The Federal Bureau of Investigation's backlog of untranslated terrorism intelligence doubled last year, and the time it takes the bureau to hire translators has grown longer, officials said Wednesday.
None of the backlogged material came in what the bureau considered its highest-priority investigations, Glenn A. Fine, the inspector general at the Justice Department, told the Senate Judiciary Committee, in releasing the findings of a new report by his office.
Still, Mr. Fine said the F.B.I. "has no assurance" that some 8,300 hours of untranslated material does not include information that could be critical to terrorism investigations.
In addition, the bureau told the committee that its long-delayed effort to overhaul its computer system and allow agents to search terrorism files more easily would not be completed until 2009 at the earliest.

The above is from Eric Lichtblau's "F.B.I.'s Translation Backlog Grows" in this morning's New York Times.

Lichtblau's article may remind some readers of other reports.

Such as 60 Minutes' "Lost In Translation:"

[Sibel] Edmonds says that to her amazement, from the day she started the job, she was told repeatedly by one of her supervisors that there was no urgency,- that she should take longer to translate documents so that the department would appear overworked and understaffed. That way, it would receive a larger budget for the next year. “We were told by our supervisors that this was the great opportunity for asking for increased budget and asking for more translators,” says Edmonds. “And in order to do that, don't do the work and let the documents pile up so we can show it and say that we need more translators and expand the department.” Edmonds says that the supervisor, in an effort to slow her down, went so far as to erase completed translations from her FBI computer after she'd left work for the day. “The next day, I would come to work, turn on my computer, and the work would be gone. The translation would be gone,” she says. “Then I had to start all over again and retranslate the same document. And I went to my supervisor and he said, ‘Consider it a lesson and don't talk about it to anybody else and don't mention it.’ "The lesson was don’t work, and don’t do the translations. ...Don't do the work because -- and this is our chance to increase the number of people here in this department."

"And in order to do that, don't do the work and let the documents pile up so we can show it and say that we need more translators and expand the department." Lichtblau's article notes:

The report also found that the F.B.I. had made progress in hiring more linguists, expanding its ranks to 1,338 in March, from 1,214 in April 2004, but continued to face problems. The F.B.I. met its hiring targets in fewer than half of 52 languages examined, and the average time it takes to hire a linguist grew from 13 months to at least 14 months, according to the bureau's data. The inspector general's office said its assessment showed that the average time was 16 months, with much of the delay blamed on applicants "waiting in queue" because of bureaucratic slowdowns.

Is there more to the problem?

Let's go to Democracy Now!'s "Fmr. FBI Translator: White House Had Intel On Possible Airplane Attack Pre-9/11:"

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Sibel Edmonds, a former F.B.I. Wiretap Translator, hired just after September 11, ultimately was fired. I want to ask about Senator Grassley on "60 Minutes" saying you're credible. Quote, “She's credible, and the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the F.B.I. have corroborated a lot of her story.” I want to ask you about why you were fired, and the reports you have made of serious misconduct, security lapses and gross incompetence in the F.B.I. Translations Unit, including supervisors who told translators to work slowly during the crucial post-9-11 investigations to get more funds as well as other issues of harassment of you, as you started to make these charges.
SIBEL EDMONDS: Yes. Senator Grassley, I have a lot of respect for Senator Grassley. After they investigated this case, he said basically, publicly, on CBS "60 Minutes" that these departments need to be turned upside-down. I took that very literally, and I have been expecting for past two years for these departments and the issues within these departments to be addressed. You see, after September 11, these people -- people from the F.B.I., came forward and they blamed everything on shortage of budgets and shortage of personnel. And they said, we failed, and these were the major causes. These were the reasons. That is not accurate. We were told during the time that these people were going on TV and they were begging for people to apply for translation positions because we had this shortage, what was going on behind the scenes was exactly opposite. We were being asked not to do these translations, and let the documents pile up, because within a month or so, they were scheduled to go in front of the Senate and Congress and ask for increased budgets. In doing so, they needed to give numbers of pages, numbers of documents and audios that they were not translated due to the shortage, and needed to be translated, and that they were urgent, and in order to do so, we had to increase that number, the number of pages and the number of audio.
AMY GOODMAN: It's interesting, Sibel Edmonds, I remember doing a piece on the translators who were gay and lesbian, who were fired at a time when there was a serious lack of translators. SIBEL EDMONDS: Again, this contradicts what they have been stating. I performed translations for three languages, and they had so many active cases under those languages. They are not even admitting that they had fired me. This is how they are putting it: “She was terminated purely for the convenience of the government.” Now, you can translate that in any way you want, but it is the vague statement -- that she was not fired, she was terminated purely for the government's convenience. Now, what is that? What is that?

You might also remember Sibel Edmonds' "Public Letter to 9/11 Commission Chairman from FBI Whistleblower" (Common Dreams):

After the terrorist attacks of September 11 we, the translators at the FBI's largest and most important translation unit, were told to slow down, even stop, translation of critical information related to terrorist activities so that the FBI could present the United States Congress with a record of 'extensive backlog of untranslated documents', and justify its request for budget and staff increases. While FBI agents from various field offices were desperately seeking leads and suspects, and completely depending on FBI HQ and its language units to provide them with needed translated information, hundreds of translators were being told by their administrative supervisors not to translate and to let the work pile up (please refer to the CBS-60 Minutes transcript dated October 2002, and provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This issue has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (Please refer to Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy's letters during the summer of 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This confirmed report has been reported to be substantiated by the Department of Justice Inspector General Report (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. (Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).
Today, almost three years after 9/11, and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's Counter terrorism and Counterintelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this issue, which when left un-addressed will have even more serious consequences. This issue is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and this serious issue despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

At some point, perhaps the Times will address Sibel Edmonds comments in "F.B.I. & 9/11" (published at Just a Citizen). They might start with her concluding paragraph:

The latest buzz topic regarding intelligence is the problem of sharing information, intelligence, within intelligence agencies and between intelligence agencies. To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence, and has not been told that certain information, despite its direct links, impacts and ties to terrorist related activities, is not given to or shared with Counterterrorism units, their investigations, and countering terrorism related activities. This was the case prior to 9/11, and remains in effect after 9/11. If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi- legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited 'direct pressure by the State Department,' and in other cases 'sensitive diplomatic relations' is cited. I provided the Department of Justice Inspector General and the 9/11 Commission with detailed and specific information and evidence regarding this issue, and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and the names of certain U.S. officials involved in these transactions and activities.

The Times has shown very little interest in this story. Perhaps Jefferson Morley's "Sept. 11 Allegations Lost in Translation" (Washington Post) offers an explanation?

Edmonds's story has been almost uniformly ignored in the U.S. daily press. Her allegations have been detailed in the online magazine http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/26/translator/ Salon and several liberal sites are playing them up. The Independent's story was mentioned briefly on Monday in Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing blog on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51323-2004Apr5.html washingtonpost.com. Tim Russert briefly quizzed the Republican and Democratic heads of the 9/11 commission about Edmonds during Sunday's "Meet the Press" program on NBC. Former Clinton White House aide Paul Begala mentioned it last week on CNN's "Crossfire." But the only U.S. newspaper to give Edmonds any extended coverage was the http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040402-064359-3845r.htm Washington Times. In January, a page-one New York Observer article on Edmonds's complaints about lax security in the FBI's translation office did not include the allegations that first appeared in the Independent.
Clearly, what we have here are two different standards of journalism: one American, one nearly global. The question is where does this difference come from?
One possible explanation is that the heart of Edmonds's story remains unconfirmed. Edmonds did work as a translator for the FBI for six months after the Sept. 11 attacks, but she was fired from her post for unspecified reasons. The documents that she says will corroborate her story have not yet surfaced and may not exist.

Is that why the Times is so tongue tied when it comes to Edmonds? Who knows?

While you ponder that, let's go back to Sibel Edomonds' "Public Letter to 9/11 Commission Chairman from FBI Whistleblower:"

Today, almost three years after 9/11, and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's Counter terrorism and Counterintelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this issue, which when left un-addressed will have even more serious consequences. This issue is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and this serious issue despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Ask yourself what has really changed?

But before you answer, refer to Sibel Edmonds "F.B.I. & 9/11" (this time the link takes you to BuzzFlash):

Over four years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high- level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing “302” forms, and the translator, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, Thomas Frields, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ‘keep quiet’ regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing (Please refer to Chicago Tribune article, dated July 21, 2004). Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to the 9/11 Commission on February 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, location, witness names, and the contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information. I provided the 9/11 Commission with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this case.
For almost four years since September 11, officials refused to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists’ plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the 9/11 attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the ‘use of airplanes’, ‘major US cities as targets’, and ‘Osama Bin Laden issuing the order.’ Coleen Rowley likewise reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ. All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC.
In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 attack, an agent from (city name omitted) field office, re-sent a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office, so that it could be re-translated. This Special Agent, in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rightfully believed that, considering his target of investigation (the suspect under surveillance), and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed certain information that could prove to be valuable in the investigation of terrorist activities. After this document was received by the FBI Washington Field Office and retranslated verbatim, the field agent’s hunch appeared to be correct. The new translation revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas (country name omitted). It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery. However, after the re-translation was completed and the new significant information was revealed, the unit supervisor in charge of certain Middle Eastern languages, Mike Feghali, decided NOT to send the re-translated information to the Special Agent who had requested it. Instead, this supervisor decided to send this agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. This supervisor, Mike Feghali, stated that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department. The FBI agent requesting the retranslation never received the accurate translation of that document. I provided this information to the 9/11 Commission on February 12, 2004, and to the Department of Justice Inspector General in May 2002.
The latest buzz topic regarding intelligence is the problem of sharing information, intelligence, within intelligence agencies and between intelligence agencies. To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence, and has not been told that certain information, despite its direct links, impacts and ties to terrorist related activities, is not given to or shared with Counterterrorism units, their investigations, and countering terrorism related activities. This was the case prior to 9/11, and remains in effect after 9/11.

To read the letters by Senators Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley that the J-Ass Justice Dept. retroactively classified, visit The Memory Hole. Via BuzzFlash, you can read "Statement of Sibel Edmonds Before the House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and Internal Relations." Also via BuzzFlash, you can read Sibel Edmonds "Demand Government Transparency and Accountability." By contrast, you can read the article in the Times today and be under the impression that not enough translators may have been a problem at some point.

Today, the New York Times tells you that " The Federal Bureau of Investigation's backlog of untranslated terrorism intelligence doubled last year . . ." Combine the above resources with the Times article and you may wonder if translators are still being instructed to work slowly so that the FBI can receive more funds?


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Mr. Pincus has not identified his source to the public. But a review of Mr. Pincus's own accounts and those of other people with detailed knowledge of the case strongly suggest that his source was neither Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, nor I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and was in fact a third administration official whose identity has not yet been publicly disclosed.
Mr. Pincus's most recent account, in the current issue of Nieman Reports, a journal of the Nieman Foundation, makes clear that his source had volunteered the information to him, something that people close to both Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said they did not do in their conversations with reporters.
Mr. Pincus has said he will not identify his source until the source does so. But his account and those provided by other reporters sought out by Mr. Fitzgerald in connection with the case provide a fresh window into the cast of individuals other than Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby who discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters.

The above is from Douglas Jehl's "Case of C.I.A. Officer's Leaked Identity Takes New Turn" in this morning's New York Times. ("David Johnston and Richard W. Stevenson contributed reporting for this article.")

Jehl (and Johnston & Stevenson) also attempt to address the issue of what Judith Miller was or wasn't covering. (Don't get too interested in that, the attempts don't reveal anything.) Hopefully, that won't overwhelm the news of the above. Speculation online points to Condi Rice's involvement in the outing. (See CounterPunch's "The Source Beyond Rove" by Roger Morris.) Pincus, as reported in the Times this morning, appears to be confirming that there was a third person helping to out Valerie Plame.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originallyappeared at The Common Ills.]
 

Much of the hearing focused on Mr. Flanigan's role in developing the Bush administration's policies on the treatment of prisoners, and in particular an opinion by Jay S. Bybee at the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department in August 2002 that gave a narrow definition of torture. Only pain like that accompanying "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function" constituted torture, Mr. Bybee wrote.
The administration disavowed the memorandum last year after its disclosure led to charges that it helped open the door to abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and elsewhere.
Mr. Flanigan went into more public detail on Tuesday about the development of the policies than had previous administration officials. He said the review was initiated in the summer of 2002 when the Central Intelligence Agency sought input on how torture statutes should be read to apply to the interrogation of top Qaeda leaders and whether certain techniques "beyond the normal Q. and A. approach" were allowed.
He said he took part in two White House briefings on the issue, along with Alberto R. Gonzales, who was then his boss as White House counsel and is now attorney general.
Mr. Flanigan said he was reluctant to state whether he considered several interrogation techniques, including mock executions and the simulated drowning of a prisoner, to be inappropriate or to constitute torture.

The above is from Eric Lichtblau's "Justice Nominee Is Questioned on Department Torture Policy" in this morning's New York Times.

Let's drop back to The Third Estate Sunday Review editorial one more time to note (again):

From Watching the Watchers' "Child Abuse at Abu Ghraib" by A! of Watching the Watchers, we learn that:
Data is emerging, no matter how the administration attempts to hide it, that the new photos and video of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison include the torture of children.
Norway's Prime Minister's office says it plans to address the situation with the U.S. "in a very severe and direct way."
Could this mean losing yet another ally in the Iraq occupation? Amnesty International in Norway has said that Norway can no longer continue their occupation of Iraq, or their support of US policy in this matter.
And some countries, as Tom Tomorrow notes, actually listen to their activists.
While there isn't even an inkling of this in the US Mainstream media, all over the world people are beginning to read about the US abusing children at Abu Ghraib.

Martha e-mails to note Josh White's "Abu Ghraib Dog Tactics Came From Guantanamo:
Testimony Further Links Procedures at 2 Facilities" (the Washington Post):

The preliminary hearing at Fort Meade, Md., for two Army dog handlers accused of mistreating detainees provided more evidence that severe tactics approved for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo migrated to Iraq and spiraled into the notorious abuse at Abu Ghraib in the late summer and early fall of 2003. The testimony came days after an internal military investigation showed the similarity between techniques used on the suspected "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and tactics seen in photographs at the prison that shocked the world.
Several Republican senators are pushing legislation -- opposed by the White House -- that would regulate the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and other military prisons. One of them, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), released recently declassified internal memos written in 2003 by the military's top lawyers in which they warned the Pentagon about developing severe tactics, arguing that they would heighten danger for U.S. troops caught by the enemy, among other problems.
"We have taken the legal and moral 'high-road' in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate," Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives wrote in a Feb. 5, 2003, memo. "We need to consider the overall impact of approving extreme interrogation techniques as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. forces have consistently been trained are unlawful."
At Fort Meade yesterday, soldiers testified that the top military intelligence officer at the prison, Col. Thomas M. Pappas, approved the use of dogs for interrogations. Maj. Matthew Miller, a prosecutor, also revealed that Pappas, faced with a request from interrogators to use dogs on three stubborn detainees captured at the same time as then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, "admitted he failed to ask" Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then the top general in Iraq, for approval as he was supposed to have done.

Also refer to Jane Mayer's "The Experiment" in the July 11th & 18th issue (it's a double issue, not two single issues) of The New Yorker. (Mayer's article is summarized here.)

Rod e-mails to note that the planned line up for Democracy Now! is:

As Cuban-born, anti-Castro militant Luis Posada Carriles is denied bail, we'll speak with Venezuela's lawyer on why Posada should be extradited. And, the latest on the Rove/CIA scandal with investigative reporter Bob Parry.

We'll note that in the next post as well (at Rod's request and because the community enjoys the reporting of Robert Parry).

Here's an excerpt from Parry's latest entitled "Rove's Backers Use 'CounterSpy Defense:'"


Another stunning part of the Rove defense has been how quickly right-wing commentators have flip-flopped from their traditional hard-line stance decrying the unauthorized disclosure of national security secrets.
For instance, six months ago, Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of the Washington Times, suggested prosecuting New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh on espionage charges (carrying a possible death penalty) for disclosing secret U.S. military reconnaissance operations inside Iran.
In a Jan. 19, 2005, column entitled "Espionage by any other name," Blankley argued that Hersh had given sensitive secrets to the enemy by describing U.S. preparations for war with Iran. Blankley cited the precedent of the government using the Espionage Act to convict Navy analyst Samuel Morison for selling photos of a Soviet ship to a Jane’s military publication in the mid-1980s.
Yet Hersh's article had an obvious importance to a national public debate about whether the Iraq War should be extended to Iran. Hersh’s New Yorker article was alerting the American people to how advanced the war planning already was.
No similar argument could be made about an overriding need for the public to know the identity of Valerie Plame. Yet, the Washington Times – along with other conservative news outlets – decried the Hersh leak while defending the Rove-Novak leak.
There is also irony in the Washington Times making pronouncements about espionage when it has been kept afloat since 1982 with secret financing from Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who was unmasked in a 1978 congressional investigation as a covert agent of the South Korean government trying to penetrate U.S. media and politics.
[For more on Moon's espionage role – and his ties to the Bush family – see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.]

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Pru e-mails to note a Sunday Times of London story. I wanted to note it now and not wait for the evening post. It's Michael Smith's "Army to put seven paratroops on trial for murder of Iraqi:"


The paratroopers' case centres on the death of Nadhem Abdullah, who was allegedly beaten to death by the paras after a roadside incident at al-Uzayr in Maysan province on May 11, 2003. The location is close to Majar al-Kabir, where six British military policemen were killed by a mob at a police station just six weeks later.
The Royal Military Police special investigation branch twice asked the family of the dead man to allow the body to be exhumed but they refused. They recently agreed that an autopsy could take place but only if it is carried out within the confines of the cemetery where he was buried.
The case is due to be heard at Colchester in September. The army prosecuting authority (APA) asked the judge to put it back so the autopsy could take place but he refused on the grounds that it has already taken more than two years to come to court.
In addition, the APA had hoped to bring Iraqi eyewitnesses to Britain but it is understood that some of them are now refusing to testify.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

The latest edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review is up. I'm reposting the editorial.

Editorial: The Gang That Couldn't Talk Straight

Jimmy Breslin wrote about The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. Plauging our nation today is The Gang That Couldn't Talk Straight. Whether it's "privatization" or "tort reform" or "Clean Skies" or "No Child Left Behind" everything's hidden behind a phrase that implies something directly opposite from the actual meaning. (And no, we don't find that "ironic.")

We've seen it play out since before the Bully Boy started occuyping the White House. "The votes have been counted and recounted!" (When in fact the majority had never been counted.) So maybe it shouldn't be shocking, for instance, that Bully Boy now says he'll fire whomever outed Plame in his administration only if they're found to have committed a crime.

Unless Bully Boy was seeking to establish a precedent, wasn't that always a given? Is he trying to tell us that's what he meant all along? "You go to prison, I'll fire you." That is where he draws the line?His concept of integrity baffles the mind. But we're seeing that and a lot worse play out. Over and over, they try to divert and obscure. The gang that couldn't talk straight fails to grasp that conviction or not, Rove and Libby have already done enough that demonstrates they need to go. Enough has also come out that a Congressional investigation is needed to find out who else helped and (just as important) who failed to do anything when news of the impending outing reached the administration (as early as July 7th, 2003, Valerie Plame was outed on January 14th, 2003).

From Watching the Watchers' "Child Abuse at Abu Ghraib" by A! of Watching the Watchers. , we learn that:

Data is emerging, no matter how the administration attempts to hide it, that the new photos and video of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison include the torture of children.
Norway's Prime Minister's office says it plans to address the situation with the U.S. "in a very severe and direct way."
Could this mean losing yet another ally in the Iraq occupation? Amnesty International in Norway has said that Norway can no longer continue their occupation of Iraq, or their support of US policy in this matter.
And some countries, as Tom Tomorrow notes, actually listen to their activists.While there isn't even an inkling of this in the US Mainstream media, all over the world people are beginning to read about the US abusing children at Abu Ghraib.

We weren't supposed to worry about that either, remember? Remember Operation Happy Talk of "a few bad apples" and that the photos just showed more of the same as the already released photos? Remember the GOP senators rushing to tell the public that releasing the photos could hurt us as a nation?

So they sat on them, after apparently lying about them, and a surprise only to the administration (which never seems to grasp that eventually the truth will come out), the photos haven't gone away.

Karl Rove and Karen Hughes may have instructed, "Clap your hands if you believe in Bully Boys." If so, not enough people clapped because not enough people believe. Operation Happy Talk goes into motion and at best disguises reality for a few weeks. Truth does come out.

And what's coming out is that this administration with all their talk of "integrity" and "honor" has been the least accountable administration in recent history. They've fixed reports. They've lied about PDBs. They've outed a CIA agent. They've tried to cover up abuse that we should have dealt with a long time ago.

If America is hurt by the release of the photos, the Happy Talkers have themselves to blame.

They should have owned up to what was happening when they saw the photos. Instead, they tried to obscure the issue. As if it weren't bad enough that the torture occurred, our administration is now seen as trying to cover it up.That's not the way the United States is supposed to behave.

Make no mistake, Bully Boy and his Bullies Without Borders have had a lot of enablers. Including wishy-washy Democrats who didn't want to speak up or, when they did speak up, wanted to immediately cave, buckle, wimp out in the face of criticism.

The only apologies in the last five years have been coming from Democrats and, frequently, they're apologizing for things that don't require an apology. While the Dems bend over backwards to apologize for words, the administration demonstrates no accountability for its actions.

That needs to stop. The unwarrented apologies from Dems who try to speak the truth and the lack of accountability for the most mismanged administration that any of us can recall.

Congress better start excersizing their oversight because if they don't, accountability may come in the form of votes on election day in 2006. We need a truth movement in this country. Actually, we have it. You saw it on Saturday with people meeting to discuss and raise attention on the Downing Street Memo. As with Valerie Plame, the public's the one pushing for the truth.

Hopefully, the mainstream press will also take part. But they haven't driven this. One person who is asking questions that need to be asked is Robert Parry. From his "Rove-Bush Conspiracy Noose Tightens:"

The second new fact is what Rove did after his conversation with Cooper.
Although supposedly in a rush to leave on vacation, Rove e-mailed Stephen J. Hadley, then Bush's deputy national security adviser (and now national security adviser). According to the Associated Press, Rove's e-mail said he "didn’t take the bait" when Cooper suggested that Wilson's criticisms had hurt the administration.
While it's not entirely clear what Rove meant in the e-mail, the significance is that Rove immediately reported to Hadley, an official who was in a position to know classified details about Plame’s job. In other words, the e-mail is evidence that the assault on Wilson was being coordinated at senior White House levels.
Cooper also told the grand jury that his second source on the allegations about the Niger trip and Wilson’s wife was Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a leading neoconservative advocate for invading Iraq. According to Cooper, Libby said on a not-for-attribution basis about Plame, "Yeah, I’ve heard that, too."

See last week's editorial and you'll know why we're glad he's raising it and surprised that everyone else (including Richard W. Stevenson in today's New York Times) isn't also on it.As the public begins asking what Parry's asking, The Gang That Couldn't Talk Straight is going to find itself in even hotter water. What we've constantly seen is avoidance in the place of accountability. With consistently bad polling results, we like to hope the sheen is finally off the Bully Boy.

Speeches and phrases based upon coded antonyms and the refusal of others in place to hold the administration accountable (the press, the Congress) have resulted in our current state. But at a time when things could seem hopeless, what we're seeing is a public getting active and asking the questions and raising the issues that others won't. That's healthy for democracy. And having grown weary waiting for leadership, the public's now ready to set the agenda and lead on their own.

[This editorial was written by the following: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, Jess, Dona, Jim and Ava, C.I. of The Common Ills, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner and Mike of Mikey Likes It!]

Check out the latest at The Third Estate Sunday Review.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

In this morning's New York Times, pay attention to Richard W. Stevenson's "For Bush, Effect of Investigation of C.I.A. Leak Case Is Uncertain." Stevenson's addressing some issues that revelations in the Plame outing raise:


Yet Mr. Bush has yet to address some uncomfortable questions that he may not be able to evade indefinitely.
For starters, did Mr. Bush know in the fall of 2003, when he was telling the public that no one wanted to get to the bottom of the case more than he did, that Mr. Rove, his longtime strategist and senior adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, had touched on the C.I.A. officer's identity in conversations with journalists before the officer's name became public? If not, when did they tell him, and what would the delay say in particular about his relationship with Mr. Rove, whose career and Mr. Bush's have been intertwined for decades?
Then there is the broader issue of whether Mr. Bush was aware of any effort by his aides to use the C.I.A. officer's identity to undermine the standing of her husband, a former diplomat who had publicly accused the administration of twisting its prewar intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program.
[. . .]
But Mr. Bush's political opponents say the president is in a box. In their view, either Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby kept the president in the dark about their actions, making them appear evasive at a time when Mr. Bush was demanding that his staff cooperate fully with the investigation, or Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby had told the president and he was not forthcoming in his public statements about his knowledge of their roles.
"We know that Karl Rove, through Scott McClellan, did not tell Americans the truth," said Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois and a former top aide in the Clinton White House. "What's important now is what Karl Rove told the president. Was it the truth, or was it what he told Scott McClellan?"

The next paragraph begins "There is a third option . . ." But apparently the e-mail Rove sent to Stephen J. Hadley after he got off the phone with Time's Matt Cooper has yet to set off a lightbulb in the mainstream press. (Robert Parry brought the issue up on the 19th of last week.)

At some point, perhaps the press will slap their foreheads and cry out "Insight!" Until that moment comes, we're left with that we can get. Which isn't to suggest that Stevenson's article isn't worthy of reading. (It is suggesting that an important avenue is closed off when it should be taken.) This is the strongest article in the paper this morning. Make a point to check it out or be aware of it.

What's the line from the old I Love Lucy episode? "Slowly I turn, step by step . . ."

We'll close with this from Parry's "Rove-Bush Conspiracy Noose Tightens:"

The second new fact is what Rove did after his conversation with Cooper.
Although supposedly in a rush to leave on vacation, Rove e-mailed Stephen J. Hadley, then Bush’s deputy national security adviser (and now national security adviser). According to the Associated Press, Rove’s e-mail said he “didn’t take the bait” when Cooper suggested that Wilson’s criticisms had hurt the administration.
While it’s not entirely clear what Rove meant in the e-mail, the significance is that Rove immediately reported to Hadley, an official who was in a position to know classified details about Plame’s job. In other words, the e-mail is evidence that the assault on Wilson was being coordinated at senior White House levels.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Data is emerging, no matter how the administration attempts to hide it, that the new photos and video of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison include the torture of children.
Norway's Prime Minister's office says it plans to address the situation with the U.S. "in a very severe and direct way."
Could this mean losing yet another ally in the Iraq occupation? Amnesty International in Norway has said that Norway can no longer continue their occupation of Iraq, or their support of US policy in this matter.
And some countries, as Tom Tomorrow notes, actually listen to their activists.
While there isn't even an inkling of this in the US Mainstream media, all over the world people are beginning to read about the US abusing children at Abu Ghraib.

What's the above from? "Child Abuse at Abu Ghraib" by A! of Watching the Watchers. Remember this morning's post about Kate Zernike's "Government Defies an Order to Release Iraq Abuse Photos" in the Times? A!'s on that story.

What's Watching the Watchers? A new site added our to our permalinks. The panel approved that site, if I can digress for a moment (and when I can help myself from digressing). In addition there are two other sites that were added.

An e-mail came in from someone this week who was very upset. He'd recently started blogging.
He'd only picked a few sites to permalink to and The Common Ills was one of them. He felt that the entire internet ignored him.

I certainly have no control over the entire internet. But he is left and he was blogging about politics so if he'd dropped us a line before he deleted his blog, we would have mentioned him here. He felt that I was acting like an "A-list blogger" and making him jump through hoops and "hit a certain traffic volume" before I'd even "recognize" him.

I'm not a "blogger" because this isn't a "blog." I'm blog ignorant and we're a community with an online resource/review. We can be banned or be ignored or break this rule or take this stance because I'm blog ignorant (it's actually a blessing). I'm not sure how an "A-list blogger" acts (never got that memo) but I certainly wasn't trying to ignore someone starting out.

We're a resource/review so if someone's new, aboslutely we want to know about them. But I don't have the time to surf online. Nor do I have the time to visit blogs. I work long hours, I'm volunteering my personal time on issues that matter to me. At any given time, there are probably thousands of voices online that are making a difference. If a member sees one and e-mails to highlight it, it goes up. But as with Blogger A, a lot of people are going to be missed.

If someone wants to contact us at the public e-mail address* we're happy to highlight what they're doing.

No one should throw in the towel because we didn't notice them. To try to prevent that from happening, the panel's approved for links to left sites that are starting out. Shirley found two that are linking to us and they went up with Watching the Watchers (which, again, has panel approval). If you see any site that's starting out and they've linked to us, the panel said we'll operate under the belief that (if they're left) they must hold some (maybe all) of the beliefs we do so those sites can quickly be added. (For a complete list of guidelines on that, Eli, Keesha and Wally will be sending out an e-mail on behalf of the panel tomorrow.)

Blogger A mentioned two sites that went up on our permalinks and noted that we were catering to "the other big dogs." After I got over the, "Did he just call us a dog?" moment, I realized that handling that privately among members (via the gina & krista round-robin) may have left some people wondering about that. For any member or regular visitor that doesn't get the round-robin, we were pranked. Ron and another person's site were replaced with those two sites. (I've e-mailed Ron about this so I think it's okay to mention him here.) When it was first pointed out to me, I went and changed the links back. Then it appeared again (after the password had been changed). As with the corrections of some of my typos, this continued. I didn't have the time to deal with this once a week (or more). So the sites (which do good work) went up on the permalinks. It was the easiest way to address the situation.

That's the short story (as round-robin readers know). But we're not trying to be "A-list" because someone's idea of "A-list" and my idea of "A-list" would probably differ. For instance, Bruce Willis is considered an "A-list" star by film standards based on box office. Though effective in certain roles (especially ones that call for him to be damaged and not flashy), I don't consider him "A-list." If "traffic" is how Blogger A was determing "A-list," we've never cared about it here. There's no site meter announcing, "You are visitor ___." (No site meter I've put up. But as has been said in this space since December, I'm sure google has something up somewhere that counts visits. If so, I don't have access to it and don't care to.)

Rebecca who's become the most internet savy of all of the community members doing sites says that links matter. (More than traffic, according to her.) Certainly, we aren't trying here to be stingy or to avoid listing people because of any elitist rules. Whether you agree with everything someone on our permalinks writes, hopefully you can see that they are trying to address things that matter. That's always been the main criteria. And when I approved links to blogs in the old days, I based it on impassioned e-mails from members advocating for a site.

Unlike "the boogers of the blogs" (Gina and Krista's term), I never felt the need to scream and yell and bully someone in an e-mail for suggesting that we provide a link. Or to demand an apology from them via bullying them that their favorite site would never be mentioned here if they didn't pony up with an apology.

We aren't elitist here. The point (repeated over and over) is that we need more voices, not less.
So if a visitor sees this and knows of a site or does their own site, they're certainly able to e-mail to promote it. We've highlighted an essay that someone's e-mailed in on and needed votes for.
We highlighted a search engine that someone had developed and e-mailed in on. (Which we wouldn't do again due to member complaints of spy ware.) If you're running a site and you feel you're being ignored, we're the last ones to ignore you because we're set up as a resource/review.

We don't highlight neocons. That's been where I drew the line. A man e-mailed saying he was starting his own site around Memorial Day. He's probably a very nice person but we don't highlight neocons even if they say they're of the left.

Occasionally BuzzFlash (one of our first links on the permalinks, Democracy Now! was the other) will e-mail on an editorial. Usually at least one member has already e-mailed on that and it's already intended to go up but if a member hasn't e-mailed on it, it still goes up (usually with a "We'll note . . ." sentence). BuzzFlash does excellent work. In my mind, they're "A-list." So if they can do that, Blogger A should have considered doing that as well.

A! e-mailed on the Watching the Watchers story above. I farmed it out because I saw the e-mail at the end of a break from The Third Estate Sunday Review. (If I'd had the time, I would have gone myself. But Saturdays are not overflowing with time.) Dallas (thank you, Dallas, always) looked it up while hunting down links for The Third Estate Sunday Review to grab some text (otherwise it wouldn't have had an excerpt).

But people can do that. Especially with it being summer and a lot of members going on vacation, we'll miss things that might be of interest to members.

We are not elitist on my end. We're a resource/review and we're happy to note things of the left and things of note. (If anyone wanted to call The Common Ills elitist, it should be community members with their own sites because I'm really bad about doing entries on that. Usually because a member will e-mail in saying Rebecca or Mike or Betty or Cedric or Kat put up something amazing and but they won't provide text or link so I'll take the attitude of "Okay, tonight, I'll have time and go visit their site . . ." and reality is that there's never time.) (I've asked both Mike and Cedric, members who've recently started sites, to e-mail me their writing to try to prevent that.)

I'm "old school" as Cedric will tell you. I'm going by what I read in print for what I'm steering members to. The computer screen usually make my eyes water. And I like to be more mobile than in front of a screen. I can get on the treadmill or the stepper with a book or magazine. I can take a book or magazine with me and read it during the day at various intervals. Members are the one finding things online. And they're the ones who deserve credit.

But they're not going to find everything by themselves. So if someone written something that's important or that they're trying to get out there, we can note it here. When I say "blog ignorant," take me at my word.

I'm really sad that Blogger A felt that the entire internet ignored the work he was doing. There's no series of hoops that someone has to jump through here. You need to be of the left.
That's really all it takes to get mentioned in an entry.

Though there's no "elitist" attitude on my part, there is a luxury of not giving a damn. I don't have to worry that "booger of the blogs" unlinked from us (after we did first if I can "nah-nah-nah" it for a moment). I'm not trying to sell the content of others. (If I can "nah-nah-nah" it one more time.) And we're not dependent upon traffic or ad revenues. We were built up peer to peer and that gives us a luxury that others don't have. And this isn't something I make money off of so I'm able to not worry about demands others have. (And I'm comfortable enough finacially which is another luxury.)

But some people have demands on them and they have to take things very seriously. There was a piece, a parody fairy tale, about advice for blogging at The Third Estate Sunday Review (and there are only five minutes left in the break I'm on so look it up yourself) and the advice in that is something I stand behind. If you're speaking in your own voice, and fate's kind, you will be noticed. Fate was kind for us. And mistakes I made were actually nonmistakes and actually increased word of mouth. (Such as song lyrics and posts titled after them. I obviously care a great deal about music. As Shirley pointed out, it made it hard to find a post on a topic if the topic was the first line of lyric, so we stopped that. But there were people coming to this site blind because Carly or someone else's lyric was in a title.) (The Joni Mitchell "Christmas is sparkling . . ." especially added people to the mix.) So we got lucky and we had members (and visitors, think of West who was banished by "booger" due to calling attention to our site and four others) getting the word out.

But we're not elitist and I have no desire to shut down new voices. But "blog ignorant" means what it implies. I hope Blogger A starts back up and, if so, e-mails to call attention to his work.
On a good day, I'm able to go to BuzzFlash, The Daily Howler and Danny Schecheter's site. That's a good day for me. Most days I don't even have the time for that. So if a visitor stumbles onto this post and feels like there's no one paying attention to her or his work, s/he should e-mail and let us know about it.

To me the "elitist" are the gatekeepers. And that means, for someone who doesn't have the time to surf the net, the Cokie Roberts, et al. To a lot of people, Cokie Roberts is "A-list." To me, Amy Goodman is "A-list" because she's speaking in her own voice and not going for the obvious. I hope that's clear.

*Note: As members voted on in Gina & Krista's poll, there are now two e-mail addresses for this site. There is the public one (common_ills@yahoo.com) and there's a private e-mail address. Members should use the private e-mail address. I'll check that daily (several times). If I'm not in the mood for drive bys and flamers, I may skip a day on the public address. The private address is for members only. If you're a member who doesn't subscribe to the gina & krista round-robin, please e-mail at common_ills@yahoo.com and as soon as I can, I'll e-mail you the private address. I'm thinking that was Jess or Jim's suggestion (of The Third Estate Sunday Review). (And in too much of a hurry to check that out with them.) Whoever had the suggestion, it was a great suggestion and the account was created almost as soon as they came up with the idea. When Krista & Gina's poll results came back Wednesday, members agreed it was a great idea. So that's how we're doing it now.

I'm pushing the clock here but there's a Saturday Howler that Billie's e-mailed to note so let me note it. Somerby's dealing with a number of issues but we'll focus on Senator Overblown, McCain:

IMAGINE ALL THE SHILLING: Senator Straight-Talk couldn't grasp what the whole thing was about. He spoke with Imus Wednesday morning. Frankly, he was bollixed:
IMUS (7/20/05): I think [John Kerry] said Karl Rove ought to resign over this whole CIA leak thing. What's your view of what’s going on over there at the White House?
MCCAIN: Well, I think one thing is obvious. Karl Rove were--and others--were attempting to set the record straight with reporters that Vice President Cheney did not send Mr. Wilson, that it was done by the CIA and at the recommendation of Mr. Wilson's wife; that there were several other factual errors in Mr. Wilson's depiction of events. Now what happened after that, I don't know. I don't understand it, and I don't think you do either, that a journalist who didn't write a word is now in jail. And so—
IMUS: Judith Miller of the New York Times.
MCCAIN: So I don’t know.
Poor Straight-Talk! The straight-shooting solon couldn't understand something an eight—year-old schoolkid could grasp! Why was Judith Miller in jail? Duh! She'd been ordered to testify in a criminal probe, and had refused to do so. Whatever you think of the wisdom of her jailing, there's nothing complex or confusing about it, but Straight-Talk was pandering hard to the press--and pretending that this whole affair really doesn't make any sense. (He had a perfect rube to work with, of course. The hapless Imus says every day that he can't understand why Miller is in jail, since she never wrote a story.) But Straight-Talk did think one thing was "obvious;" he thought it was "obvious" that Rove was just trying to set the record straight when he spoke to reporters like Time's Matt Cooper. We don't know what makes Rove's motive so "obvious"--and Straight-Talk has the facts fuzzed-up himself; too lazy to read Wilson's column himself, he keeps saying and implying that Wilson claimed that Dick Cheney sent him to Niger (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/22/05). Could it be that Straight-Talk was spinning us blue? Could it be that "Straight" was talking it crooked? We were amazed when Straight-Talk said that Rove's motives were so "obvious"--but then, along came David Brooks to show what a Full Pander looks like.

Click here to read in full.

The e-mail address (public) for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

From the Air America homepage, here's the weekend schedule:

So What Else is News • Sat 3pm-5pm ET
This weekend, singer/songwriter Mike Doughty moves on to Dave Matthews' label. Plus, Canada becomes the frontlines of the war against Wal-mart.


Ring of Fire • Sat 5pm-7pm ET, Rebroadcast Sun 3pm-5pm
Mike consults corporate cover-up expert Jackie Rion about the President’s knowledge of Rove’s perfidy, Bobby talks with attorney and DNA expert Barry Scheck, and author Steve Brouwer discusses how the neocons robbed us blind.

The Laura Flanders Show • Sat and Sun 7pm-10pm ET
Saturday: A report from the ACLU’s biennial conference and the latest on the Supreme Court fight to save our CONSTITUTION! Jamin Raskin, author and American University Law professor; John Judge, on 9/11 Commission Failure Briefings; David Swanson on the Downing Street Memo movement; and Maria Raha, author of "Cinderella's Big Score: Women of the Punk and Indie Underground."
Sunday: Laura brings you the truth, from families with folks at war and brave, honest veterans for peace. Karen Houppert, author of "Home Fires Burning: Married to the Military-for Better or Worse," and Stacy Bannerman, a human rights advocate and spouse of National Guard soldier who served in Iraq. Then Claude Anshin Thomas, a homeless Vietnam vet turned Buddhist monk and author of "At Hell's Gate: A Soldier's Journey from War to Peace."

The Kyle Jason Show • Sat 10pm-Midnight ET
Kyle delivers a double feature: Herb Boyd, author of "We Shall Overcome: The History of the Civil Rights Movement As It Happened" and Lee, the Lead Singer of "The Square Egg," Plus, if you've helped an individual or a group of people in anyway, Kyle wants to hear from you! Call 1-866-303-2270

Ecotalk • Sun 7-8 am ET
Betsy meets the woman behind a new PBS film called “The Fire Next Time,” about competing economic and environmental interests in a small town and the horrible effects of right-wing radio. She also talks to a woman who is protecting Asiatic bears from torture, and discusses the recently launched Exxpose Exxon boycott.

Mother Jones Radio • Sun 1pm-2pm ET
Washington correspondent Michael Scherer and People For the American Way president Ralph Neas on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Plus, consumer advocate John Cobarruvias and grandmother-turned-activist Jordan Fogal on how anti-consumer laws could affect you.

Politically Direct • Sun 3pm-4pm ET
David takes you back (or forward) to Revolutionary Times on Politically Direct this week, with guests Joe Trippi, former campaign manager for Howard Dean and author of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" and Grammy Award winning singer/songer writer Steve Earle, host of AAR's "The Revolution Starts Now."

The Laura Flanders Show • Sat and Sun 7pm-10pm ET
Sunday: Laura brings you the truth, from families with folks at war and brave, honest veterans for peace. Karen Houppert, author of "Home Fires Burning: Married to the Military-for Better or Worse," and Stacy Bannerman, a human rights advocate and spouse of National Guard soldier who served in Iraq. Then Claude Anshin Thomas, a homeless Vietnam vet turned Buddhist monk and author of "At Hell's Gate: A Soldier's Journey from War to Peace."

The Revolution Starts...Now • Sun 10pm-11pm ET
Actor and activist Tim Robbins shares his favorite tunes. The flavor is political. Picks include: System of a Down, Eliza Gilkson, X, Tom Waits, P.J. Harvey, and Butch Hancock.

On the Real • Sun 11pm -1 am ET
This week live in the Greenroom is Time magazine editor Christopher John Farley's "Kingston By Starlight." Comedian Zooman drops in to yuck it up and Dave Zirin calls in to chat sports with Chuck and Gia'na.

If you're not famaliar with Dave Zirin (who'll be guesting on On the Real), read Mike's entry about Zirin guesting on Democracy Now!

Air America can be heard on XM satellite radio, online via Windows Media Player or Real Player and over the airwaves in many areas (I'm counting 67 but I'm sure my math is wrong; also note Alaska and Hawaii are areas broadcast in over non-satellite radio).

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]