face of such sociopathic intransigence (who believes Cheney won't pull the trigger?) and the media remain unwilling to report this in any but schoolyard terms. So, the country must debate this under water --- and that makes us feel helpless and panicked as we watch more people dying in this useless ridiculous face saving exercise.

I don't know what we can do other than just keep building, building, building the pressure until it's unthinkable for Republicans to win their next election supporting this "war." Making the argument falls mainly on us, the activists and the grassroots --- and we are going to take a beating from the media for our trouble. Maybe, if we're lucky, we'll be able to come up for air in 2008.

How we fix the intellectual crisis is another problem and don't have the faintest idea how to do it. I just got Gore's new book. Perhaps it has some pointers."

* thoreau:

"I would certainly not want the troops left without food, water, and ammo, but defunding isn’t about that. It’s about ending the program, and when there’s no more money to fight the Executive Branch would use the other accounts in the defense budget to fly the troops home. To think otherwise, to think that the Executive Branch would simply leave them stranded there, is to assume monumental incompetence and gross disregard for the well-being of the troops by the same leaders who…

Oh, now I see why the public opposes defunding. OK, point taken.

Seriously, I don’t get this at all. If Congress defunded any other program, we would all understand that they’re ending the program, not forcing it to continue sans cash. If Congress defunded, say, a publicly funded hospital, nobody would assume that the doctors are supposed to perform surgery with the old dirty scalpels and no anesthesia, because there’s no money to buy new scalpels and new drugs. Rather, the public would understand that the hospital will be closed. And the public certainly wouldn’t assume that the hospital doors would be shut and locked while the doctors and nurses are still trapped inside. Hell, if Congress defunded Amtrak, they wouldn’t stop the train in the middle of nowhere and let the passengers walk to the next station to catch a cab. It would be understood that train service would continue to the end of the line, at which point people would disembark and find other transportation. For any other program, we wouldn’t have to state the things I just stated about closing hospitals or trains or whatever, because it would be seen as blindingly obvious."

* Fred Kaplan:

"The topper, which (Bush) has recited several times before, is that if we fail in Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home. He uttered a few variations of the line this morning: "If we were to fail, they'd come and get us. … If we let up, we'll be attacked. … It's better to fight them there than here."

Clearly, this is nonsense, on three levels.

First, the vast majority of the insurgents have nothing to do with al-Qaida or its ideology. They're combatants in a sectarian conflict for power in Iraq, and they have neither the means nor the desire to threaten North America.

Second, to the extent that the true global terrorists could attack us at home, they could do so whether or not U.S. troops stay or win in Iraq. The one issue has nothing to do with the other.

Third, what kind of thing is this to say in front of the allies? If our main goal in bombing, strafing, and stomping through Iraq is to make sure we don't have to do so on our own territory, will any needy nation ever again seek our aid and cover? Or will they seek out a less blatantly selfish protector?"

I can't believe we even have to fisk this nonsense.

Bolton, Perle: War Trolls

2007-05-29T15:48:00.000+10:00

Wolcott:

For Whom the Bell Trolls

In or out of mating season, John Bolton in full swollen umbrage is never an edifying spectacle, which makes it all the more puzzling that producers insist on providing this diplomatic reject and rage-aholic with a peddler's license to lie, bluster, and fearmonger. We Americans are now accustomed to the likes of Bolton in full coconut-heaving mode but the Brits have been less exposed to neoconservatism in the malignant raw, and Matthew Carr's review of Bolton's recent perf on the Today show read like a report filed from behind a one-way mirror at a psychiatric clinic:
It wasn't just that Bolton's arguments were bizarre and illogical to the point of insanity, such as his description of [interviewer John] Humphrys and the millionaire philanthrophist George Soros as members of the 'extreme left'. Or his ludicrous assertion that the invasion of Iraq has laid the basis for a more stable and peaceful Middle East. It wasn't even his fanaticism, his arrogance and his utter contempt for the opinions of the non-American world. What is striking about Bolton is the savagery and homicidal intent that shows through the statesmanlike patter.
Frankly, I'm surprised Bolton even mobilized his mustache enough to let a little "statesmanlike patter" breezer under it. He often doesn't bother. One of Bolton's sidekicks without shame is Richard Perle, whose "oily gravitas" produces instant revulsion in those still possessed of a smidgen of human decency.

Perle, Bolton and co often pontificate on the unique moral evil of terrorism. But in their contempt for human life and their appetite for war they are not that different from Osama bin Laden. Unlike Osama, they will not be found in the Hindu Kush carrying a Kalashnikov. They are war trolls, endlessly manipulating the public from TV studios. In this sense they are more like the Roman senators who grew rich and fat while the legions went out to 'create a wasteland and call it peace', as Tacitus once put it.
War trolls, such a magnificently exact epithet...

drowning in angst

2007-05-29T12:53:00.000+10:00

* glenn:

"All of the super-serious and responsible pundits may be drowning in angst over the fact that we cannot leave Iraq because it is so very vital that, before we leave, we stabilize that country and turn it into a beacon of democracy, or at least avert even worse violence. But however laudable that goal might be, that is not the goal of the people controlling our actual strategy in Iraq. Stabilizing Iraq in order to leave is not what they are interested in.

What they seek -- by their own acknowledgment -- is a conflict with Iran and Syria, and they want to stay in Iraq because that is how that goal can be achieved. Joe Lieberman published an Op-Ed at the end of last year declaring that America's real enemy in this "war" is Iran. Charles Krauthammer and John Podhoretz last year both proclaimed -- excitedly -- that U.S. war with Iran was inevitable, and that (according to Krauthammer) it would be less than a year away.

On their Fox television show this weekend, Wall St. Journal pundits Paul Gigot and Bret Stephens warned of the grave threat posed by Iran (which, needless to say, was compared to Nazi Germany), and the even greater danger of the "U.N. path," which is too "slow and toothless."

And Fred Hiatt's Washington Post Editorial this morning said this: "Military action against Iran would be a desperate and probably ineffective measure. Barring an emergency, the Bush administration should not undertake it." With U.S. forces extremely active in two of Iran's neighboring countries, and the belligerent rhetoric and provocative actions escalating on both sides, nothing is easier than imagining an "emergency" which would "justify" the "military action against Iran" to which Hiatt is plainly receptive.

These are not fringe figures, even if they ought to be. These are the people who have driven the Bush administration's foreign policy since its inception. Their advocacy, in almost every case, foreshadows what the Bush administration does. And they are, with increasing explicitness, pining for war with Iran, and our occupation of Iraq -- militarily, strategically, and politically -- is what enables that conflict."

* kleiman:

"McCain is clearly the most unfit of the three leading Republican candidates for President: until you think about the other two. Then it's harder to say.

a disengaged couple

2007-05-29T12:46:00.001+10:00

samefacts:

"An engaged couple reflects on their future together on a beautiful Memorial Day."

they hate us for our freedom pt xxcvcxcvII

2007-05-28T20:49:00.000+10:00

nafeez in full, emph in orig. (thnx Chris):

"The Strategy of Tension

We are at War

against International Terrorism,

defending our Values

and our Civilization.

Western anti-terror legislation does not allow the state to be considered in any way culpable for terrorist activities. As far as our elected representatives are concerned, terrorism is a problem of loosely associated groups of reactionary fanatics “attacking our freedoms”. The assumption, never explicitly stated for then it would be revealed, and easily and permanently ridiculed, is that the state is innocent, immune to indulging in such barbaric practices. Written into the rule of law itself, this assumption posits the state as a paternal Fuhrer, a God figure whom we must all entrust our lives and liberties to.

Yet whichever way you look at it, international terrorism has its origins in the state itself. There are many ways of understanding this, but perhaps the most pertinent for our purposes is contemporary history. We don’t need to go very far back either. Only twenty odd years, to the era of the Cold War, when we were also getting Trigger-Happy trying to defend the “Free World” from the “Evil Empire” of International Communism, as Ronald Reagan put it so aptly.

The “strategy of tension” denotes a highly secretive series of interconnected covert operations conducted jointly by the CIA and MI6 largely in Western Europe during the this period. Well-documented by several respected historians, confirmed by official inquiries, and corroborated by former intelligence officials, the “strategy of tension” is one of those unsavoury moments in contemporary history that we don’t learn about in school, or even university.

My favourite book on the subject, and the most authoritative in my view, is Dr. Daniele Ganser’s NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (2004). Published in the UK as part of the “Contemporary Security Studies” series of London-based academic press Routledge, Ganser’s study is the first major historical work to bring the “strategy of tension” into the mainstream of scholarship.

During the Cold War, indeed through to the late 1980s, the United States, United Kingdom, and Western European governments and secret services, participated in a sophisticated NATO-backed operation to engineer terrorist attacks inside Western Europe, to be blamed on the Soviet Union. The objective was to galvanize public opinion against leftwing policies and parties, and ultimately to mobilize popular support for purportedly anti-Soviet policies at home and abroad – most of which were really designed to legitimize brutal military interventions against nationalist independence movements in the “Third World”.

Ganser was a Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies in the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, before he moved to Basel University to teach history. Citing the transcripts of European parliamentary inquiries; the few secret documents that have been declassified; interviews with government, military and intelligence officials; and so on, Ganser shows how intimately the British were involved.

In fact, it wasn’t even an American idea – it was very much ours. The strategy of tension began on the order of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who in July 1940 called for the establishment of a secret army to “set Europe ablaze by assisting resistance movements and carrying out subversive operations in enemy held territory.” (p. 40) By 4th October 1945, the British Chiefs of Staff and the Special Operations branch of MI6 directed the creation of what Ganser describes as a “skeleton network” capable of expansion either in war or to service clandestine operations abroad: “Priority was given in carrying out these tasks to countries likely to be overrun in the earliest stages of any conflict with the Soviet Union, but not as yet under Soviet domination.” (p. 41) In the ensuing years, Col. Gubbins’ Special Operations branch of MI6 cooperated closely with Frank Wisner’s CIA covert action department Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) on White House orders, and in turn coordinated US and UK Special Forces, to establish stay-behind secret armies across western Europe. (p. 42)

Among the documents Ganser brings to attention is the classified Field Manual 30-31, with appendices FM 30-31A and FM 30-31B, authored by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to train thousands of stay-behind officers around the world. The field manual was published in the 1987 parliamentary report of the Italian parliamentary investigation into the terrorist activities of “P2”, the CIA-MI6 sponsored Italian anti-communist network. As Ganser observes: “FM 30-31 instructs the secret soldiers to carry out acts of violence in times of peace and then blame them on the Communist enemy in order to create a situation of fear and alertness. Alternatively, the secret soldiers are instructed to infiltrate the left-wing movements and then urge them to use violence.” In the manual’s own words:

“There may be times when Host Country Governments show passivity or indecision in the face of Communist subversion and according to the interpretation of the US secret services do not react with sufficient effectiveness… US army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger. To reach this aim US army intelligence should seek to penetrate the insurgency by means of agents on special assignment, with the task of forming special action groups among the most radical elements of the insurgency… In case it has not been possible to successfully infiltrate such agents into the leadership of the rebels it can be useful to instrumentalise extreme leftist organizations for one’s own ends in order to achieve the above described targets… These special operations must remain strictly secret. Only those persons which are acting against the revolutionary uprising shall know of the involvement of the US Army…” (p. 234-297)

The existence of this secret operation exploded into public controversy when in August 1990 upon the admissions in parliament by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, the existence of ‘Gladio’ was exposed as a secret sub-section of Italian military-intelligence services, responsible for domestic bombings blamed on Italian Communists. Ganser documents in intricate detail how a subversive network created by elements of western intelligence services – particularly that of the US and UK - orchestrated devastating waves of terrorist attacks blamed on the Soviet Union, not only in Italy, but also in Spain, Germany, France, Turkey, Greece, i.e. throughout western Europe. Despite a number of European parliamentary inquiries; an European Union resolution on the Gladio phenomenon; NATO’s close-doors admissions to European ambassadors; confirmations of the international operation from senior CIA officials; and other damning documentary evidence; NATO, the CIA and MI6 have together consistently declined to release their secret files on the matter.

The Strategy of Tension simply isn’t part of our historical consciousness. Very few historians of the Cold War are fully conversant with it, let alone academics working in international relations and political science. This is despite the fact that it played an instrumental role in physically constructing a threat, projected into the USSR, which did not ultimately exist. Ipso facto, the Strategy of Tension belongs to the waste-bin of history.

The immense fear and chaos generated by the impact of the Operation Gladio phenomenon throughout western Europe was instrumental in legitimizing the interventionist policies of the Anglo-American alliance in the South, throughout the Cold War period. Although the Soviet Union was supposed to be the real threat and source of terror, and thus the ultimate object of the over 70 military interventions conducted since 1945 [see William Blum’s Killing Hope (London: Zed, 1995)] the Soviet threat was in fact actively exaggerated ideologically – and even physically constructed through clandestine operations – to mobilize the comprehensive militarization of western societies. This does not mean that many government officials did not believe their own propaganda. But we now know that there was a secretive sub-section of the Western intelligence community, known only to very few members of elected governments, that was involved in this.

The number of people who were killed across the “Third World” as a consequence of this militarization process is shocking, its implications genuinely difficult to absorb. According to Dr. J. W. Smith, a US development economist who runs the Institute for Economic Democracy in Arizona, in our glorious self-evidently noble fight to defend the “Free World” from imminent Soviet attacks, invasions, and general inconceivably irrational hell-bent pure evilness, Western states:

“… were responsible for violently killing 12 to 15 million people since WW II and causing the death of hundreds of millions more as their economies were destroyed or those countries were denied the right to restructure to care for their people. Unknown as it is, and recognizing that this has been standard practice throughout colonialism, that is the record of the Western imperial centers of capital from 1945 to 1990” [Smith, Economic Democracy: The Political Struggle of the 21st Century (2003)]

12 to 15 million people from 1945 to 1990.

I have to repeat these figures to myself to absorb their implications.

Repeat these figures to yourself.

Six million Jews in the Second World War, and now 12 to 15 million innocents in the post-WWII period. The former in the name of German lebensraum. The latter in the name of the free market.

Yet as a society, as a Civilization, we are oblivious, utterly blind, to our historic complicity in the systematic destruction of "Other" societies who fail to conform to our (deluded) self-image of universal prosperity.

It is a blindness with which we remain afflicted.

Consider Blair’s rendition of the “War on Terror” in early 2007, as “a clash not between civilizations”, but rather “about civilization.” The War on Terror is therefore a continuation of “the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace the modern world and those who reject its existence.”

And what is this "progress", this "modernity" that should be embraced? The "progress" that slaughtered millions of men, women and children across continents, in Nicaragua, El Salvador, in Somalia, Rwanda, in Kenya, Malaya, in Oman, Iraq, etc. etc. (in no particular order and with significant omissions)?

If this is modernity then I must be a backward, semi-feudal ignoramus. Along with most of the population of the entire world. But then, who cares what the world says? Bush, Blair, and their enlightened ilk are no doubt the modern civilized ones. As long as they do what they think is right. Right???

Shaha Riza's security clearance

2007-05-28T16:41:00.000+10:00

* Blumenthal:

"Wolfowitz's vision promised nothing less than a rupture with the entire world order. By one decisive act of will, all that existed -- all -- would be transformed. After a brief, very brief, interval, collective happiness and universal harmony would be ushered in. With shock and awe, change would roll in mighty waves, pounding all with its unceasing force.
[]
Originally, Wolfowitz aspired to be deputy secretary of state. But the newly named secretary, Colin Powell, had observed Wolfowitz as a Cheney aide during the Gulf War opposing his various positions, and rejected him. Instead, he deployed Washington lawyer and former Reagan chief of staff Kenneth Duberstein, acting as his representative, to offer Wolfowitz the consolation prize of ambassador to the United Nations. Leaving the cockpit of action for a place despised by neoconservatives would have been a cruel punishment. Wolfowitz was suspended in a void. The Kremlin-like politics of the Bush transition determined his fate.

Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana, staffed by a close Cheney friend, favored by social conservatives for his hostility to gays in the military as a member of the Armed Services Committee, emerged as the first choice for secretary of defense. He was to be part of a two-for-one package. Richard Armitage, armed with Pentagon experience, would be his deputy and run the department. But after Powell eclipsed Bush in the press conference where his nomination as secretary of state was announced, Cheney immediately understood that the Coats scenario threatened his intention to become the most powerful vice president in history. While Coats was dim, Armitage was adept. And this combination empowered Powell, potentially giving him dominion over not only State but also Defense. Once this prospect loomed, Cheney, whose clashes with Powell went back to the Gulf War, sought an alternative. Meanwhile, the neoconservative press sounded the alarm. The Weekly Standard ran an article headlined: "The Long Arm of Colin Powell: Will the Next Secretary of State Also Run the Pentagon?" Coats cooperated by undermining himself. His interview with President-elect Bush was a combustible mix of bad chemistry. The dreary Coats didn't laugh at Bush's jibes and instead declared his skepticism about "Star Wars" missile defense and complained about Powell. Instantly, he fell through the trapdoor, shipped to Germany as ambassador.

Donald Rumsfeld, who had been secretary of defense under Gerald Ford, wanted to be director of the CIA. His longtime rival, the elder Bush, opposed his appointment to the position he himself had once held. Bad blood had flowed through their relationship since the Ford years, when Rumsfeld had systematically sidelined Bush. In 1988, Rumsfeld endorsed Sen. Bob Dole for the Republican presidential nomination against Vice President Bush. When he won, Bush cut Rumsfeld out of the administration. At dinner parties in Chicago, where Rumsfeld worked as a corporate executive, he entertained with vicious derision of Bush as a hopeless wimp, according to someone who was at several of these affairs.

With Coats out, Cheney, Rumsfeld's former deputy, moved him in as secretary of defense, establishing a broad basis for Cheney's empire. Rumsfeld did not want to accept Armitage as his deputy because he was Powell's best friend, and Powell snapped up Armitage for himself. The lines were being drawn for the internal Cold War that would play out over the first term between Powell and Cheney. But where did that leave Wolfowitz?

Wolfowitz thought that he ought to be director of the CIA. But as soon as he advanced himself, his estranged wife, Clare, wrote a private letter to President-elect Bush saying that he could not be trusted. This embittered letter remained a closely guarded secret, although a former high official of the CIA told me about it. Chris Nelson also reported it on April 16 in his widely respected, nonpartisan foreign policy newsletter: "A certain Ms. Riza was even then Wolfowitz's true love. The problem for the CIA wasn't just that she was a foreign national, although that was and is today an issue for anyone interested in CIA employment. The problem was that Wolfowitz was married to someone else, and that someone was really angry about it, and she found a way to bring her complaint directly to the President. So when we, with our characteristic innocence, put Wolfowitz on our short-list for CIA, we were instantly told, by a very, very, very senior Republican foreign policy operative, 'I don't think so.' It was then gently explained why, purely on background, of course. Why Wolfowitz's personal issues weren't also a disqualification for DOD we've never heard." The Daily Mail of London also reported on his wife's letter at the time that Wolfowitz was appointed president of the World Bank in 2005. Asked about it by the newspaper, Clare Wolfowitz did not deny it, saying, "That's very interesting but not something I can tell you about."

President-elect Bush summoned George Tenet, the holdover CIA director. "I guess this is the end," Tenet told a colleague as he headed out the door, that colleague told me. When he returned, a surprised Tenet said, "He wants me to stay until he can find someone better."

Cheney and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had been Wolfowitz's Wolfowitz before he became Cheney's Cheney -- his student when Wolfowitz taught at Yale and his assistant when Wolfowitz served under Cheney at the Pentagon -- intervened. Cheney guided Wolfowitz to a safe harbor as deputy to Rumsfeld. But Rumsfeld was unenthusiastic and hesitated. Wolfowitz told him to decide on the spot or he would go to the United Nations, so Rumsfeld took him.

Once in place, Wolfowitz became an indispensable node of the neoconservative cell. He brought in his coterie of neocons to staff an intelligence operation, the Office of Special Plans, outflanking the CIA by circulating its own reports around regular channels to the office of the vice president (run by Libby). Now Wolfowitz was at the center of an embedded Team B.
[]
Wolfowitz's girlfriend, Riza Shaha, a Tunisian-Saudi British citizen, London School of Economics educated, Arab feminist, neoconservative and intimate of the circle of favored Iraqi exile Chalabi, was his perfect partner. He had her detailed at one point to a defense contractor, SAIC, and she reported back to the World Bank, where she said that conditions were just fine in Iraq for bank loans."

Meanwhile, Clemons was on Goyette's show (10mins), asking again whether Riza Shaha is a spy - given that she somehow, magically, apparently, got a security clearance... It's difficult not to wonder if the same gig was going on re the Dickersons in Sibel's case - particularly given that Wolfowitz and Dickerson operated in the same circles...

Bush continues to tell his favorite lies

2007-05-28T15:30:00.000+10:00

* Tom Tomorrow and Crazy Atheists

* PCR:

"Bush continues to tell his favorite lies that he is bringing "freedom and democracy to Iraq" and that Muslims hate us because of our "freedom and democracy." He continues to make these inane assertions even as he ignores the will of the American people and destroys habeas corpus, the foundation of civil liberty.

Bush ignores the will of the people as expressed in last November’s congressional elections and as expressed in opinion polls. The New York Times/CBS News poll released May 24 shows another sharp drop in public support for Bush and his war. America is "seriously off on the wrong track" was the response of 72 percent of the public.

President Bush, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party have proved to the entire world that the American people have no voice. The American people have no more ability to affect their government’s policy than inmates in a gulag would have.

What do people in other countries think when they hear Bush prattle on about "freedom and democracy" while he ignores opinion polls and election results and detains people without warrants, tortures them, and puts them before military tribunals in which they are denied even knowing the evidence against them? Bush has contrived a situation for defendants in which no defense is possible. In Bush’s America, people can be executed on the basis of hearsay and secret evidence. If this is "freedom and democracy," what is tyranny?

Recent polls show that the majority of the American people are no longer fooled, no matter what politicians say and media report. The election last November demonstrated the electorate’s lack of support for continuing the war.

The problem is in implementing the will of the people. Democrats in Congress are not only recipients of AIPAC, oil industry, and military-security complex payoffs just as the Republicans are, Democrats are also behaving very cynically. They believe that it is Bush’s policy that gave them control of Congress in November and that by continuing to let Bush prevail, they will clean up on a larger scale in 2008. They believe that their antiwar base has nowhere else to go.

Their cynical logic is probably correct as far as it goes. Bush is being blamed for the war and its failure. The longer this goes on, the worse the situation for the Republicans. Prior to Bush’s invasion of Iraq, I wrote in a column that the unintended consequences of an invasion would be the destruction of Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement. It has taken longer than I thought, largely because of Americans’ blind desire for revenge for 9/11, but the prediction is on track.

The problem with the Democrats’ cynical logic is that allowing Bush to prolong the war in Iraq increases the chances that Cheney, Israel, and the neoconservatives can contrive a war with Iran. Most experts, and many in our own military, think that a war with Iran would go very badly for us, endangering our troops in Iraq by exposing them to more intense attacks from the more numerous Shi'ites, who would be armed with Iranian weapons that can neutralize our tanks and helicopters, leaving our fragmented and divided troops isolated and cut off from supplies and retreat routes.

The pending disaster would play into Cheney’s hands. With America faced with the loss of an army, Cheney and the neoconservatives would likely succeed in convincing Bush to nuke Iran. Cheney and Rumsfeld have already changed US war doctrine to permit preemptive nuclear attack against non-nuclear powers. Surprised by the inability of the US military to prevail in Iraq and by Israel’s military failure against Hezbollah, the neocons concluded that the only way to establish US/Israeli hegemony over the entire Middle East is to nuke Iran. The neocons believe that using nuclear weapons against Iran will demonstrate to the Muslim world that they have no alternative but to submit to US hegemony.

The Democrats are far from being alone in lacking the vision to see the abyss into which their cynicism is leading us. With the corporate media serving as propaganda ministry for the administration, Cheney will be able to whip up enough fear and anger to convince the American people that the use of nuclear weapons was imperative.

Bush’s popularity will return as he prevails over the enemy and tells Americans how he saved them from Iran’s nuclear weapons. The Democrats’ cynicism will have destroyed them and opened new avenues to destruction and violence."

* kleiman:

"As a fan of both Harman and McNerney (as someone who went to a fundraiser where Harman spoke for McNerney) I'd like to offer a plea for lowered voices on this (war funding vote). From the viewpoint of someone who wants a speedy but carefully-executed withdrawal from Iraq, there was no good vote to cast, and either vote was defensible. That's frequently the case in the dance of legislation. Members are forced to map quite complicated opinions onto a simple binary choice, and the result is lost information.

Whether to set a deadline in legislation was a tactical rather than a moral question. It might be better to leave things vague, if we had an Administration in power prepared to commit to an eventual end to the carnage, but we don't. By the same token, whether to vote for or against a bill that was certain to pass was also a tactical and not a moral question.

It was reasonable for McNerney to vote for the bill to express a desire that our withdrawal from Iraq be careful instead of pell-mell (and to assure centrists about his reasonableness and moderation). It was reasonable for Harman to vote against the bill to express a desire that our withdrawal from Iraq be in this world and not the World To Come (and to assure activists that she hasn't sold out to George Bush or fallen under the spell of David Broder and Joe Klein, and to tell her constituents, who overwhelmingly want to damned thing to be OVER that their elected representative is listening).

Neither vote had any direct result in the theater of operations, so neither won was a "failure to support the troops." I can respect legislators who made the choice either way. And it's just silly to call either vote "caving it to pressure" (from the center or the left, as the case may be). Every Democrat had to choose between catching crap from the Broder/Klein axis and catching crap from the netroots (and most of the voters). If Harman had voted for the bill, the Kossacks would have been as sure that she'd caved in to "pressure from the center" as the respectable pundits are that she caved in to "pressure from the left."

There will be other votes. Eventually, enough Republicans are likely to panic in the face of the impending destruction of our military forces and the impending electoral disaster for them in 2008 to force a change. Until then, it's all Kabuki. So exhale, and save your breath for yelling at the people who deserve yelling at. For some reason, Paul Krugman's accurate and potent formulation of the problem — George Bush is holding our troops hostage as a means of securing funding from the Congress for his policy of open-ended war — didn't catch on. But that's what people on both sides of this vote should be telling the voters from now through a year from November."

Holy Foley and winpac

2007-05-28T12:08:00.000+10:00

Jonathon, in full, emph in orig:

Holy Cripes

I've been looking through The Italian Letter by Peter Eiser and Knut Royce. There's some amazing stuff in it about Alan Foley, the head of the CIA's Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC). WINPAC led the CIA's analysis of Iraq's purported WMD, and so Foley is at the very center of what happened.

But what's even more amazing is how little attention the material about Foley has gotten. The book came out several months ago, but according to Google, the below sections have appeared nowhere online.

Here's what Foley believed before the war (p. 125):

There were strong indications that Foley all along was toeing a line he did not believe. Several days after Bush's State of the Union speech, Foley briefed student officers at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, DC. After the briefing, Melvin Goodman, who had retired from the CIA and was then on the university's faculty, brought Foley into the secure communications area of the Fort McNair compound. Goodman thanked Foley for addressing the students and asked him what weapons of mass destruction he believed would be found after the invasion. "Not much, if anything," Goodman recalled that Foley responded. Foley declined to be interviewed for this book.

So why, then, would WINPAC report that Iraq had WMD? Here's the answer (p. 119):

One day in December 2002, Foley called his senior production managers to his office. He had a clear message for the men and women who controlled the output of the center's analysts: "If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so." The directive was not quite an order to cook the books, but it was a strong suggestion that cherry-picking and slanting not only would be tolerated, but might even be rewarded.

Interestingly, this event has appeared in other books, although not with Foley's name attached. This is from Pretext for War by James Bamford:

...within a few months [after the September 11 attacks], for many [at the CIA] the morale once again began to drop through the floor as they began getting pressure to come up with Saddam Hussein's fingerprints on 9/11 and Al Qaeda.
One of those who felt the pressure was a DO case officer who spent years running agents overseas, but who had been reassigned to the unit charged with finding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq... According to the official, the group never found any indications of WMD in Iraq. "Where I was working, I never saw anything—no one else there did either," the person said.

Nevertheless, there was a great deal of pressure to find a reason to go to war with Iraq. And the pressure was not just subtle; it was blatant. At one point in January 2003, the person's boss called a meeting and gave them their marching orders. "And he said, 'You know what—if Bush wants to go to war, it's your job to give him a reason to do so'... He said it at the weekly office meeting. And I just remember saying, 'This is something that the American public, if they ever knew, would be outraged'...He said it to about fifty people. And it's funny because everyone still talks about that — 'Remember when [he] said that.'"

And this appears in Blowing My Cover: My Life as a CIA Spy by Lindsay Moran:

During my short tenure in Iraqi Operations, I met one woman who had covered Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program for more than a decade. She admitted to me, unequivocally, that the CIA had no definitive evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed WMD, or that Iraq presented anything close to an imminent threat to the United States. Another CIA analyst, whose opinion I’d solicited about the connection between Al-Qa’ida and Iraq, looked at me almost shamefacedly, shrugged, and said, "They both have the letter q?" And a colleague who worked in the office covering Iraqi counterproliferation reported to me that her mealy-mouthed pen pusher of a boss had gathered together his minions and announced, "Let’s face it. The president wants us to go to war, and our job is to give him a reason to do it."

Any serious congressional strategy to end this war would include nationally televised hearings about this and all the other lies that got us into Iraq. The seriousness of the Democrats can be judged by such hearings' non-existence.

The Constitutional Crisis Within

2007-05-28T11:52:00.000+10:00

* Marty Lederman:

"The Constitutional Crisis Within
[]
Hot tip for the mainstream press (not to mention Congress):

This is not your everyday occurrence. As I've been trying to emphasize, this internal DOJ showdown -- and, more broadly, the role of the Vice President's office in pushing a constitutional vision so extreme that the entire upper echelon of the Ashcroft Justice Department was ready to resign over it -- is a very big deal, what you might fairly call a huge story.

Indeed, other than the tragedy of Iraq (which, not coincidentally, is also the result of the President permitting the government to be controlled by a small coterie of like-minded extremists who were committed to ignoring all professional and expert perspectives inconsistent with their world view), this is probably the most important story of Bush Administration. And there is a ton of information that we do not yet know.

Hot tip No. 2: There is far, far too much focus on Alberto Gonzales in current press and congressional investigations. Just as he was merely a rubber stamp for Rove, et al. in the U.S. Attorney and related scandals, so, too, in these much more significant constitutional crises, he is "merely" an apparatchik, a hired gun of sorts. The real action here has always been in the Vice President's Office -- and on the intrigung question of why the President has repeatedly allowed the Vice President's idiosyncratic views to determine state policy -- and that's where the smoke and fire will be if and when the media and Congress ever get to the bottom of it."

gywo

2007-05-28T11:48:00.000+10:00

getyourwaron
(click for larger - or the full set here)

If a contrary view is taken

2007-05-27T21:00:00.000+10:00

* counterpunch:

"...a colossal struggle between two primary institutions of Pakistan, the Armed Forces and the Judiciary. Since the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the Supreme Court has sided with the generals who overthrew political governments. The Supreme Court found innovative ways to legitimize military coups, including the one Musharraf staged in 1999. In all these constitutional cases, however, the fight has been between two governments, the military and the political. This time, the fight is between the Judiciary and the Armed Forces. This time, the Judiciary itself is under attack. It is unlikely that the Justices will subordinate themselves to the Generals. In his petition, the CJP prays the Court to annul the President's reference and raises a question that cannot be lightly ignored: "If a contrary view is taken, which judge will then stand up to the executive?""

read the rest for a good, brief overview of the situation there.

* here's the vid of Andy Card getting a rousing boo-ing at UMass (thnx starroute for the correction). Personally, I find it all disrespectful.

* Ron Paul on Bill Maher. Paul got a huge ovation.

* Palast:

"And now, not bothering to understand the astonishing revelation in Goodling's confessional, they are missing the real story behind the firing of the US attorneys. It's not about removing prosecutors disloyal to Bush, it's about replacing those who refused to aid the theft of the vote in 2004 with those prepared to burgle it again in 2008."

* Henley: "

The interests of the oil industry and the security-industrial complex (SAIC, CACI, Titan, Lockheed Martin etc.) make quite the interlocking set of interests with government officialdom. That’s certainly part of the story. But I think the rest of it is ideology."

* Henley: "

Many people have pointed out that the ABC News report on the recent “nonlethal finding” directing the CIA to destabilize the Iranian government must have been based on authorized leaks. The question is the timing. Why leak now? To sabotage the talks looming? In a way, probably. But it may be more cynical. Iran is holding two high-profile Iranian-Americans on charges of spying. This leak now will tend to make Iran likely to detain them longer. Which will make Iran look worse. That’s very bad for Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh, but I doubt the Vice President’s office much cares about them, and the Iranian government certainly doesn’t."

Rich White Guy Runs for President!!!

2007-05-27T20:20:00.000+10:00

Guardian (in full):

" In defence of the rich, sort of

Criticising candidates who fight for the poor while enjoying a life of personal excess misses the reality of American politics.

Last week, most of the candidates running for president filed a statement of their 2006 financial assets, which led to one of the most monumentally unsurprising discoveries of the race: the candidates are extremely rich. Rudy Giuliani reported assets between $18.1m and $70.4m, and John Edwards disclosed $29.5m. Barack Obama and his wife reported earning just under $1m in 2006. And Mitt Romney's mountainous riches overshadow them all: his campaign estimates that he's worth between $190m and $250m.
Lots of people have a general (and justifiable) discomfort with the amount of money in American politics. But rich Democrats are subject to a second strain of criticism: hypocrisy. They claim to fight for the working class, so what's with the eight-figure incomes? And so, when the San Francisco Chronicle parsed the figures and found that John Edwards had received $55,000 for giving a speech about - relish the irony - poverty, it poured fuel on a fire already created by his $400 haircuts. How can John Edwards speak about the plight of the oppressed, critics from both the right and left asked, when he leads of lifestyle of such apparent excess?

There are three reasons why I think this is a bad question. The first is selfish and practical: You can almost never ask it of a Republican. This isn't because they don't lead lives of fabulous excess; it's because they don't claim to fight on behalf of the working class. More often than not, making boatloads of money is a GOP asset. It shows that a candidate is a good manager, or understands finance, or has the right pro-business bona fides. You don't see Rudy Giuliani being criticised for his $100,000 speaking fees. Rich Democrats, on the other hand, will always reek of insincerity.

But a bigger problem is that this charge buys into the cheapest brand of identity politics. The basic thought behind the criticism is that if you talk the talk, you should walk the walk - but I don't think that's a political principle you can extend very far. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean that you can't possibly speak on behalf of a constituency unless you share its defining characteristic. Worried about rising pharmaceutical prices for the elderly? Sorry, not till you hit 65. Want to debate agricultural price supports? Better grab that pitchfork first. And don't even think about crossing lines of race and gender.

Sure, identity can and often does inform one's politics. But there's never a necessary relationship between the two. That's why you find the supreme court's Clarence Thomas opposing racial preferences - despite having been a lifelong beneficiary of them - and the Log Cabin Republicans supporting the party that backs a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I doubt their sanity, but I'm not really sceptical of their sincerity - mostly because they're under no obligation to have a single aspect of identity determine their beliefs.

By the same token, I question the sanity of the campaign staffer who accepted the bill for a $400 haircut, or the adviser who gave the green light to a speech on poverty for 50 grand. These things certainly look strange. But there's almost always a better indicator of a politician's beliefs than his bank statement. There are, for example, these things called voting records.

Of course, it seems perfectly natural that, in a country where the average net worth is $93,000 and the average yearly income is $46,000, voters would look askance at politicians with bulging wallets. (As someone who does not, tragically, draw $55,000 speaking fees or enjoy $400 haircuts, let me say that I feel this too.) But the reasons for the disparity are systemic, not individual - a third reason for being wary of criticising the likes of John Edwards.

Rich people tend to know other rich people and, unless America wants to hop on the public financing bandwagon, it takes riches to run a campaign. And let's never forget that most annoying of campaign finance quirks: individual donations are capped at $2,300, but the candidate himself is allowed to donate an unlimited amount of money to his own campaign.

That's not a state of affairs that most liberals like. But there's irony here, too: for the past 35 years, the right to unlimited personal campaign spending has been upheld for free speech reasons. It's not something new campaign finance legislation could change. So the lesson is clear: don't blame John Edwards - he's no hypocrite. Just blame the rich white guys who wrote the constitution."

there's a lot of good stuff in here - and it reminds me of one of my favourite Onion headlines "Rich White Guy Runs for President!!!" - but the point that I wanted to mention here is not about wealth/poverty - but the other issues the repuglicans face. I'm certainly not the first to mention this, but Repugs with junkie kids tend to be those who oppose mandatory sentencing, etc, or if their mothers have cancer and need a hit for the bong, then all of a sudden they're for medical marijuana etc. Of course, when their daughters/wives need an abortion, they never extend that logic to others, it's just an 'aberation' that can be resolved quietly...

That's the thing that Edwards' wealth highlights - the Dems (can) have empathy. You never see that with the repugs unless they are forced, first hand, to acknowledge that people have problems.

There's a messaging message in there somewhere.

AIPAC Case

2007-05-27T16:37:00.001+10:00

I still haven't quite worked out with the latest goings-on in the AIPAC case.

* Josh Gerstein in the NYSun writes:

"Intelligence agencies have decided to declassify a large volume of classified information in order to move forward with the criminal prosecution of two pro- Israel lobbyists accused of trafficking in America's national secrets.
[]
Despite reports that Mr. Weissman and his former employer, Aipac, resolved a dispute over its payment of his legal bills, Mr. Lowell said no such agreement has been reached between Mr. Rosen and the lobbying group. "We have not been negotiating," the defense attorney said.
[]
Judge Ellis has scrubbed plans to start the trial next month. Mr. Lowell said he thinks September is now a realistic date for the trial to open."

* 2 days later, JTA writes:

"The prosecution had the option of appealing his decision or agreeing to go to trial, but without declassifying any more evidence. Instead, on Thursday, it acceded to Ellis' order and submitted a new plan for declassifiying evidence. Ellis, prosecutors and defense lawyers will consider the plan next month.

Ellis is likely to set a new trial date before the end of June. So far, at least five trial dates have been set and have lapsed for Weissman and Rosen, who were indicted in August 2005. The two men are charged under never-used 1917 statute with receiving and relaying to colleagues, Israeli diplomats and journalists classified information about Iran."

There was supposed to be some news on Friday afternoon - but I haven't seen anything.

WhyTheyHateUs

2007-05-27T14:31:00.000+10:00

* read Ian Welsh on Fatah, Hamas, WhyTheyHateUs, peace and democracy.

* Scott interviewed mcgovern. mcgovern says the best way to influence Preznit Blinky is to be the last person to speak to him on any given day :-)

* yglesias:

"One possible understanding of the "fighting them over there" concept is that while fighting them over there doesn't prevent them from attacking us over here, declining to fight them over there might invite attack by demonstrating weakness. This is part-and-parcel of the right's tendency to view national security policy as something that takes place entirely at the level of symbolism. In the real world, it makes very little sense.

Ask yourself why signaling weakness might invite attack. Or, better, ask yourself why signaling anything might matter under any circumstances. The answer, of course, is that signaling matters because it signals underlying reality. At the end of the day, though, what matters isn't what you're signaling, but rather the other guy's perception of your objective strength. In the case of Iraq, continuing the occupation is obviously making it less possible for us to deploy military assets (or, indeed, diplomatic or financial assets) anywhere else for any purpose. Unless you assume that whichever enemies were concerned with are really, really, really dumb they're going to be more impressed by our lack of actual capabilities than they are by our steely determination.

Most generally, there's no point in worrying too much about signaling. You can't prevent messages from being misinterpreted. Terrorists and bloodthirsty dictators, in particular, are prone to seeing the world in eccentric ways. The most reasonable course of action always to make the objective situation as favorable as possible. That way, even if your "the objective situation is favorable" signal is misconstrued, the actual situation will, in fact, be as favorable as possible."

* yglesias:

"I hardly have the energy to wrestle with George W. Bush's public statements on grand strategy anymore, but when he says something like "If we were to fail, they'd come and get us" it's worth asking what, exactly, the causal chain here is supposed to be. US troops in Iraq aren't trying to prevent people currently in Iraq from leaving Iraq. And while various government agencies are trying to stop terrorists people from entering the United States, American troops in Iraq aren't doing this."

* John Howard has jumped the shark. yay, us.

google religion

2007-05-27T12:26:00.000+10:00

benchmarks

2007-05-27T12:23:00.000+10:00

2007-05-27T11:10:00.000+10:00

* Gore on TDS at OGM

* Michael Moore on Bill Maher at OGM

taken care of

2007-05-26T17:30:00.000+10:00

* watching Bush's 'drug out' appearance from the other day, he was asked about the current DoJ investigation, and he said that if there was any wrongdoing, it will be 'taken care of' - which is notably 'softer' than his early promises in the Plame case...

2007-05-26T17:08:00.000+10:00

I've got a beef.

2007-05-26T17:04:00.000+10:00

Your president speaks:

""One area where I've been disappointed is beef. (The Chinese) need to be eating U.S. beef. It's good for them. They'll like it."

Who are these charlatans?

2007-05-26T17:00:00.000+10:00

Kathleen Reardon (in full):

"They're All Barely Functioning

That's the only conclusion left. The Democrats get their dander up over presidential usurpation of power then cave. Is this because they are impressive negotiators? Is it because they know that come September, as John Murtha proposes, the incapacitated President will be putty in their hands? Not based on the latest compromise of epic proportions.

This benchmark plan does nothing other than give an inept President the time he needs to put more lives at risk in a "war" void of sophisticated strategy driven only by a refusal to be wrong in the face of insurmountable evidence to that very fact.

Astute negotiation does not involve hardball followed by immediate forfeit. There are tough stages and steps between the two. The latter is a last resort scenario or else the former is merely pretense. And that's where we're left. Regrettably the Democrats have proven again that when cornered they sputter then collapse. The smirk on George Bush's face right now is evidence enough of who is the victor. He is sitting in the catbird seat feeling quite superior. And, rightly so. The Democrats who seemed to be taking him to task are, as we've so often seen before, giving him what he wants - in spades.

All this talk about how bad it looks if they don't support the troops reveals their true focus. What looks bad isn't the issue. What is bad is. These people are rich but they're ignorant. Most are political puppets of polls rather than guided by solid values. I'm sick of the lot of them. Most people I know could do better with their eyes closed. Who are these charlatans? Didn't they hear what the generals have been saying? Who is deaf now? September - give me a break!"

the appearance of a conflict of interest

2007-05-26T16:41:00.000+10:00

* Marcy:

"After all, if Libby gets off easily because a bunch of VERYIMPORTANT people who may have just appointed Reggie Walton to the FISA Court weigh in in his favor, it will further undermine confidence in a judicial system that is undergoing a crisis. (Note, I'm not saying I suspect there was any funny business in the FISA appoint and I think Walton is very principled. But it's a question of Walton judging those who have significant power over him.)"

Some of us do have doubts about Walton, however. Shaun Waterman @ UPI wrote yesterday:

"Earlier last year FBI whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds unsuccessfully tried to get Walton to recuse himself from her case, arguing his decision to keep federally required financial disclosure information private created the appearance of a conflict of interest."

* Glenn:

"The GOP debate in South Carolina two weeks ago was something of a watershed moment in American politics. It really was like watching a debate between Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Reynolds and Michael Savage -- with the LGF commenters as the audience, cheering most boisterously for the most extreme warmongering, pro-torture and pro-lawless-detention sentiments. It is one thing to encounter that level of extremism in the right-wing blogosphere or on talk radio. But to see that embraced so openly and so eagerly by virtually all of the GOP presidential candidates is rather staggering, and self-evidently meaningful."

* juancole:

"Bush was out there again on Wednesday trying to link Iraq to al-Qaeda and maintaining that the US was mainly fighting it in that country. In fact, No Mahdi Army Shiites are al-Qaeda. Almost all Sunni Arab guerrilla cells are Baathist or Salafi rather than al-Qaeda. Probably of 100,000 guerrillas fighting in Iraq, perhaps 2% could be categorized in some vague way as "al-Qaeda" if you take that term as referring to a franchise. They are mainly foreign fighters and if the US left Iraq, the local Sunni Arabs would slit their throats. Some slitting is going on even now, and the Bushies celebrate that while not seeming to recognize the implication that "al-Qaeda" doesn't amount to anything as an Iraqi political force."

* juancole:

"This sort of allegation was typical of Feith, who had been asked in January of 2002 to come up with material on the [imaginary] relationship of Bin Laden and Iraq by his superior (who had hired him apparently for this sort of purpose), Paul Wolfowitz.

Feith had been investigated by the FBI earlier in his career as a possible Israeli intelligence asset and was raised in a fringe, far-rightwing Zionist family. His father was a member of Betar, the organization devoted to teachings of fascist Zionist thinker Vladimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky and to "Greater Israel" expansionism. Persons in this tradition often believe that Israel extends into Iraq itself."

the mistakes of the Blair years.

2007-05-25T21:11:00.000+10:00

* Indy (via simon):

"Inquiry into Iraq conflict is likely, says Johnson

An inquiry into the war in Iraq could take place in a Gordon Brown government, Alan Johnson - the front-runner for the deputy leadership - has told supporters.

The Education Secretary told a hustings meeting that an Iraq inquiry which has been resisted by Tony Blair was likely to happen when the Prime Minister stands down. His allies said he believes it could help to draw a line under the mistakes of the Blair years.

"Alan thinks there probably will be an inquiry," said one of Mr Johnson's friends. "He thinks there is a mood out there for one, whatever you think about the rights or wrongs of having an inquiry. He didn't say it would come to any definite conclusion but he thinks there will be an inquiry. We need to draw a line under Iraq.""

* ProfMarcus:

"i think cheney is certifiably insane, albeit still frighteningly, malevolently functional..."

do they fire gay non-arabic translators?

2007-05-25T17:11:00.000+10:00

* the US army is firing more gay arabic translators. Question: do they fire gay non-arabic translators with the same gusto?

* RBC:

"(Arnie) has, I wish to note, restrained himself so far from jumping on the deeply anti-planet bandwagon of deploring high gasoline prices that seems to have swept up almost every national politician. Has there ever been a product that everyone agrees we need to use less of, that reasonable people want sold at lower rather than higher prices? Let's do this slowly, for the candidates and their spin people:

Gas . Prices . Are . Much . Too . Low"

* Athenae (to Dems):

"What keeps killing me is that the way around this is so EASY. Just be the people we elected you to be. Be obstinate. Be unreasonable. Be good goddamn right for once in your miserable lives because this is a time when you're either right or you lose your fucking soul. Be steadfast. Be the people we elected you to be. Good God, it can't be that hard. I can think of a thousand jobs in the world that are harder than following your conscience and the dictates of your office, and most of them involve walking point in various hellholes in and around Iraq, and if those people can get up every day and do their jobs where they are, there's no reason you can't do your jobs and bring them home.

Schmucks."

* amy:

"U.S. Among Nations Highlighted in Amnesty Human Rights Report
Amnesty International is accusing the United States of turning the world into a global battlefield in the so-called war on terror. On Wednesday Amnesty issued its annual report on the state of human rights. The criticism of the United States was multifold – Amnesty called for Guantanamo to be shut down, for senior government officials to be held accountable for authorizing torture, and for an end to the practice known as extraordinary rendition. Amnesty’s report also highlighted human rights abuses in many other areas including Iraq, Russia and Zimbabwe and Sudan.
Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan: "Darfur is a bleeding wound on the world's conscience. The U.S. government has been outspoken on the need to protect civilians in Darfur and we welcome that very much. But nothing proves more clearly the loss of U.S. moral authority than its failure to persuade the Sudanese government to accept U.N. peacekeepers."

For Israel and the Occupied Territories, Amnesty says Israel killed more than 650 Palestinians last year, three times the number of Palestinians killed in 2005. Half of the Palestinians killed last year were unarmed civilians. The Palestinian death toll included 120 children. During the same period, Palestinian militants killed 27 Israelis – including 20 civilians and one child."

* amy:

Environmentalist Jailed for 13 Years After Ruled a Terrorist
In Oregon, an environmental activist involved in a series of arsons has been sentenced to 13 years in prison after a judge ruled the man should be considered a terrorist. Stanislaus Meyerhoff was arrested in 2005 and admitted to being a member of the Earth Liberation Front. Meyerhoff faced up to 30 years in prison, but his sentence was decreased because he had become a government informant. Nine other environmental and animal rights activists will be sentenced on similar charges in coming weeks. Federal prosecutors have requested all of them be considered terrorists even though their actions caused no injuries. The Oregon-based Civil Rights Outreach Committee said the activists should not be be considered terrorists. The group said the court’s decision sets a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by the federal government to seek greater prison time for political activists engaged in acts of civil disobedience.

The ELF is presumably 'al qaeda linked'

* there's something darkly amusing that there's a WhiteHouse spokesman named Johndroe.

* Mizgin: "

In other news, I'd like to point out that a long-time supporter of the Armenian Genocide Resolution in the US Congress has been purchased by the Ankara regime. Former Congressman Dick Gephardt is now a foreign agent for the Ankara regime, working for infamous lobby/legal firm, DLA Piper. As such, Gephardt now earns excellent bucks working to oppose the Armenian Genocide Resolution in Congress.

I should also point out that DLA Piper is the legal firm for The Cohen Group, which provides job security to some of the worst rodents on the planet, under the guidance of Deep Staters William Cohen, Marc Grossman, and Lockheed Martin's PKK coordinator, Joseph Ralston.

Furthermore, it was DLA Piper that was in on the Australian Wheat Board's (AWB)UN Oil-for-Food scam, a scam that was facilitated by none other than Willam Cohen and the legal vermin at DLA Piper. Oh, yeah . . . Ahmed Chalabi was in on that, too."

(welcome back mizgin, and congratulations.)

trash-talking racist machismo

2007-05-25T11:58:00.000+10:00

* Digby:

"This merely illustrates that for the base of the Republican party, this election is stripping away all the codes and all the artifice about "compassionate conservatism" and going back to basics: fear and loathing of women and non-whites. They don't care about fetuses and they don't care about Jesus and they don't really care about "family values" except to the extent it keeps their prerogatives in place. After years of listening them drone on about the culture war, they are likely to nominate a someone who is either a gun grabbing, cross dresser from New York City or a flip-flopping Morman from Taxachusetts --- their "principles" and their insistence on "cultural affinity" are a crock. The only thing they really care about is trash-talking racist machismo. Let's admit that and deal with it shall we, instead of playing these ridiculous culture war games and allowing them to twist us into a pretzel? "

* tristero:

"Dealing with a rogue president is a tricky business, to be sure, especially one as immature and ignorant as this one. But backing down is not an option. I, for one, dread an overt constitutional confrontation between Bush and the rest of the government (as many of you have said, we've been in a serious covert constitutional crisis since Bush entered the White House). But it is becoming distressingly apparent that the alternative to such a confrontation is a White House hellbent on embroiling a (now) very unwilling United States in as many unncessary and futile wars as it can dream up. Wars that will, due to the limitations of conventional American military resources, almost certainly involve nuclear weapons sooner or later. And rather than grapple with the near-certain prospect of Bush deploying nuclear weapons, an American constitutional crisis seems a downright reasonable and level-headed alternative."

* Sy Hersh on DemNow:

"Hersh: And what is the laugh riot and the reason I’m actually talking to you guys about this -- I usually don’t like to do interviews unless I have a story in The New Yorker -- the reason I’m talking about it is because the American government keeps on putting out this story that Syria is behind the Fatah group, which is just beyond belief. There’s no way -- it may be possible, but the chances of it are very slight, simply because Syria is a very big supporter, obviously, of Nasrallah, and Bashar al-Assad has told me that he’s in awe of Nasrallah, that he worships at his feet and has great respect for him. The idea that the Syrians would be sponsoring Sunni jihadist groups whose sole mission are to kill the apostates -- that is, anybody who doesn’t support their view, the Wahhabi or Salafist view of Sunni religion -- that includes the Shia -- anybody who doesn’t believe -- support these guys’ religions are apostates and are killable, that’s basically one of the crazy aspects of all this, and it’s just inconceivable. Nothing can be ruled out, but that doesn’t make much case, and I noticed that in the papers today there’s fewer and fewer references to this. The newspapers in America are beginning to wise up, that this can’t be -- this isn’t very logical. The White House is putting it out hot and heavy as part of the anti-Syria campaign, but it’s not flying, because it doesn’t make sense. So there we are. It’s another mess.

You might think that one of the reasons -- I think I wrote about this in The New Yorker -- one of the things that the Saudi Bandar had promised us was that we can control the jihadists. We can control them, he assured us. Don’t worry about getting in bed with these bad guys, because, as we remember, the same kind of assurances were given to us in the late 1980s, when we supported, as I said, bin Laden and others in the war against Russia, the Mujahideen war, and that, of course, bit us on the ass. And this is, too. So there we are.

AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, what about the role of Vice President Dick Cheney, the Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams?

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, you always -- any time you have violent anti-Iran policy and anti-Shia policy, you have to start looking there. Look, clearly this president is deeply involved in this, too, but what I hear from my people, of course, the players -- it’s always Cheney, Cheney. Cheney meets with Bush at least once a week. They have a lunch. They usually have a scheduled lunch. And out of that comes a lot of big decisions. We don’t know what’s ever said at that meeting. And this is -- talk about being opaque, this is a government that is so hidden from us.

So I can’t -- I can tell you that -- you know, the thing that’s amazing about this government, the thing that’s really spectacular, is even now how they can get their way mostly with a lot of the American press. For example, I do know -- and, you know, you have to take it on face value. If you’ve been reading me for a long time, you know a lot of the things I write are true or come out to be more or less true. I do know that within the last month, maybe four, four-and-a-half weeks ago, they made a decision that because of the totally dwindling support for the war in Iraq, we go back to the al-Qaeda card, and we start talking about al-Qaeda. And the next thing you know, right after that, Bush went to the Southern Command -- this was a month ago -- and talked, mentioned al-Qaeda twenty-seven times in his speech. He did so just the other day this week -- al-Qaeda this, al-Qaeda that. All of a sudden, the poor Iraqi Sunnis, I mean, they can’t do anything without al-Qaeda. It’s only al-Qaeda that’s dropping the bombs and causing mayhem. It’s not the Sunni and Shia insurgents or militias. And this policy just gets picked up, although there’s absolutely no empirical basis. Most of the pros will tell you the foreign fighters are a couple percent, and then they’re sort of leaderless in the sense that there’s no overall direction of the various foreign fighters. You could call them al-Qaeda. You can also call them jihadists and Salafists that want to die fighting the Americans or the occupiers in Iraq and they come across the border. Whether this is -- there’s no attempt to suggest there’s any significant coordination of these groups by bin Laden or anybody else, and the press just goes gaga. And so, they went gaga a little bit over the Syrian connection to the activities in Tripoli. It’s just amazing to me, you guys.

* ew:

"In other recent news, AIPAC has announced that it will pay all of Keith Weissman's legal fees. Because it would be an awfully inconvenient time for someone deliberately sabotaging US policy on Iran to have to go to jail, just as the Vice President and a top security aide are busy deliberately sabotaging US policy on Iran."

the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran

2007-05-25T11:56:00.001+10:00

* Clemons:

"This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

There are many other components of the complex game plan that this Cheney official has been kicking around Washington. The official has offered this commentary to senior staff at AEI and in lunch and dinner gatherings which were to be considered strictly off-the-record, but there can be little doubt that the official actually hopes that hawkish conservatives and neoconservatives share this information and then rally to this point of view. This official is beating the brush and doing what Joshua Muravchik has previously suggested -- which is to help establish the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran.

The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.

According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.

On Tuesday evening, i spoke with a former top national intelligence official in this Bush administration who told me that what I was investigating and planned to report on regarding Cheney and the commentary of his aide was "potentially criminal insubordination" against the President. I don't believe that the White House would take official action against Cheney for this agenda-mongering around Washington -- but I do believe that the White House must either shut Cheney and his team down and give them all garden view offices so that they can spend their days staring out their windows with not much to do or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President.

It is not that Cheney wants to bomb Iran and Bush doesn't, it is that Cheney is saying that Bush is making a mistake and thus needs to have the choices before him narrowed."

Sibel Edmonds: There are traitors in our midst. Call Waxman. Demand hearings. (with video!)

2007-05-24T22:20:00.000+10:00

Today is the last day of the current spike of the Let Sibel Edmonds Speak campaign. We are begging you to call Henry Waxman's office (202-225-3976) and demand public hearings into her case.

Sibel is a former FBI translator who has documented evidence, supported by a number of agents, and confirmed by numerous government investigations, that people like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Dennis Hastert have been involved in treasonous activities.

Waxman has seen the evidence and was "outraged" and "stunned" and promised to hold hearings when the Dems controlled Congress - but has been ignoring our requests.

In this post, I have some compelling video of a recent interview that Sibel gave asking people to demand that Waxman hold hearings, and I also want to focus on one important issue that comes up in Sibel's case. High level officials are literally selling out their government, and the country, while they are in office. This maybe isn't that surprising, but here we have a case where we literally have evidence, and we have proof that many governmental organizations were aware of the fact, and they didn't do anything, and they continue to do nothing.

******

I've been running diaries all this week on Sibel's case asking you to call Waxman and demand hearings.

My post yesterday demonstrated that the US Attorney crisis pre-dates the current scandal - and the Pentagon (Perle & Feith) were dictating which FBI investigations were and were not allowed to proceed (Hint: they were not allowed to proceed when Perle & Feith were targets).

Tuesday's post was mostly a recent interview that Sibel gave describing the importance of public hearings and asking you to contact Waxman. I've resolved some technical issues and the YouTube segment is below.

In Monday's post I argued that we need to support people like Sibel because if she can't get public hearings, with documented evidence, validated by previous governmental investigations, then we can't reasonably ask any other people to come forward with evidence in any of the other investigations that Waxman might conduct.

For background information on the case, see What the heck is Sibel Edmonds' Case about? and Who wants to gag Sibel Edmonds? And why? (with answers!)

For today's post, firstly, here's the YouTube (2 parts) of the last 12 minutes of a recent interview that Sibel gave where she discusses the need for hearings, the fact that her case is documented, that other agents want to testify, and that Waxman has ignored her, despite previous promises to hold hearings into her case.

If you cant see these embedded here, try Part One and Part Two.

(partial transcript here)

I also want to highlight something that Sibel says in this interview that sometimes gets missed, but it's still important today, and the specific example in her case can apparently be generalized across broad swathes of the US government.

We are all aware of the problem of the revolving doors within the Military Industrial Complex - but Sibel says that (at least) one of the key perps in her case, Marc Grossman, was explicitly working for foreign interests while he was in office, with a guaranteed payoff when he left office.

Sibel says:

"This is very important: In order to obtain (the post-retirement job) they had to serve those foreign interests while they were working and they had those high positions. That's how they earn those future positions, that's how it happens. In every single case, that’s how it happens."

Sibel has previously written: "Please do not make the grave and naive mistake of assuming that Grossman found and obtained his highly lucrative and questionable positions after his resignation in January 2005."

Again, this is nothing new, really. We recently saw that the CIA's Number 3, Dusty Foggo, did exactly the same thing in the Duke Cunningham case - but a) we need to put a stop to it b) Grossman's 'sponsors' are most unsavoury and c) a number of people, in a variety of US Govt agencies knew about Grossman's dirty dealing, and did nothing about it, for years.

Most people don't know much about Grossman, fair enough. He was the #3 guy at the State Department under Armitage and former Ambassador to Turkey. To the extent that his name is familiar, it is because it was his memo to Scooter Libby that first identified Valerie Plame as Joe Wilson's husband - but his proximity to a number of scandals forces us to ask exactly what Grossman did to earn his new $2m+ salary.

For example, contrary to conventional wisdom, as I detail here,

The thing is, Brewster Jennings was 'outed' (privately, within the criminal network) long before Valerie Plame was officially outed. In fact, Brewster Jennings' cover was blown in the Summer of 2001 by Marc Grossman, former #3 at the State Department and Ambassador to Turkey.

Brewster Jennings was investigating Pakistan's AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network - a network which also involved Turkish companies. WHy did Grossman 'out' Brewster Jennings? and why is he now working with a shady Turkish company?

According to Sibel:

Most and foremost, Grossman is known for his extraordinarily cozy relationship with Turkey and Israel; followed by Pakistan.

Grossman's relationship with Pakistan is curious. As British MP Michael Meacher wrote in the Guardian:

"...General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead (911) hijacker.

Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?"

Sibel has previously commended me on highlighting Grossman's meeting with General Mahmoud Ahmed that week.

That isn't Grossman's only involvement in 911 related stuff. As I wrote here:

"Thirdly, two weeks after 911, Sibel overheard two 'targets' of a (Counter intelligence) monitoring program having a conversation. Apparently, three associates of these targets were arrested in New Jersey immediately after 911 - two Turkish guys and an Uzbeki. The targets were desperate to get their associates out of jail, and out of the country, so they called Marc Grossman who duly facilitated their release. (I've previously documented the NJ connection - home to Giza Technologies and a Brewster Jennings operation)"

My point here isn't to mount a critique of Grossman, per se, but it's important to understand what Sibel is talking about when she says that she has documented evidence that high level officials routinely sell out their country, to an extraordinary degree, because they have been promised post-career payoffs. And the parallel problem that many US govt agencies have known about this for years, and done nothing. How many Grossmans are there in the US Government today, making the same deals to sell out their country?

We need to put a stop to it. And that's why you should call Waxman (202-225-3976) and demand public hearings into Sibel's case. Do it today. Please.

(dkos, DU - please go rec)

the only appropriate reaction is outrage

2007-05-24T15:39:00.000+10:00

* amy:

Dems Drop Timetable Demand in War Funding Bill
In a major victory for the Bush administration, Democrats have officially abandoned their effort to include a non-binding timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in the war spending bill. On Tuesday, Democrats said they would accept a Republican plan to fund the war through the end of September. The measure would also establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government. The Democrats made the concession after President Bush vetoed an earlier bill that included a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Democrats say they do not have enough votes to override a veto and want to avoid accusations of denying funding for U.S. troops. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she may even vote against the bill because it doesn’t include a timeline. As many as one hundred-twenty Democrats are also expected to oppose the bill. Democratic leaders plan to divide the measure into two votes so that domestic spending is separated from war voting. The domestic provisions include a federal increase in the minimum wage. In a statement, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said: “There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action.”

* amy:

Report: Pentagon Plans Near Doubling Iraq Troop Size
Meanwhile the Hearst news bureau is reporting the Pentagon is quietly planning to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year. A new deployment order shows plans are in place to boost the number of combat troops from fifty-two thousand to ninety-eight thousand. With support troops included, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq could top two-hundred thousand by the end of the year.

* athenae:

"It should be obvious to anyone who reads this space on a regular basis that as a Christian, I'd have liked many times to have told Falwell to get off my side because he was making it look bad. But as a Democrat, I often wondered why Republicans didn't think the same thing.

After all, he was making their party, a party of less intrusive governance and sensible spending and limited social programs, the party of hucksters who relied on fraudulent messages from God to tell them what to do. He was making their party the party of backward-thinking buffoonery, of paranoid visions of homosexuality around every corner.

He brought in a lot of votes while he did so, but in the long run, was it worth it? When the word "conservative" was so tarnished by the 2000 presidential election that candidate George W. Bush had to append "compassionate" to it in order to make it palatable to anyone with a smidgen of sense? When even now Republican primary candidates are expected to genuflect at the altar of Falwell's movement by speaking at his "university" and mouthing praises of his work lest his followers howl?

Is it worth it, the temporary electoral successes he helped to foster, if association with the means used to achieve those ends requires sensible Republicans to say, "Sure, I'm a conservative, but I'm not one of THOSE conservatives?"

Maybe it is. After all, the modern Republican Party fell all over itself to eulogize and honor Falwell after his death, and the mainstream press, for the most part, focused on his influence rather than strictly on his actions in ambivalent stories. Certainly, before he died, Falwell was enjoying the four-year ritual kissing-up that accompanies the coming of the Republican presidential primary. No one was jumping over anybody else to distance himself from the so-called moral "majority."
[]
But with Falwell gone and the Republican Party mired in unpopularity, GOP candidates may have to find some other way to appeal to the masses without talking like tent-revival preachers facing down Satan with just a piggy bank in hand.

They could start by finding a way to make "conservative" a watchword for something other than the division Falwell preached."

* Other Horton:

"We’ve long passed the point at which the only appropriate reaction is outrage."

an American-style plot...

2007-05-24T09:25:00.000+10:00

there was some 'plot' discovered here yesterday for some teenagers to shoot up a school. they were caught discussing it in some 'internet chatroom'

The evening news here last night led with stuff like "Authorities have disrupted an American-style plot..."

yay us, yay america.

Sibel Edmonds case: Pentagon controls US Attorneys, FBI. Call Waxman.

2007-05-23T22:06:00.000+10:00

All this week we are asking, begging that you call Henry Waxman's office (202-225-3976) and demand hearings into the case of FBI translator Sibel Edmonds.

Campaign headquarters are at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak.

In today's post, I'll demonstrate that the focus on the current US Attorney scandal is incomplete.

Long before the White House started putting on pressure on the attorneys, the Pentagon (and the State Department) was dictating whether (or not) the FBI could investigate crimes, up to and including treason, by officials at the Pentagon (and State).

In a terrific new interview, Sibel Edmonds talks about how it hapens, who is involved, and why we need Waxman to hold hearings into her case.

*********

(This is my third post this week about Sibel's case. There'll be another post tomorrow. See Monday, Tuesday.)

In yesterday's righteous "The Death of Democracy" rant about the latest Dem cave-in regarding Iraq, One Pissed Off Liberal wrote:

"We are witnessing the end of an era. The great American experiment in democracy is over.

It is now clear, the Military Industrial Congressional Complex has usurped the power of the people and cemented its control over our government."

What many people aparently don't realize is that the Sibel Edmonds case is about the corruption of US government agencies by the military industrial congressional complex (both foreign and domestic).

We need, desperately, to have open public hearings to shed a light on Sibel's case because those hearings will clearly demonstrate the process of the corruption, the purpose of the corruption, and the outcomes of the corruption. Until we have open hearings into this case, then we can't expect anything to change - as long as the corruption remains, we'll get the same results, again and again.

In a new interview, Sibel says:

And in fact, then-Attorney General Ashcroft said this in his declaration when he invoked the State Secrets Privilege in my case. He said that exposing these issues in courts, whether or not I’m right, would damage certain sensitive diplomatic relations and would hurt certain U.S. foreign business relations...

They’re not even saying what diplomatic relations they refer to. Are they ashamed of it? Are we talking about billions of dollars of weapons procurement? Why don’t they be more specific? Because (they say) this is top-secret, classified stuff. That’s why I have been writing these papers, relying on outside sources, getting all the data. You’re looking at $5 billion every two years of weapons procurements? That’s not top-secret. Who benefits from this? What companies? Who are the individuals who are benefiting from this? And is there anything in the issues that I dealt with that if exposed would harm the Americans and their security? None. None whatsoever.

(Because Sibel is gagged, she has to use questions and hypotheticals to make her point, and to point fingers.)

Sibel adds:

Our government has taken unprecedented steps to silence and coverup this case. That should tell the American public how important this case is.

In Phil Giraldi's fantastic article, he writes that Sibel's case

"could provide a major insight into how neoconservatives distort US foreign policy and enrich themselves at the same time.
[]
Some of (the money) may come from criminal activity, possibly drug trafficking, but much more might come from arms dealing. Contracts in the hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars provide considerable fat for those well placed to benefit."

We know some of the people involved in Sibel's case - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Marc Grossman, Eric Edelman, Dennis Hastert and others.

We know that all of these people were appointed to senior positions in Congress, in the Pentagon, in the State Department, despite (or because?) very serious claims about their involvement in criminal activity, up to and including treason.

We know that they were allowed to maintain their positions even after Sibel's claims were verified, with documentary proof, five years ago, in a variety of different channels and official reports.

We know that all of these people are still free to walk the streets, with lucrative jobs, today - despite the fact the many people in Congress, in the FBI, in the Department of Justice know the facts of Sibel's case.

And as I outlined in "Who wants to gag Sibel Edmonds? And why? (with answers!)" we know that the efforts (2002-present) to silence were led by high level officials at the Pentagon and at the State Dept, the actual culprits in the case! They successfully pressured Ashcroft, and then-FBI Director Mueller, to use every means at their disposal to shut down the case. As Sibel says:

"The people who made that decision were not the Justice Department or the FBI, and that’s what I try to emphasize all the time—they were pressured, they were forced by higher-up forces within the Pentagon and the State Department. "

In other words, long before the White House (with an assist from ex-WHer, Gonzales) was corrupting the Department of Justice, long before the 'heroic' stand by Ashcroft & Mueller regarding the illegal spying, the DoJ was already 'owned' by the Pentagon and State - and was protecting criminals who were personally profiting from the Hijacking of a Nation.

But, of course, it's much worse than that. Somehow, Sibel Edmonds was a crack in the system, providing insight into one particular case regarding Turkey, and we got a glimpse of how the game is played. However, we also learn that not only are these crimes common practice across a range of foreign clients, we also learn that the 'coverup' almost always starts from the beginning, with the Pentagon and State departments literally telling the FBI not even to investigate.

As Sibel says in her awesome "Highjacking of a Nation" piece:

"For years and years, information and evidence being collected by the counterintelligence operations of certain U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies has been prevented from being transferred to criminal and narcotics divisions, and from being shared with the Drug Enforcement Agency and others with prosecutorial power... Why?"

Sibel isn't only talking about her particular case, in the recent interview she says:

There are similar cases we are not hearing about that I'm aware of that have to do with similar cases, maybe having to do with other countries. For example, the Larry Franklin case, with the espionage case that they pursued with AIPAC. And what the American public doesn’t know is the fact that there were other counter-intelligence operations within the FBI that obtained far more information not only limited to Mr. Franklin. These other operations were similarly shut down in 2000 and 2001 because they ended up going to higher levels and involving maybe way too many people.

Larry Franklin was, of course, working in Feith's Office of Special Plans (OSP) at the Pentagon. Then-DOD Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, another neocon booster of Turkey, established the OSP and appointed Feith, who then appointed Richard Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Who do you think got the FBI to "shut down" investigations into the Pentagon's dealings with AIPAC and the Israeli embassy? Who do you think are the implicated people at the "higher levels"?

The same thing occured, with the same people, in Sibel's specific case. Here's Sibel, again:

"Now the same thing was about to take place with Turkish counter-intelligence operations... Now, in 1998 and 1999, there were so many pieces of evidence of U.S. individuals’ involvement (We’re talking about people with official positions, whether they were in the State Department or the Pentagon or the U.S. Congress.) - it forced the Justice Department, and the agents, to start a parallel investigation that targeted individuals who were possibly committing acts of treason...

After the current administration came into power... the agents, the operation, the unit were told to shut down the parallel criminal investigation - the one that involved US individuals, US entities, officials.

The people who made that decision were not the Justice Department or the FBI, and that’s what I try to emphasize all the time — they were pressured, they were forced by higher-up forces within the Pentagon and the State Department."

Phil Giraldi says the same thing in a documentary about Sibel's case:

Around a year ago, I realized that I understood what the full story was and what (Sibel) was trying to say although she couldn’t do it publicly because of the gag order.

For me, the full story was to follow the money on this. And knowing the players in the game from my time in the CIA, I assumed that the Turks,
and the Israelis and these people, most of whom came out of the Department of Defence, would have been dealing in weapons.

All of these people have been investigated by the FBI at one point or another for passing secret information to Israel. In no cases, were any of them convicted.

The prosecutions were dropped… in my opinion because of political pressure

The curious tri-lateral military relationship between the US, Turkey and Israel has long been established, as has the curious fact that prominent neocons such as Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz, and others (of both parties) are boosters of Turkey. Yet, the Turkish equivalent of AIPAC, the American Turkish Council (ATC), somehow flies under the radar. Both organizations are essentially 'fronts' for the military industrial complex - particularly the ATC, which apparently engages in fewer peripheral activities. The ATC is essentially a creation of AIPAC (and JINSA) - and they share many of the same members etc.

Sibel repeatedly highlights the fact that the ATC is a 'sister' organization to AIPAC - and that the AIPAC investigation was actually a "sister operation" to the investigation into the ATC. We know that both investigations revolve around the same group of people, and we know that they both involve the 'distortion of US foreign policy' for personal profit.

One thing we don't know, specifically, is whether the billions of dollars spent by the US military in other theatres are equally corrupted - but we can make an educated guess. Just this week, for example, we learn "that the U.S. pays Pakistan roughly $1 billion every year to fight terrorists along the Afghan border, cash that continues to flow even as Pakistan cuts back on patrols in key al-Qaida and Taliban areas."

And a remarkable op-ed in the LA Times says:

"The Turkish air force already has 215 F-16 fighter planes and plans to buy 100 of Lockheed Martin's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as well, in a deal estimated at $10.7 billion over the next 15 years. That's $10.7 billion on fighter planes for a country that ranks 94th on the United Nations' human development index, below Lebanon, Colombia and Grenada and far below all the European nations that Ankara is courting as it seeks to join the European Union. Now that's a real American sales job for you!
[]
Why do officials in Turkey, which already has 215 fighter planes, need 100 extras in an even higher-tech version? They don't, but Lockheed Martin, working with the Pentagon, made them think they did."

The LA Times piece didn't explicitly higlight something that Sibel has preciously highlighted:

"General Joseph Ralston, one of Cohen Group’s (Clinton's Republican Secretary of Defense, William Cohen) Vice Chairmen, is on the board of Lockheed Martin, which paid the Cohen Group $550,000 in 2005... Ralston is also a member of the 2006 Advisory Board of the American Turkish Council (ATC), and one of Turkey’s top advocates. If you think this ‘dime a dozen general’ ended one career and removed himself from the U.S. government by becoming ‘the foreign agent man,’ think again after reading the following.

On August 28, 2006, the U.S. State Department appointed the former U.S. Air Force General, current Vice Chairman of the Cohen Group, board member of American Turkish Council, registered lobbyist for Lockheed Martin, Joseph Ralston, as a “Special Envoy” for countering the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK)! Lo and behold, Ralston’s appointment came as Turkey was finalizing the purchase of 30 new Lockheed Martin F-16 aircraft valued at $3 billion, and as Turkey was due to make its decision on the $10 billion purchase of the new Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF aircraft. Coincidentally, the U.S. Congress approved the sale of the F-16s to Turkey in October 2006, shortly after Ralston’s return from Turkey."

I'm not sure I've made my case my case well - at this point you are probably either outraged, or bewildered (or you stopped reading long ago). If you've made this far, and either outraged or bewildered, I immplore you to call Waxman and demand public, open hearings into Sibel's case to resolve this situation. Call twice. It'll take you four minutes.

If you don't call, Baby Jesus will cry if you ever try to complain about either the war-mongering republicans, or the democrat enablers.

Please contact Waxman's office all this week and demand an answer:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
fax: (202) 225-4099
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

Constitutional Government in Emergency

2007-05-23T21:06:00.000+10:00

* Progressive:

"Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a "catastrophic emergency."

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility "for ensuring constitutional government." He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.""

America -- the world's arms pusher

2007-05-23T11:31:00.000+10:00

Frida Berrigan in the LATImes:

America -- the world's arms pusher
No one is paying much attention to it, but our top export is the deadliest.

[]
Rest assured, governments around the world, often at each others' throats, will want U.S. weapons long after their people have turned up their noses at a range of once dominant American consumer goods. The "trade" publication Defense News, for instance, recently reported that Turkey and the U.S. signed a $1.78-billion deal for Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter planes. As it happens, these planes are already ubiquitous — Israel flies them; so does the United Arab Emirates, Poland, South Korea, Venezuela, Oman and Portugal, among others. Buying our weaponry is one of the few ways you can actually join the American imperial project!

In order to remain on top in the competitive jet field, Lockheed Martin, for example, does far more than just sell airplanes. TAI — Turkey's aerospace corporation — will receive a boost with this sale because Lockheed Martin is handing over responsibility for portions of production, assembly and testing to Turkish workers.

The Turkish air force already has 215 F-16 fighter planes and plans to buy 100 of Lockheed Martin's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as well, in a deal estimated at $10.7 billion over the next 15 years. That's $10.7 billion on fighter planes for a country that ranks 94th on the United Nations' human development index, below Lebanon, Colombia and Grenada and far below all the European nations that Ankara is courting as it seeks to join the European Union. Now that's a real American sales job for you!

HERE'S THE strange thing, though: This genuine, gold-medal manufacturing-and-sales job on weapons simply never gets the attention it deserves. As a result, most Americans have no idea how proud they should be of our weapons manufacturers and the Pentagon — essentially our global sales force. They make sure our weapons travel the planet and regularly demonstrate their value in small wars from Latin America to Central Asia.

There's tons of data on the weapons trade, but who knows about any of it? I help produce one of a dozen or so sober annual (or semiannual) reports quantifying the business of war-making, so I know that these reports get desultory, obligatory media attention. Only once in a blue moon do they get the sort of full-court-press treatment that befits our No. 1 product line.

Even when there is coverage, the inside-the-fold, fact-heavy, wonky news stories on the arms trade, however useful, can't possibly convey the feel of a business that has always preferred the shadows to the sun. The connection between the factory that makes a weapons system and the community where that weapon "does its duty" is invariably missing in action, as are the relationships among the companies making the weapons and the generals (on-duty and retired) and politicians making the deals, or raking in their own cuts of the profits for themselves and/or their constituencies. In other words, our most successful (and most deadly) export remains our most invisible one.

Maybe the only way to break through this paralysis of analysis would be to stop talking about weapons sales as a trade and the export of precision-guided missiles as if they were so many widgets. Maybe we need to start thinking about them in another language entirely — the language of drugs.

After all, what does a drug dealer do? He creates a need and then fills it. He encourages an appetite or (even more lucratively) an addiction and then feeds it.

Arms dealers do the same thing. They suggest to foreign officials that their military just might need a slight upgrade. After all, they'll point out, haven't you noticed that your neighbor just upgraded in jets, submarines and tanks? And didn't you guys fight a war a few years back? Doesn't that make you feel insecure? And why feel insecure for another moment when, for just a few billion bucks, we'll get you suited up with the latest model military, even better than what we sold them — or you the last time around.

Why do officials in Turkey, which already has 215 fighter planes, need 100 extras in an even higher-tech version? They don't, but Lockheed Martin, working with the Pentagon, made them think they did.

We don't need stronger arms control laws, we need a global sobriety coach and some kind of 12-step program for the dealer-nation as well.

Americans support impeachment.

2007-05-23T10:12:00.000+10:00

* Salon:

'Several polls taken in the last two years have shown that large numbers of Americans support impeachment. An Angus Reid poll taken in May 2007 found that a remarkable 39 percent of Americans favored the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. An earlier poll, framed in a more hypothetical way, found that 50 percent of Americans supported impeaching Bush if he lied about the war -- which most of that 50 percent presumably now believe he did. Vermont has gone on record in calling for his impeachment, and a number of cities, including Detroit and San Francisco, have passed impeachment resolutions. Reps. John Murtha and John Conyers and a few other politicians have floated the idea. And there is a significant grassroots movement to impeach Bush, spearheaded by organizations like After Downing Street. Even some Republicans, outraged by Bush's failure to uphold right-wing positions (his immigration policy, in particular), have begun muttering about impeachment. (Yay, us.)
[]
But there's a deeper reason why the popular impeachment movement has never taken off -- and it has to do not with Bush but with the American people. Bush's warmongering spoke to something deep in our national psyche. The emotional force behind America's support for the Iraq war, the molten core of an angry, resentful patriotism, is still too hot for Congress, the media and even many Americans who oppose the war, to confront directly. It's a national myth. It's John Wayne. To impeach Bush would force us to directly confront our national core of violent self-righteousness -- come to terms with it, understand it and reject it. And we're not ready to do that.

The truth is that Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors, far from being too small, are too great. What has saved Bush is the fact that his lies were, literally, a matter of life and death. They were about war. And they were sanctified by 9/11. Bush tapped into a deep American strain of fearful, reflexive bellicosity, which Congress and the media went along with for a long time and which has remained largely unexamined to this day. Congress, the media and most of the American people have yet to turn decisively against Bush because to do so would be to turn against some part of themselves. This doesn't mean we support Bush, simply that at some dim, half-conscious level we're too confused -- not least by our own complicity -- to work up the cold, final anger we'd need to go through impeachment. We haven't done the necessary work to separate ourselves from our abusive spouse. We need therapy -- not to save this disastrous marriage, but to end it.
[]
The establishment media, which has tended to treat impeachment talk as if it were the unseemly rantings of half-crazed hordes, has clearly bought this paradigm. In this view, those who want to impeach Bush, or who are simply vehemently critical of him, are partisan extremists outside the mainstream of American discourse. This decorous approach has begun to weaken. A recent U.S. News and World Report cover read, "Bush's last stand: He's plagued by a hostile Congress, sinking polls, and an unending war. Is he resolute or delusional?" When centrist newsweeklies begin using words drawn from psychiatric manuals, it may be time for Karl Rove to get worried. But it takes time to turn the Titanic. The years of deference to the War Leader cannot be overcome that quickly.

For all these reasons, impeachment, however justified or salutary it would be -- and I believe it would be both justified and salutary -- remains a long shot. Bush will probably escape the fate of Andrew Johnson and the disgrace of Richard Nixon. But he's not home free yet. The culture of spin is also the culture of spectacle, and a sudden, theatrical event -- a lurid accusation made by a former official, a colorful revelation of a very specific and memorable Bush lie -- could start the scandal machine going full speed. Even the war card cannot be played indefinitely. If Bush were to withdraw the troops from Iraq, and the full dimensions of America's defeat were to become apparent, all of his war-president potency would backfire and he would be in much greater danger of being impeached. Congress and the media both gain courage as the polls sink, and if Bush's numbers continue to hit historic lows, they will turn on him with increasing savagery. If everything happens just so, the downfall of the House of Bush could be shocking in its swiftness.

* amy:

"U.S. Considers Fallujah-Style Attack on Sadr City
The U.S. military is planning to make a major push into the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City that houses two million Shiites. The Washington Post reports that the U.S. military is considering a wholesale clearing of the neighborhood if political avenues fail. One military officer said "A second Fallujah plan exists, but we don"t want to execute it."

* amy:

Revealed: U.S. Plotted to Assassinate Moqtada Al-Sadr
In other news from Iraq, the British journalist Patrick Cockburn has revealed explosive details about a secret US plan to kill or capture one of Iraq"s best known Shiite leaders, Moqtada Al-Sadr. According to Cockburn, the U.S. Army tried to carry out the plan two and a half years ago by luring Al-Sadr to peace negotiations at a house in the holy city of Najaf. Iraq"s National Security Adviser said the effects of the U.S. plan is still being felt because it lead to Sadr losing all confidence and trust in the U.S.

* amy:

Blackwater Succeeds in Preventing Lawsuit From Going to Court
The Virginian-Pilot newspaper is reporting the private security company Blackwater USA has succeeded in partially derailing a landmark lawsuit brought by the families of four Blackwater employees killed in Fallujah, Iraq three years ago. A federal judge has ordered the lawsuit be decided behind closed doors in arbitration. This will allow Blackwater to avoid public examination of its practices in Iraq. The outcome of the arbitration will be confidential. One of the three arbitrators is William Webster. He served as head of the FBI and CIA under President Reagan and has personal and business ties to several Blackwater lawyers.

* amy:

UK Prosecutors Charge Ex-KGB Agent With Murder of Litvinenko
And this news in from London – British prosecutors have announced they are charging a former KGB agent in the poisoning death of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko. The British government said Andrei Lugovoi met with Litvinenko at a London hotel only hours before Litvinenko became ill with polonium-210 poisoning. Litvinenko was a former spy and prominent critic of the Russian government. The Russian prosecutor-general's office has announced it will not turn Lugovoi over to Britain to be tried.

Sibel Edmonds, democracy, want 4 minutes of your time. Call Waxman. Demand hearings.

2007-05-22T22:54:00.000+10:00

All this week, we're asking you to call Henry Waxman's office (202-225-3976) to demand open public hearings into the case of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds.

Yesterday's post was It's time that we all helped Sibel Edmonds. Please call Waxman.

In today's post, I simply want to post Sibel's own, powerful, words about why we should demand that Waxman hold hearings into her case.

I was hoping to post a YouTube clip of the relevant portion of her latest interview, but I had some technical problems. Please look at the last 12 mins of the interview, starting at approx 41:00.

The key issues are that:
a) Sibel's case is documented
b) The case has been investigated and validated
c) Waxman was appalled when he learnt the details of the case and promised to have hearings when he could
d) Waxman has been silent on this, despite calls from 30 'good government' groups and calls from more than ten thousand citizens
e) You can make a difference by calling Waxman and demanding hearings.

I've also got a quote from a senior FBI agent who apparently fears that the US Government will murder Sibel.

******

(For background on Sibel's case, see What the heck is Sibel Edmonds' Case about?. For more information on our efforts to get Waxman to hold hearings, see Let Sibel Edmonds Speak.)

I'm going to let Sibel do most of the talking in this post, but before I hand her the floor, I want to quote John Cole from the documentary Kill The Messenger.

I want to make three points perfectly clear about Cole:
1) he is perfectly qualified
2) he knows that Sibel is "100 percent accurate"
3) he appears concerned that his employer, the US government, might actually murder Sibel, a US citizen, because what she knows can harm powerful people. (I don't want to overstate the case, but that appears, to me, to be what he is implying)

John Cole is perfectly qualified. He ran "undercover operations in the Washington area, focusing on counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence. Later, while playing a key role in the 9/11 investigation, he became the F.B.I.’s national counter-intelligence program manager for India, Afghanistan and Pakistan. "

John Cole "compared notes" with Sibel and what he knew "was identical" to what Sibel has claimed. Further, everyone he spoke to at the FBI said that "Sibel Edmonds was a 100 percent accurate, that management knew that she was correct."

Here is Cole describing his fears for Sibel's safety:

"I fear for her in a way because if somebody in the government thinks that she is getting too noisy, bringing up too much stuff, you don’t know how far they would go. Especially as high up in the government as this could be."

With all that in mind, here's Sibel, asking for your help, asking for Waxman to hold hearings into her case.

Some respected, great Representatives, Democratic Congressmen, have expressed interest in my case. The leader of that group was Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), and I briefed his staff several times, by giving them the same details I gave five years ago to the Judiciary Committee. They obtained the classified version of the Inspector General’s report two years ago and they were outraged. I have several letters from Congressman Waxman saying he finds these actions against me and these gag orders stunning and that he would hold hearings into my case if it wasn't for the Republicans preventing a hearing from taking place on my case.

Well, in January, after we went through the change [in Congress], Congressman Waxman is now Chairman Waxman and there is no power within Congress that can prevent him from holding this hearing. He has the jurisdiction, the authority to put the hearing there, and I have already obtained the consent and names of conscientious, good agents. One of them was the head of the Turkish counter-intelligence operations who actually retired two years ago. They’re all willing to come forward and testify on all the issues I have been gagged on. And that gag doesn’t work in Congress during a hearing.

So in January, after the election results, especially since we have such a great Chairman today, 30 organizations have put together this petition addressed to Chairman Waxman saying you have been promising us for the past five years. These are major organizations, and we call them transpartisan, because there are organizations from the right, organizations from the left, organizations that are whistleblower-related such as the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), the Government Accountability Project (GAP), the National Whistleblower Center, human rights organizations, the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), civil liberties-related organizations such as the American Civil Liberties union (ACLU). We have 30 solid organizations that came together and put together this petition, addressed to Chairman Waxman, saying 'You have been promising us for the past five years.'

According to the ACLU, there has been no case of an American citizen who has had so many gag orders issued on her.

We also had 15,000 citizens sign the petition, and we had these 30 organizations, and they delivered it to Chairman Waxman’s office in March 2007, just over a month ago. And based on the office’s own report, tens of thousands of people in the past 3-4 weeks have called to say, well, when are you going to hold a hearing?

But we have received no response and we don’t know why. None of these organizations know why, because Waxman's office has all the facts, they have all the confirmation, they have the IG report, they have the executive branch’s own report saying she’s credible and her allegations have been supported by other witnesses and documents. We are not talking about allegations. We are talking about facts, documented and witnessed facts.

And I still believe that the Americans who care about their rights, their country, can make this happen. Maybe it hasn’t happened because one of the factors that is not present there is the mainstream media. We know the mainstream media has such influence over the Congress, whatever makes the headlines. If issue ABC is in the headlines right now, I Congresswoman, Congressman am going to hold a hearing and get facetime and media time and attention - sometimes for good reasons, I'm not saying for negative reasons, but media has not paid attention.

Maybe Congress is not finding it worthy of their attention despite all these severe consequences because the media isn’t there.

The citizens can change this, the constituents of Chairman Henry Waxman in California, in the LA area, can change that. They can say, you represent us, you represent our interests, and you are the chairman of the Government Reform Committee. Government Reform. Well, this is about bringing reform into Government, this is about reforming the wrongdoings in our government, and the price is being paid by every citizen.

So after not hearing back from Chairman Waxman through this petition and 30 organizations, I’m trying to reach out to those constituents in California, I’m trying to reach out to all citizens in this country and say, forget about me, this is not about Sibel Edmonds. Let’s go to the core issues: What was it that I reported that caused all these gag orders and firings and threats? What was it? What I reported had nothing to do with me. It had to do with the interests of the American public being stomped upon. It had to do with those who have been elected and given authority betraying the citizens. It had to do with those people who are using their positions in the executive branch agencies to obtain lucrative early retirement positions afterwards as representatives of foreign interests, and not afterwards - and this is very important: In order to obtain it afterwards they had to serve those foreign interests while they were working and had those positions. That's how they earn those future positions, that's how it happens. In every single one of them, that’s how it happens. You start serving the interests of outside foreign influences before you obtain your positions afterwards and say bye to your civil service career. And that is, especially in some cases, criminal. That is not something that should be tolerated by this country, and we need to set an example of those people.

We have the facts, we have the documents, we have the witnesses, and it’s time to do it. So stand up and call Chairman Waxman’s office, keep calling until you get an answer on when the hearing will take place. For each citizen it may cost four minutes. But the benefit to this country, and the number of issues that we are going to shed light on, is way worth it. And if it was not, they would not have gone this far to gag it. I have been fighting very hard, but you need to pay attention to the fact they have been fighting very hard, too.

This is unprecedented. If I am the most gagged woman in the history of this country, and if they have gone as far as invoking the States Secrets Privilege, the issue is important enough. So for anyone who may say, well, how do I know this case is credible? I’ll tell you that there is a report, there are statements from bipartisan senators, Senator Grassley, Senator Leahy, Congressman Waxman. And these are all on the record statements establishing the credibility of the case. The credibility has been established. The importance of this case has been established. Our government has taken unprecedented steps to silence and coverup this case. That should tell the American public how important this case is.

Call Chairman Waxman and write to him and do not stop until we have this hearing in place, and we have the agents testifying. I’m going to emphasize two things here: a) that they testify on oath, and b) that the hearings be public. I have had some hearings, and they have been behind closed doors in the Congress. I have briefed them. They already have this information, that's the point I'm trying to make here. They have the information. I have given this information to Chairman Waxman, to Senator Grassley, to Senator Leahy. It’s the American public’s turn to hear about this.

It’s possible that in light of the Chairman’s decision to hold a hearing, the government comes in and says it has to be in closed session and not in public because these are classified issues. But they’re not. If that happens, we won’t get anywhere because then it’s futile. I would not even be willing to testify because I have already done so. Five years ago I gave them testimony behind closed doors. So did other witnesses. It’s time to have open, public hearings and have people under oath. I will testify under oath, and the consequences of lying are severe.

So let’s make this happen, and let’s say that when all channels we rely upon — be it the courts and the Congress and the executive branch and the mainstream media — fail us, we still should move forward and not stop, and reach out to the American public, and make it happen. I hope we can do it, because not being able to do it sends a very bad, awful message to our children and our grandchildren, to say that active citizenry is dead in this country, and that either nothing comes out of it, or people don't care and don't do it.

We take pride in being Americans, and lovers and supporters of freedom - let's show that we can do it despite the fact that we don't have these four channels.

There is Chairman Waxman, an honourable individual, an established case, now we just need the public to say "Let's do it"

Please contact Waxman's office all this week and demand an answer:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
fax: (202) 225-4099
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

--------
DKOS thread
DU Thread

I was wrong about that.

2007-05-22T17:31:00.000+10:00

* Arthur:

"So let me tell you something. If this paralysis and inaction continues, and if the Bush administration does order an attack on Iran, I don't want to hear one goddamned word from a single goddamned Democrat about how terrible and calamitous it is. They've been able to take action for months, and they can take action now. They do nothing.

And for all those goddamned bloggers who have done and continue to do nothing: if an attack should come, don't say a goddamned word about how monstrous it is. You had your chance. You blew it. You didn't give a shit."

* athenae, in full:

Self-Involvement

I am moving increasingly to the position that pundits' refusals to get on board the train of let's get the hell out of Iraq has less to do with their desire for us to actually win than it has to do with their desire not to be wrong, continuing on the theme of who's the fairest of them all which I tried to address yesterday.

I really don't think it's about anything other than being shown up. We're talking about people who for years have worshipped a particularly belligerent form of campaigning and governing on the part of the modern Republican Party, in which whoever says the meanest thing is the most fascinating person of the moment, and backing down is for pussies, and apologies are things girls do.

Combine this with a lethal distaste for taking anything so seriously as to get upset about it and what you have is, well, a sociopath, actually, but what you really have is the uncomfortable inability to admit humanity and engagement with the world around you, to admit consequences, to admit that, as much as you like to pretend you're above the fray in your columnist's or commentator's tower, you also want to have the power to move people, and in order not to be terrified of that power you have to believe you're right. Not just right, but also in the right, and on the side of the angels, and doing noble work. God's work, as stupid Timmeh would say.

So you've got this idea of yourself, and you've been walking around for years with it, taunting your liberal sister-in-law at the dinner table and mocking your younger brother over beer. You've been calling everybody out, everybody who disagrees with you, as dumb or distasteful or both. And not only is that what you do, it's who you are. It's your personality. Your moments of jackassery, you've made them your whole identity, and more than that, you've made sure everybody knows all about it. You've worn your dickheadedness on your sleeve.

SO NOW WHAT?

You can't just back down, is the thing. You're not just admitting to a mistake at work. You're admitting to a mistake in who you've made yourself to be. That's huge. That's a brick-wall moment not a lot of people actually manage to face down. Half of the world's assholes are the way they are because they can't pick their own stories apart and see how much of what they think is about their own needs and how much really is about what happened to and by and around them. Half the world's misery is not figuring out what is necessity and what is self-aggrandizement, and don't think I'm letting myself off the hook here, I've had to do this recently and it's fucking hard.

It's not that I don't have a certain amount of sympathy. Were this just about your theories about the latest Harry Potter book, or Greek food, or something, I would sympathize with how rough it is to say you're sorry, and maybe it's just better you never eat in that restaurant anymore or talk to your sister. I get running away from conflict. I get not putting yourself in situations where you have to be the bigger person, because it sucks. There's a reason they call this shit character-building in self-help books.

But what these people are basically asking is that other people die so that they don't have to say oops. So that they don't have to do that which is psychically uncomfortable but physically peril-less, in reconsidering their worldview. So they don't have to look at their sister-in-laws across the dinner table and say, "You remember that time I called you a commie fuckwit who probably wanted the terrorists to win? I was wrong about that."

They're asking other people to die in order that they not face up to that.

And that's repellent.

A.

we just need to get the fuck out

2007-05-22T11:31:00.000+10:00

* Atrios:

"The resistance of many pundits to the notion that we just need to get the fuck out is due in part to their belief that We Must Be Able To Do Something. Things are fucked, and someone needs to fix the poblem. It's understandable that people gaze at a disaster, especially one of our own making, and imagine that there's something we can do to somehow make things better, but that doesn't mean that we can. More than that, our presence is a not insignificant part of the problem even if our absence won't cause the pony to appear.

We didn't have the ability to unshit the bed two years ago, and we don't have it now. More than that, this basic belief is part of what caused otherwise sensible people think we could fix things in Iraq in early '03.

* emptywheel:

"But just as important as the new details are the way Comey's testimony changes the scope of this investigation. By describing an event that clearly implicated the White House--and George Bush specifically--in flouting the law, Comey undercut Gonzales' effectiveness as a firewall. For four months, Gonzales has remained in office because he prevented Congress from investigating the White House. But Comey's testimony gave Congress all it needed to justify much more intrusive investigations of the White House.

Those of us paying attention have known Gonzales was a creepy sycophant since before he joined the Administration (though Republican Senators were still able to deny that). But the nature of the charges against Gonzales--and Bush--have changed.

* emptywheel argues that the NSA domestic wiretapping began after 911.

* Digby:

"It's a hard thing to do --- whistleblowers are often somewhat eccentric, because you have to be the kind of unusual person who is willing to go against the prevailing wisdom and throw yourself in front of extremely powerful institutions and people who are deeply threatened by what you have to say. I get why so few people ever do it.

* Sperry:

"Today Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Franks exalt the initial Afghan operation as an unqualified success ("remarkable," in fact, Rummy boasts). But Osama bin Laden is on the loose again because they allowed him to escape from Tora Bora, and then blew him off apparently for good to start a wag-the-dog war in Iraq that's back-firing, big-time. It's that simple.

If bin Laden directs another attack on America from his new redoubt inside Pakistan, the flawed Afghan operation will go down – alongside the non-sequitur war in Iraq – as the worst chain of military blunders in U.S. history."

It's time that we all helped Sibel Edmonds. Please call Waxman.

2007-05-21T22:08:00.000+10:00

Back in March, we launched Let Sibel Edmonds Speak - a campaign demanding that Henry Waxman hold public hearings into the case of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. The Edmonds case involves the nuclear black market, illegal weapons trafficking, money laundering and drug trafficking, and Sibel guarantees that the case will result in people like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Marc Grossman and Dennis Hastert going to prison.

Thirty different 'good government' organizations, from across the political spectrum, and many of you, contacted Waxman's office in support of the hearings. Despite Waxman's earlier promise to hold hearings, he has so far ignored our call, refusing to even make a statement or return any phone calls.

I'm asking you to contact ((202) 225-3976) Waxman's office again Monday to Thursday of this week. Details, and a new interview by Sibel, downstairs.

**

Henry Waxman's House Government Oversight Committee has been doing great work lately with various hearings and investigations, and some have argued that we shouldn't pressure Waxman on Sibel's case given that he undoubtedly has a full schedule. I have a two-fold response:
a) We are simply asking that Waxman announce that he will have hearings, we can argue about the timing later.
b) All of the background work on this case has been completed. Sibel's claims have already been investigated, and confirmed, by a number of other bodies - Congress, FBI, Department of Justice.

Of course, given the nature of Sibel's work as a translator, all of her claims are easily verified by the source material that she translated. As she says in Kill The Messenger:

"Put out those tapes. Put out those wiretaps. Put out those documents. Put out the truth. The truth is going to hurt them. The truth is going to set me free."

It was Whistleblower Week in DC last week - and Sibel's case highlights a number of important issues regarding whistleblowers. Not only do we have the dereliction of Congress and the media, but also the chilling effect on other whistleblowers, and more importantly, whistleblowing.

As Sibel says in a new interview:

"What kind of example is my case presenting to those other people who may want to do the right thing and come forward? They would say it doesn’t make a difference at the end, because I pursued every channel possible. I went as high as I could go with the courts, including the Supreme Court, and as you know, they issued a gag order on me several times and invoked the State Secrets Privilege... I’m prevented from discussing whether or not I’m right. And I went all the way to Congress, I did the right thing. I was not what they call a “leaker” who goes straight to the media and starts divulging classified documents. I went to the appropriate committees, the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, too, by the way, and the House and Senate... I went through the other legitimate channels — the courts, the Inspector General’s Office, which is the executive branch. I tried the media. So I don’t blame those people that get pessimistic and say it doesn’t make a difference, or think they’ll lose their job or possibly go to jail. "

Think about that. Even if you don't know anything about Sibel's case (there's a primer here), I urge you to call Waxman's office and demand public hearings into her case because if Sibel can't get hearings into her case, why would anyone with incriminating evidence step forward to assist Waxman, or anyone else, with any of his other hearings?

As Sibel said in the same interview:

"They make an example out of you. Because if one case, let’s say my case, would really bring justice and accountability, you would see so many people doing the same thing. And how many times — let’s just look at the past decade — have you seen a legitimate whistleblower from any of these agencies come forward and prevail? I don’t think you can name one case."

Again, if you have hope in Waxman and in the investigations that he will hold (as many of us do), I urge you to call his office and demand public hearings into Sibel Edmonds' case - if only because it will help facilitate investigations into the things that you most care about.

For whistleblowers, there are 'knowns' and 'unknowns' - the 'knowns' include the fact that you will be retaliated against, lose your job, and probably your career, and often your family and your home. The 'unknowns' include whether there will be any upside, any accountability, any justice, to mitigate against the known, guaranteed, downside.

How can we ask potential whistleblowers to stand up and be 'patriotic' and disclose wrong-doing if people like Sibel Edmonds, with documented proof of corruption, espionage, and treason by high-level US officials, validated by multiple investigations by Congress, FBI & DoJ, can't get any resolution or accountability?

Here's Sibel, again from the same interview:

"So you have this case which for the past five years has been confirmed by Congressional sources, and people familiar with my case, and the Department of Justice’s Inspector General’s Office, and has never been contradicted or denied by the Justice Department or the FBI, and still nothing has been done.

There has been no hearing and nobody has been held accountable. We are basically where we started and I find that really appalling. "

Seriously, if we don't stand up for Sibel, and demand public hearings and accountability into her case, then we can't reasonably expect anyone with incriminating evidence to come forward regarding Waxman's other investigations - the Global Warming propaganda, the Niger caper, the Plame Wilson caper, war profiteering etc.

Please call the offices of Congressmen Waxman - (202) 225-3976 demanding open hearings into Sibel Edmonds' case. (Capitol switchboard number - 800-828-0498)

***

I'll have a new post every day this week discussing different elements of the case - but for today I just wanted to highlight one topical element that comes up in Sibel's case - illegal domestic spying.

One thing that gets lost in the 'Sibel Edmonds Case' is that many of the agents, the people running the operations involved in her case, have also filed the same claims, and also want to testify in public hearings in Congress.

In 2002, Special Agent Gilbert Graham, who led some of the Counter-Espionage operations that Sibel worked on, filed an official, classified complaint with the Department of Justice's Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) and the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility stating that FISA warrants were being improperly used to illegally spy on "high-profile U.S. public officials."

As James Bamford described it recently:

"So there’s really two elements here – one is the illegality on the part of the FBI by going this route and getting the easier (FISA) warrant when they should be getting the (criminal) one, and the second element is the illegality of the case they were looking into – the fact that there are people involved in the Turkish government, there were people involved in Turkish lobbies, people involved in the Bush administration, high officials in the Bush administration who were getting payoffs, getting money, and that was what the corruption investigation was looking into."

I'd add that there are actually four more elements:
a) The illegal FISA warrants were organized by the "FBI’s administrative headquarters and the higher-ups within the Justice Department" - not by the agents.
b) The FBI & DoJ covered up Graham's claims and refused to investigate them
c) Nothing was ever done to stop the illegal activity that the illegal wiretaps discovered.
d) Sibel's FBI sources tell her that "it would not be illogical to actually consider the fact that the Bureau and the Justice Department may be using this information to actually blackmail people within Congress."

Another veteran espionage agent also filed similar reports regarding the same cases with Congress and the DoJ-IG. He recently told Sibel:

"You are looking at covering up massive public corruption and espionage cases; to top that off you have major violations of FISA by the FBI Washington Field Office and HQ targeting these cases. Everyone involved has motive to cover up these reports and prevent investigation and public disclosure. No wonder they invoked the state secrets privilege in Edmonds’ case."

As Sibel says, the agents "were as outraged as I was when I was going through these cases and reporting them internally. If one of these committees, be it the Judiciary Committee or the Government Affairs Committee in the House, would set a hearing and call these individuals to testify, these agents would tell the truth under oath."

It's long past time that these issues get aired in public. Every branch of the US government already knows all the details and are happy to let traitors walk around amongst us.

As Sibel says in the interview when asked about how she has dealt with the frustrations of her situation:

I can't say it's been easy, as is the case with so many whistleblowers, the build up of pressure comes to a point where many will have nervous breakdowns, or they explode with anger. And to contain that disappointment - that our country, our government, the mainstream media has let all of us down - and they do explode, or they get disgusted and just go away. They say, after one year of fighting, or two years of fighting, they say "What the heck with it?" and they turn away and leave. And if you explode, you have given them the perfect, perfect excuse to point at you and say 'Look - this person is crazy! She's not legitimate."

If you explode, and put out some documents... they have an excuse saying "She has breached security and we are going to jail her" - again, they (our domestic enemies) benefit. And if you just go away, again, they have won. And they have been winning, they've been doing this criminal activity for many years... because they have gotten away with it.

They have gotten away with it because nobody has been willing to come forward, and right now it's only me... If there were one or two other agents who could have committed to that much compromise & sacrifice and come forward, maybe we would have seen more progress - but the fear factor is so great out there..."

Mr Waxman is familiar with the details, he promised Sibel that he'd have hearings when the Democrats were in charge, it's time that he commits to having hearings. It's time that we all helped Sibel.

I strongly recommend that you watch the recent interview (1 hour). Watch it and you'll be as outraged and passionate about this case as I am.

Please contact Waxman's office all this week and demand an answer:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 -651-1040
fax: (202) 225-4099
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

(DU thread, DKOS thread)

Bush's loyalty , a sign of character.

2007-05-21T14:29:00.000+10:00

* NYT ed:

"Each time, we’re told Mr. Bush repays loyalty with loyalty. We’re told it’s a sign of character.

We don’t buy the explanation. The more persuasive answer is that Mr. Bush protects his embattled advisers because they are doing precisely what he told them to do.
[]
The more of these White House psychodramas we get to witness, the more obvious it is that Mr. Bush’s warm embrace is really a payoff to yes-men who didn’t challenge his orders or question ideology-driven policies. It is a cynical way to run the United States government. And, as Mr. Tenet’s recent book shows, it doesn’t even buy silence."

* looseheadprop:

" i think the significance of (Gonzales no-confidence motion) is to start getting Senators into shape for much more important votes that may be coming in future. If the "no confidence" vote comes in at the magic 67, we will have taken one more step closer to IMPEACHMENT TO CONVICTION.

Here's the point I have been trying to make over and over to those frustrated folks who weep and wail in the comment threads about "why won't the House vote Articles of Impeachment?"

Answer, if you are going to shoot at the king, you damn well better kill the king. Congress (House and Senate combined) has only one shot at the target and they know it, bless them. Otherwise, if you shoot before you can convict, history will record both the Clinton blow job impeachment and the Bush shredding the Constitution impeachment as equivalent, tit for tat, partisan acts. They only way to get vindication for the Constitution and the rule of law is to convict. Think how different life would be if Fitzgerald had LOST the Libby case? Ahhh, now you see my point!"

* BostonGlobe Ed:

"FROM ABU GHRAIB to Walter Reed, the Department of Defense has been mired recently in a succession of scandals. In both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the military's civilian and uniformed leaders have also been asked by Congress to explain their decisions about troop deployments, economic reconstruction, friendly-fire casualties, and training of Iraqi and Afghan forces. In fulfilling their responsibility to oversee the military, members of Congress need access to the views of anyone in uniform, not just high-level officers.

But new Bush administration guidelines would limit Congress's freedom to get testimony from a wide range of service members and civilian Pentagon employees. The Department of Defense is reserving the right to bar enlisted personnel, career bureaucrats, and any officers below the rank of colonel from testifying to oversight committees or having their statements transcribed.
[]
It is no coincidence that the rules come just months after more assertive Democrats took over leadership of a Congress that had largely treated Bush's Pentagon and its conduct of the Iraqi war with kid gloves."

* Scott interviewed Scheuer on Osama. Chalmers Johnson. Gareth Porter.

postsecret

2007-05-21T10:59:00.000+10:00

I like this universe

2007-05-20T14:29:00.000+10:00

* Bill Weaver (from sibel's NSWBC) was on PBS' NOW:

"NOW: In a recent Mother Jones article you said "When people call me and ask about blowing the whistle, I always tell them 'Don't do it.'" Why?

Weaver: I have seen repeatedly, almost without exception, that the employee who blows the whistle on illegal activity in government is completely destroyed. Employees are separated from their peers, given no work, given poor job ratings, berated and subjected to abuse (sometimes physical abuse), placed in dangerous situations on purpose and eventually fired when all that is left is a shell. The process is designed to inform others of what will happen if they blow the whistle and regardless of the agency or employment environment the actions are so identical from case to case as to justify calling it a bureaucratic pathology. I want you to understand that I am not talking about cases where people are blowing the whistle on stolen pens or staplers; I'm talking about cases where the government has facilitated murder, engaged in aiding drug traffickers; covering up espionage activity, etc."

* Henley:

'Prediction: If the White House runs true to form then, once Paul Wolfowitz finally leaves the World Bank, the President will nominate Shaha Riza to replace him."

* Richard Sale:

"In any case, Vince Cannistaro has had no doubts: "Chalabi was working for Iran, and Iran took us to breakfast, lunch and dinner.""

* Jonathon:

"You know, when prominent neoconservatives talk about "hard coups" to overturn Palestinian elections, or hint at their regret the military didn't stage a coup in Turkey, it almost makes me think their purported concern for democracy is complete bullshit.

Fortunately, we know that's not that case, because no one ever broaches this possibility in the US media.

STAY TUNED: For endless debate in the Washington Post about whether the neoconservative worldview is flawed because they naively luv democracy too much."

* Jonathon:

"Ron Paul Discussed On The View

Apparently Ron Paul has ripped a hole in the fabric of reality, and we've fallen through into another dimension in which U.S. foreign policy is debated on national daytime television.

Pretty amazing. I like this universe much more than the old one."

to avoid public accountability

2007-05-19T16:38:00.000+10:00

In the post re the possible release of the CIAs 911 report, Noise writes:

"Gen. Hayden was Director of the NSA from 1999 to 2005. IMO, that suggests a huge conflict of interest in his position as CIA Director. For example, we have no idea how much he really knew about al Qaeda intercepts in the lead up to 9/11. Perhaps keeping the report classified is a quid pro quo.

Tenet's book wouldn't be public without Gen. Hayden's approval. Why is it that Tenet's book rehashing pre-9/11 performance was ok but IG Helgerson's report isn't? Sure sounds like a double standard.

IG Helgerson recommended disciplinary reviews which means the job failures by specific officials were not excusable. Goss said these review panels were not necessary. Of course he made this claim knowing the public couldn't read the IG report.

Too bad someone doesn't leak the report. The misuse of classification procedures to avoid public accountability is bullshit.

I'm reading yet another investigative journalist account of the 2000-2001 period (Bamford, Pretext for War). Some very questionable things happened in Alec Station at this time. That was when Black ran the CTC and a guy named Rich ran Alec Station. After 9/11, Tenet approved torture and Gen. Hayden approved the domestic spying program. They both claim such policies are necessary. It would have been nice to know what happened at the CIA before resorting to illegal policies based on the word of politicians and intelligence officials unwilling to account for their actions."

good points all.
thnx Noise.

failing to disrupt the drug trade

2007-05-19T16:01:00.000+10:00

* Risen @ NYT:

"Poppy Fields Are Now a Front Line in Afghan War
[]
It is a measure of this country’s virulent opium trade, which has helped revive the Taliban while corroding the credibility of the Afghan government, that American officials hope that Afghanistan’s drug problem will someday be only as bad as that of Colombia.

While the Latin American nation remains the world’s cocaine capital and is still plagued by drug-related violence, American officials argue that decades of American counternarcotics efforts there have at least helped stabilize the country.
[]
To fight a Taliban insurgency flush with drug money for recruits and weapons, the Bush administration recognizes that it must also combat the drug trafficking it had largely ignored for years. But plans to clear poppy fields and pursue major drug figures have been frustrated by corruption in the Afghan government, and derided by critics as belated half-measures or missteps not likely to have much impact.
[]
Poppy growing is endemic in the countryside, and Afghanistan now produces 92 percent of the world’s opium. But until recently, American officials acknowledge, fighting drugs was considered a distraction from fighting terrorists.

The State Department and Pentagon repeatedly clashed over drug policy, according to current and former officials who were interviewed. Pentagon leaders refused to bomb drug laboratories and often balked at helping other agencies and the Afghan government destroy poppy fields, disrupt opium shipments or capture major traffickers, the officials say.
[]
Not so long ago, Afghanistan was trumpeted as a success, a country freed from tyranny and Al Qaeda. But as the Taliban’s grip continues to tighten, threatening Afghanistan’s future and the fight against terrorism, Americans and Afghans are increasingly asking what went wrong. To that, some American officials say that failing to disrupt the drug trade was a critical strategic mistake.
[]
But while new Afghan drug prosecutors are charging hundreds of messengers and truck drivers with drug offenses, major dealers, often with ties both to government officials and the Taliban, operate virtually at will.
[]
Failing to charge major traffickers feeds Afghans’ skepticism about American intentions, said counternarcotics officials, lawmakers and experts on Afghanistan.

“To Afghans, our counternarcotics policy looks like a policy of rewarding rich traffickers and punishing poor farmers,” Barnett R. Rubin, a New York University professor and an expert on Afghanistan, told a Senate panel in March. (heh!)
[]
Farmers growing poppies in Taliban-controlled areas pay a tax to the insurgents, who then hire “day fighters.” For their part, drug traffickers pay the Taliban for security. Smugglers who take opium and heroin out of Afghanistan bring weapons and bombs back for the insurgents, officials say. (heh!)
[]
The Bush administration was reluctant to take on the drug issue even from the start of the war. Soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, military and intelligence analysts turned over to the Pentagon a list of targets linked to Al Qaeda — and its Taliban hosts — inside Afghanistan. It included military targets, as well as drug labs and warehouses, where the Taliban was believed to have stockpiled opium after banning poppy cultivation in 2001.

Destroying the government’s principal source of revenue would help put the Taliban out of business, the analysts figured.

But when the air campaign over Afghanistan began, top military officials removed all drug-related targets, according to one analyst who attended meetings where the bombing raids were discussed. (heh!)
[]
Mr. Rumsfeld opposed any military involvement in counternarcotics operations, several American officials say. Aside from concerns about stirring up resentment by peasants or alienating Afghan officials, the Pentagon viewed fighting drugs as a dangerous diversion from fighting terrorism.
[]
The Pentagon’s own counternarcotics office, though, was eager to take on the fight. Soon after the American-led invasion, Mr. Hollis, the former counternarcotics official, raised the matter with top military officials.

“The commanders said we don’t do drugs, we’re just killing terrorists,” Mr. Hollis recalled. “That showed a lack of understanding of the threat. I cared about going after the drug routes. If you could smuggle drugs, you could smuggle weapons and terrorists. It concerned me that if we didn’t go after the drug trade then, we would lose a golden opportunity.”

Later, when Mr. Hollis asked the Defense Intelligence Agency to assess the link between drugs and the Taliban, the agency refused to do so, he said. It was not until the fall of 2004, when both the United Nations and the C.I.A. issued stunning estimates of Afghan opium cultivation, that the White House expressed alarm about the issue.

didja notice anything missing?

the more un-American the policy, the more they support it.

2007-05-19T15:39:00.000+10:00

* Krugman:

"But the leading contenders for the Republican nomination have given us little reason to believe they would behave differently. Why should they? The principles Mr. Bush has betrayed are principles today’s G.O.P., dominated by movement conservatives, no longer honors. In fact, rank-and-file Republicans continue to approve strongly of Mr. Bush’s policies — and the more un-American the policy, the more they support it.
[]
What we need to realize is that the infamous “Bush bubble,” the administration’s no-reality zone, extends a long way beyond the White House. Millions of Americans believe that patriotic torturers are keeping us safe, that there’s a vast Islamic axis of evil, that victory in Iraq is just around the corner, that Bush appointees are doing a heckuva job — and that news reports contradicting these beliefs reflect liberal media bias.

And the Republican nomination will go either to someone who shares these beliefs, and would therefore run the country the same way Mr. Bush has, or to a very, very good liar."

* the NYT has a good editorial on voting machines - saying that the evoting machines have given us "questionable election results" and that "intentional vote theft... is not hard to do... "

* congrats to Brad, Slate has picked up some of his (2 year old) work

* cnn is running a poll on the frontpage. "Do you think past U.S. foreign policy was a reason for the 9/11 attacks?" Yes is winning 2/1. Lucky that they asked about the past, rather than 'future' US foregin policy...

* George Monbiot was on demnow discussing ~~global warming~~ climate change:

"GEORGE MONBIOT: The Bush administration's handling of climate change is like Trofim Lysenko’s handling of genetics. I mean, this is a complete clampdown on science, allied to a clampdown on democracy, and the two things often go hand in hand. It has been a story of fraud, of deception, of obfuscation, of lies. And the moment you start getting industry lobbyists with no scientific background -- Cooney was a lawyer -- to start editing scientific reports, you have stepped into the territory normally occupied by dictatorships.
[]
And I’m afraid to say that the Clinton-Gore administration in some ways did more harm than the Bush administration, because while Bush has gutted the US response to climate change, Gore and Clinton gutted the international response to climate change. They made sure that the Kyoto Protocol was pretty well a dead letter. They destroyed it as an effective instrument. And so, they destroyed it for everyone.

AMY GOODMAN: George Monbiot, on the issue of a speech you recently gave, where you talked about the axis of evil: George Bush, John Howard of Australia, and Stephen Harper of Canada.

GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes, the axis of evil on climate change. These guys have got together to make sure that there is no effective international action now taken on climate change. OK, there wasn't any being taken anyway, partly because of the US gutting of the Kyoto Protocol before, but --"

endorsement of full panoply of Bush lawbreaking

2007-05-19T12:10:00.000+10:00

* glenn:

"Compared to the likes of, say, David Addington and John Yoo, it is certainly true that James Comey, John Ashcroft and Jack Goldsmith had slightly greater limits on what they would tolerate. But the praise for the latter has become excessive. The "heroic" trio still ultimately endorsed the unquestionably illegal warrantless eavesdropping program, along with the whole host of other radical and lawless Bush policies, from the indefinite and process-less detention of even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil to secret Eastern European prisons and a whole range of "enhanced interrogation techniques."
[]
One can accept that Ashcroft, Comey and Goldsmith are not quite as tolerant of blatant lawbreaking as Cheney, Addington and Yoo. But that is an extremely low bar. It is not entirely unlike heaping praise on someone who embezzles and commits fraud all because they drew the line and refused to cooperate with their comrades when it came time to, say, commit arson or murder. Comparatively speaking, they may be preferable to Dick Cheney, but they are hardly paragons of political virtue or stalwart defenders of the rule of law. Quite the opposite.
[]
The danger from this misleading ritual is that the faux "dissenters" -- who are in fact loyal Bush ideologues in every meaningful sense -- come to been seen as principled heroes and thus define the outer limits of legitimate deviation from the Bush agenda. And any objections to whatever policies they endorse come to be seen as shrill and unserious (after all, even the Principled, Nonpartisan and Independent James Comey/John McCain/Arlen Specter have accepted it).

Just as Colin Powell came to mark the outermost limits of legitimate objections to the Iraq invasion, or the way McCain did with torture, or Specter on eavesdropping (whereby their ultimate embrace of Bush's extremism is deemed dispositive because of how "principled" and "independent" they proved themselves to be), turning James Comey or Jack Goldsmith into the Maverick Supreme Ethical Heroes is both inaccurate and counter-productive, given their hearty endorsement of the virtually full panoply of Bush lawbreaking."

* wonkette has some of the freepi calls for impeachment wrt the immigration bill - for example:

"My husband just recently retired and we where planning on going back to Texas but we are now seriously considering Australia. It looks better and better each minute. Our kids want to leave also !!!"

yay, us.

* speaking of Oz, via Scott's place, in Australia you can now get x-rated car-washes. because of the drought, or something.

* wapo ed:

"The administration, it appears from Mr. Comey's testimony, was willing to go forward, against legal advice, with a program that the Justice Department had concluded did not "honor the civil liberties of our people." Nor is it clear that Congress was adequately informed. The president would like to make this unpleasant controversy disappear behind the national security curtain. That cannot be allowed to happen."

* lithwick:

"It's impossible to draw neat lines around which elements of the mushrooming U.S. attorneys scandal violate the law and which are encompassed in Bush's larger worldview that life happens at the pleasure of the president. But these discussions raise the bigger question: How can the president ever break a law, so long as he insists he is the law? And how can the rest of us know if he's broken a law, if we've absolutely no idea what he's been doing?"

* AP:

"President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said he would not allow two former premiers who are also his main political rivals to return to Pakistan to take part in upcoming elections, according to a report Friday.

The announcement seems likely to deepen Pakistan's political crisis, in which the military leader faces accusations of authoritarianism as well as a growing challenge from Islamic extremists.
[]
Musharraf has said he will ask lawmakers in the outgoing parliament to elect him to another five-year term as president. He has also resisted calls to give up his post as army chief."

but devotion to law trumped political considerations

2007-05-18T17:46:00.000+10:00

* scott shane & d johnston in nyt:

"Mr. Comey, a former federal terrorism prosecutor in New York and Virginia, is described by colleagues as a solid Republican but one whose devotion to the law trumped political considerations."

"but" - that just about sez it all.

* nyt ed:

"But the really big question, an urgent avenue for investigation, is what exactly the National Security Agency was doing before that night, under Mr. Bush’s personal orders. Did Mr. Bush start by authorizing the agency to intercept domestic e-mails and telephone calls without first getting a warrant?"

* athenae:

"Let's think big. Let's think about what we really want. Let's pretend for a moment that the only thing standing in our way is our criminally low expectations of ourselves. What do we really want? I know what I want. An end to this war and burial of the doctrine of pre-emptive war in general. Real efforts to make peace in the Middle East backed up by more than just our guns and bravado. Support for human rights around the world. Justice for every single prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, the innocent but especially the guilty, with emphasis on the fact that if the worst of us are not safe from injustice the best of us are not safe either. An accounting, a final and open accounting, of every single underhanded dirty un-American bastardization of national purpose under this administration and the firing and fair trials of everyone involved."

* from Scott's place:

"I am wondering something a little hypothetical… Would you all settle for a socialist welfare state if the warfare state was made kaput ala Sweden? I have been to Sweden. As much as I like to flash my libertarian colors, I must say that Sweden ain’t that bad (in summer that is). It’s very peaceful and pleasant. The people are very tall and well-nourished, and seem contented enough. Politesse is pretty much legislated into every single motion a human body moves in a given day, but it seems to keep the peace.

What I’m trying to ask is this: could there ever be a functional unholy alliance between small government libertarians and big government greens and lefties? The common buffer in which the two would swim would be seeking the end of the military industrial complex. Wouldn’t we be faced with a far more appealing set of things to argue about than nowadays?"

* john dean:

"Lately, a week seldom passes when we are not reminded of the conspicuous contempt that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales holds for Congress, and the damage he is doing to the Department of Justice.

This week, Gonzales was again shown to have lied to Congress; his ineptitude as Attorney General has resurfaced in litigation that is going to damage the government; and after ignoring a subpoena from the Senate, he made a belated but insufficient response following an angry letter from the Senate.

It's been clear for a while - and is becoming ever clearer - that the Attorney General ought to resign, or to be fired. Now, it seems that Congress is determined to force Gonzales from office or send him to jail, whichever they can do first.

This is plainly the right move - and anyone who does not understand why Congress is insisting on getting rid of Gonzales, does not appreciate the important and sensitive role the Department of Justice has in our government.
[]
The culmination of Gonzales's incompetence, dissimulation, and hubris is shocking. The fact that Bush keeps him is testimony to Bush's own incompetence, dissimulation and hubris which are no longer shocking, but rather standard procedure."

CIA to release 911 report?

2007-05-18T16:23:00.000+10:00

* AP:

A bipartisan group of senators is pushing legislation that would force the
CIA to release an inspector general's report on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The CIA has spent more than 20 months weighing requests under the Freedom of Information Act for its internal investigation of the attacks but has yet to release any portion of it.

The agency is the only federal office involved in counterterrorism operations that has not made at least a version of its internal 9/11 investigation public.

Sen. Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., and two other intelligence committee leaders — chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and senior Republican Kit Bond of Missouri — are pushing legislation that would require the agency to declassify the executive summary of the review within one month and submit a report to Congress explaining why any material was withheld.
[]
In an interview, Wyden said he is also considering whether to link the report's release to his acceptance of
President Bush's nominations for national security positions.

"It's amazing the efforts the administration is going to stonewall this," Wyden said. "The American people have a right to know what the
Central Intelligence Agency was doing in those critical months before 9/11.... I am going to bulldog this until the public gets it."

Completed in June 2005, the inspector general's report examined the personal responsibility of individuals at the CIA before and after the attacks. Other agencies' reviews examined structural problems within their organizations.

Wyden, who has read the classified report several times, wouldn't offer any details on its findings or the conversations he has had with CIA Director Michael Hayden, former CIA Director Porter Goss and former National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

But he did say that protecting individuals from embarrassment is not a legitimate reason for protecting the report's contents from public review. He also said the decision to classify the report has nothing to do with national security, but rather political security.
[]
Bond said some intelligence officials have dismissed the inspector general's report as "ancient history," which he doesn't accept. He said the report has additional information which would be useful to the public.
[]
Many of the individuals highlighted in the inspector general's report are likely to have retired. But some are believed still to be in senior government positions, making the report's findings even more sensitive at the CIA and perhaps elsewhere within the intelligence community.

The AP has reported that the two-year review of what went wrong before the suicide hijackings harshly criticized a number of the agency's most senior officials.

That includes Tenet, former clandestine service chief Jim Pavitt and former counterterrorism center head Cofer Black, according to individuals familiar with the report, who spoke in 2005 on condition they not be identified.

Yet the report also offered some praise for actions of Tenet and others.

Pavitt is now a principal with The Scowcroft Group, an international business advisory firm, and Black is vice chairman of Blackwater USA, an international security firm whose clients include the CIA and other U.S. agencies.

Sibel (from March):

"But that's one of the things that I've been trying to convey, and that is that there are so many different pieces of 911 that have been either covered up or classified and not everyone has access to everything. And I know about certain events and certain issues and certain pieces, others have their own area - and what I tell people is 'just take a look at the picture in general' - I mean, we still have that CIA report on 911 completely classified, Peter. Here we are more than 5 years after 911 and the IG, so-called 'independent' IG, after years of investigation and questioning people and reviewing documents, they issued this report on 911: what the CIA knew, what they did, and the entire report is classified, and then you have the Phoenix Memo, and Colleen Rowley's piece, and Robert Wright in Chicago that had to do with Yassin al-Qadi..."

Washington’s peculiar zoology

2007-05-18T16:05:00.000+10:00

Scott Shane at NYT:

"The whistle-blower, a species in Washington’s peculiar zoology as well established now as the talk-show pundit or the campaign consultant, is enjoying an unusual spell in the sunshine. It is Whistle-Blower Week, so declared by a coalition of advocacy groups, and there is unusual acclaim for those whose leaks make possible Congressional hearings and newspaper exposés.
[]
Some events have featured the rock stars of the government whistle-blowing world, including Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, an Army Corps of Engineers official who objected to no-bid Halliburton contracts, and Colleen Rowley, a former F.B.I. agent who tried to alert superiors to the threat of Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11 attacks. Their celebrity was a reminder of the central role such insiders have routinely played in shaping the news.

But lurking around the edges of the awards ceremonies and panel discussions, avidly taking notes, were people who did not want to give their names — just yet.

At one seminar, a veteran Congressional investigator, Emilia DiSanto of the Senate Finance Committee, gave out her fax number (202-228-2131) and invited information from people too fearful to reveal their identities. Already, Ms. DiSanto explained, she works with several people who prefer to be known only by their noms de whistle: “We have a Mr. Blue. We have Apples. We have P. J.”

Under the oak trees in a park near the Capitol, Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican and a sort of patron saint of whistle-blowers, spoke on Thursday to more than 100 whistle-blowers, wannabes and representatives of what might be called the whistle-blowing lobby, the platoon of Washington advocacy groups with names like the Government Accountability Project and Taxpayers Against Fraud.

“You’re very much part of the system of checks and balances,” said Mr. Grassley, 73, who received an award and posed for snapshots with a long line of admirers.

“Whistle-blowers pay a high price,” he said, adding, “There’s a great deal of pressure in government to go along to get along.”

In the crowd was Michael German, a 16-year agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation who resigned in June 2004, after two years of what he describes as retaliation for his complaints about the mishandling of a terrorism investigation. He enjoyed a degree of vindication after Mr. Grassley earlier this year obtained transcripts appearing to uphold Mr. German’s account of the case."

Count me among those who aren't too impressed with Sen. Grassley.

Ron Paul is far and away the most popular on the Internet

2007-05-18T11:30:00.000+10:00

* Huffpo:

"Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is far and away the most popular on the Internet. Yet, despite his massive online lead, the mainstream media has barely managed to cover him at all.

On 5/14 and 5/15, Ron Paul was the #1 most-searched-for term on blog search engine Technorati. On post-debate polls on ABC.com and MSNBC.com, Ron Paul was voted the winner of the debate by a wide margin.
[]
So what's going on here? Why is there such a disconnect between the Internet and the mainstream media? Whether you are a fan of Mr. Paul or not, his apparent non-coverage is an extraordinary story just by itself."

* Amy:

"Report: Justice Dept. Considered Dismissing 26 Prosecutors
There is a new development in the U.S. Attorneys scandal. The Washington Post is reporting the Justice Department considered dismissing at least 26 prosecutors between February 2005 and December 2006. They amounted to more than a quarter of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys. Thirteen of those known to have been targeted are still in their posts.

* Amy:

Ex-EPA Head Refuses to Testify About Ground Zero Cleanup
Christine Todd Whitman, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is refusing to testify before Congress about the government"s handling of air quality in New York following the 9/11 attacks. A week after the attacks Whitman claimed that air monitoring tests at ground zero showed the air was safe to breathe. Later the EPA's own inspector general determined that Whitman"s comments were misleading. Thousands of rescue workers, firefighters and downtown residents have since developed severe respiratory problems after being exposed to dust and toxic material.

* Amy:

Military Scientists Link Gulf War Illness to Exposure of Sarin Gas
Scientists working with the Pentagon have found evidence that exposure to sarin nerve gas could have caused lasting brain damage in U.S. soldiers who fought during the Persian Gulf War. More than 100,000 American troops were exposed to sarin nerve gas after the U.S. military exploded two large caches of ammunition and missiles in Iraq in March 1991, a few days after the end of the gulf war. It is unknown how many Iraqis might have been exposed to the nerve gas. Advocates for veterans have argued for more than a decade and a half that a link exists between veterans suffering from gulf war illnesses and the nerve gas exposure.

* Digby:

"But as this primary unfolds, it's becoming more and more obvious that ninety percent of these hard core conservative "Christians" are completely full of shit. Let's not waste any more time debating issues like abortion or bending over backwards to respect their allegedly deeply held religious convictions. Those are merely rhetorical bludgeons with which to beat other people over the head. What they care about is brute power, period."

* Hitch on AC360 ( youtube):

"Classic Christopher Hitchens appears on Anderson Cooper 360 to discuss the "Legacy" of Jerry Falwell. Watch as Hitchens demonstrates what EXACTLY Jerry Falwell is and stood for, a malevolent bigotted bully, just like his imaginary god. "

* Hitch and Ralph Reed discussing Falwell on Hannity (yuotube)

* TP:

"The Bush administration today threatened to a veto a House defense spending bill over a 3.5 percent pay raise for U.S. soldiers and a $40/month increase in benefits for military widows, among other provisions. The legislation passed the House today 397-27."

Comey's leak investigation

2007-05-18T09:07:00.000+10:00

There's something from Comey's testimony (pdf) that jumped out at me:

SCHUMER: Have you ever had the opportunity to recall these (hospital) events on the record in any other forum?
COMEY: No.
SCHUMER: OK. And...
COMEY: I should...
SCHUMER: Go ahead.
COMEY: I was interviewed by the FBI and discussed these events in connection with a leak investigation the FBI was conducting.

I'm not exactly sure what it means, but it's pretty interesting - we learn that:
a) Comey was interviewed by the FBI regarding a leak investigation
b) The near-hospital-massacre was, apparently, relevant to the investigation.
c) Comey (either advertently or inadvertently, but certainly, unnecessarily) specified in his testimony that it was a leak investigation.

Which 'leak investigation' Comey is referring to? I'm tempted to hope/wish that Comey was referring to the AIPAC case, but he was probably referring to the investigation into who leaked to Risen and Lichtblau for their December 16, 2005 front-pager in the NYT.

As emptywheel wrote in March 06:

"At some point, I suspect James Comey will out himself as one of Risen's sources, and in so doing make it quite clear how Bush broke the law. If Comey does so, the Administration's attacks on Risen will appear nothing but churlish"

If this is indeed the leak investigation that Comey was referring to in his testimony this week, it's interesting that he mentioned the hospital 'anecdote' to the FBI investigators - presumably in his defense for leaking?

Oversight, out of mind

2007-05-18T06:09:00.000+10:00

* tpmm:

"Either Alberto Gonzales lied under oath last year or the administration has another major domestic spying program we don't know about.

Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) want to know which one it is."

ummm - yeah, we've known that there are other programs for more than a year. just ask Russ Tice, for (one) example.

* Novak via josh:

"Rove's former assistant, Susan Ralston, is currently seeking immunity to testify before Waxman's committee. Ralston is a former assistant to Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Washington super-lobbyist and Republican fund-raiser. As Rove's gatekeeper, she became special assistant to the President and the highest-ranking Filipino-American in the administration. For Waxman, she is a link between Abramoff and Rove. Ralston was deposed behind closed doors prior to her request for immunity. According to her friends, she has nothing to say that would cause problems for Rove. Her request for immunity was forwarded to the Justice Department, whose recommendation may or may not be followed by Congress."

* Laura:

"Listening to Comey's testimony again, how can the Senate Judiciary committee not invite to testify, and if need be subpoena Ashcroft, FBI Director Mueller, Andrew Card, and Gonzales and possibly Jack Goldsmith, Patrick Philbin and possibly Theodore Olsen about what transpired that night of March 11, 2004? And when is the Judiciary committee and/or Intelligence committees going to seriously investigate the warrantless domestic spying program and obvious questions over concerns senior DOJ officials had over its illegality? It seems plausible that Goldsmith becoming acting head of the OLC in October 2003 is what led to the DOJ's conclusion that the program as it was conducted did not have a legal basis."

* chyron of the day from Keith: "Oversight, out of mind"

2007-05-17T20:17:00.000+10:00

bump & update: grumpiness revoked
----------
bump & update: Still....
----------
...still grumpy

a shootout in a hospital corridor?

2007-05-17T11:16:00.000+10:00

* Marcy @ CIF :

"By bringing in former Deputy Attorney General James Comey for a little-publicised appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, the Democrats have dramatically changed the tenor of the department of justice (DOJ) scandal. No longer is it a debate whether nine US attorneys were fired for proper or improper reasons. Now, it's a question of the lengths to which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will go to serve the interests of the administration.
[]
What more do you want? A high-speed car racing through Washington DC, law enforcement readying for conflict, the showdown in the hospital room, and the heroic effort on Ashcroft's part to withstand the bad guys' ploy. In the end, the good guys won and forced Bush to accept changes to the program to bring it back into accordance with the Constitution - though not before many of DOJ's top officials threatened to resign.

Which would all make for a classical Hollywood happy ending, if it weren't for the fact that one of the bad guys, Alberto Gonzales, is currently the nation's top law enforcement officer."

* looseheadprop:

"Secondly, why did Mrs. Ashcroft blow the whistle to Ashcroft's chief of staff, who in turn blew the whistle to Comey? Did Ashcroft tell her to? Did all these folks anticipate that something like this might happen and already have some idea of what their response would be if it did happen? Cause not for nuthin' folks, but Comey seemed to have a pretty well developed rapid response ready to go on only seconds of notice.

Why did Director Muller immediately understand why he was being pulled out of a dinner party and not hesitate to get on the road at once? Why did he feel the need to telephone the FBI agents that were in Comey's security detail and order them "not to allow [Comey] to be removed from the room"? Hells bells! What were they expecting to do, have a shootout in a hospital corridor? OK, maybe the feebies were just supposed to be like bouncers at a bar?

Also, before Comey even leaves the hospital Card already knows about possible wholesale resignations at DOJ? Again, it sounds like there were events that led up to this that were sufficient for people to have time to make those kinds of life altering decisions and for word to get around. There has to be more here."

* glenn:

"The overarching point here, as always, is that it is simply crystal clear that the President consciously and deliberately violated the law and committed multiple felonies by eavesdropping on Americans in violation of the law.

Recall that the only federal court to rule on this matter has concluded that the NSA program violated both federal law and the U.S. Constitution, and although that decision is being appealed by the Bush administration, they are relying largely on technical arguments to have it reversed (i.e., standing and "state secrets" arguments) and -- as has been true for the entire case -- are devoting very little efforts to arguing that the program was actually legal or constitutional.

Yet even once Bush knew that both Aschcroft and Comey believed the eavesdropping was illegal, he ordered it to continue anyway.
[]
What more glaring and clear evidence do we need that the President of the United States deliberately committed felonies, knowing that his conduct lacked any legal authority? And what justifies simply walking away from these serial acts of deliberate criminality? At this point, how can anyone justify the lack of criminal investigations or the appointment of a Special Counsel? The President engaged in extremely serious conduct that the law expressly criminalizes and which his own DOJ made clear was illegal.
[]
Comey and Mueller were clearly both operating on the premise that Card and Gonzales were basically thugs. Indeed, Comey said that when Card ordred him to the White House, Comey refused to meet with Card without a witness being present, and that Card refused to allow Comey's summoned witness (Solicitor General Ted Olson) even to enter Card's office. These are the most trusted intimates of the White House -- the ones who are politically sympathetic to them and know them best -- and they prepared for, defended themselves against, the most extreme acts of corruption and thuggery from the President's Chief of Staff and his then-legal counsel (and current Attorney General of the United States).

Does this sound in any way like the behavior of a government operating under the rule of law, which believes that it had legal authority to spy on Americans without the warrants required for three decades by law? How can we possibly permit our government to engage in this behavior, to spy on us in deliberate violation of the laws which we enacted democratically precisely in order to limit how they can spy on us, and to literally commit felonies at will, knowing that they are breaking the law?

How is this not a major scandal on the level of the greatest presidential corruption and lawbreaking scandals in our country's history? Why is this only a one-day story that will focus on the hospital drama but not on what it reveals about the bulging and unparalleled corruption of this administration and the complete erosion of the rule of law in our country? And, as I've asked many times before, if we passively allow the President to simply break the law with impunity in how the government spies on our conversations, what don't we allow?

If we had a functioning political press, these are the questions that would be dominating our political discourse and which would have been resolved long ago."

* Digby:

"I have believed from the get-go that this surveillance was being used for political purposes. The FISA court is a rubber stamp court that will allow virtually anything that could remotely be construed as necessary for national security. After 9/11 they would have been even more lenient. And if they weren't, the administration could easily have gone to the Republican congress and requested changes to the law and they would have gotten it.
[]
My suspicion has always been that there was some part of this program --- or an entirely different program --- that included spying on political opponents. Even spying on peace marchers and Greenpeace types wouldn't seem to me to be of such a substantial departure from the agreed upon post 9/11 framework that it would cause such a reaction from the top brass, nor would it be so important to the president that he would send Gonzales and Card into the ICU to get Ashcroft to sign off on it while he was high on drugs.
[]
After what we now know about the politicization of the DOJ by Karl Rove himself, this seems even more obvious to me.

After all, as Greenwald pointed out in his post, it's awfully odd that in all these meetings, the FBI was involved but the NSA wasn't. The FBI does domestic surveillance. Why were they involved in this at all?"

* Balkin:

This is the real heart of the Comey story -- What happened between September 2001 and October 2003, before Comey and Goldmsith came aboard? Just how radical were the Administration's legal judgments? How extreme were the programs they implemented? How egregious was the lawbreaking?"

I have a bunch of questions about some of the assumptions that people seem to be making here - including: Do we know that this started after 911?

See Comey here (20mins) - it's stunning.

You're Fucking Kidding Me

2007-05-16T19:51:00.000+10:00

* OGM has Bill Maher:

'Repugs seem to win when they nominate the 'You're Fucking Kidding Me' candidate. Nixon? You're Fucking Kidding Me! Reagan? You're Fucking Kidding Me! GWB? You're Fucking Kidding Me! and now Giuliani. You're Fucking Kidding Me!

* arkin:

"Give the Iraqis a Break

Washington empties out every August as members of Congress and administration officials leave for their annual summer vacations. So why isn't this American political tradition good enough for Iraqi officials in Baghdad?

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have both now urged Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to discourage Iraqi lawmakers from taking a two-month summer break. The issue has become symbolic of the sad truth of the surge in particular and the war in general: We cannot make Iraq the country we would like it to be, and we cannot force Iraqis to act when we want them to.

Cheney met with Maliki in Baghdad yesterday to communicate the administration's sense of the gravity of the situation: The Iraqi government needs to make progress on security and move forward on reconciliation and governance far more quickly.

The vice president also pressed the prime minister to discourage the Iraqi parliament from taking its two-month summer recess. Bush appealed to Maliki on Monday not to let the lawmakers go on vacation.
[]
In fact, if it stays in session, capitulating to American pressure, it may well demonstrate to Iraqis that their elected representatives cannot even make their own schedule. And from an American political standpoint, canceling the Iraqi summer recess will also be unhelpful, allowing more pretending here in Washington that "progress" is being made and forestalling tough decisions.

So I say, let them go."

* From Lehrer:

"ANDREW YOUNG (former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former mayor of Atlanta.): I think who's on trial here is not Paul Wolfowitz, but that board. In a world where tolerance is required, where women in the Islamic world are the hope of the entire planet, for them to take their prejudices -- which I agree with -- against him on the war in Iraq and resurrect it to try to put it into the World Bank political scene is, in many ways, obscene.

It's sort of like Imus referring to these young women on the basketball team and ignoring all of the professional competence and all of the skills and talents that are at stake here. Paul Wolfowitz and Riza Shaha have tremendous things to offer the world. And I think, right now, staid bureaucrats who've been there 25 years bungling in the bank are trying to make him a scapegoat."

* Lenin:

"So, anyway, almost eight years on, and the regime is in serious trouble. Today, Karachi and several other cities have come to a standstill because of a general strike in response to a recent wave of violent repression by the state. The crisis began, tellingly enough, when the government decided to suspend Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry over alleged "misconduct". What he had been doing was using his position to challenge corruption in the government. In one crucial case, he stopped the regime from selling off the Pakistani Steel Mills for a tenth of their value. When the state tried to impose the Hasba bill, outlawing certain non-Islamic practises, Chaudhry deemed it unconstitutional. Recently he took up the case of 'missing' people who had been interrogated by ISI and CIA. If the military elite were not going to take orders from Sharif, they certainly weren't going to put up with this amount of adversarial challenge from the judiciary. The decision has been met by massive protests and a wave of resignations by senior judges and two deputy attorney generals, and Chaudhry has been cheered by enormous rallies wherever he has spoken, voicing his opposition to dictatorship. When Chaudhry appeared in Karachi on Saturday, 'clashes' took place between his supporters and supporters of the government: to put it another way, Musharraf sent some thugs out there to seal off the roads and attack the rally. 33 died in the street battles that ensued, most of them supporters of Chaudhry.
[]
Obviously, Washington is terrified of what may occur. Pakistan is a crucial ally in South Asia and in the 'war on terror'. Musharraf and his military high command fulfil a crucial role in pacifying Afghanistan - indeed, the initial occupation of Afghanistan would not have been so quick and simple had the ISI not instructed its former students to leave. Unless the US finds someone to coopt and lead this movement, which would be very difficult for them to do, they are stuck with backing a lame duck."

* kleiman:

" Mitt Romney wants to double the size of Guantanamo and endorses "not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques." Giuliani says, "I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of.""

marginally more honest than Abu Gonzales

2007-05-16T16:15:00.000+10:00

Other Horton:

"These facts go right to the core of the scandal and the dynamics which drove it. In McNulty’s view he, the number two man in the department and by tradition the officer with day-to-day operational responsibility, was pushed to the side while a young and inexperienced lawyer who was called “Rove junior” because of his connections with and similarity to Karl Rove made the judgments. Moreover, he came under attack as a result of his decision to tell a tiny smidgen of truth whereas Alberto Gonzales settled on a strategy of serving up fifty-pound whoppers under oath to a Congressional committee. That’s a breath-taking disclosure about the White House and the culture of lies in which it is now entangled. And it’s an enormous indictment of Alberto Gonzales.

But think about it: Alberto Gonzales is still attorney general, and his deputy is forced out because he was marginally more honest. It’s appalling."

amy

2007-05-16T13:23:00.000+10:00

* amy:

"IAEA: Iran Advances Uranium Enrichment
The International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded the Iranian government appears to have overcome most of its technological difficulties and is now enriching larger quantities of uranium than before. Inspectors say Iran’s main nuclear facility has thirteen-hundred centrifuges producing uranium that could be used for nuclear reactors. Iran remains far from being able to produce weapons-grade fuel. The news comes as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened severe retaliation in the event of a U.S. attack. But he also confirmed reports Iranian officials will meet with U.S. counterparts for talks on Iraq in Baghdad."

* amy:

Absentia Trial Resumes in Calipari Killing
In Italy, the absentia trial of a U.S. soldier for the killing of the Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari has resumed in Rome. Calipari was killed in Iraq two years ago shortly after he helped free the kidnapped journalist Giuliana Sgrena. The United States has insisted National Guardsman Mario Lozano followed the rules of engagement and shot at the car carrying the Italians because it was speeding towards a checkpoint. Italian ballistics experts concluded that the car was driving at a normal speed and that the US unit gave no warnings before opening fire. A video of the scene of the shooting was released last week.
Giuliana Sgrena: "What clearly comes out of the video, and what was denied by the American military commission, is that the car had the lights on. The car had the lights on and, most of all, it had them on even after the shooting, meaning that the shooter pointed at the people inside more than at the exterior of the car."
The trial has now been delayed until early July. Also Monday, Mario Lozano spoke from his home in New York.
Mario Lozano: "It is scary because now I can't leave my country, I feel like a prisoner in my own country, a prisoner of war practically. I joined the military for a reason to travel and now I can't go anywhere."

bwahahaha

Attorney scandal isn't isolated

2007-05-16T12:40:00.000+10:00

Other Horton makes a point I've been meaning to make with respect to you know who - the Attorney scandal isn't isolated, the same thing is true of the IGs:

"In our democracy, we have several institutional guardians of the powerful. One is the Department of Justice, with its service of detached, professional U.S. attorneys, sworn to uphold the law and eschew even the outward appearance of politics as they discharge their duties. And another is the inspectors general sprinkled throughout the Washington bureaucracy—designed to look into accusations of wrong-doing, and to test the complaints of whistleblowers.

So how do the guardians fare in the reign of Bush? As for the U.S. attorneys, alas, that sordid tale is playing itself out in the headlines and at present there is no early prospect of it coming to an end. To the contrary, the posture of the Bush Administration is entrenched—we did nothing wrong; we have a right to place the nation’s prosecutorial service under the control of Karl Rove and use it as a tool to advance the position of the Republican Party.

So what about the inspectors general? I observed some time back that under the Bush Administration, there had been a practice from almost the start of appointing only the most dedicated political hacks to the inspectors general offices. By and large the appointees are short on credentials or experience as prosecutors, forensic accountants, or investigators and very long on credentials for in-the-trenches partisan warfare. And how do they interact with whistleblowers? I had some first hand experience early on observing that process. In general, they work overtime to harass and discredit any whistleblower. Rather than examine the information the whistleblower turns over and follow-up to see if the problem is real and how serious it is, they generally start going after the whistleblower with tongs and hammer. His confidences are quickly exposed, and his character is quickly impugned. The message which is send couldn’t be simpler: sound an alarm, and your career is finished.
[]
Ah, but this is Bushworld, where inspectors general exist not to root out fraud and corruption, but to introduce it and to cover it up when others do it."

An angry and bitter Paul Wolfowitz

2007-05-16T12:29:00.000+10:00

* Guardian:

"An angry and bitter Paul Wolfowitz poured abuse and threatened retaliations on senior World Bank staff if his orders for pay rises and promotions for his partner were revealed, according to new details published last night."

* Newsweek:

"The White House was hit by two sudden resignations late Monday when Paul McNulty, a top Justice Department official, and Lanny Davis, the only Democratic member of the president’s civil liberties watchdog board, announced they were stepping down. Both resignations are likely to fuel allegations of White House political meddling in law enforcement and national security issues... McNulty’s decision to leave now was prompted in part by his disenchantment with both Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and top White House officials over their handling of the U.S. attorney controversy."

* i'm glad that "Like Rain on Your Wedding Day" is increasingly becoming a tagline.

* tristero:

"But I can't celebrate (Falwell's) death either because I know there are other christianists out there, just as bad as Falwell if not worse. His death is not that important in a world where the president of the United States himself is so extreme that he actually curries favor with lunatics like James Dobson.

In other words. the hard struggles needed to reverse the gains christianists have made against the better parts of the United States' government and culture lies ahead of us. There is far too much to do to waste time on Falwell one way or the other."

* Glenn:

"As always, the contempt which the Bush administration has for the rule of law is illustrated not only by their serial and conscious lawbreaking, but also by their extreme efforts to conceal those actions and shield them from any scrutiny or oversight of any kind. Knowing about these events in Aschcroft's hospital room (because he was a key participant in them), Gonzales, with a straight face, insisted in February, 2006 that he would not allow Ashcroft or Comey to testify because "you have to wonder what could Messrs. Comey and Ashcroft add to the discussion." It is impossible to express how free they are of even the most minimal constraints to tell the truth."

* Laura:

"Stunning to think it's Gonzales -- the man who tried to coerce a semi conscious Ashcroft into signing a presidential order in his hospital bed against the wishes of the man formally, legally recognized as the acting attorney general - who wields power as the top law enforcement officer in the country to this very day."

* Mona:

"Massive Epidemic of Bush Derangement Syndrome in Law-abiding DoJ: A host of DoJ lawyers — including then-Attorney General John Ashcroft — nearly resigned. Because they believe in the rule of law.
[]
Well, in testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey detailed the desperate efforts Bush, Andy Card and Alberto Gonzalez undertook to get Comey and others to certify the program as legal. What they faced instead was a threat of mass resignations from a whole host of DoJ bigshots, including John Ashcroft himself — all of whom apparently also suffer from BDS

* BlogD:

"Had it not been for 9/11, Bush would have reached 40% (approval) by sometime in early-to-mid 2003, and never would have recovered, losing the 2004 election handily."

Neocons not some kind of aberration

2007-05-16T11:40:00.000+10:00

* Christopher in the comments:

Well, of course no one can be sure of the motivations of people--having said that, I do have some insight into the way (Fred) Hyatt and his colleagues (at WaPo) think. First of all I want to make very clear that most people who get to important positions in government and the mainstream media have been vetted continually. First in University and later as they move up the ladder. Intellectual brilliance (I assure you) won't get you very far.

One of the most remarkable things about the American intellectual elites (on all sides of the political spectrum) is their inability to understand power, class, elites, cliques and so on. Since Marx has long ago been forbidden in American discourse we also have thrown out Machiavelli and others who speak about how power (politics) really works. We have the strange (to me) notion that "public servants" and members of the media are somehow dedicated to the truth, to the betterment of mankind and so on. This notion is pure garbage--you wouldn't last ten minutes if you were.

My point is that Hyatt operates in the interest of his class and his clique. There is surprisingly little difference between members of the elites say that write for the Post across the left/right spectrum--they differ in tactics but pretty much agree on the necessity of Empire. These guys believe in the Walter Lippman idea that power belongs to the elites and that the people as a whole ought to be misinformed and propagandized.

You know, (the) notion that the Neocons are some kind of aberration is kind of silly. They represent a large faction of the elites--what other factions don't like about them is that they are fairly straightforward in expressing their opinions and believe in making bold moves. Hyatt and others in the mainstream would rather be a little more circumspect, a little quieter, more polite and more diplomatic.

I say all this as a longtime resident and observer (usually from a distance but sometimes close up) of the Washington scene.

Agreed and agreed.

In Sibel's case, much of the attention is focussed on the neocons - but that's only part of the picture, too.

gapingvoid

2007-05-15T21:26:00.000+10:00

gapingvoid

more perle

2007-05-15T21:04:00.000+10:00

yglesias:

What Is The Post Opinion Section For?

One specific issue some of the delicate flowers raised was the question of why progressive bloggers are so mean to Fred Hiatt. And, indeed, a decent point was raised: Progressive bloggers are quick to impute specific motives to Hiatt and we're often leaping to conclusions -- and even frequently mistaken -- when we do so. The truth of the matter is that none of us know why the Post does the things it does; their actions are baffling. Today, for example, I see an op-ed by Richard Perle.

What is one to conclude from this?

Does the Post think Perle is a reliable source of information? Maybe it does, but in that case one would need to seriously question its sanity. My guess is that the Post doesn't think Perle is a reliable source of information, but that it decided to publish the op-ed anyway. Why would they do that? I'm not sure. I could speculate, but I won't since, as I've learned, that sort of thing annoys people. One is left, however, with the basic facts -- Perle's op-ed is there in the opinion section. There's also a column by Charles Krauthammer. Whatever reason either of those articles are there, their presence makes it difficult to believe that the Post's opinion pages are, as an institution, committed to making their readers better-informed about the world.

Perle vs The Experts

2007-05-15T18:37:00.000+10:00

* The NYSUN has a funny/scary article called "Perle Turns on Bush in Harsh Terms" - here's but one quote:

The State Department is "institutionally disposed to settle problems through compromise, to settle rather than to fight," Mr. Perle said. This is dangerous because many enemies of America remain who are prepared to continue fighting when offered a settlement. "You cannot settle with Al Qaeda. You cannot settle with Islamist extremists. Those who suggest we can do great damage," he said."

and also this:

"Mr. Perle said the current policy toward Iraq has no more than nine months to run: It either will have achieved success by then or will have to be abandoned. "That is why I find it strange that the Democrats should take short-term political advantage. They have only to wait," he said."

ARTIFICAL TIMETABLES!

* Meanwhile, here's an old vid, 1986, of Perle disagreeing with scientists about soviet nuclear blasts:

"Richard Perle, as Assistant Secretary of Defense, was interviewed by KRON-TV in 1986. He was asked to defend his belief that the USSR had tested a nuclear weapon in defiance of the Threshold Test Ban Treaty. When asked why he had ignored the opinions of government seismologists--all of whom rejected the possibility that the USSR was in violation of the treaty--he answered "I did not much care what their answer was.""

These people are what is wrong with America

2007-05-15T17:57:00.000+10:00

* drifty:

The honest answer to the question raised by Frank Luntz – “Why do Republicans keep winning if their candidates are so shitty?” – is that the GOP base is morally subhuman at a deep and probably incurable level.

That selling fascism to brownshirts and racism to intractable bigots is like any other kind of narcotics trafficking. Like selling hillbilly heroin to Limbaugh. Users are not necessarily going to score out loud and in public, but they don't exactly need a whole lotta persuasion to get them to buy and mainline the lethal shit the Right is slinging.

Luntz’s “solution” is the most recent GOP Talking Point being handed around the Conservative Pundit glory holes as eagerly as Hillary snuff porn anime: That Liberals need to stop being so “angry”.

When your party is led by outright lunatics and liars, traitors and thieves…

When after thirty years your base can only take nourishment suckling on the poison that oozes from Cheney’s bile sacs, Coulter’s fangs, Hannity’s tongue, O’Reilly’s wheezing pores, Falwell’s ingrown soul…

When your official cult house organs have been spewing raw hatred it the noosphere for thiry years…

...and your advice is that the other side who have finally had it with playing nice with these moral locusts are” too angry”?

It boggles the mind."

* drifty:

"While the lies and half-truths provide some kind of parasitic sustenance for the half-wits that prop up this President, his War and his Party, this firehose of unabashed McCarthyesque propaganda has also flattened most of “legitimate journalism”

No wonder they have always been so baffling, smugly at ease supporting a President who lied the nation into war and disaster: This is a Party that always, always, always fixes the facts around its bigotries.

Because no one with a Big Voice will challenge them. No one with Big Ink will push back on them even slightly.

These droolers are allowed to decide deep in the reptilian pylons of its Unitary brain who it will hate, who it will fear, who it will scapegoat and to which Dear Leader it will swear its eternal fucktard fealty unchallanged by the press. And then cherry-pick history, philosophy and the Bible for snips and sentence fragments that support its deranged ideology. Romp across the headlines for seven years, screeching for Bill Clinton’s blood like macaques going through heroin withdrawal, because no one in the MSM will make it their business to report on this as a story.

This Party of God who fall alternately and obediently into cheering ranks and leaden, smirking silence as their Dear Leader runs through everything of value in this nation like a junkie going through a fistful of stolen credit cards, and not a single soul in all of Punditville has balls hairy enough to stand up and say: “These people are what is wrong with America”."

Perle, Feith & Wilkes?

2007-05-15T11:51:00.000+10:00

* A couple of weeks ago, Josh wrote:

"Lam was in the midst of an historic public corruption investigation targetting White House allies on Capitol Hill, White House appointees at the CIA and -- though it's seldom been discussed publicly and the evidence remains murky -- I suspect, appointees at the Department of Defense."

He said the same thing today in tpmtv.

What's he talking about? What do we know about Wilkes' involvement with political appointees at the DoD? Perle? Feith?

Update: per Noise in the comments, maybe Eric Edelman.

emptywheel, judy miller, and mobile weapons labs

2007-05-15T11:50:00.000+10:00

I finally read emptywheel's book yesterday

Emptywheel did a great job, of course.

Simon and I actually got a shoutout in the Acknlowedgements for "valuable feedback on the WMD claims" - fancy that!

EW is referring to this series of posts that the three of us worked on together:
1. judy miller, stephen hatfill and mobile weapons labs
2. judy miller and hatfill's mobile weapons labs (part 2)
3. judy miller, curveball and mobile weapons labs

Blair to Be Questioned on Al-Jazeera Bombing Memo

2007-05-15T11:05:00.000+10:00

* amy:

"Blair to Be Questioned on Al-Jazeera Bombing Memo
In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair is set to be questioned in parliament this week over his talks with President Bush about bombing the Arabic television network Al Jazeera. Two men were convicted last week for leaking a record of a conversation in which President Bush reportedly says he wants to bomb the network’s Doha headquarters."

* amy:

Trial Begins for Navy Attorney in Gitmo Leak Case
Meanwhile a U.S. navy attorney goes on trial today for allegedly leaking the names of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz is accused of passing on secret national defense information to a lawyer with the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights. He faces more than thirty-six years in prison.

* amy:

Admin Seeks to Weaken G8 Declaration on Global Warming
In environmental news, the Washington Post is reporting the Bush administration is trying to weaken a climate change declaration planned for next month’s gathering of world leaders at the G8 summit. U.S. negotiators are trying to delete a pledge to limit the global temperature rise and cut emissions of greenhouse gas to half 1990 levels. The administration also wants to strike language that designates the U.N. as the appropriate forum for negotiating action on climate change.

* tpmm:

"Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House oversight committee, announced today that former CIA Director George Tenet has agreed to testify before his committee. The topic: the White House's hyping of false intelligence in the run-up to the war, specifically Iraq's alleged efforts to procure uranium from Niger.

June 19th's the date. And to make things even more interesting, Waxman has also scheduled Condoleezza Rice to appear at the same hearing. Waxman's committee has already issued a subpoena for Rice's testimony, a subpoena that Rice has signalled she will ignore. Waxman "continues to expect that she will comply with the congressional subpoena," notes the committee's press release. Rice had been scheduled to testify tomorrow."

* other horton:

"Even on the growing list of absurd hyperventilation used by the Bush Administration in connection with the Guantánamo detainees, this case takes on a “now-top-this” quality. And this indeed helps to explain why in the earlier proceedings, the Government’s own chief witness on national security classifications refused to appear and testify on the Government’s behalf.

America’s military justice process was once something the country could be proud of. It was streamlined and disciplined, but it reflected unmistakable justice. The persecution of Commander Diaz is of a piece with the cashiering of Commander Swift and Major Mori, the absurd accusations brought against Gitmo defense counsel, the whispering campaign against them with the detainees (in which counsel are labeled by military jailors as “Jews,” “Zionists” and “homosexuals”), and the efforts by Deputy Assistant Secretary Cully Stimson’s efforts to separate the Gitmo lawyers from their clients. All of this conduct is disgraceful and embarrassing. It reflects the values of a totalitarian state and not a democracy that values justice. It brings shame on the military and the nation. And it reminds us how our current crisis in the administration of justice does not stop with Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department."