If you like the Transformers, go and check out this project, which I am participating in.
http://transformers-mosaic.deviantart.com
It's a series of one-page comics by the fans, for the fans, as they say. Well worth a read. Maybe even some involvement, if you have some skill at writing or drawing.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Courts and the Democratic agenda
We all know that Democrats and liberals have used the courts for years to push their views on the public. They're fully aware that they don't win elections by honestly pushing socialism, massive tax increases, rights for criminals, et. al, so they've slowly pushed those ideas through using the courts.
And now they're having hissy fits because the Supreme Court has chipped away at some of their precious left-wing dogma.
[quote]New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.
Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.
“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.[/quote]
What a liar. The whole point the hearings as far as Schumer and the other Democrats were concerned was to find a reason not to confirm Bush's appointees. Alito and Roberts didn't give them that reason. So now it's "we were tricked! Waaah!"
I can't stand liars like Schumer. He knows full well that a left-leaning Supreme Court is the liberal's best friend in this country. Without that, they have major problems.
And now they're having hissy fits because the Supreme Court has chipped away at some of their precious left-wing dogma.
[quote]New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.
Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.
“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.[/quote]
What a liar. The whole point the hearings as far as Schumer and the other Democrats were concerned was to find a reason not to confirm Bush's appointees. Alito and Roberts didn't give them that reason. So now it's "we were tricked! Waaah!"
I can't stand liars like Schumer. He knows full well that a left-leaning Supreme Court is the liberal's best friend in this country. Without that, they have major problems.
Friday, July 06, 2007
How about something non-political?
My Transformers movie review
I’m no movie critic. I know what I like, and if I find a movie enjoyable, I’m not going to pick it apart to find the flaws. I’m going to sing its praises and try to convince as many people as I can that they should go see it as well. To that end, I have to say that “Transformers” is awesome. From the opening moments of the movie where Peter Cullen reprises his role as Optimus Prime from 20 years ago, I was hooked. Giant shape-changing robots slugging it out is absolutely my idea of great entertainment.
The movie opens with Optimus Prime spelling out the backstory for the film. “In the beginning was the cube...”. The “cube” is the Allspark, the object which gives life to the Transformers, and in this movie, the object over which they are waging their war. It’s the “macguffin” that drives the plot, and of course, it’s come to Earth after drifting through the cosmos for millenia. After the introduction, the expectation of the audience to see the giant robots is sated by a quick action sequence where the Decepticon Blackout attacks and destroys a US military base in Qatar, from which only a few survivors escape, including two of our protagonists. The group is pursued through the desert by Scorponok, who burrows under the sand and bursts out to attack, and curiously is never seen to transform. The special effects are excellent, and the sight of a lone Decepticon trashing an entire military base on his own (admittedly in a sneak attack) confirms everything we fans have known about these guys for years. They’re dangerous and scary, and not to be taken lightly. In fact, all the Decepticons in this movie are impressively ruthless and deadly, as they should be.
If that’s the B plot, then the main storyline is the one involving Sam Witwicky and Bumblebee. Shia LeBouf is not an actor I’ve seen in anything else, but I was impressed with him here. He really does carry much of the movie with his acting, and despite the fact that one of my major complaints is that we should have had less humans and more Transformers, I find that Shia’s character Sam Witwicky doesn’t wear out his welcome. He’s very sympathetic and entertaining to watch, and his friendship with Bumblebee, particularly later in the film, is well-played. I initially found the idea of making Bumblebee mute to be irritating, but I’ve changed my mind. It serves to distance him a bit at first, as well as forcing the filmmakers to let his actions and body language speak for him, and that approach works surprisingly well. It keeps him distant and alien, something which is lost when the other Transformers start speaking and the robots become essentially human, at least in character. Not that I’d want them mute by any means, but the tone of the film undoubtedly changes when they appear and introduce themselves. This slow buildup to the robot reveal actually works quite well, which again surprised me, given that I’d be happy with two straight hours of wall to wall Transformer action.
The two storylines are loosely connected, and the movie cuts back and forth between them regularly. It takes a surprisingly long time for the Transformers to appear en masse, leaving them to be almost supporting characters in their own film. Since this is an introductory film in many ways, that’s more acceptable than it would be in a hypothetical sequel, but it’s noticeable all the same. The Decepticons get short shrift in this regard, with Blackout and Scorponok featuring early on, leaving Barricade and Frenzy to pretty much represent the Decepticons during the middle of the film. Many of the others don’t appear until near the end, including Starscream and Megatron, surprisingly. Several of the characters show up only to be finished off rather quickly, including Brawl (named Devastator in the subtitles) and Bonecrusher, who makes the mistake of tackling Optimus Prime. And while the fate of several characters is decisive, Scorponok and Barricade are not accounted for at the end (at least, not to my knowledge) and Starscream is clearly shown escaping Earth’s atmosphere.
The Autobots fare better, though there are only five of them. Of those five, Optimus and Bumblebee get the most screen time, leaving Ratchet, Ironhide and Jazz as secondary characters, allbeit all with some good character moments. Jazz is the only Autobot fatality, torn in two by Megatron, who seems absolutely unstoppable. All of the others survive. And without a doubt, if any of them had to get the most dialogue, I’m glad it was Optimus. My inner 13 year old was cheering every time he spoke. Bringing back Peter Cullen gave the film the stamp of authenticity for this Transformer fan, and I’m grateful he was given the job. I’m glad to hear he’ll be back if a sequel is made. I’m disappointed Frank Welker didn’t get to reprise Megatron opposite Cullen, but such is life. Hugo Weaving certainly did a good job with the part, and he deserves credit for that.
The CGI robots are outstanding. The movie designs were another thing that I was iffy about when they first appeared, but they work very well. The computer models are very complex, and it seems as though every little piece of these guys shifts and turns when they transform. It had to have taken a whale of an designer to create the movie Transformers, and some dedicated animators to make them move. And they blend almost seamlessly into their environment, be it desert sand, back yard or downtown LA (or wherever the city was meant to be). The transformations are always one of those “oh yeah!” moments, particularly when the bot in question is driving at a high rate of speed, or flying through the air. The sequence where Starscream is flying among a squad of F22s, transforms and shoots some of them down, and then returns to plane mode, all while in midair flying amongst skyscrapers, is particularly worthy of note. The bots move with relatively fluid motions, and interact well with the environment. Prime in particular runs along the freeway leaving broken pavement behind, hangs under a bridge over a helicopter at one point, and descends between two buildings, leaving showers of brick and masonry falling on his way down.
The movie had its flaws of course. Some of the humor was in poor taste, particularly the “were you masturbating” scene, and the instance when Bumblebee leaks oil all over the sector seven leader as though he were urinating on him. The audience laughed at both, but crude humor doesn’t appeal to me, and the movie could have done without it. I also found the whole subplot with Anthony Anderson’s computer hacker character a waste of time. It added some laughs, but did little or nothing to advance the plot and probably ought to have been cut altogether, in my view.
Several occurances are never explained, such as the bots the Allspark creates near the end of the movie like the steering wheel Transformer or the Mountain Dew machine bot. Are they still wandering around the city? Why are all the bots created by the Allspark evil? What happened to Scorponok and Barricade? And there were other things I wondered about that just aren’t coming to mind right now.
The bottom line: far better than I had hoped for, “Transformers” does a pretty good job of bringing back the robots in disguise as a live action movie. It doesn’t have the spirit of the old cartoon or comic, but as a modern adaption, it’s not half bad. I really enjoyed it, and despite the flaws, I’d give it a “A”. A good effort, and hopefully one which will spawn some sequels which will go on to give us more robots and less humans. Time will tell. Go see it!
I’m no movie critic. I know what I like, and if I find a movie enjoyable, I’m not going to pick it apart to find the flaws. I’m going to sing its praises and try to convince as many people as I can that they should go see it as well. To that end, I have to say that “Transformers” is awesome. From the opening moments of the movie where Peter Cullen reprises his role as Optimus Prime from 20 years ago, I was hooked. Giant shape-changing robots slugging it out is absolutely my idea of great entertainment.
The movie opens with Optimus Prime spelling out the backstory for the film. “In the beginning was the cube...”. The “cube” is the Allspark, the object which gives life to the Transformers, and in this movie, the object over which they are waging their war. It’s the “macguffin” that drives the plot, and of course, it’s come to Earth after drifting through the cosmos for millenia. After the introduction, the expectation of the audience to see the giant robots is sated by a quick action sequence where the Decepticon Blackout attacks and destroys a US military base in Qatar, from which only a few survivors escape, including two of our protagonists. The group is pursued through the desert by Scorponok, who burrows under the sand and bursts out to attack, and curiously is never seen to transform. The special effects are excellent, and the sight of a lone Decepticon trashing an entire military base on his own (admittedly in a sneak attack) confirms everything we fans have known about these guys for years. They’re dangerous and scary, and not to be taken lightly. In fact, all the Decepticons in this movie are impressively ruthless and deadly, as they should be.
If that’s the B plot, then the main storyline is the one involving Sam Witwicky and Bumblebee. Shia LeBouf is not an actor I’ve seen in anything else, but I was impressed with him here. He really does carry much of the movie with his acting, and despite the fact that one of my major complaints is that we should have had less humans and more Transformers, I find that Shia’s character Sam Witwicky doesn’t wear out his welcome. He’s very sympathetic and entertaining to watch, and his friendship with Bumblebee, particularly later in the film, is well-played. I initially found the idea of making Bumblebee mute to be irritating, but I’ve changed my mind. It serves to distance him a bit at first, as well as forcing the filmmakers to let his actions and body language speak for him, and that approach works surprisingly well. It keeps him distant and alien, something which is lost when the other Transformers start speaking and the robots become essentially human, at least in character. Not that I’d want them mute by any means, but the tone of the film undoubtedly changes when they appear and introduce themselves. This slow buildup to the robot reveal actually works quite well, which again surprised me, given that I’d be happy with two straight hours of wall to wall Transformer action.
The two storylines are loosely connected, and the movie cuts back and forth between them regularly. It takes a surprisingly long time for the Transformers to appear en masse, leaving them to be almost supporting characters in their own film. Since this is an introductory film in many ways, that’s more acceptable than it would be in a hypothetical sequel, but it’s noticeable all the same. The Decepticons get short shrift in this regard, with Blackout and Scorponok featuring early on, leaving Barricade and Frenzy to pretty much represent the Decepticons during the middle of the film. Many of the others don’t appear until near the end, including Starscream and Megatron, surprisingly. Several of the characters show up only to be finished off rather quickly, including Brawl (named Devastator in the subtitles) and Bonecrusher, who makes the mistake of tackling Optimus Prime. And while the fate of several characters is decisive, Scorponok and Barricade are not accounted for at the end (at least, not to my knowledge) and Starscream is clearly shown escaping Earth’s atmosphere.
The Autobots fare better, though there are only five of them. Of those five, Optimus and Bumblebee get the most screen time, leaving Ratchet, Ironhide and Jazz as secondary characters, allbeit all with some good character moments. Jazz is the only Autobot fatality, torn in two by Megatron, who seems absolutely unstoppable. All of the others survive. And without a doubt, if any of them had to get the most dialogue, I’m glad it was Optimus. My inner 13 year old was cheering every time he spoke. Bringing back Peter Cullen gave the film the stamp of authenticity for this Transformer fan, and I’m grateful he was given the job. I’m glad to hear he’ll be back if a sequel is made. I’m disappointed Frank Welker didn’t get to reprise Megatron opposite Cullen, but such is life. Hugo Weaving certainly did a good job with the part, and he deserves credit for that.
The CGI robots are outstanding. The movie designs were another thing that I was iffy about when they first appeared, but they work very well. The computer models are very complex, and it seems as though every little piece of these guys shifts and turns when they transform. It had to have taken a whale of an designer to create the movie Transformers, and some dedicated animators to make them move. And they blend almost seamlessly into their environment, be it desert sand, back yard or downtown LA (or wherever the city was meant to be). The transformations are always one of those “oh yeah!” moments, particularly when the bot in question is driving at a high rate of speed, or flying through the air. The sequence where Starscream is flying among a squad of F22s, transforms and shoots some of them down, and then returns to plane mode, all while in midair flying amongst skyscrapers, is particularly worthy of note. The bots move with relatively fluid motions, and interact well with the environment. Prime in particular runs along the freeway leaving broken pavement behind, hangs under a bridge over a helicopter at one point, and descends between two buildings, leaving showers of brick and masonry falling on his way down.
The movie had its flaws of course. Some of the humor was in poor taste, particularly the “were you masturbating” scene, and the instance when Bumblebee leaks oil all over the sector seven leader as though he were urinating on him. The audience laughed at both, but crude humor doesn’t appeal to me, and the movie could have done without it. I also found the whole subplot with Anthony Anderson’s computer hacker character a waste of time. It added some laughs, but did little or nothing to advance the plot and probably ought to have been cut altogether, in my view.
Several occurances are never explained, such as the bots the Allspark creates near the end of the movie like the steering wheel Transformer or the Mountain Dew machine bot. Are they still wandering around the city? Why are all the bots created by the Allspark evil? What happened to Scorponok and Barricade? And there were other things I wondered about that just aren’t coming to mind right now.
The bottom line: far better than I had hoped for, “Transformers” does a pretty good job of bringing back the robots in disguise as a live action movie. It doesn’t have the spirit of the old cartoon or comic, but as a modern adaption, it’s not half bad. I really enjoyed it, and despite the flaws, I’d give it a “A”. A good effort, and hopefully one which will spawn some sequels which will go on to give us more robots and less humans. Time will tell. Go see it!
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Here they go again
First we had lost the war. Now the surge has failed, if you listen to Democrats. This pronouncement comes despite the fact that the military has said it will be at least September before they can make preliminary assessments. September is three months away.
Anyone who can't see that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are trying to force a loss in Iraq simply has blinders on. They're just far too eager to proclaim the whole thing a lost cause.
And of course, unless they're just complete idiots, they know Bush will simply veto any timelines and restrictions they attempt to place on him. This is the 'death by a thousand bills' approach. Keep sending doomed bill after doomed bill until Bush gives up. It's not the action of a responsible leader, but then the Democrats are not leading. They're still playing opposition party to Bush's agenda.
op US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that his Iraq troop "surge" policy was a failure.
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over Iraq by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday.
"As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.
"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.
"It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.
"In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.
The letter appeared to preview a fresh showdown over Iraq between anti-war Democrats and the president, just a few weeks after Bush forced his foes to strip troop withdrawal timelines from a 100 billion dollar emergency war budget.
It also came a few days after the US military mourned its 3,500th soldier killed in action in Iraq.
Pelosi and Reid told Bush in the letter that they planned to send him new legislation to "limit the US mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of US forces, and bring the war to a responsible end."
On Tuesday, Reid said that Senate Democrats would attach troop withdrawal deadlines to a Defense Department Authorization bill, due to be debated within weeks.
Anyone who can't see that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are trying to force a loss in Iraq simply has blinders on. They're just far too eager to proclaim the whole thing a lost cause.
And of course, unless they're just complete idiots, they know Bush will simply veto any timelines and restrictions they attempt to place on him. This is the 'death by a thousand bills' approach. Keep sending doomed bill after doomed bill until Bush gives up. It's not the action of a responsible leader, but then the Democrats are not leading. They're still playing opposition party to Bush's agenda.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Harry Reid's favorable rating way down
Someone recently told me that I had a Pelosi fixation. It's actually Harry Reid that earns more scorn from me. I'm therefore pleased to see that this lying fraud's approval numbers from the public are considerably lower than George Bush's numbers. Apparently even Democrats don't like him.
Couldn't happen to a nicer fellow. Now if only his constituents will vote him out of office just like South Dakota voted Tom Daschle out a few years ago. We can only hope.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Advertisment
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters and unfavorably by 45%. Just 3% have a Very Favorable opinion while 22% hold a Very Unfavorable views.
Reid has been very visible over the past week in the furor over immigration reform. The effort to pass a bill that was more popular in Congress than among voters may have hurt public perceptions of the Democratic leader. His ratings are down from a month ago when 26% had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Senator. Reid’s highest ratings were 30% favorable in February.
Each week, Rasmussen Reports updates favorability ratings for a number of political figures and others in the news.
Couldn't happen to a nicer fellow. Now if only his constituents will vote him out of office just like South Dakota voted Tom Daschle out a few years ago. We can only hope.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Good riddance to the "immigration" bill
If you've listened to talk radio for five minutes during the past two weeks, or even read some of the mainstream news reports, you can't have missed the anger in Republican circles over this debacle of an immigration bill. We expect Republicans to show more sense than they've shown, particularly after losing the election this past November. But they haven't learned their lesson yet, or at least some of them haven't.
And despite generally being a supporter of President Bush, I have to strongly disagree with him on immigration reform.
The more I learn about this bill, the worse it looks. And it may come back. Take a look at some of the provisions:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/8/101354.shtml?s=lh
-Allows illegal immigrants who were in the country as of Jan. 1, 2007, to come forward, pay fees and fines, pass a background check and receive an indefinitely renewable four-year Z visa to live and work legally in the U.S.
-Allows Z visa holders to get on a path to citizenship after an approximately eight-year green card backlog is cleared if they pay fines, hold down jobs and learn English. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries to apply.
-Creates a new temporary worker program that would allow up to 200,000 guest-workers per year to enter on two-year Y visas that could be renewed twice, provided they returned to their home countries for a year between each stint. Sunsets the program after five years.
-Prevents the Y and Z visa programs from taking effect until security and enforcement triggers are met, including adding 20,000 border agents, 370 miles of fencing, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and a new worker verification system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers.
-Creates a new employment-based point system for new immigrants to qualify for green cards based on their education and skill level, and eliminates or limits visa preferences for family members of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.
-Includes a special, less burdensome path to legal status for undocumented agricultural workers and high school graduates who came to the U.S. illegally with their parents.
Here's the bottom line: this bill is not about fixing our illegal immigration problem. It's about legalizing twenty million government dependents who will vote Democrat, and who will provide cheap labor for big business. This isn't a case of either Democrats or Republicans singly giving in to lobbyists. This is bipartisan wrecking of the country.
I've been more involved with letting my voice be heard on this bill than on anything so far. I called and e-mailed both my state senators to express my opposition to the bill. I e-mailed Mitch McConnell to express my hope that he would oppose the bill. I went to a town meeting held by my local representative to get my point of view across.
The bottom line is this: once the bill is signed, all bets are off. Given that the government has had no desire to enforce immigration law for the past twenty years, I have no reason to believe that new laws will be enforced either. Once these illegals are made legal, there will be no incentive to penalize them or send them home. It will never happen. To be even more plain, the government cannot be trusted to enforce the laws that they have written.
Immigration doesn't need to be dealt with in one massive comprehensive boondoggle of a bill. It needs to be done one step at a time. First things first: seal up the border. Second, revamp the system so it's not so difficult for those who want to legally come here to do so. Third, take away all incentive and then penalize employers who hire illegals. Those who are just here for money will leave on their own sooner or later, and those who want to assimilate and become Americans can do so. Finally, make English the national language. Make it the glue that helps to create our common culture.
RIP Immigration bill. Good riddance. Let's keep it dead. Sorry President Bush. Sorry John McCain and Lindsey Grahamnesty. You're wrong on this one.
And despite generally being a supporter of President Bush, I have to strongly disagree with him on immigration reform.
The more I learn about this bill, the worse it looks. And it may come back. Take a look at some of the provisions:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/8/101354.shtml?s=lh
-Allows illegal immigrants who were in the country as of Jan. 1, 2007, to come forward, pay fees and fines, pass a background check and receive an indefinitely renewable four-year Z visa to live and work legally in the U.S.
-Allows Z visa holders to get on a path to citizenship after an approximately eight-year green card backlog is cleared if they pay fines, hold down jobs and learn English. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries to apply.
-Creates a new temporary worker program that would allow up to 200,000 guest-workers per year to enter on two-year Y visas that could be renewed twice, provided they returned to their home countries for a year between each stint. Sunsets the program after five years.
-Prevents the Y and Z visa programs from taking effect until security and enforcement triggers are met, including adding 20,000 border agents, 370 miles of fencing, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and a new worker verification system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers.
-Creates a new employment-based point system for new immigrants to qualify for green cards based on their education and skill level, and eliminates or limits visa preferences for family members of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.
-Includes a special, less burdensome path to legal status for undocumented agricultural workers and high school graduates who came to the U.S. illegally with their parents.
Here's the bottom line: this bill is not about fixing our illegal immigration problem. It's about legalizing twenty million government dependents who will vote Democrat, and who will provide cheap labor for big business. This isn't a case of either Democrats or Republicans singly giving in to lobbyists. This is bipartisan wrecking of the country.
I've been more involved with letting my voice be heard on this bill than on anything so far. I called and e-mailed both my state senators to express my opposition to the bill. I e-mailed Mitch McConnell to express my hope that he would oppose the bill. I went to a town meeting held by my local representative to get my point of view across.
The bottom line is this: once the bill is signed, all bets are off. Given that the government has had no desire to enforce immigration law for the past twenty years, I have no reason to believe that new laws will be enforced either. Once these illegals are made legal, there will be no incentive to penalize them or send them home. It will never happen. To be even more plain, the government cannot be trusted to enforce the laws that they have written.
Immigration doesn't need to be dealt with in one massive comprehensive boondoggle of a bill. It needs to be done one step at a time. First things first: seal up the border. Second, revamp the system so it's not so difficult for those who want to legally come here to do so. Third, take away all incentive and then penalize employers who hire illegals. Those who are just here for money will leave on their own sooner or later, and those who want to assimilate and become Americans can do so. Finally, make English the national language. Make it the glue that helps to create our common culture.
RIP Immigration bill. Good riddance. Let's keep it dead. Sorry President Bush. Sorry John McCain and Lindsey Grahamnesty. You're wrong on this one.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Senators rebukes Joe Wilson
The whole question of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson and the 'sixteen words' in Bush's state of the union speech about Nigeria have come up again and again. Since we've discussed them here from time to time, and people are still of the impression that Bush made it all up, when I saw this article, I thought it was worth posting. I'm still looking to see if CNN or Reuters publishes anything, but it wouldn't surprise me if they ignore this completely. Having used the Valerie Plame non-scandal to attack Bush for years, they're not likely to be interested in the truth.
http://www.inboxrobot.com/news/senate-select-committee-intelligence
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1843217/posts
[quote]In a rare rebuke of a public official by name, the [B]Senate Select Intelligence Committee has issued a scathing report blasting former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV[/B].
The report claims [B]Wilson mislead the public and the intelligence committee about his trip to Niger in 2002[/B] on behalf of the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium in Africa.
Best know as the husband of former CIA officer Valerie Plame, Ambassador Wilson was catapulted to the limelight after he published an Op-Ed in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraq to make the case for war.
In his New York Times article, Wilson said that in February 2002 he was asked by the Central Intelligence Agency to travel to Niger to investigate "a particular intelligence report" that documented the sale of uranium to Iraq by the Niger government.
The CIA wanted him to "check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office," after Vice President Dick Cheney had raised questions about the purported uranium deals, he wrote.
Once he arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, Wilson says he met with U.S. Ambassador Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, then "spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea" and meeting with former government officials and others involved in the uranium business. "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."
And that is what he reported back to the CIA and to the State Department African Affairs Bureau, Wilson wrote. [B]But according to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, released last Friday, much of what Wilson wrote in the article, and has said since, about the trip "is not true."[/B]
Wilson wrote to the committee in July 2004 when they released an exhaustive investigation into the Niger uranium story that included the finding that he had been sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife. Wilson claimed that was "not true."
At the time, the Committee did not release the full text of the e-mail sent by Valerie Plame on Wilson to her superior that recommended him for the job, "thinking it was unnecessary in light of the other evidence" they had made public.
But now, "considering the controversy surrounding this document," the Senate committee decided to make the full text available to the public. The Valerie Plame e-mail shows without any doubt that she recommended her husband for the mission in Niger.
After recounting an earlier fact-finding mission he had carried out in Niger for the Agency, as well as his good contacts "with both the [prime minister] and the former minister of mines," she concluded by saying that her husband "may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything to pursue here."
In sworn testimony before the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform in March of this year, however, Plame denied categorically that she had suggested her husband's name. "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him," she said.
It was Valerie Plame's recommendation for the mission that caught the eye of Vice President Dick Cheney when Wilson's Op-Ed first appeared and ultimately led to the Special Counsel investigation into how her name — supposed classified — was "leaked" to the press.
[B]The committee found that internal intelligence community notes of meetings in which Valerie Plame participated "did not mark her name with a (C) as would be required to indicate that her association with the CIA was classified," as both Plame and her husband have said. These aren't the only instance where Wilson's account did not square with the facts, the senators found[/B].
Wilson has said in his book and in numerous public appearances that reports he reviewed from the U.S. ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, "indicated that there was nothing to the Niger-Iraq uranium story . . . This too is untrue," the committee found. On the contrary, Owens-Kirkpatrick wrote a cable to the State Department which said that the initial CIA reporting of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal "provides sufficient details to warrant another hard look at Niger's uranium sales."
Although Nigerien officials insisted in meetings with the Americans that no uranium would be sold to rogue nations, "we should not dismiss out of hand the possibility that some scheme could be, or has been, underway to supply Iraq with yellowcake from here," she wrote.
Perhaps the most damning conclusion of the Senate report has been known for nearly three years, but has remained classified until now. [B]In the initial July 2004 report, the Senate committee reported that the intelligence community "used or cleared the Niger-Iraq uranium intelligence fifteen times before the President's State of the Union address and four times after, saying in several papers that Iraq was ‘vigorously pursuing uranium from Africa.[/B]'"
Despite that finding, Democrats led by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin blasted President Bush for the "16 words" in the January 2003 speech that described Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Africa, calling them an effort to "cherry-pick" intelligence and to "mislead" the country and the world in a "rush to war."
In fact, the U.S. intelligence community continued to believe in the veracity of the Niger uranium story for many months after the speech, and didn't call back its original reporting until June 2003 — well after the liberation of Iraq.[/quote]
http://www.inboxrobot.com/news/senate-select-committee-intelligence
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1843217/posts
[quote]In a rare rebuke of a public official by name, the [B]Senate Select Intelligence Committee has issued a scathing report blasting former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV[/B].
The report claims [B]Wilson mislead the public and the intelligence committee about his trip to Niger in 2002[/B] on behalf of the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium in Africa.
Best know as the husband of former CIA officer Valerie Plame, Ambassador Wilson was catapulted to the limelight after he published an Op-Ed in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraq to make the case for war.
In his New York Times article, Wilson said that in February 2002 he was asked by the Central Intelligence Agency to travel to Niger to investigate "a particular intelligence report" that documented the sale of uranium to Iraq by the Niger government.
The CIA wanted him to "check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office," after Vice President Dick Cheney had raised questions about the purported uranium deals, he wrote.
Once he arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, Wilson says he met with U.S. Ambassador Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, then "spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea" and meeting with former government officials and others involved in the uranium business. "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."
And that is what he reported back to the CIA and to the State Department African Affairs Bureau, Wilson wrote. [B]But according to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, released last Friday, much of what Wilson wrote in the article, and has said since, about the trip "is not true."[/B]
Wilson wrote to the committee in July 2004 when they released an exhaustive investigation into the Niger uranium story that included the finding that he had been sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife. Wilson claimed that was "not true."
At the time, the Committee did not release the full text of the e-mail sent by Valerie Plame on Wilson to her superior that recommended him for the job, "thinking it was unnecessary in light of the other evidence" they had made public.
But now, "considering the controversy surrounding this document," the Senate committee decided to make the full text available to the public. The Valerie Plame e-mail shows without any doubt that she recommended her husband for the mission in Niger.
After recounting an earlier fact-finding mission he had carried out in Niger for the Agency, as well as his good contacts "with both the [prime minister] and the former minister of mines," she concluded by saying that her husband "may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything to pursue here."
In sworn testimony before the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform in March of this year, however, Plame denied categorically that she had suggested her husband's name. "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him," she said.
It was Valerie Plame's recommendation for the mission that caught the eye of Vice President Dick Cheney when Wilson's Op-Ed first appeared and ultimately led to the Special Counsel investigation into how her name — supposed classified — was "leaked" to the press.
[B]The committee found that internal intelligence community notes of meetings in which Valerie Plame participated "did not mark her name with a (C) as would be required to indicate that her association with the CIA was classified," as both Plame and her husband have said. These aren't the only instance where Wilson's account did not square with the facts, the senators found[/B].
Wilson has said in his book and in numerous public appearances that reports he reviewed from the U.S. ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, "indicated that there was nothing to the Niger-Iraq uranium story . . . This too is untrue," the committee found. On the contrary, Owens-Kirkpatrick wrote a cable to the State Department which said that the initial CIA reporting of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal "provides sufficient details to warrant another hard look at Niger's uranium sales."
Although Nigerien officials insisted in meetings with the Americans that no uranium would be sold to rogue nations, "we should not dismiss out of hand the possibility that some scheme could be, or has been, underway to supply Iraq with yellowcake from here," she wrote.
Perhaps the most damning conclusion of the Senate report has been known for nearly three years, but has remained classified until now. [B]In the initial July 2004 report, the Senate committee reported that the intelligence community "used or cleared the Niger-Iraq uranium intelligence fifteen times before the President's State of the Union address and four times after, saying in several papers that Iraq was ‘vigorously pursuing uranium from Africa.[/B]'"
Despite that finding, Democrats led by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin blasted President Bush for the "16 words" in the January 2003 speech that described Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Africa, calling them an effort to "cherry-pick" intelligence and to "mislead" the country and the world in a "rush to war."
In fact, the U.S. intelligence community continued to believe in the veracity of the Niger uranium story for many months after the speech, and didn't call back its original reporting until June 2003 — well after the liberation of Iraq.[/quote]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)