Tuesday, August 30, 2005

WORD OF THE DAY "requiescat"

I wonder, am I paranoid and conspiracy minded or am I keen-witted and possess the knowledge of knowing what this Bush&Co regime is capable of doing to hold on to their power... I think the latter...
At this time, (DURING BUSH'S SLIDE IN THE POLLS) if a terrorist attack of catastrophic proportions should occurr, there is more than a gargantuan chance that the neocons would be behind it. They are only about wealth and power and as Bush's numbers fall so does their peace of mind. The neocons, I believe, would go to any lengths to hold on to their power, so the below comments do not seem far-fetched, not on your life...
But first read a little history about "THE REICHSTAG FIRE"! Thinking Blue


On 27th February the Reichstag caught fire. When the police arrived they found Marinus van der Lubbe on the premises. After being tortured by the Gestapo he confessed to starting the Reichstag Fire. However he denies that he was part of a Communist conspiracy. Hermann Goering refuses to believe him and he orders the arrest of several leaders of the German Communist Party (KPD).

When Hitler heard the news about the fire he gave orders that all leaders of the
German Communist Party should "be hanged that very night." Paul von Hindenburg vetoed this decision but did agree that Hitler should take "dictatorial powers". KPD candidates in the election were arrested and Hermann Goering announced that the Nazi Party planned "to exterminate" German communists. From this site: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERreichstagF.htm

word of the day

requiescat n. A prayer for the repose of the souls of the dead.


Sad thing, is that I don't think this is all that far out, but VERY POSSIBLE! Scary Shit! At least, you and I are not the only ones gone "paranoid" and "conspiracy minded." Read on.... jc


Bush's declining support

Perhaps I either read TOO many mysteries, or am just naturally paranoid, but what truly worries
me is that if Bush, et al, lose control of either Congress or the White
House, we will suffer another major terrorist attack, Bush will, using
national security as the rationale, suspend the Constitution and impose
martial law. If the Republicans lose control of Congress Bush will have
two years to act, and if they lose the election in 2008, he will have two
months. Convince me I am wrong!

Jane White


Jane White
on Sat Aug 27th, 2005
at 12:04:04 PM EDT


They're already laying the foundation for it... in the name of fighting illegal immigration by declaring states of emergencies and given these the Minute Men full reign to kill on sight.

Although I strongly oppose the number of illegal immigrants crossing
our borders and agree something must be done, I see the Neocons as using
this as a distractive plot to bring about to bring your fears into
reality just as you have mentioned. We can take nothing for granted and
must question everything they do. The majority of Americans are
disgrutled and fed up with this administration and are probably waiting
until the 06 midterm elections to try and balance out the executive
branch of government. The Neocons are making their vicious plans you
can bet on it.

So no, your apprehensions are far from being paranoia.

Forever in the struggle for justice and peace, Emah

by emah1 (bringonthepeace@charter.net)
on Sat Aug 27th, 2005 at 12:49:02 PM EDT

don't be afraid

If the so-called Chinese Communist government of China couldn't control the free speech
movement on the Internet,who do you think Bush was? Do you think he was
the one who invented the Internet?Don't take my words but to take every
other words or disinformation with a grain of salt!


on Sun Aug 28th, 2005 at
04:46:40 AM EDT

Dark forces

The way I see it, things are getting so desperate for Bush, there is no
way to get out of this pickle EXCEPT for another major terrorist attack
even more shocking than 9/11. His job approval ratings are extremely low and still falling. The war
grows more violent and intractable every day, and almost everybody knows
it's his fault. We're facing record-high oil prices which will
precipitate inflation and a stock market crash down the road. Republicans
in Congress are starting to rebel. The military brass is rebelling. The
CIA, the State Department, and the veterans are rebelling. And that pesky
federal prosecutor on the Plame case can't be scared off or bought off.
If the dark forces behind the Bush White House don't act soon, there will
be indictments and calls for impeachment. They're not about to let that

This is like a disaster flick, and I'm all on the edge of my seat waiting to see how they'll do it. But I feel sure they'll do it. And they may find a way to blame it on the left.Cassandra


on Sat Aug 27th, 2005 at
02:26:09 PM EDT

Dark Forces
Cassandra, I believe
that the next attacks will implicate Iran. The neocrazies want a pretext
for the bombing, perhaps nuking, of Iran, and they will try and put our
nation and our military in harms way to achieve their goal.

You are right;Bush needs a jump start in the polls. However, unlike
9-11-2001, there are many in America who will question the timing of
these new attacks.And I believe that there are others in the CIA, FBI,
and the military who will stand up and speak the truth.

Call me an optimist,but the dark forces you allude to ( I love your
imagery) are self seving, and if they see that the Cowboy from
Kennebunkport is vulnerable, and that his power is ebbing, they will
turn on him like Cronos devouring his young. This may force many stealth
neocrazies to re-plot their course, simply because many Americans are
onto their scam. WWIII may be postponed for a while.

"A slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts.": Euripides


on Sat Aug 27th, 2005 at 05:28:38 PM EDT

No WAY is that SOB from Kennebunkport....he just went there to get drunk and drive around...terrorising the locals. by catntree on Sat Aug 27th, 2005
at 05:44:06 PM EDT

Well, there are various possibilities, jbyopa. As you said, people
will be suspicious this time, so it will have to be good. The dark
forces will have to decide how desperate they are to keep Bush in
power and salvage his image. If they can stage another terrorist
attack and declare martial law, the Plame investigation will be moot
and all criticism of the president can be treated as treason. That
would prevent impeachment, and elections could be postponed until
further notice--saving the neocons a lot of bother and cutting
straight to the chase of autocracy and empire.

There would still be rumblings and isolated mutinies. That's when
Bush would have to decide just how far he wanted to go--whether he was
going to be the kind of leader who crushes opposition with an iron
fist in the name of "protecting America". Members of the armed forces
would have to make their own decisions about whether to rebel and risk
court martial and execution as traitors. Not many would dare to do
this, especially after a big terrorist attack.

Scapegoats would be needed, though. That's where we come in. Yes,
Iran would be the major culprit and we'd rain pre-planned nuclear fire
down on them of course. But members of the American left would also
be vilified for giving aid and comfort to the enemy with our anti-war
movement. There would be kangaroo trials as well as lynchings, and
lots of us would either flee the country--or just shut up and play
possum. Thus the opposition would shrink and the stalwart few
remaining would be imprisoned or eliminated. That's the way fascism

On the other hand, if the dark forces decide somewhere
along the way that Bush is a dufus who has outlived his usefulness,
they might assassinate him, thereby transforming him into a very
useful martyr--a humble and misunderstood man who gave his life so the
peoples of the world could enjoy freedom etc. etc.
spectacle of his grieving family would have the whole nation in tears.
And we'd go through the familiar routine of naming buildings, parks,
airports and so on after George W. Bush, perhaps with a dazzling new
monument in D.C. All this would take place under the administration
of Dick Cheney, our new Benevolent Leader and president. The
afterglow of Bush's tragic martyrdom would keep criticism off Cheney
and the Republicans for years to come. They would spend that time
purging the Traitors of the Left and plotting against one another.

I don't know if these things will happen. They're pretty
far out, I know that. But people never see fascism coming if it's
done right. Everything can change overnight, with an attack by
"outside enemies". I'm speaking of this because I don't want them to
surprise us, if that's what they're planning. Our nation is in a very
precarious state, and the outcome will depend on how far they are
willing to go.

I believe these people are capable of all this, and more.

Cassandra by Cassandra on Sat Aug 27th,
2005 at 07:45:46 PM EDT
CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

Thursday, August 25, 2005



Below is a letter to The Governor of Texas plus many more of our leaders to not execute a woman who is innocent of a heinous crime perpetrated on her husband and small children. This story really got to me and I had to sign the petition along with my comments. I am against capital punishment because of such a travesty of an innocent person being put to death for a crime THEY DID NOT COMMIT... Please help this woman and sign the petition.
HERE IS THE LINK: http://www.freefrances.org/
Thank you,
PS: Please send this petition around, time is running out!

*** URGENT ***

Governor Perry, Attorney General Abbott, President Bush, Senators and Representatives, Houston Mayor White, Houston City Councilors, and Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles:
On September 14, 2005, Frances Newton, AN INNOCENT WOMAN, is scheduled to be executed by the state of Texas.

If the jury had known the facts that are presently known, they would not have found Frances guilty nor given her the death sentence.

The dubious motive, unrealistic timeline, the police's refusal to follow important leads, and most of all, her incompetent counsel, all point to the compelling evidence that proves Frances Newton is innocent. She has been on death row for 18 years, and you have already granted her a 120- day stay. But on the basis of new evidence, Frances needs to finally have her day in court. We plead to you in good conscience to STOP THE EXECUTION OF FRANCES NEWTON.

You must stop the death of this innocent person. If you do not, murder will be part of your resume. We live in an unjust and unequal society, and part of the reason is the acceptance of the cruel and unusual capital punishment.

I have served on a jury and believe me the judgement from peers is a joke. The ordinary juror does not stand a chance to honestly evaluate the guilt or innocence of an accused person without prejudice. Highly educated and experienced prosecuting attorneys paint a picture of the defendant’s guilt which is rarely contested by an incompetent, uncaring defense lawyer who is appointed for a person that lacks the funds to hire a well trained counsel. Plus securing a guilty verdict is a feather in the cap of a career oriented prosecuting lawyer. Furthermore, so many times the lawyers appointed for a poor person's defense could care less if their "client" is found guilty or not, they go through the motions just to get it over with as quickly as possible, so they can get back to their practices and make money. Frances Newton's lawyer did not even need a jury to judge her, he determined her guilt even before he saw her. This is a travesty and beyond comprehension in a humane society.

Please I beg you, do not allow this person to be executed, she has suffered so much with the loss of her family and the loss of her freedom. Being on death row for 18 long years, knowing she was falsely accused of not just a crime but a horrible murder that took out her family. Sad is too small a word to describe this and if this innocent person is put to death it will go down in history as an extreme abasement to the Texas Justice System. Sincerely,

Protesters rally around Houston woman on death row
05:47 PM CDT on Monday, August 22, 2005

By Reggie Aqui / 11 News

HOUSTON -- Demonstrators gathered in downtown Houston Monday in the hopes of saving Frances Newton from her scheduled September execution.

She would be the first African American woman put to death in Texas since the Civil War.


Like most members of the group, Rabia Tahiri has never met Newton.

"This is like a Pandora's box," Marcia Hale told the Houston Chronicle.

Hale is a street minister associated with the Committee to Free Frances Newton. "If this woman is executed, she's going to be like a poster child to open the door for other females of all races to be murdered," Hale said.

The protestors were hoping to have enough people to gather all alongside the Harris County courthouse, but not enough showed up to do so.

"We want to stand up for justice, not only for today, but for the rest of our lives," a protestor said to the crowd.

Like most members of the Committee to Free Frances Newton, Rabia Tahiri has never met Newton. But she's familiar with her story, which dates back to April 1987.

Newton claims she walked into her apartment and found her husband and two young children dead. But investigators pointed the finger at Newton after discovering a gun and an insurance policy recently taken out on the family.

They believe a $100,000 insurance policy was the motive.

The demonstrators in downtown Houston and on the Internet said the real truth still hasn't come to light. Supporters said Newton did not receive an adequate defense and is not guilty of the crime.

"I care because every life is precious, and especially when a woman is innocent. She deserves that each one of us fight for her, especially that they're doing this in our name, the State of Texas, Harris County," said Rabia Tahiri.

Monday's demonstration is just the beginning of the save Frances campaign. The group plans to organize again in Houston later in the week and in Austin on Saturday to try and get the governor's attention.

Governor Perry issued a rare 120-day reprieve last December to stop Newton's scheduled execution. That allowed for additional ballistics testing on a .25-caliber Raven Arms pistol that Newton had hidden in an abandoned house the night of the shootings. Bullets test-fired from that gun matched those removed from the victims.

Newton has been on death row for 19 years now.

CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!


Wednesday, August 10, 2005


August 10, 2005
I came across the article below which advocates that the Rove-gate/Plame-gate investigation IS NOT ABOUT ROVE but more about a neocon dream. A very interesting new slant on this act of treason committed by (as of now) an unknown LEAK, LEAKER OR LEAKEE.

treason - Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

I believe it's World dominance the neocons are after... A World of puppet-head governments doing their bidding... Controlling the masses with fear, reaping huge profits with controls over business and using WAR as a means to keep dissenters in place. I believe they are just salivating over this dream becoming reality...

Which brings me to the sad conclusion: NO WONDER THERE ARE SUICIDE BOMBERS... they fear the absolute control by these greedy warmongers more than they fear death... but their commitments are so misguided... their deaths are so in vain with the killing of the innocent...why do they keep targeting people like themselves...??? Why don't they realize they are being used as THE TOOLS OF FEAR, the same tools a world control government would use (and possibly are using)??? Employing the same implement of terror on the masses, is in actuality, aiding and abetting these ambitious abusers towards actualizing their dream, thus accomplishing their version of REALITY!!!

We can stop them if the red state voters (those poor misled people who vote for who they are told to vote for and not for their best interests) ...wake from the hypnotic trance the shysters seem to be putting them under... AND VOTE THE WARMONGERS OUT OF OFFICE... The neocons aren't the only ones with a dream...I have a dream that...
Below is the article from:

Click For Actual Article
Thinking Blue
Click Here For The Webpage Version Of This New Slant


Rove-gate: Who Leaked to the Leakers?

This isn't about Karl Rove
by Justin Raimondo

Click Here

David Wurmser, Elliott Abrams, "Scooter" Libby

What if Karl Rove isn't guilty of knowingly leaking Valerie Plame's name as a covert CIA agent involved in nuclear proliferation issues? What if Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, is
correct when he says that he's been assured by prosecutors that his client is
not a target of the ongoing investigation into Plame-gate? I'm going to swim against the tide, here, and against the expectations of my readers, by suggesting that this investigation isn't about Rove – and, furthermore, that Rove is a victim, in an important sense, someone who was used and abused by the real culprits. And who are these mysterious culprits? We'll get
to that in a moment, but first some background…

One thing that has always struck me as odd about this whole affair – and I
the only one – is a seemingly minor detail: why did Novak's
original column
, which started all this brouhaha, identify Valerie Plame by her maiden name? After all, most married women – even in this era of Women's Liberation – defer to the tradition of taking their husband's name, but I have to admit that, even after wondering about it for a brief moment, I shrugged and moved on. As it turns out, however, this is an important detail, because now we have Rove's lawyer saying that he at no time gave out Valerie
's name: but if Rove identified her as Joe Wilson's wife, what the heck is the difference?

The difference is that, as Valerie Plame, Mrs. Wilson was affiliated with a CIA front company,
Brewster-Jennings & Associates
, engaged in tracking and stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As soon as her name was made public, the implications for U.S. national security amounted to a grave breach – far more of a crime than merely violating the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act
, which has only had a
prosecution since its passage in 1982. As the Washington Post reported when the Plame scandal broke:

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

The publication of her maiden name not only endangered Valerie
Wilson, but also blew the cover of a CIA front and imperiled anyone
she might have come in contact with during her stint overseas. This
isn't just a matter of of violating a statute that, at most, entails
a 10-year jail sentence and a fine – this is a question of possible

What also seems fairly clear is that Karl Rove would not have had
direct knowledge of Plame-Wilson's covert activities on behalf of
the CIA, and that only a very few people high up in the national
security bureaucracy had the clearance to get access to her name. So
who was it? If Rove leaked to Novak, and

half a dozen
Washington reporters, then who leaked to the leakers?

This isn't about Rove.

It's about a cabal of war hawks inside the administration who passed on this
information to others without telling them about Plame-Wilson's deep
cover status, perhaps suggesting that she was just an analyst
working at a desk rather than a covert operative involved in a
vitally important overseas operation, the knowledge of which was
highly compartmentalized and only dispensed on a need-to-know basis.
When Rove and his shills blabbed to reporters and anyone who would
listen, they didn't realize that they were aiding and abetting an
elaborate ploy to stick it to the CIA.

Seen against the backdrop of the fierce intra-bureaucratic war that broke out in the
administration in the run-up to the Iraq war – with the CIA and the mainline intelligence and diplomatic communities pitted against civilian neoconservatives in the upper echelons of the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President – the outing of Plame and her colleagues amounts to an act of espionage committed out of a desire to exact revenge. The leakers meant to retaliate not just against Joe Wilson, through his wife, but against the "old guard" that was resisting the campaign to lie us into war. When the CIA wouldn't go along with the neocon program and "spice up" their analyses with Ahmed Chalabi's tall tales and the outright forgery of the Niger uranium documents, the War Party struck back at them with the sort of viciousness for which the
neocons are rightly renowned.

The neocons had a fix on their target; now the question was how to get someone else to pull the trigger. The leakers, in order to protect themselves, "laundered" the leak through journalists (Judith Miller, one of their favorite conduits) and Bush operatives – Rove. In his book,
The Politics of Truth
, Joe Wilson says as much:

"Apparently, according to two journalist sources of mine, when
Rove learned that he might have violated the law, he turned on
Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he held them responsible for
the problem they had created for the administration. The protracted
silence on this topic from the White House masks considerable
tension between the Office of the President and the Office of the
Vice President.

"The rumors swirling around Rove, Libby, and Abrams were so
pervasive in Washington that the White House press secretary, Scott
McClellan, was obliged to address them in an October 2003 briefing,
saying of Rove: 'The president knows he wasn't involved. … It's
simply not true.' McClellan refused to be drawn into a similar
direct denial of Libby's or Abrams's possible involvement, however."

Suddenly, the complacent – and often complicit – American media seems to be waking up.
Reporters are now publicly pillorying White House spokesman Scott McClellan:

"QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott…

"(LAUGHTER) "… because after the investigation began – after the criminal
investigation was under way – you said, October 10th, 2003, 'I spoke
with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out,
those individuals assured me they were not involved in this,' from
that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that
Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this
information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of
the criminal investigation.

"MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I
think you are well aware of that."

Reporters who heard McClellan's assurances back in October 2003
weren't being deceived so much as lulled to sleep, and that really
didn't take much of an effort on the part of the administration, now
did it? They were basically asleep anyway, and weren't really
listening to what was being said. Some people were paying attention,
however, and taking notes,
Joshua Marshall for one:

"So, when McClellan was asked to be more clear, he opted for a
meaninglessly vague statement and then fell back on the 'leaking of
classified information' dodge. Can we all take note of this now?
That denial wasn't what it seemed to be. In fact, I doubt it was a
real denial at all.

"There's more there. Why not find it?"

Patrick J. "Bulldog" Fitzgerald is now in the process of finding it – and Rove is not his
real quarry, although he and some others in the White House could wind up as collateral damage. By all indications, Bulldog's real target points more in the direction of the Office of the Vice President. Ambassador Wilson knows who his enemies are, and he
pointed to them in his book and in an interview with Joe Conason in Salon:

"Gleaned from all those crosscurrents of information, the most
plausible scenario, and the one that I've heard most frequently from
different sources, has been that there was a meeting in the middle
of March 2003, chaired by either [Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter
Libby or the vice president – but more frequently I've heard chaired
by Scooter – at which a decision was made to get a 'work-up' on me.
That meant getting as much information about me as they could: about
my past, about my life, about my family. This, in and of itself, is
abominable. Then that information was passed at the appropriate time
to the White House Communications Office, and at some point a
decision was made to go ahead and start to smear me, after my
opinion piece appeared in the New York Times."

"Salon: You mention two other names: John
Hannah, who works in the Office of the Vice President, and David
Wurmser, who is a special assistant to John Bolton, the
undersecretary of state for arms control and national security. Last
Wednesday, their names both appeared on a chart that accompanied an
article in the
New York Times about the Pentagon's Office of
Special Plans and the war cabal within the Bush administration. Did
these people run an intelligence operation against you?"

"Wilson: I don't know if it's the same unit, but
it's very clear, from what I've heard, that the meeting in March
2003 led to an intelligence operation against my family and me.
That's what a work-up is – to try to find everything you can about
an American citizen."

After the War Party met in solemn conclave, and the command went
out from Cheney: "Bring me the head of Joe Wilson!", there was only
one logical place for Cheney's minions to go. Who in the
administration would've had access to the specific information
regarding Plame-Wilson's role in a deep-cover CIA operation
involving nuclear proliferation? Why, the man who was the State
Department deputy secretary in charge of "weapons of mass
destruction" – the somewhat irritable if not downright reckless John Bolton,
ambassador to the UN, who played a central role in promulgating the Niger Uranium Myth. Conveniently, two of Bolton's assistants, David Wurmser and John
, also worked in Cheney's office. A story by UPI's Richard Sale, published last year, points at Cheney's office and specifically at Hannah as having played a key role in all this:

"Federal law-enforcement officials said that they have
developed hard evidence of possible criminal misconduct by two
employees of Vice President Dick Cheney's office related to the
unlawful exposure of a CIA officer's identity last year. The
investigation, which is continuing, could lead to indictments, a
Justice Department official said.

"According to these sources, John Hannah and Cheney's chief of
staff, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, were the two Cheney employees. 'We
believe that Hannah was the major player in this,' one federal
law-enforcement officer said. … The strategy of the FBI is to make
clear to Hannah 'that he faces a real possibility of doing jail
time' as a way to pressure him to name superiors, one federal
law-enforcement official said."

Hannah is Cheney's Middle East policy point-man, and before that
was director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). Middle East
expert Juan Cole shines his reportorial flashlight on what's under that particular rock:

"Libby and Hannah form part of a 13-man vice presidential
advisory team, sort of a veep NSC [National Security Council], which
helps underpin Cheney's dominance in the US foreign policy area.
Hannah is a neoconservative and old cold warrior who is really more
of a Soviet expert than a Middle East expert. But in the 90s he for
a while headed up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP),
a think tank that represents the interests of the American Israel
Political Action Committee (AIPAC). Hannah is said to have been
behind Cheney's and consequently Bush's support for refusing to deal
with Yasser Arafat. But he was also deeply involved in getting up
the Iraq war.…"

The AIPAC connection should raise a red flag: AIPAC is already at the center of a case involving espionage conducted by Israel against the United States, with Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin indicted [.pdf] for passing classified information on to longtime AIPAC leader
Steve Rosen and his aide Keith Weissman, with an Israeli embassy official, chief
political officer Naor Gilon, directly involved. In both cases, which involve the
unlawful dissemination of sensitive U.S. secrets, the defense is
claiming that "everyone does it" and that the classified information
they're accused of leaking – or, in AIPAC's case, directly handing
over to the Israeli government – is supposedly "common knowledge."

Treason is nothing to these people, because their real allegiance is not to the U.S., but to their own cause, which is perpetual war. Libby and Hannah were the enforcers who made sure
that the lies put out by this administration to bamboozle us into war with Iraq were strictly adhered to within the government. Libby was a frequent visitor over at CIA headquarters, along with his boss, and, as Juan Cole writes:

"[H]annah had fingers in all three rotten pies from which the
worst intel came – Sharon's office in Israel, the Pentagon Office of
Special Plans (for which Hannah served as a liaison to Cheney), and
fraudster Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. Hannah had
probably been the one who fed Cheney the Niger uranium story,
triggering a Cheney request to the CIA to verify it and thence Joe
Wilson's trip to Niamey in spring of 2002, where he found the story
to be an absurd falsehood on the face of it."

In short, Hannah was at the center of that vortex of deception that swept us into a disastrous war. When Ambassador Wilson came out with his famous debunking of the infamous
"16 words," Hannah was well positioned to go after the heretic.

If we look at the passing of this leak as we would a ball game, as "super
smart commenter Sara
" pointed out on Digby's blog, the probable trajectory of the ball as it makes its way to the goal goes something like this: "Bolton to Wurmser and Hannah, to
Cheney (and/or Libby) to Rove." In this case, however, unlike soccer or basketball, possession of the ball is not an asset: according to the rules of this game, the last man holding it loses.

I do not believe for a moment that this lengthy and increasingly
controversial investigation is centered around alleged violations of
a rarely invoked statute, incurring a penalty that hardly seems
proportionate to the energy expended to get a conviction. It is
extremely hard to prove that someone has violated the Intelligence
Identities Protection Act; there are all sorts of conditions and
sub-clauses that provide a legal escape route for anyone so charged: that can't be what all this
is about.

If, however, Fitzgerald can prove there was a conspiracy inside
the government to collect and selectively reveal classified
information in order to crush political opponents, and shape U.S.
policy, then the charges could be much more serious. By all
accounts, the Plame investigation is said to be widening, and I
would venture to say that by this time it is wide enough to include
charges of espionage. The mere existence of a highly placed cabal
that was engaged in collecting and utilizing highly sensitive
information – a kind of intelligence bank that existed outside of
normal governmental channels – would be of great interest to the
FBI's counterintelligence unit, and word is out that they've been
plenty busy lately. Who made withdrawals from this Intelligence
, and did any of these account holders include foreign governments – such as
, which received an intelligence treasure trove fromneocon poster boy Ahmed Chalabi, and Israel, which is already under suspicion because of the Franklin affair, and has

close links
to several of the suspects in the Plame-gate investigation?

And then there is the question of the Niger uranium forgeries themselves: who forged the documents that fooled a president? Wilson's exposure of the Niger uranium ploy
angered whoever introduced those documents into the U.S.
intelligence stream – it was Hannah and Libby, by all accounts, who
fought to keep these allegations in the president's speech, in spite of
from the CIA and the State Department. The same crowd
that pushed this phony intelligence must have known something about
the murky origins of what turned out to be a crude forgery.

Forging "evidence" that helped get us into a war – what are the penalties for that?

The fast developing scandal seemingly centered around Rove and a
few journalists has only begun to unfold. By the time it is over,
we'll have the War Party – or, at the very least, a few high profile
representatives – in the dock, and then the fun will really begin.
So forget "Rove-gate" and get ready for "Cheney-gate." I'll gladly
forgo the pleasure of seeing the president's chief political advisor
frog-marched out of the White House for the prospect of seeing our
vice president, along with his top staffers, led out of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in handcuffs.


Before the war, many experienced voices told Bush that the war on terrorism had to go through Jerusalem — that finding a just and honorable solution to the Palestinian question would do wonders for our international reputation. By throwing the prestige of the American presidency into such an effort, Bush could have demonstrated to the Arab world that we were genuine in our desires for justice.
But Bush invaded Iraq instead! We now know that the "American Likud" in the Pentagon manipulated and overstated the intelligence that took us to war, while ignoring the intelligence that didn't support their preconceived plans. We now are bogged down in an endless bloody occupation of a fractured foreign country on the verge of civil war.
From this site:
this site:

Click Here

Click HereClick Here


CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!