Corners - Episode 1 - Hollywood & Highland
As seen through the eyes of former child star Keith Coogan.
Get this video and more at MySpace.com
Friday, June 16, 2006
Monday, June 05, 2006
They may know more than they're letting on. Hey kids! Feel like heading out of town for no reason on or around the 19th of June? After reading this article about our bunker government, this might not be such a bad idea. It's gonna be a hot Summer!
Friday, June 02, 2006
I haven't seen it yet, but apparently, "An Inconvenient Truth" is supposed to create some sort of paradigm shift in our consumercentric thinking. Hey, I'm all down for saving the planet, but is there anything we can do about Paris Hilton? (WARNING, LINK FOR PARIS REVEALS HER TRUE SKANKY SELF, SO... I WARNED YOU!) I mean really, who cares about that trustafarian anyways. I'm quite done hearing about her, her skanky rich boyfriends, and their criticism of Lindsay Lohan. I mean shit, didn't Lindsay earn every red cent she has, completely on her own? So to Paris, and whatever boy toy she decides to drag though the press this week, go choke on your whistle.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Keith Coogan's Myspace page
I really hated "Friendster", but this Myspace thing might just "catch on", as they say.
Has anyone else heard about this site yet? (Insert thick sarcastic tone here)
I really hated "Friendster", but this Myspace thing might just "catch on", as they say.
Has anyone else heard about this site yet? (Insert thick sarcastic tone here)
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Lost is over until the Fall season starts. Having major withdrawals. Join us at the message board at the link above to talk about "The Greatest Television Series Ever Created!"
Monday, May 15, 2006
The President of the United States is bending over backwards to give more rights to people who enter the country illegally, yet tax-paying citizens were ignored for days when the levees broke in New Orleans. Something doesn't seem right with this. Where are my tax dollars going? Why does the President ignore the needs of a whole city, yet help criminals cross our borders and find work, housing, education and health care? Where was all of this help for the poor victims of hurricane Katrina? Something is rotten in Denmark. This should be a wake-up call for anyone who wants to come here and enjoy what this county has to offer. If you look closely, it's not all that great of a place to come to.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
I will not buy any more gasoline.
$3.09 is too much to pay for gas. $400,000,000.00 is too much to give to an oil executive. There is something wrong with this picture, yet no one is doing or saying anything about it.
So I will.
I will not buy any more gasoline.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Libby Sings
John Prados
April 07, 2006
John Prados is a senior fellow of the National Security Archive in Washington, D.C., and author of Hoodwinked: The Documents that Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War (The New Press).
The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Just a few months ago defenders of the Bush administration were lambasting Justice Department prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald for engaging in a fishing expedition that might hurt President George W. Bush. The pundits considered Fitzgerald’s indictment for perjury of former vice-presidential aide I. Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby to be politically motivated and wrong.
To recap, Libby’s alleged perjury occurred during his testimony to a grand jury investigating the blown cover of CIA clandestine officer Valerie Plame Wilson, bound up in a White House bid to neutralize criticism of the Iraq war. The Plame affair started as an effort to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whom the CIA had sent to Niger to look into charges that Iraq was buying uranium ore there. Wilson found nothing to substantiate the claim and subsequently became a critic of Bush’s resort to war. His wife was outed in an attempt to undermine Wilson’s charges.
Continued legal filings in the case now reveal Prosecutor Fitzgerald as a guardian of White House secrets and Scooter Libby plus his defense team as assiduously implicating President Bush. For those who questioned George Bush’s modus operandi in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq and afterwards these are perhaps not unexpected developments. But the gradual emergence of the contents of the Libby grand jury testimony is important not only because it contradicts the president’s public denials of the leaks, but also for potentially placing the president at the center of a smear campaign.
Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s April 5 response to the Libby team’s latest motion to compel discovery of a vast array of documents discloses that Vice President Dick Cheney told Libby that President Bush had “specifically” authorized officials in the summer of 2003 to reveal certain contents of the secret U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. There will be an argument over whether Bush or Cheney actually had that authority (which is vested in the Director of Central Intelligence by a law on the books since 1949) but that is not the concern here. Rather, the disclosure of this deliberate Bush leak—given to Judith Miller of The New York Times and others—provides new evidence that the White House regarded the top secret NIE not as an intelligence appreciation but as fodder for political warfare. In fact on July 12 Cheney ordered Libby to speak to the press about the NIE.
The new evidence also says something about Bush secrecy. This administration has moved on many levels to restrict public—and even official—access to information. Cutting off flows of data formerly routinely provided to Congress or the public, defenestrating access to the records of former presidents mandated by the Presidential Records Act, curbing the Freedom of Information Act, refusing to describe to Congress its domestic communications interception program and most recently reclassifying documents in the public domain for years. Suddenly we see President Bush, without a care, releasing secret records he felt would bolster his case.
Moreover, the way in which this was done should send shudders down the spine: according to the Fitzgerald filing, Scooter Libby told the grand jury that “he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials—including Cabinet level officials—were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE, the report about Wilson’s trip and another classified document dated January 24, 2003,” evidently a reference to the materials assembled by CIA officer Robert Walpole regarding Iraq’s weapons programs and used for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s speech to the United Nations Security Council a couple of weeks later. If Libby’s testimony is accurate, documents were to be simultaneously deemed secret and declassified, depending upon White House whim, convenience, or legal liability.
This is the same administration that is seeking to prosecute those who leaked information considered less favorable to its cause, such as the fact of the National Security Agency’s dubious domestic spying program or the existence of the CIA’s secret prison network. Under the interpretation of the Espionage Act the Bush Justice Department is using to prosecute two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, even reporters who gain access to such information, media that inform the public of it, or persons who merely possess the information are currently at risk, although the statute appears to criminalize only the act of leaking. Indeed, the law makes it necessary for the NIE data not to be classified in order for Libby to legally leak it. There may be an argument here that under the Bush interpretation of the statute the act of declassification to abet a leak could amount to a criminal conspiracy, in this case by President George Bush himself.
Those who contend that there was no Bush effort to make political use of intelligence in the months leading up to the war will now have an even harder time of it. At various points during those months there were similarly orchestrated leaks—of claims about aluminum tubes supposedly being used in an Iraqi nuclear weapons program and of alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to name just two. And there were carefully prepared occasions where Bush officials took advantage of those leaks to advance the cause of war. The events of July 2003 demonstrate that this was a standard administration tactic, not an aberration. Given the circumstances, the need for a “Phase II” investigation of the political use of intelligence for the Iraq war becomes inescapable.
The most important aspect of the new evidence is that it locates the center of the effort to discredit Ambassador Wilson, and of the actions taken to further that aim, squarely within the Oval Office. If that project rose to the level of a criminal conspiracy, or if anything done to further that goal was in fact illegal, it is George W. Bush who must be called to account. That is a very troubling development indeed. The censure motion introduced by Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold may turn out to be merely the opening salvo in a very intense political battle.
John Prados
April 07, 2006
John Prados is a senior fellow of the National Security Archive in Washington, D.C., and author of Hoodwinked: The Documents that Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War (The New Press).
The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Just a few months ago defenders of the Bush administration were lambasting Justice Department prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald for engaging in a fishing expedition that might hurt President George W. Bush. The pundits considered Fitzgerald’s indictment for perjury of former vice-presidential aide I. Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby to be politically motivated and wrong.
To recap, Libby’s alleged perjury occurred during his testimony to a grand jury investigating the blown cover of CIA clandestine officer Valerie Plame Wilson, bound up in a White House bid to neutralize criticism of the Iraq war. The Plame affair started as an effort to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whom the CIA had sent to Niger to look into charges that Iraq was buying uranium ore there. Wilson found nothing to substantiate the claim and subsequently became a critic of Bush’s resort to war. His wife was outed in an attempt to undermine Wilson’s charges.
Continued legal filings in the case now reveal Prosecutor Fitzgerald as a guardian of White House secrets and Scooter Libby plus his defense team as assiduously implicating President Bush. For those who questioned George Bush’s modus operandi in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq and afterwards these are perhaps not unexpected developments. But the gradual emergence of the contents of the Libby grand jury testimony is important not only because it contradicts the president’s public denials of the leaks, but also for potentially placing the president at the center of a smear campaign.
Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s April 5 response to the Libby team’s latest motion to compel discovery of a vast array of documents discloses that Vice President Dick Cheney told Libby that President Bush had “specifically” authorized officials in the summer of 2003 to reveal certain contents of the secret U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. There will be an argument over whether Bush or Cheney actually had that authority (which is vested in the Director of Central Intelligence by a law on the books since 1949) but that is not the concern here. Rather, the disclosure of this deliberate Bush leak—given to Judith Miller of The New York Times and others—provides new evidence that the White House regarded the top secret NIE not as an intelligence appreciation but as fodder for political warfare. In fact on July 12 Cheney ordered Libby to speak to the press about the NIE.
The new evidence also says something about Bush secrecy. This administration has moved on many levels to restrict public—and even official—access to information. Cutting off flows of data formerly routinely provided to Congress or the public, defenestrating access to the records of former presidents mandated by the Presidential Records Act, curbing the Freedom of Information Act, refusing to describe to Congress its domestic communications interception program and most recently reclassifying documents in the public domain for years. Suddenly we see President Bush, without a care, releasing secret records he felt would bolster his case.
Moreover, the way in which this was done should send shudders down the spine: according to the Fitzgerald filing, Scooter Libby told the grand jury that “he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials—including Cabinet level officials—were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE, the report about Wilson’s trip and another classified document dated January 24, 2003,” evidently a reference to the materials assembled by CIA officer Robert Walpole regarding Iraq’s weapons programs and used for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s speech to the United Nations Security Council a couple of weeks later. If Libby’s testimony is accurate, documents were to be simultaneously deemed secret and declassified, depending upon White House whim, convenience, or legal liability.
This is the same administration that is seeking to prosecute those who leaked information considered less favorable to its cause, such as the fact of the National Security Agency’s dubious domestic spying program or the existence of the CIA’s secret prison network. Under the interpretation of the Espionage Act the Bush Justice Department is using to prosecute two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, even reporters who gain access to such information, media that inform the public of it, or persons who merely possess the information are currently at risk, although the statute appears to criminalize only the act of leaking. Indeed, the law makes it necessary for the NIE data not to be classified in order for Libby to legally leak it. There may be an argument here that under the Bush interpretation of the statute the act of declassification to abet a leak could amount to a criminal conspiracy, in this case by President George Bush himself.
Those who contend that there was no Bush effort to make political use of intelligence in the months leading up to the war will now have an even harder time of it. At various points during those months there were similarly orchestrated leaks—of claims about aluminum tubes supposedly being used in an Iraqi nuclear weapons program and of alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to name just two. And there were carefully prepared occasions where Bush officials took advantage of those leaks to advance the cause of war. The events of July 2003 demonstrate that this was a standard administration tactic, not an aberration. Given the circumstances, the need for a “Phase II” investigation of the political use of intelligence for the Iraq war becomes inescapable.
The most important aspect of the new evidence is that it locates the center of the effort to discredit Ambassador Wilson, and of the actions taken to further that aim, squarely within the Oval Office. If that project rose to the level of a criminal conspiracy, or if anything done to further that goal was in fact illegal, it is George W. Bush who must be called to account. That is a very troubling development indeed. The censure motion introduced by Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold may turn out to be merely the opening salvo in a very intense political battle.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Bush at Center of Intelligence Leak
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Thursday 06 April 2006
Attorneys and current and former White House officials close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson said Thursday that President Bush gave Vice President Dick Cheney the authorization in mid-June 2003 to disclose a portion of the highly sensitive National Intelligence Estimate to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
These current and former White House officials are among the 36 witnesses who have testified before a grand jury and have been cooperating with the special counsel's probe since its inception.
The officials, some of whom are attorneys close to the case, added that more than two dozen emails that the vice president's office said it recently discovered and handed over to leak investigators in February show that President Bush was kept up to date about the circumstances surrounding the effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
The sources indicated that the leak probe is now winding down, and that soon, new information will emerge from the special counsel's office that will prove President Bush had prior knowledge of the White House campaign to discredit Plame Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of "twisting" intelligence on the Iraqi threat in order to win public support for the war.
The new information that surfaced late Wednesday places President Bush at the center of the probe for the first time since the investigation into the leak began more than two years ago and raises new questions as to whether Bush knew in advance the lengths to which senior White House officials went to discredit Wilson.
In the court filing, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote that Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to [former New York Times reporter Judith] Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out."
"Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the filing further states. "Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document. Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE's key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium. Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President's authorization that it be disclosed. Defendant testified that one of the reasons why he met with Miller at a hotel was the fact that he was sharing this information with Miller exclusively."
In October 2003, three months after Plame Wilson's CIA status and identity were unmasked in print by columnist Robert Novak, President Bush said publicly that it was unlikely that the individual who leaked her name would ever be found.
"I mean this is a town full of people who like to leak information," Bush said during a press conference on Oct. 7, 2003. "And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's lots of senior officials. I don't have any idea."
Details of President Bush's involvement in the effort to counter the former ambassador's claims came in a court document filed late Wednesday evening in US District Court in Washington by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, which was first reported by the New York Sun newspaper.
President Bush retained a private attorney when he was interviewed in the leak probe two years ago, specifically about whether he knew about it or had authorized it.
According to four attorneys who over the past two days have read a transcript of the President Bush's interview with investigators, Bush did not disclose to either investigators or the special counsel that he had authorized Cheney or any other administration official to leak portions of the NIE to Woodward and Miller or any other reporter. Rather, these people said the president said he frowned upon "selective leaks."
Bush also said during the interview two years ago that he had no prior knowledge that anyone on his staff had been involved in a campaign to discredit Wilson or that individuals retaliated against the former ambassador by leaking his wife's undercover identity to reporters.
The 39-page court document Fitzgerald filed late Wednesday included previously unreported testimony given to a grand jury by Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby was indicted in October on five-counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators about how he discovered Plame Wilson's identity.
Libby testified that Cheney had received explicit instruction from President Bush to declassify a portion of the October 2002 NIE that said Iraq tried to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium ore from Niger and share that information with reporters like Miller and Woodward, whose previous work proved to be sympathetic to the administration and would help to discredit Wilson, according to the court document and attorneys and current and former administration officials close to the investigation.
Libby's "participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE," the Fitzgerald's filing states. "Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller - getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval - were unique in his recollection."
"Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson," the court filing states. "Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare "on the record" statement, and to provide "background" and "deep background" statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson."
On June 27, 2003, two weeks before Libby's meeting with Miller and disclosing to her portions of the NIE, Libby met with Woodward, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, and leaked the portion of the NIE that dealt with Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Niger, which was first reported by this reporter in March.
A week or so earlier, Woodward met with two other government officials, one of whom told him in a "casual" and off-handed manner that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
Woodward said the meeting with Libby and the other government officials had been set up simply as "confidential background interviews for my 2004 book 'Plan of Attack' about the lead-up to the Iraq war, ongoing reporting for the Washington Post and research for a book on Bush's second term to be published in 2006."
Woodward wrote a first-person account for the Washington Post after he gave a sworn deposition to Fitzgerald about information he had learned about Valerie Plame Wilson. It was a shocking revelation at the time. Woodward had publicly discounted the importance of the Plame Wilson leak and had referred to Fitzgerald as a "junkyard dog" prosecutor. He then revealed in November that he had been told about Plame Wilson's CIA employment in June 2003 - before any other journalist.
The Watergate-era journalist wrote that when he met with Libby on June 27, 2003, "Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned "yellowcake" and said there was an effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02. This was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger."
The information in the NIE about Niger was still considered highly classified and extremely sensitive, and although Woodward had been the recipient of classified information on other occasions during the course of gathering material for his books, the data he was provided with concerning the NIE had been authorized by Cheney in order to rebut Wilson. Woodward never wrote a story for the Post about the intelligence information he was given.
President Bush signed an executive order in March 2003 authorizing Cheney to declassify certain intelligence documents. The executive order was signed on March 23, 2003, four days after the start of the Iraq war, and two weeks after Wilson first appeared on the administration's radar.
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Thursday 06 April 2006
Attorneys and current and former White House officials close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson said Thursday that President Bush gave Vice President Dick Cheney the authorization in mid-June 2003 to disclose a portion of the highly sensitive National Intelligence Estimate to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
These current and former White House officials are among the 36 witnesses who have testified before a grand jury and have been cooperating with the special counsel's probe since its inception.
The officials, some of whom are attorneys close to the case, added that more than two dozen emails that the vice president's office said it recently discovered and handed over to leak investigators in February show that President Bush was kept up to date about the circumstances surrounding the effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
The sources indicated that the leak probe is now winding down, and that soon, new information will emerge from the special counsel's office that will prove President Bush had prior knowledge of the White House campaign to discredit Plame Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of "twisting" intelligence on the Iraqi threat in order to win public support for the war.
The new information that surfaced late Wednesday places President Bush at the center of the probe for the first time since the investigation into the leak began more than two years ago and raises new questions as to whether Bush knew in advance the lengths to which senior White House officials went to discredit Wilson.
In the court filing, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote that Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to [former New York Times reporter Judith] Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out."
"Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the filing further states. "Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document. Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE's key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium. Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President's authorization that it be disclosed. Defendant testified that one of the reasons why he met with Miller at a hotel was the fact that he was sharing this information with Miller exclusively."
In October 2003, three months after Plame Wilson's CIA status and identity were unmasked in print by columnist Robert Novak, President Bush said publicly that it was unlikely that the individual who leaked her name would ever be found.
"I mean this is a town full of people who like to leak information," Bush said during a press conference on Oct. 7, 2003. "And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's lots of senior officials. I don't have any idea."
Details of President Bush's involvement in the effort to counter the former ambassador's claims came in a court document filed late Wednesday evening in US District Court in Washington by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, which was first reported by the New York Sun newspaper.
President Bush retained a private attorney when he was interviewed in the leak probe two years ago, specifically about whether he knew about it or had authorized it.
According to four attorneys who over the past two days have read a transcript of the President Bush's interview with investigators, Bush did not disclose to either investigators or the special counsel that he had authorized Cheney or any other administration official to leak portions of the NIE to Woodward and Miller or any other reporter. Rather, these people said the president said he frowned upon "selective leaks."
Bush also said during the interview two years ago that he had no prior knowledge that anyone on his staff had been involved in a campaign to discredit Wilson or that individuals retaliated against the former ambassador by leaking his wife's undercover identity to reporters.
The 39-page court document Fitzgerald filed late Wednesday included previously unreported testimony given to a grand jury by Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby was indicted in October on five-counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators about how he discovered Plame Wilson's identity.
Libby testified that Cheney had received explicit instruction from President Bush to declassify a portion of the October 2002 NIE that said Iraq tried to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium ore from Niger and share that information with reporters like Miller and Woodward, whose previous work proved to be sympathetic to the administration and would help to discredit Wilson, according to the court document and attorneys and current and former administration officials close to the investigation.
Libby's "participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE," the Fitzgerald's filing states. "Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller - getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval - were unique in his recollection."
"Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson," the court filing states. "Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare "on the record" statement, and to provide "background" and "deep background" statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson."
On June 27, 2003, two weeks before Libby's meeting with Miller and disclosing to her portions of the NIE, Libby met with Woodward, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, and leaked the portion of the NIE that dealt with Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Niger, which was first reported by this reporter in March.
A week or so earlier, Woodward met with two other government officials, one of whom told him in a "casual" and off-handed manner that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
Woodward said the meeting with Libby and the other government officials had been set up simply as "confidential background interviews for my 2004 book 'Plan of Attack' about the lead-up to the Iraq war, ongoing reporting for the Washington Post and research for a book on Bush's second term to be published in 2006."
Woodward wrote a first-person account for the Washington Post after he gave a sworn deposition to Fitzgerald about information he had learned about Valerie Plame Wilson. It was a shocking revelation at the time. Woodward had publicly discounted the importance of the Plame Wilson leak and had referred to Fitzgerald as a "junkyard dog" prosecutor. He then revealed in November that he had been told about Plame Wilson's CIA employment in June 2003 - before any other journalist.
The Watergate-era journalist wrote that when he met with Libby on June 27, 2003, "Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned "yellowcake" and said there was an effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02. This was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger."
The information in the NIE about Niger was still considered highly classified and extremely sensitive, and although Woodward had been the recipient of classified information on other occasions during the course of gathering material for his books, the data he was provided with concerning the NIE had been authorized by Cheney in order to rebut Wilson. Woodward never wrote a story for the Post about the intelligence information he was given.
President Bush signed an executive order in March 2003 authorizing Cheney to declassify certain intelligence documents. The executive order was signed on March 23, 2003, four days after the start of the Iraq war, and two weeks after Wilson first appeared on the administration's radar.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Here we are at the end of another month. Can you really believe that March is upon us? Can't wait for the Oscars. They will come on soon. Must speak in mono-syllabic grunts. Work is great, my love is doing great, we look forward to a year of change and growth. This post is beginning to read like fortune cookie.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Squirrels attack dog!
Squirrels attack dog!
Squirrels have bitten to death a stray dog that was barking at them. Perhaps a fight over declining resources?
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
"CD’s affected by the Sony-BMG spyware
Posted Nov 15, 2005 04:57 PM PST on whatreallyhappened.com
Category: COMPUTERS/SECURITY
Needless to say I have received the usual batch of hate-emails from music pirates intent on not having to feel guilty about what they do and certainly not wishing to be seen as the ultimate cause of all this nonsense. Rather than waste a lot of space on the reader's letters page to what are essentially the same arguments over and over, here are the answers.
1. Hacking into computers to steal music is just as wrong as music companies hacking into computers to prevent it. Both are wrong, but keep in mind who acted first.
2. Music companies don't automatically make vast sums of money for music CDs. The retailers take most of it, taxes take the next biggest chunk.
3. Until you yourself actually produce and market a music CD or a DVD, you don't know what you are talking about when you spout off about how the music companies ought to behave.
4. The music companies are not crooks. The music pirates are the crooks."
***Response starts here:***
Dear WRH,
Sorry about the incomplete message I sent earlier, there must have been some spyware on my computer that I didn't know about, and it seems to have caused me to submit my message prematurely.
Here is my response to your "comments" that appear under the article summary.
1. Who's "hacking"? As I understand it, P2P, or a torrent needs tacit approval from each user that wants to "share" their music/movies/books. How is this different than the public library, a book loan to my friend, or letting my mom borrow a cd? If I go to the library and "borrow" a Stephen King novel...how does Stephen King make any money off of that? Can I not "loan" a dvd to my family, or a book to a co-worker?
2. If music companies didn't make money off of music distribution...they would be in an entirely different business altogether.
3. I have "produced" music and movies. I am an actor/writer/musician with over 30 movies under my belt, and I engineer/produce music and have made money writing screenplays. I do it because I love to make art, and if I had a choice between never letting my stuff be seen or heard, and starving to death because I couldn't make money off of it....well, I'm pretty hungry these days. Producers consistently profit off of artists with no conscience. Look at the latest Screen Actor's Guild statements regarding internet/dvd profit sharing, and how unfair producers have always been when it comes to paying actors for the exploitation of their efforts.
4. Both music companies and pirates are crooks. Imagine if books were monitered and tracked like downloaded music is. Not everyone can afford a copy of "1984" or "Watership Down". So is it fair that the economically strong are the only ones "allowed" to read such material? Stealing anything is wrong. It just depends on what you consider "stealing". How come songs listened to on the radio and movies shown on broadcast television are "free"? Oh, that's right, there are corporations advertising their products and services and your "cost" is a listen to or a look at their commercials.
No wonder there is so much crappy music on the radio.
No wonder movies suck these days.
Greed.
Not there's anything wrong with that.
I believe everyone, man, woman and child, has the right to see, hear and feel art that was specifically created to be shared. Just like your website. Wouldn't it be cruel if the Katrina victims were thrown in jail because they were trying to learn the truth, yet they couldn't afford an internet connection, so they had to read it off of an illegally printed hard copy of your content? Don't you think we have the basic human right to hear each other's stories, and learn from each others life experiences?
Respectfully yours,
Keith Coogan
S.A.G./A.F.T.R.A. member since 1976.
P.S. Keep up the good work. Instead of watching CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/FOXNEWS, I faithfully read WRH, RENSE and DRUDGEREPORT on a daily basis, but not necessarily in that order.
Posted Nov 15, 2005 04:57 PM PST on whatreallyhappened.com
Category: COMPUTERS/SECURITY
Needless to say I have received the usual batch of hate-emails from music pirates intent on not having to feel guilty about what they do and certainly not wishing to be seen as the ultimate cause of all this nonsense. Rather than waste a lot of space on the reader's letters page to what are essentially the same arguments over and over, here are the answers.
1. Hacking into computers to steal music is just as wrong as music companies hacking into computers to prevent it. Both are wrong, but keep in mind who acted first.
2. Music companies don't automatically make vast sums of money for music CDs. The retailers take most of it, taxes take the next biggest chunk.
3. Until you yourself actually produce and market a music CD or a DVD, you don't know what you are talking about when you spout off about how the music companies ought to behave.
4. The music companies are not crooks. The music pirates are the crooks."
***Response starts here:***
Dear WRH,
Sorry about the incomplete message I sent earlier, there must have been some spyware on my computer that I didn't know about, and it seems to have caused me to submit my message prematurely.
Here is my response to your "comments" that appear under the article summary.
1. Who's "hacking"? As I understand it, P2P, or a torrent needs tacit approval from each user that wants to "share" their music/movies/books. How is this different than the public library, a book loan to my friend, or letting my mom borrow a cd? If I go to the library and "borrow" a Stephen King novel...how does Stephen King make any money off of that? Can I not "loan" a dvd to my family, or a book to a co-worker?
2. If music companies didn't make money off of music distribution...they would be in an entirely different business altogether.
3. I have "produced" music and movies. I am an actor/writer/musician with over 30 movies under my belt, and I engineer/produce music and have made money writing screenplays. I do it because I love to make art, and if I had a choice between never letting my stuff be seen or heard, and starving to death because I couldn't make money off of it....well, I'm pretty hungry these days. Producers consistently profit off of artists with no conscience. Look at the latest Screen Actor's Guild statements regarding internet/dvd profit sharing, and how unfair producers have always been when it comes to paying actors for the exploitation of their efforts.
4. Both music companies and pirates are crooks. Imagine if books were monitered and tracked like downloaded music is. Not everyone can afford a copy of "1984" or "Watership Down". So is it fair that the economically strong are the only ones "allowed" to read such material? Stealing anything is wrong. It just depends on what you consider "stealing". How come songs listened to on the radio and movies shown on broadcast television are "free"? Oh, that's right, there are corporations advertising their products and services and your "cost" is a listen to or a look at their commercials.
No wonder there is so much crappy music on the radio.
No wonder movies suck these days.
Greed.
Not there's anything wrong with that.
I believe everyone, man, woman and child, has the right to see, hear and feel art that was specifically created to be shared. Just like your website. Wouldn't it be cruel if the Katrina victims were thrown in jail because they were trying to learn the truth, yet they couldn't afford an internet connection, so they had to read it off of an illegally printed hard copy of your content? Don't you think we have the basic human right to hear each other's stories, and learn from each others life experiences?
Respectfully yours,
Keith Coogan
S.A.G./A.F.T.R.A. member since 1976.
P.S. Keep up the good work. Instead of watching CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/FOXNEWS, I faithfully read WRH, RENSE and DRUDGEREPORT on a daily basis, but not necessarily in that order.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
If you haven't been watching THE BEST SHOW ON TELEVISION, then I suggest you join us Wednesday nights at 9:00 P.M. on ABC.
Friday, September 23, 2005
The following is perhaps the most compelling argument ever to air on national television. I don't know who won, but I do know that Bill is a big bullie, and Phil is one smart cookie. It is only because of his extensive television experience that Phil was able to even get a word in edgewise, and it is the only time I have seen any guest make Bill concede on ANY issue. Please read the transcripts below, or go to FoxNews.com to watch the video in full.
-------------
PHIL DONAHUE, FORMER TALK SHOW HOST: Let's understand what's happening here. Once again we have a woman who got to be just a little too famous for the people who support this war. A minority of the American population, by the way. And so the effort to marginalize this woman is underway. And you're helping out.
BILLY O'REILLY: I'm — I'm the leader of the pack.
DONAHUE: You're suggesting...
O'REILLY: I'm the leader of the pack.
DONAHUE: First of all, Cindy Sheehan is one tough mother. And nothing you say or anyone else is going to slow her down.
O'REILLY: No, that's fine. She has a right to do that.
DONAHUE: You can't hurt her. She's already taken the biggest punch in the nose that a woman can take. She's lost a son.
O'REILLY: OK.
DONAHUE: She's lost a child.
O'REILLY: But look, I'm not putting words in her mouth.
DONAHUE: And by the way, she is going to be at the center of one of the largest rallies since the Vietnam War: proud, patriotic Americans who will show up in Washington this week for one of the most massive, largest demonstrations, protest demonstrations...
O'REILLY: And we'll cover it.
DONAHUE: ... right outside the president's window.
O'REILLY: And we'll cover it.
DONAHUE: And FOX is in the business of saying that this woman is somehow saying un-American things. Hyperbole.
O'REILLY: No, no, no, no.
DONAHUE: Listen to what she's saying.
O'REILLY: Nobody said she said anything un-American. We say that her positions are radical. And they are radical.
DONAHUE: Let me tell you what's radical. What's radical is to send more Americans to die in this war, which is a monumental blunder...
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: ... by a president who swaggered us into it with, by the way, the at least tacit approval of the Democratic Party. There's a lot of sin to go around here.
O'REILLY: What's radical...
DONAHUE: You want to send more people to this war? Is that your position?
O'REILLY: If we cut and run out of there like you want to do, we would be putting every American in a thousand times more jeopardy than they're in now.
DONAHUE: We're going to cut and run anyway, Bill.
O'REILLY: Well, that's your opinion.
DONAHUE: It's not my opinion. American military leaders have said we're going to draw down, beginning next year. The reason they said that...
O'REILLY: There's a difference between drawing down and cutting and running.
DONAHUE: Well...
O'REILLY: You're a cut and run guy, and I don't want my family in danger because of you.
DONAHUE: You want to stay the course, don't you? You don't...
O'REILLY: Look, here's what I want to do. I want to give the Iraqis a chance to train their army so they can defeat these people who are trying to turn it into a terrorist state.
DONAHUE: Bill...
O'REILLY: That's what I want to do.
DONAHUE: Bill...
O'REILLY: Go.
DONAHUE: Iraq was not a terrorist state.
O'REILLY: Oh, no.
(CROSSTALK)
DONAHUE: I hope I don't patronize you for thinking that.
O'REILLY: He was a swell guy. He was...
DONAHUE: Saddam — Saddam was a bastard. But he was our bastard.
O'REILLY: He wasn't anybody's...
DONAHUE: Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand in the '80s.
O'REILLY: Well, that's true (ph).
DONAHUE: You saw the pictures. Now listen. Listen. You wouldn't send your children to this war, Bill.
O'REILLY: My nephew just enlisted in the Army. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
DONAHUE: Very good. Very good. Congratulations. Be proud.
O'REILLY: Yes, and he's a patriot, so don't denigrate his service or I'll boot you right off the set.
DONAHUE: I'm not — I'm not...
O'REILLY: That boy made a decision to serve his country. Do not denigrate him or you're out of here.
DONAHUE: I'm not Jeremy Glick, Billy. You can't intimidate me.
O'REILLY: That's right. A little bit more intelligent than he is.
DONAHUE: I'm not somebody you can come and just do all your...
O'REILLY: Don't tell me I wouldn't send my kids.
DONAHUE: Loud doesn't mean right.
O'REILLY: My nephew just enlisted. You don't know what you're talking about.
DONAHUE: All right. You — your nephew is not your kid. You are...
O'REILLY: He's my blood.
DONAHUE: You are part of a loud group of people who want to prove they're tough and send other people's kids to war to make the case.
O'REILLY: You have no clue about how to fight a war on terror or how to defend your country. You are clueless. So is Ms. Sheehan. For Ms. Sheehan to say that the insurgents have a right to kill Americans, and you're shaking her hand? You ought to just walk away.
DONAHUE: How many more young men and women are you going to send to have their arms and legs blown off...
O'REILLY: This is a war on terror.
DONAHUE: ... so that you can be tough and point at people in a kind of cowardly way...
O'REILLY: No.
DONAHUE: ... take people like Jeremy Glick, who comes on to, in memory of his parents...
O'REILLY: Oh, bull.
DONAHUE: ... and you go off on him...
O'REILLY: Jeremy Glick is...
DONAHUE: ... like a big bully. Do you feel that you have to be — you have to feel sorry about that.
O'REILLY: Mr. Donahue, with all due respect...
DONAHUE: Have you apologized to him for that?
O'REILLY: Baloney. Jeremy Glick came on this program...
DONAHUE: You know what I'm talking about?
O'REILLY: ... and accused the president of the United States...
DONAHUE: Oh, and you had...
O'REILLY: ... of orchestrating 9/11. That's what he did, right after 9/11 happened. Do you know what the pain that brought the families who lost people in 9/11?
DONAHUE: This war...
O'REILLY: You buy into left-wing propaganda...
DONAHUE: This war...
O'REILLY: ... and you're a mouthpiece for it. Go ahead.
DONAHUE: This war is not fair to the American troops. This war is unconstitutional. This war turned its back on the people who framed the most fabulous document in the history of civilization. I speak of the United States Constitution.
O'REILLY: Why — why isn't the Democratic...
DONAHUE: This — we have — by the way...
O'REILLY: ... Party speaking that way?
DONAHUE: I'm sorry that it isn't. I am. But let's understand something.
O'REILLY: Are we all — are we all so misguided?
DONAHUE: Twenty-one — excuse me. Twenty-one Democrats in the Senate voted against this war, as well as Jeffords, an independent. And may the Lord shine his blessings down upon Lincoln Chaffee...
O'REILLY: All right. I'm going to give you...
DONAHUE: ... the only — I'm almost finished, Billy.
O'REILLY: I'm going to give you the last word.
DONAHUE: I'm almost finished.
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: Lincoln Chaffee, the only Republican in the Senate to vote against this war. We should be building statues to all these people.
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: October 2002, they stood up to a president and they knew that, first of all, only Congress can declare war. Why is that unimportant to you, Billy?
O'REILLY: It's not — I'm not...
DONAHUE: Why can't you become the patriot that your loud voice proclaims to be?
O'REILLY: A loud voice...
DONAHUE: And stand behind the Constitution and insist that we never go to war again without the approval — and...
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: ... the United States Congress.
O'REILLY: If they want to take action, they can take action. Now I want to say something, I'm going to give you the last word. The Iraq war is not something that I embrace. It absolutely could be a tactical error.
DONAHUE: Well, you should...
O'REILLY: All right?
DONAHUE: It's hard to know this, Billy.
O'REILLY: Listen to me and then you're going to have the last word. Not something I embrace, could be a tactical error, optional war and we have not waged it the way I had hoped we would wage it.
DONAHUE: But what?
O'REILLY: But we are in the war on terror.
DONAHUE: You want kids to die (ph).
O'REILLY: We are in the war on terror. Our cause is noble.
DONAHUE: It has nothing to do with the war on terror.
O'REILLY: Yes, it does. And if you don't understand geopolitics and you don't understand Iraq would be a terrorist state if we pulled out of there...
DONAHUE: The mistake...
O'REILLY: ... you don't know anything.
DONAHUE: ... it was poorly planned...
O'REILLY: Go ahead.
DONAHUE: ... poorly executed, but Bill O'Reilly wants to send more kids to fight and die. We've already had almost 2,000. Just let me have the last word. In the last year, two things have doubled. The number of dead American troops in Iraq have doubled, from over 1,000 to almost 2,000. You know what else doubled, Billy? The price of Halliburton's stock.
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: From $33 to $66. That doesn't shame you? That doesn't make you wonder?
O'REILLY: I'm not obsessed by Halliburton stock.
DONAHUE: If this is an enterprise that is worth the support of the American people? We need you at this rally on Saturday, Billy.
O'REILLY: I don't care. I'm not going to be there.
DONAHUE: We need you out in front of it to be — to protest.
O'REILLY: Not going to be at the rally.
DONAHUE: There is no democracy without dissent.
O'REILLY: Not going to protest.
DONAHUE: You should be proud of people who stand up and dissent.
O'REILLY: I am. I respect your...
DONAHUE: A lot of fine men went and died to give me that freedom.
O'REILLY: All right. You got it. You got it. I respect your dissent. I think you're way off in your analysis of the war on terror.
DONAHUE: You want to send more people to die in Iraq? Is that — is that your position?
O'REILLY: I want to win the war in Iraq.
DONAHUE: Win. What does win mean? Tell me what win means.
O'REILLY: It means those people have a chance at democracy. I've got to go.
DONAHUE: How long is that going to take?
O'REILLY: Got to go.
DONAHUE: How long is that going to take?
O'REILLY: Those people deserve a chance at freedom. Thank you for coming in.
-------------
PHIL DONAHUE, FORMER TALK SHOW HOST: Let's understand what's happening here. Once again we have a woman who got to be just a little too famous for the people who support this war. A minority of the American population, by the way. And so the effort to marginalize this woman is underway. And you're helping out.
BILLY O'REILLY: I'm — I'm the leader of the pack.
DONAHUE: You're suggesting...
O'REILLY: I'm the leader of the pack.
DONAHUE: First of all, Cindy Sheehan is one tough mother. And nothing you say or anyone else is going to slow her down.
O'REILLY: No, that's fine. She has a right to do that.
DONAHUE: You can't hurt her. She's already taken the biggest punch in the nose that a woman can take. She's lost a son.
O'REILLY: OK.
DONAHUE: She's lost a child.
O'REILLY: But look, I'm not putting words in her mouth.
DONAHUE: And by the way, she is going to be at the center of one of the largest rallies since the Vietnam War: proud, patriotic Americans who will show up in Washington this week for one of the most massive, largest demonstrations, protest demonstrations...
O'REILLY: And we'll cover it.
DONAHUE: ... right outside the president's window.
O'REILLY: And we'll cover it.
DONAHUE: And FOX is in the business of saying that this woman is somehow saying un-American things. Hyperbole.
O'REILLY: No, no, no, no.
DONAHUE: Listen to what she's saying.
O'REILLY: Nobody said she said anything un-American. We say that her positions are radical. And they are radical.
DONAHUE: Let me tell you what's radical. What's radical is to send more Americans to die in this war, which is a monumental blunder...
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: ... by a president who swaggered us into it with, by the way, the at least tacit approval of the Democratic Party. There's a lot of sin to go around here.
O'REILLY: What's radical...
DONAHUE: You want to send more people to this war? Is that your position?
O'REILLY: If we cut and run out of there like you want to do, we would be putting every American in a thousand times more jeopardy than they're in now.
DONAHUE: We're going to cut and run anyway, Bill.
O'REILLY: Well, that's your opinion.
DONAHUE: It's not my opinion. American military leaders have said we're going to draw down, beginning next year. The reason they said that...
O'REILLY: There's a difference between drawing down and cutting and running.
DONAHUE: Well...
O'REILLY: You're a cut and run guy, and I don't want my family in danger because of you.
DONAHUE: You want to stay the course, don't you? You don't...
O'REILLY: Look, here's what I want to do. I want to give the Iraqis a chance to train their army so they can defeat these people who are trying to turn it into a terrorist state.
DONAHUE: Bill...
O'REILLY: That's what I want to do.
DONAHUE: Bill...
O'REILLY: Go.
DONAHUE: Iraq was not a terrorist state.
O'REILLY: Oh, no.
(CROSSTALK)
DONAHUE: I hope I don't patronize you for thinking that.
O'REILLY: He was a swell guy. He was...
DONAHUE: Saddam — Saddam was a bastard. But he was our bastard.
O'REILLY: He wasn't anybody's...
DONAHUE: Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand in the '80s.
O'REILLY: Well, that's true (ph).
DONAHUE: You saw the pictures. Now listen. Listen. You wouldn't send your children to this war, Bill.
O'REILLY: My nephew just enlisted in the Army. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
DONAHUE: Very good. Very good. Congratulations. Be proud.
O'REILLY: Yes, and he's a patriot, so don't denigrate his service or I'll boot you right off the set.
DONAHUE: I'm not — I'm not...
O'REILLY: That boy made a decision to serve his country. Do not denigrate him or you're out of here.
DONAHUE: I'm not Jeremy Glick, Billy. You can't intimidate me.
O'REILLY: That's right. A little bit more intelligent than he is.
DONAHUE: I'm not somebody you can come and just do all your...
O'REILLY: Don't tell me I wouldn't send my kids.
DONAHUE: Loud doesn't mean right.
O'REILLY: My nephew just enlisted. You don't know what you're talking about.
DONAHUE: All right. You — your nephew is not your kid. You are...
O'REILLY: He's my blood.
DONAHUE: You are part of a loud group of people who want to prove they're tough and send other people's kids to war to make the case.
O'REILLY: You have no clue about how to fight a war on terror or how to defend your country. You are clueless. So is Ms. Sheehan. For Ms. Sheehan to say that the insurgents have a right to kill Americans, and you're shaking her hand? You ought to just walk away.
DONAHUE: How many more young men and women are you going to send to have their arms and legs blown off...
O'REILLY: This is a war on terror.
DONAHUE: ... so that you can be tough and point at people in a kind of cowardly way...
O'REILLY: No.
DONAHUE: ... take people like Jeremy Glick, who comes on to, in memory of his parents...
O'REILLY: Oh, bull.
DONAHUE: ... and you go off on him...
O'REILLY: Jeremy Glick is...
DONAHUE: ... like a big bully. Do you feel that you have to be — you have to feel sorry about that.
O'REILLY: Mr. Donahue, with all due respect...
DONAHUE: Have you apologized to him for that?
O'REILLY: Baloney. Jeremy Glick came on this program...
DONAHUE: You know what I'm talking about?
O'REILLY: ... and accused the president of the United States...
DONAHUE: Oh, and you had...
O'REILLY: ... of orchestrating 9/11. That's what he did, right after 9/11 happened. Do you know what the pain that brought the families who lost people in 9/11?
DONAHUE: This war...
O'REILLY: You buy into left-wing propaganda...
DONAHUE: This war...
O'REILLY: ... and you're a mouthpiece for it. Go ahead.
DONAHUE: This war is not fair to the American troops. This war is unconstitutional. This war turned its back on the people who framed the most fabulous document in the history of civilization. I speak of the United States Constitution.
O'REILLY: Why — why isn't the Democratic...
DONAHUE: This — we have — by the way...
O'REILLY: ... Party speaking that way?
DONAHUE: I'm sorry that it isn't. I am. But let's understand something.
O'REILLY: Are we all — are we all so misguided?
DONAHUE: Twenty-one — excuse me. Twenty-one Democrats in the Senate voted against this war, as well as Jeffords, an independent. And may the Lord shine his blessings down upon Lincoln Chaffee...
O'REILLY: All right. I'm going to give you...
DONAHUE: ... the only — I'm almost finished, Billy.
O'REILLY: I'm going to give you the last word.
DONAHUE: I'm almost finished.
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: Lincoln Chaffee, the only Republican in the Senate to vote against this war. We should be building statues to all these people.
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: October 2002, they stood up to a president and they knew that, first of all, only Congress can declare war. Why is that unimportant to you, Billy?
O'REILLY: It's not — I'm not...
DONAHUE: Why can't you become the patriot that your loud voice proclaims to be?
O'REILLY: A loud voice...
DONAHUE: And stand behind the Constitution and insist that we never go to war again without the approval — and...
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: ... the United States Congress.
O'REILLY: If they want to take action, they can take action. Now I want to say something, I'm going to give you the last word. The Iraq war is not something that I embrace. It absolutely could be a tactical error.
DONAHUE: Well, you should...
O'REILLY: All right?
DONAHUE: It's hard to know this, Billy.
O'REILLY: Listen to me and then you're going to have the last word. Not something I embrace, could be a tactical error, optional war and we have not waged it the way I had hoped we would wage it.
DONAHUE: But what?
O'REILLY: But we are in the war on terror.
DONAHUE: You want kids to die (ph).
O'REILLY: We are in the war on terror. Our cause is noble.
DONAHUE: It has nothing to do with the war on terror.
O'REILLY: Yes, it does. And if you don't understand geopolitics and you don't understand Iraq would be a terrorist state if we pulled out of there...
DONAHUE: The mistake...
O'REILLY: ... you don't know anything.
DONAHUE: ... it was poorly planned...
O'REILLY: Go ahead.
DONAHUE: ... poorly executed, but Bill O'Reilly wants to send more kids to fight and die. We've already had almost 2,000. Just let me have the last word. In the last year, two things have doubled. The number of dead American troops in Iraq have doubled, from over 1,000 to almost 2,000. You know what else doubled, Billy? The price of Halliburton's stock.
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: From $33 to $66. That doesn't shame you? That doesn't make you wonder?
O'REILLY: I'm not obsessed by Halliburton stock.
DONAHUE: If this is an enterprise that is worth the support of the American people? We need you at this rally on Saturday, Billy.
O'REILLY: I don't care. I'm not going to be there.
DONAHUE: We need you out in front of it to be — to protest.
O'REILLY: Not going to be at the rally.
DONAHUE: There is no democracy without dissent.
O'REILLY: Not going to protest.
DONAHUE: You should be proud of people who stand up and dissent.
O'REILLY: I am. I respect your...
DONAHUE: A lot of fine men went and died to give me that freedom.
O'REILLY: All right. You got it. You got it. I respect your dissent. I think you're way off in your analysis of the war on terror.
DONAHUE: You want to send more people to die in Iraq? Is that — is that your position?
O'REILLY: I want to win the war in Iraq.
DONAHUE: Win. What does win mean? Tell me what win means.
O'REILLY: It means those people have a chance at democracy. I've got to go.
DONAHUE: How long is that going to take?
O'REILLY: Got to go.
DONAHUE: How long is that going to take?
O'REILLY: Those people deserve a chance at freedom. Thank you for coming in.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Monday, June 06, 2005
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)