Nukes? Oops!

David Lindorff, citing personal experience, explains why those six nuclear missiles cannot have been shipped from Minot, ND to Barksdale, LA by accident.

Beyond Debat (updated)

In the post below, I outlined the controversy over Alexis Debat, the French "terror expert" turned ABC News journalist. Not only did Debat publish a fake interview with Barack Obama, certain claims he has made about his background have proven difficult to verify.

To my eyes, the questionable items in Debat's resume -- not to mention his expertise in the history of the CIA -- indicate that this man may have been recruited by the Agency at some point.

Now, Guillemette Faure of Rue 89 gives us the rest of the story (so far):

To our questions, Jeffrey Schneider, VP communication for the [ABC] network sent us this statement : "In May, officials of the French government told us of problems with Debat's Sorbonne credentials. After an immediate investigation we asked for and received his resignation and initiated a review of all his work as a consultant for ABC News. That review is ongoing. So far our on-going review has uncovered no issues with regard to his work as a consultant for ABC News. We take this matter very seriously and we will continue our exhaustive probe into his work."

Brian Ross has worked closely with Debat. Ross has done some eye-opening work recently -- for example, last July he spoke of a planned "terror spectacular," which he learned about from "law enforcement" sources. Before that, he helped to expose Mark Foley.

But in one high-profile case, Ross acted oddly. In an ABC broadcast, he denied that the DC Madam's client list -- to which he had early access -- included any "newsworthy" names. After Ross filed that report, we learned that the Madam's clients included Senator Vitter and SAIC's Ronald Roughead. Deborah Jeane Palfrey later told me that Ross, speaking off the record, had expressed a very different opinion of that list's newsworthiness. Palfrey seemed puzzled (and, frankly, a bit miffed) by the newsman's apparent turnaround.

Why did he turn? Did someone turn him?

In previous posts, we have discussed the possibility that Palfrey's ladies were used as the bait in a series of "honeytraps" designed to catch out individuals with access to sensitive information.

Yesterday, I outlined my reasons for suspecting that Alexis Debat has connections to the American CIA and, perhaps, French intelligence. This is the kind of story Debat might have learned about from the Agency.

ABC has published an apologetic story on l'affair Debat. They claim that they have yet to find any major errors in his reportage.

Other writers have treated Debat purely in terms of journalistic ethics. They have not discussed the "spooky" aspects of this controversy, even though Debat, in his writings, has evinced an attitude toward the CIA which some would characterize as allegiance. His thesis -- which may or may not have earned a doctorate from the Sorbonne -- was about the CIA. He has already written one book about the Agency and is working on another. I posit, but cannot prove, that Debat was recruited by American intelligence, which seeded him into one of the world's premier news organizations.

Of course, that sort of thing has happened before -- many times.

UPDATE: Another Debat interview, with Alan Greenspan, has been called into question. This fascinating Washington Post story includes a few details relevant to my argument:

Ross said Debat was "very, very knowledgeable" about al-Qaeda and such terror figures as Zacarias Moussaoui, and "his information was spot on. The stuff always checked out."

Ross said he asked Debat for a copy of his doctorate after a French official contacted the network through the embassy here. Debat said some French officials were "trying to take me down and discredit my reporting" because they were embarrassed that he was breaking stories on CIA covert operations.

These "breaking stories" did not seem to injure Debat's good relations with the Agency. So who fed him the information, and why? As this piece makes clear, Debat's reporting has paralleled Seymour Hersh's -- and his scoops have not proven helpful to the Bush administration. (I need not remind readers of the CIA/neocon split.)

I can easily see how some people in France might become infuriated by one of their own who had apparently transferred loyalties to an American espionage agency. Debat's statement implies that someone within French intelligence planted the Rue 89 stories.

Laura Rozen may harbor suspicions about Debat similar to my own. Read between the lines:

Seriously, imagine if a New York Times reporter put an ex NSC or CIA operative on the payroll for about $2,000 to $4,000 a month as a source, cited in articles as a source, and then sometimes let him or her report news stories with a byline, without glaringly indicating to readers what was going on. But this is what ABC was doing with Debat.

As I said earlier, the positioning of spooks within the journalistic community is a very serious matter. Just because this practice has a history does not mean it should have a future.

A spooked-up ABC journalist...?

Laura Rozen is covering the strange case of Alexis Debat, the rather young ABC News journalist, "terror expert" and business consultant from France, whose background and bona fides have come into question.

The main questioner is Pascal Riché, who writes here about a Debat "interview" with Barack Obama, with whom Debat never actually spoke. Debat later claimed, weakly, to have conducted the interview through an intermediary, although the go-between remains unidentified.

The Riché piece notes that Debat has made some very large claims about his background:

Once he claimed to our colleague Guillemette Faure, a reporter for Le Figaro, that he got his PhD in political science from Edenvale University, in Great Britain, a university which proved to be a fraud.

His resume at the Nixon Center (where Debat is a "Senior Fellow") claims that Debat received a PhD from the Sorbonne in 1999. But according to Riché,

"He manufactured his doctorate. I had the document which he manufactured in my hands," says André Kaspi, a professor of North American history at the Sorbonne. Debat does not deny a "conflict" with the Sorbonne, but refuses to elaborate.

Also:

During the 2005 civil unrest in French suburbs, Debat appeared on television with the title "ex-social worker." He said he worked for the foundation "Agir contre l'exclusion." Other times, he claimed to have served as a French commando, tracking Serb soldiers in the former Yugoslavia.

Debat's resume states that "Alexis occupied various positions in the French government, first as an analyst on the Counter-Terrorism Coordinating Committee, then as a senior desk officer for the Ministry of Defense." According to Riché, the French government will confirm only that "he did hold a desk job for a few months."

Debat has launched a counterattack. Regarding the Edenvale University claim, he writes that he never asserted a connection with that institution, and that "None of the biographies accessible online mention this." His wording sidesteps the question of whether he made such a claim to a reporter for Le Figaro.

In his response, Debat does not really address the dispute over his claimed work for the French government. However, he does insist that he received a doctorate from the Sorbonne and that his thesis is listed here. A check of that site reveals that the thesis director was the afore-mentioned André Kaspi, who now claims that Debat concocted his doctorate. Debat, for his part, insists that Kaspi was not his thesis director. At this time, I have no idea what to make of these claims and counter-claims.

But I do note with great interest the title of that thesis: C.I.A. et perceptions de sécurité aux Etats-Unis, 1947-1962.

Alexis Debat does not appear to be a mere fake journalist of the Stephen Glass variety, and he's not just another neocon bullshit spewer. The neocons despise the CIA, while Debat is clearly enamored of the Agency. For the clearest view of his mind-set, see his piece here, written in response to the release of the congressional report on 9/11.

His main proposal: The CIA should be given far more authority and power within the American intelligence community.

The CIA has been compelled to perform its duties without the full authority it needed, against the will of its rivals (the military, the FBI, the State Department), and, most importantly, beyond the dialectic that made the agency both the protector (by its mission) and the destructor (by its institutional status) of the American republic.

Despite dozens of "intelligence failures", every President since Harry S Truman has consciously chosen to back down from efforts to centralize the intelligence community, to the detriment of the nation's security. Instead of being empowered with its original functions of "lead integrator", the CIA has been kept as an anomaly and left to compete with-and duplicate the work of-the FBI, the State Department and the various intelligence arms of the Department of Defense.

The biography attached to this piece reveals that "Dr. Debat is at work on the largest manuscript ever written on the history of the Central Intelligence Agency, to be published next year in Europe and the United States." I doubt that Debat would have access to the materials necessary for such a work unless the Agency considered him "on the square."

(Incidentally, the same short bio also avers that Debat was "Director of the Scientific Committee for the Institut Montaigne (Paris)," even though he tells a rather different story in his response to the accusations against him.)

So who is Alexis Debat? His apparent institutional allegiance to the CIA naturally leads the observer to suspect a long-standing relationship with the Company. While researching this story, my thoughts drifted back to Philippe de Vosjoli, the French spook who was more-or-less "recruited" for American intelligence by the CIA's infamous James Jesus Angleton. Alfred Hitchchock's worst movie, Topaz, tells a fictionalized version of this story; John Forsythe plays Angleton.

I don't know who Debat really is. But I'd like to learn more. The positioning of spooks within the journalistic community is a very serious matter.

Note: If you came here via Reddit or Buzzflash, you'll want to read the update, which continues to explore this thesis. Go here.

The crisis

I recommend "Are the banks in trouble?", written by Mike Whitney for the Online Journal. This piece offers details on the phenomenon that has us all worried: The banking system's precarious balance atop a mountain of "assets" which are really nothing more than bad loans.

The situation resembles the infamous "Mississippi bubble" which occurred in France in the early 18th century under John Law. In that case, the financial system rested on imaginary gold thought to line the banks of the Mississippi river. In the present instance, the system rests on the imaginary ability of Burger King schlubs to pay the mortgages on $400,000 homes.

What can we do about the problem? The very idea of a government bail-out galls -- yet what other choices do we have? Even so, I doubt that any bail-out will suffice.

The DC Madam case: Honeytrap?

I just received a rather interesting missive from Montgomery Sibley, the lawyer for Jeane Palfrey, the accused "DC Madam":

...Jeane has filed pro se this morning a pleading of note. That pleading explains the factual basis for invoking the "Classified Information Procedures Act" and is entitled "Memorandum of Fact In Support of Motion for Pretrial Conference to Consider Matters Relating to Classified Information". That Memo details Jeane's basis for raising the "Honey Pot" defense in which she alleges that the United States Government has been directly or indirectly benefiting from the operation of her service by monitoring her customers and is thus equitably barred from prosecuting her. In that Memo, Jeane identifies not only already-known customers of the escort service -- Senator Vitter, Randall Tobias of USAID and Harland Ullman -- but also confirms for the first time that another individual with very high government security clearance -- Ronald Roughead of SAIC -- was also a customer. This nexus of CIA backed USAID, Senator Vitter on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and two beltway bandits appears to be more than a coincidence.

Emphasis added. When I spoke with Palfrey, she emphasized the oddity of her prosecution. Washington hosts quite a few "escort" services, all more-or-less tolerated. Why target Palfrey?

Wendy Ellis, the prostitute who claims to have serviced Vitter, has passed a lie detector test and will, at some point later in this day, provide details of a four-month affair with the senator.

This fine piece by Bill Keisling reminds us that...

Sen. Vitter serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has oversight responsibilities of U.S. foreign policy agencies, including Tobias's former office at USAID.

Vitter is also currently the ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights, which oversees, among other things, the State Department, the U.S. Foreign Service (i.e. the diplomatic corps), and U.S. participation in the United Nations.

The "Tobias" mentioned above is the appropriately-named Randy Tobias, former head of USAID (the United States Agency for International Development). As Keisling notes -- and as I emphasized in a previous piece published in April -- USAID has a long history of providing cover for CIA operations.

Both Tobias and Vitter probably had access to very sensitive information, such as the names of agents using USAID cover. Any unfriendly intelligence service had motive to compromise these men sexually.

(This is, of course, but one scenario; you may be able to conceive of other possibilities.)

SAIC possesses close ties to the American intelligence community. Over 80 percent of its revenue comes from government contracts, and its directors have included former NSA head Bobby Inman, former CIA Director John Deutch, Secretary of Defense and former Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates, and former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird. The company has been mentioned in stories about computerized voting, data-mining, spy satellites, and the not-terribly-successful training of Iraq's army.

Roughead -- another amusingly-named player in this drama -- is said to have expert knowledge of terrorist use of the internet. A short bio can be found here (pdf file), and a longer one (very unofficial) is here. We learn that Roughead...

...briefed the House Intelligence Committee on the dangers and uses of the internet and video games allegedly modified (for recruiting purposes) by Al-Qaida, amongst other things on May 4th, 2006, cagily representing SAIC. A video game--probably a fraud authored by Pentagon disinfo campaigns that were created by Donald Rumsfeld--is ostensibly called "Sonic Jihad." The dialog and voice-overs are in English.

Ronald Roughead is the director of something called the Iraq Media Network, or IMN, which one blogger has labeled a "psyop" group. I can't confirm that assessment.

Were women employed by the DC Madam's escort service used in a "honeytrap" operation? The present state of evidence is suggestive, but hardly conclusive.

Tobias. Vitter. Roughead. "Three times is enemy action," as Ian Fleming used to remind us.

The Republican culture of corruption

Check out this list from a great new blogger. No matter how jaded you think you are, your eyes will pop. Save and clip this page -- it'll make a great reference tool in the future.

The REAL Iraq report

Well, we received some important truths about Iraq today. Not from General Petraeus. From other sources -- including, and especially, the Iraqis themselves.

The Iraqis say that the surge was a failure.

Between 67% and 70% of the Iraqis polled believe the surge has hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development, according to the August 2007 findings.

The majority of Iraqis consider the killing of American soldiers "acceptable."

More than six in 10 now call the U.S.-led invasion of their country wrong, up from 52 percent last winter. Fifty-seven percent call violence against U.S. forces acceptable, up six points. And despite the uncertainties of what might follow, 47 percent now favor the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq -- a 12-point rise.

The numbers are even worse here:

The survey by the BBC, ABC News and NHK of more than 2,000 people across Iraq also suggests that nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified.

This rises to 93% among Sunni Muslims compared to 50% for Shia.

Thus, we are making sectarian violence worse. No occupation can be sustained under these circumstances.

And yet we are staying permanently, according to USMC General James Jones.

"The notion that we're not going to be there forever flies in the face of what we see on the ground," Jones adds.

But why?

We're building a base on the Iran-Iraq border.

The Pentagon is preparing to build a base near the Iraq-Iran border in an effort to stem the flow of "advanced Iranian weaponry" to Shiite militants in Iraq, according to Monday's edition of the Wall Street Journal.

In the past, we have heard persuasive arguments that Iran's government -- despite administration pronouncements -- has not armed the Iraqi insurgents in any major way. Why should the Iranians want the destabilization of a Shi'ite-dominated government in Baghdad? We must presume that the base has some other purpose. The obvious suggestion: A staging area for an invasion of Iran.

As for Petraeus himself:

He talked about a pullback of 4000 troops. In a previous post, I pointed out that this "pullback" is a lie. There has been a quiet post-surge surge in troop levels in Iraq from 160,000 to 172,000. Sending 4000 guys home still leaves us with an increase of 8000 troops. Larisa Alexandrovna is one of the few who understands this:

General Petraeus has also mentioned the possibility of further troop reductions by spring of 2008. On Sunday, officials said that Petraeus has recommended that the issue of reducing the main body of American troops be delayed by another Standard Friedman Unit (STFU, or six months). That would take us to the beginning of April 2008, which was how long the "surge" was projected to be sustainable since it began back in January of 2007. From there, Mr. Bush only needs one more STFU to reach his goal--we know from Robert Draper's new book Dead Certain that Bush is "playing for October-November," meaning he wants to maintain a robust military presence in Iraq until he can wipe his woebegone war off on the sleeve of his successor.

And now let's look at how Petraeus has cooked the numbers...

For the full story, hit "Permalink" below:

The following comes from MoveOn.org. It was written in response to the General's Washington Post editorial, but it serves as an elegant rebuttal to his testimony:

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress“ in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” Washington Post, “Battling for Iraq,” by David H. Petraeus. 9/26/04 (see below)

And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq , said ”We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress." The Australian, “Surge Working: Top US General,” by Dennis Shanahan. 8/31/07

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. GAO report, 9/4/07NIE report, 8/23/07Jones report, CSIS, 9/6/07

Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. “Time to Take a Stand,” by Paul Krugman. 9/7/07

The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front.“Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq,” by Karen DeYoung. 9/6/07 l

According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there.The Associated Press, “Violence Appears to Be Shifting from Baghdad.” 8/25/07National Public Radio, “Statistics the Weapon of Choice in Surge Debate,” by Guy Raz. 9/6/07Associated Press, “Key Figures About Iraq Since the War Began in 2003.” 9/5/07

We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. Newsweek, “Baghdad’s New Owners,” by Babak Dehghanpisheh and Larry Kaplow, 9/10/07 Ibid from the AP, “Violence Appears to be Shifting From Baghdad” McClatchy, “Despite Violence Drop, Officers See Bleak Future for Iraq,” by Leila Fadel. 8/15/07 The New York Times, “More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Rise,” by James Glanz and Stephen Farrell. 8/24/07

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.

We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. The New York Times, “Petraeus, Seeing Gains in Iraq as Fragile, is Wary of Cuts,” by David Sanger and David Cloud, 9/7/07 The Washington Post, “Petraeus Open to Pullout of One Brigade,” by Robin Wright and Jonathan Weisman. 9/7/07.

But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years. The Hill, “Rep. Schakowsky: Petraeus hints at decade-long Iraq presence,” by Patrick FitzGerald. 8/10/07

Today before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

Visionary

Here's a book I gotta find: Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush, by Robert Draper. Bush, apparently under the impression that he was talking to a sympatico author, made some startling admissions in an interview for this book.

Dubya admits that he "cries a lot." (As have many parents of children who died in this needless war.) He also claims that he has seen "ghosts" (plural!) emerge from the bedroom bearing the name of the 16th president. If Lincoln did not extend a middle finger to his successor, he missed the opportunity of a death-time.

We also learn that Bush still thinks that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and that the disbanding of the Iraqi army came as a surprise to him.

Here's Bush on the "vision thing":

That's what I mean by strategic thought. I don't know how you learn that. I don't think there's a moment where that happened to me. I really don't. I know you're searching for it. I know it's difficult. I do know—y'know, how do you decide, how do you learn to decide things? When you make up your mind, and you stick by it—I don't know that there's a moment, Robert. I really—You either know how to do it or you don't.

Let's hand the oval office over to the shade of Lincoln's wife. Even she would provide saner government.

Dye! Dye! Dye!

Why did Osama Bin Laden dye his hair for his most recent video appearance? The cosmetic change has led many to ask whether the fellow on screen really is Osama. When I brought up this conundrum a couple of days ago, a reader argued that hair colorant is a popular affectation among Arab leaders.

So I did some checking. King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, who ruled until 2005, sported an unnaturally dark beard. The present Saudi King, Abdullah, has facial hair which appears to have been dyed black. So does Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Emir of Qatar. So does Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, ruler of Dubai. So does Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, the Emir of Abu Dabi.

The only exception seems to be King Hussein of Jordan, who unashamedly embraces the greyish-white look.

So Osama's dye job does not prove his latest video to be inauthentic. Of course, many would question it on other grounds.

Redacted

Brian de Palma, the famed director of Carrie, The Untouchables and Scarface, has made a "docu-drama" based on the most disturbing act to arise from the American occupation of Iraq: The rape of Abir Hamza and the murder of her family, as perpetrated by private Stephen Green and his accomplices. As I wrote in an earlier piece:

Abir Hamza, the victim of that vicious assault, was born in 1991. She was only 14 when a squad of all-American "Christian" good-old-boys killed her family, raped her, and burned her body. Not a single member of the unit shirked from this task. None of them felt guilty about what they had done to her (although they did regret the retaliatory measures against Americans).

"Our boys," raised within our supposedly enlightened "Christian" culture, considered this girl a sub-human -- a thing to be used. After all, she was Muslim.

I wrote this not to insult the majority of American soldiers, who deserve our deepest sympathy as they try to accomplish an impossible task in a land we had no right or reason to invade. My words were meant to target those right-wingers who consider "Christian" culture innately superior to the Islamic variety.

De Palma has, by all reports, combined a lightly-fictionalized telling of this story with documentary evidence taken from actual events.

To tell the story, de Palma boldly uses a variety of forms: blogs, YouTube posts, videologs on the internet and the video diary the soldier is shooting. There are several references to the shortcomings of the mainstream media in reporting the real horrors of the Iraq war; de Palma makes a telling point with these alternative narrative devices.

'Redacted' means 'edited' or 'blacked out,' and the film's first image is a written disclaimer on the screen, with more and more words gradually being deleted. The director calls the film 'a fictional story inspired by true events,' and insists everything depicted has really happened.

This approach makes me a bit uneasy, since it may allow war supporters to call into question not just the film but the actual events. We can already see how the right-wingers are trying to spin away both the film and the reality:

Brian DePalma looks down on the men and women of our military like Senator John Kerry, who considers them the uneducated who rapes and pillages innocent civilians in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan. “Redacted” will be a great propaganda and recruiting tool for al Qaeda and anyone else who’ll take pot shots at our soldiers.

Can you make grammatical sense of the first sentence in the above-quoted passage? Bob Parks, the nearly illiterate writer of the above, appears to be the sort of blinkered Bush supporter who believes that we should ignore any crime committed by "our boys."

At the time this incident first came to light (in July of 2006), I asked if the atrocity were simply the result of Private Green's "communicable psychopathology." The original "official story" placed blame on the Iraqi irregulars fighting the American occupation. This all-too-quick raising of a false flag created suspicion that the rape was a psyop designed to create outrage against jihadist forces. Permit me to quote from an earlier piece:

Here's the part of the story most Americans do not yet know: The authorities soon put a (rather threadbare) cover-up into place.

"After three hours the [American] occupation troops surrounded the house and told the people of the area that the family had been killed by terrorists because they were Shi'ah. Nobody in town believed that story because Abu 'Abir was known as one of the best people of the city, one of the noblest, and no Shi'i, but a Sunni monotheist. Everyone doubted their story and so after the sunset prayers the occupation troops took the four bodies away to the American base.

If Steve Green was the only guilty party -- if we must place all blame on a classic "lone nut" -- then who authorized the official lie? How can we believe the claim that the crime remained unknown until after Green was diagnosed, when an official falsehood went out within hours of the massacre? Are we really supposed to believe that four privates could initiate such a strike and put a cover-up in place?

From a follow up piece:

In sum: We have a group of men playing dress up to pass themselves off as "the bad guys." The officials immediately tell a wild fib that insurgents did the crime. When the fib immediately falls apart, the body is whisked away to an American base, where who-knows-what sort of examination occurs. The poor girl's corpse then heads to an Iraqi hospital.

I should quickly point out that no evidence in favor of the "psyop" theory emerged during Green's trial.

However, in recent months, American war-spinners insist that both Shi'ites and Sunnis have turned against "Al Qaeda in Iraq," which is the chic new label for the insurgency. Do not dismiss the notion that American strategists have undertaken a series of psychological operations in Iraq in order to sway public opinion.

Over there

This powerful commentary by Keith Olbermann helps to frame the issue. I'm sure you've already heard the news about a projected troop withdrawal from Iraq:

American media reports say Gen Petraeus has indicated a willingness to consider pulling out one brigade of between 3,500 and 4,500 US troops from Iraq early next year, with more in following months based on conditions on the ground.

In February, Mr Bush ordered an extra 30,000 troops to Iraq, bringing the total American military presence to about 160,000 troops.

Alas, most Americans do not understand that a quiet troop level increase -- a post-surge surge, if you will -- has been underway for some time. According to this story...

The United States' troop numbers have climbed to a record 168,000 and are moving toward a peak of 172,000.

The 4000 troop reduction thus stands exposed as the tawdriest sort of publicity gambit. Any "withdrawal" would be nothing of the kind. In fact, it would provide political cover for an 8000-troop increase. 12,000 minus 4000 equals 8000, if my math is correct.

The new Bin Laden video: Does he or doesn't he?

The Al Qaeda media arm has promised a new Bin Laden video. A pre-release still from this video shows Osama sporting a young man's black beard, even though his beard was streaked with light gray in the videos seen throughout the past five years.

Some take this discrepancy as evidence of the faker's art. Personally, I take seriously the oft-heard accusation that some previous "Al Qaeda" videos had a Hollywoodish origin. But in the present instance, why would any hoaxer allow such an obvious visual contradiction to mar the illusion? I mean, how hard would it be to lighten the facial hairs on an Osama look-alike?

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that a jihadist mastermind would be so vain as to dye his hair.

I don't have an explanation for this bizarre turn of events. Do you?

Nukes and leaks (UPDATE)

The most significant news story of the day is the revelation that a nuke-laden B-52 traveled from Minot, North Dakota, to Barksdale, Louisiana. Former CIA man Larry Johnson explains:

So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.

Then he told me something I had not heard before.

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.

The official explanation is that the nukes were transferred by mistake. (Worry not, we are told: The transportation was done safely at all times. As though this were a safety issue.) That piece of spin seems unlikely, to say the least. We are, after all, talking about nuclear weapons.

Larisa Alexandrovna reacts thus:

Is this a move to hit Iran?
Maybe (I hope to god not)

Is this a botched conspiracy theory thing (as some people have suggested)?
No, not likely (I could be wrong, but I feel this is highly unlikely)

Is this saber rattling against Iran?
Maybe

Would we really nuke Iran?
Well, consider the evidence thus far. Is it conclusive? No. Can things change? Yes. But is there enough evidence to believe this is possible? Yes.

Some have argued that the leaking of the information constitutes either an attempt to frighten the American people or a psyop against the Iranians. I would not discount the latter possibility. Even so, I think this event is very real, and I am inclined to extrapolate from the initial reports, taken at face value. The nukes were transferred, and thus readied for use. Someone within the intelligence community was so concerned, or outraged, that he turned blabby.

Much evidence indicates that powerful figures within the military and the intelligence community are infuriated by the drive to war with Iran. Consider, for example, the new revelations made by unnamed CIA officers to Sidney Blumenthal about the run-up to the Iraq war. Bush has enemies within the power structure -- a fact which just may prove salvific.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Go here.

Wolf! WOLF!

Yes, I admit it. Those of us who have spent the past couple of years decrying a planned war against Iran resemble the boy who cried wolf. But don't forget your Aesop: The wolf was real and he did appear, red in tooth and claw.

Many recent news stories convey an unmistakable lupine stench. Here's Marjorie Cohn, of Common Dreams:

The Sunday Times of London is reporting that the Pentagon has plans for three days of massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran. Last week, Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, told a meeting of The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal, that the military did not intend to carry out “pinprick strikes” against Iranian nuclear facilities. He said, “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military.”

Cohn goes on to suggest that Joe Lieberman will replace Gonzo. I disagree. Joe can do more mischief in his Senate seat, and I'm not sure whether the Bushites would trust any non-Republican -- even Lieberman -- to protect their mob.

David Swanson needs no ESP to foresee the outcome of a strike against Iran:

The White House has made clear it is seriously considering attacking Iran with massive bombing aimed at destroying the nation's military and changing its government. Iran will certainly retaliate. If attacked, and possibly even if not attacked, Israel will join in the fighting. The resistance in Iraq will intensify dramatically. Controlling the oil of Iran and Iraq will be out of the question short of thorough genocide. Anti-American furor will sweep the Muslim world. The nuclear nation of Pakistan will be a prime target for an Islamic revolution.

At times, I've wondered if (for Lord-knows-what reason) the neocons want Al Qaeda to control Pakistan. How else to explain the "permitted" evacuation of Osama and the boys to that country? How else to explain the tolerant attitude toward A.Q. Khan?

Right-wing lawyer Jack Goldsmith has written a book outlining the administration's abuses of power. He ties FISA to the planned Iran strike:

Goldsmith] shared the White House's concern that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act might prevent wiretaps on international calls involving terrorists. But Goldsmith deplored the way the White House tried to fix the problem, which was highly contemptuous of Congress and the courts. "We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court," Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004.

The reference goes, of course, to Cheney's top aide David Addington.

You've probably already read this bit from Josh Marshall. Consider it again:

For the moment, however, my attention is fixed on one of those 'hints', Reuel Marc Gerecht's piece in the current Newsweek, in which he argues that war with Iran is most likely to come not because of Bush-Cheney warmongering or a breakdown in negotiations but rather "an Iranian provocation."

It is worth stepping back for a moment to savor this claim in its full flavor. Clearly, this must be the kind of 'provocation' comparatively weak states again and again through history seem to make against extremely powerful states -- just before the latter provides a thorough beating to the former. One can of course think of various examples over the decades and centuries.

One need not read between the lines; Marshall clearly believes that a staged provocation is possible and even likely.

This view is conspiracy stuff. It also happens to be, in my opinion, perfectly sensisble. Still, consider the strangeness of this tableau -- Josh freaking Marshall is now expressing the sort of sentiment which, two years ago, would have been relegated to a semi-scurrilous blog like Cannonfire. Four years ago, only the ultra-scurrilous Alex Jones would have talked this way.

Only Bush and Cheney could make the most maniacal of their critics seem prophetic.

The walking cure

I don't know how many of you still show up here, but I hope a few do. My ability to sit (and to blog and to earn money) remains somewhat impaired, but the problem has become more-or-less manageable. Many thanks to those wonderful people who wrote in with advice, all of which I have taken to heart.

A few of my correspondents humbled me with descriptions of their own chronic, life-long conditions. If any deity or demiurge exists, then he, she or it should weep tears of shame to look upon those creatures who know pain every day.

My recovery comes with guilt. I'm haunted daily by thoughts of maimed Iraq vets. Why should I walk when some of my betters can't?

Of all the sciatica cures I've tried, the one that worked best was walking. Simple walking. An hour or more every day, and never mind the 100-plus temperatures. The first twenty minutes can be -- the word is not too strong -- agony. A scream with every step. But after an hour, my body rediscovers something close to normality. The problem re-asserts itself after sleeping and waking, but the cure remains free of charge and does not cloud the mind, as drugs do.

Besides, weilding a cane (black and red, of course) allows me to live out the persona of the cantankerous Victorian gentleman: "You shall withdraw that comment, you mountebank, or I shall thrash you about the ears with my stick!"

My thanks, again, to you all. I wish I could help you as you have helped me.