so they found how many vats (yellowcake does come in vats doesnt it? Or is it urns?) of yellowcake in that hideout where they gunned down ooday and koosay?

They got Poosay?

Must be nice to have a "republican" that always agrees with you.

She went to Syria or somethin. She was just talking about how unfair her daddies trial was gonna be on tv the other day.

You must feel pretty bad for her. Maybe you can davis can take up a collection.

Don't expect any more.

I think it's time to go nuclear.

Shes just another victim isnt she?

November 1, 2005
latimes.com : Opinion : Letters


The fallout from the CIA leak case


Re "Our 27 months of hell," Opinion, Oct. 29

The president on Friday said he had such important things to do, but he and the vice president took time to praise the service of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to the country. I didn't hear one word about the service of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, CIA officer Valerie Plame, to the same country. The reason for the lies and obstruction performed by Libby and whoever else helped was the 2004 election. If this investigation had been completed before the election, no amount of voter fraud would have won the election for the administration, and they knew it.


SANDY SCIORTINO

North Hollywood

•



Wilson says: "It is tempting to feel vindicated by Friday's indictment of the vice president's chief of staff." I hope that Wilson does not give in to this temptation. Libby was not indicted for "outing" Plame; he was indicted for lying about it. Apparently, if Libby had said, "Yeah, I told Novak about her. So what?" he may not have been indicted.

P.J. GENDELL

Beverly Hills

•



If the Bush administration had expended as much time and effort gathering information on the merits of invading Iraq as it spent investigating and attacking Wilson and Plame, the world would be a better place. God knows who else in this corrupt administration should be in jail.

EUGENE SISON

San Dimas

•



There may not be a cancer in the White House, but there sure is a stench. Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and Libby all may have taken part in using the press to smear Wilson and Plame. The only question is whether the president knew about it. If the president knew about it, then he is part of this odorous conspiracy. If he did not know, then he is third in command.

H.N. KURTZ

Mission Viejo

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letter...comment-letters

Check.

Feel free.

Nice to see what they're saying in Hollywood and Beverly Hills. I suppose Wilson will be moving there soon enough to live the secret agent life.

00000007, licensed for tea time.

His honesty is what I value. We have had some disagreements. But he's a realist not interested in the pretend game that most of his party seems stuck in.

Well ya know this is the one thing in this super secret on message "administration" that AWOL didnt know about. He was walking around the halls of the WH saying, "Where is everybody? Where is karl?"

Let's not, I don't want to get caught in the fallout. I'm barely used to this system as is. Don't blow it up while I'm going to the effort of finding a new avatar.

What up with the nuke talk? Did I miss something?

I'm happy with a cease fire. I'd rather see what happens next than fight the back fires.

I have a fwend in wome you know.

uhhhh... Space? I'd take two steps back if I were you.

DeLay wants to put judge on witness stand

AUSTIN, Texas, Nov. 1 (UPI) -- U.S. Rep Tom DeLay, R-Texas, asked that the judge hearing money laundering charges against him be removed from the case, a report said.

DeLay subpoenaed state District Judge Bob Perkins to testify at a Tuesday hearing about money Perkins has donated to Democrats, saying the judge is biased against DeLay.

Perkins responded with his own motion to quash the subpoena. Perkins said DeLay showed no need for him to testify and that his testimony would harm public confidence in an impartial judiciary, the Austin (Texas) American-Statesman reported.

Travis County, Texas, District Attorney Ronnie Earle -- the Democrat who brought charges against DeLay -- also opposed replacing Perkins.

Retired District Judge C.W. "Bud" Duncan was to oversee Tuesday's hearing regarding Perkins.

Meanwhile, DeLay continues to raise and spend money on his defense.

DeLay's legal defense fund has raised nearly $1.7 million since 2000, $475,000 of which came from Republicans in Congress, the newspaper reported.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...01-090956-5316r

So, how is Willie, beast?

My willie is fine.

Mizilus, et al,

The ISG found no such material anywhere in Iraq.


(ANSWER)

ZERO

(COMMENT)

Nor, after an extensive investigation, did they find any evidence that any Iraqi official or agent of the government was trying to acquire or purchase such material. The entire nuclear program was dormant.



If you go back in time, prior to the war, you will recall that I said there was no evidence less than a decade old concerning nuclear potential in Iraq. This is not an "I told you so," but more on the basis of the evidence. It is almost impossible, with constant overflights, that a nation the size of Iraq could hide the construction of such facilities --- or the necessary utilities to a pre-existing facility.

Who ever is filling your head with these wild claims, is pulling you leg.

Most Respectfully,

its these damn repuslickans. I try to ignore them, but they are like one of those stupid, annoying songs that comes unbidden to yer head nd you cant get/keep it out.

Oh my. Understated. So elegantly.

Whose life did this maggot threaten to get this travesty of justice? Who the hell will be the judge, a Republican? Our country has falled into total corruption and DeLay is the prime example of it. This is almost as bad as Berlesconi.




Judge removed from Bush ally case

Tom DeLay has denied charges of money laundering and conspiracy
The judge in the money-laundering and conspiracy case against top Republican politician Tom DeLay has been removed at the US congressman's request.

Lawyers for the former House majority leader told the Texas court that Bob Perkins had made contributions to Democratic candidates and causes.

They said the donations called his impartiality into question.

Congressman DeLay is accused of breaking campaign finance law, but denies the charges.

He is alleged to have laundered $190,000 (£108,000) in corporate contributions for use in Republican campaigns in Texas.

State law forbids the use of corporate money for political campaigns.

'Opposite sides'

Mr DeLay was until recently one of the most powerful politicians in Washington.

His lawyers argued that Judge Perkins' donations would create questions "in the minds of reasonable people" that he could not rule impartially.

They cited 34 contributions made to Democrats and groups since 2000, including donations to former presidential challenger John Kerry and the liberal group MoveOn.org, which has printed derogatory T-shirts of Mr DeLay.

"The public perception of Judge Perkins' activities shows him to be on opposite sides of the political fence than Tom DeLay," Dick DeGuerin said, according to the Associated Press.

Judge Perkins had declined to withdraw from the case and has said that he contributed to MoveOn.org only ahead of last year's presidential election.

Prosecutor Rick Reed argued that Mr DeLay must prove that a member of the public would have a "reasonable doubt that the judge is impartial" before Judge Perkins could be removed.

Mr DeGuerin said he was not accusing the judge of any wrongdoing.

But "to protect the integrity" of the judicial system, he should not preside over a trial for someone to whom he is opposed politically, Mr DeLay's lawyer said.

The judge in the hearing, CW Duncan, did not indicate who would replace Judge Perkins, nor when the trial would start.

A close ally of President George W Bush, Mr DeLay has temporarily stepped down from his post as the second-highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives to answer the charges.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4398012.stm

sounds to me like texass needs to change the way they do things.

Bee, et al,

To be honest, I think Bart is referring to the IAEA Controlled material at the Tuwaitha "C" facility. It was last inspected by the IAEA in December 2002, at the Baghdad storage site, before the War and was under IAEA Safeguards, about 500 tons worth. There was also some non-fissile radioisotope sources (not under IAEA safeguards) but reported, seen and recorded.


(COMMENT)

Yellow Cake is (most often) transported in the form of fuel rods.

It is unrefined U3O6. What is very strange about the whole "Yellow Cake" affair was, Iraq already had Yellow Cake. But what good was it to them? They had no refinery capacity to turn it into weapons grade material. Why would they buy more? Most of us knew this at the time. I suspect that anyone in the Intelligence Business who wanted to know, also knew it. It was no big secret and very well known to the UN Security Council members. (That is why everyone raised an eyebrow at the charge; and it was almost immediately debunked. It only took UMOVIC a few weeks to uncover what Ambassador Wilson discovered in Niger months before hand; once they saw the source document.)

In June 03, after the news reports of looting, Coalition Forces went into the facility with IAEA inspectors. What they found is contained in this briefing. It in NO way represented a WMD specific threat, before the war. However, post war - is another matter. You may draw your own conclusions.

BRIEFING: http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030605-0250.html

Just to Clarify,
Most Respectfully,

Please stop with the misattributed Bart quotes already. That's 2

Bart Katz,

I apologize.


(COMMENT)

Yes, the quote should have been attributed to:

(Mizilus @ Nov 1 2005, 01:30 PM)

My mistake entirely. Aweful clumsy of me. No excuse.

Most Respectfully and Sincerely,

Fumble fingers.

don't let it rip your jeans...it's the only fair and just thing to do...as so found.

The case against Delay is extremely weak. This witch hunt is only going to serve to shed more light on the vindictive Demo extremists.

Shove it you liar.

This congress is as corrupt as any before if not more. If you had a shred of decency or honor you'd see that as clear as can be. DeLay is an angel. So was Lucifer.

What would you like? A bought and paid for, crooked, evangelical Republican judge?

Was the judge that came out of retirement to order the Dem judge to step down a Republican?

What political contributions did he make? I demand to know.

If the Repubs are dim enough to open THIS can of worms, I say 'bring it on.'

I think it's unbelievable. Reminds me of the trial of Capone in the Untouchables.

I hope you are watching the Abrahmof hearings on C-Span right now.

Ralph Reed's participation in the scam is now being covered.

Got it. Thanks.

ralp reed the ventriloquist dummy? The super "christian" 700 club "christian" coalition morals and values super patriot?

Say it aint so.

Ralph gambling advocate to the tune of $2,000,000 Reed?

ain't that the truth

Po' 'ol Tom 's just another minority looking for special treatment.

You see where he's still acting like the leader? He still has his 3 man security team, he's still acting the same on the house floor. His stepping down as leader is meaningless.

So who's got your back, d ?




me but not on this.

But I do have to say gtessex #1602 post on Bart's Spam is worth fighting for.

I have absolutely no idea what you just said. How about using a language we can understand?

Rebellion Against Abuse


Thursday, November 3, 2005; Page A20

LAST MONTH a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay military base excused himself from a conversation with his lawyer and stepped into a cell, where he slashed his arm and hung himself. This desperate attempted suicide by a detainee held for four years without charge, trial or any clear prospect of release was not isolated. At least 131 Guantanamo inmates began a hunger strike on Aug. 8 to protest their indefinite confinement, and more than two dozen are being kept alive only by force-feeding. No wonder Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has denied permission to U.N. human rights investigators to meet with detainees at Guantanamo: Their accounts would surely add to the discredit the United States has earned for its lawless treatment of foreign prisoners.

Guantanamo, however, is not the worst problem. As The Post's Dana Priest reported yesterday, the CIA maintains its own network of secret prisons, into which 100 or more terrorist suspects have "disappeared" as if they were victims of a Third World dictatorship. Some of the 30 most important prisoners are being held in secret facilities in Eastern European countries -- which should shame democratic governments that only recently dismantled Soviet-era secret police apparatuses. Held in dark underground cells, the prisoners have no legal rights, no visitors from outside the CIA and no checks on their treatment, even by the International Red Cross. President Bush has authorized interrogators to subject these men to "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment that is illegal in the United States and that is banned by a treaty ratified by the Senate. The governments that allow the CIA prisons on their territory violate this international law, if not their own laws.



This shameful situation is the direct result of Mr. Bush's decision in February 2002 to set aside the Geneva Conventions as well as standing U.S. regulations for the handling of detainees. Under the Geneva Conventions, al Qaeda militants could have been denied prisoner-of-war status and held indefinitely; they could have been interrogated and tried, either in U.S. courts or under the military system of justice. At the same time they would have been protected by Geneva from torture and other cruel treatment. Had Mr. Bush followed that course, the abuse scandals at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the severe damage they have caused to the United States, could have been averted. Key authors of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, could have been put on trial, with their crimes exposed to the world.

Instead, not a single al Qaeda leader has been prosecuted in the past four years. The Pentagon's system of hearings on the status of Guantanamo detainees, introduced only after a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court, has no way of resolving the long-term status of most detainees. The CIA has no long-term plan for its secret prisoners, whom one agency official described as "a horrible burden."

For some time a revolt against this disastrous policy has been gathering steam inside the administration and in the Senate; it is led by senators such as John McCain (R-Ariz.) and by the same military officers and State Department officials who opposed Mr. Bush's decision to disregard the Geneva accords. Their opponents are a small group of civilian political appointees circled around Mr. Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney. According to a report in the New York Times, the military professionals want to restore Geneva's protections against cruel treatment to the Pentagon's official doctrine for handling detainees. Mr. McCain is seeking to ban "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment for all detainees held by the United States, including those in the CIA's secret prisons.

There is no more important issue before the country or Congress. Yet the advocates of decency and common sense seem to have meager support from the Democratic Party. Senate Democrats staged a legislative stunt on Tuesday intended to reopen -- once again -- the debate on prewar intelligence about Iraq. They have taken no such dramatic stand against the CIA's abuses of foreign prisoners; on a conference committee considering Mr. McCain's amendment, Democratic support has been faltering. While Democrats grandstand about a war debate that took place three years ago, the Bush administration's champions of torture are quietly working to preserve policies whose reversal ought to be an urgent priority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5110202742.html

We stand for torture. Thanks GW.

Is Rove a Security Risk?

Because he disclosed Plame’s CIA identity to reporters, the Bush aide could lose his clearance.


WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Updated: 6:21 p.m. ET Nov. 2, 2005

Nov. 2, 2005 - The conventional wisdom in Washington this week is that Karl Rove is out of the woods. But while an indictment against him in the Valerie Plame leak case is now unlikely, he may be in danger of losing his security clearance.


According to last week’s indictment of Scooter Libby, a person identified as “Official A” held conversations with reporters about Plame’s identity as an undercover CIA operative, information that was classified. News accounts subsequently confirmed that that official was Rove. Under Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton in 1995, such a disclosure is grounds for, at a minimum, losing access to classified information.

Section 5.1 of Clinton’s executive order prohibits “any knowing, willful or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.” While the law against revealing the identity of a CIA operative requires that the perpetrator intentionally disclosed such classified information (a high standard, which may be one reason Fitzgerald did not indict on those grounds), the executive order covers “negligence,” or unintentional disclosure.

That means the only proper answer to a reporter’s questions about Joseph Wilson’s wife would have been something along the lines of, “You know I cannot discuss who may or may not be in the CIA.” The indictment makes clear that this was not the answer Official A provided when the subject was discussed with reporters Bob Novak and Matt Cooper.

The sanctions for such disclosure are contained in Section 5.7 of the executive order. That section says that “the agency head, senior agency official or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order.” Any reasonable reading of the events covered in the indictment would consider Rove’s behavior “reckless.” The fact that he discussed Plame’s identity with reporters more than once constitutes a pattern.

In the past, other officials have lost their security clearances for similar disclosures—even without a pattern. Former CIA director John Deutch and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger (who got in trouble after leaving office) both lost their clearances when they took classified information home without proper authorization. More recently, officials of the Coast Guard were sanctioned when they warned relatives of a possible terrorist threat against the New York City subways before public disclosure of the threat.

Ironically, Valerie Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, almost certainly engaged in unauthorized disclosure of classified material himself when he wrote publicly about his CIA-backed mission to Niger, though he no longer has a security clearance to lift.

Because Rove’s apparent violation is covered by executive order, not legislated law, the issue of his security clearance is unlikely to wind up in criminal court. But he may face a civil suit from the Wilsons, who could seek damages because of the damage done to Plame’s CIA career by the leak.

Having his security clearance yanked would not require Rove to resign as deputy chief of staff to President Bush. But it would prevent him from taking part in policymaking that relates to national-security issues, which would mean a much-reduced role in the Bush White House. Some Democrats have asked the president to apologize for the Plame leak case—an unlikely event. But asking him to enforce executive orders could be a more legitimate line of inquiry. At a minimum, President Bush should be asked whether he believes this executive order applies to everyone in the White House—even Karl Rove.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9899512/site/newsweek/