Monday, July 25, 2005

You Heard It Hear First, Loser

Here's a quote from White House Press Secretary Scott McClelland's website, March 17 2004:

" Q Scott, does Secretary Rumsfeld approve methods that Seymour Hirsch is reporting, that includes humiliating Iraqis or using sexual interrogation techniques? Was any of that approved by Secretary Rumsfeld, to your knowledge?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the Pentagon has already denied the reporting by Seymour Hirsch, and they addressed that this weekend. "

Right. Of course, later it would all turn out to be true, but never mind. It's spelled Hersh, by the way, Scott, you fat bald lying little pimple of a man, you. Hersh, If you don't know, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who does something that most reporters barely bother to do nowadays; find out if the stuff coming out of the White House is actually TRUE, as opposed to reporting the news as Rummy would like it reported, which admittedly better serves the agenda of most of the great media houses of our day: improve stock holdings. See, Hirsch belongs to an old, outdated way of thinking about journalism, which is that it is supposed to help the people, catch the bigwigs in their lies so that they have to start being honest, and find out things that are true.

So what's this quaint, old-fashioned kinda guy discovered now? Here's a quote from Democracy Now's program of July 19, 2005:

"Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports in this week's issue of The New Yorker that President Bush authorized covert plans last year to support the election campaigns of Iraqi candidates and political parties with close ties to the White House. Hersh's article cites unidentified former military and intelligence officials who said the administration had gone ahead with covert election activities in Iraq that 'were conducted by retired CIA officers and other nongovernment personnel, and used funds that were not necessarily appropriated by Congress.'"

I'll summarize the interview for you, god forbid you should do any research on your own. Bush, backpedaling fast from his "weapons of mass destruction" nonsense as a pretext for invading Iraq (following Rove's burning a CIA Op because her husband exposed this lie as the great steaming mess of dingo entrails it was), told us that his real agenda for illegally and unpopularly invading Iraq was the "spread of democracy." Now it looks very much as if the administration used oil money from Iraq and retired psy-ops guys to rig the Iraqi elections in favor of the party that would be most supportive of the US presence there. Why all the cloak-and-dagger? Because there is a law (remember law? It used to apply to everyone, not just the enemies of the Bushies) that states that any clandestine action by the CIA must be reported to Congress. It's Congress' money that's being used, after all. So it should be obvious to even the most brain-damaged reporter out there that using oil money (instead of Congressional money) and retired ops (who are not technically members of the government) was an attempt to circumvent this law. And why would they wish to circumvent the law? Well, apparently they tried to rig this election on the up-and-up, fair and square kind of way:

"In response to the article, a spokesperson from the National Security Council denied that, saying the administration rescinded the proposal because of congressional opposition."

See, the idea is that the CIA is supposed to be used to advance our national interests, and it's in our national interest that Allawi gets elected, see, and right now he's running at 3% in the polls, so we need to go rig this election with our spies. And that garnered opposition? Right, specifically from people like Congressional Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali), who were horrified to learn that our soldiers had perished in order to "spread democracy" by the establishment of a government whose first act would be to rig an election. So this is the best defense these jokers have: "oh, no, we WERE going to commit this egregious act of dictatorship using your money, but we decided not to because those meddling stop-sign philosophy liberals got ethics all of a sudden."

Yeah, because this administration is always ready to roll over and die when the control-nothing liberals of Congress grab their collective nutsacks and manage to shake their fingers at the Prezzie. Anyway, it looks like they went ahead and did it anyway, funnelling who knows how much moolah into Allawi's campaign (perhaps you are aware that the London Review of Books recently figured, from US govt. reports, that the amount of Iraqi oil money and Congressional appropriation that has "gone missing" now totals twenty billion dollars?). So now Hersh has collected a mountain of evidence of direct intimidation of voters at polling places by Iraqi police, of former CIA agents bragging after the fact about stuffing ballot boxes, that at least 22,000 of the 30,000 Iraqi polling station were not monitored by any poll watchers or journalists at all, and that the results of each precinct reported directly to a central HQ, where, say, 10 votes for Allawi were made into 100, stuff like that. Allawi won the election at 15%, five times what he was expected to get.

This isn't speculation, this is evidence. I'm spinning it, of course, because that's what I do. But I bet you never heard this story before, did you? Find this story on CNN. Find it on Fox. Find it on the so-called Liberal, Bush-bashing NPR. You won't, chuckies, but if you want to read the original article you can find it in the New Yorker for the week of July 17 2005. Thanks, Seymour, there are a few of us out here who really appreciate it. But seriously, American people, how much longer are we going to lie here like a 2-dollar hooker while Curious George gives it to us whatever way he wants to?

Friday, July 15, 2005

Lapsus Clandestinus: Why Karl Rove is Not a Republican

I haven’t posted for some time, true believers, and for that I apologize, but I’ve been very busy lately. As some of you know, your correspondent (viz., me) was “voluntarily” “helping” some “state officials” with their “inquiries,” and I had to appear before a double super secret no-touchbacks triple dog dare military tribunal. The interrogators were two obvious military bigwigs, one who went by the name General Fiver, the second an odd-looking fellow in a pith helmet who was introduced to me as Colonel Mustard. The third guy never spoke, but it was Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) in a rather obvious rubber nose and glasses. The scene got pretty hairy:

COL. MUSTARD: We have heard testimony that on June 3, 2004, you did knowingly and willfully, Mr. Marx, if that is your name—

MARX: Of COURSE that’s not my name. Any more than his name is General Fiver, or your name is Colonel Mustard.

GEN. FIVER: Hazel... the fields... they’re covered in blood!

COL. MUSTARD: -- that you did knowingly and willfully accuse the President, along with the First Lady and our most esteemed Secretary of State, to be, and I quote, “involved in some kind of Mormon-style interracial love nest, snorting cocaine off each others’ nipples while Karl Rove reads aloud transcripts from Hannity and Colmes.” Do you deny it?

SANTORUM: Indecency! Culture War! Home schooling! Pieces of Eight! Wraaaak!

MARX: Not remotely, but I think you’ll find that my article actually refused to accuse them of that, and furthermore, suggested that anyone who DID so was guilty of a lack of patriotism.

COL. MUSTARD: Oh, uh, really? Hm. Rick told me you were a traitor.

MARX: Are we done here?

COL. MUSTARD: I’d like to adjourn this meeting and request that the Senator from Pennsylvania meet me in the conservatory with a candlestick in fifteen minutes.

So dodged a bullet there. Anyway, about four weeks ago while I was preparing for this hearing I started following the Matthew Cooper/Judith Miller story, because it was a story about journalistic ethics and I thought to myself, there’s something I thought was as extinct as Ken Hamm’s moustache. Well, “ethics” turned out to be a pretty grand way of talking about what these “journalists” were up to, since if a journalist becomes a material witness to a felony his information can no longer be protected by the first amendment or any other statute. For instance, if a man is interviewed by a journalist and the reporter says “any plans for summer?” and the man says “why yes, it is my intention to take this pistol and empty it into the heads of those nine kittens,” and then he goes and slays kittens, the interview itself is now evidence of a crime and must be turned over to the kitten police when they come a-knockin’. This is a pretty clear distinction, and very different from the issue of Deep Throat, who did not commit a crime by talking to reporters, he merely blew the whistle on someone else’s crime, so Woodward and Bernstein would be able to protect their sources quite legally and ethically.

All of this was proceeding in a very interesting way, but if you aren’t an avid listener of Democracy Now, you didn’t hear about it at all four weeks ago, because there was a growing sense that some very, very powerful person might be implicated in the notes of these reporters. So, Fox News, nothing. CNN, nothing. Even NPR, which is supposed, according to CPB Chairman and Top-Shelf Asshole Kenneth Tomlinson, to have this raging unfair liberal vendetta against the president. Not a blip. So my journalistic meat-gun started in a-tingling and I thought, I should really get to blogging about this so that the six people who flip idly through my blog every month will be amazed at my research acumen and then, wouldn’t it be amazing if those notes actually DID implicate Karl Rove (who, if you recall, is not a nipple-snorter himself but has been accused of abetting nipple-snorting) or someone like him, then I’d have got a huge jump on the story and everyone could see how tingly and huge my journalistic meat-gun actually is. But no, I thought, the Bush administration will clap a lid on this and lie about it, buy off Special Prosecutor Robert Fitzgerald and we’ll never hear anything about it except a couple of angry lefties bitching and moaning on Democracy Now.

So, let’s just pretend I did do it, okay? Thanks.

Now, I’m no fan of Republicans in general, but Lincoln freed the slaves, Nixon had a great universal health plan idea that got scuttled, and Kissinger had a really rational set of protocols to determine when the United States ought to go to war (basically, only when it is critical to our national interests). Republicans are, mostly, for conservative values, and they have a right to be, they are tough on crime and I happen to agree with them on that, they want to keep the government as much as possible out of private, personal affairs, and they are in favor of fiscal responsibility which I think is necessary to counterbalance the dangers of a large and unwieldy socialist-style government. So let me put it this way; I don’t like Republicans on the whole, but I do very much like a government that is checked and balanced by strong, rational political movements.

The current administration, however, of soi-disant “neo-cons,” are not Republicans. Neo-cons, apparently, are in favor of a large, intrusive government that can arrest you and hold you and torture you for years without giving any reason, of legislating “moral” behavior, of massive irresponsible government spending, of ideologically-motivated wars, and so on. I can’t believe I’m nostalgic for Nixon.

Anyway, the Lapsus Linguae award for this month goes to Karl Rove, obviously, for his slip of the tongue in intentionally leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the press where douchebag Robert Novak would eventually publish it as an obvious form of recrimination for her husband’s, Ambassador Joe Wilson’s, refusal to back the administrations trumped-up yellow-cake uranium from Niger story, which was the central pillar of their justification for the Iraqi War, which has so far resulted in the deaths of nearly 150,000 humans. So what? I’ll tell you.
1. Burning the cover of a CIA operative is a felony.
2. Revealing Valerie Plame’s identity put her life at risk, which is an act of moral turpitude and egregious disregard for human life, which these guys profess to value so highly.
3. This act destroyed a CIA covert operation, which is an act of treason against We the People of the United States of America.

All of this from a man who was appointed, not selected by voting.

Republicans cannot in good conscience continue to support this dickhead, and it will be very interesting to see how Curious George makes with what is shaping up to be two Supreme Court appointments and the designation of a political successor to himself, with his, in his words, “political capital,” what little there is of it left, caught up in the defense of Rove, his bestest buddy and strap-on brain.

That’s all I got to say about that. END TRANSMISSION.