Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Judith Miller departs New York Times

Stephen Brook
Thursday November 10, 2005

MediaGuardian.co.uk

Judith Miller, the New York Times journalist who went to jail to protect a source, has left the paper with an undisclosed severance package after weeks of controversy.
In a letter to the editor published in the paper, Miller - who was criticised for her role in a Bush administration intelligence leak scandal - said she had resigned because she had become the news herself.

``I am honored to have been part of this extraordinary newspaper and proud of my accomplishments here - a Pulitzer, a DuPont, an Emmy and other awards - but sad to leave my professional home,`` wrote Miller, who spent 28 years at the New York Times.

``But mainly I have chosen to resign because over the last few months, I have become the news, something a New York Times reporter never wants to be.

``Even before I went to jail, I had become a lightning rod for public fury over the intelligence failures that helped lead our country to war.``

Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to reveal her source for the information that Valerie Plame, the wife of a government critic, was a CIA agent. She was released after she admitted her source was the vice-president chief of staff, Lewis ``Scooter`` Libby, who has been charged over the incident.

Miller was also criticised for reporting in the build-up to the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, a false claim that boosted the case for war.

The New York Times executive editor, Bill Keller, who had criticised her in a staff memo, told staff he did not believe she had an improper relationship with Mr Libby but that he was troubled by an incident where she might have misled her bureau chief.

The New York Times, which had refused to publish Miller`s letter as an opinion page column, said she would have been unable to remain reporting for the paper due to her profile.

``We are grateful to Judy for her significant personal sacrifice to defend an important journalistic principle,`` said Arthur Sulzberger Jr, publisher of the New York Times, in Wednesday`s statement. ``I respect her decision to retire from the Times and wish her well.``

Miller, 57, said in an interview with the paper that she was a ``free woman,`` from the ``convent of the New York Times, a convent with its own theology and its own catechism. Referring to her role in reporting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Miller said the solution to the problems generated by reporters relying on intelligence that turned out to be faulty was ``more reporting``.

``The answer to bad information is more reporting. I regret that I was not permitted to pursue answers. The right of reply and the obligation to correct inaccuracies are also the mark of a free and responsible press.``

Miller spent more than 85 days in jail, more than twice as long as any other American journalist has spent incarcerated on similar charges.

``Though some colleagues disagreed with my decision to testify, for me to have stayed in jail after achieving my conditions would have seemed self-aggrandizing martyrdom or worse, a deliberate effort to obstruct the prosecutor`s inquiry into serious crimes.``

The veteran reporter, who said she had received multiple job offers since her resignation, will post replies to criticism of her conduct on her website, JudithMiller.org.

``I also leave knowing that the Times will continue the tradition of excellence that has made it indispensable to its readers, a standard for journalists, and a bulwark of democracy,`` she wrote.

re: arjun_m

Arjun, thanks for the replies.

I guess, the method of getting them out might be a case of semantics as long as we get them out. I hope that you are right; these people have caused too damage to the United States and to the nation, where I onced lived and still love. Americans are some of the kindest and most generous people, I have met and I honestly think that they deserve better this crew.

Ciao

Re: # 97

Feroz...
``I honestly think that they deserve better this crew.``

Clichés are in fact verities, and this one is no exception: ``People get the government they deserve.``

Here’s a short paragraph from an essay posted on AlterNet today. You can get the entire article at this URL:

http://www.alternet.org/story/27639/

“Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector for Iraq`s weapons programs, recently spoke in a public forum about the U.S. crimes done to Iraq: ``This is about a failure of not only the Bush Administration but of the United States of America, and we have to look in the mirror and recognize that, well, all the Bush Administration did is take advantage of a systemic failure on the part of the United States as a whole…”

Amen, Brother Scott.

Q: Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the dumbest of them all?

A: Guess.

President Bush can control the damage to his presidency caused by the indictment of Scooter Libby if he takes prompt action. I am reading Joe Wilson`s book, The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that led to War and Betrayed my Wife`s CIA Identity. The book was published in 2004 and is so a little outdated considering the unraveling of the grand jury investigation. In it, he observed a couple of times that President Bush is more loyal to his aides than they are to him. Now is the time for him to dump the `expendable trash` to clean up his White House. First and foremost, he should admit to the American people that mistakes were made by his administration. If he honestly squares up with the American public, he can at least try to boost his sagging popularity. It will be difficult for him to turn the corner if he doesn`t come out clean with the people.

The continuing investigation of Karl Rove may open up a Pandora`s box. If the investigation was allowed to move up a notch higher, it`s anybody`s guess where it would stop.

Mohammad Gill

#93 by ferozk on October 31, 2005 7:05am PT


One question; what is the sentiment in the nation, outside the Evengelical base, on over turning Roe v. Wade (1973)?


A wide majority of the public supports abortion rights..The bible-thumpers are in a minority...That`s why Clinton can openly declare support for abortion rights to be a litmus test but Dubya can`t do the opposite.

Now Dubya has gone and nominated Sam Alito...so that makes it Scalia,Thomas and Alito against Roe(if Alito gets confirmed)..

Even if Roe gets overturned, the matter then goes to the states..and a majority of states will make abortion legal...So let`s hope the left doesn`t get caught up in this court fight and fall for Dubya`s bait..


Let me something - if Rove is implicated and indicted, will the trail lead to Chenny and if it reaches Chenny, will it also rope in Bush? Is there a will to push this investigation to the limit and see, whose fingerprints can be identified?


See my post below...Patrick ``Bulldog`` Fitzgerald won`t stop until he gets to the bottom of this..He`s known for that from what i`ve read.. I, for one, couldn`t care less what charge he uses to nail these lying sacks of shit...If they can get Capone for not paying his taxes...

If this goes upto Cheney, he`ll resign...Cheney is expendable...He`s poor health means he won`t run for president and I don`t think he wants to either...If Rice doesn`t want to run for pres/VP in 08, she might accept the VP job to replace Cheney.

I know this for a fact...Mark Warner, the dem governer of Virginia, is planning a run for president..He`s already soliciting contributions, but under the radar..

PROSECUTOR PLANS ON CALLING CHENEY AS WITNESS IN OPEN COURT; EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FIGHT LOOMS

**Exclusive**

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is planning to call Vice President Dick Cheney as a witness in the trial of Lewis Libby, the DRUDGE REPORT has leaned.

But the high stakes move could result in an executive privilege showdown between the White House and Fitzgerald, a top government source said Sunday.

``If Mr. Fitzgerald is going to demand a public recounting of conversations between the vice president, or even the president, and his staff, on matters he, himself, has acknowledged are `classified,` executive privilege will obviously be invoked.``

Fitzgerald has made it clear to lawyers involved in the case that he prefers Cheney appear as a witness in open court.

``Mr. Fitzgerald is starting from the position that this should not be done on remote or videotape,`` the well-placed source said.

Fitzgerald and Libby`s attorney Joseph Tate discussed possible plea options before the indictment was issued last week, TIME magazine reports in new editions. But the deal was scotched because the prosecutor insisted that Libby do some ``serious`` jail time.

Developing...

An excerpt from an article in the Nov. 1 Asia Times:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GK01Aa02.html

Smoking guns and red herrings
By Elizabeth de la Vega

The Grand Jury supervised by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has returned an indictment charging Vice President Dick Cheney`s top aide and reputed ``alter-ego``, I Lewis ``Scooter`` Libby, with perjury, obstruction of justice and false statements to a grand jury.

The charges relate to leaking the name of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Plame.

But this indictment does not end the story; rather, a close reading suggests that these charges are most likely merely a chapter in a long and tragic story. Here, from a former federal prosecutor, are thoughts about four things we should expect, six things we shouldn`t and one question we should all be asking.

ferozk:

There`s plenty of blood in the water and the media sharks are all over it. Today`s Meet the Press with Tim Russert had ZERO white house officials. I`m sure he tried to get the chief of staff Andy Card or Dan Bartlet or some other apologist but my feeling is they are crapping bricks and not very inclined to meeting the press right now. The spin cycle will beging next week. It`s too early to hunker down till thanksgiving/christmas.

About Dubya`s politics: The first thing a troubled president would do is run to his base. The bible thumpers in Dubya`s ``base`` don`t care about the CIA leak or the 2K dead soldiers more than their # 1 issue: abortion. My sense is that Dubya will appoint someone who`ll make them really really happy...another scalia or thomas..or worse..

The most interesting aspect of yesterday`s indictment is that Rove hasn`t been cleared. This can only get interesting over the next few months.

Re: # 91

Thanks, Arjun. Your post really helped. I think that you assessment on the ``Bible Thumpers`` is accurate and the next SC nominee, will cater to their pet issue - abortion. I guess, that will be bad for the rest of the nation.

One question; what is the sentiment in the nation, outside the Evengelical base, on over turning Roe v. Wade (1973)?

Let me something - if Rove is implicated and indicted, will the trail lead to Chenny and if it reaches Chenny, will it also rope in Bush? Is there a will to push this investigation to the limit and see, whose fingerprints can be identified?

Ciao

No one, of course, can say just how all this will play out - whether Libby will be convicted, whether there will be other indictments, or whether we`ll see the thing expand to include the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I, for one, hope that the entire Iraq issue becomes central.

Following is an excerpt from an article in The Asia Times. The URL will take you to the full article.

Middle East Oct 28, 2005

Where chaos is king By Mark LeVine

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ28Ak02.html

``Even with the blowback from the chaos Bush has unleashed now creeping towards Karl Rove`s office in the White House and beginning to encircle Vice President Dick Cheney, we need to consider what other means this administration might have used to achieve three of its most important goals in Iraq:

Its first goal has long been to retain a (much reduced) military presence in that country for the foreseeable future. The administration is on record as saying that it will leave if asked to do so; but the continuing chaos and conflict, largely sparked by the continued presence of US troops, ensure that the desperately weak government in Baghdad`s Green Zone, which is unlikely to survive without American protection, won`t make such a request.

Its second goal is to ensure a predominant role for US companies in the development, production and sale of the country`s vast reservoirs of oil. Indeed, the few documents made public from the Cheney Energy Task Force revealed that concern over losing Iraq to European oil companies, combined with China`s insatiable thirst for petroleum and fears that it would increasingly encroach on America`s sphere of economic dominance, were important reasons for the war.

If the world really has entered an era of zero-sum competition over its remaining oil supplies, Iraq is a prize worth shedding a lot of blood to secure - and chaos, whatever the ensuing pain, a strategy potentially worth pursuing.

The administration`s final goal has been to continue the wholesale, disastrous privatization of Iraq`s economy - something that, as the World Bank warned, was unlikely to be accepted by the people of any Middle Eastern country who possessed the wherewithal to resist.

It is obviously harder for people to resist when their lives have been thrown into chaos. In fact, most of the Middle East has avoided succumbing to American pressures to adopt the kind of large-scale, structural-adjustment reforms that have spread increased poverty and inequality across the global south. As key members of the Bush administration saw the matter, Iraq could do for neo-liberalism in the Middle East what Chile did for it in Latin America.

The vast majority of Iraqis are, of course, opposed to each of these goals. Yet the constitution on which they just voted - being essentially an American-brokered document - carefully avoided addressing any of these concerns. It is hard to imagine that such an end would have been possible in a more peaceful environment where Iraqis had the public space and time to debate these important issues, particularly when polling shows that upwards of 80% of them are opposed to the presence of US troops and to the policies they are enforcing.

Perhaps Juan Cole has best summarized how and why chaos has become a defining dynamic in Iraq: ``Iraq was,`` he said recently, ``like a treasure in a strongbox ... The obvious thing to do was to take a crowbar and strike off the strongbox lock.`` ``

Scooter`s gone...Next stop: Rove..

Re: # 88

Arjun, Scooter is gone; but not convicted. Rove`s indictment is still detabateable and the press in Washington (and the United States) refuses to smell the blood and follow up the trail, to where it is leading. Democrats are still confused and still sounding and pretending to be the better halves of the Republicans.

I have been out of the mainstream of the Republican politics for nearly six years now, but my instincts tell me that if the Bush ship of state is doomed, it will be doomed, when the right wing of the party scuttles it itself. The Miers nomination and the rabid conservative attack on Bush`s choice, might be the harbringer of this eventuality. There is an open revolt in the GOP and even so, I am certain if the democrats can gain any political traction out of the GOP`s miseries.

You are placed in a better vantage point than I to judge the mood on the street, being in the United States, but my impression is that there is a general sense of disillusionment of both the political parties in the popular perception. Since 2004 elections, the democrats have not done anything to seperate themselves from the GOP`s policies. Rove`s indictment might mean his resignation, but the damage will limit itself to only that possibility.

In any case, the mid-term elections are only a year away and it will be interesting to see if the Democrats can wrest the Congress from the Republicans. Bush is already a lame duck president, mostly due to his administration`s fumbling of the response to Katrina and Wilma. Again, I am not in the United States so I really do not know what the ``feel`` is, but from what I am reading, the American public response is still lethargic to the crisis.

Ciao

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Removed ===

In anticipation of the increasing possibility of indictment(s), Republicans are planning the following strategies to control the aftermath, accordng to Yahoo!News. Nobody knows what is coming but planning for the worst is not a bad idea. Another setback for the President is Harriet`s withdrawl from nomination from the Supreme Court.

• Any indicted White House officials would immediately step down, and Bush would quickly name their successors. If Rove is indicted, more than one person might take over his many responsibilities.

• The president and other White House officials would limit their public comments on the case. Outside interest groups and allies would do most of the talking.

• Whenever possible, Bush and other administration officials would try to change the subject. Among the issues the president plans to put atop his new agenda are spending restraint, tax changes and immigration. In addition, Bush`s foreign policy advisors have discussed launching a more visible presidential effort to prod Israel and the Palestinians toward peace, one official said.

• The White House would try to insulate Bush from the scandal allegations. Officials would argue that the president has not been accused of any direct involvement in the leaking of information in the CIA case or subsequent efforts to minimize the political damage. Although it is not yet clear who would coordinate the defense, several advisors said they expected Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman would be heavily involved. One official said former Cheney aide Mary Matalin was another likely participant. Neither Mehlman nor Matalin could be reached for comment.

Mohammad Gill

Antiwar.com blog

Lotsa interesting information.

Also from today`s Reuters...

Leak grand jury meets prosecutor
Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:04 AM ET

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative`s identity met on Wednesday with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald amid signs the prosecutor was preparing to seek criminal charges.

Fitzgerald, who have interviewed many senior White House figures as he seeks the source of the leak, declined comment as they began the grand jury session at about 9 a.m.

Any charges that are brought by the grand jury could be sealed, preventing a public announcement by the court or the prosecutor until possibly on Thursday or Friday, when the grand jury is scheduled to expire.

The secret grand jury session followed a last-minute flurry of interviews by investigators with CIA operative Valerie Plame`s neighbors and a former colleague of top White House adviser Karl Rove.

Plame`s identity was leaked after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of twisting prewar intelligence on Iraq.

White House officials were anxiously awaiting the outcome of the leak case since any indicted officials were expected to resign immediately. If indictments are brought, Bush was likely to make a public statement to try to reassure Americans that he is committed to honesty and integrity in government.

The White House has refused to answer questions about Vice President Dick Cheney`s role in the case.

According to a New York Times report, Cheney`s chief of staff, Lewis Libby, learned about Plame in a conversation with Cheney on June 12, 2003, weeks before her identity became public in a newspaper column by Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.

Libby`s notes indicate Cheney got his information about Plame from then-CIA Director George Tenet, according to the Times. The White House would neither confirm nor deny the account.

On Wednesday, both Rove and Libby were at the White House senior staff meeting in the morning as usual, a senior official said.

Fitzgerald`s investigation has centered on Libby and Rove, President George W. Bush`s top political adviser. Other aides may also be charged, lawyers said.

Lawyers involved in the case said it could be difficult for Fitzgerald to charge administration officials with knowingly revealing Plame`s identity.

They said Fitzgerald appeared more likely to seek charges for easier-to-prove crimes such as making false statements, obstruction of justice and disclosing classified information.

But there were 11th-hour signs that Fitzgerald could still bring charges for the leak itself.

FBI agents on Monday night questioned some of Plame`s neighbors about whether they knew about her CIA work before her identity was leaked to the press. The interviews could help Fitzgerald show that Plame`s status had been a closely-guarded secret.


© Reuters 2005. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

More of today`s news....please go to the URL for the entire report. mirmir

Preparing for a Bumpy Ride
By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real
Posted on October 26, 2005, Printed on October 26, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/27266/
If Bette Davis were still with us, she`d have a piece of advice for the American public: ``Better buckle up. It`s going to be a bumpy ride.``

Yes, all hell is about to break loose. As I said in an early column, I`ve been here before and I can tell you, it ain`t gonna be pretty. The process that is about to begin is a bit like the whole body politic getting a colonic. I remember how it left the nation weak and disoriented for a decade or more. I am, of course, speaking of Watergate -- different cast of characters, same crimes.

In the Watergate era we still had people in Congress, from both parties, with the integrity and backbone to pursue the matter on their own. But those folks have been replaced by the political equivalent of street gang members who make their judgments based on whether the other guy is wearing red or blue.

The following extract about the status of the CIA probe is from today`s ``The New York Times.``

Mohammad Gill

---

October 26, 2005
Leak Counsel Is Said to Press on Rove`s Role
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
and ANNE E. KORNBLUT
WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 - With the clock running out on his investigation, the special counsel in the leak case continued to seek information on Tuesday about Karl Rove`s discussions with reporters in the days before a C.I.A. officer`s identity was made public, lawyers and others involved in the investigation said.

Three days before the grand jury in the case expires and with the White House in a state of high anxiety, the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, appeared still to be trying to determine whether Mr. Rove had been fully forthcoming about his contacts with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist, in July 2003, they said.

Mr. Fitzgerald, who is the United States attorney in Chicago, spent the day in Washington and summoned his team, including his chief F.B.I. investigator, Jack Eckenrode, for what appeared to be a final round of discussions about how to proceed.

Lawyers involved in the case have said Mr. Rove, President Bush`s senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney`s chief of staff, face the possibility of indictment on perjury or other charges related to covering up their actions.

The flurry of last minute activity had White House officials anticipating an announcement as soon as Wednesday about whether the prosecutor would seek indictments. Indictments of Mr. Libby or Mr. Rove or both would leave Mr. Bush a political crisis with the potential to reshape the remainder of his second term. It is not clear whether anyone else might be charged in the case, which centers on what role administration officials played in the disclosure of a covert C.I.A. officer`s identity, first in Mr. Novak`s column on July 14, 2003.

Mr. Fitzgerald`s spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

The investigation was set off by questions about whether administration officials had leaked the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, in response to criticism by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Mr. Wilson, a former diplomat, said in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that the White House had ``twisted`` the intelligence it used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Mr. Wilson traveled to Africa on a mission sponsored by the C.I.A. in 2002 to look into reports that Iraq had acquired nuclear material in Niger.

In a sign that the prosecutor is continuing to build a case that Ms. Wilson`s covert status was ended when she was named in Mr. Novak`s column, F.B.I. agents questioned neighbors of the Wilsons in northwest Washington in the last few days, seeking to determine whether it was commonly known that she was a C.I.A. officer, a person involved in the case said. Ms. Wilson was identified in Mr. Novak`s column by her maiden name, Valerie Plame.

White House officials did not respond to questions about a report on Tuesday in The New York Times that Mr. Libby had first learned of the C.I.A. officer from Mr. Cheney several weeks before Mr. Novak`s column. On a day when the mood at the White House was described by one friend of the president as grim, Mr. Bush used his public appearances on Tuesday to show himself as focused on the nation`s business, most notably Iraq, and undeterred by what he has characterized as ``background noise.``

Twenty-two months after beginning his investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has assembled testimony from dozens of witnesses, secured the cooperation of journalists in helping to piece together what happened and delved deep into the workings of an administration that has always sought to keep its internal deliberations and its political tactics out of public view.

While not commenting on the report about Mr. Libby`s conversation with Mr. Cheney, the White House took issue with suggestions that Mr. Cheney had not been truthful several months later in a television interview when he said he did not know Mr. Wilson and did not know who had sent him on his mission.

Asked whether Mr. Cheney always told the truth to the American people, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, answered, ``Yes.``

At issue were remarks by Mr. Cheney in an appearance on NBC`s ``Meet the Press`` on Sept. 14, 2003. In response to a question about Mr. Wilson, Mr. Cheney said: ``I don`t know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when I came back.``

Mr. Cheney later added, ``I don`t know Joe Wilson,`` and said he had ``no idea who hired him.``

The Times report said Mr. Libby had taken notes of a conversation he had with Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, after Mr. Cheney had spoken to George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, about newspaper articles quoting an anonymous former diplomat taking issue with the administration`s use of intelligence about Iraq`s effort to acquire nuclear material in Niger.

The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney had learned the name of Mr. Wilson`s wife or her covert status, lawyers involved in the case said. But they do show that Mr. Cheney knew and told Mr. Libby that Mr. Wilson`s wife was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and may have helped arrange her husband`s trip, they said.

Republicans sympathetic to Mr. Cheney said there was no inconsistency between what the vice president is reported to have told Mr. Libby and what Mr. Cheney said on ``Meet the Press.`` They said there was nothing in the reported conversation to suggest that the vice president knew Mr. Wilson or knew who had sent him to Africa..............

warmongering beeyatches get what`s coming for them...

From GoP apologist and very gay Matt Drudge

``We have double sourced that the vice president`s chief of staff has been indicted,`` a reporter for ABCNEWS claimed to White House communications director Nicolle Wallace this afternoon... MORE...

ABCNEWS TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF `INDICTMENT`

michael mann is ideal (imo) given he made Insider, to film this thing.

Apropos of Arjun`s post #77, hereunder is a brief biographical description of Michael Ledeen. He is for regime change in the whole of Arab (Muslim) Middle East. Next in line seem to be Syria and Iran. The propaganda machinery against Syria is already in the top gear.

Mohammad Gill

---

Michael Ledeen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Michael Ledeen (born August 1, 1941) is an expert on U.S. foreign policy and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His political ideas, informed by his background in history and philosophy, have influenced or inspired the Bush administration. Ledeen is a contributing editor to the National Review and the Jewish World Review, and a resident scholar (Freedom Scholar) at the American Enterprise Institute. Ledeen was a founding member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and he continues to serve on the JINSA Board of Advisors. Leeden is also considered by many to be a U.S. neoconservative.

Ledeen holds a PhD from the University of Wisconsin, where he specialized in the comparative history of German and Italian fascism. One of Ledeen`s principal mentors was the German-born historian George Mosse. Another major influence on Ledeen was the Italian historian Renzo De Felice. Ledeen`s political ideas are said to have influenced or inspired the Bush administration.

Ledeen was a major figure in the biggest foreign policy scandal of the Ronald Reagan administration. As a secret agent of National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, Ledeen vouched for Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, and along with Oliver North, met with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and officers of Mossad and the CIA to arrange the illegal weapons-for-hostages deal with Iran that would become known as the Iran-Contra scandal.1

He was also a vocal proponent of the theory that the Bulgarian Secret Service was behind the plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II. The theory was later rejected by the Italian Courts. In early 2005 it was suggested that new evidence, in the form of East German Stasi documents, show that it was the Bulgarians in concert with the KGB and Stasi who were behind the plot. The former head of the Stasi, Marcus Wolf, and the Berlin office overseeing the Stasi archive, claim that the documents in question were sent to Italy in 1995 and do not implicate anyone in the attack on the Pope. [1]

Regarding regime change in the Middle East, in 2002 Ledeen criticized the views of former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, writing:

He fears that if we attack Iraq ``I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror.`` One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists. That`s our mission in the war against terror.2

Ledeen`s phrase, ``faster, please`` has become a signature meme in Ledeen`s writings and is often referenced by neoconservative writers advocating a more forceful and broader war on terror.

In September 2002, Ledeen`s book, The War Against the Terror Masters (ISBN: 031230644X) was published.

Earlier in his career, Ledeen authored Universal Fascism: The Theory and Practice of the Fascist International, 1928-1936, published in 1972 and now out of print. The book critiqued European fascism, particularly Italian fascism; Ledeen attempted to differentiate between the an ideal, revolutionary ``fascist movement,`` which he views in a positive light, and the failed, under-reaching ``fascist regime.``

In 2005, Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism operations at the CIA and the intelligence director at the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan, when asked by Ian Masters if Ledeen was the source of the forged memo that claimed that Iraq had sought to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger replied ``you`d be very close.``[2]

In an interview on July 26, 2005, Cannistraro`s business partner and columnist for the American Conservative magazine, former CIA counter terrorism officer Philip Giraldi, confirmed to Scott Horton that the forgeries were produced by ``a couple of former CIA officers who are familiar with that part of the world who are associated with a certain well-known neoconservative who has close connections with Italy.`` When Horton guessed whether that was Ledeen, Giraldi confirmed it and added that the ex-CIA officers, ``also had some equity interests, shall we say, with the operation. A lot of these people are in consulting positions, and they get various, shall we say, emoluments in overseas accounts, and that kind of thing.``[3]

Ledeen is also a member of Benador Associates [4] a combination ``public relations agency``, speaker`s bureau and blog with a long roster of neo-conservative clients.

[edit]
References
[5] FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS Volume I: ``Investigations and Prosecution``, Lawrence E. Walsh, Independent Counsel, 4 August 4 1993, Washington, D.C.
[6] Michael Ledeen, ``Scowcroft Strikes Out,`` National Review, 6 August 2002.
[7] John Laughland, ``Flirting with Fascism,`` The American Conservative, 30 June 2003.
[edit]

#76 by ferozk on October 25, 2005 7:15am PT

I`ll boil down the latest working theory on the left-leaning blogospheres and antiwar.com(which is antiwar, not leftleaning): Valeria Plame was somehow involved in exposing Michael Ledeen and Co. as the producers of the fake Niger-Yellowcake documents and her outing actually targeted her and not her husband(if both were the targets, she was the primary target).

Friends...

Josh Kalven notes the falsehoods (lies) propagated by members (or friends) of the Bush administration. He then examines each one of the claims in turn in some detail. This article ought to help clear up a lot of our confusion and doubts. For the entire article, please go here:

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/27281/

Josh Kalven is a member of the Research Department at Media Matters for America

The Top Nine Plamegate Lies
By Josh Kalven, Media Matters for America. Posted October 25, 2005.

Falsehood: It is legally significant whether the leakers disclosed Plame`s name in their conversations with reporters

Falsehood: Wilson said that Cheney sent him to Niger

Falsehood: Plame suggested Wilson for the trip to Niger

Falsehood: Wilson was not qualified to investigate the Niger claims}

Falsehood: Plame`s CIA employment was widely known

Falsehood: Fitzgerald must prove that Plame`s covert status was leaked

Falsehood: Fitzgerald`s investigation was originally limited to possible violation of 1982 law

Falsehood: Leak investigation is the result of partisan motivations

Falsehood: Leaks go on all the time in Washington

The CIA leak story is still unraveling. The following report is latest in this respect.

Mohammad Gill

---

Report: Cheney Cited as Source in CIA Leak 4 minutes ago

Notes in the hand of a federal prosecutor suggest the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney first heard of the covert CIA officer central to a leak investigation from Cheney himself, The New York Times reported.

The newspaper said notes of a previously undisclosed June 12, 2003, conversation between I. Lewis Libby and Cheney appear to differ from Libby`s grand jury testimony that he first heard of Valerie Plame from journalists.

The newspaper identified its sources in the story in Tuesday`s editions only as lawyers who are involved in the case.

Libby has emerged at the center of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald`s criminal investigation in recent weeks because of the Cheney aide`s conversations about Plame with Times reporter Judith Miller.

Miller said Libby spoke to her about Plame and her husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, on three occasions — although not necessarily by name and without indicating he knew she was undercover.

Libby`s notes show that Cheney knew Plame worked at the CIA more than a month before her identity was publicly exposed by columnist Robert Novak.

At the time of the Cheney-Libby conversation, Wilson had been referred to — but not by name — in the Times and on the morning of June 12, 2003 on the front page of The Washington Post.

The Times reported that Libby`s notes indicate Cheney got his information about Wilson from then-CIA Director George Tenet, but said there was no indication he knew her name.

The notes also contain no suggestion that Cheney or Libby knew at the time of their conversation of Plame`s undercover status or that her identity was classified, the paper said.

Disclosing the identify of a covert CIA agent can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent is classified as working undercover.

The Times quoted lawyers involved in the case as saying they had no indication Fitzgerald was considering charging Cheney with a crime.

But the paper said any efforts by Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Cheney might be viewed by a prosecutor as attempt to impede the inquiry, which could be a crime.

According to a former intelligence official close to Tenet, the former CIA chief has not been in touch with Fitzgerald`s staff for more than 15 months and was not asked to testify before the grand jury even though he was interviewed by Fitzgerald and his staff.

The official told the Times that Tenet declined to comment on the investigation.

Libby`s lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not return phone calls and e-mail to his office. The White House also did not return calls.

Fitzgerald is expected to decide this week whether to seek criminal indictments in the case. Lawyers involved in the case have said Libby and Karl Rove, President Bush`s senior adviser, both face the possibility of indictment.

Fitzgerald questioned Cheney under oath more than a year ago, but it is not known what the vice president told the prosecutor.

Cheney has said little in public about what he knew. In September 2003, he told NBC he did not know Wilson or who sent him on a trip to Niger in 2002 to check into intelligence — some of it later deemed unreliable — that Iraq may have been seeking to buy uranium there.

``I don`t know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back,`` Cheney said at the time. ``... I don`t know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn`t judge him. I have no idea who hired him.``

The Cheney-Libby conversation occurred the same day that The Washington Post published a front-page story about the CIA sending a retired diplomat to Africa, where he was unable to corroborate intelligence that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger. The diplomat was Wilson.

A year after Wilson`s trip, President Bush cited British intelligence in his State of the Union address as suggesting that Iraq was pursuing uranium in Africa.

Now, aren`t we all excited here?

Re#69 by ntsyed

NTSyed sahib,

Before beginning, let me say that I am sorry if my “sharp” words have hurt you (I believe you have the skin thickness of a rhino, but one never knows) – my intention was (and has always been, both in your case and in others) to shake people up (and apparently only sharp words have those effects) – people in general, but somehow the need always ends up appearing stronger on the Pakistani side (including the “liberal” Pakistanis) – because most of my Pakistani friends (if I may use the term) appear to be in some kind of stupor. I have no clue what the stupor results from – conditioning or blind devotion to what many think as their “cause”, or plain irrational fear! It does not matter – the end results appear to be the same.

Having said all that – as far as my positions are concerned, they remain absolutely un-budged – and if I had used less “provocative” words – the positions would still be the same – please recognize that fact!

Do you have ANY idea of how ridiculous you sound!!!

Let me give you just ONE namoona.

You try to give the impression that you care about the “dying children” of Iraq who, according to you, would be alive today – except for those darn sanctions!

If that were the case – if that were REALLY the case – and you REALLY cared about them – won’t you kneel down and pray to God that those sanctions be lifted – and thank God from heart were that to happen.

NTSyed sahib, are there any sanctions in place now?

And what was the only act that finally caused them to be lifted?

Don’t look away now, NTSyed sahib!

IT WAS THE INVASION!

Yes sir, sans the invasion, Saddam would still be in place, those sanctions would still be in place and those children would still be dying!

And that would have been just fine with you!?

You sir, are being highly hypocritical on this issue – you don’t care a fig for those children – except to USE them for making your own political point!

Therefore NTSyed sahib, with all respect due to your (chronological) age – this is my conclusion –

Dear sir, you are highly inconsistent – but your blind prejudice against non-muslims prevents you from seeing your own bias!

What other conclusion CAN one draw?

None other – because you were plumb caught red-handed – and (figuratively speaking) with your pants down – and it doesn’t look pretty!

Sincerely,
Beej.

Re: # 71

Beej, please don`t try to steal the self-flattering skills away from women...what you consider as your ``sharp`` words are nothing but reflection of your BHOLA-pun....innocense. I hope I`m making a mistake by giving you a benefit of doubt here.

I`m sorry, I really am, but your blind admiration of Dubya is highly reminiscent of Monica Lewinsky`s gushing about Bill ``The Woody`` Clinton when she was describing the stain on her infamous blue dress.

Please find some nourishing sabji in the supermarket next time to improve your common sense and then analytical skills. Then we`ll talk about who was Saddam, where he came from, how he obtained power, why he fought with Iran, who helped him in that war, why he then invaded kuwait, and who imposed the sanctions on Iraq instead of taking him out in other fashions, who died as a result and why and how etc etc etc.

If we set out to do it now, then I`m afraid your sabji may not remain edible by the time we finish.

God I love meat!

Ciao. I`m gonna vanish again for a while now.

:-)~~

Gill Sahib, I saw your Fo-two (mug shot) in your profile, and you resemble Colonel Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Keeping that in perspective, now I understand the meaning behind the title “Chickens coming home to roost”.

I am totally impressed.

#66 by ferozk on October 24, 2005 8:08am PT

For more info on which laws might be used, read today`s Justin Raimondo column

Let Justice Be Done

There are plenty of violations of federal law to be found around the Niger
uranium forgeries, and I expect Fitzgerald has found most if not all of them by
now. When the president made his 2003
State of the Union address, and referred to Iraq`s efforts to procure
uranium in ``an African country,`` the source of his allegation was a cache of
documents that had been turned over to the American embassy in Rome under mysterious
circumstances. Less than a month after the president`s speech, these documents
were proved
to be fakes, crude forgeries that could have been debunked by an amateur
with a few hours to spend on Google.

Whoever forged these documents and introduced them into the American
intelligence stream is guilty of violating this law:

``Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States,
knowingly and willfully– (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious,
or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false
writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.``

And this
law:

``If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the
United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any
manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect
the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.``

Re: # 67

Arjun, thanks for the links. The article, was really interesting and informative. I will periodically visit that site, as it seems to be a good resource of information.

I still stand by my earlier statements and add that the lawyers will sculpt lucanas in the law and wriggle their clients out, as is the norm of political trials in the United States. The players in this drama are more subtle and sophisticated than most of us credit them and besides, there is alway another story waiting in the shadows to push this story away from the limelight. Another bomb blast in Iraq and a new progress report card on the economy released at the right time, with the wrong message can play wonders with the public` attention span and its lack thereof.

All, I fear and foresee is nothing more than some horse trading taking place Texas style at a ranch in Wyoming! :)

Ciao

#42 by ntsyed on October 23, 2005 2:52pm PT


And if there were Muslims aboard those planes, who is to counter the argument that they were the culprits?


Someone with a stick strong enough to stop the US from invading Afghanistan and killing the terrorists?

What? No such entity exists? Tough luck....

Richard A. Clarke has a new book (billed as fiction) called “The Scorpion’s Gate” to go along with his first offering “Against All Enemies.” Both books should be interesting reading for those contributing here. The man is getting his revenge. mirmir

Mohammed Gill: If you want the latest information on this topic, go to antiwar.com.

I am not very political, but I have not read a single account in any of the major media about any of the Bathist (or its apologists) for the mass graves discovered in Iraq. Our pseudo intellectuals like the writer of this piece are banging their drums loud about “Iraq saying no WMDs”. There have been (to date) 141 Mass Graves uncovered (totaling 80 K Plus dead, Shias and Kurds). Have you guys every heard Saddam or his puppies (including you guys) ever coming forward to admit that it was their doing? I am sorry, I forgot, killing Shias and gassing Kurds was their “internal” issue.

I hope and pray to Satan that the Chickens come home to roost, but only Wahabi inspired Saudi financed Sunni chicken crossing Syrian Iraqi border, not only should they come to roost, but it will make me happy to see them get roasted.

Excellent piece of garbage Mr. Gill. As always.

Virginia`s senate-critter breaks from the koolaid crown on Pennsylvania avenue...and confirms that he`s running for president in 08..

Resignations May Follow Charges
Senators Discuss Leak Case

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 24, 2005; A03

Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) said yesterday that he expects White House officials will step down if they are indicted this week but stressed that speculation should cease until special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald announces the results of his investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Re#55 by ntsyed

NTSyed Sahib,

Arre, yeh kya mamla hai – lagta hai aap hum pe naraj ho gaye hain! Yeh brain straining stuff kya cheez hoti hai?

First it is Ms. Ana – and now it’s you! As of today – my score appears to be two strikes and no balls! (Drop that last part!)

And this comes after I send to you my hearty best wishes – to keep that beard flowing gracefully! I must agree with Dr. Gill that some of us are becoming too worn-out to retain our cool – alas!

Regarding your post – as far as I know, GWB served in the Texas National Guard quite honorably. Since neither I nor you did that – I think he did quite well! The last person who made a joke and tried to belittle that service was a guy named Rather – you may have heard of him – I wonder what he is up to – he has not been seen too often lately! I don’t know much about Mr. Rumsfeld’s record – it’s my understanding that he has been a secretary of defense virtually for ever – long before many of the contemporary political personalities came into the picture!

Now, the following paragraph is written in a serious vein therefore, please pay attention:

I do not fully get the drift of your remark about “insufficient aid” for the Pakistani earthquake and all the rest you say here – but it appears to reveal a very troubling state of mind. As somebody pointed out on the “Scream” board, the tragedy is real but so is the unfortunate fact that most victims of such disasters – everywhere – end up dealing with their situation by themselves – be it Pakistan or Louisiana. The pain and suffering is always on an individual basis and knows no caste, creed or religion. It is the bottom of utter, utter idiocy to drop in mentions of the very real sufferings of victims of natural disasters in a trivial inane “political” discussion, which this board signifies, to score a couple of moronic points. In my view, it is sacrilegious. Shame on you! That’s all, SIR!

To borrow from the Gill,

Wishing you well,
(but convinced that I will have to wish REALLY hard)
Beej.

Re: # 60

Dear Beej,

My reference to the suffering in Pakistan was in response to your comment on `helping hands`. Please review your own post first then mine to understand the link.

Furthermore it was no more insensitive and idiotic than your brazen claim that the US is there to stay in Iraq, which obliviates the fact that first US led sanctions killed millions of INNOCENT Iraqis, then their bombs obliterated more than 100,000 INNOCENT Iraqis again in a short period of time. Perhaps you`re talking in the vein as Ms Albright when she conceded that allowing half a million INNOCENT Iraqi children to die of hunger and lack of medicine was worth the price of weakening A CORRUPT Saddam...just so you could continue to drive your SUV.

So Shame on YOU, sir!

Thank you for the wishes. May you have a pleasant life too.

:-)~~

#55 by ntsyed
“We`re discussing ``legitimacy`` of this war,”
Syed,
Yes that is exactly what we are doing but your idea of legitimacy is a conspiracy theory and I am providing you a specific reason for the war. I had already discussed the WMD issue in my post #9 and you can read my comments about the stupidity of the WMD rational of the war. I had also said that the real reason of war was the fear that Iraq would fall to the terrorists. You have yet to provide any argument to discredit my theory which is not a theory but a fact. This view was shared by both Clinton and Bush admin and therefore, a view supported by both parties of the US and the US establishment.

The real problem is that you don’t understand your own comments because you have been indoctrinated comprehensively by the Islamic fundamentalists. When I translate your own comments to the political reality you just run away as you really don’t know the logic of your own comments yourselves. Go back to your murshid and ask him why the US was fighting on the both sides of the fence. We will take it from there.

Re: # 59

``I had also said that the real reason of war was the fear that Iraq would fall to the terrorists. You have yet to provide any argument to discredit my theory which is not a theory but a fact. This view was shared by both Clinton and Bush admin and therefore, a view supported by both parties of the US and the US establishment.``

HP dear, all praises be to Allah that your theories are becoming compaQt.

I didn`t have to respond to your theory because someone had already blasted it long before I joined the board; that if SH was going to fall to the terrorists, as if he wasn`t one himself, he would have done that in the early 90`s or even before he invaded Kuwait to achieve his goals.

According to Gabriel Kolko (Another century of War?), when SH invaded Kuwait, OBL was still in the good books of the Saudis and their Western patrons. OBL had offered his services to the Kuwaities and the Saudies to remove SH from Kuwait using his experienced fighters, without the western help. But late Fahad yielded to the Americans instead, which pissed off OBL. So according to this western historian - not my murshid - OBL and SH never had a thing for each other.

Not to mention, it was virtually impossible for SH to collude with OBL or other terrorists considering almost 2/3 of his country -both north and south- wasn`t really in his control and the remaining part was infested with UN inspectors and spooks from the US, Europe, Israel and Russia.

A major correction is required in your last statement as quoted here. Clinton and GWB admins did not SHARE this view...they shoved it down everyone`s throat with the help of the news outlets like NYT. The independent analysts, experts, diplomats, and brass had discredited this allegation as soon as it was smoked out, and with more than sufficient evidence. That`s why GWB had to change his line to ``bringin` freedom to Iraqis`` before the stinky claims of `democratizing the middle east`.

Dear sir, as I suggested before, please read up on Israelis and their sinister behaviour inside the US govt before looking at me or my murshids. That study should make it clear to you that I never suggested Americans are playing both sides of the war. However, some in the high echelons of US govt were/are well aware of the clandestine Israeli operations inside the USA. For these individuals, WTC was probably a very high-risk investment as it is yielding very returns in terms of lucrative defense contracts various other benefits. Please do a research on Bush family, J Baker, Cheney, Rummy, and many others to see how many corporate boards they`re members of, what these corporations are about, and the kind the remuneration these individuals receive from these corportation. Then feel free to discredit your own theories to your heart`s desire.

Ciao
:-)~~

#49 by SR
“You make bold predictions.”

No! Actually I was really conservative, which I always am.

I don’t agree with the use of the term Empire. I think it is an archaic term and comes from people who learned their politics in the feudal background and never graduated to the modern times. The empires ended with first the British and then the Russians. The US was never in the history called an empire.

You seem to borrow heavily from the cold war terminology. This world has moved way beyond the cold war. The US is not an Empire it is the leader of the modern world, a modern world that started with the demise of the cold war.

I don’t know what you pin your hopes on but the US economy is not about to break up because there is no substitute to replace the most astutely build economic, fiscal and financial system that the US has developed over the years. If you believe that China or the Euro would make a dent in the US economy then you are sadly mistaken.

Since the end of the cold war and in the last 15 or so years the US has turned the world upside down by throwing in a huge economic bonanza to so many countries that is unprecedented in the whole human endeavor of the last few centuries.

This world has never seen an economy that summarily outsourced some three million high tech jobs at the drop of the hat without impacting its own economic system barring a few burps. The world does not have enough high tech people to take care of all the jobs that are coming its way from the US alone. If the countries outside of the US can provide educated people the US still has the capacity to send more than ½ million jobs outside every year without a blink.

Just look at the monumental revolution that is taking place in communication alone that is sponsored by the US. Cell phone, internet, and other communication devices have opened up the world and it was only possible because the US wanted to do it. Look at the economic revolution that countries like India, china and the countries in East Asia are going thru since the end of the cold war, all sponsored by the US.

What this world would have been without the cold war? What a waste of time and energy that was for the world.

There are political issues in the US that stem form changing over of the economy and the system from the cold war ideological battles. That is part of the democracy and these issues are being fought every where in the US and that shows the vibrancy of the country, its economy and its political system.

Thanks.

Apparently, common courtesy is in short supply at Chwk. Many chowkies wrongly believe that courtesy is a sign of wimpishness. However, an intelligent person can make his/her point quite effectively without being rude.

To walk away from an impudent situation (ignoring a rude inter-actor, in other words) is a better part of misplaced valor. It is good that the disputants (combatants) seem to have put down their (c)rude weapons; the next step should be a show of some courtesy. Difference of opinion is healthy; there is no need to bulldoze others to win a point. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

beej,

i wasn`t apologizing to you. but if that`s the way you want to look at it, feel free to.

and about you never attacking individuals, only topics. . . . thanks very much for the comic relief. can always count on you for that, can`t we?

enough said. i`m respecting gill sahib`s wishes from now on.

Beej Bhai, please don`t bother with this brain straining stuff and keep your politics restricted to stuffing ballot boxes with your ``all so powerful`` votes.

No need for you and your loved ones to join the American Armed Forces either, since your Commander in cheif and his cabal never did so either. Rummy also joined the navy after the war. And I`m sure you don`t want to betray your leaders. Besides, there are so many others to die unnecessarily for your comfort anyway.

Kindly enjoy your sabji and keep your `helping` hands busy with them. In spite of the insufficient relief aid for the earthquake stricken Pakistanis, we`re managing on our own just fine with whatever resources we have available. Only if one could see with his/her own eyes, the way Pakistanis have rescued their own puts the Americans to shame in the wake of Katrina.

HP, please don`t waste your time with hollow textbook theories. Instead, please try to learn to discern what is being said, even if it goes against your grain. Then learn to connect the dots with real events and see who benefits under each circumstance to figure out the whole picture. Besides, what`s 3,000 for a serial killer who gets to kill 100,000+ as a so-called revenge and make barrel loads of money while doing it, too?

Please read my post again to understand what is being said there...and try not to twist anything lest you end up twisted like your logic. For example, you`re stuck on the mismanagement of the war. That`s a non-issue now, in case you never noticed, i.e. everyone agrees it`s been mishandled. We`re discussing ``legitimacy`` of this war, which was instigated by the debate on outing of the CIA operative Ms Plame as a revenge against her husbands bold opposition of war and discrediting the GWB rationale for it way in the beginning.

I will however respond to a couple of points you`ve raised, now that you`ve alienated yourself from your defunct Taliban propaganda.

People in your quarters first said it was the WMD, then Saddam-OBL links, then freedom, then democracy...what`s next reinstalling Saddam?

Saddam did want to sell OIL...to everone...to rebuild his economy. That was the reason for his invasion of Kuwait when he wasn`t allowed to sell. If the world had offered him a deal then Israel would have had to deal with a reestablished pissed-off Saddam whose nuclear installation she illegally took out earlier. Not to mention her expansionist wet-dreams would have become much difficult if Saddam had regained his strength. Why do you think she`s so keen on realizing her dream of Greater Israel that includes Makkah and Madina? To control Muslims and to change their qibla from Jeruselam to Ka`aba? Think OILY my friend.

So my dear gullibalized, amrikanized desi dost, the OIL theory is not just about the uninterrupted supply, but also who controls it. The one who controls it, gets to the play with every other country`s balls without any restriction...like late Kind Faisal did back in the 70s when he used his pliers on American balls. Not to mention, western faggots never could resist a set of firm Asian balls. And remember, Asia is not limited to Middle East.

The actual resistance in Iraq - as in Ramadi, Tal Afar, Falluja, Basra etc - is not US sponsored. Because seldom do these insurgents cause civilian casualties. But I wouldn`t be surprised if the attacks on civilians are, which primarily take place in Baghdad - the American stronghold in Iraq. The US certainly has a history of such behavior. Please do some research on Salvadoran Option.

Again, your theories are extremely out-dated in today`s fast paced age. These mainly focus on American angels, even if they`re wearing red leotards and hold pitch forks.

Kindly bring something fresh to talk about. Otherwise, let the others have some meaningful discussion.

:-)~~

Re#52 Ana

Okay, Ana - I accept your apology - even though you tender it through Dr. Gill.

I only attack topics - NEVER individuals - and individuals only feel so if they are so passionate about their topics that they lose their individual objectivity.

Simple as that!

Sometimes, people need to be hit on their heads before they realize that things which appear highly complicated to them are basically very simple.

Sincerely,
Beej.

Romair #21

`` When the history of the Republican party is written, by Republican authors themselves, George Bush will be the person they will blame for their demise.

The USA, over the past four decades has gone through a social revolution. It is the only influential country in the Western world that has gone from Liberalism to Conservatism, socially. It is the only influential country in the Western world, which has gone from being less religious to more religious. It is, infact, going against the trend of where the Western world is going. As an example, according to Pew, 45% of Americans now want religion in the State, i.e. they are against Secularism. While 35% of Britishers feel that David Beckham has more influence on their lives than God! ``

There is always a constituency for social conservatism and pro-business market policies.
Do you really think every wealthy Pakistani Americans will oppose Republican Party ?

`` The conservative movement in the USA took a lot of effort, and reached its zenith during the Regan days, and took control of the Republican party. After which it was only matter of time, till it took over the USA. Five out of the last seven US Presidents have been Republican. And only a President of Clinton`s calibre was able to make a dent for the Demcrats. ``

Republicans have a lock on the presidency because a lot of White folks in the South dislike Democratic party courtship of Blacks and a lot of Whites in Western states dislike Democrat stances on gun control/moral issues/environment. There is 220 electoral votes in these states.

`` The Republicans reached a point, through the social conservative revolution, where they controlled the House, the Senate, the Executive, and are about to control the Judiciary. Something unprecedented in the last century of the USA. ``

Democrats controlled the House, Senate, Executive and Judiciary under Rossevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson.


`` This is what the situation would and should have been in the USA for the Conservatives and Republicans. In a USA, where 2 out of every 3 citizens claims to be conservative, the Republican party should be undefeatable. However, Bush seems to have ruined it for them, in a quick 6 years.........``

There exist a lot of conservative Democrats. I am one. I have plenty of Democratic friends who are conservative either in fiscal or social domain.

gill sahib,

i apologize. the personal attacks had already begun. i should not have continued with it. and yes mirmir is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, i wasn`t doing him any favors. he also happens to be a newcomer who is not desi like us, but north american like some of us. there are other interactors here who speak up for each other, and i don`t know why i should be described as uptight for speaking up not just for mirmir, but against something i have seen enough of in this country. khair. . . the conversation seems to be continuing just fine, and i have nothing further to add to this, because i have no time to argue with folks who believe that the occupation of iraq is to ``save`` the iraqi people, and who think that criticising dubya is tantamount to blasphemy.

and whoever told you i was capable of intellectual sophistication has no clue what they`re talking about :)

regards,
ana

#37 by Netizen

“iraq under saddam had no chance to come under jihadis. Saddam ruled with an iron hand and didn`t tolerate muslim fundamentalism either. the country was weakened but the republican guards/iraqi army was capable of dealing with any jihadi.”

This is an old argument it also includes this cliché that Saddam was a secular leader.

Saddam was a dictator and his first impulse like any dictator was to support himself. As I have argued in my other posts, the Iraqi government was weak and he probably was losing support in the Iraqi army too. In situations like that, dictators can and will accept help from anywhere. Terrorist did not have to fight war with him but could have offered him support in exchange for political help in Saudia. OBL definitely cut some deal in Afghanistan with the Taliban to stay there.

Just to give you one more example. Libya’s Qadafi posed as a revolutionary, anti American for a long time. He went to the extremes to help in blowing up an American plane. But when he saw he was going to lose his power, he turned real fast. Now, he is a staunch American supporter in the area. Dictators like Saddam and Qadafi have no ideology. They would do whatever it takes them to keep power.

So the assumption that Saddam would make a deal with the Terrorist was not unfounded but actually had very strong footings.

Romair,
Please read post #9 too.

Re: # 48

``In situations like that, dictators can and will accept help from anywhere. Terrorist did not have to fight war with him but could have offered him support in exchange for political help in Saudia. ``

in 91 the u.s. amassed ~ 1 million troops with the help of other nations and humiliated/drove out million strong iraqi army. also 30% (?) of iraq was under no flying zone. Amid this scenario don`t you think that saddam would think twice before thinking of supporting someone trying to create mischief in saudi/kuwait. saddam was like a wounded tiger hated by his neighbours but didn`t pose any threat to them.

You say the terrorists would have offered him support, can you tell what kind of support?

the current charges that saddam is in the court for, if i am not wrong, are for killing shias during a religious uprising against saddam. the shias of karbala are more islamic fanatic than what saddam was.

Re: # 48

HP:

I agree with you that saddam was simply a dictatot and would have gone to any extent to support himself/his regime. but i would still say that connecting him with jihadis/OBL is far-fetched. If he wanted, he could have done that after the humiliating defeat of first gulf war, when OBL was searching for a base. He must have realised that jihadis are as much a threat for his dictatorship as americans were. Also, i don`t think israel considered him a threat as it consider iran. He was so detached with the mainstream muslim fundamentalist that his cry for ``jihad`` against the invading americans in 2002-03 (?) was laughed at.

only time will reveal what was in bush`s mind, may be in 20 years time when the documents are declassified.

i did read somewhere that saddam was going to replace dollars for euros as the currency for oil trade. Don`t know much or whether it was real or would have made an adverse effect on dollar trading.

#43 in fact most airports did not even ask for photo ID for domestic travel in US....it was like taking your local bus.

ntsyed,

I am glad that you got upset as what I wrote actually it hit some raw nerve there. Yelping part was not bad really as it got you doing your thing…yelping!

Now let me take all your point apart w/o going into the abuses that is a part of Islamic fundamentalists’ arguments and I know it pretty well as eik omr guzri hai iss dasht ki saiyahi mian.

1 and 2 is actually one long drivel without any substance to it. Actually you are saying two things there.

First, you are implying that it was the US itself that attacked its own country thru some proxies who may not be Muslims. If translated into political terms, it means that the US was fighting on the both sides of the fence. It attacked itself on 9/11 and then it attacked Afghanistan. I think that is a very “rational” approach and that’s why most of the Islamist believe in it. So hearing it from you doesn’t startle me a wee bit. I let you ponder on just one thing here. If 9/11 was planned by the US itself, how many Americans were part of that conspiracy that was pulled off so successfully. None of the American involved in killing 3000 American has squeaked yet out of guilt for killing his fellow citizens. Are you claiming that the US government employees are so unconscionable that they would murder their own fellow countrymen to get to some cavemen?

Next,

I like this part of your post even better. “Everything OBL and his cohorts have done thus far has harmed the Muslims and helped the uniformed high-tech bandits of the West and Israel.”

So now Muslim holy warriors are disowning OBL. Calling him a US shill and again implying that it was the US that attacked itself thru OBL and his followers.
You are saying that the US needed such an elaborate arrangement-getting OBL, getting Taliban to capture Afghanistan, then training some people, and then attacking the US mainland in the broad daylight- to get what—Afghanistan? Sir, is there any rational behind such an elaborated scenario?
Just sit back and think before you write anymore lyrical conspiracy theories.

3 and 4,
In my posts I pointed out the reason for the US attack on Iraq and I also mentioned that the war is badly conducted and I also believe to some extent, the US has lost its way in Iraq and it would be better to leave Iraq as soon as possible. So I agree with the anti-war crowd in a sense that the war in Iraq was badly conducted and the Bush admin perhaps is inept. My point that I think I made very clear was the fear that the Iraq would fall into the terrorist hands was valid and nowhere do I see you deny that. The whole anti-war crowd is talking about the conduct of the war and not the reason for the war. These two things are separate from each other. I don’t know how hard it would be for you to follow this but I will try again. I support the purpose of this war but not the conduct itself.

Some in the anti-war groups have developed thesis and you are supporting that too that the whole war was for the OIL. Nobody has ever answered one simple question. Would Saddam had refused OIL supplies to the US or Europe if the West had offered him some deal? Sir, if the US was so interested in OIL, it would have made a deal with Iraq right after the 1991 war. Saddam was down then and would have signed on anything.

Before I spilt, one more question. Would you say that the resistance in Iraq is also US sponsored as it is allowing the US to stay longer in Iraq? You know your US fighting on the both sides theory…

Re#42 by ntsyed

NTSyed sahib,

Since WE may not have interacted before, let me introduce myself – I am Beej – not to be confused with any other interactors who may have assumed similar sounding nicknames (some of them obviously quite devious people, since they appear to have done so even BEFORE me) just to confuse simple souls like you who so peacefully inhabit these premises and do minimal damage – with the possible exception of raising the blood pressure of certain other highly serious interactors!

(And unlike certain others, I think your emoticons are fine, JUST the way they are!)

I must respectfully disagree with you regarding the Iraq war. In this day and age, people have become so self-centered and countries so focused on their narrow interests, that they think of nobody but themselves. The USA is a true exception and therefore it stands out – baffling many “run of the mill” individuals and countries – and even you (Note: I’ll NEVER categorize you as “run of the mill” (nor “run of the mule” as some nasty interactors may suggest))!

The freedom of the Iraqi people from the oppressions of dictatorship is a noble objective – that the US gets some uninterrupted oil supplies in the process (and for which supplies we do PAY, mind you) is a mutual side benefit – for everybody.

The American people have been steadfast in their support of the US invasion of Iraq! Please do not go by the example of peaceniks and other outdated creatures who inhabit the crevices of this chowk cave and make dissenting noises in the wild!

Individuals like Dr. Gill (occasionally fondly referred as the “Gillster” – a term specifically designed for him to reflect his newly developed carefree personality and his retried attitude toward life!) are just as steadfastly opposed to the invasion!

Always were, always will be!

But they have no clout – because the American people wanted to go in! and the American people want to STAY in!

Always had, always will!

Therefore, having been beaten in their designs – such individuals try a sneak attack!

They try to trip the Veep over a trivial trip by a CIA hubby – and make the case file deliberately chubby!

They improvise, they devise, they surmise, and they romanticize, fantasize, supersize – all to get to their prize!

To prize the veep from his duties – such are our peace-loving beauties!

And they all synchronize – much more than ANY kharboozas ever could – or should!

Your consternation regarding the western intelligence not doing its job PRIOR to 9/11 is understandable (and contrary to what you imply – they usually do not hire sleeping donkeys and horses to those positions – the closest animal approximations are the K-9 officers) – and we have come up with a whole new cabinet agency to address that problem.

I think you should be especially commended for requesting individual interactors to eschew their deeply-rooted prejudices and for being concerned regarding the moisture contents of their undergarments!

Your extreme confidence in the abilities of Israelis is to be marveled at! As somebody who is absolutely enamored of what that tiny little country has been able to accomplish – and not just in the battlefield but also in such areas as science and technology (I am sure the Gillster’s earlier board explained that to you at length) – I must sincerely thank you! I have every confidence that your faith will continue to be justified down the road as that tiny country continues down that path of success and accomplishes all its objectives in the future, too.

Your lack of faith in government is shared by vast number of Americans who use the popular joke to ridicule – “I am from the government, and I am here to help you!”

NT Syed sahib, kindly consider our (US) efforts in Iraq as our very own little tribute – our heartfelt hands of help – coming to you and other such warm-hearted individuals who really NEED the help (alas many of you just don’t know about it yet – or are just too intimidated to admit it or ask for it openly – it can hurt the pride of many males in certain patriarchal societies– we understand!)

I could go on further – in considerable detail and address the many (alas so many) points that you have raised – but the lady of the house has asked me to procure some vegetables – and even though a case can be made that dipping into the vast chowk stock of interactors one could come up with quite a few of those – I am still required to head toward the local “sabji-mandi” which closes shortly!

Therefore, kindly accept this meager ration of my humble offerings until we have another opportunity to revisit some of these highly important topics of the world affairs!

May your beard continue to flow gracefully and to regale us with many, many stories down the road!

Sincerely,
Beej.

HP #33: ``There is There is no doubt that a preemptive action was required before Iraq was lost to the terrorists. . ``

How exactly have you come to this conclusion? ``No doubt?`` Those are strong words. No doubt in whose mind?

The Iraq war was opposed by the majority population of all the countries in the world, except two. The two were USA and Israel. Now even the majority population of the USA is against the Iraq war. So that leaves only one. Israel.

This was, infact, the most opposed war in world history!! Every single country that has been invaded by Iraq, was against the USA invasion of Iraq. Countries at hot and cold wars against each other, like India and Pakistan, both opposed it.

How can you so casually state that there, ``is no doubt that a preemptive action was required before Iraq was lost to the terrorists,`` when out of the 190 or so countries in the world, the majority population of 188 (now 189) is agaisnt this war?

There has to be more to the world than a US leadership getting up, claiming someone a terrorist, and then killing 100k of its citizens.

I share the author`s dismay that most of the interacters have missed the point and are debating pointlessly on something completely irrelevant.

Having said that, I think Mr. Gill should recognize that Iraq war is the most devastating consequence of the case you`re trying to have a debate about. Some would also argue that the V Plame outing is the consequence of the war plans. An Urdu proverb sums it well: ``kharbooza chhuri pe giray ya chhuri kharbooze pe, nateeja aik he hota hai`` (whether the melon falls on the knife or the knife falls on the melon, outcome is always the same). Thus, it would be unnatural, if not impossible, to not discuss the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Iraq war and Plame outing in the same discussion.

HP, with all due respect, may I please call you a jackass for the following reasons?

1. ``Check the number of terrorist attacks by Bin Laden group before and after they became a part of the Taliban regime.``

I`ve yet to have ONE political/security/terrorist `expert` explain what the HELL were US, English, French, Russian, Indian, and Iranian spy agencies (to name just the big dogs and bitches) doing when the Bin Laden group was becoming a part of Taliban, and the ISI was allegedly helping the Taliban to power.

Are you going to sit there and tell me that all these were freakin` ghoray gadhay baech k so rahay thay?

Open your mind, forget about your prejudices for a while, and connect the dot dude. It`s all part of a great big game that has the bookworm political scientists going crazy wetting their pants.

2. ``The concern that Iraq may fall to terrorist was genuine and the impact of that would have been terrifying to the world.``

Even if that was the case, the world was not at risk. ONLY Is-freakin`-rael was going to be in deep-bleeps. Thus, the so many hushed up Israeli/Jewish/Zionist controversies have erupted in the poet 9/11 USA. I`m sure you`re read about the Urban Moving compay in NJ; the israeli Students selling paintings in Federal bldgs; the recent AIPAC indictments; and numerous other unsolved myteries of the Israeli/American political twilight zone.

Considering the lies the current and so may previous US admins have fed the entire world, particularly to the Americans, I for one question the validity of any claim made by anyone in the US admin.

Just because the US govt and some of it`s bas-turdy Europeans and Puppet rulers across the Muslim countries say that the planes were hijacked by Muslims is not enough for any just person to swallow without proof. The people on the planes are dead. There`s no one to defend them.

Who is to know if there were Muslims on those planes? For yet another brief display of stupidity by someone in the admin, Atta`s passport was found somewhere in the Queens soon after the crashes. Go figure.

And if there were Muslims aboard those planes, who is to counter the argument that they were the culprits? Certainly they`re dead and are unable to defend themselves.

And if they were the culprits, then who is to say that they were Arabs? Just because OBL`s ghost appears in a video to corroborate the American propaganda? Everything OBL and his cohorts have done thus far has harmed the Muslims and helped the uniformed high-tech bandits of the West and Israel.

Such lies and unsubstantiated allegations of the stupidest proportions are feeding the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, and nurturing the anti-western sentiments in the entire world, particularly among Muslims. Just like most Iraqis did not support Saddam but they despise the western invaders even more so, most Muslims do not identify with OBL & CO for their dubious strategies and A/V tapes myteriously (read conveniently) appearing on Al Jazeera whenever Western offensives or elections are in the offing.

3. ``There is no doubt that a preemptive action was required before Iraq was lost to the terrorists. We can argue that the Bush admin was inept in making its case and was grossly incompetent in managing the war in Iraq. We can also say that Bush is not the smartest pea i