...the far left extremist hate wing comes out and attacks Senator Lieberman.
At least you can count on the democrat underground to be consistent.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn. . . .
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
HT to Mr. Reynolds
January 14, 1998: Iraq continues to block the work of the inspection team. The President of the Security Council issues a statement terming Iraq’s actions unacceptable and a clear violation of the relevant resolutions and reiterates its demand that Iraq cooperate fully and immediately without conditions (S/PRST/1998/1).
February 1, 1998: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
Early February, 1998: Two technical evaluation meetings (TEMS) take place in Baghdad, reviewing 1998 the position with respect to the chemical weapons agent VX. and missile warheads. The report of the outcome of the meetings is submitted to the Council (document S/1998/176). Despite Iraq’s assertions and it having had a full opportunity to present its views on all matters pertaining to the two issues, the team of UNSCOM international experts conclude unanimously that Iraq has still not provided sufficient information for UNSCOM to conclude that Iraq had undertaken all the disarmament steps required of it in these areas. The Commission’s experts provide the Council with an oral briefing of the outcome on these two TEMS in March 1998.
February 4, 1998: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Bill Clinton.
February 17, 1998: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton
February 18, 1998: "Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must, and will, stand firm." - Secretary of State US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
February 18, 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser.
April 8, 1998: The report of the biological weapons TEM is transmitted to the Council (S/1998/308). As with the other TEMs, the experts unanimously conclude that Iraq’s declaration on its biological weapons programme is incomplete and inadequate. (BBC: A UN report claims Iraq is continuing to hold back information about its germ warfare programme)
June 24, 1998 : Richard Butler confirms reports that traces of the nerve gas VX has been found in Iraqi missile fragments. Iraq had always insisted it had not weaponised VX. Iraq dismisses the charges, warning of "grave consequences" if sanctions are not lifted.
October 27, 1998 - Richard Butler says tests carried out by international scientists confirm that Iraq filled missile warheads with the deadly nerve agent VX before the 1991 Gulf War.
October 31, 1998: President Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:
November 10, 1999: "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
There is much, much more. Stop by and read the whole thing.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Monday, November 28, 2005
Softcore Darlek porn.
Yes, I have a 4th Doctor Scarf, and I agree with what the director of Terry Nation's estate, Tim Hancock said,
"The reason the Daleks are still the most sinister thing in the universe is because they do not make things like porn. They weren't ever intended to be sexual creatures. It's simple, Daleks do not do porn."
Now the Cybermen...that's another story.
From Sunday's Reliable Sources, UPI correspondent Pamela Hess:
KURTZ: Welcome back to RELIABLE SOURCES.
Pam Hess, during Vietnam U.S. officials were often accused of distorting or even lying to the press to try to make it look like the war effort was going better than it was. When you were in Iraq did you feel like you were getting the straight story?
HESS: Certainly from the militarily I did. They have no interest in cooking the books, as it were, they -- they understand that they were blamed for Vietnam and what happened, and they don't want that blame again.
They want people to understand the kind of enemy that they are facing and how long it's going to take. And frankly, most of them said to me, "Please go back and tell them not to pull us out because we are finally at a point where we have enough people here now on the ground between soldiers and Iraqis that we can actually start doing some good and start turning things around. And if you pull us out, we're just going to be back here three years from now."
KURTZ: More optimistic, at least than some of the journalists.
Political Teen has the video.
Mr. Reynolds has more.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
About bloody time too. According to this Reuters article:
The United States is closing a legal loophole which has allowed tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to slip into the country and join the estimated 11 million undocumented foreigners already here.
Under long-standing procedure along the U.S. border with Mexico, illegal crossers of nationalities other than Mexican -- dubbed OTMs by the Border Patrol -- have been entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge before they could be deported.
Because of a severe shortage of space to hold them until the hearing, they were released after being fingerprinted and given a "notice to appear," a document stating they had agreed to show up at court at a certain date.
The notice serves as a travel document allowing its holder past Border Patrol checkpoints on the roads leading from the border to the interior. Most OTMs do not show up for their hearing and meld into the population.
Known as "catch and release", the practice has become part of an increasingly acrimonious debate over immigration policy and border security, an issue likely to loom large in Congress, next year's mid-term elections and the 2008 presidential poll.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said last month his department's aim was to "return every single entrant -- no exceptions" but gave no deadline. Mexicans are usually returned immediately -- and most of them try again, some within hours.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
But [Newdow’s] budding musical career, which he put on display in a one-man show before a sparse audience Tuesday night, may be cut short by, of all things, lack of God-given talent.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko wants the world to recognize the famine that killed one-quarter of the population as Soviet-sponsored genocide.
Just part of the 100 million people killed by their Communist/Socialist governments.
Friday, November 25, 2005
TigerHawk points out this passage from Richard Clarke's book, Against all Enemies
Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." (pp. 143-144)
Compare that to the former VP's recent statements.
As TigerHawk points out:
Al Gore supported rendition before al Qaeda had declared war on the United States and hung its battle flag on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the African embassies, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Bali disco, the Madrid trains, and the United Nations. But after those defeats, Al Gore changed his mind. Has any reporter for any major news organization bothered to ask Gore to explain his reasoning?
HT to Greyhawk
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
I have no doubt (from the many books I have read on this man) that if he were President today, he would be fighting the war on terror. He was an American first, a politician second. He was a Democrat when it was honorable to be a Democrat. And he did not like it when America or her interests, were threatened.
Maybe, just maybe, there will come a day when the true Democrats will squeeze out the leftists that have hijacked the party and make it the party of Kennedy, again.
I started using flickr before Yahoo took it over.
Thankfully, they didn't screw it over the way they did Webring.org before they took it over. (I prefer ringsurf anyway...)
I found these cool flikr toys.
I'll be playing with them and posting some of the results.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
...take the time to read Neal Stephenson's book Cryptonomicon.
Here are some quotes from it:
The only other thing he notices about them,before he gives up and slinks back into the cargo hold, is that they are fucking armed to the teeth. Like they were expecting to have to kill twenty or thirty people on their way from the airplane to the latrine and back. Bobby Shaftoe has met a few of these paranoid types during his tour, and he doesn't like them very much. That whole mindset reminds him too much of Guadalcanal.
He finds a place on the floor next to the body of PFC Gerald Hottand and stretches out. The teeny revolver in his waistband makes it impossible for him to lie on his back, so he takes it out and pockets it. This only transfers the center of discomfort to the Marine Raider stiletto holstered invisibly between his shoulder blades. He realizes that he is going to have to curl up on his side,which doesn't work because on one side he has a standard-issue Colt semiautomatic,which he doesn't trust, and on the other, his own six-shooter from home,which he does. So he has to find places to stash those, along with the various ammo clips, speedloaders, and maintenance supplies that go with them. The V-44 "Gung Ho" jungle-clearing, coconut-splitting, and Nip-decapitating knife,strapped to the outside of his lower leg,also has to be removed, as does the derringer that he keeps on the other leg for balance. The only thing that stays with him are the grenades in his front pockets, since he doesn't plan to lie down on his stomach.
"Randy was forever telling people, without rancor, that they here full of shit. That was the only way to get anything done in hacking. No on took it personally."
"Avi's nannies have the souls of war-hardened Soviet paratroopers in the bodies of nubile eighteen-year-old girls."
How many slums will we bulldoze to build the Information superhighway? The Information Superhighway is just a fucking metaphor! Give me a break!
"That time in Seattle - during the lawsuit - was a fucking nightmare. I came out of it dead broke, without a house, without anything except a girlfriend and a knowledge of UNIX."
"Well, that's something," Avi says. "Normally those two are mutually exclusive."
"To translate it into UNIX system administration terms ... the post-modern, politically correct atheists were like people who had suddenly found themselves in charge of a big and unfathomably complex computer system (viz. society) with no documentation or instructions of any kind, and so whose only way to keep the thing running was to invent and enforce certain rules with a kind of neo-Puritanical rigor, because they were at a loss to deal with any deviations from what they saw as the norm. Whereas people who were wired into a church were like UNIX system administrators who, while they might not understand everything, at least had some documentation, some FAQs and How-tos and README files, providing some guidance on what to do when things got out of whack. They were, in other words, capable of displaying adaptability."
Monday, November 21, 2005
For nearly all my life, France has been held up as a bastion (a French word, no less) of liberty, equality and fraternity. A shining beacon of Socialism's mulit-cultural superiority, a color-blind Mecca where race was of not an issue - after all, they treated Josaphine Baker and Tina Turner as goddesses, didn't they?
But now France's dirty little secret is out: Their society is just as racist as they've always claimed ours to be. For decades, they have sequestered their immigrant population in ghettos and limited their economic and social growth to the bottom rungs of France's ladder. Sure, the immigrants may be good enough to scrub the middens and spread merde on the fields, but they were to keep in their place, and leave France for the French - the real French, not these swarthy pretenders whose parents still had the stink of North African soil on their feet.
And now, when this festering abscess of intolerance bursts, exposing the fetid stench of French racism in an open wound ripe for Al Quaeaeaeda infection, what is the French Socialist response?
At least some things never change.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Friday, November 18, 2005
PERHAPS THE biggest weapon in the arsenal of America’s critics is carefully selective amnesia. Conveniently forgetting important historical facts enables tactical amnesiacs to make claims about US policy that seem to support their contention that the country’s government is uniquely evil.
The latest evidence that George Bush is a war criminal has apparently come this week with the acknowledgment that the US military used white phosphorus (WP) on enemy positions in Fallujah. This is deemed an outrage, something decent countries never do, yet more proof that the Bush-Cheney cabal is sedulously destroying the very foundations of American civilisation. . . .
In fact, WP is not a chemical weapon, not even banned by any treaty to which the US is signatory. It has been used by the armed forces in all countries in wars for decades. Indeed, if you look up the roll of US Congressional Medal of Honour winners, you will discover that quite a few received this highest military decoration precisely because they used “shake and bake” to such successful effect. . . .
But the “Bush lied to us” whine is much worse when it comes from the mouths of those who insisted only three years ago, in voting for the war, that they were taking a heroic stand in defence of national security. Half the Democratic members of the Senate — oddly enough, including all those with serious presidential aspirations — John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden — voted for the war in 2002. The awful truth about many of these people is that their cynicism in distancing themselves from their support for the war is only matched by their cynicism in originally supporting it.
Let me be clear: some Democrats — Joe Lieberman springs to mind — supported the war for the right reasons, and continue to do so. Others — Ted Kennedy, Russell Feingold — opposed it all along. But most of those now recanting made a straight political calculation in voting to authorise force in the first place.
Read the whole thing.
HT to Mr. Reynolds
Via Slashdot comes news of this FEC ruling:
"The Federal Election Commission today issued an advisory opinion that finds the Fired Up network of blogs qualifies for the 'press exemption' to federal campaign finance laws. The press exemption, as defined by Congress, is meant to assure 'the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV networks, and other media to cover and comment on political campaigns.' The full ruling is available at the FEC site. A noteworthy passage: '...an entity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity...'"
Freedom Folks blog covers a "Professor" threating a Conservative student at Warren Community College.
Student Rebecca Beach, received a Hate filled response to her announcement of the appearance of decorated Iraq war hero, Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, to speak on the campus from Professor John Daly.
“Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is extremely offensive.”
He rambles on for a while about the evils of capitalism, the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Exxon and racism, then offers this threat…
“I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won’t dare show their face on a college campus.”
He went on to echo a reoccuring theme amoung the extremist left,
“Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors.”
As the Junkyard blog says,
But don’t question his patriotism.
Excuse, but I will. This so-called "Academic" is against free speech, the liberation of an oppressed people, and calls for murder of active duty American servicemen and women.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
"Decaffeinated -- not caffeinated -- coffee may cause an increase in harmful LDL cholesterol by increasing a specific type of blood fat linked to the metabolic syndrome, hints a new study presented at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2005."
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Brown Line makes this comment on one of Ace's posts:
Yes, Iraq is "Vietnam on the Euphrates".
Except that we've taken Hanoi.
And Ho Chi Minh is in prison.
And free elections are being held in what had been North Vietnam.
And the ethnic minorities in Vietnam are gaining a fair measure of control over their own territories.
And Giap is leading a rag-tag band of suiciding losers, instead of an army.
And there have been no My Lai-style atrocities.
And the war is being fought by professional volunteers, instead of by reluctant draftees.
And US fatalities are down by 96%.
Yup, other than those minor differences, "Vietnam on the Euphrates" has it pegged.
Go read the original post. Ted Kennedy gets punked!
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
For the “Bush Lied” mantra to have any logical or factual force, one must believe that Desert Fox not only destroyed every single WMD Saddam had, but also cowed him sufficiently that he never built a single WMD or lab in the five years that remained of his rule. And that knowing all of this, Bush took us to war anyway. No serious person believes that.
While you're at it, look up the Carter Doctrine.
It starts with this post by a woman in London:
I know I should say something about what's going on in France. Personally it's ok with me if people express themselves burning cars, but it's not ok for me to send the army and instore a curfew. I think that this government of assholes that we have should for once listen to the pain of people. I am so sad about what's happening in my country... it's turning fascist!!!
Joe introduces her to a thing we call reality:
Boy, its a damn shame you don't know what fascism is.
Let that claim fly when they start rounding up Arabs and executing them in camps - until then all you have is a bunch of whiny, ignornants torching cars because they've been segregated into ghettos and utterly ignored by your wretched culture, which refuses to integrate people. Despite years of warning signs that this segretation was going to cause trouble, noone wanted to tackle the problem. Well, now they have a very visual demonstration that they can't ignore.
Bummer about that. But hey, at least now we can read our copies of the Little Red Book at nighttime, eh? Isn't the firelight romantic?
Monday, November 14, 2005
The White House needs to go on the offensive here in a big way -- and Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicans pandering to the antiwar base, that it's deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad.
Norman Podhoretz has a detailed, fact filled article that starts with:
Among the many distortions, misrepresentations and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.
What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.
Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.
Go read the whole thing.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
By way of Alphecca, comes the story of Cindy Ellen Hill.
I am nervous over more than the flight. Despite being a, well, let’s face it, ‘gun nut,’ I am for all intents and purposes a liberal. A union-supporting Irish Democrat of generations of union-supporting Irish Democrats, disgusted enough by the Clinton administration to throw in the towel on the Party and run with the Progressives. Pro-choice, environmental activist, anti-death penalty, civil libertarian… I grew up shooting. I believe strongly that all ten Amendments to the United States Constitution which comprise the Bill of Rights work together; that means the Second Amendment securing the right to keep and bear arms is there to enforce the other nine against governmental intrusion. This latter concept seems to be where I lose many of my liberal friends and somehow wind up as the darling of the right wing.
Sounds like she's moving toward the Libertarian camp.
She has written a book, Brady Denial? You CAN Get Your Guns Back
By way of Jeff at Alphecca, comes this story of the New Paltz Police buying AR-15s.
This caught my eye because I'm a New Paltz College graduate and the small New England town I live in just bought new AR-15s to replace their old Mini-14s.
...while Germany's Eurosnob elite wines and dines President Hu, there will be no angry mass protests or cries of indignation on German streets. There will be no rainbow flags embroidered with "PACE" accompanied by Tibetan and Taiwanese flags. There will be no peace drums, silent vigils or burning of Hu Jintao effigies. There will be no courageous speeches on morality or human rights in front of thousands of drunk and screaming marchers. There will be few if any indignant editorials condemning President Hu in leading German papers, magazines or news broadcasts.
As a person, a human being, as one who really does care about his fellow man, Jimmy Carter is the best. But his presidency was a miserable failure. Even his own party would not work with him because he was so liberal that most of them would not have gotten re-elected if they had supported all of his proposals.
Remember the double digit inflation, under Carter? I do.
I could write a whole post on the failures of this man. But the fact remains, this country is a hell of a lot better off than when he was steering the helm.
Then points out that Howard Dean isn't fit to polish former President Carter's shoes:
Want a bigger failure than Carter? Look no further than Howard Dean. But at least Carter was not a coward and Dean is.
Go read the whole thing.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Friday, November 11, 2005
According to Bruce at mASS Backwards, Boston Mayor "Mumbles" Menino wants to have a "handgun summit" to fight crime in the city. That and random searches. You remember those, the ones that the ACLU fought when a Republican Mayor brought up the idea. I'm not holding my breath waiting from them to come out against Mumbles.
Hey Mumbles! It's the CRIMINALS that cause crime.
HT to Alphecca
Thursday, November 10, 2005
This Reuters article points out the violence is nothing new, just more widespread:
Even before the riots, Ophelia, 16, used to run home from school every day because she was afraid of being attacked in the maze of high-rise buildings in her suburb northeast of Paris.
A series of gang rapes in these bleak housing estates shocked France a few years ago. In 2002, a 17-year-old girl was set alight by an 18-year-old boy as his friends stood by.
Walking near a burned-out garbage bin, Ophelia's twin sister Sandra says the riots came as no surprise. Violence against and pressure on women is part of daily life in the suburbs, where boys can dictate how girls should dress.
"You have to behave like a guy and look like a guy. If you wear a skirt, you get into immediate trouble. You're a slut," says Sandra, wearing a baggy sweatshirt and jeans.
Go read the whole thing.
I kid you not. By way of Slashdot, comes the news of the "MIT Musical Theatre Group will be staging a musical version of the Star Wars Trilogy (Eps. IV through VI). There will be tap-dancing stormtroopers, singing Ewoks, etc."
Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post provides a dose of reality for the French to study:
"Katrina's devastation points the finger at Bush's system . . . Issues forgotten for years are back to the fore: poverty, the state's absence, latent racism."
-- Le Monde, Sept. 8, 2005
The quotation above appeared in a front-page article in France's newspaper of record. Just below was a cartoon showing the American president watching TV footage of black corpses floating in the water. "But, what country is this?" the caption had him saying to his generals: "Is it far away? We absolutely have to do something!"
But the insoluble violence in urban France should inspire more than just schadenfreude in this country. Although there isn't yet evidence that this bout of rioting is Islamist in origin, it's pretty clear that large, unintegrated, ungovernable and unemployed Islamic communities in Western Europe will continue to incubate radical Islam. Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker of Sept. 11, is a Frenchman of Moroccan dissent. The Madrid bombings and the London bombings were also proof that the war on terrorism was never as much about rogue nations in the Middle East as it was about the domestic polices of our closest allies.
It is in our own interest, then, to be magnanimous and to come up with ways to assist the French. We could, for example, help them to shatter the myth that they live in an enlightened society, insulated from racial tension, by mass-mailing them copies of Le Monde with the word "America" crossed out in all editorials and the word "France" substituted instead.
HT to Ace
Dedicated to providing a safer working environment for violent criminals, the lunatics running the asylum passed a law banning law abiding citizens the right to legally own handguns.
Of course, the law will have no effect on the violent criminals who will be shortly thanking the sheepeople who supported this act of lunacy.
HT to Ms. Malkin.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Those arrested include a Muslim cleric accused of masterminding a cell dedicated to "violent jihad."
A note the Australian Police, "Good on ya!"
I've read the reports that say the riots taking place throughout France are part of an organized Islamofacist terrorist plot.
I personally go with the theory that this is just just French socialism coming home to roost.
The French have an unemployment rate & economy that makes the bad old day's of the Carter Presidency look good.
Given the slow and tepid French government response to these riots, expect to see more of them in the future.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
It’s day 12 of the French riots but I still haven’t heard anyone say how it’s Bush’s fault yet. Is the left so apathetic about France they cannot cite a simple connection to the White House?
HT to Dr. John Ray
"America's Splendid Little Wars: A Short History of U.S. Military Engagements: 1975-2000" by Peter Huchthausen
It starts with the SS Mayaguez and ends with Bosnia & Kosovo.
I'm currently on Chapter 7, Escort and Retaliation in the Persian Gulf.
The first complete sentance on page 100 is, "President Reagan not only supported but also reinforced the Carter Doctrine that called for war to save Persian Gulf oil if necessary."
So far it has been fairly even handed, pointing in equal clairity the failures of Operation Eagle Claw (the failed attempt to rescue the Americans held hostage in Iran) and the Intervention in Lebanon that included the death hundreds of US military personnel (mostly Marines) by truck bomb.
The book is a look at the military operations. Politics are covered as an aspect of the operation, not the main focus of the book.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Men's underwear. See, there are basically two types. Boxers and briefs (otherwise known as whitey-tighties). Now, boxers come in all different designs and patterns and different materials like cotton and silk. A man can still be a man and wear silk boxers. Men can't wear silk whitey-tighties, 'cause then they'd be panties. -- Torg
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Adding a timely twist to the debate, those opponents warn that a major earthquake could lead to chaos and anarchy, akin to post-Katrina New Orleans.
"What happens when the police leave town, just like they did in New Orleans?'' asked John Mindermann, a retired San Francisco police officer who keeps a handgun in his home in the low-crime area of West Portal. Only active law enforcement and military personnel would be exempt from the ban.
And even though its officers fight violence daily, the San Francisco Police Officers Association is also opposed to the ban, saying it cannot back a measure that takes away "the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense purposes.''
Via Michelle Malkin comes a collection of photos showing the irrational left proving they don't share the same reality as rational adults.
A judge concerned about the potential for voter fraud in Tuesday's election has ordered the state to compile the names of all adult New Jersey residents who have died since 1985.
State Superior Court Judge Linda R. Feinberg made the ruling Friday after learning that the official responsible for tracking deaths had failed to do so because he didn't know it was his responsibility.
Just like those rat catchers in Delhi, India.
Gosh, we can't actually expect folks on the public payroll to actually work?
Friday, November 04, 2005
• In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).
• The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.
• The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."
• Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are--have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."
In short, everyone who has looked into the question of whether the Bush Administration lied about intelligence, distorted intelligence, or pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with the same answer: No, no, no and no.
Everyone, that is, except Joseph Wilson IV. He first became the Democrats' darling in July 2003, when he published an op-ed claiming he'd debunked Mr. Bush's "16 words" on Iraqi attempts to purchase African yellowcake and that the Administration had distorted the evidence about Saddam's weapons programs to fit its agenda. This Wilson tale fit the "lied us into war" narrative so well that he was adopted by the John Kerry presidential campaign.
Only to be dropped faster than a Paris Hilton boyfriend after the Senate Intelligence and Butler reports were published. Those reports clearly showed that, while Saddam had probably not purchased yellowcake from Niger, the dictator had almost certainly tried--and that Mr. Wilson's own briefing of the CIA after his mission supported that conclusion. Mr. Wilson somehow omitted that fact from his public accounts at the time.
He also omitted to explain why the CIA had sent him to Niger: His wife, who worked at the CIA, had suggested his name for the trip, a fact Mr. Wilson also denied, but which has also since been proven. In other words, the only real support there has ever been for the "Bush lied" storyline came from a man who is himself a demonstrable liar.
...but I heard parts of the speach former President Clinton gave at Rosa Parks funeral services.
Old Billy Jeff is one charismatic Son of a Bitch. A liar with a rotten foreign policy that encouraged Islamofascist terrorists, but he can give one Hell of a speech!
Thursday, November 03, 2005
• First: The CIA sent her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for nonconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration’s Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame’s suggestion.
• Second: Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or who represent CIA clients.
• Third: When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn’t a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the “missionary,” if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president’s were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson’s oral report.
• Fourth: Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer’s expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we’d have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA’s Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson’s oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.
• Fifth: More important than the inaccuracies is the fact that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame’s identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after “Why did the CIA send Wilson?” was “Who is Wilson?” After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson’s “wife” suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who’s Who, which reveals “Valerie Plame” as Mr. Wilson’s spouse.
• Sixth: CIA incompetence did not end there. When Mr. Novak called the agency to verify Ms. Plame’s employment, it not only did so, but failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Every experienced Washington journalist knows that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.
• Seventh: Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name “Wilson, Valerie E.,” information publicly available at the FEC.
[…]The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft. It is up to Congress to decide which.
From the Strata-Sphere comes more analysis:
In a previous post I noted the strange coincidence that the Niger Forgeries were possibly made in the 1999-2000 timeframe (before Bush was even elected), which was also coincidental with the Iraqi trade commission trip to Niger, and Joe Wilson’s first trip to Niger for the CIA. Joe Wilson had just left the US government and started JCWilson International Ventures, Inc - which specialized in trade with African countries.
Countries including Niger, which only had one real product to export: uranium.
In that post I postulated that the Niger Forgeries would be a real good way to divert western intelligence services away from any nefarious activities by pointing them at international bad guy Saddam Hussein. I speculated that if - and this is a big if - Joe Wilson was working with rogue CIA elements to make some money on the side, covered by Valerie’s cover employer supposedly chartered to keep an eye on this kind of WMD trade, then the Niger Forgeries would be a classic CIA method of diversion away from an illegal money making scheme.
Some of this speculation was confirmed when these reports surfaced claiming that the Niger Forgeries were created by Libya to divert suspicions from a Libya-Iraq-Egypt alliance, where Libya purchased the yellowcake for Saddam and others.New attempts are being made by officials from Niger to obfuscate the political picture with regard to the supply of Niger-originating uranium to Iraq. However, there is now a growing possibility that the reality that Niger supplied uranium to Libya, and that Libya hosted the Iraqi strategic weapons programs from about 1998 onwards, will be openly acknowledged by US and UK governments in the near future.
I have no clue to the veracity of these claims or where this group comes from. But the fact that we found a nuclear weapons capability in Libya shortly after Saddam’s regime fell is consistent with the scenario were we traced Saddam’s weapons to Libya and Libya gave up the ghost when we confronted them.
But how could this play with Wilson?
Here is an interesting timeline of events that is the most common chronology of events in 1999:1999 – Joseph Wilson takes a trip to Niger at the behest of the CIA to investigate “uranium-related matters” separate from Iraq . (Wilson, Politics lv-lvi). According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on pre-war intelligence, Wilson “was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.” (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on Prewar Assessment of Iraq Intelligence, 39, July 2004).
April 22, 1999 – Valerie Wilson lists “Brewster-Jennings & Assoc.”—later revealed to be a CIA front company—as her employer when making a donation to the Gore campaign. ( Gore FEC filing).
June 1999 – Niger ’s former prime minister Ibrahim Mayaki meets with an Iraqi delegation wanting to discuss “expanding commercial relations.” Mayaki interprets this as an interest in uranium, Niger ’s main export, and later tells Wilson that he did not discuss it because Iraq remained under UN trade sanctions. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43-44, July 2004).
Curt has more that points out that it's Wilson who should be under investigation.
Let's assume you take a big deep drink from the leftist Kool-Aid (TM), a believe in your heart of hearts that the Iraq was started based on lies instead of the best intelligence estimates from the CIA, MI6, and numerous other international organizations in the same field.
Let's look at those lies and who told them.
Lies told by the President:
The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.
Lies told the Secretary of State:
Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.
"Month after month, we have given Iraq chance after chance to move from confrontation to cooperation, and we have explored and exhausted every diplomatic action. We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq's misguided leaders to reverse course and to accept at long last the need to abide by the rule of law and the will of the world."
A Senator with an agenda.
Damn those lying liars! William Jefferson Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller!
Wait! There's more:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
HT to Ace.
Curt at Flopping Aces has more!
Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. - President Bill Clinton, Dec 17, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
Go check out the rest!
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Kevin at Wizbang has the story. He doesn't have the link to the video of Chris Matthews ripping the DNC a new one over this though.
If you're attempting to mount a sleazy smear campaign against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito inferring that he is in some way in bed with the mob, it's probably best not to electronically sign your name to it. As Mike Krempasky at Red State points out one of Howard Dean's little loose cannons at the DNC (Chris Pendergrast) is responsible for this little piece of slime...
A couple more items of interest about the not for attribution memo.
First it was written July 7, 2005, implying that the DNC developed these anonymous hit pieces on every possible Supreme Court nominee prior to Roberts nomination. Second, while Prendergrast might have been the original version, DNC research director Devorah Adler was the most recent editor. For someone who was just promoted into the research director position in September, Adler stumbles right out of the gate...
Michelle Malkin provides a look at what the face of the democrat party is becoming.
Don't forget this nasty example of the intolerance of the leftist extremists.
Here's the beginning:
With the Senate shut-down engineered by Harry Reid today, Senate Democrats have all but conceded their rout over the past five days. The indictment of Lewis Libby brought them only confused looks and scratched heads from America at large, and Rove had escaped. Then the president nominated an extraordinarily qualified jurist and rolled out a comprehensive strategy on avian flu preparedness. Oh, the economy grew by 3.8% GDP in the thrid (hurricane) quarter.
On top of it, Chuck Schumer's outrageous attack on Judge Alito and the DNC's scurrilous anti-Italian-American insinuation (so raw that even Chris Matthews could not swallow it) had opened the window into the Democratic destruction machine too wide. See Michael Barone's analysis on why an attack on a grandson of Italy was stupid and then consider how that is playing in New Jersey and Virginia, where elections are looking for those statehouses in a week. Then Barbara Boxer attempoted to make an argument against Alito on the nets, and the Gang of 14's Lindsey Graham and Michael DeWine preemptively announced support for the constitutional option if Dems resurrected their extra-constitutional filibuster.
In the blink of an eye, all of last Thursday's promise was gone and Dems were reeling, and Judicary Committee Democrats in particular are looking at another round of hearings where the nominee stands relative to his opponents as a teacher does her first graders.
Go read the rest. As I've said before, it's not enough just be against the adminstration, you need to be for something.
Update: Byron York nails it:
Perhaps the best explanation for the Democrats' decision to virtually shut down the Senate today can be found in one passage from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's news conference last Friday:This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel....The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.
Fitzgerald's statement, and his decision to confine the indictment of Lewis Libby to charges of lying and obstruction, threatened to dash the Democrats' hope of using the CIA leak case as an opportunity to re-debate the reasons for going to war in Iraq. So the party, or at least its leaders in the Senate, has decided to use another route, the shutdown of the Senate, as a way to achieve that goal.
Muir nails it in three panel format:
Glenn Reynolds is a bit too polite to come out to say that Reid is acting like a spoiled child and brings up that the investigation that Reid wants needs to go places that Reid and the democrats don't want it to go:
...the investigation needs to go way back before the war, to 1998, when a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided that:(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'
It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
There is a lot more that the democrats want ignored, so go read the whole thing.
1.) Wilson Insisted That The Vice President’s Office Sent Him To Niger: (Nope. It was the CIA)
2.) Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report: (Nope. CIA didn't brief either Cheney or Bush.)
3.) Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant: (Nope. CIA said that the information was not conclusive.)
4.) Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002: (Nope. He said it was CIA, but testimony and documentation show it was his wife.)
5.) Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife: (Nope. She did recommend him to the CIA due to the previous trip she had recommended him to take on their behalf.)
6.) Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign: Nope. (It wasn't the RNC as he claimed but a Senate select committee of 8 Dems and 9 Reps that stated "Lent more credibility to the original CIA reports...")
7.) A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents: (Nope. He claimed to WaPo that the names and dates were wrong, but the Senate committee was told by Wilson that he had "misspoken" to the press.)
8.) Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate: (Nope. Wilson claimed to committee staff that he used "literary flair".)
9.) Wilson Claimed The CIA Provided Him With Information Related To The Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction: (Nope. The Director of Operations at the CIA told committee staff that they had not provided any information to Wilson.)
10.) Wilson Claimed He Is A Non-Partisan “Centrist”: (Ha!! Nope. Wilson is a registered Democrat, donated $2,000 to Kerry ('03), $1,000 to Hillary ('02), and $3,000 to Gore ('99). NYT quote from Wilson in a story on Wilson/Plame "It Will Be A Cold Day In Hell Before I Vote For A Republican, Even For Dog Catcher.")
"...to Wilson, “truth” is whatever he can make people believe it to be, and he’s got millions of willing acolytes ready to insist along with him that his lies are true, and to defend and embrace him even after he’s been proven a self-aggrandizing liar time and time and time again."
Go read the whole thing.
Ok, so Scooter got his ass in a sling, not for what he did prior the the start of the investigation, but what did during the investigation.
The findings of the two year investigation, done with the cooperation of the White House (a nice change from "declaring war" on prosecutors), were actually predicted on the July 15th episode of PBS's "The Journal Editorial Report":
Paul Gigot: What kind of legal jeopardy is Karl Rove in, based on what we know now?
Taranto: On a scale of one to 10, Paul, I would say roughly a zero. Look, the allegation is that Rove violated something called the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This is a 1982 law that's meant to shield the identities of covert CIA agents. In order to be a covert CIA agent under this law, you have to be stationed overseas or to have been stationed overseas sometime in the past five years. Joe Wilson in his book acknowledges that his wife's last overseas assignment was in 1997, six years before this so-called leak took place. There's no crime here.
Gigot: It also is true that you must have disclosed the CIA agent's identity maliciously and as part of your normal official government function.
Taranto: You have to have learned it through your government functions, and you have to have disclosed it knowing that the government was taking affirmative measures to conceal it. Now Robert Novak, who first reported this, said later that he had asked the CIA if it was OK to disclose this name. He said the CIA said we'd rather not, but made only--and these are his words--"a very weak objection." So it doesn't sound like the government was taking affirmative measures.
Gigot: Of course, we do have that independent counsel, the Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed a couple of years ago, looking into this. Do we know what it is precisely he's looking at? Could he be looking at anything more than whether that law was violated? Something like perjury or lying under oath?
Taranto: Well, as Martha Stewart can attest, sometimes just being involved in a criminal investigation can get you into trouble if you do the wrong thing. So yes, there may be conceivably indictments based on something that arose out of the investigation, even if there is no underlying crime.
So the root cause of Plamegate is nothinggate. If Fitzgerald had something, he would have said it, even if he didn't press charges.
See Indepenent Council Ray's findings for example.
So, let's look at what happened back at the root of the issue.
Why was Joe Wilson sent to Niger in the first place? He said that the Vice-President wanted answers, but as we know that doesn't mean the the VP picked him. Wilson's qualifications are also suspect. He was low level diplomat to third world countries and briefly served in the US Embassy in Baghdad prior to Desert Storm. He had no background in WMDs or any intelligence training. It's been widely leaked that it was his wife who put his name up, but why? He did have some connections with the Nigerian Mining Ministry. A group of officials as honest as any in sub-Sahara Africa, which is to say at least mildy corrupt. From what I've read, Wilson asked them if they had violated international laws concerning the transfer of weapons grade uranium. Hardly surprising, they said no. Wilson in his NY Times Op Ed, said he found no evidence of the sale of Yellow Cake to Iraq. What he didn't say there, but did in his report to the CIA, was that there was a group of ranking Iraqi officals, including "Bagdad Bob" in Niger at the time. There isn't much besides Yellow Cake to interest the Iraqi government in Niger.
Glenn Reynolds points out that the CIA doesn't come out looking good in this affair no matter how you slice it:
THE BIG LOSER in the Libby affair, it would seem to me, is the CIA. At least it will be if anyone pays attention.
Consider: Assuming that Valerie Plame was some sort of genuinely covert operative -- something that's not actually quite clear from the indictment -- the chain of events looks pretty damning: Wilson was sent to Africa on an investigative mission regarding nuclear weapons, but never asked to sign any sort of secrecy agreement(!). Wilson returns, reports, then publishes an oped in the New York Times (!!) about his mission. This pretty much ensures that people will start asking why he was sent, which leads to the fact that his wife arranged it. Once Wilson's oped appeared, Plame's covert status was in serious danger. Yet nobody seemed to care.
This leaves two possibilities. One is that the mission was intended to result in the New York Times oped all along, meaning that the CIA didn't care much about Plame's status, and was trying to meddle in domestic politics. This reflects very badly on the CIA.
The other possibility is that they're so clueless that they did this without any nefarious plan, because they're so inept, and so prone to cronyism and nepotism, that this is just business as usual. If so, the popular theory that the CIA couldn't find its own weenie with both hands and a flashlight would appear to have found some pretty strong support.
Either way, it seems to me that everyone involved with planning the Wilson mission should be fired. And it's obvious that the CIA, one way or another, needs a lot of work.
Hmmm...that goes back to the theory that Wilson, a known opponent of the Bush Administration, be sent to Niger as part of the CIA's plan to keep the President off balance and not cleaning house at the CIA.
The Wedding Date, actually a well made chick flick. I'm married, so I've seen my share, including the ones where the better half apologies to me halfway through the film. One of my favorite lines is when the lead (Debra Messing) is asked if there is anything wrong and she replies, "Nothing a bottle of Jack and straight razor wouldn't fix."
Prozac Nation, personally I'm betting that the scene with Christina Ricci sitting on the bed naked will account for 80% of all rentals of this movie. The only other redeaming feature of this movie was all the location shots on the Harvard Campus. This movie also drove home the point that Jessica Lange has not done anything worth watching since King Kong.
Equilibrium, it tasted more like 1984 than The Matrix to me. The Gun Kata stuff was way cool to watch.
Complete bullshit to my 20+ years of martial arts experince, but WTF, it's a movie!
Extreme wirework (ala The Matrix) isn't realistic either, but it's fun to watch.