Comments on: OK? -eyes on ball. but, look away...............way...

OK? -eyes on ball. but, look away...............way...

troutfishing — Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:53:58 -0800

"The most intriguing story in Washington these days is a subterranean conflict that reporters cannot cover because some of them are involved. A potent guerrilla insurgency has formed in and around the Bush presidency - a revolt of old pros in government who strike from the shadows with devastating effect. They tell the truth. They explode big lies. They provide documentary evidence..." - William Greider, on what could prove to be one of the defining power struggles of our time. Through a lens darkly, yes. But deniable ? - not plausibly. As gossip, growing louder now, the shadow-war advances. Unstoppably? No.

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:33:41 -0800

Why didn't you just link to The Nation, where the article is from? Looking forward to FPPing articles from National Review.

By: trharlan

trharlan — Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:38:12 -0800

Yeah, troutfishing. From you, a Common Dreams FPP is a serious disappointment. You're capable of much better.

By: sequential

sequential — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:05:45 -0800

The article titled "COUP D'ETAT" was written by Michael C. Ruppert and can be found here in it's original form, with numerous supporting links. If you didn't make it through the exhaustive article, you missed out on some good supporting information found on Henry Waxman's (D) website. You can find a lot of documents regarding the Plame investigation on this page.

By: raaka

raaka — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:21:21 -0800

Posting this on Metafilter must be part of the CIA's coup attempt! EVerything's connected!

By: sequential

sequential — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:38:17 -0800

H.R.2625 , titled "To establish the Independent Commission on Intelligence about Iraq. ", was introduced on 6/26/2003 by Rep Henry A. Waxman and and 143 cosponsors. A year later, the bill is still in the House Committee on Intelligence. Note that these are all links within Thomas, which produces some of it's documents on the fly. If any of these links are broken, you will easily find the supporting information from the first link. Thomas is a service of the Library of Congress. Here's a summary of the bill from congress.org, a website by Capitol Advantage. When searching for more information, the rest of the related links seem to be hosted by Capwiz, a product of Capitol Advantage.

By: NortonDC

NortonDC — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:52:50 -0800

A little hint: Thomas is the baby of a Mefite!

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 03:58:26 -0800

Looking forward to FPPing articles from National Review. Looking forward to decent articles being written in the national review. When it happens, do let us know.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 03:59:34 -0800

(that's in reference to The Nation, not so much commondreams which I don't often visit, but I won't buy into it's being equated with the wacky NewsMax type sites either)

By: techgnollogic

techgnollogic — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:56:17 -0800

Why not? Nobody with any sense would feel compelled to stick up for Common Dreams' credibility.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:10:01 -0800

Great supporting links sequential! Seems Common Dreams is very credible, at least with this story. The National Review will have such credibility when iced tea is served in hell. Thanks for the post trout, great reading.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:57:55 -0800

It's been my organizational experience that sometimes rumors like this get started in the hope that someone will make them true.

By: sic

sic — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:13:31 -0800

The piece by Ruppert that Sequential linked to is very interesting. Most of it is speculation, but reasoned speculation backed by much evidence. Worth the read. Has the fact that Bush has retained a defense attorney really not gotten any play in the US? Seems like that should raise more than a few eyebrows. The idea that career government (not politcal appointees) and CIA workers are going after this adminstration isn't off the wall. Cheney and Bush have run roughshod over them for three years, including blaming the CIA for the faulty intelligence that led to 9-11 and the subsequent lies used by Bush to attack Iraq. I know it is easier to simply attack the source of the link, but why don't you critics stop being so lazy and address some of the issues brought up? It would be a lot more interesting.

By: sic

sic — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:15:30 -0800

by the way Steve@Linwood, catch any good movies last weekend? ;)

By: techgnollogic

techgnollogic — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:15:43 -0800

at least with this story The story might be credible, but Common Dreams doesn't gain any credibility for reprinting it from The Nation. The other day, matteo and others tried to shoot down that Haim Harari article because it appeared on Free Republic and some hawkish pro-Israel website. Just remember, something isn't automatically invalidated when some Freepers or Common Dreams moonbats reprint it.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:33:28 -0800

Sic: The defense attorney angle has gotten play, but it's as though it's fallen into a void. Most Americans, I think, don't grasp the significance, so they don't pay attention. As for the Rupert piece, it's a nice piece of speculation, and yes, the dots connect. But you can make dots connect in just about any pattern you want, given a large enough canvas. And this is a large canvas. Case in point: The Tenet resignation is supposed to be part of this plan. But there are sources ranging from inside the beltway to the Hollywood Hills who say that it was due to a fit of pique on the part of our esteemed leader, G. W. Bush. So, in the end, this comes off as a somewhat plausible skein of wishful thinking on the part of abused professionals. BTW: Some folks call it irresponsible to make these conjectures, or conjectures about the Bushites suspending the constitution. I don't see it that way. I don't think they're likely scenarios, but I also do believe that silence on these matters can't possibly do anything but make them more likely. I'd rather we didn't have to resort to short-circuiting our constitutional processes -- once that step is taken, what's to stop us from taking it again, after all? So maybe these discussions can put the fear of Dog into the Bushites; let's hope.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:49:49 -0800

Thomas Powers and David Bamford, authors of Intelligence Wars and The Puzzle Palace, respectively, also discuss the topic at hand in the post A Temporary Coup, the sources for which were the New York Review of Books, Time magazine and the Washington Post.

By: sic

sic — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:01:33 -0800

Lodurr: I'm sure that the defense attorney issue would be shocking if the US media would give it some play. Damn liberals! I suspected way back before the Plame Game that once Bush and Cheney started pawning their 9-11 fuckups on the CIA and FBI that the career spooks were going to take offense and action. I now am sure that there is more than wishful thinking going on. Somebody is leaking all of this damaging information about the Bush administration and it isn't the Democrats. So technologic, now that we have established that something of value can be reprinted on Common Dreams, care to comment on the articles? It would be more useful than talking about that non-issue.

By: caddis

caddis — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:18:26 -0800

The National Review has several good articles right now: Congress spending like drunken sailors Cigarette cartel created by the tobacco settlement I don't think they have enough in them to personally post them to the front page, but I wouldn't complain if someone did. They certainly could provide some interesting conversation. By the way, nice post troutfishing. I liked the article and would never have seen it without your post.

By: MattD

MattD — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:23:25 -0800

The power of the permanent Washington establishment has been greatly diminished lately -- and there's no greater evidence than the above colloquoy of Commondreams vs. NRO. People used to get their news from the big networks and the provincial papers; the big networks and the provincial papers took their lead from the Times and the Post, and the Times and the Post parotted whatever the establishment told them. Now that chain is broken -- people get their news from lots more sources, which reshape and critique it before delivery, or simply ignore it (local TV news). The left (Michael Moore and his in-house conspiracy theorists) and the right (Rupert Murdoch and the FoxNews commentators) are united in their total disinterest in being a vehicle for former diplomats and retired colonels, now safely stashed in law firms and think tanks, to have their say heard.

By: matteo

matteo — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:34:26 -0800

matteo and others tried to shoot down that Haim Harari article because it appeared on Free Republic and some hawkish pro-Israel website. Just remember, something isn't automatically invalidated when some Freepers or Common Dreams moonbats reprint it. look, for the sake of the argument I'll ignore the fact that you call "hawkish, pro-Israel" a blogger who writes that Sharon is a PLO agent and Bush is an enemy of Israel -- this fact alone indicates how far off in the right-wing, authoritarian swamps you are currently living. that site was a foam-at-the-mouth nightmarish disgrace. hawkish and pro-Israel is one thing. insane is another. anyway: somebody posted a fpp re an alleged "Arab scientist"'s speech, attribution unclear. too bad it was from Harari, an Israeli scientist very well-liked by Freepers and IsraelIndy people. "Arab intellectual" my ass. that fpp had a false premise. but I digress. let's talk about this thread, trout's. the fact that Steve, technollogic and the rest of the IraqAttaq gang either chooses to ignore (out of bad faith) or sincerely ignores (out of ignorance) is that trout linked an article by William Greider. I don't care if Greider is reprinted by whatreallyhappened, or, say, InstaFundyt -- Greider is good Greider is an ex Washington Post guy (he was assistant managing editor, national correspondent, editor and columnist), he also worked for Rolling Stone and now he is at The Nation Greider is a master of political journalism, and book author is he a liberal? of course. but he is a very, very good journalist. and certainly not one prone to rants. so, attacking trout for linking from Commondreams is disingenious at best. he linked to a good article. I understand its content scares Republican silly -- the leaks are everywhere, very damaging leaks. and they'll keep coming. deal with it. it isn't Greider's fault, nor trout's, nor mine. your administration is collapsing under the weight of its lies, of the blood it shed for Halliburton's and the neocon's glory Funnily enough, at the Post he broke the story of how David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director, grew disillusioned with supply-side economics and the budget deficits that policy caused. oh, and save the "moonbats" shit for your LGF posts, techgnollogic. after all, nobody here called you a Rethuglican. yet. ________ Looking forward to FPPing articles from National Review. please do, Steve, if it sucks as bad as, say, yesterday's swerdloff rant against Michael Moore, it'll get deleted too. nice to see you admit you keep using the Front Page to settle your childish scores. NeenerFilter. so go ahead and give us another GOP press release disguided as journalism. just flush after you're done. you stink up the place.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:06:40 -0800

Related: What does Josh Marshall know about the Yellowcake/Plame story and when will he stop being so damn coy about it?

By: Mid

Mid — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:26:50 -0800

Soyjoy -- exactly the question I have. Marshall seems to be saying that the current FT story is a false leak. The FT stoy makes two points: (a) that there was more evidence for the yellocake than just the forged documents; and (b) that the forged documents were forged by the "Italian businessman" who first handed them over to the Italian press. Reading between the lines, it seems that Marshall is saying that he knows who really forged the documents. Marshall has previously said that the story he is working on will bring about a "tectonic shift" in DC, so you have to surmise that the forger is an American connected to the administration. Less exciting would be if the forger is a Brit, possibly at MI6.

By: Mid

Mid — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:33:04 -0800

Check out these prior JMM posts for more. This could get really interesting. LINK LINK

By: Mid

Mid — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:54:27 -0800

Also -- (last one, I promise) check out the comments on the Atrios blog about the new JMM post. In particular, search for "BevD" in the comments, for what looks like a pretty good surmise of what is going on. I love this stuff.

By: techgnollogic

techgnollogic — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:00:39 -0800

It's ok, matteo, if troutfishing had called Greider an Arab intellectual in the FPP, I'm sure you'd have been all outraged and slinging poo in this thread too.

By: fold_and_mutilate

fold_and_mutilate — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:17:14 -0800

Brilliant. MeFi's right wing, led by Steve@ and technollogic, unable to refute anything whatsoever from the front page post, can only resort once again to ineffectually trying to bash the source. ~chuckle~ Speaking of the Bush administration unraveling, more on the Cheney meltdown....

By: sic

sic — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:31:59 -0800

Thanks for the links Mid and Soyjoy. You don't really need to "read between the lines" to see that Marshall is claiming to know who forged the documents. What a tease... Anyway all of these leaks, stories and etc. seem to me to be feints within feints within feints. But who exactly are the combatants.? Technologic, are you ever going to contribute something useful to this thread? I know that it's easier to derail than defend a weak position, but ~~we are all~~ most of us are grown ups here, enough already.

By: techgnollogic

techgnollogic — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:21:37 -0800

MeFi's right wing HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Is this where I call you a commie? I must've skipped orientation... I contributed to this thread by informing Space Coyote that sticking up for Common Dreams is a losing proposition, and pointing out that just because a wingnut, of any persuasion, agrees with something doesn't make it bunk... especially when they're not the source, but just reprinting something they read elsewhere, and the "yes but they also agree with X so this must be crap too" anti-argument doesn't have legs. That's all.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:45:19 -0800

OK, drive safely!

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:47:41 -0800

techgnollogic - illogic. Common Dreams hosted a copy of Greider's story. No more, no less. There was a very high "signal to threat reaction" response to this post. Very good.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:12:52 -0800

Nobody with any sense would feel compelled to stick up for Common Dreams' credibility. posted by techgnollogic Oh, good jew onna stick...they're an aggregator...not a publisher. "They", as a collective, don't have a credibility to defend. Most of what they publish is syndicated feed. Don't be silly when you put up straw men...make them at least worth shooting at. Sic: The defense attorney angle has gotten play, but it's as though it's fallen into a void. Most Americans, I think, don't grasp the significance, so they don't pay attention. Again, because we have an un-educated populace that doesn't understand that the Ken Starr tribunal...you know, the one that the "conservatives" started...stripped the presidency of the right to use White House council. That turned around and bit them in the ass...didn't it? The National Review has several good articles right now: Congress spending like drunken sailors You know, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one that remembered that the "conservatives" were supposed to be the smaller government, state's rights, less intrusive, lower budget party. Apparently, they are the the "Christian, fuck the rest of the world, spend it all on guns, oh...and fuck the poor, fuck the middle class, sanctity of marriage, oh...have you met my 3rd wife, Bunny?" party. Not the that Dems are much better with the "I was born rich, I've married richer every time I've done it...if I were a girl, I'd be a trophy...I served, got shot at, got out and was damned pissed about being sent...but at least I showed up, am a career congresscritter, am so well balanced I think I can walk on water, and I once had an opinion, but after polling decided that no I didn't", Stepford-Wife Kerry. Kerry's "bush-lite" routine and his pretend-populism are a disgrace to the working man's party. That *he* is my alternative to the over-privileged, over compensating, little-dicked, silver spooned, moron in the White House disgusts me on so many levels. A plague on both their houses. Don't even get me started on the ego that is Ralph Nadar. I actually personally know the Green candidate. Like, have hung out, had a beer, talked Plato...know David. Don't think David has a chance in hell. Now, I've always rooted for the "steer the starship into the sun, you crazy little bastard" candidate, but I still probably won't vote for David this time...because I'm not a Green and because I dislike someone else more than I like him...but if I thought a 3rd party had a chance in hell of making the 5% this election, I'd vote Green in a heartbeat. Because the two party system has failed us. We need freedom of parties. We need to abolish the electoral college. We need a democracy...not an appointed ruling class. Hell, I'd even settle for a fair republic...but what we've got...to quote Dale Evans, "it ain't nothing but a show". A choice between two evils is no choice at all.

By: techgnollogic

techgnollogic — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:51:52 -0800

Common Dreams hosted a copy of Greider's story. No more, no less That's exactly what I said! That's also exactly what Free Republic and Jewish Indianapolis did - they hosted a copy of the Haim Harari speech. No more, no less.

By: kgasmart

kgasmart — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:23:03 -0800

Point is, techgnollogic, that regardless of the source, Greider has been very credible - thus, it stands to reason that he knows what he's talking about in this case, as well. If there indeed is a group of angry top-level government professionals who think Bush & Co. is fucking up to the degree that they must be stopped, I don't see how Bush & Co. get around it - perhaps by doing what Josh Marshall suggests has now been done with the Yellowcake story.

By: techgnollogic

techgnollogic — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:51:17 -0800

My entire point is that Greider's credibility and story isn't harmed by being reprinted/hosted by the Common Dreams loon crew. And in the same way, Harari's speech wasn't undermined by being hosted/reprinted by Free Republic and Jewish Indianapolis. You can't argue against something by pointing out that some crazyass third party agrees with it. It's not relevant. Stop acting like I'm trying to discredit Greider. I have no desire to do any such thing. I'm discounting the potential wacked-out criticism of Greider what "well, ur, that's a Commmon Dreams link, so it must be garbage!" and you people act like I have some kind of problem with the article. Pay attention. It's a bullshit criticism of Greider, and it's was a bullshit criticism of Harari.

By: sic

sic — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:11:03 -0800

You know technolollogic, Greider piece is interesting and informative, you should read it instead of spending the entire thread insulting Common Dreams because you don't agree with their political views.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:04:55 -0800

techgnollogic - I must have missed the Harari/Free Republic and Jewish Indianapolis controversy, but I'll link to any site which hosts a good stand-alone story - FreeRepublic included.

By: techgnollogic

techgnollogic — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:37:23 -0800

It was here. You sorta posted to the thread but that doesn't mean you read the whole thing. Anyway, I had no desire to spend "the entire thread insulting Common Dreams." I only wanted to point out how bogus it is to disregard an article because of who's reprinting it, but I kept getting misunderstood apparently.

By: Mid

Mid — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:59:24 -0800

Anyone reading this thread for the Josh Marshall developing story stuff: check this out. More speculation on what Marshall has.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:58:20 -0800

Thanks, Mid, I was coming back here for that very thing. Not a whole lot new from Payne since most of it's an old post (and he's going through exactly the same connect-the-dots inferences as the Atrios commenters), but the mention of Ledeen's daughter was an interesting twist. I had read that story at the time but didn't make the connection. Meanwhile, today was a travel day for Josh. Travel from where? Why? Who? Whuzzah?

By: sic

sic — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:55:54 -0800

Thanks for the follow up Mid. So technologic, have you read the FPP yet, can you comment on it, or are we still misunderstanding your "contribution" to the thread? See when you don't read the linked post, don't comment on it (except to insult its source and then defend the source of an entirely different article from an entirely different post), well it gets confusing as to what you are trying to accomplish. Some would think it is to derail a thread that is discussing something you don't like and can't refute with reasoned arguments.