Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why do Muslims hate other Muslims so much? Aren't they "the
religion of peace"?

It's a pity they don't follow the teachings of the Prince of Peace.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
AP story -- Pentagon reports that sectarian violence in Iraq is spreading beyond Baghdad (to Kirkuk and Basra, among other places), and conditions for civil war are in place.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060901/...t_pe/us_iraq_1

but, not a civil war yet.

Is there an operative definition of "civil war"? How will we know when there is one, or when one has been really avoided?

Someone (I think it was the guy who worked on figuring out what the fuck to do with the old Yugoslavia for Bush I and Clinton) on NPR yesterday was differentiating between a "conventional civil war" (the old Yugoslavia) and an "unconventional civil war" (Iraq now). It must have been James Dobbins. I don't remember the difference in the two situtations, but pretty much everyone they interviewed seemed united in the proposition that the US needs to start thinking about pulling out and letting Iraq be run by Iraqis.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
POTD!!!!!

New thread title?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I think even the Bush crowd would admit that a civil war was an indication of failure.

I wouldn't, but I am an independent.

eta: this glass is half full:

[SlaveNoMore]

WaPo Finally "Admits" the truth about lyin' Joe:

End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.

Friday, September 1, 2006; A20

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey

Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

many people, like the writers of WaPo for that matter

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
many people, like the writers of WaPo for that matter

Perhaps you don't understand the relationship between the editorial board of the WaPo and its writers is something like that at the WSJ? Fred Hiatt is hacktackular.

This sentence, in particular, is unmitigated horseshit:

• It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.

The revelation that Armitage was one of Novak's source does not change the fact that Karl Rove called reporters peddling the same information. Or that a federal prosecutor has enough information to indict Scooter Libby for lying to him to protect the same scheme.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


The revelation that Armitage was one of Novak's source does not change the fact that Karl Rove called reporters peddling the same information. Or that a federal prosecutor has enough information to indict Scooter Libby for lying to him to protect the same scheme.

One certainly might also bold the penultimate paragraph of the excerpt posted by Slave.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

No Quarter.

Smearing the Wilsons and Sliming America

How low can they go? I refer of course to the latest vitriol directed at Valerie and Joe Wilson by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post, who claim that Joe Wilson, not Bush Administration officials, is responsible for destroying his wife's cover and exposing her as a CIA operative. Hitchens battle with the bottle may account for his addled thinking, but what is Hiatt's excuse? Both men perform like Cirque du Soleil contortionists in dreaming up excuses for the nutty and destructive policies and actions of the Bush Administration. In watching their behavior we see a parallel with the devotees of Jim Jones who gathered in Guyana almost 30 years ago to drink poisoned kool aid.

Let's focus on the Post's Fred Hiatt. In today's Post editorial page, Hiatt writes:

• Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.

The claim that Joe Wilson’s op-ed from July of 2003 was a pack of lies and misrepresented the truth is an old rightiwng, White House canard. Here is what Joe Wilson said in the July 2003 op-ed:

• Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
  
  The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.

False claim? False claim my ass! There were at least four reports. We now know that the National Intelligence officer for Africa in January 2003 briefed the White House that the Iraq/Niger claim was bunk. Even a partisan Senate Intelligence Committe report cites repeated efforts by the intelligence community to warn the President’s advisors that reports claiming Iraq was trying to buy uranium, including British reoirts, were not credible.

What is so bizarre is that the White House did admit that it was wrong to put the infamous 16 words into the State of the Union Address (of course, they blamed the CIA), just days after Wilson's op-ed appeared. If, as Hiatt claims, Wilson's op-ed was false, then why did the White House correct the record by confirming the substance of his claim?

Hiatt also portrays an astonishing ignorance of national security affairs. He offers up this goofiness referring to Joe Wilson's "culpability" for exposing his wife's job:

• He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.

Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the National Security Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last U.S. official to face down Saddam Hussein to Africa? Because Joe Wilson was uniquely qualified to do the job. Moreover, this is (or at least was) a common acitivity by the CIA. My former boss at State Department, Ambassador Morris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the behest of the CIA after leaving government because of his experience in dealing with terrorism, narcotics, and Latin America. There are times when the CIA wants information and does not want to expose its own assets.

There was nothing on the public record or in any public document identifying Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative. That information was classified. Sending Joe on a mission to Africa does not point the finger at her. Moreover, she did not make the decision to send him. That is another of Hiatt's lies and is routinely echoed by rightwing hacks. As Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post in July 2005:

• “They [the White House] said that his 2002 trip to Niger was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, but CIA officials say that is incorrect. One reason for the confusion about Plame's role is that she had arranged a trip for him to Niger three years earlier on an unrelated matter, CIA officials told The Washington Post.” (Washington Post, 27 July 2005)
  
  Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed. (Washington Post, 27 July 2005)

We are forced to revisit this nonsense because we have now learned that in addition to Libby and Rove, Richard Armitage also was shooting off his mouth about classified information. Regardless of Armitage’s role as an initial source for Novak, we are still left with the fact that Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby abused their power and were actively engaged in a coordinated effort to discredit Joe Wilson for his behind the scene efforts to alert the public to the falsehoods in the President’s State of the Union address.

While Richard Armitage may have had no malicious intent, the same cannot be said for Cheney, Libby and Rove. They knew exactly what they were doing. According to The Washington Post, during the week of July 6, 2003, “two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists.” Sometime after Novak’s column appeared, Rove called Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s “Hardball” and told him that Mr. Wilson’s wife was “fair game.”

And we have the document released by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in United States v. Libby, that provides a copy of notes Cheney had written in the margins of Mr. Wilson’s July 6 op-ed. In a court filing, Fitzgerald stated that the notes demonstrated that Cheney and Libby were “acutely focused” on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the White House’s handling of the Niger intelligence. Those notes became the basis for Republican National Committee talking points circulated and repeated by Ken Mehlman and others.

Why is this relevant? Today the Bush Administration is once again trying to manufacture a case for war. They are calling critics of its policies on Iran and Iraq "appeasers" and decrying the lack of intelligence on Iran. It is deja vu all over again to quote Yogi Berra. They whine about a lack of intelligence on Iran but refuse to accept responsibility for their own role in destroying Valerie Plame's undercover work, which was focused on monitoring the flow of nuclear technology to Iran. They may not have fully understood what Val was doing because of her cover status. But that's the point. They don't think these things true. Their only goal is political survival.

Perhpas the new attention on the Plame affair will fuel public support for accountability in government. The gang of political thugs currently in the White House refuse to be held accountable for anything. With the help of enablers like Fred Hiatt and Christopher Hitchens and others in the main stream media, it is no wonder that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld skate from disaster to disaster, oblivious to the field of debris left in their wake.

We must also remember that the Government sanctioned attack on the Wilsons is not an isolated event. Just ask former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill or National Security Advisor Richard Clarke. Add to this list the names of the two CIA Baghdad Chiefs of Station who were savaged for their prescient early warnings that Iraq was moving into a civil war. The Plame/Wilson affair stands as a stark reminder that President Bush and his minions prefer destroying those who call them to account for failed policies rather than admit error and take corrective measures that will serve the longterm interests of the United States. As we move towards a new war with Iran, we should not be surprised that people who know the truth are reluctant to come forward. If you choose to blow the whistle you are choosing career suicide and a full frontal assault on your character. In smearing the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney also are sliming America.

Perhaps it's not surprising that Larry Johnson is so pissed, since he worked at the CIA.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No Quarter.


With the help of enablers like Fred Hiatt and Christopher Hitchens and others in the main stream media, it is no wonder that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld skate from disaster to disaster, oblivious to the field of debris left in their wake.

I don't know Hiatt as I have not read the WaPo in a decade and I don't remember from back then, although I don't ever remember anything even slightly to the right of the middle of the left ever coming out of that paper in any section in the decade plus that I read it cover to cover.

Anyhoo, notwithstanding this Hiatt chap, the rest of that sentence is laughable. Why won't the left take responsibility for the facts that they pinned their hopes of obstructing the BUsh admin and helping the Islamofacists out on a couple of self-promotional partisanal lying scumballs to disrupt our national defence and security and people are seeing through the smokescreen of faux-self righteousness and calling treasoners and appeasers out for what they are.

By the by, has the Rove indictment come down yet?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account

Anyhoo, notwithstanding this Hiatt chap, the rest of that sentence is laughable. Why won't the left take responsibility for the facts that they pinned their hopes on a couple of self-promotional partisanal lying scumballs to disrupt our national defence and security and people are seeing through the smokescreen of faux-self righteousness and calling treasoners and appeasers out for what they are.

I don't think "the left" were the ones who hired Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't know Hiatt as I have not read the WaPo in a decade and I don't remember from back then, although I don't ever remember anything even slightly to the right of the middle of the left ever coming out of that paper in any section in the decade plus that I read it cover to cover.

Anyhoo, notwithstanding this Hiatt chap, the rest of that sentence is laughable. Why won't the left take responsibility for the facts that they pinned their hopes of obstructing the BUsh admin and helping the Islamofacists out on a couple of self-promotional partisanal lying scumballs to disrupt our national defence and security and people are seeing through the smokescreen of faux-self righteousness and calling treasoners and appeasers out for what they are.

By the by, has the Rove indictment come down yet?

Remember when the Mexicans boycotted for a day to show how important they are to the country, and to try to gain some respect? I think we should boycott this board next week- let Ty post with the numbskulls that take his side for a week- then maybe he won't be so hateful to us. On board?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't know Hiatt as I have not read the WaPo in a decade and I don't remember from back then, although I don't ever remember anything even slightly to the right of the middle of the left ever coming out of that paper in any section in the decade plus that I read it cover to cover.

Anyhoo, notwithstanding this Hiatt chap, the rest of that sentence is laughable. Why won't the left take responsibility for the facts that they pinned their hopes of obstructing the BUsh admin and helping the Islamofacists out on a couple of self-promotional partisanal lying scumballs to disrupt our national defence and security and people are seeing through the smokescreen of faux-self righteousness and calling treasoners and appeasers out for what they are.

By the by, has the Rove indictment come down yet?

Since we now know that Iraq hadn't had any nuclear facilities for several years, why do you guys keep pretending that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I think even the Bush crowd would admit that a civil war was an indication of failure.

I'm not so sure of that. Without a doubt, it is not preferrable but I'm becomming convinced that it may be necessary, much like it was in this country, in order for a true democracy to be established.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not so sure of that. Without a doubt, it is not preferrable but I'm becomming convinced that it may be necessary, much like it was in this country, in order for a true democracy to be established.

Could you explain the thinking there?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since we now know that Iraq hadn't had any nuclear facilities for several years, why do you guys keep pretending that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger?

Uh, because they were.