Monday, October 31, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Democracy Now! | Former Head of UN Humanitarian Program Denis Halliday: U.S. and Key Allies Facilitated Profiteering in Oil For Food Program
Al-CIA-duh: OU’s Saudi 9/11 Provocateur Protected By DOJ
Friday, October 28, 2005 - 11:06 PM, - Posted by valis (39 Reads)
Saudi Hussein Moshen Al Attas spent time at the University of Oklahoma (OU) in 2000 and 2001 with Black Muslim Melvin Lattimore (Muslim name is Menepta). Al Attas was on a rental agreement at an OU apartment but he also spent time in Lattimore's residence and in OU’s Parkview apartment rooms with 9/11 hijackers Al Hazmi, Moussaoui, Atta and Al Shehhi.
Al Attas visited the Norman mosque and Norman Airman flight school with the same 9/11 hijackers. Al Attas is also believed to have known Nick Berg, the former OU student beheaded in Iraq. The Norman mosque is across the street from OU’s Parkview apartments. The OU student, Joel Hinrichs, who was blown up by TATP explosives on October 1, 2005, lived with a Pakistani roommate, Fazal Cheema, in Parkview apartments. Hinrichs was seen with Islamic students for months going in and out of the same Norman mosque and his room at Parkview apartments.  Al Attas drove Moussaoui from Norman, Oklahoma to Minnesota for Moussaoui to attend flight school training. Al Attas was arrested with Moussaoui in Minnesota by the FBI but released on $5000 bail to Lattimore in August 2001. Lattimore and Al Attas returned to Norman. FBI headquarters in DC was blocked the viewing of Moussaoui’s computer files by local Minnesota FBI agents in August 2001 even though an FBI agent in Minnesota warned FBI headquarters that Moussaoui was likely involved in a plot to attack the WTC centers. Also in August 2001 the Pennsylvania flight ticket for 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah was purchased at the OU library in Norman. Jarrah was part of Attas’ and Al Shehhi’s Hamburg cell that was being tracked by CIA agent David Edger for over 3 years. But as Jarrads ticket was being purchased and as Moussaoui was being driven to Minnesota by Al Attas, David Edger suddenly showed up at OU also in August 2001 to be a visiting professor invited by his close friend, David Boren. Boren is the president of OU, the former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and CIA director George Tenet’s mentor. As his OU press books, publications and speeches reveal, Boren is an outspoken CFR and “Skull and Bones” public advocate of promoting world government with Islamics around the word and especially on the OU campus. Boren went to Yale and is a prominent member of both the CFR and “Skull and Bones”. Al Attas was again arrested after the 9/11 attacks in Norman, OK on an expired visa charge and was taken by the FBI to New York. Al Attas eventually pled guilty to lying to FBI agents under an original plea bargain arrangement with the DOJ in which Al Attas was supposed to leave the US and return to Saudi Arabia. The Daily Oklahoman and Norman Transcript newspapers reported on Lattimore publicly defending Al Attas after the Al Attas arrest in Norman after the 9/11 attacks. Lattimore was later arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced for 14 months in November 2001 for carrying a firearm under a previous felony conviction. It has been reported that Lattimore’s credit card was used for the 1993 WTC bombers and that Lattimore helped McVeigh in the 1995 OKC bombing. This information was known to DOJ criminal division attorneys John C. Richter and Michael Chertoff (currently Director of Homeland Security) in 2001 when Richter prosecuted Lattimore on the much lesser firearms charge to hide from the public limelight Lattimore’s role as an FBI informant and provocateur in the 1993 WTC, OKC bombings and 9/11 attacks.[2,4] According to publicly available records and news accounts, Moussaouis has claimed in Moussaoui’s court proceeding papers that the former Imam of OU’s mosque called and spoke to Al Attas and Moussaoui in Minnesota shortly before they were arrested in Minnesota. The Imam is alleged to have said to Al Attas and Moussaoui words to the effect that “I understand that you are on a jihad mission.” Why the FBI would release Al Attas to Lattimore in Minnesota after the arrest of Al Attas and Moussaouis is suspicious but consistent with the DOJ and FBI protection of their provocateur informant, Melvin Lattimore. However, when Chertoff and Richter for the DOJ made the plea agreement with AlAttas, the FBI and DOJ (via FBI agents Stephen Butler and Ken Williams) already knew that Hussein Moshen Al Attas had also spent time in San Diego with hijackers Hani Hanjour, Al Mihdahr, AlS heehi and Al Hazmi. Al Attas also spent time in the San Diego apartment rented to the hijackers by FBI informant/landlord Abdusattar Shaikh. And it is also extremely likely that Saudi citizen Al Attas was known to and met with Saudi royal financer of 9/11, Bayoumi in San Diego. This is because it is known that Bayoumi met with the same hijackers Al Attas knew and stayed with in San Diego and at OU in Norman, OK. Al Attas plea agreement without imprisonment but to get Al Attas to leave the US was made to preclude public exposure and possible prosecution of real Saudi royal and US (Bush) connections/ foreknowledge provocation of the 9/11 attacks. Al Attas was given "royal treatment" not just because he was connected to a Saudi royal relative, but also because he, like Melvin Lattimore, was known to (an operative for?) the FBI at OU and in San Diego for two three years before 9/11. FBI agent Stephen Butler was blocked by GW Bush from testifying to the 9/11 Congressional investigation about 9/11 and the San Diego cell of Al Attas, Bayoumi, Al Midahr, Al Hazmi etc. Porter Goss’ staff director on the House intelligence committee, James Lewis, who wrote the Congressional report, specifically left out the part about Al Attas and the San Diego cell. I know, because Lewis threatened me with an FBI investigation for my calling Lewis and giving him info about the San Diego cell members even before (but near the end of) the 9/11 Congressional report was completed. Al Attas and his connections with the San Diego hijackers and Bayoumi were related to the 28 missing pages redacted by James Lewis specifically for current CIA director Porter Goss and GW Bush. Al Attas, Lattimore and Ali Mohammed were eventually set free by the efforts of John C. Richter and Chertoff to protect and hide their roles with the FBI, CIA and DOJ in terror attacks on America [2,3,4]. John Richter, like CIA agent David Edger, was suddenly put in place at OU in August 2001 just before 9/11 and was used to cover up Al Attas’ and Lattimore’s roles and CIA/FBI foreknowledge in 9/11 at OU. Also in August 2001 John Richter’s wife was given a prestigious position as a professor in OU’s law school with the knowledge and approval of David Boren. Could Hussein Al Attas, Ali Mohammed and Melvin Lattimore have played a role with the Islamic students seen in the OU mosque and at Parkview apartments accompanying OU student Joel Hinrichs months before Hinrichs was blown up? Thanks to Richter and Chertoff, Al Attas, Ali Mohammed and Lattimore were freed, roaming the streets and available to coordinate an Islamic terror attempt to encourage and take advantage of an unstable student like Joel Hinrichs. Because of special DOJ plea bargain arrangements made with Al Attas like those made with Ali Mohammed, there is no guarantee that Al Attas ever went back to Saudi Arabia, and even if he did, that Attas did not return to the US or Norman, OK well before October 1, 2005. Islamofascists and world government Islamosocialists in the US and around the world are openly supported by OU's president David Boren, FBI director Mueller (promotes Islamic political activities in the US via CAIR), Karl Rove and Grover Norquist, GW Bush and Saudi financier Khalid Mahfouz. Is this why the Islamofasicst and Islamosocialist men like Al Attas and Lattimore and their Wahabbist Saudi sponsors have not been held to account by the FBI, CIA and DOJ for their roles in terrorist orchestration advancing world government? Certainly Saudi terror backers and sympathizers who are close friends of GW Bush, Mueller and David Boren are getting away with being complicit in if not accessories to the murder of US citizens via Saudi Wahabbist funded and protected terror activities planned at US mosques and universities like OU. These men, like Boren, are succeeding with using Islamic terror pretexts to promote their world government, socialistic and fascist police state agenda. Copyright 2005 by Patrick B. Briley References:
Did the Fed's Cover Up Oklahoma University Bombing?
New Police State, Terror Pretext Mission for DOJ Official? [John C. Richter]
US Provocateur for AlQaeda Freed for New Terror Mission? [Ali Mohammed]
Chertoff Created Terror Pretexts for US Police StateFrom the ARG Al-CIA-duh Section
October 30, 2005
What's a Modern Girl to Do?
By MAUREEN DOWD
When I entered college in 1969, women were bursting out of theirs 50's chrysalis, shedding girdles, padded bras and conventions. The Jazz Age spirit flared in the Age of Aquarius. Women were once again imitating men and acting all independent: smoking, drinking, wanting to earn money and thinking they had the right to be sexual, this time protected by the pill. I didn't fit in with the brazen new world of hard-charging feminists. I was more of a fun-loving (if chaste) type who would decades later come to life in Sarah Jessica Parker's Carrie Bradshaw. I hated the grubby, unisex jeans and no-makeup look and drugs that zoned you out, and I couldn't understand the appeal of dances that didn't involve touching your partner. In the universe of Eros, I longed for style and wit. I loved the Art Deco glamour of 30's movies. I wanted to dance the Continental like Fred and Ginger in white hotel suites; drink martinis like Myrna Loy and William Powell; live the life of a screwball heroine like Katharine Hepburn, wearing a gold lamé gown cut on the bias, cavorting with Cary Grant, strolling along Fifth Avenue with my pet leopard.
My mom would just shake her head and tell me that my idea of the 30's was wildly romanticized. "We were poor," she'd say. "We didn't dance around in white hotel suites." I took the idealism and passion of the 60's for granted, simply assuming we were sailing toward perfect equality with men, a utopian world at home and at work. I didn't listen to her when she cautioned me about the chimera of equality.
On my 31st birthday, she sent me a bankbook with a modest nest egg she had saved for me. "I always felt that the girls in a family should get a little more than the boys even though all are equally loved," she wrote in a letter. "They need a little cushion to fall back on. Women can stand on the Empire State Building and scream to the heavens that they are equal to men and liberated, but until they have the same anatomy, it's a lie. It's more of a man's world today than ever. Men can eat their cake in unlimited bakeries."
I thought she was just being Old World, like my favorite jade, Dorothy Parker, when she wrote:
By the time you swear you're his, Shivering and sighing, And he vows his passion is Infinite, undying - Lady, make a note of this: One of you is lying.
I thought the struggle for egalitarianism was a cinch, so I could leave it to my earnest sisters in black turtlenecks and Birkenstocks. I figured there was plenty of time for me to get serious later, that America would always be full of passionate and full-throated debate about the big stuff - social issues, sexual equality, civil rights. Little did I realize that the feminist revolution would have the unexpected consequence of intensifying the confusion between the sexes, leaving women in a tangle of dependence and independence as they entered the 21st century.
Maybe we should have known that the story of women's progress would be more of a zigzag than a superhighway, that the triumph of feminism would last a nanosecond while the backlash lasted 40 years.
Despite the best efforts of philosophers, politicians, historians, novelists, screenwriters, linguists, therapists, anthropologists and facilitators, men and women are still in a muddle in the boardroom, the bedroom and the Situation Room.
y mom gave me three essential books on the subject of men. The first, when I was 13, was "On Becoming a Woman." The second, when I was 21, was "365 Ways to Cook Hamburger." The third, when I was 25, was "How to Catch and Hold a Man," by Yvonne Antelle. ("Keep thinking of yourself as a soft, mysterious cat.. . .Men are fascinated by bright, shiny objects, by lots of curls, lots of hair on the head . . . by bows, ribbons, ruffles and bright colors.. . .Sarcasm is dangerous. Avoid it altogether.")
Because I received "How to Catch and Hold a Man" at a time when we were entering the Age of Equality, I put it aside as an anachronism. After all, sometime in the 1960's flirting went out of fashion, as did ironing boards, makeup and the idea that men needed to be "trapped" or "landed." The way to approach men, we reasoned, was forthrightly and without games, artifice or frills. Unfortunately, history has shown this to be a misguided notion.
I knew it even before the 1995 publication of "The Rules," a dating bible that encouraged women to return to prefeminist mind games by playing hard to get. ("Don't stay on the phone for more than 10 minutes.. . .Even if you are the head of your own company. . .when you're with a man you like, be quiet and mysterious, act ladylike, cross your legs and smile.. . .Wear black sheer pantyhose and hike up your skirt to entice the opposite sex!")
I knew this before fashion magazines became crowded with crinolines, bows, ruffles, leopard-skin scarves, 50's party dresses and other sartorial equivalents of flirting and with articles like "The Return of Hard to Get." ("I think it behooves us to stop offering each other these pearls of feminism, to stop saying, 'So, why don't you call him?"' a writer lectured in Mademoiselle. "Some men must have the thrill of the chase.")
I knew things were changing because a succession of my single girlfriends had called, sounding sheepish, to ask if they could borrow my out-of-print copy of "How to Catch and Hold a Man."
Decades after the feminist movement promised equality with men, it was becoming increasingly apparent that many women would have to brush up on the venerable tricks of the trade: an absurdly charming little laugh, a pert toss of the head, an air of saucy triumph, dewy eyes and a full knowledge of music, drawing, elegant note writing and geography. It would once more be considered captivating to lie on a chaise longue, pass a lacy handkerchief across the eyelids and complain of a case of springtime giddiness.
Today, women have gone back to hunting their quarry - in person and in cyberspace - with elaborate schemes designed to allow the deluded creatures to think they are the hunters. "Men like hunting, and we shouldn't deprive them of their chance to do their hunting and mating rituals," my 26-year-old friend Julie Bosman, a New York Times reporter, says. "As my mom says, Men don't like to be chased." Or as the Marvelettes sang, "The hunter gets captured by the game."
These days the key to staying cool in the courtship rituals is B. & I., girls say - Busy and Important. "As much as you're waiting for that little envelope to appear on your screen," says Carrie Foster, a 29-year-old publicist in Washington, "you happen to have a lot of stuff to do anyway." If a guy rejects you or turns out to be the essence of evil, you can ratchet up from B. & I. to C.B.B., Can't Be Bothered. In the T.M.I. - Too Much Information - digital age, there can be infinite technological foreplay.
Helen Fisher, a Rutgers anthropologist, concurs with Julie: "What our grandmothers told us about playing hard to get is true. The whole point of the game is to impress and capture. It's not about honesty. Many men and women, when they're playing the courtship game, deceive so they can win. Novelty, excitement and danger drive up dopamine in the brain. And both sexes brag."
Women might dye their hair, apply makeup and spend hours finding a hip-slimming dress, she said, while men may drive a nice car or wear a fancy suit that makes them seem richer than they are. In this retro world, a woman must play hard to get but stay soft as a kitten. And avoid sarcasm. Altogether.
In those faraway, long-ago days of feminism, there was talk about equal pay for equal work. Now there's talk about "girl money."
A friend of mine in her 30's says it is a term she hears bandied about the New York dating scene. She also notes a shift in the type of gifts given at wedding showers around town, a reversion to 50's-style offerings: soup ladles and those frilly little aprons from Anthropologie and vintage stores are being unwrapped along with see-through nighties and push-up bras.
"What I find most disturbing about the 1950's-ification and retrogression of women's lives is that it has seeped into the corporate and social culture, where it can do real damage," she complains. "Otherwise intelligent men, who know women still earn less than men as a rule, say things like: 'I'll get the check. You only have girl money."'
Throughout the long, dark ages of undisputed patriarchy, women connived to trade beauty and sex for affluence and status. In the first flush of feminism, women offered to pay half the check with "woman money" as a way to show that these crass calculations - that a woman's worth in society was determined by her looks, that she was an ornament up for sale to the highest bidder - no longer applied.
Now dating etiquette has reverted. Young women no longer care about using the check to assert their equality. They care about using it to assess their sexuality. Going Dutch is an archaic feminist relic. Young women talk about it with disbelief and disdain. "It's a scuzzy 70's thing, like platform shoes on men," one told me.
"Feminists in the 70's went overboard," Anne Schroeder, a 26-year-old magazine editor in Washington, agrees. "Paying is like opening a car door. It's nice. I appreciate it. But he doesn't have to."
Unless he wants another date.
Women in their 20's think old-school feminists looked for equality in all the wrong places, that instead of fighting battles about whether women should pay for dinner or wear padded bras they should have focused only on big economic issues.
After Googling and Bikramming to get ready for a first dinner date, a modern girl will end the evening with the Offering, an insincere bid to help pay the check. "They make like they are heading into their bag after a meal, but it is a dodge," Marc Santora, a 30-year-old Metro reporter for The Times, says. "They know you will stop them before a credit card can be drawn. If you don't, they hold it against you."
One of my girlfriends, a TV producer in New York, told me much the same thing: "If you offer, and they accept, then it's over."
Jurassic feminists shudder at the retro implication of a quid profiterole. But it doesn't matter if the woman is making as much money as the man, or more, she expects him to pay, both to prove her desirability and as a way of signaling romance - something that's more confusing in a dating culture rife with casual hookups and group activities. (Once beyond the initial testing phase and settled in a relationship, of course, she can pony up more.)
"There are plenty of ways for me to find out if he's going to see me as an equal without disturbing the dating ritual," one young woman says. "Disturbing the dating ritual leads to chaos. Everybody knows that."
When I asked a young man at my gym how he and his lawyer girlfriend were going to divide the costs on a California vacation, he looked askance. "She never offers," he replied. "And I like paying for her." It is, as one guy said, "one of the few remaining ways we can demonstrate our manhood."
At a party for the Broadway opening of "Sweet Smell of Success," a top New York producer gave me a lecture on the price of female success that was anything but sweet. He confessed that he had wanted to ask me out on a date when he was between marriages but nixed the idea because my job as a Times columnist made me too intimidating. Men, he explained, prefer women who seem malleable and awed. He predicted that I would never find a mate because if there's one thing men fear, it's a woman who uses her critical faculties. Will she be critical of absolutely everything, even his manhood?
He had hit on a primal fear of single successful women: that the aroma of male power is an aphrodisiac for women, but the perfume of female power is a turnoff for men. It took women a few decades to realize that everything they were doing to advance themselves in the boardroom could be sabotaging their chances in the bedroom, that evolution was lagging behind equality.
A few years ago at a White House correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful and successful actress. Within minutes, she blurted out: "I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women."
I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with young women whose job it was was to care for them and nurture them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.
John Schwartz of The New York Times made the trend official in 2004 when he reported: "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame." A study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggested that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors. Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them. There it is, right in the DNA: women get penalized by insecure men for being too independent.
"The hypothesis," Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, theorized, "is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimize the risk of raising offspring that are not their own." Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference between their attraction to men who might work above them and their attraction to men who might work below them.
So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? Do women get less desirable as they get more successful?
After I first wrote on this subject, a Times reader named Ray Lewis e-mailed me. While we had assumed that making ourselves more professionally accomplished would make us more fascinating, it turned out, as Lewis put it, that smart women were "draining at times."
Or as Bill Maher more crudely but usefully summed it up to Craig Ferguson on the "Late Late Show" on CBS: "Women get in relationships because they want somebody to talk to. Men want women to shut up."
Women moving up still strive to marry up. Men moving up still tend to marry down. The two sexes' going in opposite directions has led to an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids.
Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an economist and the author of "Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children," a book published in 2002, conducted a survey and found that 55 percent of 35-year-old career women were childless. And among corporate executives who earn $100,000 or more, she said, 49 percent of the women did not have children, compared with only 19 percent of the men.
Hewlett quantified, yet again, that men have an unfair advantage. "Nowadays," she said, "the rule of thumb seems to be that the more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child. For men, the reverse is true."
A 2005 report by researchers at four British universities indicated that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to marry, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.
On a "60 Minutes" report on the Hewlett book, Lesley Stahl talked to two young women who went to Harvard Business School. They agreed that while they were the perfect age to start families, they didn't find it easy to meet the right mates.
Men, apparently, learn early to protect their eggshell egos from high-achieving women. The girls said they hid the fact that they went to Harvard from guys they met because it was the kiss of death. "The H-bomb," they dubbed it. "As soon as you say Harvard Business School . . . that's the end of the conversation," Ani Vartanian said. "As soon as the guys say, 'Oh, I go to Harvard Business School,' all the girls start falling into them."
Hewlett thinks that the 2005 American workplace is more macho than ever. "It's actually much more difficult now than 10 years ago to have a career and raise a family," she told me. "The trend lines continue that highly educated women in many countries are increasingly dealing with this creeping nonchoice and end up on this path of delaying finding a mate and delaying childbearing. Whether you're looking at Italy, Russia or the U.S., all of that is true." Many women continue to fear that the more they accomplish, the more they may have to sacrifice. They worry that men still veer away from "challenging" women because of a male atavistic desire to be the superior force in a relationship.
"With men and women, it's always all about control issues, isn't it?" says a guy I know, talking about his bitter divorce.
Or, as Craig Bierko, a musical comedy star and actor who played one of Carrie's boyfriends on "Sex and the City," told me, "Deep down, beneath the bluster and machismo, men are simply afraid to say that what they're truly looking for in a woman is an intelligent, confident and dependable partner in life whom they can devote themselves to unconditionally until she's 40."
Ms. Versus Mrs.
"Ms." was supposed to neutralize the stature of women, so they weren't publicly defined by their marital status. When The Times finally agreed to switch to Ms. in its news pages in 1986, after much hectoring by feminists, Gloria Steinem sent flowers to the executive editor, Abe Rosenthal. But nowadays most young brides want to take their husbands' names and brag on the moniker Mrs., a brand that proclaims you belong to him. T-shirts with "MRS." emblazoned in sequins or sparkly beads are popular wedding-shower gifts.
A Harvard economics professor, Claudia Goldin, did a study last year that found that 44 percent of women in the Harvard class of 1980 who married within 10 years of graduation kept their birth names, while in the class of '90 it was down to 32 percent. In 1990, 23 percent of college-educated women kept their own names after marriage, while a decade later the number had fallen to 17 percent.
Time magazine reported that an informal poll in the spring of 2005 by the Knot, a wedding Web site, showed similar results: 81 percent of respondents took their spouse's last name, an increase from 71 percent in 2000. The number of women with hyphenated surnames fell from 21 percent to 8 percent.
"It's a return to romance, a desire to make marriage work," Goldin told one interviewer, adding that young women might feel that by keeping their own names they were aligning themselves with tedious old-fashioned feminists, and this might be a turnoff to them.
The professor, who married in 1979 and kept her name, undertook the study after her niece, a lawyer, changed hers. "She felt that her generation of women didn't have to do the same things mine did, because of what we had already achieved," Goldin told Time.
Many women now do not think of domestic life as a "comfortable concentration camp," as Betty Friedan wrote in "The Feminine Mystique," where they are losing their identities and turning into "anonymous biological robots in a docile mass." Now they want to be Mrs. Anonymous Biological Robot in a Docile Mass. They dream of being rescued - to flirt, to shop, to stay home and be taken care of. They shop for "Stepford Fashions" - matching shoes and ladylike bags and the 50's-style satin, lace and chiffon party dresses featured in InStyle layouts - and spend their days at the gym trying for Wisteria Lane waistlines.
The Times recently ran a front-page article about young women attending Ivy League colleges, women who are being groomed to take their places in the professional and political elite, who are planning to reject careers in favor of playing traditional roles, staying home and raising children.
"My mother always told me you can't be the best career woman and the best mother at the same time," the brainy, accomplished Cynthia Liu told Louise Story, explaining why she hoped to be a stay-at-home mom a few years after she goes to law school. "You always have to choose one over the other."
Kate White, the editor of Cosmopolitan, told me that she sees a distinct shift in what her readers want these days. "Women now don't want to be in the grind," she said. "The baby boomers made the grind seem unappealing."
Cynthia Russett, a professor of American history at Yale, told Story that women today are simply more "realistic," having seen the dashed utopia of those who assumed it wouldn't be so hard to combine full-time work and child rearing.
To the extent that young women are rejecting the old idea of copying men and reshaping the world around their desires, it's exhilarating progress. But to the extent that a pampered class of females is walking away from the problem and just planning to marry rich enough to cosset themselves in a narrow world of dependence on men, it's an irritating setback. If the new ethos is "a woman needs a career like a fish needs a bicycle," it won't be healthy.
In all those Tracy-Hepburn movies more than a half-century ago, it was the snap and crackle of a romance between equals that was so exciting. You still see it onscreen occasionally - the incendiary chemistry of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie playing married assassins aiming for mutually assured orgasms and destruction in "Mr. and Mrs. Smith." Interestingly, that movie was described as retro because of its salty battle of wits between two peppery lovers. Moviemakers these days are more interested in exploring what Steve Martin, in his novel "Shopgirl," calls the "calm cushion" of romances between unequals.
In James Brooks's movie "Spanglish," Adam Sandler, playing a sensitive Los Angeles chef, falls for his hot Mexican maid, just as in "Maid in Manhattan," Ralph Fiennes, playing a sensitive New York pol, falls for the hot Latino maid at his hotel, played by Jennifer Lopez. Sandler's maid, who cleans up for him without being able to speak English, is presented as the ideal woman, in looks and character. His wife, played by Téa Leoni, is repellent: a jangly, yakking, overachieving, overexercised, unfaithful, shallow she-monster who has just lost her job with a commercial design firm and fears she has lost her identity.
In 2003, we had "Girl With a Pearl Earring," in which Colin Firth's Vermeer erotically paints Scarlett Johansson's Dutch maid, and Richard Curtis's "Love Actually," about the attraction of unequals. The witty and sophisticated British prime minister, played by Hugh Grant, falls for the chubby girl who wheels the tea and scones into his office. A businessman married to the substantial Emma Thompson, the sister of the prime minister, falls for his sultry secretary. A novelist played by Colin Firth falls for his maid, who speaks only Portuguese.
Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection rather than of affection.
It's funny. I come from a family of Irish domestics - statuesque, 6-foot-tall women who cooked, kept house and acted as nannies for some of America's first families. I was always so proud of achieving more - succeeding in a high-powered career that would have been closed to my great-aunts. How odd, then, to find out now that being a maid would have enhanced my chances with men.
An upstairs maid, of course.
osmo is still the best-selling magazine on college campuses, as it was when I was in college, and the best-selling monthly magazine on the newsstand. The June 2005 issue, with Jessica Simpson on the cover, her cleavage spilling out of an orange croqueted halter dress, could have been June 1970. The headlines are familiar: "How to turn him on in 10 words or less," "Do You Make Men M-E-L-T? Take our quiz," "Bridal Special," Cosmo's stud search and "Cosmo's Most Famous Sex Tips; the Legendary Tricks That Have Brought Countless Guys to Their Knees." (Sex Trick 4: "Place a glazed doughnut around your man's member, then gently nibble the pastry and lick the icing . . . as well as his manhood." Another favorite Cosmo trick is to yell out during sex which of your girlfriends thinks your man is hot.)
At any newsstand, you'll see the original Cosmo girl's man-crazy, sex-obsessed image endlessly, tiresomely replicated, even for the teen set. On the cover of Elle Girl: "267 Ways to Look Hot."
"There has been lots of copying - look at Glamour," Helen Gurley Brown, Cosmo's founding editor told me and sighed. "I used to have all the sex to myself."
Before it curdled into a collection of stereotypes, feminism had fleetingly held out a promise that there would be some precincts of womanly life that were not all about men. But it never quite materialized.
It took only a few decades to create a brazen new world where the highest ideal is to acknowledge your inner slut. I am woman; see me strip. Instead of peaceful havens of girl things and boy things, we have a society where women of all ages are striving to become self-actualized sex kittens. Hollywood actresses now work out by taking pole-dancing classes.
Female sexuality has been a confusing corkscrew path, not a serene progressive arc. We had decades of Victorian prudery, when women were not supposed to like sex. Then we had the pill and zipless encounters, when women were supposed to have the same animalistic drive as men. Then it was discovered - shock, horror! - that men and women are not alike in their desires. But zipless morphed into hookups, and the more one-night stands the girls on "Sex and the City" had, the grumpier they got.
Oddly enough, Felix Dennis, who created the top-selling Maxim, said he stole his "us against the world" lad-magazine attitude from women's magazines like Cosmo. Just as women didn't mind losing Cosmo's prestigious fiction as the magazine got raunchier, plenty of guys were happy to lose the literary pretensions of venerable men's magazines and embrace simple-minded gender stereotypes, like the Maxim manifesto instructing women, "If we see you in the morning and night, why call us at work?"
Jessica Simpson and Eva Longoria move seamlessly from showing their curves on the covers of Cosmo and Glamour to Maxim, which dubbed Simpson "America's favorite ball and chain!" In the summer of 2005, both British GQ and FHM featured Pamela Anderson busting out of their covers. ("I think of my breasts as props," she told FHM.)
A lot of women now want to be Maxim babes as much as men want Maxim babes. So women have moved from fighting objectification to seeking it. "I have been surprised," Maxim's editor, Ed Needham, confessed to me, "to find that a lot of women would want to be somehow validated as a Maxim girl type, that they'd like to be thought of as hot and would like their boyfriends to take pictures of them or make comments about them that mirror the Maxim representation of a woman, the Pamela Anderson sort of brand. That, to me, is kind of extraordinary."
The luscious babes on the cover of Maxim were supposed to be men's fantasy guilty pleasures, after all, not their real life-affirming girlfriends.
While I never related to the unstyled look of the early feminists and I tangled with boyfriends who did not want me to wear makeup and heels, I always assumed that one positive result of the feminist movement would be a more flexible and capacious notion of female beauty, a release from the tyranny of the girdled, primped ideal of the 50's.
I was wrong. Forty years after the dawn of feminism, the ideal of feminine beauty is more rigid and unnatural than ever.
When Gloria Steinem wrote that "all women are Bunnies," she did not mean it as a compliment; it was a feminist call to arms. Decades later, it's just an aesthetic fact, as more and more women embrace Botox and implants and stretch and protrude to extreme proportions to satisfy male desires. Now that technology is biology, all women can look like inflatable dolls. It's clear that American narcissism has trumped American feminism.
It was naïve and misguided for the early feminists to tendentiously demonize Barbie and Cosmo girl, to disdain such female proclivities as shopping, applying makeup and hunting for sexy shoes and cute boyfriends and to prognosticate a world where men and women dressed alike and worked alike in navy suits and were equal in every way.
But it is equally naïve and misguided for young women now to fritter away all their time shopping for boudoirish clothes and text-messaging about guys while they disdainfully ignore gender politics and the seismic shifts on the Supreme Court that will affect women's rights for a generation.
What I didn't like at the start of the feminist movement was that young women were dressing alike, looking alike and thinking alike. They were supposed to be liberated, but it just seemed like stifling conformity.
What I don't like now is that the young women rejecting the feminist movement are dressing alike, looking alike and thinking alike. The plumage is more colorful, the shapes are more curvy, the look is more plastic, the message is diametrically opposite - before it was don't be a sex object; now it's be a sex object - but the conformity is just as stifling.
And the Future . . .
Having boomeranged once, will women do it again in a couple of decades? If we flash forward to 2030, will we see all those young women who thought trying to Have It All was a pointless slog, now middle-aged and stranded in suburbia, popping Ativan, struggling with rebellious teenagers, deserted by husbands for younger babes, unable to get back into a work force they never tried to be part of?
It's easy to picture a surreally familiar scene when women realize they bought into a raw deal and old trap. With no power or money or independence, they'll be mere domestic robots, lasering their legs and waxing their floors - or vice versa - and desperately seeking a new Betty Friedan.
Maureen Dowd is a columnist for The New York Times. This essay is adapted from "Are Men Necessary: When Sexes Collide," to be published next month by G.P. Putnam's Sons.
Blogger Thoughts: Hail Herr Bush!
Editor of the Reformer:
A few questions for David Ray Griffin and those he has whipped into a frenzy with his cockamamie conspiracy theories:
1. Since it takes dozens of workers days, even weeks, to prepare a building for a controlled demolition, why didn't anyone notice? Areas need to be cleared, hundreds of charges need to be placed, requiring the drilling of holes for each of them; ductwork, wiring and pipes need to be disconnected; support beams need to be knocked out; and scaffolding needs to be built. How could all this work go on unnoticed? If building permits were issued, which assumes that New York City officials were also "in on" the plot, then why weren't the owners of the building suspicious, even after the fact?
2. Cleaning crews, maintenance personnel and security were all in the building after hours. Were they also complicit? Or were they (gasp!) silenced by shadowy "hit squads"?
3. Why did military commanders knowingly allow the deaths of military personnel, and remain silent about it for four years (and counting)? That's hard to believe in this leak-happy culture.
4. And how could a government so powerful, so pervasive and so callous allow the only man who could expose its perfidy to live? Give me a break, please.
Idiotic ranting like this is exactly what the right wing wants. It destroys the credibility of honest and thoughtful dissenters. If we want to stop the takeover of our judiciary, the control of our still barely free press, and the marginalization of any opposition to the Christian right agenda, we must disavow ourselves of media clowns like Griffin, Sheehan, Churchill, et. al. Otherwise, we give aid and comfort to the enemy.
John A. De Lello
Link for Traffic - Europe's 'Celtic tiger' still roars. But some fear the much-lauded Irish miracle may be losing its bite.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Bone Fragments Found Near WTC Said Human
- By AMY WESTFELDT, Associated Press Writer
Friday, October 28, 2005
(10-28) 22:50 PDT New York (AP) --
Ten bone fragments discovered more than four years after the World Trade Center attacks on the rooftop of a nearby skyscraper are human, officials said Friday.
The pieces of bone, ranging in size from half an inch to two inches, were found on three days last month by construction workers sifting through gravel on top of the former Deutsche Bank building, officials said.
Parts of the trade center's south tower carved a huge gash in the 41-story building's facade when it collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001. Deconstruction of the building, which is known to be contaminated with asbestos, lead, and trade center dust, began in September.
The city medical examiner will try to identify the remains by extracting DNA and checking it against a database of World Trade Center victims, said medical examiner's spokeswoman Ellen Borakove.
"We're hoping to be able to create some profiles," she said.
Borakove said test results returned last week indicated the fragments were human. She said it was too soon too tell whether the remains came from one person or more than one.
The city has recovered 19,964 pieces of human remains from the trade center attack and identified 9,100 of them, Borakove said. Of the 2,749 people who died at the trade center, 1,152 victims have no identifiable remains.
The medical examiner's office has said that more sophisticated DNA technology may someday develop to help identify the remains. Until then, they will remain in city custody and will eventually be encased at the trade center memorial.
Mary Fetchet, whose son, Brad, died at the south tower of the trade center, said Friday the discovery reopens old wounds.
"It's just a reminder of the horrific nature of the event," said Fetchet. "When you talk about identification of bone fragments, it just brings you back to what really happened that day."
The former Deutsche Bank building was purchased by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. last year and is scheduled to be completely dismantled in 2007.
LMDC president Stefan Pryor said that after construction workers found the fragments, "our rigorous protocols automatically assume findings of this nature to be human remains and therefore require that they be treated with the utmost care, dignity, and respect."
The city inspected the entire building in the months following the attacks before turning it over to the building's owners, the LMDC said.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Blogger Thoughts: some might say they don't get it on purpose.
Heneghan / Webb = NO CREDIBILITY
Democracy Now! | Italian Media Reveals U.S. Officials Met With Italian Intelligence Officials To Discuss Fake Documents Citing Niger Nuke Sales to Iraq
Thursday, October 27, 2005
To replace Cheney: "Other names flying around include that of Rudy Giuliani"
Blogger Thought: Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad = controlled by NWO?
Blogger Thoughts: Something to keep in mind: "Chertoff and Fitzgerald were fully aware of the statements made by prosecutors admitting that the FBI intentionally had provided the safe house for Salem terrorist recruits."
Blogger Thoughts: Kerry is Worthless.
Blogger Thoughts: "succession of intelligence failures", where have we heard that before?
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Blogger Thought: Great calling out of Target.
Brown Had Resignation Plans Before Katrina Hit
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 26, 2005; A09
Michael D. Brown was days away from announcing plans to resign as director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency when Hurricane Katrina hit Aug. 29, according to e-mails released by separate House and Senate investigations into the government's flawed response to the disaster.
Sen. Susan M. Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the Senate investigation, questioned whether Brown's status played a role in the response.
"The fact that it appears that Michael Brown was planning to resign may explain in part his curious detachment during the Katrina catastrophe," Collins said.
The e-mails also suggest that the administration knew Brown was on the verge of departing when he was recalled as head of the sluggish rescue and relief efforts for the New Orleans area.
Brown resigned on Sept. 12, but the Department of Homeland Security then contracted with him at his full $148,000-a-year salary to serve as a consultant on a review of the response to Hurricane Katrina. The consulting arrangement, initially set to end Oct. 10, has been extended by four weeks, department spokesman Russ Knocke said.
Collins was "surprised to learn" that Brown's consulting deal has been extended, she said, because Michael P. Jackson, deputy secretary of homeland security, told her it would last 30 days.
Knocke said Brown "is transitioning out of a job he held for three years, transferring relevant documents and data and his experiences at the agency."
Brown had privately shared his intentions with acquaintances, and FEMA announced in the aftermath of Brown's resignation that the director of the agency's recovery division, Daniel A. Craig, had also planned to leave a month later.
In an Aug. 31 e-mail to FEMA aide James Tillie, Brown wrote, "I should have done my announcement a week early." That evening, Craig wrote to Brown: "We need to get this done right or neither of us are leaving on great terms . . . and we were days away."
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Josh Marshall has done remarkable, ground-breaking work on the Niger forgeries and their movement through the murky world of Italian parapolitics. Yet he doesn't give his readers some necessary history.In his latest look at the controversy, he draws from a recent (as-yet untranslated) article in La Repubblica on the forgeries. Marhsall correctly identifies the piece as a limited hang-out (although he does not use that term). Marshall:
And this one says the culprits are Rocco Martino, the Italian woman who works in the Niger embassy in Rome and the SISMI operative Martino named as his ultimate source. The motive, says Repubblica, was money.I've never named the SISMI colonel whom Martino said he (indirectly) got the documents from. But now Repubblica has. So I will too: his name is Antonio Nucera...My experience with this case, going back almost two years now, is that whenever damaging new information was about to come out on the forgery mystery, the Italian government-cum-intelligence agencies put out substantial new information about what happened mixed with disinformation aimed at throwing people off their trail. And when I say 'their trail', I mean the complicity of Italian intelligence in the documents hoax itself.We must also discuss the complicity of Michael Ledeen, who has long-standing ties to the ultra-right "Super-SISMI" faction within Italian intelligence. "Super-SISMI" grew out of the fascist secret society P2.One need not trace the P2 links very far to understand why La Repubblica chose to tell only a partial truth. The owner of that influential newspaper is Silvio Berlusconi, the shady media tycoon who became Prime Minister of Italy -- and a close ally of George W. Bush. Berlusconi, like Ledeen, was a member of P2. From the excellent Wikipedia entry:
...in 1981 a scandal arose on the discovery by the police of Licio Gelli's secret freemasonry lodge (Propaganda Due, or P2) aiming to move the Italian political system in an authoritarian direction to oppose communism. A list of names was found of adherents of P2, which included members of the secret services and some prominent personalities from the political, industrial, military and press elite, among which Silvio Berlusconi, who was just starting to gain popularity as the founder and owner of "Canale 5" TV network. The P2 lodge was dissolved by the Italian parliament in December 1981 and a law was passed declaring similar organizations illegal, but no specific crimes were alleged to individual members of P2. Berlusconi later (1989) sued for libel three journalists who had written an article hinting at his involvement in financiary crimes and in this occasion he declared in court that he had joined the P2 lodge "only a very short time before the scandal broke" and "he had not even paid the entry fee". Such statements, however, conflicted with the findings of the parliamentary commission appointed to investigate the lodge's activity, with material evidence, and even with previous testimony of Berlusconi, all of which showing that he had actually been a member of P2 since 1978 and had indeed paid a 100,000 Italian liras entry fee. Because of this he was indicted for perjury, but the crime was extinguished by the 1989 amnesty.Despite the dissolution order, the old P2 ties still bind. We can't expect accurate reporting on the forgeries from a journal financially tied to the very network that produced the forgeries.Joshua Marshall avoids discussing this strange milieu for understandable reasons: The books and articles exposing P2 have largely faded from memory. Most moderate-minded Americans do the sigh-and-eye-roll routine whenever anyone mentions the words "secret society." In order to maintain credibility, today's writers must pretend not to have read the material published in the 1980s.The La Repubblica partial hangout -- "Look thus far, and no further" -- comes after former CIA operatives Larry Johnson and Vince Cannistraro disclosed the existence of an Italian Parliamentary Commission report on the authorship of the forgeries. Fitzgerald, we are told, has read this report. According to this story, the forgers were Duane Clarridge and Alan Wolf of the CIA, aided by Michael Ledeen. (A side note: Can we classify Ledeen as CIA? His resume suggests that he -- like Valerie Plame/Wilson -- may have functioned as an NOC officer. He certainly has long-standing ties both to P2 and to various players in the "rogue CIA" netowrk discussed by Joseph Trento in Prelude to Terror.)I strongly urge readers to study both Justin Raimondo's piece on the forgeries, as well as Xymphora's recent take. I can't agree with some of what Mr. X says. He refers to "the CIA" as though that organization were not internally factionalized. He also views Ledeen as "fundamentally an idiot." That's not my take on the man.However, Xymphora echoes a point I've previously made when he suggests that someone within CIA (John McLaughlin? Just a guess...) set the Wilson affair into motion. X:
The CIA could have sent anybody they liked to Niger to investigate the situation. While Wilson was a logical choice, there were many other logical choices. If they were so deeply concerned about the undercover status of his wife, isn't it odd that they picked Wilson? ...Why didn't Tenet object to the sixteen words? He signed off on the State of the Union address, after complaining about similar words in Bush's Cincinnati speech only a few months earlier. Did he just get tired of hitting his head against the wall? Or was he very happy to see the sixteen words?To which I'll add one further point: Why (assuming Raimondo's information is correct) did pros like Clarridge and Wolf countenance such a bad forgery? Some might speculate that the Niger forgeries represented a variation on the gambit played on Dan Rather. Perhaps a group within CIA hoped to avert war by tricking Bush into accepting evidence later proven false. Although I remain unpersuaded by that scenario, the idea does have a certain appeal.
# posted by Joseph : 5:15 AM
October 25, 2005
Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report
By DAVID JOHNSTON, RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DOUGLAS JEHL
This article is by David Johnston, Richard W. Stevenson and Douglas Jehl.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.
Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.
The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program to justify the war.
Lawyers involved in the case, who described the notes to The New York Times, said they showed that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.
Mr. Libby's notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson's undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent's identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent's undercover status.
It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government's deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.
White House officials did not respond to requests for comment, and Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, would not comment on Mr. Libby's legal status.
Mr. Fitzgerald is expected to decide whether to bring charges in the case by Friday, when the term of the grand jury expires. Mr. Libby and Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, both face the possibility of indictment, lawyers involved in the case have said. It is not publicly known whether other officials also face indictment.
The notes help explain the legal difficulties facing Mr. Libby. Lawyers in the case said Mr. Libby testified to the grand jury that he had first heard from journalists that Ms. Wilson may have had a role in dispatching her husband on a C.I.A.-sponsored mission to Africa in 2002 in search of evidence that Iraq had acquired nuclear material there for its weapons program.
But the notes, now in Mr. Fitzgerald's possession, also indicate that Mr. Libby first heard about Ms. Wilson - who is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame - from Mr. Cheney. That apparent discrepancy in his testimony suggests why prosecutors are weighing false statement charges against him in what they interpret as an effort by Mr. Libby to protect Mr. Cheney from scrutiny, the lawyers said.
It is not clear why Mr. Libby would have suggested to the grand jury that he might have learned about Ms. Wilson from journalists if he was aware that Mr. Fitzgerald had obtained the notes of the conversation with Mr. Cheney or might do so. At the beginning of the investigation, Mr. Bush pledged the White House's full cooperation and instructed aides to provide Mr. Fitzgerald with any information he sought.
The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew the name of Mr. Wilson's wife. But they do show that Mr. Cheney did know and told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and that she may have helped arrange her husband's trip.
Some lawyers in the case have said Mr. Fitzgerald may face obstacles in bringing a false-statement charge against Mr. Libby. They said it could be difficult to prove that he intentionally sought to mislead the grand jury.
Lawyers involved in the case said they had no indication that Mr. Fitzgerald was considering charging Mr. Cheney with wrongdoing. Mr. Cheney was interviewed under oath by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it.
But the evidence of Mr. Cheney's direct involvement in the effort to learn more about Mr. Wilson is sure to intensify the political pressure on the White House in a week of high anxiety among Republicans about the potential for the case to deal a sharp blow to Mr. Bush's presidency.
Mr. Tenet was not available for comment Monday night. But another former senior intelligence official said Mr. Tenet had been interviewed by the special prosecutor and his staff in early 2004, and never appeared before the grand jury. Mr. Tenet has not talked since then to the prosecutors, the former official said.
The former official said he strongly doubted that the White House learned about Ms. Wilson from Mr. Tenet.
On Monday, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby both attended a cabinet meeting with Mr. Bush as the White House continued trying to portray business as usual. But the assumption among White House officials is that anyone who is indicted will step aside.
On June 12, 2003, the day of the conversation between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby, The Washington Post published a front-page article reporting that the C.I.A. had sent a retired American diplomat to Niger in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium there. The article did not name the diplomat, who turned out to be Mr. Wilson, but it reported that his mission had not corroborated a claim about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material that the White House had subsequently used in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.
An earlier anonymous reference to Mr. Wilson and his mission to Africa had appeared in a column by Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times on May 6, 2003. Mr. Wilson went public with his conclusion that the White House had "twisted" the intelligence about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material on July 6, 2003, in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times.
The note written by Mr. Libby will be a crucial piece of evidence in a false-statement case against him if Mr. Fitzgerald decides to pursue it, lawyers in the case said. It also explains why Mr. Fitzgerald waged a long legal battle to obtain the testimony of reporters who were known to have talked to Mr. Libby.
The reporters involved have said that they did not supply Mr. Libby with details about Mr. Wilson and his wife. Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, in his account of a deposition on the subject, wrote that he asked Mr. Libby whether he had even heard that Ms. Wilson had a role in sending her husband to Africa. Mr. Cooper said that Mr. Libby did not use Ms. Wilson's name but replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too."
In her testimony to the grand jury, Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, said Mr. Libby sought from the start of her three conversations with him to "insulate his boss from Mr. Wilson's charges."
Mr. Fitzgerald asked questions about Mr. Cheney, Ms. Miller said. "He asked, for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interview with me or was aware of them," Ms. Miller said. "The answer was no."
In addition to Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, Mr. Fitzgerald is known to have interviewed three other journalists who spoke to Mr. Libby during June and July 2003. They were Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of NBC News.
Mr. Pincus and Mr. Kessler have said that Mr. Libby did not discuss Mr. Wilson's wife with them in their conversations during the period. Mr. Russert, in a statement, declined to say exactly what he discussed with Mr. Libby, but said he first learned the identity of Mr. Wilson's wife in the column by Mr. Novak.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Kaminski attended the October 2005 meeting in New York City where Scott Ritter promoted the idea that Al Qaeda is the principal terrorist threat to America.
Kaminski calls Ritter, Hersh and Sibel Edmonds "gate keepers"
Morgan Reynolds: Champion for Truth by Victor Thorn
During our interview last Friday with Morgan Reynolds, two times I said, “We need more people like him in the patriot movement.” And y’know what? I was right. We do.Here’s a guy – a former economics professor at Texas A & M University and a former chief economist in the Labor Department during George Bush’s first term – who could have simply faded into the distance and rested on his laurels. But instead of accepting the status quo … instead of retiring … and instead of playing it safe, this guy comes out swinging last Spring with an article that boldly pronounced that the government’s version of events in regard to the World Trade Center collapse was a lie and that, in fact, the towers were destroyed via a controlled demolition.Reynolds’ revelations were posted all across the Internet, as well as in The Washington Times, and all of a sudden this subject wasn’t simply confined to ‘conspiracy theorists.’ Now an actual ‘insider’ stepped forward and heroically revealed what so many others had been diligently trying to expose. Now, whenever anyone says, “If there’s such a huge conspiracy in relation to 9-11, why isn’t anyone from the government coming forward?” Well, now somebody has, and we should be lauding this gentleman with the gratitude and respect that he deserves.Explaining why he made this bold move, Reynolds said, “I remember watching both wounded WTC Towers on television and my first reaction was, "Those buildings won’t fall." When they did, I couldn’t believe it” [9/11: 80 Minutes of Unilateral Disarmament]. So, not only has Reynolds given credibility to the 9-11 truth movement, but he also serves as a symbol for others in the government who – when faced with blatant wrongdoing by our (s)elected officials – should speak out and bring these matters to the forefront rather than simply accepting the status quo and letting the guilty parties get away with their crimes.Of course there are repercussions to doing the right thing, but as Reynolds told us last Friday, “The truth should be sung, though the heavens fall.”I couldn’t have said it any better, and for uttering these inspirational words, we at WING TV are giving Morgan Reynolds a standing ovation. Keep up the great work, sir!