I've been too busy/too lazy to post lately. At present, I'm working on a story related to the fact that John Hoeven is the governor with the highest approval rating in all 50 states. Believe it or not, North Dakota does not usually make the news, so this is turning out to be more difficult than I'd thought.
On the dusty front... one of my roommates moved out, and Derek will be moving in to take his place. I just took a job delivering for Popolino's Pizza, which I think is the best local pizza value. It'll be nice to have some money coming in besides the stressful ups and downs of internet poker, and I hear that it's a laid-back, chilled-out place to work. Just my style. I also rearranged the furniture in my room a bit - roommate Adam just switched his room around, and it instilled in me feelings of longing. He said something about how it's good to change your space around once or twice a year, just to keep things fresh. I tried to consider principles of room feng shui as I was moving, but really the only thing I could do was move my bed away from the door. (It's considered bad for your energy if there's a direct line from your bed to your door. Something about qi (energy) slipping out of your room while you sleep. We'll see.)
Symbyax makes me very, very sleepy. I slept for 12 hours last night and still needed a nap.
Next story will post today or tomorrow. I promise.
July 30, 2005
July 18, 2005
gonna make $20 before the weekend's over
flipping through some photos tonight...
saw the two pix of myself in the ocean. they represent happiness, contentment. cheerful abandon.
when i look at them, i see myself, and i can't remember another time that i've been so awesome.
these two pictures, although technically imperfect and bereft of context, are tremendously important to me.
i think that i shall never lose them.
saw the two pix of myself in the ocean. they represent happiness, contentment. cheerful abandon.
when i look at them, i see myself, and i can't remember another time that i've been so awesome.
these two pictures, although technically imperfect and bereft of context, are tremendously important to me.
i think that i shall never lose them.
July 17, 2005
the chosen one
This weekend has been devoured by Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. At 672 pages, I could not read it in one afternoon, and not even two. No, instead the past three days have been devoted to the adventures of the Boy who Lived.
New story tomorrow. In the meantime, go to the fair or play outside or something - enjoy the fabulous weather while it lasts. ^_^
All the best,
dusty
New story tomorrow. In the meantime, go to the fair or play outside or something - enjoy the fabulous weather while it lasts. ^_^
All the best,
dusty
July 14, 2005
it hasn't started
***
(Before today's article, a couple of things:
1: This article is as much for my benefit as it is yours. By researching and writing it, I get a firm grasp of the facts involved with this OTHER very serious issue facing American politics today. Not an easy thing to do...especially considering the armies of breathless lefties demanding impeachment that are currently butting heads with the armies of right-wing bloggers and pundits who insist that anyone who would denigrate our President is gay. Hopefully you're a little better informed by the end, but at the end of the day, I do this so that I sound smarter at parties.
2: Whoever is leaving me text messages with no Caller ID or personal information attached... either identify yourself or stop it. I'm frustrated because I cannot reply to you, and you probably think I'm a jerk for ignoring you, when really I have no idea who you are or how to contact you and tell you "whats up." Oh, and if you're reading this, the answer is "nothin much, you?"
That is all. Grab some coffee or a cup of tea and enjoy today's story... it's pretty long, but the end makes it worthwhile.)
***
If you've been paying attention, you've known for a while that Karl Rove, the president's deputy chief of staff and all-star political mastermind, is in some hot water. If you haven't.... well, he is. There are two big deals about this story, which has been getting a lot of traction over the last couple of days. One is that Rove, widely considered to be the brains behind Bush's four election victories (two for Texas governor, two for Prez), has been brought before a grand jury investigating the exposure of an undercover CIA agent's identity. He may be criminally liable for exposing this person, whose name is Valerie Plame. Two is that when this whole situation first touched down, the President, through his beleaguered mouthpiece Scott McClellan, said that anybody who was involved with outing a CIA agent would be fired.
Last Monday, all of this became very interesting. That, however, is the final page of a story that begins in 2002.
Joe Wilson is a career diplomat with an impressive resume. He was the last U.S. official ever to meet with Saddam Hussein, he was the ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome/Principe under the first George Bush (what a sweet job!), and sat on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, helping to create policy toward Africa.
Wilson wrote an editorial for the New York Times, published July 6, 2003. From said article:
"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
"...After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
"I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
"Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
"Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure."
Wilson writes that his statement, that Niger most likely did not transfer nuclear material to Iraq, only confirmed what most analysts already thought. This, of course, was not what the Bush administration wanted to hear. Relying on dubious information from a year-old British report, the State of the Union address contained language about how "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantites of uranium from Africa."
Paragraph one of the Wilson editorial makes it clear how he feels about this situation. He effectively called out the Bush administration, accusing them of manipulating intelligence. (It turns out that's exactly what they were doing.) The White House has a long and documented history of firing, smearing, or otherwise retaliating against people who say things it doesn't want anybody to hear. So, what did they do when Joe Wilson blew the whistle on the biggest lie of all?
Robert Novak wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times about the Wilson editorial:
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate."
What Novak (and a whole slew of other people) supposedly didn't know is that Valerie Plame was under cover, working for a front company that maintained a network of contacts with the hope that the CIA would know if weapons of mass destruction started changing hands in parts of the world. So, when this article went to print, Plame's cover was blown, and the company she was working for was exposed as a front for the CIA.
That's pretty serious business. Plame was fighting the war on terror: she was literally working to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Her career was suddenly derailed, and her husband got the message: don't mess with the White House. After the Novak story, Wilson went on television for a few days and denounced whoever leaked the information to Novak (and, as it turns out, a couple of other reporters, too). He even mentioned the name Karl Rove, fingering him as a possible ultimate source for this information. Pundits and political junkies laughed to themselves, thinking of the other instances where Rove has been suspected (but never definitively caught) of leaking information. Little did we know....
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald issued subpoenas to Judith Miller, a reporter for the New York Times, and Matt Cooper, a reporter for TIME Magazine, in connection to the Valerie Plame leak investigation. Whoever leaked the information about Plame to Robert Novak, it seemed, also contacted Miller and Cooper. Miller never wrote a related story, but Cooper did, and it wasn't pretty, suggesting (in the words of prosecutor Fitzgerald) ... "that the conduct of the officials involved an attack on an administration critic, not whistle-blowing." Miller refused to cooperate, saying that her source wished to be anonymous, and that she would not reveal his name. She was subsequently jailed for contempt of court, and will be released either when she reveals the name of her source like the subpoena wants, or when the grand jury's investigation is complete.
Cooper initially refused to cooperate as well, also saying that his source wished to remain anonymous. TIME Inc., days before Cooper was to be thrown in jail, agreed to release the content of an e-mail Cooper sent to his bureau chief regarding who told him what he knew about the leak. On July 6th 2005, Cooper agreed to testify before the grand jury, saying he had heard from his source that it was okay with him if Cooper cooperated with the grand jury.
From ThinkProgress.org:
According to the Newsweek story today, at 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003 Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper sent the following e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy:
“Subject: Rove/P&C,” (for personal and confidential)
“Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation…” “please don’t source this to rove or even WH [White House]”
“it was, KR said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.”
The email continues with warnings about how Joe Wilson is not to be believed, supposedly because his wife authorized this cushy vacation/intelligence mission to the well-known tropical vacation paradise of... Niger.
So, Karl Rove called members of the media and told them, on double-super-secret background, that "wilson's wife" (Plame), who "works at the agency on wmd issues," "authorized the trip." Hell of a thing to say, since it doesn't really prove anything about Wilson other than that his wife is a CIA agent. Oops.
Rove went on the record in 2003 denying that he told anybody anything, and then slightly changed his tone, denying that he told any reporter Valerie Plame's name. Scott McClellan, White House press secretary, went on the record in 2003 as saying that Rove specifically had nothing to do with the leak. President Bush went on the record in 2003 as saying that he would fire anybody in his administration that would do such a treasonous thing.
Once word got out that Rove was the leak, the White House sang a different tune altogether. Here are excerpts from White House press events:
(July 11, 2003)
QUESTION: The Robert Novak column last week . . . has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that?
McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.
(September 29, 2003)
QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . .
McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it.
QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this . . .
McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.
QUESTION: How does he know that?
McCLELLAN: The President knows.
(September 30, 2003, press conference with President Bush)
QUESTION: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
QUESTION: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.
Now, we fast-forward to July 11th of this year, when it has become very clear that yes, Rove was involved, and moreso, he was the culprit. If I were McClellan, after taking a beating like this, I would have gone home early, stopping on the way only for a handle of Jim Beam and a bag of ice, and maybe a glass to put them in.
(July 11, 2005)
Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.
Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --
Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.
Go ahead, Terry.
Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.
And, finally, we come to yesterday's press briefing, where the White House press corps has finally decided that after five years of obfuscation, dodgery, and stonewalling, they would like an answer to some questions they are burning to ask:
(July 13, 2005)
Q Scott, some White House advisors expressed surprise that the President did not give a warm endorsement to Karl Rove when he was asked about him at the Cabinet meeting. They had expected that he would speak up. Can you explain why the President didn't express confidence?
McCLELLAN: Sure. He wasn't asked about his support or confidence for Karl. As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the President. This was not a question that came up in the Cabinet Room.
Q Well, the President has never been restrained at staying right in the lines of a question, as you know. (Laughter.) He kind of -- he says whatever he wants. And if he had wanted to express confidence in Karl Rove, he could have. Why didn't he?
McCLELLAN: He expressed it yesterday through me, and I just expressed it again….
Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?
McCLELLAN: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on this for two days now.
Q Even if it wasn't a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday -- perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House -- that when you're dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?
McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.
Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --
McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.
Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.
McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the President said he's not --
Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert agent in any way, shape, or form without first finding out whether that person is working as a covert officer.
McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, you're wrong. This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.
Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.
McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.
Q You haven't even scratched the surface.
Q (someone else) It hasn't started.
Q (yet another person) Can I ask for clarification on what the President said at Sea Island on June 10th of last year, when he was saying that he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved in the leak of classified information? What were the parameters for those consequences?
McCLELLAN: Again, I've nothing to add on this discussion, and if we have any other topics you want to discuss, I'll be glad to do that.
Q I'm going to go to another question, somewhat on the same subject, but a different vein. Let's talk about the Wilson family. Is there any regret from this White House about the effects of this leak on this family?
McCLELLAN: We can continue to go round and round on all these --
Q No, no, no, no. This has nothing to do with the investigation. This is about the leak and the effects on this family. I mean, granted there are partisan politics being played, but let's talk about the leak that came from the White House that affected a family.
McCLELLAN: And let me just say again that anything relating to an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to get into discussing. I've said that the past couple of days.
Q Scott, from Africa, Mrs. Bush says, Karl Rove is a very good friend of mine; I've known him for years. And she's not going to speculate on any other part of the case. Well, does the President feel the same way about Karl Rove, the relationship with Karl Rove, a very good friend for many years?
McCLELLAN: Yes, he does.
Q And at this point, is it ebbing or flowing? Is that relationship with the President ebbing or flowing? (Laughter.)
McCLELLAN: Again, this is a creative way to come out to the same kind of questions.
Q You're right, it is, and I want an answer.
If you've made it this far, congratulations. You've just read a story that took me three hours to put together, and you've also witnessed the first lie the Bush administration has ever been caught in -- that the media simply will not let go. I'd wager that today's press conference will be even less pleasant. That pretty much sums up all the facts in the case so far. Since July 6th, there has been a tremendous amount of double-talk, spin, character assassination, and other skulduggery perpetrated against the media, Joe Wilson, and the Democratic party by the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Minnesota senator Norm Coleman, New York congressman Peter King, Karl Rove's lawyer, and pretty much everyone at Fox News. If I tried to dissect all of that, you would be reading this up until the moment I posted tomorrow's story, so I'll just leave it alone and provide some concise linkage to what the GOP is saying and what the progressives have to say in return:
Talking Points for Treason
Talking Points for Treason, Part II
The White House press corps is right. We haven't even scratched the surface, and this hasn't even started yet.
(Before today's article, a couple of things:
1: This article is as much for my benefit as it is yours. By researching and writing it, I get a firm grasp of the facts involved with this OTHER very serious issue facing American politics today. Not an easy thing to do...especially considering the armies of breathless lefties demanding impeachment that are currently butting heads with the armies of right-wing bloggers and pundits who insist that anyone who would denigrate our President is gay. Hopefully you're a little better informed by the end, but at the end of the day, I do this so that I sound smarter at parties.
2: Whoever is leaving me text messages with no Caller ID or personal information attached... either identify yourself or stop it. I'm frustrated because I cannot reply to you, and you probably think I'm a jerk for ignoring you, when really I have no idea who you are or how to contact you and tell you "whats up." Oh, and if you're reading this, the answer is "nothin much, you?"
That is all. Grab some coffee or a cup of tea and enjoy today's story... it's pretty long, but the end makes it worthwhile.)
***
If you've been paying attention, you've known for a while that Karl Rove, the president's deputy chief of staff and all-star political mastermind, is in some hot water. If you haven't.... well, he is. There are two big deals about this story, which has been getting a lot of traction over the last couple of days. One is that Rove, widely considered to be the brains behind Bush's four election victories (two for Texas governor, two for Prez), has been brought before a grand jury investigating the exposure of an undercover CIA agent's identity. He may be criminally liable for exposing this person, whose name is Valerie Plame. Two is that when this whole situation first touched down, the President, through his beleaguered mouthpiece Scott McClellan, said that anybody who was involved with outing a CIA agent would be fired.
Last Monday, all of this became very interesting. That, however, is the final page of a story that begins in 2002.
Joe Wilson is a career diplomat with an impressive resume. He was the last U.S. official ever to meet with Saddam Hussein, he was the ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome/Principe under the first George Bush (what a sweet job!), and sat on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, helping to create policy toward Africa.
Wilson wrote an editorial for the New York Times, published July 6, 2003. From said article:
"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
"...After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
"I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
"Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
"Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure."
Wilson writes that his statement, that Niger most likely did not transfer nuclear material to Iraq, only confirmed what most analysts already thought. This, of course, was not what the Bush administration wanted to hear. Relying on dubious information from a year-old British report, the State of the Union address contained language about how "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantites of uranium from Africa."
Paragraph one of the Wilson editorial makes it clear how he feels about this situation. He effectively called out the Bush administration, accusing them of manipulating intelligence. (It turns out that's exactly what they were doing.) The White House has a long and documented history of firing, smearing, or otherwise retaliating against people who say things it doesn't want anybody to hear. So, what did they do when Joe Wilson blew the whistle on the biggest lie of all?
Robert Novak wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times about the Wilson editorial:
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate."
What Novak (and a whole slew of other people) supposedly didn't know is that Valerie Plame was under cover, working for a front company that maintained a network of contacts with the hope that the CIA would know if weapons of mass destruction started changing hands in parts of the world. So, when this article went to print, Plame's cover was blown, and the company she was working for was exposed as a front for the CIA.
That's pretty serious business. Plame was fighting the war on terror: she was literally working to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Her career was suddenly derailed, and her husband got the message: don't mess with the White House. After the Novak story, Wilson went on television for a few days and denounced whoever leaked the information to Novak (and, as it turns out, a couple of other reporters, too). He even mentioned the name Karl Rove, fingering him as a possible ultimate source for this information. Pundits and political junkies laughed to themselves, thinking of the other instances where Rove has been suspected (but never definitively caught) of leaking information. Little did we know....
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald issued subpoenas to Judith Miller, a reporter for the New York Times, and Matt Cooper, a reporter for TIME Magazine, in connection to the Valerie Plame leak investigation. Whoever leaked the information about Plame to Robert Novak, it seemed, also contacted Miller and Cooper. Miller never wrote a related story, but Cooper did, and it wasn't pretty, suggesting (in the words of prosecutor Fitzgerald) ... "that the conduct of the officials involved an attack on an administration critic, not whistle-blowing." Miller refused to cooperate, saying that her source wished to be anonymous, and that she would not reveal his name. She was subsequently jailed for contempt of court, and will be released either when she reveals the name of her source like the subpoena wants, or when the grand jury's investigation is complete.
Cooper initially refused to cooperate as well, also saying that his source wished to remain anonymous. TIME Inc., days before Cooper was to be thrown in jail, agreed to release the content of an e-mail Cooper sent to his bureau chief regarding who told him what he knew about the leak. On July 6th 2005, Cooper agreed to testify before the grand jury, saying he had heard from his source that it was okay with him if Cooper cooperated with the grand jury.
From ThinkProgress.org:
According to the Newsweek story today, at 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003 Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper sent the following e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy:
“Subject: Rove/P&C,” (for personal and confidential)
“Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation…” “please don’t source this to rove or even WH [White House]”
“it was, KR said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.”
The email continues with warnings about how Joe Wilson is not to be believed, supposedly because his wife authorized this cushy vacation/intelligence mission to the well-known tropical vacation paradise of... Niger.
So, Karl Rove called members of the media and told them, on double-super-secret background, that "wilson's wife" (Plame), who "works at the agency on wmd issues," "authorized the trip." Hell of a thing to say, since it doesn't really prove anything about Wilson other than that his wife is a CIA agent. Oops.
Rove went on the record in 2003 denying that he told anybody anything, and then slightly changed his tone, denying that he told any reporter Valerie Plame's name. Scott McClellan, White House press secretary, went on the record in 2003 as saying that Rove specifically had nothing to do with the leak. President Bush went on the record in 2003 as saying that he would fire anybody in his administration that would do such a treasonous thing.
Once word got out that Rove was the leak, the White House sang a different tune altogether. Here are excerpts from White House press events:
(July 11, 2003)
QUESTION: The Robert Novak column last week . . . has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that?
McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.
(September 29, 2003)
QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . .
McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it.
QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this . . .
McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.
QUESTION: How does he know that?
McCLELLAN: The President knows.
(September 30, 2003, press conference with President Bush)
QUESTION: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
QUESTION: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.
Now, we fast-forward to July 11th of this year, when it has become very clear that yes, Rove was involved, and moreso, he was the culprit. If I were McClellan, after taking a beating like this, I would have gone home early, stopping on the way only for a handle of Jim Beam and a bag of ice, and maybe a glass to put them in.
(July 11, 2005)
Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.
Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --
Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.
Go ahead, Terry.
Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.
And, finally, we come to yesterday's press briefing, where the White House press corps has finally decided that after five years of obfuscation, dodgery, and stonewalling, they would like an answer to some questions they are burning to ask:
(July 13, 2005)
Q Scott, some White House advisors expressed surprise that the President did not give a warm endorsement to Karl Rove when he was asked about him at the Cabinet meeting. They had expected that he would speak up. Can you explain why the President didn't express confidence?
McCLELLAN: Sure. He wasn't asked about his support or confidence for Karl. As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the President. This was not a question that came up in the Cabinet Room.
Q Well, the President has never been restrained at staying right in the lines of a question, as you know. (Laughter.) He kind of -- he says whatever he wants. And if he had wanted to express confidence in Karl Rove, he could have. Why didn't he?
McCLELLAN: He expressed it yesterday through me, and I just expressed it again….
Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?
McCLELLAN: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on this for two days now.
Q Even if it wasn't a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday -- perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House -- that when you're dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?
McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.
Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --
McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.
Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.
McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the President said he's not --
Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert agent in any way, shape, or form without first finding out whether that person is working as a covert officer.
McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, you're wrong. This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.
Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.
McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.
Q You haven't even scratched the surface.
Q (someone else) It hasn't started.
Q (yet another person) Can I ask for clarification on what the President said at Sea Island on June 10th of last year, when he was saying that he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved in the leak of classified information? What were the parameters for those consequences?
McCLELLAN: Again, I've nothing to add on this discussion, and if we have any other topics you want to discuss, I'll be glad to do that.
Q I'm going to go to another question, somewhat on the same subject, but a different vein. Let's talk about the Wilson family. Is there any regret from this White House about the effects of this leak on this family?
McCLELLAN: We can continue to go round and round on all these --
Q No, no, no, no. This has nothing to do with the investigation. This is about the leak and the effects on this family. I mean, granted there are partisan politics being played, but let's talk about the leak that came from the White House that affected a family.
McCLELLAN: And let me just say again that anything relating to an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to get into discussing. I've said that the past couple of days.
Q Scott, from Africa, Mrs. Bush says, Karl Rove is a very good friend of mine; I've known him for years. And she's not going to speculate on any other part of the case. Well, does the President feel the same way about Karl Rove, the relationship with Karl Rove, a very good friend for many years?
McCLELLAN: Yes, he does.
Q And at this point, is it ebbing or flowing? Is that relationship with the President ebbing or flowing? (Laughter.)
McCLELLAN: Again, this is a creative way to come out to the same kind of questions.
Q You're right, it is, and I want an answer.
If you've made it this far, congratulations. You've just read a story that took me three hours to put together, and you've also witnessed the first lie the Bush administration has ever been caught in -- that the media simply will not let go. I'd wager that today's press conference will be even less pleasant. That pretty much sums up all the facts in the case so far. Since July 6th, there has been a tremendous amount of double-talk, spin, character assassination, and other skulduggery perpetrated against the media, Joe Wilson, and the Democratic party by the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Minnesota senator Norm Coleman, New York congressman Peter King, Karl Rove's lawyer, and pretty much everyone at Fox News. If I tried to dissect all of that, you would be reading this up until the moment I posted tomorrow's story, so I'll just leave it alone and provide some concise linkage to what the GOP is saying and what the progressives have to say in return:
Talking Points for Treason
Talking Points for Treason, Part II
The White House press corps is right. We haven't even scratched the surface, and this hasn't even started yet.
July 13, 2005
"Military action was now seen as inevitable."
There has been mild fervor in the public news arena, and lots of discussion on the Internet, about the Downing Street memo. I knew what it was, and had heard references to it and summaries of its content, but today was the first day that I had read it. It's at that link right there, and I encourage you to read it.
The DSM is a memo about a meeting held by top-level British officials in July of 2002, many months before the "coalition of the willing" (someone else's words) invaded Iraq. President Bush, in remarks dated August and after, insisted that the decision to go to war had not been made, and that it was a last resort. However, paragraph 3 of said memo would indicate otherwise:
"(a British official in Washington, identified only by the letter C) reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC (US National Security Council) had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Doesn't get much more damning than that, now, does it?
But wait, there's more...
"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."
There has not been a single denial of the validity of this memo. Certainly, Bush and Blair tossed a well-rehearsed denial back and forth like a good, long Wimbledon volley, but nobody has come out and said that it is a fake. It represents the contents of a real meeting, where real information was discussed. So, if this real memo is to believed, then not only was the White House orchestrating a PR campaign to convince us poor American rubes that we should invade Iraq (since, you know, they had decided to invade, and were already plotting the details), but the invasion would be timed so that Republicans running for election would be able to use it as a reason why they should be elected.
Paragraph 13:
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
This paved the way for the November passage of U.N. Resolution 1441. Of course, it passed unanimously, because the United States was cooking the evidence. Saddam Hussein could not disarm, because he had no weapons. We said he did, but he didn't. It wasn't an honest mistake, we did it on purpose.
Why would we do that?
The Project for a New American Century is a think tank "...dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."
The first step in creating this New American Century is to deal with the thorny issue of Islamist (fundamentalist Muslim) theocracies and extremists in the Middle East. In order to do this, says NYU associate law professor Noah Feldman, the Bush administration chose to create"...massive instability and uncertainty wherever we can in the Middle East in the calculated hopes that what will come out on the other side will be better than what we had to begin with.". (Feldman spoke extensively at the Aspen Ideas Festival on this topic. A realaudio recording of the speech is here.)
Perhaps the PNAC has the right idea. Perhaps if the US quickly props up democracy in a notoriously un-democratic part of the world, it will spread like a great benevolent virus to other, nearby countries that pose a strategic danger to us. After all, Saudi Arabia has a notoriously unstable government but for the fact that they have enough oil money to buy off all their enemies and hire an army to kill the enemies that can't be bought. After all, Iran just elected a hardline conservative president who has reaffirmed that country's right to posess nuclear material. After all, Syria is likely one of the largest contributors of manpower and equipment to the insurgency in Iraq.
There is just one problem. We did not invade and destabilize Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Syria. We invaded and destabilized Iraq, instead. We thought we could do it on the cheap, that once we chased out Saddam Hussein, everything would be roses and sunshine, and that our army would be "welcomed as liberators." Instead, once the Baathists fell out of power, massive looting destroyed what was left of the country's infrastructure, and the terror we were seeking to prevent showed up at our new, Mideastern doorstep with rocket-propelled grenades, car bombs, and suicide bombers. Our government broke down a tyrannical regime with the expectation that a democratic nation would spring from the ashes without our intervention; we tried to build a nation without engaging in any actual, messy, expensive nation-building.
Boy, were we wrong. We are now fighting an insurgency that is looking at "ten or twelve years" of "last throes." (two different people's words, both major architects of this occupation) We grudgingly accepted that we must spend tremendous amounts of money, time, and American lives to really build Iraq into something other than a power vacuum. We broke it, and now we've bought it. There are a couple of possible outcomes to this situation; PNAC-style democracy is one, and if it turns out that way, the Bush doctrine will be hailed as a sea change in foreign policy, and he will go down in history as a visionary. Civil war is another; a terrible, bloody, long-lasting civil war, with many of Iraq's neighbors sticking their hands into the mess as well. If it turns out that way, Bush will be remembered as a colossal failure, possibly the worst president ever.
Meanwhile, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran remain relatively unmolested and essentially unchanged. What's more, they will stay that way for quite some time, because it turns out that we can barely handle occupying Iraq, much less invading and destabilizing another country. In fact, if Iran were to start causing problems for us in Iraq, there wouldn't be much we could do about it. Our overconfident leaders have overextended our budget and our military capability, all to fight a war that they made up a reason to fight. The Iraq experiment is just that, a costly experiment in radical foreign policy. If the Bush administration had been honest about its goals from the start of this mess, and honest about the costs of the war in money, lives, and political stability, the American people would never have stood for it.
A democratic government must remain beholden to the will of its people. The Bush administration thought that they were on to a great idea, but that the people would not think it was worth the risk. They could have made the responsible choice, and sought out a consensus on how to best deal with Islamist fundamentalism. They could have acted like stewards of the world, and led a real coalition of Western nations in a coordinated effort to modernize and educate a dangerous part of the world. Instead, they wrapped themselves in the American flag and lied to anyone and everyone that would listen. First, Saddam had WMDs and was buying uranium. Next, he wasn't buying uranium, but he had biological and chemical weapons. Then, he didn't have any biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, but we were fighting the terrorists. Now, we're bringing democracy to Iraq, bringing them freedom, liberating them from Saddam Hussein and the terrorists (who, incidentally, were never there until we, you know, destabilized the country.)
Meanwhile, massive deficits have consumed our budget. A health care crisis looms large in our country's near future, to say nothing of our energy 'plan,' consisting of more dependence on foreign oil. Nothing is being done because all the people in the powerful positions are on the same side, watching each other's backs. Congressmen who try to hold hearings about the complete, paralyzing failure of our federal government are put in basement storage rooms, and when they bring up the inability of the Republican party to govern our country like responsible adults, their microphones are simply turned off.
Let's hope that Iraq gets some democracy. Maybe then they can spread it to us.
The DSM is a memo about a meeting held by top-level British officials in July of 2002, many months before the "coalition of the willing" (someone else's words) invaded Iraq. President Bush, in remarks dated August and after, insisted that the decision to go to war had not been made, and that it was a last resort. However, paragraph 3 of said memo would indicate otherwise:
"(a British official in Washington, identified only by the letter C) reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC (US National Security Council) had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Doesn't get much more damning than that, now, does it?
But wait, there's more...
"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."
There has not been a single denial of the validity of this memo. Certainly, Bush and Blair tossed a well-rehearsed denial back and forth like a good, long Wimbledon volley, but nobody has come out and said that it is a fake. It represents the contents of a real meeting, where real information was discussed. So, if this real memo is to believed, then not only was the White House orchestrating a PR campaign to convince us poor American rubes that we should invade Iraq (since, you know, they had decided to invade, and were already plotting the details), but the invasion would be timed so that Republicans running for election would be able to use it as a reason why they should be elected.
Paragraph 13:
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
This paved the way for the November passage of U.N. Resolution 1441. Of course, it passed unanimously, because the United States was cooking the evidence. Saddam Hussein could not disarm, because he had no weapons. We said he did, but he didn't. It wasn't an honest mistake, we did it on purpose.
Why would we do that?
The Project for a New American Century is a think tank "...dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."
The first step in creating this New American Century is to deal with the thorny issue of Islamist (fundamentalist Muslim) theocracies and extremists in the Middle East. In order to do this, says NYU associate law professor Noah Feldman, the Bush administration chose to create"...massive instability and uncertainty wherever we can in the Middle East in the calculated hopes that what will come out on the other side will be better than what we had to begin with.". (Feldman spoke extensively at the Aspen Ideas Festival on this topic. A realaudio recording of the speech is here.)
Perhaps the PNAC has the right idea. Perhaps if the US quickly props up democracy in a notoriously un-democratic part of the world, it will spread like a great benevolent virus to other, nearby countries that pose a strategic danger to us. After all, Saudi Arabia has a notoriously unstable government but for the fact that they have enough oil money to buy off all their enemies and hire an army to kill the enemies that can't be bought. After all, Iran just elected a hardline conservative president who has reaffirmed that country's right to posess nuclear material. After all, Syria is likely one of the largest contributors of manpower and equipment to the insurgency in Iraq.
There is just one problem. We did not invade and destabilize Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Syria. We invaded and destabilized Iraq, instead. We thought we could do it on the cheap, that once we chased out Saddam Hussein, everything would be roses and sunshine, and that our army would be "welcomed as liberators." Instead, once the Baathists fell out of power, massive looting destroyed what was left of the country's infrastructure, and the terror we were seeking to prevent showed up at our new, Mideastern doorstep with rocket-propelled grenades, car bombs, and suicide bombers. Our government broke down a tyrannical regime with the expectation that a democratic nation would spring from the ashes without our intervention; we tried to build a nation without engaging in any actual, messy, expensive nation-building.
Boy, were we wrong. We are now fighting an insurgency that is looking at "ten or twelve years" of "last throes." (two different people's words, both major architects of this occupation) We grudgingly accepted that we must spend tremendous amounts of money, time, and American lives to really build Iraq into something other than a power vacuum. We broke it, and now we've bought it. There are a couple of possible outcomes to this situation; PNAC-style democracy is one, and if it turns out that way, the Bush doctrine will be hailed as a sea change in foreign policy, and he will go down in history as a visionary. Civil war is another; a terrible, bloody, long-lasting civil war, with many of Iraq's neighbors sticking their hands into the mess as well. If it turns out that way, Bush will be remembered as a colossal failure, possibly the worst president ever.
Meanwhile, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran remain relatively unmolested and essentially unchanged. What's more, they will stay that way for quite some time, because it turns out that we can barely handle occupying Iraq, much less invading and destabilizing another country. In fact, if Iran were to start causing problems for us in Iraq, there wouldn't be much we could do about it. Our overconfident leaders have overextended our budget and our military capability, all to fight a war that they made up a reason to fight. The Iraq experiment is just that, a costly experiment in radical foreign policy. If the Bush administration had been honest about its goals from the start of this mess, and honest about the costs of the war in money, lives, and political stability, the American people would never have stood for it.
A democratic government must remain beholden to the will of its people. The Bush administration thought that they were on to a great idea, but that the people would not think it was worth the risk. They could have made the responsible choice, and sought out a consensus on how to best deal with Islamist fundamentalism. They could have acted like stewards of the world, and led a real coalition of Western nations in a coordinated effort to modernize and educate a dangerous part of the world. Instead, they wrapped themselves in the American flag and lied to anyone and everyone that would listen. First, Saddam had WMDs and was buying uranium. Next, he wasn't buying uranium, but he had biological and chemical weapons. Then, he didn't have any biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, but we were fighting the terrorists. Now, we're bringing democracy to Iraq, bringing them freedom, liberating them from Saddam Hussein and the terrorists (who, incidentally, were never there until we, you know, destabilized the country.)
Meanwhile, massive deficits have consumed our budget. A health care crisis looms large in our country's near future, to say nothing of our energy 'plan,' consisting of more dependence on foreign oil. Nothing is being done because all the people in the powerful positions are on the same side, watching each other's backs. Congressmen who try to hold hearings about the complete, paralyzing failure of our federal government are put in basement storage rooms, and when they bring up the inability of the Republican party to govern our country like responsible adults, their microphones are simply turned off.
Let's hope that Iraq gets some democracy. Maybe then they can spread it to us.
yesterday's energy policy, today
To all three of my readers:
Please take a moment, if you haven't already, and help Exxpose Exxon as the obstructionist, opportunist, globe-tainting scion of greed that it is.
Please take a moment, if you haven't already, and help Exxpose Exxon as the obstructionist, opportunist, globe-tainting scion of greed that it is.
July 12, 2005
avoid the clap
If you are the sort of person who plays online poker, I feel sorry for you.
I also play online poker, to great frustration and great joy in turns. I'm not as good as some people I know, but I've learned a couple of things, and here I impart the greatest wisdom I have learned to date:
There is no shame in waiting for the "it's your turn" ding. When it's your turn, grip your mouse firmly in your hand and click. Click with purpose and certainty, lest ye end up all in with a pair of 3s against some chump with a flush.
I also play online poker, to great frustration and great joy in turns. I'm not as good as some people I know, but I've learned a couple of things, and here I impart the greatest wisdom I have learned to date:
There is no shame in waiting for the "it's your turn" ding. When it's your turn, grip your mouse firmly in your hand and click. Click with purpose and certainty, lest ye end up all in with a pair of 3s against some chump with a flush.
manic
I cannot sleep. I was resting peacefully, and the piercing ding of my phone awoke me. (it's only piercing in a quiet room where I am sleeping)
Here is why:
====
New SMS/Text Message!
From: No Caller ID
Time: 2:02 am
What up?
====
... me, I guess.
Here is why:
====
New SMS/Text Message!
From: No Caller ID
Time: 2:02 am
What up?
====
... me, I guess.
July 7, 2005
boom
This one goes out to anybody on their way home to see their family
who had their whole life turned upside down
when their train exploded
in London today
who had their whole life turned upside down
when their train exploded
in London today
July 5, 2005
independence day
to: karl rove
from: dusty
re: treason
date: 7/04/05
you're so... white. you're even whiter than I am.
the difference between us is that you committed an act of treason. and I never did anything. except smoke weed. and break a window.
but I love america. I have no experience, but I hear it's the greatest country in the world... and I have it on good authority. So I'll run with it. Regardless of that, what you did to us makes "you" and "us" different, because you clearly don't care about us (you know, Americans), because if you did, you wouldn't stab us all in the back so that your client could get elected again, so that you could be chief of staff, or whatever you are.
I admit, I've done some pretty shitty things to some people that are very close to me. I've taken plenty of stuff that was never mine. Another difference between you and me is that I fucked with two or three people. You have fucked with 260,000,000 people. You fucked with all of America, and you will pay for what you have done.
Our country got lucky when we won our first war. We got pretty unlucky when you won a couple of elections. But... you, like dick nixon before you, will fade into sad obscurity. You, like andrew jackson, will be a footnote in a history textbook, a mere example of what should not happen to American government.
You are Benedict Arnold.
You are the Rosenbergs.
You are Joe McCarthy.
You are done.
It's over.
Thanks for playing.
Don't drive angry.
from: dusty
re: treason
date: 7/04/05
you're so... white. you're even whiter than I am.
the difference between us is that you committed an act of treason. and I never did anything. except smoke weed. and break a window.
but I love america. I have no experience, but I hear it's the greatest country in the world... and I have it on good authority. So I'll run with it. Regardless of that, what you did to us makes "you" and "us" different, because you clearly don't care about us (you know, Americans), because if you did, you wouldn't stab us all in the back so that your client could get elected again, so that you could be chief of staff, or whatever you are.
I admit, I've done some pretty shitty things to some people that are very close to me. I've taken plenty of stuff that was never mine. Another difference between you and me is that I fucked with two or three people. You have fucked with 260,000,000 people. You fucked with all of America, and you will pay for what you have done.
Our country got lucky when we won our first war. We got pretty unlucky when you won a couple of elections. But... you, like dick nixon before you, will fade into sad obscurity. You, like andrew jackson, will be a footnote in a history textbook, a mere example of what should not happen to American government.
You are Benedict Arnold.
You are the Rosenbergs.
You are Joe McCarthy.
You are done.
It's over.
Thanks for playing.
Don't drive angry.
July 2, 2005
YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!
Apparently, according to a couple of sources, (one is here, follow the trail) Matt Cooper, the Time reporter whose emails will be given to the grand jury, received the leak from Karl Rove. He blew a CIA agent's cover in retribution for her husband's claim that the intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq was faulty.
Maybe he'll be promoted to Attorney General.
Maybe he'll be promoted to Attorney General.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
