Suspect claims attacks not al-Qaeda and motivated by Iraq

According to the bombing suspect in Italian custody his group who partially detonated backpack bombs on the 21st of July had nothing to do with the 7/7 bombers or a larger al-Qaeda operation.

ROME, Italy (CNN) -- The failed July 21 bombings in London were not linked to the lethal attacks of July 7 or al Qaeda, a bombing suspect in Italian custody has told his interrogators, according to Italian media reports.

Hussain Osman, who is also known as Hamdi Issac, said the four men who partially detonated backpack bombs before running from their targets on July 21 were not working with the July 7 bombers who killed themselves and 52 commuters while injuring hundreds more on three London Underground trains and a double-decker bus.

Osman also claimed the July 21 group was not working for al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist organization behind the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, last year's Madrid train bombings and numerous atrocities worldwide.

Considering the types of bombs, the amateurish approach and their seemingly trouble free arrests it seems these bombers were inspired by the 7/7 bombs and the situation in Iraq as detailed by the bomber below;

ROME -- A suspect in the failed London transit bombings has admitted a role in the attack but said it was only intended to be an attention-grabbing strike, not a deadly one.

Osman Hussain is said to have told interrogators he wasn't carrying enough explosives even to "harm people nearby."

A daily newspaper in Rome reported Hussain told investigators that the plot was to "sow terror," not to kill and was motivated by anger about the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Hussain -- one of four suspected bombers in the July 21 attacks -- was arrested Friday in Rome. His lawyer said he may fight extradition.

Don't worry....

...we're all Moonbats to them. Orthodox Anarchist gets the LGF treatment and comes out fighting. Good on him.

A Different Kind of Iraq

Unlike Charles Johnson, who often finds it necessary to delve into left-wing blog comments in search of nutty rhetoric, we at LGF Watch have tended to stay out of the fetid swamp that is the LGF comments section. Because, as Charles so carefully points out, "comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs."

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16879_The_Next_Real_Battle&only

Fair enough. Nonetheless, we've found some stuff worth sharing in the above thread on the possible inclusion of shari'a law in the draft Iraqi constitution.

Charles -- like us -- is deeply apprehensive about the prospect of Iraq becoming a Shari'a state. And so are many of his readers. Some, though, remain optimistic despite everything. One uncharacteristic burst of sanity comes from 'really grumpy big dog johnson', who writes at #14:

The days of extreme Islam are very numbered. None of those folks want to believe it, but it is the extremism of their positions that dooms their dogma to
failure.

All across the ME, people are starting to understand the connection.

It may take longer in our own country, but the revelation will be real, and will be soon enough. We may see a lot of people killed in the meantime, but no dogma of horror and death has ever perservered across the sands of time.

Radical Islam is on a countdown clock, and there isn't a lot of time left before it's all over.

You can't just tell a world that holds 95% of the power on this planet that your religion will conquer, enslave or kill those who have made society what it is. If you do, it's like standing in front of the Greyhound bus on the interstate and calling the bus an infidel.

We couldn't have said it any better ourselves. But unfortunately, our appreciation of RGBDJ as one of the few sane posters on LGF was short-lived -- here he is at #45:

I've been feeling pretty ill lately, and I think the lies of the left have had major much to do with that. I'd sue, but I'm not stupid enough not to know that the majority of lawyers are in alignment with the social sciences that feed them
their clients, and who are in lockstep with the illusions of the collectivist
left.

Wow... that's nuttier than a really nutty thing covered with nuts.

Getting back to the topic at hand, a poster using the nickname 'cair' observes at #38:

Iraq is now run by extremist shia muslims. What did you all expect? Allawi was our guy. He was voted out in our so-called free elections and we allowed an islamic fundamentalist regime to take root. I have it on good authority that
these people hate America and Americans and are just bidding their time.

And here's 'transferthem' at #51, suggesting that Arab Muslims are congenitally unable to govern themselves democratically -- an opinion that is more usually attributed to the rabid anti-war left:

If iraq actually CHOOSES the death cult in preference to democracy, at least the west will know that arabs and muslims just aren't suited to living as civilised people. This is the big chance for iraq - freedom or barbarism. It's a clear choice which we in the west should observe rather than overtly influence.

This was followed immediately by 'Mich.manatee,' who writes:

LGF has become a shadow of its former self. The same boring old broken record is playing over and over and over lately. No new thoughts, no solutions, no
imagination, very little humor anymore, just a tired chant of "Kill 'em all."

I used to really look forward to reading the comments on this site. Oh well. All good things must come to an end, I guess.

That might be a bit premature, but if the general tenor of the remarks in response to that last post (e.g. our friend RGBDJ at #67 referring to 'Mich.manatee' as a "chickenshit bastard") is any indication, LGF will continue to lose the interest of people like Peter Verkooijen -- repeatedly misidentified by RGBDJ as a 'Scandi' -- who writes at #99:

I was a regular reader of LGF since at least 2002. I stood up for my beliefs by moving from the Netherlands to America and becoming active in Protest Warrior among other things.

I stopped reading LGF after Rathergate when more and more loudmouth morons like you came on the site. The whole thing became increasingly pointless - and I now find out after half an hour and two post that the situation is even worse than six months ago.

And so it goes. As desperately as some blogs claw and grasp for readers and commenters -- not to mention income -- LGF proves that it's possible for a site to be too popular.

PS Charles, don't worry. Pablo/Powderfinger/LGFWW has assured us that there will be no Sharia state. Even going as far as offering a wager. If you're worried ask him about Iraq, we're sure he'll be able to calm your nerves.

Coming to a cinema near you......

Crisis in Niger

Please help Save The Children

Flight to Save Niger's Children

A Save the Children aid plane has arrived in Niger. The flight, funded by the UK Department for International Development, is carrying 41 tonnes of essential supplies - enough food and equipment to support one month of therapeutic feeding for severely malnourished children and those recovering from malnutrition.

A lethal combination of drought and locusts last year decimated the harvest in Niger and has left the country with an estimated 223,000 tonne shortfall of grain to meet the food needs of the local population. Infant mortality and malnutrition rates have increased sharply as a result.

"The clock is ticking for these children. The support of the British Government and British public means we can get this much needed specialist food out to Niger to prevent more vulnerable children falling victim to malnutrition", said Toby Porter, Director of Emergencies, Save the Children UK.

Save the Children teams, including nutritionists and logistics staff, are working to provide nutritional assistance to children under five years old in the Maradi region which is facing acute food shortages. Initial estimates of 15,000 moderately and severely malnourished children in the region have been revised upwards to 40,000.

Please donate here.

Outspoken Sunni Official in Iraq Fired

The Shiite majority in the new 'democratic' Iraq seem very hostile towards the Sunnis role in forming a government. Is this how the freedom and democracy was supposed to work, Undemocratic political maneuvering, arrests, torture and sectarianism?

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - One of the few senior Sunni officials who had urged Sunni Arabs to join Iraq's political process has been fired, the government said Saturday. The death toll from a suicide attack on Iraqi army recruits rose to 44.

Adnan al-Dulaimi was dismissed July 24 as head of the Sunni Endowment, the government agency in charge of the upkeep of Sunni mosques and shrines, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's office said. It declined to speak further on the matter.

Al-Dulaimi told The Associated Press he was fired for defending Sunnis, who dominated Iraqi politics under Saddam Hussein but feel marginalized by the current U.S.-backed, Shiite-dominated government. Drawing Sunnis into the political process is seen as key for legitimizing any Iraqi government.

``I think that the reason behind my dismissal is that they want to silence a voice that is speaking against unjustified practices against Sunnis such as arrests, torture in the prisons, and also for my calls to release innocent detainees and to save Iraq from sectarianism, insecurity and divisions,'' al-Dulaimi told The Associated Press.

``They wanted to keep me away from this important post from which I can defend our Sunni people,'' al-Dulaimi said.

Al-Dulaimi had been among a handful of Sunni Muslim clerics and officials who have urged fellow Sunnis to vote in the constitutional referendum slated for October and the general elections that will follow in December. Most Sunnis boycotted the Jan. 30 balloting.

The New Constitution

At the request of artist Graeme MacKay, we have removed the image of his cartoon depicting the Iraqi constitutional congress dominated by Shi'ite fundamentalists like those in Iran.

LGF Watch would like to assure Mr. Mackay that we respect his copyright, and furthermore, that we enjoy his work and don't findit the least bit racist -- unlike some of the people who leave comments here. Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of LGF Watch.

Thanks, finally, to faithful reader 'LGF Watch Watcher' for bringing this to our attention. We appreciate your help.

MI5 admits Iraq link to London bombings

Now I don't believe anyone who says the cause of the London bombings was exclusively the war in Iraq. Also, I don't believe anyone who says that Iraq played no part in the bombings either. These two opinions have been all over the place in the last couple of weeks. Therefore I was surprised to find that MI5 of all people were being quite honest about the situation. Far more honest in fact than the politicians, the media, the blogsphere and the your average Mr Joe Public.

Iraq has become a "dominant issue" for Islamic extremists operating in Britain, domestic intelligence agency MI5 said.

In an analysis titled "Threat to the U.K. from International Terrorism" posted on the agency's Web site, a team of MI5 analysts concludes, "Though they have a range of aspirations and 'causes,' Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the U.K. and Europe."

In the wake of the July 7 bombings Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted there was no link between Britain's role in the Iraq invasion and the attacks. Their views came in contrast to a leaked assessment by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Center, based at MI5, which claimed three weeks before July 7 that Iraq was continuing to act "as a focus of a range of terrorist related activities in Britain."

Blair has since acknowledged that terrorists may use Iraq for recruitment.

LINK

Oh brother

If ever proof was needed that the Lizards have no sense of irony, here it is: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16844#comments.

This one's a classic:

If this is accurate, there may be hope. I do not know one single person who is against profiling of "middle-eastern" 20-30 year old men. Especially those with backpacks or rucksacks.

Maybe you don't know any 20-30 year old 'middle-eastern' men, darling? Maybe you don't, in fact, know anyone outside the LGF message board, which could explain the rather dim, narrow-minded outlook of your acquaintances?

Fresh doubts

Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did not leap tube station barrier and was not wearing a bulky jacket.

Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.
Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan police, Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said that the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin had come to be killed in mistake for a suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong.

"He used a travel card," she said. "He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."

LINK

First reports had him with wires coming out from under puffer jacket which were obviously false. All we can do is wait for the inquiry.

US Openly Supports Iranian Terrorists

LINK: Here's an interesting piece by William Van Wagenen about the kind of partnerships being struck by the US in Iraq. Spreading freedom and democracy by supporting Iranian Marxists?

The U.S. Government is now openly supporting the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, an Iranian resistance movement designated as terrorist organization by the US State Department. On June 20th of this year, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq held a conference at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, which is where many foreign journalists stay and is under the full protection of the U.S. Army. I was in the area of the hotel that day, and saw at least 10 U.S. tanks heading in the direction of the hotel to provide additional security. I knew of the conference in advance, because of a report issued to all NGO's working in Iraq, which mentioned that the conference would take place. The report warned of an increased danger of attacks against the hotel, as anti- U.S. insurgents were likely to attempt to disrupt the conference.

The Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) is a Marxist oriented Iranian resistance organization founded in the 1960's to topple the pro- western regime of Reza Shah. Since that time, MEK has carried out scores of attacks and assassinated a number of Iranian government officials. MEK killed several American military and civilian personnel in Iran during the 1970's, and assisted in the occupation of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 where American civilians were held hostage. Though MEK participated in the 1979 revolution, which toppled the Shah, once the Ayatollah Khomeini consolidated power in Iran, MEK moved their headquarters to Paris and continued resistance activities against the Islamic Republic. In 1981, MEK bombed the offices of the Islamic Republic Party, killing 70 high-ranking Iranian officials. MEK established its military headquarters in Iraq in 1986, where Saddam Hussein became their main source of funding and protection. In return, the MEK fought alongside Iraqi forces during the war against Iran in the 1980's, and assisted Saddam's security forces in putting down the Kurdish and Shiite revolts after the first Gulf War in 1991. The majority of Saddam's recently discovered mass graves are filled with the Shiite and Kurdish dead from this uprising. MEK military operations against Iranian targets continued through the 1990's. The U.S. Department of State added the MEK to its official list of terrorist organizations in 1997, and shut down the organization's Washington, DC office in 2003.

During the U.S. invasion of Iraq, MEK forces in Iraq surrendered to U.S. forces and turned over their military hard wear, including several thousand tanks, armored personnel carriers, anti-aircraft guns, and other vehicles. Despite denying suspected terrorists from Afghanistan and elsewhere prisoner of war status under the Geneva conventions, the US granted this status to detained members of MEK in Iraq.

And.........

So when Paul Wolfowitz promised Iraqis in 2003 that the US would hunt down the "monsters" that assisted Saddam in digging the mass graves in 1991, the Bush administration was in fact just beginning its support for some of the direct perpetrators of these crimes. Also revealing is U.S. criticism of the new Iranian president elect, due to his alleged involvement in holding U.S. embassy personnel hostage in 1979. Though the U.S. admits the MEK was involved in the same incident, White House support for this terrorist organization continues.

The hypocrisy here is absolutely breathtaking.

When is a 'war on terror' not a 'war on terror'?

When President Bush's advisors say so, they now see it as "a global struggle against violent extremism,"! Catchy ain't it.

WASHINGTON, July 26 (UPI) -- The Bush administration has begun downplaying the "war on terror" in favor of "a global struggle against violent extremism," the New York Times reports.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club that if something is a war "then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."

Myers said that while the military may be in the forefront now the long-term solution is more diplomatic, economic and political.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld used the new terminology at a retirement ceremony Friday for the naval chief of operations. Rumsfeld said the country "wages the global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization."

Officials told the Times that the new language is a product of meetings of President Bush's top national security advisers.

Welcome to Baghdad

Despite $2 billion spent, residents say Baghdad is crumbling. Is this winning hearts and minds? Is this progress?

Talib Abu Younes put his lips to a glass of tap water recently and watched worms swimming in the bottom.

Electricity flickers on and off for two hours in Muthana Naim's south Baghdad home then shuts off for four in boiling July heat that shoots above 120 degrees.

Fadhel Hussein boils buckets of sewage-contaminated water from the Tigris River to wash the family's clothes.

The capital is crumbling around angry Baghdadis. Narrow concrete sewage pipes decay underground and water pipes leak out more than half the drinking water before it ever reaches a home, according to the U.S. military.

Over 18 months, American officials spent almost $2 billion to revive the capital ravaged by war and neglect, according to Army Gen. William G. Webster, who heads the 30,000 U.S. and foreign troops and 15,000 Iraqi soldiers known collectively as Task Force Baghdad. But the money goes for long-term projects that yield few visible results and for security to protect the construction sites from sabotage.

As a result, Iraqis have seen scant evidence of improvement in their homes, streets or neighborhoods. They blame American and Iraqi government corruption.

"We thank God that the air we breathe is not in the hands of the government. Otherwise they would have cut it off for a few hours each day," said Nadeem Haki, 39, an electric-goods shop owner in the upscale Karrada district in the east of the capital.

Of the major completed projects in Baghdad, more than $38 million went to sewage projects, $375,000 to a water main and $101.2 million to electricity generation and transmission.

Others are in the works. More than $792 million is being invested in water, sewage and electricity projects across the capital, according to U.S. military documents.

The progress is slow and the rewards incremental. Parts of the city - such as the impoverished Shiite Muslim neighborhood Sadr City, once flooded with green rivers of sewage - now have functioning sewer systems.

"The things that go below the ground and provide enough electricity are incredibly expensive, especially when you have to pay for security for that local job site," Webster said.

As renovations are made, insurgent attacks often undermine the work, leaving the city's residents frustrated that there are days they can't flush their toilets. Over three weeks, three main water lines were attacked, leaving swaths of the city without water for days.

Power generation in the city has increased by about 232 megawatts but the demand has doubled, so the greater supply hasn't resulted in many more hours of service. Three more electricity projects are expected to be complete by the end of the year, including the Dora Power Plant, a $101.5 million project that will supply 428 more megawatts to Iraqi homes, according to U.S. military documents.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars also have been spent to repair and install feeder lines to make sure all parts of the city receive electricity.

A public campaign began in June to build confidence in the Ministry of Electricity. On billboards, TV commercials and radio announcements reminiscent of American-produced public service announcements, messages read:

"Electricity is a blessing, help us protect it,"

"The demand for electricity is growing faster than we can supply it,"

"We ask for your support and understanding."

But understanding wanes when the smell of sewage fills every other block, drinking water is often contaminated and Iraqis resort to sleeping on their roofs to take a break from the sauna-like heat inside their homes, waking up covered in dust.

Electricity production is up to 16 hours a day in Iraqi homes according to U.S. military documents, but most Iraqis say they get eight hours of power a day on average, sometimes as many as 12. In poor areas such as New Baghdad, in the east of the capital, people go days without power, they said.

With about $2 billion already invested, Baghdad should be sparkling, said its mayor, Alaa Mahmoud al Timimi. He hasn't been consulted on American projects, besides signatures for completed developments, and has threatened to resign if he doesn't get a larger budget to solve his city's problems. The $85 million he was allocated can't keep up with the city of 6.5 million, he said.

He's already playing catch-up. Over 12 years the city was allocated about $3 per person per year, he said.

"Baghdad is an ignored city," said Timimi, who's a civil engineer. "The people, they blame me. I need money to rebuild the capacity of water (supply) and ... (for) sewage, garbage collection, power."

Electricity lines are tangled above the streets like strands of spaghetti, supply machinery dates to 1958 and fuse boxes have been ripped from the walls in electricity stations.

"It's too slow. If I had $2 billion I would have done three to five times more," Timimi said. "The Americans told me this is our money and we will spend it towards our plans. They do it their way."

But rebuilding Baghdad can't be done in a day or even two years, apparently. Oil refineries, electricity plants and water plants weren't maintained under Saddam Hussein, and unforeseen expenses often hinder projects.

Sometimes the simple installation of an air conditioner at a school reveals that not enough electricity is being generated to make it work, said Lt. Col. William Duddleston, a spokesman for Task Force Baghdad's Government Support Team.

"People in Baghdad don't understand, because many of them had 24 hours of electricity while people in Basra had five," he said, referring to Iraq's southern port city. Electric power is now distributed more evenly around the country, so Baghdad has suffered.

The capital was ruled with both favoritism and neglect under the past regime, Webster said recently: Those in Saddam's good graces had round-the-clock electricity while others had none.

Lt. Col. Vincent Quarles, the commander of the 4-3 Brigade Troops Battalion, oversees neighborhood reconstruction projects in about one-quarter of Baghdad. He looks at sites in the Karrada district. Some are almost done: Pipes have been renovated, holding tanks for purified water sealed and small water-purification pumps installed.

But it's sometimes a two-steps-forward, one-step-back process. At one sewage plant in east Baghdad, they'd almost finished renovations when a decaying pipe collapsed and the ground caved in. Now the work will begin again.

"It's hard to see all the progress that's been made, but things are getting better," Quarles said.

Knight Ridder special correspondent Mohammed al Awsy contributed to this report.

Welcome to what used to be Baghdad.

Guardsman Pleads Guilty in Killing of Iraqi Officer

This is a story that's bound to be ignored by the right wing blogsphere.

FORT KNOX, Ky., July 25 - A 22-year-old National Guard soldier pleaded guilty today to killing an Iraqi police officer while they were on patrol together, and then shooting himself to cover up the crime.

With his parents and his wife, Amber, looking on, Cpl. Dustin M. Berg of the Indiana National Guard, said he felt "great remorse" about shooting Hussein Kamel Hadi Dawood al-Zubeidi in 2003.

Military prosecutors, who say the fatal shooting sowed a mistrust between Iraqi police officers and American soldiers that continues today, have asked a judge to sentence Corporal Berg to 45 months in prison and to discharge him dishonorably from the Army.

"I should have considered the Iraqi police officer to be an ally and not a threat," Corporal Berg said in court. "I believe I am negligent for the shooting. I should have used reasonable care. I should not have killed Mr. Zubeidi. I acted too quickly."

As he spoke, Corporal Berg held a crumpled tissue in his hand and frequently wiped his eyes and nose. Behind him, sitting in the courtroom's spectator section, his wife, who is seven months pregnant, and his parents wept openly.

The soldier had also been charged with two counts of lying to the military, but those charges were dismissed today.

Corporal Berg, of Ferdinand, Ind., served twice in Iraq with the First Battalion, 152nd Infantry, based in Jasper, Ind.

At least eight other American soldiers have been convicted or have entered guilty pleas related to charges of killing Iraqis.

The shooting occurred in November 2003 while Corporal Berg and Mr. Zubeidi were on patrol outside a flea market. The soldier testified that he had seen a suspected insurgent and moved to retrieve a radio to call his unit for instructions, but that Mr. Zubeidi had pointed a rifle at him and told him not to inform his superiors.

Corporal Berg said he had been in fear for his life, and in a "split-second decision," shot Mr. Zubeidi three times.

The soldier said he then shot himself with Mr. Zubeidi's AK-47 rifle because other soldiers in his unit had faced severe punishment for protecting themselves against suspicious Iraqis and he felt that Army investigators would not believe he killed the police officer in self-defense.

Thinking the unfamiliar weapon would fire only one bullet at a time, Corporal Berg said he accidentally shot himself three times in the abdomen instead of just once - because the weapon had been set on automatic fire. The soldier was hospitalized, but his wounds had not been life-threatening.

The soldier told Army officials that Mr. Zubeidi had shot him, and Corporal Berg was awarded a Purple Heart. Eventually, however, the soldier acknowledged that the wounds had been self-inflicted.

"I shot myself on purpose," Corporal Berg said today. "I didn't want there to be an investigation."

He added, "I'm lucky to be alive today."

Unfortunately the Iraqi Policeman wasn't as lucky was he Corporal Berg? It would be terrible if that's where the story ended, but hey this is Iraq and things always get worse! The recommended sentence for Berg is 45 months. Yep that's right 45 months for murder. Can you imagine if he had committed that crime in the states? Would four years be enough for murder?

Rove and Libby To Face Perjury Charges?

Just when they thought they managed to cover the Rove affair, something else hits the press.

Rove, Libby Accounts in CIA Case Differ With Those of Reporters

July 22 (Bloomberg) — Two top White House aides have given accounts to a special prosecutor about how reporters first told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to people familiar with the case.

Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity, the person said.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, according a person familiar with the matter. Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor, the person said.

These discrepancies may be important because Fitzgerald is investigating whether Libby, Rove or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a covert intelligence agent.

Murray Waas also picks up the story here

White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed CIA officer Valerie Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper during Rove’s first interview with the FBI, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The omission by Rove created doubt for federal investigators, almost from the inception of their criminal probe into who leaked Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak, as to whether Rove was withholding crucial information from them, and perhaps even misleading or lying to them, the sources said.

Also leading to the early skepticism of Rove's accounts was the claim that although he first heard that Plame worked for the CIA from a journalist, he said could not recall the name of the journalist. Later, the sources said, Rove wavered even further, saying he was not sure at all where he first heard the information.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, has said that Rove never knew that Plame was a covert officer when he discussed her CIA employment with reporters, and that he only first learned of her clandestine status when he read about it in the newspaper. Luskin did not return a telephone call today seeking comment for this story.

If recently disclosed press accounts of conversations that Rove had with reporters are correct, Novak and Rove first spoke about Plame on July 8, 2003. It was three days later, on July 11, that Rove also spoke about Plame to Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper. Three days after that, on July 14, Novak's column appeared in which he identified Plame as an "agency operative." According to Novak's account, it was he, not Rove, who first broached the issue of Plame's employment with the CIA, and that Rove at most simply said that he, too, had heard much the same information.

Novak's column came during a period of time when senior White House officials were attempting to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was then asserting that the Bush administration had relied on faulty intelligence to bolster its case to go to war with Iraq. Wilson had only recently led a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was covertly attempting to buy enriched uranium from the African nation to build a nuclear weapon. Wilson reported back that the claims were most likely the result of a hoax. But President Bush had still cited them during a State of the Union address as evidence that Hussein had an aggressive program to develop weapons of mass destruction.

In the column, Novak called Plame an "agency operative," thus identifying her as a covert CIA agent. But Novak has since claimed that his use of the phrase "agency operative" was a formulation of his own, and that he did not know, or mean to tell his readers, that she had a covert status with the agency.

Rove, too, has told federal investigators he did not know that Plame had a covert status with the CIA when he spoke with Novak, and Cooper, about Plame.

The distinction as to whether Rove specifically knew Plame’s status has been central to the investigation led by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald; under the law, a government official can only be prosecuted if he or she knew of a person's covert status and "that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent."

But investigators were also skeptical of Novak's claim that his use of the term "operative" was a journalistic miscue because it appeared to provide legal protection for whoever his source or sources were. And although Novak's and Rove's accounts of their conversations regarding Plame were largely consistent, they appeared to be self-serving.

It has been, in large part, for all of these reasons that Fitzgerald so zealously sought the testimony of reporters Cooper and Judith Miller of The New York Times, according to sources sympathetic to Fitzgerald. Cooper testified to Fitzgerald's grand jury last week, after earlier having been found in civil contempt for refusing to do so. In contrast, Miller has refused to testify, and is currently serving a sentence in an Alexandria, Virginia, jail.

Finally, also driving Fitzgerald's investigation has been Rove's assertions that he only found out about Plame's status with the CIA from a journalist -- and one whose name he does not recall. But as The New York Times first disclosed on July 16, senior Bush administration officials first learned that Plame worked for the CIA from a classified briefing paper on July 7, 2003, exactly a week before Novak's column naming Plame appeared and at the time that senior Bush administration officials were devising a strategy to discredit Wilson.

The classified memorandum, dated June 10, 2003, was written for Marc Grossman, then the undersecretary of state for political affairs, and reportedly made claims similar to those made by Wilson: that the Bush administration had relied on faulty intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Hussein to make the case to go to war with Iraq. The report was circulated to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and a slew of other senior administration officials who were then traveling with President Bush to Africa.

Fitzgerald has focused on whether Rove might have learned of Plame's identity from one of the many senior White House officials who read the memo, according to the Times account and attorneys whose clients have testified before the federal grand jury.

Murray Wass is covering the whole saga on his blog Whatever Already.

Where is accountability?

Sacked whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has some really dramatic revelations about here time at the FBI. I wonder if Charles will post this story? What kind of spin would he put on it?

Over four years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high- level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing “302” forms, and the translator, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, Thomas Frields, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ‘keep quiet’ regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing (Please refer to Chicago Tribune article, dated July 21, 2004). Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to the 9/11 Commission on February 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, location, witness names, and the contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information. I provided the 9/11 Commission with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this case.

For almost four years since September 11, officials refused to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists’ plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the 9/11 attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the ‘use of airplanes’, ‘major US cities as targets’, and ‘Osama Bin Laden issuing the order. ’ Coleen Rowley likewise reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ. All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC.

In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 attack, an agent from (city name omitted) field office, re-sent a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office, so that it could be re-translated. This Special Agent, in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rightfully believed that, considering his target of investigation (the suspect under surveillance), and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed certain information that could prove to be valuable in the investigation of terrorist activities. After this document was received by the FBI Washington Field Office and retranslated verbatim, the field agent’s hunch appeared to be correct. The new translation revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas (country name omitted). It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery. However, after the re-translation was completed and the new significant information was revealed, the unit supervisor in charge of certain Middle Eastern languages, Mike Feghali, decided NOT to send the re-translated information to the Special Agent who had requested it. Instead, this supervisor decided to send this agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. This supervisor, Mike Feghali, stated that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department. The FBI agent requesting the retranslation never received the accurate translation of that document. I provided this information to the 9/11 Commission on February 12, 2004, and to the Department of Justice Inspector General in May 2002.

The latest buzz topic regarding intelligence is the problem of sharing information, intelligence, within intelligence agencies and between intelligence agencies. To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence, and has not been told that certain information, despite its direct links, impacts and ties to terrorist related activities, is not given to or shared with Counterterrorism units, their investigations, and countering terrorism related activities. This was the case prior to 9/11, and remains in effect after 9/11. If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi- legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited ‘direct pressure by the State Department,’ and in other cases ‘sensitive diplomatic relations’ is cited. I provided the Department of Justice Inspector General and the 9/11 Commission with detailed and specific information and evidence regarding this issue, and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and the names of certain U.S. officials involved in these transactions and activities.

Now, after almost 4 years, we get to hear new bits & pieces: FBI & Midhar’s Case; FBI & Abdel-Hafiz Case; FBI & Saudi planes leaving just days after 9/11 without having the passengers questioned; FBI & Youssef Case;… and the list goes on.

Today, after nearly four years since 9/11, the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeopardized under the unspoken policy of ‘protecting certain foreign business relations.’ The victims family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for almost 4 years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under ‘safeguarding certain diplomatic relations .’

Where is the so-called congressional oversight? Why has the 9/11 Commission intentionally omitted this info; although they’ve had it all along? Where is accountability?

Where indeed?

A Question of Ethics

Shocking news! Charles is reporting that Caribou Coffee won't sell pork, beer or lottery tickets because the owners operate the business according to the Islamic principle known as Shari'ah.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16806_No_Pork_at_Caribou&only

Wow! I mean that's shocking. Fancy that! Muslims running a business to Islamic principles. I mean, Christians wouldn't do it would they? Or Jews? Those groups have no business principles based on their faith do they Charles?

Christian Business Principles

Basic Principles of Jewish Business Ethics

I wonder if you could buy pork at a Kosher deli or lottery tickets from a Christian bookshop?

Reporting from Utopia: Charles Johnson

It seems Charles Johnson is taking an active interest in violent crime in Australia as a sideline to his usual War on Terror content. Charles lives in the utopian city of Los Angeles where as we know there are no rapes, murders or "fourteenth century tribal savagery". Could it be Charles is suggesting that these rapists were undertaking their crimes in the name of Islam?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16786_Sydneys_Gang_Rape_Trial&only

Worse still, is his closing line (yes, I know hard to believe, Charles wrote some editorial);

This article does not mention that the Sydney rapists had a disquietingly large amount of support from the Australian Muslim community

Any evidence for that Charles? Are you going to back up the claim that there was a 'disquietly large amount of support' from Australian Muslims? Didn't thinks so.

"He should have been captured and then killed as slowly as possible, IMHO"

The "lizardoid minions" on the execution killing of a Brazilian electrician.

#1 noshariaincanada 7/22/2005 07:18AM PDT
Good work!
#2 Americain 7/22/2005 07:19AM PDT
GOOD!
#18 Anant 7/22/2005 07:24AM PDT
#3

I, too, am outraged at the way this man was gunned down like some sort of animal.

He should have been captured and then killed as slowly as possible, IMHO
#19 Tinker 7/22/2005 07:24AM PDT
Why was there only one cop shooting?
#31 Bob's Kid 7/22/2005 07:29AM PDT
Way.to.go.
#35 Kragar (Proud to be kafir) 7/22/2005 07:29AM PDT
I understand the shooting, but wasnt tying his body to the back of the train and dragging it once around London a bit much?

Oh wait, thats just what I would do, nevermind.
#36 I've had a Gutful 7/22/2005 07:30AM PDT
The police deserve medals, the muslim council of britain should put up (the suspects and preachers of hate) or shut the fuck up. If only they spoke up as quickly after the bombings!

All my friends and aquaintances defiantly rejoiced at this news.

Reap the whirlwind islamofascists.

#40 Sarah D. 7/22/2005 07:30AM PDT
#19 Tinker

Why waste bullets? Obviously one shooter was all that was necessary.

May his aim remain true.
#61 Powderfinger 7/22/2005 07:35AM PDT
Ladies and gentlemen, please. Let's be civilized.

5 rounds, point blank to the back of the head is sufficient.
#76 ColoradoJim 7/22/2005 07:38AM PDT
Good on you Metropolitan Police! Nice work. Does the Koranimal get his 72 raisins now?

ALLAHU FUBAR!
#148 BIG 7/22/2005 08:08AM PDT
Complaining about expending five rounds? Let me get my checkbook out to replace the funds used in accomplishing this task. It is money well spent and I'll include a bit extra for the next incident.

To the London cops. Good job. Don't worry about the ammo used. You are worth it!
#155 AmericanGirl 7/22/2005 08:14AM PDT
Good on the London police. Islamofascists reaping what they have sown. They want war? Give it to them.


Then, finally, the truth comes out:

#208 stuiec 7/23/2005 08:49PM PDT
OK, so the guy they iced was a Brazilian, and not carrying a bomb.

Perhaps a misunderstanding and a total cock-up.

What did these celebrating lizards have to say to that?

NOTHING.

(With thanks to IFC)

Hate-Everything Lies for Lizards

Charles has today cut-and-pasted a piece written by Alan Dershowitz about a children's book that 'allegedly; lionizes the anti-American hard left (whatever that means).

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16744_Hate-America_Lies_For_Kids&only

In it Dershowitz has this to say about Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman;

Nor are all of Shetterly’s heroes paragons of truth. A recent book, The Anti-Chomsky Reader, documents the reality that Chomsky chronically “fabricates facts,” fakes figures, misquotes authorities, distorts data, plays “fast and loose with source material,” and engages in “blatant professional mendacity.” No wonder historian Arthur Schlesinger called Chomsky an intellectual crook.” Noam Chomsky is not an “American who tells the truth,” and brainwashing children to believe that he is constitutes a form of literary child abuse.

The same can be said of Amy Goodman, who at least in my experience is among the most dishonest, biased and ideologically blinded radio talk show hosts. She doesn’t tell the truth, unless it happens to comport with the radical left line. Her political correctness is to correctness as military music is to music.

Now it's fair to say that Dershowitz seems to have a little obsession with both Chomsky and Goodman but to accuse them of being dishonest, fabricating facts and distorting data is a tad hypocritical considering his reputation for doing the same. The interview that brings some of these things to light is here and reproduced below;

On MSNBC’s Scarborough Country on 8 September 2003, renowned appellate lawyer, Harvard Law professor, and author Alan Dershowitz said: "I will give $10,000 to the PLO…if you can find a historical fact in my book that you can prove to be false." The book Dershowitz refers to is his latest work The Case For Israel. Author and professor Norman Finkelstein takes him on and charges that Dershowitz makes numerous factual errors in his book. Finkelstein teaches at DePaul University and is the author of four books including The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.

Listen to: Segment | Watch 128k
stream | Watch 256k stream

TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: Why don't we start with you laying out the thesis of your latest book, The Case for Israel.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I wanted to write a progressive liberal case for the two-state solution, which I think that most Israelis favor and have favored for a long time. I dedicate the book to Professor Aaron Barak, the president of the Israeli Supreme Court and for a reason. Because I argue in the book that no country in history faced with comparable threats both external and internal has ever triedas hard to comply with the rule of law. I compare Israel favorably to the United States. In this regard: its court intervened actively in support of Palestinian rights. Even during fighting in war time during the Jenin events engaging in certain actions which in its view violated the rule of law, The Israeli Supreme Court had banned the kind of rough interrogation techniques that are now being employed by the United States in Guantanamo Bay. Israel is the only country in modern history that has never deliberately and explicitly retaliated against those who attack its civilian targets. For example, during the Six Day war in 1973 war, the 1948 war, it's own residential areas were bombed by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, 1600 shells lobbed into west Jerusalem. Israel never bombed Amman, Damascus or Cairo, they bombed areas of Beirut, and in the process have killed innocent civilians. That is deliberately targeting civilians and going after the way the United States did in Iraq, of which I am very critical, but nonetheless with the United States did going after military targets, knowing that they're going to kill civilians in the process. And so myself, I oppose the settlements, always opposed the settlement, since 1967 I opposed the occupation. I think Israel made in my view a terrible view in my view what it should have done is made border adjustments pursuant to U.N. resolution 242 which I actually consulted with justice Goldburg, he was the ambassador to the U.N. was involved in the process of that 242 resolution, which presupposed some territorial adjustments. The problem is, Israel should never have occupied people. Land is different from people. And today I think unilaterally what it ought to do eventually is if it can't find the peace partner to make some unilateral changes, small ones. End the settlements, in fact my peace proposal is that Israel ought to have a schedule for ending settlements. That is a schedule for saying on so and so date the settlement ends conditioned on best efforts by the Palestinians to end terrorism. That would create incentive to ending terrorist acts. By the way you never condition anything on the end of terrorism, that gives terrorists a veto. What you condition it is on making good faith efforts and if we can get Israel to end the settlements and occupation and the Palestinian leadership to stop using terrorism as a tactic, I think finally something could have happened in 1917, two-state solution, in 1937 when the commission recommended noncontiguous Jewish homeland and Israelis accepted it and the Arabs rejected it. In 1947 when the U.N. allocated that portion of Palestine that had majority of Jews in it to a Jewish state, and the portion of Palestine that had Palestinian majority in it to an Arab state, could have had a two state solution. Could have had a two state solution in 2001 and 2000 and Barak and president Clinton offered to be sure noncontiguous state on 90% of the west bank and capital and Jerusalem with the 35 billion dollar refugee package. When Arafat responded by violence, came back to the table maybe we'll negotiate for more. The two-state solution is inevitable. It's going to happen. Only question is how long it takes to happen. My hope is that we can have a reasonable serious debate about the future, about the rights and wrongs I think the rights and wrongs on both sides. But I'm nervous because I heard from my debating partner in the beginning what sounded like it was going to be simply an ad hominem attack on me as to whether I'm qualified to teach at Harvard. I would hope we could elevate the discussion, keep it on the merits. I won't attack Mr. Finkelstein on his merits of his position, let people read his book and judge for themselves. And if he would refrain from personal attacks on me, let people judge the book on the merits. I think we can move the ball forward and have a reasonable serious debate. I think it would be interesting to know where we agree and disagree. What facts we share in common, what facts we have different views on and whether they're empirical and could be subjected to reasonable resolution, where we have moral disagreements, I really think that in the end today you read the news about Israel is other good news. There is a prisoner exchanges between Hizbollah and Israel which Israel would get back one person, civilian who was captured by Hezbollah in exchange for Israel giving back 400 or so prisoners. There's movement forward. Let's not destroy that movement forward by getting involved in meaningless ad hominem discussion, let's see if we can elevate the debate see if we can really move forward to the two state solution that I think virtually everybody in the world today wants.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Alan Dershowitz, author of The Case for Israel. Norman Finkelstein, your response.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I appreciate Alan Dershowitz's seriousness at least in these remarks. I have no intention whatsoever of getting involved in an ad hominem debate with Mr. Dershowitz. I'm interesting in the facts. I was asked to come in and discuss his new book. I went home, purchased one copy, in fact I purchased two copies. I read the book very carefully. I did what someone serious does with a book. I read the text, I went through the footnotes. I went through it very carefully. There's only one conclusion one can reach having read the book. This is a scholarly judgment, not an ad hominem attack. Mr. Dershowitz has concocted a fraud. In fact Mr. Dershowitz has concocted a fraud which, amazingly, in large parts, he plagiarized from another fraud. I found that pretty shocking, shocking coming from a Harvard professor. I find it shocking coming from any professor.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: We have to cut off I just want to warn everybody here that although I'm not a litigious person when you make allegations . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I'm proceeded to . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: When you make allegations of plagiarism that's a . . . It has great legal implications. And I can't obviously sit quietly by and . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I agree. Well that's -- Let's look at the evidence.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: . . . of plagiarism . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Let's look at the evidence. In the first two chapters of your book you extensively reproduce all of Joan Peters' pages in her book. I read it carefully. In 1984 . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Show me one sentence.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I am going to show you I think I have . . .I made available the charts to you.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You've shown me nothing. Let's start with that. That's a categorical lie. What you're hearing now on radio is a claim that Mr. Finkelstein made available to me certain charts. That is a lie.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Mr. Dershowitz, I think you had about five minutes' time I wasn't looking at the clock. If we're going to have a civil debate you're going to have to remain . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: It's not going to be about me, let me be very clear about that.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I have no interest in you, Mr. Dershowitz. None at all. I'm interested in the scholarship, I'm interested in the facts, I'm interested in your book. In 1984 one Joan Peters published a book called From Time Immemorial, the book was universally recognized by serious scholars to be a fraud. Without wanting to toot my own horn I'm widely recognized as the person who exposed the fraud. I know that book inside out. I read it at least four times, I went through all 1854 footnotes. I started to read your book, Mr. Dershowitz, I then came to chapter one footnotes 10, footnote 11, footnote 12, footnote 13, footnote 14, footnote 15, footnote 16, all of the quotes are from Joan Peters. They're so from Joan Peters that you have a long quote here from Mark Twain on pages 23 to 24. I turned to Joan Peters page 159 to 60, identical quote from Twain with the ellipses in the . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Is the Twain quote wrong?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: . . . with the ellipses . . . let me finish sir. They're in the same places. The identical quote from Twain with the ellipses in the same places.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: It's been quoted, as you know.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Mr. Dershowitz, I . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: What's your point?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Let me finish . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I would ask you a question. Is it a direct quote? Is it an accurate quote of Twain? Did Twain say . . .

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Dershowitz the way we can have a civilized discussion here is that each person will get a chance to make their point and won't be cut off.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: You have a nearly full page quote from one William Young, a British consul from May 1839.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Is it an accurate quote?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I'm going to finish, sir. On page 18 of your book. I turn to Joan Peters, page 184, the identical quote with the ellipses I'm holding it up for the camera perhaps they can see this is the length of the quote.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Is it an accurate quote?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: It's in the identical place. Last point. I'm not going to go through chapter two where there are 29 plagiarisms from Joan Peters.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: To be very clear, it's not plagiarism to quote Mark Twain correctly.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Except that you cite Mark Twain not Joan Peters. I'm a professor, sir. I know what plagiarism is.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: And plagiarism is . . . What is your definition of plagiarism?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: We're not going to get involved in that now.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You're using a word you're not going to tell us what you mean by it?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The documentation, you know what we'll let everybody else decide for themselves because documentation one last example. I want to make it very clear, in Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial she coins a phrase. The phrase is "turn speak”.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: She borrows it from . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Sir, I'm sorry she coins the phrase, you see you don't know what you're talking about that's pretty terrible. She coins the phrase, "turn speak,” she says she's using it as a play off of George Orwell which is, all listeners know, used the phrase “news speak”. She coined her own phrase, "turn speak”. You go to Mr. Dershowitz’s book he got so confused in his massive borrowings from Joan Peters that on two occasions -- I'll cite them for those who have a copy of the book -- on page 57 and on page 153 he uses the phrase, quote, George Orwell's turn speak. Turn speak is not Orwell, Mr. Dershowitz, you're the Felix Frankfurt chair at Harvard, you must know that Orwell would never use such a clunky phrase as turn speak.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I like it.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, maybe you like it. Evidently Joan Peters liked it. But George Orwell never heard of it to the best of my knowledge.

AMY GOODMAN: We have to break for stations to identify themselves. 60 seconds. When we come back professor Dershowitz can respond. We're talking to professor Alan Dershowitz author of a new book it's called The Case for Israel and debate with Norman Finkelstein. You're listening to Democracy Now! Stay with us.

[Music Break]


AMY GOODMAN: More music here from the late Frank Lowe as we continue our debate on Alan Dershowitz’s new book called The Case for Israel. Alan Dershowitz is professor of law at Harvard law school. In discussion with Norman Finkelstein who teaches at Depaul University in Chicago. His book Image and Reality: The Origins of the Israel Palestinian Conflict, Professor Dershowitz, your response to this very serious charge of plagiarism.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: It's a frivolous charge, of course. What happened was this. Of course I read the Peters book, anybody writing a book on the Middle East, anybody, would. I also read The Myths and Facts, a book put out originally by AIPAC then published separately and independently probably 30 or 40 other books which use the same quotes, they're very extensively used quotes by Mark Twain because Mark Twain traveled to Palestine, Mark Twain is a very prominent American writer. What he saw in Palestine is very relevant to the debate. He saw barren lands, didn't see a Palestinian community. He saw empty roads and he writes extremely vividly and one scholar is entitled to read a book as I did, Peters' book and to find quotes in the book and check them against the original quotes. And find them to be accurate and then do what I did, I don't know whether or not Mr. Finkelstein read footnote 31 that appears on page 246 which says, the research of French Cartographer Vital relied on for the I may of mispronounced it.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: You misspelled it.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: See Joan Peters From Time Immemorial, then Peters' conclusions and data have been challenged and then I quote from Hitchens, I did not in any way rely on them in this book. In other words, what I did, it's very common for scholars to do that. Is I read her books, I read Mr. Finkelstein's criticism of them I came away from enough doubt about the conclusions that although I don’t regard the Peters' book in any way as a fraud, I think it was well intentioned effort to recreate and very difficult to recreate events that existed in 1890 and 1900. Did I find her quotes which have been as I said used extensively by Facts and Myths and other publications, to be quite compelling. This book and none of my writing, I don't purport to be independent historian who goes back to the Middle East and reads original documents. I'm doing what a lawyer would do and what lawyers do is they find sources, they check the sources, I had a research staff that obviously checked the sources. I haven't heard a word from Mr. Finkelstein suggesting that the quote from Mark Twain is not an accurate quote. If Peters had made up a quote that hadn't existed. Mark Twain had never written it then somebody borrowed the quote without going to check back on whether Mark Twain had said that, obviously that would be a serious charge. I've done nothing like that. The vast majority of my book deals with current situations. In fact I start my book by saying there has to be a statute of limitations on grievances. I don't try to base the case for Israel on the fact that Jews lived in Palestine before the birth of Jesus or the fact that Jews were expelled from what is now Israel in 72 A.D. and I argue that Palestinians can't really make the case against the two state solution based on historic claims that go back 100 years but first couple of chapters which are quite brief, I recount never purporting to be creative or original in the recounting, I recount what has been accepted as traditional history. That includes the fact that the land particularly what is now what would be western Palestine, what was the part of Palestinian allocated to Israel in the 1947 division was land that before the Jews got there in the first 1880 in the beginning of the 20th century was land that was coming into disuse. Now these are controversial, by the way, there are some Palestinians who say you shouldn't trust Mark Twain. Some Palestinians say you shouldn't trust the various English travelers. Reasonable people could disagree about that. I quote those sources, I lay them out there for people to read so that they can evaluate the claims that Israel was established on the basis of colonialism. I make the following argument which I'd love to hear from Finkelstein’s rebuttal. You can't be a colonialist country unless another country sent people there as soldiers to take over that country. For example, France sent its settlers to Algeria. England sent settlers to India. Dutch and other countries sent their settlers to parts of Africa with guns to take over. What did the Jews do during the first and second? They escaped from countries that were persecuting them. They escaped from Russia and Poland, Lithuania. They didn't come at the request of those countries, if you claim people were colonialist you have to say on whose behalf they were working. The Jews weren't working on behalf of Russia or Poland or Lithuania. They came as refugees. Much like American Jews came as refugees to America. The ones who went to Palestine went with rakes and hoes to try to build the land, to try to join collectively with the local population. They did in fact improve the land as the result of work projects in western Palestine many Arabs from eastern Palestine moved there, I cite statistics, Peters cites the same statistics in fact showing in various the fact that I can't remember the exact numbers, Jews moved there attracted 300 or 400, you may disagree with it. But those are the data that I presented and we can reasonably disagree with that. Now I just want to make one point about Mr. Finkelstein’s research. I don't want to get ad hominem into this debate. But for example I do quote Mr. Finkelstein at one point I think only once in the book. That is he makes an argument in the collection that to judge the 1947 partition the only fair way to do it is to look at either all of Palestine, which I don't know whether he needs to include what became Jordan, trans-Jordan or not or you have to look at what became of Israel after the 1948 war. I disagree with that. What I say respectfully in the book is that when you look at the fairness of the 1947 petition, you only look at the land that was allocated to the state of Israel. In that land Jews were clearly a majority according to the U.N. census to be sure once the Arab nations attacked Israel, once the Palestinians attacked Israel there was a war and Israel secured more land which was regularized by a crease fire in 1949. What Mr. Finkelstein does is he counts that land and says, look how much they got and look at the proportion of Jews and Palestinians that's not the correct demographic to look at. So we can have reasonable . . .

AMY GOODMAN: Let's get the response to that.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Stay away from the ad hominems and get to the merit of the case.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Professor Dershowitz, I'm not a professor at Harvard but I do . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You seem to resent that a lot.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I do teach elsewhere. And when we discuss issues like falsifying information, plagiarizing, lifting whole cloth from other books I've never heard that called ad hominem for a serious scholar and a serious academic, those are very fundamental issues.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: But when they're false . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: If they're false then you dispute them. To characterize them as ad hominem seems really out of court for a professor . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You said I don't deserve to teach at Harvard that sounds pretty . . .

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Dershowitz let Norman make his case.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: You raise that issue then I'll address it then returning to the substantive issues of your book.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: First tell me why I shouldn't be teaching at Harvard.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: On page 207 of your book you say that to deliberately misinform, miseducate, and misdirect students is a particularly nasty form of educational malpractice.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Of which I accuse Noam Chomsky and others.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I consider what you have done in the book to be a paradigmatic illustration of misinforming, miseducating and misdirecting. Allow me to finish.

AMY GOODMAN: Let him make his point.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Allow me to finish, Mr. Dershowitz, I've with very respectful of your time. On page 213 you discussed Holocaust fraud by Robert Soan and you write, quote, "it was their extensive historical research” referring to his book.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That's right.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Instead there was the fraudulent manufacturing of false anti-history.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That's right. And Chomsky wrote as you . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Please don't bring in Mr. Chomsky. He can defend himself. We're talking about you and your book. It was the kind of deception referring to the book that let me quote clearly, for which professors are rightly fired.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I stand by that.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Not because their views are controversial, let me underline this again, but because they are violating the most basic canons of historical scholarship.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me respond to that. You compare me to . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I didn't ask . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You made up the story that the Holocaust . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I'm referring to your standards. I have no interested in someone else; I'm talking about your standards. To miseducate, misinform and misdirect to violate the standards of historical scholarship are grounds for expulsion.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: It's not an ad hominem argument, it's using your standards.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: No, it's an ad . . .

AMY GOODMAN: I'm going to interrupt here because I want to get to some of the main points of your book. Also we were intrigued on watching Scarborough Country when you debated, the offer that you made just play it for a moment.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Tell you what I will give $10,000 to the P.L.O. in your name if you can find historical fact in my book that you can prove to be false. I issue that challenge, I issue it to you, I issue it to the Palestinian Authority, I issue it to Noam Chomsky to Edward Said, every word in my book is accurate and you can't just simply say it's false without documenting it. Tell me one thing in the book now that is false?

AMY GOODMAN: Okay. Let's go to the book. The Case for Israel -- $10,000.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me tell you what he came up with this is really fascinating if you show the rest of the clip. He came up he said on television, I saw a photograph or a videotape of Israeli soldiers aiming their guns at that, whatever 12-year-old boy who was caught in the cross fire and killed and I actually upped the offer to $25,000 if he could produce a photograph or if he could produce proof that he had seen that. Why was I so confident? Because German television did a very thorough study of that one particular incident. Let's just spend one minute on that. What happened is when that child was killed in his father's arms, the nation of Israel went into almost universal mourning, it was as if they were sitting shiva on one of their own children. A child had died, it looked as if possibly Israeli soldier might have shot him. When you contrast that to how Palestinians respond to a child dying in Israel from terrorism -- dancing in the streets -- it's a very striking comparison. Then German television did a study they found out that the Israeli soldiers were positioned in a way that it was physically impossible for the bullet from an Israeli soldier to have hit that Palestinian child and it was virtually certain that the bullet had come from a Palestinian gun. In my view that's not particularly relevant when a child is caught in cross fire it's a tragic death resulting from the crossfire. Which bullet actually hit was not relevant. But that was the answer that he came up with.

AMY GOODMAN: Norman Finkelstein.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, first of all I want to clarify the monetary issue. Is it now $25,000?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: $25,000 on that issue.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Just on that issue. In general $10,000.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me be clear

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: We just saw the tape. I think it's clear.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I made it very clear I said afterward a material willful . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I don't want afterwards. Professor Dershowitz it's on tape. We just saw it. We're not talking about a spelling mistake. We're not talking about a minor . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: All right. Let's talk about . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Serious material. Let's start. Number one, I'm going to first deal with just concrete facts which are not particularly controversial, which can easily be confirmed. On page 80 of your book you write, according to Benny Morris between . . .

AMY GOODMAN: Benny Morris is an Israeli historian.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I have a copy of his book here, which I'll hold up. 2,000 to 3,000 Palestinians were made refugees during the second stage of the flight. Here is the book. Page 256, do you read what the sentence says.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me read you what I say, in some areas Arab . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Please don't read the whole paragraph.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me put in the context. Chomsky says that Morris does not believe that any Arab leaders told the Palestinians to leave. I say, in some areas I quote from Morris, in some areas Arab commanders ordered . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I'm not pursuing that.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: . . . to clear the ground for military purposes to prevent surrender. More than half dozen villages, et cetera, were abandoned during these months as result of such orders. Elsewhere in east Jerusalem in many villages, the Arab commanders ordered women, old people and children to be sent away out of harm's way. Indeed psychological preparation for the removal of the dependents had begin in 1947-48 and Arab League periodically endorsed such a move. And I say therefore, Chomsky is simply wrong when he says that there's no evidence, he says again in another point, nobody today believes that any of the refugees were told to leave. I dispute that by quoting Morris himself.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: You seem to have obsession with Mr. Chomsky but he's not here. I'm here. Let's look at . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I was surprised . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Let's be serious.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I agree with you.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Read the next sentence. Morris estimates in your book I have right in front of me. Next sentence.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That between 2,000 and 3,000 Arabs fled their homes.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Can you please what Mr. Morris wrote.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You're talking about . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Please read what he wrote.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: If I have the whole book I will find for you if you want to take time. Norm Finkelstein if you want the . . .

AMY GOODMAN: I'm looking at page 256 of Morris book.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Phase two now same one as you. You're talking about . . .

AMY GOODMAN: About 2,000 to 3,000 Arabs fled their homes.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The difference between 2,000 and 3,000 and 200,000 and 300,000. You could check this many times, Mr. Dershowitz. But you are really going to have to pay the $10,000. I hope you allow me to earmark it for Jenin.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: We're talking about a variety of . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: It is not the O.J. trial. This is not the O.J. trial. We're not going to play a game.

AMY GOODMAN: Is your point that you're citing that Norm Finkelstein is in Alan Dershowitz's book he says 2,000 to 3,000.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: It's 200,000 to 300,000.

So that's dishonesty, plagiarism and lying Mr Dershowitz......well done. No wonder he's got a chip on his shoulder after showing himself up so badly.

What Integrity Looks Like

One of the few politicians doing right by US soldiers is a conservative Christian Republican congressman. Not the usual anti-war campaigner.

Until recently, I've been completely unimpressed with Washington antics. Politicians get paid a lot of money to do their jobs. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Watching them blatantly abdicate their responsibility in the run-up to the Iraq war was almost as difficult as watching most of America let them get away with it.

Worse, however, has been watching these elected officials sit on their hands as Americans die every day in the desert amid the stateside failure of policy and leadership.

I had all but given up. Then I met Walter Jones, a Republican congressman from North Carolina. While generally conservative, he's got a solid track record of recklessly leading with his heart and voting his conscience.

I first heard of him prior to the invasion of Iraq. Like many others on Capitol Hill, the White House sold him on the idea that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States and that there were links between Iraq and 9/11. Angry that our allies saw such overwhelming evidence in a different light, Walter Jones insisted that french fries be renamed "freedom fries" in House office building cafeterias.

Since the invasion, Jones has distinguished himself by actually paying attention to facts as the Bush administration's arguments started to show cracks. He began to see in Iraq what he saw Vietnam: a war justified by false pretenses and empty ideology that had the real consequence of needlessly killing American soldiers. Jones started sending personal letters with handwritten words of condolences to the families of every soldier killed in Iraq. The hallways outside of his Capitol Hill office are lined with the faces of the fallen.

My family recently went to Washington to thank Walter Jones for his efforts. One of those pictures in his hallway is of my brother, Sgt. Sherwood Baker. One of those letters he sent is on my living room table.

Sherwood was killed in Baghdad last year. His death has kept my faith at the fore. That faith is challenged, quite honestly, when I hear the warmakers extolling their belief in Christ as their savior as they drop cluster bombs and commit other people's children to the hell of war.

Walter Jones could easily be considered one of "them" -- a Christian conservative. I sat next to him in his office and quickly relearned how wrong it is to label a person. As a Christian myself, I understood immediately that his personal belief in Christ has been the basis of his actions. The most obvious aspect of our meeting was the authenticity of his humility.

He began by speaking specifically to my mother and the mothers of two other fallen soldiers who were with us.

Tears have been easy for me to come by over the last 14 months since Sherwood died. The catalyst could be the unabated laughter of my nephew or the national anthem; anything, really, that brings Sherwood to mind.

When Walter Jones said this simple sentence, "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for this war," I found myself unable to hold them back.

I waded through the election rhetoric last year waiting to hear those courageous words. My brother was on the security detail of the Iraq Survey Group. He died looking for those non-existent weapons of mass destruction that President Bush used as a rationale for this disastrous war.

Walter Jones is now introducing legislation that seeks a timetable for exiting Iraq.

The leadership that advocated for the Iraq war has displayed a deplorable contempt for reality. Our troops suffer injury and death every day. The Bush administration, meanwhile, finds it best to nurse its own bruised egos, to spin history and the truth on their heads just to make themselves look good.

Walter Jones, on the other hand, has done what Jesus would ask. Those principles have led him through a maze of unchecked passion and righteousness. And now, he finds himself in catharsis, staring at revelation. Some call this the path. The next step on that path is to try to right the wrong.

As a conservative Republican congressman who has changed his mind about the war, he's in a position to do it. This country needs a restoration of integrity and competence in our government. Walter Jones stands as a beacon of hope that we are pointed in the right direction.

This piece originally appeared in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Via Dante Zappala, Alternet

The BBC and the 'T' word

LINK::Much was made of the BBC's alleged reluctance to call the suspects involved in the London bombings terrorists. Here's BBC chairman Michael Grade answering those accusations;

Mr Grade was also questioned on the Today programme about the controversy surrounding the BBC's coverage of the London bomb attacks.
When pressed to say whether the perpetrators of the attacks were terrorists, he replied: 'Yes, and the BBC had been describing them as such.

'Not only my view, it's the view of all BBC journalists and editors and it has been very clearly signalled in all our news outlets

'The fact is that the BBC's coverage has used the words 'terror, terrorist' very freely on all our major news outlets. There was some subediting on a couple of pages of a website that I haven't got to the bottom of yet but which the director general I am sure will tell the governors about.'

Growing Doubts

Not really suprising news I know, but for some reason it hasn't made it onto the right wing blogsphere.

WASHINGTON -- Americans have growing doubts about President Bush's honesty and his effectiveness, according to a poll taken at a time people are uneasy with the war in Iraq, uncertain about the economy and nervous about the terrorist threat.

Half of those in the poll taken by the Pew Research Center, 49 percent, said they believe the president is trustworthy, while almost as many, 46 percent said he is not. Bush was at 62 percent on this measure in a September 2003 Pew poll and at 56 percent in a Gallup poll in April. One of Bush's strong suits throughout his presidency has been the perception by a majority of people that he is honest.

The slide in trust in Bush comes at a time the White House is answering questions about top aide Karl Rove's involvement in the public leak of the identity of a CIA operative.

Read more here.

Iraqi Christians find safety in Syria

I'm sure Charles simply missed a story like this. It seems Iraqi Christians are seeking refuge in 'terror supporting', 'Christian/Jew hating' Syria rather than free, democratic Iraq.

Damascus, Syria -- Seated in his parish office, Father Sarmad Yousef reflected on his hard choices: to disobey his archbishop by remaining in Syria or to return to Iraq, where his name has appeared on a death list.

"After the Americans came, I was one of the people telling the Iraqi Christians not to leave," he said. "After the violence started, I stopped telling them that."

Christians all over Iraq face a similar dilemma as relentless violence engulfs the country, some directly targeting them.

Staying in the midst of the threats is dangerous, yet leaving means abandoning communities, church property and a heritage with centuries-old roots.

Before the U.S.-led war, roughly 750,000 Christians lived in Iraq, out of a population of 25 million. Most were Chaldean and Assyrian, but there also were Armenian, Jacobite and Greek Orthodox Christians and a small number of Protestants. Most of them lived either in Baghdad or in northern Iraq around Mosul.

Since then, 15,000 to 20,000 Christians have fled to Syria, according to Christian groups, out of "about 700,000" Iraqis, most of them in flight from the war, according to the U.N. high commissioner for refugees.

Yousef, a 30-year-old Chaldean Catholic who came here in August 2004, was the parish priest of Baghdad's St. Pathion Church, with 800 families under his stewardship. Today, he occupies a simple office in Damascus, decorated with small portraits of St. Therese, the patron saint of his new church, cradling a bouquet of pink roses.

He says he actively supported the United States when coalition troops first entered Baghdad in April 2003 and helped organize community meetings on their behalf. Such support came with grave risks, and he narrowly missed two drive-by shooting attacks.

But when the Abu Ghraib prison scandal came to light, Yousef says, his view changed. Nor was he alone.

"Before that, Iraqis loved Americans," said Yousef, his eyes lowered. "Directly after that -- those photos, that scandal directly destroyed the dignity of Iraqis."

The Shiite Crescent

Jesse Jackson hits the nail on the head.

Would you buy a used car from George W. Bush? On the fundamental questions of war and peace, of calling on the bravest young American men and women to sacrifice their lives, this administration and this president no longer have a shred of credibility. With U.S. forces mired in Iraq, it grows harder to separate the logic from the lies in this president's ''war of choice.''

Consider the headlines of the past week. The new Iraqi president, Ibrahim al-Jafaari, has traveled to Iran to cement a security alliance with the fundamentalist Iranian mullahs, prime members of the president's Axis of Evil. Ali Shamkhani, the Iranian defense minister, hailed the pact as ''a new chapter in our relations with Iraq.'' Has the United States spent $200 billion and sacrificed nearly 2,000 lives and left thousands more maimed and wounded so the mullahs of Iran who despise the United States could gain an ally in Iraq and create a ''Shiite crescent'' in the Persian Gulf? It is hard to imagine any outcome that could be more destabilizing in this critical region of the world.

This nightmare sensibly haunts the administration. Thus, Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker reporter who has done more to bring forth the truth about the war than anyone, reports that the administration sponsored an ''off the books'' covert effort to fix the elections in Iraq to deny Shiite parties a majority.

The White House hailed the elections as a grand success, a free and unfettered expression of democracy. But according to Hersh's intelligence sources, fraud was widespread on all sides. And the White House cooked up an off-the-books operation designed to help the party of acting Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a U.S. ally and former CIA retainer. It apparently worked. Allawi's party did much better than expected. The pro-U.S. Kurds did better than expected. The Shiite religious parties were denied a majority. Despite this, al-Jafaari, head of the Shiite Dawa party and a fundamentalist who spent a decade in exile in Iran, became head of the government.

The administration, of course, issued a formal statement denying any covert operation designed to rig the election. But the statement is worded carefully to deny only ''any covert helping of individual candidates for office.'' It doesn't mention political parties.

And even if the White House spokesmen end up denying it all, who could believe them? This is the White House that dismissed as ''ridiculous'' reports that political guru Karl Rove was involved in an effort to discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson by outing his wife, who was a CIA employee operating under cover. ''This White House doesn't operate that way,'' we were assured. If any aide were involved, he or she would be dismissed immediately. Now it is clear that that denial was a lie. This White House does operate that way. Rove was up to his eyebrows in the effort to discredit Wilson. And the president's promise to remove anyone involved is apparently inoperative.

This is a disgrace for President Bush and the Republican Congress, but it is a calamity for our country. We are mired in a war launched on false pretenses by an administration that, as our British allies concluded, fixed the intelligence to fit the policy. U.S. forces are mired in an occupation that, according to the CIA, is generating recruits for al-Qaida. The new leadership of Iraq is forging a close alliance with Iran's fundamentalist rulers, our leading enemies in the region. Within Iraq, not surprisingly, a civil war is beginning, for neither Sunnis nor Kurds will accept fundamentalist Shiite rule.

We desperately need wise and credible leadership to guide us though this catastrophe. But Americans are slowly beginning to understand that this president and his administration lack both candor and credibility. The craven and corrupt GOP Congress puts partisan politics over the nation's security and insulates the White House from public accountability. Our bitterly divided, partisan political culture turns vital and difficult questions of war and peace into political spitball fights.

Surely the young men and women at risk in Iraq deserve far better than this. Republicans control the White House and the Congress. Is there a profile of courage among them who will call this administration to account?

More spammer fun

Hey, look: the spammer's got a new IP. This one (12.161.199.131) resolves to:
--
OrgName: KENNAMETAL
OrgID: KENNAM-1
Address: 1600 TECHNOLOGY WAY
City: LATROBE
StateProv: PA
PostalCode: 15650
Country: US

NetRange: 12.161.199.0 - 12.161.199.255
CIDR: 12.161.199.0/24
NetName: KENNAMET224-199
NetHandle: NET-12-161-199-0-1
Parent: NET-12-0-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
Comment:
RegDate: 2001-12-20
Updated: 2001-12-20

TechHandle: JZ345-ARIN
TechName: Hanson, Jeff
TechPhone: +1-724-539-5438
TechEmail: ***********@kennametal.com

OrgTechHandle: JZ345-ARIN
OrgTechName: Hanson, Jeff
OrgTechPhone: +1-724-539-5438
OrgTechEmail: ***********@kennametal.com
--
Dear Kennametal,

Please close your open ports. Thank you.

What are the chances of LGF reporting this?

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has criticized the radical Hamas faction for breaking the truce with Israel that all Palestinian groups had agreed upon.

I wonder wether Charles will put up that oh so funny picture of Abbas with a speech bubble with "I don't want or accept a civil war. But if they insist on breaking the truce without abiding by the consensus, let them bear the responsibility." as the quote.

LINK

Spammer of the week

Folks, this week's top spammer comes to you from IP 82.96.100.100. The IP is registered to a German/Austrian Company. Details

In The Firing Line

Charles seems to be desperately searching for positive news concerning the Rove/Plame fiasco and has now picked up on a piece by Andrew C. McCarthy accusing the CIA for 'outing' Valerie Plame. It seems this story just get's worse and worse and now new allegations are surfacing. I wonder who Charles will have to borrow a hatchet job from about this one.

Top aides to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were intensely focused on discrediting former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV in the days after he wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times suggesting the administration manipulated intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq, federal investigators have been told.

Prosecutors investigating whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Although lower-level White House staffers typically handle most contacts with the media, Rove and Libby began personally communicating with reporters about Wilson, prosecutors were told.

A source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said Rove's interest was so strong that it prompted questions in the White House. When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove reportedly responded: "He's a Democrat." Rove then cited Wilson's campaign donations, which leaned toward Democrats, the person familiar with the case said.

The disclosures about the officials' roles illustrate White House concern about Wilson's July 6, 2003, article, which challenged the administration's assertion that Iraq had sought to purchase nuclear materials. Wilson's article appeared as Rove and other Bush aides were preparing the 2004 reelection campaign strategy, which was built largely around the president's response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

It is not surprising that White House officials would be upset by an attack like Wilson's or seek to respond aggressively. But special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is examining whether they or others crossed the legal line by improperly disclosing classified information, or whether they perjured themselves in testifying later about their actions. Both Rove and Libby have testified.

News of the high-level interest in discrediting Wilson comes as White House defenders, most notably officials at the Republican National Committee, argue that Rove has been vindicated of suspicion that he was a primary source of the leak. Knowingly revealing the identity of a covert operative is a federal crime.

Regardless of Rove's legal liability, the description of his role runs contrary to earlier White House statements that Rove and Libby were not involved in the unmasking of Wilson's wife, and it suggests they were part of a campaign to discredit Wilson.