New Developments II

[Sonic Youth]

Yup, you're gullible.

Worse than gullible. You don't even comprehend the stories you post. The New York Times article says, "The book [Hubris] quotes Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of the intelligence and research bureau at the State Department, as saying that Mr. Armitage had told him, 'I may be the guy who caused this whole thing,'’’ So, he doesn't even know.

The article also says Armitage "had seen a written memorandum by Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman.

"Mr. Grossman had taken up the task of finding out about Ms. Wilson after an inquiry from I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney."

See? A whole brouhaha going on with Plame's identity among the administration.

The story doesn't disprove any claims you think have been shot down. It does not clear Rove or Libby. It does not prove Armitage was the original leaker. It does not prove no one else tried to leak Plame's identity.

In that idiotic article you provided from Real Clear Politics, Jack Kelly writes:

"Mr. Isikoff and Mr. Corn write that: 'the Plame leak in Novak's column has long been cited by Bush administration critics as a deliberate act of payback, orchestrated to punish and/or discredit Joe Wilson after he charged that the Bush administration had misled the American public about prewar intelligence.'

"They add, lamely, that: 'The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework.'"

And that's the closest he ever comes to "proof" that the Administration was not trying to bring down Wilson and Plame. You couldn't find a lamer article if you tried.

Your articles don't prove or disprove anything, and the RealClearPolitics.com article you posted in all naivety takes a single inconclusive sentence from an entire book and heaps moldy wingnut rhetoric and lies on top of it. For the nth time, your willingness to believe what you so achingly want to be true has played you for a fool.

Give up, already.

[criddic3]

Here you go: so much for "lies" that I am too gullible not to believe.

Armitage Admits Role in CIA Leak

And One More for Good Measure

[Sonic Youth]

Obscene.

Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
by Derrick Z. Jackson
The Boston Globe

More than 2,600 US soldiers have died in Iraq. July's toll for Iraqi civilians was 3,500, the deadliest month of the US occupation. Iraq's civil war is on pace to kill 25,000 to 30,000 civilians by year's end. If you add in the tens of thousands of deaths from the 2003 invasion (we do not know the exact number because the Pentagon won't comment), researchers will inevitably say that the body count has crossed 100,000.

All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein.

The litany of US mistakes and excessive force has the Pentagon commissioning at least two secret strategy studies in Afghanistan and Iraq. ``This is a struggle for the soul of the Army," said Colonel Peter Mansoor, the head of the Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center.

Just as odorous, a mountain of corporate cash grows next to the piles of bodies. In this bizarre war where Iraqi civilians fear both suicide bombers and the United States, the biggest sacrifice that President Bush asked of American civilians was to get on a plane and show those terrorists a thing or two by going to Disney World.

Defense contractors took that request to a logical extreme. They built their own fantasy land.

There is no evidence of a contractor having a soul in the 13th annual Executive Excess CEO survey by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank, and the Boston-based United for a Fair Economy. The report found that 34 defense CEOs have been paid nearly $1 billion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

As soldiers have died in displaying personal patriotism, the pay gap between soldiers and defense CEOs has exploded. Before 9/11, the gap between CEOs of publicly traded companies and army privates was already a galling 190 to 1. Today, it is 308 to 1. The average army private makes $25,000 a year. The average defense CEO makes $7.7 million.

``Did this surprise us? No, because we've been watching since Sept. 11," said Betsy Leondar-Wright, communications director for United for a Fair Economy. ``While the rest of us were worrying about terrorism and mourning the people who died, the CEOs were maneuvering their companies to take advantage of fear and changing oil supply, not just for competition but for personal enrichment."

The top profiteers after 9/11 were the CEOs of United Technologies ($200 million), General Dynamics ($65 million), Lockheed Martin ($50 million), and Halliburton ($49 million). Other firms where CEO pay the last four years added up to $25 million to $45 million were Textron, Engineered Support Systems, Computer Sciences, Alliant Techsystems, Armor Holding, Boeing, Health Net, ITT Industries, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh Truck, URS, and Raytheon.

While Army privates died overseas earning $25,000 a year, David Brooks, the disgraced former CEO of body-armor maker DHB, made $192 million in stock sales in 2004. He staged a reported $10 million bat mitzvah for his daughter. The 2005 pay package for Halliburton CEO David Lesar, head of the firm that most symbolizes the occupation's waste, overcharges, and ghost charges on no-bid contracts, was $26 million, according to the report's analysis of federal Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

``Those examples take the cake, especially because it's all related to their government contracts, which is money straight out of the taxpayer's pocket," Leondar-Wright said.

The Executive Excess report, with the help of the Wall Street Journal's 2006 survey of executive compensation, made similar observations of oil executives as their firms enjoy record profits during war. The pay gap between the average oil and gas CEO and the average oil worker is 518 to 1. The general national CEO to worker gap is 411 to 1. The report said that the typical oil construction laborer would have to work 4,279 years to match the $95 million pay last year for Valero Energy CEO William Greehey.

This is so out of line that the authors of the Executive Excess report recommend wartime pay restraints for defense CEOs and a permanent congressional watchdog panel for contract fraud and waste. Companies that cannot adhere to restraints should be ineligible for contracts, they said.

The report said ``democracies decay when one segment of society flourishes at another's expense." Leondar-Wright said, ``It is now at the point where we have lost any sense of proportion. There is no sense of shared sacrifice, no sense that we're all in this together." Spreading democracy to Iraq is far-fetched when defense and oil CEOs speed its decay at home. They are all in it for themselves, at our expense.

[Sonic Youth]

Oh-oh. Turns out our favorite conservative cineaste is reading right-wing rags and believing everything he reads again. That article is full of brand-new lies and misinformation to go along with the tired old lies and misinterpretations about the Plame affair. I guess some people think they can throw out a link to a biased right-wing columnist, and everyone will fall at their feet admitting they were right and we were wrong. How naive and gullible.

[criddic3]

White House Didn't Target Wilson

I thought there was a Plame Thread in Politics Off-Topic, but couldn't find it, so I am posting this here. Interesting how such a huge so-called scandal has fizzled out into such a non-conspiracy. So many people and articles suggested that the administration was so eager to destroy Joseph Wilson for allegedly revealing corrupt reasons for going to Iraq. We finally now know that none of it was true. All those people who said Bush lied will have to try to come to term with reality once and for all. I know some will never be able to admit they were wrong. Goes to show that hatred/bitterness can be blinding.

[Sonic Youth]

Experts warn U.S. is coming apart at the seams

By Chuck McCutcheon
Newhouse News Service

WASHINGTON — A pipeline shuts down in Alaska. Equipment failures disrupt air travel in Los Angeles. Electricity runs short at a spy agency in Maryland.

None of these recent events resulted from a natural disaster or terrorist attack, but they may as well have, some homeland security experts say. They worry that too little attention is paid to how fast the country's basic operating systems are deteriorating.

"When I see events like these, I become concerned that we've lost focus on the core operational functionality of the nation's infrastructure and are becoming a fragile nation, which is just as bad — if not worse — as being an insecure nation," said Christian Beckner, a Washington analyst who runs the respected Web site Homeland Security Watch (www.christianbeckner.com).

The American Society of Civil Engineers last year graded the nation "D" for its overall infrastructure conditions, estimating that it would take $1.6 trillion over five years to fix the problem.

"I thought [Hurricane] Katrina was a hell of a wake-up call, but people are missing the alarm," said Casey Dinges, the society's managing director of external affairs.

British oil company BP announced this month that severe corrosion would close its Alaska pipelines for extensive repairs. Analysts say this may sideline some 200,000 barrels a day of production for several months.

Then an instrument landing system that guides arriving planes onto a runway at Los Angeles International Airport failed for the second time in a week, delaying flights.

Those incidents followed reports that the National Security Agency (NSA), the intelligence world's electronic eavesdropping arm, is consuming so much electricity at its headquarters outside Washington that it is in danger of exceeding its power supply.

"If a terrorist group were able to knock the NSA offline, or disrupt one of the nation's busiest airports, or shut down the most important oil pipeline in the nation, the impact would be perceived as devastating," Beckner said. "And yet we've essentially let these things happen — or almost happen — to ourselves."

The Commission on Public Infrastructure at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, said in a recent report that facilities are deteriorating "at an alarming rate."

It noted that half the 257 locks operated by the Army Corps of Engineers on inland waterways are functionally obsolete, more than one-quarter of the nation's bridges are structurally deficient or obsolete, and $11 billion is needed annually to replace aging drinking-water facilities.

President Bush, asked about the problem during a public question-and-answer session in an April visit to Irvine, Calif., cited last year's enactment of a comprehensive law reauthorizing highway, transit and road-safety programs.

"Infrastructure is always a difficult issue," Bush acknowledged. "It's a federal responsibility and a state and local responsibility. And I, frankly, feel like we've upheld our responsibility at the federal level with the highway bill."

But experts say the law is riddled with some 5,000 "earmarks" for projects sought by members of Congress that do nothing to systematically address the problem.

"There's a growing understanding that these programs are at best inefficient and at worst corrupt," said Everett Ehrlich, executive director of the CSIS public infrastructure commission.

Ehrlich and others cite several reasons for the lack of action:

• The political system is geared to reacting to crises instead of averting them.

• Some politicians don't see infrastructure as a federal responsibility.

• And many problems are out of sight and — for the public — out of mind.

"You see bridges and roads and potholes, but so much else is hidden and taken for granted," said Dinges of the Society of Civil Engineers. "As a result, people just don't get stirred up and alarmed."

But a few politicians are starting to notice. In March, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., joined Sens. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Tom Carper, D-Del., in sponsoring a bill to set up a national commission to assess infrastructure needs.

That same month, the CSIS infrastructure commission issued a set of principles calling for increased spending, investments in new technologies and partnerships with business. Among those signing the report were Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

"Infrastructure deficiencies will further erode our global competitiveness, but with the federal budget so committed to mandatory spending, it's unclear how we are going to deal with this challenge as we fall further and further behind in addressing these problems," Hagel said in a speech last year. "We need to think creatively."

[Sonic Youth]

Animal House in the West Wing

He loves to cuss, gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him, and now we're learning that the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides, but forget about getting people to gas about that.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews....ead.htm

[Damien]

From the London newspaper, The Independent:

BUSH IS CRAP, SAYS PRESCOTT
Deputy PM criticises US handling of Middle East, condemning 'cowboy' President at private meeting

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
17 August 2006

John Prescott has given vent to his private feelings about the Bush presidency, summing up George Bush's administration in a single word: crap.

The Deputy Prime Minister's condemnation of President Bush and his approach to the Middle East could cause a diplomatic row but it will please Labour MPs who are furious about Tony Blair's backing of the United States over the bombing of Lebanon.

The remark is said to have been made at a private meeting in Mr Prescott's Whitehall office on Tuesday with Muslim MPs and other Labour MPs with constituencies representing large Muslim communities. Muslim MPs wanted to press home their objections to British foreign policy and discuss ways of improving relations with the Muslim communities.

[Damien]

Don't know which is the appropriate thread for this:

Hollywood reaction

Incidentally, director Richard Donner who signed this letter donated money to the Ned Lamont campaign.

[criddic3]

Don't know which is the appropriate thread for this:

Hollywood reaction

[criddic3]

You have your view and I have mine.

By the way, I agree that Cheney's remarks about lamont winning were over-the-top. But in his opinion, Lamont would only exacerbate the current terrorist problems by withdrawing from the reality and not facing the threat. Whether this is true is up to Lamont to clarify to the voters of Connecticut. We know where Lieberman stands on this issue. He believes that the terrorists should be taken on and that Iraq has to be a fullfilled mission in order for us to have the best chance of changing the region for that goal. However, I don't believe that al-Qaeda is necessarily emboldened by his Primary win.

[although what your mother's age has to do with this i'm not sure.]

[Damien]

Oscar Guy, I'm done with responding to criddic's nonsense, but on the issue of the Bush administration exploiting terror, you might want to remind criddic of Cheney's accusing my 84-year-old mother (who served as an army nurse in World War 2) of enabling and supporting Al Qaeda. (She voted for Ned Lamont.)

[OscarGuy]

Since you won't face any other reality checks, you'll pardon me if I don't buy that line of crap.

There is NO ONE in America who doesn't realize that we are hated by other nations and groups around the world and many of them would love to do us in. I don't think ANYONE has ever said they don't believe that.

However, there's a difference between mentioning something and using it for political gain. You say it's the administration trying to remind us that terrorism is out there but it seems more and more clear, with all the evidence showing that the plot was uncovered too soon and they could have gotten more information had they let the plot continue and that it was the Bush Administration that forced Britain to reveal the plot early. There's only one reason why: They didn't want the intel, they wanted to use it for political gain.

The vain leading the blind...

I don't have any respect for someone who can sit so blithely by and let himself be fooled by an administration that wants 2 lame duck years so it can wreak further havoc on the freedoms of Americans. They want to win this fall because it means that they will have free reign over the country for 2 years without impugnity...blind...blind...blind.

[criddic3]

It's not that I don't understand oscarguy. I simply disagree. When a plot like the one stopped last week is revealed, I think the government has an obligation to remind people that this is a reality. People do tend to forget that 9/11 wasn't an isolated incident. You'll accuse me of talking points, but President Bush has said all along that this wasn't just about al-qaeda. It wasn't just about one attack, but a mentality that we as Americans accepted as the norm for too long. Sorry if you don't feel that way, but it's one of the reasons I support President Bush. He understands (apparently better than some of you) that this isn't about fear-mongering. It's about a reality check. When people let their dislike of Bush to cloud their judgment about the War on Terror, or about terrorism in general, I have to question their ability to truthfully argue the issue. You might say my support of President Bush clouds my judgment, but my support isn't as fanatical as you like to believe. It's based on events that have happened over the course of the last few years. I see it being handled about as well as capably as I'd expect it to be. These aren't normal times. I respond to the realistic approach that the President has chosen to wage this war against terrorism. If he were to have reacted in the manner that some people seem to think he should: let it boil over: I would not support him.

[Sonic Youth]

The Nexus of Politics and Terror