Monday 24 October 2005

Perjury: It's a Good Thing

Wonkette, Politics for People with Dirty Minds

Perjury: It's a Good Thing

Poor Kay Bailey Hutchison. She owes her entire political life to the Bushies, and here they are using her as a great airy test balloon emblazoned with the lamest response to the CIA leak investigation yet: That perjury isn't really a crime.
That excuse sounded disingenuous when people were lying about blow jobs, it sounds positively unhinged when people are lying about national security issues. But Kay has a crafty rhetorical maneuver up her St. John's knit sleeve: She tries to create sympathy for the beleaguered White House by comparing them to... Martha Stewart. "Look at Martha Stewart, for instance, " she said on Meet the Press, "where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime." Of course. Martha Stewart may seem an odd symbol of unjust imprisonment -- but, hell, if Judy Miller can be a First Amendment martyr...

Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges [NYT]

READ MORE: CIA , judith miller , kay bailey hutchison , leak investigation , martha stewart , plame investigation

Posted by: bakho at October 5, 2005 12:00 PM do you have a better link to the FTD story? I can't find it on the website. any new information you find would be appreciated. Posted by: Marc at October 6, 2005 07:28 AM Marc: try http://tinyurl.com/brbm7 It is pay-per-view For some reason the search function is tempermental. Neither Gedwin, nor Wetzel (under last 7 days) linked the article, but Wetzel for 30 days did. cheers Posted by: erichwwk at October 6, 2005 12:38 PM Steve, I know people make policy, and appointed positions are important indicators of policy, but don't turn this into a personnel gossip rag about every wacky neocon who gets an appointment. Don't lose sight of the fundamental policy concerns you have, because its unseemly for such a great thinker to appear to get embroiled in the personalities. I know you've articulated the policy issues before, but just because the Post has a nice op-ed page doesn't make the Reliable Source any less gossipy. Keep your eye on the prize. Posted by: The Duke at October 7, 2005 01:10 AM Ditto Posted by: erichwwk at October 7, 2005 10:44 AM can we all agree that any member/signer of the p.n.a.c.'s contract on america not be confirmed to any position of power anywhere in this gov't ?? Posted by: tofubo at October 7, 2005 10:40 PM

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:R3DQyC1yLuQJ:fetish-lesbian-toe.sweetipo.pp.ru/+%22fetish-lesbian-toe%22+sweetipo&hl=en

The Camel-Toe Report (Sharon Stone WITH Pants On)

The Camel-Toe Report

Sharon STOEne
Toe Factor: 9

Sharon Stone is a member of MENSA, so she knows that her toe is the most prominent part of this photo... even more prominent than the mid to late eighties cordless phone she's using (the kind which actually required the antenna to be up if you wanted to stray into the bathroom for a grunt on the phone). This photo was taken in 1991. In it, she's telling her agent that she's finally blown enough cheesy producers to get a shot at the female lead in “Total Recall”. Pleased to hear the news, the agent then assures her that she'll get not only that audition but the “Basic Instinct” call-back as well. We can rag on Sharon for lots of stuff (most recently her husband with the porn-star mustache got attacked by a "kimono dragon") but we also have to admit that she was very good in Casino and that she's clearly smarter than the average knee-jerk liberal Hollywood idiot. And until about eight years ago, she was a "total weapon".

#5 DeBunkers At Last || Condi to the RESCUE! ==Part 3

The Washington Note Archives

First Wilkerson, now Scowcroft. Who's next? Condi to the RESCUE !


ush is not blameless. He is the president. Ultimately, he is responsible for the decisions of his administration. However, Bush always finds ways to bail himself out of trouble. If he has to use Cheney and Rummy as scapegoats, he will. This has been done before. Reagan was guilty as sin in the Iran-Contra scandal. However, the GOP managed to scapegoat a bunch of other people to save Reagan. Once Reagan no longer needed saving, GHWBush pardoned the Iran-Contra scapegoats.

Wilkerson and Powell with Military backgrounds are both livid over the prisoner abuse. Yet another shoe will drop when the whole truth is written about Abu Graib. The General, Karpinski, who was cashiered for Abu Graib, is also speaking out.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082405Z.shtml
Posted by: bakho at October 21, 2005 09:29 PM


==========
I think it's important for progressives not to do as the Republicans do, namely to ignore particular evidence in favor of big, self-righteous generalizations.

As several posts above remind us, Scowcroft came out publicly against Bush's Iraq venture before the war was launched and did what he could to stop it. It would seem, from some of the posts, that the right has no monopoly on selective amnesia: how can anyone have forgotten this so quickly? Scowcroft has behaved honorably from very early in the whole debacle. He should earn our gratitude and respect.

Powell is a different story. He let Bush use him and spit him out. He knew that the administration's presentation at the UN was mostly crap but gave it anyway. He may have tried to moderate policies by working behind the scenes, but no one took his advice. He should have resigned when he saw that no one would listen to him. He was still thinking like a soldier, who is not supposed to question his orders, instead of a cabinet member serving an administration (supposedly) accountable to the people. I wouldn't call Powell a "coward," but he forgot where his principle loyalties ought to lie: to the American people, not to Bush and Rumsfeld. You could call him an opportunist, though not a very shrewd one. He hoped that his service to Bush would advance his own career, but in the event it ruined him. He is damaged goods now.

I don't know much about Wilkerson, but the posts in his defense persuade me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's easier to be pure when you have no public visibility, no power, no ruthless Rovian bastards eager to destroy you for speaking out. Give Scowcroft credit; he spoke up when there was still a chance to change course, though the Bushies weren't listening to him or anyone else. Powell failed us, but even so, better he should speak up now, indirectly, through his associates, than never at all.

We can't go back in time and undo the last 5 years. All we can do is put an end to Bush's power before he does further damage. If that involves late hits and opportunistic piling on, well, that's the way political reversals of fortune happen. What has changed is that others are hearing the voices of isolated truth-tellers who were crying in the wilderness a year or two ago. Honor and praise to those who stood up first, before it was safe; but to complete what they began, we need the others.

Then we can spend the next decade or two trying to reverse the harm Bush has already inflicted.

Paul Breslin
Evanston
Posted by: Paul Breslin at October 23, 2005 12:20 PM
======

I am aware that a plan of succession was debated in Congress should a terrorist take out most of D.C., but was a bill introduced and passed? Likely, it was but as an amendment to a much larger piece of legislation.

And one last thing. Many have written here that Bush was elected in November, but I beg to differ. The Ohio Coingate scandal is the tip of the iceberg. The GAO just this past week issued a scathing report on the dangers inherent electronic voting. Rep. Conyers issued a 102-page report on the discrepancies in the Ohio vote, and the report is quite damning. We must have a bipartisan push to reform our voting systems and our election laws in this country, and we cannot tolerate more whitewashs like the Baker-Carter Commission report. The only "nonpartisan" voting rights "expert" allowed to testify during its hearings is the same Jim Dyke (RNC wheeler-dealer) who is currently shepherding the Miers nomination through the Senate.

First, we must remove the current administration, prosecute the criminals within it, and restore our country. Promptly attending to that worthwhile task on a bipartisan basis would do a great deal to restore our tarnished international reputation.

Second, we all must cooperate and work closely together to ensure that future elections are not tainted by partisan dirty tricks and hacked electronic voting so that future "cabals" cannot highjack our country from its people.

And last, we must work our way out of the quagmire in the Middle East, and for that reason we must embrace the Scowcrofts and the Wilkersons and the Clarkes and the O'Neills and all the rest of the patriots on both sides of the spectrum in order to accomplish what presently seems to be almost impossible.


Let's all stop kvetching and get to work.
Posted by: SherAn at October 23, 2005 01:57 PM
===
OPTIONS & ODDS
US Elections 2008: Will Bush finish his term?
Closing Date: Nov 03, 2008 06:00 GMT -4
Select if you think that Georg W. Bush will finish his full second term as President of the United States of America. Bush must be in office until the day of the 2008 elections for YES to be the winning option.
Option Win Odds
YES 1.17
NO 4

WWW.INTERTOPS.COM

Posted by: the gambler at October 23, 2005 05:21 PM
=====================

whew! most work from one site , practically ever! AND the QUALITY was Astounding

#5 DeBunkers At Last Condi to the RESCUE! Part 3

The Washington Note Archives

First Wilkerson, now Scowcroft. Who's next?
==================

The back story to all of this is the 30 year feud between the GOP right wing and the CIA. No one doubts that the CIA has been feuding with Republican administrations since Reagan. No one doubts that the Republicans have been very unhappy with information from CIA that contradicts their closely held beliefs. This goes all the way back to Ford and his CIA director, GHWBush, who formed a Team B to independently analyze CIA info in a way that better supported rightwing GOP and military-industrial complex contentions. Nevermind that Team B was totally wrong. Nevermind that Reagan compromised his intelligence to gin up the Soviet threat to the point that they missed the imminent collapse of the FSU in the late 1980s.

Yes, Ellsberg is a genuine hero, but he is seen by the GOP right as a CIA warrior in the battle against the right wing. Ellsberg challenged Nixon and damaged him. Ever since, the GOP right has been distrustful of the CIA and has worked dilligently to replace independent analysts, willing to call them as they see them, with politicos willing to tell the powerful what they want to hear. Unfortunately, the right wing GOP sees the CIA as a challenge to its message, not a useful foreign policy tool. This is why Cheney took personal trips to CIA and tried to stovepipe info past the pros. Cheney was successful and look where it has got us in Iraq.

Cheney was successful in the war against the CIA and State Dept permanent staff with Rummy and Cheney staffs, independently analyzing data and contradicting CIA expert analysts. Since Cheney and company were attacking the CIA, is it any surprise that they interpreted the Wilson yellowcake story as a CIA counterattack on the administration? And if they thought the attack was coming from CIA, then wouldn't Cheney and company kick the CIA in the balls?

The war over intelligence is ongoing. This is why the politico, Porter Goss is at CIA. Of course, this is nothing new. Intelligence has always been politicized because knowledge is power. During WWII, failure to keep Pearl Harbor up to date with Washington intelligence had dire consequences. Washington believed Japan would attack Manila and had not even considered Pearl. Later, Nimitz had to jump through hoops to get his carriers to Midway because the Pearl Intelligence was correct and Washington was wrong. Of course Washington never forgave Pearl for being correct about Midway, even though that was the turning point of WWII.

Perhaps Congress needs a CIA version of the CBO that briefs Congress on intelligence matters instead of relying on an administration that is willing to lie to Congress about what the analysts are really saying? Wasn't the CBO formed because Congress could not trust the executive to deliver accurate information? Proper Congressional oversight has been sorely missing for over 4 years. Is part of the reason an administration that is not providing Congress with the information they need to do their job?

Posted by: bakho at October 21, 2005 11:26 PM

/////////////////////////////////////////////

To Ajontay and the rest of those who've recently posted:

Look, I'm mad as hell because I've spent my entire political life (and I mean years and years) on the far right listening to people who allegedly agree with me spit statements of hatred that are ill-founded simply because they despise the other ideological side. I've spent my entire life attempting to encourage those people and others to stop and reconsider their tone and content for the good of the country. As well as having been a soldier and a professional in the legal arena, I have spent my public life attempting to encourage those I ideologically agree with to search for, massage, and sometimes accept the truth, even when that truth comes from a moderate or, even, a liberal. And, most importantly, I've spent my life encouraging those on the right to respect those on both sides of the aisle.

I am now asking those of you who are of the moderate/liberal bent to do the same regarding Scowcroft and Wilkerson for the good of the country.

The reason I read Steve Clemons site - and I have read almost everything I could get on his public and personal background to get a better understanding as to what makes him tick - he brings back to the table what we have lost in the public political arena, civility and respect and a desire to search for the truth no matter where it comes from for the good of the country.

In an effort to describe what I think is wrong with politics today, allow me to give you a picture. Two men (or, women - I don't want to offend anyone) stand on the deck of a boat. One man wears a democratic pin and the other wears a republican pin. The two men are vociferously fighting, fists and all, for one round life preserver and why? Because each man (or woman) wants to be the one to throw it to the person who is drowning out in the ocean. The person who's drowning and yearning for some help wears a hat that says, "The United States".

My point is that good, well-founded debate is healthy for the United States but when those on either side begin to lose sight of what they're supposed to be doing because they are too overwhelmingly engrossed with their hatred of the other side and, in essence, the fight becomes more important than the facts, the country ultimately loses.

Although an old, cranky soldier, I understand people being angry - passionately angry. As many have noted in their posts, I am pretty damn mad, myself, but I assert that when you are talking about issues that concern men and women dying or issues of men and women being tortured, passionate emotions are expected to surface.
I simply ask that many out there - and I've read some pretty damn senational posts from both liberals and conservatives, out there - try to step away from the hatred you have for Wilkerson because either he doesn't agree with you ideologically or because you think he's a coward or because you think he's lost touch with the troops serving in Iraq or because...because...because...in order to hear what he has to say and judge the credibility of the facts and their implications for what they are.

I had to listen to Rush Limbaugh rip Wilkerson up for over two hours the other day and it made me physically want to vomit. This is a man who has responded to the GITMO scandal by SELLING GITMO t-shirts. What an unbelievably f--k-n jerk! (Good men and women in uniform are allegedly being pressured by civilian/military Intel people to break the law and torture prisoners - many of whom are not even guilty in the first place and this asshole addresses a most solemn issue by peddling t-shirts. To believe that educated people buy his crap is incredible to me...but, then, I digress.) It was such an ordeal to hear a man who claims to love this country, distorting and misrepresenting eighty per cent of the facts regarding Wilkerson simply because he hates him for speaking out. (I had to listen to him, though to see how some of my conservatives are going to try and stick it to Wilkerson.) Unfortunately, there are intelligent people I know who have considered him to be a reliable news source for years - what a joke. Well, pardon the anger and the harsh tone I've been using. My intention has not been to offend. The truth is I became equally mad as hell when I read some of the posts, here, that attempted to do the same as Rush's diatribe. As somewhat of an elitist, I consider most of the readers who take the time to read this site to be like me, far more willing to listen to the truth than someone like Rush or Michael Moore no matter where that truth comes from.

Last but not least, I can assure you that people such as Wilkerson and Scowcroft coming out does have a profound practical effect. I am a far-right conservative who has had a difficult time in the past voting for a moderate Republican. I can tell you after learning what I have learned during the past few years from people who hang in the same circles as Wilkerson, if a moderate is not on the ticket - such as McCain or Guiliani - and some cronie - like Condi, or worse, George Allen - is, then, I will do what I never ever thought I would ever...ever...ever do. Ten years ago when I was afforded the opportunity to witness some of the Clinton affairs from a personal perspective, I could have told you that it would be a cold day -no a cold eternity in hell - before I would vote for one of them, but I can tell you, now, after seeing what the Bushies have done, I would vote for Hilary Clinton in a heartbeat in the next election if given no other reasonable choice by the Republicans.

For those liberals out there, you might not understand how amazing that is, but I am certain those conservatives out there will more fully grasp the significance of my willingness to vote for the woman and, then, probably crucify me in your posts. Oh, well, thank God this is a country where I'm free to speak...

Thanks, Steve for doing what you do. We may not agree on issues all of the time - but you're one hell of a man. This old, cranky soldier, here, appreciates what you're doing for the country.


Posted by: sapere_aude at October 22, 2005 07:49 AM
-------------------------


Greetings readers & posters -- I have been intrigued by the debate going on here about Larry Wilkerson and whether he should be applauded or derided for the comments he made Wednesday. I have stated my views above and don't want to repeat them (much) here...but short hand, I think Wilkerson is a hero and should be applauded.

That said, I am at a fascinating retreat at the Airlie Conference Center this weekend -- sponsored by the Stanley Foundation. There are some real heavyweights here like General Anthony Zinni and others. Zinni had only good things to say about Wilkerson's loyalty to his country and support for his brave candor. That said, there are others here who think that Wilkerson said too much, too late.

I really disagree. The national security business is a complex one -- and there are contending views, all the time, within an administration -- and that dissension becomes even greater when moving beyond the boundary of the White House and into civil society. It's clear to me that people like Richard Armitage, Colin Powell, and Lawrence Wilkerson were attempting to influence the Bush administration from the inside. For them to become bomb throwers would have resulted in them being removed from that core -- and I believe America would have fallen into even more dangerous territory had those three people, and some of their fellow travelers, not been in the room.

As I have written before, the AQ Khan network was not rolled up by John Bolton. It was rolled up by Richard Armitage, John Wolf, George Tenet, and some other incredibly capable intelligence officials. Armitage (and Paul Wolfowitz -- though I cringe giving him more credit than he deserves) worked well together to end the escalation that was quickly leading to a likely nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.

Whether we like it or not -- and I spent considerable time and capital attempting to prevent John Bolton from getting the stamp of legitimacy from the U.S. Senate for his current post -- John Bolton was a subversive and dangerous agent inside the State Department acting as an operative of the Vice President's office. Bolton was there to undermine Powell and Armitage. They knew it -- and people like Wilkerson and Armitage boxed Bolton in (as best they could).

The world is not perfect, and it is not simply black and white. I'm inundated daily by emails from readers of this blog about things to post or ways I should see things....and i try and read it all. But in the end, I feel we need to keep our minds alert and our calculations of what is real and fake constantly reassessing.

I have spent some time with Wilkerson now. I have come to know him -- sort of -- in an odd way that involves various kinds of virtual and indirect conversation. I have spoken to many in the media world about Larry -- and their admiration of him is stunning, not just after his talk -- but he has been helpful to many journalists...and many of these journalists have been our only insight into attempting to dissect and understand the Bush administration's moves.

You can vilify Wilkerson if you want...but you are just wrong. He is a complete hero in my mind -- and I want others like Wilkerson to come forward.

I am working on several other administration officials in key positions of influence and want them to help us understand the nuts and bolts of what has been going on. I'm particularly worried about a set of missteps on Iran.

With the attitude of disdain that many of you have about Wilkerson, were you influential in those views -- you would completely preempt others from stepping forward and making sacrifices in personal position because of a loyalty they feel to the nation, that has been overwhelmed by whatever loyalty they feel to this administration.

To not create a safe harbor for people to provide deep insights into the interior of decision-making assures that these folks won't step forward and that those who want to engineer our next global fiasco will be able to do so without fear of consequence.

Wilkerson is someone I will pay tribute to on this blog frequently -- be advised.

Best regards,

Steve Clemons

Posted by: Steve Clemons at October 22, 2005 11:35 AM===============

==============
Scowcroft has spoken plenty in the past, before the war. The MSM had censored everything he said. Not a peep. I read at least 10 blogs in the past quoting him and his opposition to the upcoming war. He was very angry. But it never went beyond the blogs. Now the MSM is quoting him because the MSM has been forced to speak.
Blame the MSM, not Scowcroft.
The MSM should be indicted!

Posted by: anon at October 22, 2005 02:28 PM


===
Colin Powell's presentation to the UN in Feb. of 2003 was based on an 11 year old plagerized student thesis. This was reported widely in the foreign press and a simple internet search would find it for each of you.

The thesis was writtem by Ibrahim Al-Marash and was exposed by his former professor Glen Rangwala of Cambridge University.

A friend of mine, who has two brothers in the military, and I, called EVERY single congressional representative in the US in both the House and Senate and gave them that information with full details. I also called the State Department and talked to someone who purported to have a direct line to Powell, I would have to find my notes to get the name.

So no excuses. Or does US *intelligence* simply not read the UK Guardian? Does British *intelligence*? PLEASE...

In 2001 both Powell and Condi Rice said that Saddam had been contained. You can find Powell saying it on videotape with a web search, I believe it was in Cairo in March, 2001. Again no excuses for either of their subsequent lies.

And finally, a friend of mine in a position to know, because he participated in it, said the war against Iraq had started already; this was in fall of 2002. Because of the release of the Downing Street Memos what he said was ultimately verified, though I trusted him then.

This same friend was sent to the new CentCom in Qatar in June of 2005. Due to his clearance he cannot tell me why, but I could guess.

So let's shut up about Iraq for the moment and concentrate on, you guessed it, Iran, because as Phillip Giraldi and Scott Ritter have said in the last few months (I heard Ritter yesterday) plans are already in place to attack Iran. Bolton and Cheney are chomping at the bit, and my friend's deployment makes me think, because of the nature of his work, that an attack on Iran is imminent. Either by the US or Israel or both.

I agree with another poster: we have a uni-party, one that will do whatever Israel, and their big military/industrial donors want them to do in terms of Middle East policy. The Democrats are not a party of opposition, they are craven opportunists cowering behind the even more heinous GOP.

It is up to us now to take our country back from all politicians or lose our children, our Bill of Rights, our economy, our FUTURE, in endless war.

And by the way, as someone who has voted in Arizona for 21 years as a registered Independent, I would suggest you all take a much closer look at McCain -- he's no savior and you will HATE what you get should he be elected. I don't think he will, the Bushites control the voting machines and they loathe McCain.

McCain's hero is Theodore Roosevelt, who famously espoused that war was good for the health of the country. He is also an uber-Zionist. His dad helped cover up the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, one that almost drew us into the Six Day War. Sadly, I know a lot about that too as an elderly friend of mine was involved.

I'm constantly surprised by the level of trust people put in either paty and agree with sapere aude -- lose the labels and work for the common good.
Posted by: HateBothParties
at October 22, 2005 12:10 PM===============

--
Lying to Congress? That's a no-no.

The Niger forgery:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/21/181238/30

Posted by: mc at October 22, 2005 01:49 PM


///////////////////////

O

ush is not blameless. He is the president. Ultimately, he is responsible for the decisions of his administration. However, Bush always finds ways to bail himself out of trouble. If he has to use Cheney and Rummy as scapegoats, he will. This has been done before. Reagan was guilty as sin in the Iran-Contra scandal. However, the GOP managed to scapegoat a bunch of other people to save Reagan. Once Reagan no longer needed saving, GHWBush pardoned the Iran-Contra scapegoats.

Wilkerson and Powell with Military backgrounds are both livid over the prisoner abuse. Yet another shoe will drop when the whole truth is written about Abu Graib. The General, Karpinski, who was cashiered for Abu Graib, is also speaking out.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082405Z.shtml
Posted by: bakho at October 21, 2005 09:29 PM


==========

My only Question to ALL who read is:

Does ANYBODY RERALLY BELIEVE ANY AMOUNT of exposure of the impending revelations (Fitzgeralds Traitorgate, Abramoff, Ohio Coingate, ABLE DANGER coverup, DeLay, etc will result in any significant fundamental change.

Will ANYONE speak TRUTH about exposing the folks WHO are the moving forces BEHIND THE "CABAL" behind the Cheneys/American Enterprise Institute/Feith/Chalabi etc "Baghdad Year Zero" folks.

ALL we're going to see out of this is a re-shuffling of the same old deck and exchanging a few new "face cards" to the same old crooked deck (The Bush Family being the Borgia's of the republican Party - Administration) & game.

In other words the Legal Equivalents of Persons (Corporations )e.g.those on the $45 Million funders of Progress For America for example, THEY"LL ALL still be in charge of the same game despite whomever is put in charge, it's all a big charade.

The first two branches of our Republic have fallen and the last will fall in line with Miers. Is it Game Over?

Raven


Posted by: Raven at October 21, 2005 10:36 PM

=================
Dear Art:

It's orders of MAGNITUDE more:

For example, One SINGLE piece of legislation last year transferred 77 to 150 BILLION to multinationals mainly Pharma/finance/Oil onto OUR backs - just google the American Jobs Creation Act - the Administrations OWN EXPERT who originally testified in favor of the act subsequently admitted job creation figures (50,000 a year for 2 years) that work out to a tax break of between $770,000 to 1,500,000 pER JOB created with no guarantees.McCain denounced of course...

Raven

===============
Oh, so our fault is that we didn’t understand that this was an episode of “Commander in Chief” or “The West Wing”. Who would have thought that Wilkerson was the Chief of Staff --the realChief of staff-- of the Secretary of State. On his watch, in his desk and during his breakfast meetings, the US decided to embark on the most colossal blunder in the history of the Nation. HIS administration, the one he chose to serve advancing their agenda, succeeded in making the World less safe, in taking the reputation of the US to all time low and in killing a few many thousand in the process. Sapere_aude considers that the job of a straight shooter warrior like Wilkerson was not to shout this truth to the World, his job was to stay put, lower his head and take notes for the history books. Yeah, tell him to send an autographed copy of his book to Cindy Shehan and the widows and orphans of a few dozen thousand of iraqis.


Wilkerson served over 14 months in Vietnam, was wounded, and witnessed numerous deaths. I am told this experience had a profound experience on him.
[…]
… those out there who have called him a coward should be ashamed. Of course, I support your right to make your claims - I served in the Army to protect that right


Come down from the horse, soldier, nobody is taking pictures. I did not call Wilkerson a coward, but I wouldn’t be ashamed to do it. I did call him an accomplice of a mendacious war, and I’m not ashamed I did. His past military courage is not an automatic shield for his recent political cowardice.
Posted by: Palo at October 21, 2005 11:22 PM
=====

The crowing I see above is premature. If nothing else, the last five years should have taught all of you that this Administration will stop at NOTHING to pursue its global agenda. These criminals pose the greatest threat to our security that we have ever faced. If you think they are beyond committing another "trifecta" to get us all back on the fear train, than you have not been paying attention. We have entered the lair of a cornered and diseased badger, and there is no telling what it will do in it's effort to survive. One thing is for sure, if a slew of these people do not end up in a Federal Prison for leading this nation into an illegal and misrepresented military adventure, then we have already lost the essence of what we purport to be; a nation of laws. The next year will tell us what we are made of, and sadly, if the last five years are any indication, the answer is going to be......NOT MUCH.
Posted by: Moe at October 22, 2005 02:47 AM
========

Dear Mr. President:

Effective immediately, I resign my post as Secretary of State. For nearly two years, you have ignored my advice, or failed to ask for my opinion. You have allowed a cabal of ideologues, led by Vice-President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, to misrepresent Iraq's connection with September 11 and to claim the existence of Iraqi WMDs, both contrary to the consensus estimate of our national intelligence agencies. You have ignored any possibility that toppling Saddam's dictatorship would lead to anarchy within Iraq, nor have you made any effort to plan for events in Iraq after a military victory.

My true loyalty is to the American people. I must therefore resign so I can discuss the truth before Congress votes on the Iraqi War Resolution.

Colin Powell
October 1, 2002

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

If Powell had the courage of his convictions, he would have resigned. Can anyone doubt that even the MSM would have covered the event and given him plenty of airtime to make his points? Does anyone doubt that Congressional Democrats, like John Kerry, who voted for the war out of crass political calculation, would have more political cover to vote their consciences? How many GOP congresscritters might have reevaluted their votes?

Powell was a coward. Instead of loyalty to citizens, he was loyal to a man. And he got his reward: how else would a man who spent his life in the military, and whose father was not friendly with Saudi princes, have the money to try to buy the Washington Nationals baseball team?

I welcome those who choose to speak the truth now, but I cannot forget that had they spoken up earlier, the enormous tragedy of the Iraqi war might have been avoided.
Posted by: RonZ at October 22, 2005 06:47 AM
==========


There are two things that define the integrity of a man, honor and commitment. But sometimes, one's honor demands that you drop your commitments. The measure of a man is WHEN you drop those commitments. Before the war or after hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost. In this case it is the later.

While I am glad they are speaking out, Scowcroft and Wilkerson have shit for integrity. Unlike real soldiers, they waited until they couldn't get hurt before speaking out. Sorta like the soldier who waits for all his peers to charge into battle and after the ground is taken, only then do they run up to sneak into the group to take credit for something they didn't do. Scowcroft and Wilderson are in essence cowards for waiting so long. We have had shit for a goverment since WWII.

ANYONE who stayed silent for this long should be castrated with the enemy.

It is corporatism (profiteering) that drives all of this corruption. Senator Byrd and Kennedy and others like them are one of the few with any real integrity for speaking out early. Byrd and Kennedy are not in there for the money or the profits but for the love of this country. And you know, there was a little man who ran for the presidency of this country some time ago. I remember him looking up into the audience during a debate and telling a group of youth he was running for president because he LOVED them! When was the last time you heard a presidential candidate on national television telling the people he loved them? And we let the first corrupt Bush (senior) Administration use unethical tactics to destroy him. Both generations of Bush's are asshole. Both have done more harm to this country than good.

And while folks think this may be a turning point. Think again. In the long term, over the last 5 decades, the US government has become more and more corrupt and subserviant to corporatism over the will of the people. And while this is a change in tide in the short term, it will not stem the sea of corruption that is now so invasive within our government.

Corporatism. Serving corporate interests over the will of the American People. Cheap jobs overseas have ALWAYS been there. Prior to the first Bush Administration, every other president CHOSE not to sacrifice our soverignity to the American worker!

Reagan, Bush senior and Junior sold their souls to the devil. And now the democrats have now too.

It all makes me want to puke.

And if the American people had any real integrity, they would overthrow the entire government and start over. But unfortunately, the people themselves are too blame for the lack of intellect and integrity in actually let this all happen. For actually SUPPORTING the criminals in our government. The American People are not what they once were and neither is this country. As a fifty year old American, I can say this country stinks to shit.

Scowcroft and Wilkerson, thank you for speaking out, but fuck you both for not doing so earlier. When you physically stand with Cindy Sheehan and publically admit your faults and apologize to the American People on TV, then I may forgive you and call you better men. But such action takes integrity which I think you both lack.

-Ken Boettger in Ellensburg, WA
Posted by: Ken at October 22, 2005 01:56 PM
--//]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
I, too, wish for a knight-in-shining-legal-armour and Hollywood ending to this sorry tale....but, remember the UK's Hutton Whitewash, uh, Report regarding the circumstances of "sexed up" WMD claims, the sacking of a BBC reporter and the whistleblower weapons specialist Dr Kelly who was not only outed and vilified but was so pressured, he offed himself? (Wilson & the Mrs can at least take comfort in the fact that those cocktail invitations will still come post-Fitzgerald, and who knows, maybe even a million dollar book deal...) This happened in a country with a Labour govt and a solid majority and most of the mass media opposed to the war.


As for blaming the silent Republicans for all the ills, may I remind everyone of that very public fratricide commited by the Dems against the antiwar Dr Dean who spoke too loudly and clearly the painful truth?

Believe me, if there's anything I can do to rouse the American people, to incite anger against these abuses, to stop future wars and this bleeding debt, to have Rove and Cheney frog-marched out of the White House, I'll volunteer anytime.

Unfortunately, this country is not ready for this. To paraphrase the bon mots of the clever Defense Secretary, you learn to live with the country you have, not the country you want.

Posted by: Qwerty at October 22, 2005 02:27 PM---------------
============
Just which pebble began this landslide? There are of course many possible choices. One of them is actually Bush's clearly fraudulent election in 2000. At that point, even a few people who had believed in this man surely saw the truth. There was the pebble.

For me, the turning point came in March with Steve Clemons' effort to keep Bolton from being named our U.N. Ambassador. Thanks to Steve's persistence, more people became aware of what a problem child Bush really is, nominating such an inappropriate person for such an important position. For the first time we saw a few Republicans refuse to walk the Administration's line on a pretty important matter. This gave me hope, which then seemed to disappear when Bush went around the clear advice of the senate that this appointment was an error. At that time, I was certain that we were doomed, that nothing short of a coup d'etat would turn things around.

But looking back from now, I think that Bush's appointment of Bolton was the pebble that started the landslide. Enough Republicans finally realized that this man was dangerous, and could not, would not be stopped. From this event, Cindy Sheehan's campout in Crawford gave courage and confidence to the anti-war (or at least, anti-the-Iraq-war) segment of the population, and exposed Bush's lack of compassion to even more of the group commonly referred to as the Republican Faithful. Bush's distinct emptiness of any kind of compassion whatever was finally and completely clear with the Hurricane Rita debacle, and I think there is no coming back from this. I can actually imagine that George W. Bush will not be President of the United States in 365 days. Until this week, any thoughts of impeachment were laughably foolish wishes because there was no way the Republican-dominated Legislative Branch would go there. Now, however, the piling-on finally makes impeachment look like it is at least something of an option, and not a pipe dream.

We are by no means finished with this. My point is that as frustrated as many of us have been (or still are) with the horribly long time it seems to have taken enough people to speak out, we are now at that place. We will see what happens next week, next month, next year.

For those of you who are angry with people who only now seem to be speaking out, consider this: We do not know what they have gone through to reach this point. In fact, it is possible that some of those people in positions to "do something" actually did try to do something. Perhaps their path was that one over there that is now joining the larger path that our small path is also joining. We have come here from separate journeys, but we are nearly together. Let's get this son of a bitch out of the White House before something worse happens. Please, don't curse them. Welcome them to the path. Once this is over we will again drift apart.
Posted by: ciao!ciuck at October 22, 2005 03:09 PM
==============
Don't forget how many Americans voted for the village idiot (Dubya) because they believe he's a "good Christian". ( i.e publicly against abortion and gays, and for 'family values', mom, chevy, and apple pie) It makes me literally SICK how blind and uninformed so many in our country are. Give lots of folks a credit card, some country music, a six pack, and a weekly trip to Walmart, and they're happy. Who said "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public"? The sad thing is, no matter if Bush and his cronies take a dive, which I hope they will, and soon,it won't bring back the countless dead. And,sadly, the next candidate who spins the most believeable fairy tale will get the most votes. I just hope the election won't be stolen again, but nothing would suprise me. I stopped believing in political promises in 1968. I do vote, but nothing has happened yet to bring back my faith in the system. "Ship of Fools" indeed. What a tragedy for our country as for the entire world. And in the end, Bush and his buddies will just retire to lick their wounds (ha) for a minute or two and then count their blood money.
Posted by: alphagrannie at October 22, 2005 05:03 PM
================


It's hard to take someone who got bamboozled by Ali G seriously.

Ali: Did they ever catch the people who sent Tampax through the post?

Scowcroft: No, they did not. And it wasn't Tampax, it was anthrax.

Ali: I think they is different brand names. Like we say pavement, you say sidewalk whatever. There is different words for the—

Scowcroft: Well, maybe, but anthrax is the germ and Tampax is something very different.
Posted by: Zach Bash at October 22, 2005 09:09 PM

"no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public"

Either Mark Twain or P.T. Barnum. Or Mark Twain paraphrasing P.T. Barnum, more likely.


Whoops! Googled it and it is H.L. Mencken. I guess only guys with letters for first names come up with these witticisms....
Posted by: momlyd at October 22, 2005 09:36 PM
================

"success has many fathers but failure is an orphan."

i'm not sure why i'm starting with that quote but one thing that i am sure of is that palo has never been in a position similar to larry wilkerson. he's quick to judge but i'll bet he doesn't know whereof he speaks. wilkerson's standing up now has weight because he stayed at his post and worked to get things done right. he's a military man for god's sakes! i'm not a republican and i got out of the military as soon as my enlistment was up, but i respect anyone who has made the sacrifices of a military career and led an honorable life. americans don't want to be bothered with politics for the most part but somebody's got to do it. and the rest of us need to, at least, pay attention, and that's what too many of us haven't been doing.

what about congress? forget about labels. that's all a big diversion any way. who stood up against the war at the beginning? one person that i know of! one person: senator byrd. he said it was a big mistake and we didn't know what we were in for. who said so in the last presidential campaign? "that crazy," howard dean. the mainstream media tried to shoot him down from the beginning, and they kept at it until they got him. then they ridiculed him repeatedly.

joe wilson took on the bush administration.
during the past month THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA repeatedly claim that he was a liar ("Tweetie" of "Hardball" is a notable example, often letting his guests do this and not challenging them about it).

if we really care what happens to this country, if we really want change to happen we must help and support the larry wilkersons and brent scowcrofts and the ian fishbacks and the patrick fitzgeralds or NOTHING WILL CHANGE. and there IS a neocon cabal in the bush administration, but it doesn't stop there. washington is rife with it, and it doesn't stop there. right now the bush administration is nervous, the heritage foundation is nervous and certain foreign lobbyists are nervous. we've no guarantee that a meaningful change can be made but we'd better try by working together, staying alert and rewarding those who either speak up or have some chance at making a difference.

coyote


Posted by: coyote at October 22, 2005 11:29 PM
=========

Miers Land Scam (little bitty one though)

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall

(October 22, 2005 -- 10:48 PM EDT // link)

Knight-Ridder ...

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers collected more than 10 times the market value for a small slice of family-owned land in a large Superfund pollution cleanup site in Dallas where the state wanted to build a highway off-ramp.

The windfall came after a judge who received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Miers' law firm appointed a close professional associate of Miers and an outspoken property-rights activist to the three-person panel that determined how much the state should pay.

Kerik?
-- Josh Marshall

Bonfire of the Stupidest

Bonfire of the Stupidities

I'm having a hard time deciding if this is more stupid than disgusting, or more disgusting than stupid:

Australian television on Wednesday broadcast footage of what it said was U.S. soldiers burning the corpses of two dead Taliban fighters with their bodies laid out facing Mecca and using the images in a propaganda campaign in southern Afghanistan.

The television report said U.S. soldiers burned the bodies for hygienic reasons but then a U.S. psychological operations unit broadcast a propaganda message on loudspeakers to Taliban fighters, taunting them to retrieve their dead and fight.

And of course, the same liars who told us that stacking Muslims in naked pyramids was just an aberration and smearing menstrual blood on Muslims was just an aberration and forcing Muslims to imitate homosexual acts was just an aberration are telling us that burning their corpses, too, is just an aberration.

And what was the brilliant psy-op message developed from this barbaric ritual?

Attention Taliban you are cowardly dogs," read the first soldier, identified as psyops specialist Sgt. Jim Baker.

"You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be."


Lady boys? Yeah, that'll teach those wimps not to use sneaky guerrilla tactics against a technologically superior occupying force. I mean, we all know what chicken shits the Afghan mujadeen are. Just ask the Russians.

Hey, I got a great idea! Let's send Hans and Franz over there to call them them "girly men." That oughta break their fighting spirit.

hansfranz.jpg

Posted by billmon at 01:37 AM

Waiter, There's a City In My Toxic Soup

Billmon

idiotic-plus: no anchors??

Waiter, There's a City In My Toxic Soup

Here's a helpful tip for worthless, incompetent ex-horse show judges who want to dine out in the middle of a natural disaster -- next time, book ahead.

On Aug. 31, Bahamonde e-mailed Brown to tell him that thousands of evacuees were gathering in the streets with no food or water and that "estimates are many will die within hours" . . .

A short time later, Brown's press secretary, Sharon Worthy, wrote colleagues to complain that the FEMA director needed more time to eat dinner at a Baton Rouge restaurant that evening. "He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes," Worthy wrote.

"Restaurants are getting busy," she said. "We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you."

Would it have killed him to order take out?
Posted by billmon at 07:13 PM

[Serpent Judy: Extra Crispy?]

Billmon

Not only that, but as Michael Iskoff points out, Miller is still trying to protect the White House conspirators, via the ever helpful pages of the New Pravda:

What's fascinating, if you read Judy Miller's account closely, is it's very clear she is still trying to be protective of Scooter Libby, and in fact, as I sort of reread it this morning, I saw point by point where, if she is on the stand, as presumably she would be, if Libby gets indicted and the case goes to trial, the defense lawyer for Libby could go through her account and find passages where she is giving information that could be helpful to Libby's defense.

At this point, it looks like Bush and Miller are both down to their hard core of willfully blind, brain-dead supporters -- the Christian right in Shrub's case; the dimmest bulbs in the Washington Punditburo (Richard Cohen, Jim Hoagland) in Judy's. And of course, the Society of Professional Journalist (Sigma Delta Chumps) which just gave her its First Amendment Award.

The next time the Society of Professional Cocksuckers gets together, maybe they should present Judy with a Fifth Amendment award -- because the way things are going, she's may need it.
Posted by billmon at 10:07 PM
=========================

The Judy Trap

Murray Waas verifies what many of us have suspected about Judy Miller's sudden recollection of her June 2003 meeting with Scooter Libby -- that her memory was, shall we say, nudged by the special prosecutor:

When a prosecutor first questioned Miller during her initial grand jury appearance on September 30, 2005 sources said, she did not bring up the June 23 meeting in recounting her various contacts with Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. Pressed by prosecutors who then brought up the specific date of the meeting, Miller testified that she still could not recall the June meeting with Libby, in which they discussed a controversial CIA-sponsored mission to Africa by former Ambassador Joe Wilson, or the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

When a prosecutor presented Miller with copies of the White House-complex visitation logs, she said such a meeting was possible.

Fitzgerald: Is that your final answer, Judy? Are you sure you don't want to use your lifeline?

As I mentioned in my ruminations on Judy's semi-fictional account in the New Pravda, it was the acme of stupidty for her and Scooter to lie about (or try to conceal) the June meeting, since it could so easily be checked against the Secret Service's records. I have no idea what they thought they were doing, since even if their conversation incriminated Libby (and it certainly looks like it did) it will look even more incriminating at Scooter's trial once it comes out that he and his journalistic gofer tried to hide it.

One suspects the June meeting creates even more legal trouble for Libby than what's revealed by Judy's notes -- i.e. that the schmuck was talking up Valerie Plame and her CIA ties even before Joe Wilson wrote his op-ed. I'm going to take a wild guess that it also blows away some other critical piece of Scooter's alibi, like, perhaps, his explanation of when and how he first learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the agency. And if it blows away his alibi, it might do in Karl's as well.

But that's just speculation. What's undoubtedly true, however, is that Waas's story flushes the last fecal traces of Miller's professional reputation straight down the toilet. Going to prison to protect a confidential source is one thing, committing perjury (or something damned close to it) in an effort to conceal criminal misconduct by a senior White House official is something else entirely. Judy's just lucky Fitzgerald needs her as a witness, otherwise she could look forward to a few more years of sleeping on thin mattresses and begging her fellow inmates to let her watch a few minutes of CNN.

Not only that, but as Michael Iskoff points out, Miller is still trying to protect the White House conspirators, via the ever helpful pages of the New Pravda:

What's fascinating, if you read Judy Miller's account closely, is it's very clear she is still trying to be protective of Scooter Libby, and in fact, as I sort of reread it this morning, I saw point by point where, if she is on the stand, as presumably she would be, if Libby gets indicted and the case goes to trial, the defense lawyer for Libby could go through her account and find passages where she is giving information that could be helpful to Libby's defense.

At this point, it looks like Bush and Miller are both down to their hard core of willfully blind, brain-dead supporters -- the Christian right in Shrub's case; the dimmest bulbs in the Washington Punditburo (Richard Cohen, Jim Hoagland) in Judy's. And of course, the Society of Professional Journalist (Sigma Delta Chumps) which just gave her its First Amendment Award.

The next time the Society of Professional Cocksuckers gets together, maybe they should present Judy with a Fifth Amendment award -- because the way things are going, she's may need it.
Posted by billmon at 10:07 PM 20OCT

Serpent Chalabi: Suitable for Iraqi PM?

Billmon

The Return of the King

Come back Ahmad, all is forgiven. Via War and Piece:

Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi leader accused of giving the Bush administration flawed information about Saddam Hussein's weapons program, will visit Washington in November amid speculation that U.S. officials view him as an acceptable candidate for Iraqi prime minister . . .

Time quoted unnamed administration officials as saying Rice and Hadley both view Chalabi as "a plausible and acceptable" candidate for prime minister in the next round of Iraqi elections due December 15.

The longtime Iraqi exile began attracting U.S. attention as a potential prime minister after Washington decided Iraq's current premier, Ibrahim Jaafari, had discredited himself by seeking overly friendly relations with Iran . . .

So the guy who passed NSA intercepts to Tehran is an acceptable candidate, but the guy who laid a floral wreath on Khomeini's grave is too friendly with the Iranians.

I shall retire to Bedlam.
Posted by billmon at 11:02 PM

#5 DeBunkers At Last Part 2

The Washington Note Archives

First Wilkerson, now Scowcroft. Who's next?
==================

The back story to all of this is the 30 year feud between the GOP right wing and the CIA. No one doubts that the CIA has been feuding with Republican administrations since Reagan. No one doubts that the Republicans have been very unhappy with information from CIA that contradicts their closely held beliefs. This goes all the way back to Ford and his CIA director, GHWBush, who formed a Team B to independently analyze CIA info in a way that better supported rightwing GOP and military-industrial complex contentions. Nevermind that Team B was totally wrong. Nevermind that Reagan compromised his intelligence to gin up the Soviet threat to the point that they missed the imminent collapse of the FSU in the late 1980s.

Yes, Ellsberg is a genuine hero, but he is seen by the GOP right as a CIA warrior in the battle against the right wing. Ellsberg challenged Nixon and damaged him. Ever since, the GOP right has been distrustful of the CIA and has worked dilligently to replace independent analysts, willing to call them as they see them, with politicos willing to tell the powerful what they want to hear. Unfortunately, the right wing GOP sees the CIA as a challenge to its message, not a useful foreign policy tool. This is why Cheney took personal trips to CIA and tried to stovepipe info past the pros. Cheney was successful and look where it has got us in Iraq.

Cheney was successful in the war against the CIA and State Dept permanent staff with Rummy and Cheney staffs, independently analyzing data and contradicting CIA expert analysts. Since Cheney and company were attacking the CIA, is it any surprise that they interpreted the Wilson yellowcake story as a CIA counterattack on the administration? And if they thought the attack was coming from CIA, then wouldn't Cheney and company kick the CIA in the balls?

The war over intelligence is ongoing. This is why the politico, Porter Goss is at CIA. Of course, this is nothing new. Intelligence has always been politicized because knowledge is power. During WWII, failure to keep Pearl Harbor up to date with Washington intelligence had dire consequences. Washington believed Japan would attack Manila and had not even considered Pearl. Later, Nimitz had to jump through hoops to get his carriers to Midway because the Pearl Intelligence was correct and Washington was wrong. Of course Washington never forgave Pearl for being correct about Midway, even though that was the turning point of WWII.

Perhaps Congress needs a CIA version of the CBO that briefs Congress on intelligence matters instead of relying on an administration that is willing to lie to Congress about what the analysts are really saying? Wasn't the CBO formed because Congress could not trust the executive to deliver accurate information? Proper Congressional oversight has been sorely missing for over 4 years. Is part of the reason an administration that is not providing Congress with the information they need to do their job?

Posted by: bakho at October 21, 2005 11:26 PM

/////////////////////////////////////////////

To Ajontay and the rest of those who've recently posted:

Look, I'm mad as hell because I've spent my entire political life (and I mean years and years) on the far right listening to people who allegedly agree with me spit statements of hatred that are ill-founded simply because they despise the other ideological side. I've spent my entire life attempting to encourage those people and others to stop and reconsider their tone and content for the good of the country. As well as having been a soldier and a professional in the legal arena, I have spent my public life attempting to encourage those I ideologically agree with to search for, massage, and sometimes accept the truth, even when that truth comes from a moderate or, even, a liberal. And, most importantly, I've spent my life encouraging those on the right to respect those on both sides of the aisle.

I am now asking those of you who are of the moderate/liberal bent to do the same regarding Scowcroft and Wilkerson for the good of the country.

The reason I read Steve Clemons site - and I have read almost everything I could get on his public and personal background to get a better understanding as to what makes him tick - he brings back to the table what we have lost in the public political arena, civility and respect and a desire to search for the truth no matter where it comes from for the good of the country.

In an effort to describe what I think is wrong with politics today, allow me to give you a picture. Two men (or, women - I don't want to offend anyone) stand on the deck of a boat. One man wears a democratic pin and the other wears a republican pin. The two men are vociferously fighting, fists and all, for one round life preserver and why? Because each man (or woman) wants to be the one to throw it to the person who is drowning out in the ocean. The person who's drowning and yearning for some help wears a hat that says, "The United States".

My point is that good, well-founded debate is healthy for the United States but when those on either side begin to lose sight of what they're supposed to be doing because they are too overwhelmingly engrossed with their hatred of the other side and, in essence, the fight becomes more important than the facts, the country ultimately loses.

Although an old, cranky soldier, I understand people being angry - passionately angry. As many have noted in their posts, I am pretty damn mad, myself, but I assert that when you are talking about issues that concern men and women dying or issues of men and women being tortured, passionate emotions are expected to surface.
I simply ask that many out there - and I've read some pretty damn senational posts from both liberals and conservatives, out there - try to step away from the hatred you have for Wilkerson because either he doesn't agree with you ideologically or because you think he's a coward or because you think he's lost touch with the troops serving in Iraq or because...because...because...in order to hear what he has to say and judge the credibility of the facts and their implications for what they are.

I had to listen to Rush Limbaugh rip Wilkerson up for over two hours the other day and it made me physically want to vomit. This is a man who has responded to the GITMO scandal by SELLING GITMO t-shirts. What an unbelievably f--k-n jerk! (Good men and women in uniform are allegedly being pressured by civilian/military Intel people to break the law and torture prisoners - many of whom are not even guilty in the first place and this asshole addresses a most solemn issue by peddling t-shirts. To believe that educated people buy his crap is incredible to me...but, then, I digress.) It was such an ordeal to hear a man who claims to love this country, distorting and misrepresenting eighty per cent of the facts regarding Wilkerson simply because he hates him for speaking out. (I had to listen to him, though to see how some of my conservatives are going to try and stick it to Wilkerson.) Unfortunately, there are intelligent people I know who have considered him to be a reliable news source for years - what a joke. Well, pardon the anger and the harsh tone I've been using. My intention has not been to offend. The truth is I became equally mad as hell when I read some of the posts, here, that attempted to do the same as Rush's diatribe. As somewhat of an elitist, I consider most of the readers who take the time to read this site to be like me, far more willing to listen to the truth than someone like Rush or Michael Moore no matter where that truth comes from.

Last but not least, I can assure you that people such as Wilkerson and Scowcroft coming out does have a profound practical effect. I am a far-right conservative who has had a difficult time in the past voting for a moderate Republican. I can tell you after learning what I have learned during the past few years from people who hang in the same circles as Wilkerson, if a moderate is not on the ticket - such as McCain or Guiliani - and some cronie - like Condi, or worse, George Allen - is, then, I will do what I never ever thought I would ever...ever...ever do. Ten years ago when I was afforded the opportunity to witness some of the Clinton affairs from a personal perspective, I could have told you that it would be a cold day -no a cold eternity in hell - before I would vote for one of them, but I can tell you, now, after seeing what the Bushies have done, I would vote for Hilary Clinton in a heartbeat in the next election if given no other reasonable choice by the Republicans.

For those liberals out there, you might not understand how amazing that is, but I am certain those conservatives out there will more fully grasp the significance of my willingness to vote for the woman and, then, probably crucify me in your posts. Oh, well, thank God this is a country where I'm free to speak...

Thanks, Steve for doing what you do. We may not agree on issues all of the time - but you're one hell of a man. This old, cranky soldier, here, appreciates what you're doing for the country.


Posted by: sapere_aude at October 22, 2005 07:49 AM
-------------------------


Greetings readers & posters -- I have been intrigued by the debate going on here about Larry Wilkerson and whether he should be applauded or derided for the comments he made Wednesday. I have stated my views above and don't want to repeat them (much) here...but short hand, I think Wilkerson is a hero and should be applauded.

That said, I am at a fascinating retreat at the Airlie Conference Center this weekend -- sponsored by the Stanley Foundation. There are some real heavyweights here like General Anthony Zinni and others. Zinni had only good things to say about Wilkerson's loyalty to his country and support for his brave candor. That said, there are others here who think that Wilkerson said too much, too late.

I really disagree. The national security business is a complex one -- and there are contending views, all the time, within an administration -- and that dissension becomes even greater when moving beyond the boundary of the White House and into civil society. It's clear to me that people like Richard Armitage, Colin Powell, and Lawrence Wilkerson were attempting to influence the Bush administration from the inside. For them to become bomb throwers would have resulted in them being removed from that core -- and I believe America would have fallen into even more dangerous territory had those three people, and some of their fellow travelers, not been in the room.

As I have written before, the AQ Khan network was not rolled up by John Bolton. It was rolled up by Richard Armitage, John Wolf, George Tenet, and some other incredibly capable intelligence officials. Armitage (and Paul Wolfowitz -- though I cringe giving him more credit than he deserves) worked well together to end the escalation that was quickly leading to a likely nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.

Whether we like it or not -- and I spent considerable time and capital attempting to prevent John Bolton from getting the stamp of legitimacy from the U.S. Senate for his current post -- John Bolton was a subversive and dangerous agent inside the State Department acting as an operative of the Vice President's office. Bolton was there to undermine Powell and Armitage. They knew it -- and people like Wilkerson and Armitage boxed Bolton in (as best they could).

The world is not perfect, and it is not simply black and white. I'm inundated daily by emails from readers of this blog about things to post or ways I should see things....and i try and read it all. But in the end, I feel we need to keep our minds alert and our calculations of what is real and fake constantly reassessing.

I have spent some time with Wilkerson now. I have come to know him -- sort of -- in an odd way that involves various kinds of virtual and indirect conversation. I have spoken to many in the media world about Larry -- and their admiration of him is stunning, not just after his talk -- but he has been helpful to many journalists...and many of these journalists have been our only insight into attempting to dissect and understand the Bush administration's moves.

You can vilify Wilkerson if you want...but you are just wrong. He is a complete hero in my mind -- and I want others like Wilkerson to come forward.

I am working on several other administration officials in key positions of influence and want them to help us understand the nuts and bolts of what has been going on. I'm particularly worried about a set of missteps on Iran.

With the attitude of disdain that many of you have about Wilkerson, were you influential in those views -- you would completely preempt others from stepping forward and making sacrifices in personal position because of a loyalty they feel to the nation, that has been overwhelmed by whatever loyalty they feel to this administration.

To not create a safe harbor for people to provide deep insights into the interior of decision-making assures that these folks won't step forward and that those who want to engineer our next global fiasco will be able to do so without fear of consequence.

Wilkerson is someone I will pay tribute to on this blog frequently -- be advised.

Best regards,

Steve Clemons

Posted by: Steve Clemons at October 22, 2005 11:35 AM===============

==============
Scowcroft has spoken plenty in the past, before the war. The MSM had censored everything he said. Not a peep. I read at least 10 blogs in the past quoting him and his opposition to the upcoming war. He was very angry. But it never went beyond the blogs. Now the MSM is quoting him because the MSM has been forced to speak.
Blame the MSM, not Scowcroft.
The MSM should be indicted!

Posted by: anon at October 22, 2005 02:28 PM


===
Colin Powell's presentation to the UN in Feb. of 2003 was based on an 11 year old plagerized student thesis. This was reported widely in the foreign press and a simple internet search would find it for each of you.

The thesis was writtem by Ibrahim Al-Marash and was exposed by his former professor Glen Rangwala of Cambridge University.

A friend of mine, who has two brothers in the military, and I, called EVERY single congressional representative in the US in both the House and Senate and gave them that information with full details. I also called the State Department and talked to someone who purported to have a direct line to Powell, I would have to find my notes to get the name.

So no excuses. Or does US *intelligence* simply not read the UK Guardian? Does British *intelligence*? PLEASE...

In 2001 both Powell and Condi Rice said that Saddam had been contained. You can find Powell saying it on videotape with a web search, I believe it was in Cairo in March, 2001. Again no excuses for either of their subsequent lies.

And finally, a friend of mine in a position to know, because he participated in it, said the war against Iraq had started already; this was in fall of 2002. Because of the release of the Downing Street Memos what he said was ultimately verified, though I trusted him then.

This same friend was sent to the new CentCom in Qatar in June of 2005. Due to his clearance he cannot tell me why, but I could guess.

So let's shut up about Iraq for the moment and concentrate on, you guessed it, Iran, because as Phillip Giraldi and Scott Ritter have said in the last few months (I heard Ritter yesterday) plans are already in place to attack Iran. Bolton and Cheney are chomping at the bit, and my friend's deployment makes me think, because of the nature of his work, that an attack on Iran is imminent. Either by the US or Israel or both.

I agree with another poster: we have a uni-party, one that will do whatever Israel, and their big military/industrial donors want them to do in terms of Middle East policy. The Democrats are not a party of opposition, they are craven opportunists cowering behind the even more heinous GOP.

It is up to us now to take our country back from all politicians or lose our children, our Bill of Rights, our economy, our FUTURE, in endless war.

And by the way, as someone who has voted in Arizona for 21 years as a registered Independent, I would suggest you all take a much closer look at McCain -- he's no savior and you will HATE what you get should he be elected. I don't think he will, the Bushites control the voting machines and they loathe McCain.

McCain's hero is Theodore Roosevelt, who famously espoused that war was good for the health of the country. He is also an uber-Zionist. His dad helped cover up the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, one that almost drew us into the Six Day War. Sadly, I know a lot about that too as an elderly friend of mine was involved.

I'm constantly surprised by the level of trust people put in either paty and agree with sapere aude -- lose the labels and work for the common good.
Posted by: HateBothParties
at October 22, 2005 12:10 PM===============

--
Lying to Congress? That's a no-no.

The Niger forgery:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/21/181238/30

Posted by: mc at October 22, 2005 01:49 PM


///////////////////////

O

ush is not blameless. He is the president. Ultimately, he is responsible for the decisions of his administration. However, Bush always finds ways to bail himself out of trouble. If he has to use Cheney and Rummy as scapegoats, he will. This has been done before. Reagan was guilty as sin in the Iran-Contra scandal. However, the GOP managed to scapegoat a bunch of other people to save Reagan. Once Reagan no longer needed saving, GHWBush pardoned the Iran-Contra scapegoats.

Wilkerson and Powell with Military backgrounds are both livid over the prisoner abuse. Yet another shoe will drop when the whole truth is written about Abu Graib. The General, Karpinski, who was cashiered for Abu Graib, is also speaking out.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082405Z.shtml
Posted by: bakho at October 21, 2005 09:29 PM


==========

My only Question to ALL who read is:

Does ANYBODY RERALLY BELIEVE ANY AMOUNT of exposure of the impending revelations (Fitzgeralds Traitorgate, Abramoff, Ohio Coingate, ABLE DANGER coverup, DeLay, etc will result in any significant fundamental change.

Will ANYONE speak TRUTH about exposing the folks WHO are the moving forces BEHIND THE "CABAL" behind the Cheneys/American Enterprise Institute/Feith/Chalabi etc "Baghdad Year Zero" folks.

ALL we're going to see out of this is a re-shuffling of the same old deck and exchanging a few new "face cards" to the same old crooked deck (The Bush Family being the Borgia's of the republican Party - Administration) & game.

In other words the Legal Equivalents of Persons (Corporations )e.g.those on the $45 Million funders of Progress For America for example, THEY"LL ALL still be in charge of the same game despite whomever is put in charge, it's all a big charade.

The first two branches of our Republic have fallen and the last will fall in line with Miers. Is it Game Over?

Raven


Posted by: Raven at October 21, 2005 10:36 PM

=================
Dear Art:

It's orders of MAGNITUDE more:

For example, One SINGLE piece of legislation last year transferred 77 to 150 BILLION to multinationals mainly Pharma/finance/Oil onto OUR backs - just google the American Jobs Creation Act - the Administrations OWN EXPERT who originally testified in favor of the act subsequently admitted job creation figures (50,000 a year for 2 years) that work out to a tax break of between $770,000 to 1,500,000 pER JOB created with no guarantees.McCain denounced of course...

Raven

===============
Oh, so our fault is that we didn’t understand that this was an episode of “Commander in Chief” or “The West Wing”. Who would have thought that Wilkerson was the Chief of Staff --the realChief of staff-- of the Secretary of State. On his watch, in his desk and during his breakfast meetings, the US decided to embark on the most colossal blunder in the history of the Nation. HIS administration, the one he chose to serve advancing their agenda, succeeded in making the World less safe, in taking the reputation of the US to all time low and in killing a few many thousand in the process. Sapere_aude considers that the job of a straight shooter warrior like Wilkerson was not to shout this truth to the World, his job was to stay put, lower his head and take notes for the history books. Yeah, tell him to send an autographed copy of his book to Cindy Shehan and the widows and orphans of a few dozen thousand of iraqis.


Wilkerson served over 14 months in Vietnam, was wounded, and witnessed numerous deaths. I am told this experience had a profound experience on him.
[…]
… those out there who have called him a coward should be ashamed. Of course, I support your right to make your claims - I served in the Army to protect that right


Come down from the horse, soldier, nobody is taking pictures. I did not call Wilkerson a coward, but I wouldn’t be ashamed to do it. I did call him an accomplice of a mendacious war, and I’m not ashamed I did. His past military courage is not an automatic shield for his recent political cowardice.
Posted by: Palo at October 21, 2005 11:22 PM
=====

The crowing I see above is premature. If nothing else, the last five years should have taught all of you that this Administration will stop at NOTHING to pursue its global agenda. These criminals pose the greatest threat to our security that we have ever faced. If you think they are beyond committing another "trifecta" to get us all back on the fear train, than you have not been paying attention. We have entered the lair of a cornered and diseased badger, and there is no telling what it will do in it's effort to survive. One thing is for sure, if a slew of these people do not end up in a Federal Prison for leading this nation into an illegal and misrepresented military adventure, then we have already lost the essence of what we purport to be; a nation of laws. The next year will tell us what we are made of, and sadly, if the last five years are any indication, the answer is going to be......NOT MUCH.
Posted by: Moe at October 22, 2005 02:47 AM
========

Dear Mr. President:

Effective immediately, I resign my post as Secretary of State. For nearly two years, you have ignored my advice, or failed to ask for my opinion. You have allowed a cabal of ideologues, led by Vice-President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, to misrepresent Iraq's connection with September 11 and to claim the existence of Iraqi WMDs, both contrary to the consensus estimate of our national intelligence agencies. You have ignored any possibility that toppling Saddam's dictatorship would lead to anarchy within Iraq, nor have you made any effort to plan for events in Iraq after a military victory.

My true loyalty is to the American people. I must therefore resign so I can discuss the truth before Congress votes on the Iraqi War Resolution.

Colin Powell
October 1, 2002

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

If Powell had the courage of his convictions, he would have resigned. Can anyone doubt that even the MSM would have covered the event and given him plenty of airtime to make his points? Does anyone doubt that Congressional Democrats, like John Kerry, who voted for the war out of crass political calculation, would have more political cover to vote their consciences? How many GOP congresscritters might have reevaluted their votes?

Powell was a coward. Instead of loyalty to citizens, he was loyal to a man. And he got his reward: how else would a man who spent his life in the military, and whose father was not friendly with Saudi princes, have the money to try to buy the Washington Nationals baseball team?

I welcome those who choose to speak the truth now, but I cannot forget that had they spoken up earlier, the enormous tragedy of the Iraqi war might have been avoided.
Posted by: RonZ at October 22, 2005 06:47 AM
==========


There are two things that define the integrity of a man, honor and commitment. But sometimes, one's honor demands that you drop your commitments. The measure of a man is WHEN you drop those commitments. Before the war or after hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost. In this case it is the later.

While I am glad they are speaking out, Scowcroft and Wilkerson have shit for integrity. Unlike real soldiers, they waited until they couldn't get hurt before speaking out. Sorta like the soldier who waits for all his peers to charge into battle and after the ground is taken, only then do they run up to sneak into the group to take credit for something they didn't do. Scowcroft and Wilderson are in essence cowards for waiting so long. We have had shit for a goverment since WWII.

ANYONE who stayed silent for this long should be castrated with the enemy.

It is corporatism (profiteering) that drives all of this corruption. Senator Byrd and Kennedy and others like them are one of the few with any real integrity for speaking out early. Byrd and Kennedy are not in there for the money or the profits but for the love of this country. And you know, there was a little man who ran for the presidency of this country some time ago. I remember him looking up into the audience during a debate and telling a group of youth he was running for president because he LOVED them! When was the last time you heard a presidential candidate on national television telling the people he loved them? And we let the first corrupt Bush (senior) Administration use unethical tactics to destroy him. Both generations of Bush's are asshole. Both have done more harm to this country than good.

And while folks think this may be a turning point. Think again. In the long term, over the last 5 decades, the US government has become more and more corrupt and subserviant to corporatism over the will of the people. And while this is a change in tide in the short term, it will not stem the sea of corruption that is now so invasive within our government.

Corporatism. Serving corporate interests over the will of the American People. Cheap jobs overseas have ALWAYS been there. Prior to the first Bush Administration, every other president CHOSE not to sacrifice our soverignity to the American worker!

Reagan, Bush senior and Junior sold their souls to the devil. And now the democrats have now too.

It all makes me want to puke.

And if the American people had any real integrity, they would overthrow the entire government and start over. But unfortunately, the people themselves are too blame for the lack of intellect and integrity in actually let this all happen. For actually SUPPORTING the criminals in our government. The American People are not what they once were and neither is this country. As a fifty year old American, I can say this country stinks to shit.

Scowcroft and Wilkerson, thank you for speaking out, but fuck you both for not doing so earlier. When you physically stand with Cindy Sheehan and publically admit your faults and apologize to the American People on TV, then I may forgive you and call you better men. But such action takes integrity which I think you both lack.

-Ken Boettger in Ellensburg, WA
Posted by: Ken at October 22, 2005 01:56 PM
--//]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
I, too, wish for a knight-in-shining-legal-armour and Hollywood ending to this sorry tale....but, remember the UK's Hutton Whitewash, uh, Report regarding the circumstances of "sexed up" WMD claims, the sacking of a BBC reporter and the whistleblower weapons specialist Dr Kelly who was not only outed and vilified but was so pressured, he offed himself? (Wilson & the Mrs can at least take comfort in the fact that those cocktail invitations will still come post-Fitzgerald, and who knows, maybe even a million dollar book deal...) This happened in a country with a Labour govt and a solid majority and most of the mass media opposed to the war.


As for blaming the silent Republicans for all the ills, may I remind everyone of that very public fratricide commited by the Dems against the antiwar Dr Dean who spoke too loudly and clearly the painful truth?

Believe me, if there's anything I can do to rouse the American people, to incite anger against these abuses, to stop future wars and this bleeding debt, to have Rove and Cheney frog-marched out of the White House, I'll volunteer anytime.

Unfortunately, this country is not ready for this. To paraphrase the bon mots of the clever Defense Secretary, you learn to live with the country you have, not the country you want.

Posted by: Qwerty at October 22, 2005 02:27 PM---------------
============
Just which pebble began this landslide? There are of course many possible choices. One of them is actually Bush's clearly fraudulent election in 2000. At that point, even a few people who had believed in this man surely saw the truth. There was the pebble.

For me, the turning point came in March with Steve Clemons' effort to keep Bolton from being named our U.N. Ambassador. Thanks to Steve's persistence, more people became aware of what a problem child Bush really is, nominating such an inappropriate person for such an important position. For the first time we saw a few Republicans refuse to walk the Administration's line on a pretty important matter. This gave me hope, which then seemed to disappear when Bush went around the clear advice of the senate that this appointment was an error. At that time, I was certain that we were doomed, that nothing short of a coup d'etat would turn things around.

But looking back from now, I think that Bush's appointment of Bolton was the pebble that started the landslide. Enough Republicans finally realized that this man was dangerous, and could not, would not be stopped. From this event, Cindy Sheehan's campout in Crawford gave courage and confidence to the anti-war (or at least, anti-the-Iraq-war) segment of the population, and exposed Bush's lack of compassion to even more of the group commonly referred to as the Republican Faithful. Bush's distinct emptiness of any kind of compassion whatever was finally and completely clear with the Hurricane Rita debacle, and I think there is no coming back from this. I can actually imagine that George W. Bush will not be President of the United States in 365 days. Until this week, any thoughts of impeachment were laughably foolish wishes because there was no way the Republican-dominated Legislative Branch would go there. Now, however, the piling-on finally makes impeachment look like it is at least something of an option, and not a pipe dream.

We are by no means finished with this. My point is that as frustrated as many of us have been (or still are) with the horribly long time it seems to have taken enough people to speak out, we are now at that place. We will see what happens next week, next month, next year.

For those of you who are angry with people who only now seem to be speaking out, consider this: We do not know what they have gone through to reach this point. In fact, it is possible that some of those people in positions to "do something" actually did try to do something. Perhaps their path was that one over there that is now joining the larger path that our small path is also joining. We have come here from separate journeys, but we are nearly together. Let's get this son of a bitch out of the White House before something worse happens. Please, don't curse them. Welcome them to the path. Once this is over we will again drift apart.
Posted by: ciao!ciuck at October 22, 2005 03:09 PM
==============
Don't forget how many Americans voted for the village idiot (Dubya) because they believe he's a "good Christian". ( i.e publicly against abortion and gays, and for 'family values', mom, chevy, and apple pie) It makes me literally SICK how blind and uninformed so many in our country are. Give lots of folks a credit card, some country music, a six pack, and a weekly trip to Walmart, and they're happy. Who said "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public"? The sad thing is, no matter if Bush and his cronies take a dive, which I hope they will, and soon,it won't bring back the countless dead. And,sadly, the next candidate who spins the most believeable fairy tale will get the most votes. I just hope the election won't be stolen again, but nothing would suprise me. I stopped believing in political promises in 1968. I do vote, but nothing has happened yet to bring back my faith in the system. "Ship of Fools" indeed. What a tragedy for our country as for the entire world. And in the end, Bush and his buddies will just retire to lick their wounds (ha) for a minute or two and then count their blood money.
Posted by: alphagrannie at October 22, 2005 05:03 PM
================





Serpent Chalabi: Suitable for Iraqi PM?

Billmon

The Return of the King

Come back Ahmad, all is forgiven. Via War and Piece:

Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi leader accused of giving the Bush administration flawed information about Saddam Hussein's weapons program, will visit Washington in November amid speculation that U.S. officials view him as an acceptable candidate for Iraqi prime minister . . .

Time quoted unnamed administration officials as saying Rice and Hadley both view Chalabi as "a plausible and acceptable" candidate for prime minister in the next round of Iraqi elections due December 15.

The longtime Iraqi exile began attracting U.S. attention as a potential prime minister after Washington decided Iraq's current premier, Ibrahim Jaafari, had discredited himself by seeking overly friendly relations with Iran . . .

So the guy who passed NSA intercepts to Tehran is an acceptable candidate, but the guy who laid a floral wreath on Khomeini's grave is too friendly with the Iranians.

I shall retire to Bedlam.
Posted by billmon at 11:02 PM

Grinch Stole Fitzmas? [Crooks Half-Baked Scams]

Billmon

Will the Grinch Steal Fitzmas?

John Dean -- who knows something about these things -- has some cautionary words for all the little lefties eagerly counting presents (indictments) under the tree: Don't be entirely surprised if "Santa" leaves a lump of coal in your stocking.

Dean's been extremely prescient about the legal issues raised by the Plame scandal so far -- he was, for example, the first to point out the possible applications of the 1917 Espionage Statute. So when he raises the spectre that national security (the last refuge of executive branch scoundrels) might trump whatever evidence of criminality the special prosecutor has gathered, I give him a respectful hearing, even though I don't agree with this analysis. Here's what he says:

It is difficult to envision Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuting anyone, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, who believed they were acting for reasons of national security. While hindsight may find their judgment was wrong, and there is no question their tactics were very heavy-handed and dangerous, I am not certain that they were acting from other than what they believed to be reasons of national security. They were selling a war they felt needed to be undertaken.

In short, I cannot imagine any of them being indicted, unless they were acting for reasons other than national security. Because national security is such a gray area of the law, come next week, I can see this entire investigation coming to a remarkable anti-climax, as Fitzgerald closes down his Washington office and returns to Chicago.

Dean adds the caveat that if Libby, Rove or other as-yet unindicted co-idiots perjured themselves or conspired to obstruct justice (and in Libby's case, that looks like the smart way to bet) Fitzgerald may decide to stick around and nail their asses to a jailhouse wall.

If you read Dean's entire argument -- it starts after the subtitle "Who Will, And Who Won't, Be Indicted?" -- you'll see that he's puts a lot of weight on the enormous latitude the law and the criminal justice system have traditionally given the executive branch in national security matters. Unless it can be shown that Cheney et. al. acted in pursuit of some private, venal motive, Dean argues, Fitzgerald may decide his writ simply doesn't extend to an affair that is, after all, deeply entangled with the conduct of foreign policy and the prosecution (no pun intended) of the war in Iraq.

In other words, instead of blowing sky high, the volcano may simply snore loudly, roll over, and go back to sleep. And as Dean points out, since all the testimony Fitzgerald has collected is covered by the grand jury secrecy laws, we may never know what he found.

One can easily imagine the howls of protest on the left, and the smug satisfaction on the right, should this come to pass. It would be particularly bitter finale for those of us who all along have regarded the Plame outing as a proxy for the more fundamental crimes committed along the march to war in Iraq.

Unlike some (see Justin Raimondo's last two columns, for example) I've never had more than a forlorn hope that Fitzgerald would delve into the Niger forgeries, the Chalabi connection, the Office of Special Plans, the Downing Street Memos or any of the other investigative leads into the heart of the neocon conspiracy. Nor have I seen any evidence -- or even plausible speculation -- that would lead me to believe Fitzgerald has expanded his probe beyond the immediate matter at hand: the leak of Valerie Plame's identity and CIA affiliation. But, like most hardcore Cheney administration haters, I've been content with the busting-Al-Capone-for-tax-evasion metaphor. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld: You go to war with the indictments you can prove, not the ones you'd like to prove.

Dean, however, seems to think it will take an exceptionally flagrant example of "tax evasion" to persuade Fitzgerald to go after the White House conspirators on cover-up charges.

We'll see. But I think Dean is wrong this time, even though he's right to warn against the overheated rumors now chasing each other through both Left and Right Blogostan. I think Fitzgerald is poised to indict, and while the list of defendants may be short -- Rove, Libby plus a few lower-level munchkins -- I think the charges will be both broad and numerous, including unauthorized disclosure of classified information, theft of government property, conspiracy, obstruction and some combination of perjury and/or false statement charges. I wouldn't even be surprised if the Intelligence Identities Protection Act rears its serpentine head after all -- depending on the means, motives and opportunities of Bob Novak's second source.

If I am wrong, if Fitzgerald really does pack his tent and steal away, it will be because the war on terrorism -- and the Bush Justice Department's relentless campaign on behalf of the Divine Right of Presidents -- has turned the clock back to an earlier era, when the criminal justice system took an even wider detour around executive branch powers, both overt and covert.

Ironically, it was Dean's old boss who started removing the roadblocks. When Nixon tried to derail the Watergate investigation by invoking a fraudulant national security excuse ("Get these people in and say: 'The President believes this is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again.' ") he called the entire doctrine into question. The subsequent CIA and FBI scandals took the process even further, until it reached its peak in the Iran Contra affair, when prosecutors, judges and juries proved perfectly willing to convict some fairly senior officials for crimes directly related to the conduct of foreign policy. And if George I hadn't whipped out his pardon pen, they might have reeled in some even bigger fish.

Fitzgerald will have to decide whether those post-Watergate precedents still apply, or whether 9/11 rolled back the clock, returning him (and us) to the old Cold War days of near blanket immunity for national security decision makers. Much more than the nuances of the perjury statute, I think the answer to that question will decide whether Karl Rove stands trial.

But, while I've seen nothing that suggests the special prosecutor is digging into the shitpile of the neocon conspiracy to wage aggressive war, I've also seen nothing to suggest he's backing away even one inch from the more mundane crimes of the "get Joe Wilson" slime campaign.

Ultimately, as Dean notes, these are all matters of prosecutorial discretion. But my own sense is that if Fitzgerald believes Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or any other government official deliberately used classified information as a weapon to retaliate against a critic -- what's more, one who broke no laws and violated no secrecy agreement by speaking out -- he'll go after them with every legal weapon at his disposal. I think, or at least, hope, Fitzgerald understands that when an administration turns the vast national security powers of the U.S. government against its own citizens, for purely political purposes, it sacrifices any claim to privilege or protection.

Certainly, everything Fitzgerald has done up until this point suggests he not only believes crimes were committed, and that those crimes are within his authority to prosecute, but that he is also convinced they are well within his discretion to prosecute.

More prosaically, I think the fact that Fitzpatrick's office has created its own web page is a strong sign that indictments are coming -- but not for the reason most widely held. Yes, a web page will come in handy for posting indictments, press releases about indictments, etc. But I think the documents already posted there may be the real tip off. They constitute a not-so-subtle reply to the conservative lie du jour -- that Fitzgerald has strayed far beyond his "original" mandate to investigate alleged violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

I've seen this lie repeated so many times today -- mostly by people smart enough to know better -- that I'm beginning to wonder if the RNC really does have a chip implanted in the brain of every corporate journalist on the planet. It was in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and in a Weekly Standard editorial so duplicitous that it cements Bill Kristol's claim to be the most talented intellectual hooker in Washington.

On his brand new web page, however, Fitzgerald has prominently posted both his original delegation of authority from the Justice Department -- which instructs him to investigate "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" -- and a follow up letter, dated Feb. 6, 2004, which clarifies that he has the power to investigate and prosecute:

violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses . . .

Nowhere -- a word even Bill Kristol can't parse -- in either document is it stipulated that Fitzgerald's brief is limited to the IIPA, in fact the opposite is true. By throwing those letters up on the web today, Fitzgerald has, intentionally or not, signaled that he doesn't have the slightest intention of backing down. This guy is about as Irish as they come, and the Irish are not generally known for ducking away from bar fights. If the neocons want to take him on -- on the ground he's been preparing for the past two years -- they'd better have the propaganda equivalent of broken bottles in their hands.

The prospect of espionage charges, of course, is giving the lapdog pundits a bad case of the fantods. On what will they subsist if their official sources are too frightened to pass out a steady diet of classified doggy treats -- premasticated for easy digestion?

It's interesting to note that the real journalists, those who deal in real secrets, like Sy Hersh, aren't in the crying poodle chorus. Sy's sources already know that the long hand of official retribution could come down on them at any time. But now the official sources who hand feed kennel-bred columnists over martinis at Jack Abramoff's restaurant are feeling the same chill breeze. Is it any wonder their pets are yapping about First Amendment rights?

But the lap dogs are barking about 20 years too late. As previously explained here (courtesy of John Dean) the legal weapons that Fitzgerald has at his disposal were test fired by both the Reagan administration and the Ashcroft Justice Department. There's already nothing to prevent the powers that be from cracking down hard on unauthorized leakers -- other than the fact that they'd be throwing themselves in the slammer.

What the special prosecutor is doing, on the other hand, is challenging a cozy insider-trading racket that's done far more to housetrain the corporate media and shield an out-of-control classification regime from reform than it has to serve the American people's right to know. If Fitzgerald reaffirms the post-Watergate principle that Big Brother can go to jail, it will do more to advance the cause of civil liberties than a baker's dozen of Washington pseudo-journalists. On the other hand, if he backs down now, it's easy to imagine future administrations finding other official secrets to use against their critics, all in the name of national security.

Unlike Dean, I prefer to be optimistic until proven otherwise. Fitzgerald isn't the Great White Hope, and I don't expect him to reveal all. But if he can knock the cabal out -- or at least punch the crap out of it -- with the modern equivalent of Al Capone's tax evasion conviction, I'll take it. Capone, after all, emerged from prison a broken man, his mind rotted away by syphilis. We could do worse.
Posted by billmon at 06:58 PM