Do The Hokey Pokey: Spin Takes Over As Bush Threatens To Veto Senate Intel Bill

The Senate is trying to pass a bill which would make the White House and the nation's secret intelligence agencies a bit more responsive to their only source of "legitimate" funding, the US Congress.

Apparently the bill is so onerous that it can't be nullified by a simple presidential signing statement, so Bush is taking the unusual step of threatening to veto it.

Why? Katherine Shrader of AP spells out the administration's objections
in TIME magazine:

Bush Threatens Intel Bill Veto

(WASHINGTON) — President Bush is threatening to veto a Senate intelligence bill laced with provisions that would force the White House and spy agencies to be more responsive to Congress.

In a policy statement released Thursday, Bush's advisers said the bill fails to provide enough money, "with sufficient flexibility," to adequately pay for spying operations.

It's the same old Bush line: Can the restrictions, just give us the money. We've seen it over and over and over, but lately it's been more blatant than ever.

The Senate has struggled for two years to pass a spending blueprint for the roughly $45 billion-a-year spying budget. Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., made the legislation a top priority when he took over in January. "These provisions are all intended to improve our ability to make decisions, leading to better intelligence for the military and policy makers," Rockefeller said on the Senate floor.

If only it worked that way! Most of the time the policy makers decide what they want to do, then they go about gathering "intelligence" to "justify" their chosen course. This is the norm even for a reality-based government. But for a government that claims to make its own reality, it's only a starting point. It's a very serious point for Georgie the Boy Chimperor, though:

Among the provisions in the intelligence bill that the Bush Administration rejects:

Yearly disclosure of the total amount spent on intelligence. The Administration has long argued that releasing the figures would be a threat to national security.

Well that all depends on what you mean by national security, doesn't it? If by "national security" you mean the use of unaccountable secret funds for unaccountable secret purposes then by all means releasing the figures would be a threat. Not much of a threat, since the vast majority of the annual intelligence budget comes not from Congressional or Presidential appropriation, but from the international market of heroin, cocaine, and other delicacies. We're not supposed to know about that, by the way. We weren't supposed to know how much poppy was being grown in southeast Asia thirty-five or forty years ago, either. Just one more happy coincidence?

When lawmakers with jurisdiction ask for intelligence assessments and other information, the bill requires spy chiefs to turn the materials over within 15 days. The measure "would foster political gamesmanship and elevate routine disagreements to the level of constitutional crises," the Administration says.

It would only elevate the disagreements to the level of a crisis -- constitutional or otherwise -- if the agency in question refused its legal requirement to share the information it had been collecting at taxpayer expense! (well, partially, anyway.) Who do these people work for? Not the ones who pay them. Did you ever notice that? There's your constitutional crisis!

A mandate that the White House brief all members of the intelligence committees on extraordinarily sensitive matters — not just Congressional and intelligence committee leaders, as is often the practice now.

As well-documented by our friend Larisa Alexandrovna, the current practice consists of bottlenecking the intelligence to as few people as possible.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush issued an order to the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, and his cabinet members that severely curtailed intelligence oversight by restricting classified information to just eight members of Congress.

"The only Members of Congress whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information," he writes, "are the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate."

The order is aimed at protecting "military security" and "sensitive law enforcement."

But what was said to be an effort to protect the United States became a tool by which the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS) ensured there was no serious investigation into how the administration fixed the intelligence that took the United States to war in Iraq or the fabricated documents used as evidence to do so.

Coupled with limited access to intelligence documents, RAW STORY has found that Roberts and a handful of other strategically-placed Washington players stymied all questions into pre-war intelligence on Iraq and post-invasion cover-ups, including the outing of a CIA covert agent, by using targeted leaks and artfully deflecting blame from the White House.

Why would they do this? The easier to control the spin? Who can tell? ... In fact anyone can tell who has half a dozen brain cells to rub together and the inclination to use more than three of them at the same time. In so many cases the brain cells are not in question, but the inclination seems to have evaporated, or should I say vaporized, along with key pieces of steel on the morning of 9/11.

TIME continues:

Required reports on interrogation activities and secret prisons, which the Administration says would raise "grave constitutional issues" and jeopardize sensitive information that should not be widely distributed.

Grave constitutional issues indeed, such as how and why can he current occupants of the White House possibly remain there? And if they do, how and why can the Constitution be considered still in effect? And as a side note, do the answers to these questions reflect badly on the classification of the USA as a civilized country?

Oh no, that was rhetorical. Of course they don't. The answers to these questions don't matter in the slightest. The mere fact that they must be asked shows clearly that the USA is no longer a civilized country.

Creation of a statutory inspector general for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who would have the power to direct watchdogs in any of the 16 spy agencies. The Administration says the existing watchdogs are best suited to do the job without "dysfunctional interference" from the proposed new inspector general.

The so-called "dysfunctional interference" wouldn't be so dysfunctional if it could interfere with the dysfunctional habit of providing the White House with the intelligence that it wants, cherry picked and all sexed up to provide the basis for the spin that will provide the basis for the illusion that there is any support at all for whatever the administration has already decided to do. Make that what country the administration has decided to attack next. Maybe it wouldn't be so dysfunctional if it made sure that sensitive documents got translated accurately, and in a timely fashion. And maybe it wouldn't be dysfunctional at all if it ensured that investigations into possible terrorists training or living in the USA were followed up rather than suppressed. But then the real terrorists would surely see it as "interference" and it might make them a bit "dysfunctional" and that must be why Bush is threatening to veto the bill. Or could it be

A requirement that the heads of the National Security Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and National Reconnaissance Office be subject to Senate confirmation, as well as the CIA's deputy director. The Administration calls that unnecessary.

Given the past six years, it's fair to say that the administration sees any attempt at oversight by either of the other two branches of government as not only unnecessary but thoroughly unacceptable, and that's just oversight, let alone the quaint constitutional notion of checks and balances.

In fact the current administration seems to find unacceptable and unnecessary everything it is supposed to protect and defend, such as the Constitution, the well-being of the nation, and even -- perhaps most especially -- the sanctity of truth in a rational view of the world. Instead we now live in a bizarre web of lies in which it's almost always a safe bet that whatever any representative of the administration says is the exact inverse of a current and perhaps somewhat controversial truth.

In other words, if you want to know what's going on, listen carefully to what they say, and assume the opposite.

Kids know this better than adults, or so it seems:

You do the Hokey Pokey and you turn yourself around. That's what it's all about.

Tours Of Duty Extended To 15 Months: Why So Short?

Secretary of Defense William Gates announced yesterday that military tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan have been (unilaterally) extended to 15 months (from 12).

Amid echoes of Catch-22 -- "They keep raising the number of missions!" -- I can't help but wonder:

Why so short?

Like an appointment to the Supreme Court, a military tour of duty abroad should be permanent.

Please control your knee-jerk reaction and think about the potential benefits:

It would eliminate the expense of rotation.

How much do you think it costs to fly halfway around the world? Remember: we're not talking civil aviation, the competitive free market, or anything of the sort. We're talking about a luxury ride in a military transport plane whose toilet seats alone may cost as much as $640 apiece.

How many of these intercontinental luxury trips does the American taxpayer pay for every year? And couldn't that money be spent on something more valuable -- like armor for the troops who are actually overseas?

Of course it could -- and that's only the beginning.

It would eliminate the hassle of transition.

Every time somebody gets a handle on what he's supposed to be doing he gets shipped back to the States and some new guy steps in who can't begin to fill his shoes. Is this any way to run an army? Hell, no! -- much less a navy or an air force. So let's get serious about this war and do it right.

Otherwise we might as well wave a white flag and go home.

It would eliminate the FUD of the families.

It's always so pathetic to see a grieving mother trying to discredit a noble cause by claiming that the military killed her son. What did she think? He was joining the Boy Scouts?

And for that matter, why should any military families have to live with fear, uncertainty and doubt? Why should the parents and spouses of servicemen and -women have to appear brave and patriotic in public, while privately wondering whether they will ever see their beloved again?

They should know what to expect. They should all know what to expect. A lifetime tour of duty would make it easier on everybody.

It would eliminate the expense (and the embarrassment) of domestic VA hospitals.

In fact it would eliminate the expense and embarrassment of domestic VA services altogether, especially those that try to assist in the transition from military to civilian life.

Who needs it? Save all that money, plow it back into the Pentagon's operational budget (where it belongs!), and we've got a bit of momentum again.

It would eliminate the blowback effect on Homeland Security.

The last thing the Homeland needs is an influx of homeless jobless vets with nothing going for them but PTSD and a bit of weapons training. Our society is already way too violent as it is.

And the second-last thing we need here is an influx of former servicemen contaminated with depleted uranium dust, sharing their carcinogenic and mutagenic bodily fluids with their wives and girlfriends, who will then bear grotesquely deformed children and die slow, painful deaths.

If tours of duty were permanent, we wouldn't have to worry about either of these serious threats to the Homeland.

It would make an honest statement to the people of Iraq.

To wit:

We're here. We're staying until the oil runs out. And there's not a damned thing you can do about it. Rag-heads!

It would make an honest statement to the American military.

To wit:

Once you're in, you're ours! We don't care about you; we don't care about your family; you are so replaceable that we don't care how long you live or where you die. In fact, we don't even care if we have to send you overseas without the proper training.

Your job is to kill as many foreigners as possible before they kill you. Period.

The downside is negligible.

Aside from the mindless bleeding-heart knee-jerk liberal reaction which I asked you to control, the downside is in fact negligible. The American people have shown -- over and over and over -- that they will tolerate unlimited corruption of their system of government, unlimited abuse of their military, and unlimited unprovoked mass murder of foreigners, especially foreigners with oil.

So what is the sleepwalking American public gonna do? Vote the "scoundrels" out? In unverifiable elections on hackable (read "hacked") voting machines? Both major parties support not only this war but the previous one as well as the next one, so let's be serious!

It's a radical idea.

Yes, it's a radical idea. But on the other hand, in the past six years we have seen quite a few radical ideas discussed, embraced, implemented and accepted. And now, with the help of the patriotic media, many of them are already part of the national fabric, unnoticed except by a few bleeding-heart liberal jerks. So just because an idea is radical, that doesn't necessarily rule it out.

Some skeptics may object, claiming that a permanent tour of duty would discourage new recruits from signing up. And that may be so, but then again, we'd have all sorts of extra money, so we could afford to buy as many new recruits as we need.

And if that fails, there's always the Selective Service.

Interesting And Productive Days For Former Ambassador Craig Murray

Regular readers of this space may recall that a former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who just happens to be an expert on disputed maritime boundaries, disputed the story told by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) as well as the map the MoD issued "supporting" its position in the so-called "hostage crisis".

As you probably know unless you've been hibernating, the Iranians have 15 British sailors who were detained after boarding an Indian merchant ship in water that the British said were clearly Iraq's, while Iran has claimed them for its own.

Ambassador Murray's sudden presence in the public sphere -- with actual information apparently proving the opposite of what the Brits were officially saying -- displeased those who would prefer a fact-free zone, and predictably his calm and reasoned words were greeted with all manner of heat and very little light.

A reckless fool writing a blog for Foreign Policy (propaganda arm of the CFR and one of the more overt neocon mouthpieces) called him a "gadfly", which is not one of the more common terms for former Ambassadors. But it's quite accurate, at least in the eyes of those whose preferred operating mixture is three parts spin and one part hate. Plenty of others (the neocon mouthpiece symphony?) called him much worse.

Fortunately -- and more to the point -- Craig Murray has received some support from serious and neutral places and his point of view now seems to be gaining traction -- or possibly even holding sway already, even as we speak.

As documented over the last few days on his website... (The following short excerpts are selected from long and very interesting pieces, and I invite you to read them although I know most of you don't have time to do so. And so, without further ado...)

The upshot of the brouhaha is as follows:

April 1, 2007: First step towards a realistic approach?

Many thanks to the Mail on Sunday for being the first bit of the mainstream media ready to give a fair hearing to what I have been saying, and to try and understand the situation rather than just belt out propaganda.

At a working level, Whitehall is trying to get reality back into the British position, though this may get stomped on again by the spin doctors. One of my many friends within the FCO has seen minutes between officials discussing "Craig Murray's points" on the border question and whether admitting the border is unclear could be a path to getting our people back (Freedom of Information request for that minuting, anyone?).

The Observer today gives the first hint that the MOD may be looking to backtrack on its unsustainable border claims:

"But the Ministry of Defence hinted for the first time it may have made mistakes surrounding the incident. An inquiry has been commissioned to explore 'navigational' issues around the kidnapping and aspects of maritime law."

April 1: German Armed Forces University: British Boundary Map "Fictitious"

Translated from the German:

In today's printed version of the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Prof Khan of the University for the Federal Armed Forces in Munich confirms Craig Murrays statement:

"In their presentation, the British have effectively drawn a fictitious line in their attempt to prove where exactly the soldiers were when taken captive instead of showing a clear border. They couldn't have done the latter in any case as the border between Iran and Iraq around Shatt el-Arab is not clearly identifiable."

April 2, 2007: Back to Normal

It has been a very hectic few days, but they have been productive. I seem to have helped convince the mainstream media of the obvious truth that the maritime boundaries in this part of the Gulf are disputed and fuzzy, and that the real situation is much less clear than the British map. The BBC has at last started routinely to refer to the boundary as disputed and unclear. The support from the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail helped enormously to turn the tide, as did the serious piece in the New York Times.

Last night I did Newsnight, BBC News 24 and a pre-record for this morning's Breakfast TV. In all cases the BBC introduction stated that the border was disputed and complex as reported fact before I started, which made it much easier.

April 3, 2007: Turning the Tide in the Gulf

We really do seem to have turned the media tide on this one. The maritime law experts now feel it is safe to pop out of the woodwork and make plain there is no clear boundary, and the politicos are waking up to the fact that the disputed boundary gives you the diplomatic solution.

From Reuters today:

By Luke Baker | Tue Apr 3, 10:10 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Shifting sands and a poorly defined maritime border could give Britain and Iran enough room to save face in their 12-day stand-off over a group of detained British sailors and marines, border experts say.

Because the maritime boundaries off the Shatt al-Arab waterway, drawn up in 1975 but not updated since, are open to a certain degree of interpretation, Britain and Iran could "agree to disagree" over exactly who crossed into whose territory.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Tuesday the next 48 hours could prove critical as both the British and Iranian governments have sought to moderate their positions after several days of heightened tension.

"It's certainly not an irresolvable dispute," said Martin Pratt, the director of the International Boundaries Research Unit at Britain's Durham University.

"The fact that the coastline is constantly shifting means more issues would need to be taken into consideration than if the coastlines were more stable and there was agreement on exactly where the baselines along the coast were."

Both the Iranian and British governments appear to have softened their stances in the past 24 hours, with each highlighting their desire to reach a negotiated solution.
...

"You can't be dogmatic about a maritime boundary that hasn't been properly agreed," he said.

Maritime lawyers said they expected British and Iranian officials to be able to sort out the wording of any agreement themselves, without turning to an outside arbiter such as the United Nations, which has handled maritime disputes in the past.

On Monday, Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, called for a "delegation" to determine whether the British sailors were in Iran or not, but didn't define what sort of delegation.

"I think there's plenty of scope in the uncertainty of the situation to be able to craft some kind of solution," said Richard Harvey, the head of admiralty and casualty practice at law firm Reed, Smith, Richards, Butler.

"It strikes me that a) there is a lot of scope for disagreement and therefore b) quite a lot of scope for agreement."

...

I know from my FCO moles that we are now adopting this line in the diplomacy. As long as they can stop Blair saying anything else stupid for a couple of days, I do think we can hope to see the captives home before too long.

It is amazing that it is only four days since I was denounced quite widely as a "Traitor" and "Scum" (and several still worse things - see the Harry's Place blog. Or don't - its nauseating) for saying what now everyone is coming to accept as the truth. There is no clear boundary in these waters. We were stupid to pretend, for propaganda and spin, that there is.

The former ambassador is a gentleman and a scholar, as well as a man of peace and goodwill. But we knew that a long time ago, didn't we? And in fact, that's exactly why he is no longer an ambassador, isn't it?

Does the DHS still allow us to ask such questions?
Yeah, but you don't get any answers anymore.
Right, but that's not DHS, that's FOI.

Indonesia's 'Muslim Solution' For Iraq Is A Bad Joke

Perhaps Muklis Ali can't come right out and say so, especially when writing for a major international news service, but your nearly frozen blogger labors under no such artificial constraint, especially when the truth of the matter is stunningly obvious, as in this report from Reuters:

BOGOR, Indonesia (Reuters) - Muslim nations should ultimately replace coalition forces in Iraq after a period of national reconciliation, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono told a meeting of Islamic clerics on Tuesday.

National reconciliation would presumably happen after some small semblance of security were established?

Yudhoyono, who is keen to see Indonesia take a bigger role in global issues and in particular in the Middle East, first floated his proposals on Iraq at a joint news conference with U.S. President George W. Bush last November in Bogor.

No doubt President Yudhoyono found a very receptive audience! Considering how readily Boy George accepts the advice of others -- some of whom share his nationality, his skin color, his religious denomination, his political attachment and even his surname -- it's not difficult to imagine how he would have taken this absurd attempt at humor from an Indonesian Muslim whose name he can barely pronounce, let alone remember...

President You-Don't-Know, is that right?

...especially since President Yudhoyono's take on the situation in Iraq is unremittingly shallow:

"The spiral effect of violence has dreadfully eroded the national tradition of religious tolerance and mutual respect. This is not the natural state of affairs between the Sunnis and Shi'ites of Iraq," he said in a speech to about 20 clerics from around the world gathering at the Bogor presidential palace to discuss Iraq.

No, it is certainly not the "natural state of affairs", for Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ites, who were living in relative stability until quite recently ... and Boy George must have smiled quietly to himself while listening to this particular mini-punchline, secure in the knowledge that the "sectarian" chaos the Americans have fomented in Iraq will not be easily quelled.

"The first and most vital track in this proposed solution is the launching and unrelenting pursuit of reconciliation," added Yudhoyono, a former general who spent years training in U.S. military bases.

As the former general undoubtedly knows, US forces can handle launching and unrelenting pursuit, but he fails to recognize that, from a policy perspective, "reconciliation" is unthinkable. This doesn't stop him, however:

"Once the national reconciliation is achieved, the second track is the withdrawal of the coalition forces replaced by a new coalition of forces [from] like-minded Muslim countries," said Indonesia's first directly elected president.

As if we needed more ways to tell that Indonesia's president is a practical joker, directly elected or not: (1) He imagines that national reconciliation can take place while Iraq is occupied by American (and perhaps allied) troops, and (2) he speaks of "the withdrawal of the coalition forces", but without answering the next most pressing questions: [A] What? [B] Without the oil? [C] What about our "permanent bases"? and [D] Are you out of your mind??

Since Yudhoyono outlined his Iraq proposal on Bush's second visit to Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, there has been little evidence of it gaining much traction.

Traction? Who can contemplate traction? It would be a miracle if the laughing recipients of this advice could lift themselves off the floor. The whole idea is so funny, their ribcages must hurt from convulsive laughter.

I may have said it was a bad joke, but I never said it wasn't funny.

Some Bush policies, especially in the Middle East, are deeply unpopular in Indonesia, where 85 percent of the population follows Islam. Jakarta has consistently criticized the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

And of course this is the final nail in the joke's coffin, because the only people who are now allowed to criticize the war in the US "national discourse" are those who supported it originally. Yes, "Flip-floppers" can now criticize the way the war has been conducted, but long-time opponents of this pre-emptive war are considered biased, having made their minds up long before all the relevant facts became available.

The Indonesian President certainly does evince a modicum of talent, but he may wish to consider honing his skills at at Yuk-Yuks-Bali, or perhaps the Jakarta Comedy Club -- at least for a while. And he should definitely keep his day job.

Until next time, remember the magic words: OIL, BASES, MONEY, POWER.

Russian Brass Says U.S. Must Think Twice Before Striking Iran

This just in, from the Russian news service RIA Novosti:

MOSCOW, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - Washington needs to think twice before launching a military campaign against Tehran as such an attack would have global implications, a senior Russian military official said Tuesday.

Yury Baluyevsky, the head of the armed forces' General Staff, said: "Inflicting damage on Iran's military and industrial potential might be realistic, but winning [the war] is unachievable - its reverberations would be heard across the world."

Baluyevsky said that when making a decision on Iran, U.S. leaders should bear in mind the negative experience in other countries of the region.

"Our strategic partners have already got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said.

Hmmm. "Strategic partners?" Who could he be possibly be talking about? "Bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq"? Well that's a mistake we would certainly avoid, wouldn't we? Surely. No?

He warned that if the U.S. goes to war with Iran as well, the world may see America decline as the world's "mightiest and most powerful state."

Those godless communists sure know how to push a guy's buttons, don't they?

The U.S. Administration sees Iran as a "rogue state" belonging to what President George W. Bush has termed "an axis of evil," and is determined to stop the Islamic Republic - diplomatically or otherwise - from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It now plans to deploy a national missile defense shield in Central Europe, which it says will help protect its own security and that of its European allies against potential missile strikes from Iran, suspected by the West of pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program.

Or so the US administration says. Skeptics would call the whole story a crock -- unless they used even stronger terms!

Big News: The GWOT Is Counter-Productive!!

Here's David Morgan of Reuters reporting on a new study written by Veronique de Rugy (photo) and released by the American Heritage Institute, a "conservative" "think tank":

Five-and-a-half years after the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush's war on terrorism has emerged as a wasteful, misguided exercise that poses its own threat to U.S. national security, experts say.

A growing number of analysts and former U.S. officials say the global war on terrorism has undermined U.S. influence abroad, forced onerous costs in American lives and money in Iraq, and unleashed a huge government spending spree that has often funded projects unrelated to national security.

It has also produced a climate of fear in the United States that helped justify the war in Iraq and the curtailment of civil liberties at home, they said.

If you had said any of these things four years ago you would have been labeled a "tin-foil hatter", or a "terrorist sympathizer", or maybe even a "traitor". But it was all true back then, just as it is all true now. So where have these so-called "experts" been all this time? What else are they saying, and how far are they willing to go?

"The atmosphere of anxiety and uncertainty, and the vagueness of the definition of the enemy, makes the country more fearful and more susceptible to being steered in irrational directions," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was U.S. national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s.

Unlike the muted response to attacks by Britain and Spain, experts say the U.S. has overreacted to the September 11 attacks that killed 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania in 2001.

OK, so here's the limit, apparently. We can now say that the GWOT was an "overreaction", but it's too soon to publish anything indicating that the "overreaction" was planned in advance -- in the same way as the attack, and by the same people, too.

It may indeed be too soon for that, but the time is coming.

Congress has spent nearly $271.5 billion on homeland security since September 11, with money often going to projects that have nothing to do with security but that are important to politicians and their constituents, according to a survey by the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

At the same time, the number of potential terrorism targets identified by Congress has exploded from 160 in 2003 to 80,000, allowing such unlikely sites as a Midwestern apple festival and a roadside theme park in Florida to bid for funds.

Meanwhile, the private sector -- lobbyists, interest groups, industries, the media and even universities -- has also used the national security label aggressively to sell its own agendas, experts say.

It's a money pit, and we've seen our civil liberties thrown into it too. But what is it buying us, and where is it leading?

"What's clear is that there is no focus whatsoever in the way we are fighting terrorism," said Veronique de Rugy, author of the AEI study.

Government spokesmen dismissed the criticism, as they always do, with one lie after another.

Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke dismissed the criticism as old and inaccurate, saying the Bush administration had never viewed sites such as small theme parks to be critical national assets deserving of funds. "This has no basis in fact," he said.

Nobody ever claimed the administration considered these sites as deserving of funds. It was pointed out that such sites bid for funds. Thus the government spokesman has destroyed a straw man of his own making, while leaving the original cricitism untouched.

You'll notice that he didn't address any of the main points.

You may also notice that calling the criticism "old" is disingenuous at best. When these concerns were first raised, they smeared the messengers by calling their patriotism into doubt. Now the concerns are raised again, and they are dismissed as being "old".

The fact that they have never been dealt with doesn't seem to matter to Knocke. And if that's not enough, we now present more lies, from Knocke's superior being.

Knocke's boss, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, has also taken issue with the assertion that the U.S. response to September 11 is exaggerated.

"If we begin to heed arguments that somehow our concern about security is overblown ... then I feel we're going to feel consequences in the loss of lives," Chertoff said in a speech outlining his priorities for 2007.

Utter horse manure, friends. We've lost more people trying to conquer Iraq in the past four years than we have lost to terrorist attacks at home in decades.

But terrorism experts say the United States has yet to develop a clear understanding of the threat posed by al Qaeda and other Islamist militant groups, despite the war on terrorism and a total of $500 billion spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "clear understanding" that is needed to fight international terrorism was never part of this administration's grand plan. Every terrorist is affiliated with al-Q'aeda, in their eyes, and so is every political opponent. Unfortunately for them, the world is organized quite differently.

The most pernicious effect of the war on terrorism has been the Iraq war, which has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and damaged U.S. standing in the Muslim world for generation, experts say.

Au contraire; far more pernicious have been the way in which the administration has conflated al-Q'aeda with Iraq (supposedly justifying the war) and the way in which it has used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to dismember our civil liberties -- despite never being able to show in any way that a reduction in our rights will make us safer.

"Iraq has been vastly worse than anything terrorism's ever done," said Ohio State University political science professor John Mueller, author of a book about the war on terrorism titled, "Overblown."

It's hard to argue with that. But let's put it in a more precise form:

What America has done to Iraq has been vastly worse than anything terrorism's ever done.

Or maybe more accurately:

What America has done to Iraq has been terrorism.

There. That's better.

While both Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged the shortcomings of U.S. policy in Iraq, experts say politicians have not questioned the war on terrorism mainly because it remains a vote-getter.

"Politicians are acting this way because they think they'll lose votes if they don't. Basically, it's a big pork-barrel, so the pork-barrel leaders are there in five seconds," said Mueller, using American vernacular for the politics of self-enrichment.

But maybe this is starting to change. Americans seem more than ever to distrust what their government tells them, except when it comes to terrorism, ironically the area in which the government tells the biggest lies of all. But seeing criticism of the GWOT -- even in a mild form -- coming from "conservatives" is somewhat encouraging.

Have we reached a point where honest forthright criticism of this so-called president and his so-called war are going to be deemed acceptable? Or is such criticism acceptable only when it comes from "conservative" sources, the American Heritage Institute?

Remember, only Richard Nixon could go to China.

A Few Honest And Courageous Souls, Or A Revolt Of The Generals

Karen Kwiatkowski

is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency.

She's one of the best they've got at Lew Rockwell dot com; here's a quick look at one of her most recent columns:

Our Mad Mad Mad Mad Vice President Speaks

The Cheney speech to AIPAC – reassuring militant rightwingers in Israel and the US that America is leaning forward on Iran, and that we are never leaving Iraq – was filled with honesty and conviction, and gives us a clear window into the administration's thinking.

I might have put quotes around that last word, because ...

Cheney's description of terrorists is somewhat emotional and overblown. Calling them "freedom's enemies," he comes dangerously close to describing this administration's id.

Hmm. They do that all the time, don't they? They talk about Islamofascists who want to establish a world caliphate! Irony this rich cannot be unintentional.

His emphasis on one-side’s victims in last summer's war with Lebanon, and his proud silence on the thousands killed, injured, made homeless and jobless by American weaponry is also understandable as he speaks to the AIPAC audience.

Understandable, yes, but one might even say mandatory! Thus...

His "three myths" on Iraq and the so-called war on terror are sermons to a choir that raises its voice demanding America be not a policeman in the Middle East, not an inspiration, but a blustering and imbecilic bodyguard.

But the role of blustering and imbecilic bodyguard to the world covers the most heinous of crimes against humanity -- all under the rubric of keeping us safe. So they can't very well drop that pretense now!

The real truth in Cheney's speech is found in his sense of urgency. Cheney exhorts Congress to remember 9-11 and damns it for failing to subsume its every decision to the maintenance of the administration's cultural mythology of that day.

"The cultural mythology of that day" is a recurring theme here, although I have never known what to call it, so it's nice to see the phrase spelled out for us like that. Were it in Cheney's power, every single detail of American life would already be subsumed in his mad dash for "full-spectrum global dominance". Instead of just most of them.

He rails at the idea of time limits in Iraq, and suggests that debate in Washington on the role, objectives and cost of our militarism in the Middle East is counterproductive and allows the "enemy" to "watch the clock and wait us out."

The thing he doesn't understand -- the thing they never understand -- is that the "enemy" is going to "wait us out" even if there's no clock to watch! The Vietnamese had been kicking foreigners out of their country for a thousand years when we got there; they would have kicked our butt eventually, even if it took a thousand more. And the situation in Iraq is by no means similar -- US forces didn't foment civil war in Vietnam, for instance -- but the same dynamic is in play. The very idea of a "ticking clock" is different -- not to say irrelevant -- to the occupied. And, of course, as we have seen, to the occupiers the idea of a "ticking clock" is a political hot-potato. And

it is Cheney – not al Qaeda – who is watching the clock now. This former Secretary of Defense understands only too well that the deployment of two battle groups in the Persian Gulf, and the onset of this year's "spring offensive" in Afghanistan both point to a ticking clock – second-generation shock and awe forces require many months of planning, and a massive logistics tail to support even a short-lived coordinated attack. The clock is indeed ticking, and nothing must get in the way of that. It is not ticking for the occupied Palestinian territories, nor the fractured and dazed Iraqis living out some kind of neo-colonial nightmare. Those efforts are perfectly on track, as hoped for, and AIPAC completely understands this.

As long as everything is on track for AIPAC, what's the problem? Our Israeli friends wouldn't lead us astray, would they?

It is all about Iran. The U.S. military, from the tone and content of Cheney's speech, is now ready, and the window is open. The administration may actually be a bit behind in building its public case – at least one as plausible as the false case made by this same administration less than five years ago regarding Iraq. Part of this case-making process entails boxing the Congress, and preventing that body from asserting its collective intellect, refreshing its own collective familiarity with truth, justice, reality and even the Constitution.

Lovely words, aren't they? Truth. Justice. Reality. The Constitution. Lest we forget. But

Iran is back on the table, and the House warning language on Iran stricken.

To most thinking people this is outrageous, but then we don't get any money from AIPAC, do we?

70% of the American public, and most of the soldiers and Marines in Iraq understand the idiocy, the pointlessness and shoddy logic of this alter-ego "war" we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, soon Iran and perhaps even Syria. This majority of Americans are beginning to hate Dick Cheney and George W. Bush for what they are doing to our own nation. But the 70% in this country have no important conferences for the political leadership, they have no lobbyists, they have no deep pockets, and they have no rabidly confident sense that they alone have all the answers to the world's problems. AIPAC, on the other hand, has all these things.

I disagree. It does not appear to me that AIPAC think they have all the answers to the world's problems. To me it looks like they only think they have the answers to their own problems. But then again, these are the only problems they care about.

And that's why they push so hard for us to attack Iran.

And soon, it is likely they'll have their desired attacks on Iran. We may soon hear of an accident, an incursion, or a purported attack on our forces.

... or even a false-flag "terrorist attack" here at home!

That provocation will force the President to bomb until our bombs run out, and will give the Democrats one more opportunity to prove their abject fealty to war. From what we are hearing of this year's AIPAC conference, it will be up to a few honest and courageous souls in the Senate, or a revolt of the generals, to stop America's next war.

I agree with most of what Karen Kwiatkowski says here, but can't stop thinking it's gonna take more than a few "honest and courageous souls", not just in the Senate but everywhere, to get all of us out of this huge mess.

And as for "a revolt of the generals" ... what are they waiting for?

'Bush Rejects Show Trials' -- A Politically Correct Response

The president muttered incoherently in public again yesterday, about the extraordinary measures he and his staff are willing to take to bury the fast-spreading scandal over the firing of eight US Attorneys, apparently for purely political reasons. After Bush tried to explain what he would and would not allow in the way of an investigation; the BBC summarized it this way:

Bush rejects Senate 'show trials'

US President George W Bush says he will not allow his advisers to take part in "show trials" in the escalating row over the firing of federal prosecutors.

He has offered to let his staff give evidence, but only in private and not under oath.

The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee has rejected the offer.
...

Mr Bush has backed Mr Gonzales, a long-time confidant, and warned Democrats against seeking a fight over the issue in order "to score political points".

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honourable public servants," Mr Bush said.

If I may ...

First: There are no honourable public servants involved in this case, so we can dispense with that red herring from the outset.

Second: This is not about scoring "political points". It's about fighting what appears to be wanton political corruption at the highest levels of the federal justice system [sick]. Serious questions have been asked here and the American people deserve straight answers -- for once! -- at the very least. Spin-meisters need not apply.

Third: People in civilized countries are required to obey the law of the land no matter where they work, so when the president's aides are called to testify under oath, that's the way they should testify, the same as any other potential witness to any other potential crime. In no civilized country is it considered suitable for the suspects to control the terms of an investigation. And that's been happening a lot around here lately, so it's time to revert to the tried-and-true method.

Fourth: The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee was quite correct in rejecting the offer, but could have made a counter-offer to keep the process moving. Don't worry; that's what we're here for.

Finally: The question of "show trials" is a very simple matter. If the president objects to show trials, let us have the trials without the show. Let's have secret tribunals instead.

The details are all figured out already. We can hold the accused incommunicado in secret prisons without charge or hearing indefinitely. We can use the most vigorous interrogation techniques we can imagine, as long as we're careful not to cause death by organ failure. And after four or five years, or whenever it becomes politically convenient necessary, we can release "transcripts" of their "confessions".

By that time some of the suspects may have been shipped to foreign dungeons to be tortured, and some of them may even be dead. But what difference would it make? In a secret tribunal, nobody expects to see the suspect, anyway. We won't have to release any audio or video of the trials; we can even recirculate an old photo or two from the files. What difference would it make? All the information would be classified, anyway. National Security.

Do you think I'm kidding? I'm not! We've seen the system in action already. And we know it works, or at least that's what we've been told.

So now let's use that system to do what it was designed to do -- to neutralize the people who threaten our way of life, to hunt 'em down, smoke 'em out of their caves offices, and hang 'em from the ceiling at Gitmo.

What are we waiting for?

Peaceful Protesters Threatened And Assaulted By Those Who Claim To Protect Their Freedom Of Speech

[updated below]

In this post, two eyewitness accounts from yesterday's peace march in Washington, both provided by friends from the Baltimore area. (Full disclosure: I have edited both of these items very slightly, mostly for spelling and punctuation. I have also added a bit of context [in square brackets] and a few links.)

R.O.:

I just got back from the Rally. What a much different experience from the other relatively peaceful ones! Confrontational: scary at one point. Went with Pete and some of the women from [the] Sept '05 [demonstration], and Margaret, and Gabe (African American -- I tell you this to paint the picture). We took the van all the way in. Great parking on the street. But in Starbucks we encountered the start of it. Vietnam vet in military gear. His group something Eagles (screaming a-holes, see this site) was called in by some right-wing group who told them we were going to deface the monuments, including Vietnam ones. I'd estimate a thousand or more of these guys.

"They" had the area near the start of demo all mazed off in fencing. You tried to go one way and "they", backed by the Park Service Police, blocked your access, and told you you can't go that way. Then there was a security checkpoint like at the airport near the war memorial. So we decided to go around all that. At one point, one of the guys pushed me (ERRRRRRRRRRRR) and it took all my control not to do it back and get arrested -- and the Park Police pushing me and others getting in my face. And, same with Margaret who is very level-headed but questioning them. "They" got right in Gabe's face and were saying some ugly things. Pete called them &*^^%%$$$ Fascists! My heart was a pounding and I was SO happy to get out of there and in friendly territory. Some yelled "I'd go to war for her!" and others saw my Buck Fush t-shirt and yelled "buck you", and one guy called Margaret "ass" and worse etc. etc.

We walked over the bridge to the Pentagon to the stage (some of those WV, brainless pro-war guys were on the sidelines holding up signs that said "Peace Sucks", "Here and There" and more) -- there were fewer people than other marches (maybe 50,000-100,000)? the weather deterred folks -- cold and windy. Good speakers, though, from all over world. Midway thru one of the speakers interrupted and said the police (dressed like storm troopers) had created a barricade not even near Pentagon and had sprayed some of the demonstrators with mace. I didn't see it, but heard they all of a sudden showed up (sirens wailing) and did this (unprovoked). Margaret and I stayed till the end, as the others were too cold and left before all the speeches. We took the train back to Baltimore. Stopped by a campout of demonstrators on way out -- quite a contrast to the rumored quarters of the pro-Bushies (rumor, too? -- who knows!!).

This one was tense and not as upbeat...

J.P.:

It was an important day to be in Washington, DC. And while many Americans busy themselves with their own personal lives, whether the kids have done their homework, or whether the car will be out of the shop on time, or even ponder what plan for season tickets they want for baseball season, too many still are only barely conscious that their country started it’s fifth year in Iraq. Our rogue government seeks to keep it that way.

I am very fortunate to have met and joined with so many people and friends that do care about more than their own very tiny, small lives. Is that redundant? I don’t think so. I know my own life is a tiny grain of sand upon a vast beach. But it does take all those grains of sand to make the beach.

Let it be known, I am NOT anti-war, but only against wars of aggression perpetrated by those who have profited in the amount of trillions in weapons, contracts and alliances with unsavory governments and selling them weapons. This happened in the 80’s. Iran contra. But few remember that those involved with that (who were pardoned), are the ones once again in charge now. Many Americans are stunted with long term memory loss. Well, those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, and here we are once again. I am so angry at those people for forgetting or simply deeming high crimes and treason negligible.

A friend and I had decided to join the march on the Pentagon today, joining with tens of thousands of others, maybe hundreds of thousands once again to protest the war and truly support our troops and veterans. I can’t see. I am short.

However, this day was different. I knew it would be since it was publicized that the motorcycle group Rolling Thunder would be there in opposition as they were concerned that the “anti war” protesters would somehow "deface and desecrate The Vietnam War Memorial." I am NOT lying to you. (link to their site). Somehow they felt a bunch of peace activists were going to damage the national monument which bears the names of over 55,000 dead soldiers who gave their lives in the illegal immoral war for profit of 40 years ago. After 40 years, they still believe that peace activists spit on soldiers, a lie that was fabricated and encouraged by the administration and propagandists of the time.

To me, it was nothing less than astonishing to see that a number of people have been so brainwashed to believe that we are anti troop, don’t know the value of freedom and are “anti-democracy”. What was more astonishing were those that were completely ignorant of the Bill of Rights, that they challenged and acted physically aggressive to the peace activists, minding their own business, trying to get to the march.

My friend and I were two of those, and had mistakenly found the wrong area in which to try to get to where the march was forming. I had nothing outwardly to show my anti-war stance. My friend, however, wore several peace buttons. We really said nothing to the crowd, but the Iraq war and Bush supporters had plenty to say to us. We were told that we should be ashamed of ourselves, that we should support the troops and the president. Funny, but do they know what is being done to our troops, to lecture us in such a way? I suppose they thought they redeemed themselves by saying “it’s a free country and we had the right to free speech.” In truth the Bill of Rights allows them to say what they wish. However, their words indicated the very opposite of free country and free speech.

And well after a long walk, we dared to stop in the public restroom. Really, we thought we were in a “mixed” crowd at first. I pretty much kept my mouth shut, but I listened to the other women in the bathroom ranting about “those stupid war protesters” and “I guess we gotta go out and yell at them again” and “why don’t they understand our soldiers are fighting for our freedom? Why don’t they remember September 11th?” I can tell you there was not one New Yorker in that public restroom. Lucky there was not ... for all of our sakes. And I hate to say it, but their accents really were “red-state”. I guess the schools are bad there? Ignorance.

And so we passed through this sea of leather and flannel clad people with their signs of “God Bless America”, “We love our president”, and “support the troops”. And as we passed through amidst the angry, antagonistic jeers of those who saw my friend’s buttons, we heard the Rolling Stones blasting over their PA. Funny, I wonder why the Stones latest “Sweet Neo-Con Con” was not playing. It just goes to show magnified the ignorance of many in this country.

We realized this was no mix of Americans for and opposed to the war, but rather it was a stark symbol and reminder of the carefully planned Psy-Ops creating division among our people. This was not a friendly disagreement or difference of opinion. The “pro bush, pro-war” side was out for blood and angry. And they saw us as traitors and Anti-American. But which side, do you think, actually knew what the Bill of Rights actually used to guarantee us?

We made our way through to where we could see the peace marchers, and there was a barricade/jersey wall that separated where we needed to be. However the bikers blocked our path and told us they had the permit, and we were not allowed through. Really, this was a public monument and property. And they were NOT security, but citizens angry at the “traitorous” peace activists. He advised us we would have to walk through the crowd for several blocks and around. We gave up for a moment, paying attention to another scene that was unfolding.

And there also was a man probably in his 40’s, who held an “Impeach Bush” sign, and a small child in his arms. Like us, he had obviously entered in on the wrong side of things. But those of the pro war group quickly surrounded him and began screaming at him obscenities and to get out. The man (and child) tried to move and several rushed in and began pushing and pulling at them, trying to rip the sign out of his arms and telling him he was not allowed to leave their area with it. At which point the man started yelling back at them. This caused the women to yell about taking his child from him and the men proceeded to move in, like nothing less than a pack of wolves, grabbing him and pushing and shoving him. It was more than obvious that they wished to gang beat him. The men had little regard for the child and they would not let him leave. Thankfully, a police officer rushed in solo ... what a brave thing to do. He yelled at the Rolling Thunder people to clear a path and got the man, the child and the rest of us out of there. Ignorance and violence is a scary thing.

I lamented to myself that the bikers had surrounded the Viet Nam Memorial and I was prevented by their temperament from seeing it. Sadly, it seemed to me that it was they who desecrated that amazing wall with their hatred, ignorance and violent nature. I wanted badly to be able to see that wall. I did not mention it to my friend. There was no way it would have been possible.

We finally arrived at the march. It was an amazing site as the number of people gathered really did dwarf the gathering by Rolling Thunder which was by far small in comparison. The number of pro war bikers really was representative of the 30 percent who back Bush and the war. When put up against the peace crowd. That was heartening.

I was cursing though as the images of the one crowd against the other could not be captured due to most likely faulty batteries. Especially, when members of each crowd were shouting angrily. We were met with signs such as “Go To Hell Traitors” which to me was particularly memorable as well as the obscenities, hate and “FU”s screamed at the peace group as they marched past. Mostly the peace group was shouting “This is what democracy looks like” back at the bikers. And finally, fed up, I began to shout “Support Our Troops” which got a few others started and for a moment there was silence from the bikers. Pardon my language, but I am so god damned tired of hearing “Support Our Troops” from the Bush zombies who have no clue as to what sacrifices our troops are really making and how they are being taken advantage of.

I know this is a long story. Much happened today, and I did not have my camera to depict it. We did march until we reached the Pentagon where we had the parking lot and a stage was set up. There were many many speakers, memorable to me were the parents of fallen soldiers, Giuliana Sgrena, Cindy Sheehan, and also former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. And yeah, get over the anti McKinney propaganda. She was lynched because she worked harder and knew more than most in Congress bothered to. Don’t write me about either Cindy either, if you believe the slander and lies. Spare me regurgitation of the hate propaganda. I’m sick of it.

I want it also noted that up on one of the bridges at the pentagon, police in full riot gear complete with masks and clubs pushed a number in the crowd off of the bridge where they were. It should also be noted that many of the escalators in the Metros near the Pentagon had been turned off, making them almost impossible to use to get back to the center of DC. Odd, isn’t it, that the escalators in our nation's capital “just weren’t working” on a Saturday?

Lastly, it was huge and empowering. Don’t think for a minute that I feel protests are going to stop this war. The Democrats the people elected have granted the president authorization to attack Iran, and later Syria and Lebanon. The only thing that will stop the war is if the rest of this country wakes up before a war of a much larger scale happens.

Many people just don’t care in America. It’s just not their problem. And others of us who took the red pill can assure them: it will be.

Many thanks to J.P. and R.O. for attending the rally, and for sharing their experiences with us.

As always, your comments are most welcome.

[UPDATE]

For a great deal of background please see Gavin M. at Sadly, No!
Anatomy of a Con Job

Tom Toles: We Don't Need To Dust For Prints

~~~

From Matthew Cardinale at Atlanta Progressive News: Gonzales Nixed Inquiry into Own Conduct at DOJ

At least four Members of US Congress and four US Senators today raised concerns about a breaking report in the National Journal that US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appears to have known he was going to be negatively implicated in a review at the US Department of Justice’s (USDOJ) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) when he advised President Bush regarding the review. The review was later squashed when Bush denied security clearances OPR needed to investigate Gonzales.

and more.

I'm just sitting here watching the wheels fall off.

And this is an open thread.

It's Time To Stop Those Pistachio Nuts In Their Tracks

An excellent recent post from Chris Floyd at Empire Burlesque goes something like this:

Dems Get Tough: No More Nuts From the Mullahs

Stopping the coming war with Iran is the imperative of our day. In addition to all the other horrors such a new war would bring, it would also prolong and intensify the nightmarish war crime in Iraq. Anyone concerned with the long-term interests of the United States -- its security, its prosperity, its constitutional liberties -- should be standing up right now in fierce and implacable resistance to the launching of another act of aggression.

So naturally, the national Democrats -- who were returned to power on a wave of public revulsion against the radical militarism of the Bush Regime -- are now trying to raise the war fever against Iran to the boiling point, in a bellicose bid to "outflank both the Bush administration and the United Nations with the toughest set of sanctions against Iran that have ever been proposed," as that right-wing calliope, the New York Sun, approvingly notes.

With legislation introduced by Rep. Tom Lantos, the Fightin' Dems propose to slap harsh new sanctions on any and every firm and nation in the world that dares do business with Iran's energy sector, with no waivers allowed for anyone, not even close American allies.
...
If Lantos and the Democrats have their way -- and the bill has already attracted a companion measure from the Republicans -- Americans will once more be protected from the importation of demonish rugs, caviar and pistachio nuts from the wily Persians. Don't you feel safer already?

The Lantos version of the latest Iran Provocation Act is being pitched as a partisan swipe at George W. Bush. (In their PR packaging, at least, the Democrats are being responsive to overwhelming public sentiment.) Lantos emphasizes that the bill would prohibit the president from granting waivers to any oil companies or countries that sign new energy deals with Iran. "If Dutch Shell moves forward with its proposed $10 billion deal with Iran, it will be sanctioned. If Malaysia moves forward with a similar deal, it too will be sanctioned. The same treatment will be accorded to China and India should they finalize deals with Iran," said Lantos. [And isn't it wonderfully democratic of this Democratic leader, telling other countries who they can and cannot trade with, and how? Oh well; if these rag-tag nations want to be part of our Greater Co-Propserity Sphere, they have to toe the line, right?]

Of course, all these draconian efforts to cripple the development of Iran's oil and gas industries will only make it more imperative for Tehran to develop its nuclear power program -- and therefore increase the likelihood that this program could one day be turned to the production of nuclear weapons. In other words, the bill is designed to exacerbate and accelerate the very danger -- nuclear proliferation -- that is the ostensible reason for keeping "all options on the table" against Iran.
...
Anyone who expects the Democrats to stand up against the coming war against Iran will be bitterly disappointed. The Democrats, again with a few exceptions, are abetting the Bush Regime's drive toward war. With every step, they are bringing us closer and closer to the abyss.

That's only part of the article, but already it contains more irony than a poor cold blogger can stand all alone without imploding. So please click here, read the entire piece, and share some of that irony with me.

Let Sibel Edmonds Speak!

Sibel Edmonds is the most gagged person in US history. The government has repeatedly invoked the State Secrets Privilege in her case - not for reasons of "national security" but to hide ongoing criminal activity.

Thus writes Luke Ryland, the Tasmanian journalist who has done more than anyone to keep us up to date on developments in the Sibel Edmonds story. Ms. Edmonds, as you may know, is a former FBI Language Specialist who joined the Bureau shortly after 9/11 in an attempt to use her considerable skills to enhance our National Security.

The FBI quickly learned that Sibel was more interested in National Security than "going along with the program", and they got rid of her as soon as they found out that they couldn't shut her up.

She's been trying to enhance our National Security ever since.

The things Sibel Edmonds saw, and the documents she translated, in her few months with the FBI are enough to make your head spin. It's all so incredible! And yet, according to one expert after another, every word is true!

As if her story hadn't been sufficiently confirmed, a document released Monday -- a report written by a former FBI Special Agent (for whom Ms. Edmonds once worked) -- lends even more support to her accusations.

What exactly is her story? That's what we don't exactly know. We do know that it involves Turkey, heroin smuggling, money laundering, illegal weapons trafficking, terrorism, and corruption of US government officials.

We know that Sibel Edmonds is gagged -- according to a so-called State Secrets Privilege -- and that her formerly public testimony has been retroactively classified -- because otherwise the information she revealed would jepoardize important business ties and sensitive diplomatic relations!

Did you read that right? I think you did. Sibel Edmonds' public testimony has been retroactively classified -- as if that made any sense! -- because the information is damaging ... but to what?

Why can't we find out all there is to find out -- about Turkey, about terrorism, about 9/11 and all the circumstances surrounding it!! -- and then decide for ourselves which business ties and which diplomatic relations deserve to be damaged?

How can we hope to protect ourselves against "another 9/11" if we don't even understand what caused the "first" one?

9/11 is far from the only issue here. Sibel Edmonds' story is not exclusively -- or even mainly -- about 9/11. It's about the environment: the severely compromised "National Security" environment within which 9/11 happened.

I don't believe Sibel Edmonds needs any more corroboration. The fact that she's been gagged shows how dangerous she is. If she were a nutcase telling a fruitcake tale, they'd let her speak and then they would ridicule her. This ain't that, as they say.

How do you know who to believe? When do you decide whether or not to believe somebody? I think it's different for everybody. One size certainly does not fit all. Personally, I've thought she sounded credible ever since I first heard of her, but I became firmly convinced that she must be telling trying to tell us the truth -- and a very dangerous truth at that -- in the spring of 2005, when I learned about her hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals, from which she was evicted!

That's right. Sibel Edmonds and her attorneys were evicted from the courtroom -- and guards were placed at the doorway so they couldn't even listen in! -- as the judge conferred with attorneys representing the federal government. When they finally opened the doors again, the judge had a ruling: case dismissed!

Under the terms of her state secrets gag order, Ms. Edmonds cannot speak freely, but she has been quite artful in speaking less-than-freely. There've been games of will-you-deny-this? disguised as interviews; there have been all kinds of things.

Among recent things, one of the most excellent has been a short article in the American Conservative. According to Ms. Edmonds, this piece, by Philip Giraldi, is 100% accurate: (space and emphasis added)

Sibel Edmonds, the Turkish FBI translator turned whistleblower who has been subjected to a gag order could provide a major insight into how neoconservatives distort US foreign policy and enrich themselves at the same time.

On one level, her story appears straightforward: several Turkish lobbying groups allegedly bribed congressmen to support policies favourable to Ankara. But beyond that, the Edmonds revelations become more serpentine and appear to involve AIPAC, Israel and a number of leading neoconservatives who have profited from the Turkish connection.

Israel has long cultivated a close relationship with Turkey since Ankara's neighbours and historic enemies -- Iran, Syria and Iraq -- are also hostile to Tel Aviv. Islamic Turkey has also had considerable symbolic value for Israel, demonstrating that hostility to Muslim neighbours is not a sine qua non for the Jewish state.

Turkey benefits from the relationship by securing general benevolence and increased aid from the US Congress -- as well as access to otherwise unattainable military technology. The Turkish General Staff has a particular interest because much of the military spending is channeled through companies in which the generals have a financial stake, making for a very cozy and comfortable business arrangement.

The commercial interest has also fostered close political ties, with the American Turkish Council, American Turkish Cultural Alliance and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations all developing warm relationships with AIPAC and other Jewish and Israel advocacy groups throughout the US.

Someone has to be in the middle to keep the happy affair going, so enter the neocons, intent on securing Israel against all comers and also keen to turn a dollar. In fact the neocons seem to have a deep and abiding interest in Turkey, which, under other circumstances, might be difficult to explain.

Doug Feith's International Advisors Inc, a registered agent for Turkey in 1989 - 1994, netted $600,000 per year from Turkey, with Richard Perle taking $48,000 annually as a consultant.

Other noted neoconservatives linked to Turkey are former State Department number three, Marc Grossman, current Pentagon Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, Paul Wolfowitz and former congressman Stephen Solarz.

The money involved does not appear to come from the Turkish government, and FBI investigators are trying to determine its source and how it is distributed. Some of it may come from criminal activity, possibly drug trafficking, but much more might come from arms dealing. Contracts in the hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars provide considerable fat for those well placed to benefit.

Investigators are also looking at Israel's particular expertise in the illegal sale of US military technology to countries like China and India. Fraudulent end-user certificates produced by Defense Ministries in Israel and Turkey are all that is needed to divert military technology to other, less benign, consumers.

The military-industrial-complex/neocon network is also well attested. Doug Feith has been associated with Northrup Grumman for years, while defense contractors fund many neocon-linked think tanks and "information" services. Feith, Perle and a number of other neocons have long had beneficial relationships with various Israeli defense contractors.

Quite a witch's brew going on there, isn't it?

I want to know more about all of these things.

I want to know more about 9/11. I want to know more about Turkey, Israel and the USA. I want to know more about the connection between drug smuggling and terrorism (although some of the connections are obvious) and I want to know about the weapons trading too.

I am told we are talking about the sale of restricted nuclear weapons technology on the international black market. I want to know more about that.

If you would like to know more about all these things, I may have some good news for you. Finally, finally!, there may be something we can do about it.

The Democrats supposedly control both houses of Congress. They definitely control the House of Representatives. They won't talk about impeachment but they will talk about oversight. This is a case demanding oversight, if ever there was one.

A coalition representing Americans on both sides of the political divide has presented a petition to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, asking for open public hearings in this case and asking Congress to re-examine the so-called State Secrets Privilege. The key individuals on this committee are Henry Waxman and John Conyers.

Please phone, write, email, fax or visit the offices of Congressman Henry Waxman and Congressman John Conyers.

Please do it soon: This week! Today!! Right now!!!

Please demand open public hearings into Sibel Edmonds' case and the State Secrets Privilege.

And please enjoy this very short clip -- from the speech Ms. Edmonds gave when she accepted the 2006 PEN Award.

~~~

[contact]

Congressman Henry Waxman:
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-3976 (phone)
(202) 225-4099 (fax)

Congressman John Conyers:
2426 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5126
(202) 225-0072 Fax
John.Conyers@mail.house.gov

~~~

[see also]

Sibel Edmonds' website:
Just A Citizen

Luke Ryland's blog:
Wot Is It Good 4

A blog focused on the documentary about Sibel Edmonds called "Kill The Messenger":
Kill the Messenger: Sibel Edmonds

A blog focused on generating support for new hearings:
Let Sibel Edmonds Speak

[articles]

David Rose in Vanity Fair:
An Inconvenient Patriot

Miguel at Kill The Messenger:
The Incredibly, Credible Sibel

Sibel Edmonds at NSWBC:
The Hijacking of a Nation -- Part 1
The Hijacking of a Nation -- Part 2

Tom Flocco via WP:
Sibel Edmonds Won’t Deny It: Intelligence Intercepts Tied 9/11 Drug Money To U.S. Election Campaigns

[listen]

Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton:
Luke Ryland
Sibel Edmonds and James Bamford

[more from Winter Patriot]

Sibel Edmonds and the PEN Newman Award for 2006
Sibel Edmonds Holds The Keys

Two FBI Whistleblowers Confirm Illegal Wiretapping of Government Officials and Misuse of FISA

Late being better than never, here's Monday's press release from the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, a support group founded by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds.

I've written about Sibel many times here, but I've recently found out that some of what I have written about her was wrong (oops!) ... so if you weren't reading me at the time, Congratulations!

I hope to have more to say about Sibel and her experiences in the National Security hall-of-mirrors, and I hope to have it soon! But in the meantime, you may as well get caught up with Monday's news:

Two FBI Whistleblowers Confirm Illegal Wiretapping of Government Officials and Misuse of FISA

State Secrets Privilege Was Used to Cover Up Corruption and Silence Whistleblowers

The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) has obtained a copy of an official complaint filed by a veteran FBI Special Agent, Gilbert Graham, with the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-OIG). SA Graham’s protected disclosures report the violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in conducting electronic surveillance of high-profile U.S. public officials.

Before his retirement in 2002, SA Gilbert Graham worked for the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) Squad NS-24. One of the main areas of Mr. Graham’s counterintelligence investigations involved espionage activities by Turkish officials and agents in the United States. On April 2, 2002, Graham filed with the DOJ-OIG a classified protected disclosure, which provided a detailed account of FISA violations involving misuse of FISA warrants to engage in domestic surveillance. In his unclassified report SA Graham states: “It is the complainant’s reasonable belief that the request for ELSUR [electronic surveillance] coverage was a subterfuge to collect evidentiary information concerning public corruption matters.” Graham blew the whistle on this illegal behavior, but the actions were covered up by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General’s office.

Click here to read the unclassified version of SA Graham’s Official Report.

The report filed by SA Graham bolsters another FBI whistleblower’s case that became public several months after Graham’s official filing with the Justice Department in 2002. Sibel Edmonds, former FBI Language Specialist, also worked for the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO), and her assignments included the translations of Turkish Counterintelligence documents and audiotapes, some of which were part of espionage investigations led by SA Graham. After she filed her complaint with the DOJ-OIG and Congress, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Court proceedings in Edmonds’ case were blocked by the assertion of the State Secrets Privilege by then Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the Congress gagged and prevented from investigating her case through retroactive re-classification of documents by DOJ. To read the timeline on Edmonds’ case Click here.

Edmonds’ complaint included allegations of illegal activities by Turkish organizations and their agents in the United States, and the involvement of certain elected and appointed U.S. officials in the Department of State, Pentagon, and the U.S. Congress in these activities. In its September 2005 issue, Vanity Fair ran a comprehensive piece on Edmonds’ case by reporter David Rose, in which several former and current congressional and Justice Department officials identified former House Speaker Dennis Hastert as being involved in illegal activities with the Turkish organizations and personnel targeted in FBI investigations. In addition, Rose reported: “…much of what Edmonds reportedly heard seemed to concern not state espionage but criminal activity. There was talk, she told investigators, of laundering the profits of large-scale drug deals and of selling classified military technologies to the highest bidder.” In January 2005, DOJ-OIG released an unclassified summary of its investigation into Edmonds' termination. The report concluded that Edmonds was fired for reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program, and that many of her allegations were supported by convincing evidence.

Another Former Veteran FBI Counterintelligence and Espionage Specialist at FBI Headquarters in Washington DC also filed similar reports with DOJ-OIG and several congressional offices regarding violations of FISA implementation and the covering up of several espionage cases involving FBI Language Specialists and public corruption cases by the Bureau. The cases reported by this whistleblower corroborate those reported by SA Graham and Sibel Edmonds. In an interview with NSWBC investigators the former FBI Specialist, who wished to remain anonymous, stated: “…you are looking at covering up massive public corruption and espionage cases; to top that off you have major violations of FISA by the FBI Washington Field Office and HQ targeting these cases. Everyone involved has motive to cover up these reports and prevent investigation and public disclosure. No wonder they invoked the state secrets privilege in Edmonds’ case.”

William Weaver, NSWBC Senior Advisor noted that,”These abuses of power are precisely why we must pay attention to whistleblowers. Preservation of the balance of powers between the branches of government increasingly relies on information provided by whistleblowers, especially in the face of aggressive and expanding executive power. Through illegal surveillance members of Congress and other officials may be controlled by the executive branch, thereby dissolving the matrix of our democracy. The abuse of two powers of secrecy, FISA and the state secrets privilege, are working hand in hand to subvert the Constitution. In an abominably perverse arrangement, the abuse of FISA is being covered up by abuse of the state secrets privilege. Only whistleblowers and the congressional and judicial oversight their revelations spawn can bring our system back into balance.”

Several civil liberties and whistleblowers organizations have joined Edmonds and NSWBC in urging congress to hold public hearing on Edmonds’ case, including the supporting cases of SA Graham and other FBI witnesses, and the erroneous use of state secrets privilege by the executive branch to cover up its own illegal conduct. The petition endorsed by these groups is expected to be released to public in the next few days.

About National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), founded in August 2004, is an independent and nonpartisan alliance of whistleblowers who have come forward to address our nation’s security weaknesses; to inform authorities of security vulnerabilities in our intelligence agencies, at nuclear power plants and weapon facilities, in airports, and at our nation’s borders and ports; to uncover government waste, fraud, abuse, and in some cases criminal conduct. The NSWBC is dedicated to aiding national security whistleblowers through a variety of methods, including advocacy of governmental and legal reform, educating the public concerning whistleblowing activity, provision of comfort and fellowship to national security whistleblowers suffering retaliation and other harms, and working with other public interest organizations to affect goals defined in the NSWBC mission statement. For more on NSWBC visit www.nswbc.org.

© Copyright 2006, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Information in this release may be freely distributed and published provided that all such distributions make appropriate attribution to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.