A Fitzmas for the rest of us? Don't count on it.

In her testimony before the House, Mrs. Wilson said flatly, “I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him.” She told the House committee that a 2004 Senate report, which concluded that she had indeed suggested her husband for the trip, was simply wrong. In particular, Mrs. Wilson pointed to a February 12, 2002, memo she had written, which the Senate said showed that she had suggested her husband for the trip, and claimed that the Senate had taken the memo “out of context” to “make it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.”

The 2004 Senate report to which Mrs. Wilson referred had quoted a brief excerpt from her memo. In the new report, Sen. Bond publishes the whole thing, and it seems to indicate clearly that Mrs. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip. The memo was occasioned by a February 5, 2002 CIA intelligence report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium. The report had been circulating in the intelligence community for a week by February 12, and Mrs. Wilson headlined her memo, “Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash.”

The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can’t be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.

So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.

Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going onÂ… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agencyÂ’s sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.

No mention in the memo of a "guy just walking by her office" suggesting she include this offer in her memo.

There's more -- she seems to also be lying about the timeline, fudging dates in order to avoid taking the blame for offering up her husband, and also misrepresenting the words of a fellow CIA officer, whom she claims came to her with "tears in his eyes" about his words being "distorted" in stating that Valerie Plame suggested her husband. No idea if he's prone to crying jags or not, but his own report names her flatly as the person who recommended Joe Wilson.

Posted by: Ace at 11:05 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 551 words, total size 3 kb.

RichardMc sends it with the headline, "Sadr but Wiser." And also, deader.

A day after radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr resurfaced to end nearly four months in hiding and demand U.S. troops leave Iraq, American forces raided his Sadr City stronghold and killed five suspected militia fighters in air strikes Saturday.

U.S. and Iraqi forces called in the air strikes after a raid in which they captured a "suspected terrorist cell leader," the U.S. military said in statement.

The statement claimed the captured man was "the suspected leader in a secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training."

...

The militia fighters were killed in air strikes on nine cars that were seen positioning themselves to attack American forces after the raid, the military said.

...

Hours after the cleric spoke in at a key Shiite shrine in Kufa, about 100 miles south of Baghdad, the notorious leader of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in the city of Basra was killed in a shootout as British and Iraq troops tried to arrest him, police and the British military said, further inflaming tensions in the Shiite areas of southern Iraq.

Meanwhile, the US is doubling the strength of its combat forces in Iraq -- if only briefly:

The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.

When additional support troops are included in this second troop "surge," the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 — a record high number — by the end of the year.

The little-noticed efforts to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq are being carried out without the fanfare that accompanied President Bush's initial troop surge in January.

The second "surge" of troops to Iraq is being executed by deploying more combat brigades to the country, plus extending tours of duty for troops already there.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, the U.S. commander who led NATO troops into Bosnia in late 1995, asked to comment on the findings, said: "It doesn't surprise me that they're not talking about it. I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this."

The first surge was prominently proclaimed by Bush in a nationally televised address on Jan. 10 when he ordered five additional combat brigades to join 15 brigades already in Iraq.

The build-up was designed to give commanders the 20 combat brigades that Pentagon planners said were needed to provide security in Baghdad and western Anbar province.

Since then, the Pentagon has extended combat tours for units in Iraq from 12 months to 15 months and announced the deployment of additional brigades.

Taken together, the steps could put elements of as many as 28 combat brigades in Iraq by Christmas, according to an analysis of deployment orders by Hearst Newspapers.

And if that doesn't work -- and, likely, even if it does -- it seems we're on a timetable for withdrawal, which tracks rather closely with the Pelosi-Murtha Plan For Victory, minus the Okinawan Rapid Response Forces:

The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House to turn its attention to what happens after the current troop increase runs its course.

The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.

The mission would instead focus on the training of Iraqi troops and fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, while removing Americans from many of the counterinsurgency efforts inside Baghdad.

Still, there is no indication that Mr. Bush is preparing to call an early end to the current troop increase, and one reason officials are talking about their long-range strategy may be to blunt pressure from members of Congress, including some Republicans, who are pushing for a more rapid troop reduction.

...

So far, the concepts are entirely a creation of Washington and have been developed without the involvement of the top commanders in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, both of whom have been enthusiastic supporters of the troop increase.

Those generals and other commanders have made it clear that they are operating on a significantly slower clock than officials in Washington, who are eager for significant withdrawals before the president leaves office in January 2009.

In an interview in Baghdad on Thursday, General Odierno, the senior United States ground commander, said any withdrawal of American troops was not advisable until December, “at a minimum.”

Even then, he said, redeployments should be carried out slowly, to avoid jeopardizing security gains.

If it sounds like a sell-out for political expediency, well, it probably is. But even reliably-conservative Mitch McConnell is pushing for an Iraq exit as the elections loom.

As President Bush prepared to sign a $120 billion Iraq War funding bill later today, House Democratic leaders vowed to keep up the pressure for a change of course in the war. The SenateÂ’s top Republican predicted Bush himself would lead such a shift this fall.

“I think the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president himself to lead it,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

McConnell added, “We’ve given the Iraqi government an opportunity to have a normal country, and so far, they’ve been a great disappointment.”

...

McConnell indicated that he expects Bush to redirect U.S. policy in Iraq along the lines recommended last December by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Indeed. How's that Iranian/Syrian cooperation on stabilizing Iraq coming, eh?

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 1098 words, total size 7 kb.

An outfit called InfoUSA collects information on seniors, often used by its unscrupulous clients to defraud them.

Dick Morris followed up with a story noting that Bill Clinton had a serious financial relationship with InfoUSA. The Times, accidentally having violated its key journalistic mission of promoting the Clintons, then attempts to contain the damage it quite-inadvertantly created.

Meanwhile, the Hillary! campagin seems to have leaked a biography about her to the WaPo in order to deflate interest in it, an an upcoming Carl Bernstein book claims that Bill Clinton had planned to divorce his wife in order to be with "the love of his life:"

Carl Bernstein claims in A Woman in Charge that the love of the former president's life was business executive Marilyn Jo Jenkins.

According to the Watergate journalist, Miss Jenkins was spirited into the governor's mansion for a final, furtive meeting with him the day he left to claim the White House.

Miss Jenkins is said to have played such a "pivotal role" in Mr Clinton's life that in 1989 he offered to divorce Hillary to be with her.

The ensuing crisis apparently led to Betsey Wright, Mr Clinton's chief of staff, taking him to see a therapist.

Mrs Clinton later told her best friend Diane Blair that she believed the presidency would help her marriage because her husband's "sexual compulsions would be tempered by the White House and the ever-present press corps".

As Mr Bernstein makes clear, in light of the Monica Lewinsky scandal that turned out to be "a flawed assumption".

Ahem.

In the 640-page book, Bob Boorstin, who worked for Mrs Clinton when she was trying to restructure the nation's healthcare system, blamed her for the collapse of her own plans.

"I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I've ever known," he told Mr Bernstein. "It's her great flaw."

Mark Fabiani, who defended the Clintons as White House counsel, said Hillary was "so tortured by the way she's been treated that she would do anything to get out of the situation.

"If that involved not being fully forthcoming, Mr Fabiani said she would say: 'I have a reason for not being forthcoming.'"

And here's some more from that book Hillary leaked to the press:

The second book, Her Way by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr, claims that Mrs Clinton hired a private detective to investigate one of her husband's mistresses.

According to the book, she ordered the detective to undermine Gennifer Flowers "until she is destroyed".

The incident took place when Mr Clinton was running for president in 1992.

Her Way looks in detail at Mrs Clinton's Senate vote in support of the Iraq war, suggesting she may have been motivated by a desire not to abandon her husband's toughon-Iraq policy and a need "to prove that she was tough".

Furthermore, The Smartest Woman In America was apparently so smart she didn't need to read the National Intelligence Estimate before casting her vote in favor of the Iraq War:

"Her Way" ... says she voted for the Iraq war without reading the National Intelligence Estimate that contained doubts about the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was said to have possessed, The Post said.

Philippe Reines, Clinton's Senate press secretary, said she "was briefed multiple times by several members of the administration on their intelligence regarding Iraq, which included the classified aspects of the NIE."

Question: Can someone claim to have been "misled into war" by a report she didn't even bother to read?

Posted by: Ace at 10:33 AM | Comments (31)
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

On this, the anniversary of Geek, I point you to an article of near-heresy.

Was The Empire good?

Leia's lies are perfectly defensible--she thinks she's serving the greater good--but they make her wholly unreliable on the question of whether or not Alderaan really is peaceful and defenseless. If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.

Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction.

Old, but amusing, Robot Chicken video below the fold.

Bonus Video added by Ace, too. more...

Posted by: Slublog at 03:07 PM | Comments (63)
Post contains 177 words, total size 2 kb.

How else to explain the parking lot for the event being washed over in a tsunami of SUVs?

I guess Al Gore's book itself counts as 500 tons of carbon dioxide offsets.

More SUVs and rich douchebags carrying Che Guevera man-purses at Zombietime.

Remember, folks, this is the reality-based community. The community that despies "faith-based" policies and irrational religions.

Via MVRWC, which notes that European diplomats are criticizing Israel for arresting terror-connected Hamas legislators, apparently believing that simply being an elected official gives one carte blanche to engage in terrorism and murder.

Wait, did I say European diplomats?

I meant the US State Department.

Posted by: Ace at 02:16 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

How else to explain the parking lot for the event being washed over in a tsunami of SUVs?

I guess Al Gore's book itself counts as 500 tons of carbon dioxide offsets.

More SUVs and rich douchebags carrying Che Guevera man-purses at Zombietime.

Remember, folks, this is the reality-based community. The community that despies "faith-based" policies and irrational religions.

Via MVRWC, which notes that European diplomats are criticizing Israel for arresting terror-connected Hamas legislators, apparently believing that simply being an elected official gives one carte blanche to engage in terrorism and murder.

Wait, did I say European diplomats?

I meant the US State Department.

Posted by: Ace at 02:16 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Our long national nightmare is over just gearing up.

--Taken from Electric Venom

Rosie O'Donnell will not be back on "The View," ABC announced Friday, two days after she and co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck got into a huge political dust-up live on the talk show.

"We had hoped that Rosie would be with us until the end of her contract three weeks from now, but Rosie has informed us that she would like an early leave. Therefore, we part ways, thank her for her tremendous contribution to 'The View' and wish her well," Brian Frons, the president of Disney-ABC's Daytime Television Group, said in a statement.

Pictured: fg, Rosie O'Donnell;
bg, the poor son-of-a-bitch paid to wash her feet
and drain the pus from her bedsores

Actually, that story is here. 1,051 pounds. It definitely does not look real. And yet, it seems, it is.

Wait, Wait, Wait: Apart from a taxidermist and some folks at a weighing station who are not named and not officials of anything, no one except for the kid and his dad can confirm the size of this thing.

Status: Undetermined.

Posted by: Ace at 12:16 PM | Comments (113)
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

Thirty years ago, my parents went to see the original Star Wars in the theater, and afterwards something happened.

Maybe it was Han Solo's rakish, devil-may-care attitude of casual insouciance; maybe it was Princess Leia's prominent lack of breast-restraining undergarments; maybe it was the exquisite sexual tension between Vader and Grand Moff Tarkin.

At any rate, something about the movie affected them, because believe me when I tell you: They went home and got it on.

Nine months later, yours truly came mewling and cuss-talking into the world.

So thanks, George Lucas, and congratulations on your movie's thirty years of success. It's not too far of a stretch to say that without you, I'd be nothing more than a few of my old man's Y chromosomes shot into a Kleenex.

And thank god you didn't decide to make The Phantom Menace first.

Posted by: AndrewR at 11:54 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

He does mention torture, actually -- the "torture" committed by George Tenet. So "torture" is still apparently on his mind.

But the repellent torture-porn scrabblings of human eyes being pulled out of living faces? Sullivan, predictably, has nothing at all to say about that.

Which is what Wretchard predicted. Sullivan can't even acknowledge the real thing, because it would expose his crusade against the counterfeit as childishly mendacious:

The problem with the fake is that it is always shown up by the arrival of the Real Thing. The difference between the two is often so manifest that it seems ridiculous to think that anyone could have been fooled -- even momentarily -- by the counterfeit.

The problem with the word "torture" is that it has been so artfully corrupted by some commentators that we now find ourselves at a loss to describe the kinds of activities that the al-Qaeda interrogation manual graphically recommends. Now that the term "torture" has been put in one-to-one correspondence with such admittedly unpleasant activities as punching, sleep deprivation, a handkerchief pulled over one's face and loaded with water, searches by women upon sensitive Islamic men or the disrespectful handling of Korans -- what on earth do we call gouging people's eyes out?

Answer: we call it nothing. My fearless prediction is that not a single human rights organization will seriously take the matter up. There will be no demonstrations against these barbaric practices, often inflicted upon Muslims by other Muslims, in any of the capitals of the world. Not a single committee in the United Nations will be convened nor will any functionary in the European Union lose so much as a night's sleep over it. The word for these activities -- whatever we choose to call it -- will not be spoken.

Sullivan's not a human rights organization, though he does seem to believe he's a kind of one-man Salvation Army at times.

Isn't it funny that he's done precisely what Wrechard predicted, and undoubtedly for the reasons he's outlined? Not even the pretense of caring about real torture, because he doesn't care about real torture. His only object is the fakey-torture of red-ink menstrual-blood and belly slaps, and to even acknowledge the chthonic cruelty depicted in Al Qaeda's torture manual would expose his hysterical preening for the trivium it is.

And to repeat: He does mention "torture." Not only does he mention it, he discusses the corruption of the English language, as Wrechard does:

...the hideous term: "enhanced interrogation techniques.' I'm not sure where exactly this came from, but George Tenet seems to have been the tipping point. But it's important to note that Tenet has a very personal interest in lying about torture. After all, he will be subject to war crime charges if he concedes that he authorized it. But in his rewording, he has also, it seems to me, conceded something very important. He was clearly concerned that the term "coercive" could be legal peril. It implies physical pressure so severe it renders any choice to cooperate moot. It implies, inevitably, "severe mental or physical pain or suffering," in order to extract information. That is the only relevant legal and moral criterion for torture. Is the information coerced, i.e. is the physical or mental suffering so severe that the victim has no choice but to tell the torturers what the want to hear? If it is, it's torture, under American and international law. And Tenet is a criminal. Abuse of common English is one of the hallmarks of political mischief. I don't think any journalist should let a politician off the hook on this one. Words matter.

You know what else matters, St. Andrew? Torture. Your little pet bugaboo. And yet despite the fact that these godawful images were seen by everyone yesterday, linked by Drudge and every other site in the world, you just could not bring yourself to even mention them, eh?

What was Wretchard's prediction again?

The problem with the word "torture" is that it has been so artfully corrupted by some commentators that we now find ourselves at a loss to describe the kinds of activities that the al-Qaeda interrogation manual graphically recommends. Now that the term "torture" has been put in one-to-one correspondence with such admittedly unpleasant activities as punching, sleep deprivation, a handkerchief pulled over one's face and loaded with water, searches by women upon sensitive Islamic men or the disrespectful handling of Korans -- what on earth do we call gouging people's eyes out?

Answer: we call it nothing.... The word for these activities -- whatever we choose to call it -- will not be spoken.

If he's as maverick, indepedent, and free-thinking a writer as he fancies himself, why is it so trivially easy to predict Sullivan?

Why, predicting that was almost as easy as predicting Sullivan would link to Steve Clemons' Cheney-and-Jew-bankers conspiracy theorizing as if it were a well-sourced charge to be taken seriously.

He says he'll be on Chris Matthews this Sunday (but of course he will) discussing the JFK assassination (naturalment!).

Is there a single John Bircher conspriacy theory this demented imebecile will not gladly discuss?

Via Michelle Malkin.

Macabre content warnin for the jump.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 933 words, total size 6 kb.

I've been nominally following the fight between Rosie and Hasselbeck through the frequent posts Allah puts up over at HotAir. I just haven't been able to get into them like many because something always seems to be missing from the commentary.

It struck me this morning as to what that missing ingredient was: the sage wit and succinct wisdom of Spurwing Plover.

It's been a while since the Plover was seen in these parts. Word has it that he was the last of his kind, and may now be extinct. But over my morning cup of peyote laced coffee (I have a prescription for it from my local community college's Native American Studies professor so it's cool!) I thought I heard a voice carried by the wind. Naturally, I spoke back to the disembodied entity. Who wouldn't?

Jack M.: Umm..who the hell are you?

Spurwing Plover's Shamanistic Totem id you remember how everybody loved LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE because MELISSA SUE GILBERT was so cute and spunky and had PONY-TAILS?

Jack M.: What?

Spurwing Plover's Shamanistic Totem: ELIZABETH HASSELBECK is LAURA INGALLS except that HASSELBECK doesn't have a BLIND SISTER and her father isn't a WEREWOLF/ANGEL.

Jack M.: Oh...you are Spuriwing Plover's Shamanistic Totem and you are talking about "The View", right?

Spurwing Plover's Shamanistic Totem: Did you ever see EXIT TO EDEN where ROSIE O'DONNELL wore BONDAGE GEAR like most HOLLYWIERD stars and was fat, like a modern DAN ACKROYD who was in that movie then?

Jack M.: Umm...no, I didn't.

Spurwing Plover's Shamanistic Totem: How about A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN where ROSIE was a fat and manly BASEBALL player with MADONNA?

Jack M.: Yeah, I saw that...it had Geena Davis and Tom Hanks in it too, right? "There's no crying in base....."

Spurwing Plover's Shamanistic Totem: (Interrupting) Remember when ROSIE was a fat and manly RETARD in RIDING THE BUS WITH MY SISTER which also had GEENA DAVIS who was once married to THE FLY?

Jack M.: Your point being?

Spurwing Plover's Shamanistic Totem: I bet HASSELBECK would be a GOOD PICK to play HEATHER THOMAS' or MARKIE POST'S role if HOLLYWIERD ever makes a MOVIE about "THE FALL GUY".

Jack M.: Huh. I never would have thought of that.

Spurwing Plover's Shamanistic Totem: But where does ROSIE go because on THE VIEW she is PERFECTLY CAST as a fat, and manly, and retarded, LESBIAN which means TYPECASTING is a real possibility.

Jack M.: Well, I guess HASSELBECK could play a FEMALE BLOOD ELF WARLOCK who smacks around ROSIE'S MALE ORC WARRIOR in the upcoming WORLD OF WARCRAFT movie and they could call it "A LEAGUE OF THEIR PWNAGE"!

Spurwing Plover's Shamanistic Totem: Dude, what the hell? Get your own damn schtick!

Jack M.: Sorry....

Spurwing Plover's Shamanistic Totem: Sorry doesn't cut it, assmunch. I'm out of here you theiving bastard. There's a LOST IN SPACE marathon coming on and I don't want to miss it. DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER! Freakin' douchetool.

And just like that, the voice was gone. But then so was my coffee. Had it ever really been there? (The voice I mean...I know the coffee had been as I "recycled" it about 45 minutes later). Who can know?

But the important thing is I am so much wiser now.

And that, my friends, is what really matters.

Posted by: Jack M. at 11:39 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 560 words, total size 3 kb.