Truespeak

Well apparently the Lacrosse team isn't the only one to visit the White House who's known for their flip flops.

In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.

Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing "at this juncture," is expected to announce his decision Friday morning in a lengthy Senate speech. In it, he says that while he has reservations about altering Mr. Bush's four-year-old policy, which placed strict limits on taxpayer financing for the work, he supports the bill nonetheless.

"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist says, according to a text of the speech provided by his office Thursday evening. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."

My initial reaction to this was WTF? Then after regaining conciousness I began wondering why the evil Dr. Frist would change his position so drastically and so quickly. I've managed to come up with three possibilities for the turn-around.

1. Bill Frist has finally wised up. - In my opinion, this is the least likely of the options. Frist is a physician, so surely he knows the possible benefits of embryonic stem cell research. The fact that he has denied for so long is only proof of his allegiance to the Dobson wing of the conservative party.
   
2. Bill Frist or a member of his family could personally benefit from embryonic stem cell research. - This is a definite possibility. Maybe this is why he was trying to delay the vote a few days ago. He was waiting for a diagnosis for himself or a family member and now that it has come through,he feels compelled to support a potential cure. (This was Mrs. kissfan's take on the situation.)
   
3. Bill Frist is running a scam. - In my opinion, this is the most likely possibility. As I said before, surely Frist knows the potential of embryonic stem cell research. So his sudden change of heart makes me suspicious. Could it be that he's been taking a lot of heat lately for his actions? Maybe putting the NRA ahead of our troops was a bad move on his part. (Yeah, yeah, I heard his explanation and I thinks it's bullshit.) So in an effort to appease the majority and possibly ensnare some naive Democrats, Frist has thrown his support behind this bill knowing full well that Bush will veto it. Furthermore, Frist must know that the Senate would be unable to override Bush's promised veto thereby rendering the bill dead. This way he looks like a centrist to the average person all the while knowing that the bill has no chance of becoming law.

Who knows? Maybe Frist just finally pulled his head out of his ass. Either way, I have to say, "Good for you, Senator Frist. If you're sincere, I welcome your candor and bravery. However, if you're running the scheme I think you are, you can go fuck yourself with the rest of your dipshit cronies."


Sidenote: - As the summer nears its end, Truespeak is going to take a short hiatus. My obligation to the summer theater schedule will be fulfilled after tomorrow and the whole kissfan family will be embarking upon a vacation that will take us into oldwhitelady's neck of the woods on Wednesday as we will be attending a St. Louis Cardinals game. So for the next week, there will be no posting here, although I will most likely still be visiting my favorite bloggers on a regular basis. So until August 8, be safe, be smart, and don't let the fuckers up for air. Take care and I'll see you in a little over a week.

Sometimes a blogger just has to step aside and admit that he/she couldn't have said it any better. This is one of those cases. Senator Russ Feingold has begun a series of speeches on Iraq and last night was the first installment. I would really like to comment on what he said, but I know that nothing I say could enhance the points he makes. This is a brilliant disection of the Bush administration's policy. Now normally I wouldn't do this, but quoting snippets seems unfair. So I'm going to reprint the speech in its entirety. My apologies to Sen. Feingold and to those at Common Dreams for the liberties I am about to take.

Mr. President, we should be using our time right now to continue our work on the Department of Defense authorization bill, working through important amendments relating to the needs of our military and our nation’s security and giving these issues the time and careful attention that they so clearly deserve. At a time when our brave men and women in uniform are deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere -- risking and, too often, losing their lives in service to this country -- we ought to be working intensively on the Defense bill. At a time when terrorist networks continue to strike at our allies, killing innocent civilians in an attempt to intimidate everyone who rejects their violent, extremist agenda, we ought to be focusing sustained attention on ensuring that our military has the tools that it needs, and our country has the policy that it needs, to create a more secure world for our children. And as a part of that effort, we must devote more time and more attention to a realistic assessment of where we stand today in Iraq, and where we should be going.

As my colleagues know, I have introduced a resolution calling for the President to provide a public report clarifying the mission that the US military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq and laying out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission. This doesn’t seem like much to ask for – after all, if we don’t have a clear plan and timeframe, how can we hold ourselves accountable for giving the military the tools they need to succeed in achieving those goals? The resolution also calls on the President to submit a plan for the subsequent return home of US troops that is also linked to a timeframe, so that we provide some clarity about our intentions and restore confidence at home and abroad that U.S. troops will not be in Iraq indefinitely.

My resolution does not dictate deadlines or dates certain. And it does request flexible timeframes for achieving our goals in Iraq rather than imposing any, because drawing up timeframes is best and most appropriately left to the Administration, in consultation with military leaders. And, of course, any timeframe has to be flexible – there are variables that will affect how quickly various missions can be accomplished. But it’s hard to conceive of an effective strategic plan that isn’t linked to some timeframes. That is what the Administration needs to share.

I want to respond directly to some of the criticisms of this approach.

Some have suggested that to question the path that we are on is to undermine our united commitment to support the courageous men and women who have been deployed in harm’s way.

And some believe that any discussion of timeframes, flexible or otherwise, is basically code for a “withdraw now” agenda.

Neither of these charges is credible. Just this morning, General Casey spoke publicly of the potential to reduce our troop levels fairly substantially by the spring and summer of 2006. I think his comments, and Iraqi Prime Minister Jafari’s frank acknowledgement that “the great desire of the Iraqi people is to see the coalition forces be on their way out,” are constructive. And I hardly think that General Casey can be accused of failing to support his fellow servicemen and women.

My support for our troops has not wavered one inch, Mr. President. And it will not. I did not support the Administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq, but I have consistently voted to provide our servicemen and women with the resources they need in Iraq. And I know that our troops have done, and continue to do, a remarkable job. The brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces deserve our admiration, our respect, and our unflagging support. But that’s not all that they deserve. They deserve sound policy from elected officials. They don’t have that right now. The Administration must not leave them in the lurch any longer. Are US forces supposed to be waging a counterinsurgency campaign, or taking sides in what may be an emerging civil war? Or are they supposed to be focused primarily on training Iraqi forces so that the Iraqis can be in the driver’s seat when it comes to taking the decisions, and the risks, associated with achieving their own stability? I hope the Administration knows the answers to these questions, but until they provide them, all of us are in the dark.

Mr. President, it is also clear that we must not accept a false choice between supporting the status quo in Iraq and “cutting and running.” The status quo -- staying a rudderless course without a clear destination -- would be a mistake. The course we are on is not leading to strength. In fact, Mr. President, I am concerned that it is making America weaker and our enemies stronger.

The ill-defined and open-ended military commitment that characterizes our current policy in Iraq is actually strengthening the very forces who wish to do us harm. I’m not talking about disgruntled Baathists, although I am concerned that nationalist sentiments will make it more and more difficult for many Iraqis to accept a massive foreign troop presence on their soil – something that they regard as a humiliation. More alarmingly, I’m talking about the forces that attacked this country on September 11th, 2001. These forces weren’t active in Iraq before the invasion, but they came once disorder in Iraq took hold, and today, as CIA Director Porter Goss has made plain in testimony before Congress, “Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new, anti-U.S. jihadists.” Just recently, President Bush told the country that “with each engagement, Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened and their officers grow more experienced.”

Unfortunately, the same is true of the foreign fighters. Iraq has become a prime on-the-job training ground for jihadists from around the world – terrorists who are getting experience in overcoming U.S. countermeasures, experience in bombing, and experience in urban warfare – they may well be getting a better education in terrorism than jihadists received at al Qaeda’s camps in Afghanistan. And they don’t just have skills – they now have contacts. They are building new, transnational networks, making the most of Al Qaeda’s new model of supporting loosely affiliated franchise-type organizations. Press reports suggest that the CIA is calling this emerging threat the “class of ’05 problem.” Mr. President, all of us, on both sides of the aisle, should be thinking about how to ensure that there is no similar class of ’06.

It would be nice to believe that these terrorists will be swept into Iraq only to be annihilated by U.S. forces. But that kind of “roach motel” approach to fighting is hardly a strategic vision. At its best, it is wishful thinking – and more wishful thinking is just what our Iraq policy and our strategy for fighting terrorism do not need. I agree wholeheartedly with the President that we must not waver in our commitment to defeating the terrorist networks that wish to do us harm. And I know, as he must know, that these networks exist around the world. Fighting terrorists in Baghdad does not mean that we won’t have to fight them elsewhere, and, sadly, we need only look at the headlines over the past few weeks to find the terrible evidence of this hard fact.

Mr. President, I am gravely concerned that not only are our enemies gaining strength under the Administration’s current policies -- we are getting weaker. The U.S. Army is being hollowed out by the Administration’s policies. The Army is straining to maintain the cycle of rotations and training that we know it needs to sustain its capacities, and recruitment efforts have been in serious trouble for some time now. Meanwhile, costs for the Future Combat System – a system that depends on technology that is not yet even developed -- spiral out of control. We cannot stand by and allow the U.S. Army to be broken. We cannot stay this course.

And Mr. President, the current course of action simply is not inspiring confidence among the American people. I know that my constituents are terribly troubled by the Administration’s handling of the war in Iraq. After the shifting justifications for this war, the rosy scenarios that bore no resemblance to reality, and the unreliable declarations of “mission accomplished,” they sense that our policy is adrift. A democracy cannot succeed in achieving its goals without the support of the people. They deserve clarity and candor and so do our troops on the ground.

Finally, Mr. President, I want to talk about the most common criticism leveled at anyone who invokes the phrase “timetable” in talking about our military deployment in Iraq. The charge goes something like this: if the insurgents know when we plan to go, they will simply hunker down and lie in wait for the time when we are no longer present in large numbers, and then they will attack.

Well, Mr. President, if that were the insurgents’ plan, why wouldn’t they cease all attacks now, lay low, let everyone believe that stability has been achieved, and spring up again once the security presence in Iraq is dramatically reduced? If we really believe the argument that any kind of timetable is a “lifeline” to the insurgents, then why wouldn’t they try to induce us to throw them that lifeline?

We cannot know all the reasons behind the choices made by the diverse elements waging Iraq’s insurgency. But one thing is clear: ultimately, we will withdraw from Iraq, and it will not be secret when we do. Does the Administration believe that the insurgents will be entirely defeated at that point? Is it really our policy to stay in Iraq until every last insurgent and every last terrorist is defeated? Recently Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld made news when he said that the insurgency could well last a decade or more, and that ultimately, “foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency,” rather it is going to be defeated by the Iraqis themselves. I think this analysis makes good sense – especially given the fact that our very presence in Iraq is helping to recruit more foreign jihadists every day. But the Secretary’s candor made waves, because for long, costly months we lacked clarity on this critical point regarding just what the remaining U.S. military mission is in Iraq. Is it to defeat the insurgency, or is it to give the Iraqis the tools to do that themselves?

If the remaining military mission is to train Iraqis to provide for their own security, we ought to be able to articulate a clear plan for getting that job done. If we know how many troops we need to train, and we know how long it takes to train effectively, then we ought to have some sense of how long it will take to accomplish our mission.

When I was in Baghdad in February, a senior coalition officer told me that he believes the U.S. could “take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents” by providing a clear, public plan and timeframe for the remaining U.S. mission. He thought this could rob them of their recruiting momentum. I also think it could rob them of some unity. All reports indicate that the forces fighting U.S. troops and attacking Iraqi police, soldiers, and civilians are a disparate bunch with different agendas, from embittered former regime elements to foreign fighters. The one thing that unites them is opposition to America’s presence in Iraq. Remove that factor, and we may see a more divided, less effective, more easily defeated insurgency.

Mr. President, intense American diplomatic and political engagement in and support for Iraq will likely last long after the troops’ mission is accomplished and they are withdrawn. I expect that we will continue some important degree of military and security cooperation with the Iraqis, as we work with them and with others around the world to combat terrorist networks. And we have to be working diligently to combat a burgeoning culture of corruption in Iraq, or the rule of law doesn’t stand a chance. We need to make reconstruction work and deliver real democracy dividends for the Iraqi people. The situation in Iraq is complex and it requires a long-term political commitment from the U.S. What my resolution addresses is just one piece of the puzzle for achieving our interests in Iraq and helping the people of Iraq and the region move toward a more stable future.

Mr. President, I certainly don’t have all the answers to the complex problem we confront in Iraq. But I know that it’s time to restore confidence in the American people that this President and this Administration know where we are going and how we plan to get there. It’s time to put Iraq in the context of a broader vision for our security. It’s time to regain a position of strength. That starts with sustained attention, focus, and debate – and we should be doing that right here in this Congress, right now.

All I want to know is where was he in 2004? Sen. Feingold, my hat's off to you. Well said.

Believe it or not, this is post # 300 here at Truespeak. You would think I'd get a new toaster or something from Blogger, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Despite the festivities, wouldn't you know it? I'm feeling ill. (Word of advice: If you ever find yourself dining in a restaurant known as Diamond Dave's, avoid the Fajita Wrap at all costs. Bad news, people. Bad news.) So no insight tonight, but I will leave you with a few tidbits to peruse on your own.

Walter Pincus gives us the latest on Rovegate.

USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

Quinnipiac University National Poll; Bush Approval Drops To New Low

So read up! I'm going to get in bed and try to forget I ever met old Diamond Dave.

BTW - Normally Mrs. kissfan would fill in for me in this kind of a situation but the Mrs. bit the dust on her roller blades today and she's moving pretty slow. I don't think she'll be making it to the computer this evening.

Well, I considered writing about a number of things tonight. At first I thought about discussing the recruiting issues our military is facing in Iraq. Then I considered writing about what looks like a failed propaganda campaign by the military itself. But then the evil Dr. Frist reared his ugly head.

Senate Republican leaders decided Tuesday that a gun manufacturers’ liability bill is more important than next year’s $441.6 billion defense authorization bill.

With Democrats expressing amazement that there could be any higher legislative priority in a time of war than the annual defense bill that includes money for pay and benefits, operations and maintenance, and weapons’ purchases and research, Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Senate Republican leader, decided Tuesday that a bill protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits over the illegal use of firearms was a higher priority.

Talk about pandering to the special interests. I'm sure our troops appreciate being put on hold so Sen. Frist can make his gun-lovin' NRA buddies happy. Screw that pay and benefits shit, man. Gun makers need some protection!

You see, this type of behavior looks to be Sen. Frist's new approach to politics. If there's something about the bill you don't like, put it off until later. I think that's what we would technically call a "stall." You know, stalling. It's what Bush and his cronies were accusing Democrats of doing recently.

Democrats held up Bolton's nomination last week in a dispute over documents they claim the White House has refused to provide. Congress is not in session this week, meaning any new vote on the long-delayed nomination is at least a week off.

"I view that as just another stall tactic, another way to delay, another way to not allow Bolton to get an up-or-down vote," Bush said.

"I would hope that when they get back that they stop stalling and give the man a vote. Just give him a simple up-or-down vote."

As I said, this looks to be Frist's new political strategy. Yesterday, we learned of another of his stall moves.

A measure to expand federal funding of stem cell research has stalled in the Senate but backers unable to get the anticipated July vote instead vowed on Thursday to force the issue one way or another this year.

Despite a veto threat by President Bush, the embryonic stem cell bill cleared the House in May with a surprisingly broad bipartisan margin. Backers believed they had momentum in the Senate and a vote was tentatively set for this month.

But now bill sponsors say there is only the slimmest of chances that the Senate can take up the bill before breaking for its August recess.

It bogged down in a procedural morass involving a half-dozen other stem cell and cloning bills -- some written with the apparent aim of peeling away support from the House-passed legislation.

"I think there has been an effort to obfuscate the House-passed bill with a collection of other bills," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and leading advocate of the research.

Republican backers of the embryonic stem cell bill say that the bid by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, to have one debate on a half-dozen politically sensitive and complicated bioethics bills on issues from embryonic stem cells to human cloning is a recipe for stalemate

.
Now we see what kind of a man Bill Frist is. When things aren't going to go his way, he holds his breath and stomps his feet. Despite the fact that he is a part of the majority, he has decided that it's his way or the highway, fellow Republicans be damned.

You know, if Frist had any aspirations for the presidency, his chances are quickly dissipating. The campaign fodder he's supplying to any prospective opponent is incredible. He's siding with the NRA over the support of our troops. He's putting off debate on a bill supported by members of his own party and a majority of Americans. His behavior on the Schiavo issue was shameful. And his leadership of the Senate has been pathetic, at best. I don't think we'll ever have to worry about getting used to saying "President Frist."

(Note - If you're jonesing for your daily Rove-gate fix, be sure to read this from the Washington Post and this from the New York Times.)

Whoops! John Roberts, Bush's poster boy for virtue, may have screwed up.

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. has been called the stealth nominee for the Supreme Court — a nominee specifically selected because he has few public positions on controversial issues such as abortion. However, in a meeting last week, Roberts briefly lifted the carefully maintained curtain over his personal views. In so doing, he raised a question that could not only undermine the White House strategy for confirmation but could raise a question of his fitness to serve as the 109th Supreme Court justice.

The exchange occurred during one of Roberts' informal discussions with senators last week. According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral. Roberts is a devout Catholic and is married to an ardent pro-life activist. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be a sin, and various church leaders have stated that government officials supporting abortion should be denied religious rites such as communion. (Pope Benedict XVI is often cited as holding this strict view of the merging of a person's faith and public duties).

Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.

Recuse himself? Are you serious? This man has been a lawyer and a judge and he claims that he is unable to separate his rulings from his religious beliefs. That kind of an attitude would get him dismissed from jury duty and we're supposed to believe that he could be a fair Supreme Court Justice. As pointed out over at TAPPED:

He'd only have to recuse himself from abortion and gay-rights cases ... and maybe the death penalty ... and perhaps pornography cases ... and possibly questions of church-state separation ... and, I suppose, poverty and social justice issues ... and then there's the moral acceptability of war ...

To think that Roberts could be a fair and balanced justice yet not be able to rule on cases that conflicted with his religious beliefs is a joke. If he's unable to look beyond his faith, he's unable to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. It's as simple as that.

For years the debate over religion in politics has raged on. As early as 1778, the Continental Congress proposed banning clergymen from roles in government. While the congress failed to even vote on the proposal, many states did adopt it over the years. In fact Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas may have said it best when in 1954 he wrote:

"This early ban on clergymen reflected largely, I think, the fear of a religious group dominating politics.

"English history had shown the evils of the merger of religious and secular power."

I would hope that we as a nation would not be so careless as to forget one of the driving forces behind the founding of the United States of America. Many came here in an attempt to escape religious persecution from their government.

We need a Supreme Court that can separate itself from religion. We need a Supreme Court that will not allow their religious beliefs to influence their decisions. We need a Supreme Court that does not include someone that is unable to look beyond his ideologies and rule in a way that is fair to all. We need a Supreme Court without John Roberts.

Well, it's Friday and the Rove scandal keeps on going. Hunter over at dailyKos has a great roundup of what's happening thus far. And it's not looking good for the White House.

But with everything that's happened, it's started me thinking. As the investigation moves on, it looks to be reaching further and further into the White House with everyone from Rove to Libby to Fleischer to even John Bolton possibly being involved. So naturally I've been wondering, just how far this will go. With Libby being Cheney's Chief of Staff, could it go as far as the VP's office? And if it makes it to Cheney, is it that much of a stretch to think that it could reach Bush himself? I'm not saying that Bush was the leaker or even authorized the leak, but the other day I asked the question, "What did Bush know and when did he know it?" This could prove to be a very important question. As I said the other day there are really three possible answers to the question:

1. Rove lied to Bush - This would be the best possible outcome for Bush. He could fire Rove and anyone else involved and make it look like he was cleaning house.
   
2. Bush knew about Rove's involvement and helped to cover it up - This would be the worst possible outcome for Bush. He would then be complicit in covering up a crime.
   
3. Bush didn't care enough to find out the truth - Probably the most likely outcome, but it makes him look bad.

Let's say for the sake of argument that it does reach as far as Bush and the answer to the question is number 2. This would mean that Bush was complicit in covering up a crime. Hmmmm... where have I heard this before? When has a President been guilty of covering up a crime? That's right: Watergate.

A few years back, John W. Dean wrote a book called Worse Than Watergate. One of the things I remember from the book was Dean's comparison of the secrecy of the Nixon and Bush White Houses. He claimed that there were scandals simmering just below the surface that could eventually bring down Bush and his entire administration. It's beginning to look as though John Dean's book could prove to be quite prophetic. The parallels are really unnerving. Even some of the players are the same. It's quite striking.

So I've been wondering, could this be Bush's Watergate? Could this be the thing that brings him down? It all hinges on which one of those answers turns out to be true. If it's number two, we could be looking at a major blow to not just the Bush White House but the entire Republican party.

So now I have a question for you, dear reader: Do you think? Could it be? Ponder that this weekend. I'll see you all back here Monday night.

Try as they might, the Republicans just can't get away from Rove-gate. Sure, they got a little reprieve with the nomination of Roberts but then today, there it was again: Washington Post, page A01, above the fold.

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

Ahhhh! The media does its job. There will be plenty of time to discuss Roberts in the upcoming months. Right now, Rove's the word.

But while the WaPo story is nice, it looks as if there's more to come. According to Think Progress, the shit's going to be hitting the fan soon and it's not just splattering on Rove but Libby as well.

Two top White House aides have given accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to persons familiar with the case.

Lewis “Scooter'’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson. Novak, according to a source familiar with the matter, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor.

These discrepancies may be important because one issue Fitzgerald is investigating is whether Libby, Rove, or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a CIA agent.

For almost five years now we've been watching the Bush administration deflect scandal after scandal. Fixing intelligence? Who cares? Not the media. Avoiding responsibility? So what? We've got Terri Schiavo to worry about. Lying about military service? Big deal! Homosexual fake reporters lobbing softball questions in the press room? Get out of town! Well, no more. They can deflect all they want, but there's simply too much shit flying around. The media smells blood and they're on the attack.

So what will Georgieboy do? Will he cut his losses or will he go down with the ship? Considering his debt to good ol' Karl, I'm guessing he'll ride this one all the way to the bottom. I can only imagine the dirt Rove's got on W. If Georgieboy kicks Karl to the curb, Karl could sing like a soprano in a Wagner opera. And don't think he wouldn't. Rove is a nasty mother-fucker. He'd cut his own mother if he thought there was some political capital to be earned. If Bush screws him, the knives will come out.

This could be good.

I know it's only July, 2005, but Bush is in full bullshit mode. He's spreading the shit like he's running for something. Today he spoke in Baltimore and the first 1,000 people to arrive received a free pair of Halliburton hipwaders. Good thing too, cause it was getting deep. Let's take a look, shall we?

Of course he started with the thank yous and the glad to be heres and the my good friends and all that other shit. But eventually he got to the bullshit.

I'm going to talk about securing the homeland. But I want you to remember, as we work to secure the homeland, we have to be right one hundred percent of the time, and the enemy only has to be right one time. And so, therefore, the best way to protect the homeland is to go on the offense, is to find these people in foreign lands and bring them to justice before they come here to hurt us.

Try telling that to the Londoners. Going on the offense sure protected them, didn't it George?

We're facing cold-blooded killers who have an ideology that is the opposite of ours. These people believe that there should be no dissent, no freedom, no rights for women, that there only ought to be one religion, which is a misinterpretation of the great religion of Islam. That's what they believe. And they have designs, they have goals. And what are those goals? Well, they want to topple nations. They want to drive the United States and freedom-loving countries out of parts of the world so their ideology can take hold. That's what they want. And they want to shake our will and weaken our determination.

Wait a minute! Who's he talking about? I didn't realize he was going to be discussing the Republican party today. Hmmm. Imagine that.

The only way to defeat an ideology of hatred is with an ideology of hope. And so our strategy is not only stay on the offense and to bring these people to justice; our strategy is to spread the ideology of hope found in democracy and freedom. History has proven that democracies are peaceful countries. History has proven that democracy and freedom have the capability of converting enemies into allies. The best way to secure the future for our children and grandchildren is to spread democracy and hope and freedom to parts of the world that simmer in resentment and anger and hatred.

Democracies are peaceful countries? Democracy converts allies to enemies? If that's the case, what the hell are we doing attacking other countries unprovoked. Why are we currently creating more terrorists than we're killing? I think George better have his fact checker fired. He's apparently not reading his memos.

I found an interesting contrast that when I was in Scotland a while ago, that we were there to talk about how to end poverty and disease, how to help women, how to educate young girls on the continent of Africa -- that's what we were there to discuss. We were there to discuss how nations that have been blessed with riches can do our part to save lives. I don't know if you know this or not, but the United States of America is, by far, the most generous nation in the world when it comes to feeding the hungry, or providing help for those who are suffering from HIV/AIDS. I believe that to whom much is given, much is required.

Wait a minute! That's not necessarily true. Yes, we give more money than any other nation, but as a percent of our wealth we give the least of all other industrialized nations. When we could afford to give so much more, why do we give so little? It's just like in George's favorite book, the Bible.

But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."


-Mark 12:42-44

But I digress. Back to the bullshit, er, I mean speech.

We're developing innovative programs to defend this country against a biological, chemical, or nuclear attack. In other words, one of the biggest dangers we face is if a biological, chemical, or nuclear device gets in the hands of terrorists. Listen, they will use them. By the way, you can't negotiate with these people or reason with them. That's what you've got to understand. These are not the kind of people you sit down and send a counselor over and hope to convince them to change their ways. These are cold-blooded ideologues who will kill. And therefore, we've got to plan for the worst.

Really? Do you suppose this means that they're actually going to guard our nuclear facilities? Does this mean that they're going to secure our water facilities? Oh, wait, he's talking about something else. Never mind. We're just going to leave those things unguarded because they would never think of using anything of ours against us, right? Right?

We launched what we call the Container Security Initiative, to screen American-bound containers at more than 35 foreign ports so we can identify dangerous cargo before it reaches our shore. Doesn't that make sense? It seems like it does to me. In other words, we're stationing Custom folks overseas and we're working with places that ship goods to us, to inspect cargo there so we don't burden our ports. Since September the 11th, we've provided more than $700 million in federal grants to close off the vulnerabilities at individual ports, including $15 million for this port right here.

Hey! That was one of John Kerry's ideas. Georgeieboy stole that. Too bad they're not actually providing enough money to do the job.

Oh, you know how the rest of this goes. A lot of what I'm sayings and what I means and thank yous and all that. He put in the good word for his SCOTUS nominee but forgot to mention that he's really unexperienced. And ironically, he didn't even mention Karl Rove. Which I guess isn't that surprising because neither did NBC Nightly News.

So it was kind of like a time warp today. Georgie was in full campaign mode. The bullshit was deep, the lies were flying, and the rhetoric was as empty as ever. Oh, the good old days of 2004. Back when there was a hope that this douchebag would get kicked to the curb. Sigh. I sure miss optimism and hope.

Holy smokes! Bush nominated someone for the SCOTUS! Whoopee. The Republicans are thrilled because they're hoping that this will take the attention away from "Rovegate." We can't let that happen!

For those of us that can still remember the late nineties (Republicans have conveniently forgotten), it's hard to forget the persistence of the Republican noise machine as they fought tooth and nail to keep the Lewinsky affair in the public's eye. Every single day there was a new Republican suit on television reminding the public that the President had lied about a blowjob. Well, as I've indicated before, it's time to rev up the Democratic noise machine. Every day there needs to be a Democrat on the television reminding us that Karl Rove and possibly "Scooter" Libby, outed a CIA operative and put lives in danger just to try and discredit a critic. Every day there needs to be a letter in the newspapers around America reminding the public that a trusted member of the White House staff broke the law. Every day there needs to be a phone call to the talk radio hosts reminding them that George Bush had the opportunity to do the right thing and stick by his word to fire anyone involved and he has so far chosen not to.

Just today, the Wall Street Journal provided more proof that a crime did indeed take place.

A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document.

A special prosecutor is investigating whether Bush administration officials broke the law by intentionally outing a covert intelligence operative. Investigators are trying to determine if the memo, dated June 10, 2003, was how White House officials learned that Valerie Wilson was an agent for the Central Intelligence Agency.

News that the memo was marked for its sensitivity emerged as President Bush yesterday appeared to backtrack from his 2004 pledge to fire any member of his staff involved in the leaking of the CIA agent's name. In a news conference yesterday that followed disclosures that his top strategist, Karl Rove, had discussed Ms. Wilson's CIA employment with two reporters, Mr. Bush adopted a different formulation, specifying criminality as the standard for firing.

"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Mr. Bush said. White House spokesman Scott McClellan later disputed the suggestion that the president had shifted his position.

The memo's details are significant because they will make it harder for officials who saw the document to claim that they didn't realize the identity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, may also be looking at whether other crimes -- such as perjury, obstruction of justice or leaking classified information -- were committed.

The question still remains though: What did George W. Bush know and when did he know it. The way I see it, there are three possible answers to this question. They are as follows:

1. Bush (or one of his aides) asked Rove about his involvement and Rove lied. - In my mind, this is grounds for dismissal. Anytime you lie to your boss about your involvement in a crime, you should be fired.
   
2. Bush (or one of his aides) asked Rove about his involvement, he admitted to being involved, and the administration covered it up - In my mind, this is grounds for impeachment. If the President of the United States is complicit in covering up a crime that risked the security of the nation and the lives of Americans, he should be impeached immediately.
   
3. Nobody in the administration even bothered to ask Rove about his involvement. - This would mean that McClellan lied and Bush doesn't give a shit if someone in his administration breaks the law. While this may not be grounds for impeachment, it shows the arrogance of an administration that believes itself to be above the law.

So basically, Bush either knew, was lied to, or didn't care. Don't let anyone forget. In the upcoming days and weeks it is likely that the media focus will shift to the battle over Bush's SCOTUS nominee. It is up to us to keep the pressure on the administration and keep this crime in the public's eye. As Republicans attempt to paint any Democrat opposing Judge Roberts as an obstructionist, it is important that this not get lost in the shuffle. This is Bush's blue dress.

I don't know how everybody else does it, but as a blogger who posts only once a day, I spend a good portion of my free time planning each day's post. I begin by finding a topic that interests me and then I try to organize my thoughts into a coherent polemic. Needless to say, some are more coherent than others. As I began this day, I was planning to write about the Sunday smackdown endured by RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman as he was thrown to the dogs in Karl Rove's defense. But then my daily paper arrived.

As I've said before, my hometown is extremely conservative. The county I live in is dominated by Republicans and has been for many many years. So it's no wonder that my local paper often publishes editorials from the nuttiest of the wingnut-o-sphere of journalism. One of these crazies is Diana West. According to the byline printed in my paper, she writes for the Washington Moonie Times, which should explain a lot. However, I read her every week because I'm always amazed by her disconnect from reality. Tonight's vomitous screed was a real gem.

Without it -- without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same -- the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail. It's as simple as that. To live among the believers -- the multiculturalists -- is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place un-repulsed by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.
[.....]
Body bags, burn masks and prosthetics are no better protections than make-believe. But these are our weapons, according to the powers that be. These, and an array of high-tech scopes and scanners designed to identify retinas and fingerprints, to detect explosives and metals -- ultimately, I presume, as we whisk through the automatic supermarket door. How strange, though, that even as we devise new ways to see inside ourselves to our most elemental components, we also prevent ourselves from looking full-face at the danger to our way of life posed by Islam.


Notice I didn't say "Islamists." Or "Islamofascists." Or "fundamentalist extremists." I've tried out such terms in the past, but I've come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us all to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam -- the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it "moderately" enables or "extremistly" advances jihad -- with the West.
[.....]
In not discussing the roots of terror in Islam itself, in not learning about them, the multicultural clergy that shepherds our elites prevents us from having to do anything about them.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, here, but the way I understand this is that Ms. West is claiming that the problems we are facing are a direct result of our country not discriminating enough against Muslims. Correct? Now maybe it's just me, but I would think that one could easily argue that the problems we are facing today have been fueled by the words and actions of intolerant crazies like Ms. West, herself.

Ms. West attempts to justify her bigotry by making the claim that terror has it's roots in Islam. While those that attacked us on 9/11 do indeed claim the Islamic ground, we have to remember that the vast majority of that religion does not support or condone the actions of al Qaeda. Just as the KKK and the Nazi regime claimed to be grounded in Christianity, they did not speak for everyone who shared their creed. I wonder how Ms. West would like to be judged based upon the actions of the KKK? I would hope that she would be repulsed by the notion. I stress HOPE, because after reading this article, I'm left to wonder.

If you're as offended as I am by Ms. West's intolerant rhetoric I encourage you to contact her. Be polite, but be clear that views like hers can not be tolerated. Because in the words of John Mellencamp: "Bigotry and hatred are enemies to us all".

Diana West
dianawest@verizon.net

General switchboard:
(202) 636-3000

Mailing Address:
Washington Times
3600 New York Ave NE
Washington, DC 20002-1947

Where have they been? Weren't they paying attention last year? Didn't they get the memo? Apparently not.

El-Nashar was arrested at Cairo International Airport at the request of London authorities, said Egyptian security sources, who spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Scotland Yard issued a statement acknowledging his arrest but saying it was "not prepared to discuss who we may or may not wish to interview in connection with this investigation."

You know, I may be crazy, but it looks as if the British are trying to deal with the London bombings as if it were a law enforcement situation. Whoa.... deja vu. Why do I feel like I've heard something like this before?

Oh yeah!

BROKAW: Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don't get it.

Who is right?

KERRY: I think it's somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing...

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.

I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three.

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.

And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.

And what was the reaction from the Republicans? Well, here's one from the National Review (I'm not linking to this trash, you can find it on your own if you want):

You say that terrorism is a law-enforcement issue. As a former prosecutor, you know that a criminal trial requires disclosing to the accused all information in the government's possession that could be considered material to the preparation of the defense; all prior statements made by government witnesses (and often witnesses not called by the government); and any information that even arguably suggests that the defendant is not guilty, that the crime was committed in a manner different from the government's theory of its commission, or that might induce the jury to vote against the death penalty. Is handing over to our enemies this treasure trove of intelligence what you favor? If not, what exactly is it that the president is doing wrong?

The atrocities of the past eleven years have demonstrated that there are thousands of anti-American terrorists in al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations. In the eight years from 1993 to 2001, when terrorism was regarded as a law-enforcement issue, we managed to prosecute about 40 terrorists in trials that generally took six months or more, and terrorist attacks nevertheless continued apace. On the other hand, since October 2001, our military has killed or captured thousands of terrorists and there have been no domestic attacks. Why are trials better than military operations?

I think it's safe to say that the Republicans weren't too fond of Kerry's approach. No, they didn't like it at all. They ridiculed it saying that Kerry wanted to arrest the people who killed 3,000 innocent Americans. He wanted to put them in jail. This of course implies that any real man wouldn't want to seek justice for the crimes of 9/11 but would seek retribution, instead. In other words, they'd bomb the shit out of a country, lay waste to its infrastructure and then quickly pull out most of the troops to go fight an unrelated war leaving the first country in disarray. They must be terribly disappointed with Great Britain right now. How could they?

No, I would have to say the British are going about this the wrong way. How dare they arrest people and hold them responsible for their actions. Obviously, these guys haven't learned anything.

/sarcasm (in case you couldn't tell)

Hop in. The way-back machine's ready to go. Destination: March 28, 2003.

The White House projected Friday that postwar Iraq will not require long-term U.S. aid, in part because of oil reserves that the Bush administration contends will offset many of the costs of reconstruction.

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid," said a report from President Bush's Office of Management and Budget.

Oh, the good old days. Full of optimism and hope. Now back to the present.

First, the good news: With oil prices at record highs, Iraq is on track to bring in $20 billion or more in oil revenue this year.

That may sound like a lot of petrodollars, especially for a war-torn country with tremendous needs in infrastructure repair and services delivery.

But the bad news is that very little, if any, of that money will actually be used in the country's stalled reconstruction - despite past lofty predictions that oil-rich Iraq would be financially self-sufficient by now.

Dealing with Iraq's insurgency is a chief reason for the gap between oil revenues and improving living conditions. But another reason for the lag is a growing problem of income loss from smuggling and outright theft of the revenues.

Whoops!

How the fuck can we not keep track of $20 billion? Could we be more incompetent? I really don't have anything witty to say about this. I'm completely appalled by our ineptitude. This is yet another example of the Bush administration not having a fucking clue about what they're doing.

God damn! Are we doing those Iraqis a favor or what? We bombed the shit out of their country, we've allow insurgents from all over the world into the country to fight in their streets causing the deaths of over 8,000 Iraqis in the last 10 months and we don't even have the common fucking sense to keep track of $20 billion of their money. Could there be any doubt that we are dealing with the WORST ADMINISTRATION EVER?

Un-fucking-believeable.

Today, one day after his press secretary Scott McClellan declared that everyone who worked in the White House had the confidence of [George W. Bush], Georgieboy himself declined to offer the same endorsement.

President Bush passed up a chance Wednesday to express confidence in senior aide Karl Rove in a political fight over a news leak that exposed a CIA officer's identity. The lack of endorsement surprised some White House officials who had been told Bush would back his embattled friend.

Hmmmm. Maybe he's trying to distance himself so that he's not splattered when the shit hits the fan (and it's going to hit).

There's been a lot of parsing of words lately over what exactly took place. Did he out her? Was she covert? Was he the original source? Yada yada yada. But here's the way I've been rationalizing it. For an agent to be considered covert, she must have served undercover while over seas within the last five years. Well, that's easy enough to check. I'm sure the CIA has records on that, so apparently she must have been otherwise there's no reason for the investigation to continue, right? If there were any truth to the notion that Valerie Plame wasn't covert, the investigation would have been over long ago and old Judith Miller wouldn't be in the stripey hole. So clearly a crime was committed by someone somewhere at sometime, right?

All along, I've thought this was a pretty cut a dry case of someone outing a CIA agent. That is until I read this diary over at dailyKos.

This case isn't about identifying a covert agent, and hasn't been for a long, long time.  It's about disclosure of classified information which is a violation of the Espionage Act and a more serious crime.  It happens that the classified material (primarilly an "INR"  Report by the CIA regarding the possibillity that Saddam was attempting to obtain urainium yellowcake and Joe Wilson's trip to Niger) was used by the administration to discredit Wilson by pointing out what they say was his wife's role.  But that identification is NOT what Fitzgerald is after.  Someone leaked the contents of that classified file all over town trying to get ahead of Wilson's story.
[.....]
That's why the phone records of Air Force One were so crucial.  The CIA file was taken on Bush's trip to Africa (with Powell, Rice and others) the day after Wilson's Op Ed piece was in the NYT.

That's why Jeff Gannon is as important as Novak.  Gannon says himself that the contents of that memo were shared with him.  It's on his website right now.  He also says that the FBI came to talk to him about just that (and he later testified before the GJ).  

That's why Judy Miller is in jail and she didn't even write about the story.

And that's why all the fragile facts that go into making a case under the CAIPA (was she covert, did he disclose her name, was it "knowingly", was the gov actively trying to keep her covert, etc...)  DON'T MATTER. And that the RNC is peddling the "additional comments" that have been entirely refuted and weren't even included in the Intelligence Committee's report JUST DOESN'T MATTER.  Someone (and you know damn well know who) leaked classified information that has a direct impact on national security to reporters (and gay prositutes) PERIOD.  Thats why all the judges are horrified including one who is sympathetic to protecting a reporter's privelege.  And Fitgerald would never go this far if he had to rely on all the flimsy bullshit that's framing the public perception of this issue right now.  If he can tie Rove to disclosure of the information that's in that INR memo, the ballgame is over.

Well now, that puts things in a rather different light. This is definitely an angle I hadn't seen but very clearly a possibility.

But you know what? I'm not really concerned about how or why. All I want is to see that slimy little fucker Rove kicking and screaming and pissing his pants as the police drag his handcuffed ass out of the White House. Anyone else (Ari, Scotty, Scooter, etc.) would just be icing on the cake. I can hardly sit still.

Well, it's official. The Republicans love criminals.

Q: ...So does he [George Bush] retain confidence in Karl Rove, specifically?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Any individual who works here at the White House has the President's confidence. They wouldn't be working here if they didn't have the President's confidence...

So they are now endorsing someone who is known to have lied about his involvement in a criminal act. That's something to be proud of. Not only are they endorsing him, they're trying to spin what he did as a good thing. According to RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman:

"It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks."

So to make sure everyone understands this, Mehlman is saying that only the far-left would ever consider holding a criminal responsible for his actions. This naturally begs the question, "How fucking far to the right do you have to be to think that holding criminals responsible is "far-left?" But hey, who am I to judge? After all, I'm obviously from the far-left. So let's look at their defense of old Karl, shall we?

For starters, they claim:

Cooper’s Own Email Claims Rove Warned Of Potential Inaccuracies In Wilson Information:

“[Time Reporter Matt] Cooper Wrote That Rove Offered Him A ‘Big Warning’ Not To ‘Get Too Far Out On Wilson.’ Rove Told Cooper That Wilson’s Trip Had Not Been Authorized By ‘DCIA’ - CIA Director George Tenet - Or Vice President Dick Cheney.” (Michael Isikoff, "Matt Cooper’s Source," Newsweek, 7/18/05)

While this sounds like it would be to their advantage, they're misrepresenting what Cooper actually wrote in his e-mail. Yes, Rove warned Cooper to not get "too far out there," but according to Cooper "it was, KR [Karl Rove] said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." That's where the crime occured. Look, if Rove wanted to warn Cooper he could have done so without mentioning Wilson's wife or her association with the CIA. But he did. And I believe did with the intent that Cooper would run with the information. Look, Cooper is a reporter. You don't say something to a reporter and expect them to not publish it. It's not like confessional where you can expect your priest to keep quiet. Cooper's a reporter and he's going to run with any information he's presented with.

Second in their line of defense is this little gem:

Wilson Falsely Claimed That It Was Vice President Cheney Who Sent Him To Niger, But The Vice President Has Said He Never Met Him And Didn’t Know Who Sent Him:

Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03)

Hmmmm. I'm getting this sense of deja vu. Where have I heard this line of defense before? Let's see... never met him......Oh yeah!

CHENEY: ...Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Well, we all know how truthful that was. I'm sorry, but Dick's memory is not something I'm willing to base an argument on.

What other evidence do they site to bolster their case? Well, there's this little beauty:

Wilson’s Report On Niger Had “Thin” Evidence And Did Not Change Conclusions Of Analysts And Other Reports:

The Butler Report Claimed That The President’s State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, “Was Well-Founded.” “We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ was well-founded.” (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, “Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” 7/14/04)

This one's my personal favorite. Why? Because it's a complete misrepresentation of what was said. They only include the part of the quote that helps their cause, but it misrepresents the actual statement. Here's what the Butler Report actually said:

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in
President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:


The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

was well-founded.

We also note that, because the intelligence evidence was inconclusive, neither the Government’s dossier nor the Prime Minister went on to say that a deal between the Governments of Iraq and Niger for the supply of uranium had been signed, or uranium shipped.

We have been told that it was not until early 2003 that the British Government became aware that the US (and other states) had received from a journalistic source a number of documents alleged to cover the Iraqi procurement of uranium from Niger. Those documents were passed to the IAEA, which in its update report to the United Nations Security Council in March 2003 determined that the papers were forgeries:

So as it turns out, Wilson was right, but never mind that. Facts and accuracy will always get in the way of protecting a criminal.

So when it comes right down to it, what we have here is a bunch of liars using lies to protect another liar. Sure makes Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them seem a little more appropriate doesn't it?

Hey, here's my latest idea for a new bumper sticker. If anyone wants to produce them, you have my permission to do so.

Poor Scotty. I'll bet those words he's been eating lately are giving him an upset stomach. And after today's press briefing, he must have been downing the TUMS like they were M&Ms.

Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That's something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy.

Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --

Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

Go ahead, Terry.

Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q Do you recall when you were asked --

Q Wait, wait -- so you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore, and since then, you haven't?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond any further.

Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?

MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.

Q Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Go ahead, Dave.

Q We are going to keep asking them. When did the President learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with the President -- with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife and the decision to send --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q When did the President learn that Karl Rove had --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions, Dick.

Go ahead.

Q After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the President's word that anybody who was involved would be let go?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q And a follow-up. Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

Whew! I'm exhausted just reading this. How many times and how many ways can someone say "no comment?"

Unfortunately for Scotty, though, he's already commented. Several times. Like July 22, 2003, July 23, 2003, September 16, 2003, September 29, 2003, October 1, 2003, October 7, 2003, and October 10, 2003. (Thanks to Billmon for the research.)

What's more is that in many of these instances, Scotty-boy claimed to have spoken with Karl Rove and says that Karl assured him that he wasn't the leaker. Now I'm not the smartest person in the world, but even I can tell that this means someone was lying. The question is, was it Karl or was it Scott? Not that it matters, after all a lie is a lie. But if it was Scott who was doing the lying then how can he be taken at his word from here on out. I realize that it's his job to spin for the White House, but to out and out lie to the American people is something completely different. If he didn't talk to Karl and claimed he had, it's a lie. If he did talk to Karl and knew the truth then it's an even bigger lie and it makes him complicit in the attempt to cover up a crime. Furthermore, I think it's important that we find out who else knew the truth and when.

After the leak was first revealed in Robert Novak's column, Georgie-boy vowed to fire the person or person's responsible. (Like this White House is big on responsibility.) It will be interesting to see how far the responsibility goes. Does it only apply to the leaker himself or does it apply to those who helped him cover it up as well? If it does, this could reach deep into the administration.

As is the case with most things Bush, however, I'm not expecting much in the way of follow-through on George's promise. In fact, I believe that if push comes to shove we can expect to see a presidential pardon handed down to those responsible. In George Bush's America, anything goes if it's to his advantage.

In response to the London bombing, Italy is saying "buon giorno."

Italy plans to begin withdrawing some of its troops from Iraq in September, Premier Silvio Berlusconi said Friday.

Berlusconi, who was a strong supporter of President Bush on Iraq, sent 3,000 troops to the country after the ouster of Saddam Hussein to help rebuild the country. He had previously indicated he hoped a pullout could begin in September.

"We will begin withdrawing 300 men in the month of September," Berlusconi said at the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland. But he added the decision would depend on security conditions on the ground and could change.

Granted, this isn't terribly stunning news as the Italians have been hinting at this for a while now. But what is stunning to me is this quote right here.

"It's evident that after New York, Madrid and London, Italy represents the most probable next objective of the terrorists," he said. "The time has come to begin to think also about our house, and to use the same resources currently committed in Iraq to prevent and combat possible attacks on our territory."

Now if you ask me, this is just smart thinking. Almost a year ago, I applied the same rationale to this post:

I believe that there is a widespread misconception that most liberals do not support the war on terror. I have to admit that I don't think that this is a winnable war. I equate it to the war on drugs. It's a noble cause, but an unattainable goal. This does not mean that I am not in support of making our country safer. I'm all for that. I do not wish to see another 9/11. Ridding the world of terrorism would be a wonderful thing, right up there with world peace. However, the war in Iraq is not the answer.

President Bush has repeatedly called Iraq a "central front in the war on terror." I disagree. In my opinion, the central front in the war on terror is right here in America. Instead of spending $100 billion in Iraq to root out a WMD program that was virtually nonexistant and wasn't threatening anyone, why not spend that money here in America to help secure our borders, ports, nuclear facilities, water facilities, and airlines? 95% of all cargo that comes into our country's sea-ports goes unchecked. Securing our border with Mexico has been underfunded for years. We've been told repeatedly about the dangers of an attack on our nuclear power plants or about the ramifications of a chemical/biologocal attack on our nation's water supply yet most are unguarded. And it goes without saying that we are all aware of the dangers posed by hijacked airplanes, yet we are unable to fully staff each airport with qualified screeners and each airplane with an air marshall. Couldn't that $100 billion be used here at home to correct these issues?

That was over 800 dead soldiers and $100 billion ago and we're still no safer. I'm glad to see that someone is starting to wise up. I just wish we were following their lead. We are continuing to throw money at a problem that we created and we're doing so at the expense of our own security here at home. What could we do with a couple hundred billion dollars, you ask? Well, since you asked, here's what we could have done with just the first $144.4 billion.

Unfortunately, the current administration is hell-bent on "staying the course." Never mind that the course is actually making us less safe. I, like most people, had no problem with the military response in Afghanistan. That was a justified invasion and a necessary step to protecting ourselves. After that? Well, we know where that's gotten us.

I say, "Good for Italy." They're thinking about their own security. Something I wish we would do more often. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

Have a good weekend! I'll see you on Monday.

I was awaken by Mrs. kissfan this morning and told of the attacks in London. My first reaction was, "I guess fighting them there isn't working anymore." For years now, we've been told that it's better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than to have to fight them in our own cities. Well now we're fighting them in London. Before that we were fighting them in Madrid. And before that we were fighting them in Bali. Apparently, we really meant it when we said "our cities."

One of the favorite cries of the conservatives in defense of their dear leader is the lack of attacks since September 11. Well, we know that's not true and after today, that claim can be easily refuted by anyone. Unless, of course, our goal is only to protect ourselves and the rest of the world can go to hell. But that wouldn't fit into the whole spreading liberty/freedom is on the march bullshit, now would it?

The number of worldwide terrorist attacks is on the rise. Meanwhile, our worldwide image is on the decline. How much longer before this starts making sense to people? How much longer before people start making the connection between what we're doing and what is happening? Terrorism didn't start with 9/11 and it's not going to end with Iraq. But the results of our actions in between these two events is undeniable. We are creating more terrorism than we are alleviating. It's time to change plans. As Albert Einstein once said " No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." As much as it pains me to say it, we have caused a lot of the terrorism problem currently facing the world. We didn't create it, but we poked it with a stick and woke it up. If we want to solve this problem, we need a different mindset. No more staying the course.

Obviously the war on terror has been a failure. There are now thirty-seven more families in London that can attest to that. At some point, someone is going to have to clean up this mess. I just hope there's enough people left to do it.

Rehearsal was a disaster tonight and therefore ran extremely late, so no post from me. Instead, I'm suggesting that you read this from the Rude Pundit. He cautions us all on jumping to conclusions about Karl Rove's inevitable demise as the leaker of Valerie Plame. As always, the Rude One makes some very good points, but if you're easily offended by words like fuck and shit, you probably don't want to go there. In fact, if you're offended by words like fuck and shit, what the fuck are you doing here? Holy shit! Get the hell out of here before I offend you.

I'll be back tomorrow night.

Just a couple of points about the looming SCOTUS nominee and the subsequent confirmation/fight/fillibuster/whatever the hell you want to call it.

First of all, this is just bullshit.

Democrats called for a deliberate review of any nominee and pledged to press the eventual candidate on issues including abortion and same-sex marriage, while Republicans declared that such specific inquiries were out of line.

"All questions are legitimate," Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. "What is your view on Roe v. Wade? What is your view on gay marriage? They are going to try to get away with the idea that we're not going to know their views. But that's not going to work this time."

But Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican who sits on the Judiciary Committee as well, said the push for such detailed positions was highly objectionable and suggested that Democrats might be forming a strategy of trying to derail a nomination on the ground of withholding information.

"You cannot ask a judge to prejudge a specific matter," Mr. Sessions said. He pointed to other cases in which Democrats had raised objections to Bush administration nominees in part on the ground that information was being withheld, including the nomination of John R. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. "If the Democrats are pushing that, then they are trying to create an issue," he said.

And Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview: "Any member of the committee can ask whatever they want, no matter how stupid. But I don't think nominees have to answer certain questions. They don't have to answer questions about how they are going to vote in the future. They don't have to answer stupid questions. They don't have to answer argumentative cases."

Haven't these guys ever heard of a job interview? As a teacher, I can't count the number of times I've had to answer the question, "What is your discipline policy?" Or, better yet, "A fight breaks out between two girls in your room. What do you do?" Naturally, this is a situation I may be faced with at some time in the future. It stands to reason that my employer would want to know how I'm going to react to this type of situation. Doesn't it also stand to reason that the American people should know how a potential Supreme Court Justice will react when faced with a particular situation? Makes sense to me.

Second of all, the most shocking part of this whole debate so far is this:

Conservative groups, meanwhile, continued to press their opposition to one frequently mentioned presidential favorite, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

Apparently Alberto Gonzales is too moderate. Are you shitting me? This is the man who wrote the memos condoning torture. This is the man that called the Geneva Conventions "quaint." WTF? How in the hell is he too moderate? If there was ever an action that could define just exactly how fucking bat-shit crazy these peole are, it's this one right here. How fucking insane do you have to be to think that Al "Torture-boy" Gonzales isn't conservative enough. Maybe they're holding out for someone who doesn't just advocate torture but actually carries through with it.

If nothing else, these guys are entertaining. In a fucked up Paris Hilton sex tape sort of way, but entertaining nonetheless.

BTW - My brother-in-law just got a new shirt. What do you think?

Last week Robert at A Little Left of Centrist tagged me with the Top 5 Music Meme. After some serious thought and deliberation, here it goes:

1. Top 5 lyrics that move your heart
   
   
   • Walk Tall - John Mellencamp
   • Whay's Goin' On? - Marvin Gaye
   • A Change Is Gonna' Come - Sam Cooke
   • God Only Knows - The Beach Boys
   • In My Life - The Beatles
   
   
2. Top 5 Instrumentals
   
   
   • So What - Miles Davis
   • Ornithology - Charlie Parker
   • A Love Supreme - John Coltrane
   • Orion - Metallica
   • Symphony No. 25 in G minor, K. 183 - Mozart
   
   
3. Top 5 musical experiences
   
   
   • KISS's Farewell Tour at the U.S. Cellular Center, Cedar Rapids, IA (Front Row)
   • Rolling Stones at U.S. Cellular Field, Chicago, IL
   • Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band at U.S. Cellular Field, Chicago, IL
   • KISS in 1986 at the Five Seasons Center, Cedar Rapids, IA (First KISS show)
   • Eric Clapton at Cyclone Arena, Ames, IA
   
   
4. Top 5 Artists you think more people should listen to
   
   
   • Stoll Vaughan
   • Nickel Creek
   • Built to Spill
   • Indigo Girls
   • KISS (sorry, couldn't resist)
   
   
5. Top 5 Albums you must hear from start to finish
   
   
   • American Idiot - Green Day
   • Operation Mindcrime - Queensryche
   • Life's Rich Pageant - R.E.M.
   • The Rising - Bruce Springsteen
   • Powerslave - Iron Maiden
   
   
6. Top 5 Musical Heroes
   
   
   • Paul Stanley
   • Keith Richards
   • John Lennon
   • John Mellencamp
   • Bruce Springsteen

Anyway, that's what it looks like today. Next week, who knows, some of these things might change. I'm sure that after I post this I'll think of something I should have included.

Thanks Robert, it was fun. I'm going to tag oldwhitelady with it next. She's always talking about the CDs she takes with her, so her Top 5 should be pretty interesting. Consider yourself officialy tagged oldwhitelady. Enjoy!

Kissfan is away tonight rehearsing for a production of Mame (he had to learn how to play the banjo for this one), so I, Mrs. Kissfan decided to publish a special Sunday post. Oldwhitelady wanted to hear a Band-Aid story and Lisa brought up the toy in the box story, so here goes.

There are actually no Band-Aids involved in this story and my mother is the one who comes out looking bad in it, but it's a good one.

Several years ago we were at my mother's house for Thanksgiving; we had invited kissfans parents (grandma and grandpa kissfan) over for dinner (Kissfan and I actually grew up in the same town, but we didn't meet each other until we were out of high school for several years). Kissfan is an excellent cook, so my mother always has him make the dressing and the gravy. He actually spends a lot of time in the kitchen bossing her around every time we go there for a meal. My mother usually ends up calling kissfan an "asshole" sometime during the visit. Anyway, when grandma and grandpa kissfan arrived, they brought toy trucks for our two little kissfans. We set to work trying to free the trucks from the boxes they were strapped to - which many of you know is no easy task. We got down to the stupid plastic strips that can only be removed with something sharp. Kissfan decided to take out his pocket knife to cut them. Let me take a little break to tell you about an earlier event. About ten years ago we bought a new stove. Kissfan was cutting the box open with a knife and ended up scratching his leg with it. With this event in mind, I told the kids to watch out because daddy is dangerous with a knife. Not two seconds later, the plastic thing gave and kissfan sank the knife into his finger. From there things really got crazy. My mom grabbed a towel from the kitchen, wrapped it around kissfans finger, and then rushed him to the sink. When he ran water over it, he almost passed out (he's not real good with blood). I decided to take him to the ER because the cut looked pretty deep. We got outside, and kissfan had to sit down in the yard for a few minutes (he was so white). All I kept thinking was, "What if he passes out on the way? I'm not going to be able to pick him up." I got him to the ER, but again we had to sit in the car for a few minutes before I could walk him in. Lucky for us, the ER was empty. Did I mention that it was about 11:30 a.m. on Thanksgiving Day? The nurses were expecting to hear us tell them that he cut his finger while carving the turkey. When I told them what really happened, they didn't even bother to hide their laughter. They immediatly started working on him while I filled out the paperwork. All was going well. We were just waiting for the doctor to show up to put the stitches in.

Here's where the story gets good.

As we were waiting, a nurse came in and told me that I had a phone call. When I picked up the phone, I heard my mother's voice on the other end. Now what do you suppose she was calling us in the ER for? I thought that maybe she wanted to find out how kissfan was doing. Surprisingly, that's not what she was calling for. She wanted to know how much longer we were going to be because she didn't know how to make the gravy.

The rest of our stay in the ER was typical. We weren't there very long (the place was empty), so we were able to make it back in time for turkey. And yes, kissfan made the gravy when we got back.

As a side note, I just wanted to let you know that my mother and kissfan get along very well. This story makes her sound uncaring, but actually she's just a total air head.

I have some great stories about kissfan's attempts at home improvement. I'll save those for another time. These stories don't involve my mother, and kissfan is actually the one who looks stupid.

Until then, thanks for reading.

Mrs. Kissfan

P.S. Leaving comments only encourages me.