Intelligence Tells Us

I notice tonight that Homeland Security head Tom Ridge tonight tells us that the "intelligence" is very specific on those overseas flights headed here that the US cancelled for security concerns.

But isn't that intelligence tied to the other intelligence that Mr. Bush plans to have investigated (with results not due out until safely after the November election here --- but in time for Tony Blair's shot at another term as PM)?

My point is this: everytime this administration comes close to getting cornered on something they said or did, they've pointed over to George Tennent and said, "Intelligence error." But again and again, Mr. Bush makes it clear that he "relies" on that intelligence (complete faith he said just a day or two before we heard about the investigation). And everytime they tell us, "The Bogeyman is standing right over there and we have to curtail freedoms to get those bastards," they point to their strong intelligence.

It seems like you could have it one way or the other, either blame intelligence or not. But saying it's wonderful and faithful when it suits your purpose, and then blaming it for every wrong move on the other seems a tad schizoid if not downright opportunistic. It's sort of like loving your spouse on payday and loathing her/him the days s/he's broke.

I've listened and read a lot by the former intelligence pros who came together to cry foul on the way intelligence was being handled in the days before we went into Iraq. I'd venture to say they've opened my eyes wider to both how they see their kind of work and their role in how America does things. Their level of concern over how they felt this administration was playing games with what it (Bush) claimed was certifiable truths discovered through careful research unnerved me.

Look, I don't like the idea that to be a powerful country (or even a player), one seems to use spies and counterspies and all these strategies. But if we're going to have them - and I don't think they'll go poof because I think the whole idea is odd - we should use them well. If they come up with intelligence different from the given hypothesis, then the matter deserves more checking before a game plan is reached.

Everything about the Iraq War before and since suggests that the former intelligence pros are correct - that this administration wanted Iraq since before they took office, and no amount of intelligence suggesting Saddam was no longer the threat some thought, that WMDs didn't exist in RI sized warehouses, and that we weren't about to get nuked by Saddam was going to get this administration to stop from taking Iraq.

So wouldn't there have to be at least TWO investigations? Not just separate ones in the U.S. and Britain, but one to investigate the quality of the intelligence and its delivery and a second one, if the intelligence did NOT point to Iraq as destroyer of the world, to investigate how intelligence said one thing, and this administration said it said another?

By appointing this investigation, rather than having anyone else push it forward, the president gets some big advantages. He can handpick its members. He can decide when it will offer reports (important with the election 9 months away). And he can squash it like a bug - as some think he has with the 9/11 investigation - if it creeps too close to home.

Air Distress: Euros want answers

Europeans, including the Brits, want an investigation into that American intelligence that grounded more flights coming into the US from England and other points over the last several days.

I don't think anyone's going to argue that it's better to cancel a flight than to risk lives lost. But the frequency with which the US has cried, "Wolf at the door" and the closest evidence we ever see is Paul Wolfowitz, I think no sane, intelligent person can fail to be skeptical. Yet we better get used to it because I have this nasty feeling we're going to be living in planned, super-scary chaos before election day.

States' rights

The Baltimore Sunspot site has a new article that talks about that as this administration is trying to take rights away from states (education, medical marijuana, forced electronic voting, legal recognition of homosexual couples, et al), the Democrats seem to be reversing their posture (remember, the GOP is usually the one to argue for state rights) and declaring the need for states to retain their autonomy.

Of course, there is good and bad to be had with regard to states' rights. Some of the old GOPers used to argue for it so you could fly the Confederate flag and proclaim Jefferson Davis and friends "great American war heroes" and keep it legal to beat your kid.

Yet there are good reasons for states to retain some autonomy, too. Here in Vermont, I don't necessarily want to live by the exact same rules and regulations that people in the deepest parts of the South live by. I expect they feel likewise.

Wardrobe malfunction

I love it when the American lexicon grows by a new word. It's almost as good as weapon development program-related activities.

I still get far more disgusted with promos for "Fear Factor" (how about a big yummy bowl of horse rectum?) and almost everything I hear at a White House press briefing than anything I've heard about Jackson's performance last night.

Look at the Kerry Issue

Related to my recent posts about the GOP really wanting to make it seem like it's Kerry they're worried about the president going up against, take a look at Robert Novak's recent columns. All of them talk about a "worried mood" for Bush's people because of Kerry.

And I believe this as much as I believe that there really was all this intelligence about WMD in Iraq that "fooled" Mr. Bush into believing it and as much as I believe Mr. Novak only inadvervently outed CIA operative Valerie Plame (and certainly not as retribution for her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, exposing the Niger yellow cake fraud).

What I haven't figured out yet is why they (GOP operatives) actually want Kerry more than Dean. I see some weaknesses Kerry could be hurt by, but some strengths, as well.

The FCC

It's amazing. The FCC was freely willing to begin actions to take the airwaves out of the ownership of the American people and place them into mega corporate hands, but Michael Powell (Colin's son and head of the FCC) supposedly sees most of a breast on the SuperBowl yesterday and he goes ballistic, demanding Congressional action and a complete investigation into Janet Jackson's SuperBowl performance. His chubby little butt has never moved so swiftly, probably in his entire life.

This stinks of politics.

Now, I don't care for Justin Timberlake (who looks like a creep) or Janet Jackson and I certainly wouldn't watch the SuperBowl. But considering what corporations dish up to us each and every day through TV, I'm sorry - I don't get the big deal. Are the scantily clad cheerleaders indicative of supreme family values? Was it any better for Colin to watch that Charmin commercial with toilet paper hanging out of a player's pants?

I'm far more concerned with the massive admin spin placed on the evening news every night than I am about Janet's breast. We all have them (breasts), you know.

Another Voice...

See the Forest's entry for 2-1-04 says basically the same thing I stated earlier: that it's clear that Kerry is the one the WH wants to run against rather than Howard Dean. They've played this hand carefully to make people believe Kerry actually scares them but for some very odd reason, they may actually feel the opposite: they want Kerry in because they feel they have some ace in the hole that will sink Kerry's battleship.

Do we really want to play into Karl Rove's damp little palms?

This WP piece

takes Howard Dean to task for spending his $40 million already leaving him nearly broke for campaigning. However, Mr. Bush has spent almost as much (just shy of $34 million) and he's running uncontested.

I know where Dr. Dean's money went. Where did the president's go? I mean, we're picking up the tab for most of his campaign stumping. We pay his salary while he does nothing but fundraise and campaign. So how do you spend so much when you're not running for anything yet?

Timelines of Lies and Spins

[Ed note: Have I posted this before? I thought I had but I can't find it now (and a friend just sent it to me in Email).] American Progress has an excellent chronology online regarding the number of times the government either spun information or deliberately ignored differing facts related to WMD and the Iraq War.

"The Mirror Has Two Faces"

Maureen Dowd seems to have issues with NSA chief Condi Rice:

Why is the foreign policy nanny acting like a foreign policy ninny?

I dunno.. if Saddam and Osama aren't afraid of the God-awful faces Condi makes - her grimaces are almost as dangerously humorous as Mr. Cheney's - I think we've lost our only secret weapon in the War on Terror (or War for Terror Everywhere, which is what a friend calls it).

Who Owes Whom the Apology

This Baltimore SunSpot opinion piece says what many are saying after listening to Dr. David Kay (WMD headhunter) say the intelligence community owes the president a huge apology: that it's actually Mr. Bush who owes one to us.

Here, here!

Bush's "Empty Words"

The Brookings Institution site reprints a powerful article from Michael A. Levi, first published in The New Republic, on Bush's words in past SotU addresses and American credibility both here and certainly abroad.

If Groundhogs' Day applies

to Osama bin Laden, does this mean that if the US scares him back into his cave, we'll have six more weeks/months/years of bombing rocks in Afghanistan?

Strangely not a joke

Tony Blair and George Bush have been nominated for the 2004 Peace Prize.

In related news, Saddam Hussein has been nominated for Father of the Year, Leona Helmsley for Miss Congeniality, and Jennifer Lopez for the PETA Humanitarian of the Year awards.

Bush to Order Intelligence Inquiry

According to various news sources tonight, President Bush will order an inquiry into intelligence failures related to WMD and the war. On the face of it, I'd almost like to applaud. Finally, I'd like to think, he's doing the right thing.

But we don't have a new intelligence failure here. We've known we had one for a long time before David Kay started making his rounds in the past 10 days. Doesn't matter, you say, because at least he's doing the right thing now?

Yes, it does matter. It matters because months have gone by in which we knew that the Niger claim was bogus (hell, we'd heard the first reports of it being a forgery out of Italy or at least offered up by the Italians) months before the start of the war. Yet months later, in the 2003 (last year's) SotU speech, Mr. Bush cited that yellow cake like it was just about to eat our grandmothers. And that was about six weeks before we began to "shock and awe."

Thus, the meter's been running a very long time (more than a year) on what seemed like incalculable massaging of information coming out of intelligence channels.

Even then, I wouldn't be as worried if I thought Mr. Bush really does want a full inquiry. But I think we can accurately predict right now what kind of inquiry Mr. Bush wants. Look at the 911 inquiry. Look at the months it took for anyone to start an investigation into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame and then having the president say, "nothing will come of it."

In experiments in science, you're supposed to start with a hypothesis, yes. But starting any investigation with the conclusion already written is not an investigation. Excuse me while I go rip more hair from my head.

Statue of Liberty

Bruce Morton's Sunday spots during Wolf Blitzer's CNN "Late Edition" are usually the highlights of the show: offering a thoughtful look at some special issue. Today's is whether the Statue of Liberty shouldn't be reopened and why it's been allowed to sit there since 9-11 roped off by yellow police tape.

Good question. I suspect the WH is not eager to have this symbol of freedom and the dream of a new opportunity for immigrants in a supposedly widely free country - and given to us by the "cheese eating surrender monkeys", at that! - made available again to the American people. Symbolism seems important to these people.

Kurdish suicide bombings

You've no doubt heard that perhaps nearly 60 Kurds - representing two major political factions in the north - have been killed in horrific suicide bombings.Separately, there were three more American GIs killed in attacks.

There is some legitimate concern that this (the Kurd attacks) pushes forward the likelihood of a full-fledged Iraqi civil war. And guess who opened that door through the war to start, and then the poor management thereafter?

Pat Robertson on CNN

I'm not sure whether it's the stomach flu or all the promos for Pat Robertson's appearance on today's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that has me feeling St. Patty Day green.

Pat's supposed to tell us who's going to win the election (Bush, because God told him), how he thinks the separation of church and state should be decided (Pat will decide that only good religious men such as himself have special rights to impact the rest of us, I'm sure).

I still say my God told me Pat Robertson is a major league asshole who should not be trusted. And I've "learned" enough from Pat to be able to say, "My God is better than your God" with some credibility. Insert sneer here.

Ewwww... there's Pat, that worm. Now Pat is telling us he's always right (and failing to mention all the time his predictions were as proper as most of his business dealings in diamond-bearing countries). He's laughing as he inferred God would prefer Dean be chosen as the Dem nominee against Bush because Kerry might be a more formidable nominee.

Does anyone else find it odd that these total wingnut whack jobs keep telling us to make Dean the nominee? You could take it as spoken (which I wouldn't) and infer "My gosh, we better nominate Kerry"). Or you could take it that they're FAR more concerned with the clear differences between Bush and Dean making Bush the one-termer his father was (although his Daddy didn't need the Supremes to hand it to him), so they're daring us to put up Kerry. I definitely never take Pat Robertson at smarmy smiling face value. I'm actually quite concerned that people are believing the message some of the GOP is sending in leaning toward Kerry. I wonder how big a mistake that could be (again, Kerry is a very good candidate and there is much to admire about the man and his actions - but I'm not in the "Howard Dean is finished" camp).

Oh boy, listen to Pat qualify his answer to Wolf's question about whether, "Dick Cheney is a good man." Pat said, "As far as I know" then back pedaled and mentioned that Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter (this he added with a big smile and a little tee-hee).

Why do they give this blood-sucking man any air time? And I do mean blood sucking. Check into his businesses.

Could bin Laden Decide Our Election?

The excellent TalkLeft links to this article by John Arquilla in today's San Francisco Chronicle asking this very important question. I suspect it's one many of us have already considered.

Osama could potentially play a much larger role than any other force in an American election. We get hit by another 9-11 style terrorist attack, and the game is over for Bush. However, many of us would certainly like to think that could happen without another grave tragedy. If he's caught, Bush will certainly use it to bounce right back into world mismanagement.

But what a strange trip that Osama could play such a factor in an American vote.

Who knew?

Well, apparently skippy the bush kangaroo did, but not me.

Anyway, this is DrugWarRant, which links to a Salon blog. As someone who's worked with patients who needed marijuana to get through chemo or end-stage MS, I have an obvious bias.

I also remember a friend's 60+ year old father, a man who'd tried never to do anything wrong in his life, feeling like a criminal because he was out on the streets of San Francisco trying to find marijuana for his wife in the final stages of breast cancer. He was broken by the experience but he was just so desperate to give his wife even 5 moments of comfort.