The Good Reverend
Ashcroft is lying
In the tradition of the rest of the Bush administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft says one thing while those under his command do the exact opposite. This one is about the libraries, as Talk Left and Martha Bridegam point out an article in USA Today in which various libraries report being contacted by the FBI for patron records, despite Ashcroft's claim otherwise:
"The number of times section 215 has been used to date is zero."Elisabeth Riba notes that the Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act contains a gag order:
(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.Thus, as Lis notes, anybody who has the knowledge to contradict Ashcroft, can't.
Note to Clark team: How to get Revenge
Talking Points Memo has a great Dean retrospective, looking back on his fine, pre-war performance on Face The Nation, in which he says things like:
My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way?
Why is it now that Clark has said that he would have probably voted for the Iraq Congressional resolution, he's getting hammered in the press:
On the third day of his campaign, Gen. Wesley K. Clark struggled today to clarify his statement on Thursday that he would "probably" have voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq.
Clark team take note: I'm sure you're still smarting from that leak (allegedly from the Dean folks) right before the General's candidacy announcement. Get some revenge by quitely reporting TPM's findings to the press and undercut Dean's support from the anti-war crowd.
Star Tribune rips Cheney a new one
(Thanks to Atrios)
Editorial: Truth / Too little of it on Iraq (Star Tribune).
The editorial focuses on statements made by Cheney on Meet the Press (and elsewhere), but concludes by demanding that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz be "called to account for their deliberate misstatements".
Rumsfeld comes clean on Iraq-9/11 connection (almost)
Story (Associated Press)
At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.
"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said. (Emphasis mine)
Gosh, Donny-R, there's a difference between being able to say it and it being true.
First shots against Clark fired
Matt Drudge has a link up to this March 2000 BBC News story about the Russian standoff at Pristina airport during the Kosovo war, and suggests that General Sir Mike Jackson, a British commander, had to stop Clark from starting "the Third World War".
The story goes like this: the Ruskies expected control of their own sector of Kosovo, but didn't get it. So, they unilaterally took the airport against the wishes of multilateral forces, under the command of NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Clark. Wesley Clark, with the support of NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, wanted to put forces into place to block the Russians from assuming control of the airport. When Jackson vetoed the proposed counter-maneuver, Clark backed down and asked Hungary and Romania to deny the Russians access to their airspace.
Here's where it gets good: "During the stand-off, Moscow insisted its troops would be answerable only to its own commanders."
Gee, this sounds familiar, doesn't it? Bush wants the support of the United Nations in Iraq, but doesn't want the U.N. to have control over U.S. forces (BBC).
The simple fact of the matter is that Clark did NOT put forces in place, obeying the British veto and a compromise (Times of India) was reached in which the Russians were put in charge of the Pristina airport. Meanwhile, Bush goes against the clear wishes of the international community and invades a sovereign nation under curious pretenses. And don't forget that during the 11-week Kosovo campaign, not ONE American or British soldier was killed in action.
Well, now, the second post. Expect a third in April!
Anyway, things have progressed in life. I'll spare the details, but I'm running with a new crowd of people now. After my ex (Chris) dumped me on Valentine's Day, I had very, very few people to hang out with -- especially since she decided that to "get over" me, she couldn't see me at all (meaning that I couldn't hang out with many of my high school and post-high school friends). I ran into an old friend from middle school (Brooke), who introduced me to some new people she had just met (she was in the same situation I was). Things have progressed from there.
I don't know, though. I like my friends, but I don't want to stay here. I've got amazing friends in Whittier, CA and I definitely want to go back there. From a positive perspective, it's good to know that I'll still have friends in Boulder when I return, which is a far different perspective than seven months ago.
I'm in school again -- Front Range Community College. It's a CC, I know, but I've met some cool people there and it's enough to get my parents to let me go back to Whittier. The problem is that I'm running into the same problems I always do: I don't want to go to class, and then I don't go, and then I'm too afraid of how far behind I am to even return to class. This week, though, I'm sucking it up and just going -- I'd rather be behind and in class than not in class at all.
Plus, if I do well in school, my parents will give me $20,000 for a car. There are lots of conditions attached -- mainly on what kind of car I could get. I'm thinking WRX.
Anyway, I'm still not sure what to do with this blog. I'll probably just turn it into a spectacle of my garden-variety interests: music, politics, and whatever is going on in my life.
Then again, nobody's reading this. (Not even me -- I can't read.)