connecting*the*dots

I’m on the North side of Greensboro, watching Bill Moyers Journal: Buying the War with 15 other engaged citizens. House parties like this were set up all across the nation by Free Press.

How simple was it? I received an email from my brother after he was made aware of the showing through their local action alert email newsletter.

In any event, it’s great to see so many concerned and engaged citizens — mostly strangers before tonight — coming together to ask tough questions. Actually, it’s much more hemming and hawing at the incompetence of our Fourth Estate than dialog between each other, but I’m sure that’ll come in a few minutes.

I’m furious watching this broadcast, but it’s nothing new in terms of knowledge. I’ve been blogging about this fucking mess before we invaded, while we invaded and throughout the occupation and opined about most of the concepts and players covered in this brilliant narrative by Moyers.

If you saw this documentary — or plan to catch it in the future — don’t waste your time getting mad with politicians making decisions based on self-interest and power plays. Instead, think about your personal relationship with the media, journalism and reporting and how it shapes your world view.

Kent Bye has been working on a project since the run up to war called, The Echo Chamber Project. Paraphrasing his thesis: he’s attempting to present a large number of perspectives about both the media coverage in the run up to war and interviews with professionals from a large variety of industries in a manner that can be contextualized, remixed and redistributed to the live web by world citizens.

Why is that important?

Because the current journalistic methodology of reporting and “coverage” from centralized business domains is responsible for pimping this war into fruition.

Maybe if we all have the ability to participate in a methodology that allows for easily stitching together unbundled clips of perspective, reporting, coverage, etc. and contextualize it with our own knowledge and narrative, we can make a real dent in the mainstream business as usual.

Maybe we can even replace TV as we know it today.

Kent and I rapped about a bunch of the possibilities last year. If you have some time, check out the interview.

Andy is going to post an audio file of the conversation we just had post-viewing (which was really interesting). I’ll link to it as soon as he posts it himself.

UPDATE: Andy just posted the post-viewing conversation.

(direct link to the first pod of the seven part series)

From 2000 to 2003, I lived just down the road from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, first in Park Slope and then Gowanis.

As consistently penetrating as the New York City media is, not once did I even hear a whisper about the toxic issues my former neighbors in Williamsburg have been dealing with for decades now.

Instead, I reveled in the culture. Now I’m thinking, at what cost?

Gotta love that “self-interest” angle of capitalism, eh?

UPDATE: I’m currently watching part 6 of this 7 part series. Be sure to watch it all. It’s beyond disturbing. Greensboro residents are worried about strip clubs? Try living next to Radiac Research Corporation — a nuclear storage facility, where the radiation level can be pick up from a geiger counter flipped on at the front door.

It also resides across the street from an elementary school.

Scary stuff and great reporting.

It’s time to get down and dirty with real political discussion.

Nick Reville just pinged me a few minutes ago, pointing me to a new Participatory Politics Foundation project called Open Congress.

Don’t look now folks, but we’re about to 2.0 the hell out of government.

I’ve dropped that phrase a bunch of times online, added some potential feature flavor in a comment thread and even spoke to dev friends about what it would take to build something like this, but there’s no need now; this puppy looks like it’ll grow strong legs moving forward.

And from a first glance, I really like the approach that PPF took to legislation being the primary object of focus in the domain.

The original idea for my project was to position a domain around the 535 seats within Congress and pull in information and data that contextualized the job that individuals were doing in their role serving their constituents — keeping a record of all current and future seat information.

I hoped that if we could build a rich interface for displaying information about and by representatives — voting records, financing, news events, press releases, blog posts, video, audio, etc. — then a Digg-like rating system could work with an “on the job” algorithm to rate each representative. They would then be forced to step up and be more transparent with their rationale for, say, voting against the will of their constituents on particular legislation.

I still think that approach is important, but it should be secondary if we, the people, are participating in a democratic institution.

The actual job focus of our representatives is the business of the people — the legislation that shapes our lives within a representative democracy.

So if you design a domain with too much of a focus on the Senators and Representatives, you just might create an even greater echo chamber for rumor mongering and feeding polarizing bloggers gallons of liquid for their pissing wars, whether they’re Democratic or Republican.

With this approach — legislation first — bloggers are given the opportunity to track what matters first and foremost. And if our representatives fumble within those processes — like a Ted Stevens with his Bridge to Nowhere — then we can hop on them like flies to shit.

What I’m hoping happens now is that other political transparency domains — like Jim Harper’s WashingtonWatch and Denise Roth Barber at FollowTheMoney — ping Nick and crew, with an invite to share their data for the OpenCongress interface.

As Robert DeNiro so eloquently stated in Brazil: “We’re all in it together“

The Black Iris
The Charade

The leader never carries out the killing himself but will always get his hands dirty. So how will the execution of Saddam be seen 200 years from now?

A quarter of a million American troops invade Iraq. Hunt down its leader and set up a tribunal with all the trappings of ‘fairness’ and he is in the end found guilty for being involved in the killing of 148 Shias over two decades ago during a time when America was openly heavily funding Saddam and silent over all these killings.

Americans hand over Saddam to Iraqis to carry out the hanging. On Eid Al-Adha no less; a good PR move to make sure every Arab is at home watching on TV.

In the last 3 years the presence of a quarter million of American forces on Iraqi soil have been responsible for killing an estimated quarter of a million Iraqis.

American forces are still occupying Iraq.

What will a student of history ask himself 200 years from now? Or will history still be written by the victors at that time?

Will they ask about why so many Arabs remained silent? Will they ask whether it made sense that one leader be executed for killing 148 people while another be praised for killing a quarter of a million of those same people? Will they see ancient footage of Colin Powell at the UN displaying doctored satellite photos of now unfound WMDs? Will they understand that 200 years ago, suggesting that a leader from a ’superior’ nation be held to the same standard of accountability as everyone else in the world was unheard of? That suggesting an American is equal to an Arab is equal to a Brit is equal to an African is preposterous? Will they understand that someone like me who had no love for Saddam thought the whole situation to be preposterous?

Bush was right today: ‘a dark and painful era is over in Iraq’, but a new one, that he as a leader is directly responsible for, has already begun.

And the charade goes on and on and on… more Iraqis are being slaughtered…

So to anyone celebrating the execution of Saddam I’m forced to ask: what the fuck are you cheering for?

If you’re cheering the execution of Saddam Hussein, you damn well better be doing everything you can to voice your opinion that this war is illegal and that this administration needs to be held accountable.

Otherwise, you’re nothing but a hypocrite.

(originally uploaded by Hawk Eyes)

Don’t you just love it how he and Bush waited until the shift in power was obvious? As if Donald Rumsfeld didn’t do a terrible job over the years — particularly with the accountability of the Abu Ghraib scandal — and that only a moderate loss of power in Congress would’ve allowed him to stay on?

Later, asshole.

Just as we were getting used to how folksonomies can help us find relational information, ‘dem darn kids take it to the next level.

Long gone are the days when protesting corporate bullshit was limited to groups of people gathering on the street outside of a main office. Nowadays, you can protest by simply dropping a single word into the workings of the retail experience itself.

Check out what DefectiveByDesign is doing:

How passé is crafting a product review now that you can group multiple sucky products that share a common sucky trait with a few key strokes? Why tag your frustrations on your blog, when you can hit the fuckers where it hurts the most — in the virtual aisles and checkout lines themselves?

Excuse me while I head over to Amazon to spread my love of hating DRM.

UPDATE: Tag-daddy, Thomas Vander Wal, makes a profound statement on my flickr comment thread.

(via BoingBoing)

(originally uploaded by ConjugalVisitor)

McClatchy Washington Bureau
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft received warning of al Qaida attack before 9/11
By Jonathan S. Landay, Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The State Department’s disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don’t remember the warning.

One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a “10 on a scale of 1 to 10″ that “connected the dots” in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again.

Former CIA Director George Tenet gave the independent Sept. 11, 2001, commission the same briefing on Jan. 28, 2004, but the commission made no mention of the warning in its 428-page final report. According to three former senior intelligence officials, Tenet testified to commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste and to Philip Zelikow, the panel’s executive director and the principal author of its report, who’s now Rice’s top adviser.

[…]

And people called Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace “crazed?” Sounds much more like it was a factual explosion.

Now we’re talking. A couple hundred more good moves and I’ll start to cut President Bush some slack.

(I’m not holding my breath)

(originally uploaded by Eleventh Earl of Mar)

Colin Powell (.pdf):

[…] “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism” […]

White House reporter last Friday:

Mr. President, former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, says “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”

If the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don’t you feel that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you’re following a flawed strategy?

President Bush:

“If there’s any comparrison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed, flawed logic. It’s just, it’s just, I simply can’t accept that. It’s unnaceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparrison between the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children and to understand, to ah, to achieve an objective.” […]

Don’t you love how President Bush hides behind the compassion and decency of us, the American people, in order to segue into a defense of his administration? I love how he says that it’s unnaceptable to think that we are fighting a flawed and immoral fight against terrorism, as if we have any say in the matter whatsoever.

As for his administration’s war, here are the facts:

• > 50,000 dead Iraqi citizens
• Abu Ghraib
• Secret torture facilities
• Guantanamo Bay

Man, those are some seriously evil, rhetorical skills President Bush is flexin’ about. People really need to stop calling this man an idiot. He’s not. He’s an evil genius. Too bad for him and his neo-con buddies we’re all starting to call him on this type of shit.

Keith Olbermann wasn’t enunciating as clearly in October of 2002 — when President Bush urged us, the American people, to call our congressmen to back the invasion of Iraq — as he has these past few weeks. Thankfully, he seems to have found his groove:

This president has no shame, whatsoever.

(photo by Jesus’ General)

Reuters
ABC Scrambling to Change 9/11 Drama

[…]

Officials at the Walt Disney Co.-owned network said they were still tinkering with the five-hour production, titled “The Path to 9/11,” which is scheduled to air without commercial interruption in two parts on Sunday and Monday.

But ABC declined to say how the movie was being reshaped or whether any changes would address specific complaints lodged by Clinton, his former aides and congressional Democrats that the film contained numerous inaccuracies and distortions.

The Hollywood trade paper Daily Variety, citing sources close to the project, reported the network was considering canceling the miniseries altogether.

The docu-drama, which ABC says is based largely on the official 9/11 Commission Report, opens with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York and traces subsequent events leading up to the coordinated suicide hijackings five years ago that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Much of the controversy focuses on a scene depicting CIA agents and Afghan fighters coming close to capturing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, only to have then-White House national security adviser Samuel Berger refuse to authorize completion of their mission.

An unfinished version of the film circulated by ABC to TV critics for review portrays Berger as abruptly hanging up the phone while the CIA is pressing him to approve the raid.

In letters of protest to Disney President Robert Iger, Berger and former White House aide Bruce Lindsey said no such episode ever occurred.

The executive producer of the film, Marc Platt, acknowledged to Reuters on Thursday the Berger scene was a “conflation of events.”

The film also drew denunciations from Clinton supporters for strongly suggesting his administration was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to deal effectively with the gathering threat of Islamic militancy. Lindsey said the 9/11 Commission Report disputed that notion.

[…]

This is what you get when you try to cash in too early on a national tragedy.

Remember the films JFK and Pearl Harbor? Both films took tremendous license in their portrayals of actual events, but the difference is that they did so 28 and 60 years after the fact, respectively. And while each took accuracy jabs from critics, neither had to deal with this degree of criticism because the emotional scars of the American public had already healed and the people who were on watch during these tragedies were either retired or dead.

With the airing of The Path to 9/11 on the eve of the five year anniversary of the events of that day, we also happen to be stuck, knee-deep, in a war that has been proven to have no relationship to the events of that day. No matter what inaccuracies are found — from either side of the aisle — this production was bound to catch major flack for trying to feed a narrative to a still healing nation, ever so hungry for the truth, not some docu-drama version of the events leading to 9/11.

Who Made The Call To Produce This Film?

In my estimation, there are only two possible reasons why Disney/ABC would give the green light on this production at this time:

1. Karl Rove instructed his minions to write the narrative and convince Disney/ABC to produce the film
2. Disney/ABC is simply gambling on the old adage, “There is no such thing as bad PR”

As a firm believer in the power that human greed wields in shaping our world over back door conspiracies, I’m sitting pretty squarely in the second camp (though I couldn’t help using the above image of Mickey Rove; Gen. JC Christian, Patriot is a genius).

I’m betting that Disney/ABC figured that this would be business as usual, though blown up a bit due to the subject matter; you know the formula — create a controversy, sell the advertising, line the pockets and move on unscathed within a few weeks.

What they didn’t take into consideration is the age that we live in now — where blog reach is both gaining traction in the very same homes that their sugar-coated narrative is being presented, as well as influencing the presentation of popular shows on TV (The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to name a few).

When a passive audience starts to become more active in their digestion of information, these old axioms of capitalism begin to start biting mainstream marketing strategies in the ass.

To make my point, let me perform a few minutes worth of Google research… Okay, I’m back (and my own thesis has shifted somewhat after only 20 minutes). Take this bit of information from HuffPost as an example of how nutritional facts for digesting reality can change a perspective in a matter of minutes:

[…]

In fact, “The Path to 9/11″ is produced and promoted by a well-honed propaganda operation consisting of a network of little-known right-wingers working from within Hollywood to counter its supposedly liberal bias. This is the network within the ABC network. Its godfather is far right activist David Horowitz, who has worked for more than a decade to establish a right-wing presence in Hollywood and to discredit mainstream film and TV production. On this project, he is working with a secretive evangelical religious right group founded by The Path to 9/11’s director David Cunningham that proclaims its goal to “transform Hollywood” in line with its messianic vision.

Before The Path to 9/11 entered the production stage, Disney/ABC contracted David Cunningham as the film’s director. Cunningham is no ordinary Hollywood journeyman. He is in fact the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM). The young Cunningham helped found an auxiliary of his father’s group called The Film Institute (TFI), which, according to its mission statement, is “dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Television industry.” As part of TFI’s long-term strategy, Cunningham helped place interns from Youth With A Mission’s in film industry jobs “so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out,” according to a YWAM report.

Last June, Cunningham’s TFI announced it was producing its first film, mysteriously titled “Untitled History Project.” “TFI’s first project is a doozy,” a newsletter to YWAM members read. “Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!” (A web edition of the newsletter was mysteriously deleted yesterday but has been cached on Google at the link above).

The following month, on July 28, the New York Post reported that ABC was filming a mini-series “under a shroud of secrecy” about the 9/11 attacks. “At the moment, ABC officials are calling the miniseries ‘Untitled Commission Report’ and producers refer to it as the ‘Untitled History Project,’” the Post noted.

[…]

Hm… Maybe I was too quick to espouse my faith in greed over conspiracies? I highly doubt I’ll be going to Disneyland again. In any event, the chances of Disney/ABC walking away clean from this beaut of a mis-timed and shady production is slim to none.

The Future Of Market Accountability

As the ecosystem for delivering entertaining, informative and personalized information gains a new foothold of innovation each and every year, we’re becoming deeper and deeper immersed within the information age.

The people formally known as the audience are becoming more politically aware through osmosis these days. And the harder the mainstream, one-way channels are leveraged to message us with constructed narratives, the easier it becomes for us to unbundle the programming and filter fact from fiction — no matter our brand of politics.

An analogy: The addition of nutritional labels to food products years ago didn’t end up preventing obesity, but the presentation of nutritional meta-data sure as hell increased the potential for new forms of viable economic levers within the food industry.

As high-fat foods in the mid-nineties and high-carb foods over the past few years have taken a hit due to greater consumer awareness, low-fat and low-carb products have gained a place in the market at a higher selling point due to simple demand.

My point?

While a conglomerate like Disney/ABC can get away with producing a film with this level of empty calories here and there, as we move deeper into the online revolution, such blatant disregard for nutritious content could easily lead to the collapse of advertising arteries via brand corrosion, as an informed public is now armed with digital printing presses.

And man, is the web chock full of beating hearts willing to pump out blood or what?

(illustration by Serifcan Özcan)

Good Magazine
Political NASCAR
by Morgan Clendaniel

In the 2006 midterms, Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Rick Santorum (R-PA), both running for re-election, have raised the most money of any candidate in their respective parties. Here are the NASCAR-style uniforms they would wear if companies were proud of their political donations, and if running for senate required a flame-retardant suit.

HILLARY CLINTON
Hillary Clinton’s top contributions by sector
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate $4,650,601
Lawyers & Lobbyists $3,533,740
Other $3,258,584
Miscellaneous Business $2,332,809
Communications/Electronics $1,808,119
Health $1,122,341
Construction $521,796
Ideology/Single-Issue $432,270
Labor $340,545
Agribusiness $211,565
Energy/Natural Resource $206,462
Transportation $118,210
Defense $86,050

TOTAL (as of June 30th): $33,180,949

RICK SANTORUM
Rick Santorum’s top contributors by sector
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate $2,812,841
Miscellaneous Business $1,373,537
Lawyers & Lobbyists $1,357,125
Health $1,258,021
Other $1,243,951
Construction $666,015
Energy/Natural Resource $651,541
Ideology/Single-Issue $563,073
Communications/Electronics $474,990
Agribusiness $399,237
Transportation $299,574
Defense $76,000
Labor $56,706

TOTAL (as of June 30th): $17,252,473

Like many people, I often think about the chasm in the relationship between our state representatives and us, the constituents; how in so many cases, our elected representatives tend to not represent the desires of the people that put them in office, instead succumbing to the efforts of lobbyists and special interest groups.

While the concept of wearing logos on campaign duds is probably a bit too extreme for our culture, someone really needs to build a web site that displays such contributions and relationships in an easy to digest manner, across numerous data slices. I assume that the information is already available to the public; the big question is whether or not it’s being gathered, managed and distributed in the most open formats available.

I mean, can I get an RSS feed of newly submitted documentation of Clinton, Santorum and, say, Vernon Robinson campaign contributions?

If the answer is no, then why the hell not?

Maybe when the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590) is finally passed, we can start serious work on the infrastructure and interfaces that support centralized repositories for decentralized accountability. Or is this not sexy enough to fit into the social networking investment craze of Web 2.0?

(via BoingBoing)

And his name is American Belly.

Belly bumping one corporate asshole at a time.

UPDATE: Marcus took down his blog as he now prepares to run for the chair of the state Republican Party. God bless Google cache.

Two down…

Lay, Skilling Convicted in Enron Collapse
by Kristen Hays

Former Enron Corp. chiefs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were convicted Thursday of conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud in one of the biggest business scandals in U.S. history.

The verdict put the blame for the demise of what was once the nation’s seventh-largest company squarely on its top two executives. It came in the sixth day of deliberations following a trial that lasted nearly four months.

Lay was also convicted of bank fraud and making false statements to banks in a separate trial related to his personal banking.

Lay was convicted on all six counts against him in the trial with Skilling. Skilling was convicted on 19 of the 28 counts against him, including one count of insider trading, and acquitted on the remaining nine.

“You have reflected on this evidence for the last few days and reached a very thorough verdict, and I thank you,” U.S. District Judge Sim Lake told jurors.

He set sentencing for Sept. 11.

[…]

What a fitting sentencing date for two men that played such a major role in the collapse of our economy post-Microsoft hearings, 9/11 and the dotcom crash.

These guys ruined so many people’s lives, they had better not receive a soft-sentence. They may not have murdered anyone, but they do deserve general population in Rikers.

(h/t DeWitt)

Oh my… Fitzmas does come twice a year!

truthout.org, Jason Leopold
Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted

Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Details of Rove’s discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources confirmed Rove’s indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove’s situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on “wildly speculative rumors.”

Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, did not return a call for comment Friday.

Rove’s announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.

A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove’s role in the CIA leak, sources said.

That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.

The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.

But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.

[…]

Let’s recap the legacy of this Republican led government, shall we?

The People

• Karl Rove
• Lewis “Scooter” Libby
• Tom Delay
• Jack Abramoff
• Duke Cunningham
• Armstrong Williams
• Jeff Gannon

The Events

• Iraq War
• Hurricaine Katrina
• Darfur
• Illegal NSA wiretaps
• Illegal phone call data pattern anaysis
• Tax cuts for the rich

I know I’m missing some big ones. Feel free to add them in the comments.

Is that Jamo under there?

Media Matters for America
Do Washington Post editorial writers read their own newspaper?

Last week, The Washington Post editorial page put forth numerous falsehoods in defense of President Bush’s reported authorization of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s disclosure of classified information. The funny thing is, the Post’s own reporters had already debunked many of these falsehoods, including in the very same edition of the paper in which the editorial appeared.

That’s right: the Post’s editorial included claims that are directly contradicted by previous Post reporting. The Washington Post editorial board is entitled to its own opinions –- but not its own facts.

Help us encourage The Washington Post editorial board to do a better job. Use the contact information below and politely urge it to do more comprehensive research on the issues it writes about.

Contact information

The Washington Post
1150 15th St. NW
Washington, DC 20071
202-334-6000 or 800-627-1150

Email Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt

Email Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell

“I could squish your head if I wanted to… I squish your head!”

Murray Waas - National Journal
Cheney Authorized Leak Of CIA Report, Libby Says

Vice President Dick Cheney directed his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, on July 12, 2003 to leak to the media portions of a then-highly classified CIA report that Cheney hoped would undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, according to Libby’s grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case and sources who have read the classified report.
The March 2002 intelligence report was a debriefing of Wilson by the CIA’s Directorate of Operations after Wilson returned from a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger to investigate claims, later proved to be unfounded, that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation, according to government records.

The debriefing report made no mention of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, then a covert CIA officer, or any role she may have played in her husband’s selection by the CIA to go to Niger, according to two people who have read the report.

The previously unreported grand jury testimony is significant because only hours after Cheney reportedly instructed Libby to disclose information from the CIA report, Libby divulged to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper that Plame was a CIA officer, and that she been involved in selecting her husband for the Niger mission.

Both Libby and Cheney have repeatedly insisted that the vice president never encouraged, directed, or authorized Libby to disclose Plame’s identity. In a court filing on April 12, Libby’s attorneys reiterated: “Consistent with his grand jury testimony, Mr. Libby does not contend that he was instructed to make any disclosures concerning Ms. Wilson [Plame] by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or anyone else.”

But the disclosure that Cheney instructed Libby to leak portions of a classified CIA report on Joseph Wilson adds to a growing body of information showing that at the time Plame was outed as a covert CIA officer the vice president was deeply involved in the White House effort to undermine her husband.

A spokesman for the vice president declined to comment.

[…]

Okay, so I’m to believe that Cheney told Libby to leak certain aspects of the CIA report, but nothing about Wilson’s wife? I’m sorry, but no man nicknamed “Scooter” would have the temerity to out a CIA agent all on his own, especially within the 2-hour window between receiving his marching orders from his boss and speaking with the press.

How dumb do they think we are?

Patrick Fitzgerald is getting deeper and deeper in this mess and one step closer to the truth. Payday has to be coming around the bend.

Hit the road, Rummy.

Jim Lobe - Inter Press Service
New Military Offensive Against Rumsfeld

WASHINGTON - Three years after the fall of Baghdad and the city’s disastrous plunge into chaos, U.S. military brass appears engaged in a new campaign: getting rid of Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.

While the offensive has so far been limited to generals who have recently retired from the service, they claim strong support for their views on the part of active-duty officers.

The latest demand for Rumsfeld’s resignation came Wednesday when Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq, called for a “fresh start in the Pentagon”.

“We need a leader who understands teamwork, a leader who knows to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation,” Batiste told a CNN interviewer.

Batiste’s remarks, which follow highly public demands from three other top generals for Rumsfeld’s resignation over the past several weeks, came as public confidence in the policies of the administration of Pres. George W. Bush both in Iraq and in the more general “war on terror” has dwindled to all-time lows.

The growing perception, fueled by recent disclosures regarding the selective leaking of intelligence authorised by both Bush and Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, that the administration consciously tried to manipulate the public into supporting the Iraq war and discrediting its critics has contributed to the continuing erosion in popular support, even among Republicans.

The conviction that Rumsfeld made major strategic errors by insisting on invading Iraq with a relatively light force that proved incapable of imposing order on the country, let alone suppressing the insurgency that followed, has also taken hold, particularly after last month’s publication by two New York Times reporters of an authoritative account of the war, “Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq”.

Based on extensive interviews with both retired and active-duty officers who took part in the war, the book found that Rumsfeld and his top aides believed that Washington could “oust a dictator, usher in a new era in Iraq, (and) shift the balance of power in the Middle East in the United States’s favour” on the cheap and that the war “would suddenly be brought to an end when the regime’s ministries were seized and its leader toppled”.

The brass’s unease with Rumsfeld’s plans for going to war date originally from his summary dismissal in early 2003 of then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s testimony before Congress that the occupation of Iraq would require “several hundred thousand troops”.

Shinseki’s effective early retirement, apparently in retaliation for speaking out with such candour, was taken by most of the brass as a message from Rumsfeld that public disagreement with his views could have serious career consequences.

When, by early 2004, it had become clear that Washington had indeed not deployed sufficient troops to control Iraq, a number of retired generals began speaking out forcefully against Rumsfeld and his civilian advisers.

In May 2004, the former head of the U.S. Central Command, ret. Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, accused them of “dereliction of duty” in failing to prepare adequately for the war and called on Bush to fire them if they did not resign.

In recent weeks, Zinni has renewed those demands, stressing in various public appearances that Rumsfeld had deliberately ignored extensive contingency planning developed under his command in the late 1990s for an Iraq invasion and overruled officers who raised questions about his own plans.

In the past three weeks, he has been joined by three other retired generals, including Batiste.

In a remarkably frank New York Times column published Mar. 19, ret. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who had been in charge of training the Iraqi military during the first year of the occupation, argued that Rumsfeld “has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically” and “has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his cold warrior’s view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower”.

“In the five years Mr. Rumsfeld has presided over the Pentagon,” Eaton wrote, “I have seen a climate of groupthink become dominant and a growing reluctance by experienced military men and civilians to challenge the notions of the senior leadership.”

Eaton’s blast was followed this week by an anguished column in Time magazine by ret. Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, the top operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the invasion, who assailed the brass, including himself, for “act(ing) timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard.”

“The consequence of the military’s quiescence,” he wrote, “was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war…”

“My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results,” he asserted, calling for the replacement of Rumsfeld “and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach”.

With his remarks Wednesday, Batiste, who retired from the Army in November and whose forces were based in Tikrit until last May, joined the rebellion, firmly taking Zinni’s side.

“…(W)hen decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision making, sound planning, then we’re bound to make mistakes,” he said. “You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defence.”

The generals’ revolt also comes amid a tiff between Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who, during a trip to Britain last week, conceded that Washington made “tactical errors, thousands of them, I’m sure” in its invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld replied several days later, insisting that such mistakes are inevitable in warfare.

“If someone says, well, that’s a tactical mistake, then I guess it’s a lack of understanding, at least my understanding, of what warfare is about,” he said.

In remarks before a private group in Chicago Saturday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell — a four-star general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself — appeared to side with Rice, and with the generals.

“We made some serious mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad,” he said. “We didn’t have enough troops on the ground. We didn’t impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started, and …it got out of control.” He did not demand Rumsfeld’s resignation, however.

Forget the planning and tactical mistakes, if Rumsfeld gave two shits about America and our perception around the world, he would’ve resigned when the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib broke. “It happened on my watch” would’ve been the line and he could’ve at least retired with a semblance of honor and integrity.

Sorry… I just laughed up my lunch.

UPDATE: More former generals are lining up to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation.

(NO SHIT) UPDATE: Bush backs Rumsfeld:

“Earlier today I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the global war on terror,” the president said. “I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation.”

Mr. Bush said the defense secretary had helped to transform the United States military into a force “fully prepared to confront the dangerous threats of the 21st century” and had, along with the leaders of the services, taken the fight to terrorists on many fronts.

They’re all going to hell in the same handbasket.

From Robert Greenwald’s upcoming documentary, The Big Guy: How Tom Delay Stole Congress:

… By the time we finish this poker game, there might not be a federal government left, which would suit me just fine…

… I would like to eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Energy… (cut out) the National Endowment for the Arts, we ought to zero them out, the National Endowment for the Humanities, we ought to zero them out…

… We’re going to completely redesign our government…

Smug doesn’t even begin to aptly describe this asshole. Now that he’s out of Congress and on his way to jail, the only redesigning smirk boy will be doing will be of his jail cell.

One down, an entire administration to go.