When Blogger's new interface sent my formatting all to hell, my links and formatting went bye-bye. And when the links disappeared, so did nearly all of my readers. That turn of events came as a surprise, but stats don't lie. The good folks at Blogger tell me that they they recognise the problem (which is isolated to Internet Explorer, they helpfully point out) and hope to have a patch soon.
Well, my day job is making massive demands on my time right now, so this is a good time to bid a temporary -- I hope VERY temporary -- farewell to the world of blogging. But I've an open invite to write for other forums, and when I do, I'll also be posting here on a semi-daily basis once more.
So check in from time to time. I will return.
Oh...in the meantime, check out Capitol Hill Blue for more on the "Is Bush losing it?" motif. They say he's popping pills...!
Friday, July 30, 2004
Friday, July 23, 2004
Lost wages
"We are the revolution," said Ronald Reagan. True enough. Count me among the counter-revolutionaries. Why? Because statistics prove that the average working man had a higher standard of living in the 1970s.
Don't believe it? Read Billmon's piece on the Minimum Wage, the most important bit of blogging (complete with links and a nice chart) you will find on the net this week. Yes, a number of working families still manage to live well -- but only because two wage-earner households have become the norm.
Billmon's report reminds me of an experiment I've been meaning to carry out. I recall (vaguely) our family income in 1973, when I was a school kid. I also recall where we lived. There's a site on the net which can translate amounts from past years into current dollars. I wonder if the same purchasing power could fetch the same living space these days?
I strongly doubt it. Poor and working people increasingly have to pay as much as 80% of their income just to keep a roof overhead.
I shudder to think of the plight of today's women who find themselves in my Mom's position. She was a widow, a more-or-less unskilled working single mother raising two boys. We were poor, but we took no welfare and our lives had a certain small measure of dignity and comfort. In the post-Reagan era, we probably would have ended up in a homeless shelter.
Tell everyone you know to wake up, wise up, and rise up. Reagan screwed us.
Ever since supply side economics, union-busting and deregulation became the cornerstones of the national theology, working people have had to put up with deteriorating conditions. Meanwhile, in Europe -- where the theology is quite different -- working people have a higher living standard and longer average lifespans.
Don't believe it? Read Billmon's piece on the Minimum Wage, the most important bit of blogging (complete with links and a nice chart) you will find on the net this week. Yes, a number of working families still manage to live well -- but only because two wage-earner households have become the norm.
Billmon's report reminds me of an experiment I've been meaning to carry out. I recall (vaguely) our family income in 1973, when I was a school kid. I also recall where we lived. There's a site on the net which can translate amounts from past years into current dollars. I wonder if the same purchasing power could fetch the same living space these days?
I strongly doubt it. Poor and working people increasingly have to pay as much as 80% of their income just to keep a roof overhead.
I shudder to think of the plight of today's women who find themselves in my Mom's position. She was a widow, a more-or-less unskilled working single mother raising two boys. We were poor, but we took no welfare and our lives had a certain small measure of dignity and comfort. In the post-Reagan era, we probably would have ended up in a homeless shelter.
Tell everyone you know to wake up, wise up, and rise up. Reagan screwed us.
Ever since supply side economics, union-busting and deregulation became the cornerstones of the national theology, working people have had to put up with deteriorating conditions. Meanwhile, in Europe -- where the theology is quite different -- working people have a higher living standard and longer average lifespans.
Our son of a bitch
I was interested to read that our new pu...um, ally in Iraq, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi (a former CIA asset and Saddam henchman), is reported to have personally shot several insurgents who were in custody. So, at least, says the Sydney Morning Herald, a publication I have always found trustworthy previously.
Although Tony Blair -- not a disinterested party -- has dismissed the report, the Herald account comes to us via eyewitnesses.
Interesting, isn't it? The same Americans who tell us that we had to get rid of Saddam because he was a lawless monster will no doubt applaud Allawi for acting thuggishly.
Although Tony Blair -- not a disinterested party -- has dismissed the report, the Herald account comes to us via eyewitnesses.
Interesting, isn't it? The same Americans who tell us that we had to get rid of Saddam because he was a lawless monster will no doubt applaud Allawi for acting thuggishly.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Frying Berger
Well, the rightists are having a field day with Sandy Berger's misadventure at the National Archive. Bush has said that the matter is serious and requires immediate investigation -- unlike, say, such paltry concerns as 9/11, the investigation of which he tried to block.
The right-tilting bloggers and newsgroup shouters are doing their best to insinuate -- or state -- that Berger hoped to hide some incriminating fact about Clinton-era terror policy. That presumption falls apart when we note the following:
1. According to the reports I've read, the documents in question existed in multiple copies. Berger could not hope to eradicate the information, any more than you could hope to eradicate fascism by stealing your local library's copy of Mein Kampf.
2. Apparently, the major focus is on a specific document written by Richard Clarke, at Berger's instruction, during the Clinton administration. Nobody should be under the impression that this one file contains the secrets of the Qabala. As Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, explained: "Now with respect to what this document is about, it is widely known. Its existence is widely known. It's written about in books and in magazines."
3. Perhaps the main accusation against Berger is that he made notes of classified documents. That's a serious matter, of course. Still, notes leave the original document intact. Which brings us back to the question: How could Berger hope to hide material from the record?
4. The National Archive has methods in place to keep track of its holdings; that institution knows when a piece of paper has gone missing and who saw it last. Berger surely knew this fact.
Although much remains up in the air, here's my guess as to what really happened. Berger's lawyer says that his client wanted to double-check all his facts before testifying to the 9/11 commission. Beyond that, I would not be surprised if Berger harbored hopes of writing a book or article discussing Clinton's terrorism policy. Anyone who has ever worked with archival material (as I have, though not with classified documents) has entertained the thought: "If only I could bring a box of this stuff home, peruse it at my leisure, then return it..." Berger, I am betting, gave into that temptation.
Yes, doing so constitutes a breach. But it does not constitute any sort of cover-up.
Incidentally, the Drudge-spread canard about Berger stuffing paper into his socks proves that the GOPropagandists still cannot resist the temptation to embellish. Remember all the wild, hyperbolic accusations that went flying around in the early days of Whitewater? History repeats itself. There is less to the Berger affair than met the eye at first.
The right-tilting bloggers and newsgroup shouters are doing their best to insinuate -- or state -- that Berger hoped to hide some incriminating fact about Clinton-era terror policy. That presumption falls apart when we note the following:
1. According to the reports I've read, the documents in question existed in multiple copies. Berger could not hope to eradicate the information, any more than you could hope to eradicate fascism by stealing your local library's copy of Mein Kampf.
2. Apparently, the major focus is on a specific document written by Richard Clarke, at Berger's instruction, during the Clinton administration. Nobody should be under the impression that this one file contains the secrets of the Qabala. As Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, explained: "Now with respect to what this document is about, it is widely known. Its existence is widely known. It's written about in books and in magazines."
3. Perhaps the main accusation against Berger is that he made notes of classified documents. That's a serious matter, of course. Still, notes leave the original document intact. Which brings us back to the question: How could Berger hope to hide material from the record?
4. The National Archive has methods in place to keep track of its holdings; that institution knows when a piece of paper has gone missing and who saw it last. Berger surely knew this fact.
Although much remains up in the air, here's my guess as to what really happened. Berger's lawyer says that his client wanted to double-check all his facts before testifying to the 9/11 commission. Beyond that, I would not be surprised if Berger harbored hopes of writing a book or article discussing Clinton's terrorism policy. Anyone who has ever worked with archival material (as I have, though not with classified documents) has entertained the thought: "If only I could bring a box of this stuff home, peruse it at my leisure, then return it..." Berger, I am betting, gave into that temptation.
Yes, doing so constitutes a breach. But it does not constitute any sort of cover-up.
Incidentally, the Drudge-spread canard about Berger stuffing paper into his socks proves that the GOPropagandists still cannot resist the temptation to embellish. Remember all the wild, hyperbolic accusations that went flying around in the early days of Whitewater? History repeats itself. There is less to the Berger affair than met the eye at first.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Finally, someone says it!
From Joe Conason's latest on the Wilson smears:
Odd, isn't it? The conservatives scream about why the CIA picked Wilson -- which isn't even relevant to question of whether Saddam tried to buy uranium -- yet they discount what the Agency itself has to say.
From the beginning of this controversy, the C.I.A. has stated categorically that Mrs. Wilson was not responsible for dispatching her husband to Niger, which isn't exactly one of the planet's garden spots. The agency has never revised that statement.
Odd, isn't it? The conservatives scream about why the CIA picked Wilson -- which isn't even relevant to question of whether Saddam tried to buy uranium -- yet they discount what the Agency itself has to say.
The Grand Old Pedophile party
OK, I admit the link I'm offering up here amounts to a cheap shot. But after the Republicans offered up that whole "Kerry and Edwards are gay" meme, retaliation in kind is justified.
Some genius at the Democratic Underground cobbled together a list of God-fearin' conservs caught in the act of child molestation. (That was the term in my day. "Pedophilia" sounds like a disease; "molestation" connotes a willful act, and a crime.) As the DU wag puts it: "They leave no child's behind behind."
Some genius at the Democratic Underground cobbled together a list of God-fearin' conservs caught in the act of child molestation. (That was the term in my day. "Pedophilia" sounds like a disease; "molestation" connotes a willful act, and a crime.) As the DU wag puts it: "They leave no child's behind behind."
Easy $200
Blogger Michael Turner is offering a couple of C-notes to anyone who can prove that Joseph Wilson lied about yellowcake from Niger. Any takers?
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Heads
We return, once more, to the enigmas surrounding the hostages taken in the Middle East, where orange prison suits are as plentiful as botox in Beverly Hills. Many have felt that the Nick Berg controversy would go away after the deaths of Paul Johnson and Kim Sun-Il, but the bizarre Hassoun affair has once more perfumed the air with paranoia.
The incredibly sad Paul Johnson affair, which even the die-hard conspiracists tend to take at face value, nevertheless contains bafflements. For example, where's the body? We were originally told that Saudi cops killed the perpetrators, who were observed dumping the body. Later reports held that the body was never found. Which is it?
Australian journalist Nick Possum -- whose real name may or may not be Gavin Gatenby -- has, as many of you will know, been looking into the Berg controversy. You will want to read his latest piece, which is quite persuasive. While I'm not sure I agree with Gavin, he makes an intelligent, hard-to-refute argument that the Berg video was shot in Abu Ghraib prison, and that the uniform he wore was indeed an American-style prison costume.
I should also point out that Michael Berg (Nick's father) now claims that the family is being "stonewalled" in their attempts to investigate what Nick was doing in Iraq before the abduction.
On an Alternet forum, I brought up my previous posting on the Berg and Hassoun matters. Gavin had this reply which (with his permission) I would like to share:
The incredibly sad Paul Johnson affair, which even the die-hard conspiracists tend to take at face value, nevertheless contains bafflements. For example, where's the body? We were originally told that Saudi cops killed the perpetrators, who were observed dumping the body. Later reports held that the body was never found. Which is it?
Australian journalist Nick Possum -- whose real name may or may not be Gavin Gatenby -- has, as many of you will know, been looking into the Berg controversy. You will want to read his latest piece, which is quite persuasive. While I'm not sure I agree with Gavin, he makes an intelligent, hard-to-refute argument that the Berg video was shot in Abu Ghraib prison, and that the uniform he wore was indeed an American-style prison costume.
I should also point out that Michael Berg (Nick's father) now claims that the family is being "stonewalled" in their attempts to investigate what Nick was doing in Iraq before the abduction.
On an Alternet forum, I brought up my previous posting on the Berg and Hassoun matters. Gavin had this reply which (with his permission) I would like to share:
Joseph: I think it'd be wrong to look for a common thread in all of the
kidnappings and executions. I remain about 99 per cent sure that Berg was a
black op, and I will have something new up on it Real Soon Now (yeah I know
I've been saying that for a while, but it's coming).
Before Berg the only similar thing was Pearl. That was undoubtedly a genuine
Islamist job, but we have to say also that the al-Q-type Islamists undoubtedly
have agents in the Paki secret police as well as vice versa. Also the evidence
is that Pearl was shot in the heart before being beheaded. Pearl wasn't
dressed in orange prison garb (Berg wasn't wearing generic orange coveralls
or "jumpsuit", he was wearing a genuine two-piece prison uniform).
Okay then there was Berg, with his weird connections, time in clink, the weird
editing, two apparent cameras, etc, etc, etc. Everything screams "psyops". But
I still think it most likely he died of overinterrogation. We know more about the
Berg case than anything since because if was the team's first job and they
were inexperienced and stuffed up a lot of stuff which gave us a window.
Johnson: He was an aircraft weapons mechanic. The orange jumpsuit might
have been what he wore to work. They all wear those things, and these days
they're often orange. Also the way that video leaked out, it could well have
been manipulated by a psyops team before being passed on to the media.
Easily possible. The alleged perpetrators were all shot, so they couldn't talk.
And the body was never found. We never found out anything interesting about
Johnson. For all we know the Saudis might have decided he'd transgressed
their notoriously strict rules in some way and decided to behead him
unofficially rather than officially.
Where the Saudi spooks, police, MI, etc, end and the Wahabist al-Q types
begin is anybody's guess! The two sides would have penetrated each other
so thoroughly they probably don't know themselves, from one day to the next,
which side they're on.
Kim Sun Il: Young Kim was as weird as Berg and again we know little in
detail. Here's a young Korean Christian who's working for a company that
supplies the US Army so presumably he gets to come and go inside the
bases and he wanders around Fallujah talking theology with the locals. I
mean either side could have decided on that basis that he was a real
problem. Then we learn he disappeared three weeks before he was first
reported missing in the press and his boss met with the Korean consul four
times and never said "Oh, by the way, young Kim's gone missing". There's
said to be a videotape that looks like the first two shots in the Berg video, in
which Kim freely expresses his support for the resistance. Hmmm. We haven't
seen that. No doubt most of the discussion is in Korean. And the stills from the
video I've seen look like they were set up to rescue the authenticity of the Berg
video.
Then there was the young American soldier the resistance had been holding
since about the time Berg went missing. Finally they just shot him. Nothing
flamboyant. Not "Zarqawi". Looks totally genuine.
Since then there have been a few ransomed (undoubtedly genuine) and a
few just let go. The three Turkish truck drivers could well have been a psyops
job aimed at boosting the US while Powell (or was it Bush himself) was in
Turkey. Interestingly they were released when they promised to be good.
Unlike the others there was absolutely nothing suspicious about them (unlike
Berg, Johnson and Sun Il. Just truck drivers. If it was a black ops job, I'm sure
the black ops boys would prefer not to kill people who are totally innocent (we
all have standards) so they let them go.
Hassoun: gee, that's anybody's guess. Here's a very young bloke who's an
Arab and a translator. Most locals would have loathed him and his Marine
comrades (none of whom knows what he's saying when he talks to the locals)
would certainly have been highly suspicious. For all we know he could have
been used as the bait in an ambush set for the resistance. He could have
been pulled by MI or the CIA because they thought they had evidence on him.
You could write any number of airport bookshop novels on this one. Dunno.
The Kill Zarqawi Vigilantes: The US media reported that these masked guys
(videotape to al Jazeerah) said they were incensed that Zarqawi was killing
innocent Iraqis and trying to kill Allawi. The rest of the world media didn't say they included Allawi. Fascinating. Lots of Iraqi tendencies ranging from the
Baathists to al-Sadr say Zarqawi is a US front. Fascinating. These guys look
like resistance to me.
Which brings us to the Bulgarians and the Phillipino. Too early to tell.
The irony is that the black ops boys might unwittingly have started the fashion
for beheading people wearing orange "jumpsuits".
Sefton Delmar, who ran a big chunk of Britain's black ops during WWII called
his account of his exploits Black Boomerang, "precisely because the
techniques of psychological warfare were inclined to turn back on the
propagandist" (that's Muriel Spark, who was his secretary).
Regime change in Iran
Well, the signs have been there for a while, but now it is semi-official: If re-elected, Bush will topple the government in Iran. They're even trying out the old link-to-Al-Qaeda gambit.
I'll be amused to hear the neocons blather about "democracy" when and if W makes his play, since Iran already has at least some elements of democracy -- which means that nation's record is rather better than those of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, etc.
Besides, how can Bush of all people argue against a government which mixes a spoonful of democracy into a theocratic stew? Isn't that the recipe he has in mind for America?
So far, administration sources are claiming that they can take down Iran covertly, without military action. If you believe that, there's a sign in Hollywood I'd love to sell to you. Iran ain't going down easy.
I'll be amused to hear the neocons blather about "democracy" when and if W makes his play, since Iran already has at least some elements of democracy -- which means that nation's record is rather better than those of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, etc.
Besides, how can Bush of all people argue against a government which mixes a spoonful of democracy into a theocratic stew? Isn't that the recipe he has in mind for America?
So far, administration sources are claiming that they can take down Iran covertly, without military action. If you believe that, there's a sign in Hollywood I'd love to sell to you. Iran ain't going down easy.
An attempt
I am going to attempt to blog today, even though my site is not what it was. I wonder if Blogger's great experiment in WYSIWYG posting decimated other sites as it did mine? To make matters worse, I've had technical problems on my own end. (Ever have one of those periods where you spend three whole days trying to get the damn 'puter to behave as it used to?)
At any rate, this stripped-down version of CANNONFIRE is at least readable. I miss the red-and-black look, and hope to reinstate it. (The color scheme was inspired by Daredevil's costume. I was a big DD fan as a youngster.)
A few observations: I hate to admit it (for partisan reasons) but the allegations against Sandy Berger are serious. I fail to see how any actions by Berger reflect on Kerry, although you can be sure that the GOPropagandists will make strained arguments along those lines.
Not long ago, I caught the tail end of Truffaut's original, under-rated film version of Fahrenheit 411, a film I had not seen since the 1970s. (A remake is in the offing.) In the final act, Montag the bibliophile fireman -- having become a declared enemy of the state -- is the subject of a manhunt. The TV broadcasts images of the shoot-out which ends his life. Amusingly, Montag himself -- quite alive -- is among the viewers of this spectacle; the State staged a satisfying ending to the hunt when real-life proved recalcitrant.
I could not help but be reminded of the staged events we've all seen on our screens lately: The statue of Saddam Hussein toppled by Chalabi's goons pretending to be joyous citizens of Baghdad; the declared existence of WMDs in Iraq -- "found" and put on display, from time to time, on Fox News; and the Iraq war's non-existent battles between the Third Infantry Division and the dreaded Republican Guard. Some will add to this list the questionable beheading of Nick Berg and the very questionable kidnapping of Corporal Hassoun. One might even mention the cleverly edited video montages designed to convince illiterates that Kerry and Edwards are swishy.
In this light, you will surely want to read Eric Margolis' fine new article on "The era of strategic deception."
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Politics are dead and the only question left is Pilate's. Bradbury predicted this. Fahrenheit 411 may have as much to say about our time as does Fahrenheit 9/11.
At any rate, this stripped-down version of CANNONFIRE is at least readable. I miss the red-and-black look, and hope to reinstate it. (The color scheme was inspired by Daredevil's costume. I was a big DD fan as a youngster.)
A few observations: I hate to admit it (for partisan reasons) but the allegations against Sandy Berger are serious. I fail to see how any actions by Berger reflect on Kerry, although you can be sure that the GOPropagandists will make strained arguments along those lines.
Not long ago, I caught the tail end of Truffaut's original, under-rated film version of Fahrenheit 411, a film I had not seen since the 1970s. (A remake is in the offing.) In the final act, Montag the bibliophile fireman -- having become a declared enemy of the state -- is the subject of a manhunt. The TV broadcasts images of the shoot-out which ends his life. Amusingly, Montag himself -- quite alive -- is among the viewers of this spectacle; the State staged a satisfying ending to the hunt when real-life proved recalcitrant.
I could not help but be reminded of the staged events we've all seen on our screens lately: The statue of Saddam Hussein toppled by Chalabi's goons pretending to be joyous citizens of Baghdad; the declared existence of WMDs in Iraq -- "found" and put on display, from time to time, on Fox News; and the Iraq war's non-existent battles between the Third Infantry Division and the dreaded Republican Guard. Some will add to this list the questionable beheading of Nick Berg and the very questionable kidnapping of Corporal Hassoun. One might even mention the cleverly edited video montages designed to convince illiterates that Kerry and Edwards are swishy.
In this light, you will surely want to read Eric Margolis' fine new article on "The era of strategic deception."
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Politics are dead and the only question left is Pilate's. Bradbury predicted this. Fahrenheit 411 may have as much to say about our time as does Fahrenheit 9/11.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
More on yellowcake and yellow journalism
[NOTE TO READERS: Blogger has revamped its interface. Alas, it seems that there are bugs. When I upoloaded this piece originally, the format of the entire site went crazy -- posts went into the links section. I'll fix things as soon as Blogger tells me what went wrong.]
The rightists made a massive stink out of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report which, according to the Washington Post summary, painted JoesephWilson as a liar. The Coultergeist was particularly obnoxious especially when she (falsely) referred to Valerie Plame as a CIA "benchwarmer." How many benchwarmers operate under Non-Official Cover?
Turns out the Post story got it wrong. From a response published in Salon:
The rightists made a massive stink out of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report which, according to the Washington Post summary, painted JoesephWilson as a liar. The Coultergeist was particularly obnoxious especially when she (falsely) referred to Valerie Plame as a CIA "benchwarmer." How many benchwarmers operate under Non-Official Cover?
Turns out the Post story got it wrong. From a response published in Salon:
The Washington Post story, meanwhile, took the disputed Senate report conclusions even further. It stated in its lead that Wilson was "specifically recommended for the mission by his wife ... contrary to what he has said publicly." In the interview, Wilson argued that the Post story failed to make clear that only the intelligence panel's Republicans, and not its Democrats, came to that conclusion. He said he has written a letter of protest to the Post.
The Post article also contained one acknowledged error: In trying to build a case that Wilson's Niger trip had actually bolstered the administration's claims, Schmidt wrote that Wilson had told the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that Wilson said had tried to make the purchase, as the Senate report states. The Post ran a correction.
The only serious dispute tending to impugn Wilson's version of events concerns the question of whether his wife suggested him for the job. I fail to see the importance of this issue, or how it can be used to justify Bush's infamous 16-word exercise in deception.
Wilson has persuasively defended his position against the blatherings of the Senate Republicans:
The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife, sent to her superiors that says, "My husband has good relations with the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] reports officer stated that "the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name'" (page 39) and a State Department intelligence and research officer stated that the "meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."
In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my trip was raised. Neither was the CPD reports officer. After having escorted me into the room, she [Valerie] departed the meeting to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It was at that meeting where the question of my traveling to Niger was broached with me for the first time and came only after a thorough discussion of what the participants did and did not know about the subject.
Needless to say, conservative "journalists" refused to wait to hear this side of the story before pronouncing Wilson a liar.
Other rightists have tried to defend those 16 words by pointing to the U.K.'s Butler report. That report was damningly harsh on the deceptive intelligence leading up to the war (a side of the story ignored by G.O.P. propagandists), but it did claim that Britain had agents-in-place within Iraq whose information tended to buttress the Niger story.
The Los Angeles Times and other news outlets have called into question the reliability of this data -- data which persuaded neither the CIA nor any other non-British intelligence agency. We have no independent way of knowing who these "inside" individuals were or what position they hoped to gain in post-war Iraq. They may well have presumed (not at all unreasonably) that Chalabi would be running the place. Many believe that Chalabi's INC, which was running a fake document shop, put together the Niger forgeries in the first place.
Defectors and agents-in-place have a long history of telling their secret paymasters what they think the paymasters want to hear. Doubt it? Do some Google research. Start by typing in the names "Angleton"and "Golitsyn."
There are three major reasons for presuming that the whole "yellowcake" tale was never anything but a scam:
1. Bush distanced himself from the story and had DCI Tenet fall on his sword, even though Tenet was not really responsible. If those 16 words were verifiably true, why would Bush act embarrassed by them? Why not embrace them?
2. Niger's uranium is controlled by an international cartel. Any alleged discussion between Saddam Hussein's representatives and a Nigerian official simply would not have mattered.
3. If the story was something other than disinformation, why was it "proven" by demonstrably forged documentation? A factual allegation does not require forged evidence.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Child rape? Or disinformation?
The truth may be leaking out. Seymour Hersh has told an audience that American interrogators in Iraq raped children. With cameras rolling, no less.
Is this allegation true? If so, then why hasn't Hersh published the scoop?
I can't help wondering if some covert operative may have fed Hersh this data. Disprove the "child-rape" allegation, and everything else Hersh has said, even if perfectly accurate, will be tossed into the toilet. Worse, the radio right will scream for weeks about agenda-driven liberal liars in the media.
Hersh has been misled by sources before. The "Marilyn Monroe" mini-scandal comes to mind.
Is this allegation true? If so, then why hasn't Hersh published the scoop?
I can't help wondering if some covert operative may have fed Hersh this data. Disprove the "child-rape" allegation, and everything else Hersh has said, even if perfectly accurate, will be tossed into the toilet. Worse, the radio right will scream for weeks about agenda-driven liberal liars in the media.
Hersh has been misled by sources before. The "Marilyn Monroe" mini-scandal comes to mind.
Yellowcake and yellow journalism
Speaking of bovine excretion -- and we were; see below -- I'm infuriated by recent efforts to revive the Niger yellowcake story, and the parallel efforts to trash Joe Wilson.
In the case of Wilson, right-wing "journalists" have not even sought out his response to the intelligence committee's assertion that his wife recommended him for the inspection gig. In the past, reporters understood the wisdom of learning both sides of a story.
More to the point: The Saddam-wanted-Niger-uranium story is dead, dead, dead. It has joined the choir invisble; it has ceased to be. Republicans can manipulate the corpse after the fashion of Weekend at Bernie's, but they still can't make the thing breathe. They can remove the stake, but they can't make the cadaver walk out of its coffin.
There is no proof that Saddam bought or tried to buy yellowcake from Niger. There is no proof that he had a nuclear program. There is no proof that, even if he had such a program, he did not already possess sufficient amounts of the needed material. And Niger could not have sold the material to Saddam under any circumstances; the uranium is not in that country's immediate control.
Republicans harp on Wilson yet never discuss Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr., a four-star general who traveled to Niger and confirmed Wilson's findings. Before we let the propagandists toss certain key facts down the memory hole, re-read this Washington Post story published exactly one year ago:
In the case of Wilson, right-wing "journalists" have not even sought out his response to the intelligence committee's assertion that his wife recommended him for the inspection gig. In the past, reporters understood the wisdom of learning both sides of a story.
More to the point: The Saddam-wanted-Niger-uranium story is dead, dead, dead. It has joined the choir invisble; it has ceased to be. Republicans can manipulate the corpse after the fashion of Weekend at Bernie's, but they still can't make the thing breathe. They can remove the stake, but they can't make the cadaver walk out of its coffin.
There is no proof that Saddam bought or tried to buy yellowcake from Niger. There is no proof that he had a nuclear program. There is no proof that, even if he had such a program, he did not already possess sufficient amounts of the needed material. And Niger could not have sold the material to Saddam under any circumstances; the uranium is not in that country's immediate control.
Republicans harp on Wilson yet never discuss Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr., a four-star general who traveled to Niger and confirmed Wilson's findings. Before we let the propagandists toss certain key facts down the memory hole, re-read this Washington Post story published exactly one year ago:
In an interview, Fulford said he came away "assured" that the supply of "yellowcake" was kept secure by a French consortium. Both Fulford, then deputy commander of the U.S. European Command and his commander, Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, said the issue did not surface again, although they were both routinely briefed on weapons proliferation in Africa. "I was convinced it was not an issue," Fulford said.And as for who cobbled together that forgery -- ah. Therein lieth a tale. Experts will argue over it for many a year to come, just as some people are still arguing about the Zenoviev letter or the bordereau made famous in the Deyfus affair. Despite the bleatings of propagandists who would complicate matters, those who seek the simplest explanation will cast a suspicious eye at the "fake document" shop run by neocon icon Ahmed Chalabi.
Fulford was asked by the U.S. ambassador to Niger, BarbroOwens-Kirkpatrick, to join her at the meeting with Niger's President Mamadou Tandja on Feb. 24, 2002. "I was asked to impress upon the president the importance that the yellowcake in Niger be under control," Fulford said. "I did that. He assured me. He said the mining operations were handled through a French consortium" and therefore out of the Niger government's control. Owens-Kirkpatrick, reached by phone, declined to comment.
Fulford's impressions, while not conclusive, were similar to those of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA in February 2002 to interview Niger officials about the uranium claim and came away convinced it was not true.
The charge that Iraq was seeking to buy nuclear material in Africa was based mainly on documents that the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded this March were forged.
The anus of responsibility
"Mistakes were made." That's the nonsense we hear from both the British and the American investigations tasked to uncover why intelligence went awry in the run-up to the Iraq war. Of course, if the "mistakes" keep running in the same direction, then what we are dealing with are not mistakes but lies.
The mysterious blogger known as Xymphora today offered a fine summary of this situation: "The reports, coming out at the same time and with almost identical bullshit, might as well have been excreted from the same anus."
The mysterious blogger known as Xymphora today offered a fine summary of this situation: "The reports, coming out at the same time and with almost identical bullshit, might as well have been excreted from the same anus."
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Americans torture a Swede
My thanks to The Kirby File for directing my attention to this story:
Mehdi Ghezali, a Swedish citizen born in Algeria, was studying Islam in Pakistan prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. In the chaos of the invasion, Pakistani villagers discovered that they could receive hefty rewards if they turned foreigners over to the American forces. One can imagine what sort of tales these villagers peddled. Ghezali found himself caught up in this mess, and thus spent two-and-a-half years undergoing grueling treatment at Gitmo:
Mehdi Ghezali, a Swedish citizen born in Algeria, was studying Islam in Pakistan prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. In the chaos of the invasion, Pakistani villagers discovered that they could receive hefty rewards if they turned foreigners over to the American forces. One can imagine what sort of tales these villagers peddled. Ghezali found himself caught up in this mess, and thus spent two-and-a-half years undergoing grueling treatment at Gitmo:
"They put me in the interrogation room and used it as a refrigerator. They set the temperature to minus degrees so it was terribly cold and one had to freeze there for many hours -- 12 to 14 hours one had to sit there, chained," he said, adding that he had partially lost the feeling in one foot since then.Naturally, the American captors were slow to understand that their bought-and-paid-for info might be faulty. One can only imagine what other horror stories will come out.
Ghezali said he was also deprived of sleep, chained for long periods in painful positions, and exposed to bright flashes of light in a darkened room and loud music and noise.
"They forced me down with chained feet. Then they took away the chains from the hands, pulled the arms under the legs and chained them hard again. I could not move," he said.
After several hours his feet were swollen and his whole body was aching. "The worst was in the back and the legs," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)