Truespeak

Hello, my name's kissfan and I'm a blog-aholic.

There are several blogs that I read daily. You can find most of them in the Links section along the left-hand side of this page. I'm always amazed at some of the things I read. The insights and observations are sometimes stunning, other times frightening, and still other times hilarious.

Tonight, I want to say thank you to all the great bloggers out there and I want to direct your attention to something I read this week that just floored me. Check out this post from Ickabod over at Right Side Down. The last paragraph is pretty stunning. (If you don't regularly read Ickabod's blog, you're missing out. He's been on fire lately.)

Have a good weekend. See you on Monday!

With Bush's poll numbers sagging like week-old party balloons, we're seeing more and more conservatives going on the offensive to deflect criticism away from Georgieboy's failed policies.  This week alone, the Today show has had Tucker Carlson (I don't care if he's employed by the network or not, he's still a conservative hack) and William Kristol on without any liberal opposition to discuss Bush's performance.  (Damn liberal media bias!)

What I keep hearing from all of these babbling suits is that "the Democrats don't have a plan."  Georgieboy even did some of his own babbling tonight during his "press conference" when he claimed that he was proud to be "of the party of ideas" (implying, of course, that the Democratic Party has none.) According to them, we are clueless and only capable of obstruction.

Well, I have news for them...We don't need a fucking plan!

Let's say I go out for drinks with my favorite local conservative hack.  We talk politics and sports and argue and have a good time.  At the end of the evening I call myself a cab but my conservative friend decides to drive himself home.  I say, "Why don't you split the cab with me?  I'll pick you up in the morning and we'll come back to get your car."  But my friend, wanting to save himself a few dollars, says "No, I'm alright.  I'll see you tomorrow."

On his way home, he sideswipes a parked car and hits a telephone pole.  The police arrive and determine he's intoxicated and place him in jail.  Now, is it my responsibility to come up with a plan to get him out of trouble?  Hell no.  He got his sorry ass into this mess, he can get himself out.

Such is the case across today's political landscape.  The conservatives are too busy complaining that the Democrats lack a plan to realize that this is their own mess.  They got us into this shit, they are now responsible for getting us out it.

Iraq?  Republican mess.  Social Security?  Do you remember Al Gore's lockbox?  What was in it?  That's right, the Social Security trust-fund. He was going to protect the trust-fund with the budget surplus but Bush decided to blow the surplus on tax cuts thereby making it necessary to borrow against the trust-fund.  Once again, it's his fuck-up.  He can come up with his own damn plan!  John Bolton?  Not my party's nominee.  Terri Schiavo?  My party stayed out of it.  The "nuclear option?"  Public opinion is opposed to it by 66%.  Doesn't sound like my party needs a plan.

The way I see things is this:  The Republican party stepped in it big time when they decided they had a mandate.  Now they want us to clean the shit off of their shoes for them.  I say screw them.  This is their mess, they got themselves into it, they can damn-well get themselves out of it.  If they hadn't gotten themselves so damn drunk with power, they wouldn't have tried to drive this shit home in the first place. It's not our job to bail their asses out of trouble.

Oh, and one more thing. I've had enough of the Republicans saying "at least my party has a plan." You're right, they do. It's a shitty one. Congratulations. Just because somebody comes up with a plan doesn't mean that we should follow it. A shitty plan is a shitty plan. Following it because you're too damned stupid or lazy to come up with a better one is no way to run a country. Maybe if you weren't such arrogant shitheads you'd have listened to some of our plans before you started implementing your own.

Dammit! Now I'm pissed!

With a rare showing of common sense, the Republicans have admitted they were wrong.

The House, with grudging Republican support, voted Wednesday to reverse GOP ethics rules that Democrats charged were designed to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

The Republicans heeded Speaker Dennis Hastert's call for a retreat to end a deadlock that has kept the evenly divided ethics panel from functioning. The vote was 406-20, with all votes against the resolution cast by Republicans.

Don't get me wrong, this is a huge victory for the Democrats. They stuck to their guns and demanded legitimacy. I'm extremely proud of what they've accomplished. But, if we don't follow up the right way, we'll lose all of the political capital we've gained.

Hastert and the others are going to be quick to frame this as the Republicans taking the high road. But the truth of the matter is they grudgingly decided to stop heading down the low road. Of course that's not going to stop any of them from saying shit like "leaving the unfairness inherent in the old system in place," or "The Democrats remain absolutely unwilling to compromise." So we need to counter their rhetoric with some framing of our own. I want to see Pelosi saying things like this: "When it comes to the ethics of our elected officials, we are not going to compromise." or "We will not allow greed and power to hijack the integrity of the people's house." or better yet, "DeLay and Hastert can go fuck themselves if they think we're gonna' turn around and take it in the ass from either one of those limp-dick bastards!" Okay, maybe that last one is a little aggressive, but you get the idea.

We won this battle. We can add it to the list that already includes Social Security, John Bolton (so far), and the "nuclear option" (public opinion is on our side). The list is growing, but we can't stop here. Nor can we let up. We have to keep fighting and we have to keep the pressure on. The Republicans are stupid drunk with power right now and when you're drunk you do stupid things. They're trying to over-reach on a lot of issues and it's our job to make sure the public sees it for the greed that it is.

Way to go Democrats! Enjoy this one, but don't let up. Tomorrow's a new day and a new fight. Now get some sleep and come back ready to go in the morning!

According to the Pentagon we almost caught Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We were "this close." (kissfan is now holding his thumb and finger approximately a half-inch apart.)

American troops nearly captured wanted terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi earlier this year in Iraq, according to two Pentagon officials.

Instead, they netted a trusted lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, the officials told CNN.

The incident took place February 20 near Ramadi, west of Falluja, when troops were tipped off that al-Zarqawi might be in the area, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

At one point, the troops chased down a suspicious vehicle and later determined that al-Zarqawi had been in it but had escaped, the U.S. officials said.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that troops did come "close" to capturing al-Zarqawi but he couldn't elaborate because the details were classified.

WTF? Almost? Is that anything like being almost pregnant? Hell, Al Gore was almost the President of the United States. Shit, John Kerry almost won the last election. The Boston Red Sox almost won the World Series in 1986. The Cleveland Cavaliers almost made the NBA playoffs this season. But what do all of these things have in common? None of them happened! And when it comes right down to it, we don't have al-Zarqawi either.

This "announcement" by the Pentagon that we almost caught him is a flailing attempt to put a positive spin on a shitty situation. The insurgent attacks are increasing and becoming more coordinated every day. And according to the latest poll numbers from the Washington Post, the administration is losing ground fast when it comes to Iraq (56% disapprove of the way it is being handled). So they trot out this "nothing." This insignificant piece of information hoping that maybe the public will say "hey, we're making progress!" But the truth is, we're in the same old shithole we've been in for the last two years.

As my grandfather used to say, you can dress up a turd any way you like, but in the end it's still just a turd. Iraq is Bush's turd and the Pentagon is just trying to put a pretty new dress on it. Oh the mainstream media is about to cream themselves over this, of course. Matt and Katie were on the verge of orgasm this morning reporting that we almost had al-Zarqawi. But don't be fooled. All we've got is a turd.

Such is the Bush agenda.

I could talk for hours about the trouble facing Bush's nominee for UN Ambassador.

And I could rant for days about Sen Bill Frist's "nuclear option."

And if I wanted to, I could go ballistic talking about Tom DeLay's ethics problems.

But tonight I'm going to let the latest Washington Post/ABC poll do the hard work.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Approve-47% Disapprove-50%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling:

a. Social Security> Approve-31% Disapprove-64%
b. The situation in Iraq? Approve-42% Disapprove- 56%
c. The economy? Approve-40% Disapprove-57%
d. The U.S. campaign against terrorism? Approve-56% Disapprove-41%
e. Energy policy? Approve-35% Disapprove-54%


Would you support or oppose a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market? Support-45% Oppose-51%

Who do you trust to do a better job handling Social Security, (Bush) or (the Democrats in Congress)? Bush-32 Dems-50

All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not? Worth fighting-44% Not worth fighting-54%

Do you think the United States (has gotten bogged down in Iraq), or do you think the United States (is making good progress in Iraq)? Bogged down-58% Making good progress-39%

Do you think Bush does or does not understand the problems of people like you? Yes-40% No-58%

How confident are you that Iraq will have a stable, democratic government a year from now? Confident-39% Not confident-60%

Do you think Bush does or does not share your values? Yes-47% No-51%

Would you support amending the U.S. Constitution to make it against the law for homosexual couples to get married anywhere in the U.S., or should each state make its own laws on homosexual marriage? Support amendment-39% State laws-56%

Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases? Net legal-56% Net illegal 42%

Do you support embryonic stem cell research? Support-63% Oppose-28%

Would you describe the state of the nation's economy these days as excellent, good, not so good or poor? Excellent/Good-37% Not so good/Poor-63%

Do you think a political leader should or should not rely on his or her religious beliefs in making policy decisions? Should-40% Should not-55%

Do you think that people and groups that hold values similar to yours are gaining influence in American life in general these days, or do you think that they are losing influence? Gaining-33% Losing-58%

Which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you think better represents your own personal values? Dems-47% Reps-38%

Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees? Support-26% Oppose-66%

On practically every issue, Bush and the Republicans are on the losing side. Can anyone spell "buyer's remorse?" I'll bet the Democrats can spell "I told you so."

On Wednesday, I discussed the situation concerning Tom DeLay and the offer made by the Republican members of the ethics committee. And I predicted that it was an attempt to turn the tables on the Democrats by putting them on the defensive. Well, it turns out I was right.

Democrats in the House are blocking the ethics committee from organizing so they can protect several fellow party members from ethics investigations, Speaker Dennis Hastert said Wednesday.

"We know there are four or five cases out there dealing with top-level Democrats," Hastert told the conservative Sean Hannity radio program.

"There's a reason that they don't want to go to the ethics process and as long as they can keep someone dangling out there like they have with Tom DeLay, they take great glee in that," the Illinois Republican said.

Now I'm not normally one to pat myself on the back, but this was just too obvious. This is has been the Republican game plan for years. When trouble raises its ugly head, redirect. "Hey everybody, look over here!"

We've seen this before. Allow me to take you on a trip in my now infamous Way-back machine.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George W. Bush, March 17, 2003

Ah, but wait. When it became clear that those weapons were not going to be found, they redirected.

"Having helped to liberate Iraq, we will honor our pledges to Iraq, and by helping the Iraqi people build a stable and peaceful country, we will make our own countries more secure. The primary goal of our coalition in Iraq is self-government for the people of Iraq, reached by orderly and democratic process." - George W. Bush, September 23, 2003

Their running a game of political three-card monty on the American public. Sadly, there are a whole lot of people that don't see the spin. But we do and we can do something about it. As I recommended the other night, we can get involved. Write that letter! Make that call! Don't let these guys turn the tables yet again. They are the party with everything to lose. They are the party that should be playing defense. Make them do it. The ball is definitely in our court, now we have to do something with it.

Link

The House approved a far-ranging energy bill Thursday that would open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling and shield makers of a controversial gasoline additive from environmental lawsuits — both issues likely to meet strong opposition in the Senate.

The bill also would funnel more than $12 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to energy companies. Opponents of the legislation said it would do little to foster less energy use. A proposal to require higher fuel economy for cars was rejected.

Let's see...

• It will open the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve to drilling, yet it won't produce enough oil to make any difference, nor will it produce anything for at least ten years.
  
• It will protect companies that make MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether), a gasoline additive that has been making its way into the nation's drinking water, from lawsuits.
  
• It funnels $12 billion to energy companies.
  
• It does nothing to "foster less energy use," nor does it explore alternative fuel options.
  
• It does nothing to require higher fuel efficiency for cars.

I'm trying to figure out just exactly why this is a good thing. How does this benefit anyone but the energy corporations? Fortunately, the House has passed a similar bill before only to have it die in the Senate. But this all makes me wonder... How many times can the Republicans fuck their constituents before they're held accountable?

All those Bush voters; the Nascar dads, the security moms, the evangelicals; they aren't benefiting from this kind of policy. Joe Lunchbox; who lives in a trailer, works at the factory, has a gun rack in his truck and a "Support Our Troops" magnet on the tailgate; is getting nothing from the Bush administration except empty promises of a brighter tomorrow. Meanwhile, the fat cats and bigwigs at Exxon, Chevron, Pfizer, and MBNA are rolling in it. They're up to their eyes in tax-breaks and incentives. They're in so deep they're practically drowning.

But the average Bush voters don't see it. They're sleeping with the enemy and they don't even know it. How long before America wakes the fuck up? How long before the flock turns on its master? How long before the peasants revolt?

Soon, I hope.

For the last several weeks, the Democrats have been pushing for an investigation into Rep Tom DeLay's alleged ethics violations. Alright, who the hell am I kidding? There's nothing "alleged" about them. He's a slimy bastard whose so drunk with power he can hardly stand up. So basically the Democrats are trying to get his sorry ass busted.

The problem is, there's a little hang-up. In order to get the investigation started, the House ethics committee would have to agree to undertake it. However, the committee is dead-locked right now over proposed changes to the rules. Earlier this year, in an attempt to save DeLay's pathetic ass, the Republicans proposed a rules change that would allow a case to be dismissed if there was a tie vote. Seeing as how the committee is made up of five Republicans and five Democrats, that means a strictly party-line vote would eliminate the possibility of a full investigation. Ironically, the rule they are trying to change was instituted by the Republicans themselves during the nineties. The Democrats, recognizing this for the partisan bullshit that it is, have refused to play ball ever since. Thus the deadlock.

Knowing that their party is being dragged down by Tom DeLay, the Republicans attempted to turn the tables on the Democrats today.

The Republican chairman of the House ethics committee offered on Wednesday to begin an investigation of Majority Leader Tom DeLay to end a stalemate that has kept the panel from functioning this year.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., made the proposal at a news conference flanked by three of the four other Republicans on the ethics panel. The evenly divided committee also has five Democrats.

Senior committee Democrat Alan Mollohan of West Virginia quickly rejected the offer, saying his party would continue blocking the panel from operating unless investigative rules imposed by Republicans were changed.

This is the second time in two weeks that Republicans tried to break the deadlock, while Democrats have held their ground and criticized the GOP-written rules for investigating lawmakers, passed in January without Democratic support. Democrats have accused the majority party of writing the rules to protect DeLay.

"The first principle in doing it right is that it be bipartisan," said Mollohan. "That's a beginning point for me."

Basically, the Republicans are dangling the DeLay investigation in front of the Democrats like a carrot on a stick. Saying, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who has the most to gain from this. If the Democrats agree to the rules change, the Republicans on the committee can all vote in favor of DeLay and the case will be dismissed. So the Democrats are doing the right thing by refusing to chase the carrot.

Unfortunately, the Republican noise machine will waste no time cranking up the rhetoric on this one. Expect to hear things like, "We offered to investigate Tom DeLay but the Democrats refused because they don't have the proof." Or, "Democrats know that Tom DeLay has done nothing rong, so they're blocking the investigation to avoid the embarrassment." That's why the House Dems have to keep spinning the table right on back around. Before the Republicans can spin this into a Democratic problem, House leader Nancy Pelosi needs to hit the airwaves. Hit every morning news show and expose the Republican's sleazy behavior. Explain that they are trying to hide the corruption of one of their own by changing the rules to the game. If she waits too long, the tables will have been turned and the Democrats will look like the fools.

Although I believe Nancy Pelosi to be a capable person, she could use some help. This is where you come in, dear reader. Lend a hand. Write a letter, call your local radio station, hand out flyers. Whatever it is you feel comfortable doing. For too long, the Republicans have been able to turn the tables in order to hide their corruption. I say "No More!" Turn the tables back. They're the party that has the most to lose.

It's not very often that I do this, but tonight I'm going to give credit to a Republican senator for doing the right thing. During today's Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting, Ohio's Republican Senator George Voinovich said "I've heard enough today that I don't feel comfortable about voting for [John] Bolton [nominee for UN Ambassador]." This would have produced a committee vote of 9-9, thereby killing the nomination in committee. To avoid defeat, the Republican dominated committee decided to call for a three week delay before taking the vote. Presumably to kick the shit out of Voinovich for going against the family. It takes balls to stand up to your party, and apparently Voinovich has got a pretty large pair. Much more so than Chuck Hagel (R-NEB) who said he would vote to send Bolton's nomination to the full Senate but couldn't guarantee that he would vote to approve. That's a chickenshit's way out. He knows that if it goes to the full Senate that the nomination will be approved even without his vote. Then he'll be able to save face with his constituents back home. What a cop-out!

Meanwhile, the White House has hitched its cart to Tom DeLay's wagon.

The White House stands "strongly" behind Tom DeLay amid ethical questions over the House majority leader's fund- raising and overseas trips, deputy chief of staff Karl Rove said Monday.

Rove, the strategist who ran President Bush's two presidential campaigns, said DeLay, a Texas Republican, has been the target of partisan attacks by "desperate" Democrats.

"Tom DeLay is going to continue to be a strong and effective majority leader for the Republicans in the House," he said on CNN's "Inside Politics."

Naturally, this means that there will be no true investigation. With Rove and the White House on board, the evidence will be "inconclusive" and no blame will be assigned. Key witnesses will not be allowed to testify, vital documents will be lost and Tom DeLay will be exonnerated of any wrong doing leaving the impression that it was all a "desperate" attempt by the Democrats and the "seedy liberal media."

But the cracks are showing. Voinovich is the first, but there will be more. As the Republicans continue to over-reach in their lust for power, the cracks will grow. More and more, we will begin to see moderate Republicans forced out of the party's ever-tightening, noose-like circle as they grow drunk with power. They'll attempt to hide their corruption and their under-the-table dealings, but it will be their own party that hangs them. People like Voinovich will begin to step forward and call bullshit. With help from the Democrats, it will be the moderates on the Republican side that eventually bring the Republican party to its knees.

While we have probably lost the fight over Tom DeLay, we have taken our first step toward a stronger party. I know it seems small, but it was big in other ways. You have to win the battles in order to win the war. This was the first of many battles that await the Democratic party and this was a good start. So kudos to the Democrats on the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee and a big pat on the back to Senator Voinovich. One down, hundreds more to go.

This is typical.

A report by the Education Department's inspector general has cleared the agency of ethical breaches in hiring a commentator to promote President Bush's top education initiative but did not address whether the deal amounted to illegal propaganda.
[...]
Higgins concluded that top Education Department officials, including then-Secretary Rod Paige, were guilty of "bad management" and "poor judgment" but did not violate contract law.

Look, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not an expert on the finer points of the law, but I've got a pretty good idea about right and wrong and this was just plain wrong.

Let's say I've got a buddy who just got married. He loves his wife dearly and is spending a lot of time with her. Feeling slighted and a little jealous, I pay an acquaintance from work to call my buddy's house periodically asking for his wife. In these phone calls, my acquaintance drops hints that he and the new wife are romantically involved. My buddy gets pissed and ends up divorcing his new wife and now has more time to go fishing and watch ballgames with me.

Did I do anything illegal? Of course not, there's no law against lying. Did I do something wrong and unethical, damn right I did. Just because I hired someone else to do the dirty work doesn't exonnerate me. This is wrong. What the Education Department did was also wrong. They hired someone to drop hints in an attempt to influence the public's opinion. It's sleezy, underhanded and dishonest. Bad management? Yep! Poor judgement? Boy howdy!

And what about Bush's statement concerning this issue? He said "We didn't know about this in the White House." Oh really?

Higgins also found that David Dunn, a special assistant to President Bush, participated in at least four conversations about the Williams contract with Education Department officials last summer.

The conversations, the report says, took place around the time the department renewed a deal that called for Williams to use his syndicated TV show and newspaper column to promote Bush's education policy, No Child Left Behind.

I thought Bush was going to "restore integrity to the White House." Apparently that was only the first of his lies.

You know, Clinton didn't technically break any laws when he had his affair with Monica Lewinsky but the Republicans sure prosecuted the shit out of it, didn't they? Too bad there wasn't someone around at the time to call it what it was: "poor judgement."

Now that the "nukular option" is big news, I think it's time to take a look at what is really fueling it. Judging by Sen. Bill Frist's position and this flyer that is being circulated, one might be inclined to think that this has something to do with religion. But the fact of the matter is that religion has nothing to do with it. In fact, religion condemns what is really behind this so-called "nukular option."

The driving force behind this is plain, simple, unadulterated arrogance. Bill Clinton once said that the reason he butted heads with the Republicans was because they were convinced that there would never be another Democratic president after Jimmy Carter. This is now true of the Senate. They are convinced that they will never relenquish control. What else could possibly describe their short-sightedness? Do they really believe that there will never come a time when they might want to use the fillibuster themselves?

In an odd way, I think this is actually a good sign. To me, this is a perfect example of the Republican party getting comfortable. They are drunk with power and are beginning to over-reach. They're exposing their greedy underbelly for all to see. If all goes right (and I have a good feeling that it will), the Democrats will only have to sit back, remain quiet and smile as the Republican party slits its own throat.

Today George W. Bush addressed the American Society of Newspaper Editors Convention and he made some rather telling remarks. He was revealing his inner-George, so to speak. To begin with, he apparently hates the Patriot Act:

You know, I don't email, however. And there's a reason. I don't want you reading my personal stuff. There has got to be a certain sense of privacy. You know, you're entitled to how I make decisions. And you're entitled to ask questions, which I answer. I don't think you're entitled to be able to read my mail between my daughters and me.

(emphasis mine)

Isn't that nice? Georgieboy thinks there has "to be a certain sense of privacy." I guess that explains why he wants the Patriot Act renewed.

Then there was this:

Q Do you think Mr. DeLay has become a liability to your party or your agenda?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate that. Look, as I've read his comments today, he wants the Ethics Committee to review his case and he's willing to step up and talk to the Ethics Committee about it. And, secondly, I'm looking forward to working with Tom. He's been a very effective leader. We've gotten a lot done in the legislature, and I'm convinced we'll get more done in the legislature. And I'm looking forward to working with him.

Okay, so let me get this straight; Georgieboy was given the opportunity to distance himself from a man who has threatened judges, abused his power and violated the ethics rules of the House of Representatives (see also here, here, here,...), and he chose to say "I'm looking forward to working with him." Well, there you have it folks. Bush is siding with DeLay. He's choosing corruption over ethics. So much for values and morals. We should be so proud.

And then, as if he hadn't sided with enough questionable people already, he made this statement:

Look, John Cornyn is a good friend...

You don't suppose he's talking about this John Cornyn, do you? I can't imagine that Georgieboy would want to align himself with someone who tried to justify violence against judges. That would seem rather hypocritical of someone who claims to always choose on the side of life.

So how did all of this happen? How did Georgieboy get so far off the reservation? Well, this wasn't one of his hand-picked, loyalty-oath-signing, ass-kissing, friendly audiences. These were real journalists and they ask real questions and when he's allowed to go without a net, things always get interesting. I have to think he's a little more honest when he doesn't have time to prepare an answer. However, honesty to George W. Bush means stepping on his dick in public. I expect to see him on a much shorter leash for a while to come now.

be raising holy hell again. Tomorrow morning I'd jump up on the dais there on the Senate floor, whip out the old dong again and scream "I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO, YOU CONSERVATIVE COCKSUCKERS!!!! It's that time again fuckers and this time I'm starting with you Cornyn. Line up assholes!"

Of course some people might view this as a little extreme, but I think old Johnny-boy Kerry has earned this one. Check this out:

The head of the German intelligence agency, in an interview published here Tuesday, said Osama bin Laden had been able to elude capture after the American invasion of Afghanistan by paying bribes to the Afghan militias delegated the task of finding him.

"The principal mistake was made already in 2001, when one wanted bin Laden to be apprehended by the Afghan militias in Tora Bora," the intelligence official, August Hanning, said in an interview with the German business newspaper Handelsblatt.

There, bin Laden could buy himself free with a lot of money," Mr. Hanning said.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Hanning confirmed the accuracy of the newspaper's account. She said Afghan forces had told Mr. bin Laden they knew his whereabouts and he would be arrested, but they allowed him safe passage in exchange for a bribe.

In the past, other officials - including Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the former American commander in Afghanistan - have acknowledged that Afghan militias who fought on the side of the invasion coalition had allowed leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to get away. But Mr. Hanning is the top intelligence official to say Mr. bin Laden was among them.

Military experts have also raised questions about the practice of relying on Afghan militias in the hunt for senior Qaeda and Taliban figures, saying that once the Taliban fell the militias became more interested in gaining power in Afghanistan's many tribal regions than in fulfilling American political goals.

During the American presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, frequently criticized the Bush administration for what he called outsourcing the hunt for Mr. bin Laden. The search reached its most active phase after the fall of the Taliban, when American and Afghan troops attacked Qaeda hide-outs in the Tora Bora Mountains on the border with Pakistan.

Do you remember all the shit Kerry had to take for this comment? Every conservative ass-kisser came out against Kerry claiming he didn't know what the hell he was talking about. Turns out, he was right. Again!

I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.

But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.

This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.

I'm proud that important military figures who are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower's son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crown; General Tony McBeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father -- all believe I would make a stronger commander in chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden.

Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.

So I say to John Kerry, yet again, "Whip that thing out ol' boy. Shove it in their faces and wave it around all you want. Because once again, you were right. In more ways than most people will ever know, you were right. Enjoy yourself, buddy but watch out for Senator Lott. I hear he uses his teeth."

Today was a standardized testing day at my school and I was assigned to administer the test in the history room. On the wall was a poster explaining the different political ideologies in what is possibly the simplest of terms. I thought I'd share them here.

Here goes:

• Capitalism - You have two cows. You sell one of them and buy a bull.
  
• Democracy - You have two cows. Your neighbors get to decide who gets the milk.
  
• Representative Democracy - You have two cows. You then elect someone with the best face for television to tell you how to care for the cows.
  
• Socialism - You have two cows. The government takes both cows and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows and they give you as much milk as they think you need.
  
• Bureaucracy - You have two cows. The government regulates what you can feed them, when you can milk them, and then pays you not to. The government then takes both cows, shoots one, milks the other one dry and pours the milk down the drain. Then the government requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
  
• Bureaucratic Socialism - You have two cows. The government takes both cows and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows where they are cared for by the chicken farmers. Your job is to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers.
  
• Feudalism - You have two cows. Your Lord takes some of the milk.
  
• Communism - You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them and everyone shares the milk.
  
• Russian Communism - You have two cows. You care for them and the government takes the milk.
  
• Fascism - You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.

Now isn't that a lot clearer than when you learned it in high school?

As I watched the John Bolton hearing today, two things occurred to me. First of all, why does this guy look so much like Fred Goldman? But more importantly, "Why would Georgieboy nominate someone so ill-suited for the position of UN Ambasador?

I'm sure we're all familiar with Bolton's past statements concerning the UN: "There is no such thing as the United Nations" and "If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." You know, friendly diplomatic stuff.

So here I am thinking to myself; "How is that Bush picked the one person who is possibly the most ill-suited for the job?" Then it hit me. He did this on purpose.

By picking John Bolton, Bush knows that the Democrats will go ballistic. The Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will grill him during the hearings and will most likely all vote against him. However, Georgie's got the advantage. He holds enough votes to get him through committee and even confirmed. So he's kind of killing two birds with one stone, if you like. Not only does he get a hard-liner at the UN, but he can also exploit the Democrats' opposition as more left-wing obstructionism.

Georgieboy doesn't give a shit about the UN. By sending Bolton he's basically giving the whole UN a great big middle-finger "fuck you." Plus, he and his flunkies can roll out the video of Sen. Boxer and Sen. Kerry and Sen. Obama grilling poor John and say, "See how angry they are? See how partisan they are? They're being obstructionists."

But, they wouldn't do that..........would they?

From yesterday's Washington Times:

All 55 Republican senators say they have never seen the Terri Schiavo political talking-points memo that Democrats say was circulated among Republicans during the floor debate over whether the federal government should intervene to prolong her life.

    A survey by The Washington Times found that every Republican said the memo was not crafted or distributed by him or her. Every one of them said he or she had not seen it until the memo was the subject of speculation in major news organs, particularly ABC News and The Washington Post.

First of all, what the hell is a "news organ?" It sounds pretty indecent to me. And second of all, it appears as though one of those Republican senators was lying.

Sen. Mel Martinez said Wednesday an infamous unsigned memo passed around on Capitol Hill emphasizing the politics of the Terri Schiavo case originated in his office.

The memo -- first reported by ABC News on March 18 and by The Washington Post and The Associated Press two days later -- said the fight going on then over removing Schiavo's feeding tube "is a great political issue ... and a tough issue for Democrats."

"This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, which was described at the time as being circulated among Senate Republicans while legislation was being considered to place the Schiavo case under the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Martinez, R-Florida, said in a written statement that he discovered Wednesday that the memo had been written by an aide in his office.

"It is with profound disappointment and regret that I learned today that a senior member of my staff was unilaterally responsible for this document," Martinez said.

Let's see, March 18 to April 6...that's twenty days. Twenty days during which the right-wing noise machine was crying forgery. Twenty days of denials. Twenty days of finger-pointing at the Democrats. Everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Powerline to Republican senators themselves were crying foul and blaming those dirty trickster Democrats.

And all the while, Brian Darling, aide to Sen Martinez, sat quietly and let it all happen. He let the Democrats take the heat for his own immorality. Party of moral values my scrawny little ass! Pathetic.


NOTE - Truespeak will not be updated tomorrow evening. kissfan and the Mrs. will be out of town. So have a great weekend and I'll see you all Monday night!

Over the last two nights Truespeak has been breaking down the recent report from the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities blah, blah, blah. Why? Because the actual media is too preoccupied with dead people to focus on the fact that we royally fucked up when we went to war in Iraq. After all, what's 1500 soldiers lives worth anyway? Shit, we got a dead Pope, here.

So what have we learned? Basically we've learned that the intelligence community failed to properly validate any information, failed to vet any of their sources, and based their entire conclusion on the testimony of of a person named Curveball who later turned out to be completely unreliable. Oh, and they ignored any evidence that was contrary to their preconceived notions about Iraq's WMD.

By December, 2002, (nearly two months before Powell's presentation to the UN and three months before the beginning of the Iraq invasion) the intelligence community was at odds with itself over the validity of their information. Serious questions were being raised during some heated high-level meetings. Yet time and time again, the American public was told that Iraq was known to possess weapons of "mass destruction/murder." There was no qualifier to any of these statements. They were blatant declarations of fact. We were told, without question, that he had them and would not hesitate to use them against us. We couldn't wait any longer.

Oh, how wrong that was. Let's climb aboard the wayback machine, shall we, and travel back in time to those three months between December, 2002, when the questions first arose and March, 2003, when the invasion began. Let's see just what we were told.

" The burden now is on Iraq's dictator to disclose and destroy his arsenal of weapons. If he refuses, then for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a coalition to disarm the Iraqi regime and free the Iraqi people." - George W. Bush, December 28, 2002

"...an attack from Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy. My biggest job and most important job is to protect the security of the American people, and I am going to do that. And I had made the case and will continue to make the case that Saddam Hussein -- a Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the security of the American people." - George W. Bush, December 31, 2002

"[Saddam] is a man who likes to play games and charades. The question is, will Saddam Hussein disarm. The world has asked him to disarm from weapons of mass destruction. The first indication isn't very positive that he will voluntarily disarm. After all, he put out a declaration that the world realized was false. And the inspectors are there to verify whether or not he is disarming. You hear these reports about Iraqi scientists being interviewed, but there's a "minder" in the room.

You know, Saddam Hussein -- hopefully he realizes we're serious, and hopefully he disarms peacefully. He's a danger to the American people, he's a danger to our friends and allies. For 11 long years, the world has dealt with him. And now he's got to understand, his day of reckoning is coming. And therefore, he must disarm voluntarily, I hope he does." - George W. Bush, January 2, 2003

"The Iraqi regime is a grave threat to the United States. The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American and to threats who are friends of America.

Why do I say that? Well, first of all, the leader in Iraq has publicly proclaimed his hatred for our country and what we stand for. The Iraqi regime has a record -- a record of torturing their own people, a brutal record and a record of reckless aggression against those in their neighborhood.

The Iraqi regime has used weapons of mass destruction. They not only had weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction. They used weapons of mass destruction on people in other countries, they have used weapons of mass destruction on their own people. That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat.

Four years ago, U.N. inspectors concluded that Iraq had failed to amount -- account for large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, weapons capable of killing millions. In last month's declaration, Iraq again failed to account for those weapons.

The Iraqi dictator did not even attempt to submit a credible declaration. We can now be certain that he holds the United Nations and the U.N. Security Council and its resolutions in contempt. He really doesn't care about the opinion of mankind. Saddam Hussein was given a path to peace; thus far, he has chosen the path of defiance." - George W. Bush, January3, 2003

"Time is running out on Saddam Hussein. He must disarm. I'm sick and tired of games and deception." - George W. Bush, January 14, 2003

"Why We Know Iraq is Lying" A Column by Dr. Condoleezza Rice, January 23, 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses." - George W. Bush, January 28, 2003

"Saddam Hussein is not disarming. He is a danger to the world. He must disarm." - George W. Bush, January 31, 2003

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council - February 5, 2003

"The regime has never accounted for a vast arsenal of deadly biological and chemical weapons. To the contrary; the regime is pursuing an elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materiels, and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists, all in direct defiance of Security Council 1441." - George W. Bush, February 6, 2003

"On Wednesday, Secretary of State Powell briefed the United Nations Security Council on Iraq's illegal weapons program, its attempts to hide those weapons, and its links to terrorist groups.

The Iraqi regime's violations of Security Council Resolutions are evident, they are dangerous to America and the world, and they continue to this hour.

The regime has never accounted for a vast arsenal of deadly, biological and chemical weapons. To the contrary, the regime is pursuing an elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materials and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists. This effort of deception is directed from the highest levels of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, his son, Iraq's vice president and the very official responsible for cooperating with inspectors.

The Iraqi regime has actively and secretly attempted to obtain equipment needed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents -- equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery. " - George W. Bush, February 8, 2003

"...when we hear of stories about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a brutal dictator, who hates America, we need to take that seriously, and we are. And when we find out there's links between Baghdad and a killer who actually ordered the killing of one of our fellow citizens, we've got to realize the -- what that means to our future." - George W. Bush, February 9, 2003

"This war requires us to understand that terror is broader than one international network, that these terrorist networks have got connections -- in some cases, to countries run by outlaw dictators. And that's the issue with Iraq. When I speak about the war on terror, I not only talk about al Qaeda, I talk about Iraq -- because, after all, Saddam Hussein has got weapons of mass destruction and he's used them." - George W. Bush, February 14, 2003

"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." - George W. Bush, February 26, 2003

" America is determined to enforce the demands of the United Nations Security Council by confronting the grave and growing danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. This dictator will not be allowed to intimidate and blackmail the civilized world, or to supply his terrible weapons to terrorist groups, who would not hesitate to use them against us. The safety of the American people depends on ending this threat." - George W. Bush, March 1, 2003

"it is clear that Saddam Hussein is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm.

Iraqi's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few prohibited missiles. Yet, our intelligence shows that even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles. Iraqi operatives continue to play a shell game with inspectors, moving suspected prohibited materials to different locations every 12 to 24 hours." - George W. Bush, March 8, 2003

"The chemical attack on Halabja -- just one of 40 targeted at Iraq's own people -- provided a glimpse of the crimes Saddam Hussein is willing to commit, and the kind of threat he now presents to the entire world. He is among history's cruelest dictators, and he is arming himself with the world's most terrible weapons." - George W. Bush, March 15, 2003

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people.

[... ]

Saddam Hussein has a history of mass murder. He possesses the weapons of mass murder." - George W. Bush, March 16, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George W. Bush, March 17, 2003

Nineteen times in three months and this doesn't include any statements from Cheney or Rumsfeld. And all this time, there were questions about the veracity of the intelligence.

Now some have argued that you can't blame Bush because he was given bad information. But I think Ickabod says it best when he says:

Let's assume i'm the CEO of Company X, and the CFO and the 3 Vice Presidents of the company all come to me and say we need to acquire Company Y. Our stock will double and we'll be leading the high life if we do. I ask them if they're sure. They say yes. I tell them to go back and re-run the numbers to make doubly sure. They come back after having done so and tell me they're triply sure. So i sign off on the purchase of Company Y based on their triply sure recommendation. And of course, my company, Company X then goes bankrupt in 8 months after the acquisition. And i'm gonna go around telling people the fault lies with the CFO and the 3 Vice Presidents? I had nothing to do with it? I was misled? And i'm gonna expect that to fly with the shareholders??

Clearly not.

Look, Bill Clinton was in favor of regime change in Iraq. I think most people would have been happy to see Saddam removed from power, but regime change alone was not going to sell this war to the American people. Bush knew that. Without the charges of WMD, this was a dead issue. During the run-up to the invasion, Bush and the rest of his administration sold this war to the American public using false claims. For the last three months prior to the war the intelligence community couldn't come to a consensus on whether or not the information was reliable. We clearly could have waited another couple of months to know for sure. But had we waited and found out the information was unreliable, the invasion wouldn't have happened. Bush had to act when he did whether he had good information or not.

What it comes down to is this: George W. Bush, his administration, and the intelligence community misled the American public into a war that has cost our nation over 1500 lives. This was either a fuck-up of colossal proportion or this was the deadliest lie ever told to the American people. Either way, this administration should be ashamed.

But don't you all worry your pretty little heads about this little old report. Shit, we got a dead Pope, here.

As promised, Truespeak will be taking a closer look at the section of the report from The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction that discusses Iraq's biological weapons (BW) capabilities. A word of warning: It's not pretty.

At the beginning of this section of the report, the commission states its "Biological Warfare Summary Finding." It reads:

The Intelligence Community seriously misjudged the status of Iraq's biological weapons program in the 2002 NIE and other pre-war intelligence products. The primary reason for this misjudgment was the Intelligence Community's heavy reliance on a human source--codenamed "Curveball"--whose information later proved to be unreliable.

If there were an award given for the year's biggest understatement, this particular statement would have to be considered the odds-on favorite to win.

It appears that Curveball came onto the scene in early 2000 through a foriegn liaison service and quickly endeared himself to the Intelligence Community by telling them exactly what they wanted to hear. His information was passed on to senior policymakers and was incorporated into the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). By October, 2001, with the attacks of September 11 still fresh in everyone's memory, Curveball's information about Iraq's mobile BW facilities and their continued efforts to pursue BW agents seemed more appropriate than ever. And by the following year, his information, seemingly corroborated by other sources, became the basis for the October 2002 NIE.

The October 2002 NIE reflected the shift from the late-1990s assessments that Iraq could have biological weapons to the definitive conclusion that Iraq "has" biological weapons, and that its BW program was larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War. ²⁴³ Information about Iraq's dual-use facilities and its failure to account fully for previously declared stockpiles contributed to this shift in assessments. ²⁴⁴ The information that Iraq had mobile BW production units, however, was instrumental in adjusting upward the assessment of Iraq's BW threat. ²⁴⁵ And for this conclusion, the NIE relied primarily on reporting from Curveball, who, as noted, provided a large volume of reporting through Defense HUMINT channels regarding mobile BW production facilities in Iraq. ²⁴⁶ Only in May 2004, more than a year after the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, did CIA formally deem Curveball's reporting fabricated and recall it. ²⁴⁷ At the time of the NIE, however, reporting from three other human sources--who provided one report each on mobile BW facilities--was thought to have corroborated Curveball's information about the mobile facilities. ²⁴⁸ These three sources also proved problematic, however, as discussed below.

Another asylum seeker (hereinafter "the second source") reporting through Defense HUMINT channels provided one report in June 2001 that Iraq had transportable facilities for the production of BW. ²⁴⁹ This second source recanted in October 2003, however, and the recantation was reflected in a Defense HUMINT report in which the source flatly contradicted his June 2001 statements about transportable facilities. ²⁵⁰ Though CIA analysts told Commission staff that they had requested that Defense HUMINT follow-up with this second source to ascertain the reasons for his recantation, DIA's Defense HUMINT Service has provided no further information on this issue. ²⁵¹ Nor, for that matter, was the report ever recalled or corrected. ²⁵²

Another source, associated with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) (hereinafter "the INC source"), was brought to the attention of DIA by Washington-based representatives of the INC. Like Curveball, his reporting was handled by Defense HUMINT. He provided one report that Iraq had decided in 1996 to establish mobile laboratories for BW agents to evade inspectors. ²⁵³ Shortly after Defense HUMINT's initial debriefing of the INC source in February 2002, however, a foreign liaison service and the CIA's Directorate of Operations (DO) judged him to be a fabricator and recommended that Defense HUMINT issue a notice to that effect, which Defense HUMINT did in May 2002. Senior policymakers were informed that the INC source and his reporting were unreliable. The INC source's information, however, began to be used again in finished intelligence in July 2002, including the October 2002 NIE, because, although a fabrication notice had been issued several months earlier, Defense HUMINT had failed to recall the reporting. ²⁵⁴

[...]

Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, relied on the same human sources relied upon in the NIE. ²⁵⁸ Secretary Powell was not informed that one of these sources-- the INC source --had been judged a fabricator almost a year earlier. And as will be discussed at length below, serious doubts about Curveball had also surfaced within CIA's Directorate of Operations at the time of the speech--but these doubts also were not communicated to Secretary Powell before his United Nations address.

So basically Powell was going to the UN with bullshit. Kind of lends credence to all those reports of Powell's tirade prior to the presentation, doesn't it?

Now we all know what the post-war inspectors found. Jack Squat! (I have to attribute that quote to the late Chris Farley's character Matt Foley.) But let's let the commission tell us what they think.

The Iraq Survey Group found that the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments about Iraq's BW program were almost entirely wrong. The ISG concluded that "Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent" shortly after the Gulf War. ²⁶¹ According to the ISG, Iraq initially intended to retain elements of its biological weapons program after the Gulf War. UNSCOM inspections proved unexpectedly intrusive, however, and to avoid detection, Saddam Hussein ordered his son-in-law and Minister of the Military Industrial Commission Hussein Kamil to destroy, unilaterally, Iraq's stocks of BW agents. ²⁶² This took place in either the late spring or summer of 1991.

Now you might be asking yourself, "How could we have possibly got things so wrong?" Obviously our intelligence agencies are smart enough to check out the validity of any intelligence that comes accross their desk, right? Well, apparently not. The failure to vet any of this newly acquired information provided by Curveball appears to be how we got ourselves into war. Not only was the information not confirmed, but doubts about its veracity were roundly ignored. The commission's Biological Warfare Finding 1 states:

The DIA's Defense HUMINT Service's failure even to attempt to validate Curveball's reporting was a major failure in operational tradecraft.

Did you catch that? They didn't even attempt to validate this information. God damn I feel safe! But wait, it gets worse.

Curveball was not a source who worked directly with the United States; rather, the Intelligence Community obtained information about Curveball through a foreign service. The foreign service would not provide the United States with direct access to Curveball, claiming that Curveball would refuse to speak to Americans. ²⁷⁴ Instead, the foreign intelligence service debriefed Curveball and passed the debriefing information to DIA's Defense HUMINT Service, the human intelligence collection agency of the Department of Defense.

The lack of direct access to Curveball made it more difficult to assess his veracity. [...] Defense HUMINT, however, did not even attempt to determine Curveball's veracity. A Defense HUMINT official explained to Commission staff that Defense HUMINT believed that it was just a "conduit" for Curveball's reporting--that it had no responsibility for vetting Curveball or validating his information.

Commission's Biological Warfare Finding 2:

Indications of possible problems with Curveball began to emerge well before the 2002 NIE. These early indications of problems--which suggested unstable behavior more than a lack of credibility--were discounted by the analysts working the Iraq WMD account. But given these warning signs, analysts should have viewed Curveball's information with greater skepticism and should have conveyed this skepticism in the NIE. The analysts' resistance to any information that could undermine Curveball's reliability suggests that the analysts were unduly wedded to a source that supported their assumptions about Iraq's BW programs.

Unduly wedded. That's just a fancy way of saying they refused to listen to dissenting opinions. I apologize for the length of the next quote, but the incompetence exhibited by the intelligence community is truly frightening.

The first CIA concerns about Curveball's reliability arose within the DO [Directorate of Operations] in May 2000, when a Department of Defense detailee assigned to the DO met Curveball. The purpose of the meeting was to evaluate Curveball's claim that he had been present during a BW accident that killed several of his coworkers by seeing whether Curveball had been exposed to, or vaccinated against, a BW agent. ²⁸⁴ Although the evaluation was ultimately inconclusive, ²⁸⁵ the detailee raised several concerns about Curveball based on their interaction.

First, the detailee observed that Curveball spoke excellent English during their meeting. ²⁸⁶ This was significant to the detailee because the foreign service had, on several earlier occasions, told U.S. intelligence officials that one reason a meeting with Curveball was impossible was that Curveball did not speak English. Second, the detailee was concerned by Curveball's apparent "hangover" during their meeting. The detailee conveyed these impressions of Curveball informally to CIA officials, and WINPAC BW analysts told Commission staff that they were aware that the detailee was concerned that Curveball might be an alcoholic. ²⁸⁷ This message was eventually re-conveyed to Directorate of Operations supervisors via electronic mail on February 4, 2003--literally on the eve of Secretary Powell's speech to the United Nations. The electronic mail stated, in part:

I do have a concern with the validity of the information based on Curveball having a terrible hangover the morning of [the meeting]. I agree, it was only a one time interaction, however, he knew he was to have a [meeting] on that particular morning but tied one on anyway. What underlying issues could this be a problem with and how in depth has he been vetted by the [foreign liaison service]? ²⁸⁸

By early 2001, the DO was receiving operational messages about the foreign service's difficulties in handling Curveball, whom the foreign service reported to be "out of control," and whom the service could not locate. ²⁸⁹ This operational traffic regarding Curveball was shared with WINPAC's Iraq BW analysts because, according to WINPAC analysts, the primary BW analyst who worked on the Iraq issue had close relations with the DO's Counterproliferation Division (the division through which the operational traffic was primarily handled). ²⁹⁰ This and other operational information was not, however, shared with analysts outside CIA. ²⁹¹

A second warning on Curveball came in April 2002, when a foreign intelligence service, which was also receiving reporting from Curveball, told the CIA that, in its view, there were a variety of problems with Curveball. The foreign service began by noting that they were "inclined to believe that a significant part of [Curveball's] reporting is true" in light of his detailed technical descriptions. ²⁹² In this same message, however, the foreign service noted that it was "not convinced that Curveball is a wholly reliable source," and that "elements of [Curveball's] behavior strike us as typical of individuals we would normally assess as fabricators." ²⁹³ Even more specifically, the foreign service noted several inconsistencies in Curveball's reporting which caused the foreign service "to have doubts about Curveball's reliability."

[...]

But none of the expressed concerns overcame analysts' ultimate confidence in the accuracy of his information. Specifically, analysts continued to judge his information credible based on their assessment of its detail and technical accuracy, corroborating documents, confirmation of the technical feasibility of the production facility designs described by Curveball, and reporting from another human source, the fourth source mentioned above. ²⁹⁶ But it should be noted that during the pre-NIE period--in addition to the more general questions about Curveball's credibility discussed above--at least some evidence had emerged calling into question the substance of Curveball's reporting about Iraq's BW program as well. ²⁹⁷

WTF? They're being told specifically that the information is questionable, but nobody does anything about it. Instead they make Curveball the basis for their entire case.

Biological Warfare Finding 3:

The October 2002 NIE failed to communicate adequately to policymakers both the Community's near-total reliance on Curveball for its BW judgments, and the serious problems that characterized Curveball as a source.

And Biological Warfare Finding 4:

Beginning in late 2002, some operations officers within the regional division of the CIA's Directorate of Operations that was responsible for relations with the liaison service handling Curveball expressed serious concerns about Curveball's reliability to senior officials at the CIA, but these views were either (1) not thought to outweigh analytic assessments that Curveball's information was reliable or (2) disregarded because of managers' assessments that those views were not sufficiently convincing to warrant further elevation.

Basically what ensued was some extremely heated discussions between some rather high-ranking officials in the intelligence community over whether or not the information provided by Curveball was accurate. The concerns centered around the fact that as of this point Curveball had not been adequately vetted. By December of 2002, almost two months before Powell's speech the UN, this doubt led to some high-level meetings amongst the intelligence officials to discuss the problem. In an e-mail to several officers of the DO, the group chief stated:

Although no one asked, it is my assessment that Curve Ball had some access to some of this information and was more forthcoming and cooperative when he needed resettlement assistance; now that he does not need it, he is less helpful, possibly because when he was being helpful, he was embellishing, a bit. The [foreign service] ha[s] developed some doubts about him. We have been unable to vet him operationally and know very little about him.

However, her view of the situation lost out. The information was deemed credible enough, despite this lack of verification and the objections of some rather high-ranking individuals.
Biological Warfare Finding 5:

CIA management stood by Curveball's reporting long after post-war investigators in Iraq had established that he was lying about crucial issues.

Furthermore:

A team of Intelligence Community analysts was dispatched to Iraq in early summer 2003 to investigate the details of Iraq's BW program. The analysts were, in particular, investigating two trailers that had been discovered by Coalition forces in April and May 2003, which at the time were thought to be the mobile BW facilities described by Curveball. As the summer wore on, however, at least one WINPAC analyst who had traveled to Iraq, as well as some DIA and INR analysts, became increasingly doubtful that the trailers were BW-related. ³⁸⁷

The investigation also called into question other aspects of Curveball's reporting. According to one WINPAC BW analyst who was involved in the investigations, those individuals whom Curveball had identified as having been involved in the mobile BW program "all consistently denied knowing anything about this project." ³⁸⁸ Furthermore, none of the supposed project designers even knew who Curveball was, which contradicted Curveball's claim that he had been involved with those individuals in developing the mobile BW program. ³⁸⁹

Additional research into Curveball's background in September 2003 revealed further discrepancies in his claims. For example, WINPAC analysts interviewed several of Curveball's supervisors at the government office where he had worked in Iraq. Curveball had claimed that this office had commenced a secret mobile BW program in 1995. But interviews with his supervisors, as well as friends and family members, confirmed that Curveball had been fired from his position in 1995. ³⁹⁰ Moreover, one of Curveball's family members noted that he had been out of Iraq for substantial periods between 1995 and 1999, times during which Curveball had claimed he had been working on BW projects. ³⁹¹ In particular, Curveball claimed to have been present at the site of a BW production run when an accident occurred in 1998, killing 12 workers. ³⁹² But Curveball was not even in Iraq at that time, according to information supplied by family members and later confirmed by travel records. ³⁹³

By the end of October 2003, the WINPAC analysts conducting these investigations reported to the head of the ISG that they believed Curveball was a fabricator and that his reporting was "all false." But other WINPAC analysts, as well as CIA headquarters management, continued to support Curveball. ³⁹⁴ By January 2004, however, when CIA obtained travel records confirming that Curveball had been out of Iraq during the time he claimed to have been working on the mobile BW program, most analysts became convinced that Curveball had fabricated his reporting. ³⁹⁵

What? They're giving up already? Holy Shit! All the evidence was there. He was a liar! And instead of taking our time and making sure that we had it right, we said "Fuck it! We're going in!" And now here we are, over 1500 dead soldiers later, and for what? A fucking green card!

That's all I can take for tonight. Tomorrow night, we'll take a little trip in the Wayback Machine (there it is oldwhitelady) and take a look at what was said after we already knew the information was bullshit and we'll explore why this is still George W. Bush's responsibility.

With the recent death watch that has consumed the country, it's pretty obvious that the report presented by The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction last Thursday is going to get precious little coverage. In fact, just to put things into perspective, I did a Google search today on a few items and obtained the following results:

Search Term - "The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction"/Web Results - 4,970

Search Term - Pope+death/Web Results - 9,800,000

Search Term - "Terri Schiavo"/Web Results - 12,000,000

That seems about right. After all, the deaths of over 1500 soldiers for what appears to be a great big "I think so," isn't nearly as important as the feud over Terri Schiavo. And I realize that the Pope has passed away, but once again, one person versus the death of over 1500. Not trying to be callous, but Schiavo was ill and dying. The Pope was ill and dying. These 1500 plus soldiers were killed because George Bush sent them to fight a war that was sold on what can only be described as false information.

So, since the media isn't going to do it, Truespeak will. Let's take a closer look at the report, shall we? In fact, the part that most interests me is the first chapter concerning Iraq. Tonight we'll look at the section concerning nuclear (or is that "nukular") weapons.

For starters, the commission sums up its findings as follows:

The Intelligence Community seriously misjudged the status of Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program in the 2002 NIE and other pre-Iraq war intelligence products. This misjudgment stemmed chiefly from the Community's failure to analyze correctly Iraq's reasons for attempting to procure high-strength aluminum tubes.

As it turns out, there was always disagreement on the uses of these tubes. But more on that later.

To begin with, the report discusses what was known about Iraq's nuclear program following the 1991 Gulf War. And from the looks of things, we appear to have been guessing based upon past behavior and not hard evidence. While past behavior is often a strong indicator of future behavior, these guesses quickly became accepted as fact and any new evidence that didn't align with these guesses was quickly dismissed as unreliable.

After a discussion of what the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) found after the war (no WMD), the report analyzes how the pre-war intelligence got things so wrong. The begin with this statement:

The Intelligence Community's judgment about Iraq's nuclear program hinged chiefly on an assessment about Iraq's intended use for high-strength aluminum tubes it was seeking to procure. Most of the agencies in the Intelligence Community erroneously concluded these tubes were intended for use in centrifuges in a nuclear program rather than in conventional rockets. This error was, at the bottom, the result of poor analytical tradecraft--namely, the failure to do proper technical analysis informed by thorough knowledge of the relevant weapons technology and practices.

As stated before, if the evidence didn't align with the preconceived notion, it was dismissed. To quote the report:

The judgment of most agencies that Baghdad's pursuit of aluminum tubes "provide[d] compelling evidence" that Iraq was reconstituting its weapons turned upon two separate but related analytical determinations. ¹²⁴ The first was that the tubes would not have been well-suited for use in Iraq's conventional military arsenal--in particular, as a conventional rocket casing. The second was that the tubes were a suitable fit for centrifuges in a nuclear program.

This section addresses the soundness of each of these conclusions in turn. We find that the Intelligence Community--and in particular, conventional weapons analysts at the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) in the Defense Department--got the first of these two questions completely wrong; the intercepted tubes were not only well-suited, but were in fact a precise fit, for Iraq's conventional rockets, and the Intelligence Community should have recognized as much at the time. The second question--whether the tubes would have been well-suited for centrifuge applications--was a closer one, but we conclude that certain agencies were more wedded to the analytical position that the tubes were destined for a nuclear program than was justified by the technical evidence. We also conclude that these misjudgments, while reflecting lapses in basic tradecraft, ultimately stemmed from a deeper source: analysts' willingness to accept that a superficially enticing piece of evidence confirmed the prevailing assumption--that Iraq was attempting to reconstitute its nuclear program--was wrong. That CIA and DIA reached this conclusion was a product of, in our view, an effort to fit the evidence to the prevailing assumptions.

***********************************

CIA and DIA's confidence in their conclusions also led them to fail to pursue additional, easily obtainable data on the tubes that would have pointed them in the direction of conventional weapons applications. For example, though elements of the Intelligence Community were aware that the Nasser 81 millimeter rocket was likely reverse-engineered from the Italian Medusa air-to-ground rocket, neither DIA nor CIA--the two most vociferous proponents of a nuclear end-use--obtained the specifications for the Medusa rocket until well after the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom. ¹³⁷ Indeed, CIA appears to have consciously bypassed attempts to gather this crucial data. A CIA officer had actually suggested that CIA track down the precise dimensions and specifications of the Medusa rocket in order to evaluate the possibility that the tubes Iraq was seeking were in fact intended for rockets. CIA rejected the request in early September 2002, however, on the basis that such information was not needed because CIA judged the tubes to be destined for use in centrifuges--a textbook example of an agency prematurely closing off an avenue of investigation because of its confidence in its conclusions. ¹³⁸

***********************************

DIA and CIA analysts overestimated the likelihood that the tubes were intended for use in centrifuges, an erroneous judgment that resulted largely from the unwillingness of many analysts to question--or rigorously test--the underlying assumption that Iraq would try to reconstitute its nuclear program.

Nothing like ignoring the facts. If this were a junior high science project, they'd get an "F" on their research techniques and the validity of their conclusions would be called into question. Good thing this isn't junior high.

The report goes on to find the following:

In addition to citing the aluminum tubes, the NIE's judgment that Iraq was attempting to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program also referred to additional streams of intelligence. These other streams, however, were very thin, and the limited value of that supporting intelligence was inadequately conveyed in the October 2002 NIE and in other Intelligence Community products.

And...

The other indications of reconstitution--aside from the aluminum tubes--did not themselves amount to a persuasive case for a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear program. In light of the tenuousness of this other information, DOE's argument that the aluminum tubes were not for centrifuges but that Iraq was, based on these other streams of information, reconstituting its nuclear program was a flawed analytical position.

Call me crazy, but basing everything on an assumption that your contemporaries can't agree upon doesn't really sound like solid intelligence let alona a "slam dunk." And what of the other evidence that was being used to substantiate their claims?

The gossamer nature of the evidence relied upon by DOE, and the doubts expressed about the attempts to procure uranium from Africa long before the reporting was recalled (more in a moment about this) had led senior officials in other agencies to question the substantive coherence of DOE's position. The former NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs, for one, said that he had not fully understood the logic supporting DOE's conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting despite specifically questioning DOE on this point during the NIE coordination meeting. ¹⁸⁶ Similarly, a former senior intelligence officer remarked in November 2004 that DOE's position had "made sense politically but not substantively." ¹⁸⁷ In fact, the DOE intelligence analyst who participated in the coordination meetings for the NIE--while maintaining that there was no political pressure on DOE, direct or indirect, to agree with the reconstitution conclusion at the NIE coordination meeting--conceded to this Commission that "DOE didn't want to come out before the war and say [Iraq] wasn't reconstituting." ¹⁸⁸

Of course we all remember the famous words from Georgieboy's 2003 SOTU Address - "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Turns out this was based on blatantly forged documents that were provided by a liaison intelligence service in late 2001 and early 2002. According to the commission:

The Intelligence Community failed to authenticate in a timely fashion transparently forged documents purporting to show that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger.

Once again, this information fit their preconceived notion, so why question it? Concerning those documents, the report states:

The IAEA, after receiving copies of the documents from the United States, reviewed them and immediately concluded that they were forgeries. ²¹¹ As the IAEA found, the documents contained numerous indications of forgery--flaws in the letterhead, forged signatures, misspelled words, incorrect titles for individuals and government entities, and anomalies in the documents' stamps. ²¹² The documents also contained serious errors in content. For example, the document describing the agreement made reference to the legal authority for the agreement, but referenced an out-of-date statutory provision. The document also referred to a meeting that took place on "Wednesday, July 7, 2000" even though July 7, 2000 was a Friday. ²¹³

When I was younger, there was this woman that I worked with who was always on my case. She was always accusing me of something I hadn't done and when I'd deny it she'd say, "Denial is always the first sign of a guilty man." Little did I know that this approach would become the method of operation for our nation's intelligence agencies.

It's truly shameful to think that the lives of over 1500 soldiers didn't warrant a closer look at the evidence. Like a bull in a china shop, we just charged straight ahead without bothering to consider the damage we were doing.

More on the commission's findings concerning Iraq's biological weapons tomorrow.

If you haven't read yesterday's report from the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, I highly suggest that you do. It is truly frightening to think that our government would send our soldiers to die for what amounts to a massive "I think so." Starting on Monday, I'm going to be taking a closer look at the section of the report dealing with Iraq. Basically, our intelligence community was like a "blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there."

If Georgieboy insists on taking credit for the accomplishments of all governmental agencies during his tenure in office, then he's going to have to take the blame as well. And boy did he ever screw the pooch on this one. As Atrios would say, "This is craptacular!"

Have a great weekend, I'll see you Monday.