There ain't nothing like a sex scandal for the panty-sniffers in the punditry, but in the vast scheme of things, might it not be a little more important for the chattering classes to spend some time on this?

That story begins during the final weeks of 2003, when everyone in the White House was suffering severe embarrassment over both the origins and the consequences of the invasion of Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. No evidence of significant connections between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaida terrorist organization had been discovered there either. Nothing in this costly misadventure was turning out as advertised by the Bush administration.

According to Suskind, the administration's highest officials -- presumably meaning President Bush and Vice President Cheney -- solved this problem by ordering the CIA to manufacture a document "proving" that Saddam had indeed been trying to build nuclear weapons and that he was also working with al-Qaida. The reported product of that order was a fake memorandum from Tahir Jalil Habbush, then chief of Saddam's intelligence service, to the dictator himself, dated July 1, 2001. The memo not only explicitly confirmed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had received training in Baghdad for "attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy" but also carefully noted the arrival of a "shipment" from Niger via Libya, presumably of uranium yellowcake, the sole export of that impoverished African country.

With Suskind's sources freaking out and backtracking, Suskind has responded by posting a transcript of an on-the-record interview with Rob Richer, Tenet's former deputy.

Ron: Now this is from the Vice President's Office is how you remembered it--not from the president?

Rob: No, no, no. What I remember is George saying, 'we got this from'--basically, from what George said was 'downtown.'

Ron: Which is the White House?

Rob: Yes. But he did not--in my memory--never said president, vice president, or NSC. Okay? But now--he may have hinted--just by the way he said it, it would have--cause almost all that stuff came from one place only: Scooter Libby and the shop around the vice president.

Ron: Yeah, right.

Rob: But he didn't say that specifically. I would naturally--I would probably stand on my, basically, my reputation and say it came from the vice president.

Ron: Right, I'm with you, I'm with you. But there wasn't anything in the writing that you remember saying the vice president.

Rob: Nope.

Ron: It just had the White House stationery.

Rob: Exactly right.

Not quite in the league of extramarital sex on the part of someone who's no longer relevant to the public discourse, but still kind of important since lots of people, you know, died.

Today the DOJ announced that a lone scientist "created" the Bacillus anthrax bacteria that were used in four letters to attack the United States of America.  I know that the republican fundamentalists have odd ideas of science, particularly biology, but they must know that so far you can not "create" a bacterium.  Recently a couple of very clever chaps at SUNY recreated a version of the polio virus based on the genome; however, this is one strand of DNA not the multiple strands found in bacteria.  OK basic microbiology you do NOT "create" bacteria.  What you do is you start with a specific strain and you grow it, it’s not that hard.  Actually if you know what it needs to eat its kind of easy, you can literally grow anthrax (liquid anthrax) in the same sort of equipment you would use for home brewed beer.  That assumes you have some anthrax to start with of course, you can’t create it unless you are God.

When I finally stumbled upon Washington Journal a few years ago, I was happy to have something of substance to watch/listen to while I was getting ready for work.  While there are times that I have almost no interest in what’s being discussed, I still listen for the viewers who call in.  I often learn new things or something gets me curious enough to look deeper into an issue.  This morning was no different.

Maybe these questions are naive, but who has the Habbush letter?  And, if the letter is available to Congressional investigators, is there a scientific process that could provide strong evidence the ink used in  Habbush's signature is two years less old than the 2001 date on the letter says it should be?  This Pagesuggests the sciences exists to do this.  

Thay right I said it. Today I was bored and I watch BookTV on CSPAN2 and saw him make his case for the Prosecution of George W Bush. I have to admit that I was convince at his case against Bush.

I really hope the press will be more than just parrots this time around. Reported in Bloomberg yesterday:

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) Iran is on a path toward a "major breakthrough" in its nuclear program that is "unacceptable," Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz told a Washington audience today.

"It is an existential threat," Mofaz said at a forum on Iran at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "We have to make sure we are prepared for every option."

Mofaz, a former Israeli army chief of staff, is a potential future leader of Israel because of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's planned departure from office. Mofaz is competing with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for control of the ruling Kadima party after Olmert said July 30 that he won't compete in the party's Sept. 17 primary amid a corruption scandal.

This weekend, John McCain launched an all-out war against Barack Obama's fitness to be commander-in-chief.  In Denver on Friday, McCain claimed that in supporting the January 2007 surge in Iraq, he passed "a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief" his Democratic rival supposedly failed.  That same day, McCain insisted to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "I know how to win wars."  And on ABC This Week on Sunday, McCain ridiculed over and over Barack Obama's "total lack of understanding" of the realities - and stakes - in Iraq.

January 5, 1995

Iran May Be Able to Build an Atomic Bomb in 5 Years, U.S. and Israeli Officials Fear

By CHRIS HEDGES,
Published: January 5, 1995

Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought, and could be less than five years away from having an atomic bomb, several senior American and Israeli officials say. "The date by which Iran will have nuclear weapons is no longer 10 years from now," a senior official said recently, referring to previous estimates. "If the Iranians maintain this intensive effort to get everything they need, they could have all their components in two years. Then it will be just a matter of technology and research. If Iran is not interrupted in this program by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less five years."

...

cross-posted at Bleeding Heartland

If Congressman Steve King hadn't already won the "jackass award," someone would need to give it to him for the way he behaved at a House Judiciary Committee hearing this week.

It's no secret that King isn't interested in the Congress serving as a check or balance on executive power. As we saw just a few weeks ago, King believes former White House spokesman Scott McClellan could have "done this country a favor" by keeping his mouth shut about alleged lawbreaking and lying in the Bush administration.

Apparently not satisfied with his efforts to sidetrack the McClellan hearings, King used one parliamentary trick after another on Tuesday to prevent Democrats on the Judiciary Committee from effectively questioning Douglas Feith, the former number three Pentagon official.

Mr Obama made an important speech yesterday on national security. It is nice that he wants to get out of Iraq and not have a permenent occupation of the Persian Gulf. But he mimics Bush on the imagined threat of nuclear armed terrorists.

In response to Barack Obama's address today on Iraq and Afghanistan, Republican presidential nominee John McCain declared, "I know how to win wars."

Now for the first time, the man who brought you Ahmad Chalabi and 100 years in Iraq offers all his war-winning secrets in How to Win Wars for Dummies.  Insightful chapters like "How to Be Greeted as a Liberator," "Victory Will Be Rapid," "Declaring Mission Accomplished" and "Telling Shiite from Sunni" will get you up and running fast in your own global war on terror. And with helpful tips like "McCain's Guide to the Safe Streets of Baghdad" and "Overstaying Your Welcome," you don't have to be a septuagenarian war hero to be commander-in-chief.

Here are just some of the pearls from John McCain's How to Win Wars for Dummies:

Dwight Eisenhower once said that:

A sense of humor is part of the art of leadership, of getting along with people, of getting things done.

...which probably goes a long way in explaining the current state of the Republican party.  Chances are, if you happen to catch a Republican talking about destruction and death, you’ve probably walked in on the punch-line of a "joke."

There was that hilarious performance George Bush gave at the 2004 White House Correspondents Dinner where he put on a slideshow about WMD that had:

...Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. Bush said "Nope. No weapons over there." Then another picture of Bush searching in his office. He said "Maybe under here."

At the time there had only been about 600 U.S. deaths in the war to save us from a mushroom cloud, so you can imagine the hilarity that would ensue if he did that skit today with more than 4,100 dead.

But if Bush's joke about non-existent weapons of mass destruction didn't work for you, there's always his comical exit line from the G8 summit, about the destruction of the planet:

Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter.

Rumor has it that coke came out of James Inhofe's nose when he heard that one.

Or how about the Republican club’s website with a banner that read:

Obama loves America like O.J. loved Nicole.

That’s comedy gold...assuming you think that the brutal murder of a woman is funny and you enjoy jokes with racist undertones.

And then there’s that Bush-wannabe, John McCain, who happily sang about bomb, bomb, bomb, bombing Iran, and more recently, his clever idea for killing off Iranians.

Are you having trouble containing your laughter?  

So, the next time you wonder where Republicans are getting their comedy material from, just remember:

Those who can laugh without cause have either found the true meaning of happiness or have gone stark raving mad.

...and considering the Republican’s prospects in November, you can be sure that they aren’t happy.

Post-Russert, Fox continues to drive TV journalism to loopy lows, supported by a Nascar nation entertained by cars circling 500 times.  In keeping with this tradition, Fox loops inane attacks, see Michelle Obama.  

But can Fox be outfoxed if it loops Jackson? Will middle ground voters see Jackson's attack as a reason to support Barack? Early indications are that they will.

The historical record must be aired first.  Fox doesn't always repeat, as when Bill O'Reilly twists and turns to keep the truth hounds off his trail of war rationale spoor:

Tells Donahue the war is about American security (minute 2:15), a war on terror (6:40), and Iraq's democracy and freedom (7:50)

Mistakenly comes back to WMD's via Santorum's campaign chicanery

Admission on Letterman that we are now fighting for oil in Iraq (4:30)

Finally, O'Reilly says we never really invaded (Ballentine didn't catch that?!)

Blitz Busts Bush on Early Iraq WMD Invasion Plans in 2000

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

As Governor of Texas, the Presidential hopeful warned us.  If we were to select him as Commander-In-Chief he would not send mixed messages. Americans might have read George W. Bush's lips.  Pressure would be applied in abundance.  A thousand points of light illuminated the path the then possible Chief Executive proposed.  Yet, no one wished to believe a prominent person, the son of a former President of the United States could be so cruel.  

It seems that on Saturday Brian Murphy of the Associated Press is reporting that the US has removed uranium from Iraq.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

So?  So, the denizens of redstate.com are taking this effort as validation of Bush's invasion!    More in "there's moresville"...

Won't somebody tell me
Answer if you can
Won't somebody tell me
Tell me what is the soul of a man?

   -Blind Willie Johnson

The New York Times confirms today what we already knew - the torture archipelago that stretches from Diego Garcia to Guantanamo was inspired by Chinese torture techniques used on Americans in the Korean War and...Vietnam:

It's a temporary reprieve, not a victory, but Senators Dodd and Feingold have worked with Durbin and Reid to delay the FISA vote until July 8.

Feingold's statement (via e-mail):

"I'm pleased we were able to delay a vote on FISA until after the July 4th holiday instead of having it jammed through. I hope that over the July 4th holiday, Senators will take a closer look at this deeply flawed legislation and understand how it threatens the civil liberties of the American people.

"It is possible to defend this country from terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation."

Dodd's statement (via e-mail:)

"I’m pleased that consideration of the FISA Amendments Act has been delayed until after the 4th of July recess. I urge my colleagues to take this time to listen to their constituents and consider the dangerous precedent that would be set by granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that may have engaged in President Bush’s illegal wiretapping program.

"When and if FISA does come back to the Senate floor, I will offer my amendment to strip the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. I implore my colleagues to support the rule of law and join me in voting against retroactive immunity."

The Feingold/Dodd amendment to strip immunity from the bill will be voted on, as will a couple of other amendments. As of now, I don't have complete information on them.

So here's a fantastic opportunity to talk to your Senators, when they're home for the most patriotic of all holidays, about what this bill means to you as a constitutent. If they're having town meetings, please attend and bring up the bill, or try to schedule individual meetings with them.

And, if you have the time and the ink and the paper available, print a copy of the bill (114 pages, pdf), highlight the salient parts (like the WMD section) and ask them to please read the bill, and then decide if it's really something they want to have on their permanent record as having supported.

It's a longshot, but it's the only one we've got.

There's been some excellent analysis of the FISA bill around the blogosphere. I particularly like Technosailor for a clear, concise, and lay person's view. For the lawyers, and people who've been deep in the weeds on this legislation enough to have a solid grasp of the terminology, Balkinization has featured a series of posts by David Kris, and an excellent summation and response by Marty Lederman. Julian Sanchez has an excellent political overview at The American Prospect, as does Kevin Drum. And it goes without saying, everything of Glenn Greenwald's

They all detail some of the main points, also included on Sen. Feingold's Fact Sheet. Here's a basic summary, but all of the above resources provide the depth of what's really wrong here.

• On retroactive immunity, the bill virtually guarantees it, despite the fig-leaf of a district court review.
• In their infinite wisdom, Hoyer and the negotiators set the bill to sunset in the fall of 2012--just before the next presidential election. This bad bill should not be in effect for that long, and shouldn't be subject to election year politics, again.
• The protections against reverse targeting are inadequte--the guidelines for targeting someone in the U.S. are not subject to judicial review, or the requirement of a court order for that surveillance.
• The bill doesn't prohibit bulk collection--"the collection of all international communications into and out of the U.S. to a whole continent or even the entire world."
• The bill contains a far too broad "exigency" exception to the idea of FISC exclusivity--the Attorney General or DNI can certify that they don't have time to get a court order.
• Even if the FISC determines after that fact that the surveillance violated the law, the government can still keep and use any of the information it obtains under those illegal warrants.
• The bill doesn't provide additional checks and balances for Americans at home whose international communications are obtained because they are communicating with someone overseas.

All that said, here's my favorite provision included in the legislation [warning, that's a 114 page pdf], Sec. 110, part 4 of Title I (p. 81):

SEC. 110. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

DEFINITIONS.—

[snip]

(4) WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.—Such section 101 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(p) ‘Weapon of mass destruction’ means—
‘‘(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas device that is designed, intended, or has the capability to cause a mass casualty incident;
‘‘(2) any weapon that is designed, intended, or has the capability to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of persons through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;
‘‘(3) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as such terms are defined in section 178 of title 18, United States Code) that is designed, intended, or has the capability to cause death, illness, or serious bodily injury to a significant number of persons; or
‘‘(4) any weapon that is designed, intended, or has the capability to release radiation or radioactivity causing death, illness, or serious bodily injury to a significant number of persons.’’.

I wonder how many Senators blithely casting their lot with this bill realize that they're redefining warfare.

There's every chance that the immunity provisions in the bill are unconstitutional. But Congress doesn't know because no Judiciary Committee hearings were held to vet that portion of the bill. Nor were any Defense Committee hearings held to vet this WMD provision.

That's what happens when the oversight muscle of Congress becomes so atrophed. They don't even conduct oversight of themselves. And they don't know what they're voting for.

However, it looks as though Senate leadership is trying to delay the vote on the bill until after recess.

Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters Thursday that Democratic leaders plan to wait until July take up the bill, which rewrites the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Durbin said that Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a leading opponent of the bill, has asked that the Senate delay consideration of the bill.

Perhaps our Senators can take this opportunity to spend some time actually reading what they're going to be voting on.

Update: The link to Sen. Feingold's fact sheet was an old one. It has been updated with the correct link.