Watergate? On a news day like THIS?

Well...yeah.

Can't help it. Now that the GWB43 tale is getting major attention (see Dan Froomkin's take on it here), we are hearing voices comparing the Rove/Ralston/Abramoff emails to the 18 1/2 minute gap in the Watergate tapes. Except this time, we may get a chance to grab hold of the missing material. The technology has changed.

But then the thought hit me: How do we know that those infamous 18 1/2 minutes of Nixonian Deep Thoughts are lost forever?

Yes, I know that techs have tried to nudge some latent vocal material out of the electronic fuzz, to no avail. But everyone is missing one key point: The tape system installed by Nixon was not the only one in the Oval Office. Strong evidence indicates that the CIA had bugged the White House -- which is precisely why Nixon could not simply erase the tapes; if he had, his enemies at the Agency would have released the material. I make the case at some length here.

This is not just my theory. Nixon aide Chuck Colson once said "The CIA had tapes of everything related to the White House." More than that: Colson tried to hire a guy named Gordon N. to erase the CIA tapes. Gordon, in those days, was palling around with the CIA's James J. Angleton -- a fact which tells us which spook had physical possession of the other set of tapes. (If you've read anything about Angleton, you'll know that he was gutsy enough to pull off a stunt like that.)

We may thus begin to deduce what was on the erased 18 1/2 minutes. Whatever the subject of conversation was, it must have been something that neither Nixon nor Angleton wanted to become public. An area where Nixon knew that he and the Agency had a common interest in silence.

What do you think the topic could have been?

Iraq to US: "Go! Go! Go!"

Much to speak of today, but we cannot ignore this. The right-wing blogs and the U.S. military insist that only about 5,000-7,000 protestors in Najaf, Iraq, showed up a couple of days ago to demand the ouster of American troops.

Instapundit links to Gateway Pundit and calls the protest “a weak turnout.” RedState uses the photo to claim the “outcome was underwhelming.” Weekly Standard downplays the turnout and says it is evidence that “the Coalition has regained the initiative.”

"Weak turnout," eh? "Regained the initiative," eh? Here's the overhead shot:

And here we have a good view of one of the streets leading to the main square. Like the war itself, it just kinda seems to go on forever...

This piece reminds us of a little-recalled Washington Post story from 2004 -- "Powell: If asked, U.S. will leave Iraq":

Secretary of State Colin Powell emphatically said yesterday that if the incoming Iraqi interim government ordered the departure of foreign troops after June 30, they would pack up without protest, but emphasized he doubted such a request would be made.

All doubt was removed in June of 2006, when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called for

A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations.

So why are we still there? 90% of the Iraqi people want us gone, according to the polls. And the photographic evidence presented above is just as telling as the right-wing's willingness to lie about it.

Despite their illimitable lucre and formidable media manipulation skills, Conservatives are losing the American people, because the chasm separating their preferred "reality" and real reality has grown too wide. If you point at a hippo and say "That's a condor," people won't listen to anything else you have to say.

And the choice is...

My problem is simple. I don't know which Democratic candidate to favor.

Hillary Clinton seems easily eliminated from the list; tepid as always, she was the last to decline the Fox/CBC debate, and thus should be considered least worthy of our votes. Gutless and overly-calculating, she would probably lose in the general -- and even if she won, she would polarize the citizenry as would no other. The idea of replacing a Republican dynasty with a Democratic dynasty makes nearly everyone uneasy.

And yet...

I say this with the subtle hint of crow flavoring my breath, since I long ago predicted that she neither could nor would win the nomination. But what if she did? And what if she prevailed against Guiliani or McCain or Thompson or Romney?

Her administration would be, in essence, a third Bill Clinton administration -- not a bad thing. Bill Clinton brought us out of the economic doldrums at a time when all seemed hopeless. We need that kind of experience, since the economic woes soon to beset us are more to be feared than were the problems of 1992.

If experience counts -- and it does -- then Hillary deserves consideration.

That's why I'm leery of Obama. He presents us with a fresh face at a perilous time when "fresh" may not be the attribute I'm seeking.

He's a good man and a good communicator. He will surely choose wise advisors if selected as the candidate. If he does not achieve the nomination, he will be the logical first choice for Vice President.

But...President? I am unconvinced.

John Edwards. Frankly, his experience level is almost as unimpressive as Obama's. On the other hand, since he currently holds no office, he has been bolder than either Clinton or Obama have been; he was, for example, the first to snub Fox. (Obama may be fresh, but he hasn't always shown true boldness -- as is perhaps inevitable for a sitting Senator.) Courage is a virtue we need as much as experience, and Edwards simply has more of the stuff than his competitors do. I admire his stands on global warming and health care.

I also respect the Rasmussen poll which says that Edwards can beat any Republican candidate. We need a winner. We cannot support someone who merely ought to win; we must throw everything we have behind someone who will win.

On the other hand: Edwards managed the impressive trick of losing a debate to the singularly unlovable Dick Cheney. That fact does not inspire confidence.

Al Gore? I hope he reconsiders; I hope he gets into this thing. The vote I cast for him was the proudest of my life, with the possible exception of my vote for Kerry. He exceeds Hillary in the experience category, and the last six years have, I imagine, taught him a renewed appreciation for political courage. And he won once before.

Wes Clarke? He commands respect as a military man, and is probably the Democrat most likely to carry southern states. We should all honor his efforts to forestall an attack on Iran. This country could use a noted warrior who says that war is not the answer.

To be honest, I do not dislike any of these individuals. But which one is most deserving of our support?

New info on the pet food scandal

Judi McLeod, of the right-wing Canada Free Press, cites Cannonfire in a recent story on the poisoned pet food scandal. As the old saying has it, right and left meet at the health food store -- and I suppose we can extend that observation to the presumably healthy foods we purchase for our furry friends.

McLeod reveals details previously unknown to me about Stephen Miller, the mysterious CEO of ChemNutra -- the Las Vegas firm which imported the tainted wheat gluten (which Chinese authorities still maintain they did not export).

Perhaps the FDA should be focusing on the phantoms in the poison pet food scare story. Phantoms like million dollar operations without signs on their doors with rundown warehouses in China.

Phantoms like Xuzhou Anying, which says it does not export to the U.S. when it just did--through a supplier only 50 miles down the road.

ChemNutra's China office is located at Jing Sui Bldg. 601, Hangzhou, Zhejiang. The contact person for the China office is listed as Mr. Zhu Hao.

ChemNutra lists the number of employees at it China operation as "1 to 50" and the number of employees at its Las Vegas operation as "less than five people". That's not a lot of employees for a company whose annual sales are above US$100 million.

By the way, there is (or was, until recently) a somewhat conspiracy-minded blogger named Stephen Miller who speaks about having worked for E.F. Hutton. The ChemNutra Miller lists that firm on his resume. But Miller the Blogger lives, or lived, in Bridgeport, Connecticut, at a time when "our" Miller was in either California or Nevada. Whatever the truth of the matter, the "Screwed Again" site, which has not been active since January, published some rather good posts.

A word about the Don Imus business (ADDED NOTE)

I've never really heard Imus' program. The bits and pieces I've caught did not encourage me to listen further. His racial outburst was, needless to say, both foolish and despicable -- words that can describe previous ugly incidents in the man's career.

But: I read his apology, and it seemed both sincere and humble. Humility is a rare virtue these days, as is forgiveness, and I think both should be encouraged. I would like to believe that even louts and rotters can better themselves. My advice would be to take the apology at face value and to drop the matter.

ADDED NOTE: If you have decided that Imus has lacerated himself beyond apology's ability to mend, read this D.U. post before wallowing in self-righteousness. I did not know that the man had done so much for charity. Not that this history will matter to most, for truly Lord Buckley hath spoken:

The bad jazz that a cat blows,
Wails long after he's cut out.
The groovy is often stashed with their frames...

GWB43: The scandal gains momentum

First the L.A. Times broke through -- and now other major media organs have noticed the scandal. Here's CNN:

The Presidential Records Act, passed during the Nixon administration, requires the preservation of all official records of and about the president.

A White House spokesman defended the use of outside e-mail accounts as an appropriate method of separating official business from political campaign work.

But the use of those accounts by officials discussing the firings -- and one from now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- have led a liberal watchdog group to accuse administration of trying to skirt the law governing preservation of presidential records.

Finally! That's the kind of coverage I've been waiting for. Jack gets mentioned right away -- and the official White House spin stands revealed as sheer deception.

And as for the "Blame Bill" strategy...

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said staffers used different computers "to have a separate e-mail account for political activities."

Stanzel said that procedure was modeled on "the historical practice of previous administrations." But John Podesta, who served as White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration, disputed that.

"It doesn't appear that they were doing what we did, which was to segregate political activity from official activity," he said.

There's hope for the mainstream media. God help me, but at times like this, I really think there is hope.

Oh, and you'll enjoy this post on a blog called Neomeme (a site previously unknown to me): "Strange Domains Registered by the RNC -- Not Just gwb43.com."

The conservative media machine

The conservative media machine still chugs along, even as Bush-brand neoconservatism has fallen into disfavor.

That's the message of "Why are they trying so hard to distract us?", the latest piece by Larisa Alexandrovna. (Also see here.)

Instead of editorial pages demanding to know why Cheney's friends, handpicked to serve in top positions at the Pentagon, would have lied to their dear chum about something as serious as a war (they likely lied to the President), the major papers were busy making fun of Nancy Pelosi's state - California - as though it were some strange evil appendage without any right to have representation or the ability to produce a savvy diplomat.

Let's not forget (I will never let you forget) that CA residents pay more to the federal government than they receive in goods and services -- as is not the case in most states that went for Bush.

The bottom line:

The national media continues to self destruct under the weight of its politically purchased editorial pages. Not content to simply slink away quietly after leading the nation into a disastrous war of choice through negligent and even highly corrupt reporting practices, the editorial boards of all of the major newspapers - still apparently strapped collectively into a mission accomplished payola flight suit - continue to play political attack dog for their paymasters.

Even with the rise of the blogosphere, newspaper opinion sections carry weight. How can we reclaim the editorial pages? They were relatively fair back in the 1970s. How can we achieve true balance once more?

(Side note: I once toyed with the idea of becoming an editorial cartoonist. But it's very hard to break into that field if you cannot please the right-wing editors who control most newspapers. Truth be told, that's a hard nut to crack under any circumstances.)

Paul Krugman sounds a theme similar to Larisa's:

Now there’s Ms. Pelosi’s fact-finding trip to Syria, which Dick Cheney denounced as “bad behavior” — unlike the visit to Syria by three Republican congressmen a few days earlier, or Newt Gingrich’s trip to China when he was speaker.

Ms. Pelosi has responded coolly, dismissing the administration’s reaction as a “tantrum.” But it’s more than that: the hysterical reaction to her trip is part of a political strategy, aided and abetted by news organizations that give little lies their time in the sun.

Fox News, which is a partisan operation in all but name, plays a crucial role in the Little Lie strategy — which is why there is growing pressure on Democratic politicians not to do anything, like participating in Fox-hosted debates, that helps Fox impersonate a legitimate news organization.

Also see (if you have not already seen it) this important bit of videoblogging by Josh Marshall.

The Pelosi trip constitutes but one example of the larger phenomenon. For another example, scroll down a couple of posts and read our discussion of the Reuters story which was rewritten (either by Reuters or by the Washington Post) to conform with the White House worldview.

The Bushies have discredited themselves, yet BushMedia is still there -- like a kicked-out roommate who still insists on parking in your driveway. What to do?

Bill O'Reilly -- traitor!

Bill O'Reilly, in giving Rosie O'Donnell a much-deserved slamming for her foolish foray into tranny-ism, did not simply accuse her of being the sort of nincompoop who bleats about "physics" without first consulting any physicists. No, he basically accused her of being a traitor for daring to suggest that anyone within the United States government might act against our interests. Even by my standards, an overwrought accusation like that is out of line -- and it places Rosie in a more sympathetic light than she deserves.

Flashback: Here is Bill O'Reilly delivering an "Inside Edition" report on the JFK assassination, in the wake of Oliver Stone's JFK. As you may recall, tabloid TV did quite a few segments on the case at that time; some of the coverage was well-done, and some of it was garbage. This report on the HSCA is of a surprisingly high quality. While those who know the case will learn little, the brief "interview" with Veciana is pretty telling in its own right.

Bottom line: The Bill O'Reilly of that time was a traitor -- according to the standards set forth by the Bill O'Reilly of today.

(Readers are encouraged to comment away on Bill, but trannies are invited to shriek their nonsense elsewhere. I have had it with the way they keep repeating lies that have long been exposed as such, and I simply do not have the time to mount a point-by-point refutation -- repeating, as I am always forced to repeat, things I've said before, for the benefit of trannies who don't know how to use the site's "search" function. Go to some other site and make a game of it: Try to guess how much the neocons paid me off to insult the Gospel According To Jim Marrs. The tranny who comes closest without going over will get a coupon for a half-price carne asada burrito at El Indio, the finest all-night taco stand in the San Fernando Valley.)

Big media notices computergate

Well, I had hoped to spend this Monday away from the blog -- much work to catch up on -- but how can we let today's expose of the White House parallel email system pass without comment? Astonishingly, the story comes to us by way of what has become a very conservative newspaper, the Los Angeles Times.

Democrats say evidence suggests the RNC e-mail system was used for political and government policy matters in violation of federal record preservation and disclosure rules.

In addition, Democrats point to a handful of e-mails obtained through ongoing inquiries suggesting the system may have been used to conceal such activities as contacts with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was convicted on bribery charges and is now in prison for fraud.

Isn't it nice to see a major news organ catch up with the blogosphere? Took 'em only...well. How many weeks has it been...?

White House officials said the system had been used appropriately and was modeled after one used by the Clinton White House political office in the late 1990s.

"The regular staffers who interface with political organizations have a separate e-mail account, and that's entirely appropriate," said White House spokesman Scott M. Stanzel. "The practice is followed to avoid inadvertent violations of the law."

When in doubt, blame Bill. You can bet the rent money that we are going to hear this talking point pushed ad infinitum when the story grows to a size that the radio rightists cannot ignore.

The difference -- which will be heeded only by those listeners with the patience to hear it -- is simple: The Clintonites used private emails only for partisan political work. Congress was able to subpoena every piece of email they wanted when they went out to the old fishin' hole during Whitewatergate and travelgate and all those other pseudogates they invented.

We know that the Rove-era emails were used for non-RNC purposes -- such as feeding info to Jack Abramoff and deep-sixing prosecutors who weren't loyal Bushies.

So now the problem becomes one of phrasing, and of anticipating the opposition. When Limbaugh and O'Reilly start bleating "Clinton did it!" -- and they will do just that -- how do we respond? How can we pare the truth down to five-to-ten one-syllable words, which is the only kind of message that might penetrate the noggins of the people who listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly?

I hope this piece by Alexis Simendinger of the National Journal doesn't get entirely subsumed by the Times piece, because we learn some juicy new facts. Seems that the Bushies were warned about compliance with the Presidential Records Act when they took office:

On his second day as White House counsel in January, Fred Fielding said little when representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration suggested during a courtesy meeting that he might want to reissue guidance to President Bush's aides about how they should preserve e-mail messages as presidential records.

And what is the likelihood that we can recover the emails sent on the private RNC system?

The RNC's policy, Stanzel said, is to delete e-mails every 30 days, except for the e-mails of White House aides "who use the political e-mail accounts the RNC has provided them." David Almacy, White House Internet and e-communications director, told Computerworld in March that the RNC's archive exception for White House e-mails began in 2004.

I expect we'll hear a lot about that 30-day limit. (As in: "Oops, we accidentally placed that email in the to-be-deleted category. Silly us!") 'Tis BS, as those who have followed the reader commentary in this blog, and elsewhere, will know. Records of those emails are somewhere.

One former White House political aide said he vaguely recalled receiving guidance about sending e-mail on an RNC-provided BlackBerry and using a gwb43.com e-mail account, but he had clearer memories of getting "a billion and one" White House ethics briefings.

The e-mail instructions, from Sara Taylor, director of White House political affairs, were meant to help aides juggle dual sets of communications devices to comply with the Hatch Act and the Presidential Records Act, and to use the RNC equipment and accounts "only for political activity."

Hmm. Looks like this is one of those situations where "If the man don't listen, you got to yell a little louder":

JACK ABRAMOFF! PROSECUTORGATE!

What about those emails? You've broken either the Hatch Act or the PRA. You may be able to escape one charge or the other but not both.

Oh -- and remember that doctored photo, which one of the RNC IT firms used in a classic distraction maneuver? I like what corrente has to say:

The guys who planted this disinformation keep changing their stories. It’s an April Fool’s joke that ran from March 30 to April 4. It’s a practical joke. They’re mad because the RNC got revealed as their client for gwb43com.s nameserving. It’s a viral marketing ploy. With Republicans, changing stories mean just one thing: They’re lying.

The WP newsfaker: "What is his name? What is his name? His name is Charlie Kane..."

Atrios first spotted this, and others have picked it up. Yesterday, Reuters published the following account of fighting in Diwaniya, Iraq:

[U.S. military spokesman]Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches.

(Emphasis added.) A factory? In Iraq? Producing EFPs? How embarrassing. Bush is trying to convince the world that the Iraqi insurgents get all their EFPs from those awful, awful Iranians.

So the Washington Post picked up the story and, er, well, sort of rewrote it. No more factory. Poof. It's gone; it never existed. In the revised version, EFPs are called "a particularly deadly type of device which Washington accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi militants.”

Is this the most blatant example of journalistic lying we've ever seen? No. But it's probably the most unforgivable example to appear in months.

We need a name. Just who is this Charles Foster Kane wannabe at the Post who decided to help launch a new war by rewriting the words of his journalistic betters? The American people despise George Bush. Why is the Post rewriting stories to conform with Bush's fantasies?

The pet food scandal, again

Cannonfire readers have contributed some outstanding research concerning the mysterious Stephen Miller, owner of ChemNutra, the odd Las Vegas firm recently identified as the importer of the tainted wheat gluten.

The big question: Why did the FDA refuse for so long to name the importer? Why protect Steve Miller? Why protect a small, strange company that does not even have a company sign on its front door?

In a previous post, I noted one oddity in Steve Miller's background: A few years ago, he ran an IT company called NetExchange, Inc. At the same time, a company called NetExchange -- co-founded by a CalTech professor -- was working for DARPA, one of the most sensitive and secretive agencies of the Defense Department.

Were the two NetExchanges one and the same? And if so, did this government connection explain the FDA's odd reticence to name ChemNutra? (I've written to one of the CalTech founders, but have yet to receive a reply.)

You'll have to scroll down to the post titled "The pet food scandal gets freaky" and check out the comments if you want to follow the elaborate research trail followed by the readers. I'm enormously grateful to them. This investigation proves that the "group mind" can accomplish deeds beyond the reach of a single writer.

I will focus here on one data point: At roughly the same time that the Millers were involved in NetExchange, they lived in an apartment at 545 S Los Robles Avenue, Pasadena, CA. That address happens to be a short walk away from CalTech -- the place where the "DARPA" NetExchange was born.

Is it possible that two companies with the same name operated within the same block? Yes. But such a coincidence seems unlikely.

As the Canada Free Press notes, vis-a-vis ChemNutra:

This is a company supplying pet food makers whose licence seems to be in dispute.

And:

“California listed ChemNutra’s incorporation status as “surrender”, which means the company “has voluntarily surrendered its right to transact business in the state of California”. Records called up on line did not reveal ChemNutra’s incorporation status in Delaware.

And:

“The wheat gluten ChemNutra recalled was all shipped from China in 25 kg. paper bags, and distributed to customers in the same unopened bags. The bags were all labeled “Wheat Gluten Batch No.---- Net Weight: 25 kg. Gross Weight: 25.1 Made in China,” states the FDA in a press release.

Forgive my ignorance in the ways of business, but I'm confused. Just what was the necessary service provided by Mr. Miller? Why did Menu Foods (a subsidiary of Proctor and Gamble) bother with a shadowy Las Vegas firm? Why not just order directly from China?

Meanwhile, how can the consumer trust a billion dollar pet food industry where pet food manufacturers buy supplies from a company with not even a sign on its door?

Good question.

A recommendation: Although, like a lot of other people, I'm concocting more home-made chow for my fearsome hound, I must admit that she has done quite well with a kibble named Artemis. I've been buying the Natural 6 mix, which is not terribly expensive; the listed ingredients seem quite healthful. Artemis happens to be a company local to me, based in North Hollywood -- and no, I do not know anyone who works there. But my pooch sends compliments to the chef.

An Easter message: What Jesus looked like

(In observance of the season, I reprint one of my earliest posts -- written at a time when this blog had few readers.)

Today, let us turn from the realm of politics. Let us consider the origins of Christianity.

Most people think that we have no physical description of Jesus. What if that common presumption is wrong?

The gospels do not describe him. Neither do the epistles. Neither do the non-canonical gospels. Neither do we find a description of Jesus in the works of the ancient Jewish historian Josephus -- at least, not in any manuscript of Josephus that has come down to us.

In fact, Josephus (in the standard version of his works) never refers to Jesus at all -- even though he describes many less-important figures, and even though at least one early church father reports that Josephus did discuss the founder of Christianity. If those passages ever existed, they have gone missing.

However...

In the eighth century, the archbishop of Crete, one Andreas Hierosolymitanus, quoted a description of Jesus Christ which (he said) could be found in a version of Josephus extant at that time. Andreas' report is startling. Jesus, he said, was a dark-skinned hobbit-sized hunchback with a big nose, thinning hair, a patchy beard, and eyebrows that joined in the center in a monstrous fashion.

Yes, I hear you asking, but did he have any distinguishing characteristics?

Other early Christian writers -- Tertullian, for example -- make reference to Jesus being disfigured and un-handsome. The weight of what little evidence we possess suggests that Jesus was...well, ugly.

Let us suppose that Andreas had the straight skinny. Would widespread distribution of this information have impacted the attractiveness of the new religion? Would Christianity have spread so rapidly and so widely if the world understood that the faith's central figure was dark, short, unattractive and "differently abled"?

Such considerations shouldn't make a difference. Nearly everyone will agree on that point. But that's not the question I'm asking. Would Christianity have gained fewer converts if everyone knew that Jesus looked like Quasimodo?

I wonder.

Happy Easter!

Added note from 2007: At this point, we may never know just which text Andreas Hierosolymitanus was looking at, but we do know that Josephus almost always shunned physical descriptions. Incidentally, the Andreas thing seems unrelated to the so-called "Slavonic Josephus" -- which is a whole 'nother thing.

There are two alleged contemporary physical descriptions of Jesus here (also see here), but the sources are dubious. Blue eyes and wavy fair hair? Nahhh! The letter ascribed to "Publius Lentulus" must be false, for the simple reason that no such person ever existed. The "Pilate" letter appears to be an anti-Semitic forgery, or fantasy, allegedly found "in the Achoko Volume in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C." Is that a reference to the Library of Congress? If such a volume actually existed, it would be mentioned on non-wacko web sites.

I still kind of like the big-nosed hunchbacked short-guy image. The "unibrow" detail is, if I recall correctly, reflected in some early Christian art. As I may have mentioned before, chances are awfully good that Jesus wore a turban -- a fact you should point out to the next pseudo-Christian bigot who refers to Muslims as "rag-heads."

Some people think that he may have been clean-shaven, since other young Jewish fellows of that day had taken up Roman style. The earliest known painting of Jesus (reproduced here), from 235 or thereabouts, depicts him as beardless, with short hair and dark skin.

The pet food scandal gets freaky: "Not us," says China -- even as the importer is identified

The pet food scandal now includes dog biscuits sold by Wal-Mart under the "Ol' Roy" label -- a brand I never would have recommended to begin with. Here's the astonishing part:

In Beijing, however, China denied responsibility for the pet deaths.

The China Inspection and Quarantine Times said in a report on its website that as of March 29, China had "never exported wheat or wheat gluten to ... the United States."

(Emphasis added.) This statement directly contradicts an earlier admission by employees of the Chinese firm Xuzhou Anying, previously identified as having manufactured the wheat gluten. We also learn that there are no (known) reports of tainted pet food in China itself.

Senator Dick Durbin has announced oversight hearings into the pet food industry. Let's pressure him to investigate the entire industry, which remains largely unregulated. The meat supply is of great concern, since "recycled" pets (euthanized cats and dogs) are tossed into the rendering vats, including tags and flea collars and plastic coverings. That's what your pet is eating when the label reads "meat and meat by-products."

Anderson Cooper of CNN carried an eyebrow-raising report:

The FDA now tells us it's investigating whether or not the contamination was intentional -- and profit-motivated.

Here's why:

The FDA says it's possible that melamine can be used to raise protein levels in wheat gluten. Higher protein levels make the wheat gluten more valuable.

Disturbing. Still, I've so far seen no proof that melamine is the culprit.

And I would remind readers of my earlier piece which discussed the bizarre "fad" in China of intentional poisoning with tetramine, a rat poison known to cause renal failure among other illnesses. Not many years ago, a disgruntled cafeteria worker in Shanxi province used tetramine to send 86 school kids to the hospital.

Can we be sure that Xuzhou Anying has never had a disgruntled worker?

Follow the jump; this is where the story gets really weird. Not only do we have a name for the mysterious importer, but...

Well, would you believe a possible connection to DARPA?

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

The importer identified: Previous articles (including one written by yours truly) raised the possibility that Archer-Daniels Midland imported the tainted wheat gluten, since the other major importers had denied any dealings with China. However, some fine journalistic sleuthing by the Las Vegas Review Journal has uncovered indications that the mysterious-unnamed firm might be the little-known ChemNutra of Las Vegas.

From their web site:

ChemNutra imports quality ingredients from China to the U.S. for the feed, food and pharma industries. We are a professionally managed, American owned company experienced in negotiating, securing and delivering ultra-competitive pricing on high-quality chemicals and ingredients from quality-assured manufacturers in China. We bridge the business and cultural gaps…including all regulatory, compliance, import and transportation requirements.

We specialize in Taurine, L-Cysteine, Glycine, Vital Wheat Gluten, and Glucuronolactone, and we also handle many other ingredients.

Note that these guys do not just sell to pet food companies. This summary from Molly's Blog indicates that the game is afoot:

To say the least they find this outfit rather shady. The company's office in Los Vegas has only an address (and a locked door). No business name. The company has a business licence in Nevada but hasn't filed for incorporation in that state. It is presently incorporated in California and Deleware (tax laws I guess). The company claims a 12 year relationship with Chinese companies, but its earliest incorporation was in Delaware in 2003 (California 2005). The company has "surrendered" its incorporation to transact business in California. The company shipped product from the Xuzhou Anying company in China from Nov 9th, 2006 until March 8th, 2007 when it claimed to have learned from Menu Foods that its product was suspected as the source of the pet food contamination.

Who are these guys? And why would the FDA protect them by refusing to name them? From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

ChemNutra's Web site lists Stephen and Sally Miller as its principals.

Stephen Miller's online biography said that he has more than 20 years' experience in business management, entrepreneurship, finance, marketing and law.

He listed tenures as a vice president with Smith Barney and E.F. Hutton in his biography, and he added that he worked as an investment officer at Citibank. His biography cited degrees in law and business administration from Columbia University and said he is licensed to practice law in New York.

Sally Miller's biography said that she has more than 12 years of experience as a quality-assurance manager and purchasing manager in China, where she worked for multinational companies.

Stephen Miller. Hmm. He seems to be the same guy whose resume is given here:

Stephen Miller, CEO & Founder, NetExchange Stephen Miller is CEO and founder of NetExchange, Inc., which offers the next generation of outsourced e-mail and collaboration services for businesses. The company's patent-pending technology delivers flexible outsourced tools for the individual and work group communication with the control and security of an expensive in-house solution. He was previously a vice president at Smith Barney and a vice president at EF Hutton.

That was posted in 1999. A follow-up post from 2005 reveals that Miller was, by then, the CEO of Chem-Nutra. The Google trail reveals damn little about this "NetExchange, Inc." I did find this research paper, which may be related: "We want to thank NetExchange Inc. and DARPA for financial support..."

DARPA? Freakin' DARPA? (That's the Defense Research Projects Agency.)

I'm not sure if that is the same NetExchange. But I'd like to know more about Stephen Miller, importer of the wheat gluten that China says it never exported.

They conspired against reality itself

Recently, my ladyfriend had the sad experience of running into an unrepentant Bushie who assailed her with these words: "I bet you even still think there were no WMDs in Iraq?" All day long, I've been mulling over how to respond to that one. How can one mount a rational argument when speaking with someone who accepts only those "facts" which buttress a preferred belief?

In today's Washington Post, we learn that the Defense Department has released a report by Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble -- a report which demonstrates that there were no operational pre-war ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Cheney's words reached millions who never will read either the Gimble report or the Post. Here's the part Cheney left out:

Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda in early 2004, after the U.S. invasion.

Here's the part the Post leaves out: Before the invasion, Zarqawi operated out of territory controlled by the United States' Kurdish allies. Let's not even get into the oft-heard speculation that Zarqawi was a scarecrow erected by American interests. (I've yet to hear from anyone who can explain how Z-man was able to conduct maneuvers in the Iraqi desert -- during the day, under a clear sky -- without discovery by satellites and unmanned drones.)

Larisa Alexandrovna quotes this Bloomberg analysis of the Gimbel report:

Gimble told the committee that the actions of Feith and his subordinates were authorized by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. Levin, in a statement today, said the analysis from Feith's office "was not supported by available intelligence and was contrary to the consensus view of the intelligence community" yet was "used by the administration to support its public arguments in its case for war."

Feith was not misleading Cheney and Rumsfeld; he was feeding the Office of the Vice President what it wanted to hear. As Larisa notes, Feith's function was to allow Cheney to point to an outside source of information -- even though that "outside source" was an actor reading a script.

Historians, I think, will one day embrace her catalog of who did what:

The list of candidates of the likely pre-war intelligence fabricators, for me anyway, is short.

From a go-between angle -- people who likely served as a go-between to either Italian intelligence and OVP, or between the OVP and the DIA, on the project:

Herald Rhode, John Hannah, David Wurmser, Michael Rubin, Eleana Benador, Abram Shulsky, Ahmed Chalabi, and a few others, including some more than willing journalists.

From a lower-level managerial angle -- people who likely oversaw each smaller element of the project:

John Bolton, Doug Feith, Dov Zakheim, Peter Rodman, William Luti and a few others.

From a high-level managerial angle -- people who likely oversaw large parts or most if not all of the project:

Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, Stephen Hadley, and a few others

Above them, directing the theatricals, were Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz.

Real conspiracies do exist, but they are not vast. A world-changing plot requires few participants, if they hold the right positions.

What to do about computergate?

Consider these brief words an addendum to the post below. Even though I'm far from the most technically savvy blogger on the web, I've tried to focus public attention on the GWB43/SmarTech conundrum, because the whole matter stinks of illegality.

A kind reader has suggested that I send my posts to Henry Waxman's office. Frankly, I think those people already have towers of reading to do each day. But they do take phone calls...

So let me pose a hypothetical question: Suppose I call that office. (I'm not saying I will; just suppose.) What questions should I ask, and which pieces of information should I convey?