Monday, August 25, 2008

Iraqi PM says deal must include ‘specific deadline’ for withdrawal

Now, isn't that just plain interesting!?! Not only does al-Maliki want combat forces out on a definite time-table but also training and advising forces as well. I suppose that is the difference in how a liberating army would be treated by a greatful nation...versus an occupying army? Gulp...



The Associated Press
updated 11:16 a.m. CT, Mon., Aug. 25, 2008

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Monday no security agreement with the United States could be reached unless it included a "specific deadline" for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Last week, U.S. and Iraqi officials said the two sides had agreed tentatively to a schedule which included a broad pullout of combat forces by the end of 2011 with a residual U.S. force remaining behind to continue training and advising the Iraqi security forces.

Those officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the text had not been approved by either government.

But al-Maliki's remarks Monday suggested that the Iraqi government is still not satisfied with that arrangement.

"There can be no treaty or agreement except on the basis of Iraq's full sovereignty," al-Maliki told a gathering of tribal sheiks. He said such an agreement must be based on the principle that "no foreign soldier remains in Iraq after a specific deadline, not an open time frame."

President Bush has long resisted a timetable for pulling out troops from Iraq, even under heavy pressure from a nation distressed by American deaths and discouraged by the length of the war that began in 2003.

But that has somewhat softened recently, with the Bush administration now speaking about "time horizons." But even "time horizons" now appears unacceptable to al-Maliki's government.

"We find this to be too vague," a close al-Maliki aide told The Associated Press on Monday. "We don't want the phrase 'time horizons.' We are not comfortable with that phrase," said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the ongoing negotiations.

Another top al-Maliki aide, also speaking on condition of anonymity for the same reason, said the Iraqi government has "stopped talking about the withdrawal of combat troops. We just talk about withdrawals," including trainers and logistics troops.

In his Monday address, al-Maliki also suggested that the question of granting immunity to U.S. military personnel or contractors continued to be a sticking point in the negotiations.

In one key part of the draft agreement, private U.S. contractors would be subject to Iraqi law but the Americans are holding firm that U.S. troops would remain subject exclusively to U.S. legal jurisdiction.

Al-Maliki said Monday that his country could not grant "open immunity" to Iraqis or foreigners because that would be tantamount to a violating the "sanctity of Iraqi blood." He did not elaborate.

Another al-Maliki aide, speaking on condition of anonymity also because of the sensitivity of the subject, said Iraq remained adamant that the last American soldier must leave Iraq by the end of 2011 — regardless of conditions at the time.

The agreement had been scheduled to be concluded by the end of last month.

No new date has been set, but the two al-Maliki aides said a final draft was now available to the political leaderships in Baghdad and Washington. One of the two said a breakthrough was not expected before next month.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26391358/

© 2008 MSNBC.com

Powered by ScribeFire.

Jon Stewart lectures reporters on coverage

Speaking truth to power can often include a punchline and rimshot...



PoliticalTicker
From CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson
August 25, 2008

Posted: 03:34 PM ET

DENVER (CNN) - As Comedy Central's "Daily Show" descends on Denver for four days of coverage, Jon Stewart took after the "established" media for getting too cozy with candidates and regurgitating campaign spin when it comes to political coverage.

In a breakfast with reporters, Stewart directed most of his ire at the 24-hour cable news networks, which he called "gerbil wheels," and said the media at-large had "abdicated" to what he called the "slow-witted beast."

He said the never-ending television news cycle creates a "false sense of urgency" and forces reporters to "follow the veins that have been mined," instead of pursuing serious and in-depth reporting.

Even as Stewart shredded reporters for, in his estimation, getting too cozy with and used by political candidates, he readily admitted that candidates flock to his show to attract his much sought after younger audience. "It's just one part of their sales pitch," he said.

Stewart said he found neither Sens. McCain or Obama particularly funny and it was "absolutely irrelevant" which one takes the White House because "the jokes will be there." He dismissed criticism that comedians are having a hard time joking about Obama because of his race and said "the age joke with McCain is somewhat meaningless because it's already trite."

The choice of Joe Biden as Obama's runningmate, Stewart said, was refreshing because of the Delaware senator's large personality and endless possibility for jokes. "Biden is really nice. His style is so effusive and unguarded," Stewart said. "He's emotion plus."

Stewart said politicians in recent campaigns are "animatronic" because all of the "humanity has been managed out of campaigns." He referenced the back-and-forth during the Pennsylvania Democratic primary over Obama's lack of bowling skills.

"It's stunning where this election is going to be decided on," he said. "Or what we allow it to be decided on."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/25/jon-stewart-lectures-reporters-on-coverage/

© 2008 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Beijing 2008 Olympics

Just wanted to say, Wow! Warts and all...the world uniting for the thrill of sport and game is a wonder to behold!



Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Does Bush Believe McCain Was Tortured?

Well...it is a good question?! Thanks for speaking truth to power, Andrew Sullivan!



Post from Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish

19 Aug 2008 10:54 am

In all the discussion of John McCain's recently recovered memory of a religious epiphany in Vietnam, one thing has been missing. The torture that was deployed against McCain emerges in all the various accounts. It involved sleep deprivation, the withholding of medical treatment, stress positions, long-time standing, and beating. Sound familiar?

According to the Bush administration's definition of torture, McCain was therefore not tortured.

Cheney denies that McCain was tortured; as does Bush. So do John Yoo and David Addington and George Tenet. In the one indisputably authentic version of the story of a Vietnamese guard showing compassion, McCain talks of the agony of long-time standing. A quarter century later, Don Rumsfeld was putting his signature to memos lengthening the agony of "long-time standing" that victims of Bush's torture regime would have to endure. These torture techniques are, according to the president of the United States, merely "enhanced interrogation."

No war crimes were committed against McCain. And the techniques used are, according to the president, tools to extract accurate information. And so the false confessions that McCain was forced to make were, according to the logic of the Bush administration, as accurate as the "intelligence" we have procured from "interrogating" terror suspects. Feel safer?

The cross-in-the-dirt story - although deeply fishy to any fair observer - is in the realm of the unprovable. But the actual techniques used on McCain, and the lies they were designed to legitimize, are a matter of historical record. And the government of the United States now practices the very same techniques that the Communist government of North Vietnam once proudly used against American soldiers. When they are used against future John McCains, the victims will know, in a way McCain didn't, that their own government has no moral standing to complain.

Now the kicker: in the Military Commissions Act, McCain acquiesced to the use of these techniques against terror suspects by the CIA. And so the tortured became the enabler of torture. Someone somewhere cried out in pain for the same reasons McCain once did. And McCain let it continue.

These are the prices people pay for power.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/was-mccain-tort.html

Copyright © 2008 Andrew Sullivan. All rights reserved.

Jack Cafferty Asks: Is McCain another George W. Bush?

I have a profound sense of agreement with Jack Cafferty on this issue of presidential intelligence. Most importantly to me, "I am sick and tired of the president of the United States embarrassing me." We produce the brightest and best that the world can offer...why can't we elect a few of them to public office? Sheesh!



By Jack Cafferty
CNN

Editor's Note: Jack Cafferty is the author of the best-seller "It's Getting Ugly Out There: The Frauds, Bunglers, Liars, and Losers Who Are Hurting America." He provides commentary on CNN's "The Situation Room" daily from 4 p.m.-7 p.m. You can also visit Jack's Cafferty File blog.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Russia invades Georgia and President Bush goes on vacation. Our president has spent one-third of his entire two terms in office either at Camp David, Maryland, or at Crawford, Texas, on vacation.

His time away from the Oval Office included the month leading up to 9/11, when there were signs Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America, and the time Hurricane Katrina destroyed the city of New Orleans.

Sen. John McCain takes weekends off and limits his campaign events to one a day. He made an exception for the religious forum on Saturday at Saddleback Church in Southern California.

I think he made a big mistake. When he was invited last spring to attend a discussion of the role of faith in his life with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, McCain didn't bother to show up. Now I know why.

It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven." Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.

Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?

Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.

He was asked "if evil exists." His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to "the gates of hell." That was it.

He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.

One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has -- virtually none.

Where are John McCain's writings exploring the vexing moral issues of our time? Where are his position papers setting forth his careful consideration of foreign policy, the welfare state, education, America's moral responsibility in the world, etc., etc., etc.?


John McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899 at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. His father and grandfather were four star admirals in the Navy. Some have suggested that might have played a role in McCain being admitted. His academic record was awful. And it shows over and over again whenever McCain is called upon to think on his feet.

He no longer allows reporters unfettered access to him aboard the "Straight Talk Express" for a reason. He simply makes too many mistakes. Unless he's reciting talking points or reading from notes or a TelePrompTer, John McCain is lost. He can drop bon mots at a bowling alley or diner -- short glib responses that get a chuckle, but beyond that McCain gets in over his head very quickly.

I am sick and tired of the president of the United States embarrassing me. The world we live in is too complex to entrust it to someone else whose idea of intellectual curiosity and grasp of foreign policy issues is to tell us he can look into Vladimir Putin's eyes and see into his soul.

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure. And the part that troubles me most is he seems content with himself.


He will leave office with the country $10 trillion in debt, fighting two wars, our international reputation in shambles, our government cloaked in secrecy and suspicion that his entire presidency has been a litany of broken laws and promises, our citizens' faith in our own country ripped to shreds. Yet Bush goes bumbling along, grinning and spewing moronic one-liners, as though nobody understands what a colossal failure he has been.

I fear to the depth of my being that John McCain is just like him.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jack Cafferty.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/cafferty.mccain/index.html

Copyright 2008 Cable News Network

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Center Left...Center Right

We are currently experiencing a lull in the culture wars; but, the occasion has not resulted in much dialogue either. The Associated Baptist Press recently solicited opinions on the topic of a Christian ethic towards homosexuality after a thought provoking opinion from David Gushee was published. I offer the opinions of Peggy Campolo and George Guthrie as examples of how to express firm conviction while remaining open for continued conversation. While the opinions are simply those of two individuals, they are fairly representative of the "sides" without drawing lines of division or exemplifying polarizing extremes. Speaking truth to power sometimes requires a lot of listening too...



Opinion: Gay Christians can't wait any longer

By Peggy Campolo

Editor's note: The recent series of articles by David Gushee on homosexuality generated an unusual amount of response. ABP solicited these two representative responses -- from Peggy Campolo, an advocate for gay Christians, and George Guthrie, a professor at Union University.

(ABP) -- Thanks to Dr. David Gushee for his engaging article on Christian ethics as they relate to gay and lesbian Christians. I am a committed Baptist who has worked within the church of Jesus Christ for more than 20 years to foster the understanding and acceptance of my gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender sisters and brothers - I'll just say "gay" for shorthand. I can personally testify to the anguish gay people feel when rejected by church and family because of who they are. I have also witnessed the joy of the many gay people I know who have found church homes where they are loved and accepted.

I agree with Dr. Gushee that the majority of the church is devoid of the kinds of discussions that would enable its members to gain a sound, biblically based theology of sexuality and marriage. Sadly, that has left its people to be manipulated by political voices who influence public opinion on sexual issues to win elections.

Dr. Gushee is right on the mark when he states that the problems of gay Christians cannot be properly addressed without the church clearly defining the meaning of sex and marriage, and I think he would agree with me that those who reduce marriage to "plumbing and baby-making" are the ones who demean marriage. The church should be grateful to those gay Christians who are raising the right questions.

The current problems of straight people, as well as those facing God's gay children, cannot be solved until the church of Jesus Christ clearly defines for its people the meaning of celibacy, sex, marriage and what constitutes a family. However, as Dr. Gushee clearly states, the large majority of the church today is afraid to talk about divorce or discuss any of these matters, even as they relate to heterosexuals.

Dr. Gushee calls for "a careful, unhurried process of Christian discernment" on this subject. I join him in longing for that. But God's gay children cannot face exclusion any longer. They are raising the very questions that need to be addressed by all of us, straight and gay. The anguish and despair I have seen in the Christian gay community does not allow time for such a scholarly approach to be our first move. We who are called to love our neighbors as ourselves must get to know and listen to them NOW.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter titled "Why We Can't Wait" from a jail in Birmingham, Ala. He made his point about racial equality by talking about his own four small children, and all of the other children of color who were growing up feeling like second-class citizens. Those children of God, those who do not happen to be straight, are the reason that I, and so many others who love Jesus and believe in the Bible's message of grace, demand justice for them NOW.

A pastor friend of mine, who has conducted too many funerals for gay children of God who ended their lives because they could no longer live the lie that their churches and families demanded of them, tells of a suicide note left by a young Christian. He dearly loved the godly parents who had accepted him but could not bear the anguish felt when their church excluded them along with him. His final letter to his mother and father read simply, "I didn't know how else to fix it."

Dr. Gushee's proposal for "a careful, unhurried process of Christian discernment" is a necessary wake-up call for the church. However, we must also find a way to end the exclusion and anguish of God's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender children NOW.

Peggy Campolo, a follower of Jesus Christ, speaks at churches, colleges and conferences, advocating for civil rights and full inclusion in the church for her lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender sisters and brothers. A graduate of Eastern University, Peggy Campolo is a member of Central Baptist Church, Wayne, Pa., and serves on the advisory council of the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists. She is the wife of Baptist author and Eastern University professor Tony Campolo.




Opinion: No true compassion apart from revelation

By George Guthrie

Editor's note: The recent series of articles by David Gushee on homosexuality generated an unusual amount of response. ABP solicited these two representative responses -- from Peggy Campolo, an advocate for gay Christians, and George Guthrie, a professor at Union University.

(ABP) -- There exists a fundamentalism on the theological left, as well as the more broadly published fundamentalism on the theological right. Both fundamentalisms communicate, "You must agree with my position and my applications or I will vilify you." These strident cousins eschew dialogue as compromise and often take an approach that shouts, "If I can label you, I have dealt with you; and if I can label the information you present (e.g., "this is just garbage"), I have dealt with your research and ideas."

In his ABP article, "Discernment, the church and homosexuality," David Gushee invites us to move beyond the shrill extremes and join him around the table of conversation. He wants us to consider a renewed emphasis on hermeneutics and theology as we reflect together on the important issue of homosexual couples and the church. I am thankful for the opportunity to join the conversation, for I could not agree more that we must raise the level of theological and hermeneutical reflection in Baptist life.

Therefore, let me begin by making sure I have heard those sitting across the table from me correctly. Those who wish to rewrite the church's traditional teaching on the practice of homosexuality seem to build their arguments on at least three primary foundation stones: 1) Homosexuality is constitutional, intrinsic to who the homosexual is as a person and, therefore, compassion demands that we affirm the homosexual in his or her sexuality; 2) Scripture does not address a "covenanted monogamy" form of homosexuality and, therefore, does not condemn such homosexual relationships; and 3) homosexual couples who practice "covenanted monogamy" should be affirmed in their relationship and welcomed as members in good standing in the church.

Of course, there are other arguments offered, but let's begin here and probe the hermeneutical underpinnings of these points.

First, constitutionality. Let's begin by agreeing that many homosexuals experience their sexual desires for the same sex as "inherent" to who they are. Some certainly would say "I have always felt this way." Yet, the science on the biological constitutionality of homosexuality (i.e. the "nature vs. nurture" question) is still in process. I am aware, of course, of the pertinent studies, such as the one by Dr. Simon LeVay, but prominent scientists disagree on how the data should be read (Indeed, LeVay himself is modest concerning the significance of his findings).

Yet, even if biology someday was shown clearly to be a primary factor in homosexuality, I want to suggest that constitutionality cannot serve as an appropriate basis for making a hermeneutical move to accepting homosexual practice. Why? Because there are other aspects of our existence that we experience "constitutionally" that nevertheless cannot be used as a basis to affirm behavior in line with that constitution. For instance, according to Scripture, we as human beings are sinners (e.g. Romans 7:18-21). Yet, of course, that cannot be used as a basis for affirming sin. In my experience of ministry, I have had womanizing men state, "This is just the way I am." Indeed, do those of us who are heterosexuals not at times experience the sexual tug, that jibbering monkey in our loins, which attempts to draw us to sexual expression outside of our marriages? I experience the sex drive as inherent to who I am; it is constitutional. Yet, it cannot be used to excuse acting on that impulse.

I am also concerned that there exists a short step from affirming homosexuality on the basis of one's constitution, to affirming other forms of sexual expression, such as pedophilia, on the same basis. Some of our homosexual friends would abhor the idea, but we are talking about constitutionality as a basis for making ethical decisions, and there are those in the global, heterosexual and homosexual communities who already put pedophilia forward on the basis of it being "natural." My point is not that all homosexuals are pedophiles, but that constitutionality forms a terribly poor basis for promoting an ethical stance on homosexuality.

Second, what of the argument on the grounds of covenanted monogamy? I know of no hard data on the practices of homosexual couples who claim to be Christians (and am open to being informed on the matter). It seems clear (in works such as The Male Couple), however, that homosexual men in general experience an astronomically high rate of infidelity compared to heterosexuals, with strikingly low rates of monogamy or even semi-monogamy.

I am sure there are homosexual couples that are faithful to one another, but, again, even if covenant monogamy was widely practiced among homosexuals, is a commitment to monogamy an appropriate basis for affirming a homosexual relationship? If so, why would it not be appropriate to use the same principle of "covenant monogamy" to affirm incest, for instance? Most ancient references to incest, whether Greco-Roman or Egyptian, focus on relationships between consenting adults, whether brother and sister or parent and grown child. Again, my point is not that homosexuality leads to incest, but that a commitment to "covenant monogamy" makes a poor basis for a hermeneutical move to affirm homosexual practice.

This then brings us to the question of Scripture and its interpretation. If our discussion is to be considered "Christian," it must come down to a consideration of what God has revealed as true in his Word. There is no true compassion apart from revelation. Thus, we need to embrace a rigorous "Berean" hermeneutic that is coherent in terms of the broad scope of biblical theology (e.g. God's mercy, God's wrath, the human condition, human sexuality, redemption) and compassionate in its application of truth to real-life contexts of homosexuals in the modern world.

That said, it seems to me the attempts to affirm homosexual relationships with Bible in hand fall primarily into two categories. Arguments in the first go something like this: "The Scripture does not condemn monogamous, covenanted, homosexual relationships but rather other forms of homosexuality," and "Jesus never condemned homosexuality but welcomed the outcast." Both are arguments from silence. Monogamous, covenanted, homosexual relationships are not condemned in Scripture, because they were unknown (indeed, unthinkable) in Jewish or Christian contexts of the ancient world. It is true that in the Gospels Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality. (Remember, though, that he does strongly affirm marriage as a creation ordinance involving a man and woman -- Matthew 19:4-6). But neither does Jesus address directly other forms of sexuality, such as incest, beastiality, pedophilia or sadomasochism. Arguments from silence weave a terribly thin hermeneutical thread from which to hang one's theological behemoth.

The other approach to hermeneutics involves a reframing of what the Scripture does say about homosexuality. For instance, it is suggested, that Genesis 19 really concerns the lack of hospitality on the part of the men of Sodom. Or Romans 1:24-27 is about idolatry and participating in homosexual orgies, not the practice of responsible homosexual relationships. Yet, I would humbly suggest, the convergence of word meanings, background information, literary context and other factors stand against these interpretations. For instance, in Romans 1:26-27, Paul lays great stress on the "abandoning" of or "exchanging" natural sexuality (between a man and a woman) for sex with a person of one's own gender. This is the central point in those verses. The creation ordinance of God has been abandoned.

As for context, two verses later in Romans 1:29, the apostle speaks of greed, murder, strife, deceit, gossip and disobedience to parents, among other vices. That catalogue plays a role in communicating the pervasive sinfulness of humanity, not merely the sinfulness of specifically idolatrous or orgiastic contexts. Homosexual practice, according to Romans 1, is part of a larger problem of human sinfulness, the rejection of God's intentions for the world.

I am sure to be accused of lacking compassion for those embracing a homosexual lifestyle, and that grieves me. Yet, is it a rightly applied compassion that affirms a lifestyle that too often compromises the physical and emotional well being of fellow human beings? The data seems to indicate that homosexual practice for both couples and individuals leads to a greatly reduced life expectancy (as much as three decades, and not just due to AIDS). Among homosexual men, for instance, there exists a much higher risk of rectal cancer and rectal trauma (which causes a much higher risk of a wide range of diseases). Is it compassionate to affirm such a lifestyle?

In conclusion, I agree that churches too often have neglected important ministry to those struggling with homosexuality. Yet, what is needed is not to rethink the church's stance on homosexuality, as Dr. Gushee suggests, but to rethink our response to homosexuals themselves. For some this will mean dropping a harsh posture, getting the facts on the challenges faced by those in the homosexual community, and opening our hearts of compassion. For others it will mean a renewed commitment to the whole counsel of God on human sexuality.

George Guthrie is the Benjamin W. Perry Professor of Bible at Union University.

Copyright © 2007-2008 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.


Monday, August 11, 2008

The Truth about Fiscal Conservatism

I wonder what "Fiscal Conservative" really means to the Republican Party? They can talk all they want about balanced and fair budgeting, but they have hardly put the concept into practice anytime recently.

A Greenberg picture is worth a thousand words...




August 3, 2008

President Bush is projected to run up a national budget deficit of $482 billion, possibly a lot more. This is a fiscal conservative? In fact, the only president in the last 25 years to not only not run up a deficit, but to actually leave a surplus, was one of them thar "tax-and-spend" Democrats.

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/greenberg/


© 2008 Ventura County Star

Saturday, August 09, 2008

Iraq evidence was White House forgery

Missy and I watched this story today with our mouths open and heads shaking. Missy's question to me is the most germane..."And why are we not impeaching the president?!" Really...Why?!

Click HERE if you want to watch the story.



TRANSCRIPT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC
updated 12:37 p.m. CT, Wed., Aug. 6, 2008

In a Countdown cable exclusive, journalist Ron Suskind talks to Keith Olbermann about the allegations in his book, "The Way of the World," which suggests there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida, so the White House ordered the CIA to forge a letter to justify the Iraq war.

Below is a transcript of their conversation.

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST, COUNTDOWN: If you scoff at the thought that the American government might actually try to create a forged document to establish a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks and thus an excuse to invade Iraq, some snippets of history to consider as we begin our fifth story, our cable exclusive interview with the author reporting this in his new book, Ron Suskind.

Fake government documents created by the Soviets were used against President Reagan, and President Carter, and President Eisenhower, and Nelson Rockefeller, and Secretary of Defense Weinberger and the police commissioner of New York City, and the U.S. ambassador of the United Nations.

The French faked their own government documents in the Dreyfus case, and forged Napoleon’s signature to use against President Madison. There were the SISMI documents, the Tanaka memorandum, and most pertinent to our purposes here, the Italian Niger Yellow cake uranium forgery.

Ron Suskind in a moment. First, the details of what he has written in “The Way of the World” published today. The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, writing that before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, President Bush already knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, something that did not stop him from ordering the invasion anyway.

Suskind speaking on the record with U.S. intelligence officials, who told him that in early 2003, in secret meetings with British intelligence, Saddam’s own intelligence chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush, revealed that Iraq, in fact, did not have weapons of mass destruction, information that was passed on to the CIA.

When that information was then passed on to Mr. Bush, author Suskind says, the president became frustrated and said of Habbush, quote, “Why don’t they ask him to give us something we can use to help us make our case?”

Habbush then held weekly meetings with British intelligence, telling them that Saddam had no WMD stockpiles and no active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs.

When all this was shared with CIA Director George Tenet, he said, quote, “They’re not going to like this downtown,” downtown being the White House. It sounds like a police drama.

“The White House then buried the Habbush Report. They instructed the British that they were no longer interested in keeping the channel open.

Rob Richer, the CIA’s Near East Division head, telling Suskind again on the record, quote, “Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq from the very first few days he was in office. Nothing was going to stop that.”

Now, for the smoking gun about the smoking gun that was never a smoking gun. CIA division head, Richer, is telling Suskind that not only did the order to forge a fake letter come from the White House, but the assignment had been written on creamy White House stationary.

“The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11 ring leader , Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq—thus showing finally that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link.”

Another CIA official, John Maguire who oversaw the Iraq operations group also is confirming the existence of the forged letter to author Suskind, but Mr. Richer backtracking for both of them tonight in a statement to MSNBC, quote, “I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document from Habbush as outlined in Mr. Suskind’s book.

Further, today, I talked with John Maguire, who has given me the permission to state the following on his behalf, ‘I never receive any instruction from then Chief/NE Rob Richer or any other officer in my chain of command instructing me to fabricate such a letter. Further, I have no knowledge to the origins of the letter and as to how it circulated in Iraq.”

The letter, whatever its origins, was passed in Baghdad to Con Coughlin, a reporter for the “Sunday Telegraph” of London who wrote it about in the front page of his newspaper on December 14th, 2003, the same day that Saddam Hussein was discovered in his hiding hole in Iraq. That day, Mr. Coughlin describing the significance of his find to Tom Brokaw on “MEET THE PRESS.”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, DECEMBER 14, 2003)

CON COUGHLIN, SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: It’s an intelligence document written by the then head of Iraqi intelligence, Habbush to Saddam. It’s dated the 1st of July, 2001. And it’s basically a memo saying that Mohammed Atta has successfully completed a training course at the house of Abu Nidal, the infamous Palestinian terrorist, who, of course, was killed by Saddam a couple of months later.

Now, this is the first, really, concrete proof that al Qaeda was working with Saddam. It’s a very explosive development, Tom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Not true, but explosive.

As we mentioned Ron Suskind, the author of “The Way of the World: The Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism”—welcome.

RON SUSKIND, AUTHOR, “THE WAY OF THE WORLD”: Nice to be here.

OLBERMANN: The CIA officials, Maguire and Richer, they spoke with you at length on the record about the existence of this letter. They were detailed down to the stationery and the tone of voice in Mr. Tenet’s voice. Why do you believe they’re backtracking now?

SUSKIND: Well, it’s interesting, because Maguire and Richer and I, have been talking obviously over the last couple of days. Rob got a book early, the night before, so he could read it before the morning that the book was released. He was fine with it this morning. He was fine with it at midday.

Now, reporters actually called him. He said to me, “I’ll tell them no comment because it’s in the book, but Ron Suskind is a fine journalist. That will be my comment.” He said, “It’s fine, Rob.”

You know, I’m sympathetic in a way to all these guys. They’re under acute pressure. They’re individuals. They’ve got to feed their families. They really survive off the government, both of them, they’re contractors and whatnot.

Maguire, interestingly, from that statement, John and I have been exchanging e-mails from, he’s in Iraq now where he’s doing some consulting, and he sends very inspirational notes. You know, he’s—go get ‘em, go get ‘em. Interestingly, it seems like he doesn’t have a book yet because it’s hard to get one in Baghdad.

OLBERMANN: Right.

SUSKIND: Rob is, seems casting some of his comments to him over the phone in some way because what he says there obviously in his statement, that’s not said in the book. It never says that Maguire was in the chain of command. It says in fact that Rob talked to John Maguire about it but Maguire was going back to Baghdad, so his successor handled it.

So, you know, what you’re getting is, you know, guys who I think did the right thing. I think people will agree that historically they may still stand up and Maguire, I think, will still stand up in daylight. He’s a guy who said something to me that journalists I think might, you know, take into consideration.

He said to me at one point in the last of couple weeks. He said, “You know, I understand now why the First and Second Amendment are the way they are. See, the First Amendment is the most important amendment, and if they take that one way, then you should start loading your weapons.” I mean, the kind of thing that might turn journalists around the world into NRA members, ain’t it?

You know, these guys, though, are feeling now great pressure. And, you know, what you realize in this process is that there is a limit to what a journalist can do even with taped interviews, people talking for hours at a time, when they can be brought into a moment of crisis by the government saying, “You’ll never work again, you’ll never earn a living.” That’s the kind of thing that mostly happens in terms of what congressional hearings do testimony under subpoena with threat of perjury.

OLBERMANN: Well and that’s what we need. But in the interview, I presume the Maguire and Richer interviews are on tape, is that right?

SUSKIND: You bet, yes. And there’s a lot of them. They’re very detailed. The book is full of really nuanced renderings by both men, not only of what occur but how they felt. You know, how people reacted in the book. Context, what people were thinking as to what this all meant.

OLBERMANN: How did this man Habbush go from the man who basically said, “There’s no there there, there’s no WMD here, look, I’m telling you, there’s WMD there,” repeatedly, to being the man who’s name appears on a forged document that sets up this aided-along, self-fulfilling prophecy? You know, not only, it’s not a question of WMD anymore, it’s Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. How did he go from one extreme in the story to the other end?

SUSKIND: It’s interesting because Habbush pops up in early 2003. And that point, the book shows clearly that the case for WMD was a rickety structure ready to fall. Habbush arrives at that point. January, he starts his meetings. Richer helps set it up with the British intelligence guy, Michael Shipster from the region. It goes on every week, every other week through the month.

And it’s interesting to see the havoc it creates inside of the administration, at the upper-most levels, because there are two sides here there’s the operational side, guys like John Maguire or Rob Richer for that matter, who say, “We can use him. He might be able to take out Saddam Hussein. We have a window into Saddam’s inner circle. We can send him disinformation. Maybe we can get Habbush to go in and take out Saddam.” “We can walk to Baghdad,” Maguire says, rather than fight our way.”

On the other side, you have the explosive issue of the information Habbush is giving to undercut the case. There are really separate things. And the agendas start to collide.

So, in February, when Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence, flies over to deliver the final report to George Tenet, that’s when Tenet reads it and says to Richer, “They’re not going like this downtown.”

OLBERMANN: Which you couldn’t make it up there in a million years.

(CROSSTALK)

SUSKIND: You know, where is the screenplay?

And at that moment, the side worried about how this will look for the case for war essentially wins out. And that’s obviously the White House team.

The president, the vice president, and Condi Rice are briefed about this. At that point, the channel gets cut off with Habbush. And folks at CIA including Maguire lives could be at risk because you’re worried about this guy undercutting your case. That doesn’t make sense. This war rages through the administration.

But Habbush, of course, has his deal. He met, it was understood that there would be a resettlement, and off we go where Habbush becomes, in a way, the most explosive single entity, you know, certainly in terms of the U.S. government for years now. Five years they kept him in hiding.

You know, it’s interesting, Keith, all the way through this period, he’s resettled when we invade. And then, as we move forward, t’s fascinating to watch the reactions of everybody, because as it becomes clear to the world that some of the suspicions before the war that there were no WMD is now obvious.

OLBERMANN: Right.

SUSKIND: And, you know, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame popped up that summer. As Maguire says, “Everyone was terrified that Habbush would pop up on the screen.” That’s his quote. At that moment, they dotted the “I’s” and crossed the “T’s” on his financial arrangement of his resettlement. And they agreed to pay him $5 million.

Now, by almost any reckoning, considering what he provided and that we didn’t use him for anything else going forward, that would be considered hush money in almost any parlance. Now, what’s fascinating is at that point, you see this great kind of disconnect going on in the government. Rice and Cheney were happy we had him, but in some way, he’s the last man they want to talk to.

OLBERMANN: Of course.

SUSKIND: The operational guys who are handling Iraq are saying, “He’s a gold mine, go talk to him. He used to be the police chief of Iraq, he’s their intelligence chief. He can help us understand the country so we don’t get into trouble.” No, no, he’s not touched all through the summer of 2003 until fall.

Interestingly, then the White House figures out, “Well, we might have something he can be useful for.” That’s when they come up with the “Habbush letter” concept. And that’s when they deliver it to CIA.

OLBERMANN: And that’s when he actually earns his $5 million for something he had nothing to do with.

SUSKIND: Well, you know, it’s hard to see what that kind of earning really amounts to, but clearly that was the idea.

OLBERMANN: Let me get your reaction to the reaction of the White House and Mr. Tenet.

George Tenet said, quote, “There was no such order from the White House to me nor to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort. It is well established that at my direction, CIA resisted efforts on the part of some in the administration to paint a picture of Iraq and al Qaeda connections that went beyond the evidence. The notion that I would suddenly reverse our stance and have created and planted false evidence that was contrary to our own beliefs is ridiculous.”

Meanwhile, Tony Fratto, the deputy press secretary working at the White House, told Politico.com, “The allegation that the White House directed anyone to forge a document from Habbush to Saddam is just absurd. Ron Suskind makes a living from gutter journalism,” which is I presume the category in which you won the Pulitzer Prize. “He is about selling books and making wild allegations that no one can verify including the numerous bipartisan commissions that have reported on prewar intelligence.”

They’re coming at you kind of forcefully. What’s your response to that forcefulness and these comments?

SUSKIND: Well, the fact is, a lot of this is expected. I’m one person who is standing at this point with the sources behind me, those who are holding firm, and, obviously, they’re under acute pressure to say this is an action that has constitutional implications along with, you know, the possibility of impeachment proceedings. All this in an odd way, you know, character assassination is what they do when they have nothing else to say.

OLBERMANN: Ask Scott McClellan.

SUSKIND: We’ve seen a lot of this and in some way, this is, I think, a kind of homage to how they’re reacting to what they’re actually saying.

OLBERMANN: It’s almost a verification. It’s the last confirmation for the sources in the book, I would imagine.

SUSKIND: Right. I remember when I was a kid, the Nixon’s enemies list, they used to stick that up on the wall as a point of pride.

OLBERMANN: That’s it. If you got a picture on it, it was even bigger. I’m sure there’s a very big picture of you at the White House tonight and it has appropriate numbers at each rung.

Ron Suskind, the book is called “The Way of the World”—great thanks for coming in tonight.

SUSKIND: My pleasure, Keith.

OLBERMANN: All right. Best of luck with this.

© 2008 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26044443/

© 2008 MSNBC.com

Self-Focused Egotism and Narcissism

I was very impressed by the charisma and policies of John Edwards. I found his personal story to be very compelling and worth honoring. Therefore, I am deeply saddened to hear about his extramarital affair and early denials. I am pained to think about how the news impacted his wife and children. However, I am impressed with Senator Edwards' diagnosis of his failure of character: "a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want." Speaking truth to power must always start with self first! I suspect that his political career is essentially over; but, he is now in a position to help us continue to speak truth to those in power. May he use his voice wisely and boldly, but with great humility.



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- John Edwards, who campaigned throughout the 2008 Democratic primaries alongside his family -- and made his marriage a central part of his overall message -- was dealt a political blow Friday after admitting to having an extramarital affair.

In an interview on ABC News "Nightline," Edwards acknowledged the affair with 42-year-old Rielle Hunter, which began after she was hired to make documentary videos for his campaign, ABC said.

"I am responsible for it. I alone am responsible for it," Edwards said on ABC News "Nightline."

Edwards told the network that his rise from "a small-town boy in North Carolina" who "came from nothing" to a successful lawyer, U.S. senator and national public figure "fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want."

He denied, however, being the father of the woman's child, as tabloid reports have alleged.

The former North Carolina senator, who was often mentioned as a possible candidate for Sen. Barack Obama's vice presidential pick, does not believe his admission will have a long-lasting impact on his career.

Edwards, the vice presidential candidate during Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid, told ABC on Friday that he never expected to be chosen as Obama's running mate, but that his public career has not ended. He said he would not worry about any possible positions in an Obama administration.

"I don't know what's possible and what's gone," he said.

Opinions, however, are mixed whether he would have a future in politics.

CNN contributor James Carville, a former aide to Bill Clinton -- who acknowledged an extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky in his second term -- said Edwards' career is in dire straits.

"Certainly, his political career is in shambles. It's not going to come back. I humanly feel sorry for Mrs. Edwards. I feel sorry for the Edwards children. But I'm not shocked, and I guarantee you it's going to happen again. I promise you," he said Friday.

Elizabeth Edwards, in a posting on the Daily Kos Web site said:

"The fact that it is a mistake that many others have made before him did not make it any easier for me to hear when he told me what he had done.

But he did tell me. And we began a long and painful process in 2006, a process oddly made somewhat easier with my [cancer] diagnosis in March of 2007. This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private, because as painful as it was, I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well."

Like Carville, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger said this could end his career.

"Obviously lying like this, brazenly, is going to put an end, probably, to his political career and could affect whether he gets any role if Barack Obama were to win the presidency," she said Friday.

Don Fowler, a former Democratic Party chairman, said this week that Edwards might be forfeiting a major role at the party's upcoming convention in Denver -- or in a future Democratic administration -- unless he cleared the air.

"I think the longer these allegations go unanswered and unresponded to, the more difficult it is for the people producing the convention to give him a prominent spot," Fowler said. iReport: What's your reaction to Edwards' affair?

Obama, in Hawaii for a weeklong vacation, told reporters he understands that Edwards does not plan to attend the convention.

"This is a difficult and painful time for them, and I think they need to work through that process of healing," he said. "My sense is that that's going to be their top priority."

CNN senior political analyst David Gergen, who served as a White House adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton -- said Democrats could have been hurt if Edwards had clinched the Democratic nomination.

"He put the Democratic Party in real jeopardy," he said. "If he had been the nominee of the party now, and this thing had blown up ... it would have -- it would have ruined the Democrats' chances of taking back the White House."

Edwards announced in January that he was dropping out of the 2008 Democratic presidential race. He later endorsed Obama in early May.

He trailed Sen. Hillary Clinton and Obama in the early contests. He came in third in key races in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Gergen added that the Democratic Party needs to "move swiftly" to resolve this political firestorm so it doesn't linger with voters this fall.

Speaking in support of Obama in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Friday, Clinton responded briefly to a reporter's question about what, if any, impact the revelation of the affair would have on Democrats.

"My thoughts and prayer are with the Edwards family today," she said. "That's all I have to say."

Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said Friday that Edwards' infidelity may affect both parties' images.

"The questions are going to be asked, does this hurt Republicans or Democrats, or the political impact. And the truth is that it's going to hurt everybody, because right now, in an uncertain world, we're looking to see who we can trust to lead the country, and this lessens, I think, faith in political leadership in general," he said Friday.

Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Paul Begala said Edwards' affair will result in a "larger loss of faith in institutions."

"But keep in mind, you know, John Edwards did not order that anyone be tortured. He did not violate the Geneva Convention. He did not forge a document to lead us into a war. He cheated on his wife," he said.

Begala added that while this is a shortcoming for the former senator and a personal tragedy for him and his family, he holds no public office.

By Ed Hornick

CNN's Scott Bronstein, Drew Griffin, Matt Smith and Paul Vercammen contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/09/edwards.affair/index.html

Copyright 2008 Cable News Network