Removing any doubt about the status of Valerie Plame when Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Armitage started leaking her name out to the press, the CIA releases an unclassified summary of her employment history:
An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.
Click on images for a lager view (Images taken from original PDF)
Just trying to make it easy reading for those of you that might hate PDFs as much as I do!
Dan Froomkin spells it out for those of you that don't understand how serious the leak of Valerie Plame's identity by Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Armitage is:
In Friday's eminently readable court filing, Fitzgerald quotes the Libby defense calling his prosecution "unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by politics." In responding to that charge, the special counsel evidently felt obliged to put Libby's crime in context. And that context is Dick Cheney.
Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."
It was established at trial that it was Cheney himself who first told Libby about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, in the course of complaining about criticisms of the administration's run-up to war leveled by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. And, as Fitzgerald notes: "The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."
The investigation, Fitzgerald writes, "was necessary to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others. This was particularly important in light of Mr. Libby's statement to the FBI that he may have discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President." (My italics.)
Not clear on the concept yet? Fitzgerald adds: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President." (My italics.)
Two suggestions:
Scooter Libby should buy a few years supply of "soap on a rope"
cheney should put a fresh battery in his pacemaker.
It's going to be a rough ride for both of them.
And I would be unrealistic if I didn't point out the FACT that what this all adds up to is that the 3 people that admitted to the leaking, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Armitage, did in fact provide aid and comfort to the enemy, whether purposefully or not, by taking down a CIA operative that was serving in Counter Proliferation Duties (CPD) under Non official Cover (NOC), pretty much as dangerous as it can get working for the CIA.
I may just have to start a Technorati tag called "Republican Terrorists" with how many of them there are out there to keep track of... That is a sad statement about the state of the Republican party today.
This is a long video (10 Mins.) from C-SPAN where they interview the author of one of those Swift Boat liar books, Gerome Corsi, that smeared Kerry in the runup to the 2004 elections and they discuss their shock at the announcement of bushies' latest power grab and the possibility of creating a dictatorship.
When swift boat liars are worried about the bush they love going against the Constitution... You know it is time to get out the frickin' tin foil.
Arianna Huffington, owner of THE BIGGEST POLITICAL BLOG in the Blogosphere, discusses growing pains:
It's still the same place, with the same address, the same mission, and the same attitude that has always made HuffPost such a great read. It's just that now there is much more of it to love. And to organize it all we've created five new sections: Media, Business, Entertainment, a culture and lifestyle section called Living Now, and a Politics section that will feature our political editor Tom Edsall and a shared-content partnership with Josh Marshall and Talking Points Memo. Plus, we've improved the design, navigation, and search function to help you find what you want more easily. The front page will continue to feature our signature group blog and breaking news stories, but it was clearly no longer big enough to contain all the great stories, blog posts, and features we wanted to share with you. So each new section will have its own "front page" with fresh editorial talent and a constantly growing list of bloggers.
Traffic graph comparison key of some of the major players in the Blogosphere via Alexa: Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, dailyKos, Talking Points Memo, and Firedoglake.
It appears that more recently BOTH Crooks and Liars and Huffpo has been outperforming dKos traffic wise, but the Huffington Post took over the number one spot not long after they started publishing online in 2005.
Another thing to notice is that HuffPo has added the number 4 Blog, TPM, to its stable of contributors, while John Amato of the currently number 2 Blog in Blogtopia has been a long time contributor over there. I know that Firedoglake writers, like Jane Hamsher, also participate at HuffPo, and there are probably a dozen Blogs that probably come in around their rankings. I included them since they help to demonstrate just how HUGE HuffPo has become because Firedoglake is pretty darn big on their own.
Arianna, by any standards, has long since surpassed everyone on the net and is undeniably the Queen of Blogtopia and the Blogging universe right now. The Huffington Post is fast becoming a force to be reckoned with by any journalistic standards.
A side note: There may be otherBIGBLOGS that would figure in this comparison well so don't feel slighted if I didn't use yours as an example here. It is just that I am pretty sure that those are the lefty blogs I, and others, read the most in the national Blogosphere. Well... Except for Kos, who seems to have recently lost his fucking mind. And, of course, skippy coined Blogtopia! :)
Under Obama's proposal, everyone would be able to obtain health insurance, and the Illinois senator would create a National Health Insurance Exchange to monitor insurance companies in offering the coverage. In essence, Obama's plan retains the private insurance system but injects additional money into the system to pay for the expanded coverage.
Those who can't afford coverage would get a subsidy on a sliding scale depending on their income, and virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers.
I prefer to call it the CORPORATE WELFARE program that it really is.
What kind of lunatic thinks that handing more money over to the insurance companies that have caused most of the problems in the American Healthcare system is going to solve anything? Throwing money at the problem just makes it a bigger problem.
C'mon Obama! You can do better than this bush league proposal.
[Now] on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber's body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.
"I thought, 'What are we doing here? Why are we still here?' " said Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. "We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us."
snip
With few reliable surveys of soldiers' attitudes, it is impossible to simply extrapolate from the small number of soldiers in Delta Company. But in interviews with more than a dozen soldiers over a one-week period, most said they were disillusioned by repeated deployments, by what they saw as the abysmal performance of Iraqi security forces and by a conflict that they considered a civil war, one they had no ability to stop.
snip
"In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war," said Sergeant First Class David Moore, a self-described "conservative Texas Republican" and platoon sergeant who strongly advocates an American withdrawal. "Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me."
snip
But in Safstrom's view, the American presence is futile. "If we stayed here for 5, even 10 more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy," he said. "It would go straight into a civil war. That's how it feels, like we're putting a Band-Aid on this country until we leave here."
Only slowly was this realisation of a capitulation suffused with the flush of passion, only with reflection did they make any personal application. "WE have surrendered!" came later; "in us America is defeated." Then they began to burn and tingle. The War in the Air by Wells, H.G.
As Sirota writes, the Democratic leadership is planning to use parliamentary procedure to avoid the appearance of a real vote on this. And apparently the entire leadership is planning on voting for this "rule" that would essentially allow the supplemental to sail through without having to vote for it. CQ has more. Ask the reps below to vote against the rule.
The Final Insult: Dems Brag to Press About Deceiving the Public on Iraq
In case you believe the malarkey being spewed by the House Rules Committee about the rule vote yesterday not really being the vote to give President Bush a blank check, take a look at the Washington Post and the Associated Press today. I reported this at the beginning of the day yesterday and was then criticized by House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Now, though, it seems at least some major news organizations have caught on that I was exactly right. In the process, they are reporting what will be recorded in history as the final insult of it all: Democrats running to reporters bragging about their own brilliance in deceiving the public.
“In a highly unusual maneuver, House Democratic leaders crafted a procedure that allowed their rank and file to oppose money for the war, then step aside so Republicans could advance it.”
"Yesterday's vote to fund the war through September was a historical rarity: the passage of a bill opposed by the speaker of the House and a majority of the speaker's party. Two years ago to the day, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the "Hastert rule" -- that only bills supported by a majority of the majority can come up -- by bringing up legislation to allow federal funding for stem cell research. The majority of the Republican majority opposed the law. He voted against it, but he knew it would never become law over President Bush's signature...The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, over the objections of most Democrats, who were then in the majority. But NAFTA did have the support of then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), as well as the Democratic president, Bill Clinton. In contrast, the Iraq funding bill was not only opposed by the majority of House Democrats, it was also ardently opposed by the speaker and even the lawmaker who drafted it, Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). And it is destined to become law. 'To have the chairman and the speaker vote against a bill like this, I've never heard of it,' Hastert said."
And here's the worst part of it all - Democrats are now bragging about it. Not only have they sent out a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraising email attempting to confuse voters by claiming with a straight face that they really stood up to President Bush. But most insulting of all, they are actually running to reporters to pat themselves on the back for engineering a procedural pirouette designed to confuse the public. Here's the Post again:
"But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions. Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about...Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats. 'It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker,' said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.)."
This is what we're dealing with folks. A party that runs to the press to brag about the brilliance of using their majority not to end the war, but to create a situation that makes it seem as if they oppose the war, while actually helping Republicans continue it.
If you believe in the Constitution than you must impeach Cheney. The grounds of the proposed impeachment are that the Vice President:
fabricated a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,
purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and
has threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, all in detriment to the national interest of the United States.
On April 24, 2007, U.S. House Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced H.Res. 333, calling for articles of impeachment to be sent to the U.S Senate with regards to Vice President Richard B. Cheney.
If you believe that Vice President Cheney should be impeached, then vote "Yes" here.
Nevermind the fact that both Cheney and Bush have attempted to subvert our Constitutionally guarenteed rights to privacy by breaking FISA laws, and have overseen a series of illegal efforts designed to delgitamize the Congress' right to advise and consent on too many issues based on their false and traitorous Neoconservative/Neoliberal theories of a "Unitary Executive".
This is a Democracy, not a kingdom, and impeachment is the only means left to secure the rights of the people.
The phrase "unitary executive" that was discussed in the Constitutional Convention referred merely to having a single individual fill the office of President, as proposed in the Virginia Plan, rather than have several executives or an executive council, as proposed in the New Jersey Plan and as promoted by Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason; and that the Constitutional Convention debates show that the Founders' primary concern behind whether to have a single executive or an executive council was to choose the one that would ensure that the executive would be relatively weaker and more easily restrained by the legislature; that those who argued for a unitary executive advanced the argument because they considered that the best way to limit the executive’s power and keep it subordinate to the legislature, in opposition to arguments that a plural executive would support the executive’s independence; and the term "unitary executive" was thereby bound up with the intention of keeping executive power checked and restrained.
For example, James Wilson emphasized the advantage of greater accountability with a single chief executive:
"The executive power is better to be trusted when it has no screen. Sir, we have a responsibility in the person of our President; he cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention; he cannot roll upon any other person the weight of his criminality; no appointment can take place without his nomination; and he is responsible for every nomination he makes... far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment."
The House, eager to do something about record high gasoline prices in advance of the Memorial Day weekend, voted narrowly Wednesday to approve stiff penalties for those found guilty of gasoline price gouging.
The bill directs the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department to go after oil companies, traders or retail operators if they take “unfair advantage'' or charge “unconscionably excessive'' prices for gasoline and other fuels.
The White House called the measure a form of price controls that could result in fuel shortages. It said President Bush would be urged to veto the legislation should it pass Congress.
Rell endorsed the idea several hours after Republican legislators introduced the measure at a press conference at the state Capitol complex. They vowed to force the Democrat-controlled legislature to vote on the issue, possibly in the next three days when the House is in session.
snip
"This is an irresponsible, half-baked scheme by the Republicans to appease the public with pennies, while costing the state over $120 million," Amann said. "Their annual sideshow is about as helpful to Connecticut drivers as the governor's press release last week calling for a national investigation into gasoline prices. It's embarrassing."
Amann said the legislature cannot guarantee that prices will drop at the pumps, because lawmakers do not control gasoline prices. Proponents of the measure said, however, that regardless of the price of gas, motorists would be paying 25 cents less per gallon.
Not only is Amann correct, but the fact is I can think of a lot better ways to spend excesses in government money that would benefit everyone. You can be damned certain that the price of gas would just go right back up shortly after they dropped the tax with distributors and oil companies soaking up even more excessive profits than they are already getting.
HMMMM? In the warped GOP view it is good when businesses rip you off, BUT bad when the government puts it aside, responsibly, for future needs.
OR
In the warped GOP view it is good when companies force fuel consumption down by ripping you off with price gouging, BUT bad when the government forces fuel consumption down with a legitimate tax.
Either argument that these CONservative jokes want to make exposes their GOP talking points for the pure unadulterated BS that it always is.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and fellow Republican Gov. Jodi Rell of Connecticut accused the U.S. government on Monday of "inaction and denial" on global warming."
It's bad enough that the federal government has yet to take the threat of global warming seriously, but it borders on malfeasance for it to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public's health and welfare," the governors wrote in The Washington Post.
And in honour of these republicans speaking out on unnatural issues for the GOP... A little Classical Gas from down under:
I was going to write a bit on this when I saw a Guardian story that smacked as pure junk meant to leak back to us, but a few minutes after I saw this link out from Crooks & Liars:
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.
..."Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."
Now some who were paying attention already suspected that the Bush administration's neocons had been using groups like the MeK for proxy attacks on Iran, and that will doubtless continue. But I've bolded what was for me the "leap of the page" part of the story - the use of disinformation and propaganda. I've some immediate thoughts on this.
Firstly, as I understand it, the federal government is prohibited by law from planting propaganda in the U.S. media (but John Yoo's probably already written the classified finding that The Decider Guy can decide otherwise) however there is no such stricture on planting stories designed to mislead in the foreign media and then making sure those stories get attention here in the U.S. from the Republican noise machine of blogs and Benadorian mainstream media pundits.
Which brings today's Guardian dross about a supposed secret plan for Iran to aid both Sunni and Shia groups in Iraq to mount a summer offensive into sharper focus.
It seems that the incompetent bush administration thinks it can sell the narrative that the Iranians are supporting Sunni, Shia, and everything in between. Not only that, but apparently they are trying to sell you that Syrians are supporting both sides too:
Today's coverage of the violence in Lebanon reveals a remarkable degree of bias and stupidity. CNN and Fox News are the most egregious. All are busy pandering to neocons and supporters of Israel who tend to favor a Likudnic view of the world. Consider the following reported on CNN:
Smoke billowed Monday from a Palestinian refugee camp as Lebanese forces battled Islamic militants linked to al Qaeda for a second day near the northern city of Tripoli. The clashes have left dozens dead and wounded. The fighting was sparked Sunday when Lebanese Internal Security Forces raided a building in a neighborhood north of Tripoli, army sources said. Militants from Fatah al-Islam began shooting at the forces, who returned fire, triggering clashes in the vicinity of the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp. . . . Nayla Mouawad, Lebanese social affairs minister, said the militants have "Syrian allegiance and only take orders from Syria."
If you are like George Bush you may not appreciate the fact that there are Sunni muslims and Shia muslims. Radical Sunnis and radical Shias dislike each other intensely. Each considers the other a heretic. So what the hell is the media up to? Let's ask Pat Lang, who posted some keen insights at Sic Semper Tyrannis:
The 24/7 news networks were hard at work today trying to make Syria responsible for the Sunni zealots in the camps. The statement was being made today that these groups were connected to AQ. No evidence was offered, but the assertion was repeatedly made based on the "possibility" that had supposedly been voiced by some nameless person in the Lebanese government. Various Lebanese were asked that question - "Is this Al-Qa'ida?" Nobody could be found who was willing to say that there was an organizational link to Al-Qa'ida, but the question was asked over and over again. This question was paired with another - "Is Syria controlling and "behind" this group?" Nobody could be found who would say that either, but the question was asked over and over again.
Now, think about it, folks Al-Qa'ida is a virulently anti-Shia Sunni group. Everyone "knows" how much Syria supports Hizbullah, a virulently anti-Sunni Shia group. So, which is it? Which side does the Syrian government support? Does the Syrian government support both at the same time? If you believe that, then you really are a sucker for propaganda.
Funny how the messages are coming out in an almost mirroring type of repetition meant to support the bush strorylines and supposed war plans. Anyways... Let's get back to the original post on the ridiculous idea of Iran supporting both their allies and their enemies:
It also may explain why mainstream press and right wing bloggers are repeating as serious a claim by neocon Claude Moniquet that Iran is attempting to draw up plans to strike targets in Europe and has conducted reconnaissance of European nuclear power stations. Moniquet is head of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center, which is described by the AP as "independent" but is essentially a foreign adjunct of The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neocon Washington group which counts among its members a virtual A to Z of prominent anti-Iranian figures such as Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey and Newt Gingritch.
In fact, it explains a heck of a lot about the myriad of "anonymous officials" who have become sources for anti-Iranian stories, many of which have later turned out to be utterly false. And incidentally, explains the entire output of the daily Telegraph's shills-in-residence Con Coughlin and Phil Sherwell. The drums in the deep aren't being beaten by accident or individually but instead in a co-ordinated concerto.
In fact, this story should call into question every single story involving anonymous sources on Iran, whether it be about their nuclear program or about their alleged involvement in Iraq. There's simply no way to know whether the story is true or a propaganda plant without independent, verifiable and named sources backing it up.
Which oddly enough includes The Blotter's story itself.
The White House intended on using this plan to keep from having to use a military option to stop the mullahs from getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. In fact, ABC reports that Dick Cheney preferred the military option, but that Bush overruled him in favor of the covert action instead. As I have written repeatedly here, a military strike is a lousy choice given the terrain, battleground, and options for targets in Iran as well as the political situation on the ground.
Thanks to the loose lips at Langley and ABC, that option may have to go back to the top of the list. Covert actions that appear on national television tend to lose the element of surprise, after all, and the Iranians can now take steps to block these actions...Someone in the CIA or in the larger "intelligence community" can't keep their mouths shut. Thanks to them, we may wind up with no other option against Iranian nuclear ambitions except the military strike.
Prediction: at some point, the nutroots will accuse Cheney of ordering a member of his staff to leak the President's secret covert action to ABC in order to force the military strikes that Bush overruled.
Given the speed with which the extreme Right has established message discipline and given the admission that the Bush administration was already conducting propaganda operations against Iran, I think that's a perfectly reasonable accusation to make. Interesting that Kim thought of it first. But we may never know what the truth is.
Yep... The most important thing here is to consider the fucking sources. There is "no way to know whether the story is true or a propaganda plant without independent, verifiable and named sources backing it up."
But I am willing to bet that the only verifiable sources that will come forward and push these crazy ideas as "credible" will turn out to be the same incompetent neocon children and bush stooges that sold us a pack of lies on Iraq to begin with. That is, if the media is complicit and/or gullible enough to use these liars as credible sources again.
President Bush, trying to defend his war strategy, declassified intelligence Tuesday asserting that Osama bin Laden ordered a top lieutenant in early 2005 to form a terrorist cell that would conduct attacks outside Iraq _ and that the United States should be the top target.
Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, said the intelligence bolsters the Bush administration’s contention that al-Qaida wants to use Iraq as a staging area to launch terrorist attacks around the world, including the United States.
OK... Stop right there and think about this for a moment. His war strategy has been to stop terrorists that want to attack the United States by attacking Iraq, a country that didn't have any Al Qaeda links at all until long after the US invaded Iraq.
And bush continues to waste our time in Iraq because Al Qaeda is planning to attack the USA everywhere BUT in Iraq.
Just want to make sure I am keeping this straight.
She said that in the spring of 2005, bin Laden instructed Hamza Rabia, a senior operative, to brief al-Zarqawi on al-Qaida planning to attack sites outside Iraq, including the United States. She did not disclose where in the United States those attacks were being plotted
Townsend disclosed the information to The Associated Press and other news agencies in advance of Bush’s commencement speech Wednesday at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Bush is expected to emphasize the continuing threat of terrorism and recount steps taken by his administration to prevent attacks.
As she explained to CNN's White House correspondent Ed Henry last night:
HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.
TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.
Well... Time travel is just another success that hasn't occurred yet. BUT as soon as it does let me be the first to travel back in time and slap Townsend silly for making an absurd a statement on what is clearly a bush FAILURE.
Townsend is just an example of another Brownie "Heckuva job" comment waiting to come from bush after the next big disaster in the USA. Makes me wonder if we should have a color coded alert system for incompetent and idiot statements put up on the TV screen beside each of our own government employees.
You can watch Townsend throw out GOP talking point after talking point on Charlie Rose (Sept. 2006) about the successes in Afghanistan (even though the Taliban is on the rise again), on Bin Laden getting away at Torah Bora being a mistake only looking at it in retrospect (even though bush handed the military operation there to local friendlies of the Taliban, that was not a mistake in retrospect, that was failure on the spot), and how Iran is so tied into the GWOT now (setting the table for the future episodes of "Empire on the Rise"), and how Saudies are our friends (even though they ARE funding the insurgency)...
Just think of the usefulness of a warning like that up there flashing on the screen beside their faces each time they start spewing their right-wing-crack and how many of these past failures might have been avoided with a simple Right-Wing-Crack Warning System.
The fact that Townsend is a former Clintonian and helps set the table for MORE WAR now, while spewing GOP talking points so easily, just reinforces the need, IMHO, to obliterate all right-wing DLC leftovers from the Clinton era out of office along with the far-right-wing GOP.Just in case you wonder where this right-wing-freak's loyalties really lie now:
Townsend is a former prosecutor who toiled for both Rudy Guiliani and Janet Reno. The Post points out that her husband, referred to in the piece only as "John," was "a classmate of Bush's at Andover and Yale." It adds that her position was occupied previously by "four-star generals who brought decades of experience to the fight," but that her greatest asset is "the president's ear" -- not to mention a contribution of the maximum $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign in March 2004, an unusual move from a National Security Council staffer, and generally regarded, as U.S. News and World Report put it, as "a pledge of loyalty."
"A pledge of loyalty"??? How fucking republican of her.
The Bush Pledge: "I want you to stand, raise your right hands," and recite "the Bush Pledge," said Florida state Sen. Ken Pruitt. The assembled mass of about 2,000 in this Treasure Coast town about an hour north of West Palm Beach dutifully rose, arms aloft, and repeated after Pruitt: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."
A little info on John Townsend for shits and giggles, 'cause you are curious, right?
Mr. Townsend, 47, is a partner in the Washington law firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed. He received undergraduate and law degrees from Yale University. He is the son of Vera N. Townsend of Austin, Tex., and the late Col. John D. Townsend. The bridegroom's father was retired from the United States Army.
Just so's you know he is a Lawyer that does a lot of lawyering for the drug industry (IE: Pfizer, Merck), winning cases that keep drug prices artificially high for us.
Mr. and his Mrs. Townsend are both major players in a bush criminal world. Don't believe anything that either of them say.
The White House, bush, cheney, and all of their regular stooges are throwing shit at the fan from everywhere, right now, and none of it is sticking anywhere because NONE OF IT MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL. Unless you are trying to scare the American people into continuing the Iraq follies, and, maybe, are hoping to get more war in Syria and/or Iran.
President Bush is quietly implementing a second Iraq troop surge that would “nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year.” According to the analysis of Pentagon redeployment numbers:
This “second surge” of troops in Iraq, which is being executed by extending tours for brigades already there and by deploying more units, could boost the number of combat troops to as many as 98,000 (from 52,500) by the end of this year. When support troops are included, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 — the most ever — by the end of the year.
This escalation would bring the total number of brigades in Iraq to 28 by winter. In the current escalation, Bush ordered five brigades to accompany the 15 already stationed in Iraq.
While Bush proudly trumpeted the first escalation in January with a nationally televised address, he is reportedly keeping this one under wraps, not addressing it in any major public medium. “It doesn’t surprise me that they’re not talking about it. I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash.
Now why would they need all of these troops there AND why are they trying to keep this quiet? It wouldn't be to provide more clandestine pressure on Iran, would it? And it couldn't be because the first escalation is not working, could it?
Five U.S. soldiers have died this month in Amiriya, victims of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and snipers. Since the arrival of additional troops in February, the square-mile area patrolled by 1st Lt. Schuyler Williamson's platoon and others from the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry, has been the site of 300 IEDs buried in or alongside the road. An Army intelligence map uses small red blast symbols to mark bomb sites. The symbols obscure entire thoroughfares.
Soldiers here now openly declare pessimism for the mission's chances, unofficially referring to their splinter of heavily fortified land as "the Alamo."
"Sometimes," said Brendan Gallagher, the captain who oversees Williamson, "we like to comfort ourselves when we are taking a lot of IEDs and casualties by saying that the enemy is desperate, they are doing this because they are scared. But how many times can they actually be desperate? I sometimes worry that this period will end up going down here as their surge, not ours."
snip
Over the course of four recent days, his soldiers were struck repeatedly by IEDs, one of which blasted a hole through an Army medic's foot, requiring him to be sent home. The platoon was also attacked by snipers; a bullet ripped through the fingers of an Iraqi national police captain accompanying the Americans on a joint patrol.
Checkpoints operated by Iraqi police at two entry points into Khadra came under gunfire several times a day, and a desecrated corpse suspected to be that of an Iraqi policeman was found hanging May 15 from a lamppost in Amiriya.
A while back many of us were ripping on McCain for originally suggesting sending more troops and pointed out the fact that the Generals were telling the McCains and Lieberman's of the world that this could never work.
McCain has repeatedly said that he would like to see another 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. As General Abizaid explained, McCain’s plan runs counter towards our goal in Iraq — specifically, the Iraqis taking responsibility for their own country. Abizaid said, “It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”
Contrary to what Petraeus has been saying, my lying eyes are telling me this is whackamole revisited, and the troops on the ground aren't buying his rosy pictures of progress either:
Petraeus, the new commander managing the "surge" of troops in Iraq, will be the first to caution realism. "Sure we see improvements - major improvements," he said in our interview, "but we still have a long way to go."
What tactics are working? "We got down at the people level and are staying," he said flatly. "Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen."
More intelligence, for example. Where once tactical units were "scraping" for intelligence information, they now have "information overload," the general said. "After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can't process it fast enough."
You get the feeling that they are counting on the military, and the public being unable to process all of the information fast enough? Oh yeah! And never mind that the bulk of the intelligence being funneled at all of us, the military included, is very likely being cherry picked, filtered and distorted by all of the same neocons... Again.
So, even when there is "independent, verifiable and named sources backing it up,"DON'T. FUCKING. BELIEVE. IT. Especially when all of it clearly makes no sense at all.
[update] Meanwhile, if you write any stories that actually make sense... The bush White House is sure to cut off your access:
“Staffers at McClatchy’s Washington, D.C., Bureau — one of the few major news outlets skeptical of intelligence reports during the run-up to the war in Iraq — claims it is now being punished for that coverage.”
Bureau Chief John Walcott and current and former McClatchy Pentagon correspondents say they have not been allowed on the Defense Secretary’s plane for at least three years, claiming the news company is being retaliated against for its reporting.
snip
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called such assertions “absurd,” adding, “There is no basis of fact for that allegation. It is not true. There are always more people who would like to travel with the secretary than seats available.”
PBS’ Bill Moyers recently highlighted McClatchy’s excellent pre-war journalism. Watch it HERE.
The only thing absurd about this is how most of the MSM just repeats obvious lies and propaganda from the bush administration without checking any of the facts. And the ones that sell this bush propaganda repeatedly are the kind of assholes with access to that plane.
As you can see from the document below dated 21 May, 2007, the command in Iraq is presently in some difficulty with regard to hot meals. Because of delays in the delivery overland of rations the mess system is short in regard to fresh produce and similar items and is serving Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) one meal a day.
This problem may be the result of a "lag" in changing throughputs from Kuwait. The increased size of the force at present may have caused this.
There continues to be a certain "background" level of ambushes of convoys along the route from Kuwait. This exacerbates any other problems that arise. pl (Via Pat Lang at Sic Semper Tyrannis)
From the memo:
Due to a theater-wide delay in food delivery, menu selections will be limited for the near future. While every effort will be made to provide balanced meals, it may not be possible to offer the dishes you are used to seeing at each meal. Fresh fruits and salad bar items will also be severely limited or unavailable.
Although we are expending every effort to resolve the situation, should the food convoys be delayed further, DFACs will be required to serve MREs for at least one meal out of the day.
No word on when bush will be breaking out the plastic turkeys to taunt the soldiers again...
