As America gets ready to choose a new president in the wake of the Libby pardon, the greater perspective of the original events and statements that led up to this historic trial and the implications are being forgotten. Karl Rove is noted as one of the most successful Republican King Makers and is known as the man who got Bush re-elected. With in the administration he had headed the Office of Political Affairs and the Office of Public Liaison for the WhiteHouse prior to his resignation. In those roles he was responsible for many of the statements that the Whitehouse made to the world regarding Iraq War policy. He is also noted as one of the men who revealed Plames name to the press although no formal charges were made against him by the prosecution. We all know that Scooter Libby (Former Cheif of staff for the office of the Vice President) obstructed justice, lied to investigators and gave perjured testimony. Many believe that he was protecting Rove. As Rove is now a sought after advisor for the next Republican nomination. It is important to gain a short historical background of the moments leading up to the invasion of Iraq and the resulting, "Plame Gate," case the article below was first published in the summer of 2005 althought much has been learned since then the time line it lays out is still relavent today. At the very least it is something to consider the past actions of those who may be whispering into the next Presidents ear before casting a vote.
On February 5, 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell went before the U.N. and made the case for WMD in Iraq citing documents reporting an attempt by Iraq to purchase 500 tons of uranium from Niger.
A little more than a month latter On March 14, 2003 it is made clear that these documents after being investigated are in fact complete forgeries.
Six days later disregarding the fact that the documents were established as forgeries the WhiteHouse ignores United Nations protocols and commits to the invasion of Iraq.
operations begin in Iraq on March 20, 2003
On July 7, 2003 Joe Wilson says that the U.S. knew that the uranium report was false
And makes this statement:
"Either the administration has some information that it has not shared with the public, or, yes, they were using the selective use of facts to bolster the decision in a case that had already been made -- a decision that had been made to go to war," Wilson told NBC. Keep that in mind for later.
On July 9, 2003 the White house cops to the report being, "faulty,"
And makes this statement: "We now know that documents alleging a transaction between Iraq and Niger had been forged."
But really they knew this back in March six days before the War in Iraq began as is
previously established
OnJuly 14 2003 Novak attempts to discredit Joe Wilson's claim and outs Plame in the proscess
And on July 16, 2003 it leads to an
investigation by the FBI.
We all know what happens next because this is the point from which the debate begins Novak cited that TWO senior administration officials told him that Wilson was sent to Iraq on the recommendation of his wife who is a CIA agent. Of course the implication is that Novaks story in such short succesion is retribution for what Wilson said on July 7,2003 and as a result of Wilsons statement the Administration has no choice but to cop to faulty intell on July 9, 2003.
But the admission now changes little because it was established 6 days before the war began that the documents were forgeries. And of course Rove denied being the source until he recently came clean. What is not made clear is that there is any good reason for the repeated attempts to discredit Wilson when the administration now admits that the documents were indeed false. At the very least is important note that the CIA did send someone to Niger to verify the reports and if Plame and Wilson where not married the credibility of the findings would be a non-issue. In fact his findings are appearantly credible based on the admission made by the Whitehouse
Enter the Downing Street memo and its supporting documentation:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action" Dated July 22, 2002.
Now wrap your heads around this, not only is that statement concurrent with Wilsons July 7,2003 statement "Either the administration has some information that it has not shared with the public, or, yes, they were using the selective use of facts to bolster the decision in a case that had already been made -- a decision that had been made to go to war,"
But it also fits the time line required to be realavant, " Wilson wrote that the CIA sent him to Niger in February 2002 at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney's office." The Downing Street Memo is dated July 2002 well before the invasion but long after Wilson is sent to verify the report. It is the assertion of Rove that he was trying to clear up the notion that Dick Cheney made the request, but Wilson never said Cheney he said, "The office of Dick Cheney." Even if Cheney did not request it personally through his office, his office did, does this imply that Cheney did not know what his office is doing? Did any one in his office with hold the report from him with an altierier motive? or did he actually know and it is no mistake that haliburton was awarded so many of the Iraq contracts?
And of course then there is this statement in July 2003 by the same person who derilictly ignored the Richard Clark memo on Al qaeda in January of 2001 well before 911:
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told NBC last month that "maybe somebody knew down in the bowels of the agency" that the Niger report was false, but she said it was "a relatively small part of the case."
But of course that is not concurrent with the statement from march of 2003 made six days before the invasion:
"The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes "
...It was on the table nude and visible...but the administration pushed forward anyway rather than stepping back from the fray, they then later denied it and now try to link it to partisanship when it is clearly one of the most serious issues of our time.
The attempts to discredit Wilson's story by outing Plame while protecting Rove is absolutly complicent in the idea that the intelligence was fixed. It is relatively irrelevant in this light to be concerned about partisanship, this is the story that makes Rove the smoking barrel in proving the assertions of the Downing Street Memo that the intelligence was being fixed and Rove wanted to discredit stories proving it.
Analysis: The administration is damned if they fire Rove and damned if they don't, if they do they will lose the great architect of their successful election campaigns if they do not they risk further stigmatization of the Republican party within in their own boundaries. What is clear in my opinion is that there is more to this story than partisanship and attempts to dismiss what Rove has done with current partisan debate is little more than spin control of a very serious issue. I have often thought that the GOP is apt to try and conceal its mistakes and indiscretions due to a fear that future elections will be compromised, but it is at the cost of the American people in every aspect of our lives.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Saturday, October 29, 2005
About Perjury... Play it again Sam...
O.K . I typically only publish a post about once a month, in the wake of the Libbey indictment I think it is important to understand how we got here and why. So I have shuffled some of the previous posts below that deal specifically with the significance of what is at stake over this indictment. I apologize for the incorrect date stamping
You know I was watching Bill O'Riley last night and I saw the new spin thats going to be applied. He had an editor of ,"Fortune," Magazine on and together they began to spin a yarn that the CIA is specifically out to get the Bush administration over the Iraq intelligence failure/blame game. And that, thats what the whole affair is about.
Nothing is actually further from the truth in that conclusion. A few critical facts are being left out.
If you remember Joe Wilsons original contention that he was sent to Nigeria by the CIA at the request of the office of Dick Cheney to verify a forged report. Realize now, that Libby was basically the, "office manager," who would or should have made - or at the very least - been aware, of the request to send Wilson. Therefore Libby's lying to obstruct and mislead investigators and juries only hints at an attempt to cover up not just about Plame, but the larger issue of fixing the intelligence - thats right not failing, but rather fixing, and here is why:
(further references are linked in the posts below)
When Joe Wilson met with the state dept. concerning his up and coming CIA trip to Nigeria, The state dept analyst told Wilson, "Don't bother we have known this report is a forgery for some time," but Cheneys office still requested that he try and verify it any way. Why? Because they wanted to use it to make the case for war with the fear of WMDs most specifically the fear of a nuclear Iraq.
Nuclear weapons are a more tangible nightmare in peoples minds thanks to the cold war, 60 years of pop entertainment dealing with the subect and repeated exposure to images of Hiroshima. Additionally antibiotics can't treat victims vaporized in an instant; there is no fighting chance in that scenario. Such a threat would certainly galvinize a majority in any nation to act promptly - and it worked - the threat of an Iraqi nuclear program in the hands of Saddam is what sold the war to this nation.
When Wilson came back he didn't tell them anything they wanted to hear about this report in the office of Dick Cheney as managed by Libby. Though they decided to use the report anyway when sending powell to the UN to make the case for action and when addressing the public and congress on this issue. In the 11th hour six days before the war investigators and even the IAEA came out saying this report is a clear forgery ...but we pushed on any way before the public or congress had time to lose their taste or motivation to, "Do this thing."
The fact is that the office of Dick Cheney as headed by Libby would have known from at least two sources (the state Dept. and the CIA) that this was a forged report before well before the war or its preceeding sales pitch, as Wilson clearly had knowledge of the State Department findings before ever going to Niger.
Guys, they knew full well down in the office of the V.P. (at the very least) that the report was forged, that much is clear, at this point. And those perjury charges should tell you that Libby is a liar (just like Rove) and was managing the Vice Presidents office carrying out tasks he was charged with by the VP himself.
The VP as we all know formerly headed the corporation that has financially benefited the most while he is in office at home and in the middle east. I mean how many no bid contracts can one corporation get, no bid means no pricing competition, thats something other than capitalism right there ...but I digress...
Indicting Libbey is just the first step in unraveling that whole ball of yarn. The question is no longer did these guys lie to the American public...the question now at hand is: are the American people ready, willing and able to understand and also accept that they were lied to and the results of those lies are of the most horrific consequences.
You know I was watching Bill O'Riley last night and I saw the new spin thats going to be applied. He had an editor of ,"Fortune," Magazine on and together they began to spin a yarn that the CIA is specifically out to get the Bush administration over the Iraq intelligence failure/blame game. And that, thats what the whole affair is about.
Nothing is actually further from the truth in that conclusion. A few critical facts are being left out.
If you remember Joe Wilsons original contention that he was sent to Nigeria by the CIA at the request of the office of Dick Cheney to verify a forged report. Realize now, that Libby was basically the, "office manager," who would or should have made - or at the very least - been aware, of the request to send Wilson. Therefore Libby's lying to obstruct and mislead investigators and juries only hints at an attempt to cover up not just about Plame, but the larger issue of fixing the intelligence - thats right not failing, but rather fixing, and here is why:
(further references are linked in the posts below)
When Joe Wilson met with the state dept. concerning his up and coming CIA trip to Nigeria, The state dept analyst told Wilson, "Don't bother we have known this report is a forgery for some time," but Cheneys office still requested that he try and verify it any way. Why? Because they wanted to use it to make the case for war with the fear of WMDs most specifically the fear of a nuclear Iraq.
Nuclear weapons are a more tangible nightmare in peoples minds thanks to the cold war, 60 years of pop entertainment dealing with the subect and repeated exposure to images of Hiroshima. Additionally antibiotics can't treat victims vaporized in an instant; there is no fighting chance in that scenario. Such a threat would certainly galvinize a majority in any nation to act promptly - and it worked - the threat of an Iraqi nuclear program in the hands of Saddam is what sold the war to this nation.
When Wilson came back he didn't tell them anything they wanted to hear about this report in the office of Dick Cheney as managed by Libby. Though they decided to use the report anyway when sending powell to the UN to make the case for action and when addressing the public and congress on this issue. In the 11th hour six days before the war investigators and even the IAEA came out saying this report is a clear forgery ...but we pushed on any way before the public or congress had time to lose their taste or motivation to, "Do this thing."
The fact is that the office of Dick Cheney as headed by Libby would have known from at least two sources (the state Dept. and the CIA) that this was a forged report before well before the war or its preceeding sales pitch, as Wilson clearly had knowledge of the State Department findings before ever going to Niger.
Guys, they knew full well down in the office of the V.P. (at the very least) that the report was forged, that much is clear, at this point. And those perjury charges should tell you that Libby is a liar (just like Rove) and was managing the Vice Presidents office carrying out tasks he was charged with by the VP himself.
The VP as we all know formerly headed the corporation that has financially benefited the most while he is in office at home and in the middle east. I mean how many no bid contracts can one corporation get, no bid means no pricing competition, thats something other than capitalism right there ...but I digress...
Indicting Libbey is just the first step in unraveling that whole ball of yarn. The question is no longer did these guys lie to the American public...the question now at hand is: are the American people ready, willing and able to understand and also accept that they were lied to and the results of those lies are of the most horrific consequences.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Powell Aide to Appear in Pre-War intell Documetary.
In reference to the posts below it is interesting that Powell met with Tennant to try and verify what the White House had given him to make the case for war with. CNN will air a documentary called, "Dead Wrong," which discusses the prewar intelligence debacle. See more here.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Updating Rove
I have been a little busy lately any way I would like to pick up where I left off on this Rove thing. It is important to note that what is being suggested here is the result of reading many articles that describe un released documents and trying to sum them up, it will be interesting to see what the special prosecutor in the Plame case comes back with if it is ever made public. I have gone back and picked up some of my previous posts on this subject at Moxiegrrrl.com sorry Mox hope you don't mind. I would also like to refer to her timeline which is chock full of supporting articles and can be found here
The rest of what you will find here is in reference to these two articles:
www.washingtonpost
www.guardian.co.uk
Introduction:
What we are looking at here is not a really a debate about the policy of helping Democracy to gain a foothold in Iraq, certainly that is the only good side effect of this war and it may have been necessary. Families across the nation were told that their sons and daughters would be defending the nation from pre existing WMD stocks and secret WMD programs in Iraq though the administration cited forged evidence in the Niger report, this reported memo (W. Post article) shows the State Dept. knew the report was false an entire year before the invasion, and if the administration can continually lie to the American people about Roves involvement in the Wilson leak for nearly two years, they can certainly deny the truth that the report was forged when putting it in Powells hand and sending him to the UN.
While a terrorist use of WMD would be a nightmare scenario, It is less catastrophic than the threat that we lived with during the Cold War where the entire earth was at risk for becoming a smoldering stone. Terrorists may be more willing to use WMD that could kill a few thousand people at a time but the collateral effect is fear and only fear, we are not talking about a never ending winter here.
Since that is the case, the best way to prevent terrorism is probably to secure the nations infrastructure and improve the ability to detect WMD materials. But instead we let Islamaphobia and a false report lead us into Iraq (a secular nation) thinking that we were fighting Al Qaeda extremists. By invading Iraq we have created a theater in which terrorists can now gain combat experience after having shut down the training camps in Afghanistan. We have also produced a reason for recruitment by becoming an invasionary force in the eyes of many middle easterners, despite our belief at home that we are a liberating force.
We can not withdraw from Iraq, history has shown what can happen if we do, more civilians will perish in civil unrest if the new democracy destabilizes. In this sense the anti war movement has lost touch when they suggest immediate withdraw. But families deserve to know the truth, because their sons and daughters should never be crucified in the name of freedom for: false ideas and lies, a vendetta, or a corporate oil expedition to the worlds second largest reserve that was inaccessible to the US under any other circumstance, as no American companies had development contracts at the end of sanctions. Spreading democracy is the only thing that keeps their sacrifice from being vain, If that very fortunate side effect did not exist, then perhaps we would say that Bush wasted their lives. If the congress was knowingly deceived by the executive to authorize a war then we have an act of treason in the highest office and those responsible must be held accountable for their leadership or lack of."
Extrapolation: (Reference to both the Post and Guardian UK articles)
"Not only is there an alleged memo designated S, for secret that mentions Plame by name, the article says this, "It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA." That meeting happened February 19, 2002
That is exactly the kind of information that would have logically flowed directly to Jon Bolton when he was working gor the State dept. before reaching his boss at the time who was Powell. Because Bolton had served as the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security since May 11, 2001, until his recent nomination to the UN. The more stuff that comes out the more it looks like Powell was set up like, "Othello," in February 2003" when he was sent to the UN to make the case for war and cited this forged report which was then handed to th IAEA (see above in, "Rove Reality Check)
It is absolutely plausible: you see Bolton's job description working for the state Department as the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, is this:
"The Bureau of Arms Control is a bureau of the United States Department of State that is responsible for developing policy in the areas of conventional, chemical/biological, and nuclear forces, for supporting arms control negotiations, for implementing existing agreements in these areas," Ref: Wikipedia
It is logical that Bolton should have seen or even requested info on the report, because it was his job.
Powell was the Secretary of State, the man who manages the state Dept. He was basically Boltons supervisor as the department head. The Document referred to in the Washington post article cites a meeting with a senior INR analyst which the article defines as: "by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo." Once again this new memo according to the article details that the State Department already knew that the Niger report is false in February of 2002 which is why they don't feel like sending Wilson to go and confirm some else's work (in fact you don't need to do that at that point unless you want to double check or prove it otherwise. enter the Joe Wilson phrase, "At the request of the office of Dick Cheney," and his Haliburton contacts, (its no secret that Iraq the second largest reserve has been big business for Haliburton) and if the report was found to be true it would have been of verifiable use.
Some one at very the least did not forward the information that the report was false to Powell when they sent him to the United Nations with it a year later to make the case for war (whose job was that again?). And it also shows that Joe Wilson was correct in saying that the Administration knew the report was false, regardless of who sent him or why he was sent to Niger to confirm or deny the validity of the report. It doesn't matter. Wilson was telling the truth ...twice. This article also says that the memo marked S appears in Powells hands on July 7th the day Wilson broke his story. As such; Powell most likely would have recieved it after he saw Wilson's article, saw the original dating of the INR notes and said WTF did you do Bolton? Which is exactly the question Democratic leaders in Washington wanted answered when they asked to see his intercepts that may reveal him spying on an administration member widely believed to be Powell. This may be why Powell is said to oppose the Bolton nomination, See here:
At the very least not providing this information to Powell before he got to the UN or ignoring it implies incompetence or dereliction on the part of who ever really was responsible, further it shows that the alleged intelligence wall between th CIA and State Department should not really be a factor in this case since the State Department knows well before the CIA that the report is false and discussed the point with them when advising not to bother with sending Wilson, according to the Washington Post article. Of course we all remember George Tennant taking the fall and the Agency taking the blame for the use of this report. When in fact it was appearantly the state department that didn't want it investigated further in the first place.
The Punch line
(The following is an except from Yahoo News the article is longer available but we all know this story any way)
John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, mistakenly told Congress he had not been interviewed or testified in any investigation over the past five years, the State Department said Thursday.
Bolton was interviewed by the State Department inspector general in 2003 as part of a joint investigation with the Central Intelligence Agency into prewar Iraqi attempts to buy nuclear materials from Niger, State Department spokesman Noel Clay said.
The admission came hours after another State Department official said Bolton had correctly answered a Senate questionnaire when he wrote that he has not testified to a grand jury or been interviewed by investigators in any inquiry over the past five years...
"It seems unusual that Mr. Bolton would not remember his involvement in such a serious matter," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "In my mind, this raises more questions that need to be answered. I hope President Bush will not make the mistake of recess appointing Mr. Bolton."
Conclusion:
At very least the point that is being made is that the headlines concerning: Novak, Rove, Libby, Bolton, Wilson, Plame, Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, Tennant and the intelligence failure, Powells presentation to the UN, The investigation that the CIA requested concerning Plame that appears to have had some legal basis to go forward, and now Cindy Sheehans accusing the president of being a Liar, and the assertions of the Downing Street Memo that the intelligence was fixed, and a discenting Powell, all go back to one little forged report concerning Niger and Iraq about a transaction which never occurred, and who knew what about that report? Who's covering who's ass and why? These are not really the individual stories that the media has separated them into. These are all stories regarding fixing the intelligence and decieving the congress or really gross incompetance on the job.
The rest of what you will find here is in reference to these two articles:
www.washingtonpost
www.guardian.co.uk
Introduction:
What we are looking at here is not a really a debate about the policy of helping Democracy to gain a foothold in Iraq, certainly that is the only good side effect of this war and it may have been necessary. Families across the nation were told that their sons and daughters would be defending the nation from pre existing WMD stocks and secret WMD programs in Iraq though the administration cited forged evidence in the Niger report, this reported memo (W. Post article) shows the State Dept. knew the report was false an entire year before the invasion, and if the administration can continually lie to the American people about Roves involvement in the Wilson leak for nearly two years, they can certainly deny the truth that the report was forged when putting it in Powells hand and sending him to the UN.
While a terrorist use of WMD would be a nightmare scenario, It is less catastrophic than the threat that we lived with during the Cold War where the entire earth was at risk for becoming a smoldering stone. Terrorists may be more willing to use WMD that could kill a few thousand people at a time but the collateral effect is fear and only fear, we are not talking about a never ending winter here.
Since that is the case, the best way to prevent terrorism is probably to secure the nations infrastructure and improve the ability to detect WMD materials. But instead we let Islamaphobia and a false report lead us into Iraq (a secular nation) thinking that we were fighting Al Qaeda extremists. By invading Iraq we have created a theater in which terrorists can now gain combat experience after having shut down the training camps in Afghanistan. We have also produced a reason for recruitment by becoming an invasionary force in the eyes of many middle easterners, despite our belief at home that we are a liberating force.
We can not withdraw from Iraq, history has shown what can happen if we do, more civilians will perish in civil unrest if the new democracy destabilizes. In this sense the anti war movement has lost touch when they suggest immediate withdraw. But families deserve to know the truth, because their sons and daughters should never be crucified in the name of freedom for: false ideas and lies, a vendetta, or a corporate oil expedition to the worlds second largest reserve that was inaccessible to the US under any other circumstance, as no American companies had development contracts at the end of sanctions. Spreading democracy is the only thing that keeps their sacrifice from being vain, If that very fortunate side effect did not exist, then perhaps we would say that Bush wasted their lives. If the congress was knowingly deceived by the executive to authorize a war then we have an act of treason in the highest office and those responsible must be held accountable for their leadership or lack of."
Extrapolation: (Reference to both the Post and Guardian UK articles)
"Not only is there an alleged memo designated S, for secret that mentions Plame by name, the article says this, "It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA." That meeting happened February 19, 2002
That is exactly the kind of information that would have logically flowed directly to Jon Bolton when he was working gor the State dept. before reaching his boss at the time who was Powell. Because Bolton had served as the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security since May 11, 2001, until his recent nomination to the UN. The more stuff that comes out the more it looks like Powell was set up like, "Othello," in February 2003" when he was sent to the UN to make the case for war and cited this forged report which was then handed to th IAEA (see above in, "Rove Reality Check)
It is absolutely plausible: you see Bolton's job description working for the state Department as the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, is this:
"The Bureau of Arms Control is a bureau of the United States Department of State that is responsible for developing policy in the areas of conventional, chemical/biological, and nuclear forces, for supporting arms control negotiations, for implementing existing agreements in these areas," Ref: Wikipedia
It is logical that Bolton should have seen or even requested info on the report, because it was his job.
Powell was the Secretary of State, the man who manages the state Dept. He was basically Boltons supervisor as the department head. The Document referred to in the Washington post article cites a meeting with a senior INR analyst which the article defines as: "by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo." Once again this new memo according to the article details that the State Department already knew that the Niger report is false in February of 2002 which is why they don't feel like sending Wilson to go and confirm some else's work (in fact you don't need to do that at that point unless you want to double check or prove it otherwise. enter the Joe Wilson phrase, "At the request of the office of Dick Cheney," and his Haliburton contacts, (its no secret that Iraq the second largest reserve has been big business for Haliburton) and if the report was found to be true it would have been of verifiable use.
Some one at very the least did not forward the information that the report was false to Powell when they sent him to the United Nations with it a year later to make the case for war (whose job was that again?). And it also shows that Joe Wilson was correct in saying that the Administration knew the report was false, regardless of who sent him or why he was sent to Niger to confirm or deny the validity of the report. It doesn't matter. Wilson was telling the truth ...twice. This article also says that the memo marked S appears in Powells hands on July 7th the day Wilson broke his story. As such; Powell most likely would have recieved it after he saw Wilson's article, saw the original dating of the INR notes and said WTF did you do Bolton? Which is exactly the question Democratic leaders in Washington wanted answered when they asked to see his intercepts that may reveal him spying on an administration member widely believed to be Powell. This may be why Powell is said to oppose the Bolton nomination, See here:
At the very least not providing this information to Powell before he got to the UN or ignoring it implies incompetence or dereliction on the part of who ever really was responsible, further it shows that the alleged intelligence wall between th CIA and State Department should not really be a factor in this case since the State Department knows well before the CIA that the report is false and discussed the point with them when advising not to bother with sending Wilson, according to the Washington Post article. Of course we all remember George Tennant taking the fall and the Agency taking the blame for the use of this report. When in fact it was appearantly the state department that didn't want it investigated further in the first place.
The Punch line
(The following is an except from Yahoo News the article is longer available but we all know this story any way)
John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, mistakenly told Congress he had not been interviewed or testified in any investigation over the past five years, the State Department said Thursday.
Bolton was interviewed by the State Department inspector general in 2003 as part of a joint investigation with the Central Intelligence Agency into prewar Iraqi attempts to buy nuclear materials from Niger, State Department spokesman Noel Clay said.
The admission came hours after another State Department official said Bolton had correctly answered a Senate questionnaire when he wrote that he has not testified to a grand jury or been interviewed by investigators in any inquiry over the past five years...
"It seems unusual that Mr. Bolton would not remember his involvement in such a serious matter," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "In my mind, this raises more questions that need to be answered. I hope President Bush will not make the mistake of recess appointing Mr. Bolton."
Conclusion:
At very least the point that is being made is that the headlines concerning: Novak, Rove, Libby, Bolton, Wilson, Plame, Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, Tennant and the intelligence failure, Powells presentation to the UN, The investigation that the CIA requested concerning Plame that appears to have had some legal basis to go forward, and now Cindy Sheehans accusing the president of being a Liar, and the assertions of the Downing Street Memo that the intelligence was fixed, and a discenting Powell, all go back to one little forged report concerning Niger and Iraq about a transaction which never occurred, and who knew what about that report? Who's covering who's ass and why? These are not really the individual stories that the media has separated them into. These are all stories regarding fixing the intelligence and decieving the congress or really gross incompetance on the job.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
New Orleans political fall out
If any body ever wondered why Liberals and Progressives get their panties in a twist over conservative ideological politics; the disaster caused by our inability as a nation to cope with the crisis situation in the aftermath of Katrina is a heart-breaking example.
People look at these scenes and they are not only subject to the sadness. They are scared. Because the end results of the catastrophe resemble the worst possible terrorist attack and it’s a natural disaster.
It is similar to the blast destruction caused by a 50 megaton WMD with out the incineration. Coupled with the poisoning of a cities water supply, the dirty dispersement of bacteria, fungus, and chemicals (some even potentially radiological materials depending on what was being stored for medical and light industrial purposes), all followed up by an insurgency in the streets. This is the kind of stuff one would think that government should rapidly respond to right? So people became angry with the President and start calling him things like President Nero (apparently he received a custom built guitar around the time that Katrina dissipated) but the reality here is that New Orleans is a flash point for all of the reasons that conservative politics do not work for the greater interests of the nation.
The every man for his own family attitude vs. the liberal loves thy neighbor model. Lets look at the contributing issues:
*The environment /Global warming, many scientists believe that global warming has been contributing to larger and longer Hurricane seasons in the Atlantic due to causing greater surface evaporation creating more moist air which later cools and condenses into storm systems. But conservatives on the whole deny the reality of global warming so much so that Bush backed America out of the Kyoto treaty.
*Class and social programs, not all social programs are welfare programs some social programs are meant to provide resources to an entire community, including the one that the Bush administration cut funding for that would have gone to maintaining the Levees. But by and large when you are looking at these refugees you are looking at people of poverty from New Orleans who had no means to leave (yes there are some stubborn morons in that crowd to who refused to leave but that is a limited and low number) Many social programs are there to try and improve impoverished peoples lives or at least sustain them, like a kind of disaster relief, in the hopes that their lives will on day be rescued.
*Health care (which patients could afford to leave who would pay for their transport?) this is real simple if you’re in a hospital and need a medical evacuation before a catastrophic event will your insurance cover the cost?
*Energy policy, Democrats and progressives have long pushed to move away from oil based energy policies because they are no good for the environment and now they are no longer good for our economy and security as you can see our societal dependence on oil for our energy needs is causing a ripple effect in our economy in all sectors. This would not be the case if our energy supply chain was more decentralized and included more options for alternate sources.
*The war in Iraq. Simply put Louisiana’s National Guard was not in Louisiana, so who can the governor call up immediately to respond?
And if you believe that the nation was deceived into the war in Iraq you’re even more upset now that the ripple effect of deception is coming to light.
A friend of mine asked me how could they even get people out of there. There are no roads to get to people out (not search and rescue by the way just civic center and dome refugees) I said look they have a working airport and we have military aircraft that can carry thousands of troops at a time and if the question is how do we get people to the air port, Just think of the airlift out of Saigon, it may have been a tenth of the air lift that would be needed here but you just do it ten times longer. Get them on the transport aircraft and fly them to decommissioned air bases with working runways. It would be the fastest way out if it where possible, but my guess is that most of our needed assets are overseas right now
I think America is waking up there are clear links between the disaster and the poor policies of the administration.
People look at these scenes and they are not only subject to the sadness. They are scared. Because the end results of the catastrophe resemble the worst possible terrorist attack and it’s a natural disaster.
It is similar to the blast destruction caused by a 50 megaton WMD with out the incineration. Coupled with the poisoning of a cities water supply, the dirty dispersement of bacteria, fungus, and chemicals (some even potentially radiological materials depending on what was being stored for medical and light industrial purposes), all followed up by an insurgency in the streets. This is the kind of stuff one would think that government should rapidly respond to right? So people became angry with the President and start calling him things like President Nero (apparently he received a custom built guitar around the time that Katrina dissipated) but the reality here is that New Orleans is a flash point for all of the reasons that conservative politics do not work for the greater interests of the nation.
The every man for his own family attitude vs. the liberal loves thy neighbor model. Lets look at the contributing issues:
*The environment /Global warming, many scientists believe that global warming has been contributing to larger and longer Hurricane seasons in the Atlantic due to causing greater surface evaporation creating more moist air which later cools and condenses into storm systems. But conservatives on the whole deny the reality of global warming so much so that Bush backed America out of the Kyoto treaty.
*Class and social programs, not all social programs are welfare programs some social programs are meant to provide resources to an entire community, including the one that the Bush administration cut funding for that would have gone to maintaining the Levees. But by and large when you are looking at these refugees you are looking at people of poverty from New Orleans who had no means to leave (yes there are some stubborn morons in that crowd to who refused to leave but that is a limited and low number) Many social programs are there to try and improve impoverished peoples lives or at least sustain them, like a kind of disaster relief, in the hopes that their lives will on day be rescued.
*Health care (which patients could afford to leave who would pay for their transport?) this is real simple if you’re in a hospital and need a medical evacuation before a catastrophic event will your insurance cover the cost?
*Energy policy, Democrats and progressives have long pushed to move away from oil based energy policies because they are no good for the environment and now they are no longer good for our economy and security as you can see our societal dependence on oil for our energy needs is causing a ripple effect in our economy in all sectors. This would not be the case if our energy supply chain was more decentralized and included more options for alternate sources.
*The war in Iraq. Simply put Louisiana’s National Guard was not in Louisiana, so who can the governor call up immediately to respond?
And if you believe that the nation was deceived into the war in Iraq you’re even more upset now that the ripple effect of deception is coming to light.
A friend of mine asked me how could they even get people out of there. There are no roads to get to people out (not search and rescue by the way just civic center and dome refugees) I said look they have a working airport and we have military aircraft that can carry thousands of troops at a time and if the question is how do we get people to the air port, Just think of the airlift out of Saigon, it may have been a tenth of the air lift that would be needed here but you just do it ten times longer. Get them on the transport aircraft and fly them to decommissioned air bases with working runways. It would be the fastest way out if it where possible, but my guess is that most of our needed assets are overseas right now
I think America is waking up there are clear links between the disaster and the poor policies of the administration.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Next Stop Is Vietnam...
As opposition to the war begins to grow there is no doubt that both the “Right and Left” will begin to co-opt the Vietnam comparison chart. People on the left will call it a quagmire and people on the right will portray the antiwar movement as being abusive to soldiers. I originally posted the passage below at Moxiegrrrl.com in the comments section and decided to re-post it here. For my opinion, I do not want to see an early with drawl from Iraq, but I do want to see a revision of policy aimed at clearly defining how we are going to end this thing and I believe that other factors such as the Gitmo situation and the Downing Street debacle have a roll in helping to decide how this is going to end. Finally I am tired of the whole notion of a Christian Right. Any one who wears this label as a badge of honor is suffering from a case of pride. Having been raised with a Christian background I find the whole notion of using Christianity as a vale to justify some of the things this nation is doing as just plain insulting to my heritage.
If people could put down the notion of sides for a moment they would see that any paralells to Vietnam have more to do with the policies that have been undertaken than the nations current anti-war reaction. Vietnam is said to have had murky objectives at best, which fall under the more general, "stop the spread of communism in South East Asia," banner. Our current war has murky objectives that also fall under a general banner of policy, though be it an important one.
People on both sides are beginning to ask," what we are doing in Iraq any way?" first we went for WMD, then it was liberation, now we can't pull out or the new regime will fall. And just as it had happened during Vietnam it is becoming unclear as to what we are actually fighting for, we can't accomplish the mission if we don't know what it is, what the benchmarks are, and what the ultimate goal is.
Both wars had an unclear exit strategy, and in both wars the major military campaigns were largely successful but the insurgencies became the major detractors to winning the war. Which in the case of Vietnam lead to a protracted conflict of attrition. At the same time a culture war erupted stateside, and around the world.
We certainly have a culture war occurring the difference is during Vietnam the anti war movement was also publicly linked up with many religious groups of the Christian persuasion, Daniel Berrigan is but one example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Berrigan
If there are Christian groups that oppose the current war their voices are being shut out by those who are claiming god as a moral grounds for war.
In contrast to the Vietnam war anti-protester propaganda, the public at large today would not dare to start spitting on Vets and calling them baby killers (however they may reserve this for policy makers at times) a good portion of the anti-war movement has family or friends currently in the theater and simply want them back in one piece.
There are better ways to promote democracy in the world other than warfare, you have to believe this above all else or the word becomes meaningless since democracy ultimately must be chosen not forced on a people. Otherwise they eventually democratically decide to have something other than a democracy anyway.
This does not mean that covert help should not be given when the opportunity is afforded to help those who wish to gain their own freedom. Clearly other Presidents have done this to varying degrees of effect. It has largely been suggested that the Covert war in South East Asia as being fought by Kennedy was working and that the situation became un-manageable only after escalating the conflict under Johnson and particularly Nixon (Both Cheney, and Rumsfeld were Staffers of some sort or another for Nixon at the time). It is interesting to note the policies appear similairly flawed and one wonders if it is due to a culture that has evolved out of a 40 year old influence of one sort or another.
If Bush would put up better policy and clearer objectives he would not be taking the criticism that he is. Given his track record for sinking businesses one also has to wonder if it was due to the unilateral, go it alone, be decisive attitude but with out clear objectives that ultimately lead to misjudgment time and again.
Every time a person views these issue from a single side that person is divorcing ones self from realizing the total reality by only looking at half of the picture.
If people could put down the notion of sides for a moment they would see that any paralells to Vietnam have more to do with the policies that have been undertaken than the nations current anti-war reaction. Vietnam is said to have had murky objectives at best, which fall under the more general, "stop the spread of communism in South East Asia," banner. Our current war has murky objectives that also fall under a general banner of policy, though be it an important one.
People on both sides are beginning to ask," what we are doing in Iraq any way?" first we went for WMD, then it was liberation, now we can't pull out or the new regime will fall. And just as it had happened during Vietnam it is becoming unclear as to what we are actually fighting for, we can't accomplish the mission if we don't know what it is, what the benchmarks are, and what the ultimate goal is.
Both wars had an unclear exit strategy, and in both wars the major military campaigns were largely successful but the insurgencies became the major detractors to winning the war. Which in the case of Vietnam lead to a protracted conflict of attrition. At the same time a culture war erupted stateside, and around the world.
We certainly have a culture war occurring the difference is during Vietnam the anti war movement was also publicly linked up with many religious groups of the Christian persuasion, Daniel Berrigan is but one example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Berrigan
If there are Christian groups that oppose the current war their voices are being shut out by those who are claiming god as a moral grounds for war.
In contrast to the Vietnam war anti-protester propaganda, the public at large today would not dare to start spitting on Vets and calling them baby killers (however they may reserve this for policy makers at times) a good portion of the anti-war movement has family or friends currently in the theater and simply want them back in one piece.
There are better ways to promote democracy in the world other than warfare, you have to believe this above all else or the word becomes meaningless since democracy ultimately must be chosen not forced on a people. Otherwise they eventually democratically decide to have something other than a democracy anyway.
This does not mean that covert help should not be given when the opportunity is afforded to help those who wish to gain their own freedom. Clearly other Presidents have done this to varying degrees of effect. It has largely been suggested that the Covert war in South East Asia as being fought by Kennedy was working and that the situation became un-manageable only after escalating the conflict under Johnson and particularly Nixon (Both Cheney, and Rumsfeld were Staffers of some sort or another for Nixon at the time). It is interesting to note the policies appear similairly flawed and one wonders if it is due to a culture that has evolved out of a 40 year old influence of one sort or another.
If Bush would put up better policy and clearer objectives he would not be taking the criticism that he is. Given his track record for sinking businesses one also has to wonder if it was due to the unilateral, go it alone, be decisive attitude but with out clear objectives that ultimately lead to misjudgment time and again.
Every time a person views these issue from a single side that person is divorcing ones self from realizing the total reality by only looking at half of the picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
