Marking the halfway point.

Gil admits this week that "It’s true that this space is generally reserved for conservative perfidy." Well, duh.

And he admits that Knoll was "wrong" for showing up to a funeral of a slain marine and allegedly stated that "our government" opposes the war in Iraq.

But at this point, I honestly have to stand up for Catherine Baker Knoll, believe it or not. Well, up to the point where she allegedly said that thing about "our government".

True, what she supposedly did was tacky. Handing out your political business card at a funeral isn't the brightest idea. But Knoll claims that she was handing out her contact information should the family need any assistance.

Now that's not so bad.

Knoll stating her position on the war at the time; ...eh, not the best plan. That's where Knoll went wrong. (At least it was allegedly in a personal conversation and not at a podium.)

But at least she showed concern enough to be there and personally offer any help she could to someone grieving. As far as that goes, I respect that.

Since then, Knoll has offered up a letter of apology. You can view it here.

It's actually a decent apology. I've seen some bloggers say it was a "cop-out" apology that was "Durbin-style". I don't think it was. I think that Knoll realizes that she did something tacky and made a political mistake of sorts while attempting to do something decent; comfort and provide support to a grieving family member.

Rehashing three month old info

This is in response to the latest local Christian community smear by Gil. Why does the local newspaper continue to permit this?

SO, Thomas Jefferson is the source of the "smear"?

In context, (if Gil would actually take the time to read Mr. Dobson's piece in it's entirety instead of selecting pieces out of context), Mr. Dobson used the phrase "most dangrous" out of a Thomas Jefferson quote.

Jefferson issued one more warning in 1823, just three years before his death. This time, however, he was not simply predicting the rise of an imperious court; by then he had observed it first hand. Jefferson said, "At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous…"20

Dobson's April Newsletter

The number "20" is a footnote (or possibly endnote) that directs you to this page.

Although I didn't find that exact quotes, I found other Jefferson quotes. I assume that the page could have been edited since April. Among the quotes I did find:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the [b]despotism of an oligarchy[/b]. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
[/quote]

That isn't a "smear". That's a reference to the language used by Thomas Jefferson describing exactly the situation at hand.

Merriam Webster's defines a "smear" as "a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization".

Dobson appears substantiated.

As I explained, Dobson was discussing the issue of capital punishment for minors when he referred to the Jefferson quote "most dangerous". Obviously, Gil wants to continue taking this out of context to provide "proof" that the local Christian community is smearing someone.

And isn't Gil's column really just a smear against Dr. Dobson misdirected at local Christians (isn't Dobson in Colorado)?

Hold still, Gil. Let me get that plank out of your eye.

Wilson denied trip was "CIA trip" at least twice

Joe Wilson stated "No. This was not a CIA mission" and "My trip out there, by the way, was not a CIA trip" in two separate interviews.

Of course, we now know that it was a CIA trip. The whole allegation appears to be based on this memo.

The memo, which discussed allegations that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa, notes that Plame attended a meeting about sending her husband, a retired career diplomat with a background in African and Iraqi affairs, to look into the claims, according to the government sources. - CNN article linked above about the alleged memo

This conflicts with the Men's Daily link above, as well, where Joe Wilson states outright that his wife had nothing to do with sending him to Niger and that she did not suggest him.

Check this blog!

Jeff Gannon's Blog


Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame - July 11, 2005

CIA Tried to Discredit Secret Memo Through Washington Post - July 18, 2005

Wilson interview: Trip to Niger was not a CIA trip

Ok, now I've seen it all.

Here is a PBS interview with Joe Wilson.

Among other things, Wilson states "My trip out there, by the way, was not a CIA trip."

Here are some other interesting excerpts:

Q: Did they (the CIA) show you the report (from Cheney's office)?

A: No, no. They had a report, which of course was classified. They briefed me on the contents of it, and the report was based upon this memorandum of agreement.

Stop right there. He couldn't see it, because it was classified. However, they briefed him on what was in the classified report that he couldn't see? Does that make any sense?

Q: Did they [the CIA] say where these concerns came from, what part of the government they came from?

A: They did, yes. They said that the office of the vice president had raised questions about this report, and they'd asked them to look into it.

This contradicts George Tenet's statement on this that the CIA, on their own initiative, sent Wilson to Niger.

Q: So the vice president had made an inquiry to the CIA to investigate, and the CIA called you.

A: I think even "to investigate" is probably a little bit stronger than what the vice president probably said.

Yeah, "probably".

Then it gets real good.

Q: Why didn't you request the document?

A: It wasn't necessary.

Q: But if you're going to go investigate the charges that are made in the document, wouldn't it have been useful to show the document to officials?

A: There were no charges made in the document. The document was a purported memorandum of agreement between two governments. It was not necessary for the purposes of inquiring whether in the context of the uranium business or in the context of Niger government bureaucracy procedures, decision-making procedures, whether such a decision could have happened, whether such a sale could have taken place.

Q:But isn't it evidence? It's evidence.

A: It's evidence. It might be useful if you're a prosecutor. It might be useful if you're a private investigator. It wasn't necessary for the purposes of going out and looking at how the uranium business does business, how they do it. It wasn't necessary in terms of going out and generally speaking, talking to the whole question of how a government makes these decisions. Clearly if they had had the memorandum of agreement itself and the signatures on it, then that might have been helpful. But they did not have the memorandum itself. There was just a report of this purported memorandum of agreement.

Then the bombshell...

Q: So you understood that the CIA didn't even have these documents?

A: That's correct.

KABOOM!

Q: They had heard about them from another intelligence service?

A: They had a report from their intelligence service, from their field operative, based upon either a viewing of these documents or a third party's having shared with them information relating to the document.

Q: I see. So it's in some ways hearsay, or "We've seen something, but we want to investigate."

A: That's right.

Ka-pow! Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA based on hearsay! He hadn't seen any of the documents - the alleged memorandum or the memorandum that was supposedly from Cheney's office. Why did he even go?

Q: Did you ever call back over to the CIA and say, "What's going on with this stuff? (in context of the 16 words)"

A: No.

Ba-bam!

Q: Why not?

A: Didn't need to. Talked to the State Department. My trip out there, by the way, was not a CIA trip. My travel was reimbursed by the CIA, but I made it very clear before I went out there that I don't do clandestine. I can do discreet, but I don't do clandestine. As a consequence, before I went out, I also briefed the State Department.

The first person I met when I was out there was the U.S. ambassador. The last person I met before I left, for the purposes of debriefing on what I had found, was the U.S. ambassador. So it was perfectly acceptable for me to contact the Department of State. Plus, it was a lot easier, because that was the culture in which I had grown up, so I knew all those people.

Ridiculous. Now the CIA didn't even send him, even though they paid for the trip?

Wilson also said he is "apolitical" because H.W. Bush appointed him Ambassador. But Gabon, Principe and Sao Tome are nowhere near Niger (see previous post for maps that will make you laugh your ass off). And that was 1992-1995. After 1995, he was no longer an H.W. Bush appointee. Hello, Joe. Novak wrote his article in 2003!

When Novak said he was a "Clinton appointee", his most recent appointment at the time was when he was appointed by President Clinton to head African Affairs at the National Security Council.

Then he goes on CNN to try and correct Novak for calling him a "Clinton appointee"?

He was one!

Bush didn't lie, but Joe Wilson sure doesn't look like he has all of his cards in the deck, does he? Nor do the Democrats who keep defending this sham.

This, of course, all leads up to "Rovegate" -- the non-event of the century.

Joe Wilson's "first political appointees"

This is just too good. I posted earlier that Joe Wilson said this from a September 2003 interview with Paula Zahn:

WILSON: Let me make a couple of points about that.

First of all, Novak also said that I was a Clinton appointee. In actual fact, my first political appointee was as ambassador. And I was appointed by George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush. So I really am apolitical in all of this.

As someone pointed out, some people don't consider the many other numerous positions held by Joe Wilson as "political appointees", so he is correct. Well, why would you consider, then, these Ambassador appointments "political appointments" to Gabon, Principe, and Sao Tome? Take a look at the map.

Principe and Sao Tome


Gabon


These are obviously not in Niger. These don't even border Niger. Two of them are islands in the Atlantic Ocean.

I am wondering what kind of "political appointee" this really was? It doesn't seem very political at all.

Think about this. What does H.W. Bush assigning him to these places have to do with Novak calling him a Clinton appointee in relation to uranium and Niger?

We now know he would not have been in Niger unless the CIA hadn't sent them "on their own initiative", at the request of his wife. Joe Wilson was appointed by President Clinton to head African Affairs at the National Security Council. We also know that Vice President Cheney doesn't know Wilson and never saw any report from him.

Could it be that he leaked his own wife's name and blamed it on Republicans, much like he's falsely blamed them on more than one occasion for sending him to Niger?

Wilson fibbed in Paula Zahn interview?

In a September 2003 interview with Paula Zahn, Joe Wilson stated:

WILSON: Let me make a couple of points about that.

First of all, Novak also said that I was a Clinton appointee. In actual fact, my first political appointee was as ambassador. And I was appointed by George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush. So I really am apolitical in all of this.

That seems to differ alot with this bio of Joseph Wilson IV.

...In 1982, he was appointed Deputy Chief of Mission in Bujumbura, Burundi. In 1985-1986, he served in the offices of Senator Albert Gore and the House Majority Whip, Representative Thomas Foley, as an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow. He was Deputy Chief of Mission in Brazzaville, Congo, 1986-88, prior to his assignment to Baghdad...

Ambassador Wilson served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council from June 1997 until July 1998. In that capacity he was responsible for the coordination of U.S. policy to the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa, He was one of the principal architecs of President Clinton's historic trip to Africa in March 1998.

According to this site, Wilson was appointed Ambassador to South Africa under Reagan.

Of course, Joseph Wilson is known to be a registered Democrat.

And, of course, Joe Wilson, the Bush-bashing former ambassador, was appointed by President Clinton to head African Affairs at the National Security Council.

That makes you a "Clinton appointee", does it not?

Rush weighs in

Final Nail in Rove Story Coffin

"Vitriol" vs. "Invective"

I find it ironic that in one paragraph, Gil appears to condemn this "one guy in particular" for calling Democrat's rhetoric "hateful venom" and "vitriol".

Yet he turns around and calls the Republican response "invective".

invective: abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will

vs.

vitriol: abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will

Source

Then he says that's done by those "whose entire modus operandi involves accusing others of the very shenanigans they immerse themselves in, day after day."

Tried looking in the mirror lately?

Vitriol, vitriol, vitriol...

Response to this week's vitriol.

Well, I've gone over the "Rove situation" (if such a thing actually exists at this point) more than enough on http://smartretorts.blogspot.com.

If Gil could pry himself away from the Democratic Underground or DailyKOS for more than two minutes, perhaps he would realize that Karl Rove learned of "the leak" from Novak. Which means all this squawking (from various locations) as Rove being Cooper's or Novak's source was much a-do about nothing, really. Then again, have we come to expect anything less other than mindless, baseless drivel based entirely on a whim?

This week's column isn't that far off the mark, but I might have gotten myself a little acknowledgement, even if someone didn't have the cajones (or smarts) to mention me by name. I'm not saying I know the source of Smart's comments, but let's just say that we all know who's referred to Gil's columns as "vitriol".

Putting that aside for a moment, I found it darn right surprising that given all of the revelations from Joe Wilson himself, that his name barely came up once in a column discussing the "Rove situation". Well, Ok. Maybe not all that surprising, because it puts the Dem story about Rove in the can. And rightfully so.

Of course, it's been established that Joe Wilson lied to us about who sent him to Niger. He lied about knowing information on Rove being a "leak".

He's told so many outright inconsistencies that it looks like he should rewrite his own book "The Politics of Truth". I guess this declared "Centrist" forgot he was a registered Democrat contributing thousands of dollars to Democratic candidate's political campaigns, including John Kerry? How "Centrist" is that?

You see, unlike some people, I have the cajones to name names. I name Joe Wilson as the likely source of the leak of his own wife's name. Who better to know the inside information than Plame's own husband?

Karl Rove seems to have the same problem as I do here - he named names ("Wilson's wife). But it was "apparently" the truth and based on logic (oh yes- that "logic" that Gil allegedly uses).

Rove, that poor man, has come under intense scrutiny for something that doesn't even appear to be a crime. And it was the TRUTH. Why?

Because he told us the truth about the story of the WMDs. And ultralibs can't stand it.

It's no surprise that Rove and others have come under the wing of the ultralib "squawk attack". That's probably just another good reason behind what happened in election '04. Let's hope they keep squawking full steam and making fools of themselves all the more.

Good job, Karl Rove. Carry on.

Priceless.

Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak
Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?
How about the least likely suspect? (Joe Wilson)

Check http://www.drudgereport.com for some other good links.

Dennis the Menace brings down Mr. Wilson

This was just too good. Here are Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements

Former Assistant Deputy Attorney General: Nothing illegal

Worth Repeating:

Ex-Prosecutor: Plame Leak Not Illegal

The former prosecutor who helped draft the law that Democrats say was violated when someone in the Bush administration leaked a CIA worker's name to columnist Robert Novak now says that no laws were broken in the case.

Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."

For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"

The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.

Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA's general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.

Neither did then-CIA Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as is also routinely done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication.

In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role a full nine years before.

"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."

Noted the Timesman: "All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put [Plame's] life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over."

So why – with a special prosecutor now threatening to toss Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail if they don't give up their sources in the Plame case – aren't their lawyers invoking the "no laws were broken" defense?

Explains the National Review's Rich Lowry: The Miller-Cooper defense hasn't made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's "crime of the century" wasn't really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.

"It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it," says Lowry.

"That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid."

CIA suspected Plame outted nine years ago

Is DailyKos crying wolf over Rove allegedly outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative?

According to this article, Ex-Prosecutor: Plame Leak Not Illegal, the outing happened 9 years ago:

In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role a full nine years before.

"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."

Here is the column by Nicholas Krisof called Secrets of the Scandal, a liberal writer for the New York Times. This is my recommended daily reading. :)

Update: There's another post on Newsmax called "Prosecutor: Karl Rove Not Target of Probe" today (pointed out by The Museum of Leftwing Lunacy).

Leakgate sham?

Switching gears now to what liberals are calling on DKos "Leakgate".

Of course, libs are calling for Rove to resign based on this newstory by Michael Isikoff:

Matt Cooper's Source:
What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter.

Supposedly, Newsweek has the Cooper email. They would not release it in its entirety, but here are the parts reconstructed from the story.

Here are the contents revealed (P&C=Personal & Confidential):

To: bureau chief Michael Duffy
From: Time correspondent Matt Cooper

Subject: Rove/P&C,

Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ...

...big warning...

...not to get too far out on Wilson. ...

...not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ...

...Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney...

...it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip...

...please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]

The Newsweek article then states:

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative.

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

Looks like another big Demo-sham? The leak has an alternate source? Of course, this has been known since about 2003 when Novak stated that Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this.

Joe Wilson, Valeria Plame's husband, does not even believe Rove is the source of the leak. Check here.

However, the insinuations and calls for resignation live on, despite reality...

Conyers contradicts Michael Smith interview

Ok, I hate to go over this again and again. But if the libs out there want to keep it up, I'm fair game. Previously, I posted Conyers reply on DailyKOS called "The Facts".

However, many of these "facts" seem to directly contradict this Michael Smith interview. This was an exclusive interview conducted by DowningStreetMemo.com.

For example, Conyers claims that the memos exist. However, Smith claims they he handed the originals back to the government for legal purposes (after photocopying them). He then had them retyped and destroyed the photocopies. But first he scanned "two or three" pages of the photocopies and put them in his September 18, 2004 Daily Telegraph article (pictured previously in this blog).

How can Conyers claim that the memos exist? He doesn't have them. Smith doesn't have them. Did Conyers call London and get access to top secret British documents?

Can't get the story straight?

Week 10

In response to this.

Please tell me you didn't just cite this as the reason that Santorum takes the interests of corporations over families:

"Santorum has consistently voted in favor of these interests in Congress — voting against the re-importation of drugs from Canada, for example..."

Here is the roll call of this particular vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00201

It passed 78 to 21.

So how can you cite this as an example of Santorum putting the interests of corporations over families? This "no" vote became irrelevant in the scheme of things once it passed.

And why, might you ask, did Santorum vote no to S.812?

One only has to go as far as this article.

Analysis: U.S. report fuels Rx drug debate

By Al Swanson
UPI Urban Affairs Correspondent

Chicago, IL, Dec. 22 (UPI) -- A study by a federal task force that concluded making commercially imported prescription drugs widely available likely would save U.S. consumers only about 1 percent a year fuels the debate over importing cheaper foreign medicines.

However, Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said the report concluded importation of prescription drugs by individuals for personal use cannot be made safe and reliable.

"There is simply no amount of resources that can guarantee that the content and quality of foreign prescription drugs purchased via the Internet, mail order, or other such means are safe for patients to consume," Kyl and Santorum said in a statement. "Furthermore, these studies conclude that creating a system for commercial importation that upholds traditional standards of safety and quality would be enormously expensive, substantially reducing any cost savings to the consumer."

It appears that only two years later - this report was released to the public. Makes you feel very safe, doesn't it?

More info on the task force report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Let's all cross our fingers and hope that our drugs continue to be safe for consumption, despite the passage of this "quick fix" bill that in the end - might not save anyone a dime (and could cost someone their health safety).

Voted NO on allowing importation of Rx drugs from Canada.

S. 812, as amended; Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2002. Vote to pass a bill that would permit a single 30-month stay against Food and Drug Administration approval of a generic drug patent when a brand-name company's patent is challenged. The secretary of Health and Human Services would be authorized to announce regulations allowing pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers that provide drugs for importation would be required to register with Health and Human Services. Individuals would be allowed to import prescription drugs from Canada. The medication would have to be for an individual use and a supply of less than 90-days.

Bill S.812 ; vote number 2002-201 on Jul 31, 2002

More info on the vote.

Response to Conyers post pulled off of KOS

In my post, I referenced this interview with Michael Smith (posted on DailyKOS and at one time on DowningStreetMemo.com. The interview confirms alot of the information I've been posting here.

Here is Conyers quote, as it appears that KOS removed alot of this.

The Facts (4.00 / 8)

If your concern is the semantics of the single line "facts fixed around the policy," then let me point you to the other seven documents leaked to the public in connection with the first Downing Street Minutes. There is no question that Britain's top defense and intelligence officials were convinced that the President of the United States was determined to invade Iraq at any cost. All eight documents have been verified as accurate and authentic by both British and American sources.

And if your concern is the fact that the documents actually delivered to the public were transcriptions of the originals, please let me direct you to this insightful interview journalist Michael Smith gave with Raw Story in early June. Smith was forced through some typewriter acrobatics in order to protect his source from the British Official Secrets Act. The original documents still exist. The transcriptions are completely accurate.

The argument here should not be with the people asking the questions, it should be with the Administration that refuses to answer

by Congressman John Conyers on Fri Jul 8th, 2005 at 16:14:24 PDT.

No need to go over alot of this. Most of what's being discussed here has already been posted.

However, my key point is that Conyers inaccurately referred to the May 1, 2005 memo as "the first". We've established quite easily (even admitted in the Michael Smith interview) that the first leaked memos were on September 18, 2004 in the Daily Telegraph. This directly contradicts Conyers first statement, right off the bat.

I noticed alot of other contradictions. Michael Smith says he does not have the originals - he gave them back to the government. He also states that he destroyed the photocopies he had. How can Conyers assert that the original documents still exist when they aren't in his hands or Smith's?

After reading this blog, the Michael Smith interview and thinking objectively, I'd think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that John Conyers wouldn't know "a fact" if it sat on his face.

If you want any background, or further info, you can still read my original posts (including the Rycroft email) in my blog.

Rep Conyers takes a swipe on DailyKos!

You aren't going to believe this one!

Yes, Rep John Conyers took a swipe at me on Dailykos! Scroll down at this link to the post called "The Facts".

Check this link.

Of course, I provided the appropriate smart retort, "Actually, Mr. Conyers, allow me to correct you."

You won't believe this!

This is unbelievable!

Unfortunately, there was a reported terrorist attack in London killing 40 people and wounding several hundred others (numbers are preliminary). But what is even MORE shocking than that is that at the link above, someone blamed Bush for the attack. Come on, people. Surely, you know that is wrong in so many ways and goes far beyond the protections of constitutionally-protected free speech? I am all for the right of people to dissent, oppose or otherwise be against a policy or set of policies. But this just boggles the mind how someone could make that type of allegation, doesn't it?

For an interesting take, read this.

Author of DSM, Rycroft, on Saddam and WMD threat

Click here to see the email. Shockingly, the author of the Downing Street Memo (Matthew Rycroft) discusses why Saddam must be removed -- WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists! Liberals claim Bush/Blair lied about the reasons for war in Iraq. Did Matthew Rycroft, author of the liberal's own sacred "Downing Street Memo" lie to us, too, when he stated the same thing in September 2002?

Next up? Leakgate hoax

"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," Novak said on "Crossfire." "There is no great crime here."

This is from 2003! Let's catch up a little, people!

Source

Enough said.

Week 9

In response to this.

Once again, a slap at religion?

Parents won't let their children question their teaching because they're religious?

Who's to say that public schools won't indoctrinate children any more than a religious parent might?

Answer me this: how many rights are located in the Bill of Rights?

Raise your hand if it's ten.

Wrong!

Visit:
here

The original Bill of Rights contained 12 "articles". Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution does not contain the entire Bill of Rights. It contains a condensed, ratified version of the Bill of Rights. Some people are surprised to discover that "Article the Second" became ratified as Amendment XXVII in 1992 (the 11th article from the Bill of Rights to be ratified into our Constitution)!

Yet many of us have been indoctrinated to equate the Bill of Rights with the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. If you were to go to Washington D.C. and visit the archive that has the Bill of Rights on display, you might receive a bit of a shock at what you find (see the link above).

This is one example of the way we've all been indoctrinated by public schools -religious or secular.

I can think of many other examples. As I recall, they had the wrong head on Brontosaurus for a long time.

Textbooks once taught "Piltdown man", a hoax about a human skull.

Christopher Columbus is recognized as "discovering America" (what about Leif Ericson, Columbus' Predecessor by Nearly 500 Years?)

The track record of public schools is no shining example of perfection.

I really don't see why home schooling would lead children to not question the facts that they receive any more than not questioning any other guardian/authority/teacher figure.

I don't think home-schooling is any worse than public schooling in this respect. If anything, I would think that home-schooling would be better.

Eventually, no matter how you are schooled, you are going to be subjected to the "real world".

Crest/Coat of Arms distorted, doesn't match official crest?

Uh oh! Take a look at Jack Straw's official coat of arms here:



Now look at it here on the "official" draft of one of the Downing Street memos:



Rut-roh! It doesn't quite match!? See what a real memo from Jack Straw's office looks like here.

Sure doesn't look like this one, does it?



Notice the subtle differences in the logos? Some are "not so subtle".