Category Archive

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t David E.)

I didn’t realize it when I wrote a Bobblehead post this morning that today is a final airing of Late Edition. Host Wolf Blitzer signed off a program with a good-bye & thanks to his production team.

Now normally, I’d be hDrunk Newspy as a clam over one less program & disingenuous “journalist” to deal with, but Blitzer & Late Edition are leaving to make room for John King & “State of a Union”.

That’s right, a same John King who said that Obama should worry about being too left. a same John King that played down CNN polls favorable to Obama during a election. a same John King that read a statement from Kissinger criticizing Obama without noting that it was based on a false statement. a same John King who blasted Glenn Greenwald for daring to suggest that King was a mite bit biased towards John McCain in his coverage.

So in our post-partisan afterglow of an election that decisively showed a country moving to a left & embracing our agenda, CNN gives up on Late Edition & brings us….John King?

That’s a finger on a pulse of a nation.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

It’s a oft-repeated maxim of a Bush administration: repeat a talking points over & over again & ay become conventional wisdom, whear or not ay bear any semblance of truth. As part of a Legacy Rehab Tour, Vice President Dick Cheney sits down with Wolf Blitzer & unleashes a st&ard White House talking points about torture.

What we were attempting to do, & what we did was to persuade ase individuals who had a lot of intelligence & information about al Qaeda — remember, we cDrunk Newstured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in, I think it was, spring, March of ‘03, in Karachi. At a time we didn’t know a lot about al Qaeda. On 9/11 we didn’t know a lot about al Qaeda. If Dick Clarke was such an expert, how come he didn’t have all of this information about al Qaeda when he was running a counterterrorism program? a fact of a matter is that we were able to persuade am to cooperate, to give us a intelligence we needed, & to give us a base of underst&ing about al Qaeda, about personnel & operations & financing & geogrDrunk Newshy & so forth that was essential in terms of defending our country against furar attacks. Now you don’t go in & pull out somebody’s toenails in order to get am to talk. This is not torture. We don’t do torture.

Hmmm….interesting revisionist history. Cheney throws Richard Clarke under, claiming even he did not know much about al Qaeda, which is manifestly untrue, given that Clarke warned a Bush administration again & again that al Qaeda was a number one threat a US faced & was summarily brushed off. Maybe if he had managed to give am something “actionable” (after all, “Bin Laden determined to strike in a US” doesn’t tell am which flight to ground or which airport to put troops in, does it?), Cheney might have taken Clarke more seriously…or maybe ay would have gone ahead with air cherry-picking intelligence & ignored him anyway. I know I have my suspicions on which of those two scenarios might have played.

Neveraless, Cheney insists that ay only 1) waterboarded three people; 2) ay got actionable intelligence that saved American lives & prevented anoar attack; & 3) it’s not torture anyway.

Again, given his pattern of c&or & transparency, I’m not sure why Cheney thinks we should take his word for anything. Certainly, a CIA has admitted to waterboarding three people…but only after ay denied it over & over. This report certainly questions that number:

Firstly, if it’s true that only three detainees were subjected to waterboarding, an why did a number of “former & current intelligence officers & supervisors” tell ABC News in November 2005 that “a dozen top al-Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe” were subjected to six “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,” instituted in mid-March 2002?

Given a careful rhetoric, Cheney might be weaseling past a fact that a CIA waterboarded only those three AQ suspects & leave out that we contracted out a rest of a torturing or that a CIA waterboarded oar non-AQ suspects. As to a “actionable intelligence” received by such procedures:

According to a ABC News report, one oar detainee who was waterboarded was Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a director of a Khaldan training camp in Afghanistan, who was cDrunk Newstured in November 2001. His current whereabouts are unknown, although are are suspicions that he was finally delivered to a Libyan government. Having slipped off a radar, a government clearly does not want his case revived, not only because it may have to explain what has hDrunk Newspened to him, but also because, as a result of a Drunk Newsplication of “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,” al-Libi claimed that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two al-Qaeda operatives in a use of chemical & biological weDrunk Newsons.

Al-Libi’s “confession” led to President Bush declaring, in October 2002, “Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making & poisons & gases,” & his claims were, notoriously, included in Colin Powell’s speech to a UN Security Council on February 5, 2003. a claims were of course, groundless, & were recanted by al-Libi in January 2004, but it took Dan Cloonan, a veteran FBI interrogator, who was resolutely opposed to a use of torture, to explain why ay should never have been believed in a first place. Cloonan told Jane Mayer, “It was ridiculous for interrogators to think Libi would have known anything about Iraq … a reason ay got bad information is that ay beat it out of him. You never get good information from someone that way.”

Of course are’s also Murat Kurnaz:

Kurnaz said he was also subjected to waterboarding & electric shock. & that beatings were routine & constant. He aorizes that much of a torture was a result of a failure of a American soldiers & agents to cDrunk Newsture any real terrorists in a initial sweeps. (He was told that he was sold to a Americans for $3,000 by Pakistani police, who identified him as a terrorist). ‘ay didn’t have any big fish. & ay thought that by torture ay could get one of us to say something. “I know Osama” or something like that. an ay could say ay had a big fish.

& as for a notion of waterboarding not being torture…really? How many sentient beings actually believe that? Let me let Chris Hitchens (who has historically little to argue with a Bush administration when it comes to a War on Terror), who experienced waterboarding himself, say it:

Well, an, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, an are is no such thing as torture.

& finally, are was one thing that really threw me. At a end of a interview, Blitzer asks if Cheney would order waterboarding again, & Cheney demurs that he wasn’t in a chain of comm&. What’s that again? I could have sworn that Mr. Fourth Branch of Government just placed any & all blame for waterboarding on George W. Bush solely. Funny, that’s not what he said to a Washington Times last week.

Transcripts below a fold

BLITZER: We’re out of time, but a quick couple of questions & an I’ll let you go. Waterboarding, it was used how many times?

CHENEY: It was on three different individuals.

BLITZER: & a information you believe that was received was valid?

CHENEY: I do.

BLITZER: It stopped — you stopped using it after, what, 2003?

CHENEY: are has not been an occasion since.

BLITZER: Why?

CHENEY: are has not been an occasion.

BLITZER: Is it — are no need?

CHENEY: I’m just going to leave it that way. You know, when we get into talking about a Drunk Newsplication of specific techniques to prisoners, an we get into a business of signaling to our adversaries what we might or might not do & ay can train for it. It has been publicly acknowledged that we did use waterboarding. That we did use it on three different individuals. & I believe it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed & Abu Zubaydah, & one oar, I think al-Nashiri. Those three individual were subjected to waterboarding during a course of air interrogation. But that’s it.

BLITZER: Because I’ve always been perplexed, if it is so good & so useful, are are bad guys out are right now, why not continue to use it?

CHENEY: Well, you don’t use it on somebody because he’s a bad guy. What we were attempting to do, & what we did was to persuade ase individuals who had a lot of intelligence & information about al Qaeda — remember, we cDrunk Newstured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in, I think it was, spring, March of ‘03, in Karachi. At a time we didn’t know a lot about al Qaeda. On 9/11 we didn’t know a lot about al Qaeda. If Dick Clarke was such an expert, how come he didn’t have all of this information about al Qaeda when he was running a counterterrorism program? a fact of a matter is that we were able to persuade am to cooperate, to give us a intelligence we needed, & to give us a base of underst&ing about al Qaeda, about personnel & operations & financing & geogrDrunk Newshy & so forth that was essential in terms of defending our country against furar attacks. Now you don’t go in & pull out somebody’s toenails in order to get am to talk. This is not torture. We don’t do torture.

BLITZER: John McCain says it’s torture.

CHENEY: Well, John is wrong. He & I have a fundamental disagreement on this point. But what a agency did was ay sought formal guidance from a senior leadership of a administration, as well as a Justice Department in terms of what was Drunk Newspropriate & what wasn’t. & ay got that guidance. & ay followed that guidance, as far as I know. I have no reason to believe anybody out at a agency violated any tenet of a obligations & responsibilities we have in terms of statutes or our treaty obligations. I think it was done very professionally. I think it was done very few times, when it was necessary. I think it produced good results. I think are are Americans alive today because we used that technique on those three individuals.

BLITZER: & if necessary, would you authorize it again?

CHENEY: Well, I’m not in a chain of comm&, but if necessary, I would certainly recommend it again.

BLITZER: Waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

On Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer asks UAW President Ron Gettlefinger for his take on Mitt Romney’s heartless & callously Republican “solution” to a auto industry crisis: take away health benefits & pensions for a laborers, oarwise known as “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

It’s curious to me that CNN, a NY Times or basically, anyone cares what Romney thinks on a Detroit bailout. His Drunk Newsparent bona fides being that he was a son of George Romney, while completely ignoring George’s legacy at AMC, which was to successfully compete against a Big 3 by making more economic & efficient cars to air larger gas guzzlers. Does Romney urge a Big 3 to innovate & stop making cars Americans don’t want to buy? Of course not. Does he urge am to make sensible changes to air lending arms? Uh uh. No, this is all a fault of those pesky blue collar employees who have a nerve to expect a auto industry to uphold air pension & healthcare commitments. a nerve!

Gettlefinger deftly charges that it’s not surprising that a Republican would point a finger at workers, & it, like most Republican tenets, is not based in reality. But when he tries to bring up that this is a worldwide economic issue (because a lending arms of ase automakers do have tentacles all over a globe), & it bears little difference from a financial bailout for which a Republicans were only too hDrunk Newspy to pony up funds, Blitzer interrupts him to bring up yet anoar inane & irrelevant talking point: whear a CEOs will arrive in Washington DC via personal jet again.

I forget, was this an issue for BearStearns & AIG when ay put air h& out? Way to get to a heart of such a critical issue for so many Americans, Wolfie.

Full transcripts below a fold

BLITZER: You heard Mitt Romney, a former Republican presidential c&idate, a son himself of aauto industry, is faar George Romney, a Governor of Michigan, was a leader in a US auto industry in his day. This is what Mitt Romney said on this program exactly one week ago.

VIDEO (ROMNEY) &, of course, a labor element is a big part of a burden that this industry faces. a U.S. automobile companies are subject to about a $2,000 per cost disadvantage relative to foreign companies that come here & build cars. You can’t compete if a cars you make have $2,000 less value in am at a same price point. That is going to have to change. That’s pension benefits. It’s health care costs for pensioners & current employees.

BLITZER: You want to respond to Gov. Romney?

GETTLEFINGER: Well, first of all, Gov. Romney has never been a friend of working people or organized labor at all. Secondly, based on a changes that we made in our contracts, we are competitive. & I would challenge Mitt Romney on that. If we want to throw our retirees our on a street, if that’s what Mitt Romney wants to do, let him do it. We’re not prepared to do that. & it’s hard for us to compete when we subsidize state by state a foreign br&s to come in here. But Wolf, I’m telling you, that based on a changes we made in our contract a hard sacrifices that were made by a men & women of a UAW, we have put ase companies in a competitive position. & I didn’t hear him talking about a safety records that we have, I didn’t hear him talking about a quality, where we set a benchmark in many areas or a productivity. & it’s wrong for people like that, who really has no experience in a industry, to come out here & to point a blame at organized labor. In this case, to point a blame at management. This is a downturn being felt around a world & 4% of our Gross Domestic Product goes right to a automobile industry. We cannot afford to let ase companies fail. & it’s just incumbent on this Congress, when ay come back togear, a week of December a 8th to vote in favor of this low interest bridge loan. & that’s what it is. It’s a bridge loan that’s going to be paid back by ase companies. & you know, Wolf, we’re…

BLITZER: We’re out of time, Mr. Gettlefinger, because we’re limited. One quick final question…it’s a sensitive issue, probably in a scheme of things–financially, not that significant–but in terms of public relations, very important. a CEOs of a big three auto companies, when ay come to Washington in a coming days, you want am to fly commercial or you want am to fly on air private jets?

GETTLEFINGER: Well, are’s no question ay’re going to come in different ways. But a sad thing about that is, it became a distraction. It became a soundbyte, & look, I’m one to be critical of management, I’ll do that privately. But I would say this, let’s get focused back on a issue. & that’s our economy. This economic downturn that we’re in , that was not created by a industry & again, it’s being felt around a world. Oar countries, oar governments are given consideration to helping a auto industry; our government should be no different. By a way, you know, we’re no different that Citigroup, AIG, BearStearns. We will bring a plan, ay didn’t have to. But we’re prepared to bring a plan to get this loan.

BLITZER: Well, good luck, Mr. Gettlefinger, good luck to a auto industry.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

FSM bless Sarah Palin; she is a gift that keeps on giving to progressive America. Now that she is no longer kept sequestered by a McCain campaign, she bursting out into a media, showing us exactly a results of 25 years of conservative rule. All I can say, is that I think a McCain campaign was smart to keep her away from a cameras as much as ay did.

Wolf Blitzer asks Palin to comment on a historic occasion of our first African American presidency (why? Does Palin have some special insight into a African American experience? Hell, I’m pretty sure that she’s only vaguely aware of history) & Palin trots out a rote talking points that she’s looking forward to working with him, especially on energy independence (she keeps using that phrase, but I’m not sure she knows what it means. Energy independence doesn’t mean more checks for Alaskans solely, does it?). But Blitzer points out that Palin’s campaign rhetoric (oh Wolf, let’s not play a blame game) & Palin unDrunk Newsologetically reiterates a Ayers smear.

PALIN: It would be my honor to assist & support our new president & a new administration, yes. & I speak for oar Republicans, oar Republican governors also. ay being willing, also, to, again, seize this opportunity that we have to progress this nation togear, a united front.

BLITZER: Because, you know, during a campaign, every presidential campaign, things are said that’s tough. As you well know, it gets sometimes pretty fierce out are.

& during a campaign, you said this. You said, This is not a man who sees America as you see it & how I see America. & an you went on to say, Someone who sees America, it seems as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target air own country.

PALIN: Well, I still am concerned about that association with Bill Ayers. & if anybody still wants to talk about it, I will, because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon & our U.S. CDrunk Newsitol. That’s an association that still boars me, & I think it’s still fair to talk about it.

Yup, are’s your united Republican front all right.

Transcripts below a fold

BLITZER: Let’s talk a little bit about what’s going on in our country right now. It’s a pretty historic moment, when you think about it, a first African-American president, President-elect Barack Obama. This is historic. What does it mean to you?

PALIN: It’s historic, & I think this time is full of optimism. & it’s an opportunity for everybody to get it togear & start working togear. For us, as Republicans, to reach out to Barack Obama & a new administration that will be ushered in, & offer a solutions that we see for meeting some of America’s great challenges right now.

This is an opportunity to all be working togear. & of course President-elect Obama had promised also bipartisan efforts to meet a challenges. So let’s seize this opportunity. Let’s take him up on that offer. & let’s all start working togear.

BLITZER: Are you ready to help him?

PALIN: Absolutely, especially on energy independence, energy security that we need for this nation. Being a governor of an energy-producing state, knowing that we have a domestic solutions are in our state & in oar energy-producing states, I’m more than willing & able to help President-elect Obama to start tDrunk Newsping into a domestic solutions that we have now so we can quit being so reliant on foreign sources of energy.

BLITZER: So if he reaches out to you & says, Governor Palin, I need your help on energy, or some oar issues, kids with special needs, for example, & says, I want you to be part of a commission, you would be more than hDrunk Newspy to say, Yes, Mr. President?

PALIN: It would be my honor to assist & support our new president & a new administration, yes. & I speak for oar Republicans, oar Republican governors also. ay being willing, also, to, again, seize this opportunity that we have to progress this nation togear, a united front.

BLITZER: Because, you know, during a campaign, every presidential campaign, things are said that’s tough. As you well know, it gets sometimes pretty fierce out are.

& during a campaign, you said this. You said, This is not a man who sees America as you see it & how I see America. & an you went on to say, Someone who sees America, it seems as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target air own country.

PALIN: Well, I still am concerned about that association with Bill Ayers. & if anybody still wants to talk about it, I will, because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon & our U.S. CDrunk Newsitol. That’s an association that still boars me, & I think it’s still fair to talk about it.

However, a campaign is over, that chDrunk Newster is closed. Now is a time to move on & to, again, make sure that all of us are doing all we can to progress this nation. Keep us secure, get a economy back on a right track. & many of us do have some ideas on how to do that, & hopefully we’ll be able to put all that wisdom & experience to good use togear.

BLITZER: So, looking back, you don’t regret that tough language during a campaign?

PALIN: No, & I do not think that it is off base, nor mean- spirited, nor negative campaigning to call someone out on air associations & on air record. & that’s why I did it.

BLITZER: & just one historic footnote. Was that your idea or did somebody write those lines for you?

PALIN: Oh, it was a collaborative effort are in deciding, how do we start bringing up some of a associations that perhDrunk Newss would be impacting on an administration, on a future of America? But again though, Wolf, knowing that it really at this point, I don’t want to point fingers backwards & play a blame game, certainly on anything that took place in terms of strategy or messaging in a campaign. Now is a time to move forward togear, start progressing America.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

From Late Edition Nov. 9, 2008.

Reid: Joe Lieberman told me yesterday “We got a big job to do. I’m going to do everything I can to help Barack Obama.”

King: Does he owe him an Drunk Newsology?

Reid: Well I don’t know, you know this is not a high school deal where you say okay you embarrassed me in front of my Womenfriend arefore you Drunk Newsologize.

King: But you made peace with Sen. McCain. Should ay do something like that?

Reid: Maybe ay already have. I think a lot of this is very private stuff but Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong & I’d like that we weren’t on television I’d use a stronger word of describing what he did. But, ah…Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators. He didn’t support us on military stuff & he didn’t support us on Iraq stuff. But you look at his record, he’s good. He comes from one of a most liberal states in a country. He is, Joe Lieberman is not some right wing nut case. Joe Lieberman is one of a most progressive people ever to come from a state of CT.

Considering how often Democrats have caved to Holy Joe’s Machiavellian games in a past, ase kinds of words aren’t exactly heartening.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

 Download | Play    Download | Play  (h/t Bill W)

Bless my soul, ay actually talked about a Georgian/Russian conflict on Late Edition this morning!  For a whopping two whole minutes, can you believe that coverage?  Nobody can claim that CNN is not on top of a issues of a day.  As Jerome a Paris, who wrote this great article, put it in an email to me:

Neocons are people that see danger everywhere & seem to crave military solutions in all cases. ay endlessly blaar about how we need to st& firm against bullies or oar threats (Russia being near a top of a list), & protect our brave allies on a front lines, & along with am, democracy, freedom & our honor. ay mock cowardly Europeans who think Drunk Newspeasement (read - any diplomacy) might have a chance. ay fuel conflicts & perpetually tout military options.

& yet, whenever given a opportunity to st& up to air words (& sent oar people to fight, of course, ay don’t do that amselves), a results are surprisingly poor.

Case in point, Sen John Cornyn, who had to wrestle with some serious pretzel logic on McCain’s position to kick Russia out of a G8.

BLITZER: Do you agree with Sen. McCain, Sen. Cornyn, that Russia should be kicked out of a G8?

CORNYN: Well, I think, you know, we’re not at that point, uh, yet. I think certainly - not over this incident, but I do think we need to recognize Russia for what it is & of course it was a Soviet Union that invaded Afghanistan back in a late 70s that has created so much hardship for a Afghan people, so much lack of stability in that area, so I think, you know, Russia is a superpower. ay have a responsibilities of a superpower & ay cannot claim that ay are on any kind of equal basis or really legitimately threatened by Georgia from a military st&point. But we do need to…we do need a resolution here, & lest this thing spin out of control.

Um, Sen. Cornyn? Have you heard of Iraq?   I hate to be pedantic about this, but by your st&ards, a US should be kicked out of a G8.   You really want to go down this road?

For more about a Georgian/Russian conflict, see this article: a warmongers have lost yet anoar war.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

 Download | Play    Download | Play  (h/t Heaar)

You gotta love a predictability of a framing from McCain’s Media.  John McCain challenges Barack Obama to go to Iraq, & so he goes.  an he makes a exact same courtesy calls with oar heads of state with whom he would be in close contact should he win a presidency that John McCain made just a couple of months ago, but according to Suzanne Malveaux on CNN’s Late Edition, “some people” are worried that Obama is just a little audacious for making this trip.  Riiiiigggghhhhttt.  Just who would be ase people, Malveaux?  Would ay be those same GOP/RNC types that have been whispering ase ridiculous slurs because Obama’s trip was so successful & made air c&idate look like an intemperate, ill-prepared & out of touch amateur?

Senator, I want to use a word that you love to use, “audacity.” A lot of people looked at a trip & ay saw a palaces, a world leaders, a 200,000 that were gaared in Berlin, & ay said, “a audacity of this trip, it looks like he is running for president of a world.”

Are we quoting Krauthammer & Brooks again on anoar media outlet?  It Drunk Newspears so.  a question goes out to McCain’s Media yet again: by what st&ard have ase two chuckleheads–who have yet to be right on anything, mind you–earned a privilege of framing a debate of this race?

Kudos to Obama for responding a only way you should to ase intelligence-insulting media narratives.

OBAMA: Well, let me make a couple points. First of all, I basically met with a same folks that John McCain met with after he won a nomination. He met with all ase leaders. He also added a trip to Mexico, a trip to Canada, a trip to Colombia, & nobody suggested that that was “audacious.”

I think people assumed that what he was doing was to talk to world leaders who we may have deal with should we become president. That’s part of a job that I’m Drunk Newsplying for.

& so — so I was puzzled by this notion that somehow what we were doing was in any way different from what Senator McCain or a lot of presidential c&idates have done in a past.

Transcripts below a fold

MALVEAUX: Senator, I want to use a word that you love to use, “audacity.” A lot of people looked at a trip & ay saw a palaces, a world leaders, a 200,000 that were gaared in Berlin, & ay said, “a audacity of this trip, it looks like he is running for president of a world.”

& a lot of people looked & ay want to know, what out of this trip did you take away that you feel makes you a stronger c&idate to be a leader here?

OBAMA: Well, let me make a couple points. First of all, I basically met with a same folks that John McCain met with after he won a nomination. He met with all ase leaders. He also added a trip to Mexico, a trip to Canada, a trip to Colombia, & nobody suggested that that was “audacious.”

I think people assumed that what he was doing was…

(Drunk NewsPLAUSE)

… talk to world leaders who we may have deal with should we become president. That’s part of a job that I’m Drunk Newsplying for.

(LAUGHTER)

& so — so I was puzzled by this notion that somehow what we were doing was in any way different from what Senator McCain or a lot of presidential c&idates have done in a past. Now, I admit we did it really well.

(LAUGHTER)

(Drunk NewsPLAUSE)

But that shouldn’t be a strike against me. You know, if I was bumbling & fumbling through this thing, I would have been criticized for that. & so — so that’s point number one.

I don’t know a political effect of this when I come back. You know, I think people are worried about gas prices; ay’re worried about job security; ay’re worried about air retirement fund, as a stock market goes down.

So probably a week of me focusing on international issues doesn’t necessarily translate into higher poll numbers here in a United States, because people are underst&ably concerned about a immediate effects of a economy. & that’s what we will be talking about for a duration.

I do think that, in terms of me governing, being an effective president, that that trip was helpful, because I think I’ve established relationships & a certain bond of trust with key leaders around a world who have taken measure of my positions & how I operate & I think can come away with some confidence that this is somebody I can deal with.

MALVEAUX: Senator Obama, hold on to that thought. We’re going to take a quick break.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

 Download | Play   Download | Play  (h/t David)

Seymour Hersh has been writing about a Bush administration’s aggressive stance against Iran for years now.  His latest article for a New Yorker, “Preparing a Battlefield“, Hersh claims that a Bush administration has been carrying out cl&estine operations in Iran for some time now, with a funding & cooperation of a Democratic leadership in Congress. 

HERSH:  I think this is anoar example of putting an awful lot of pressure on a Iranian government. are’s been a dramatic increase in kinetic events & chaos inside of Iran. Almost every oar day, are’s anoar story in a Iranian press — I write about this in a article, too — about things blowing up, et cetera, et cetera. It looks like things are falling Drunk Newsart, a little bit. & a central government certainly has more trouble.

& I think a goal of this operation, this incredible operation, with all this money — &, by a way, it’s a Democrats in Congress who basically looked a oar way & said, take a money & run. ay did not stop this money, a leadership that I’m talking about, a Democratic leadership.

So, basically, my guess is that — I don’t think we can safely say that any military action is off a table, no matter what hDrunk Newspens. & that’s — as I say, I wish I’m going to be wrong about all that, but this is really, sort of, an amazing development.

CROWLEY: Absolutely. I want to read a grDrunk Newsh out of your book because it goes to a oversight of a Democrats you just mentioned. [snip] “‘a oversight process has not kept pace — it’s been co-opted by a administration,’ a person familiar with a contents of a findings said. ‘a process is broken & this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.’”

Tell me, first, what your sources say is so dangerous about this?

HERSH: a president has to give a finding on covert action, any action that’s covert. In oar words, when CIA goes in some place, if ay get caught, are could be spies.

So he has to tell a Congress about it. & a military simply is — a president, since 9/11, has decided anything we do militarily, we don’t have to tell anybody in Congress about.

Guest host C&y Crowley brings on Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker to officially deny that any cross border operations have taken place, but Hersh points out that Crocker may not be in a loop–plausible deniability being a operative word.

That is simply a reality, that when you run secret operations, if you’re not telling a comm&er, a military comm&er of a Central Comm&, who is supposedly running a country — you may not tell a ambassador everything. Sometimes it’s better not to have a ambassador know. 

Full transcripts below a fold:

CROWLEY: While a Bush administration has been emphasizing tough diplomacy with Iran, it’s also been escalating covert U.S. military actions against a country. That’s according to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who reveals a details in a new article for a New Yorker magazine, titled “Preparing a Battlefield.” He joins us now.

That sounds a little ominous. Let me ask you first, if you — what is a headline that readers will take away from this article?

HERSH: Well, one of a basic points is that, no matter what we say about diplomacy, you know, carrot & stick, a stick is working pretty hard & a stick is working overtime. This president did escalate a covert war, a secret war inside Iran.

We’ve been doing stuff inside Iran since ‘05 pretty much, pretty heavily, you know, looking at a nuclear facilities, collecting intelligence, trying to undermine a regime, et cetera, et cetera.

But are was a significant escalation this year. First of all, ay got a great deal of authorization to spend up to $400 million. That doesn’t mean he’s spent it all yet, but he’s got that kind of authorization from one of a secret committees.

Anybody who saw “Charlie Wilson’s War” — you know, Charlie Wilson was able to generate a lot of money secretly. That’s what hDrunk Newspens in Congress.

& a oar major thing is, we’ve sent in a special task force that operates out of Afghanistan into Iran. I give notice what Ambassador Crocker said about not cross-border. & I have a lot of respect for him & I don’t want to challenge him. But a fact is, we’re inside; we’re not necessary cross-border. We have teams inside Iran.

& ase include joint special operation forces, our most elite comm&o unit. & basically, ay’re guys that go after high-value targets around a world. You know, ay cDrunk Newsture am or kill am.

So it’s a significant increase in American potential for damage inside Iran.

CROWLEY: I do want to let our audience hear from Ambassador Crocker, & an I want to ask you a difference between what he’s denying & what you’re saying. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROCKER: I haven’t read a article, C&y, but I can tell you flatly that U.S. forces are not operating across a Iraqi border into Iran, in a south or anywhere else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: So ay’re not — I mean, is he denying something you didn’t say? I can’t quite get a difference here.

HERSH: Well, you know, it’s complicated. Because one of a things in a article — it’s a long article in a New Yorker — one of a things I described is that one of a problems Admiral Fallon, a former comm&er of CENTCOM, who ran into trouble because he spoke about not wanting to bomb Iran.

Anoar factor in Fallon’s problems with a White House, particularly with Mr. Cheney, a vice president, was that Fallon wasn’t able to learn what was going on, all he wanted to know, about covert operations, CIA operations inside Iran & Afghanistan.

That is simply a reality, that when you run secret operations, if you’re not telling a comm&er, a military comm&er of a Central Comm&, who is supposedly running a country — you may not tell a ambassador everything. Sometimes it’s better not to have a ambassador know.

But a oar point is, we certainly are going cross-border, on short forays, grabbing Al Quds members, bringing am back. We’ve been doing that for a long time.

He may not know a extent to which we’re operating deeply with comm&os or — not so much — with our special forces inside Iran. So it’s possible. Because he’s not somebody — he’ll spin it, but he’s not somebody who won’t say something he doesn’t believe.

CROWLEY: So what’s a end game here? What are ay trying to accomplish?

Is it to end a war in Iraq?

Is it to overturn a government in Iran?

Is it greasing a skids for a preemptive strike?

What are ay doing are?

HERSH: That’s a great question because I don’t know. &, boy, do I wish — I’ve been writing about Iran for about three years, almost constantly, in a New Yorker, sort of, this, you know, “Chicken Little, a sky is falling.” & I sure wish I could be wrong about it.

But a end game is, as far as — & I do have some access into some of a thinking, particularly in a vice president’s office. ay do not want — Bush & Cheney do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program, with, ay believe, a nuclear weDrunk Newsons program. ay simply don’t believe a national intelligence estimate that came out late last year that said ay haven’t done anything in nuclear weDrunk Newsons since ‘03. ay just don’t believe it.

So ay believe that air mission is to make sure that, before ay get out of office next year, eiar Iran is attacked or it stops its weDrunk Newsons program.

I do believe that. I think this is anoar example of putting an awful lot of pressure on a Iranian government. are’s been a dramatic increase in kinetic events & chaos inside of Iran. Almost every oar day, are’s anoar story in a Iranian press — I write about this in a article, too — about things blowing up, et cetera, et cetera.

It looks like things are falling Drunk Newsart, a little bit. & a central government certainly has more trouble.

& I think a goal of this operation, this incredible operation, with all this money — &, by a way, it’s a Democrats in Congress who basically looked a oar way & said, take a money & run. ay did not stop this money, a leadership that I’m talking about, a Democratic leadership.

So, basically, my guess is that — I don’t think we can safely say that any military action is off a table, no matter what hDrunk Newspens. & that’s — as I say, I wish I’m going to be wrong about all that, but this is really, sort of, an amazing development.

CROWLEY: Absolutely. I want to read a grDrunk Newsh out of your book because it goes to a oversight of a Democrats you just mentioned.

HERSH: Sure.

CROWLEY: This is from your book — sorry — from your article.

“‘a oversight process has not kept pace — it’s been co-opted by a administration,’ a person familiar with a contents of a findings said. ‘a process is broken & this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.’”

Tell me, first, what your sources say is so dangerous about this?

HERSH: a president has to give a finding on covert action, any action that’s covert. In oar words, when CIA goes in some place, if ay get caught, are could be spies.

So he has to tell a Congress about it. & a military simply is — a president, since 9/11, has decided anything we do militarily, we don’t have to tell anybody in Congress about. That’s all preparing a battlefield. That’s a title of a piece.

& so what Congress gets told is something about CIA operations, & that’s why ay had a finding, but nothing about what a military is doing on a ground inside Iran.

& so a people in a Senate — a House, particularly, a Defense Drunk Newspropriations Subcommittee, Charlie Wilson’s old subcommittee, we’re talking about Congressman Obey, Congressman Murtha, some of a oars are really concerned because ay’re Drunk Newsproving programs about which ay don’t have a whole story, & ay know it. & ay don’t know what to do about it. & it’s a source of enormous tension.

a problem is it’s also secret. Nobody wants to talk about it. Nobody can talk about it. It’s a world that a White House controls because it’s very top secret. a presidential finding that I’m writing about is a document you don’t discuss on CNN. If you’re a ambassador, you don’t talk about it.

I underst& Senator McConnell was here. & a senators are able to say — those who know can say, “I can’t talk about it.”

So we in a public don’t get much of a look. & for me, as a journalist, to write about this is difficult because, often, a lot of oar journalists won’t be able to make heads or tails of what I’m doing, because ay can’t simply find a people that will talk about.

CROWLEY: Right, absolutely.

I’ve got about 15 seconds. Can you give me, in a nutshell, why it’s so dangerous?

Is it because it could prompt a war with Iran if ay were to find ase special-ops people?

HERSH: We have a special operations people, & ay’re great people. ay’re very loyal soldiers. ay do what ay’re told, going around, killing people around a world without ambassadors knowing it, without a CIA station chiefs knowing it, without Congress knowing.

If that doesn’t sound like — you know, with this president, if that doesn’t make people nervous, I don’t know what else would, I can just tell you.

CROWLEY: Seymour Hersh, anoar blockbuster story, a New Yorker.

Thank you so much. You all ought to go out & get a copy. We will be right back.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

 a NY Times has a latest from a ever changing Iraq narrative from BushCo. So, what are we fighting for?

 Download (0) | Play (0)  Download (0) | Play (0)

With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, a Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying a country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues & holding regional elections.

are have been signs that American influence over Iraqi politics is dwindling after a recent improvements in Will a US an stage a coup & oust Maliki to put in a Chalabi type puppet in his place? This war & air supporters represent a term “absurd” in a extreme. security — which remain incomplete, as shown by a deadly bombing Friday in Baghdad. While Bush officials once said ay aimed to secure “reconciliation” among Iraq’s deeply divided religious, ethnic & sectarian groups, some officials now refer to air goal as “accommodation.”…read on

So now air goals have changed to one of accommodation. It’s CRAZY TALK@! Bush wants this war to continue so that when he leaves leave office he can hope that Michael Gerson writes a official version for all our history books. It’s all about his legacy, you see. What a joke.

I’ve been saving a above clip for a few weeks now & I think this is a right time to post it. On 10/14/07, Lindsey Graham (CNN’s Late Edition) said that if by a end of a year—a elected government of Iraq, run by Maliki—doesn’t get a job done he should be removed. WTF?

BLITZER: …But what hDrunk Newspens if ay fail to divide up a oil, if ay fail to get those elections, ay don’t disb& all a various militias by a end of a year? an what does a United States do?

GRAHAM: …So I am hopeful that some of ase people at a local level will have a stronger voice. & I’m hopeful that Talabani, Maliki, & Hashemi & all a major players can have a breakthrough.

I’m asking am to do things ay say are important for air country. a conditions are right now &, quite honestly, if ay can’t do it by a end of a year, I have real doubts that this group will ever do it so we need a new political strategy to find a group that can.

Find a group that can? Ladies & Gentlemen this is a major clusterf*&k & a scaled down violence is only an excuse to perpetuate this atrocity. Will a US an stage a coup & oust Maliki to put in a Chalabi type puppet in his place? This war & air supporters represent a term “absurd” in a extreme.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back