From Publishers Weekly Lunch:
MYSTERY/CRIME:
Time's Jerusalem Bureau Chief Matthew Rees's THE COLLABORATOR OF BETHLEHEM, first in a series featuring a Palestinian investigator, to Katie Herman at Soho Crime, by Lisa Erbach Vance of the Aaron M. Priest Literary Agency, on behalf of the Deborah Harris Agency in Israel (NA).kdaneman@sohopress.com
FILM:
Kevin Wignall's FOR THE DOGS, optioned to Stone Village Pictures (The Human Stain, Love in the Time of Cholera), to be written by Kathleen McLaughlin (a producer on The Quiet American and writer of Phillip Noyce's forthcoming The Bielski Brothers), and produced by Lucas Foster (Mr & Mrs Smith, Man on Fire), by Justin Manask at Intellectual Property Group, acting in conjunction with Curtis Brown UK and Deborah Schneider at Gelfman Schneider Literary Agents.
BIOGRAPHY:
Christopher Ross's MISHIMA'S SWORD: Travels in Search of a Samurai Legend, encountering those who knew Mishima, who committed hara-kiri after a failed coup d'etat 30 years ago, to John Rodzvilla at Da Capo, for publication in fall 2006, by Fourth Estate (US).
BUSINESS/INVESTING/FINANCE:
Author of Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist and When Genius Failed, Roger Lowenstein's book on the pension crisis in the US -- including the New York City subway system pension dispute, San Diego's pension scandal that brought down the mayor, and the auto industry's pension gap -- affecting cities and states, private corporations and the federal government, also suggesting a way out the fiscal mess, to Ann Godoff at the Penguin Press, for publication in 2008, by Melanie Jackson of the Melanie Jackson Agency.
Egil (Bud) Krogh and Matthew Krogh's ON INTEGRITY, an insider's analysis of high-level decision making and the calamitous outcomes of acting without integrity, including a three-question test designed to help prevent good people from making bad choices, to Peter Osnos and Clive Priddle at Public Affairs, by Laura Dail at Laura Dail Literary Agency (US/Can).Clive.Priddle@perseusbooks.comLDail@LDLAInc.com
HISTORY/POLITICS/CURRENT AFFAIRS:
Nuclear engineer and U.S. Navy veteran Kenneth Sewell and NYT bestselling author Jerome Preisler's ACT OF WAR: The Soviet Attack and Killing of the USS Scorpion, a sequel to Sewell and Clint Richmond's NYT bestselling RED STAR ROGUE: The Untold Story of a Soviet Submarine's Nuclear Strike Attempt on the U.S., to Bob Bender at Simon & Schuster, by John Talbot at Talbot Fortune Agency (World).
Moscow correspondent for NPR and co-author of SPY HANDLER: Memoir of a KGB Officer Gregory Feifer's THE GREAT GAMBLE: The Soviet War in Afghanistan and its Lessons for America, an account of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan from the point of view of the Russians who fought and participated in the conflict, to Tim Duggan at Harper, by Robert Gottlieb and John Silbersack at Trident Media Group (world English).jsilbersack@tridentmediagroup.com
MEMOIR:
Catholic nun Karol Jackowski's FOREVER AND EVER, AMEN, chronicling her journey from entering the convent in 1964 after graduating from high school, and emerging in 1972 into a church transformed by the changes wrought by Vatican II, to Jake Morrissey at Riverhead (he published her at Harmony), for publication in spring 2007, by Laurie Liss at Sterling Lord Literistic (world).
SCIENCE:
Canadian rights to Canadian physicist John Moffat's A MATTER OF GRAVITY, the story of the author's discovery of a new gravity theory that overturns both Newton's and Einstein's and will forever change the way scientists study the universe, and IN THE COMPANY OF GIANTS, the author's memoir of working with the world's greatest physicists including Einstein, Bohr, and Oppenheimer, to Patrick Crean at Thomas Allen, at auction, by Jodie Rhodes (Canada).
US rights to A MATTER OF GRAVITY, to T.J. Kelleher at Smithsonian Books, in a pre-empt, by Jodie Rhodes.jrhodes1@san.rr.com
GENERAL/OTHER:
Amherst professor Alexander George's ASK PHILOSOPHERS, based on the website askphilosophers.com, where ordinary people post a wide range of philosophical questions and receive answers from the world's most prestigious living philosophers (including Peter Lipton, head of the History and Philosophy of Science Department at Oxford and Thomas Pogge, professor of moral and political philosophy at Columbia), to Pam Krauss at Clarkson Potter, by Daniel Greenberg at Levine Greenberg Literary Agency (NA).
Foreign rights to Bompiani in Italy and Editora Objetiva in Brazil, in pre-empts, by Elizabeth Fisher at Levine Greenberg Literary Agency.
Wrap...
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Hyperspace Drive? Another Dimension?
From Defense Tech.org :
Real-Life Hyperspace Drive?
Are you ready to make the jump to hyperspace? A controversial paper, outling a "motor [that] would propel a craft through another dimension at enormous speeds" is making waves in military and scientific circles, New Scientist reports. "It could leave Earth at lunchtime and get to the moon in time for dinner. There's just one catch: the idea relies on an obscure and largely unrecognised kind of physics."
The Scotsman notes that...
The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft."
Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension.
Professor Jochem Hauser, one of the scientists who put forward the idea, told The Scotsman that... "NASA have contacted me and next week I'm going to see someone from the [US] air force to talk about it further, but it is at a very early stage. I think the best-case scenario would be within the next five years [to build a test device] if the technology works."
Sandia National Laboratories, in New Mexico, "runs an X-ray generator known as the Z machine" which might be able to test some of the basic science behind Hauser's theories, New Scientist observes.
For now, though, [Sandia space scientist Roger] Lenard considers the theory too shaky to justify the use of the Z machine. "I would be very interested in getting Sandia interested if we could get a more perspicacious introduction to the mathematics behind the proposed experiment," he says. "Even if the results are negative, that, in my mind, is a successful experiment."
(Big ups: DS)
January 5, 2006 01:55 PM Space
Wrap...
Real-Life Hyperspace Drive?
Are you ready to make the jump to hyperspace? A controversial paper, outling a "motor [that] would propel a craft through another dimension at enormous speeds" is making waves in military and scientific circles, New Scientist reports. "It could leave Earth at lunchtime and get to the moon in time for dinner. There's just one catch: the idea relies on an obscure and largely unrecognised kind of physics."
The Scotsman notes that...
The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft."
Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension.
Professor Jochem Hauser, one of the scientists who put forward the idea, told The Scotsman that... "NASA have contacted me and next week I'm going to see someone from the [US] air force to talk about it further, but it is at a very early stage. I think the best-case scenario would be within the next five years [to build a test device] if the technology works."
Sandia National Laboratories, in New Mexico, "runs an X-ray generator known as the Z machine" which might be able to test some of the basic science behind Hauser's theories, New Scientist observes.
For now, though, [Sandia space scientist Roger] Lenard considers the theory too shaky to justify the use of the Z machine. "I would be very interested in getting Sandia interested if we could get a more perspicacious introduction to the mathematics behind the proposed experiment," he says. "Even if the results are negative, that, in my mind, is a successful experiment."
(Big ups: DS)
January 5, 2006 01:55 PM Space
Wrap...
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Rumsfeld and Iraq's water!!!
From ustourofduty.org :
David J. Dionisi is a former military intelligence officer and the author of American Hiroshima, a recently published non-fiction book that describes the next 9/11 attack in the United States, and how it can be avoided.
Will Cindy Sheehan Be Protesting In Crawford Until 2017?
By David Dionisi
U.S. Tour of Duty
August 15, 2005
"Rumsfeld braces for more violence in Iraq: Says insurgency 'could endure for any number of years', perhaps until 2017." - Associated Press, June 26, 2005
The courageous stand by Cindy Sheehan and many other anti-war Americans is based on demanding the truth.
Consider for a moment why we have not heard the mainstream media or the President mention the role of water in the Iraq war. The Middle East is home to five percent of the world's population and only one percent of the world's renewable water supply. In addition, the population in the Arab world is 280 million people. This population, comparable to the population of the United States, is on track to double in just a few decades.
The truth that Cindy Sheehan and others are demanding includes the reality that Iraq is a critical strategic location for both al Qaeda and the United States not just because of Iraq's oil, but because Iraq has the most extensive fresh water system in the Middle East. A nation without enough water is in a worse position than a nation without enough oil.
Understanding the role of water in the Middle East explains why there is no exit strategy from Iraq and why many Middle East experts predict the United States will be in Iraq for decades. Even Donald Rumsfeld, with a track record of being overly optimistic about the cost and duration of the Iraq war, is now setting expectations that the war will continue until 2017.
There is a saying in the Arab world that the person who controls the well also controls the people. Knowing that Iraq's water is a key reason our soldiers are being maimed and killed, can help you evaluate what is really going on in the Middle East. Pieces to the puzzle, like the locations of the 14 "enduring" or permanent military bases and likely duration of the American occupation, can suddenly become crystal clear when you consider the locations of the Euphrates, Tigris, Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers.
One only need look at the Nasiriyah, enduring base, on the Euphrates in South-East Iraq to understand the strategic value of water.
The truth is that in addition to oil, water is a real reason for the invasion of Iraq. Our soldiers, their parents, and all citizens have a right to know when the price that is required is in blood and in billions of dollars. Don't be fooled by the occasional messages that our troops will leaving in a few years. The Pentagon is planning on occupying Iraq for decades. The Pentagon's long-range strategic plan is likely to require an American occupation far beyond Donald Rumsfeld's optimistic 2017 forecast.
Wrap...
David J. Dionisi is a former military intelligence officer and the author of American Hiroshima, a recently published non-fiction book that describes the next 9/11 attack in the United States, and how it can be avoided.
Will Cindy Sheehan Be Protesting In Crawford Until 2017?
By David Dionisi
U.S. Tour of Duty
August 15, 2005
"Rumsfeld braces for more violence in Iraq: Says insurgency 'could endure for any number of years', perhaps until 2017." - Associated Press, June 26, 2005
The courageous stand by Cindy Sheehan and many other anti-war Americans is based on demanding the truth.
Consider for a moment why we have not heard the mainstream media or the President mention the role of water in the Iraq war. The Middle East is home to five percent of the world's population and only one percent of the world's renewable water supply. In addition, the population in the Arab world is 280 million people. This population, comparable to the population of the United States, is on track to double in just a few decades.
The truth that Cindy Sheehan and others are demanding includes the reality that Iraq is a critical strategic location for both al Qaeda and the United States not just because of Iraq's oil, but because Iraq has the most extensive fresh water system in the Middle East. A nation without enough water is in a worse position than a nation without enough oil.
Understanding the role of water in the Middle East explains why there is no exit strategy from Iraq and why many Middle East experts predict the United States will be in Iraq for decades. Even Donald Rumsfeld, with a track record of being overly optimistic about the cost and duration of the Iraq war, is now setting expectations that the war will continue until 2017.
There is a saying in the Arab world that the person who controls the well also controls the people. Knowing that Iraq's water is a key reason our soldiers are being maimed and killed, can help you evaluate what is really going on in the Middle East. Pieces to the puzzle, like the locations of the 14 "enduring" or permanent military bases and likely duration of the American occupation, can suddenly become crystal clear when you consider the locations of the Euphrates, Tigris, Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers.
One only need look at the Nasiriyah, enduring base, on the Euphrates in South-East Iraq to understand the strategic value of water.
The truth is that in addition to oil, water is a real reason for the invasion of Iraq. Our soldiers, their parents, and all citizens have a right to know when the price that is required is in blood and in billions of dollars. Don't be fooled by the occasional messages that our troops will leaving in a few years. The Pentagon is planning on occupying Iraq for decades. The Pentagon's long-range strategic plan is likely to require an American occupation far beyond Donald Rumsfeld's optimistic 2017 forecast.
Wrap...
Judiciary Committee Senator coached Alito!!!
From truthout.org :
Alito and His Coaches
By James Ridgeway with Michael Roston
The Village Voice
Tuesday 10 January 2006
For Supreme Court nominee, hearings are an inside game.
Washington, DC - In the first hours of Samuel Alito's Senate confirmation hearings on Monday, Judiciary Committee member Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina, may very well have irreparably compromised himself.
At the hearing, Graham told Alito, nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, that he had already decided in Alito's favor. "I don't know what kind of vote you're going to get, but you'll make it through. It's possible you could talk me out of voting for you, but I doubt it. So I won't even try to challenge you along those lines."
That certainly ought to be the case. Graham is one of a group of Republicans who have been coaching Alito behind the scenes. The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire reported before the hearings began:
"On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the 'gang of 14' who sits on Judiciary, joined a so-called moot court session at the White House."
The coaching session for Alito has raised a few eyebrows.
"Coaching a judicial nominee behind-the-scenes is not the proper role for a Judiciary Committee member who must subsequently sit in judgment on that nominee," writes Think Progress, a project of the American Progress Action Fund. "It could be a violation of the ethical duties of a senator."
Writing about the Alito situation, Think Progress cites Senate Rule 37 in the Senate Ethics Manual. The rule says: "No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any outside business or professional activity or employment for compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of official duties."
Think Progress further cites the ethics manual, saying that language has been interpreted as prohibiting "compensated employment or uncompensated positions on boards, commissions, or advisory councils where such service could create a conflict with an individual's Senate duties due to appropriation, oversight, authorization, or legislative jurisdiction as a result of Senate duties."
If this is true, how can Graham make an impartial decision about Alito based on what he learns at the Alito hearings? Graham has already made up his mind.
Wrap...
Alito and His Coaches
By James Ridgeway with Michael Roston
The Village Voice
Tuesday 10 January 2006
For Supreme Court nominee, hearings are an inside game.
Washington, DC - In the first hours of Samuel Alito's Senate confirmation hearings on Monday, Judiciary Committee member Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina, may very well have irreparably compromised himself.
At the hearing, Graham told Alito, nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, that he had already decided in Alito's favor. "I don't know what kind of vote you're going to get, but you'll make it through. It's possible you could talk me out of voting for you, but I doubt it. So I won't even try to challenge you along those lines."
That certainly ought to be the case. Graham is one of a group of Republicans who have been coaching Alito behind the scenes. The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire reported before the hearings began:
"On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the 'gang of 14' who sits on Judiciary, joined a so-called moot court session at the White House."
The coaching session for Alito has raised a few eyebrows.
"Coaching a judicial nominee behind-the-scenes is not the proper role for a Judiciary Committee member who must subsequently sit in judgment on that nominee," writes Think Progress, a project of the American Progress Action Fund. "It could be a violation of the ethical duties of a senator."
Writing about the Alito situation, Think Progress cites Senate Rule 37 in the Senate Ethics Manual. The rule says: "No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any outside business or professional activity or employment for compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of official duties."
Think Progress further cites the ethics manual, saying that language has been interpreted as prohibiting "compensated employment or uncompensated positions on boards, commissions, or advisory councils where such service could create a conflict with an individual's Senate duties due to appropriation, oversight, authorization, or legislative jurisdiction as a result of Senate duties."
If this is true, how can Graham make an impartial decision about Alito based on what he learns at the Alito hearings? Graham has already made up his mind.
Wrap...
In France...a look at the Abramoff scandal...
From truthout.org:
The Abramoff Torpedo
By Serge Truffaut
Le Devoir
Tuesday 10 January 2006
The Republican Party - the American one, needless to say - is at bay. Ever since the powerful lobbyist Jack Abramoff has acknowledged his guilt for fraud, tax evasion, and corruption of elected officials, le Tout-Washington is obsessed by one question. Who are the dozen elected officials against whom Abramoff has agreed to testify in exchange for a reduction in his sentence? Their identities should be revealed during the preliminary hearings scheduled for March.
In anticipation of that event, this scandal - which many describe as the most important in decades - has already garnered one victim. Tom DeLay, ex-leader of the Republicans in Congress, has just thrown in the towel. Three days ago, he still hoped to reclaim the position he was forced to renounce for electoral misappropriation last autumn. Abramoff's confessions have obliterated his remaining aspirations.
Today we can propound the idea: in essence DeLay was the shock lobbyist's Trojan horse. A definite fact: the Republican boss was his preferred and trusted interlocutor. We will pass over the golf trips and the other pastimes of corrupt politicians to better focus our attention on the fact that the money Abramoff harvested through his swindles, some of which targeted Indian nations, was in part transferred into the coffers of elected officials. And notably DeLay's.
Ever since the revelation of the mechanism Abramoff employed, congressmen, senators, as well as President Bush himself have knuckled down to giving away sums bearing the crook's fingerprints. If charitable organizations are the principal beneficiaries of the indulgences various politicians are purchasing for themselves, this episode continues to illuminate their cynicism or their arrogance.
In fact, it has been known for at least two years that Abramoff is dishonest. Six years ago, he joined the law firm of Greenberg, Traurig - the firm that represented Bush during the legal battle that followed the 2000 elections. Then, consequent to an internal investigation, that firm decided to end its association with Abramoff on account of the twisted deeds he made his specialty.
And now, here we are, almost two years after that fact was reported by the Washington Post, with these gentlemen screaming that they didn't know and, in the same breath, making gifts on every side. The attitude that DeLay, Bush, and several others are adopting these days is quite simply immoral. To feign disgust with a man they have long known to be an adept of fraud amounts to taking Americans for imbeciles.
Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.
Wrap...
The Abramoff Torpedo
By Serge Truffaut
Le Devoir
Tuesday 10 January 2006
The Republican Party - the American one, needless to say - is at bay. Ever since the powerful lobbyist Jack Abramoff has acknowledged his guilt for fraud, tax evasion, and corruption of elected officials, le Tout-Washington is obsessed by one question. Who are the dozen elected officials against whom Abramoff has agreed to testify in exchange for a reduction in his sentence? Their identities should be revealed during the preliminary hearings scheduled for March.
In anticipation of that event, this scandal - which many describe as the most important in decades - has already garnered one victim. Tom DeLay, ex-leader of the Republicans in Congress, has just thrown in the towel. Three days ago, he still hoped to reclaim the position he was forced to renounce for electoral misappropriation last autumn. Abramoff's confessions have obliterated his remaining aspirations.
Today we can propound the idea: in essence DeLay was the shock lobbyist's Trojan horse. A definite fact: the Republican boss was his preferred and trusted interlocutor. We will pass over the golf trips and the other pastimes of corrupt politicians to better focus our attention on the fact that the money Abramoff harvested through his swindles, some of which targeted Indian nations, was in part transferred into the coffers of elected officials. And notably DeLay's.
Ever since the revelation of the mechanism Abramoff employed, congressmen, senators, as well as President Bush himself have knuckled down to giving away sums bearing the crook's fingerprints. If charitable organizations are the principal beneficiaries of the indulgences various politicians are purchasing for themselves, this episode continues to illuminate their cynicism or their arrogance.
In fact, it has been known for at least two years that Abramoff is dishonest. Six years ago, he joined the law firm of Greenberg, Traurig - the firm that represented Bush during the legal battle that followed the 2000 elections. Then, consequent to an internal investigation, that firm decided to end its association with Abramoff on account of the twisted deeds he made his specialty.
And now, here we are, almost two years after that fact was reported by the Washington Post, with these gentlemen screaming that they didn't know and, in the same breath, making gifts on every side. The attitude that DeLay, Bush, and several others are adopting these days is quite simply immoral. To feign disgust with a man they have long known to be an adept of fraud amounts to taking Americans for imbeciles.
Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.
Wrap...
Clinton stays to meet returning troops...
From BangorNews.com via ABC's The Note:
Clinton greets troops at BIA
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - Bangor Daily News
By Doug Kesseli, Of the News Staff
BANGOR — Returning to U.S. soil after a second tour of duty in Iraq, U.S. Army Spc. Joshua Ruschenberg used a cell phone provided by troop greeters at Bangor International Airport on Monday night to call his mother in Texas.
With former President Bill Clinton among the greeters, Ruschenberg placed a second quick call to his sister-in-law Shancy Garrison in North Carolina, then handed over the phone to the former commander in chief.
"Hi, Shancy, it’s Bill Clinton," the former president said into the small phone.
The 42nd president was returning to the U.S. from Paris where he had met with French President Jacques Chirac to discuss plans for the Clinton Foundation, the former U.S. chief executive’s charitable organization. Clinton’s plane had stopped at BIA around 7 p.m. to refuel. His plans for a quick departure went out the window with the arrival of two flights of soldiers returning from Iraq.
Upon learning of the arriving troops, Clinton delayed his departure and joined the line of staunch local troop greeters who meet each plane carrying service men and women either returning from overseas or leaving for duty.
"Thank you for your service," Clinton said as he shook hands and hugged many of the approximately 600 soldiers as they passed by.
Many of the returning soldiers were visibly startled to see Clinton in the line of more than a dozen greeters. The soldiers were from the 3rd Infantry Battalion and the 313th Field Artillery Unit and were returning to bases in Oklahoma, Texas and Georgia.
"This is great," said Staff Sgt. Anthony Thompson of New York City, who stood next to Clinton, a "neighbor" who now lives and works near him.
Some shook hands with the former president, who also autographed hats, cards, paper, whatever the service men and women could find.
Just before the troops arrived, Brook Palcholski, 13, a troop greeter from Hermon, had the president sign her shirt after boldly telling him that she wanted to become a cartoonist.
"I was good fodder for them [cartoonists]," Clinton told her. "There were some for me and some against me."
Brook later said she vaguely remembered Clinton’s presidency when she was little. But most recently, she said, she saw him in animated form on the cartoon "The Family Guy."
With the troops greeted, Clinton got back on a plane at 10 p.m. for the trip home.
Wrap...
Clinton greets troops at BIA
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - Bangor Daily News
By Doug Kesseli, Of the News Staff
BANGOR — Returning to U.S. soil after a second tour of duty in Iraq, U.S. Army Spc. Joshua Ruschenberg used a cell phone provided by troop greeters at Bangor International Airport on Monday night to call his mother in Texas.
With former President Bill Clinton among the greeters, Ruschenberg placed a second quick call to his sister-in-law Shancy Garrison in North Carolina, then handed over the phone to the former commander in chief.
"Hi, Shancy, it’s Bill Clinton," the former president said into the small phone.
The 42nd president was returning to the U.S. from Paris where he had met with French President Jacques Chirac to discuss plans for the Clinton Foundation, the former U.S. chief executive’s charitable organization. Clinton’s plane had stopped at BIA around 7 p.m. to refuel. His plans for a quick departure went out the window with the arrival of two flights of soldiers returning from Iraq.
Upon learning of the arriving troops, Clinton delayed his departure and joined the line of staunch local troop greeters who meet each plane carrying service men and women either returning from overseas or leaving for duty.
"Thank you for your service," Clinton said as he shook hands and hugged many of the approximately 600 soldiers as they passed by.
Many of the returning soldiers were visibly startled to see Clinton in the line of more than a dozen greeters. The soldiers were from the 3rd Infantry Battalion and the 313th Field Artillery Unit and were returning to bases in Oklahoma, Texas and Georgia.
"This is great," said Staff Sgt. Anthony Thompson of New York City, who stood next to Clinton, a "neighbor" who now lives and works near him.
Some shook hands with the former president, who also autographed hats, cards, paper, whatever the service men and women could find.
Just before the troops arrived, Brook Palcholski, 13, a troop greeter from Hermon, had the president sign her shirt after boldly telling him that she wanted to become a cartoonist.
"I was good fodder for them [cartoonists]," Clinton told her. "There were some for me and some against me."
Brook later said she vaguely remembered Clinton’s presidency when she was little. But most recently, she said, she saw him in animated form on the cartoon "The Family Guy."
With the troops greeted, Clinton got back on a plane at 10 p.m. for the trip home.
Wrap...
Monday, January 09, 2006
Oh, Oh...No wire worn by Cunningham!!!
From htttp://nbcsandiego.com :
Lawyer: Cunningham Didn't Wear Wire
POSTED: 4:31 pm PST January 9, 2006
UPDATED: 4:50 pm PST January 9, 2006
SAN DIEGO -- Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's attorney said his client did not secretly record conversations to help prosecutors.
IMAGES: Cunningham's Forfeited AntiquesVIDEO: Cunningham's StatementRead Cunningham's Complete StatementCunningham's Original Explanation Of Home SaleIMAGES: Congressman's Home Sale
Last week, Time magazine reported that the corrupt congressman wore a wire as part of an investigation.
Cunningham pleaded guilty in November to taking millions of dollars in bribes. His lawyer said
Cunningham did not secretly gather evidence against any public officials.
Wrap...
Lawyer: Cunningham Didn't Wear Wire
POSTED: 4:31 pm PST January 9, 2006
UPDATED: 4:50 pm PST January 9, 2006
SAN DIEGO -- Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's attorney said his client did not secretly record conversations to help prosecutors.
IMAGES: Cunningham's Forfeited AntiquesVIDEO: Cunningham's StatementRead Cunningham's Complete StatementCunningham's Original Explanation Of Home SaleIMAGES: Congressman's Home Sale
Last week, Time magazine reported that the corrupt congressman wore a wire as part of an investigation.
Cunningham pleaded guilty in November to taking millions of dollars in bribes. His lawyer said
Cunningham did not secretly gather evidence against any public officials.
Wrap...
BushCo's IRS hiding tax records...
From the Sacramento Bee:
IRS said to improperly restrict access
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer
Last Updated 2:03 pm PST Sunday, January 8, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has illegally stopped making public detailed tax enforcement data, which has been used to show which kinds of taxpayers get the most and toughest audits, a noted tax researcher says.
Syracuse University Professor Susan B. Long said in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle late last week that since Nov. 1, 2004, the Internal Revenue Service has violated a 1976 court order requiring the release of the data.
IRS spokesman Terry Lemons responded Friday, "We do not believe we are in violation of the court order."
Long, who has researched and written about federal tax administration for more than 30 years, used the Freedom of Information Act to win the court order in 1976 directing the revenue agency to provide her regularly with its data on criminal investigations, tax collections, the number and hours devoted to audits by income level and taxpayer category and other enforcement records.
Since 1989, her FOIA requests have been submitted by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data-research organization at Syracuse of which she is co-director.
TRAC has used the records to report in 2000 that the Clinton administration was auditing poor people at a higher rate than rich people and in 2004 that business and corporate audits were down substantially and criminal tax enforcement was at an all-time low. TRAC also reported that in fiscal 2002-2004 IRS audited on average only a third of the largest corporations, which control 90 percent of all corporate assets and 87 percent of all corporate income.
The 1976 court order listed 38 types of IRS reports, including five produced quarterly, that Long was entitled to receive "promptly" and regularly under the Freedom of Information Act. The court said IRS must continue to make the same statistical data contained in the listed reports available without charge in future years "regardless of the format ... hereafter compiled."
Despite filing regular FOIA requests for the material, the last data Long received arrived Nov. 1, 2004 and covered only the first six months of fiscal year 2004, through March, 2004, she said in an interview.
"They really shut down access," she said. Although the original court order covers some data compiled every three months, Long said in recent years she had shifted mainly to requesting annual data compilations.
But when IRS stopped releasing the data, Long shifted first to six-month, then nine-month, and finally monthly requests "because that's how they compile that data" - all without success.
"For years, TRAC requested data on an annual basis from the IRS," agency spokesman Lemons said. "The IRS voluntarily gave TRAC an enormous amount of data beyond what we routinely release to the public, outside of the FOIA process."
But he said TRAC shifted in June 2004 to seeking data monthly. "These were much broader and sweeping requests than TRAC previously sought, with many of the requested data sets not normally gathered by the IRS" since it reorganized in 2000 from geographic divisions to taxpayer-category divisions.
Lemons said "the IRS continues to provide annual data to TRAC - just as it has done for years." As evidence he cited a report TRAC issued in April 2005, but that report only contained data through March 2004, which is the last data set Long said she received.
Lemons acknowledged the court order "is still in effect. Nobody disputes that." But he said the agency cannot find copies of the reports from the 1970s listed in the court order to determine exactly which data Long is entitled to. She replied that record retention rules require IRS to keep historical copies of its manual, which describes each record.
Wrap...
IRS said to improperly restrict access
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer
Last Updated 2:03 pm PST Sunday, January 8, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has illegally stopped making public detailed tax enforcement data, which has been used to show which kinds of taxpayers get the most and toughest audits, a noted tax researcher says.
Syracuse University Professor Susan B. Long said in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle late last week that since Nov. 1, 2004, the Internal Revenue Service has violated a 1976 court order requiring the release of the data.
IRS spokesman Terry Lemons responded Friday, "We do not believe we are in violation of the court order."
Long, who has researched and written about federal tax administration for more than 30 years, used the Freedom of Information Act to win the court order in 1976 directing the revenue agency to provide her regularly with its data on criminal investigations, tax collections, the number and hours devoted to audits by income level and taxpayer category and other enforcement records.
Since 1989, her FOIA requests have been submitted by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data-research organization at Syracuse of which she is co-director.
TRAC has used the records to report in 2000 that the Clinton administration was auditing poor people at a higher rate than rich people and in 2004 that business and corporate audits were down substantially and criminal tax enforcement was at an all-time low. TRAC also reported that in fiscal 2002-2004 IRS audited on average only a third of the largest corporations, which control 90 percent of all corporate assets and 87 percent of all corporate income.
The 1976 court order listed 38 types of IRS reports, including five produced quarterly, that Long was entitled to receive "promptly" and regularly under the Freedom of Information Act. The court said IRS must continue to make the same statistical data contained in the listed reports available without charge in future years "regardless of the format ... hereafter compiled."
Despite filing regular FOIA requests for the material, the last data Long received arrived Nov. 1, 2004 and covered only the first six months of fiscal year 2004, through March, 2004, she said in an interview.
"They really shut down access," she said. Although the original court order covers some data compiled every three months, Long said in recent years she had shifted mainly to requesting annual data compilations.
But when IRS stopped releasing the data, Long shifted first to six-month, then nine-month, and finally monthly requests "because that's how they compile that data" - all without success.
"For years, TRAC requested data on an annual basis from the IRS," agency spokesman Lemons said. "The IRS voluntarily gave TRAC an enormous amount of data beyond what we routinely release to the public, outside of the FOIA process."
But he said TRAC shifted in June 2004 to seeking data monthly. "These were much broader and sweeping requests than TRAC previously sought, with many of the requested data sets not normally gathered by the IRS" since it reorganized in 2000 from geographic divisions to taxpayer-category divisions.
Lemons said "the IRS continues to provide annual data to TRAC - just as it has done for years." As evidence he cited a report TRAC issued in April 2005, but that report only contained data through March 2004, which is the last data set Long said she received.
Lemons acknowledged the court order "is still in effect. Nobody disputes that." But he said the agency cannot find copies of the reports from the 1970s listed in the court order to determine exactly which data Long is entitled to. She replied that record retention rules require IRS to keep historical copies of its manual, which describes each record.
Wrap...
Sunday, January 08, 2006
BushCo: Forget NATO and United Nations....
From Working For Change. com :
1.6.06
Bush announces radical shift in foreign policy; No U.S. media report it
In case you thought the Bush administration's dangerous, and national-security-weakening unilateralism was just a one-time deal in Iraq, think again. Buried in the UK's Financial Times - and as far as I can tell, not reported anywhere else - are the details of a State Department briefing this week in which the Bush administration very publicly said it is essentially scrapping U.S. support for NATO and the United Nations. No joke.
Here's the key excerpt:
"The Bush administration says it wants to be able to form 'coalitions of the willing' more efficiently for dealing with future conflicts rather than turning to existing but unreliable institutional alliances such as Nato. 'We ad hoc our way through coalitions of the willing. That's the future,' a senior State Department official said in a briefing this week."
NATO and the U.N. are by no means perfect, and America should continue to reserve its right to defend itself. Nonetheless, this declaration by the administration represents a radical shift in U.S. policy (at least its publicly-stated policy). And one that begs a very simple question: how could anyone - even the Bush administration - look at the Iraq "coalition of the willing" model as anything but an incredible failure? It has left American troops isolated in Iraq, and American taxpayers largely footing the entire bill for reconstruction.
And let's be clear - the American public does not support abandoning international institutions. A solid majority of the American public views the United Nations favorably. In 2003, the American public was clearly unhappy with the administration's refusal to secure broad international backing for the Iraq war. Even Fox News' skewed polling shows strong support for international institutions being seriously involved in places like Iraq.
I'm not going to go into how pathetic it is that the only paper that reported this story was the Financial Times - a paper not even based in the United States (and by the way, if I am wrong, please send me another media outlet that reported this - but the point still stands, almost no one has reported this).
What's important here is less the media's irresponsible laziness and more how the extremist neoconserative forces in the Bush administration are trying to dangerously alter America's national security policy in a way the public doesn't support and in a way that would severely weaken America's security for the long haul.
Posted by David Sirota at 10:26 AM Link
Wrap...
1.6.06
Bush announces radical shift in foreign policy; No U.S. media report it
In case you thought the Bush administration's dangerous, and national-security-weakening unilateralism was just a one-time deal in Iraq, think again. Buried in the UK's Financial Times - and as far as I can tell, not reported anywhere else - are the details of a State Department briefing this week in which the Bush administration very publicly said it is essentially scrapping U.S. support for NATO and the United Nations. No joke.
Here's the key excerpt:
"The Bush administration says it wants to be able to form 'coalitions of the willing' more efficiently for dealing with future conflicts rather than turning to existing but unreliable institutional alliances such as Nato. 'We ad hoc our way through coalitions of the willing. That's the future,' a senior State Department official said in a briefing this week."
NATO and the U.N. are by no means perfect, and America should continue to reserve its right to defend itself. Nonetheless, this declaration by the administration represents a radical shift in U.S. policy (at least its publicly-stated policy). And one that begs a very simple question: how could anyone - even the Bush administration - look at the Iraq "coalition of the willing" model as anything but an incredible failure? It has left American troops isolated in Iraq, and American taxpayers largely footing the entire bill for reconstruction.
And let's be clear - the American public does not support abandoning international institutions. A solid majority of the American public views the United Nations favorably. In 2003, the American public was clearly unhappy with the administration's refusal to secure broad international backing for the Iraq war. Even Fox News' skewed polling shows strong support for international institutions being seriously involved in places like Iraq.
I'm not going to go into how pathetic it is that the only paper that reported this story was the Financial Times - a paper not even based in the United States (and by the way, if I am wrong, please send me another media outlet that reported this - but the point still stands, almost no one has reported this).
What's important here is less the media's irresponsible laziness and more how the extremist neoconserative forces in the Bush administration are trying to dangerously alter America's national security policy in a way the public doesn't support and in a way that would severely weaken America's security for the long haul.
Posted by David Sirota at 10:26 AM Link
Wrap...
On the Mexican/US border...
So a cousin forwarded an email from a guy named Bob Lonsberry...and it gave me a flippin' fit.
Lonsberry's email is below. Below my reply here. Sheesh!!!
*******************************
To the cousin:
It's awful easy for somebody on the east coast like Lonsberry to talk about what he doesn't really understand or know about or have experienced. Wonder how he'd like to pay $7 for a single avocado, for instance. And that's what they'd cost without the workers, according to the Repub mgr of the restaurant I had breakfast at this morn. Same for all produce you find in your supermarket...and that includes the chickens at the meat counter.
He also doesn't mention that everyone of the 9/11 terrorists were in the US legally...as students. With student visas. Also, not a single terrorist has crossed the Mexican border. Also, the only ones who have, came across the Canadian border.
So just closing the Mexican border isn't the answer. The Mexicans, thanks to our Feds, have to cross illegally. There is a seven year long wait for Green cards for workers because US people can't get their act together. The agriculture people can't wait 7 years to get the harvests in, nor can the chicken people keep the chickens alive for 7 years...and it goes on and on. Who's down in New Orleans trying to clean the place up? Mexican workers...and half of them are being cheated out of their wages and living in tents if they have them. Same here where the field workers come...living at the edges of the fields, no electricity, no water, zip...because even though the agriculture owners want to build quarters for them, the multi-millionaires living on the cliffs above don't want to see no Mexicans below them.
Bush wants a worker program. This is good. Problem is, we already have one, but as I said, it's got a 7 year back-up to get papers from. And if anybody thinks our citizens are gonna work for barely minimum wage doing those kinds of back-breaking jobs, they're wrong. It's been tried. In reply to a help wanted ad, one guy showed up to work in the fields. ONE.
The Mexicans are crossing illegally because there's no other choice if they're gonna find a job to care for their families. Perfect solution would be to make Baja the 53rd State, but Mexico sure wouldn't go for that. Their major tourist business is in Baja. Can't tell you how many US citizens are living full time in Baja in houses along their beaches...and the number is growing.
The Mexicans crossing illegally, come and work and go back home. The US citizens living down there go and don't come back cause it's so much cheaper to live there and besides, the Mexicans are nice people. It's the damndest thing.
Barricading the borders is simply a political ploy. Every damned week some politician is down there raving about closing the borders and getting their photo op and doing their damndest to play up FEAR in US citizens that TERRORISTS are coming across. Bullshit.
And I haven't even mentioned the thousands who cross and immediately become housekeepers and baby sitters and gardners and resturant workers and on and on...and risk their lives trying to go home for Xmas and come back to their jobs again. The Mexicans who come to work here are very decent, very hard working, religious, family loving people who sure don't deserve being treated as they are.
Now here's a real problem. You know where the drug running Mexican cartels are getting their guns? They can't get them in Mexico. They get them easy...from the US where citizens can run into any gun store, buy whatever they want, turn them over to smugglers, and across the border to Mexico they go...where they're used to kill any Mexican who crosses their path. All to get those drugs across the border to the buyers...US citizens. That's sure something to be proud of. Talk about free trade. Hah.
You'd think people would remember how popular the Berlin Wall was...or the fence in Isreal to block in the Palestians. Same thing with this wall on our border. How desparate for work would you have to be to cross that goddamned desert on our and AZ's borders? And die out there because the damned smuggler has left and there you are with a couple of hundred miles of desert to cross with no water, no shelter... Pretty desperate..as are the people waiting to hire you if you can get there alive. And all because our people can't get the damned paperwork done. Sheesh!!!
And if you want to know how the field workers are living today, just go to: www.latimes.com They've done a hell of a fine article. Pics and all.
----- Original Message -----
From the cousin:
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 6:29 AM
Subject: Illegal Immigration
Subject: Bob Lonsberry on Illegal Immigration
Bob LonsberryLonsberry.com
SEND THIS TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN
Dear Congressman,
Could you explain something to me?
Why the hell isn’t our Army on the Mexican border? Why the hell do you and your pals sit up there in Washington with your heads up your butts while our territorial integrity gets gang-raped everyday along the Rio Grande?
Pull out the Border Patrol and send in the 82nd Airborne and get the job done.
Or quit.
We can easily find some other vote-for-hire idiot to do your job. Because you’re clearly not getting the message. There is one freaking issue in this country and you stuffed-shirt, tax-and-spend welfare pimps are pretending not to know what it is.
So I’ll say it once.
Illegal immigration.
A flood of invaders is gutting our nation, and their insolent homeland is backing them up, and you’re leading our country in a long round of grab-your-ankles.
Maybe you don’t love this country, but the rest of us do, and we’re sick and damn tired that you’re doing nothing to protect it. You tax us at some of the highest levels in history – world history – and you demand our obedience to law, and yet you fail in the most fundamental aspect of your job.
You don’t protect the country.
You don’t protect the law.
You don’t protect the economy.
You don’t protect the tax money you suck out of us.
Because you don’t protect the border and you don’t repel the invaders.
So why the hell should we keep you around?
What exactly is your function? You are as useless as tits on a boar hog. I believe the saying is: Lead, follow or get out of the way.
And having failed to lead, maybe you should try following the will of the people. The people you theoretically represent.
The people who think that the increased violence against our Border Patrol agents can’t be tolerated. The people who think that daily gunfire on our border – aimed at our citizens – is pretty damn close to an act of war. The people who think that catching and releasing 1.2 million illegal’s crossing our border each year isn’t good enough.
The people who fear those 1.2 million illegal’s are just the tip of the iceberg when compared to the ones we don’t catch. The ones who are threatening the prosperity, culture and sovereignty of the United States.
You and your chucklehead friends were sent to Washington to do the bidding of your constituents. But it seems you’ve decided you work for Vincente Fox instead of We The People. That insolent whelp lectures and castigates this country on a daily basis and not a one of you has the stones to tell him to shut up. There’s plenty of time to call your reporter pals and leak national secrets to them, but not a one of you can offer up a press quote suggesting that the president of Mexico ought to mind his own freaking business.
Like this deal with the guy who was trying to brain a Border Patrol agent with a rock. The rate of violent attack against our agents has doubled in recent months, and one of these infiltrados is heaving rocks at an officer of the United States trying to enforce the laws of the United States, and the agent has to fire his gun.
Which caused the invader to develop a nasty leak.
Which subsequently caused him to meet 72 virgins in heaven.
Oops, my bad. That’s the other guys who are trying to destroy us.
Anyway, your daddy, Vincente Fox, is crapping his pants down there demanding justice and calling it an international outrage and all sort of other insane prattle. Of course, next election, when he’s thrown out by Hugo Chavez Jr., we’re going to miss him.
But that’s ok, your constituents have lots of ammunition.
And unless you get off your hands and start protecting this country some generation not too long from now they’re going to have to use it.
You are Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
Only this nation is far greater than Rome. Because it is not a nation of empire, it is a nation of liberty. The world’s first, last and best hope for freedom. And you are allowing it to be plundered and pillaged by the vandals.
(Hey, moron, if any of these historical and literally allusions escape you, have a staffer explain the hard parts to you. As a test, have them explain what the phrase "from the halls of Montezuma" refers to in the Marine Corps Hymn.)
Now, you Washington boys are pretty good at screwing your buddy and passing the buck. But that game’s gotten old. Pointing a finger at the White House and another finger at big business and sticking a third finger up your, well, none of that gets it anymore.
You took an oath.
Be man enough to live up to it.
Defend this country.
Get over your political correctness. Get over your spinelessness. Get over your cowardice. Take your lips off the Latino backside long enough to say what all your constituents are shouting.
Illegal immigration has to be stopped.
The border has to be secured.
The invasion has to be repulsed.
American policy must be made by American officials, not Mexican bandits. And you bastardos are pretty cold-hearted to ask young men to defend America in Iraq when you won’t defend America at home.
Do your job.
Defend this country.
Protect our borders.
Or get ready to face the consequences. Because we’re not mad at the illegals anymore. We’re mad at you – and all those like you who won’t do their constitutional duty. And we’re coming after you. And all your lobbyist pals and all their money won’t be able to protect you.
Because this is an even-numbered year.
And we’ll vote for a dog before we’ll send you back for another term of treason. As far as your political career goes, you can either protect our borders or you can go to hell.
It’s as simple as that.
Signed,
A Voting American
P.S. -- The next time you see your Mexican daddy, tell him Winfied Scott said hello.
Bob Lonsberry © 2006
Wrap...
Lonsberry's email is below. Below my reply here. Sheesh!!!
*******************************
To the cousin:
It's awful easy for somebody on the east coast like Lonsberry to talk about what he doesn't really understand or know about or have experienced. Wonder how he'd like to pay $7 for a single avocado, for instance. And that's what they'd cost without the workers, according to the Repub mgr of the restaurant I had breakfast at this morn. Same for all produce you find in your supermarket...and that includes the chickens at the meat counter.
He also doesn't mention that everyone of the 9/11 terrorists were in the US legally...as students. With student visas. Also, not a single terrorist has crossed the Mexican border. Also, the only ones who have, came across the Canadian border.
So just closing the Mexican border isn't the answer. The Mexicans, thanks to our Feds, have to cross illegally. There is a seven year long wait for Green cards for workers because US people can't get their act together. The agriculture people can't wait 7 years to get the harvests in, nor can the chicken people keep the chickens alive for 7 years...and it goes on and on. Who's down in New Orleans trying to clean the place up? Mexican workers...and half of them are being cheated out of their wages and living in tents if they have them. Same here where the field workers come...living at the edges of the fields, no electricity, no water, zip...because even though the agriculture owners want to build quarters for them, the multi-millionaires living on the cliffs above don't want to see no Mexicans below them.
Bush wants a worker program. This is good. Problem is, we already have one, but as I said, it's got a 7 year back-up to get papers from. And if anybody thinks our citizens are gonna work for barely minimum wage doing those kinds of back-breaking jobs, they're wrong. It's been tried. In reply to a help wanted ad, one guy showed up to work in the fields. ONE.
The Mexicans are crossing illegally because there's no other choice if they're gonna find a job to care for their families. Perfect solution would be to make Baja the 53rd State, but Mexico sure wouldn't go for that. Their major tourist business is in Baja. Can't tell you how many US citizens are living full time in Baja in houses along their beaches...and the number is growing.
The Mexicans crossing illegally, come and work and go back home. The US citizens living down there go and don't come back cause it's so much cheaper to live there and besides, the Mexicans are nice people. It's the damndest thing.
Barricading the borders is simply a political ploy. Every damned week some politician is down there raving about closing the borders and getting their photo op and doing their damndest to play up FEAR in US citizens that TERRORISTS are coming across. Bullshit.
And I haven't even mentioned the thousands who cross and immediately become housekeepers and baby sitters and gardners and resturant workers and on and on...and risk their lives trying to go home for Xmas and come back to their jobs again. The Mexicans who come to work here are very decent, very hard working, religious, family loving people who sure don't deserve being treated as they are.
Now here's a real problem. You know where the drug running Mexican cartels are getting their guns? They can't get them in Mexico. They get them easy...from the US where citizens can run into any gun store, buy whatever they want, turn them over to smugglers, and across the border to Mexico they go...where they're used to kill any Mexican who crosses their path. All to get those drugs across the border to the buyers...US citizens. That's sure something to be proud of. Talk about free trade. Hah.
You'd think people would remember how popular the Berlin Wall was...or the fence in Isreal to block in the Palestians. Same thing with this wall on our border. How desparate for work would you have to be to cross that goddamned desert on our and AZ's borders? And die out there because the damned smuggler has left and there you are with a couple of hundred miles of desert to cross with no water, no shelter... Pretty desperate..as are the people waiting to hire you if you can get there alive. And all because our people can't get the damned paperwork done. Sheesh!!!
And if you want to know how the field workers are living today, just go to: www.latimes.com They've done a hell of a fine article. Pics and all.
----- Original Message -----
From the cousin:
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 6:29 AM
Subject: Illegal Immigration
Subject: Bob Lonsberry on Illegal Immigration
Bob LonsberryLonsberry.com
SEND THIS TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN
Dear Congressman,
Could you explain something to me?
Why the hell isn’t our Army on the Mexican border? Why the hell do you and your pals sit up there in Washington with your heads up your butts while our territorial integrity gets gang-raped everyday along the Rio Grande?
Pull out the Border Patrol and send in the 82nd Airborne and get the job done.
Or quit.
We can easily find some other vote-for-hire idiot to do your job. Because you’re clearly not getting the message. There is one freaking issue in this country and you stuffed-shirt, tax-and-spend welfare pimps are pretending not to know what it is.
So I’ll say it once.
Illegal immigration.
A flood of invaders is gutting our nation, and their insolent homeland is backing them up, and you’re leading our country in a long round of grab-your-ankles.
Maybe you don’t love this country, but the rest of us do, and we’re sick and damn tired that you’re doing nothing to protect it. You tax us at some of the highest levels in history – world history – and you demand our obedience to law, and yet you fail in the most fundamental aspect of your job.
You don’t protect the country.
You don’t protect the law.
You don’t protect the economy.
You don’t protect the tax money you suck out of us.
Because you don’t protect the border and you don’t repel the invaders.
So why the hell should we keep you around?
What exactly is your function? You are as useless as tits on a boar hog. I believe the saying is: Lead, follow or get out of the way.
And having failed to lead, maybe you should try following the will of the people. The people you theoretically represent.
The people who think that the increased violence against our Border Patrol agents can’t be tolerated. The people who think that daily gunfire on our border – aimed at our citizens – is pretty damn close to an act of war. The people who think that catching and releasing 1.2 million illegal’s crossing our border each year isn’t good enough.
The people who fear those 1.2 million illegal’s are just the tip of the iceberg when compared to the ones we don’t catch. The ones who are threatening the prosperity, culture and sovereignty of the United States.
You and your chucklehead friends were sent to Washington to do the bidding of your constituents. But it seems you’ve decided you work for Vincente Fox instead of We The People. That insolent whelp lectures and castigates this country on a daily basis and not a one of you has the stones to tell him to shut up. There’s plenty of time to call your reporter pals and leak national secrets to them, but not a one of you can offer up a press quote suggesting that the president of Mexico ought to mind his own freaking business.
Like this deal with the guy who was trying to brain a Border Patrol agent with a rock. The rate of violent attack against our agents has doubled in recent months, and one of these infiltrados is heaving rocks at an officer of the United States trying to enforce the laws of the United States, and the agent has to fire his gun.
Which caused the invader to develop a nasty leak.
Which subsequently caused him to meet 72 virgins in heaven.
Oops, my bad. That’s the other guys who are trying to destroy us.
Anyway, your daddy, Vincente Fox, is crapping his pants down there demanding justice and calling it an international outrage and all sort of other insane prattle. Of course, next election, when he’s thrown out by Hugo Chavez Jr., we’re going to miss him.
But that’s ok, your constituents have lots of ammunition.
And unless you get off your hands and start protecting this country some generation not too long from now they’re going to have to use it.
You are Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
Only this nation is far greater than Rome. Because it is not a nation of empire, it is a nation of liberty. The world’s first, last and best hope for freedom. And you are allowing it to be plundered and pillaged by the vandals.
(Hey, moron, if any of these historical and literally allusions escape you, have a staffer explain the hard parts to you. As a test, have them explain what the phrase "from the halls of Montezuma" refers to in the Marine Corps Hymn.)
Now, you Washington boys are pretty good at screwing your buddy and passing the buck. But that game’s gotten old. Pointing a finger at the White House and another finger at big business and sticking a third finger up your, well, none of that gets it anymore.
You took an oath.
Be man enough to live up to it.
Defend this country.
Get over your political correctness. Get over your spinelessness. Get over your cowardice. Take your lips off the Latino backside long enough to say what all your constituents are shouting.
Illegal immigration has to be stopped.
The border has to be secured.
The invasion has to be repulsed.
American policy must be made by American officials, not Mexican bandits. And you bastardos are pretty cold-hearted to ask young men to defend America in Iraq when you won’t defend America at home.
Do your job.
Defend this country.
Protect our borders.
Or get ready to face the consequences. Because we’re not mad at the illegals anymore. We’re mad at you – and all those like you who won’t do their constitutional duty. And we’re coming after you. And all your lobbyist pals and all their money won’t be able to protect you.
Because this is an even-numbered year.
And we’ll vote for a dog before we’ll send you back for another term of treason. As far as your political career goes, you can either protect our borders or you can go to hell.
It’s as simple as that.
Signed,
A Voting American
P.S. -- The next time you see your Mexican daddy, tell him Winfied Scott said hello.
Bob Lonsberry © 2006
Wrap...
Yoo says it's okay to torture children!!!
Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
By Philip Watts
01/08/06
"revcom.us"
John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.
This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.
What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo."
This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us
Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."
What is the position of the Bush Administration on the torture of children, since one of its most influential legal architects is advocating the President’s right to order the crushing of a child’s testicles?
This fascist logic has nothing to do with "getting information" as Yoo has argued. The legal theory developed by Yoo and a few others and adopted by the Administration has resulted in thousands being abducted from their homes in Afghanistan, Iraq or other parts of the world, mostly at random. People have been raped, electrocuted, nearly drowned and tortured literally to death in U.S.-run torture centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo Bay. And there is much still to come out. What about the secret centers in Europe or the many still-suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib? What can explain this sadistic, indiscriminate, barbaric brutality except a need to instill widespread fear among people all over the world?
It is ironic that just prior to arguing the President's legal right to torture children, John Yoo was defensive about the Bush administration policies, based on his legal memo’s, being equated to those during Nazi Germany.
Yoo said, "If you are trying to draw a moral equivalence between the Nazis and what the United States is trying to do in defending themselves against Al Qauueda and the 9/11 attacks, I fully reject that. Second, if you’re trying to equate the Bush Administration to Nazi officials who committed atrocities in the holocaust, I completely reject that too…I think to equate Nazi Germany to the Bush Administration is irresponsible."
If open promotion of unmitigated executive power, including the right to order the torture of innocent children, isn’t sufficient basis for drawing such a "moral equivalence," then I don’t know what is. What would be irresponsible is to sit by and allow the Bush regime to radically remake society in a fascist way, with repercussions for generations to come. We must act now because the future is in the balance. The world cannot wait. While Bush gives his State of the Union on January 31st, I’ll find myself along with many thousands across the country declaring "Bush Step Down And take your program with you."
Philip Watts - pwatts_revolution@yahoo.com
Wrap...
By Philip Watts
01/08/06
"revcom.us"
John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.
This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.
What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo."
This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us
Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."
What is the position of the Bush Administration on the torture of children, since one of its most influential legal architects is advocating the President’s right to order the crushing of a child’s testicles?
This fascist logic has nothing to do with "getting information" as Yoo has argued. The legal theory developed by Yoo and a few others and adopted by the Administration has resulted in thousands being abducted from their homes in Afghanistan, Iraq or other parts of the world, mostly at random. People have been raped, electrocuted, nearly drowned and tortured literally to death in U.S.-run torture centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo Bay. And there is much still to come out. What about the secret centers in Europe or the many still-suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib? What can explain this sadistic, indiscriminate, barbaric brutality except a need to instill widespread fear among people all over the world?
It is ironic that just prior to arguing the President's legal right to torture children, John Yoo was defensive about the Bush administration policies, based on his legal memo’s, being equated to those during Nazi Germany.
Yoo said, "If you are trying to draw a moral equivalence between the Nazis and what the United States is trying to do in defending themselves against Al Qauueda and the 9/11 attacks, I fully reject that. Second, if you’re trying to equate the Bush Administration to Nazi officials who committed atrocities in the holocaust, I completely reject that too…I think to equate Nazi Germany to the Bush Administration is irresponsible."
If open promotion of unmitigated executive power, including the right to order the torture of innocent children, isn’t sufficient basis for drawing such a "moral equivalence," then I don’t know what is. What would be irresponsible is to sit by and allow the Bush regime to radically remake society in a fascist way, with repercussions for generations to come. We must act now because the future is in the balance. The world cannot wait. While Bush gives his State of the Union on January 31st, I’ll find myself along with many thousands across the country declaring "Bush Step Down And take your program with you."
Philip Watts - pwatts_revolution@yahoo.com
Wrap...
Friday, January 06, 2006
Bush's photo op with all SecDefs and SecStates...
From Information Clearing House:
You can't go home again
By Sheila Samples
01/06/06
"ICH"
January 5th was the bloodiest day in Iraq since Bush's illegal invasion. As many as 140 were killed, including 11 US servicemen, and many more injured. Bush responded by suddenly summoning all living secretaries of state and defense to the White House for a skull session and photo op on what to do in the Middle East before he is completely overtaken by even more catastrophic success. He's willing to share the glory, and said he would "listen and take to heart" any suggestions offered, even from Democrats.
Except an exit plan, of course, and any suggestions of how to better equip or protect the "troops" who are thrown into an exploding nightmare where it's every man for himself. Good luck, soldier. Get out there and make us proud that you died for a noble cause...
Those of us who know that Bush is raving mad, destructively impulsive and totally incompetent suspect he was lining up former heavyweights to take the blame when the melt-down comes.
The good news is this is Alexander Haig's last chance to be "in charge." Haig will probably jump at it, even though he knows that he and his renowned counterparts are being set up as "patsies" for Bush's great madcap adventure in Iraq.
This mess is so big, it's going to take more than a "few bad apples" to cover it up. I can just hear Bush now -- "I asked them what we should do, and they all agreed that I was doing a heckuva job, and we should stay the course. Hey, don't blame me. They had the same information I had..."
This "meeting" was nothing but another PR trick in Bush's announced campaign to whip the public back into line behind his "strategery" for winning the war and to con people into believing he plans to eventually bring what is left of our ground troops home.
As soon as the cameras were turned off, the meeting was over and Bush, Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld fled, leaving the former VIPs to find their own way out. It was a pitiful sight, and I can't help thinking it served them right for allowing themselves to be used in such a shoddy way.
But the media loved it. Associated Press writer Jennifer Loven crowed, "He (Bush) gambled that one-time high-level public officials, when personally summoned by the president, would resist temptation to be too critical. He was right." Loven assured us that Bush got support for his mission -- along with a few concerns -- and the right to claim that he was "reaching out."
Yeah. This guy is a real uniter, not a divider.
In his statement to the media, Bush said, "Not everybody around this table agreed with my decision to go into Iraq. I fully understand that. But these are good solid Americans who understand that we've got to succeed now that we're there. I'm most grateful for the suggestions they've given."
One "constructive idea" the secretaries broached, according to the White House, was to make sure that the military, not politicians in Washington, are determining troop levels in Iraq and making other on-the-ground calls. Does anybody doubt that the secretary who came up with this bleak plan was none other than Donald Rumsfeld himself? Which, of course, means that it's business as usual, and the troops won't begin to come home until Rumsfeld says they can...
Meanwhile, the Green Zone in Baghdad finally has all the theaters, restaurants, hotels, swimming pools and golf courses it needs, so Bush is cutting off the promised reconstruction money for Iraq.
Except, of course, for the new billion-dollar embassy that will be more secure than the Pentagon.
According to the UK Mirror, "The embassy will be guarded by 15ft blast walls and ground-to-air missiles and the main building will have bunkers for use during air offensives."
It gets better. "The grounds will include as many as 300 houses for consular and military officials. And a large-scale barracks will be built for Marines who will protect what will be Washington's biggest and most secure overseas building."
The source also said that the Bush administration has plans for four super bases across the country.
It doesn't matter if the crusty old New World Order patsies knew Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq until the last drop of oil is sucked from the region when they wandered out of the White House. Bush doesn't care what they think, so it also doesn't matter whether they advised against it if they did know.
That old adage must be true -- when you're in as deep as every single one of them is -- you can't go home again. Mission Accomplished.
Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites.
Contact her at: rsamples@sirinet.net
Wrap....
You can't go home again
By Sheila Samples
01/06/06
"ICH"
January 5th was the bloodiest day in Iraq since Bush's illegal invasion. As many as 140 were killed, including 11 US servicemen, and many more injured. Bush responded by suddenly summoning all living secretaries of state and defense to the White House for a skull session and photo op on what to do in the Middle East before he is completely overtaken by even more catastrophic success. He's willing to share the glory, and said he would "listen and take to heart" any suggestions offered, even from Democrats.
Except an exit plan, of course, and any suggestions of how to better equip or protect the "troops" who are thrown into an exploding nightmare where it's every man for himself. Good luck, soldier. Get out there and make us proud that you died for a noble cause...
Those of us who know that Bush is raving mad, destructively impulsive and totally incompetent suspect he was lining up former heavyweights to take the blame when the melt-down comes.
The good news is this is Alexander Haig's last chance to be "in charge." Haig will probably jump at it, even though he knows that he and his renowned counterparts are being set up as "patsies" for Bush's great madcap adventure in Iraq.
This mess is so big, it's going to take more than a "few bad apples" to cover it up. I can just hear Bush now -- "I asked them what we should do, and they all agreed that I was doing a heckuva job, and we should stay the course. Hey, don't blame me. They had the same information I had..."
This "meeting" was nothing but another PR trick in Bush's announced campaign to whip the public back into line behind his "strategery" for winning the war and to con people into believing he plans to eventually bring what is left of our ground troops home.
As soon as the cameras were turned off, the meeting was over and Bush, Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld fled, leaving the former VIPs to find their own way out. It was a pitiful sight, and I can't help thinking it served them right for allowing themselves to be used in such a shoddy way.
But the media loved it. Associated Press writer Jennifer Loven crowed, "He (Bush) gambled that one-time high-level public officials, when personally summoned by the president, would resist temptation to be too critical. He was right." Loven assured us that Bush got support for his mission -- along with a few concerns -- and the right to claim that he was "reaching out."
Yeah. This guy is a real uniter, not a divider.
In his statement to the media, Bush said, "Not everybody around this table agreed with my decision to go into Iraq. I fully understand that. But these are good solid Americans who understand that we've got to succeed now that we're there. I'm most grateful for the suggestions they've given."
One "constructive idea" the secretaries broached, according to the White House, was to make sure that the military, not politicians in Washington, are determining troop levels in Iraq and making other on-the-ground calls. Does anybody doubt that the secretary who came up with this bleak plan was none other than Donald Rumsfeld himself? Which, of course, means that it's business as usual, and the troops won't begin to come home until Rumsfeld says they can...
Meanwhile, the Green Zone in Baghdad finally has all the theaters, restaurants, hotels, swimming pools and golf courses it needs, so Bush is cutting off the promised reconstruction money for Iraq.
Except, of course, for the new billion-dollar embassy that will be more secure than the Pentagon.
According to the UK Mirror, "The embassy will be guarded by 15ft blast walls and ground-to-air missiles and the main building will have bunkers for use during air offensives."
It gets better. "The grounds will include as many as 300 houses for consular and military officials. And a large-scale barracks will be built for Marines who will protect what will be Washington's biggest and most secure overseas building."
The source also said that the Bush administration has plans for four super bases across the country.
It doesn't matter if the crusty old New World Order patsies knew Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq until the last drop of oil is sucked from the region when they wandered out of the White House. Bush doesn't care what they think, so it also doesn't matter whether they advised against it if they did know.
That old adage must be true -- when you're in as deep as every single one of them is -- you can't go home again. Mission Accomplished.
Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites.
Contact her at: rsamples@sirinet.net
Wrap....
Duncan Hunter plus Cunningham equals.....
From American Progress:
THE DUNCAN HUNTER CONNECTION: Along with Cunningham, Duncan Hunter helped companies who have employed Wilkes -- ADCS Inc.and Audre Inc. -- secure over $190 million for a system to "convert printed documents to computer files" that the Department of Defense said they didn't need. (This included "a $9.7 million contract for ADCS to digitize historical documents from the Panama Canal Zone that the Pentagon considered insignificant.")
A 1994 report from the General Accounting Office noted that the DoD "already had the tools for such work." The San Diego Union-Tribune notes "Cunningham, Hunter and their House allies didn’t care. Audre and ADCS were generous with contributions – and ADCS executive Brent Wilkes allegedly was bribing Cunningham."
The Union-Tribune concludes, "This isn't governance. This is looting."
Wrap...
THE DUNCAN HUNTER CONNECTION: Along with Cunningham, Duncan Hunter helped companies who have employed Wilkes -- ADCS Inc.and Audre Inc. -- secure over $190 million for a system to "convert printed documents to computer files" that the Department of Defense said they didn't need. (This included "a $9.7 million contract for ADCS to digitize historical documents from the Panama Canal Zone that the Pentagon considered insignificant.")
A 1994 report from the General Accounting Office noted that the DoD "already had the tools for such work." The San Diego Union-Tribune notes "Cunningham, Hunter and their House allies didn’t care. Audre and ADCS were generous with contributions – and ADCS executive Brent Wilkes allegedly was bribing Cunningham."
The Union-Tribune concludes, "This isn't governance. This is looting."
Wrap...
Hah! Cunningham got 'em on tape!!!
From TPM CAFE.com :
Time: Duke Wore a Wire
By Paul Kiel bio
From: Auction House
Can you feel the panic? A story has just gone up on Time's site reporting that Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Cal.) wore a wire while he was cooperating with prosecutors.
Jan 06, 2006 -- 03:03:39 PM EST
...sources tell TIME that ex-Rep. Cunningham wore a wire to help investigators gather evidence against others just before copping his own plea.
Sources familiar with the situation say Cunningham, a California Republican who pleaded guilty Nov. 28 to taking $2.4 million in bribes -- including a yacht, a Rolls Royce and a 19th Century Louis-Philippe commode -- from a defense contractor, wore a wire at some point during the short interval between the moment he began cooperating with the feds and the announcement of his guilty plea on Nov. 28.
Given the apparently limited time period that Duke was wired, this might not be quite the bombshell it seems. But who knows - there's ample speculation that Duke was just one cog in a corrupt defense appropriations machine. This might be just the thing to blow that open.
Wrap...
Time: Duke Wore a Wire
By Paul Kiel bio
From: Auction House
Can you feel the panic? A story has just gone up on Time's site reporting that Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Cal.) wore a wire while he was cooperating with prosecutors.
Jan 06, 2006 -- 03:03:39 PM EST
...sources tell TIME that ex-Rep. Cunningham wore a wire to help investigators gather evidence against others just before copping his own plea.
Sources familiar with the situation say Cunningham, a California Republican who pleaded guilty Nov. 28 to taking $2.4 million in bribes -- including a yacht, a Rolls Royce and a 19th Century Louis-Philippe commode -- from a defense contractor, wore a wire at some point during the short interval between the moment he began cooperating with the feds and the announcement of his guilty plea on Nov. 28.
Given the apparently limited time period that Duke was wired, this might not be quite the bombshell it seems. But who knows - there's ample speculation that Duke was just one cog in a corrupt defense appropriations machine. This might be just the thing to blow that open.
Wrap...
Paul Bremer hangs Iraq mess on George Bush...
...but will that buck stop there? Hah.
via the NY Times:
January 6, 2006
Bremer Says US Did Not Expect Insurgency in Iraq
By REUTERS
Filed at 5:00 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, has admitted the United States did not anticipate the insurgency in the country, NBC Television said on Friday.
Bremer, interviewed by the network in connection with release of his book on Iraq, recounted the decision to disband the Iraqi army quickly after arriving in Baghdad, a move many experts consider a major miscalculation.
When asked who was to blame for the subsequent Iraqi rebellion, in which thousands of Iraqis and Americans have died, Bremer said ``we really didn't see the insurgency coming,'' the network said in a news release.
The network, which did not publish a transcript of the interview, added that Bremer's comments suggested ``the focus of the war effort was in the wrong place.''
The book, ``My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope,'' is due for release on Monday. The interview will air on ``Dateline NBC'' on Sunday night.
Bremer also said he was deeply concerned about fighting insurgents and ``became increasingly worried about the Pentagon's push to downsize the number of U.S. forces in Iraq by spring 2004,'' the network said.
Bremer said he raised his concerns about the numbers and quality of forces with President George W. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officials.
But he told NBC ``there was a tendency by people in the Pentagon to exaggerate the capability of the Iraqi forces and I felt it was not likely we would have professionally trained forces to allow us to withdraw American forces in the spring of 2004.''
Asked if he believes he did everything he could do in Iraq, Bremer replied, ``I believe I did everything I could do ... The president, in the end, is responsible for making decisions,'' the network reported.
Wrap...
via the NY Times:
January 6, 2006
Bremer Says US Did Not Expect Insurgency in Iraq
By REUTERS
Filed at 5:00 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, has admitted the United States did not anticipate the insurgency in the country, NBC Television said on Friday.
Bremer, interviewed by the network in connection with release of his book on Iraq, recounted the decision to disband the Iraqi army quickly after arriving in Baghdad, a move many experts consider a major miscalculation.
When asked who was to blame for the subsequent Iraqi rebellion, in which thousands of Iraqis and Americans have died, Bremer said ``we really didn't see the insurgency coming,'' the network said in a news release.
The network, which did not publish a transcript of the interview, added that Bremer's comments suggested ``the focus of the war effort was in the wrong place.''
The book, ``My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope,'' is due for release on Monday. The interview will air on ``Dateline NBC'' on Sunday night.
Bremer also said he was deeply concerned about fighting insurgents and ``became increasingly worried about the Pentagon's push to downsize the number of U.S. forces in Iraq by spring 2004,'' the network said.
Bremer said he raised his concerns about the numbers and quality of forces with President George W. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officials.
But he told NBC ``there was a tendency by people in the Pentagon to exaggerate the capability of the Iraqi forces and I felt it was not likely we would have professionally trained forces to allow us to withdraw American forces in the spring of 2004.''
Asked if he believes he did everything he could do in Iraq, Bremer replied, ``I believe I did everything I could do ... The president, in the end, is responsible for making decisions,'' the network reported.
Wrap...
Booksellers pick Feb's best books....
Note: So here are the ones that caught my interest...especially WHALE SEASON. Made me grin at the idea of it all.
From Publishers Weekly online:
Retailers' New Picks: Book Sense February
Book Sense
HOLMES ON THE RANGE: A Mystery, by Steve Hockensmith (St. Martin's Minotaur, $22.95, 0312347804) "I wasn't sure whether a cowboy detective novel was going to work for me, but I'm mighty glad I began Holmes on the Range. Hockensmith's first novel, about a pair of cowboy sleuths inspired by Sherlock Holmes, is smart and funny, with engaging characters and snappy dialogue. Oh, and the plot's pretty darn good, too." --Billie Bloebaum, Powell's Books at PDX, Portland, OR
PURSUIT: An Inspector Espinosa Mystery, by Luiz Alfredo Garcia-Roza (Holt, $24, 0805074392) "Inspector Espinosa knows Rio de Janeiro from the top down. In this mystery, he searches for the missing daughter of a troubled psychiatrist. The middle-class Rio of apartments, corrupt police, and kidnapping fears is a vibrant backdrop to a gripping story." --Mary Muller, Market Block Books, Troy, NY
THE NIGHT JOURNAL: A Novel, by Elizabeth Crook (Viking, $24.95, 0670034770) "By weaving the tracks of the railroad during its expansion in the West through the story, Crook exquisitely brings together the risk takers involved in settling Northeastern New Mexico, whether born into the Spanish families or having ventured from the East. Secrets and passions and family legacies fulfilled and betrayed make for a saga spanning generations. A great novel to warm up with on a cold winter night." --Sarah Bagby, Watermark Books, Wichita, KS
WASHINGTON'S CROSSING, by David Hackett Fischer (Oxford, $17.95 paper, 019518159X) "This is a fascinating account by one of our most respected historians of the Christmas night crossing of the Delaware River to surprise the British troops at Trenton, New Jersey. A volume in Oxford University Press' Pivotal Moments in American History series, it won the Pulitzer Prize for history in 2005." --Carole Horne, Harvard Book Store, Cambridge, MA
WHALE SEASON: A Novel, by N.M. Kelby (Shaye Areheart Books, $23, 0307336778) "I'm trying so hard not to say something like 'this is a whale of a story,' but it's so dang tough, especially with a campy, funny, and smart story like this, although it's not without its serious moments. This story of the arrival in Whale Harbor, Florida, of a man who thinks he's Jesus reads like a cross between Carl Hiaasen and Flannery O'Connor." --Lyn Roberts, Square Books, Oxford, MS
THE THRALL'S TALE, by Judith Lindbergh (Viking, $25.95, 0670034649) "This gritty, epic tale set in Viking Greenland will thrill any fan of historical fiction. The theme of good versus evil looms large." --Laura Huemer, Goldfinch Books, Maplewood, NJ
CARVED IN BONE: A Body Farm Novel, by Jefferson Bass (Morrow, $24.95, 006075981X) "The 'Body Farm' is a section of ground on the campus of the University of Tennessee where human corpses are left to decay for the sake of science and the cause of justice, and Carved in Bone goes into the detail of forensic science to help solve the murder of a young woman. This is a great story that really holds your interest." --Donna Thoman, Family Book Shop, Deland, FL
THE GHOST ORCHID: A Novel, by Carol Goodman (Ballantine, $24.95, 0345462130) "Half ghost story, half historical novel, The Ghost Orchard tells the story of a series of tragic events at a storied artists' retreat, and it features an eccentric group of artists and writers. There are mediums and tricksters and mischievous children that just won't rest in peace. This is a perfect book to curl up with on a dark and stormy night." --Terry Lucas, The Open Book, West Hampton Beach, NY
Wrap...
From Publishers Weekly online:
Retailers' New Picks: Book Sense February
Book Sense
HOLMES ON THE RANGE: A Mystery, by Steve Hockensmith (St. Martin's Minotaur, $22.95, 0312347804) "I wasn't sure whether a cowboy detective novel was going to work for me, but I'm mighty glad I began Holmes on the Range. Hockensmith's first novel, about a pair of cowboy sleuths inspired by Sherlock Holmes, is smart and funny, with engaging characters and snappy dialogue. Oh, and the plot's pretty darn good, too." --Billie Bloebaum, Powell's Books at PDX, Portland, OR
PURSUIT: An Inspector Espinosa Mystery, by Luiz Alfredo Garcia-Roza (Holt, $24, 0805074392) "Inspector Espinosa knows Rio de Janeiro from the top down. In this mystery, he searches for the missing daughter of a troubled psychiatrist. The middle-class Rio of apartments, corrupt police, and kidnapping fears is a vibrant backdrop to a gripping story." --Mary Muller, Market Block Books, Troy, NY
THE NIGHT JOURNAL: A Novel, by Elizabeth Crook (Viking, $24.95, 0670034770) "By weaving the tracks of the railroad during its expansion in the West through the story, Crook exquisitely brings together the risk takers involved in settling Northeastern New Mexico, whether born into the Spanish families or having ventured from the East. Secrets and passions and family legacies fulfilled and betrayed make for a saga spanning generations. A great novel to warm up with on a cold winter night." --Sarah Bagby, Watermark Books, Wichita, KS
WASHINGTON'S CROSSING, by David Hackett Fischer (Oxford, $17.95 paper, 019518159X) "This is a fascinating account by one of our most respected historians of the Christmas night crossing of the Delaware River to surprise the British troops at Trenton, New Jersey. A volume in Oxford University Press' Pivotal Moments in American History series, it won the Pulitzer Prize for history in 2005." --Carole Horne, Harvard Book Store, Cambridge, MA
WHALE SEASON: A Novel, by N.M. Kelby (Shaye Areheart Books, $23, 0307336778) "I'm trying so hard not to say something like 'this is a whale of a story,' but it's so dang tough, especially with a campy, funny, and smart story like this, although it's not without its serious moments. This story of the arrival in Whale Harbor, Florida, of a man who thinks he's Jesus reads like a cross between Carl Hiaasen and Flannery O'Connor." --Lyn Roberts, Square Books, Oxford, MS
THE THRALL'S TALE, by Judith Lindbergh (Viking, $25.95, 0670034649) "This gritty, epic tale set in Viking Greenland will thrill any fan of historical fiction. The theme of good versus evil looms large." --Laura Huemer, Goldfinch Books, Maplewood, NJ
CARVED IN BONE: A Body Farm Novel, by Jefferson Bass (Morrow, $24.95, 006075981X) "The 'Body Farm' is a section of ground on the campus of the University of Tennessee where human corpses are left to decay for the sake of science and the cause of justice, and Carved in Bone goes into the detail of forensic science to help solve the murder of a young woman. This is a great story that really holds your interest." --Donna Thoman, Family Book Shop, Deland, FL
THE GHOST ORCHID: A Novel, by Carol Goodman (Ballantine, $24.95, 0345462130) "Half ghost story, half historical novel, The Ghost Orchard tells the story of a series of tragic events at a storied artists' retreat, and it features an eccentric group of artists and writers. There are mediums and tricksters and mischievous children that just won't rest in peace. This is a perfect book to curl up with on a dark and stormy night." --Terry Lucas, The Open Book, West Hampton Beach, NY
Wrap...
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Bush, the enforcer...
From The Village Voice:
Mondo Washington
The Bush Family Coup
The son revisits the sins of the father on America
by James Ridgeway
January 3rd, 2006 11:29 AM
The 9-11 attacks provided the rationale for what amounts to a Bush family coup against the Constitution. From the outset, President George Bush used 9-11 to reorganize the federal government and increase its reach far beyond any existing law to delve into the lives of innocent, ordinary people.
The new powers allowed the government to arrest them at will and to subject them to endless incarceration without judicial review. Some people were sent abroad to be tortured for crimes they had nothing to do with. Who knows how many people have been tortured in American jails?
When government employees within the intelligence community sought to protest, the government fired them and made sure they could never get another job in their areas of expertise. This extraordinary program of spying on Americans, much of which was carried out in fishing expeditions under the Patriot Act, has the makings of a consistent and long-range policy to wreck constitutional government.
It is little wonder both left and right have come together to fight Bush and may yet jettison the Patriot Act. Revelations of the domestic spy operation, with its secret wiretaps, ought to supply sufficient evidence to impeach Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and launch criminal prosecutions of the top federal officials involved in carrying out the program. After all, these people are directly engaged in overthrowing constitutional government. How did this all come about?
(Click link to continue reading article: http://villagevoice.com/news/0601,mondo1,71461,6.html
Wrap...
Mondo Washington
The Bush Family Coup
The son revisits the sins of the father on America
by James Ridgeway
January 3rd, 2006 11:29 AM
The 9-11 attacks provided the rationale for what amounts to a Bush family coup against the Constitution. From the outset, President George Bush used 9-11 to reorganize the federal government and increase its reach far beyond any existing law to delve into the lives of innocent, ordinary people.
The new powers allowed the government to arrest them at will and to subject them to endless incarceration without judicial review. Some people were sent abroad to be tortured for crimes they had nothing to do with. Who knows how many people have been tortured in American jails?
When government employees within the intelligence community sought to protest, the government fired them and made sure they could never get another job in their areas of expertise. This extraordinary program of spying on Americans, much of which was carried out in fishing expeditions under the Patriot Act, has the makings of a consistent and long-range policy to wreck constitutional government.
It is little wonder both left and right have come together to fight Bush and may yet jettison the Patriot Act. Revelations of the domestic spy operation, with its secret wiretaps, ought to supply sufficient evidence to impeach Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and launch criminal prosecutions of the top federal officials involved in carrying out the program. After all, these people are directly engaged in overthrowing constitutional government. How did this all come about?
(Click link to continue reading article: http://villagevoice.com/news/0601,mondo1,71461,6.html
Wrap...
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Not in US news...only in China's...
From
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/04/content_4009250.htm
Insurgents burn 19 fuel tankers north of Baghdad
www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-04 21:27:24
BAGHDAD, Jan. 4 (Xinhuanet)
Insurgents attacked a convoy of fuel tankers escorted with police commando in north of Baghdad on Wednesday, setting 19 tankers ablaze and destroying three military vehicles, a police source told Xinhua.
"Dozens of armed men ambushed a convoy of fuel tankers in Meshaheda area, some 40 km north of Baghdad, and opened fire with rocket propelled grenades and assault rifles, setting 19 tankers ablaze and damaging three police commando vehicles," Captain Ahmed Abdullah from Baghdad police said.
Fierce fighting broke out between the attackers and US-Iraqi troops which rushed to the area, he said.
The convoy bounding to Baghdad came from the refinery town of Baiji, some 200 km north of the capital.
Enditem
Wrap...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/04/content_4009250.htm
Insurgents burn 19 fuel tankers north of Baghdad
www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-04 21:27:24
BAGHDAD, Jan. 4 (Xinhuanet)
Insurgents attacked a convoy of fuel tankers escorted with police commando in north of Baghdad on Wednesday, setting 19 tankers ablaze and destroying three military vehicles, a police source told Xinhua.
"Dozens of armed men ambushed a convoy of fuel tankers in Meshaheda area, some 40 km north of Baghdad, and opened fire with rocket propelled grenades and assault rifles, setting 19 tankers ablaze and damaging three police commando vehicles," Captain Ahmed Abdullah from Baghdad police said.
Fierce fighting broke out between the attackers and US-Iraqi troops which rushed to the area, he said.
The convoy bounding to Baghdad came from the refinery town of Baiji, some 200 km north of the capital.
Enditem
Wrap...
Iran's citizens taking to the streets...
From International Herald Tribune via truthout.org:
Iran's Future? Watch the Streets
By Peter Ackerman and Ramin Ahmadi
The International Herald Tribune
Wednesday 04 January 2006
For months Iranian activists and even moderate clerics have been concerned about the radical tendencies of Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the past few weeks - after he said that the Holocaust was a myth, called for Israel to be wiped off the map and banned Western music from state-run radio and television, the concern spread around the world.
But there is another development in Iran - this one positive and with great potential - that the world should not miss: civic defiance against Ahmadinejad's authoritarianism is increasing.
From the outset of his term, the new president's policies exhibited a volatile mixture of nationalism and radical Islamic social engineering. While touting Iran's nuclear program, he has promised to redistribute wealth to the poor and curb capitalists (without yet delivering on either promise).
Ahmadinejad's language has been replete with contempt for religious and ethnic minorities, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, rejection of compromise, and readiness for violence in dealing with the political opposition and minorities, including Kurds and Arabs. His performance is disturbingly reminiscent of those of European fascist leaders of the 1920s and 1930s.
While policy makers and pundits in the West are rightly chagrined by the language coming from Iran's new leader, less has been said and little has been done by the international community - now or in the past - to support ordinary citizens in Iran who have persistently been pressing for genuine democracy, the rule of law and economic opportunity. Iranians are risking imprisonment or worse by engaging in protests, not to satisfy American or European foreign policy, but because they are fed up living with fear, economic misery and arbitrary edicts from unelected clerics.
Against all odds, nonviolent tactics such as protests and strikes have gradually become common in Iran's domestic political scene. Medical professionals, teachers and workers have gone on strike. Last month, Tehran's bus drivers walked off the job, paralyzing the city. In the week of the presidential elections, more than 6,000 Iranian women took to the streets to protest discriminatory laws, especially the ban on women from running for the presidency.
Student activists have frequently resorted to strikes, sit-ins and demonstrations, and the violent response of the regime and repeated attacks of the paramilitaries have not succeeded in silencing them. From prison, a leading dissident and defector from the Revolutionary Guards, Akbar Ganji, is electrifying the country with hunger strikes, declaring the regime illegitimate.
Unfortunately these are uncoordinated actions, and their organizers have not known how to anticipate and counter the inevitable repressive countermeasures - beatings, detentions, torture and extrajudicial executions. While there is a grass-roots movement for equal rights and civil liberties waiting to be roused in Iran, its cadres so far lack a clear strategic vision and steady leadership.
Moreover, the failure of Iran's parliamentary reformists and the ensuing victory of Ahmadinejad have tumbled society into a mood of despair. But the new president's failure to deliver on any of his crowd-pleasing promises will surely create a new opportunity for Iranians who remain determined to resist repression and demand real economic reform.
That determination should also be reflected by the international community in what it does to support freedom and justice in Iran. Governments should increase pressure on Tehran to stop human rights abuses and release political prisoners. Nongovernmental organizations around the world should expand their efforts to assist Iranian civil society, women's groups, unions and journalists. And the global news media should finally begin to cover the steady stream of strikes, protests and other acts of opposition. A regime like the one in Tehran always wants to pretend that it is popular and legitimate, whether it is or not.
There is a historical legacy of such help being effective. Catholics in Europe and the United States aided the trade union Solidarity in Poland and the "people power" movement in the Philippines. African-American organizations gave crucial support to South African civic groups fighting apartheid. American labor unions backed the anti-Pinochet campaign in Chile. In each instance, the objective was assistance, not interference. That can also be the model in Iran.
The constituency for justice and equality in Iranian society is vast but inchoate. Yet it is those Iranians, and not the power-hoarding, self-enriching members of the repressive government, who will ultimately shape Iran's future. Their prospects will not be enhanced either by pleading with Iran's rulers for moderation or threatening external intervention.
As with a score of other peoples who transformed their countries from below - such as Poland, South Africa, the Philippines, Chile, Ukraine and Lebanon - Iranians themselves can summon the will and apply the nonviolent strategies that dissolve oppression.
(Peter Ackerman is founding chairman of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, and chairman of the board of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. Ramin Ahmadi is co-founder of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, and an associate clinical professor at the Yale School of Medicine.)
Wrap...
Iran's Future? Watch the Streets
By Peter Ackerman and Ramin Ahmadi
The International Herald Tribune
Wednesday 04 January 2006
For months Iranian activists and even moderate clerics have been concerned about the radical tendencies of Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the past few weeks - after he said that the Holocaust was a myth, called for Israel to be wiped off the map and banned Western music from state-run radio and television, the concern spread around the world.
But there is another development in Iran - this one positive and with great potential - that the world should not miss: civic defiance against Ahmadinejad's authoritarianism is increasing.
From the outset of his term, the new president's policies exhibited a volatile mixture of nationalism and radical Islamic social engineering. While touting Iran's nuclear program, he has promised to redistribute wealth to the poor and curb capitalists (without yet delivering on either promise).
Ahmadinejad's language has been replete with contempt for religious and ethnic minorities, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, rejection of compromise, and readiness for violence in dealing with the political opposition and minorities, including Kurds and Arabs. His performance is disturbingly reminiscent of those of European fascist leaders of the 1920s and 1930s.
While policy makers and pundits in the West are rightly chagrined by the language coming from Iran's new leader, less has been said and little has been done by the international community - now or in the past - to support ordinary citizens in Iran who have persistently been pressing for genuine democracy, the rule of law and economic opportunity. Iranians are risking imprisonment or worse by engaging in protests, not to satisfy American or European foreign policy, but because they are fed up living with fear, economic misery and arbitrary edicts from unelected clerics.
Against all odds, nonviolent tactics such as protests and strikes have gradually become common in Iran's domestic political scene. Medical professionals, teachers and workers have gone on strike. Last month, Tehran's bus drivers walked off the job, paralyzing the city. In the week of the presidential elections, more than 6,000 Iranian women took to the streets to protest discriminatory laws, especially the ban on women from running for the presidency.
Student activists have frequently resorted to strikes, sit-ins and demonstrations, and the violent response of the regime and repeated attacks of the paramilitaries have not succeeded in silencing them. From prison, a leading dissident and defector from the Revolutionary Guards, Akbar Ganji, is electrifying the country with hunger strikes, declaring the regime illegitimate.
Unfortunately these are uncoordinated actions, and their organizers have not known how to anticipate and counter the inevitable repressive countermeasures - beatings, detentions, torture and extrajudicial executions. While there is a grass-roots movement for equal rights and civil liberties waiting to be roused in Iran, its cadres so far lack a clear strategic vision and steady leadership.
Moreover, the failure of Iran's parliamentary reformists and the ensuing victory of Ahmadinejad have tumbled society into a mood of despair. But the new president's failure to deliver on any of his crowd-pleasing promises will surely create a new opportunity for Iranians who remain determined to resist repression and demand real economic reform.
That determination should also be reflected by the international community in what it does to support freedom and justice in Iran. Governments should increase pressure on Tehran to stop human rights abuses and release political prisoners. Nongovernmental organizations around the world should expand their efforts to assist Iranian civil society, women's groups, unions and journalists. And the global news media should finally begin to cover the steady stream of strikes, protests and other acts of opposition. A regime like the one in Tehran always wants to pretend that it is popular and legitimate, whether it is or not.
There is a historical legacy of such help being effective. Catholics in Europe and the United States aided the trade union Solidarity in Poland and the "people power" movement in the Philippines. African-American organizations gave crucial support to South African civic groups fighting apartheid. American labor unions backed the anti-Pinochet campaign in Chile. In each instance, the objective was assistance, not interference. That can also be the model in Iran.
The constituency for justice and equality in Iranian society is vast but inchoate. Yet it is those Iranians, and not the power-hoarding, self-enriching members of the repressive government, who will ultimately shape Iran's future. Their prospects will not be enhanced either by pleading with Iran's rulers for moderation or threatening external intervention.
As with a score of other peoples who transformed their countries from below - such as Poland, South Africa, the Philippines, Chile, Ukraine and Lebanon - Iranians themselves can summon the will and apply the nonviolent strategies that dissolve oppression.
(Peter Ackerman is founding chairman of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, and chairman of the board of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. Ramin Ahmadi is co-founder of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, and an associate clinical professor at the Yale School of Medicine.)
Wrap...
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
NSA officer on BushCo's spying on Americans...
An excerpt from
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11442.htm
Congress is now considering holding a new round of hearings on Bush's domestic spying program. A bipartisan group of senators have already issued their public support, including several top Republicans, including Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. This is Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: This warrant-less eavesdropping program is not authorized by the PATRIOT Act, it's not authorized by any act of Congress, and it's not overseen by any court. According to the reports it’s being conducted under a secret presidential order, based on secret legal opinions by the same Justice Department, lawyers, the same ones who argued secretly that the President could order the use of torture. Mr. President, it is time to have some checks and balances in this country. We are a democracy. We are a democracy. Let's have checks and balances, not secret orders and secret courts and secret torture, and on and on.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. Two weeks ago, a former N.S.A. intelligence officer publicly announced he wants to testify before Congress. His name is Russell Tice. For the past two decades he has worked in the intelligence field, both inside and outside of government, most recently with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was fired in May 2005, after he spoke out as a whistleblower.
In his letter, Tice wrote, quote, “It’s with my oath as a U.S. intelligence officer weighing heavy on my mind that I wish to report to Congress acts I believe are unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.”
Russell Tice joins us now in our Washington studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!
RUSSELL TICE: Good morning.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us.
RUSSELL TICE: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: What made you decide to come forward? You worked for the top-secret agency of this government, one that is far larger and even more secret than the C.I.A.
RUSSELL TICE: Well, the main reason is, you know, I'm involved with some certain aspects of the intelligence community, which are very closely held, and I believe I have seen some things that are illegal. Ultimately it's Congress's responsibility to conduct oversight in these things. I don't see it happening. Another reason is there was a certain roadblock that was sort of lifted that allowed me to do this, and I can't explain, but I will to Congress if allowed to.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the letter you have written to Congress, your request to testify?
RUSSELL TICE: Well, it’s just a simple request under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which is a legal means to contact Congress and tell them that you believe that something has gone wrong in the intelligence community.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you start off by talking overall? Since most people until recently, until this latest story of President Bush engaging in these wiretaps of American citizens, as well as foreign nationals in this country, perhaps hadn't even heard of the N.S.A., can you just describe for us what is the National Security Agency? How does it monitor these communications?
RUSSELL TICE: Well, the National Security Agency is an agency that deals with monitoring communications for the defense of the country. The charter basically says that the N.S.A. will deal with communications of -- overseas. We're not allowed to go after Americans, and I think ultimately that’s what the big fuss is now. But as far as the details of how N.S.A. does that, unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to say that. I don’t want to walk out of here and end up in an F.B.I. interrogation room.
AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, you have worked for the National Security Agency. Can you talk about your response to the revelations that the Times, you know, revealed in -- perhaps late, knowing the story well before the election, yet revealing it a few weeks ago -- the revelation of the wiretapping of American citizens?
RUSSELL TICE: Well, as far as an intelligence officer, especially a SIGINT officer at N.S.A., we're taught from very early on in our careers that you just do not do this. This is probably the number one commandment of the SIGINT Ten Commandments as a SIGINT officer. You will not spy on Americans. It is drilled into our head over and over and over again in security briefings, at least twice a year, where you ultimately have to sign a paper that says you have gotten the briefing. Everyone at N.S.A. who’s a SIGINT officer knows that you do not do this. Ultimately, so do the leaders of N.S.A., and apparently the leaders of N.S.A. have decided that they were just going to go against the tenets of something that’s a gospel to a SIGINT officer.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Russell Tice. We will go to break and come back to him. He’s a former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked at the N.S.A. up until May of this past year, May of 2005.
Note: Click on link above for audio and rest of article...
Wrap...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11442.htm
Congress is now considering holding a new round of hearings on Bush's domestic spying program. A bipartisan group of senators have already issued their public support, including several top Republicans, including Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. This is Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: This warrant-less eavesdropping program is not authorized by the PATRIOT Act, it's not authorized by any act of Congress, and it's not overseen by any court. According to the reports it’s being conducted under a secret presidential order, based on secret legal opinions by the same Justice Department, lawyers, the same ones who argued secretly that the President could order the use of torture. Mr. President, it is time to have some checks and balances in this country. We are a democracy. We are a democracy. Let's have checks and balances, not secret orders and secret courts and secret torture, and on and on.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. Two weeks ago, a former N.S.A. intelligence officer publicly announced he wants to testify before Congress. His name is Russell Tice. For the past two decades he has worked in the intelligence field, both inside and outside of government, most recently with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was fired in May 2005, after he spoke out as a whistleblower.
In his letter, Tice wrote, quote, “It’s with my oath as a U.S. intelligence officer weighing heavy on my mind that I wish to report to Congress acts I believe are unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.”
Russell Tice joins us now in our Washington studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!
RUSSELL TICE: Good morning.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us.
RUSSELL TICE: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: What made you decide to come forward? You worked for the top-secret agency of this government, one that is far larger and even more secret than the C.I.A.
RUSSELL TICE: Well, the main reason is, you know, I'm involved with some certain aspects of the intelligence community, which are very closely held, and I believe I have seen some things that are illegal. Ultimately it's Congress's responsibility to conduct oversight in these things. I don't see it happening. Another reason is there was a certain roadblock that was sort of lifted that allowed me to do this, and I can't explain, but I will to Congress if allowed to.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the letter you have written to Congress, your request to testify?
RUSSELL TICE: Well, it’s just a simple request under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which is a legal means to contact Congress and tell them that you believe that something has gone wrong in the intelligence community.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you start off by talking overall? Since most people until recently, until this latest story of President Bush engaging in these wiretaps of American citizens, as well as foreign nationals in this country, perhaps hadn't even heard of the N.S.A., can you just describe for us what is the National Security Agency? How does it monitor these communications?
RUSSELL TICE: Well, the National Security Agency is an agency that deals with monitoring communications for the defense of the country. The charter basically says that the N.S.A. will deal with communications of -- overseas. We're not allowed to go after Americans, and I think ultimately that’s what the big fuss is now. But as far as the details of how N.S.A. does that, unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to say that. I don’t want to walk out of here and end up in an F.B.I. interrogation room.
AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, you have worked for the National Security Agency. Can you talk about your response to the revelations that the Times, you know, revealed in -- perhaps late, knowing the story well before the election, yet revealing it a few weeks ago -- the revelation of the wiretapping of American citizens?
RUSSELL TICE: Well, as far as an intelligence officer, especially a SIGINT officer at N.S.A., we're taught from very early on in our careers that you just do not do this. This is probably the number one commandment of the SIGINT Ten Commandments as a SIGINT officer. You will not spy on Americans. It is drilled into our head over and over and over again in security briefings, at least twice a year, where you ultimately have to sign a paper that says you have gotten the briefing. Everyone at N.S.A. who’s a SIGINT officer knows that you do not do this. Ultimately, so do the leaders of N.S.A., and apparently the leaders of N.S.A. have decided that they were just going to go against the tenets of something that’s a gospel to a SIGINT officer.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Russell Tice. We will go to break and come back to him. He’s a former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked at the N.S.A. up until May of this past year, May of 2005.
Note: Click on link above for audio and rest of article...
Wrap...
BushCo is NOT leaving Iraq...regardless...
Via Raw Story:
3 January 2006
EXCLUSIVE: BILLION DOLLAR BUNKER
EXCLUSIVE U.S. plans Baghdad embassy more secure than Pentagon
By Chris Hughes Security Correspondent
AMERICA is to spend £1billion on an embassy in Baghdad "more secure than the Pentagon".
Plans for the hi-tech complex are being kept secret because of the terrorist threat in Iraq.
The exact location is not being released until later this year but it is likely to be built in the heavily fortified Green Zone area where the Iraqi government and US military command is based.
The embassy will be guarded by 15ft blast walls and ground-to-air missiles and the main building will have bunkers for use during air offensives.
The grounds will include as many as 300 houses for consular and military officials.
And a large-scale barracks will be built for Marines who will protect what will be Washington's biggest and most secure overseas building.
A US source in the Middle East said last night: "Plans for the embassy building are being kept behind closed doors because of the terrorist threat.
"It will be more secure than The Pentagon because it will be under constant threat from attack."
The Green Zone is the safest part of Baghdad, surrounded by concrete blast walls and checkpoints.
The US also wants to build four massive military superbases around Iraq's capital.
The plans will fuel speculation they want to keep a firm foothold in Iraq for many years.
An Iraqi security source said last night: "The plans for the embassy building will make it the largest and best protected diplomatic building overseas for the US.
"You may as well move the Pentagon to Iraq. It will be amazingly secure but it also flies in the face of claims American is preparing to leave Iraq to be policed and governed by Iraqis.
"Plans for four superbases across the country will only reinforce the view that the US is here to stay for the duration."
The move comes despite Donald Rumsfeld revealing last week that US troop numbers in Iraq are to be reduced by 7,000 to 153,000.
Tony Blair has also predicted British troops could start pulling out this May.
Backing among the American public for President Bush's action in Iraq has fallen. Despite the opposition a Kuwait-based construction company has already been handed £175million ($300 million) of the building deal.
Plans for four huge military bases placed strategically around Baghdad are also being drawn up.
The superbases will be in central Iraq, close to the capital, and also to the north, west and east of Baghdad.
Several other Middle Eastern and American building firms are tendering for the remaining budget.
Funding will probably come from Iraqi oil revenues channelled into redeveloping the country.
America has a string of 'secret' military bases throughout the Gulf states, including Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar.
The huge desert complexes, including airstrips and aircraft hangars, are up to 20 miles square and are not featured on civilian maps.
They started to appear after the first Gulf War 15 years ago, infuriating Islamic extremists and the al-Qaeda terror network.
c.hughes@mirror.co.uk
Wrap...
3 January 2006
EXCLUSIVE: BILLION DOLLAR BUNKER
EXCLUSIVE U.S. plans Baghdad embassy more secure than Pentagon
By Chris Hughes Security Correspondent
AMERICA is to spend £1billion on an embassy in Baghdad "more secure than the Pentagon".
Plans for the hi-tech complex are being kept secret because of the terrorist threat in Iraq.
The exact location is not being released until later this year but it is likely to be built in the heavily fortified Green Zone area where the Iraqi government and US military command is based.
The embassy will be guarded by 15ft blast walls and ground-to-air missiles and the main building will have bunkers for use during air offensives.
The grounds will include as many as 300 houses for consular and military officials.
And a large-scale barracks will be built for Marines who will protect what will be Washington's biggest and most secure overseas building.
A US source in the Middle East said last night: "Plans for the embassy building are being kept behind closed doors because of the terrorist threat.
"It will be more secure than The Pentagon because it will be under constant threat from attack."
The Green Zone is the safest part of Baghdad, surrounded by concrete blast walls and checkpoints.
The US also wants to build four massive military superbases around Iraq's capital.
The plans will fuel speculation they want to keep a firm foothold in Iraq for many years.
An Iraqi security source said last night: "The plans for the embassy building will make it the largest and best protected diplomatic building overseas for the US.
"You may as well move the Pentagon to Iraq. It will be amazingly secure but it also flies in the face of claims American is preparing to leave Iraq to be policed and governed by Iraqis.
"Plans for four superbases across the country will only reinforce the view that the US is here to stay for the duration."
The move comes despite Donald Rumsfeld revealing last week that US troop numbers in Iraq are to be reduced by 7,000 to 153,000.
Tony Blair has also predicted British troops could start pulling out this May.
Backing among the American public for President Bush's action in Iraq has fallen. Despite the opposition a Kuwait-based construction company has already been handed £175million ($300 million) of the building deal.
Plans for four huge military bases placed strategically around Baghdad are also being drawn up.
The superbases will be in central Iraq, close to the capital, and also to the north, west and east of Baghdad.
Several other Middle Eastern and American building firms are tendering for the remaining budget.
Funding will probably come from Iraqi oil revenues channelled into redeveloping the country.
America has a string of 'secret' military bases throughout the Gulf states, including Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar.
The huge desert complexes, including airstrips and aircraft hangars, are up to 20 miles square and are not featured on civilian maps.
They started to appear after the first Gulf War 15 years ago, infuriating Islamic extremists and the al-Qaeda terror network.
c.hughes@mirror.co.uk
Wrap...
Bush examined for drinking and drugs...
From Capitol Hill Blue
The Rant
Bush's drinking and drug use must be investigated
By DOUG THOMPSONPublisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jan 3, 2006, 00:00
It is my belief that President George W. Bush is drinking again. Even worse, he may be mixing alcohol and anti-depressants -- a dangerous combination for anyone, let alone the so-called leader of the free world.
No, I don’t have any proof of this, just random events and comments from those who work in and around the Bush administration and who tell me the President has acted in ways that suggest the use of alcohol and drugs. I’m a recovering alcoholic (sober 11 years, six months and 24 days) and I’ve run across a lot of relapsed drinkers who show the same symptoms as the President, including:
Blacking out while watching television alone;
Slurred speech and stammering responses to simple questions;
Anger and hostility in front of staff members;
Unexplained bruises on his face;
Trouble remembering recent events or comments.
During his trip to Mongolia last November, Bush openly sampled the local drink Airag, which is fermented milk with an alcohol content ranging from three to twelve percent. In other words, booze.
This was the same trip where Bush tried to evade reporters’ question by attempting to walk out a locked door and then turned sheepishly to the cameras and said he was “jet-lagged.” Some at the event said his stride was unsteady and his speech slurred.
“According to reports, President Bush may be drinking again,” David Letterman said in a late-night monologue. “And I thought, "Well, why not? He's got everybody else drinking.”
Rumors that Bush was hitting the bottle surfaced in Washington two years ago. Sources told us the President was using anti-depressants in 2004 and we reported the story. The same sources told us last year he was drinking again and we reported it in August. The National Enquirer also ran a front page story on it but no mainstream media outlet picked up on the story.
On August 27 of last year, the Houston Chronicle reported on a party at Bush’s ranch, noting that: Nothing the president said could be quoted, but it's rare that reporters get uninterrupted access to him for 90 minutes, particularly when beer is served. Bush, who gave up drinking years ago, drank a non-alcoholic Buckler.
In Alcoholics Anonymous, we are warned to stay away from so-called “non-alcoholic” beers or “near beer” as it is called. The brew does, in fact, contain some alcohol and can trigger a renewed desire for more.
The November issue of the Journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, cites a study by team of California scientists who report that just the smell of non-alcoholic beer may be enough to trigger cravings and a subsequent relapse among certain alcoholics.
In my original articles about Bush’s bouts with anger and depression, I quoted Dr. Gerald Frank, a George Washington University psychiatrist and author of the book: Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President.
“Two questions that the press seems particularly determined to ignore have hung silently in the air since before Bush took office,” Dr. Frank says. “Is he still drinking? And if not, is he impaired by all the years he did spend drinking? Both questions need to be addressed in any serious assessment of his psychological state.”
Dr. Frank’s analysis of the President, which is based on watching and reading and not actual treatment of Bush, agrees with those who have told me the President is also taking anti-depressants.
“In writing about Bush's halting appearance in a press conference just before the start of the Iraq War, Washington Post media critic Tom Shales speculated that ‘the president may have been ever so slightly medicated,’” he said.
Dr. Frank explains Bush’s behavior as all-to-typical of an alcoholic who is still in denial: “The pattern of blame and denial, which recovering alcoholics work so hard to break, seems to be ingrained in the alcoholic personality; it's rarely limited to his or her drinking,” he adds. “The habit of placing blame and denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush's personal history that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat.”
None of this, of course, proves Bush is drinking again or taking anti-depressants. The only evidence we have of Bush drinking is the sampling of a local, alcohol-based drink in Mongolia and his consumption of so-called non-alcoholic beer at a party in Crawford, Texas. But my instincts tell me he is doing both alcohol and drugs and I believe as both a journalist and a recovering alcoholic that he needs to prove to Americans that he is not attempting to govern while under the influence.
Blogger Mark Kleiman, writing in The Reality Based Community, notes: Moreover, with rare exceptions (e.g., the John Tower affair) the press seems very reluctant to mention heavy drinking by officials, even when it's widely known. Ted Kennedy's drinking gets an occasional mention, but I'd bet that most of Pat Moynihan's constiuents never knew their brilliant senator faced a permanent battle with the bottle. If Gary Hart's drinking problem has ever made the newspapers, I've missed it, though his behavior in the Donna Rice affair made it pretty obvious.
Those in the know understood that the frequent media references to Bill Weld's "laziness" as Governor of Massachusetts referred to his persistent difficulty in keeping himself vertical after lunch, but again the voters didn't. Even foreign leaders get the same delicate treatment: Boris Yeltsin's "erratic" behavior was in fact quite regular and predictable, once vodka was entered into the equation.
Kleiman is right about Moynihan’s drinking. You could find the Senator at Capitol Hill watering holes most any night, lunching in many different directions at once while slurping down his drinks. A number of members of Congress are notorious drunks but their antics are almost never reported by the press unless they get nailed for DUI or caught frolicking nude in the Tidal Basin.
As a journalist, it is my duty to raise questions about the fitness of any elected leader. One may argue over whether or not it is proper to print speculation but, in this case, I believe it is justified. I’m doing my job. I just wish the so-called “mainstream” media would do theirs.
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
Wrap...
The Rant
Bush's drinking and drug use must be investigated
By DOUG THOMPSONPublisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jan 3, 2006, 00:00
It is my belief that President George W. Bush is drinking again. Even worse, he may be mixing alcohol and anti-depressants -- a dangerous combination for anyone, let alone the so-called leader of the free world.
No, I don’t have any proof of this, just random events and comments from those who work in and around the Bush administration and who tell me the President has acted in ways that suggest the use of alcohol and drugs. I’m a recovering alcoholic (sober 11 years, six months and 24 days) and I’ve run across a lot of relapsed drinkers who show the same symptoms as the President, including:
Blacking out while watching television alone;
Slurred speech and stammering responses to simple questions;
Anger and hostility in front of staff members;
Unexplained bruises on his face;
Trouble remembering recent events or comments.
During his trip to Mongolia last November, Bush openly sampled the local drink Airag, which is fermented milk with an alcohol content ranging from three to twelve percent. In other words, booze.
This was the same trip where Bush tried to evade reporters’ question by attempting to walk out a locked door and then turned sheepishly to the cameras and said he was “jet-lagged.” Some at the event said his stride was unsteady and his speech slurred.
“According to reports, President Bush may be drinking again,” David Letterman said in a late-night monologue. “And I thought, "Well, why not? He's got everybody else drinking.”
Rumors that Bush was hitting the bottle surfaced in Washington two years ago. Sources told us the President was using anti-depressants in 2004 and we reported the story. The same sources told us last year he was drinking again and we reported it in August. The National Enquirer also ran a front page story on it but no mainstream media outlet picked up on the story.
On August 27 of last year, the Houston Chronicle reported on a party at Bush’s ranch, noting that: Nothing the president said could be quoted, but it's rare that reporters get uninterrupted access to him for 90 minutes, particularly when beer is served. Bush, who gave up drinking years ago, drank a non-alcoholic Buckler.
In Alcoholics Anonymous, we are warned to stay away from so-called “non-alcoholic” beers or “near beer” as it is called. The brew does, in fact, contain some alcohol and can trigger a renewed desire for more.
The November issue of the Journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, cites a study by team of California scientists who report that just the smell of non-alcoholic beer may be enough to trigger cravings and a subsequent relapse among certain alcoholics.
In my original articles about Bush’s bouts with anger and depression, I quoted Dr. Gerald Frank, a George Washington University psychiatrist and author of the book: Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President.
“Two questions that the press seems particularly determined to ignore have hung silently in the air since before Bush took office,” Dr. Frank says. “Is he still drinking? And if not, is he impaired by all the years he did spend drinking? Both questions need to be addressed in any serious assessment of his psychological state.”
Dr. Frank’s analysis of the President, which is based on watching and reading and not actual treatment of Bush, agrees with those who have told me the President is also taking anti-depressants.
“In writing about Bush's halting appearance in a press conference just before the start of the Iraq War, Washington Post media critic Tom Shales speculated that ‘the president may have been ever so slightly medicated,’” he said.
Dr. Frank explains Bush’s behavior as all-to-typical of an alcoholic who is still in denial: “The pattern of blame and denial, which recovering alcoholics work so hard to break, seems to be ingrained in the alcoholic personality; it's rarely limited to his or her drinking,” he adds. “The habit of placing blame and denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush's personal history that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat.”
None of this, of course, proves Bush is drinking again or taking anti-depressants. The only evidence we have of Bush drinking is the sampling of a local, alcohol-based drink in Mongolia and his consumption of so-called non-alcoholic beer at a party in Crawford, Texas. But my instincts tell me he is doing both alcohol and drugs and I believe as both a journalist and a recovering alcoholic that he needs to prove to Americans that he is not attempting to govern while under the influence.
Blogger Mark Kleiman, writing in The Reality Based Community, notes: Moreover, with rare exceptions (e.g., the John Tower affair) the press seems very reluctant to mention heavy drinking by officials, even when it's widely known. Ted Kennedy's drinking gets an occasional mention, but I'd bet that most of Pat Moynihan's constiuents never knew their brilliant senator faced a permanent battle with the bottle. If Gary Hart's drinking problem has ever made the newspapers, I've missed it, though his behavior in the Donna Rice affair made it pretty obvious.
Those in the know understood that the frequent media references to Bill Weld's "laziness" as Governor of Massachusetts referred to his persistent difficulty in keeping himself vertical after lunch, but again the voters didn't. Even foreign leaders get the same delicate treatment: Boris Yeltsin's "erratic" behavior was in fact quite regular and predictable, once vodka was entered into the equation.
Kleiman is right about Moynihan’s drinking. You could find the Senator at Capitol Hill watering holes most any night, lunching in many different directions at once while slurping down his drinks. A number of members of Congress are notorious drunks but their antics are almost never reported by the press unless they get nailed for DUI or caught frolicking nude in the Tidal Basin.
As a journalist, it is my duty to raise questions about the fitness of any elected leader. One may argue over whether or not it is proper to print speculation but, in this case, I believe it is justified. I’m doing my job. I just wish the so-called “mainstream” media would do theirs.
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
Wrap...
Monday, January 02, 2006
Plame not first to have CIA cover blown...
From Editor & Publisher:
Plame Speaking: Another Outed CIA Agent Hits Media, White House
Gerry Gossens, a CIA station chief, lost his cover in 1979. Sizing up the current Plame/CIA leak case, he says, "I can't believe President Bush's father would have tolerated a leak like that while he was president." It was, he adds, "a despicable act."
By Allan Wolper
(January 01, 2006)
The telephone call came at 5 a.m., July 9, 1979. "Mr. Gossens, you should know that your name is all over the front pages this morning," said a Marine from the United States Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa.
Gerry Gossens, the CIA chief of station in Pretoria, knew his diplomatic cover had been blown. The South African press had read a book, "Dirty Work 2: The CIA in Africa," that included the biographies of 800 CIA officers. He was one of them. "When a CIA agent is outed, it puts him, his family, and all of his diplomatic friends in danger," Gossens, 72, said while sitting in his Salisbury, Vt., home, as he recalled the chaos of that morning.
Gossens moved quickly to make sure his children were safe. He phoned the principals at his kids' schools to prepare them for any potential fallout and later picked up his 17-year-old son, who knew of his father's double life, and his 16-year-old daughter, Christine, who was learning about it for the first time. "You don't want to tell your kids you're CIA until they're old enough to handle it," the former intelligence officer said.
The Gossens, also including his wife and another daughter, escaped physical harm partly because the South African government had known about his dual role and insisted the papers were wrong. But his colleagues at the U.S. embassy who had not known that their congenial civil servant colleague was CIA felt betrayed.
"Our friends at the embassy dropped all contact with us, and it became difficult going to diplomatic meetings," he said.
That experience was why I went to see Gossens: I wanted to talk to a former CIA officer whose identity had been revealed by the media. I needed his take on the officials who named Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA agent, first revealed in Robert Novak's syndicated column.
And most of all, I wanted his perspective on the press' role in the CIA-leak controversy and whether he thought reporters who published the names of CIA agents should be prosecuted. Gossens had plenty to say.
He was aghast that the CIA leak and the alleged cover-up that followed was a plot hatched in or around a White House administered by the son of President George H.W. Bush -- a former director of the intelligence agency. "I can't believe President Bush's father would have tolerated a leak like that while he was president," said Gossens, a Democrat who was chief of station in Lusaka, Zambia, when the elder Bush ran the CIA.
The older Bush "knew what an agent's life was like," Gossens said. "He knew the danger of doing something like that. He was respectful of agents. He was a good man."
Gossens had hoped the former president might make some public statement deploring the CIA press leaks, but said he knew that wouldn't happen: "How can you criticize your own son?" The one-time officer is just as disturbed by the coverage of the Plame affair. "The most irritating thing about the press coverage of the case is that they keep saying that outing Plame doesn't make a difference because she was in Washington," Gossens said, referring to the fact that Plame had stopped her undercover activities more than five years ago.
"That is so arrogant," he said, adding that the Intelligence Indentities Protection Act of 1982 "was passed because CIA agents who were once undercover have a problem no matter where they are stationed now. "Any journalist who says the law doesn't apply to them is hair-splitting -- and even if it doesn't, they are being unethical by identifying an agent," Gossens added, noting that there was little angry reaction to Novak's column on Plame until two months after it was published.
He misses the days when journalists were sensitive to an agent's cover: "We would sometimes swap information with foreign correspondents. They knew what we did, but they kept that information secret."
Gossens said he retired "undercover" from the CIA in 1980, one year after he was outed, and returned to Vermont. In 1992 he won a seat in the state legislature as a democrat and announced he was a former CIA officer. Still, he wouldn't have joined the debate over the current CIA leak case if I hadn't asked him about it. Gossens is concerned about how his words might impact his son, James, who is in Iraq dodging bullets in a Humvee while fighting in a war his father hates.
But once questioned, Gossens is willing to speak for present and former CIA agents about the outing of Plame. "They are angry," Gossens told me. "They joined the CIA to make a difference and believed that their lives and careers were protected. It was a despicable act."
Allan Wolper (letters@editorandpublisher.com) has won several national awards for his E&P column.
Wrap...
Plame Speaking: Another Outed CIA Agent Hits Media, White House
Gerry Gossens, a CIA station chief, lost his cover in 1979. Sizing up the current Plame/CIA leak case, he says, "I can't believe President Bush's father would have tolerated a leak like that while he was president." It was, he adds, "a despicable act."
By Allan Wolper
(January 01, 2006)
The telephone call came at 5 a.m., July 9, 1979. "Mr. Gossens, you should know that your name is all over the front pages this morning," said a Marine from the United States Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa.
Gerry Gossens, the CIA chief of station in Pretoria, knew his diplomatic cover had been blown. The South African press had read a book, "Dirty Work 2: The CIA in Africa," that included the biographies of 800 CIA officers. He was one of them. "When a CIA agent is outed, it puts him, his family, and all of his diplomatic friends in danger," Gossens, 72, said while sitting in his Salisbury, Vt., home, as he recalled the chaos of that morning.
Gossens moved quickly to make sure his children were safe. He phoned the principals at his kids' schools to prepare them for any potential fallout and later picked up his 17-year-old son, who knew of his father's double life, and his 16-year-old daughter, Christine, who was learning about it for the first time. "You don't want to tell your kids you're CIA until they're old enough to handle it," the former intelligence officer said.
The Gossens, also including his wife and another daughter, escaped physical harm partly because the South African government had known about his dual role and insisted the papers were wrong. But his colleagues at the U.S. embassy who had not known that their congenial civil servant colleague was CIA felt betrayed.
"Our friends at the embassy dropped all contact with us, and it became difficult going to diplomatic meetings," he said.
That experience was why I went to see Gossens: I wanted to talk to a former CIA officer whose identity had been revealed by the media. I needed his take on the officials who named Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA agent, first revealed in Robert Novak's syndicated column.
And most of all, I wanted his perspective on the press' role in the CIA-leak controversy and whether he thought reporters who published the names of CIA agents should be prosecuted. Gossens had plenty to say.
He was aghast that the CIA leak and the alleged cover-up that followed was a plot hatched in or around a White House administered by the son of President George H.W. Bush -- a former director of the intelligence agency. "I can't believe President Bush's father would have tolerated a leak like that while he was president," said Gossens, a Democrat who was chief of station in Lusaka, Zambia, when the elder Bush ran the CIA.
The older Bush "knew what an agent's life was like," Gossens said. "He knew the danger of doing something like that. He was respectful of agents. He was a good man."
Gossens had hoped the former president might make some public statement deploring the CIA press leaks, but said he knew that wouldn't happen: "How can you criticize your own son?" The one-time officer is just as disturbed by the coverage of the Plame affair. "The most irritating thing about the press coverage of the case is that they keep saying that outing Plame doesn't make a difference because she was in Washington," Gossens said, referring to the fact that Plame had stopped her undercover activities more than five years ago.
"That is so arrogant," he said, adding that the Intelligence Indentities Protection Act of 1982 "was passed because CIA agents who were once undercover have a problem no matter where they are stationed now. "Any journalist who says the law doesn't apply to them is hair-splitting -- and even if it doesn't, they are being unethical by identifying an agent," Gossens added, noting that there was little angry reaction to Novak's column on Plame until two months after it was published.
He misses the days when journalists were sensitive to an agent's cover: "We would sometimes swap information with foreign correspondents. They knew what we did, but they kept that information secret."
Gossens said he retired "undercover" from the CIA in 1980, one year after he was outed, and returned to Vermont. In 1992 he won a seat in the state legislature as a democrat and announced he was a former CIA officer. Still, he wouldn't have joined the debate over the current CIA leak case if I hadn't asked him about it. Gossens is concerned about how his words might impact his son, James, who is in Iraq dodging bullets in a Humvee while fighting in a war his father hates.
But once questioned, Gossens is willing to speak for present and former CIA agents about the outing of Plame. "They are angry," Gossens told me. "They joined the CIA to make a difference and believed that their lives and careers were protected. It was a despicable act."
Allan Wolper (letters@editorandpublisher.com) has won several national awards for his E&P column.
Wrap...
The Intel Agencies...BushCo's new ones are last...
From http://www.weblog.ro/soj/2006-01-02/Basic+Learning%3A+Intelligence+Agencies.html#61433
Note: SOJ is a member of the Indy-Weblogs group and is currently residing in Romania.
Today's Basic Learning: American Intelligence Agencies
I see a lot of talk here and there about American intelligence agencies, most recently about the CIA and the NSA.That being said, occasionally you will see articles which read that America has fifteen separate intelligence agencies. As such, I thought I'd list each one and give you a brief description of what each one does.
First, the so-called "independent" agencies, which of course do work in conjunction with other intelligence bodies but are roughly self-contained:
a.. CIA - (Central Intelligence Agency) - Probably the best well-known of them all, the CIA has approximately 5,000-7,000 members. The CIA is a morphed descendant of the Office of Strategic Services, which was created during World War 2. The CIA is run by an individual appointed directly by the President and is not necessarily a veteran of the agency (although the current director, Porter Goss, is one). The CIA's focus is usually on non-domestic issues (i.e. foreign affairs). The CIA not only gathers information but operates abroad, including overthrowing governments and inserting/handling spies. The CIA technically reports to the Congress but in practice more often serves the White House in a more direct manner. Despite the name "Central", the CIA has never really been responsible for centralizing intelligence gathering/implementation efforts in the United States. This agency has field operatives and also collects/analyzes data.
b.. NCS - (National Clandestine Service) - This is a new organization, created after 9/11/01, that is semi-independent. It is a semi-attached division of the CIA and its secret director reports to the CIA. The NCS' task is to coordinate so-called HUMINT or "human intelligence", as opposed to intelligence gathered from electronic or remote means. The NCS is analogous to the CIA's former Directorate of Operations but the NCS also coordinates between other intelligence agencies.
The following are intelligence agencies which are divisions of federal agencies. Of course, all agencies cooperate with one another to some degree as well as provide and coordinate information with law enforcement and the government:
a.. INR - (Bureau of Intelligence Research) - Originally part of the OSS, it split from the CIA in 1947 and is now a part of the State Department. It is a very small agency (approximately 165 agents) and its primary task is to analyze foreign policy of the United States. This agency does not have field operatives and focuses only on data analysis.
b.. FBI - (Federal Bureau of Investigation) - Roughly the domestic counterpart of the CIA, the FBI is a large organization amongst whose tasks is gathering, analyzing and distributing intelligence to further its counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence activities. It should be noted that in recent years the FBI has expanded its mission to several overseas countries, including but not limited to, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The FBI is a division of the Department of Justice.
c.. IN - (Department of Energy - Office of Intelligence) - A division of the Department of Energy, the IN's role is to collect, analyze and distribute intelligence about foreign nuclear energy capabilities/resources as well as nuclear weapons (and their proliferation). The IN was created to monitor the nuclear weapons' program of the (then) Soviet Union.
d.. OIA/TFI - (Department of the Treasury - Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence) - These are two twin divisions of the Department of the Treasury, the OIA primarily focuses on gathering and analyzing intelligence to combat financial crimes and moneylaundering. The TFI also determines bank accounts of terrorists and/or criminals which need to be seized/frozen. The OIA/TFI works extremely closely with its sister organization, the U.S. Secret Service (USSS), in its anti-counterfeiting efforts.
The following agencies are either directly part of or work alongside the Department of Defense (Pentagon): a.. DIA - (Defense Intelligence Agency) - A division of the Department of Defense, its primary focus is on providing "combat intelligence" to the military. It was created in 1958 to combine the different military branches' intelligence divisions. This agency has field operatives and also performs data collection and analysis.
b.. NGA - (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) - This agency is a part of the Department of Defense but different from the DIA. It's primary task is to collect, analyze and distribute "geo-spatial" information, which means information gleaned from satellites, especially maps and photographs. This agency was formerly known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency prior to 2003. This agency has no field operatives.
c.. NRO - (National Reconnaissance Office) - This agency is a part of the Department of Defense but different from the DIA. The NRO's role is very similar to the NGA as the NRO was founded in 1960 to gather and analyze data from satellites (not just photographic data but also interception/monitoring of data being transmitted via other satellites and the ground). The existence of the NRO was classified before 1992. Essentially, the NRO controls the satellites while the NGA uses the data to provide maps and provide data on demand.
d.. NSA - (National Security Agency) - This is by far the largest intelligence agency although little about it was known the last decade. The NSA's role is to collect, analyze and disseminate information known as SIGINT or "SIGnals INTelligence". In a nutshell, this means monitoring all forms of electronic communication including radio, the internet and telephones. The NSA also focuses on creating and cracking ciphers, algorithms and encrypted data. The NSA is the author and controller of Echelon, the program that theoretically can monitor and analyze most of the world's telephone and data traffic.
e.. ONI - (Office of Naval Intelligence) - This is the oldest American intelligence agency, created in 1882 and still in operation today. It's goal is to collect, analyze and distribute information useful to the U.S. Navy. The National Maritime Intelligence Center (NMIC) is a coordinating body which brings employees of the ONI together with the Marine Corps Intelligence Agency (MCIA), Coast Guard Information Coordinate Center (ICC), Naval Information Warfare Activity (NIWA) and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and U.S. Customs Service to provide a repository for maritime intelligence gathering, analysis and distribution.
f.. MCIA - (Marine Corps Intelligence Agency) - The MCIA is the intelligence wing of the Marine Corps and works very closely with the ONI.
g.. AIA - (Air Intelligence Agency) - Roughly analogous to the ONI, the AIA provides what is called "aerospace" intelligence, information gleaned from aerial reconnaissance. The AIA was created in 1993 and its information is used in real-time for aircraft flying missions and helps coordinate and control attacks and firing missiles, amongst other things. It also produces classified sophisticated software used in military aircraft. The AIA also coordinates foreign aerial reconnaissance for such various purposes as the monitoring of treaties, etc.
h.. AI - (U.S. Army Intelligence) - Army intelligence is primarily focused on coordinating "battlefield" intelligence as well as creating the software/programs (and equipmet) in order to obtain it.
i.. CIFA - (Counter-Intelligence Field Activity) - Almost nothing is publically known about the CIFA. It's basic task is to run the Department of Defense's counter-intelligence activities. One unclassified role known about the CIFA is that it manages the Joint Protection Enterprise Network (JPEN). The JPEN is roughly a database of law enforcement "gossip". Anything suspicious, weird or unconfirmed noted by military departments as well as law enforcement agencies is fed into JPEN.
The following agencies have been created or consolidated as a result of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
a.. CGI - (Coast Guard Intelligence) - The CGI's primary task is to collect, analyze and distribute intelligence concerning domestic maritime activity as well as international maritime activity such as drug/human trafficking.
b.. IAIP - (Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection) - The IAIP's main role is to distribute information from intelligence agencies to law enforcement and local government agencies. The IAIP is also tasked with keeping track of vulnerabilities to the nation's infrastructure, particularly analyzing weaknesses to potential terrorist attacks.
The above are roughly the "15 intelligence agencies" that are usually referred to, give or take, although depending on how you count them there's either more or fewer than 15.
Since 2005, there has been a cabinet level position called Director of National Intelligence, an administration and coordinator of all federal intelligence agencies. These duties were (more or less) previously performed by the director of the CIA.
Then there are little "pocket agencies" that are rarely mentioned or spoken about, including my old "buddies" at the Office of National Counterintelligence Executive (NACIC otherwise known as ONCIX). Little public information about this agency is known other than it is a liaison between the CIA and the White House and is designed to coordinate counter-intelligence activity.
Why the good people at the NACIC would be watching me is entirely beyond my ken to understand but in these paranoid times, I suppose its normal.
There's also the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). There's little known about them except that it's a group of up to 16 members of people not in the government (or at least who are retired from gov't service) who analyze and offer recommendations to the White House on intelligence and counter-intelligence operations. Although the members' names are not known, the current chairperson is Brent Scowcroft.
Note: in prior administrations, the members of the PFIAB were public knowledge. Since Bush came into office, only the name of the chairperson is known.
Wrap...
Note: SOJ is a member of the Indy-Weblogs group and is currently residing in Romania.
Today's Basic Learning: American Intelligence Agencies
I see a lot of talk here and there about American intelligence agencies, most recently about the CIA and the NSA.That being said, occasionally you will see articles which read that America has fifteen separate intelligence agencies. As such, I thought I'd list each one and give you a brief description of what each one does.
First, the so-called "independent" agencies, which of course do work in conjunction with other intelligence bodies but are roughly self-contained:
a.. CIA - (Central Intelligence Agency) - Probably the best well-known of them all, the CIA has approximately 5,000-7,000 members. The CIA is a morphed descendant of the Office of Strategic Services, which was created during World War 2. The CIA is run by an individual appointed directly by the President and is not necessarily a veteran of the agency (although the current director, Porter Goss, is one). The CIA's focus is usually on non-domestic issues (i.e. foreign affairs). The CIA not only gathers information but operates abroad, including overthrowing governments and inserting/handling spies. The CIA technically reports to the Congress but in practice more often serves the White House in a more direct manner. Despite the name "Central", the CIA has never really been responsible for centralizing intelligence gathering/implementation efforts in the United States. This agency has field operatives and also collects/analyzes data.
b.. NCS - (National Clandestine Service) - This is a new organization, created after 9/11/01, that is semi-independent. It is a semi-attached division of the CIA and its secret director reports to the CIA. The NCS' task is to coordinate so-called HUMINT or "human intelligence", as opposed to intelligence gathered from electronic or remote means. The NCS is analogous to the CIA's former Directorate of Operations but the NCS also coordinates between other intelligence agencies.
The following are intelligence agencies which are divisions of federal agencies. Of course, all agencies cooperate with one another to some degree as well as provide and coordinate information with law enforcement and the government:
a.. INR - (Bureau of Intelligence Research) - Originally part of the OSS, it split from the CIA in 1947 and is now a part of the State Department. It is a very small agency (approximately 165 agents) and its primary task is to analyze foreign policy of the United States. This agency does not have field operatives and focuses only on data analysis.
b.. FBI - (Federal Bureau of Investigation) - Roughly the domestic counterpart of the CIA, the FBI is a large organization amongst whose tasks is gathering, analyzing and distributing intelligence to further its counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence activities. It should be noted that in recent years the FBI has expanded its mission to several overseas countries, including but not limited to, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The FBI is a division of the Department of Justice.
c.. IN - (Department of Energy - Office of Intelligence) - A division of the Department of Energy, the IN's role is to collect, analyze and distribute intelligence about foreign nuclear energy capabilities/resources as well as nuclear weapons (and their proliferation). The IN was created to monitor the nuclear weapons' program of the (then) Soviet Union.
d.. OIA/TFI - (Department of the Treasury - Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence) - These are two twin divisions of the Department of the Treasury, the OIA primarily focuses on gathering and analyzing intelligence to combat financial crimes and moneylaundering. The TFI also determines bank accounts of terrorists and/or criminals which need to be seized/frozen. The OIA/TFI works extremely closely with its sister organization, the U.S. Secret Service (USSS), in its anti-counterfeiting efforts.
The following agencies are either directly part of or work alongside the Department of Defense (Pentagon): a.. DIA - (Defense Intelligence Agency) - A division of the Department of Defense, its primary focus is on providing "combat intelligence" to the military. It was created in 1958 to combine the different military branches' intelligence divisions. This agency has field operatives and also performs data collection and analysis.
b.. NGA - (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) - This agency is a part of the Department of Defense but different from the DIA. It's primary task is to collect, analyze and distribute "geo-spatial" information, which means information gleaned from satellites, especially maps and photographs. This agency was formerly known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency prior to 2003. This agency has no field operatives.
c.. NRO - (National Reconnaissance Office) - This agency is a part of the Department of Defense but different from the DIA. The NRO's role is very similar to the NGA as the NRO was founded in 1960 to gather and analyze data from satellites (not just photographic data but also interception/monitoring of data being transmitted via other satellites and the ground). The existence of the NRO was classified before 1992. Essentially, the NRO controls the satellites while the NGA uses the data to provide maps and provide data on demand.
d.. NSA - (National Security Agency) - This is by far the largest intelligence agency although little about it was known the last decade. The NSA's role is to collect, analyze and disseminate information known as SIGINT or "SIGnals INTelligence". In a nutshell, this means monitoring all forms of electronic communication including radio, the internet and telephones. The NSA also focuses on creating and cracking ciphers, algorithms and encrypted data. The NSA is the author and controller of Echelon, the program that theoretically can monitor and analyze most of the world's telephone and data traffic.
e.. ONI - (Office of Naval Intelligence) - This is the oldest American intelligence agency, created in 1882 and still in operation today. It's goal is to collect, analyze and distribute information useful to the U.S. Navy. The National Maritime Intelligence Center (NMIC) is a coordinating body which brings employees of the ONI together with the Marine Corps Intelligence Agency (MCIA), Coast Guard Information Coordinate Center (ICC), Naval Information Warfare Activity (NIWA) and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and U.S. Customs Service to provide a repository for maritime intelligence gathering, analysis and distribution.
f.. MCIA - (Marine Corps Intelligence Agency) - The MCIA is the intelligence wing of the Marine Corps and works very closely with the ONI.
g.. AIA - (Air Intelligence Agency) - Roughly analogous to the ONI, the AIA provides what is called "aerospace" intelligence, information gleaned from aerial reconnaissance. The AIA was created in 1993 and its information is used in real-time for aircraft flying missions and helps coordinate and control attacks and firing missiles, amongst other things. It also produces classified sophisticated software used in military aircraft. The AIA also coordinates foreign aerial reconnaissance for such various purposes as the monitoring of treaties, etc.
h.. AI - (U.S. Army Intelligence) - Army intelligence is primarily focused on coordinating "battlefield" intelligence as well as creating the software/programs (and equipmet) in order to obtain it.
i.. CIFA - (Counter-Intelligence Field Activity) - Almost nothing is publically known about the CIFA. It's basic task is to run the Department of Defense's counter-intelligence activities. One unclassified role known about the CIFA is that it manages the Joint Protection Enterprise Network (JPEN). The JPEN is roughly a database of law enforcement "gossip". Anything suspicious, weird or unconfirmed noted by military departments as well as law enforcement agencies is fed into JPEN.
The following agencies have been created or consolidated as a result of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
a.. CGI - (Coast Guard Intelligence) - The CGI's primary task is to collect, analyze and distribute intelligence concerning domestic maritime activity as well as international maritime activity such as drug/human trafficking.
b.. IAIP - (Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection) - The IAIP's main role is to distribute information from intelligence agencies to law enforcement and local government agencies. The IAIP is also tasked with keeping track of vulnerabilities to the nation's infrastructure, particularly analyzing weaknesses to potential terrorist attacks.
The above are roughly the "15 intelligence agencies" that are usually referred to, give or take, although depending on how you count them there's either more or fewer than 15.
Since 2005, there has been a cabinet level position called Director of National Intelligence, an administration and coordinator of all federal intelligence agencies. These duties were (more or less) previously performed by the director of the CIA.
Then there are little "pocket agencies" that are rarely mentioned or spoken about, including my old "buddies" at the Office of National Counterintelligence Executive (NACIC otherwise known as ONCIX). Little public information about this agency is known other than it is a liaison between the CIA and the White House and is designed to coordinate counter-intelligence activity.
Why the good people at the NACIC would be watching me is entirely beyond my ken to understand but in these paranoid times, I suppose its normal.
There's also the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). There's little known about them except that it's a group of up to 16 members of people not in the government (or at least who are retired from gov't service) who analyze and offer recommendations to the White House on intelligence and counter-intelligence operations. Although the members' names are not known, the current chairperson is Brent Scowcroft.
Note: in prior administrations, the members of the PFIAB were public knowledge. Since Bush came into office, only the name of the chairperson is known.
Wrap...
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Bush sabotages clean elections...
As usual Bush prefers to operate behind people's backs and undoubtedly sees nothing wrong with that since he sees himself as the individual who never has to explain what he does or what he says. A dictator, in short. Here's the latest example:
From NY Times via Independent Herald Tribune:
Conspiring against the voters
The New York Times
SUNDAY, JANUARY 1, 2006
President George W. Bush has announced four nominees for the Federal Election Commission, choices that would keep the policing of campaign abuses firmly in the hands of party wheel horses. The timing of the announcement - the president waited until the Senate had gone home - is likely to allow the nominees to avoid the full hearing and confirmation process needed to evaluate them properly.
The need for a clean broom at the six-member election panel becomes clearer with each new round of decisions favoring big-money politics over the voters. But the newly nominated majority promises no improvement. In fact, the slate would mean an end to the service of Scott Thomas, the one incumbent praised for his independence by Senator John McCain, who has campaigned for a clean, hack-free Federal Election Commission.
Bush has finally shown his commitment to bipartisanship in the worst of ways: by installing another undistinguished group of factotums to referee the democratic process in America.
Wrap...
From NY Times via Independent Herald Tribune:
Conspiring against the voters
The New York Times
SUNDAY, JANUARY 1, 2006
President George W. Bush has announced four nominees for the Federal Election Commission, choices that would keep the policing of campaign abuses firmly in the hands of party wheel horses. The timing of the announcement - the president waited until the Senate had gone home - is likely to allow the nominees to avoid the full hearing and confirmation process needed to evaluate them properly.
The need for a clean broom at the six-member election panel becomes clearer with each new round of decisions favoring big-money politics over the voters. But the newly nominated majority promises no improvement. In fact, the slate would mean an end to the service of Scott Thomas, the one incumbent praised for his independence by Senator John McCain, who has campaigned for a clean, hack-free Federal Election Commission.
Bush has finally shown his commitment to bipartisanship in the worst of ways: by installing another undistinguished group of factotums to referee the democratic process in America.
Wrap...
BushCo wresting control of our information...
How do you know what you know? You read the papers, watch television news casts, read books.... So consider that all of those sources are owned by corporations. And the corporations support whom? The corporations are intent on improving their profits. The corporations function under rules and laws made in Congress. Congress, since 2000, supports BushCo. BushCo wants information controlled by whatever means necessary so he can have his political and ideological way. Therefore, media bends or gets broken....
From Information Clearing House :
Skirmishes in the Information Wars
By Mike Whitney
01/01/06
"ICH" -- -- There are only two weapons in the imperial tool-chest; force and deception. The brutal colonial occupation of Iraq has provided us with a lavish example of the former, but the twin-axel of deception is more abstruse and difficult to pin down. Sure, there’s the flagrant propaganda that floods right-wing radio and political talk shows, but that tells us little about the state-sponsored disinformation-programs that permeate every area of American life. We now know that the Bush administration authorized massive illegal spying operations and is actively engaged in planting pro-American stories in the foreign press. These suggest that the administration’s overall theory of information management is much more extensive then originally imagined. In fact, news and information manipulation is at the forefront of Bush’s war on terror, a comprehensive strategy to control of every bit of information a citizen hears, sees or reads from cradle to grave. It is information warfare on a scale that would make George Orwell cringe.
Cont: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11432.htm
Wrap...
From Information Clearing House :
Skirmishes in the Information Wars
By Mike Whitney
01/01/06
"ICH" -- -- There are only two weapons in the imperial tool-chest; force and deception. The brutal colonial occupation of Iraq has provided us with a lavish example of the former, but the twin-axel of deception is more abstruse and difficult to pin down. Sure, there’s the flagrant propaganda that floods right-wing radio and political talk shows, but that tells us little about the state-sponsored disinformation-programs that permeate every area of American life. We now know that the Bush administration authorized massive illegal spying operations and is actively engaged in planting pro-American stories in the foreign press. These suggest that the administration’s overall theory of information management is much more extensive then originally imagined. In fact, news and information manipulation is at the forefront of Bush’s war on terror, a comprehensive strategy to control of every bit of information a citizen hears, sees or reads from cradle to grave. It is information warfare on a scale that would make George Orwell cringe.
Cont: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11432.htm
Wrap...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)