==> The Truth About Political Stuff <==

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Gore says tax pollution, not payrolls

Reuters
Gore says tax pollution, not payrolls
By Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore on Monday suggested taxing carbon dioxide emissions instead of employees' pay in a bid to stem global warming.

"Penalizing pollution instead of penalizing employment will work to reduce that pollution," Gore said in a speech at New York University School of Law.

The pollution tax would replace all payroll taxes, including those for Social Security and unemployment compensation, Gore said. He said the overall level of taxation, would remain the same.

"Instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees it would discourage business from producing more pollution," Gore said.

Gore, a longtime environmentalist, also proposed that the United States re-join any successor to the U.N. Kyoto Protocol for curbing global warming beyond 2012.

Scientists believe global warming is caused by the trapping of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, in Earth's atmosphere. The consequences of this climate change include rising seas, stronger storms and intense heat waves.

Under the Kyoto global warming treaty, 35 industrialized nations -- but not the United States -- have agreed to cut carbon dioxide emissions to below 1990 levels.

President George W. Bush withdrew from the Kyoto pact in 2001, saying its caps on greenhouse gases would cost jobs.

"The absence of the United States from the treaty means that 25 percent of the world economy is now missing. It is like filling a bucket with a large hole in the bottom," Gore said.

Gore's proposals may be too radical to gain much support and are likely to be opposed by some business interests.

Many power companies are watching the U.S. government's every step on global warming. Any future national plan in the United States, the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases, to regulate such gases could force many companies to shut down coal-fired generation or add expensive carbon-capturing devices to their equipment.

Monday, September 18, 2006

The Politics of Torture; Lost amid the legal wrangling over how to interrogate detainees are the techniques used in the war on terror.

The Politics of Torture
Lost amid the legal wrangling over how to interrogate detainees are the techniques used in the war on terror.
By Michael Hirsh and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek

Sept. 25, 2006 issue - Waterboarding, which dates back to the Spanish Inquisition, is an interrogation method that involves strapping a prisoner face up onto a table and pouring water into his nose. The idea is to create the sensation of drowning so that the panicked prisoner will talk. According to The New York Times, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded by the CIA. He eventually confessed what President Bush described last Friday as "information about terrorist plans we couldn't get anywhere else." Neither Bush nor any other administration official has acknowledged, on the record, the use of waterboarding or any other specific CIA method. But at a White House news conference, Bush passionately defended the once secret CIA interrogation program involving such "alternative" techniques as "vital."

The question is whether waterboarding, however effective, is torture—and whether Americans ought to be doing such things at all. Some leading Republican senators, John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham, believe it should be clearly banned under new legislation. The Bush administration has proposed its own bill seeking to redefine the Geneva Conventions—which set out the rules of war—in order to preserve the CIA's right to use some harsher methods. But even Bush's former secretary of State, Colin Powell, publicly questioned last week whether the administration's stance might lead the world to "doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." And recently Bush administration officials, in private negotiations with the Senate, have agreed to drop waterboarding from a list of approved CIA interrogation techniques, according to a Senate source involved in the dispute. (He, like the other administration officials and congressional sources quoted in this story, asked not to be identified owing to the sensitivity of the negotiations over classified information.)

The Bush administration wants to maintain seven other approved CIA interrogation methods, however, for use against suspected high-level terrorists, according to one congressional source and a lawyer involved in the negotiations. A senior administration official said he could not discuss what CIA methods are still being considered. But the official added that "one should not assume all techniques used previously will be used in the future." He also noted that the new U.S. Army field manual bans waterboarding. Two other sources, one a U.S. legislator and the other a counterterrorism official, told NEWSWEEK that the total number of CIA detainees subjected to the "most rigorous" interrogation techniques was less than five. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the only one among them whose identity has been acknowledged by former government officials.

The GOP's intraparty dispute centers on a single provision of the Geneva Conventions. The president has criticized a Supreme Court decision last June that ruled all suspected terrorists, even those detained secretly by the CIA, are protected under Geneva's Common Article 3, which forbids "outrages upon personal dignity" and "cruel treatment."

Bush says that, under such vague rules, CIA professionals will not know if the interrogation techniques they are using are legal, and they could be vulnerable to war crimes prosecution. He's proposing a new law that will more narrowly define Common Article 3 to mean only "serious" violations. McCain and the other GOP senators have indicated they would be willing to amend domestic U.S. law, especially the War Crimes Act, to permit at least some "enhanced" CIA techniques. They are also willing to pass legislation that would deny many rights to detainees at Guantánamo Bay and allow them to be held indefinitely. But the senators, who appear to have the support of a majority of their colleagues, want to keep the Geneva restriction broadly defined in order to protect U.S. troops abroad. "What is billed [by Bush] as 'clarifying' our treaty obligations will be seen as 'withdrawing' from the treaty obligations," Graham said. "It will set precedent, which could come back to haunt us."

Neither administration nor congressional sources would describe the other interrogation methods in dispute. As NEWSWEEK has previously reported, various CIA techniques such as open-handed slapping were first discussed in Alberto Gonzales's office in 2002 before the then White House Counsel became attorney general. Scott Horton, a New York City Bar Association lawyer who has advised the Senate on the legislation, says Capitol Hill aides have told him that the CIA has sought to use the following techniques: (1) induced hypothermia; (2) long periods of forced standing; (3) sleep deprivation; (4) the "attention grab" (the forceful seizing of a suspect's shirt); (5) the "attention slap"; (6) the "belly slap"; and (7) sound and light manipulation. Tom Malinowski, the Washington director for the group Human Rights Watch, says that Hill sources working on the legislation have described the same list to him.

Some human-rights activists view only the first two methods, hypothermia and forced standing, as outright torture. But Malinowski said there is a reason why U.S. military interrogation manuals consistently ban physical abuse of any kind. "The Army's experience has taught them that once you allow physical contact once, even if it's mild, it's very difficult to prevent much more violent physical contact," he said.

CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden told agency personnel last week in an e-mail that he was not asking for a "CIA carve-out"—in other words, an exception for CIA interrogators. But critics say the administration is trying to achieve just that.

With Michael Isikoff in Washington

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14871154/site/newsweek/

In Politics, Aim for the Heart, Not the Head

washingtonpost.com
In Politics, Aim for the Heart, Not the Head
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer

In 1935, researchers from Columbia University fanned out around the city of Allentown, Pa., and handed out leaflets ahead of local and state elections. What residents did not know was that they were part of an experiment in political persuasion -- an experiment whose results came to mind last week as Adrian M. Fenty stormed to victory in the District's Democratic primary.

Researchers first divided Allentown into sections. Five thousand campaign leaflets in some wards asked residents to answer a series of questions about policy matters. For example, it asked them whether they thought all children should have access to higher education irrespective of income, whether banks should be run on a nonprofit basis like schools and whether workers ought to have more say in running their workplaces.

Another set of 5,000 campaign leaflets went to a different set of wards. These leaflets contained a heartfelt letter -- supposedly from the young people of Allentown -- which said that with "Dad working only part-time on little pay, and Mother trying to make last year's coat and dress look in season," the future for young people in the city looked bleak.

The researchers looked at how many voters in the two sections they could persuade to vote for the Socialist Party, rather than the Republicans or Democrats. (The Socialist Party was chosen because it had no chance of winning the elections.)

What the researchers wanted to study was the contrast between rational and emotional appeals in political persuasion. The questionnaire's appeal was rational. It asked people who wanted a more egalitarian society to vote their views on policy matters. The letter's appeal was emotional: "We beg you in the name of those early memories and spring-time hopes to support the Socialist ticket in the coming elections!" it said. When the election was over, the Socialist vote increased by 35 percent over the previous election in the sections of the city that received the rational appeal. In the sections that received the emotional appeal, the Socialist vote increased by 50 percent.

Given the enormous proliferation of policy questions today, surfing the emotional wave nowadays may be even more important than it was in 1935. George E. Marcus, president of the International Society of Political Psychology, said modern research confirms that unless political ads evoke emotional responses, they don't have much effect. Voters, he explained, need to be emotionally primed in some way before they will pay attention.

The research is of importance to politicians for obvious reasons -- and partly explains the enduring attraction of negative advertising -- but it is also important to voters, because it suggests that the reason candidates seem appealing often has little to do with their ideas. Political campaigns are won and lost at a more emotional and subtle level.

The District's Democratic mayoral primary, for instance, turned on which candidate seemed freshest and most energetic. By that measure, Fenty, 35, bested a field of same-old, same-old insiders, including his nearest rival, Linda W. Cropp, 58.

But why should that issue have been the one that voters cared about? Why not maturity and experience, in which case Cropp may have looked like the natural winner?

The success of the Fenty campaign, several political psychologists said, was in making energy the central emotive issue in the campaign. Once it was the top item on the agenda, Fenty had to win. (Besides being amid a whirlwind of activity, the candidate made sure he said the words "energy" and "energized" every chance he got. Reporters followed Fenty's lead, attaching the adjective "energetic" to news reports about his campaign.)

The Fenty machine essentially took advantage of what the Allentown study found: It is comparatively difficult to persuade anyone to change their mind on an issue. What works much better, because it influences people at an emotional and subtle level, is to get people to focus on a different issue -- the one where the candidate is the strongest.

"The agenda-setting effect is what we are talking about," said Nicholas A. Valentino, a political psychologist at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. "The ability of a candidate not to tell people how to feel about an issue, but which issue they should focus on -- that is the struggle of most modern campaign managers."

"Campaigns have been much more successful at shifting people's attentions to different issues rather than shifting people's positions," he added.

A political scientist who lives in the District, Lee Sigelman, pointed out that as Fenty put the question of energy at the top of the agenda, Cropp tried to strike back with ads painting Fenty as inexperienced.

But it was too late. As many politicians before her have realized, no one notices when the first nimble candidate changes the agenda. It's always the candidates who come late to the agenda wars who look like they are trying to manipulate voters.

Republican Bloomberg to help Lieberman

Yahoo! News
Republican Bloomberg to help Lieberman

Republican New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will host a fundraiser for Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., at the mayor's Manhattan town house, Lieberman's campaign announced Sunday night.

Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary to Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, is running for re-election as an independent, a move that has alienated many Democrats.

Dan Gerstein, a spokesman for Lieberman's campaign, said the fundraiser will be held Nov. 1 and will be co-chaired another New York Republican, former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, and former Democratic New York Mayor Ed Koch.

Bloomberg also will appear with Lieberman's wife, Hadassah, at an Oct. 25 fundraiser in Chicago and is hoping to do another appearance on Lieberman's behalf in Connecticut, Gerstein said.

"Senator Lieberman is extremely grateful to Mayor Bloomberg for being so generous with his time," Gerstein said. "The mayor is renowned as a leader who puts people ahead of politics and gets things done for his constituents and his support and validation mean a lot to our campaign."

Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said, "The mayor thinks the world of Senator Lieberman, because he speaks his mind and does what he thinks is right."

Lamont spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl said the fundraiser represents the kind of politics Lamont is trying to change.

"Ned Lamont is not accepting PAC money and is speaking out against the influence of lobbyist money," she said. "Joe Lieberman is attending fundraisers thrown by those very same lobbyists."

Sunday, September 17, 2006

The More Bush Talks, The Less We Have To Do. We're About To Offer Him Honorary Membership.

According To President Bush's Reading Of The Geneva Conventions, What We Are Doing Is Acceptable

It's To Stop The Terrorists From Going After Our Way Of Life

I'll Tell You Whatever You Want To Hear

Band-aids

Texan works to impeach president

Texan works to impeach president
By Mike Belt / Lawrence Journal-World

Since he arrived in Lawrence a week ago to collect signatures from people who would like to see President Bush impeached, Jim Goodnow has received a mostly positive or at least tolerant response.

“There have been 15 peace signs for every one-fingered salute,” Goodnow, 67, said Thursday as he sat at tables filled with petition lists in South Park.

Goodnow has been with his bus, which he calls the Yellow Rose, during most of his stay in Lawrence. The old bus has anti-war slogans and other signs painted on it, and Goodnow has been driving for most of the past year across the country as part of a grass-roots effort to gauge support for a Bush impeachment. In July, Goodnow, and others like him calling themselves the Committee to Impeach President Bush, started collecting petitions.

Goodnow did the same thing 33 years ago in an effort to get Congress to impeach President Nixon because of the Watergate scandal. Nixon ended up resigning instead of facing impeachment.

“I never thought I’d be doing this again,” said Goodnow, of Terlingua, Texas. “Bush makes Nixon look like a Boy Scout.”

Bush should be impeached because of “lies and deceptions” in taking the United States to war in Iraq, Goodnow said. He also says that the Bush administration is breaking the law with its domestic surveillance activities.

Goodnow said he’s collected several thousand signatures during his travels the past few months and others like him have collected thousands more. Those petitions will eventually be collected and turned over to Congress, he said. It’s a way to make sure Congress knows how upset the country is, Goodnow said.

“The people are fed up,” he said.

But some don’t particularly care for Goodnow’s cause.

About 9:30 p.m. Wednesday near Ninth and Vermont streets, a man in a late model car stopped and issued a threat, Goodnow said. The man called him a derogatory name and directed him to get out of town in 30 minutes or face “serious consequences.” The man was possibly in his 50s, dressed in a sports shirt and wore glasses, Goodnow said.

Goodnow called Lawrence Police. Although no details about the incident were available Thursday afternoon, a police spokeswoman did confirm that officers responded to a threat call in that area.

The incident angered Deb Rowden, a Lawrence woman who talked to Goodnow Thursday morning at Wheatfield’s Bakery, 904 Vt.

“At first I was scared; then when I was driving home I got mad,” Rowden said. “I don’t appreciate that someone was threatened.”

CC Goldwater on what her grandfather would make of today’s GOP

Goldwater Today
CC Goldwater on what her grandfather would make of today’s GOP.
By CC Goldwater
Special to Newsweek

Sept. 16, 2006 - As the granddaughter of Barry Goldwater, I am often asked what I think my grandfather would have felt about the direction of today’s Republican Party. What I found in the past year I spent making a documentary about the man, “Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater,” is that my grandfather is one person for whom it is pretty hard to speak. He was vocal about his opinions, which he presented with a rare clarity.

Still, those opinions have echoes today, and as the documentary shows, while my grandfather didn’t leave his party, his party has left him. Though he’s often depicted as the father of conservatism, Barry Goldwater would be considered a moderate today. He was firmly pro-choice, a supporter of gay rights and, in his later years, said that he thought it was okay for gays to serve in the military.

Fundamentally, it’s clear that Barry would not have been comfortable with the increasing influence of the Christian right over the GOP. My grandfather would have been appalled by the whole political grandstanding of the Terri Schiavo mess.

The Constitution was Barry’s bible. He felt strongly about what it represented and the guidance it gave to establishing our government. And he thought that most U.S. citizens took it for granted. “Most Americans have never even read it and that’s a shame,” he once said. “Kids are not learning about it because it’s not honored the way it used to be.”

We need to remember the true values and freedoms the Constitution guarantees us. The main lesson I learned from my grandfather: “Government needs to stay out of personal lives, and do the job that we entrusted them with—to run and govern our country efficiently and truthfully, according to the laws our forefathers crafted.” That’s a message worth remembering today.

Throughout my life, I was encouraged to be honest and truthful to all those I came in contact with. We need to encourage our youth to do the same. That begins with the people we look up to, our parents and government. We have to have something that we can trust and believe in and not fear. “Trust and fear cannot coexist at the same time,” Barry said. Anyone who motivates our decisions by fear cannot restore the principles of a country founded in freedom. “I will support whoever is running our country as long as they abide by those principles and will run our country and not our lives.”

CC Goldwater was five when her grandfather, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, ran for President in 1964. Her documentary, “Mr. Conservative,” features interviews with major public figures and never-before-seen home movies and photos. It premieres Monday, Sept. 18 at 9 p.m., ET, on HBO.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14863898/site/newsweek/

Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance; Plans Fund Defense In Anti-Terror Cases

washingtonpost.com
Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance
Plans Fund Defense In Anti-Terror Cases
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer

CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.

The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the officials said.

The anxieties stem partly from public controversy about a system of secret CIA prisons in which detainees were subjected to harsh interrogation methods, including temperature extremes and simulated drowning. The White House contends the methods were legal, but some CIA officers have worried privately that they may have violated international law or domestic criminal statutes.

Details of the rough interrogations could come to light if trials are held for any of the approximately 100 detainees who were held in the prisons. President Bush announced last week that he had transferred the last 14 detainees in the facilities to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and had submitted a proposal to Congress for the rules under which the administration would like the suspects to be tried.

Terrorism suspects' defense attorneys are expected to argue that admissions made by their clients were illegally coerced as the result of policies set in Washington.

Justice Department political appointees have strongly backed the CIA interrogations. But "there are a lot of people who think that subpoenas could be coming" from Congress after the November elections or from federal prosecutors if Democrats capture the White House in 2008, said a retired senior intelligence officer who remains in contact with former colleagues in the agency's Directorate of Operations, which ran the secret prisons.

"People are worried about a pendulum swing" that could lead to accusations of wrongdoing, said another former CIA officer.

The insurance policies were bought from Arlington-based Wright and Co., a subsidiary of the private Special Agents Mutual Benefit Association created by former FBI officials. The CIA has encouraged many of its officers to take out the insurance, current and former intelligence officials said, but no one interviewed would reveal precisely how many have bought policies.

As part of the administration's efforts to protect intelligence officers from liability, Bush last week called for Congress to approve legislation drafted by the White House that would exempt CIA officers and other federal civilian officials from prosecution for humiliating and degrading terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. Its wording would keep prosecutors or courts from considering a wider definition of actions that constitute torture.

Bush also asked Congress to bar federal courts from considering lawsuits by detainees who were in CIA or military custody that allege violations of international treaties and laws governing treatment of detainees.

The proposals have won mixed reviews in the Senate, where they are generally opposed by Democrats and a group of dissident Republicans. The proposals were deliberately omitted, for example, from competing legislation circulated last week by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).

Several former intelligence officials who said CIA officers do not need insurance because they can rely on the government to defend their lawful actions depicted the growing number of policies as a barometer of the uncertainty officers have of the legality of their work.

A recently retired CIA officer who said he had not bought insurance contended that "if an individual does get sued in the course of their official duties, then you get the biggest law firm in the world to step in" -- the Justice Department. Justice regulations allow defending federal workers if the conduct is within the scope of an employee's job and doing so is in the government's "interest."

The insurance, costing about $300 a year, would pay as much as $200,000 toward legal expenses and $1 million in civil judgments. Since the late 1990s, the CIA's senior managers have been eligible for reimbursement of half the insurance premium.

In December 2001, with congressional authorization, the CIA expanded the reimbursements to 100 percent for CIA counterterrorism officers. That was about the time J. Cofer Black, then the CIA's counterterrorism chief, told Bush that "the gloves come off" and promised "heads on spikes" in the counterterrorism effort.

"Why would [CIA officers] take any risks in their professional duties if the government was unwilling to cover the cost of their liability?" asked Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.), a former CIA officer, during congressional debate that year.

Although suing federal officials for their actions is not easy, it is possible; the Supreme Court left the door ajar in two rulings. It ruled in 1971 that six narcotics agents could be sued for monetary damages arising from a warrantless search. Eleven years later, it held that government officials should be immune from civil liability only if their conduct does not violate clear statutory or constitutional rights that should be known by "a reasonable person."

William L. Bransford, a senior partner at the law firm that defends people who take out the insurance, said he is unaware of any recent increase in claims. But agency officials said that interest has been stoked over the years by the $2 million legal bill incurred by CIA officer Clair George before his 1992 conviction for lying to Congress about the Iran-contra arms sales; by the Justice Department's lengthy investigation of CIA officers for allegedly lying to Congress about the agency's role in shooting down a civilian aircraft in 2001 in Peru; and by other events.

One former intelligence official said CIA officers have recently expressed concern that lawsuits will erupt if details of the agency's internal probe of wrongdoing related to the September 2001 attacks become public.

In his report, CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson recommended that the agency convene an accountability board to examine the actions of senior officials. But last October, then-CIA director Porter J. Goss rejected the advice and decided the report should remain secret.

CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said Friday that "it's fair to say that more employees have chosen to get this insurance, including those who work in counterterrorism." He said the agency's office of general counsel "advises employees to consider it" and called it a "prudent measure, in case of legal claims." But he said more employees at other federal agencies are also enrolling.

CIA employees outside the counterterrorism field who are eligible for reimbursement include the agency's supervisors, attorneys, equal-opportunity- employment counselors, auditors, polygraph examiners, security adjudicators, grievance officers, inspectors general and internal investigators, he said. One in 10 eligible employees sought reimbursement last year, Mansfield said, adding that the fraction from previous years and a breakdown on those in the counterterrorism field were not immediately available.

Brian Lewis, president of Wright and Co., confirmed that the number of new policies "has gone up, especially in the last two years." But he said that the company lumped CIA officers with Justice Department employees who also have the insurance and that he did not have exact numbers for the CIA.

Robert M. McNamara Jr., the CIA's general counsel from 1997 to November 2001, said he advised station chiefs to buy the insurance. "The problem is that we are the victims of shifting winds here," McNamara said he told the officers. "I can't sit here and tell you in all cases that I will be able to defend you."

However, McNamara's predecessor as CIA general counsel, Jeffrey H. Smith, said: "I'm deeply troubled that CIA officers have to buy insurance. . . . There should be clear rules about what the officers can and can't do. The fault here is with more senior people who authorized interrogation techniques that amount to torture" and should now be liable, instead of "the officers who carried it out."

Four-Star General - or Disobedient Houseboy?

Huffington Post
Martin Lewis
Four-Star General - or Disobedient Houseboy?

There are some people who have contended that George W. Bush never had any real regard for his first Secretary Of State - Colin Powell.

• That he dropped hints about Powell joining his administration during the 2000 election campaign as a shameless ploy to dupe independents into voting for him.

• That he cynically exploited the deep patriotic commitment to his nation of a highly-regarded and decorated soldier merely because he was an African-American - and less than 9% of the African-American population had voted for Bush in 2000.

• That he regarded Powell as a convenient token black man to place in his administration as a gossamer-thin veneer for his disinterest in striving for racial equality.

• That he thought of Powell as a wafer-thin cover for his own shameful lack of knowledge of international matters (especially for a then 54-year-old politician who had been elected President).

• That he saw Powell as a "moderate" cover for the neo-con policies he actually believed in and was determined to pursue.

• That all-along he had intended to 'caponize' Powell and vest actual power in Cheney and Rumsfeld - and use Powell merely as a front to appease the international community and the UN.

• That he tricked or manipulated Powell into making the fabricated case for the Iraq war at the United Nations because he knew Powell's reputation for integrity might convince wavering nations.

In other words a "patsy".... A fig-leaf... A tool... A houseboy.

As Harry Belafonte said in October 2002:

"There's an old saying in the days of slavery. There are those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master. Colin Powell was permitted to come into the house of the master."

But I don't think that George W. Bush has ever thought that way!

Because George W. Bush has repeatedly told us that he is an upstanding, God-fearing, Christian man who has restored honor and dignity to the White House. And therefore I always take George W. Bush at his words.

And here they are:

"I know of no better person to be the face and voice of American diplomacy than Colin L. Powell. An American hero, an American example, and a great American story. ...providing good counsel, strong leadership and an example of integrity for every one for whom he serves."

- December 17th 2000. Crawford, Texas.

Now George W. Bush wishes to abrogate the Geneva Convention.

And in response to Colin Powell's carefully-worded objections that this would harm America's moral position - and might cause harm to America's troops - George W. Bush responds by saying that General Colin Powell - doesn't understand the Geneva Convention!!!

"Article III of the Geneva Convention is hard for a lot of citizens to understand..." - George W. Bush - September 15th 2006

If the views of four-star General Colin L. Powell - the "American hero" who Bush personally selected to serve as Secretary Of State because of his "good counsel, strong leadership and integrity" - are not to be respected on the very topic that he knows most about (having actually served his country in the military with valor) - well then how does George W. Bush REALLY regard him?

Four-Star General or Disobedient Houseboy?

Georges Bush and Clooney - who's doing the hard work these days?

Huffington Post
Jane Wells
Georges Bush and Clooney - who's doing the hard work these days?

George Clooney gave a superb, impassioned and deeply moving speech to the Security Council at the UN on Thursday. He spoke on behalf of those who are voiceless in Darfur. He spoke with a depth of understanding of the complex issues in Sudan that would have been impressive in a diplomat but appears to be lacking in the highest levels of this administration.

The other George, one George Bush, President of the United States of America famously declared: "Not on my watch" when the atrocities in Rwanda penetrated his murky consciousness. He has spoken out about genocide in Darfur from time to time, but on his watch another genocide has unfolded and is about to reach its darkest hours.

On September 30th the insufficient African Union forces that have been trying to bring some measure of relief and protection to the 3 million Darfurians whose lives have been uprooted over the last 3 years will have to leave Sudan. A bloodbath will follow. Jan Engelund of the UN predicts that 100,000 people will die each month. By the New Year that will add up to as many deaths as in Rwanda in 1994.

Clooney deserves much credit for taking up the mantle that should be worn by our political leaders.

There is a rally in Central Park in New York tomorrow, organized by the Save Darfur Coalition to coincide with the general assembly of the UN. The organizers ask the UN and the Bush administration the following:

• Strengthen the understaffed and overwhelmed African Union peacekeeping force already in Darfur.
• Push for the deployment of a strong UN peacekeeping force.
• Implement the Darfur Peace Agreement.
• Increase humanitarian aid and ensure access for aid delivery

There are other rallies and events across the country and across the globe. This is not a hidden genocide. It has taken place in plain view, at least in the plain view of those who have the empathy, curiosity and compassion of George Clooney, the members of the Save Darfur Coalition and the thousands of people across the globe who want to stop genocide. Why is this not enough?

When I stop putting this issue on the front burner I only have to think of a man I met last year, a refugee from unspeakable atrocities in Darfur, his name was Adam. He was my translator. He is gone now....gone with his wife, five children and an orphaned niece and nephew. No-one knows what happened to them, they fled into the desert in the night. We are probably too late to save this family, but what about the others? They must be protected. Write the President, go to the rally tomorrow, send money, join the Save Darfur Coalition, play the mtvU video game Darfur is Dying...do Something. We all should. See you there.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

DeWalt gives impeachment lessons in D.C.

DeWalt gives impeachment lessons in D.C.
By Evan Lehmann / Brattleboro Reformer

WASHINGTON -- A Newfane selectman will coach activists visiting the nation's capital this weekend on how to impeach President Bush. Dan DeWalt, who made national headlines in March by introducing an impeachment resolution in a town meeting, will unveil hints to those wishing to do the same.

DeWalt's coaching will occur on the National Mall -- within sight of the congressional hearing rooms where articles of impeachment would be rendered.
"It's just like a mentorship for people who want to do this," said DeWalt, who was invited to participate in "Impeachment Sunday" by the event's organizers. "I'll mostly be curious just to see what kind of traffic we'll be getting from normal people."

DeWalt will take up shop in "Camp Democracy," the national offshoot of antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan's "Camp Casey," established near Bush's Texas ranch last summer.

DeWalt, saying some people in the Internet community of impeachment activists has labeled him "Mr. Impeachment," will pass along strategies that increase the likelihood of passing local impeachment resolutions.

For example, DeWalt suggests that impeachment enthusiasts attend local meetings in large numbers armed with as many petition signatures as possible.
DeWalt also has hints on how to get the attention of resistant lawmakers, something he experienced last spring: "Embarrass them," he said.

Holding press conferences in which activists read the names of soldiers killed in Iraq, he said, could get you five minutes with a senator or congressman.
"They don't like bad press," he said.

Terrorist-Harboring Related Program Activities

Tim Dickinson
Terrorist-Harboring Related Program Activities

"I never said there was an operational relationship." -- George W. Bush, denying he'd ever suggested Saddam and Zarqawi were in cahoots.

And here is the rest of it.

FCC ordered media study destroyed, lawyer says

USA Today
FCC ordered media study destroyed, lawyer says

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Communications Commission ordered its staff to destroy all copies of a draft study that suggested greater concentration of media ownership would hurt local TV news coverage, a former lawyer at the agency says.

The report, written in 2004, came to light during the Senate confirmation hearing for FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. received a copy of the report "indirectly from someone within the FCC who believed the information should be made public," according to Boxer spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz.

Adam Candeub, now a law professor at Michigan State University, said senior managers at the agency ordered that "every last piece" of the report be destroyed. "The whole project was just stopped — end of discussion," he said. Candeub was a lawyer in the FCC's Media Bureau at the time the report was written and communicated frequently with its authors, he said.

In a letter sent to Martin on Wednesday, Boxer said she was "dismayed that this report, which was done at taxpayer expense more than two years ago, and which concluded that localism is beneficial to the public, was shoved in a drawer."

In the letter, Boxer asked whether any other commissioners "past or present" knew of the report's existence and why it was never made public. She also asked whether it was "shelved because the outcome was not to the liking of some of the commissioners and/or any outside powerful interests?"

In a letter to Boxer on Thursday, Martin noted that he was not chairman at the time it was written, that he had not seen it before Tuesday's hearing, nor had any members of his staff or any other commissioners, past or present.

The chairman said it was unclear why the report was never released to the public, that he was attempting to determine why but that former FCC Chairman Michael Powell and senior management at the Media Bureau are no longer with the agency.

He also wrote that "the report appears to cover issues relevant to both our open localism proceeding and our recently commenced media ownership proceeding" and that it had been included in the record Tuesday. The inclusion makes the document available on the FCC's website.

The report, written by two economists in the FCC's Media Bureau, analyzed a database of 4,078 individual news stories broadcast in 1998. The broadcasts were obtained from Danilo Yanich, a professor and researcher at the University of Delaware, and were originally gathered by the Pew Foundation's Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The analysis showed local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts and more than three minutes of "on-location" news. The conclusion is at odds with FCC arguments made when it voted in 2003 to increase the number of television stations a company could own in a single market. It was part of a broader decision liberalizing ownership rules.

At that time, the agency pointed to evidence that "commonly owned television stations are more likely to carry local news than other stations."

When considering whether to loosen rules on media ownership, the agency is required to examine the impact on localism, competition and diversity. The FCC generally defines localism as the level of responsiveness of a station to the needs of its community.

The 2003 action sparked a backlash among the public and within Congress. In June 2004, a federal appeals court rejected the agency's reasoning on most of the rules and ordered it to try again. The debate has since been reopened, and the FCC has scheduled a public hearing on the matter in Los Angeles on Oct. 3.

The report was begun after then-Chairman Powell ordered the creation of a task force to study localism in broadcasting in August of 2003. Powell stepped down from the commission and was replaced by Martin in March 2005. Powell did not return a call seeking comment.

The authors of the report, Keith Brown and Peter Alexander, both declined to comment. Brown has left public service while Alexander is still at the FCC. Yanich confirmed the two men were the authors. Both have written extensively on media and telecommunications policy.

Yanich said the report was "extremely well done. It should have helped to inform policy."

Boxer's office said if she does not receive adequate answers to her questions, she will push for an investigation by the FCC inspector general.

Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, who along with fellow Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps voted against liberalizing the ownership rules, said he was unaware of the study's existence and said it was an outrage that it was "deep-sixed."

"It feels like we were cheated of getting the data," he said. "We need to know the facts."

Meanwhile, Democratic Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., also a member of the committee, sent a letter to Martin on Thursday asking that he "examine the circumstances surrounding the suppression of this report."

Bush: “I never said there was an operational relationship.”

(...so do we have an impeacable offense???

Think Progress

During today’s press conference, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz asked Bush why he continues to say Saddam “had relations with Zarqawi,” despite the Senate Intelligence Report findings that Hussein “did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” Bush replied: “I never said there was an operational relationship.”

In fact, Bush has repeatedly asserted that Saddam “harbored” and “provided safe-haven” to Zarqawi:

BUSH: [Saddam] was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi… [6/17/04]

BUSH: [Saddam] is a man who harbored terrorists - Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi. [9/23/04]

BUSH: [Zarqawi’s] a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. [3/6/03]

Transcript:

MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship.

Bush Rewrites History on Zarqawi Statements

Bush Rewrites History on Zarqawi Statements

During today’s press conference, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz asked Bush why he continues to say Saddam “had relations with Zarqawi,” despite the Senate Intelligence Report findings that Hussein “did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” Bush replied: “I never said there was an operational relationship.” Watch it:

In fact, Bush has repeatedly asserted that Saddam “harbored” and “provided safe-haven” to Zarqawi:

BUSH: [Saddam] was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi… [6/17/04]

BUSH: [Saddam] is a man who harbored terrorists - Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi. [9/23/04]

BUSH: [Zarqawi’s] a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. [3/6/03]

Transcript:

MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship.

Filed under: Iraq

Posted by Payson September 15, 2006 2:20 pm

Permalink | Comment (88)

88 Comments »

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 09/ 15/ bush-zarqawi-iraq/ trackback/

1.

what a fricken lie. and why do these folks keep denying the truth when in fact it can be proven. ummmmm, sociopaths?

Comment by bs — September 15, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
2.

Yay…more fodder for Jon Stewart.

Somewhere along the line, the presidential shenanigans have lost their appeal…I think it was around January 20th, 2000.

Someone needs to go in armed with a soundboard of all the president’s statements, and just play them back to him when he attempts to deny them.

When is enough enough? When do we get our country back?

Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 15, 2006 @ 2:33 pm
3.

Why doesn’t someone point out that Saddam was trying to have Zarqawi arrested… BUSH KNEW THIS… and still he perpetuated the lie that Saddam was providing safe-haven for Zarqawi?

Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — September 15, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
4.

*!@$#^ liar that Bush.

Comment by gmnotyet — September 15, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
5.

He’s not lying. See, he never used the exact phrase “operational relationsihp” so everything is hunky dory (*wink*). He also never said Saddam and Zarqawi were “BFF”, “totally ccol with each other”, or that they were “homies” so he’s totally off the hook and it is everyone else’s fault for believing otherwise.

Now, someone needs to ask him if he said “he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi”…….

Comment by gonzoknife — September 15, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
6.

TripMaster Monkey,

I’ve been wondering the same thing.
The journalists know the question they’re going to ask; for crissake have a tape or at the very least a transcript available!

Why do they let this Admin. get away with blatantly lying to the American Public?

Comment by trueblue — September 15, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
7.

Do you mean he has been lying to us all along?
Could someone clarify his statement(s)?

Comment by theswan — September 15, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
8.

Methinks that it’s getting harder and harder to talk their way out of their lies.

I learned that lesson when I was a kid. Tell and lie and you almost inevitably had to tell a bunch more lies to cover the first lie.

Comment by margaret — September 15, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
9.

I don’t believe the question was if there was an “operational relationship”. This is amazing. They push the fear then juggle the words when that falsehood is exposed and go merrily along like the gengerbread man. “I didn’t say that” is not a free pass. Game over.

Comment by hellinabucket — September 15, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
10.

Look, you can’t have it both ways - when you say something, and it’s on record, you can’t just magically “un-say” it. How many times can the president claim to have it both ways and the so-called “reporters” let him get away with it?

Comment by Toonguy — September 15, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
11.

I was looking for the quote from Clear and Present Danger when Harrison Ford confronted the President when he tried to pass the buck and say he didn’t know what had happened. Can’t find it. Something like “I won’t let you tarnish their memories by saying you had no idea what happened!”

But this one is almost better. For shame Mr Bush.

“(1) You are such a boy scout. You see everything in black and white. (2) No, no, no Mr Bush {Ritter}. Not black and white. Right and wrong.”

Comment by Tyler — September 15, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
12.

But..but…but…he wasn’t lying. He said that Saddam provided safe haven to terrorists “like” Zarqawi. In the second statement, he said that Saddam harbored terrorists, then just rattled off a few names which had nothing to do with the original statement. See, you folks need to work harder at splitting hairs.

Comment by Seitz — September 15, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
13.

We just heard the President of the United States refuse to obey the law and directly attack The Supreme Court of the United States, when he said “This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court’s ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.”

We just heard the President of the United States ask what outrages upon human dignity meant, when he asked “And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It’s like — it’s very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity?”

Any more questions?

Comment by leonard — September 15, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
14.

“I never said there was an operational relationship….”

….and no one asked you if there was an ‘operational relationship’ Georgie.

Comment by Quadrajet — September 15, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
15.

Bush also never said that Saddam was trying to obtain nuclear weapons. He was talking about “nukular weapons” :)

Comment by Count+Iblis — September 15, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
16.

Can someone please ask him if being in the same country constitutes a relationship… if so maybe we need to investigate Bush’s relationship with the 911 hijackers!

Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — September 15, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
17.

What Bush says and does is reminiscent of how the writer Mary McCarthy described th playwright Lillian Hellman: “Every word that comes out of her mouth is a lie, including the words ‘the” and “and.”

Comment by Erroll — September 15, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
18.

All I can say is thank god for miracle of technology. Not only do we see the actual clips of the lies and misstatements, we have transcripts to verify them as well. Does he really believe that he is pulling one over on the people of this country? Not anytime soon and with technology. We can see the actual clip and see him for the liar that he is.

Comment by sunshine — September 15, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
19.

I wonder what the Bush adim. has already done, he wants the law changed in quite a hurry. The 14 sent to Gitmo may have already been subjected to some of it. And why is the CIA hiring lawywers left and right?.

Comment by Pam in SC — September 15, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
20.

Democratic President lies- Impeach
Republican President Lies-IOKIYAR

Comment by goose1 — September 15, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
21.

They are puking on their own lies. If it were not so serious, it would almost be entertaining.

Comment by NoMoreBush — September 15, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
22.

Bush lies even when he doesn’t have to. It’s good practice.

Comment by Solitaire — September 15, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
23.

Bush rewrites history on everything regarding Iraq, so I am NOT surprised Dubya Dunce Decider Despot tries to change his prior statements on Zarqawi, who by the way was a CIA stooge creation!

Comment by Jay Randal — September 15, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
24.

BUSH HAS JUMPED THE SHARK! IT IS ALL COMING UNDONE NOW!

Comment by calguy — September 15, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
25.

By the same logic, Bush had a relationship with the terrorists who struck on 9/11. After all, they were living in the United States, ergo Bush provided terrorists like the 9/11 hijackers a safe-haven; Bush harbored terrorists. Now, there might not have been an operational relationship….

Comment by Briseadh na Faire — September 15, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
26.

You see - “harbor” is not spelled the same was as “operational” so God told Bush that this lie was OK.

Comment by pgl — September 15, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
27.

My thoughts exactly, calguy.

Could it be that GWB has finally hit the slippery slope?

AND can we please not back off the guy?

Comment by Zooey — September 15, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
28.

i hope the bushliar-criminal is in a public setting when his head explodes so we get to see what shit-for-brains looks like.
.

Comment by yowzer — September 15, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
29.

putting bush out in public is an incrediably risky proposition. unka karl is clearly desparate.
.

Comment by pluege — September 15, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
30.

I’d love to see an ad run continuously by the Democrats that simply shows Bush’s denial and then clips of him saying there was a connection (maybe with some Rice and Cheney clips thrown in for good measure).

The screen could then say: “Had enough? Vote Democrat.”

Comment by crickett — September 15, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
31.

One possible reason for the President to hold onto this idea of ties between Iraq and Al Qiada is that there is no declaration of war only the AUMF.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

No connection means no authority to attack Iraq. Why isn’t this being pushed.

Comment by hellinabucket — September 15, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
32.

#11-Tyler:

I was just (in the bar at lunch) seeing the replays on CNN of the conference, thinking of Batman….”this town (country) needs an enema!!”

Funny (disgusting) how we can pull crap out of Hollywood to compare this mess to. Fitting, no doubt.

Comment by SouthPaw — September 15, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
33.

Riddle me this….

Bush is exposed as a liar, admits to torture and secret prisons, admits to breaking the law, admits that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11…… and his poll numbers go up because of the Repuglicans coming back to his side.

WTF? Are Repuglicans really that frigging stupid?

Comment by nanlichi — September 15, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
34.

HEY! just in from mowing… randi has clips from this press con…
dubyas’ answer to a very good david gregory question is worth highlighting… he thinks the WHOLE WORLD ought to be able to torture… it’d be a better place… !!!

sorry to be yelling… this is a “melt down” for sure…

Comment by katy — September 15, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
35.

hellina, good catch!

Comment by Briseadh+na+Faire — September 15, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
36.

I think that it is ironic that the most significant early advances in magnetic recording technology occurred in Nazi Germany. My dad spent about six weeks in post-war Germany gathering up the technology for the feds. He had spoken German at home as a boy and was able to speak either native or English with the German engineers and physicists.

That technology has come back to haunt the Fascists here.

Comment by WaltTheMan — September 15, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
37.

Per the Intelligence Committee Report:

The Intelligence Community used the term safehave to describe both active assistance to and passive acquiescence of al-Qa’ida operations.

The report finds that Saddam indeed provided a safehaven to Zarqawi and other terrorist networks.

Another thinkparanoid thread debunked.

Comment by Steed Lankershim — September 15, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
38.

Bush baby looks angry in the TP pic, so watch out he might order an attack on Iran tomorrow to screw us all over in revenge! Dubya is going insane, so he is very dangerous unstable kook now!

Comment by Jay Randal — September 15, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
39.

You are trying to make a news story out of something a politician said in 2003 and 2004? It is 2006, wake up. This isn’t news.

Comment by Roger_Roger — September 15, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
40.

Of course it’s new double R. Just saying words doesn’t make it so. We are in the mess today because of what’s been said in 02,03 and 04. it’s called accountability you should try it some time

Comment by hellinabucket — September 15, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
41.

You are right Roger_Roger, it’s not new news, it’s fact.

Comment by WaltTheMan — September 15, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
42.

[Bush] “I never had relations with that terrorist!”

I hope it will be his final undoing.

Comment by Jesus+Christ+God+of+WAR — September 15, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
43.

I love with this douche is caught in an outright lie - he just compounds it with another one. I think the media may finally be starting to get the message that if you’re aggressive with the chimp he’ll eventually run away and suck his thumb in the corner. And I don’t know about you guys, but that’d be good TV.
America’s Least Wanted

Comment by budpaul — September 15, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
44.

The Intelligence Community used the term safehave to describe both active assistance to and passive acquiescence of al-Qa’ida operations.

The report finds that Saddam indeed provided a safehaven to Zarqawi and other terrorist networks.

Another thinkparanoid thread debunked.

Comment by Steed Lankershim —

“Passive acquiescence?” You mean, Zarqawi was in the Kurdish safe zone?

Another “debunking” that gets debunked! How it feel to be pantsed by your own strawman, Steed?

Comment by barfly — September 15, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
45.

Roger_Roger
You want us to stop talking about ONGOING distortion from BushCo, but you can harp all you want about Clinton after all this time. I don’t think so!

Republicans: The “I’ve got mine” Party
Republicans believe in THEM.
Democrats, believe in US.
Republicans: the ConServingTime Party
Democrats: If you love liberty, love a liberal
Conservatives start wars. Liberals finish them.

Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — September 15, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
46.

He lies and commit crimes in the name of United States.
We know he does this time and time again.
But no one is able or willing to stop him.

Where are our heros?
What happened to our “Land of the Brave???”
Yes, like every other nation state of present and past, we have appeasers and enablers abound.
One may argue we may have more of them than ever before in a single country.

Comment by napu — September 15, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
47.

Goddamn, why can’t one member of the press, ONE TIME respond to one of Chimpy’s misdirections by saying clearly and loudly, “With all due respect, Mr. President, that WASN’T the question”?

That seems to me like it would be one GIANT step forward to restoring the nation we once knew.

Comment by KRank — September 15, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
48.

You are trying to make a news story out of something a politician said in 2003 and 2004? It is 2006, wake up. This isn’t news.

Comment by Roger_Roger — September 15, 2006 @ 3:45 pm

WTF?!?
Is this why we still have Bush and other criminals still in power?
Damn!!!
Each time I see this type of comment, I lose hope for my country little more.

Comment by napu — September 15, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
49.

When a lie from the lips of the “commander-in-chief” is exposed, and said lie was used as a basis (amongst other lies) to go to war with a country that was not a threat, then yes that is news.

His lies have caused needless deaths and have mortgaged the economic future of this country.

Comment by margaret — September 15, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
50.

sorry, should have been “Home of the Brave”
Can’t even think straight anymore

Comment by napu — September 15, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
51.

This is the rub… when they catch him trying
to rewrite history, they need to hit him right
then and there with the facts. Read back his
quotes to him and let him respond to THAT.

Comment by Bob Jones — September 15, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
52.

Reporters need to start bringing portable AV units with the quotes in question cued-up and ready for playback. That way, next time one of these asshats denies he ever said it, they can play it right there. Gotcha maggot repuke!

Comment by eternal springs — September 15, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
53.

“Read back his quotes to him and let him respond to THAT.”

That is all well and good BUT as we saw earlier in Bush’s response to Powell, Bush evades the question and produces strawman aurguments and baseless rhetoric AND I’m not sure anyone at a Bush question and answer period gets to do a follow up question. Rove has taught him well

Comment by Yikes — September 15, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
54.

I saw the old clips of Dan Rather getting into it with Nixon. Even Nixon kept some level of composure and dealt with it, like a professional should. The exchanges were allowed to take place.

Shit nowadays if that happens the reporter would be fired the next day, and family would disappear. They are much more afraid to ask the tough questions, they know they will just be removed. If that isn’t moving away from a free country I don’t know what is.

Comment by ForTruth — September 15, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
55.

And he doesn’t allow follow up questions. She sat down. I saw only Gregory persist for a follow up only to get another non-reply.
One day I expect to see W explode in rage at one of these press conferences. He is petulant, defiant, and arrogant. He cannot continue to defend his losing position. His contradictions and revisions are more numerous. He is cracking at the edges, and Humpty Dumpty is either going to have to take more meds or cease the pressers.

Comment by Marie — September 15, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
56.

See- even if you kicked Bush in the Balls just to get some Satisfaction, it wouldn’t matter. After he got kicked in the balls and fell to his knees, the stars spinning around in his head would say above them “Mission Accomplished”- so whats the point unless we all get to kick bush in the balls.

Comment by ren — September 15, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
57.

Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2006/ 04/ 09/ AR2006040900890.html?sub=AR

Comment by pnac911 — September 15, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
58.

KICK

Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — September 15, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
59.

#58 ya, kick!

Comment by ren — September 15, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
60.

Remember “Schoolhouse Rock” played on Saturday morinings during cartoons? We bought that tape for my 9 year old son, and I watched it with him, all the episodes are there. It was real nostalgic, but I noticed, some of that material would be considered leftist propaganda today, or even Anti-American.

The one that was most poingent (sp?) was the one about how we had a revolution, due to taxation without representation, and they throw the bucket on the king after the Boston Tea party. Run the British out, and we’re gonna have a president instead of a king.

“Rockin and a Rollin”
“Splishin and a splashin”
“Over the horizon what do I see”
“It looks like its goin to be, a free country”

I know its corny, but what would people say if that material was shown to kids nowadays? The concept of revolution and throwing out a King? Taxation with representation?

What have we become?

Comment by ForTruth — September 15, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
61.

I support this blog. I believe Bush and his administration are incompetent.

But if we are going to make true progress, then we need to be judicious in our critique. In none of the three examples supplied by Payson does Bush ever claim that Saddam and Zarqawi had an operational relationship. Technically, there is no history being rewritten here. Naturally, however, there is a lack of total honesty.

Comment by W. Dylan — September 15, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
62.

Yo #60! “School House Rock” was awsome! “I’m just a bill on a Capitol Hill” I miss that so much, do they have a DVD? Dont feel it’s corny, it was so cool, thats when people were actually progressive and so was ABC. Chin Up

Comment by ren — September 15, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
63.

Ren,

We got it on video tape, I don’t know if they have a DVD, it is really good stuff, I didn’t know how good I had it when I was a kid.

Comment by ForTruth — September 15, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
64.

“The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it has never been altered in any specific instance. For when it has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then this new version is the past, and no different past has ever existed.”

George Orwell, in the voice of Emmanuel Goldstein, 1984

Comment by redbone — September 15, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
65.

Hey I got an idea, we have Bush sit down and watch “Schoolhouse Rock”.

It gives the basic fundamentals of government, the Constitution, our founding fathers, and some grammar to boot. Its put in a format with catchy songs, and cartoon depictions. I think that would be a perfect way to introduce George to America and how things work.

Comment by ForTruth — September 15, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
66.

We have School House Rock in our house too - on DVD.
It was a great learning tool.

Comment by Marie — September 15, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
67.

#63, hey truth! I just googled the school house rock series and found and bought the DVD set that had 40+ Songs on it for 14.00 so its out there on DVD. So thanks for the flashback.

Comment by ren — September 15, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
68.

Ren you are entirely welcome, and thanks for the positive feedback.

Comment by ForTruth — September 15, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
69.

W. Dylan
Bush’s use of “operational relationship” is his current phrase to try to parse the language and sidestep his responsibility for repeatedly, even in his 9-11-06 speech, to connect Iraq and the 9-11 attack. “Technically” takes a back-seat to reality, morality, and intentionality!

Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — September 15, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
70.

What’s your point, that Bush is a liar? Is lips were moving weren’t they?

Comment by Stram — September 15, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
71.

What’s your point, that Bush is a liar? His lips were moving weren’t they?

Comment by Stram — September 15, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
72.

What’s your point, that Bush is a liar? His lips were moving weren’t they?

Comment by Peg — September 15, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
73.

#What’s your point, that Bush is a liar? Is lips were moving weren’t they?Comment by Stram — September 15, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
#What’s your point, that Bush is a liar? His lips were moving weren’t they?Comment by Stram — September 15, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
#What’s your point, that Bush is a liar? His lips were moving weren’t they?Comment by Peg — September 15, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
Is “Stram” also “Peg”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment by ren — September 15, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
74.

So Dubya’s a lying sack-o-shite. That so ooooolllllllllldddd news. Aren’t we missing a white woman somewhere?

Cheers,

Comment by Arne Langsetmo — September 15, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
75.

#44,

You haven’t debunked anything. Zarqawi was in Baghdad.

The Committee concluded in 2004 that the CIA reasonably assessed that the al-Qa’ida or associated operatives were present in 2002 in Baghdad, and in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq. The Committee noted that the CIA approached the issue of safehaven by describing the presence of al-Qa’ida and individuals associated with Ansar al-Islam-mainly the al-Zarqawi network-and explaining why the Iraqi regime likely knew of their presence in Baghdad and Kurdish areas.

Given the pervasive presence of Iraq’s security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa’ida to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence.

Comment by Steed Lankershim — September 15, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
76.

Steed Lankershim

And how long were the 9-11 hijackers in the U.S. planning (i.e. operating) and there presence known by U.S. agencies?

Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — September 15, 2006 @ 7:14 pm
77.

Mohammed Atta was in the US - does that mean we harbored him?

Comment by Marie — September 15, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
78.

Where’s the obvious follow-up question: Well, Mr. President, what kind of relationship WAS it?

Comment by Cowpunk — September 15, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
79.

Bush can’t open his mouth without getting caught in one of his own lies. He’s easily the worst President this country has ever seen. And he has 2 more years of damage to do.

Comment by Darin — September 15, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
80.

Steed,

I guess you didn’t bother reading the Senate’s response to this propaganda you posted?

That the CIA groups that pushed this false theory did so without evidence?

And that the CIA groups that knew there was no connection weren’t part of the official briefings passed on to congress?

In otherwords, your right wing buddies fabricated reports - DOH!!!

Then again, reality has a liberal bias - so what options are left for you?

Lying is the only tool you extremist right wingers have for your agenda!!! ROTFL!!!

Comment by btruthful — September 15, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
81.

“WTF? Are Repuglicans really that frigging stupid?”

Oh yea.
.

Comment by yowzer — September 15, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
82.

the monkey finally understands.

Comment by CakeWalk My Ass — September 15, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
83.

“Sadam did not…have…relations with that terrorist, Mr. Zarqawi.”

Comment by Hesiod — September 15, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
84.

If Bush ever finds himself in the land of OZ, he should ask the wizard for a brain, a heart, and some courage.

Comment by neopro — September 15, 2006 @ 10:12 pm
85.

Bush does live in OZ, he’s the chief flying monkey taking orders from cheney, the wicked witch.

Comment by buzzbomb — September 15, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
86.

Where are all the trolls? U-Wrong-U, Mighty Aphrodummy or Mighty Aphrodykie (whatever), Exley, etc.

Comment by Mr. Evil — September 15, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
87.

Mr. Evil, you know they can’t function without the talking points. Rove must be busy with Mehlman going over the…uh…budget? No, that isn’t it. Foreign policy? Nooooo. They must be going over gay rights…Somehow I think that is closer to the truth.

Comment by JPark — September 15, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
88.

Here is Colin Powell at the UN on 2/5/03, promoting the upcoming Iraq war:

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organisations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbours a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

He used Zarqawi’s name more that 20 times in that speech, even though Zarqawi seems to have been in a part of the country that was controlled by the Kurds, not Saddam.

Also, Bush prevented the US military from taking Zarqawi out in 2002. (see this from WSJ, 10/25/04 and this from MSNBC)

Comment by pessimist — September 15, 2006 @ 11:26 pm

WSJ and Toensing: I Outed Plame (Here We Go Again)

Huffington Post
David Corn
WSJ and Toensing: I Outed Plame (Here We Go Again)

Throughout my years in Washington, I've debated a lot of conservatives and Republicans. There are some for which I have no regard. There are others whom--though I disagree with them on politics and policy--I've considered friendlies: not quite friends, but people who are smart and whose company I enjoy, who are fun to drink and argue with.

Among that group has been GOP lawyer Victoria Toensing. It certainly helped our relationship that years ago I was a friend of her daughter, a wonderful photojournalist. But I considered Toensing an intelligent and engaging lawyer, and we were able to hold civil conversations. I could even call her as a source--not that she ever provided any scoops.

So I am disheartened to see her embracing a rather idiotic conservative talking point and ignoring basic facts to tag me as the true culprit in the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson. It is an argument that defies logic and the record. But it is an accusation that pro-Bush spinners have used to defend the true leakers and columnist Bob Novak, the conveyor of the leak. By propounding this charge, Toensing leads me (regretfully) to believe that she cares more about scoring points than serving the truth. Here is what she wrote in today's Wall Street Journal:

The first journalist to reveal Ms. Plame was "covert" was David Corn, on July 16, 2003, two days after Mr. Novak's column. The latter never wrote, because he did not know and it was not so, that Ms. Plame was covert. However, Mr. Corn claimed Mr. Novak "outed" her as an "undercover CIA officer," querying whether Bush officials blew "the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in...national security." Was Mr. Corn subpoenaed? Did Mr. Fitzgerald subpoena Mr. Wilson to attest he had never revealed his wife's employment to anyone? If he had done so, he might have learned Mr. Corn's source.

This is a canard that has been previously advanced by other conservatives--all to absolve Novak and the actual leakers (mainly Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, not Richard Armitage). And you see the suggestion: that Joe Wilson told me that his wife was an undercover CIA officer and that I then disclosed this information to the public. I've debunked this before. But for Toensing's benefit, I'll go through this again--though I doubt it will do much good.

Here's what Novak, citing "two senior administration officials," wrote on July 14, 2003:

[Joseph] Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

Novak's column is syndicated and is posted on the web. This information appeared, I assume, in hundreds of places. Other nations and foreign intelligence services now knew that Valerie Wilson was a CIA operative. At this point, her cover--whatever it might have been--was blown to bits. The fact that Novak did not state she was a "covert" operative is utterly meaningless. (Does the CIA employ non-secret "operatives"?)

As is now known--thanks to Hubris, the new book by Michael Isikoff and me--Valerie Wilson had been chief of operations for the Joint Task Force on Iraq within the CIA's clandestine Directorate of Operations. She was working under nonofficial cover (a deep version of covert status), but she no longer needed this NOC status and was shifting to official cover (meaning she would pretend to be a government official--say, a State Department officer--but not a CIA employee). In short, she was indeed an "operative." She had traveled overseas in the previous two years to oversee and monitor operations aimed at gathering intelligence on Iraq's supposed WMD programs. Novak didn't have information on her specific job, but he came quite close with his generic description of her.

Two days after the Novak column appeared, I published an article that was the first piece to suggest that the leak to Novak could be evidence of a White House crime--that is, a possible violation of Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That law makes it a felony for a government official to disclose identifying information about an undercover intelligence officer (if that government official knows the officer is covert). In the piece, I did not state as a fact that Valerie Wilson was a "covert" officer or a CIA employee of any kind. I did not know. After all, I hadn't spoken to Armitage, Rove or Libby about it. In my piece, I merely speculated that she might be a NOC and explored the possible ramifications of this outing (if indeed she was a NOC).

The reasoning underlying my supposition that Valerie Wilson might be a NOC was simple. Before I wrote the article, I spoke to Joe Wilson. He would not confirm or deny that what Novak wrote was true. He would not say whether or not his wife worked at the CIA. Wilson noted that his wife was known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm, and added, "I will not answer questions about my wife." I placed that quote in the piece.

In the article, I noted that if Novak had gotten it right and if Valerie Wilson was a CIA operative, she had to be a NOC. Why? CIA officers who have "official cover" (and who, by the way, are sill considered "covert") tell people they work for the Defense Department, the State Department or some other part of the government. CIA officers working under nonofficial cover tell friends, relatives, associates that they are businesspeople, writers, consultants, tour guides or whatever--anything but a government official. So a CIA officer who informed acquaintances that she worked for a private energy firm would have to be a NOC. It's elementary.

Consequently, I noted in the article that Valerie Wilson was "apparently" a NOC--that is, if she were a CIA officer at all. The piece noted that if she were not in the CIA, "then the White House has wrongly branded a woman...as a CIA officer." That line is proof that I was supposing, not reporting. Unlike Novak, I had no facts about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment to disclose.

Feel free to look at that original article. If you do so, you will be conducting research that Toensing seemingly did not. And you will see that the article did not "reveal" anything about Valerie Wilson's position at the CIA. It was not the product of any investigative work. It was a piece of analysis. Thus, there was no need for special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to come knocking on my door. He chased after the reporters who received the real leaks. But clearly he could tell I was not in that elite category. I was never subpoenaed.

Toensing is flat-out wrong--sloppy wrong. Any intelligent lawyer who bothered to peruse the piece I wrote could discern that I was engaging in a thought exercise, not an act of disclosure. Besides, how can you out a CIA operative who has already been identified as a CIA operative in newspapers across the country?

Why would Toensing disregard the obvious? That's for her to explain. But I do hope she is more careful with evidence when it comes to her legal work. And I'm sorry that we will likely not be enjoying each other's company any time soon.
******
This was also posted at www.davidcorn.com. For information on Hubris, click here.
Send to a friend
Post a Comment
Print Post
Read all posts by David Corn

Related News Stories

* NY Observer: Media Has Missed The Point On New Information In The CIA Leak Case...
* Report: Saddam Distrusted, Wanted To Capture Al-Zarqawi...
* 61% Of Americans Find Bush's "Hitler" Language Inappropriate...

Related Blog Posts

* David Corn: Armitage Confesses; Now What about Rove?
* Larry C. Johnson: Armitage Into the Trick Box
* Rachel Sklar: Broder, Hitchens, Frum, All Of Yous! There Is More To Plamegate Than Armitage

Comments :
Victoria Toensing will be on CSPAN's Washington Journal at 8:30 tomorrow (Saturday) morning. We should all try to call in to set the record straight.

By: cynicalgirl on September 15, 2006 at 09:48pm
Flag: [abusive]
Toensing is a lying Republican bitch, and as such, doesn't need to actually research anything before she says or writes it.

By: TXfemmom on September 15, 2006 at 09:52pm
Flag: [abusive]
There are many leakers of the Plame CIA connection. To attack one and defend another serves what purpose. All the kings horses took part. Who gave the orders David, that is your task.

By: fourex on September 15, 2006 at 10:52pm
Flag: [abusive]
How does it feel when your book inspires
David Broder to call for apologies to
Karl Rove? Good repositioning on Vicki,
though. Brent Budowsky

By: brentb on September 15, 2006 at 11:01pm
Flag: [abusive]
... I used to consider Ms. Toensing a fairly intelligent woman, but her latest role as Bu$hCo. apologist just ended that! Following Bu$hs latest talking point, perhaps we just need to TORTURE Victoria into confessing to her duplicity! WHAT Geneva Convention, Vicky - there is NO such thing, remember?!? ;) ...

By: CynAnne on September 15, 2006 at 11:24pm
Flag: [abusive]
How does it feel when your book inspires
David Broder to call for apologies to
Karl Rove? Good repositioning on Vicki,
though. Brent Budowsky
By: brentb on September 15, 2006 at 11:01pm

Apologies from who? No one who has seen all the available evidence would possibly have any inclination to 'apologize' to Rove. A suggestion to do that from David Broeder would be a joke, regardless of where his 'inspiration' comes from.

By: proudtobelib on September 16, 2006 at 12:14am
Flag: [abusive]
Not spending anytime time with V. Toensing ........Sounds like a dream come true to me. She is a hag for Bushco and her husband likes to watch I think....that is V doin W real good!

By: wsayscoupgood on September 16, 2006 at 12:21am
Flag: [abusive]
Send to a friend
Post a Comment
Print Post
Read all posts by David Corn

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Fair Use Notice
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Politics

Site

Meter

Who links to me?