Predictions Mood: cool
For what it's worth, I predict there will be no indictments this week for any member of the White House under the Espionage Act of 1917 or the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Those are completely out of the question.
As for lesser charges of obstruction or perjury, I am not so sure.
The Common Thread
I think I have just discovered the common thread running through many of my bannings from the chat rooms at Eschaton: whenever I raise the issue of Joe Wilson's malfeasance, Duncan Black shuts me down. If I recall correctly, my charge against Wilson is the proximate cause in at least three such bannings.
Very interesting.
It almost makes me think that Black has some stake in these matters.
What can I say, though? RESTORE HONESTY, baby! RESTOREHONESTY.COM!
Yeah, I Said I Hope DeLay Walks
Although I credit National Review Online as my first real online political crush (especially "The Corner"), I find it easier and easier to blow off these days. That's mostly because they can't keep their popery in check. And because they're too self-absorbed.
Anyway, to get to my point, you should really check out the last few days of their "Media Blog" wherein Stephen Spruiell really rips Ronnie Earle a new one. I mean, okay: Tom DeLay is a creepy man and a bully, too. But Earle? This clown has gone plum haywire.
And he's going to be in a movie about this shit? One that he's basically making possible? Jesus! I hope DeLay walks ---just as a slap at Earle for such an inexcusable indiscretion.
Mass Murderer Blames America for His Country's Collapse, Receives Applause Mood: don't ask
Robert Mugabe, the "president" of Zimbabwe and a psychotic murderer, has accused the United States and Great Britain of harming his country ---presumably by keeping alive with food donations those who survive his campaigns of murder:
President Mugabe drew applause at a United Nations conference on hunger yesterday when he said Britain and the United States were to blame for his country's economic collapse.
In a diversion from his scripted speech at the World Food Day event organised by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, Mr Mugabe called Tony Blair and George W Bush "the unholy alliance of the millennium".
He then compared the two world leaders to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and accused them of interfering in the domestic affairs of countries such as his own.
Mr Mugabe made his attack after a speech in which he patted himself on the back for the "long overdue" land reforms started five years ago in which land was forcibly taken from white farmers.
The reforms sent the economy, which once provided food for the region, into a tail-spin, leaving it dependent on international aid for survival.
The US alone has donated almost $300 million (?166 million) in food aid to Zimbabwe since 2002.
I don't know what kinds of chattering toilet bowl brushes were in attendance at this conference, but we can be sure that they are degenerate heathens who deserve to be burnt at the stake. Rome used to be a great city for that kind of thing, you know.
Even Ratfucking Begins with Foreplay Now Playing: "Can't Get There from Here" by R.E.M.
Courtesy of Duncan Black, have a look at this post over at Editor & Publisher. It is a letter from former CBS News national security correspondent Bill Lynch on the subject of New York Times reporter Judith Miller's apparent possession of a security clearance from the Department of Defense, which she would have needed as an embedded reporter with the United States military. Says Lynch (hyperlink added):
There is one enormous journalism scandal hidden in Judith Miller's Oct. 16th first person article about the (perhaps lesser) CIA leak scandal. And that is Ms. Miller's revelation that she was granted a DoD security clearance while embedded with the WMD search team in Iraq in 2003.
This is as close as one can get to government licensing of journalists and the New York Times (if it knew) should never have allowed her to become so compromised. It is all the more puzzling that a reporter who as a matter of principle would sacrifice 85 days of her freedom to protect a source would so willingly agree to be officially muzzled and thereby deny potentially valuable information to the readers whose right to be informed she claims to value so highly.
Hmmm. The plot thickens. But it gets better (emphasis added):
I am a former White House and national security correspondent and have had plenty of access to classified information. When I divulged it, it was always with a common sense appraisal of the balance between any potential harm done and the public's right to know. If I had doubts, I would run it by officers whose judgement I trusted. In my experience, defense and intelligence officials routinely share secrets with reporters in the full expectation they will be reported. But if any official had ever offered me a security clearance, my instincts would have sent me running. I am gravely disappointed Ms. Miller did not do likewise.
So, here's an example of a news media reporter who had "plenty" of access to classified information that he divulged. Does this mean that we will now be treated to the farce of liberals and Leftists complaining that we've been learning too much from our Government? Why wasn't it treason when Lynch was divulging classified information without a security clearance?
Oh, I'm not going to say it's because he was with CBS News! Ha, ha, ha...
Scramble, comrades! Gotta get that story straight!
Get Some of Captain B
Here's a few thoughts on yesterday's constitutional referendum in Iraq from a Marine who's there:
Now as the country has made a milestone achievement they have democracy in motion. As Americans we want things done yesterday and have little patience for things not produced now. Patience is what is needed here and the coward left wing bed wetters won’t understand that. Iraq is where the US was 200 yrs ago. Will their constitution change? Yes of course as ours still changes to this day. Will there be continued fighting? Yes, there are plenty of scumbags here that need to be delt with as they recognize that their days are numbered now since they couldnt alter the elections. The fact that there wasn’t a major mass casualty of voters, SBVIED in polling centers or assassinations conducted that the foaming mouth reporters could get in the middle of just reinforces how far the Iraqi forces have come and how they are getting stronger than the scumbags. Reporter’s countrywide saturated the area days prior to the elections to hopefully catch the US forces failing. Well to damn bad it didn’t happen so pound sand!
Heh, heh. "Left wing bed wetters."
Keep up the good work, Captain. Many, many of your countrymen are proud of you.
Consensual Sects
Via the Voice of America, this is good news ---unless you're a Democrat (emphases mine):
Election officials in Iraq say as many as 65 percent of eligible voters may have turned out to vote in Saturday's referendum on the country's draft constitution. VOA Correspondent Alisha Ryu visited polling sites throughout Baghdad and reports, despite insurgent threats to disrupt the referendum, the day turned out to be one of the most peaceful in months.
They officials say at least eight of Iraq's 18 provinces had a turnout of more than 66 percent and seven posted a moderate turnout of more than 33 percent.
The officials say the expected overall turnout rate would surpass the 58 percent recorded during January's elections, when an overwhelming number of Shi'ite Muslims and Kurds defied insurgent violence and went to the polls to elect a new interim government.
Iraq's Sunni Arab community largely boycotted January elections and, as a result, had little representation in the current interim government, and limited input in the committee that drafted the constitution.
Preliminary figures show that, this time, a large number of Sunni Arabs joined Shi'ites and Kurds in participating in the referendum. But unlike most Shi'ites and Kurds, the majority of Sunnis say they voted "no" for a constitution they say has the potential to start a civil war.
But guess what. When you use your opponent's terms and methods, you concede their legitimacy.
That's what the Sunnis did today.
Congratulations, friends. You are going deeper and deeper into the glorious mess called democratic rule. But don't worry: if it weren't messy, they'd call it totalitarianism.
Git Carter
I can't remember exactly how the newsreader put it, but as I was listening to NPR this evening, it was reported that British playwright Harold Pinter had won the Nobel for literature ---and the woman says that his prize might be seen as part of the Swedish Academy's growing antipathy towards President Bush and America. This would be because Pinter is very explicit in judging America to be the most reviled society in the history of the world.
Might's ass, you know?
If these socialist rectal thermometers could dig up Che Guevara and hang a medal around his neck, they'd do it with moist eyes and starched pants. They just gave the anti-American Mohammed el-Baradei their little peace prize for no apparent reason, just as they gave the worst President of my lifetime his own medal a few years ago ---as an explicit rebuke to his own country. And the wretched bastard took it, too.
Fuck a bunch of cracker-assed commies. Sweden stopped mattering centuries ago. The Nobel is a concoction of Leftist conceit and self-delusion. Fuck 'em all.
"A Favorable Straw"
Tom Maguire says that this is potentially good news for those hoping that no indictments are handed up to the White House in the Plame Matter:
[...] four senior House Democrats wrote to [special prosecutor] Mr. Fitzgerald in a letter dated Oct. 12, urging him to issue a final report to Congress when he concludes his inquiry. Such a report, they said, should address "all indictments, convictions and any decisions not to prosecute."
The letter was signed by the top Democrats on their respective committees: John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, Judiciary Committee; Jane Harman of California, Intelligence Committee; and Tom Lantos of California, International Relations Committee. The letter was also signed by Rush D. Holt of New Jersey, the senior Democrat on the intelligence panel's policy subcommittee.
A report, the letter said, would assure the public that "the investigation of this serious matter has been undertaken with utmost diligence and has been free of partisan, political influence."
The representatives said Mr. Fitzgerald had the authority to issue such a report under the terms of his appointment as special counsel at the Justice Department.
Are these top Democrats thinking that Fitzgerald's investigation is about to wrap up without any frogmarched architects to show for it? Maybe. But we know that the statutes under which a prosecution might come are either extremely narrow or potentially chilling (see this post from Monday on the latter point). If Fitzgerald declines to prosecute those whom everyone expects will be prosecuted, the conspiracy freaks will absolutely hyperventilate.
There is only one bottom line here: Democrats want to see Karl Rove indicted. That would mean more to them than a dozen Tom DeLays ---whom they regard as merely sleazy--- while Rove's destruction would be metaphysical and spiritually redemptive to these wankers.
Let us hope they are disappointed. I simply cannot bear to see Joe Wilson elevated to the status of cult hero he so desperately craves.
The Worst Metaphor I've Read All Day Mood: loud
Over at Eschaton, where I've been contracted by K*** R*** to play a cross between Groucho Marx and an Everlast punching bag, the regulars are always imploring each other to "ignore the trolls." It's a laughably illogical thing to do because it's a wish born dying. Nevertheless, these people cannot help themselves.
Tonight, though, came the following gem which I simply must record here for posterity and the sake of bad writing. Thanks to commenter Quentin Compson, here's an all-time classic:
Please do not feed the retards. Please, I love to watch them die in pools of impotent ignoring.
Blithering Mood: don't ask
This is what the President of the United States said today in response to a reporter when she asked why the White House has found it necessary to reassure conservatives that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian (emphasis mine, although you can bet it's pretty much his):
People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background; they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion. Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas. I remind people that Harriet Miers is one of the -- has been rated consistently one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States. She's eminently qualified for the job. And she has got a judicial philosophy that I appreciate; otherwise I wouldn't have named her to the bench, which is -- or nominated her to the bench -- which is that she will not legislate from the bench, but strictly interpret the Constitution.
First ---and last--- of all, this is rank stupidity. When I was thinking about who might make a good Supreme Court nominee, it didn't occur to me that it should be one who meets James Dobson's standards of evangelical purity. If Dick Durbin, who is a traitor, is also a cocksucker for intimating to John Roberts that there might be some question raised about Roberts' Catholicism during his confirmation hearings for the Chief Justiceship, then what does that make your people for suggesting that everybody needs to get behind good old Harriet because she's an evangelical?
That is to say, fuck this crony bullshit. Fuck it with its halo on and fuck it for being ill-considered, unprepared, and supremely disappointing. I don't know who this fucking egomaniacal clown of a minister is, but I wouldn't waste my third bar-piss of the night on the knot in "Doctor" Dobson's tie. Be "assured" of that, you name-dropping, influence-peddling cross-monger. You aren't the arbiter of jack shit outside of your own little Jonestown, so sod off. Hit the bricks. Go sink your putt.
And, Mr. President, I'm going to hold my tongue for you, but you best get your head and your ass wired together and tend to what I voted for you to do: win this war against the towelheads. If you have to pull a Nixon and wander off into the woods of Camp David while we carpet bomb every motherfucking village in al-Anbar, then do it. If you have to go next door and firebomb Damascus, then do it. I didn't vote for you because I like your common touch; I voted for you because I expect you to deliver devastation to the enemies of Civilization. Do it and quit trying to convince people that this choice of yours for the SCOTUS wasn't the enormous fucking disaster we all know it is.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 7:56 PM CDT
|
Post Comment |
Permalink
Updated: Saturday, 15 October 2005 1:07 AM CDT
Tuesday, 11 October 2005
Great Timing
I saw KEYE-TV's Keith Elkins interviewing Jason Earle a while ago and just had to wince. Earle, who is the son of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, has chosen today to formally announce that he will run for Representative in the Texas State Legislature.
Unfortunately for Jason, an hour or so before this interview, his dad got subpoenaed by the lawyers for Tom DeLay.
I don't know what Jason's qualifications are for elective office, but we do know that he has very large balls to be running for the House in Republican-dominated District 47.
Have fun, kid, because that's all you're going to get out of this little trip you're on.
The Bounds of Silence Now Playing: that sound FOX uses when a bulletin item comes up on the screen
Professor Reynolds directs our attention to this very interesting Jack Shafer column in Slate in which we face the practical consequences of prosecuting government officials who talk to reporters about any sort of classified subject. If Patrick Fitzgerald is looking to indict Karl Rove and Lewis Libby under the broadest possible anti-espionage law, writes Shafer:
What would the long-term journalistic implications be? For one thing, no Department of Defense, National Security Council, Department of State, or White House staffer with security clearances would ever speak—on or off the record—to any reporter about any sensitive topic. The sheer legal exposure would prove too much. Knowing they're explicitly liable for indictment, they'll just stop talking to reporters.
At which point, the health of the body politic would suffer. I assume that even ignorant assholes (i.e., Democrats who take the Sunday paper) understand the chilling effects of this, too.
Maybe. But, for now, we must endure the farce of anti-Bush Leftists making a show of their concern for the safety of intelligence agents.
Loudmouth Matthews
What is this incredible crap that Chris Matthews is talking on Hardball right now? Is anybody listening to this gibberish? He and Howard Fineman and some fruitbat from Vanity Fair are just the worst cageful of shit-flinging monkeys I've seen in a while.
Get a grip, Matthews. Your boy Joe Wilson isn't any sort of prophet or martyr to the anti-war cause and nobody gives a damn what his opinions of the War for Iraq are.
The FACT is that Wilson was WRONG about the Saddamites' attempts at procuring uranium in Africa ---and the United States Senate as well as an independent governmental inquiry in Britain said so.
Wilson is the single best example I can think of to demonstrate the old totalitarian strategem of repeating a lie often enough until it becomes the truth. Big Media has absolutely misreported what Wilson found out on his Nigerien vacation ---and nobody seems willing to point this out. Why?
Freeh's Interview with Wallace
I enjoyed former FBI director Louis Freeh's interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes tonight. I don't know how much of what Freeh said is true, but I do enjoy seeing a major organ of the liberal media establishment giving in every once in a while to a meaningfully anti-Clinton point of view.
I hope we hear more about Clinton's conversation with Abdullah: did Clinton really hit him up for a donation to the Double-Wide Library Fund? Jeeze. And Clinton declined to go after the plotters of the Khobar Towers atrocity because he was trying to make nice with the mullahs in Iran? That deserves a lot more attention in the Big Media, I think.
My favorite statement from Freeh was that he refused to leave his job until it was no longer possible for Clinton to replace him. That's a remarkable judgement on Clinton's indifference to law enforcement in itself, don't you think?
Fisking Steve Soto Now Playing: "Cold As Ice" by Foreigner
Steve Soto is complaining that CBS News is so timid from the ass-beating they took last year over the infamous Killian Forgeries that they are now taking orders from the White House.
No. Really. Soto begins:
During the flap over Dan Rather’s botched “60 Minutes” story on Bush’s TANG service and the memos used in that story, I had focused my fire on the fact that the Mighty Wurlitzer had never disproved the content of the memos, but managed to kill the story by blasting the sloppiness of CBS News and the composition of the memos themselves. The issue that remained at the end of the day, after the left and the right boomed their fire and fury about the memos, was the issue of how poorly CBS News had performed in putting the story together in the first place.
Soto keeps calling the Killian Forgeries "memos," but they are not. They are forgeries. They are made-up bullshit that never existed as memos in any sense whatsoever.
And Soto persists with the absurdly Ratheresque claim that these phony documents ---which, again, he doesn't actually acknowledge are phony--- are accurate in their substance, even if ---mumble, mumble--- they are, uh, somehow ---mumble, mumble--- fake.
This wasn't about "sloppiness" or poor quality control ---and it still isn't incumbent upon the Bush White House to prove the negative.
Soto continues (all emphases mine):
That story has surfaced again, with tonight’s “60 Minutes” piece on former FBI Director Louis Freeh, wherein Freeh gets to tout his book and allege that Bill Clinton went easy on the Saudis when it came to going after Al Qaeda and those behind the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. Freeh goes so far as to claim that not only did Clinton let the Saudis off the hook, but he put the arm on them at the meeting for a contribution to his presidential library project.
What does Soto mean by saying that "that story has surfaced again"? What do the Killian Forgeries, Dan Rather, and Mary Mapes have to do with the new Freeh book?
Absolutely nothing. But Soto wants to tie them together, anyway, and hopes you don't recognize the illegitimacy of his efforts. He continues:
The issue of media accountability and evenhandedness came up at the end of last week when Howard Kurtz revealed that CBS News, still smarting from the whipping they got from the White House over the TANG memo disaster, had slanted the story so much that they refused to allow a rebuttal to Freeh’s charges in the piece unless it was the president himself who agreed to go on camera, something that “60 Minutes” has never required Bush to do.
I never found any evidence that Kurtz made such an explicit claim. Is Soto the one making the claim that CBS News will only accept Clinton's direct denials of Freeh's claims because of their bad experiences with the Rathergate debacle? That is pretty astounding, if true. Soto goes on:
With pressure building over the last several days for CBS News to provide a balanced piece tonight instead of a piece of GOP propaganda using a man who himself blocked John O’Neill from going after the Saudis, Kurtz reports that morning that “60 Minutes” will allow a rebuttal of sorts tonight in the piece through the addition of a statement from somewhat discredited Clinton national security advisor Sandy “I stuffed the papers in my pants” Berger that will contradict Freeh’s claims. Berger is the less-than-perfect choice for this assignment, and CBS News will probably point this out during the piece.
So, after all this bluster and nonsense, it turns out that CBS News is going to let someone speak on Clinton's behalf after all ---the only problem being that it's a convicted thief and liar who'll be doing it. Well, who's fault is that, Steve? Doesn't the fact that someone is coming on to defend Clinton make any difference?
But what is really troubling about this story, aside from the chutzpah of someone like Freeh accusing anyone else of going easy on the Saudis, is the agenda shown by CBS News in going after Clinton on this story, given that they were ready to air this story tonight without a rebuttal and without talking to anyone who was at the meeting in question. You see, CBS News was ready to air this story tonight on Freeh’s claims, when it turns out that Freeh himself wasn’t even at the meeting wherein he claims that Clinton asked the Saudis for a contribution and went easy on them regarding the Khobar Towers bombing.
But on whose authority are we accepting that fact? How do we know that Mike Wallace didn't make an effort to talk to those guys on camera? I mean, if there were so many witnesses who are so interested in defending Clinton's honor, why can't they come on camera and do so?
And worse yet, Mike Wallace was told that there were at least five people who attended the meeting who could dispute Freeh’s allegations, and he was also told that Freeh wasn’t even at the meeting himself. Yet Wallace, “60 Minutes”, and CBS News were ready to put the smear on Clinton tonight anyway.
What smear? Berger's on deck to say that Freeh's not telling the truth. And the other witnesses are free to come on any venue they want (maybe Madame Couric's program or Air America?) to deny the accusations. There's five of them, after all! And, unlike Jerry Killian, I'll bet they're all alive, too.
This is the kind of media treatment the GOP buys for itself by slapping around CBS News over the TANG disaster. It looks like Andrew Heyward, chief at CBS News, was quite ready to be the White House’s puppet, after getting a hall pass from them in the aftermath of the TANG mess. And had it not been for Kurtz’ piece in Friday’s Post, which was the first time the Clinton camp had even heard that CBS News was ready to run the smear without rebuttal, Heyward was all set to deliver exactly what the White House hoped from its investment.
As I already told Soto, I'm not going to even ask for any evidence that the White House has bought or obtained editorial control over CBS News because we both know it's bullshit, from floor to ceiling.
I've seen more responsible analysis on the walls of pub restrooms.
Not incidentally, here's the link to the Kurtz column from last Friday which Soto references. See if you find anything about the White House paying or pressuring CBS News with regard to this Freeh story.
cool
don't ask
loud
