Dry as a Bone
April 22, 2005
Mandates and Candid Hates
February 23, 2005
January 31, 2005
November 24, 2004
September 20, 2004
Person of the Year
May 11, 2004
Dead media mainstream asleep at the wheel; With Brad and Angelina to keep it all real Imus in the Morning in malfunctioning cities; Blitzer of the blunderbuss pinching Michael Powell’s titties. Once West Wing blowjobs commanded attention; Now as quaint and as fashionable as a Geneva Convention; Karl Rove and his Filthy Boys Minding the Store As he squats for his Jesus, and kneels for his whore -- February 23, 2005
A Midwinter Night's Scream
Let the news consumer decide, and let major news organizations like The New York Times package and sell their standards, ethics and credibility because it's all they have to distinguish them from tabloids, bloggers and lesser news organizations. As columnists condemn bloggers on TV and radio shows hosted by "news personalities" peppered with experts, pundits and analysts, discerning what journalism is, is almost as tough as defining what is is. Trust is earned by delivering on a promise, not simply making one. -- January 14, 2005
As Martha Stewart prepares to serve time, requesting to begin her incarceration before her appeal is heard, America can rest easy, knowing Osama Bin Laden is still free, Republicans will demonstrate will find out who leaked fake memos to CBS and that the Sunni Triangle is the season's hot spot. -- September 20, 2004
Hole Crawlers Society
"When the heat got on, you dug yourself a hole and you crawled in it." Mr. Bush said of deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein, upon his capture. Of course the hole through which White House spews shit, and the deeper hole in which the treasonous leakers languish remains as gaping as the hole in which Dick Cheney's energy task force is hiding. -- December 16, 2003
Its legal appeals exhausted, Time magazine agreed last week to turn over reporter Matthew Cooper's e-mails and computer notes to a special prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA agent's identity. The case has been the subject of press controversy for two years. Saying "we are not above the law," Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine decided to comply with a grand-jury subpoena to turn over documents related to the leak. But Cooper (and a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller) is still refusing to testify and faces jail this week.
At issue is the story of a CIA-sponsored trip taken by former ambassador (and White House critic) Joseph Wilson to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. "Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," said Cooper's July 2003 Time online article.
Now the story may be about to take another turn. The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.
Micahel Issikoff, The Rove Factor?, Newsweek Magazine, July 11, 2005
On July 14, 2003, "journalist" Robert Novak revealed the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame in print after speaking to a White House official. The agent's husband, former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, had publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from Africa -- exposing yet another misleading rationale for war.
While causing consternation among some CIA and Administration officials ("Clearly it was meant purely and simply for revenge," a senior Administration official said of the alleged leak. (Washington Post, 9/28/03)), it has not yet caused a change of conscience among the leaker -- or the man who endangered US national security assets by publishing the name, one Robert Novak.
We don't need to wait for more journalists to go to jail to find the leaker who is on the loose. One man knows. And he should come clean. He is not a journalist. He is an ideologue. And most of all, he is a traitor.
Bust Bob Novak! is a project of the Progressive Majority, bustbob.com
From an Administration that couldn't find the source of an illegal leak of the name of a CIA operative to "journalist" Robert Novak, it's not surprising that they would engage in violation of a law against unauthorized federal propaganda. Neither is it surprising that Robert Novak rushed to Armstrong Williams' defense on Crossfire - the soon-to-be-yanked screamfest staple of CNN. Yes, the same Time Warner owned CNN, which in conjunction with Time was forced to retract a much touted and highly controversial serin gas story back in 1998 and which darkened the face of O.J. Simpson on the cover of Time magazine.
Clinton Fein, A Midwinter Night's Scream, Annoy.com, January 16, 2005
Do you remember the phrases, "The match begins tomorrow," or "Tomorrow is Zero Hour," Mr. Bush? Back in June 2002, your inexperienced White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, expressed that you had "very deep concerns" about a leak in which news organizations reported that the National Security Agency intercepted two al-Qaeda messages on September 10th but failed to translate them from Arabic until the day after the attacks. (Hint: Firing Arab speaking translators may hinder rather than help in this area).
Mr. Fleischer worried aloud that the news stories were "alarmingly specific" and could jeopardize intelligence-gathering operations. He said you had asked your Vice President to convey your displeasure to the committee chairmen. So passionate was your outrage, leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees immediately asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate the leak.
If only your commitment to fighting terrorism was as strong as your desire to withhold information. And if only your commitment to protecting intelligence-gathering operations and routing out the sources of leaks applied equally to those in your Administration who see fit to endanger national security and people’s lives by revealing the identities of CIA operatives.
It’s not only your Department of Defense firing competent linguists who might help thwart terrorists attacks, but someone who serves you in the White House dangerously outed CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to journalists, the slimiest of whom, Robert Novack, took the bait. For nothing more than having the indecency to marry someone critical of your administration’s lies. The lies you used in a State of the Union speech to justify a preemptive war against a country that had nothing to do with September 11th. Have you ever mentioned the name Valerie Plame, Sir?
Clinton Fein, Tell Us When, Tell Us How: A Letter to President Bush, Annoy.com, April 20, 2004
"The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country, "declared the President. Weeks earlier, in response to a leak by his administration to slimy columnist Robert Novak resulting in the treasonous outing of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, (whose husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had debunked the veracity in the President's State of the Union address in a New York Times op-ed), Mr. Bush told journalists: "I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." So much for the superb work of intelligence analysts. How about a leaker's footprints in a small West Wing of the Whitehouse?
Adding a Martha Stewart color to his sincerity President Bush stated; "I want to know the truth…Leaks of classified information are bad things." No shit, Sherlock. Ask your father.
Clinton Fein, Merry Muslim Christmas, Annoy.com, December 19, 2003
The President is satisfied it's not coming from his administration. And again -- I can cite you the news organization, if you're interested, that explicitly reported on the air in its TV report that their sources were from the Hill. Wherever the source is, the point is the same. This is not to finger-point, this is not to place blame. If it comes from the administration, it's wrong. If it comes from the Hill, it's wrong. No matter where the source, no matter where it comes from, we all are in this together, and everybody needs to remember the delicacy of this information and the sensitivity of the information, and the fact that making specific information of this nature public does raise important concerns, because it can harm our ability to continue to gather that information.
Ari Fleischer, Office of the Press Secretary, White House, June 20, 2002
Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
And so I welcome the investigation. I -- I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.
I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.
Q: -- have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him --
Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.
And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information -- outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.
And then we'll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something -- leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.
George W. Bush, Office of the Press Secretary, White House, September 30, 2003
Look, the issue here, and this came up earlier, the issue here is whether or not someone leaked classified information. That is a serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest. I have seen comments from Mr. Wilson. And I have seen him back away from those comments later. It seems to be, he said one thing previously about Karl Rove, and then he backed away from it. And now he's saying other things. There's a changing of the issue here all of a sudden. The issue here is did someone leak classified information, and, if so, who was that person, and then the appropriate action should be taken.
Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it. So let me be very clear. But I'm not going to -- we're not going to go down every single allegation that someone makes. That's just -- we can do that all day long. Let's stay focused on what the issue is here.
But the issue is, did someone leak classified information? That's a serious issue. And I just made it -- I made it clear early, you brought up Karl's name. Let's be very clear. I thought -- I said it was a ridiculous suggestion, I said it's simply not true that he was involved in leaking classified information, and -- nor, did he condone that kind of activity. This has been answered, and now we're trying to get in a whole bunch of issues, separate and apart from that.
I made it very clear -- I have spoken with him. I have spoken with him. I made it very clear that it's not true that he was involved in the leaking of classified information or that he condoned some of what you're suggesting.
And I made it very clear that the issue was regarding the leaking of classified information. And the issue was -- and someone asked about condoning that information. I made it very clear that he didn't condone that kind of activity and was not involved in that kind of activity.
Scott McClellan, Office of the Press Secretary, White House, October 1, 2003
Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of -- where a lot of people leak. And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. And I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible.
But the Justice Department will conduct this investigation. The professionals in the Justice Department will be involved in ferreting out the truth. These are citizens who will -- were here before this administration arrived and will be here after this administration leaves. And they'll come to the bottom of this, and we'll find out the truth. And that will be -- that's a good thing for this administration.
Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to leak information. 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 a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out.
George W. Bush, Office of the Press Secretary, White House, October 7, 2003
There will be a clamp-down on information if it's classified. Classified information should not be in the public realm, and the administration will work very hard to make sure that it's not.
Having said that, the President did say this morning that he does want to make certain that the members of the Armed Services Committee, for example, can be briefed by Secretary Rumsfeld; that the members of the Foreign Relations Committees can be briefed by Secretary Powell, et cetera. It's important that members of Congress have information that they need to do their proper oversight activities; while at the same time, the President will continue to remind members of Congress about the importance of keeping classified information classified.
I think members also are pained by what happened. I think they recognize that they put the President in a difficult spot. Imagine if the case had been that as a result of a CIA briefing to a committee, information was revealed that was classified and the President didn't care or said nothing. I think that also would suggest that classified information is not being handled in a manner that it should be because of the serious nature of classified information. And many members on the Hill are very concerned about the fact that classified information was leaked. They understand that there are important issues involving sharing information with the Congress, and they want to see this matter worked out as well as the President does.
Ari Fleischer, Office of the Press Secretary, White House, October 10, 2001
Today we collect so much information and only a relatively small portion is actually analyzed and communicated. But the real tension that exists is we have these stovepipes where only certain people know this and certain people know that. And people over here need to know it and don’t know it. And so when we say we need to break down those stovepipes, it means that we’ve got to find a way to get the intelligence information that can save lives and can enable us to do our job much better, from a military standpoint and from a policy standpoint, we’ve got to find a way to break those down. Now, why are there stovepipes? Because we’ve been operating, very rationally, on a need-to-know basis. To the extent you have a stovepipe, it’s because you value that information and do not want it known that you know it and therefore you limit the people who have access to it to the people who, quote, “need to know.” That means that the people over here who you don’t think need to know it, don’t know it. And in fact, there are a lot more people that need to know it. So you run the risk of having it compromised. It’s very difficult. I mean, you all know this. Our country has forgotten how to keep a secret. We have such a hemorrhaging of information that’s classified. Every day in Washington, D.C., and around the world. How do you deal with that when people’s lives are at stake?
It was in World War II, you probably don’t remember it, but I mean, there would be signs everywhere, “Loose lips sink ships.” And so how do we do that? Now it may very well be that a lot of information is classified that shouldn’t be, or it’s classified for a period longer than it should be. And maybe we’ve got to find a better way to manage that as well.
Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, August 26, 2004
The President and I place deterring, detecting, and punishing unauthorized disclosures of U.S. national security secrets among our highest priorities, at all times, but especially in this time of war against terrorism of global reach. There is no doubt and ample evidence that unauthorized disclosures of classified information cause enormous and irreparable harm to the Nation’s diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities. They impair, especially, the Intelligence Community’s ability to provide essential support to U.S. national security policymakers and our military’s ability to provide for the national defense. We need an effective Government-wide program to curtail these damaging disclosures and to hold the persons who engage in unauthorized disclosures of classified information fully accountable for the serious damage they cause to intelligence sources and methods, military operations, and to the nation. Those who would break faith with the American people and disclose classified information without authority to do so will face severe consequences under the law.
The seriousness of the issue has outpaced the capacity of extant administrative and law enforcement mechanisms to address the problem effectively.
...[P]olicy and legal officials in the Departments of Defense and Justice, and the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) for the Intelligence Community, must work together to improve enforcement of existing laws. Likewise, these officials must work closely with Congress to ensure that we have the necessary legal authorities to enhance our ability to deter such unauthorized disclosures and to identify and hold accountable those who, without authority, reveal classified information, both for violations of their duty to the United States and for any violations of law. Until those who, without authority, reveal classified information are deterred by the real prospect of productive investigations and strict application of appropriate penalties, they will have no reason to stop their harmful actions.
In sum, to protect its diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities, the Nation must combat unauthorized disclosures of classified information effectively, through aggressive administrative enforcement of current requirements, rigorous investigation of unauthorized disclosures, and vigorous enforcement of the criminal laws that make such disclosures a Federal crime. Clearly, that only a single non-espionage case of an unauthorized disclosure of classified information has been prosecuted in over 50 years provides compelling justification that fundamental improvements are necessary and we must entertain new approaches to deter, identify, and punish those who engage in the practice of unauthorized disclosures of classified information. Although there may be some benefit from a new comprehensive criminal statute, such a statute standing alone would be insufficient in my view to meet the problem of unauthorized disclosures of classified information in its entirety. Accordingly, I am not recommending that the Executive Branch focus its attention on pursuing new legislation at this time. Should Congress choose to pursue a criminal statute that covers in one place all unauthorized disclosures of classified information, however, the Administration would, of course, be prepared to work with Congress.
Attorney General, John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, August 26, 2004
As we wage our campaign to respond to the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, and to protect us from further acts of terrorism, I intend to continue to work closely with the Congress. Consistent with longstanding executive branch practice, this Administration will continue to work to inform the leadership of the Congress about the course of, and important developments in, our critical military, intelligence, and law enforcement operations. At the same time, we have an obligation to protect military operational security, intelligence sources and methods, and sensitive law enforcement investigations. Accordingly, your departments should adhere to the following procedures when providing briefings to the Congress relating to the information we have or the actions we plan to take:
(i) Only you or officers expressly designated by you may brief Members of Congress regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information; and
(ii) The only Members of Congress whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information are the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate.
This approach will best serve our shared goals of protecting American lives, maintaining the proper level of confidentiality for the success of our military, intelligence, and law enforcement operations, and keeping the leadership of the Congress appropriately informed about important developments. This morning, I informed the House and Senate leadership of this policy which shall remain in effect until you receive further notice from me.
George W. Bush, Memorandum to Cabinet, Disclosures to Congress, October 5, 2001