From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #672 Dead-Flames Digest #672, Volume #48 Tue, 25 Oct 05 16:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: Notes from The 5 Fulton ("pookietooth") Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) (Ben) Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? (Edwin Hurwitz) Re: cheney = traitor ("Ray") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (JC Martin) Re: Bonus disc question ("scarletbgonias@hotmail.com") Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info ("frndthdevl") Re: 43 today happy birthday to me!! ("seraphim") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info ("Dave Kelly") Re: Why didn't yall tell me about 7-7-81???!!! ("Dave Kelly") Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) (Paul) Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) (cj) Re: 43 today happy birthday to me!! ("RickNBarbInSD") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "pookietooth" Subject: Re: Notes from The 5 Fulton Date: 25 Oct 2005 14:54:19 -0700 Dave Kelly wrote: > Well, ever since my car has been in the shop, I've > had to endure a week of public transportation. > It's been a long....LONG time. > Am I the ONLY one wearing a suit/tie these days? > Yesterday, I stepped in a puddle of fresh vomit/bile > as I was making my way towards a seat. > I just BOUGHT these Bruno Maglis' goddammit! Ahh, it wouldn't be SF in the fall without every possible body fluid on the buses, streets and BART. And sometimes running across the occasional corpse. And sometimes a gang member chasing a bus down the street firing his Mac 10. ------------------------------ From: Ben Subject: Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:56:23 -0700 On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:29:17 -0700, Steve Lenier wrote: >Sooooo much is going on right now. And the bloggers are all over it. So I'm >curious as to what you guys read, why you find certain ones interesting, >etc. Some of you know what former rmgd'er is now a MAJOR blogger, that site >is a good one (smirking chimp). I don't read any - mainly because they are all too partisan and extreme. While Bush is deserving of criticism, too many left-wing blogs just want to call him a chimp, and too many right-wing blogs just want to call those who disagree with anything Bush does terrorists. It's ridiculous. If there are any somewhat objective ones, I'd be interested in hearing about them. ------------------------------ From: Edwin Hurwitz Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:00:39 -0600 In article <1130167208.176203.217200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: > Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > > Kurt--why do you think she is so unelectable? Too left-wing for the > > country? Too right-wing for Democrats? > > She comes off as a coniving conceited bitch. She carpetbagged her > way to a Senate seat. While her recent presence has been more > stately, I think she has too many skeletons to be elected. It's not > really her politics which I think are leftwing malleable, I think it > is her. She is simply too divisive. People either love her or hate her, > and those who hate her, hate those who love her and vice versa. > GWB can be described as silver-spoon-in-mouth born again ex-cokehead. > A lot of folks were repulsed by his almost predestined ascendency to > the Presidency. Hillary would be worse in that regard. She'd shoot > Chelsea dead on national tv to get elected, or at least that's how > she comes across. I am just babbling now, but hopefully you get my > drift. > > Kurt I think the image of Hillary as manufactured by the right wing who wanted to discredit her health care ideas has stuck. It's a lot of fun to bash someone like that. Whenever I try to discuss her with a Hilary hater, they can't point to anything concrete, they just hate her. In reality, I would believe that she's not the cutthroat that so many describe. Certainly in comparison, there are plenty on the right who seem to be plenty willing to sell out anyone and anything to get ahead and get their way (Tom Delay, anyone?). Somehow, a Democrat lies about a personal issue and the right goes crazy. A Republican lies about practically everything and people die in countries all over the world and there are (up until now) now repercussions. A Republican completely screws up his job keeping our country safe and while he does lose his position, he stays on the payroll to pass the buck. People are talking about how it took only 10 years for the Republicans to fall to the depths that the Democrats did in 40, but in reality, both of them having been doing it for a long time. The Republicans are just better at fundraising and play for higher stakes. There is no equity here in this. Realistically, though, I don't think that Hilary can recover from the years of vitriol. I think it would be a huge mistake to nominate her. I would vote for her, though. Edwin Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell in a way that makes them look forward to the ride. We are on that road and a lot of folks seem to be insisting on staying the course. ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: 25 Oct 2005 15:02:47 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > "DG" wrote in message > news:ltlsl15r1t7joov9ju5ihlfpkbv0ga6nsd@4ax.com... > > > > > > So this prick leaked the name to the man who told the times. Time for > > these guys to be charged, tried and let justice take it's course. > > > This leaking business is much ado about nothing, especially as you describe > it. > > Cheney isn't being accused of leaking anything, the Vice President of the > United States is being accused of talking about a CIA agent with his chief > of staff. If they can't discuss the CIA, who can? Merely talking about a CIA agent is not a crime. However as I understand it conspiracy to out a CIA agent as political payback is. I strongly doubt they'll have the goods on Cheney however - that'd be a very hard one to proove. But that said it is a possilibity. > If somebody leaked the name and if somebody lied they should be called to > account, tried, and punished accordingly. Agree. > But this is such small potatoes compared to the other things this > administration has done. Its fun to watch them squirm, and its gonna be fun > to watch one or more of them face a judge and maybe even a jury. But there > is no serious damage done to the CIA by any of this Disgree. If Plame was outed by the government then this has substantial adverse impact on our national security. Former CIA case officer and prosecutor James Marcinkowski explains why: ======================================================== Testimony of James Marcinkowski July 22, 2005 What is important now is not who wins or loses the political battle or who may or may not be indicted; rather, it is a question of how we will go about protecting the citizens of this country in a very dangerous world. The undisputed fact is that we have irreparably damaged our capability to collect human intelligence and thereby significantly diminished our capability to protect the American people. Understandable to all Americans is a simple, incontrovertible, but damning truth: the United States government exposed the identity of a clandestine officer working for the CIA. This is not just another partisan "dust-up" between political parties. This unprecedented act will have far-reaching consequences for covert operations around the world. Equally disastrous is that from the time of that first damning act, we have continued on a course of self-inflicted wounds by government officials who have refused to take any responsibility, have played hide-and-seek with the truth and engaged in semantic parlor games for more than two years, all at the expense of the safety of the American people. No government official has that right. For an understanding of what is at stake it is important to understand some fundamental principles. No country or hostile group, from al Qaeda to any drug rings operating in our cities, likes to be infiltrated or spied upon. The CIA, much like any police department in any city, has undercover officers--spies, that use "cover." To operate under "cover" means you use some ruse to cloak both your identity and your intentions. The degree of cover needed to carry out any operation varies depending on the target of the investigation. A police officer performing "street buys" uses a "light" cover, meaning he or she could pose as something as simple as a drug user, operate only at night and during the day and, believe it or not, have a desk job in the police station. On the other hand, if an attempt were made to infiltrate a crime syndicate, visiting the local police station or drinking with fellow FBI agents after work may be out of the question. In any scenario, your cover, no matter what the degree, provides personal protection and safety. But it does not end there. Cover is also used to protect collection methodology as well as any innocent persons a CIA officer may have regular contact with, such as overseas acquaintances, friends, and even other U.S. government officials. While cover provides a degree of safety for the case officer, it also provides security for that officer's informants or agents. In most human intelligence operations, the confidentiality of the cover used by a CIA officer and the personal security of the agent or asset is mutually dependent. A case officer cannot be identified as working for the CIA, just as the informant/agent cannot be identified as working for the CIA through the case officer. If an informant or agent is exposed as working for the CIA, there is a good chance that the CIA officer has been identified as well. Similarly, if the CIA officer is exposed, his or her agents or informants are exposed. In all cases, the cover of a case officer ensures not only his or her own personal safety but that of the agents or assets as well. The exposure of Valerie Plame's cover by the White House is the same as the local chief of police announcing to the media the identity of its undercover drug officers. In both cases, the ability of the officer to operate is destroyed, but there is also an added dimension. An informant in a major sophisticated crime network, or a CIA asset working in a foreign government, if exposed, has a rather good chance of losing more than just their ability to operate. Any undercover officer, whether in the police department or the CIA, will tell you that the major concern of their informant or agent is their personal safety and that of their family. Cover is safety. If you cannot guarantee that safety in some form or other, the person will not work for you and the source of important information will be lost. So how is the Valerie Plame incident perceived by any current or potential agent of the CIA? I will guarantee you that if the local police chief identified the names of the department's undercover officers, any half-way sophisticated undercover operation would come to a halt and if he survived that accidental discharge of a weapon in police headquarters, would be asked to retire. And so the real issues before this Congress and this country today is not partisan politics, not even the loss of secrets. The secrets of Valerie Plame's cover are long gone. What has suffered perhaps irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us. How are our case officers supposed to build and maintain that confidence when their own government cannot even guarantee the personal protection of the home team? While the loss of secrets in the world of espionage may be damaging, the stealing of the credibility of our CIA officers is unforgivable.... And so we are left with only one fundamental truth, the U.S. government exposed the identity of a covert operative. I am not convinced that the toothpaste can be put back into the tube. Great damage has been done and that damage has been increasing every single day for more than two years. The problem of the refusal to accept responsibility by senior government officials is ongoing and causing greater damage to our national security and our ability to collect human intelligence. But the problem lies not only with government officials but also with the media, commentators and other apologists who have no clue as to the workings of the intelligence community. Think about what we are doing from the perspective of our overseas human intelligence assets or potential assets. I believe Bob Novak when he credited senior administration officials for the initial leak, or the simple, but not insignificant confirmation of that secret information, as I believe a CIA officer in some far away country will lose an opportunity to recruit an asset that may be of invaluable service to our covert war on terror because "promises of protection" will no longer carry the level of trust they once had. Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear--politics in this country does in fact trump national security. Each time a distinguished ambassador is ruthlessly attacked for the information he provided, a foreign asset will contemplate why he should risk his life when his information will not be taken seriously. Each time there is a perceived political "success" in deflecting responsibility by debating or re-debating some minutia, such actions are equally effective in undermining the ability of this country to protect itself against its enemies, because the two are indeed related. Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere "paper-pusher," or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers, or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it is a disservice to this country. By ridiculing, for example, the "degree" of cover or the use of post office boxes, you lessen the level of confidence that foreign nationals place in our covert capabilities. Those who would advocate the "I'm ok, you're ok" politics of non-responsibility, should probably think about the impact of those actions on our foreign agents. Non-responsibility means we don't care. Not caring means a loss of security. A loss of security means a loss of an agent. The loss of an agent means the loss of information. The loss of information means an increase in the risk to the people of the United States. There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people. Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up. Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of the responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security. When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially involved. Or, at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances of these persons and placed them on administrative leave. Such methods are routine with police forces throughout the country. That would have at least sent the right message around the globe, that we take the security of those risking their lives on behalf of the United States seriously. Instead, we have flooded the foreign airwaves with two years of inaction, political rhetoric, ignorance, and partisan bickering. That's the wrong message. In doing so we have not lessened, but increased the threat to the security and safety of the people of the United States. --- http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=7948 ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:02:55 GMT Ray wrote: > JC Martin wrote: > >>Carlisle wrote: >> >>>Bush's dream for Iraq?? According to the rhetoric anyway>>the >>>establishment of a modern constitutional state governed by the rule of >>>law and opposed to terrorists like al Qaeda. In turn, other despotic >>>regimes in the region would begin to reform, etc. This is how I >>>interpret the neo-con/Bush/Cheney dream for Iraq. I think it's a total >>>crap shoot and I think it sets a dangerous precedent. (I think I said >>>that already) >> >>Problem is, that was an argument formed AFTER the actual invasion of >>Iraq. The reason for going into Iraq wasn't to stabilize the Middle >>East. You really don't buy that, do you? > > > FWIW I buy that - *in part*. Since Bush Administration's story shifts > and changes with the political winds and the need to be in at least > some sort of agreement with reality, so we don't really know for sure > what we attacked Iraq. (Strange, isn't it? We attacked and are now > fighting a war in another country, and we don't even know for sure > why.) That said, I believe that the Bush Administration attacked Iraq > for primarily these reasons (not in any particular order): > > * Oil > > * A belief that we had to deal with Saddam at some point, and a related > belief that Saddam had WMDs or a WMD program. (I don't think that said > belief was based on bad intelligence, however - I think that they just > assumed as much based on their reading of Saddam and his past history.) > > * The neocon dream of bringing democracy to the Arab states, and > thereby "popping the terrorist bubble". > > * Saddam tried to kill Bush Jr's dad. (I think that's part of Bush > Jr's motivations, anyway.) > > Of course they didn't sell it to the public that way - I think they > believed (probably correctly) that the public wouldn've never gone for > it if they were honest about their motives. So instead they lied and > went for the Let's-Scare-The-Bejeezus-Out-Of-Everyone (aka "terrorize") > / Saddam-has-WMDs-And-He's-Going-To-Use-Them-On-Us-Tomorrow -type hype. > > > Which of course worked beautifully... to get us into Iraq, anyway. Yup...I agree on all points. All I was pointing out is that the vision of a democratic Middle East was sold after the fact. Our president came into office proclaiming that he didn't believe in nation building. Oh, but 9/11 changed everything you say? ### Well, funnily enough many of the neo-cons Dubya brought into his office did in fact believe in nation building and believed Saddam must be dealt with sooner or later. I shared that view from a longer term perspective. But the neo-cons also believed in sabotaging U.N. authority and 9/11 provided the perfect opportunity. Yet now Bush believes the U.N. has a role to play. Heck, yesterday Bush stated that declaring war on Syria would be a last resort...that he was a president that strongly believed in diplomacy and was leaving it up to the U.N. to decide how to best handle them. This is the president to told U.N inspectors to withdraw because he didn't trust that they were doing their job properly. Hell, this is supposed to be the party of principles here! Instead, they adjust views to fit whatever situation their in. What an incredibly inconsistent foreign policy. That's what happens when groups get extreme and reactionary. And the truth is, I don't know that Republicans truly know what they believe in anymore. Killing terrorists I suppose...yet they can't even focus on the terrorist group that threatens us most. One guy here brought up Hamas fer God's sakes, using that as an example of Saddam's allegiances with terrorism. We'd have to nuke the entire Middle East if that was the criteria. -JC ------------------------------ From: "scarletbgonias@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: Bonus disc question Date: 25 Oct 2005 15:05:27 -0700 Hey Andrew, pssst, http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.gdead/browse_frm/thread/1ad600339b51204f/3991c839eff0604f?hl=en#3991c839eff0604f T ------------------------------ From: "frndthdevl" Subject: Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info Date: 25 Oct 2005 15:05:33 -0700 Dave Kelly wrote: > "frndthdevl" wrote in message > news:1130266804.374422.70300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > You had no patience for that FREE offer to see MOFRO either. LOL > > Freee beer and a ticket > > * what "Free" offer...you wanted me to waste a saturday night > with a promise you were going to send me reimbursement to > check out you favourite jam band? unlike perhaps yourself,if I say something I do it. > I WENT to the gig....where's my $27? if you want to say you honestly went,send me your addy and I will send you the money. Of course it would have been nice to have had a review the next day if I ma paying the bands promtion to the Bay Areas resident blowhard music critic, even if it was to say they suck and why, but hey,you wanna say you went now 6 weeks later no prob. MOFRO is not exactly my favorite,and they are not exactly jam band either other than the universe they fly in. Unless you want to call Fat Possum Record Company and the likes of Jr. Kimbrough jam band folk. peace and promotions jeff ------------------------------ From: "seraphim" Subject: Re: 43 today happy birthday to me!! Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:12:20 GMT Exfoliate isn't that when you get dry skin or dandruff???? "Dave Kelly" wrote in message news:sam7f.6872$tV6.6020@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > > "seraphim" wrote in message > news:oLf7f.10731$cg.4724@news02.roc.ny... > >>and some lovin from wifey .... > > Mike > Yeah....happy 46th....whatever.... > Look, could you extrapolate on the above quote? > Thanks Junior. > > everyone at RMGD. > ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 15:20:17 -0700 JC Martin wrote: > Hell, this is supposed > to be the party of principles here! Instead, they adjust views to fit > whatever situation their in. What an incredibly inconsistent foreign > policy. That's what happens when groups get extreme and reactionary. > And the truth is, I don't know that Republicans truly know what they > believe in anymore. Killing terrorists I suppose...yet they can't even > focus on the terrorist group that threatens us most. YRYK. Ray ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:22:31 GMT "frndthdevl" wrote in message news:1130277933.497763.166850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > if you want to say you honestly went,send me your addy and I will send > you the money. Of course it would have been nice to have had a review > the next day if I ma paying the bands promtion to the Bay Areas > resident blowhard music critic, even if it was to say they suck and > why, but hey,you wanna say you went now 6 weeks later no prob. * Dude...you take this shit WAY to seriously. Promotions? You SUPPOSED to send me an 8-ball. I'm OLD school, Tiger! In Shallah! ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: Why didn't yall tell me about 7-7-81???!!! Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:24:27 GMT Well, Al Haig...for ONE thing, you're soft. Sorry, baby. ------------------------------ From: Paul Subject: Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:28:12 -0500 Reply-To: ppouliotnospam@mchsi.corn dailykos.com motherjones.org redstate.com On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:29:17 -0700, Steve Lenier wrote: >Sooooo much is going on right now. And the bloggers are all over it. So I'm >curious as to what you guys read, why you find certain ones interesting, >etc. Some of you know what former rmgd'er is now a MAJOR blogger, that site >is a good one (smirking chimp). > >For full disclosure purposes, I need to mention that Teri and I market her >drawing "Statue of Limitations" (http://www.statueoflimitations.us) on >blogs, and I may use your responses to help determine where to advertise, >but frankly I'm interested in the question even without this aspect. > >Steve ------------------------------ From: cj Subject: Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:42:07 -0400 onlinejournal.com Paul wrote: > dailykos.com > motherjones.org > redstate.com > > > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:29:17 -0700, Steve Lenier wrote: > > >Sooooo much is going on right now. And the bloggers are all over it. So I'm > >curious as to what you guys read, why you find certain ones interesting, > >etc. Some of you know what former rmgd'er is now a MAJOR blogger, that site > >is a good one (smirking chimp). > > > >For full disclosure purposes, I need to mention that Teri and I market her > >drawing "Statue of Limitations" (http://www.statueoflimitations.us) on > >blogs, and I may use your responses to help determine where to advertise, > >but frankly I'm interested in the question even without this aspect. > > > >Steve ------------------------------ From: "RickNBarbInSD" Subject: Re: 43 today happy birthday to me!! Date: 25 Oct 2005 15:42:42 -0700 seraphim wrote: > Well now I am 43......oh yeah happy b-day to me!! Happy Birthday to you!! Rick ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .