ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Plame Wrap-Up

The best and most comprehensive single post on the Plame Affair can be found here.

It provides a clear and concise timeline and demonstrates that Wilson was the one to first "out" his wife as a CIA analyst, in all likelihood to give his story more credibility (b/c why would all of those reporters believe anything he asserted, unless he was "connected" with the agency).

Interestingly, Libby's name doesn't feature prominently in the post. By the time Libby mentioned Wilson's wife, everyone already had been briefed by Joe.

****** ARC: Brian adds *******

It is by far the most comprehensive single post. It establishes the pre-Novak timeline real well, and any reasonable person reading that timeline would see that the Libby conversations in July are incomplete without the context of the whole "scandal" including the numerous Wilson contacts with the press.

JustOneMinute has a great post on the Valerie testimony before the House (all emphasis mine):

She is discussing her presence at an ealry May 2003 breakfast meeting between her husband and Joe Wilson where Joe spilled details about his classified trip to Niger, thereby inspiring this May 6 Kristof column:

REP. DAVIS: Let me just ask, try to put some -- some of the press speculation to rest and give you an opportunity to answer. In January 2004, Vanity Fair published an article -- not always known for great accuracy -- touching on your role in the Niger uranium affair. It said -- this was what they said -- "In early May, Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee at which Wilson spoke about Iraq. One of the other panelists was New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it but not name him." Is that account accurate?

MS. PLAME WILSON: I think it is. I had nothing -- I was not speaking to Mr. Kristof. And I think my husband did say that he had undertaken this trip, but not to be named as a source.


Just to be clear, when your -- the article says that -- says your husband "met for breakfast with Kristof and his wife." Just to be clear, were you at the breakfast?

MS. PLAME WILSON: Briefly, yes, Congressman.

As Tom Maguire points out later, CIA agents are required to report their contacts with the press, which Valerie did not. From her testimony its apparent that she feels she was not involved since she was just there, and only "briefly". But her presence for Kristoff (and for the Senate Democratic Policy committee) was to establish Wilson's bona fides. Her mere presence and job placement at CIA was used to disguise the lies that Joe Wilson was telling as truths.

Briefly or not, she outed herself.


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Nothing to see here!!!

More good news out of Iraq (mixed in with troublesome facts, of course):

From The Sunday Times
March 18, 2007

Iraqis: life is getting better
Marie Colvin

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said.

Of course, the opinions of everyday Iraqis is of little consequence. What is most important is the opinion of the media hacks who are reporting on the civil war (which the Iraqis themselves do not believe exists) back in the US and the UK.

How dare those Iraqis mess with the storyline of the MSM reporters.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Monday, March 12, 2007

Yet Another Inconvenient Truth - Part 1,765

Previous Inconvenient Truths here

To further demonstrate that global climate change is no longer science, but religion and faith, I submit this article in the Times of London:

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'

By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

We have entered the age of decay. The Scientific Method, Reason, and the Age of the Enlightenment has been replaced with the Age of Consensus.

Albert Einstein was laughed at for his early works and, had he not followed the science and instead allowed himself to be influenced by the consensus of his time, humanity would have suffered.

Today, those that seek to question the possibility that climate change is caused by humans, are curious as to whether its impacts can be slowed, or question the magnitude of the problem receive death threats and are threatened to be excommunicated from the scientific community.

No doubt that the scientists referenced in this article are all bought & paid for by ExxonMobil or British Petroleum. That is another weak attempt by the faithful to undermine those that ask questions - allowing the faithful to ignore the pointed questions.

And Climate Change comes down to this - 1) there are computer models which show we're headed to catastrophe; and 2) scientific community has formed a consensus.

With regard to the first - I can develop a computer model that would prove that given enough time, the probability that monkeys will fly out of my butt approaches 1. But that does not mean that I should take drastic precautions to prevent such an occurrence today.

With regard to the second - Scientific reality is not something which is negotiated and fine-tuned to accomodate the consensus of scientists. If 85 out of 100 scientists agree, it's not science - it's opinion. And as with any opinion, you should question the motivations (moolah, fame) and the underlying data separately.

*** UPDATE ***
HERESY!!! Here is the BBC 4 Program which is referenced in the above article. No wonder this generated such responses as death threats - this video is the most comprehensive and clear point for point refutation of the idiocy that is global warming and its potentially disastrous consequences on the developed and the developing world that I have ever seen.

It features scientists as well as environmentalists (such as the co-founder of Greenpeace) who are ashamed at what is taking place regarding global warming.

Is the global warming movement inevitable? Will we return to the poverty and misery of previous generations? I hope we have some very pointed questions to our next round of presidential candidates, inquiring (if they support the global warming prescriptions) as to why they would like to condemn the Third World to poverty and throw the First & Second World into the same condition.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler