Bloggledygook

Joe Wilson: Just Like Rosa Parks!

As one hero went on display, another was honored by the country that for a time, didn't know what it had.

But which hero is which?

The body of Rosa Parks laid in repose today at the Capital.

Elderly women carrying purses, young couples holding hands and small children in the arms of their parents reverently proceeded around the raised wooden casket. A Capitol Police spokeswoman, Sgt. Jessica Gissubel, said more than 30,000 passed through the Rotunda since Sunday evening, when the viewing began.

Many were overcome by emotion. Monica Grady, 47, of Greenbelt, Maryland, was moved to tears, she said, that Parks was "so brave at the time without really knowing the consequences" of her actions.

Meanwhile, another hero was whining explaining to Katie Couric just how hard life can be:

Wilson contends that his wife’s identity was deliberately revealed by the Bush administration to get back at him for publicly challenging U.S. prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Wilson added that “we have received threats” over their allegations and have had to change their phone listing as a result.

And they, they--gah! I can't take it!-- why, oh why does it have to be Joe! They had to CHANGE THEIR PHONE NUMBER!! What terrible fate awaits the Wilsons next? To Katie's question about the Wilson's "27 months of hell" Joe answered that OTHER AGENTS may have been compromised, which is serious. But hey, Joe, you and Valerie are in the US taking the twins to soccer practice. Tell us what the threats are. You talk about everything else, dontcha?

Joe actually had the nerve, God bless him, to talk of the attacks that have been leveled at him. What attacks you say? Hmmm, Joe wasn't specific on those. Maybe he's confusing disagreement and discrediting his arguments with attacking him. That's a common mistake in DC. But I'm sure there must have been some attacks. Why else would he say so?

For his agenda?

What agenda?

Oh, the Iraq agenda, the phony war based on phony evidence. Iiiiiii see...

But didn't Patrick Fitzgerald say at his press conference that no one should draw any inferences--pro or con--about the war based on the indictments?

Okay, we have to let that one slide.

So now he wants Karl Rove fired. Well, I want a Lamborghini. I have a feeling that both of us are going to be disappointed.

You know, I 'm starting to think that maybe we shouldn't be paying so much attention to Joe, after all he's not been all that truthful himself, has he?

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

You know, on second thought, maybe there was only one hero on the television today. The other, well, I haven't figured out what he is yet.

Saber Rattling From The Persian Front.

I am always, always emploring those who disagree with me on the motives, actions and rhetoric coming from Islamists that we should take them at their word. I threw off a post the other day about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his supposedly surprising words about the Muslim imperative to annihilate Israel. Well, it seems as if there are other nations on the president's list.

We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years. ...

The issue of this [World without Zionism] conference is very valuable. In this very grave war, many people are trying to scatter grains of desperation and hopelessness regarding the struggle between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels ...

Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved...

Red type in the original. DoctorZin goes on to quote Hassab Abbassi, Ahmadinejad's "chief strategic guru:"

We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization... we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.

But it is not only the US that Abbasi wants to take on and humiliate. He has described Britain as "the mother of all evils". In his lecture he claimed that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the Gulf states were all "children of the same mother: the British Empire." As for France and Germany, they are "countries in terminal decline", according to Abbasi.

See, even the Iranians don't take the French and Germany governments seriously.

The other day Hashemi Rafsanjani pulled Ahmadinejad's hind quarters out of the fire by saying that the Iranian goverment "ha[s] no problems with Jews." Rafsanjani is the once and possible president and the guy Ahmadinejad inexplicably beat for the post last time around. Rafsanjani is also the head of The Expediancy Council, which ia ostensibly set up with ultimate adjudicating powers in disputes between the Mullahs and the legislature. This month, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gave this council supervisory powers over the government, essentially making Rafsanjani Ahmadinejad's boss.

Why is this important? Because their is now a power play at work in Iran between the president and his de facto superior. Ahmadinejad may think that as his post has been weakened, he would do well to make statements that solidify his hard-line credentials. Or, by allowing him to make the odious remarks and then essentially taking them away (sort of-- Rafsanjani still wants Israel to be a memory) the two headed executive can play both sides and keep everybody wondering.

While it is no secret that the regime in Iran sees itself as the vanguard and inspiration of a grand Islamic revolution and an easy case can be made that it is Iran that is furnishing the Islamists with logistical and materiel support, at this point, there is not much evidence that war with Iran is imminent barring some overt attack on the US or Israel. Now, Ahmadinejad may be crazy enough to wish war with either state so as to bring about a conflagration, but unless Iran already has nukes, what would war do for the regime?

The real threat, and one in which the US had better be more on the ball this time around, is the nuclear threat. But if Iran would use nukes to attack Israel, there would not be much left in Iran for Ahmadinejad to govern.

What seems more likely is that Iran will continue to support al Qaeda and the like without much overt provocation save the belicose rantings of its figurehead president. And we should indeed pay attention to what he says and to what he does. This sort is always broadcasting their intentions before they ever get down to actually doing something. So we would be well advised to heed the warnings, even if we can't do much about them at the moment.

Sam Alito Is SCOTUS Nominee.

Sam Alito is the next nominee for Supreme Court Justice, the AP is reporting. So far I have seen him described as a radical right winger, a strong conservative judge and an "originalist," which is this year's version of strict constructionist, I guess. From the AP:

Bush believes that Alito has not only the right experience and conservative ideology for the job, but he also has a temperament suited to building consensus on the court. A former prosecutor, Alito has experience off the bench that factored into Bush's thinking, the officials said.

While Alito is expected to win praise from Bush's allies on the right, Democrats have served notice that his nomination would spark a partisan brawl. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Sunday that Alito's nomination would "create a lot of problems."

Judicial conservatives praise Alito's 15 years on the Philadelphia-based court, a tenure that gives him more appellate experience than almost any previous Supreme Court nominee. They say his record shows a commitment to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, ensuring that the separation of powers and checks and balances are respected and enforced. They also contend that Alito has been a powerful voice for the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and the free exercise of religion.

Liberal groups, on the other hand, note Alito's moniker and say his nomination raises troubling concerns, especially when it comes to his record on civil rights and reproductive rights. Alito is a frequent dissenter on the 3rd Circuit, one of the most liberal federal appellate benches in the nation.

In the early 1990s, Alito was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

So this will be the fight, I think, the one that both pro- and anti-choice sides want to have. I have read some about Alito over the weekend, and there's little doubt that this guy is a conservative. There is also little doubt that he has the resume and that if Bush can keep his party at home in the Senate, Alito has little to worry about, but if I was him, I wouldn't count on Specter and Chaffee.

There will be no hiding Alito's pro-life stand and all that money that was held back in the Roberts confirmation will be flying around freely. It's going to be an interesting holiday season.

One Way Street: Muslim Students And Free Speech.

I wish somebody would explain this to me. At some point, will everything ne considered an insult to Islam? Why the hell should we care if Islam is offended? And if Muslims don't like the concept of free speech, isn't that their problem? Look here:

An art exhibit that included photographs of nude Muslim women wearing only a head covering was taken down Thursday afternoon just hours after opening for public viewing at Harper College in Palatine.

Muslim students at the college protested to officials about the pieces on display in Building C.

Several students say the pieces — some showing young Muslim men with machine guns — were downright offensive.

“I think they should rip this down,” student Matt George said.

Another student, Hussein Ali, says a number of Muslim students at Harper now are thinking about leaving.

“The Muslim students are thinking about boycotting Harper because of this,” said Ali, 23, of Schaumburg.

Ahmad Basalat, 21, of Bartlett said the exhibit expressed hatred toward Muslims.

Rich Johnson, co-coordinator of international students at Harper, said the exhibit was an event put on in conjunction with the college’s art department.

The school invited Chicago photographer Amir Normandi to exhibit his works depicting Muslim women in Iran defying the wearing of the jilbab.

(h/t: LGF which also has a link to the offending photos. See for yourself).

I don't have a problem with the protest. Rudy got all bent out of shape over a dung-splattered Madonna and some religious group is always complaining about something. What pisses me off is that again, instead of saying "stuff it," like they would have to any other group, the exhibitors caved and took down the show. Why are Muslims exempt from being offended? Are the organizers afraid of reprisals? Doesn't that say something about the protesters?

When are we going to stop indulging this kind of extortion?

Three Blasts Kill Dozens In New Delhi.

Here's the story from Hindustan Times:

Three deafening blasts rocked crowded shopping centres in the Capital on Saturday, three days ahead of the Diwali festival, killing at least 35 people and injuring over 50, police said.

The first blast was reported at around 5.40 pm from the crowded Paharganj area, popular with foreign backpackers, and among the most congested areas in central Delhi close to the New Delhi Railway Station.

The other explosion occurred soon after in Sarojini Nagar, another busy shopping area in south Delhi, popular among the middle class and even foreigners.

Soon after there were reports of similar blasts from a few other areas, including Govindpuri, also a teeming market, in south Delhi.

Police immediately ordered all shopping centres in the capital to shut and appealed to the people to go back home, throwing a damper on the celebratory mood ahead of the grand festival of lights.

Am I the only one to think that this attack may have been aided by the relaxed restrictions between India and Pakistan in wake of the earthquake?

The Next Salvo In The Plame Wars: Wilson Claims Wife Threatened.

On 60 Minutes this Sunday, October 30, Joe Wilson tells Ed Bradley that his wife, Valerie Plame has been threatened. He does not say by whom she has been threatened:

"There have been specific threats [against Plame]. Beyond that I just can’t go," Wilson tells Bradley. Wilson says he and his wife have discussed security for her with "several agencies."

Former CIA colleagues say that by revealing her identity, harm could be caused to the CIA’s agents and operations. "If a CIA agent is exposed, then everyone coming in contact with that agent is exposed," says Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA agent who trained with Plame at the top-secret Virginia facility known as "the Farm." "There is a possibility that there were other agents that would use that same kind of a cover. So they may have been using Brewster Jennings just like her," said Marcinkowski, referring to the fictional firm the CIA set up as her cover that also came out when journalists, including Robert Novak, disclosed it.

Marcinkowski also points out, "[Plame] is the wife of an ambassador, for example. Now, since this happened…they’ll know there’s a possibility that the wife of a U.S. ambassador is a CIA agent."

Another friend, once a covert CIA operative, says people who say Plame wasn’t in a sensitive position need to understand how intricate a cover story is, regardless of what an agent is working on. "Cover is…for a clandestine officer, can be different things at different times. We change cover. We modify cover based on how we need it. But that cover is linked together," she tells Bradley. "If you start to unravel one part of that, you can unravel the whole thing."

This is the counter to pundits calling into question the status of Plame at the CIA. And this indicates that the players in this drama are nowhere near finished. Aside from the claims of Wilson (which in its formulation is meant to be asserted without having to offer corroboration) the larger issue will be that the leak of Plame's identity has damaged intelligence assets around the globe. Be prepared to hear the names Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen bandied about on the appropriate panels. Let's also not forget that there is the prospect that there could be a lawsuit to pump up here, also.

But of course this isn't the run-of-the-mill spy story, and Patrick Fitzgerald has as yet been unwilling or unable to expose the leaker. Presumably, at some point we will all hear who Official A is, (Rove is the odds-on favorite so far). There is much anticipation that Libby will be offered a plea deal to finger either Rove or Cheney and the pressure from critics will continue to stress the national security angle.

One can also make a safe bet that at some point, some prominent Democrat will make a statement in which treason is mentioned. The idea will be to play up the damage done to CIA operations around the world, the lives of agents put in jeopardy, the many friendly contacts now disappearing out of fear that their countries are onto them, etc.

This will be folded into the larger meme that this administration has lead the country into a disastrous war based on lies, that the war was prosecuted as at the behest of companies who carried top officials in their corporate pockets, that this is just one more example of an administration run amok and ready to retaliate against all critics. Prominent Democrats will openly talk of corruption and the need for further investigations.

For their part, Republicans are employing the best spin that they can muster, and look for their proxies to come out with canons afire against Wilson. But Wilson has already become bullet proof and attacks on him are likely to bounce off. In his opening statement, Fitzgerald couched his indictment in terms of national security and the need to protect the country's spies. That is the angle that will get the most traction, I think. Wilson can claim that his wife is in danger, and she might be, but every time he makes that case, their smiling visages from Vanity Fair will be displayed. So better to make it an issue of a grand scheme to slime a critic that ended up severely damaging the nation and, eventually some hope, will bring down an administration.

What is hardly metioned in all this is that Wilson must have believed that he was immune from criticism vis-a-vis the administration. He knew that the vice president didn't tap him for his Niger adventure, but that his wife had made the suggestion. He knew that his story couldn't be countered without the truth about the genesis of his trip coming out. He thought that his enemies would then either have to keep their mouths shut or face the prospect of being indicted for talking about Plame. Turns out he was right.

Read Michael Kinsley.

For the best article on Plame/Libby/Rove/Wilson/Yellowcake.

Fitzgerald News Conference.

Patrick Fitzgerald begins by stating that Valerie Plame was indeed under cover and that her true job was not at all known. His first statement encompassed national security and the blown cover of Plame.

The big push is that Libby gave information to reporters and not the other way around. Libby learned Plame's identity from government officials: a CIA agent, an Undersecretary of State and form Cheney and a Cheney staffer.

Why isn't Libby charged with leaking?

Fitzgerald says that the the investigation is not over. The obstruction charge is present because Fitzgerald cannot divine Libby's intent.

Michael Isikoff is asking about Official A. Fitzgerald offers a non-answer, saying he can't talk about a person not indicted, meaning by the way, Rove and Cheney also.

UPDATE: Fitzgerald is frustrating the reporters by refusing to speculate on any feature of Wilson's trip and Plame's role in that. He did make allusions to the harm done to Plame, but is not giving the media any ammunition for the Iraq angle.

Still, nothing about the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, merely that Fitzgerlad doesn't really know what happened so he has to claim that Libby threw up a roadblock to frustrate his investigation. I'm not so sure he will be able to make all of these charges stick.

UPDATE II: Those hoping for Fitzmas will likely be disappointed. Now there will be a whole new set of predictions and hopes. It's the gift that keeps on...never mind. I like TigerHawk's take:

First, the fact that the indictment does not name any underlying offense will substantially diminish the ultimate impact on the Bush presidency. Indeed, it may even revive the idea that once again a special prosecutor has ginned up a secondary or tertiary offense in what is properly a political fight. After Walsh and Starr, will the public -- beyond the usual partisans -- much care about obstruction and perjury? I think not.

Second, the fact that there is no charge for the underlying offense guts the sanctimonious and largely untrue accusation that the Bush administration undermined national security by outing Valerie Plame. The CIA has managed to do a lot of damage in this bureaucratic fight, but people will soon be asking Cardinalpark's question: why are we not outraged that the CIA was deliberately undermining the policies of an elected president? Langley may ultimately emerge from this case much the worse for wear.

Third, the absence of an underlying offense will make it much easier for Bush to pardon Libby, perhaps even before January 19, 2009.

Fourth, liberals who thought that perjury was a trivial procedural detail in 1998 will be full of outrage today. Conservatives who then believed that perjury was right there in the 7th or 8th circle of Hell will now characterize it as "driving 56."

Oh, and Terry Moran is still a dick.

The Head Of Libby, Libby, Libby On The Table, Table, Table.

So Scooter Libby is indicted on five counts for lying about both Russert and Cooper to FBI agents and to Fitzgerald under oath. Ther is also an obstruction of justice charge, which in my non-legal brain is the more important charge. Rove, for now is still under investigation. The indictment states that Libby had learned about Plame from the vice president and not from the reporters as he claimed and that he sought to hamper the investigation.

Speculation was that he lied in order to protect Cheney. What is very interesting is what is mentioned on page 8:

On or about July 10 or July 11 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

Who is Official A? This is to me the central point here. Libby may end up just being the guy that takes the fall for his boss, but the why don't we know what Robert Novak know, when and from whom?

And why would Libby, a seasoned and very competent lawyer allow himself to be caught making obviously false statements?

With Libby now resigned and Rove still under a cloud, the White House will be in major spin mode while the Democrats are already talking about the ramifications of the leak. Here's Harry Reid:

 

“These are very serious charges. They suggest that a senior White House aide put politics ahead of our national security and the rule of law.

“This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.

“It's now time for President Bush to lead and answer the very serious questions raised by this investigation. The American people have already paid too steep a price as a result of misconduct at the White House, and they deserve better.”

So it's not about a CIA agent, but about "national security" and manufacturing of intelligence by the White House to "bolster its case for war." This is the strategy then. The Plame case is a useful pretext for a larger initiative to discredit and go after Bush.

Fitzgerald did not bring charges for any underlying crime, and this will be part of the defense of GOP partisans. But this would be a mistake. Anybody will ask why would Libby lie if he didn't have anything to hide?

Another feature here is that there will be three (maybe four) reporters testifying in a trial against someone they have had business with. This is a bad day for Libby and a bad day for the press. Will we ever find out who Official A is?

Fitzgerald will have a press conference at 2:15.

T.E. Lawrence's "Peace Map."

Two weeks ago, a long-lost map drawn by T.E. Lawrence in 1918 went on exhibit at the Imperial War Museum in London. Some have dubbed it the "Peace Map" out of speculation that had Lawrence's map been adopted over that which had been arranged in the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, that the turmoil in the region over the last 90 years or so would not have happened. The thinking here is that the map is drawn with Arab sensitivities in mind, rather than European colonial prerogatives.

The map is a study in speculation. (Clicking the jpg to the left will bring up a larger image). Lawrence included a Kurdish state similar to that which is claimed by the Kurds in their negotiations on the Iraqi Constitution. He also groups modern-day Syria, Jordan and parts of Saudi Arabia into a kind of super-state drawn along tribal patterns and trade routes.

One can also see a country "IRAK" separated from the Kurds (he did not see a rationalization to split the Sunnis and Shiites) along with "PALESTINE" (Lawrence knew that the British were considering a Jewish homeland; also notice that Palestine encompasses both sides of the Jordan River) as well as "SINAI" (Egypt) and "FRENCH" where Lebanon sits today. The plan for Iraq was vehemently objected to by the British administration in Mesopotamia.

Jeremy Wilson, Lawrence's biographer (and adviser to the exhibition) says that the proposals illustrated on the map "would have provided the region with a far better starting point than the crude imperial carve-up agreed by Sykes and Georges-Picot." There is a very good case to be made that the British and French governments ignored the opinions of people who actually knew the region because of their own economic agendas with little or no regard for the ramifications to the people of the countries that had been conjured up and divvied out.

Whether or not adoption of Lawrence's map would have completely avoided the bloodshed that has plagued the region is open for debate, of course, and there would still have been the problem of Palestine. Also, Lawrence was still only guessing as to what tribal reactions would be. But it is an interesting exercise to wonder what would have happened if the region had been administered with more thought as to the consequences.