FT.com / Comment & analysis - A new wrinkle in the Plame affair?

Published: August 30 2005 03:00 | Last updated: August 30 2005 03:00 An intriguing new theory has emerged in the case of Valerie Plame, the outed CIA operative. The mainstream media has focused on Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political guru, as the source of the original story identifying Plame. The alleged motive was revenge against former ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. Observer now hears a new angle on the story is circulating inside the Justice Department. It involves Judith Miller, the veteran New York Times reporter currently languishing in a Virginia jail for refusing to reveal her source(s) in the Plame affair. Many have assumed that Miller - who never actually wrote a story identifying Plame as an operative - is protecting Rove and/or other administration officials. But the missing link is that Miller is not a political reporter, but rather an investigative journalist who co-wrote a book on America's secret war against biological weapons and later published controversial articles on Iraq's effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Now here's the twist: Plame herself is a CIA operative who also specialised in weapons of mass destruction and bio-terrorism. So did Miller get to know Plame while she was writing her book or even use her as a source for other WMD stories? Despite 56 days' imprisonment and a vociferous campaign to release her - Miller is staying mum."

If this is true then it is Miller who "spilled the beans" regarding Plame. That would mean that everything else is a concerted effort to disperse the fact that Plame was CIA as widely as possible and to hide the objective of that effort, the punishment of Joseph Wilson.

In other words, it is a conspiracy to "out" a covert CIA "operative" and a conspiracy to obstruct justice by failing to testify truthfully (or at all) to the Fitzgerald Grand Jury.

Miller can rot in jail for all I care and evidentially the Appeals Court who reviewed Fitzgerald's brief, the redacted for security portion especially and agreed that placing her in the slammer until she testified was vital to the security of the nation, agrees with me.

Before this is done, Watergate and Nixon will have been replaced as the most despicable act and president in American history.

Legion | Public Relations | News Releases

"Legionnaires Condemn War Protests, Pledge HONOLULU, August 23, 2005 - Delegates to the nation’s largest wartime veterans organization meeting here in national convention today vowed to use whatever means necessary to ensure the united support of the American people for our troops and the global war on terrorism. ... The resolution passed unanimously by 4,000 delegates... “No one respects the right to protest more than one who has fought for it, but we hope that Americans will present their views in correspondence to their elected officials rather than by public media events guaranteed to be picked up and used as tools of encouragement by our enemies,“ Cadmus said. “It would be tragic if the freedoms our veterans fought so valiantly to protect would be used against their successors today as they battle terrorists bent on our destruction."

This is wrong on so many levels it defies explanation. Suffice it to say that Thomas P. Cadmus sounds more like a latter day brown shirt than he does a veteran defender of freedom. Perhaps the legionaires swilled too much booze in Hawaii and were well beyond three sheets to the wind when the vote on this fascist proposal was taken.

I do know that this USAF veteran (1959-66, all active duty) is thankful that he never had the urge to join such a group of misguided fools.

Pat Robertson... again.

GratisNet: "Pat Robinson puts his foot in his mouth with an assassination comment regarding the popularly elected president, Chavez of Venezuela, then the next day begins munching on his knee by denying he said it. This is after pretty much everyone in the world with access to a television saw the video of him running off at the mouth. This is without question.

As anyone above the age of majority can attest, Pat Robertson is no more a Christian than say Atilla the Hun. They also know that Pat Robertson demonstrates a less than passing familiarity with truth and integrity, in fact, on a scale of 1 - 10 (with 10 being low) he comes in at 14.6. My question is, why is this man still broadcasting his garbage and more to the point, why does anyone care?

One could infer that because he hasn't been smoked by the greatest lightning bolt in the history of the world, God doesn't give a shit about what goes on in His name down here in the zoo he created called Earth."

Shrill or sedate?

Excellent piece discussing democrat strategy from a grassroots/netroots perspective from Digby, which ends with:

That, I think, is the real question here. Will our "shrillness" help or hurt the party? I think the netroots believes it's time to try a message that has a little more heat than lukewarm water. The establishment, still smarting from their seminal loss in 1972, is scared to death of anything that resembles real passion. Far more than a serious division in the party over specific policy, that, I think is the real fault line. What kind of politics --- not policies --- do the Democrats think will win?

It should be very obvious to everyone that the Republican Lite, sedate if you will, strategy of the national democrats in the elections of 2000, 2002 & 2004 did not work. It also seems obvious to me that such a strategy will never work. It also seems to me that the republicans jumping in against the so-called shrill strategy, as with the "national, read beltway democrats" doing the same is simply a case of their fear of such sentiments of the grassroots/netroots and what it will do to their objectives.In the case of republicans it is quite simply that they fear that such a basic strategy of confrontation, high on emotion, strong on facts and full of thoughtful, logical, opposing positions regarding the problems that beset America from the economy to Iraq, etc. will strike a chord with the American people and turn them against those who have squandered the good name, reputation and fiscal strength of our nation.

In the case of the national democrats they see the distinct possiblity of the people tiring of their "go along to get along" strategy, which thus far has only resulted in the further deterioration of our standing in the community of nations and the declining fortunes of a declining middle class. In other words, their ultimate fear is that they too will be turned out of power by the tsunami created by the people.

That the grassroots/netroots appeal could well cause a siesmic shift the leadership both the national government as well as the national Democratic Party is what is driving the commentary against being "shrill" in response to the Bush Regime and its policies that are turning America into a larger version of the banana republics to our south.

So in answer to the question put forth by Digby, "What kind of politics --- not policies --- do the Democrats think will win?" The politics of not being republicans is a good place to start, using as much emotion, energy, passion to convet thoughtful alternatives to what republican politics have done to our country.

Don't Prettify Our History - New York Times

by PAUL KRUGMAN The 2000 election is still an open sore on the body politic. That was clear from the outraged reaction to my mention last week of what would have happened with a full statewide manual recount of Florida. This reaction seems to confuse three questions. One is what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't intervened; the answer is that unless the judge overseeing the recount had revised his order (which is a possibility), George W. Bush would still have been declared the winner. The second is what would have happened if there had been a full, statewide manual recount - as there should have been. The probable answer is that Al Gore would have won, by a tiny margin. The third is what would have happened if the intentions of the voters hadn't been frustrated by butterfly ballots, felon purges and more; the answer is that Mr. Gore would have won by a much larger margin. About the evidence regarding a manual recount: in April 2001 a media consortium led by The Miami Herald assessed how various recounts of 'undervotes,' which did not register at all, would have affected the outcome. Two out of three hypothetical statewide counts would have given the election to Mr. Gore. The third involved a standard that would have discarded some ballots on which the intended vote was clear. Since Florida law seemed to require counting such ballots, this standard almost certainly wouldn't have been used in a statewide recount. The Herald group later did an analysis of 'overvotes,' in which more than one choice was recorded, but this wasn't a true recount, because some of it was based on computer records rather than the ballots themselves. In November 2001 a larger consortium, which included The New York Times, produced more definitive results that allowed assessment of nine hypothetical recounts. (You can see the results at www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl - under articles.) The three recounts that had been most widely discussed during the battle of Florida, including the partial recount requested by the Gore campaign and two interpretations of the Florida Supreme Court order, would have given the vote to Mr. Bush. But the six hypothetical manual recounts that would have covered the whole state - including both loose and strict standards - would have given the election to Mr. Gore. And other evidence makes it clear that many intended votes for Mr. Gore were frustrated. So why do so many people believe the Bush win was rock solid? One answer is that many editorials and op-ed articles have claimed that no possible recount would have changed the outcome. Let's be charitable and assume that those who write such things are victims of the echo chamber, and believe that what everyone they talk to says must be true. The other answer is that many though not all reports of the results of the ballot reviews conveyed a false impression about what those reviews said. A few reports got the facts wrong, but for the most part they simply stressed the likelihood - in some cases presented as a certainty - that Mr. Bush would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't intervened. But even if a proper recount wasn't in the cards given the political realities, that says nothing about what such a recount would have found. The tone of these reports may have been influenced by the timing: the second consortium's report came out just two months after 9/11. The country wanted very badly to believe in its leadership. Nobody wanted to write stories suggesting that the wrong man was sitting in the White House. More broadly, the story of the 2000 election remains deeply disturbing - not just the fact that a man the voters tried to reject ended up as president, but the ugliness of the fight itself. There was an understandable urge to put the story behind us. But we aren't doing the country a favor when we present recent history in a way that makes our system look better than it is. Sometimes the public needs to hear unpleasant truths, even if those truths make them feel worse about their country. Not to be coy: election 2000 may be receding into the past, but the Iraq war isn't. As the truth about the origins of that war comes out, there may be a temptation, once again, to prettify the story. The American people deserve better."

Once again Paul Krugman speakes truth to power. I am so old that I remember a time when the only people trying to rewrite history were NAZIs, communists and those who would trample on democracy and freedom. America has come full circle. It started with an arrogant King George, it now has a petulant little man acting like HE was King George and an organization that has become the antithesis of what America stands for, the enablers of our latter day King George, the Republican Party.

To be sure both Little King George and the Republican Party speak of democracy and freedom but make no mistake, their actions speak louder than their words. As proof I offer the the following:

The smearing of John McCain in Election 2000. The smearing of John Kerry in Election 2004. The smearing of anyone attempting to shine the light of truth about the Cadre of Corruption that is the Bush Regime. Finally the sliming of a Gold Star mother, Terry Sheehan. To be sure, republicans are using words to assassinate the character of honorable americans but the only difference between them and the tactics used by despotic regimes since time immemorial is one of degree. As to that degree, mark my words, if these abominable people are not stopped and stopped soon, the character assassinations may well transform into the real thing ala Chile and the thousands of "dissapeared" people who disagreed with Pinochet.

It can happen here.

Culture of Corruption. Culture of Ignorance.

GratisNet: "Ohio governor Bob Taft cops a Nolo plea to charges of running afoul of Ohio law as it relates to reporting favors, money, etc. received under the table as it were. Such is the republican Culture of Corruption.

When I asked a certified member of the wingnut faction of the republican party (in Ohio) what he had to say about that, I thought I would hear a rant about Taft disgracing the party and a demand for his resignation. Alas, such was not the case for I was told that when Taft was informed that he had violated the law, he 'turned himself in' to pay his fine. Such is the Culture of Ignorance.

Let the wingnut faction of the republican party not just continue their choke hold on our government but increase it and I suspect the downfall of America will occur in less than a generation. Every thinking person, regardless of political persuasion needs to get behind the reform in how America votes and more importantly, how those votes are counted before the dream of America becomes just that, a distant dream of how things once were and how much was lost.

Paper ballots. Separate national election day(s). No more complicated ballots, at most, only three choices on the ballot (Pres/VP, Rep & Sen in 1/3 of states). The manual counting will be fast enough. Manual counts, do we really need to know who won before the polls actually close or do we really need honest elections with honest counts?"

Bob Herbert nails it.

New York Times: "August 18, 2005 By BOB HERBERT You have to wonder whether reality ever comes knocking on George W. Bush's door. If it did, would the president with the unsettling demeanor of a boy king even bother to answer? Mr. Bush is the commander in chief who launched a savage war in Iraq and now spends his days happily riding his bicycle in Texas. This is eerie. Scary. Surreal. The war is going badly and lives have been lost by the thousands, but there is no real sense, either at the highest levels of government or in the nation at large, that anything momentous is at stake. The announcement on Sunday that five more American soldiers had been blown to eternity by roadside bombs was treated by the press as a yawner. It got very little attention. ... For all the talk of supporting the troops, they are a low priority for most Americans. If the nation really cared, the president would not be frolicking at his ranch for the entire month of August. He'd be back in Washington burning the midnight oil, trying to figure out how to get the troops out of the terrible fix he put them in. Instead, Mr. Bush is bicycling as soldiers and marines are dying. Dozens have been killed since he went off on his vacation. As for the rest of the nation, it's not doing much for the troops, either. There was a time, long ago, when war required sacrifices that were shared by most of the population. That's over. ... 'For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks by insurgents.' Scandalous incompetence? Appalling indifference? Try both. Who cares? This is a war fought mostly by other people's children. The loudest of the hawks are the least likely to send their sons or daughters off to Iraq. ... If Mr. Bush were willing to do something he has refused to do so far - speak plainly and honestly to the American people about this war - he might be able to explain why U.S. troops should continue with an effort that is, in large part at least, benefiting Iraqi factions that are murderous, corrupt and terminally hostile to women. If by some chance he could make that case, the next appropriate step would be to ask all Americans to do their part for the war effort. College kids in the U.S. are playing video games and looking forward to frat parties while their less fortunate peers are rattling around like moving targets in Baghdad and Mosul, trying to dodge improvised explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenades. There is something very, very wrong with this picture. If the war in Iraq is worth fighting - if it's a noble venture, as the hawks insist it is - then it's worth fighting with the children of the privileged classes. They should be added to the combat mix. If it's not worth their blood, then we should bring the other troops home. If Mr. Bush's war in Iraq is worth dying for, then the children of the privileged should be doing some of the dying."

Once again Bob Herbert cuts to the chase and shows the moral bankruptcy of Chicken George's war.

War on Iraq from the git-go.

After the latest documents to surface regarding the planning for the invasion of Iraq as early as October 1, 2001 can there be any doubt as to the perfidy of the Bush Regime?

Links to other State Department documents (PDF files):
Document 1
Document 2
Document 3
Document 4
Document 5

Mourning in America

GratisNet: "'[George Bush] cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.' --- E.L. DOCTOROW"

It was Iraq from day one.

The focus on the Bush gang was on Iraq from day one. Nothing had more importance than getting at the oil there. Memo of 02-01-01 as the memo notes Iraq was to be at the top of the agenda for the Bush gang. Perhaps it was a case of, "they tried to kill my dad" or one of little Georgie trying to prove to his mommy that he was a brave boy or perhaps C+ Augustus was just trying to outdo his father, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that this gang of incompetents shunted everything aside in order to focus soley on getting the UN to go along and allow the Little Prince to get his war with Iraq. In the end they went in without UN support and the SCWOT suffered as a result.

That oil was the reason cannot be disputed for Iraq, after not being allowed to produce at capacity because of 10+ years of sanctions, was the repository of a very large portion of the easy to get at unrecovered oil in the world. Perhaps this is why Cheney was so protective of his energy policy tete-a-tete with much of the oil industry movers and shakers. Perhaps they were engaged in the planning for the carving out of Iraqi oil production once Saddam was out of the way and the Iraqi people were conquered.

Funny thing happened on the way to empire, the neocon chicken hawks neglected to ask the Iraqi people if they wanted to be subjects of a new American empire. In their hubris, or ignorance (the choice is yours), they neglected to consider the "what-if" scenario of an insurgency even though history is rife with examples of people fighting foreign soldiers exercising control over their country. The lessons of our own revolution were lost on these arrogant bastards.

So the next time a conservative trots out the long line of reasons why we invaded Iraq, remind them of the memo of 02-01-01 and the fact that Iraqi oil reserves are at the same time proven and easily attainable and in that respect are the most desirable of assets in these days leading up to $100/bbl oil.

Ashcroft

GratisNet: "Reports surface that there was more to Ashcroft recusing himself than was readily apparent. It seems that Ashcroft, a close friend of Karl Rove, knew for some time that the FBI believed he had lied to them when questioned about the Valerie Plame leak. It was only the fact that Ashcroft could no longer deny his knowledge of the facts of Rove's prevarications, with the resultant reduction of what small measure of credibility he had left regarding the investigation, that made his recusal in favor of a Special Prosecutor a face saving necessity.

Questions still need to be answered, however, as to what steps if any did Ashcroft take to slow down or even stop the investigation. Was he involved in a conscious effort to sabotage the effort of his own department? The people need to know the answers to this and other questions regarding the Attorney General's office of the Bush Cabal. The people need to know that no one is above the law, remember that phrase from the Clinton years?

These questions are ever more relevent in light of the reports that Abramoff's offer to flip on those involved with his illegal lobbying activities has been met with a curt no deals from the US Attorney overseeing the case. How often do prosecutors fail to try to get those under indictments to flip on their cohorts? Virtually never, however when the people likely to be named are powerful, if corrupt, politicians it seems no deals will be authorized.

Is it a case of having a corrupt Department of Justice, under orders of the most corrupt administration in the history of the nation, attempting to obstruct justice? You be the judge."

And the beat goes on.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday that weapons recently confiscated in Iraq were "clearly, unambiguously from Iran" and admonished Tehran for allowing the explosives to cross the border. Link to story

One wonders if the weapons from Iran were as clear and unambiguous as the WMD in Iraq, or is this yet another example of lies from a regime of world class prevaricators?

No doubt the wingnut wurlitzer will pick up on Rumsfeld's latest prevarication and treat it as if the sky was falling, but I suspect that growing numbers of Americans will see this for what it is, a bold faced lie.

Americans remember the mushroom clouds in 45 minutes from Saddam's WMD delivered by toy airplanes and those who are not counted among the gullible wingnuts know, we know, that such claims were unmitigated equine excrement.

The sewer rats of this despicable regime and their enablers in the halls of congress are getting desperate for they know that the people, in ever greater numbers, realize that they cannot be trusted to bring anything good to America. Hence a new threat, Iran, must be conjured up because they know that fear is the only tool they have to move the people.

A great and sad departure from the great FDR's "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" but then without fear republicans would have nothing to believe in.

Saddam, Anthrax & Republicans

From The Times Online: Saddam's germ war plot is traced back to one Oxford cow - By Dominic Kennedy A BRITISH cow that died in an Oxfordshire field in 1937 has emerged as the source of Saddam Hussain’s “weapons of mass destruction” programme that led to the Iraq war. An ear from the cow was sent to an English laboratory, where scientists discovered anthrax spores that were later used in secret biological warfare tests by Winston Churchill. The culture was sent to the United States, which exported samples to Iraq during Saddam’s war against Iran in the 1980s. Inspectors have found that this batch of anthrax was the dictator’s choice in his attempts to create biological weapons. The discovery has angered some British politicians. Austin Mitchell, the Labour MP for Great Grimsby, has renewed his call, supported by 126 MPs in the last Parliament, for a UN investigation into whether Washington broke a weapons control agreement. “It just makes them look more hypocritical than ever,” he said.

Link to full article

Surprise, surprise, the Reagan bunch gave Saddam the anthrax that was used for his biological weapons labs during the Iraq/Iran War.

Republicans = death. Republicans = war. Republicans = destruction.

Republicans = hypocrites.

Republicans have the unmitigated gall to talk about moral superiority when, given their track record, they would find it difficult to demonstrate moral superiority over a sewer rat.

Some Bombs Used in Iraq Are Made in Iran, U.S. Says - New York Times

Some Bombs Used in Iraq Are Made in Iran, U.S. Says - New York Times: "WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 - Many of the new, more sophisticated roadside bombs used to attack American and government forces in Iraq have been designed in Iran and shipped in from there, United States military and intelligence officials said Friday, raising the prospect of increased foreign help for Iraqi insurgents."

So it begins. The drumbeat for invading Iran has officially started. Is it any coincidence that this is released at the same time Commander Codpiece's approval ratings go further into the toilet?

"But some Middle East specialists discount any involvement by the Iranian government or Hezbollah, saying it would be counter to their interests to support Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgents, who have stepped up their attacks against Iraqi Shiites. These specialists suggest that the arms shipments are more likely the work of criminals, arms traffickers or splinter insurgent groups. 'Iran's protégés are in control in Iraq right now, yet these weapons are going to people fighting Iran's protégés,' said Kenneth Katzman, a Persian Gulf expert at the Congressional Research Service and a former Middle East analystat the Central Intelligence Agency. 'That makes little sense to me'."

ime for another distraction to get the eyes of the people off the real enemies of America, the Bush regime?

The Opinion Mill

Steven Hart nails it.

"The Bush family has often been referred to as the WASP version of the Corleones, but the Soprano clan makes for a much better comparison. At its best,'The Sopranos' is an acid mockery of the phony gravitas of the three 'Godfather' movies. Where Michael Corleone is heroically evil, an international player who consorts with statesmen and the Vatican before succumbing to his tragic flaw, Tony Soprano is a sewer rat engaged in the grubby business of preying on human weakness and fear -– when his fall comes, it will be tragic only to himself. Until then, however, he’s going to make as much money as he can for himself and his buddies, and leave the rest of the world holding the bill."

Last throes?

Posted without comment.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A bloody week for U.S. troops continues in Iraq, with three soldiers killed Wednesday night in a Baghdad-area bombing, a U.S. military spokesman said. The attack took place around 7:45 p.m. (11:45 a.m. EDT). The soldiers were members of Task Force Baghdad, part of the 3rd Infantry Division. The latest deaths bring to 24 the number of U.S. forces killed in Iraq this week...

OH-2, omen or anomaly?

GratisNet: "The results are in for the special election in the second congressional district in Ohio. This district is in southern Ohio and includes Cincinnati, it is also one of the most republican of districts in the state.

This is a district that voted overwhelmingly republican in 2004, scoring a 72%-38% win for the GOP candidate. Yesterday Paul Hackett, democrat, was defeated by 4,000 votes (out of some 114,000 cast, double the expected turnout) by Jean Schmidt a state legislator. this represented a 51%-48% margin.

What makes this interesting and, in my view, significant is that Hackett, a Major in the Marine Reserves, served in Iraq and made it a point of criticizing Bush and his non-existant Iraq policy and non-support for the troops. To be sure there was an attempted drive by sliming by a swiftboat liars clone group but in the end his message got through to the people.

Schmidt has her own baggage in that she has been linked to the burgeoning Coingate scandal in Columbus. While it is likely that most republicans held their collective noses and voted for her, the possibility of voting irregularities cannot be discounted especially since the vote tallies from her home county were delayed long after all other counties had made their tallies known. One could almost envision the late Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago looking on with envy at how republicans have refined his vote counting techniques.

In any event, the possiblility remains that this could be a harbinger of 2006 and when one considers that Hackett's showing was due more to his strategy of attacking with facts and a grass roots response that gathered in more donations than the vaunted republican money machine, than it was to what little support he recieved from the party, it is a very good possibility.

Omen of things to come (if democrats learn from it) or anomaly? Take your pick. I think omen but still, removing the ES&S machines and other computer voting systems remains an important goal."

Bush to recess appoint Bolton

GratisNet: "Preznit Bird Flipping, Hard Work is to make a recess appointment naming Bolton as Acting UN Ambassador. Acting Ambassador? Yes Acting, seems that ambassadors named via the recess appointment have 'Acting' added to the title because of their not being confirmed by the Senate.

As to the appointment itself, is it really any surprise? This sorry excuse for a man has thumbed his nose at the constitution and our democratic form of government from day one of his Supreme Court appointed maladministration of thugs and cowards, so why should this come as any surprise?

This sorry bastard places his ego above everything. Country, party, family, everything takes second best to Preznit Frat Boy's ego."