connecting*the*dots

Sandow Birk: The Liberation of Baghdad

New York Times Iraq reporter John Burns

(originally uploaded by tgbusill)

The Mercury News
Senate reports say Saddam rejected cooperating with terrorists
by Warren P. Strobel and Margaret Talev

WASHINGTON - Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein rejected pleas for assistance from Osama bin Laden and tried to capture terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi when he was in Iraq, a Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday found, casting further doubt on the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq.

President Bush and other administration officials repeatedly cited Saddam’s alleged ties to radical Islamic terrorists before the March 2003 invasion as one reason to take military action against Iraq.

The 150-page report said the administration’s claims were untrue. “Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaida to provide material or operational support,” the report said.

The report was released along with a second one that said false information from the exile group Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmad Chalabi, was widely distributed in prewar intelligence reports and used to support intelligence assessments about Iraq’s weapons and links to terrorism. Intelligence officials repeatedly warned that the INC was unreliable, but White House and Pentagon officials ignored the warnings.

The reports are part of a five-report study that the Senate Intelligence Committee has undertaken into the Bush administration’s use of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq.

The study has left the committee badly divided. Three reports remain classified, including one comparing prewar statements by Bush administration officials to intelligence available at the time. Democrats have accused Republicans of delaying the reports until after the November congressional elections.

[…]

Ain’t it grand that it took the Senate Intelligence Committee only 3.5 years, close to 3,000 dead US soldiers, more than 50,000 dead Iraqi civilians and upwards of $500 billion dollars floating in the wind to confirm what mid-east experts have been saying since 2003? Everyone and their mother knew that Saddam wanted nothing to do with al Qaeda; I mean, even Hardball scooped these jokers a year ago.

Alright, so it’s official. Now, which Senator is going to put country ahead of political aspirations and make a eloquent, yet vociferous call for the arrest of both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney?

People get locked up in America every day for the dumbest of reasons, all the while this administration knowingly schemed to wage war under false pretenses, which directly caused the deaths of upwards of a hundred thousand people… and there’s no chance of accountability.

I’m dead serious; which of these elected representatives is going to step up and make a passionate call for accountability? I mean, after the mid-term elections of course…

And people ask me why I’m so cynical. Now excuse me while I go throw up my dinner.

I grew up with Cafferty on the local news scene in the NY-NJ metro area, and had no idea he was such a straight-shooting, righteous cat. Talk about “a change of scenery” doing someone good…

UPDATE: As it turns out, Specter was simply circumvented by Cheney and a bunch of spineless Republican Senators. Hopefully Cafferty gives him another look:

Rick Klein, Boston Globe
Specter ready to force showdown

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter emerged this week as a nemesis that the Bush White House hasn’t had to face: A subpoena-wielding member of Congress who is ready to force a showdown over what he sees as the Bush administration’s intrusion into legislative territory.

From President Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program to the “signing statements” in which he selectively enforces portions of laws, Republicans in control of the House and Senate have been unwilling to challenge the White House.

Democrats have howled in protest but remain powerless to force changes because of their minority status in Congress.

Specter, however, seems willing to take Bush and his administration to task. A strong believer in the Senate’s institutional prerogatives, the Pennsylvania Republican has grown increasingly frustrated with a presidency that he believes is encroaching on Congress’s power — and lawmakers’ checks on the power of the White House.

That spurred the unusual letter Specter fired off Wednesday to Vice President Dick Cheney. Specter blasted the vice president, accusing him of going behind his back to derail a Senate investigation into the administration’s secret collection of Americans’ phone records to look for terrorist activity.

Specter has also made it clear that he is willing to use his post on the powerful judiciary committee to broaden his inquiry into other controversial White House policies. He is raising fresh concerns over Bush’s use of signing statements as well as Justice Department threats to prosecute reporters, and the recent FBI raid on a House member’s office; it is unclear, however, if he has enough support from other committee members.

Bush “doesn’t have a blank check. He’s not the final word. We have a Constitution,” Specter said Wednesday night on CNN. “I intend to press hard, because there are very fundamental values at issue here: civil rights and congressional oversight authority.”

Cheney’s response to Specter, however, offered no apologies — and did not address Specter’s questions about the wiretapping program or other White House actions. The vice president described his private conversations with Republican senators simply as “government at work.”

Despite their disagreements, “we should proceed in a practical way to build on the areas of agreement,” Cheney wrote. “We look forward to working with you, knowing of the good faith on all sides.”

[…]

UPDATE II: I fuckin’ hate politicians:

Glenn Greenwald
Specter falsely denied proposing amnesty for the Administration’s illegal eavesdropping

[…]

I have now obtained (with the help of the ACLU) a copy of Specter’s marked-up proposed legislation (.pdf), which makes quite clear that Specter simply was not telling the truth when he denied proposing amnesty to the administration. The bill in question was one which Specter substituted last week in the Judiciary Committee for the prior legislation he proposed back in March (the reason the new version was not available online was because — according to the ACLU — he introduced it only in the Committee, but not yet on the Senate floor).

In sum, Specter’s legislation amends the provision of FISA which provides for criminal penalties, and then, astonishingly, makes those revisions retroactive all the way back to 1978 (when FISA was enacted). The effect and almost certainly the intent of those revisions is to immunize the President and anyone acting under his authority from criminal liability for violating FISA — just as the Post and the ACLU correctly reported, and just as Specter falsely denied.

[…]

“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.

You think?

Joby Warrick, The Washington Post
Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War
Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile “biological laboratories.” He declared, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq — not made public until now — had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president’s statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped “secret” and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts — scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons — who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.

None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized. Their accounts were verified by other current and former government officials knowledgeable about the mission. The contents of the final report, “Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers,” remain classified. But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons. Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work.

“There was no connection to anything biological,” said one expert who studied the trailers. Another recalled an epithet that came to be associated with the trailers: “the biggest sand toilets in the world.”

[…]

Here’s the thing: we all know Bush lied. We all know that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush drooled over the prospect of invading Iraq from the moment the first plane hit the WTC. Unfortunately, we also know that we have to continue this charade of shock in order to pressure Congress to do their jobs and impeach this bastard.

It’s amazing to me how this man is able to consistently spin out of any degree of accountability. And while his legacy is already sealed as the most incompetent president of all-time, I often wonder how history will treat us — the men and women that allowed him to run rampant.

Photo by Emily Geoff

Associated Press (Newsvine)
Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK’d Leak

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame’s CIA identity.

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Bush’s political foes jumped on the revelation about Libby’s testimony.

“The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

Libby’s testimony also puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks — a practice both men have long said they abhor, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers.

The most recent instance is the administration’s launching of a probe into who disclosed to The New York Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program authorized by Bush shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The authorization involving intelligence information came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

If this weren’t such blatent and reckless disregard for our National Security, I’d be fun to watch the right try to spin this bombshell into obscurity.

Bush and Cheney consistently play to the American voter’s fear of a National Security breech, creating a hardline image of them being the “protectors” of leaking classified information to the media.

So when someone else leaks classified information (regarding the NSA warrantless wiretapping program authorized by the President of the United States) they launch a criminal investigation. Fair enough. They wanna play hardball and they have the Justice Department in their pocket to do so.

But I do hope they fully realize that they’ve now set a precedent. If they go after the “leaker” of the NSA program with any degree of vigor, they had better damn well be ready to accept accountability for this authorized leak of classified information.

The difference between the two?

This leak didn’t lead to the uncovering of a questionable government wiretapping program; it directly fed the propaganda machine that greased the skids for launching the war in Iraq.

All I want for Christmas is an article of impeachment.

UPDATE: It looks like the administration is going to argue that when the president tells someone to leak information, the process of declassifying the information is automatic and understood. Or some bullshit like that.

Let’s play a game that I call, “Guess Who’s Masturbating.” Read the following quote and try to guess who wrote it (and don’t cheat).

Quoted three years ago, a week into the invasion of Iraq:

The people of Eastern Europe stared into the abyss of tyrannical evil for decades, and recognizing the Iraqi regime for what it is, they stand with us today. Some people may mock the fact that Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic, and other minor countries are part of this coalition — but they remember what life was like without freedom. They remember what it took to climb up from the rubble.

They remember what it was like to hear the words of Vaclav Havel (who would go on to make more than 100 official speeches, with no speechwriters), on his New Years address as first President of the free Czech Republic:

“My people, your government has returned to you.”

Soon, the Iraqi people will hear those words. The sound you hear, Saddam, is the sound of inevitability. It is the sound of your doom.

So what’s your guess? Dick Cheney? Someone else from the PNAC gang? Not even close.

Give up?

I’d like to introduce you to Ben Domenich, the 24 year-old founding father of the RedState blog and freshly hired blogger at the Washington Post.

Only someone this young and naive could actually believe the bullshit he espouses as fact. In this particular case, Eastern Europe does what they’re told, or maybe he missed the memo on the New World Order?

While I’m a huge proponent of citizen media, and completely support young Ben’s right to publish his perspective, his track record is obviously partisan, and at times, skirting an extreme position. What is WaPo thinking? Are they trying to create a loose cannon, ideological microcosm of the political blogosphere within their walled garden?

Media Matters’ David Brock seems to think so.

The thing that WaPo doesn’t get is that by hiring Ben Domenich, they’ve taken away his blogging ID; both his credentials and his independence. In their haste to capitalize on his partisan readership in this 2.0 world, they haven’t just lowered the bar — they’ve replaced it with a hula-hoop.

Aloha, WaPo.

(via cocaine blunts and hip-hop tapes)

I don’t often use these guys as an example of great journalism, but this Hardball segment is on point. They convincingly expose Dick Cheney’s lies regarding the tie between one of the primary 9/11 terrorists and Iraq.

The entire piece screams conspiracy to sell and then launch an illegal war.

Of course, this leaves me with a few questions:

• Who holds these men and woman accountable to such contradictions and lies? Congress? Another special prosecutor?
• Do we have to wait until there’s a Democratic administration in office before an investigation is launched?
• Is Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation expanding?

If it’s proven that this unethical administration schemed to launch an illegal war by knowingly using false evidence — a war which has already killed tens of thousands of people — I want justice.

And no, my sense of justice would not equate with a misdemeanor.

Back in July, I found myself following one of my usual late night routines; browsing flickr late at night, hopping from one intense image to the next, pulling myself farther and farther into the late hours of the evening. The image that ended my discovery scenario that night was one which framed a masked protester holding a sign reading, "Dictatorial Democracy!" The composition and message created an extremely striking and provocative statement. I dropped into the discussion thread, left a comment, marked it as a favorite and retired for the evening.

Fast forward two weeks; I’m in the midst of some serious self-transformation—from a corporate design lead to a full-time freelance information architect and blogger actively participating in the information revolution. I had too many thoughts bouncing about my head and needed to get them down as an explicit, lasting statement. I began crafting a post about what had led me to begin my dedicated contribution to political and cultural discourse. The visceral image of the protester jumped into my mind as a perfect visual cue, so I hopped over to flickr, grabbed it (CC licensed) and included it within the post.

When QOOP partnered with flickr to provide printing capabilities a few weeks back, I found myself creating a poster of the protect image before the application could even cool off. Within a week, the print arrived at my door and I was blown away by the quality.

Now, when I glance at the image on my wall, I not only visualize the thought process of the photographer as he composed the shot, but the philosophical drivers of both Stewart Butterfield and the flickr team as well. True, this is a physical remainder of one man’s passionate expression, but the implicit philosophies of an open business model resonates just as much in the tactile form of a print, one that didn’t belong to me but was "let go into the ether" to be used and reused. Both the photographer and flickr share numerous traits: a deep seeded passion, the desire for open participation and the use of technology as a vehicle for change. The end result is that one man’s political perspective—without the benefits of a political platform—is now a tangible, refined component of my home experience.

That’s extremely powerful stuff.

But with this one print in particular, if I don’t deconstruct the message further, I’d be guilty of simply adorning eye-candy on my wall. For as much as I love the image and the powerful message it delivers, after thinking about it for a few months, there’s a very romantic naivety to the whole scene.

Back To Reality

Our government isn’t structured for any administration to listen to the explicit desires resonating from the free speech of Americans. The Executive branch works with Congress, whose members have been elected by the constituents of each state. Free speech can move, motivate, challenge and change individuals, but it will never influence the Executive branch. Only polls of the American people have that power and the resulting moves by an administration are placating at best. If you want to elicit change through the actions of an elected official, you have to start on a local level—blog, call your congressman, volunteer in a campaign, meet with like-minded folk, organize unions, etc. Ranting alone will not make change occur.

Take old school corporate structure as a metaphor to government. How often do you think C-levels base their policy on the voice of employees or individual consumers? Sure, it may happen at times due to sheer coincidence, but policies are primarily based on:

1. Shareholder desires and concerns
2. Advertiser desire and concerns (if applicable)
3. The domain experience and agendas of executives
4. Client/user/customer desires and concerns
5. The input of employees

To a user experience designer like myself, this is in the very least ill-balanced, but it’s the common DNA of present day big money capitalism; first serve the desires of your investors, then serve the desires of the common folk—even the ones who use your products or services. Would Michael Dell listen to a bunch of individual customers over his shareholders or retail customers?

Probably not.

So, back to our current administration — considered by many to be the most secretive administration ever—the problem isn’t that Bush, Chaney and the rest of the gang aren’t listening to the people; the problem is that they’ve lied to Congress, creating false evidence to go to war, while simultaneously placing social reformations on the back burner. We don’t need to completely reinvent the wheel of our government and the constitution; we need to hold public officials (and corporate lobbyists) accountable to working within the legal parameters currently set forth. We need to remove the cries of a dictatorial democracy, and instead, hold ourselves accountable to participate within a collaborative republic.

Maybe I’ll create a re-mashed version of my new poster reflecting these sentiments and shoot it up to flickr. Who knows whose home it’ll live in next?

From the sound of his press conference today, it seems as though he’s ready to wrap up and move on, as his investigation was compromised by Libby. How bad do I want him to be the Eliot Ness to clean up this administration? I think he knows, as he kept asking the public to sit back and let the process of justice run its course.

Fitzgerald made an interesting analogy today when talking about the indictments served to Libby. He waxed poetic about a pitcher in baseball hitting a batter in the head, whether it was on purpose or the ball slipped. He mentioned that since the catcher kicked sand in his eyes (referring to Libby’s lies), as a prosecutor, he would have to interview people in the dugout to understand the mentality of the pitcher when the act occurred. Interestingly, he didn’t talk about finding out whether or not the manager ordered him to bean the batter.

I know this might sound strange to some "Americans," but this investigation is clearing up a lot of my blockage in trusting the ethical, moral state of our justice system. "Scooter" Libby lied for a reason, either his own or one from the administration. Fitzgerald handed down these lesser felony charges, because Libby committed a crime (perjury, obstruction and false statements) directly to his face regarding a breach of National Security.

As this errand boy is taken care of the truth will bubble to the surface… one way or the other.