Luke_Wilbur

I heard that Foley immediately apoligized for his actions. He promised to turn over a new page : ) I cannot understand why the Democrats are getting so shocked. Maybe, its because they thought he was cute. In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with anything. In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie. In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.) This is a Bi-Partisan problem. And this problem needs to be resolved. If this Congress does not motion up a Bill to make sure this does not happen, every damn one of them needs to be booted out on their asses. That goes for Democrats and Republicans. I have not seen any statements as of today. If you see any please let me know. I have been getting emails asking me what a DC Page is. The United States House of Representatives Page Program is a program run by the United States House of Representatives in which appointed high school juniors act as partisan federal employees in the House of Representatives, providing supplemental administrative support to House operations in a variety of capacities in Washington, D.C. at the United States Capitol. Some page responsibilities in the House include transporting legislative documents between Congressional offices, delivering new bills and amendments to the House floor and performing non-specialized www.google.com duties for various House offices, both partisan and non-partisan. Pages are nominated by representatives based upon a highly competitive application process. Congressional Pages have served within the U.S. House of Representatives for almost 180 years.

The Mark Foley scandal centers on e-mails and sexually explicit instant messages allegedly sent by United States Republican Congressman Mark Foley with a male who was originally reported by ABC's Brian Ross to be a "minor" at the time of the exchange in 2003. Media accounts now indicate the male was 18 during the exchanges and is now 21. He is a former congressional page. The questionable conversations, which took place between 2003 and 2005, are under investigation by the FBI and Florida officials for possible criminal violations. Foley has issued a statement saying that he has never had sexual contact with a minor. He also stated that he was himself molested as a teenager, that he is gay, and that he is an alcoholic. In 2005, Foley sent five emails, some of them suggestive, to a 16-year-old former page sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA). Among other things, Foley asked for a photo of the page, and expressed admiration for the physique of another young male friend. The page forwarded the emails to a colleague in Alexander's office, saying "this really freaked me out," and repeating the word "sick" 13 times to describe the photo request. He added, "if you can, please tell Rodney [Alexander] about this." After the initial story on the emails, other pages contacted ABC, providing transcripts of sexually explicit instant messaging (IM) conversations that Foley allegedly had with pages. Some said they had not shared the events earlier because Foley was a powerful Congressman. On September 29, in a second story, ABC News reported that it had seen excerpts of these instant messages which made repeated references to sexual organs and acts. When the extent of Foley's action was discovered, members of the Republican party strongly condemned his actions. They voted unanimously with House Democrats to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee for investigation. Republican Speaker Hastert also demanded a criminal investigation by writing the Attorney General asking for a full investigation both into Foley's actions and into the possibility that earlier clues were not properly acted upon by Congressional officials, representatives, the media, and the FBI. The National Republican Congressional Committee is now focusing on finding another candidate for the upcoming Florida House race, since Foley voluntarily agreed not to run. Carl Forti, NRCC spokesman, said on October 2, 2006, that the Republican committee would "gladly accept" Foley's $2.7 million campaign fund, should he donate it to them. U.S. Representative and U.S. Senate candidate Katherine Harris (R-FL) said, "The media would be quite disingenuous, trying to make it a partisan issue. If anything, the Republicans didn't know about these issues, and we're going to be very anxious to see who in the media or on the other side of the aisle knew about it and kept this from the public interest, because our children were at stake."

Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) issued the following statement regarding Congressman Mark Foley:

This smells like President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. I'm sorry, but this is not what I pay taxes for. Why is Congress wasting its paid time on foolish things like this? Lets win the war first!!! *********************************************************************************** WASHINGTON - Even as the Bush administration urges Americans to stay the course in Iraq, Republicans in Congress have put down a quiet marker in the apparent hope that V-I Day might be only months away. Tucked away in fine print in the military spending bill for this past year was $20 million to pay for a celebration in the nation's capital "for commemoration of success'' in Iraq and Afghanistan. advertisement Not surprisingly, the money was not spent. Now congressional Republicans are saying, in effect, maybe next year. A paragraph written into spending legislation and approved by the Senate and House allows the $20 million to be rolled over into 2007. The original legislation empowered the president to designate ``a day of celebration'' to commemorate the success of the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to ``issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.'' The celebration would honor the soldiers, sailors, air crews and Marines who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it would be held in Washington, with the $20 million to cover the costs of military participation. Democrats on Capitol Hill called attention to the measure. The Democrats said both the original language and the one-year extension were pushed by Senate Republicans. A spokesman for the Republican-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee said it was protocol not to identify sponsors of such specific legislation. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/10/...on=nation_world http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/04/congress.iraq.ap/

The DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities is purchasing artwork to be part of the District of Columbia’s 2007 Art Bank Program. The Art Bank is a growing collection of moveable works funded through DC Creates Public Art, the District’s Art in Public Places Program. Works in the collection are owned by the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities and are loaned to other District government agencies for display in public areas of government buildings. This collection helps preserve the city’s past and is an important legacy for future generations. Currently, approximately 1,600 artworks are on display in more than 100 agencies. View the call for artists* in order to submit your application. The deadline is October 6, 2006. http://dcarts.dc.gov/dcarts/frames.asp?doc..._oct_6_2006.pdf (202) 727-1000

I contacted the OMB. They told me to talk with the ADA. ADA told me to talk with OPM. The Office of Personel Management should have those numbers. U.S. Office of Personnel Management Office of Communications 202-606-2402 The office of Personel Management said they have no such records and for me to call the Office of General Council 202-606-1700. The General Council sent me to Disabilities section. The Disabilities section gave me this information. Office of Personel Management Retirement Operations Center P.O. Box 45 Boyers, PA 16017 I asked why they were making me write a request. They gave me a phone number, but said I would only get a response by writing. 1-888-767-6738 I was first given the following information http://www.opm.gov/retire/ No information there... I then asked why I would I write the Retirement Operations Center. I want current employees. YEESH!! I left a message with Carol Cook. I called the Office of Personel Management, Office of General Council and asked why they sent me to them. They stated the

I have known Father Baraki for many years. He worked with my father in the District helping the poor. He is a saint in my mind. To find out more about the terrible plight in Ethopia visit his organization's web site. http://www.irrob.org Please spread the word and help out.

I gotta like his name.

According to a Dallas police report obtained by News 8, Dallas Cowboys star receiver Terrell Owens attempted suicide Tuesday night. The report says Owens was depressed and reportedly took prescription pain pills. A woman companion states that she observed him putting two pills in his mouth. According to the police narrative, the woman said the prescription of 40 pills was filled on September 18 and—until Tuesday—Owens had taken only five pills. The police report said Owens was asked if he had taken the rest of the prescription; Owens said, "Yes." According to the report, police also asked if he was trying to harm himself. Owens answered, "Yes." Owens was treated at Baylor University Medical Center. A Dallas Cowboys spokesman told News 8 the team has no comment on the police report, nor is any news conference scheduled.

Well you got your wish BlingBling. But, I don't understand why ***************************************8 Press Briefing by Homeland Security Advisor Frances Fragos Townsend MS. TOWNSEND: Good evening, everybody. Given the leak this weekend of classified information regarding the National Intelligence Estimate dated April 2006 and entitled "Trends and Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," the President ordered Ambassador Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence to declassify the text of the key judgment section of that report to the extent consistent with national security interests. And as he said today, in an effort to stop the speculation about what was in the key judgments. The now declassified -- the declassified key judgments are now available to the press and the public on the DNI website, www.odni.gov. Let me be clear that, you know, with every unauthorized disclosure of classified information it does harm to our national and homeland security. Every leak is a victory for our enemies who plot to kill us, because we tell them something about our knowledge, our intelligence capability and our perspective on their capability. I should be clear that you, by and large, have the text of the key judgments. All decisions on declassification were made by the office of the DNI. All of the portions related to the key judgments on Iraq, you have. I should tell you that there is probably just a handful, maybe two or three paragraphs that have been redacted in the interest of national security. And to the extent to have questions regarding those decisions, I would direct you to the DNI's office. Let me just briefly walk you through the key judgments. As you know, it opens by acknowledging that the United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al Qaeda and disrupted its operations. However, we judge that al Qaeda will continue to pose the greatest threat to the homeland and U.S. interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. It goes on to talk about networks and cells that are spreading and adapting to our counterterrorism efforts, as well as further down that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy and is becoming more diffuse. As you know, the President's newly released National Strategy for Counterterrorism, on page four of that, does reference this point, remarking that the terrorists today are more dispersed and less centralized. The President, in his speech on September 5th, noted that the terrorist threat is more dispersed and self-directed. The key judgments go on to remark that greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances the jihadists exploit, and that over time such progress, together with sustained, multi-faceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of jihadist movements and continued pressure on al Qaeda could erode support for the jihadists. The President has frequently made the point that freedom is the antidote to terror. He's done that on numerous occasions, and as you know, that really is the key point in the National Security Strategy, on pages nine to 11, of our long-term strategy to combat terror. The key judgments go on to say that we assess the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to U.S. counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad, but also here at home. Again, the President talked about the threat from home-grown cells in his speech on September 5th, and acknowledged their responsibility for attacks and planning in both Madrid and Canada. Now in the next section -- this is the Iraq section in the key judgments, where the key judgments note, "Perceived jihadist success would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere." The key judgments goes on to say that "the Iraq conflict has become a cause c l bre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world, and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." It then says, "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves and be perceived to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." This really underscores the President's point about the importance of our winning in Iraq. On September 5th, the President, in his speech, said, "Iraq is not a distraction from their war on America, it is the central battlefield, where the outcome of this struggle will be decided." We've heard the President say that repeatedly. Also, in the National Security Strategy for Combating Terrorism, on page four, in the challenges section, we make the point that the ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry. And then later on in the strategy we make the point -- in the section on safe havens, on page 16 -- that terrorists see Iraq as the central front in the fight against the United States, and this is why, in helping the Afghan and Iraqi peoples forge effective democracies is vital. The key judgments go on to talk about the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement, and that those factors outweigh its vulnerabilities. It goes on to enumerate both the four underlying factors of fueling -- those are entrenched grievances such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, which lead to anger, humiliation, a sense of powerlessness; second, Iraq jihad; third, the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and, fourth, pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims, all of which jihadists exploit. On the vulnerability side, it goes on at some length that the jihadist movement, if these vulnerabilities are fully exposed and exploited, could slow the spread of the movement. And they include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of jihadists' radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens. It notes the jihadists' greatest vulnerability is their ultimate political solution, which is an ultra-conservative interpretation of the sharia-based governance spanning the Muslim world. It is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. It notes recent condemnations of violence in extremist religious interpretations by a few notable clerics, signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to the jihadist ideology, notably peaceful political activism. And that, in this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror. The key judgments also note the importance of our allies around the world. And says that countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorists. We've heard the President speak to this issue on a number of occasions. Not only is that noted in the National Security Strategy for Combating Terrorism, it is also noted in numerous speeches of the President, noting our important allies in the war on terror, both in Western Europe, our British colleagues, but also in the Muslim world, in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The next section of the key judgments really speaks to the role of the Zarqawi network in exploiting the situation in Iraq. I would note for you that because this is published in April of 2006, it does not include any reference to the fact that he has been killed. In fact, at one point it notes should Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat. That's obviously no longer a problem that they would have anticipated. I would say, following along in the key judgments, the key judgments note that the increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al Qaeda in Iraq might lead to veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations. Obviously, the President has noted concern about this, and we take efforts both at home and abroad to defeat the extremists. Going further along in the key judgments, there is a note that fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing the tactics that they use. I would say to you, as we've said before, this is not any different from any other conflict. People with fighting experience will take that experience and use it in the future. The fact is, they were fighting us long before we were in Iraq, we've made that point, and they were using their experience in prior conflicts. They will continue to do that, which is why it's very important for us to fight against them. Shrinking away from them, withdrawing from the conflict will not alleviate this problem. The key judgments then go on to note that the radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age. I would note for you that we speak to this in the new National Security Combating Terrorism strategy, and talk about the importance of taking aggressive efforts against cyber safe havens. That is also, as you continue on in the key judgments, it talks about the groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train and obtain logistical and financial support. And, again, as I've mentioned, we do address that in the National Security Strategy for Combating Terrorism.

Musharraf`s comments could have been based on a report to him by former ISI chief Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed about the American stand on Pakistan`s role in the war against terrorism after the 9/11 attacks in the US. "The conversation took place in Urdu and when the President asked him what the bottom line of the American message was, Gen Mahmood replied in urdu that the Americans were intent on the removal of the Taliban regime and would not let Pakistan stand in their way and if Pakistan did not fall in line and cooperate, `wo hamare eent se eent baja dein ge` (they will level us to the ground) or words to that effect," the report said.

Human, You can donate your prize like last time if you wish.

Here is Senator Kerry's response on Richard Armitage. I left a message with Senator Hillary Clinton's Press Office. They responded that they have been swamped and will get back with me.

Here are more timeline excerpts on PNAC's position on the justification for the war with Iraq. On October 31, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM.64 The same day President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which declared that “t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” In signing the act, Clinton stated that the U.S. “looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.” On December 16, 1998, President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a four-day missile and bombing attack on Iraq. “I acted quickly because, as my military advisors stressed, the longer we waited, the more time Saddam would have to disburse his forces and protect his arsenal,” Clinton explained in his December 19 radio address to the nation. “Our mission is clear: to degrade Saddam’s capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction.” On December 19, 1998 Saddam Hussein declared that inspectors would never be allowed back in Iraq. Inspectors would not return to Iraq for five years. On January 25, 1999, UNSCOM expressed “no confidence” that Iraq’s biological warfare program had been dismantled. UNMOVIC’s March 6, 2003 report stated that there appears to be no “choke points” to prevent Iraq from producing anthrax at the same level it did before 1991, and large-scale Iraqi production of botulinum toxin “could be rapidly commenced.” The March 6 report also declared that Iraq’s nearly 8500 liters of unaccounted for anthrax could still be viable 15 years after production. Moreover, Iraq may have been more successful drying anthrax into inhalation form than had been declared. Dried anthrax could be stored “indefinitely.” Finally, Iraq had not accounted for growth media that could produce up to 16,000 more liters of anthrax. Documents found by ISG describe a high level dialogue between Iraq and North Korea that began in December 1999 and included an October 2000 meeting in Baghdad. These documents indicate Iraqi interest in the transfer of technology for surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 1300 km (probably No Dong) and land-to-sea missiles with a range of 300 km. The document quotes the North Koreans as understanding the limitations imposed by the UN, but being prepared “to cooperate with Iraq on the items it specified....” The CIA’s January-June 2000 WMD report stated: We believe that Iraq has probably continued low-level theoretical R&D associated with its nuclear program. A sufficient source of fissile material remains Iraq's most significant obstacle to being able to produce a nuclear weapon. The CIA’s July-December 2000 WMD report stated: We believe that Iraq has probably continued low-level theoretical R&D associated with its nuclear program. A sufficient source of fissile material remains Iraq's most significant obstacle to being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Although we were already concerned about a reconstituted nuclear weapons program, our concerns were increased last September when Saddam publicly exhorted his “Nuclear Mujahidin” to “defeat the enemy.” Starting around 2000, the senior Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) and high-level Ba'ath Party official Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sa'id began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives that could be applied to nuclear weapons development.” Moreover, “According to documents and testimony of Iraqi scientists, some of the key technical groups from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program remained largely intact, performing work on nuclear-relevant dual-use technologies within the Military Industrial Commission (MIC).” Furthermore, “Several scientists—at the direction of senior Iraqi government officials—preserved documents and equipment from their pre-1991 nuclear weaponrelated research and did not reveal this to the UN/IAEA.” Furthermore, the CIA report for July-December 2001 cited specific evidence of a resurgent missile program. Two new solid-propellant ‘mixing’ buildings at the al-Mamoun plant...appear especially suited to house large, UN-prohibited mixers of the type acquired for the Badr-2000 program. In fact, we can find no logical explanation for the size and configuration of these mixing buildings other than an Iraqi intention to develop longer range, prohibited missiles (that is, to mix solid propellant exclusively geared for such missiles). In addition, Iraq has begun reconstructing the ‘cast and cure’ building at al-Mamoun, which contains large and deep casting pits that were specifically designed to produce now-proscribed missile motors. On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 chronicling Iraq’s history of non-compliance with U.N. resolutions. Finally, one connection of particular note was senior al Qaeda terrorist planner Abu Musab Zarqawi and Iraqi intelligence. According to the Senate intelligence committee report, a captured senior al Qaeda trainer and recruiter “indicated he had heard” that Zarqawi “and others had good relationships with Iraqi intelligence.” It is not surprising then that after the fighting in Afghanistan, Zarqawi found safe haven in Baghdad over the summer of 2002, and, according to General Tommy Franks, was subsequently “given safe passage into northern Iraq by Iraqi security forces.” According to the Senate report, there was little doubt that Iraqi officials knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad. Finally, the administration never argued that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. Senior administration officials consistently stated that there was no specific evidence to connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks. As NSC Advisor Condoleeza Rice remarked one year after the attacks in a “NewsHour” interview, “No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11.” Similarly, only two moths before the Iraq war, President Bush, in response to a reporter’s question as to whether Iraq was involved with the attacks, stated simply: “I cannot make that claim.”

Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. Both administrations assessed the threat in similar terms. For example, in September 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked CBS News viewers to “imagine a September eleventh with weapons of mass destruction. It’s not three thousand—it’s tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.” Similarly, Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Cohen stated in a televised Pentagon press briefing that the “UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth....We face a clear and present danger today.... The one possible exception to this basic continuity concerns the nuclear threat posed by Iraq. On this issue the Bush administration did go a bit further than the Clinton administration in emphasizing the potential threat posed by an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Vice President Cheney, for example, stated in August, 2002 that “many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.” Kenneth Pollack, former CIA analyst and Clinton NSC official has written: “The U.S. Intelligence Community’s belief toward the end of the Clinton Administration [was] that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and was close to acquiring nuclear weapons.” And, indeed, President Clinton, in the midst of one of a series of crises dealing with Iraq, painted a bleak future if nations did not cooperate against “organized forces of destruction,” telling the audience that only a small amount of “nuclear cake put in a bomb would do ten times as much damage as the Oklahoma City bomb did.” Effectively dealing with proliferation and not letting weapons “fall into the wrong hands” is “fundamentally what is stake in the standoff we’re having in Iraq today.” http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Still no word from Cingular. Does anyone have the AT&T Charter plan agreement, or offer with the terms in it? Thanks.

This is even more interesting. Watch for a new "conspiracy" to take down the President and his cabinet. Armitage failed in his duty to tell President Bush. Who stopped Fitzgerald from revealing the Armitage? ************************************************************************ In an article shamelessly ignoring its role in the Wilson hoax and solicitous of the leaker, the New York Times, on a holiday weekend Saturday, mentions that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak of Plame's identity.* It focuses on whether Fitzgerald was right to continue the prosecution after he knew Novak didn't learn about Plame from Rove or Libby, the people the paper railed against from the moment Nicholas Kristof megaphoned Ambassador Munchausen's fabulous tale of his Mission to Niger more three years ago: WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel's chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on obstruction charges. Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles. To me, its an enduring mystery how the paper which was the first to print as truth Wilson's lies and which trumpeted them for three years, can write this self-protecting bilge with a straight face. Still, if you still believe anything they publish, there are two eyeopeners in this article: He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife's computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said. But Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people said. Of course, the President had, from the day a leak was claimed, asked everyone in his Administration to tell him if they had leaked. He certainly would not have agreed to an investigation nor demanded his people cooperate with it, even signing waivers of press confidentiality, had he known who the leaker was. He would have just fired him or kept him on with the explanation which no one much questions that it was inadvertent, regretful and had not in any way harmed national security. Had Armitage followed his boss orders, the Administration would not have been kept in the dark and frequently pummeled for three years in the NYT for outing Plame, punishing a whistleblower and damaging national security (ironically even as the paper itself deliberately leaked critical national security secrets which the Administration and a bipartisan Congressional delegation begged the paper not to publish). Another question is the identity of this prosecutor who, by the Times account, asked him not to divulge it, the people said. Fitzgerald wasn't appointed until months after Armitage's miraculous memory recovery about Novak. No one in the DOJ could have asked him not to tell the President. And, if Armitage had turned over his calendars, why did the prosecutor apparently fail to ask him about the meeting with Woodward on June 12? This failure to ask about notations of conversations with other reporters looks to me like even more evidence of the skewed nature of this probe. Kind of like Durham, NC DA Mike Nifong’s using a photo identification which showed only the faces of the Duke Lacrosse team when asking the alleged victim to identify her attackers. (Hey, pick a fish out of only this barrel for me to prosecute.) Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said. Better to have left Libby and Rove dangling than tip them off to the truth? Got it. Prince of a fellow. And boy, those unnamed State department officials are paragons of loyalty and virtue. Real statesmen. The Washington Post called Wilson a liar and dubbed the denouement of his fable End of an Affair. I'd call this new series of disclosures Dangerous Liaisons because at the moment a lot of people in the Capitol remind me of the Marquise de Merteuil after her schemings have been discovered. As for the New York Times, I have to say its continuing reportage on this matter is to me simply indescribable. In the meantime, even the Washington Post's volte face is deficient in a number of respects. And it is a volte face. Tom Maguire notes, because he is so fair, a number of occasions where several of the Post's writers, Woodward, Dana Priest and Walter Pincus, downplayed the incident. Still, other writers at the Post did continue the Wilson fable, which Pincus began, and the paper waited two and one-half years to correct those lies, even after the SenateSelectCommission on Intelligence and the Butler and Robb-Silverman Commissions established that the claims made by Wilson were fabrications. But the Post piece insinuates that even if the prosecution was based on a false premise that is no excuse for lying or obstructing it, giving more weight to the actual claims in the indictment than they merit. In fact, this adds insult to injury. The charges in the indictment are as warped as the rest of the investigation and prosecution. Tom Maguire has some fun with this: With Cooper, it is clear (to some) that after Karl Rove learned from Novak that a column about Wilson and Plame was imminent, Rove ruthlessly sat by the phone and waited for Matt Cooper to call him and ask about Niger. Then when Cooper interviewed Libby the next day, Libby was so brutal and crafty that he never raised the subject of Ms. Plame, but offered something like I heard that, too when Cooper asked him about her. But it's worse than that. In pretrial disovery the judge found that the documents in Time's possession showed that however Cooper testified, his testimony would be impeachable at trial. Let me clarify what this means. It means Time has had in its possession from the outset evidence that Cooper said one thing in the newsroom and another to the grand jury. What else can this mean? As to Miller, Tom observes mordantly, “And the Judy Miller leak? Libby was so intent on besmirching Wilson with the nepotism charge that he forgot to tell Judy that Ms. Plame had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Niger. And Special Counsel Fitzgerald still can't prove that Libby was aware of Ms. Plame's classified status back when he was conspiring to punish Joe by outing hs wife. (Too bad Libby didn't use his psychic powers to get the truth about Saddam's WMDs). Oh well, Fitzgerald only had two years to look into this. The truth will emerge any day now, or at least, within the next 24 business hours. As to Miller, the Judge has held that documentation in the New York Times possession MAY impeach her testimony depending on how she testifies. After she testifies Libby will get to see and use it. In any event (even by her reports of her testimony) it was so unintelligible, the variations in her and Libby's testimony is only a factor in an obstruction charge, not an independent perjury or false tesimony charge. I wonder if Armitage's calendar shows notations of conversations with Miller? If so, I wonder whether the prosecutor ignored those as he apparently did the notations respecting Woodward? Her notes, after all, showed she had Wilson's name and phone number and numerous references to VictoriaWilson/Plame /Flame? which she said were not references to her conversations with Libby, and by agreement with the Prosecutor those sources were not revealed. This leaves, the Russert/Libby conversation .As I've detailed more fully: Libby testified that on July 10 or 11, 2003 he had a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC. According to Libby's grand jury statement, Russert asked him if he (Libby) was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and told Libby “all the reporters knew it. According to the indictment Libby and Russert did not discuss this at all. Since Woodward has come forward, he has said he might well have approached Libby about that time about Wilson and Plame, right after his conversation with Armitage on June 12, 2003. His notes indicate he intended to ask Libby about Wilson and Plame and may well have. He does not believe Libby responded to this because he has no notation that he did. So, it is entirely possible, assuming Russert's testimony is credible, that he never discussed this at all with Libby, Libby may have confused his conversation with Russert at about the very same time with the one he had with Woodward.Woodward unsuccessfully tried twice in 2004 to get a waiver from Armitage so that he could tell the Prosecutor about his conversation with Armitage. He has said, And my sworn testimony is that [this conversation with Libby is] possible. I simply don't recall it, and he certainly said nothing. But after long interviews and you have long lists of questions, you can't really say, "Gee, did I ask that or that." At least, two years later, I can't. Maybe the next day I might have been able to. If Armitage had given Woodward the early waiver he sought, and Fitzgerald then asked Woodward about any conversations with Libby, this might have finally concluded the matter, for it is patent that Libby might well have believed that having had two conversations on the same day one with Cheney and one with Woodward that he confused who told him first. And absent any notes of the chance meeting in the hall with Woodward, he may have well confused the discussions with the two reporters,attributing the remark to Russert. And Libby is the man charged with obstruction? http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5819

Its interesting how the media is so focused on the past that they pass on current events. There was very little buzz about this story. I was suprised that ConocoPhillips has not issued a press release in support of Armitage. I was looking at what ConocoPhillips owns and their holdings quite interesting, but not out of the ordinary. 362084 Alberta Inc. Located in Alberta 100% Conoco Canada Limited Abode Merchant Marketing Joint Venture 50% Raptor Natural Plains Marketing LLC 50% Raptor Industrial Sales Corporation Administrador Petrolera Guanare S.A. Located in Venezuela 32.5% Conoco Venezuela C.A. Agroforestal Anzoategui, C.A. Venezuela 100% Petrozuata C.A. AO Arkhangelskgeoldobycha Located in the Soviet Union 15.667% Conoco International Petroleum Company Associated Petroleum Terminals (Immingham) Located in England 33.33% Conoco Limited Britannia Operator Limited Located in England 50% Conoco (U.K.) Limited Ceska Rafinerska, a.s. Czech Republic 16.33% Conoco Central and Eastern European Holdings BV CGP Servicios Energeticos de Altamira, S. Mexico 100% Conoco Global Power de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. Clearwater Ltd. Bermuda 100% Danube Insurance Ltd. Cliffe Storage Limited England 100% Conoco (U.K.) Limited

Here the latest update about Saint Martins. Also, I have noticed the police out in a full show of force on Lincoln avenue. It really seems to helping the neighborhood. Kids are feeling safer. So thanks District Police for doing a good job. Keep it up

Here are some photos Robert sent to me. Operation Medusa was a success.

Here is the latest from Robbo "Baggins" Bobbin, I delayed posting Robbo whereabouts for obvious reasons.

A recent update in the outbreak of E. coli was reported today in 21 states, which now include Illinois and Nebraska. At least 112 people have fallen ill because of the bacteria, and one was killed. In some of the latest cases, a resident of northern Illinois has fallen ill of E. coli, and was immediatly hospitalized for kidney failure. A Douglas County, Nebraska resident has also fallen ill by the same strain of E. coli, but was later reported to have not required hospitalization, and has since recovered. Dr. Robert Brackett, of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said earlier today that "...we want to make sure consumers are aware that they don't consume any of the fresh spinach. We don't know whether it came from the bag or another state. We just don't have the focus down that much yet,". Brackett also said that most major spinach producers were voluntarily recalling their products. Several grocery stores in major areas had taken all products containing spinach off the shelves. "While the FDA does not have the power to order a recall, we are working closely with the producers to encourage recalls." Brackett said. They do have the power to seize contaminated products, but Brackett said investigators can't do that until they determine the exact source of the contamination. Investigators have blamed a death in Wisconsin on the outbreak, said Dr. David Acheson of the FDA. The victims are believed to be infected with the strain of E. coli called 0157:H7, he told reporters in a telephone conference call Sunday night. Fifty-six were hospitalized, at least 16 with a form of kidney failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome Washing the leaves well will not necessarily offer protection, he said, noting that there is evidence that E. coli can get inside the leaf. The FDA said Friday it linked the outbreak to products packaged by the California-based Natural Selection Foods/Earthbound Farm. The company initiated a voluntary recall of all its spinach products with "best if used by" dates of August 17 through October 1. Asked whether terrorism or foul play may be involved, Acheson said he had seen no evidence to support that theory, but did not rule it out. "In my job, I always have to keep that in the back of my mind as a possibility," he said. Symptoms of E. coli infection include diarrhea and vomiting, and the bacteria can lead to more severe complications, particularly in the very young or elderly, including anemia and kidney failure.

In Tuesday's speech the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things. The comment created angry protests among the Muslim community. Today, Vatican secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone issued a statement that quotes "The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers". Bertone added that the Pope is sorry that his statements had been badly interpreted. Various street demonstrations have been held in Pakistan, India, Turkey and Gaza in the past days. Moreover, some leading religious leaders and politicians have criticised the remarks. Some rejected the pope's statement, claiming that it did not go far enough (Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood). Mohamed Mahdi Akef, who was convicted of leading the Muslim Brotherhood, asked Islamic nations to break off relations with the Vatican, until the Pope apologises for his statements. He said, "The Pope has aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world and strengthened the argument of those who say that the West is hostile to everything Islamic." He also said, "The remarks do not express correct understanding of Islam and are merely wrong and distorted beliefs being repeated in the West" and that the comments "pour oil on the fire and ignite the wrath of the whole Islamic world to prove the claims of [hatred] of politicians and religious men in the West to whatever is Islamic". In reference to the Pope's plan to visit to Turkey in November, Ali Bardakoğlu, head of Turkey's Religious Affairs Directorate, "I do not think any good will come from a visit to the Muslim world by a person who has such ideas about Islam's prophet. He should first of all replace the grudge in his heart with moral values and respect for others.” The Pakistani parliament unanimously passed a resolution saying, “This House demands that the Pope should retract his remarks in the interest of harmony between religions.” "The derogatory remarks of the Pope about the philosophy of jihad and Prophet Mohammed have injured sentiments across the Muslim world and pose the danger of spreading [bitterness] among the religions.” Din Syamsuddin, the chairman of Muhammadiyah, Indonesia's second largest Islamic organisation, said: "The Pope's statements reflect his lack of wisdom." "It is obvious from the statements that the Pope doesn't have a correct understanding of Islam." Hamid Ansari, chairman of the Indian National Commission for Minorities said, "The language used by the Pope sounds like that of his 12th-century counterpart who ordered the crusades." During a brief interview of Prince Rehman Manjee in Chicago, IL, he is quoted saying, "The pontif is not a God or a super being, he is clearly a human being and is allowed to make mistakes, he would however do well to remember God will judge his mistakes the same as the rest of ours. If he truely has contempt for the Muslim world and his beliefs are in conflict with the official position of the church, then a simple statement should be made to that effect." In Qatar, prominent Muslim scholar shaikh Youssef al-Qaradawi discounted The Pope's comments and said that Islam was a religion of peace and reason. In Islam, the word "Jihad" itself has a variety of meanings depending upon context and interpretation; ranging from any inner spiritual struggle to openly religious warfare.

No it was not me. Linda Cropp lost. Fenty will be our next mayor.

You may add to the list of spamming registrars. Please include their ip if possible.