NOTE: this blog is no longer active as of 12/07. New one: http://blog.kirchhof.com
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Mon, 31 Oct 2005
Aw, Never Mind
I was going to sit down and blog about the State Of Everything
today; had a bunch of great ideas and built-up outrage and snappy
rhetoric in my head all weekend that wanted to get out. But as I sit
here looking at this screen yet again, I have been taken over by a
sort of contented ennui.
This thing often serves as my pressure relief valve, and it works
well. The fact that a couple hundred of you folks out there stop by
every once in a while is super neat, and I thank you. But nothing that
I say here is going to change anything, anywhere. So I'll let it slide
for now. Maybe the fire in the belly will return in a day or two. In
the meantime watch all of our happy children tonight and smile at
someone for no reason.
Posted at 17:26 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Sat, 29 Oct 2005
Saturday Morning Happy Fun Time
The
Indictment. (pdf)
Posted at 11:34 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Thu, 27 Oct 2005
What It's Like
Okay; Miers is an asterisk now, Turdblossom and Scooter have
received their letters, support for the Glorius War is gone, and the
pResident is reduced to photo ops, his power and his braintrust gone.
Josh Marshall asked
Paul Begala what it's like to be in a White House under siege. Begala
responds with a very, very
good and funny essay.
Posted at 12:17 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Fri, 21 Oct 2005
Here Come The Documents...
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Special Counsel, has put up his
website. Presumably for document disbursement & such.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html
Posted at 15:28 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
I Like The Imagery
James Wolcott never
fails to disappoint:
If it looks as if Cheney has to resign and Bush himself enters the
Nixon danger zone, we'll hear the same frets and cries from the pundit
shows about the country being torn apart and Americans losing faith in
their government. But it isn't the country that will be torn apart by
Plamegate any more than the country was torn apart during Watergate
(which provided daily thrilling news entertainment value that bound
citizens together); it's the Washington establishment that will be
torn apart. And it should be torn apart. It's failed the country, and
it's played by its own rules for too long, and "criminalizing
politics" is exactly what should be done when political criminals
deceive a nation into a war with Judith Miller serving as the Angie
Dickinson to their Rat Pack and Richard Cohen auditioning for the part
of Joey Bishop.
Posted at 09:21 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Thu, 20 Oct 2005
On The Criminality Question
All of those who are toeing the latest "well, yeah, it's a crime
technically, but it shouldn't be" spin out of the White House should
read George Friedman's (of Strategic Forecasting at www.stratfor.com) piece on this question. Kos
has a copy up on his site. I'll reproduce it here in its entirety,
because permission is given to do so:
GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT10.17.2005
The Importance of the Plame Affair
By George Friedman
There are three rules concerning political scandal in the United
States. First, every administration has scandals. Second, the party in
opposition will always claim that there has never been an
administration as corrupt as the one currently occupying the White
House. Three, two is almost never true. It is going to be tough for
any government to live up to the Grant or Harding administrations for
financial corruption, or the Nixon and Lincoln administrations for
political corruption -- for instance, was Lincoln's secretary of war
really preparing a coup d'etat before the president's
assassination? And sex scandals -- Clinton is not the gold
standard. Harding was having sex with his mistress in the Oval Office --
and no discussion was possible over whether it was actually
sex. Andrew Jackson's wife was unfairly accused of being a
prostitute. Grover Cleveland had an illegitimate child. Let's
not start on John F. Kennedy.
Political scandal is the national sport -- the only unchanging
spectator activity where a fine time is had by all, save the turkey
who got caught this time. That is the fourth rule: Americans love a
good scandal, and politicians usually manage to give them one. Thus,
the Tom DeLay story is the epitome of national delight. Whether DeLay
broke the law or the Texas prosecutor who claims he did is a
Democratic hack out to make a name for himself matters little. A good
time will be had by all, and in a few years no one will remember
it. Does anyone remember Bert Lance or Richard Secord?
As we discussed in previous weeks, scandals become geopolitically
significant when they affect the ability of the president to conduct
foreign policy. That has not yet happened to George W. Bush, but it
might happen. There is, however, one maturing scandal that interests
us in its own right: the Valerie Plame affair, in which Karl Rove, the
most important adviser to the president, and I. Lewis Libby, the chief
of staff to the vice president, apparently identified Plame as a CIA
agent -- or at least did not vigorously deny that she was one when
they were contacted by reporters. Given that this happened
during a time of war, in which U.S. intelligence services are
at the center of the war -- and are not as effective as the United
States might wish -- the Plame affair needs to be examined and
understood in its own right. Moreover, as an intelligence
company, we have a particular interest in how intelligence
matters are handled.
The CIA is divided between the Directorate of Intelligence, which
houses the analysts, and the Directorate of Operations, which houses
the spies and the paramilitary forces. The spies are, in general,
divided into two groups. There are those with official cover and those
with non-official cover. Official cover means that the agent is
working at the U.S. embassy in some country, acting as a cultural,
agricultural or some other type of attachi, and is protected by
diplomatic immunity. They carry out a variety of espionage functions,
limited by the fact that most foreign intelligence services know who
the CIA agents at the embassy are and, frankly, assume that everyone
at the embassy is an agent. They are therefore followed, their home
phones are tapped, and their maids deliver scraps of paper to the host
government. This obviously limits the utility of these agents. Being
seen with one of them automatically blows the cover of any potential
recruits.
Then there are those with non-official cover, the NOCs. These agents
are the backbone of the American espionage system. A NOC does not have
diplomatic cover. If captured, he has no protection. Indeed, as the
saying goes, if something goes wrong, the CIA will deny it has ever
heard of him. A NOC is under constant pressure when he is needed by
the government and is on his own when things go wrong. That is
understood going in by all NOCs.
NOCs come into the program in different ways. Typically, they are
recruited at an early age and shaped for the role they are going to
play. Some may be tracked to follow China, and trained to be bankers
based in Hong Kong. Others might work for an American engineering firm
doing work in the Andes. Sometimes companies work with the CIA,
knowingly permitting an agent to become an employee. In other
circumstances, agents apply for and get jobs in foreign companies and
work their way up the ladder, switching jobs as they go, moving closer
and closer to a position of knowing the people who know what there is
to know. Sometimes they receive financing to open a business in some
foreign country, where over the course of their lives, they come to
know and be trusted by more and more people. Ideally, the connection
of these people to the U.S. intelligence apparatus is invisible. Or,
if they can't be invisible due to something in their past and they
still have to be used as NOCs, they develop an explanation for what
they are doing that is so plausible that the idea that they are
working for the CIA is dismissed or regarded as completely unlikely
because it is so obvious. The complexity of the game is endless.
These are the true covert operatives of the intelligence
world. Embassy personnel might recruit a foreign agent through bribes
or blackmail. But at some point, they must sit across from the recruit
and show their cards: "I'm from the CIA and...." At that point, they
are in the hands of the recruit. A NOC may never once need to do
this. He may take decades building up trusting relationships with
intelligence sources in which the source never once suspects that he
is speaking to the CIA, and the NOC never once gives a hint as to who
he actually is.
It is an extraordinary life. On the one hand, NOCs may live well. The
Number Two at a Latin American bank cannot be effective living on a
U.S. government salary. NOCs get to live the role and frequently, as
they climb higher in the target society, they live the good life. On
the other hand, their real lives are a mystery to
everyone. Frequently, their parents don't know what they really do,
nor do their own children -- for their safety and the safety of the
mission. The NOC may marry someone who cannot know who they
really are. Sometimes they themselves forget who they
are: It is an occupational disease and a form of madness. Being
the best friend of a man whom you despise, and doing it
for 20 years, is not easy. Some NOCs are recruited in mid-life
and in mid-career. They spend less time in the madness,
but they are less prepared for it as well. NOCs enter and leave
the program in different ways -- sometimes under their real
names, sometimes under completely fabricated ones. They share one
thing: They live a lie on behalf of their country.
The NOCs are the backbone of American intelligence and the ones who
operate the best sources -- sources who don't know they are
sources. When the CIA says that it needs five to 10 years to
rebuild its network, what it is really saying is that it needs
five to 10 years to recruit, deploy and begin to exploit
its NOCs. The problem is not recruiting them -- the life sounds
cool for many recent college graduates. The crisis of the NOC occurs
when he approaches the most valuable years of service, in his late 30s
or so. What sounded neat at 22 rapidly becomes a mind-shattering
nightmare when their two lives collide at 40.
There is an explicit and implicit contract between the United States
and its NOCs. It has many parts, but there is one fundamental part: A
NOC will never reveal that he is or was a NOC without special
permission. When he does reveal it, he never gives specifics. The
government also makes a guarantee -- it will never reveal the identity
of a NOC under any circumstances -- and, in fact, will do
everything to protect it. If you have lied to your
closest friends for 30 years about who you are and why you talk
to them, no government bureaucrat has the right to
reveal your identity for you. Imagine if you had never
told your children -- and never planned to tell your children -- that
you worked for the CIA, and they suddenly read in the New York Times
that you were someone other than they thought you were.
There is more to this. When it is revealed that you were a NOC,
foreign intelligence services begin combing back over your life,
examining every relationship you had. Anyone you came into contact
with becomes suspect. Sometimes, in some countries, becoming suspect
can cost you your life. Revealing the identity of a NOC can be a
matter of life and death -- frequently, of people no one has ever
heard of or will ever hear of again.
In short, a NOC owes things to his country, and his country owes
things to the NOC. We have no idea what Valerie Plame told her family
or friends about her work. It may be that she herself broke the rules,
revealing that she once worked as a NOC. We can't know that, because
we don't know whether she received authorization from the CIA to say
things after her own identity was blown by others. She might have been
irresponsible, or she might have engaged in damage control. We just
don't know.
What we do know is this. In the course of events, reporters contacted
two senior officials in the White House -- Rove and Libby. Under the
least-damaging scenario we have heard, the reporters already
knew that Plame had worked as a NOC. Rove and Libby, at
this point, were obligated to say, at the very least,
that they could neither confirm nor deny the report. In
fact, their duty would have been quite a bit more: Their job
was to lie like crazy to mislead the reporters. Rove and
Libby had top security clearances and were senior White
House officials. It was their sworn duty, undertaken when they
accepted their security clearance, to build a "bodyguard
of lies" -- in Churchill's phrase -- around the truth
concerning U.S. intelligence capabilities.
Some would argue that if the reporters already knew her identity, the
cat was out of the bag and Rove and Libby did nothing wrong. Others
would argue that if Plame or her husband had publicly stated that she
was a NOC, Rove and Libby were freed from their obligation. But the
fact is that legally and ethically, nothing relieves them of the
obligation to say nothing and attempt to deflect the inquiry. This is
not about Valerie Plame, her husband or Time Magazine. The obligation
exists for the uncounted number of NOCs still out in the field.
Americans stay safe because of NOCs. They are the first line of
defense. If the system works, they will be friends with Saudi citizens
who are financing al Qaeda. The NOC system was said to have been badly
handled under the Clinton administration -- this is the lack of humint
that has been discussed since the 9-11 attacks. The United States
paid for that. And that is what makes the Rove-Libby
leak so stunning. The obligation they had was not only
to Plame, but to every other NOC leading a double life who
is in potentially grave danger.
Imagine, if you will, working in Damascus as a NOC and reading that
the president's chief adviser had confirmed the identity of a NOC. As
you push into middle age, wondering what happened to your life, the
sudden realization that your own government threatens your safety
might convince you to resign and go home. That would cost the United
States an agent it had spent decades developing. You don't just pop a
new agent in his place. That NOC's resignation could leave the United
States blind at a critical moment in a key place. Should it turn out
that Rove and Libby not only failed to protect Plame's identity but
deliberately leaked it, it would be a blow to the heart of
U.S. intelligence. If just one critical NOC pulled out and the United
States went blind in one location, the damage could be substantial. At
the very least, it is a risk the United States should not have to
incur.
The New York Times and Time Magazine have defended not only the
decision to publish Plame's name, but also have defended hiding the
identity of those who told them her name. Their justification is the
First Amendment. We will grant that they had the right to publish
statements concerning Plame's role in U.S. intelligence; we cannot
grant that they had an obligation to publish it. There is a huge gap
between the right to publish and a requirement to publish. The concept
of the public's right to know is a shield that can be used by the
press to hide irresponsibility. An article on the NOC program
conceivably might have been in the public interest, but it is hard to
imagine how identifying a particular person as part of that program
can be deemed as essential to an informed public.
But even if we regard the press as unethical by our standards, their
actions were not illegal. On the other hand, if Rove and Libby even
mentioned the name of Valerie Plame in the context of being a CIA
employee -- NOC or not -- on an unsecured line to a person without a
security clearance or need to know, while the nation was waging war,
that is the end of the story. It really doesn't matter why or whether
there was a plan or anything. The minimal story -- that they talked
about Plame with a reporter -- is the end of the matter.
We can think of only one possible justification for this action: That
it was done on the order of the president. The president has the
authority to suspend or change security regulations if required by the
national interest. The Plame affair would be cleared up if it turns
out Rove and Libby were ordered to act as they did by the
president. Perhaps the president is prevented by circumstances from
coming forward and lifting the burden from Rove and Libby. If that is
the case, it could cost him his right-hand man. But absent that
explanation, it is difficult to justify the actions that were taken.
Ultimately, the Plame affair points to a fundamental problem in
intelligence. As those who have been in the field have told us, the
biggest fear is that someone back in the home office will bring the
operation down. Sometimes it will be a matter of state: sacrificing a
knight for advantage on the chessboard. Sometimes it is a parochial
political battle back home. Sometimes it is carelessness, stupidity or
cruelty. This is when people die and lives are destroyed. But the real
damage, if it happens often enough or no one seems to care, will be to
the intelligence system. If the agent determines that his well-being
is not a centerpiece of government policy, he won't remain an agent
long.
On a personal note, let me say this: one of the criticisms
conservatives have of liberals is that they do not understand that we
live in a dangerous world and, therefore, that they underestimate the
effort needed to ensure national security. Liberals have questioned
the utility and morality of espionage. Conservatives have been
champions of national security and of the United States' overt and
covert capabilities. Conservatives have condemned the atrophy of
American intelligence capabilities. Whether the special prosecutor
indicts or exonerates Rove and Libby legally doesn't matter. Valerie
Plame was a soldier in service to the United States, unprotected by
uniform or diplomatic immunity. I have no idea whether she served well
or poorly, or violated regulations later. But she did serve. And thus,
she and all the other NOCs were owed far more - especially by a
conservative administration -- than they got.
Even if that debt wasn't owed to Plame, it remains in place for all
the other spooks standing guard in dangerous places.
...Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to
Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests,
partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or
republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.
...c Copyright 2005 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.
So, you see, everyone that Valarie Plame ever had lunch with
overseas is a suspect in their own country. Everyone that they
interacted with is suspect. And so on.
I've had low-level security clearance in previous jobs. Even at
that level, the amount of oversight over a single innocuous piece of
paper can be onerous. What these people did is the equivalent of
tossing a bomb into an entire covert operation that took years to
build. All in service of a twisted, Machiavellian political lie that
they knew to be a lie. We'll never know the extent of the
damage, but no one should assume that it is minor. Absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence. Especially with intelligence services.
It's not only a crime, it's a very serious crime, arguably treasonous. And
that, children, is the ball upon which we need to keep our eyes as the
White House spins all of this into whatever disingenuous nonsense that
they are now planning.
Posted at 10:36 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Coolness
The 100
oldest .com names.
An interesting aside: all of the talk about registering names like
cars.com or business.com back in those days are kind of moot. All domain name
registrations had to be approved by DARPA until 1994. I actually was
in the process of getting a DARPA sponsorship for kirchhof.com when
President Clinton opened the Internet to to the public. (I worked at a
DARPA-sponsored consortium back in those days, so I had an in.) We've
been registered here since June 9, 1994. Neener neener.
Of course, if I'd had a lick of sense and foresight, I would've
been cars.com or business.com. Heck, I should've mortgaged the house
and registered every noun(.com) in the dictionary.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda....
Posted at 09:45 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Thu, 13 Oct 2005
Wow.
Found this gem after I saw the poll numbers in the last entry. From
the Post:
In what may turn out to be one of the biggest free-falls in the
history of presidential polling, President Bush's job-approval rating
among African Americans has dropped to 2 percent, according to a new
NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
[...]
A few months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the NBC/Wall Street
Journal poll found Bush's approval rating among blacks at 51
percent. As recently as six months ago, it was at 19 percent.
Astounding. Two Percent?!? I guess that he really is a
"uniter, not a divider."
Posted at 18:10 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Down, Down, Down
MSNBC says:
For the first time in the poll, Bush's approval rating has sunk below
40 percent, while the percentage believing the country is heading in
the right direction has dipped below 30 percent. In addition, a
sizable plurality prefers a Democratic-controlled Congress, and just
29 percent think Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is qualified to
serve on the nation's highest court.
We're approaching a convergence of his negatives and his IQ at this point...
Posted at 17:49 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Tue, 11 Oct 2005
On Lieberman
Big controversy amongst the Big Guys of bloggery, starting here
and going to here
and bouncing around back to here
and here
and here.
I am a fan of The Bull
Moose; he is from Waco and possesses some of the characteristics
of an old conservative Texas Democrat, a political animal with which I
am familiar and can do business. But he's wrong on this one; I sent
him some mail explaining my alternative viewpoint:
Hey there -
Big fan here; I read you daily. Thought that I'd throw in some
thoughts as the rockets fly.
I'm afraid that I have to go with Kos and Atrios on this one. I was
genuinely surprised at the outrage you exhibited in your post of the
other day, but not particularly moved by it, other than to take note.
Look, I know that you are, above all, a chute-the-middle moderate who
wants good and honest government and a self-sufficient citizenry. And
I know that you are well connected, and often know those who comprise
your subject matter personally. I agree with many of your points, and
I say that as a person who is definitely more liberal than you
politically (and possibly more conservative fiscally.) There is much
common ground in our two political philosophies.
All of this aside, though, you have to understand that there are
thoughtful people out here who find Joe Lieberman to be an odious
opportunist, a stalking-horse Democrat, a grandstander. I know more
than a few people who are as repelled by Joe as, say, the average
NewsMax reader is by Hillary.
And not completely without reason. His "more pious than thou"
religion-as-public-relations shtick from 1998 through the 2000
election was particularly repellent. But his ongoing campaign to be 'A
Democrat That Even A Right-Wing Nut Case Can Like' has worn very, very
thin. I look at Joe Lieberman and see a 100% pure, self-preserving
politician, in the most pejorative connotation of the word.
You may personally know Joe Lieberman to be a truly good and honest
human being, and I respect that. But to me, in the end, he proves more
Humphreyesque than Statesmanesque in his personal conduct, and his
politics can arguably be characterized as "to the right of Nixon." I
see no slander/libel in either of the original posts, and I see
legitimate points in both.
You may see an unfair "guilt by association" facet here. I
disagree. Politics is people. Politics is built with
association. But political perception is also built with
association. With one group photo, Lieberman has likely lost any
pretense to being a standard-bearer in the party that has done so much
to enrich his career. To coin an accurate metaphor, it's one thing to
attend; it's wholly another to sit on the dais. It may have been one
the of the great bonehead moves of the last few years, a "shunned by
the rank and file" move. Ol' Joe can now be defeated from the
center. And that is as it should be.
Just one man's opinion,
r
[Note: changed the word "shoot" to the correct "chute" above.
It
just didn't cut the mustard muster.]
Posted at 11:59 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Life Inside A Water Bottle
An, er, interesting
application of QuickTime. Just drag your mouse around.
Posted at 10:16 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Mon, 10 Oct 2005
Good Ol' Einstein
If you're into physics geekery, today might be a bit of a "shift the
foundation" sort of day. A couple of physicists in Victoria have
reexamined the question of the total mass of the universe. Analyzing
observed rotational curves with the General Relativity and Newtonian
models of physics only, they've pretty convincingly obviated the
necessity for dark matter in current astrophysical theory.
Pretty neat. Not unlike setting adrift the "luminiferous aether"
model a century and change ago. Look for big advances in physics in
the near term. If correct, this kicks down all kinds of conundrums and
gets rid of a long-standing vapor lock in astrophysics.
PDF
here.
Gotta Love It.
Posted at 12:17 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Sat, 08 Oct 2005
Humor
Modern Drunkard
Magazine.
There's a great list of Bar
Slang Terms.
(Both of these are via the Slashfood site, which is also
highly recommended...)
Posted at 13:28 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Better Tools For Living
I've just discovered a wonderful firefox (if you're not using the
firefox browser, Why
Not??)extension.
The Grocery
List Generator.
Posted at 13:23 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Fri, 07 Oct 2005
October 7, 2002
Well, Hey Kids! It's the third anniversary of Our Dear Leader's
Glorious War. Three years ago today, Bush made a speech in Cincinnati
outlining his case for war.
Let's just pick through a transcript from the Official
Source, shall we?
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to
peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting
that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi
regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward
an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the
Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons
of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to
stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated
all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and
biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given
shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own
people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of
defiance, deception and bad faith.
...and...
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding
facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological
weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes
is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in
1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons
despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the
civilized world.
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of
miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other
nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and
service members live and work. We've also discovered through
intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned
aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological
weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring
ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United
States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't
required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be
required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi
intelligence operative to deliver it.
...and...
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common
enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda
have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda
leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very
senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this
year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and
biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda
members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that
after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully
celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
...and...
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract
from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat
posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke
to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor
terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein
is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the
instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be
trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or
provide them to a terror network.
Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction
are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we
confront both. And the United States military is capable of
confronting both.
...and...
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear
weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi
nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his
nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that
Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been
part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has
attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other
equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to
enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of
highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it
could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.
...and...
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering
against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the
final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a
mushroom cloud.
That was $200 billion dollars and 2000 American lives and
countless civilian casualties ago.
You were lied to, knowingly. The only winner here is
Halliburton. Which, of course, was a major part of the real plan in
the first place.
Happy?
Posted at 13:32 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Thu, 06 Oct 2005
More Delay Intrigue
Just ran across this one over at Josh
Marshall's site:
Is RoBold the snitch?
Ever since Travis County DA Ronnie Earle indicted Tom DeLay on the
initial charge of conspiracy, and especially since he heaped on two
more indictments based on "additional information" he received last
weekend, DeLay watchers have been reading the tea leaves trying
discern who might have agreed to testify against Mr. Big.
In today's Roll Call, there's an article by John Bresnahan, devoted
almost entirely to the voluble denials from DeLay's alleged
co-conspirators Jim Ellis John Colyandro, each insisting that they
haven't cut a deal.
But sticking out like a sore thumb in Bresnahan's piece is the second
graf which reads ...
A lawyer for a third DeLay associate who also is under indictment
in the Texas probe, Warren RoBold, did not return calls seeking
comment on whether he is cooperating with Earle's investigation.
RoBold isn't quite the insider that Ellis and Colyandro are. So
perhaps he's decided it's time to cut his losses, turn the tables and
nail the hammer?
If Ronnie has someone to sing, it begins to come into focus a lot
more clearly...
Posted at 22:28 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Lawrence O'Donnell Weighs In
Lawrence is the guy who correctly outed Rove in the Plame affair
back in July. He has a nice
post today at Ariana Huffington's site.
If Karl Rove's lawyer, Bob Luskin, is still as easy to read as he has
been since I broke the story that his client was Matt Cooper's source,
then we now know that Rove has received a target letter from Patrick
Fitzgerald. How do we know it? Luskin refuses to deny it.
and
Prediction: at least three high level Bush Administration personnel
indicted and possibly one or more very high level unindicted
co-conspirators.
Ahh, sounds like the good old days. As you'll recall, it was
established back in the Days of Nixon that you can't indict a sitting
President or Vice President. That's why Nixon was an "unindicted
co-conspirator" in the Watergate prosecution.
(walks off whistling a happy tune)
Posted at 15:54 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Lede Of The Week
Heh. The Dallas
Observer :
Just about everybody who served or worked with Harriet Miers during
her brief political career in Dallas remembers her as a hard-working,
fair-minded moderate. When the Dallas political spectrum is properly
framed against the national matrix, that means many people elsewhere
will view her as a right-wing Christian nut case.
Posted at 10:48 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Wed, 05 Oct 2005
Dummmm-Da-Dum-Dum
Turdblossom is M.I.A. lately.
How good can a couple of weeks get, Children? Rove on his way to an
indictment as well?
Posted at 18:13 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Tue, 04 Oct 2005
Thoughts On Delay
I wrote the
other day about how it was plausible that Delay had made some sort
of plea arrangement. I may be completely dead-on wrong here, but the
new
turn of events seems to me to be consistent with that
theorem. Delay waives the statute of limitations on the conspiracy,
for no known good reason. On
the last day he withdraws that waiver, leaving the arranged indictment
in question. Ronnie throws the book at him.
Simple enough. Pure nut-cutting hardball legal maneuvering. And a
major gambit for Dick DeGuerin that didn't quite work out. Now his
client is looking at life in prison.
So sad...
UPDATE: Other
folks are thinking along similar lines.
Posted at 12:48 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Mon, 03 Oct 2005
History Repeats
Back in the sixties, L.B.J. noted "If we've lost Cronkite, we've
lost the country", speaking of the Vietnam war. Well, Andy Rooney let
loose an
editorial last night that bears repeating in its entirety:
I'm not really clear how much a billion dollars is but the
United States - our United States - is spending $5.6 billion a month
fighting this war in Iraq that we never should have gotten into.
We still have 139,000 soldiers in Iraq today.
Almost 2,000 Americans have died there. For what?
Now we have the hurricanes to pay for. One way our government pays
for a lot of things is by borrowing from countries like China.
Another way the government is planning to pay for the war and the
hurricane damage is by cutting spending for things like Medicare
prescriptions, highway construction, farm payments, AMTRAK, National
Public Radio and loans to graduate students. Do these sound like the
things you'd like to cut back on to pay for Iraq?
I'll tell you where we ought to start saving: on our bloated
military establishment.
We're paying for weapons we'll never use.
No other Country spends the kind of money we spend on our
military.
Last year Japan spent $42 billion. Italy spent $28 billion, Russia
spent only $19 billion. The United States spent $455 billion.
We have 8,000 tanks for example. One Abrams tank costs 150 times
as much as a Ford station wagon.
We have more than 10,000 nuclear weapons - enough to destroy all
of mankind.
We're spending $200 million a year on bullets alone. That's a lot
of target practice. We have 1,155,000 enlisted men and women and
225,000 officers. One officer to tell every five enlisted soldier what
to do. We have 40,000 colonels alone and 870 generals.
We had a great commander in WWII, Dwight Eisenhower. He became
President and on leaving the White House in 1961, he said this: "We
must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential
for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Well, Ike was right. That's just what's happened.
Posted at 17:05 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
Sun, 02 Oct 2005
...And The Hits Just Keep On Coming...
Source to Stephanopoulos:
President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal
Note to Henry Hyde: is "treason" an impeachable offense, in your opinion?
Posted at 12:10 by Randy Kirchhof [Permalink]
[Reload all]
[E-mail]
