Saturday, July 16, 2005

Hadley knew and did nothing

It's like 20 minutes before we're all getting together to work with The Third Estate Sunday Review. I went to work this morning, hung out with some friends and came back here for dinner. And at dinner, Dad, Ma and my sister are talking about Hadley and how he failed to do his job. I go "What are you talking about?" I hadn't been online today.

Hadley was under Condi Rice and Hadley knew the press leak on Valerie Plame was coming before it came out. He didn't do a thing about it even thought his job was national security. Everybody had been to The Common Ills but me today.

I'm putting up C.I.'s thing. Read it cause in my house this is BIG.


NYT: Rove's latest talking point implodes but the Times doesn't notice

Grab the tiger by the tail. That's what the daily reporting on Rove is these days.
As Sidney Blumenthal noted on
Democracy Now! yesterday, the grand jury leaks are springing in an awfully convenient manner for Karl Rove:

SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL: Well, Karl Rove is waging a communications battle in the way he wages communications battles. He is trying to act -- he's acting as though this is -- this matter is going to be decided by a court of Washington pundits. He is leaking stories now. There are stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post that are clearly leaked by his lawyer trying to depict him in a light in which he is innocent of the charges, but that's not how this is going to be decided. It's going to be decided by the prosecutor. And I think that Rove is in a panic mode. He's acting in a very frenetic way, and he is undermining himself, and he is undermining his principal, the President.
AMY GOODMAN: How is he undermining himself?
SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL: He's undermining himself by putting out all of these stories and keeping this at a -- in the forefront of the news. He has regarded his defense as though it is the defense of the administration himself. He cannot separate himself. Furthermore, the President has not separated him. He walked to Marine One, his helicopter, accompanied by Karl Rove, a clear statement that he stands by Rove. So, Bush has embraced Rove, as well. This is -- Bush -- Rove's damage control, in my view, has created more damage. This so-called master of communications is undermining himself in terms of communications, but in the end, none of that matters. It all comes down to Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, and what he decides to do.



So today's talking points come via a team of reporters in this morning's New York Times. It's entitled "State Dept. Memo Gets Scrutiny in Leak Inquiry on C.I.A. Officer" and it's written by Richard Stevenson. (No "W." in his byline for a change.) But wait, that's not all.

Before we can move on we need to scroll credits: " "By RICHARD STEVENSON . . . This article was reported by Douglas Jehl, David Johnston and Richard W. Stevenson and was written by Mr. Stevenson."

Munch on that popcorn a little longer, we're still not done with the credits. "David E. Sanger and Scott Shane contributed reporting for this article." "With special guest-star Heather Locklear."
Okay, I'm kidding on the Locklear part. (I think.)

But that's six reporters from the paper working on this story. And yet I honestly don't think they grasp what they're reporting.

Let's nutshell the article. There's a memo. From June 11, 2003. State Department memo. It refers to Valerie Plame as Valerie Wilson so it's obvious that Novak didn't see it, right?
Right? Why right? Why wouldn't he use her previous name? The same way that the right uses "Rodham" to clobber Hillary Clinton with to this day. Novak's not a talented journalist, but as a hack, he knows how to appeal to his base. "She's Wilson's wife! And she doesn't use his last name! Bra burner!"

Nothing's proven about whether or not Novak saw the memo by the fact that he used "Plame" and not "Wilson."

Here's the other big talking point: Rove's "warning" to Matt Cooper, it's okay because he immediately phoned Stephen J. Hadley (deputy national security advisor at the time). So see, Rove didn't do anything wrong.

Far from clearing Rove, that actually adds to the problems.

Why is that?

Rove e-mails (allegedly) Hadley that he "didn't take the bait" when Cooper asked about whether or not Joseph Wilson was damaging the Bully Boy with his statements.

We find out two important things right away. Let's go real slow.

1) Rove put the Bully Boy ahead of national security.

Do we all get that? He "didn't take the bait." No, he didn't. He deflected "the bait" by confirming he'd heard Plame was CIA. (According to the accounts.)

Is this going to be his defense? Is this how it will play out?

When confronted with possible bad polling, Rove confirms that someone's CIA? That's the defense?

Standing by his main man means putting the nation at risk?

That's a defense he wants to stand on?

(Like Blumenthal, I personally believe the leaks are orchestrated by Rove and others interested in saving Rove. Saving Lack of Privacy Rove. I'm just not sure if they're just tossing just about anything out there until they can find the best talking point or if they're tossing anything out there because they're trying to obscure the issues involved. Regardless, this talking point doesn't make things "rosy.")

Let's walk it through real simple. You're a reporter for Premiere. I'm a p.r. flack for Matt Damon. You call me up and ask, "Is it true that Damon's new movie bombed in previews?"My response is to confirm you to that the woman filling out the card with her husband at the preview is CIA. I then fire off an e-mail to my boss saying, "Great news! I didn't take the bait! I steered the reporter to a CIA agent!"

Do we see the problem here? Supposedly, Cooper wants to know if the Bully Boy is being damaged by Wilson's statements. Rove deflects. He confirms that Wilson is married to a CIA agent.

Put out two hands in front of you and pretend they're scales. See which one tips when you weigh Bully Boy's polling with identifying a CIA agent.

2) I can't believe they did this. Bully Boy's no brain (neither is Rove) but are people going to pay attention to this defense?

If they are, do they get what the leak is saying?

Rove talked to Cooper before Novak's column was published. Rove told Hadley about the conversation. Let's say Rove just confirmed Plame to Cooper. (That's just as bad and it is identifying, but let's move on to a larger point that I don't think they see in this latest talking point). When Rove sent that e-mail (if he did) to Hadley, we have someone in national security that knows a CIA agent is on the verge of being outed.

I'm sure Condi will offer her "bowels of the agency" or "basement" or whatever looney remark she made re: the sixteen words originally.

It wasn't lower level. Her right-hand man knew. That's the talking point today. Her right- hand man knew that a CIA agent was about to be the topic of the press. What did they do at that moment to find out about leaks? Did they alert the CIA?

Or were they all high fiving and saying "Way to go Karl-ster! You didn't take the bait!"

Let's be really clear, Rove supposedly sent an e-mail to the deputy of national security immediately after getting off the phone with Matt Cooper. Let's go the Times'
article:

After his conversation with Mr. Cooper, The Associated Press reported Friday, Mr. Rove sent an e-mail message to Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, saying he "didn't take the bait" when Mr. Cooper suggested that Mr. Wilson's criticisms had been damaging to the administration.
Mr. Rove told the grand jury in the case that the e-mail message was consistent with his assertion that he had not intended to divulge Ms. Wilson's identity but instead intended to rebut Mr. Wilson's criticisms of the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq, The A.P. reported, citing legal professionals familiar with Mr. Rove's testimony. Dozens of White House and administration officials have testified to the grand jury, and several officials have been called back for further questioning.

If people are paying attention to today's talking point, Rove just ratted somebody out (though he probably doesn't realize it). Did he tell who he got the information from?
No.

But the talking point advises us that the deputy of national security knows the press is talking about Valerie Plame being a CIA agent. Did Hadley follow up?
Don't toss out any nonsense that, "They may not have known she was undercover!" Hadley's job should have required him to find out what Plame's position was. Regardless of what her job was, the CIA should have been advised what was about to break. And Plame should have been warned.


Was the CIA advised? I don't know. But from Joseph Wilson's reactions, Plame sure wasn't warned. From his statements, she didn't get a heads up. Novak's column appears on the 14th of July. Rove talks to Cooper on the 11th of July. In those three days, what did Hadley do? What was the administration doing? (Yeah, I know, probably helping the story along, but that's not in their talking points.)

How did Hadley follow up? Did he report it to his superior? (Condi Rice.) What measures did they take to protect Plame? She wasn't assigned body guards at the time. Wilson's made no reference to her getting a call that said, "Hey Val, just a heads up, the press are talking about you, you're probably going to be the topic of a story and be named. Those friends and neighbors that don't know anything about who you really work for -- you might want to break it to them."
Hadley's job was not to protect Bully Boy from fading poll numbers. His job was national security.

If people are paying attention to today's talking point, one question should be, "What was done when Hadley was informed?" What steps got taken?

Was the CIA informed what was coming down the pike?

Or was everyone who is supposed to be working for the nation suddenly under the impression that their job was serving on the election committee for the Bully Boy?

From Thursday's
mid-morning entry:

Wally e-mails to note Pirate Smile's post at Democratic Underground ("
Plame has worked undercover within the past 5 years according to the WP") where Pirate Smile draws our attention to an October 4, 2003 Washington Post article entitled "Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm" (by Walter Pincus and Mike Allen):
After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA.
Plame's name was first published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.

-snip-
A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities. "That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.

Shouldn't Hadley have been able to find out what the Washington Post did? Did he attempt
to?

What did he do when he received Rove's e-mail?

His job wasn't to prop up the Bully Boy, his job was to protect the country. Serving the country, his job, would have entailed passing the knowledge on. Possibly up to Rice, possibly to the CIA.

But there should have been a follow up to determine a) what Plame's position was, b) what risks there were for the CIA and c) ensuring that a warning was conveyed to Valerie Plame and any agents or assets that worked with her.


Was that done?

Let's drop back even further. The Times article tells us that Rove spoke to Novak before he spoke to Cooper. Two days prior which puts that conversation on July 9th. Did Rove also e-mail about that one?

What was our National Security Agency doing when at least one participant knew that Plame was about to be outed?

Can't blame this one on outmoded computers at the FBI. If there's a breakdown in the sharing of intellegence, it appears to be a human breakdown. It appears to be someone or someones not doing his or their job. Maybe Hadley passed it on up the chain and, if so, maybe his hands are clean.

But all this posturing after the fact by the Bully Boy that he was committed to finding out who leaked Plame's identity -- it's false. He should have known it was coming before Novak's column was published. Rove sure should have told him. Hadley or Rice should have told him. He should have known what was coming down and efforts at questioning the staff should have begun prior to the outing being published.

If I'm not being clear here, Bully Boy wasn't watching someone snag change from a candy machine. This was a national security issue. And the claim that Valerie Plame wasn't undercover (1999 puts her in the five year provision, other reporting carries it further) doesn't negate the fact that the leader of the country should have ensured that action was taken to warn Plame of what the press was asking.

Now maybe that 'triple decker, chocolate mocha joe, double secret background' meant that along with Cooper not talking, Rove was also supposed to be silent? That doesn't wash and not just because of the fact that that Rove allegedly e-mailed Hadley after speaking to Cooper. It doesn't wash because Plame's working for the government. The administration (at least Rove) and our National Security Agency (at least Hadley) know a government employee is about to be a topic in the press. If she were a secretary at the CIA (which she wasn't but some dismissive pundits have portrayed her as such), she still rated a heads up. Her bosses rated a heads up.
What did Rove and Hadley do with the information?

What it looks like, accepting today's talking point, is that they both put Bully Boy ahead of serving the country and ahead of doing their jobs.

Novak's column did not take the administration by surprise. Rove's latest talking point demonstrates that the administration knew people were asking about Plame (at least knew of Cooper, possibly Rove's not claiming he also passed on the news that Novak was snooping around also). There should have required no pressure (via the public urged on by
David Corn and BuzzFlash) to get the Bully Boy moving on finding out what happened. In fact, the administration should have already been on it.

And instead of offering what appears to be the subtext of the article today (Scoots Libby going down!), the crack team of reporters for the New York Times (look at the list: Douglas Jehl, David Johnston, Richard W. Stevenson, David E. Sanger and Scott Shane ) should have included one individual who grasped what we've walked through -- one reporter who picked up the phone and asked Hadley for a statement. The article should have included it even if it were only, "Hadley stated he could not commment . . ."

I honestly don't think the Times realizes what they are reporting today. Or maybe they see it as a talking point and didn't feel it needed looking into.

But what they're reporting is that by July 11th, the deputy national security advisor knew that the press was asking about a CIA agent and apparently nothing was done to warn her agency or to warn her. The only phrase that comes to my mind is "Dereliction of duty."

Friday, July 15, 2005

long one

Trying to listen to The Majority Report because Janeane is hot and funny. (She is hot. Maybe it's an Irish thing but I think she's totally hot. She's always knocking herself and putting herself down but she's hot. With dark hair. I didn't go for the blonde.) And because Anthony Lappe is on. I saw that at The Common Ills today.

I want to say BIG THANKS to friends and family. Family's been calling like crazy about last night's post and if you're e-mailing me, you're my friend. I'm glad everybody liked it and like felt it was a long time coming. I agree.

I hope by saying "I agree" I'm not being abusive lol. You know how those tiny freaks are over in loser-ville.

The big questions was "Mike, do you think you're blacklisted?" Since most of you wrote "you were ripped off!" I'll say that if you are right, I'm sure they'll continue to lift and reword.

But yeah, I probably am blacklisted. So is Rebecca and C.I. and that's cool. I called C.I. a few times today and got a call back about two hours ago. It was a quick chat because from work, it's volunteer work. So I tell C.I. there's been calls and e-mails and C.I. goes you don't know about them do you?

And no, I know they have this "staff" but anything good is written by someone else. Like you look at it and go, "Oh yeah, C.I. linked to that CounterPunch story awhile back." But C.I. gives me some sites to go to and goes that they have a history online that's not pretty.

So I go surfing and sure enough, Narco News got ripped off. They took Narco News' stuff and you can read about it here. There's no question on the Narco News stuff. Maybe with my funny line, they just happened to think the same? But they ripped off Narco News and you can read about it here.

And FAIR and Project Censored. Go read about it.

Project Censored is one of the books we read for The Third Estate Sunday Review last week. And we had this really great conversation about it and four other books and then the whole darn post got lost. But we're going to come back and start over tomorrow so look for it.

So yeah, there is a blacklist. I'm proud to be on it. C.I.'s proud and so is Rebecca. It's like Rebecca says, "They banned Tom Hayden. Mike, we're in the same company as Tom Hayden!"
And yeah that's so cool. My folks have all his books.

I didn't mention them by name yesterday. That was partly cause Rebecca was hoping the asshole would apologize to the kid. He didn't. So Rebecca was pulling a 'C.I. high road' yesterday. But she said, "C.I. is not naming them and don't you because links are measured and don't you give them a link." I won't. They're bad. They're boring.

Let's pull out some e-mails:

Raylene wants to know why they're set up like a magazine when all they do is reprint stuff? She says that their blogs are "laughably bad."

On their blogs, Callie writes in to say that they do not know what they are doing "obviously."

Lynne says she realizes C.I. only linked to the one blog and did it because members from the UK thought it had something to say but that she was offended from the start and kept saying that to C.I.

I heard from bloggers including one biggie who told me that "they are such a joke and so fucked up." He said BuzzFlash has so replaced them and asked me if I knew about the time they ripped off Intervention? I didn't then, but dude I do now. It's all over the net.

I can't believe anyone thinks they're a good organization. I like the guy who wrote in about how they were paranoid. That would explain why they treated the kid the way they did. Writers who have had their work used there, some without permission, complained and got banned and I guess that was "abusive" too like when they told the kid he was "abusive" for saying "Step out of the GOP closet."

They're a bunch of little cowards screaming for money.

And like the blogger pointed out, BuzzFlash is the one. BuzzFlash doesn't rip people off. They also put out premiums. And don't ask their workers to write phoney reviews at Amazon.com the way this link says that the jerk offs did.

They want to act like, "Look at us, we're a magazine!" But they aren't. They can't write worth crap and that's probably why they have to take from other magazines and sites.

The blogger said they copied CJR, Slate and Salon with their blog report and he thinks it was partly to keep people scared to speak the truth online about them.

I ain't scared of them.

My folks are pretty progressive and into the Catholic Social Workers and all that. But like when I was at dinner and told them about how the silly not a magazine attacked FAIR, they were like, "What!" That's one of the sites we know about because of The Common Ills. We learned about it there and Amy Goodman had on a guy today who helped start FAIR. So go check that out. He knows where he stands on the war. Other people need to pay attention if they still can't figure it out on their own.

So Dad goes, "Mike, they won't publish Tom Hayden and they don't like FAIR so screw 'em."
And Ma goes that she has told everyone at the church about me being ripped off! I go, "Ma, we don't know I was ripped off for sure. It could be a coincidence." Ma goes, "I am your mother and I can say what I want." You don't want to tick off my mother lol.

Janeane is making these really good comments about 28 Days which is this real cool movie and how it's like about rage as a virus and how we've seen it in our country. I'm putting that in for C.I. who would like to listen, and Fridays is C.I.'s favorite, but is out fighting the good fight as my folks would say.

I was telling C.I. what I wrote and C.I. was all like, "Mike, I would've linked!" I wasn't asking for a link. And I know C.I. doesn't have time to go to sites and stuff coz of work and working to help organize and mobilize with the upcoming Court battle. C.I.'s all "Mike you've got my phone numbers and my personal e-mail so let me know what you're writing so I can link."

Ain't gonna do it, C.I.'s busy enough. Wouldn't have even called but everyone was asking me if I was banned at the wants-to-be-a-magazine. So yeah, I'm banned.

Banned and proud.

And I'm so proud of what Rebecca wrote last night. She could have kept quiet but she didn't. She said it was unacceptable. C.I. did too. It's the first post last night. You should read that.
C.I.'s talking about the community and explaining it's like a dinner table and some people have plates set for them and some don't.

I didn't realize when I'd heard about Hayden being banned that it was such a thing. I mean I thought well the jerks banned him but they'll come back when they need him. Then I go to those links and see it's like paranoid city and you're like banned for life. So I think it was more than brave for Tom Hayden to tell the truth. He had stuff going up there and all. And he knew he was speaking the truth would cost him. But the issue was important and that's really cool because a lot of people would be silent and all. They'd be like "Oh God, if I'm banned, I'll lose out."

But sometimes you just got to grow a pair and say, "Screw it."

So I used my voice and I'm real proud to be in the company of others who have. Some day, enough people will know and they won't waste their time on that reprint magazine trying to do blog reports to liven up their boring site.

Jim called me and goes, "Mikey, you blow me away!" We were laughing on the phone.

I ask Jim if we'll be doing anything on that wants to be a magazine site and Jim goes that Jess and Ava already go that they'll stand with C.I. and are pretty sure that means "We don't waste time on the jerks." He goes maybe C.I. will feel different. But Ty and Dona are ready to go.

If you read the gina & krista round-robin this morning, give up for my buds and great writers and great women cause they nailed it so perfect. i loved the drawing Isaiah did for them. It goes "We wish we were a real mag." And one of them is staring into space and going, "Hmmm, what male blogger can I rip off today?" and the two guys are off in their own worlds. The curly headed ugly one is going, "I love me some Republicans, let me plug Andrew Sullivan" and the bald one is going, "Plus Andrew Sullivan? That is abusive! Abusive! I ban you! I ban you!" It's hilarious. I got Isaiah's permission to talk about it but he goes he gave it to Gina and Krista and it's exclusive to them. See, I respect that. I don't try to rip off Gina and Krista to put something up on my site. It's called ethics.

I loved their interview with West. And like Rebecca says, if the dork with the curls had a problem with West, he should have been man enough to take it up with West. Not sick baldie on him after they go through deleting posts. That was cowardly. But they are cowardly. They called Robert McChesney paranoid. I'm not kidding about read the link.

They have a whole history. Like with Intervention. I had no idea. I thought they were a dumb site. I didn't know the half of it.

I'm going on and on cause I'm waiting for Anthony to come on and want to write something about that cause I really do want to capture a sense of it for C.I. Other than Democracy Now!, the only thing C.I. got to listen to this week was Randi's first day back. C.I. said Randi was so funny and I wish I was able to listen cause the jokes sounded really funny when C.I. was telling them. But if it's a work and school day, all I can catch is Democracy Now! during the day.

I was on campus today and go to The Daily Howler directly cause C.I. gave the heads up that post would be late at The Common Ills. And I'm looking at my watch and looking at the page and thinking, "Where is The Daily Howler?"

Then I started thinking about the stuff C.I.'s been saying and all at The Common Ills. And about the part that was up The Howler yesterday. About how people were mad at him for writing what he wrote and all. And I got to say I felt real bad and kind of guilty. I didn't e-mail him when he was writing about Joe Wilson but I was thinking, "What is this shit?"

And then I thought about all the stuff C.I.'s been writing and how that guy needs to speak in his own voice because that's the only way he's going to be real and true and all that stuff. I didn't e-mail the guy about it and I didn't write about it here but I'll say I'm sorry up here because I did just want him to write what I already thought. He needs to say what he believes. And if people disagree, they need to say so. But they can talk about it without being mean about it because when I didn't see the Howler, I was thinking, "Man it must have really hurt." Cause it must have been like do you like me for my writing (the way C.I. does) or do you just come here because you think you're going to get talking points?"

If someone's speaking their truth, you're not going to be nodding everytime they speak. I mean, like if I got "My favorite candy bar is Snickers with almonds" there are people who're going to be like, "I love Milky Way!" or "I was with you until you said almonds!" So is it about enjoying the way the person is writing and talking or just about hearing what confirms what you already believe?

I just looked and I don't even have him on my blog roll. I'll add him and some other stuff tonight. He was talking today or yesterday about how it was the usual this time of year angry e-mails to him and all. So he knew this would come down from telling his truth. And when it took so long for the post to go up, I was even thinking, "Man, is he packing it in?"

Cause like C.I. wrote, he's not getting paid to do The Daily Howler. He does it because he cares and all. So it must hurt even more when it's all like, "Shut up! I don't want to hear it!" I can understand disagreeing with him cause I did. But if that happens again, I'll probably put something up here going "I disagree with him on this" and remember that he's telling the truth and it's okay to disagree.

Anthony better come on soon cause I got to split in a hour. My girlfriend's at work and we're going to hang out for a bit. I asked her if I could write about her and she goes "Are you going to talk about us having sex?" And I go I wasn't planning on it. Just like her name and stuff. Her name's Nina and she's 19 and that's all that's going up now cause she said I could put that but nothing else. I'll say she's pretty cool.

Okay, I did some links to the blog roll I've been meaning to do but not all. Now I got to go because Nina will be off soon. I guess I'll miss Anthony. We'll go out with something from Democracy Now!


White House Worried About Possible Indictments
The Washington Post is reporting that White House officials are privately saying that they are concerned that the investigation into the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame will lead to an indictment of someone in the administration later this year. This comes as Democrats escalate their calls for the man known as "Bush's brain" to be stripped of his security clearance and fired. There are also calls for Congressional hearings. One of those leading the charge in the House is California Democrat Henry Waxman.
Henry Waxmann (D, California):"This is a serious matter because it affects the national security of this nation. It's an even more serious matter because if our national security has been jeopardized, it's been jeopardized for political purposes."

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Pissed off tonight, warning you ahead of time

Sorry for the delay if anyone's been waiting.

Rebecca was really upset. It was time for dinner and I went to explain to Ma what was going on.
She said, "Talk to your friends, Mike, you don't owe me an explanation. You can eat later." But I wanted her to know what was going on.

When she found out, she was almost as mad as Rebecca. My parents already think the site ripped me off. If they did, I did do it better. If they didn't, it's awful funny that a new blogger happens to try to ape me. But like I told Ma, "If they ripped me off, it's because I was funny. They weren't. They tried to get all wordy and ended up blowing the joke."

So I stayed on the phone with Rebecca. And I'd do that for her anytime. I'm glad she cares so much about people who like her work. See, this guy got attacked for plugging her site and three others. And accused of all this nonsense.

It's an asshole that did it. We don't link to the asshole here and we never would because he's a real dope who wastes everyone's time with nonsense. He was one of the people I had in mind when I started blogging and said there were some people I would never link to. That was before I may have been ripped off. My bud Tone sees it and goes, "Mike, you were ripped." He's telling my ma and my dad and pretty soon my whole family's upset. I told him it could be just something that happened and I might not have been ripped off but that it didn't matter because it was really embarrassing the way they tried to do the joke.


That was before this jerk does this bullying and forces this guy to scrape and bow or else it will be curtains for Rebecca and the 3 others that the guy was saying wrote good stuff.

That's shameful and embarrassing. When I got off the phone, we all read Rebecca's post, Ma, Dad and my sister.

You need to read it too. Krista called me because she and Gina are discussing it in their newsletter tomorrow and they wanted a quote from me. I said, "Hey if they ripped me off, if, they weren't even smart enough to make it funny. That tells you all you need know about the assholes."

I'm going to be adding to my blog roll this weekend because there are a lot of people doing good work, real work. And we need to know about them. But I'm not adding bullshitters.

Are they against the war today? They never seem to make up their mind, do they? Should we pull out today? Or do we need to "fix" it? They're so wishy washy and anything that's good up there came from someone who's already good. We'll link to Guerilla News Network this weekend and Jude and BuzzFlash and some other people who know how to keep it real. But the crowd who can't seem to figure out from one day to the next what to do won't get a link.

They were already disgusting. You don't have to take my word for it, go here and read Tom Hayden.

Oh! Did I just blow my link at being linked by the mighty and powerful?

Like I give a shit. People are dying and they can't figure out where they stand. But they got time to bully people. They got lots and lots of time for that.

I'll note one item from Democracy Now! and there was a ton of stuff worth noting. They're the best. I'm just in a bad mood because of the crap other people who could be doing real work don't do. And won't do. Because they can't figure out from one day to the next "How do we frame it! How do we frame it! What do we stand for! What do we stand for!" They'd already made themselves a joke in my book. When they bullied that guy (read Rebecca's thing) they made themselves stupid. What they did was cowardly and embarrassing. I'd say they should be ashamed of themselves but like Dad said, "They don't have any shame."

When they turned their back on Tom Hayden, they lost this Irish Catholic household. So, as I once told the paper of recklessness, kiss my Irish ass.

Here's the thing from Democracy Now! make sure you're watching or listening or reading because you get truth there.

GOP Releases 'Talking Points' to Attack Joe Wilson
Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman has been circulating pages of so-called talking points on the scandal that focus on attempting to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson, the husband of the outed CIA operative. The talking points instruct GOP operatives to attack Wilson's credibility and his fact-finding mission to Niger, in which Wilson found that there was no evidence Iraq had attempted to import uranium from the African nation. Wilson has long charged that his wife was outed in retaliation for his debunking of one of the administration's key justifications for the invasion of Iraq.

We won't waste time on the cowards tomorrow. I've said all I need to say on that. And I won't lose any sleep that I won't be mentioned there. I think the company you keep says a lot about you and I don't keep company with "stay the course!" jerks who should get their own asses over there if they're so damn sure we need an international committment to more troops. Want more troops, you cowards, sign up. Till them quit smoking everyone's ass.

Posting postponed

Everybody I'm posting tonight but it will be later. I'm on the phone with Rebecca and she's pissed as hell.

She needs someone to talk to and C.I.'s been in meetings all afternoon and she can't get ahold of The Third Estate Sunday Review gang. Betty's probably picking up her kids right about now and Rebecca doesn't want to yell at her on the phone. I go, "I'm flattered but what about Kat?"
Concert of course. So I told her let me put the phone down and type something up so nobody thinks I've forgotten them.

I will be posting but it will be later.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

War, babies and legal analysis

What's the cost of war? That's the question I wanted to open with this evening. For a moment, let's ask about it from another view. If you're are Iraqi and you're getting all this "liberation" the Bully Boy brings, what is the cost of war?

From Democracy Now!:

Report: 128,000 Iraqis Have Died Since U.S. Invasion
A new study from an Iraqi humanitarian organization is estimating that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invaded in March 2003. The group -- Iraqiyun -- estimates that 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged twelve and under. Meanwhile the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies has also attempted to estimate the number of Iraqis killed. The organization recently estimated that 39,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since the war began.


Liberation?

So yesterday I was going to blog again but I get out of the shower and Ma says "your girlfriend called." My girlfriend? We started seeing each other last week but I didn't know we were already a "we" and figured maybe Ma was upgrading the relationship. But looks like we are a "we."

And that brings us to the e-mail question for today which comes from Rudy because she's got questions regarding her boyfriend. Rudy wonders if she should have a baby. She's not pregnant currently. She's not married. She hasn't discussed having a baby with the guy she's involved with. So why is she wondering this?

Her boyfriend just signed up. Out of high school and having trouble in the Bully Boy economy, he's ripe for the picking. So before he heads to basic, Rudy's wondering if she should get pregnant because "he might die over there."

I'm not really sure of a nice way to put this so I'll just lay out. He's made no proposal. You haven't discussed this with him. But you're going through early planning stages right now?
I'm sorry, Rudy, but I think you're wrong.

Let's say that something awful happens to him over there or that he doesn't come back. When are you planning to tell him about the baby? You say you think it would be a nice surprise and you'd wait until you were "four or five months pregnant" to tell him. You think it would cheer him up.

There are a lot of nice surprises. Going off your birth control to get pregnant without telling your partner doesn't usually top the list.

You write that if he dies you'd like to have a piece of him. He ain't a rock.

And I'm not sure what kind of life you're seeing for a child if he did die?

If the child is supposed to be a piece of him, does that mean the child's going to have to live up to your image of him? And if you want the child in case something happens to your boyfriend, aren't you saying that if he dies it would be nice to have a child by him to have a piece of him?
So it would be nice for you but what about the kid who never knows a daddy?

You wanted my advice and here it is. You either talk to him about what you're thinking about or you stay on your birth control.

Maybe he'll want a kid? Maybe the thought of a child is something he thinks he can focus on when things get rough over there? You say you've been dating for 18 months so this might be something you have in common.

But to attempt to get pregnant without telling him and to let him think that you are still using birth control is wrong. This is a decision that you should talk to him about.

What if you go through with your plan, get pregnant and write him in four months to tell him? What if he hits the roof? What if that's so much pressure on him on top of what's already going on that he can't handle it?

I get that you're going to miss him. And it's true that a lot of women will end up pregnant. But they're, hopefully, not pretending to be using birth control when they're really not.

I asked my oldest sister about this because I think it's an awful idea and I wanted to get a woman's opinion to make sure it wasn't just something I was missing cause I'm a guy.

She said the plan is insane.

If you're wanting a child that's fine. But if the guy you want to be the father thinks you're still on birth control and you're not, you need to let him know what you're wanting.

He might think it's great. He might want it too. But you need to tell him because there are so many things that could go wrong.

I also think that at 17, you're too young to get pregnant by choice. You say you'll be 18 when a kid would be born. I'm not sure what's so magical about 18 and I was 18 just last year.

But turning 18 isn't going to bring you a job. You don't blow out the candles and see a job standing before you. Baby's require a lot of time and they need doctors and diapers and feeding and a bunch of other stuff that doesn't come cheap.

There are guys over there that can't get their passes home that they have earned. And Rumsfeld's saying we might be over there 12 years. So you need to ask yourself why it's okay for you to make these plans and not tell your boyfriend?

You also need to think about how your mother will react. You say she'll gripe but when the baby's born, she'll be fine. You mention that your older sister moved back home and goes to school part time and works part time and that your mother always helps out with your sister's baby. I'm not sure how fine she's going to be with this. Especially when she's the one that got you to start taking birth control pills because your sister ended up pregnant.

She might see it as you ignored her. She might think you had the perfect lesson in your own family but refused to see it.

You should also talk to your sister because if you think she's happy all the time, I think you're missing something. Being a parent doesn't seem happy all the time to me. And if she's a single parent, I'm sure the demands on her are even greater.

I'm sure she loves her child. But I'm also pretty sure that if you had a sister-to-sister talk with her about what you're planning, she would say, "Don't do it."

That's three people that you haven't talked to: your boyfriend, your mother and your sister.
Seems to me like if you thought one or more of them would agree with your plan, you would have already spoken to them instead of asking me.

Now, yesterday I wanted to note this incredible post by C.I. I'll provide a link here and note that the important questions were asked this morning as well. C.I.'s point is why can't the New York Times tell us what the law says? Forget if it was broken or not which the grand jury will decide, why can't the paper tell us what the law actually says and means?

While the press can't give you that information, Attorney X tries to give some

Legal analysis by visiting attorney

This came in to the e-mail account today in response to an earlier post. The person is an attorney (that's been verified). The person asks to remain nameless. Attorney X notes a great interest in "the information" getting out than in credit, even offers that I could pass it off as my own. (Kind offer, but when I say "I don't know" -- as I did re: Vicky ToeJam's claims in a Wash Post op-ed and claims Richard W. Stevensom appears to have repeated in "At White House, a Day of Silence on Rove's Role in C.I.A. Leak" -- I mean "I don't know." No need to pretend otherwise on my part.)

If Attorney X decides to take credit via real name, we'll note the real name here. But the friend I called last night was very clear about not wanting to be named and so I can certainly understand Attorney X's desire to be unnamed. (Again, Attorney X's status as an attorney is verified.)

I have read
your analysis of the New York Times article about Karl Rove.

I have read other articles and postings about this matter.

All trouble me, because they do not correctly describe the state of affairs.

Further, I think that the state of affairs can be simply and correctly stated.

Finally, I feel that doing so would contributing greatly to an understanding of what Mr. Fitzgerald is doing, and probably what Mr. Rove has done, and will be doing.

Take your analysis, for instance. It is very exacting and rigorous, it seems to me.

Very good, in other words. The problem from which it suffers is your ignorance. Not stupidity, ignorance. Just as there are many things I do not know about, there are some things you do not know about. Your analysis necessarily comes to a halt when you reach one of your points of ignorance. As you seem to recognize fully.

The good news is, the very few things about which you are ignorant in this case are very simple to understand, and they are things which I do understand.

I propose in this e-mail to set out those things, to source them to you solidly, and to offer my thoughts about what they mean. If you choose, please investigate offerings, consider them, and use them as you see fit.
First, the U. S. Code. You have linked to a University of Missouri Web site, I believe. I don't know about the authority, completeness, currency, and so forth of that Web site for such material. Probably the most authoritative source for such material, online, and maybe anywhere, is the official Government Printing Office Web site -

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode

Google "united states code" and you can confirm that.

Personally, I like the Cornell site -

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

[. . .]

For your purposes, the GPO site is probably the best - you're right unless the official lawkeeper is wrong.
You're more than able to figure out how to use the site. Go over there, if you choose to pursue this, and look up 50 U. S. C. 421. Note several points.

1. In the first two subsections, at the very least, the law requires an element of intent. And the intentional act required is intentional disclosure. The act does not require knowledge on the part of the disclosing party that the person being identified is a covert agent. Just the intentional disclosure of information. The point of this intent requirement is simple. Suppose you know the identity of a covert agent, as permitted by law, and I, too, am permitted by law, to know it. You tell me, and someone overhears you, unbeknownst to us. Say someone taps our telephone conversation. You have disclosed the information to someone not entitled to have it, but not intentionally. You have not violated the law.

2. The information disclosed must identify a covert agent. Not necessarily by name. Or Social Security number. Or DNA. Any method of identification is sufficient. There is no restriction on the type of identification. Suppose you know the identity of a covert agent, as permitted by law, and I am an assassin sent to murder a foreign agent. But I do not know who it is. My government has paid you to tell me. We meet in a restaurant, where the foreign agent is eating, also. You nod your head toward her, and maybe say, "Her, in the blue dress, over there." You have violated the law.

The notion, as floated by Rove's lawyer, that the identification must be by name, is without support in the law. If the drafters of the law had wanted to limit the law in that way, they would have done so, and would have made it essentially useless in doing so.

3. The statute has a knowing element, in addition to the intent element. The thing which must be known is not the fact that the person identified is a covert agent, but that the information disclosed identifies the person. Again, the type of identification is not restricted.

4. The statute also requires that the discloser know that the United States is trying to keep the intelligence connection between the person and the United States non-public.

5. Those first two subsections have additional elements - for instance, that the discloser have authorized access to classified information.

Now, go to 50 U. S. C. 426. There's your definition of "covert agent," in subsection (4). Not to mention "classified information," in subsection

(1).As you can see, there are three definitions of a "covert agent," (A), (B), and (C).

(C) does not apply. Nor does (B) (ii). So we are left with (A) and (B) (i).
Note, first, the disjunctive, not conjunctive connectors. Satisfying either element makes one a "covert agent;" both elements need not be satisfied.

(B) (1) seems not to apply, because it requires current foreign residence. It is nonetheless instructive, because it establishes the contrast between residence and service, which is the standard in sub-subsection (A).

Now, let's look at subsection (A).The first requirement, in the opening paragraph, seems to be satisfied - Plame was a present officer or employee of an intelligence agency.

The second requirement, that her identity as such be classified information, cannot known to us for a certainty. I would be shocked, though, if some order or regulation or statute did not make her identity such. That is why Wilson threw such a fit when his wife's identity was betrayed - it was supposed to be a secret. You can bet that if he were wrong, and her identity was supposed to be public, Rove's defenders would have made that point long ago. They wouldn't rely on less good defenses when they had a rock solid one. That is why Toensing's questioning of Plame's secret status rings hollow - it isn't a matter of where Plame's desk was, it's a matter of whether there is the requisite order, statute, or regulation in existence. An "expert" on the law would know that. My conclusion has to be that she's blowing smoke for Rove on this.

The third requirement is service - as opposed to residence - outside the country in the last five years. What kind of service? Any kind. There is no restriction. Wilson's trip to Africa was service outside the country, for instance. Conceivably, if the CIA had sent Plame to Toronto on a plane to pick up papers and come back one day, she would have served outside the country. Did this happen? We can't be sure, but is hard to believe that a secret CIA agent working on WMD didn't take at least one trip outside the country for them in the five whole years, especially if just before that period, she had been stationed outside the country, and the way the whole WMD was being cranked up by the Administration in the preceding two or so years.

In the end, though, you make the ultimate point - Fitzgerald and the lawyers working in his office are no one's fools, and if they are pursuing this like they are, they must feel pretty good about the basic things, like foreign service and statutes, orders, and regulations. Those are easily easily established or disproven by documentation. That is true even if they are also pursuing perjury and obstruction of justice charges, which it appears they are.

Also, judging by the slim, and faulty, reeds the "experts" are grasping for, I have to believe that something real hot is under all that smoke.

[. . .]

My main purpose is certainly not identification, though, it is publication of accurate information.

I hope this helps.


It does help. And thank you for walking me through it. Again, if Attorney X should desire credit for this, it will be noted here. I have to wonder who, if anyone, Richard W. Stevenson verified Toejam's claims on the law with.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Soldier's blog deleted and "Time to Head On Home"

Over at Daily Kos, Steven D and Armando are all over a story. (Thanks to C.I. for the heads up!) There's a soldier who's been posting his thoughts on being stationed in Iraq and he's now facing court martial. Steven D and Armando are all over this so check them out and check out Daily Kos.

Here's an example of what the soldier was posting (thanks to the cool Steven D and Armando):

Well, happy days are here again! Our great Attorney General Gonzales flew into the Ultra Safe Green Zone and gave a speech at the embassy. You remember our Attorney General, the one who a chief counsel to the President, said it was quite alright to use certain torture methods that might get by the Geneva Convention, Washboarding, beating, etc. It's all there, folks, and our great maniac executive strongly supports him. I'm reading the Stars and Stripes and I'll feel so much more comforted when I'm standing up in the turret of my Humvee or driving it because of these very comforting words by our A.G. : "As we approach the Fourth of July weekend, I suspect there's some of you that are here that sometimes feel lonely and you sometimes wonder whether you are not alone, " and I'm here to tell you that you are not alone, that the American people are very much with you."--Stars and Stripes, 7-4-05.
Oh, I can rest peacfully when the next bomb goes off because the man who approved torture by the United States of America and deeply shamed this nation has told me I am not alone. Well, he's right about one thing I know I'm not alone - whether it's the spooks or agents that are monitoring me or my journals or those of you out there reading these words I am certainly not alone. I know that many of those Iraqi people who wish to kill me and my fellow soldiers and are constantly waiting for their oppurtunity are making sure my fellow soldiers and I are not alone.
Well, I just wanted to thank the brave A.G. for flying into the Green Zone and having to endanger himself behind all of his heavy security just so he could tell me I'm not alone. My heart is truly warmed.
Now, fellow activists, let us keep up the non-violent fight against the terrorists and the tryants at home who are needlessly endangering my fellow soldiers and causing many of them to die needless deaths in this lie we call the Occupation of Iraq. We need to let the three-piece-suited politicians and their crooked lackeys know that we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore! Immediately, fellow activist (even if you have to do it on your own, although working through one of the organizations linked to this site might also be the best way) find out how you local city, state, and federal politicians stand on the occupation of Iraq. If they stand for the lie or are just too afraid to do the right moral thing by standing against this horrible occupation of Iraq, then quickly find somebody who is running against them. If there is nobody running against, find somebody to run against them. Boycott any companies that are profiting off of the blood of my fellow American soldiers. And let us not forget our governors, congressmen and senators (especially Democratic ones) - ask them or their representatives where they stand on a timetable, and if they will not give you an answer then by all means find someone who can take their places who will support a timetable.
I'm damn tired of my Democratic leadership in Washington D.C. that refuses to publicly call for an immediate timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq. To those Democratic and Republican leaders who have done so I apologize in advance for the questions you are going to start receiving from your constituents on this issue, but you can no longer sit on the fence - our American soldiers are dying needless deaths over here and dammit, you've got to take a stand or we'll vote somebody else in your place!
Not One More American Soldier Should Die Over Here in this Lie We Call the Occupation of Iraq!N.O. M.A.S. !
Written by Leonard Clark (the damn liberal who patrols the mean streets of Iraq everyday)

and Kindergarten teacher in the public schools of America Candidate for the U.S. Senate against John Kyl in Arizona

I'm going to go back and note that Third Estate Sunday Review editorial "Time to Head On Home" one more time:

Editorial: Time to Head On Home

To quote the Beatles "I read the news today, oh boy." A quick scan of the headlines on BuzzFlash reveal what we already knew, the Bully Boy's not made us safer. We see links to stories on the feelings of the British. (Similar to Pru's feelings expressed at The Common Ills.) C.I. and Dallas go international and end up with Tony Allen-Mills and Andrew North's "Downed US Seals may have got too close to Bin Laden" (Sunday Times of London) about "the worst incident in the history of the Seals." Not a credit the Bully Boy needs right now after dragging his feet for almost four years since Sept. 11th. What was "Wanted Dead or Alive?" A provocative personal ad? It certainly wasn't anything with meaning.

Then there's Michael Smith's "UK in talks to hand Iraq role to Australia" (also Sunday Times of London):

BRITAIN is negotiating with Australia to hand over military command of southern Iraq to free up British troops for redeployment to the front line in Afghanistan.
An announcement is expected within weeks that several thousand British soldiers are to be sent to Afghanistan.

The coalition of Operation Enduring Falsehood continues to shrink.

And folks, we're just getting started. Still sticking with The Sunday Times of London, check out Hala Jaber's "Allawi: this is the start of civil war:"

IRAQ’S former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has warned that his country is facing civil war and has predicted dire consequences for Europe and America as well as the Middle East if the crisis is not resolved.
"The problem is that the Americans have no vision and no clear policy on how to go about in Iraq," said Allawi, a long-time ally of Washington.
In an interview with The Sunday Times last week as he visited Amman, the Jordanian capital, he said: "The policy should be of building national unity in Iraq. Without this we will most certainly slip into a civil war. We are practically in stage one of a civil war as we speak."

Occupations will lead to civil wars. No surprise there. To resentment, to anger and to violence.Or how about this UPI article linked to at Iraq Coalition Casualties? The link's bad(they don't have the full web address in the link) but look at what you can read:

07/09/05 upi:
Iraq war results in at least 254 amputees
Army hospitals treated 254 amputees from the Iraq war...Nearly 19,000 soldiers have been medically evacuated ...There were 2,527 evacuated with battle injuries, 5,444 with non-battle injuries and 10,758 with disease.

At The Independent, Andy McSmith's "Leaked memo shows Iraq pull-out plans" only makes the point more clear about who's still wanting to dance with Bully Boy and who's called a taxi for the ride home:

Almost two thirds of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq will have been pulled out by the end of next year, under plans drawn up in Whitehall to hand over two provinces to Iraqi control.
The plan set out in a leaked memo written by the Defence Secretary John Reid, hints that the Government is keen to cut the heavy cost of patrolling southern Iraq.
The memo calculates that the current cost of the British presence in Iraq, around £1bn a year, could be halved if the number of troops were reduced to 3,000 during 2006. The memo implies that the British would formally hand over control to the Iraqis of the four provinces currently under British control by April 2006, but that it take another eight months before what the memo calls the "UK military drawdown" has been completed - and 18 months before the money comes through.

Are we starting to get the picture yet? The public is. They want the troops home. Polls show that. It's just the media and our leaders that are too timid to address it. "Stay the course!" they chant. This "cakewalk" has now lasted over two years. Donald Rumsfeld says twelve is a possiblity. "Cakewalk?"

How do you define "success" in Iraq? That's difficult since the reasons for the invasion/occupation constantly shift. But it's not been a cakewalk, this war of choice. And we haven't made the world safer for anyone. Iraq's not safer. We're not safer. The London bombings prove the fly paper theory was crap.

Now we're supposed to let the ones who brought us this war go back to the drawing board to . . . think up new excuses? They had no planning other than (as Naomi Klein pointed out in "Baghdad Year Zero") to have a tag sale on the Iraqi assets. Even the Operation Happy Talkers seem to have a case of cat got their tongues. (Sadly, we're sure this is a momentary condition.)If sane people can agree that the illegal occupation is a disaster for everyone involved (outside of those profitting from the war), how much are we willing to give to "stay the course?" We want the body counts to double? When do we reach the point that we say enough?

We steer to you to "Should This Marriage Be Saved?" and ask at what point do we take a realistic look at what's going on? Pig-headed is not a virtue. It's not sane. It's not logical. And it's only going to get more people killed.The Bully Boy has sullied this nation's name. He's trashed treaties and conventions. He's had a five-year frat party at our expense. At some point, we need to roll up our sleeves and do some cleaning. And that means tossing in the garbage the notion that after two years of the "cake walk" this is anything like what was sold to us."Stay the course?" We say "head on home." Head on home to what America is supposed to stand for. On what America is supposed to represent. This invasion/occupation isn't what America's supposed to be about. So let's all grow up, sober up and realize that the Bully Boy's taken us on a two-year bender. Comes a time when you gotta head home. It's past time for that.

Iraq had no WMD. It was not a threat to us ("mushroom cloud," Condi?). Someone lied us into war. They took us off course. It's time to get back to what America's all about and it's time to realize that drunk slurring his words and telling us he knows another bar that's still open isn't anyone we want to get a car in with. We're ready to head on home and return to the lives we should be leading. Lives that don't involve wars built on lies. Lives that don't involve trying to impose a system on a people who didn't ask for us to be there. Lives that don't involve falling for the latest Operation Happy Talk. Lives that are reality-based. Bar's closing, let's all head on home. At least the ones who still have that option, the ones who didn't give their lives to a war of choice, one that should have been avoided.
[Note: Since these editorials tend to get reposted elsewhere, we'll note this was written by The Third Estate Sunday Review crew of Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava as well as by C.I. of The Common Ills, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Kat of Kat's Korner, Mike of Mikey Likes It! and Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man.]
posted by Third Estate Sunday Review @ Sunday, July 10, 2005

I'm guessing it's the heat cause it's been a hot day and a long day. But I'm going to go jump in a shower. There's a thing C.I. wrote that I want to highlight, a thing from Democracy Now! and I want to dig and and answer an e-mail. But let me go hop in the shower. I got home from work and school and it's just hot and it's making me feel sick to my stomach. As soon as I'm out of the shower, if I feel cooled off, I'll be back on.

Monday, July 11, 2005

Bad recruiter gets promoted, torture and sex ain't push ups

Before I started blogging there was a story that you probably heard because people like Democracy Now! were covering it. So let's go to Democracy Now!'s May 12th story:


Army Recruiter Threatens Recruit With Arrest
And it seems that some recruiters have resorted to threatening recruits. In late April in Houston recruiter, Sgt. Thomas Kelt, threatened to have a prospect arrested if he resisted recruiting efforts. Kelt left a voice mail message on the cell phone of 20 year old Christopher Monarch ordering him to show up for an appointment -- under the false pretense that Monarch would be violating the law if he didn't. This is a recording of that voicemail obtained by Houston TV station KHOU:
"Hey Chris, this is Sgt. Kelt with the Army man. I think we got disconnected. Okay, I know you were on your cell probably and just had a bad connection or something like that. I know you didn't hang up on me. Anyway, by federal law you got an appointment with me at 2 o'clock this afternoon at Greenspoint Mall, okay? That's the Greenspoint Mall Army Recruiting Station at 2 o'clock. You fail to appear and we'll have a warrant. Okay? So give me a call back."
That was army recruiter Sgt. Thomas Kelt leaving a voicemail on a prospective recruit's voicemail. Kelt reportedly said that threatening to issue an arrest warrant was a "marketing technique." Army officials confirm the threat was made.


So you probably remember that story if you heard about it. C.I. sends me this thing on Kelt today (and says to note BuzzFlash linked to it). This is from KHOU which is the TV station mentioned in the Democracy Now! story. Mark Greenblatt is the reporter and the segment is called "Army disciplines recruiter with promotion" and you can watch it online:

The Army shut down all recruiting in the country for one day to re-educate recruiters on ethics. And as for Sgt. Kelt, officials promised "swift ... corrective action."
The 11 News Defenders discovered Kelt was transferred to a neighboring recruiting office where the army turned recruiter Kelt into a supervisor, as the station's new commander.


Today's e-mail question comes from Karen who asks if it's really important to put on performance everytime the tide comes in, if you get my meaning?

Karen, if you're engaging in sex by choice you're not required to go all Claire Danes to make the guy feel brilliant. That said, if someone baked some cookies and gave you one that wasn't that good you wouldn't start screaming, "This sucks! It's burned on the bottom! Get this crap away from me!" So there's a middle ground and then some. Since you're engaged to the guy you're talking about and go into your wedding plans, I'm guessing you're pretty sure this is what you want. You have asked yourself that right?

So if this is what you want, this guy, and you think you'll be happy with him, you need to bring it up to him. Since you don't say you've fallen asleep in the middle, I'm pretty sure you can talk about this without hurting his feelings.

From the way you describe it, your guy's confused sex with push ups. You say it's hard to talk about this. So here's an idea, next time roll over so that you're on top. Use that position to show him that he's not blasting through a spot of concrete.

He won't be thinking, "Oh God, she's been bored this whole time!" But he will get the idea that joy's to be found in other ways. Afterwards, since you say you have trouble critiquing him, just say things like, "You felt so good at that angel and when sometimes you were half way in and sometimes you were all the way in, it was so exciting."

Chances are what he'll think is "I better start doing that. Before she realizes what I've been doing wrong!" If he hasn't realized yet that you're not going "good game" after he finishes his push ups, he's off in his own world and won't realize that you hopped on top to show him what needs to be done. Hope that helps. Woah, you brought up touching. While you're on top, grab his hands and put them where you wish he'd put them. He'll get the idea.

We'll close with Democracy Now! I think it's an important story but I also think that the point made Sunday at The Third Estate Sunday Review was a good one too:

As journalism majors, we're concerned with the overreliance on "acceptable sources." They're only "accpetable" because so many have made them that. If for one week, and we're not trying to start a movement here -- we're just offering a thought, every left blog made a point to highlight Democracy Now! each day, think of how much good that could do?
We go to some blogs, especially new ones, and think, "You don't grasp the power that you have." ("Tear In Your Hand" by Tori Amos on Little Earthquakes.) We have a power now, who knows how long before the net gets regulated and completely absorbed by big media?

What if that happened? What if every blog on the left highlighted Democracy Now! all on the same day for a week? You think that would really get the word out? Think of how many people would be talking about Democracy Now!'s or how much awareness it would raise.

So here's a thing Democracy Now!, "Methods Developed by U.S. Military for Withstanding Torture Being Used Against Detainees at Guantanamo Bay" which is an interview with Jane Mayer who's written an important story in The New Yorker:

AMY GOODMAN: Now, of course, Physicians for Human Rights is outside of the government, a critic. One of the interesting aspects of your piece is the number of people within the government who are opposed to this. You write about a former F.B.I. official, who opposes coercion and what is going on there, about officials at the Washington headquarters for Naval Criminal Investigative Service being incensed. Talk about the resistance within.
JANE MAYER: Yeah. It was interesting to me, because the public has been relatively quiet on these subjects, but truthfully, the law enforcement community has been outraged by some of the allegations of coercion and abuse in interrogations, because the F.B.I., in particular, it's not just a moral or ethical issue with them, they feel that you get bad information from suspects when you coerce it or you, you know, abuse them or even torture them. You can get information out of people under those circumstances but not necessarily reliable information, and so they feel that this kind of method is just not worth it, and moreover, they also say that if you use these sort of methods, you will never be able to prosecute these cases in any U.S. court and probably not in some of the military commissions because, you know, it violates basic U.S. codes that prohibit forcing someone to testify against themselves. So, they see this as something that might nullify our ability to eventually hold these people, these very dangerous people in some cases, up for trial and convict them. And they worry that eventually it's going to wind up letting some of these people go.
The same with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which uses, like the F.B.I., a rapport-based way of interrogating people. They try to get people to talk by, you know, they use trickery. They try to, you know, feign friendliness, and they get stuff out of people that way. But they do it in a way that they can use those confessions in court. They won't be thrown out later. And so, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service truly threw a fit over the way some of the detainees in Guantanamo were being interrogated. And it went straight up the line of command inside the Navy to the General Counsel, who basically told Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that the Navy might have to withdraw from the Joint Task Force in Guantanamo if they kept doing these sort of things. And it did manage to back Rumsfeld down a bit.

So we'll go out with that.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Head on Home and helping out

We're going to open with an editorial cause it's important and it does contain some news and links to. This was posted at The Third Estate Sunday Review:

Editorial: Time to Head On Home

To quote the Beatles "I read the news today, oh boy." A quick scan of the headlines on BuzzFlash reveal what we already knew, the Bully Boy's not made us safer. We see links to stories on the feelings of the British. (Similar to Pru's feelings expressed at The Common Ills.) C.I. and Dallas go international and end up with Tony Allen-Mills and Andrew North's "Downed US Seals may have got too close to Bin Laden" (Sunday Times of London) about "the worst incident in the history of the Seals." Not a credit the Bully Boy needs right now after dragging his feet for almost four years since Sept. 11th. What was "Wanted Dead or Alive?" A provocative personal ad? It certainly wasn't anything with meaning.

Then there's Michael Smith's "UK in talks to hand Iraq role to Australia" (also Sunday Times of London):

BRITAIN is negotiating with Australia to hand over military command of southern Iraq to free up British troops for redeployment to the front line in Afghanistan.
An announcement is expected within weeks that several thousand British soldiers are to be sent to Afghanistan.
The coalition of Operation Enduring Falsehood continues to shrink.

And folks, we're just getting started. Still sticking with The Sunday Times of London, check out Hala Jaber's "Allawi: this is the start of civil war:"

IRAQ’S former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has warned that his country is facing civil war and has predicted dire consequences for Europe and America as well as the Middle East if the crisis is not resolved.
"The problem is that the Americans have no vision and no clear policy on how to go about in Iraq," said Allawi, a long-time ally of Washington.
In an interview with The Sunday Times last week as he visited Amman, the Jordanian capital, he said: "The policy should be of building national unity in Iraq. Without this we will most certainly slip into a civil war. We are practically in stage one of a civil war as we speak."

Occupations will lead to civil wars. No surprise there. To resentment, to anger and to violence.

Or how about this UPI article linked to at Iraq Coalition Casualties? The link's bad (they don't have the full web address in the link) but look at what you can read:

07/09/05 upi: Iraq war results in at least 254 amputees
Army hospitals treated 254 amputees from the Iraq war...Nearly 19,000 soldiers have been medically evacuated ...There were 2,527 evacuated with battle injuries, 5,444 with non-battle injuries and 10,758 with disease.

At The Independent, Andy McSmith's "Leaked memo shows Iraq pull-out plans" only makes the point more clear about who's still wanting to dance with Bully Boy and who's called a taxi for the ride home:

Almost two thirds of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq will have been pulled out by the end of next year, under plans drawn up in Whitehall to hand over two provinces to Iraqi control.
The plan set out in a leaked memo written by the Defence Secretary John Reid, hints that the Government is keen to cut the heavy cost of patrolling southern Iraq.
The memo calculates that the current cost of the British presence in Iraq, around £1bn a year, could be halved if the number of troops were reduced to 3,000 during 2006. The memo implies that the British would formally hand over control to the Iraqis of the four provinces currently under British control by April 2006, but that it take another eight months before what the memo calls the "UK military drawdown" has been completed - and 18 months before the money comes through.

Are we starting to get the picture yet? The public is. They want the troops home. Polls show that. It's just the media and our leaders that are too timid to address it. "Stay the course!" they chant. This "cakewalk" has now lasted over two years. Donald Rumsfeld says twelve is a possiblity. "Cakewalk?"

How do you define "success" in Iraq? That's difficult since the reasons for the invasion/occupation constantly shift. But it's not been a cakewalk, this war of choice. And we haven't made the world safer for anyone. Iraq's not safer. We're not safer. The London bombings prove the fly paper theory was crap.

Now we're supposed to let the ones who brought us this war go back to the drawing board to . . . think up new excuses? They had no planning other than (as Naomi Klein pointed out in "Baghdad Year Zero") to have a tag sale on the Iraqi assets. Even the Operation Happy Talkers seem to have a case of cat got their tongues. (Sadly, we're sure this is a momentary condition.)

If sane people can agree that the illegal occupation is a disaster for everyone involved (outside of those profitting from the war), how much are we willing to give to "stay the course?" We want the body counts to double? When do we reach the point that we say enough?

We steer to you to "Should This Marriage Be Saved?" and ask at what point do we take a realistic look at what's going on? Pig-headed is not a virtue. It's not sane. It's not logical. And it's only going to get more people killed.

The Bully Boy has sullied this nation's name. He's trashed treaties and conventions. He's had a five-year frat party at our expense. At some point, we need to roll up our sleeves and do some cleaning. And that means tossing in the garbage the notion that after two years of the "cake walk" this is anything like what was sold to us.

"Stay the course?" We say "head on home." Head on home to what America is supposed to stand for. On what America is supposed to represent. This invasion/occupation isn't what America's supposed to be about. So let's all grow up, sober up and realize that the Bully Boy's taken us on a two-year bender. Comes a time when you gotta head home. It's past time for that.

Iraq had no WMD. It was not a threat to us ("mushroom cloud," Condi?). Someone lied us into war. They took us off course. It's time to get back to what America's all about and it's time to realize that drunk slurring his words and telling us he knows another bar that's still open isn't anyone we want to get a car in with. We're ready to head on home and return to the lives we should be leading. Lives that don't involve wars built on lies. Lives that don't involve trying to impose a system on a people who didn't ask for us to be there. Lives that don't involve falling for the latest Operation Happy Talk. Lives that are reality-based. Bar's closing, let's all head on home. At least the ones who still have that option, the ones who didn't give their lives to a war of choice, one that should have been avoided.

[Note: Since these editorials tend to get reposted elsewhere, we'll note this was written by The Third Estate Sunday Review crew of Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava as well as by C.I. of The Common Ills, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Kat of Kat's Korner, Mike of Mikey Likes It! and Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man.]

posted by Third Estate Sunday Review @ Sunday, July 10, 2005

It's an important thought. My folks read it this morning and were like, "Head on home? You know what, I like that."

They were asking about how it was written and all. So I figured maybe some people wonder about that. I'm the new guy on the block coz C.I., Jim, Ava, Ty, Jess, Dona, Rebecca, Kat and Betty have been blogging for like forever. And there also all used to working together and stuff.
So like I was part of helping out last week but I was still nervous cause I think they all do such great stuff and like who am I?

I threw out a few words early on. And Ty and Jim were like, "No." And C.I. was like, "Wait a second, redo it. Say it differently." So I did and they were all like, "Hey cool!" And then I started tossing out other stuff and some of it went in and some didn't. And Ava told me after that if I feel strongly on something and gets shot down I need to go wait a second guys.

She said she used to wonder like why she was even there cause she'd be thinking up stuff and it would get shot down. And she knew that as part of a process even if it got shot down it still helped cause it made someone else think of something but she was feeling like "When are my words going in here?" Jim said you just have to elbow your way in and if something gets shot down try again or if you believe in it start saying "Wait, this matters to me because" to make sure you get heard.

And that's really how it is. Or like Kat and C.I. both go "Jackson Browne!" at 1 point and me and Ty are like, "Huh?" And they start singing "Tender Is The Night" which is a song I didn't know. But they're going "Living lives we used to lead chasing down the love we need." And that led to us coming up with the whole "Lives" sentences. Jim kept bringing up the "stay the course" thing cause everyone thinks it nonsense and Ava and C.I. were making fun of how people used that as a defense and at some point when Jim was going we needed to think of a counter argument to "stay the course," Ava and C.I. start brainstorming and come up with "Head on Home." Betty brought up the thing C.I. did where the US and Iraq were like a really bad marriage. Rebecca and Jess were like okay, we have Sunday Times of London and it's a foreign paper so it's not obvious but we just did a whole thing about going elsewhere and Dona goes "The Independent!"

And there was this big argument about "No, it's not hurting everyone!" by Dona. So we got the thing about people who are getting rich off the war. It's just this free for all with everyone talking at once and you have to jump on in. Everybody's throwing stuff out and in the end it's got a little bit of all of us in it. Jim and Dona are real big on declarative sentences and Jess and C.I. are real big on questions. And about the only time it quietens down is when Kat speaks because when she tosses out something it's a really good point or she's saying, "You've lost me" and everyone knows they need to figure out where the problem is because if she's not following no one is. Betty found the UPI thing and wanted it in but the link doesn't work and Dallas, who's a community member of The Common Ills is searching and can't find it and we're all trying by hitting newspapers in this country and yahoo and nothing. Betty thinks it's important because people are losing limbs and Jim goes, "You know what, we don't need the link. We'll just copy and paste the summary." And that's good because we were getting bogged down there and there were problems with the program we use and posts getting lost and the sun was out (here at least) so everyone was tired and we needed to move on.

So like the whole thing is the work of everyone. Ava and C.I. are really great about coming up with phrases. They came up with Operation Enduring Falsehood the week before in their TV review. And Head on Home was the one this morning. And then Rebecca will use work on the stuff around that to make sure the point is really "sold." It's really interesting to just listen and all but you have to jump in there like Jim says.

Dona kept checking throughout the all nighter with me going, "Are you sure you're not going to hear about this tomorrow?" I told my folks about that and they laughed. Not to be laughing at Dona but I was here talking to the gang on the phone and online. I'm 19 and haven't had a curfew since I was 16 except from a coach. But my folks were like even if I was underage, who could complain when I was in the house and working on something I believed in?

I slept until three and then got up cause I could smell the dinner my mom was making (pot roast). Dad was hoping to clean the garage this weekend but time ran away from him. I had a headache and wasn't in the mood to grab the weights so I went on out to the garage and moved all the junk and he came out at the end and was like I didn't have to do that and he would have helped. But I did need to get the body moving and all to get rid of my headache. And it was no skin off my back to jump in and do something without being asked. That comes from my oldest bro who would always tell me that our middle bro wasted too much time trying to get out of doing something and could get a lot more done if he'd just do something if he was asked instead of griping all the time and that it would be even better if you didn't wait to be asked. And if you're living somewhere you really should know what needs to be done. I mean, you walk in the kitchen and toss something in the trash, you can tell it needs emptying so you don't need someone to ask about that. Or like tonight where Ma worked forever on dinner and all, she doesn't need to go, "Can someone help with the dishes?" Me and my sister just start in on them because there's no reason to act like this is Friday's or something and expect someone to come along and bus our table, you know?

That's probably something you learn if you have a big family because if everybody doesn't pitch in everything comes to a standstill. And it also helps to be at the end of the line because you get to watch the mistakes your brothers and sisters make and learn from them so you make your own mistakes and not the ones they've already made. Dad jokes that they've already been worn down but they've always been pretty cool.

And why am I talking about all this? Cause Marcy e-mailed that her parents are always on her case about helping out. She said she's sick of hearing it. So I say don't wait to be asked. And since I don't have kids, I asked Dad about it and he said nobody like to repeat themselves and when he was always having to do it with my older brother and sister he finally sat them down and said "If you do it the first time, you don't have to hear me on it again." Which is probably what my oldest bro added to with his, "Don't wait to be asked."

So I hope that helps Marcy some.