Torture

Craig Murray is the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. He complained too loudly about the repeated human rights violations that the Uzbek government was involved in, such as boiling dissidents alive. He protested vociferously about the use of information gathered by torture in the war on terror. He pointed out that the information gathered was of no use anyhow, that the confessions were from 'dupes' who were signing confessions that made it look like the Uzbeks were fighting the same war as the US and UK. I don't know about you, but if I was made to sit and watch as my children were tortured, I would sign just about anything to get them to stop.

That's one of the techniques that was used by Uzbeks. Torturing children in front of parents.

Hell, at least they weren't boiled alive.

Oops, they do that too.

Well, Craig Murray didn't think that was the right way to fight a war on terror. So he protested. He was removed from office. He said he would publish the memos he had made while Ambassador. Citing the Official Secrets Act, the British Government banned him from doing that. He did it anyway.

That link was working when I looked this afternoon. It's not working now. (UPDATE: It appears to be working again. 9:40 am 12/31/05) Luckily, bloggers picked it up, and are posting it around the world. Here in the US, Kos, among others, have published it.

As I read them, what I notice is that no one is really denying that the UK is using evidence gained by torture. There was even a rather nit-picky memo sent by a legal adviser pointing out that, essentially, not illegal to recieve evidence obtained by torture. The answer, essentially is it's legal as long as it doesn't make it to court.

Here's part of one memo:

1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.

2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.

3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.

So what's the US position on this? Uzbekistan is given a quarter billion dollars in aid annually, three-fifths of which is military.

In an era when so many jobs are being outsourced to other countries, it's nice to know we do the same thing with our torture.

Yeharr

ID and Ego

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

-Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, p. 26

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

Katzmiller, et al, v. Dover Area School District, et al pp136-137

Last Wednesday, the ever-thoughful Polanco blogged about the decision handed down in Pennsylvania regarding Intelligent Design. The very first comment made was from a woman who wrote: "It's amazing how many evolutionists are scared of alternative theories. "

Hoo boy.

That comment pisses me off no end. I have spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out why it pisses me off. And I discovered that it was because it sums up a whole plethora of misconceptions many have about the whole kerfuffle. Let me count the ways:

First off: The use of the term evolutionist. Webster's defines an evolutionist as "a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution." That's fine, but I'm getting the feeling that this term is being bandied about by those who would like to see Intelligent Design incorporated into high-school science classes in much the same way as others are using terms like 'abortionist' and 'liberal'--in other words, with scorn and disdain. As an exercise, I typed 'evolutionist' in the 'search blogs' window at the top of the screen, and sure enough, the majority of bloggers on the top of the list (first three pages) were supporters of ID. This doesn't suggest that the majority of blogger out there support ID. It does, however, suggest that the majority of bloggers who use the term 'evolutionist' aren't supporters of evolution.

I keep telling myself this isn't a valid scientific process, but then I remind myself that the proponents of ID don't seem to be too keen on valid science, so fuck it.

Then, I went to google and searched 'evolutionist theory,' and found a whole bunch of 'talking point' websites, and almost as many sites 'debating' (as polite a word as I can come up with) the issue.

What I didn't find was a whole bunch of actual evolutionists who had anything to say about the issue. Again, I'm not saying they are silent on the subject; just that I couldn't find any using popular web searches.

My conclusion: Evolutionists really aren't debating this topic.

And why should they? They left this topic years ago. Perhaps a century ago.

This goes to the second part of the sentence--that evolutionists are scared of alternative theories.

As far as I can tell, true evolutionists--scientists who have made the study of evolution their life's work--are no more scared of the 'alternative theory' of Intelligent Design than geologists are scared of the the alternative theories of the Flat Earth Society.

In other words: evolutionists aren't really in this debate at all. Shouldn't that tell us something?

They aren't in this debate because, in my opinion--and in the opinion of the Republican, Bush-appointed judge who handed down this ruling--this debate really isn't about evolution, or Intelligent Design, or anything at all scientific.

So what's it about? It's about free thinking.

Look at it this way: The odds of any one of those ninth-graders in the Dover School District growing up to be an elite research scientist in any field is probably comparable to the odds of any of those kids growing up to be a Major League Baseball player. This isn't a slam on their intelligence any more than it's a slam on their physical prowess. Statistically, there's not a lot of either types in the general population. In fact, twenty-five years from now, those kids will probably know more about baseball than evolutionary theory.

That's because, on the whole, the evolution/ID debate doesn't really matter. It will honestly matter less in their lives than the wins and losses of the Phillies.

What matters--what really is to me the heart and soul of this debate--is that, for those ninth graders, many of them for the first time in their lives, will be asked to think. To conjecture. To come up with conclusions that they will have to factually support.

That's the true importance of high-school science for the overwhelming majority of us. It teaches us to weigh facts. It gives us a structure to reach rational conclusions. It give us a tool to use when deciding what to do. That is the great gift of science. The ability to be dispassionate about something.

By introducing ID into the fray at this point, in the venue of science the message becomes muddied. One of my Dad's favorite cartoons showed two researchers in front of a huge blackboard. The left side of the blackboard was filled with this huge mathematical equation, as was the right side. In the middle, were four words: 'Then a miracle occurs.' And one researcher says to the other: 'I think you might have a problem with step number two.'

Intelligent Design wants you to belive there is no problem with step number two.

Perhaps there isn't. But the debate over that should not ever be in ninth-grade science.

Yeharr

Distinguished Leaders of the Right comment on the President's actions

These are their direct quotes:

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-N.J.):

And we all share in the emotional trauma getting back to our subject of this constitutional crisis in which we are ensnared. But this cup cannot pass us by, we can't avoid it, we took an oath of office, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the Constitution under our democratic system of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.

And we must fulfill that oath and send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Now I say personally, and all of you who know me, and a lot of you do, I've been around a long time; I bear no personal animosity towards the president. But we in the House did not seek this constitutional confrontation.

Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.):

How can we expect a Boy Scout to honor his oath if elected officials don't honor theirs? How can we expect a business executive to honor a promise when the chief executive abandons his or hers?

Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.):

How did this great nation of the 1990s come to be? It all happened Mr. Speaker, because freedom works. . . . But freedom, Mr. Speaker, freedom depends upon something. The rule of law. And that's why this solemn occasion is so important. For today we are here to defend the rule of law. According to the evidence presented by our fine Judiciary Committee, the president of the United States has committed serious transgressions.

Among other things, he took an oath to God, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And then he failed to do so. Not once, but several times. If we ignore this evidence, I believe we undermine the rule of law that is so important that all America is. Mr. Speaker, a nation of laws cannot be ruled by a person who breaks the law. Otherwise, it would be as if we had one set of rules for the leaders and another for the governed. We would have one standard for the powerful, the popular and the wealthy, and another for everyone else.

This would belie our ideal that we have equal justice under the law. That would weaken the rule of law and leave our children and grandchildren with a very poor legacy. I don't know what challenges they will face in their time, but I do know they need to face those challenges with the greatest constitutional security and the soundest rule of fair and equal law available in the history of the world. And I don't want us to risk their losing that....

You knew they were talking about Clinton, right? This and more great nostalgic travels in hypocrisy from Democratic Underground.

Link

Is Fox News our Al Jazeera?

Just asking. I've quoted this before:

But what really separates Fox from the competition is its unabashed use of religion as a divisive weapon. Common sense -- and common courtesy -- have long dictated that personal religious beliefs be kept out of news reporting unless the story at hand involves religion. But on Fox, it’s not uncommon for an anchor to raise the issue of a guest’s religion, or lack thereof, a’ propos of nothing. (more)

John Moody, of course, at the bottom of it. He was there at the start, Under Roger Ailes, who have such a pro-right, religous oriented agenda.

"There is a formula to Fox's news agenda. "A lot of the people we have hired," Fox executive John Moody explained (Inside Media, 12/11/96) when the network was launched, "have come without the preconceptions of must-do news. There are stories we will sometimes forego in order to do stories we think are more significant. The biggest strength that we have is that Roger Ailes has allowed me to do that; to forego stores that would be 'duty' stories in order to focus on other things."

That's code, of course, for religious oriented, divisive programming, conservative biased programming, etc.

Former CBS producer Don Dahler resigned from Fox after executive John Moody ordered him to change a story to play down statistics showing a lack of social progress among blacks. (Moody says the change was journalistically justified--New York, 11/17/97.) According to the Columbia Journalism Review (3-4/98), "several" former Fox employees "complained of 'management sticking their fingers' in the writing and editing of stories to cook the facts to make a story more palatable to right-of-center tastes." Said one: "I've worked at a lot of news organizations and never found that kind of manipulation."

Looks and sounds like a news channel with reporters, interviews and headlines, but has a political and religious agenda. Yeah, I was right. They're our Al Jazeera.

Oh, this is intersting too: FOX NEWS in rating free fall:

TV Newser cited a CNN press release which gave these totals for Fox's primetime audience in the 25 to 54 age bracket: Oct. 04: 1,074,000; Nov. 04: 891,000; Dec. 04: 568,000; Jan. 05: 564,000; Feb. 05: 520,000; March 05: 498,000; April 05: 445,000. That amounts to a decline of 58 percent, with no sign of leveling off.

Other cable stations' ratings were also down since the election, but CNN's, for example, appeared to have stabilized last month while Fox's continued to drop. (more)

So This Is Christmas

"War is over, if you want it."

John Lennon - 1971

He's still singing to us.

Happy Christmas.

Finally

The advantage to having a President who didn't pay much attention in school, isn't exactly sure what the right thing to do in any situation is, doesn't trust himself intellectually and because of that holds on to simplistic black and white concepts because he can understand and defend them, is that he is eventually going to drop the ball, one that he's quite good at carrying by the way as he mis-leads down the field, but drop the ball nonetheless. And he finally did that on Friday when he admitted that he broke the law.

It dropped jaws on both sides of the aisle, because as much as his administration has screwed up under his watch, he himself has never been linked directly to a crime. Until now.

The irony of it is, he still doesn't get it.

After The New York Times reported, and CNN confirmed, a claim that Bush gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas, the president said that his actions were permissible, but that leaking the revelation to the media was illegal.

During an unusual live, on-camera version of his weekly radio address, Bush said such authorization is "fully consistent" with his "constitutional responsibilities and authorities." (CNN)

Um...no.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Other key bipartisan members of Congress also called on the administration to explain and said a congressional investigation may be necessary. (CNN the next day)

There's something called the fourth ammendment:

Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, note that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires a show of probable cause before warrants are issued. Also, the Communications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Criminal Code have provisions limiting or banning the interception of electronic communications. (USA Today)(the next day)

But being a President who has no interest in his own schooling, traveling, history, or historical context, he couldn't imagine why his own idea that seemed good, isn't good enough. Why doesn't it just trump constitutional context, or legal violation? What's the big deal?

Well, when you live in a little bubble I suppose you could decide that torture was okay too, or that dropping the guarantee of a minimum wage to those in a national disaster area desperate for jobs was okay, or that changing social security to a private plan the in NO WAY IMPROVED the senior payment plan and might REDUCE it but would make walls street rich was okay.... and on and on...

Which is not a bad track record for one leader who over and over again proves he is unfit to lead or is unfit for office. But now that he's admitted to breaking the law, there's ground for impeachment.

You know, the oath for the office of President is not particularly long. And except for the extra adjectives and some decorative prepositions basically says: "I promise to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the constitution and the laws of this country."

Period. That's it. You don't even have to take a test and get a license.

So - signing or giving an order that is a violation of the law of this country is grounds for impeachment. It violates the oath of office. That's what Nixon did. Supposedly that's what Clinton did, it's what Starr hung his whole case on "A constitutional officer LIED." (I never slept with that woman). It wasn't the act of sex, it was the LIE.

Well, Bush has that in droves. The great irony here is that his one TRUTH he's proudly splashing across the media and in his TV address is that he broke the law.

And he still doesn't get it.

In 2006, when all the diebold machines are recalled for their security failures, or the company folds because of its SEC violations (two counties already recalled them in Florida), and the votes in this country are really counted, and Democrats win back either the House or the Senate, watch everyone be tired of the Bushit and start the process to Impeach.

A New Low

A group called the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License wants to put billboards like this up in North Carolina, Wisconsin and New Mexico, and is shocked--shocked--that anyone might consider this to smack of racism.

[North Carolina] Transportation Department spokesman Ernie Seneca called the premise for the ad “flat-out wrong [and] totally inaccurate” and said the ad itself was offensive.

As a person who has lived in North Carolina, I can honestly say that if the Tar Heel State thinks something is racially offensive, then you've got no wiggle room whatsoever in this area.

Now, I don't know if the goals of this group are worthy ones or not. Perhaps they are. I haven't really read anything about this possible loophole in the War on Violence Committed or Threatened by a Group to Intimidate or Coerce a Population. But the fact that they consider a billboard like this to be appropriate speaks volumes about our current social climate.

I remember driving through Indiana in the early '70's with my family, and seeing signs at the borders of some small towns that read "Nigger, don't let the sun set on you here." This sign doesn't match those for gut-level offensiveness; but they're damn close.

Yeharr

Link

Tide is Turning. Tired of the Bushit

This is a big deal:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47. (CNN) (From Raw Story)

It's because of support of the 70% of the country who write in, call, email and let these people know they are not happy with this administration. Period. These aren't leaders just suddenly doing the right thing, these are leaders reflecting a pissed off population who want to keep their jobs.

Link

CNN Dumps Novak

Robert Novak (AP Photo)

For one outburst of "this is bullshit?" and walking off the set? Not that I'll miss his one-sided shilling. But there's a long history of right-sided reporting here that made a lot of money for him and the network. I wonder if Bob stepped into his own right wing issue of FCC vulgarity violation, or if it's something more at work:

Could it have something to do with his statement: "I'm confident the president knows who the source is. I'd be amazed if he doesn't," Novak said at a Tuesday lunch address to the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh...?

CNN says:

From: Emery, Edie
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:09 AM
Subject: CNN statement regarding Mr. Novak

"After 25 years of serving as a CNN commentator and program host, our colleague Bob Novak's tenure on the network will come to a close (effective 12/31). Through the years, Bob has offered incisive analysis for much of CNN's programming, including Crossfire, The Capital Gang, Inside Politics, Evans and Novak, The Novak Zone, and Novak, Hunt and Shields. Bob has also been a valued contributor to CNN's political coverage. We appreciate his many contributions and wish him well in future endeavors," said Jon Klein, president of CNN/U.S.

Edie Emery, CNN PR

Link

Come on Iraqis, get out there and vote!

This election needs to be successful.

That way we can set a timetable for withdrawal, I'm mean victory and bring our troops home. Shrubco will have no reason to keep them there. The Neocons will have their middle eastern democracy and the Iraqis will have their Islamic Republic. Win/Win

Three cheers for the purple finger!

ps. Send a care package to our troops who can't be home for xmas this year.

Link

Fair and Balanced and Hateful and Divisive

Fox News, headed by Roger Ailes, ex-DC Gop operative and VP John Moody (scholar and devout catholic who frames his religiouis views in good guy-bad guy terms) , uses religious confrontation to foister division and to cut a new swath for cable news:

"From CHARLIE REINA, former Fox News Channel producer: As with many conflicts, particularly the manufactured kind, dishonesty, greed and ignorance are the culprits behind Fox News Channel's so-called “War on Christmas.” - more.

Charlie knows becuase he worked there for six years. See his take on how "fair and blanced" or on how "we report - you decide" is complete hokum.

Link

More Dead in Ohio

A law that will make democracy all but moot in Ohio is about to pass the state legislature and to be signed by its Republican governor. Despite massive corruption scandals besieging the Ohio GOP, any hope that the Democratic party could win this most crucial swing state in future presidential elections, or carry its pivotal U.S. Senate seat in 2006, are about to end.

HB3's most publicized provision will require positive identification before casting a vote. But it also opens voter registration activists to partisan prosecution, exempts electronic voting machines from public scrutiny, quintuples the cost of citizen-requested statewide recounts and makes it illegal to challenge a presidential vote count or, indeed, any federal election result in Ohio. When added to the recently passed HB1, which allows campaign financing to be dominated by the wealthy and by corporations, and along with a Rovian wish list of GOP attacks on the ballot box, democracy in Ohio could be all but over.

The GOP is ramming similar bills through state legislatures around the U.S., starting with Georgia and Indiana. The ID requirements in particular have provoked widespread opposition from newspapers such as the New York Times. The Times, among others, argues that the ID requirements and the costs associated with them, constitute an unconstitutional discriminatory poll tax.

But despite significant court challenges, the Republicans are forcing changes in long-standing election laws that have allowed citizens to vote based on their signature alone. Across the U.S., GOP Jim Crow laws will eliminate millions of Democratic voters from the registration rolls. In swing states like Ohio, such ballots are almost certain to be crucial.

A comment at the end of the piece writes: "I almost wish this wasn't so well-written."

I agree.

And the noose tightens, and rich white men rejoice.

Yeharr

Link

We Welcome the Cranky Yankee

Who joins us as a contributor to this site, and will post as his busy schedule permits.

Okay, maybe he won't and it's just a vanity plate.

I'm just saying.

Link

Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddle Masses, and Let Me Really Screw Them

You all know that's from a poem of course (except the last bit), but do you remember where it's engraved? On the pedastal of the Statue of Liberty, the symbol of welcome and opened armed protection to those in need to come here to America, for care.

The poor from Katrina's devastation continue to suffer, continue to be forgotten, as if the GOP who are controlling the funds are just hoping they will GO AWAY.

"When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans it was the city's poor - almost exclusively African Americans - who were left to fend for themselves as the city drowned in a lake of toxic sludge. Now, three months on, the same people have been abandoned once again by a reconstruction effort that seems determined to prevent them from returning. They are the victims of a devastating combination of forced evictions, a failure to reopen the city's public house projects, rent gouging and - as in the case of Mildred - a decision to write off whole neighbourhoods."

From the Observer Article.

Problem is, they're people, who are poor, and sick, so they don't evaporate. Of course they tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. And I know the GOP are hoping that if you go down their moral values check list, they will find a box entitled IGNORE next to those "in need".

Problem is, if you are the government when you take your pledge, you have a sworn oath to uphold the duties of your office. Last time I checked it didn't include ignoring catastrophic destruction brought to entire cities by natural disasters. That is, unless you're handing out contracts to your corporate buddies for whatever rebuild you deem neccessary and not the locals who need them. They've got that problem covered.

It's unfortunate for the poor that the huddled masses referred to in the poem are from everywhere but here. The poem could have a footnote: "If you start here and you're poor, why don't you just drop dead?" But I'm not sure that rhymes.

But the poor can't get anyone's ear as they can't plunk down the $1000 a dinner plate for a Bush fundraiser.

Footnote: (Poverty has increased in every year of the George Bush administration).

Run on Fear, Run in Fear

Really, is he just this scared of ex-President Clinton? Bush is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, right? What's he afraid of? That he's not as popular? That Clinton will just tell the truth, which really throws Bush off his game?

"Bush-administration officials privately threatened organizers of the U.N. Climate Change Conference, telling them that any chance there might’ve been for the United States to sign on to the Kyoto global-warming protocol would be scuttled if they allowed Bill Clinton to speak at the gathering today in Montreal, according to a source involved with the negotiations who spoke to New York Magazine on condition of anonymity.

Bush officials informed organizers of their intention to pull out of the new Kyoto deal late Thursday afternoon, soon after news leaked that Clinton was scheduled to speak, the source said..." More.

Link

Out of the Mouths of Babes in Arms

Sometimes the big picture is best seen by what it's made up of, lots of little pictures. The way a television picture is really the assemblage of thousands of dots of color. If those colors all shift in one direction, the big picture sways in that direction as well, it can't help it, it's inexorably linked.

Seems like the Bush Administration is trying to insist that the big picture is green, when all the little dots are really reporting red.

But lying is BOP (basic operating procedure). Of course debunking the lie is BOPD (Burned Out Paranoid Democrat).

"Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality..." More.

Also from OpTruth.org:

"Stop Loss is devastating to troop morale. Many Soldiers affected by Stop Loss have already served one or even two tours of combat duty, only to be extended when they were expecting to be finished with their service. Besides damaging troop morale, Stop Loss could possibly lead to a drop in recruitment and reenlistment rates, thus weakening our Armed Forces..." More.

How about some thoughts from an an expert on Capital Hill who's not afraid to say the truth.

"Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group."



"Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, expressed pessimism about Iraq's stability and said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are, but don't always share that information with U.S. troops. He said a civil war is likely because of ongoing factionalism among Sunni Arabs, and Kurds and Shiites. He also said he was wrong to vote to support the war." More.

Unlike the White House, Right Wing pundits, or psuedo professionals called in to be talking heads on Fox News, Murtha gets all his information from only one place: The Military. He knows what he's talking about regardless of Bush's need to tarnish any enemy.

And to show how fair and balanced we can be, some thoughts from soldiers with a positive attitude. What's heartbreaking is hearing how they're trying to bring in a bit of Home town back yard into their hell.

"Well not much going on here. It is much colder at night and in the morning. Very much like home. There is a lot of talk about leave and it seems like every day I am taking someone to go on leave. Being shorthanded is tough being a small company but we are doing okay with it. We are still waiting for the much anticipated rainy season that so far has only given us 2 days worth not lasting more then 20 min each. When the roads get wet the vehicles like to slide as if we are on ice and that will make for some interesting challenges in the future. We are just about complete on improving our unit area. The other day we had a cookout that was nice we also invited the former B TRP guys, it was good to see a lot of them again..." More.

Link

Remember Karen Kwiatkowski?

She was the Lieutenant Colonel who as 'volunteered' to work at the NESA during the run-up to the war. She published her frustrations with the politicization of the intelligence-gathering process first anonymously, then publicly on Salon.com in March of 2004.

Here's two quotes from that article:

" I asked John [Trigilio, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst] who was feeding the president all the bull about Saddam and the threat he posed us in terms of WMD delivery and his links to terrorists, as none of this was in secret intelligence I had seen in the past years. John insisted that it wasn't an exaggeration, but when pressed to say which actual intelligence reports made these claims, he would only say, "Karen, we have sources that you don't have access to." It was widely felt by those of us in the office not in the neoconservatives' inner circle that these "sources" related to the chummy relationship that Ahmad Chalabi had with both the Office of Special Plans and the office of the vice president."

"I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president."

The Office of Special Plans is the unit created by Donald Rumsfeld and led by Douglas Feith, created to deal with intelligence on Iraq. OSP was described by Kwiatkowski as "a censorship and disinformation organism controlling the NESA," and by former CIA officer Larry Johnson as "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. [The OSP] lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary."

In light of the current imbrolgio regarding Democratic legislators who now oppose the war, and are calling for a timetable, I thought it would be appropriate to revisit the article.


Yeharr

Link