Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 15

Bitchin' because There are Just So Damned Many Reasons

by pissed off patricia

We Are Not Alone

When you look at Lou Dobbs, you do see some blond in his hair, don't you? He showed his blondness last night when he too brought up the question about Judith Miller and Bob Novak. Is Lou a Blondesense reader? I kind of doubt it, but weirder things have happened, haven't they? Last night one of Lou's guests on his program was Daniel Okrent, public editor for the New York Times. Lou and Mr. Okrent were as perplexed as we are by the fact that Novak has not been harassed about his publishing of Plame's name yet Miller, who didn't publish the name, is standing on the welcome mat at the door of a jail. As yet I cannot find a transcript of the conversation between Mr. Dobbs and Mr. Okrent.. To the best of my memory Mr. Okrent said that in his opinion all he could figure was that Novak had already testified before the grand jury. I'm not sure what he meant by that. Maybe he meant that Novak had testified and revealed his source. Who the hell knows?

Novak can boast about his determination not to reveal a source, but he has done just that in the past. Back in July of 2001 he revealed a source. Go here and read it in his own words.

Maybe you agree with him, maybe you don't. I agree with his decision then, but I don't understand the difference between then and now. I guess if the secrets come from your cronies in the white house, that makes it a real and true secret no matter what the outcome may be, and you're free to write whatever you want and to hell with the consequences for those involved.

I saw Novak recently on C-Span. A caller asked if Novak was happy that Miller was going to suffer due to his actions. Novak blew off the question by saying that the caller didn't know what he was talking about. The host of the show asked Novak about the Plame affair to which Novak replied that no one knew all the details and on the advice of his attorney he would not discuss it.

So there you go. We don't know the details and we aren't going to know. No wonder we don't understand why Miller is in hot water while Novak plays it cool. It's all part of the new world plan. Don't ask because we won't tell you because you have no right to know. Journalists be prepared. If you write a story be sure that you have the support of our Resident in the white house or you may well be heading for a cell in the big house.

***

One other thing regarding Lou Dobbs’ show last night. They asked, "How do you rate Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's performance?" You could go online and vote excellent, good or poor. The results were 92% poor,3% good and 4% excellent. No, it's not a scientific poll, but since this administration doesn't seem to believe in science, so what?

***

Speaking of Rumsfeld, here's something from the L.A. Times today (Yes, this is a subscription/sign in deal, but it's worth it. get password at http://bugmenot.com/)

"Marines in Iraq conducted mock executions of juvenile prisoners last year, burned and tortured other detainees with electrical shocks, and warned a Navy corpsman they would kill him if he treated any injured Iraqis, according to military documents made public Tuesday."

and.....

"The mistreatment occurred as early as May 2003, months before the first allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib were recorded. And the most recent case involving prisoner abuse by the Marines occurred in June, two months after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU in New York, placed responsibility for the abuse on the Pentagon. "This kind of widespread abuse could not have taken place without a leadership failure of the highest order," he said."

Yep, I think a vote for "poor" was the right choice regarding Rumsfeld's performance.

***
Irony

According to all news reports today, Chemical Ali will be among the first to go on trial in Iraq because he was in charge of some of the worst crimes.

From the Seattle Times; "A detainee in Al Mahmudiya suffered second-degree burns and blisters on the back of his hands when "a Marine guard squirted alcohol-based sanitizer" on him. A match was lit, igniting the prisoner."

***

Under the Heading of "Hummm?"

According to the Scotsman.com; "Many of Iraq’s former Baath Party members have been in jail for more than a year, and few have been able to see legal representatives.

Saddam’s Jordan-based lawyers say they have not seen the former dictator and that holding trials so soon would be illegal.

"The Iraqi court will be in violation of the basic rights of the defendants, which is to have access to legal counsel while being interrogated and indicted," Ziad al-Khasawneh said.

Sound familiar? Can you imagine such a thing? Holding prisoners for an indefinite amount of time without allowing them legal counsel? My word, that could never happen in America, could it?

Here's some more from the Scotsman; "I can now tell you clearly and precisely that, God willing, next week the trials of the symbols of the former regime will start, one by one so that justice can take its path in Iraq," Mr Allawi told the interim National Council, without saying who would be tried."

Now comes the US side of the deal.

"There is a court process that involves investigative judges and a hearing for some of the former regime officials that is under preparation that we would expect to be held next week," said Richard Boucher, a United States State Department spokesman. "At that point, the accused and their attorneys do go to court, although that’s not the actual trial."


But these trials will be completely under the control of Iraqis. Yeah, right!

No comments: