Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

What a difference a day makes (well, 18 days make)...

Bush, Rice Blame CIA for Iraq Error
Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank

(2003-07-12)
President Bush and his national security adviser yesterday placed full responsibility on the Central Intelligence Agency for the inclusion in this year's State of the Union address of questionable allegations that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa.

I find it an interesting, if not telling, omission that the VOA piece makes no mention of the fact that the British are standing behind the report and claiming it is accurate and based on real intelligence. Whatever the truth is, that information would seem to be an important piece of the story. The only reason I can think of for omitting it would be an intent to paint a specific picture.

Is Dubya feigning Alzheimers now before the **** hits the fan? Can't input more than one question -- this was the worst of all the press conferances and I suggest he stay out of the heat in the kitchen. His handlers are nuts to let him try and communicate. All I heard were robotic utterances from a mind that is like a steel sieve.

Awaiting the spin..............

Poindexter's out.

It would seem that they always have a scapegoat. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have that ace in the hole or rat in the closet.

Yes, but, the number of pointing fingers increase. Every person you lose because of these matters will not be won back!

I heard a very puzzling interview this afternoon on a local San Antonio talkshow -- VERY right wing, humorless, very pro-Bush (hardline, nasty) -- with a guy who's written about the FBI going soft on Muslims in this country on orders from the White House which is now caving in to political correctness. Mueller actually GAVE A SPEECH TO SOME AMERICAN-AY-RABS, oh horrors. Only I'm stating the core of the argument politely, while on the show there were explosive snorts and anger. Rove seemed to be Target Number Uno. Bush, they seemed to agree, is in the clutches of madmen but is culpable too.

So who's supporting the administration these days? Maybe just the corporations who are getting their bennies, and of course Tom DeLay. Not a lot of votes there!!

(On the other hand, They're Very Close To Finding WMD's So Watch Out You Liberals.)

July 30, 2003
Web Sites Target Poindexter's Privacy
By Roy Mark

Internet activists concerned about the proposed data mining activities of the Pentagon's controversial Information Awareness Office (IAO) are targeting the privacy of the agency's director, Dr. John Poindexter.
The IAO is an agency of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) created in the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. The goal of the agency is to gather intelligence on possible terrorist activities through electronic sources such as the Internet, telephone and fax lines.
Under Poindexter's leadership the IAO has created a firestorm of controversy with its Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, which seeks to capture the "information signature" of people in order to track potential terrorists and criminals. Critics have called it a domestic spy program and the Senate has temporarily blocked funding for the program.
Earlier this week, Poindexter again came under fire for the IAO's latest proposal to predict terrorist events through the online selling of "futures" in terrorist attacks. The Senate again intervened to block the program.
And now activists are tracking Poindexter, posting his personal information including his home phone number and information about his family. One site, Break Your Chains! even has a Join Poindexter sightings page that focuses on his buying habits (a hamster in February).
Another site, Here In Reality, profiles Poindexter as "America's Big Brother." Yet other sites show ways to find his Social Security number and photographs of Poindexter's neighborhood.
All the Poindexter scrutiny has forced him to change his telephone number and for the IAO to remove his biography from the agency's site. The agency has also removed its "Knowledge is Power" logo from the site.
The IAO did not return telephone inquiries from Internetnews.com for this story.
If ever enacted, TIA plans to track individuals through collecting as much information about them as possible and using computer algorithms and human analysis to detect potential criminal activity.
Driving the project will be "revolutionary technology for ultra-large all-source information repositories," which would contain information from multiple sources to create a "virtual, centralized, grand database."
At the center of it all is Poindexter, a retired Navy admiral and former National Security Advisor to Ronald Reagan. In 1990, Poindexter was convicted on five counts of deceiving Congress in the Iran-Contra affair and sentenced to six months in prison. The convictions were eventually overturned on the grounds that his immunized congressional testimony had been unfairly used against them.
After leaving the government, Poindexter joined Syntek Technologies, which worked with DARPA to develop an "information harvesting" search engine known as Genoa. Poindexter brought the Genoa concept with him to the IAO.
http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2242171

scrat

It isn't the Brits who 'stand behind' the evidence (whatever that means), it is Blair and Straw and cabinet. And as it happens, they aren't letting anyone else look at it - protocol being the justification. It's a claim of little worth.

I thought the Brit's "intelligence" was a ten year old thesis written by a college student? c.i.

ci

Yes, some of it was, but not this item.

Meanwhile, the evidence accumulates indicating a resumption of strong U.S. economic growth; the beginnings of a new political infrastructure begin to emerge in Iraq; the peace process in the Middle East continues, albeit with periodic setbacks; North Korea has agreed to multilateral talks concerning their nuclear weapons - something they refused to consider six months ago - and, as a consequence Russia and China will be required to deal seriously with both the crazy man in their neighborhood and the prospect of a rearmed Japan.

I wouldn't bet too heavily on G.W. Bush's defeat next year.

Back from a great vacation in northern California - good (at least fairly good) to encounter you guys again.

I assume it was obvious to most that I meant that their government is supporting it.

Welcome back, George.

george

A pleasure to see you and to read your hopeful take on republican universal heat death.

scrat

Yes, just thought I'd clarify that Jack Straw saying "We stand behind our intelligence" is exactly as credible as Donald Rumsfeld saying "That was a heck of a good decision I made".

Well, while we're "clarifying" let me just point out that you haven't actually clarified anything about the credibility of Straw's comments, you've merely let us know (in a rather circuitous manner, I might add) what you think about them.

You think Straw is lying. Why? Other than the fact that you would prefer it that way, what reason do you have to think his statement is a lie? Can you give a detailed, specific reason for your belief, or is it just a gut feeling? (You are perfectly entitled to hold and express gut feelings, of course. I'm just curious if it is more than that.)

scrat

First, there is no supportive data to back his/their claim (credible intelligence from a third party, apparently Morocco). Second, they use a very feeble excuse in not revealing to anyone outside of the cabinet precisely what intelligence they recieved. Third, one is hard pressed to imagine what information could possibly change the credibility level of what they already knew was false information. Fourth, Blair's government is in deep trouble already and if it's found to be the case that this intel too is crap, he's very likely to lose the next election. Fifth, it would be naive in the extreme to believe that Blair's people and Bush's people are not working in tandem to present as credible a picture as possible on this issue, as both government's are in the frying pan on this one. Sixth, if Straw and Blair can get away with stonewalling this one, it also allows the Bush crowd to (hopefully) dead-end the conversation precisely as they are attempting now - 'we got it from the Brits'.