Wednesday, 09 January 2008
PHILIP AGEE: R.I.H.
philip agee died on Monday in Cuba.
agee, 72, was the former CIA agent who ratted out CIA operatives around the
world and probably was resonsible for the death and torture of a good number of
them. Here are excerpts from the Associated Press report of his death:
Ex-CIA Agent Philip Agee Dead in Cuba
HAVANA (AP) Former CIA agent Philip Agee, a
critic of U.S. foreign policy who infuriated American intelligence officials by
naming purported agency operatives in a 1975 book, has died, state media
reported Wednesday. He was 72.
Agee quit the CIA in 1969 after 12 years working
mostly in Latin America at a time when leftist movements were gaining prominence
and sympathizers. His 1975 book "Inside the Company: CIA Diary," cited alleged
CIA misdeeds against leftists in the region and included a 22-page list of
purported agency operatives.
Granma, Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, said
Agee died Monday night and described him as "a loyal friend of Cuba and fervent
defender of the peoples' fight for a better world."
Bernie Dwyer, a journalist with state-run Radio
Havana, said in a Tuesday message posted to a Cuba e-mail group that Agee's wife
called him to say he had died after ulcer surgery in a hospital where he has he
been since Dec. 15.
"He had several operations for perforated ulcers
and didn't survive all the surgery," Dwyer wrote, adding that Agee was cremated
Tuesday and that friends planned a memorial ceremony for him Sunday at his
Havana apartment. .
How ironic - and satisfying - that agee died in a communist rathole because
perforated ulcers outmatched its wonderful health care system.
philip agee: R.I.H.
Rot In Hell
CLINTON/BARAK = BUSH/OLMERT
What is it about second term presidents on their way out that make them go
loopy when it comes to Israel?
Here, courtesy of the Jerusalem Post, is how the formerly strong President Bush, seconded by current Israeli Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert (who is almost universally despised in Israel right now), is
conspiring to sell the country down the river:
right of return' must be discussed
Visiting US President George Bush called on Israel
to remove "illegal outposts" in the West Bank, saying that "they simply ought to
go" during an evening press conference shared by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on
At the same time Bush called for all issues to be
addressed during negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians - including
the Palestinian 'right of return.'
Regarding an Israeli-Palestinian two-state
solution, the US president reiterated that although the US had a vital role in
assisting in negotiations, "people must understand that America cannot dictate
the terms of the [Palestinian] state."
Bush said he believes Israeli and Palestinian
leaders have willingness and desire to create a Palestinian state.
The president's first question to Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas when they meet Thursday would be, "What are
you going to do about" the rockets. He said that the firing of rockets from
Palestinian territory is not in Abbas's interest.
Peace meant concessions from both sides, Bush
insisted. He said that Arab states must "support the Palestinians as they make
Bush added that he was "very hopeful" he could
achieve an agreement. He said this is a "historic moment, a historic
opportunity" to make peace, and both sides have the willingness and desire to
create a Palestinian state. Olmert pledged to implement all of Israel's
obligations under the "road map" plan.
The US president also affirmed western concerns
that Iran is a threat to world peace, despite the release of his country's
National Intelligence Estimate report in November.
"The NIE report may have sent a signal to some
that the US doesn't think that Iran is a threat. I have said that Iran was a
threat, Iran is a threat and Iran will be a threat if the international
community doesn't come together to prevent it from getting a nuclear weapon,"
Bush said shortly after a meeting with Olmert.
He said that sanctions would force the Iranian
people to choose whether to back a nuclear program.
Olmert, who spoke before Bush, said he was
"encouraged and strengthened" by the American position on Iran. Despite the US
intelligence report, Israel is convinced that Iran continues to seek nuclear
Bush's visit was very timely and an important way
to encourage the process Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice started at
Annapolis, the prime minister said.
Olmert claimed that the Israelis and Palestinians
were "very serious" in trying to move forward to realize the vision of a two
"The Israeli team is committed to carrying on
negotiations to deal with the with core issues to bring about agreements which
will have to be implemented," he added.
Olmert thanked the US for the 30-billion-dollar
aid package, saying the assistance was "remarkable" and "very helpful for the
future of the state of Israel."
Olmert also related to Wednesday's Kassam attacks
on the western Negev.
"Israel will not tolerate vicious attacks on
innocent civilians living in our citieswe won't hesitate to take all the
necessary measure to stop it," he said.
The prime minister went on to say that there would
be no peace until terror is stopped, emphasizing that terror must be stopped
everywhere, and that "Gaza must be part of the package.".
Hamas and Fatah, which rule the palestinian Arab population in Gaza and Judea/Samaria (the west
bank) are overtly dedicated to the annihilation of Israel. Rockets from
those territories rain down on Israel's land every day. Palestinian
Arab schoolchildren are taught that there is no legitimacy to any part of Israel
and that Jews are descended from monkeys and pigs.
So what is the Bush/Olmert solution? Leave more land to palestinian Arabs,
hand them half the country's capital city and negotiate the so-called "right of return"
which, if implemented, would make Israel into an Arab state.
Bill Clinton tried to do this when he strong-armed Ehud Barak (the man he helped win Israel's
leadership) into offering the sun, moon and stars to yasir arafat. The offer
was half of Jerusalem and about 97% of all the territory he
The only thing that
saved Israel was that the sun, moon and stars were not enough to
make arafat happy. He rejected the deal, presumably because they didn't toss in
Tel Aviv, Haifa and the Israeli air force.
Eventually Clinton left office, Barak was voted out by the largest landslide in Israeli
history and President Bush - the original version, the one with the spine -
started his first term.
I miss that version of President Bush. Where did he go? And what
happened to Condoleezza Rice? Is this a night of the living dead
thing? Did someone replace her with a pod delivered from
ABOUT THOSE 600,000 IRAQI DEAD......
We've all heard the number. Over 600,000 dead Iraqis, all either at the
hands of, or because of, our depraved, murderous troops.
And we know the number is accurate because, after all, it was published in
"Lancet", a British journal. And British people speak much more
impressively than we do, rolling their r's and such, so that means it must be
Plus, the article was co-authored by Les Roberts, who is a household
name throughout the free world and known to all as being slightly more credible
than the oracle of Delphi.
Ok, now that the controlled substances have worn off a little, let me try to
talk rationally. Or, maybe it would be better if I let Kathleen McKinley
do the talking, courtesy of www.newsbusters.org. Watch
her skewer both the number of casualties and Roberts' credibility,
through (you should pardon the expression) "liberal" use of actual facts:
A Study In Lies
Remember in 2006 when many leftwingers shouted
with horror regarding a study that had found over 600,000 Iraqi
civilians dead since the war began? I heard this number ad nauseum from my
The WashingtonPost included the number in this piece. Fox News quoted it with some skepticism. But CNN headlined it.
Turns out, Fox was right to be skeptical because
it was a bunch of bull:
It's probably no coincidence that one of the
authors Roberts just happened to oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein from
his dictator's throne and has confessed he tried to influence the 2004 U.S.
elections by timing the release of a previous study that made the war look much
worse than it was.
Roberts also ran unsuccessfully as a
Democrat for New York's 24th congressional district in 2006. He told the
National Journal that "a combination of Iraq and (Hurricane) Katrina just put me
over the top."
Meanwhile, "Burnham admitted that he set the same condition"
on the second report.
IBDeditorials.com didn't believe the numbers from the start because they
didn't jive with our government's numbers or the Iraqi government's numbers or
even another anti-war group with causality numbers, which were 44,000 to 49,000.
Higher than the government's, but a BIT less than over 600,000, If you want to
call 550,000 a bit less.
Naturally anti-Bush and anti-war forces
have thrown the higher numbers around as if they were indisputable fact, not
At least one media outlet, though, used its journalistic instincts to
take a critical look at the study. The National Journal let Neil Munro and Carl
M. Cannon use that publication's Jan. 4 cover story to detail what they
discovered after months of scrutiny.
Headlined "Data Bomb," the story
identifies three problems:
"Possible flaws in the design and execution of
"A lack of transparency in the data, which has raised
suspicions of fraud."
The authors have refused to provide the data they used
to reach their conclusions. Part of the reason might lie in what should be their
professional shame for letting unsupervised Iraqis go into neighborhoods and ask
"Political preferences held by the authors and the
funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute."
Almost half of
the study's $100,000 price tag was paid for by "an outspoken billionaire who has
repeatedly criticized the Iraq campaign and who spent $30 million trying to
defeat Bush in
Yet the wildly exaggerated 2006 Lancet study was
not just accepted by the media, it was exalted. Why?
Again, the National
Journal has the answer: "Probably because its findings fit an emerging
narrative: Iraq was a horrific mess."
Of course the National Journal's expose
will never get the same media attention that was heaped upon the original Lancet
study. Its sober analysis does not fit the narrative.
course those false numbers will continue to be bantered about. The media won't
correct it. The left will most certainly not. Why be honest when you can make
the U.S. look bad in war?
Even the much lower numbers are a sad fact of war.
I don't discount or dismiss them. But to use data and stand behind a false study
in order to push a political agenda, using war at the time of war, is
Are you surprised that media did not debunk this BS? I would assume you
are not. I know I'm not. They just left it hanging out their for the
public to be misinformed.
And, coincidence of coincidences, people exposed to this misinformation
would be moved to a position against the war in Iraq, against our
troops and against our President.
Sadly, this is what our media do. Regularly. Just as they have
ignored the good news coming out of Iraq over the past half year.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
ANDREW SULLIVAN COMES OUT OF HIS COMA
No, Andrew Sullivan, the writer and very scattered political thinker, has not been
physically ill. That title is a reference to his sudden realization that
ron paul may not be nominated for the Essence Awards or as B'nai B'rith's Man of
the Year any time soon.
As regular readers know, Mr. Sullivan endorsed ron paul for the
Republican presidential nomination last month. At that time I
e-mailed him several times about paul's sickening ties to racism
and anti-semitism. Sullivan never replied.
Yesterday, however, The New Republic published a
devastating piece by Jamie Kirchick which detailed the content paul's newsletter
over the years, in far more detail than I was able to uncover. The
article, which provides numerous quotes, some of them exceptionally
disgusting, finally got through to Mr. Sullivan. You
could almost see the wide-eyed look on his face as he wrote in his
blog, "Do these (comments) sound like Ron Paul to you"?
Here is the e-mail I sent Mr. Sullivan last night:
"Do these sound like Ron Paul To
YES, they DO sound like ron paul to
me. They sound exactly like the man I described to you a month or so
ago, when I e-mailed numerous examples of ron paul's undesirability
and you ignored them.
Here is the e-mail I sent you on
Andrew (I hope you don't mind the
You support ron paul?
Congratulations. So does a voluminous list of nazis and White
supremacists, including (but not limited to) david duke, hal turner, don
black, jamie kelso, hutton gibson (Mel's looney-tune holocaust denying father)
and those wonderful folks at www.stormfront.org, whose home
page provides you with a convenient link to donate to the paul
Paul voted against re-authorizing
the 1965 civil rights act. He also voted against the house resolution
condemning hezbollah. He used to publish a newsletter that had overtly
racist material in it. Years later, he claimed he wasn't the writer of
that material, but the newsletter was all of 8 pages long and had his name on
it. I know better than to believe he was unaware of its content and so
It's been said that when you sleep
with dogs you get fleas. What do you get when you sleep with nazi and
White supremacist colostomy bags and the guy who they support?
I also have also
talked blogged repeatedly about ron paul's sordid history on my own blog,
You can read the commentaries at:
Maybe it's time for you to
rethink your endorsement. I assure you there is nothing to be
embarrassed about if you do: to paraphrase (and slightly mangle) Provebs
16:18, "Pride goeth before a paul"
Ken Berwitz .
Paul, for his part, has again fallen back on the "It may have been
in my newsletter under my name but I didn't write it" alibi. In other
words, the dog ate his homework. Dozens of times.
Paul's exact words to Sullivan are:
The quotations in The New Republic article are not
mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have
never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King,
Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character,
not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House
on April 20, 1999: I rise in great respect for the courage and high
ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals
against unjust laws and oppressive governmental
This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a
decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the
day of the New Hampshire primary.
When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine
full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit.
Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly
taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out
under my name. .
I can almost see fido chewing up the math problems.
FYI: One other thing
should be mentioned here: Andrew Sullivan appears to think
very little of Mr. Kirchick. According to Sullivan , Kirchick, in an e-mail, indicated he
was less interested in honest reporting than in stirring the pot and
creating a controversy. The e-mail's exact wording is:
Anyways, I dont
think Ron Paul is a homophobe; Im just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of
political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy Id have called him a
fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of
the bunch! .
I don't know Kirchick and can't speak for or against him
(though I admit that a) that statement is pretty dumbass and b) his
position at The New Republic is a major strike against his
But, speaking for myself, I wasn't trying to stir any pot, everything
I wrote was to the best of my knowledge, accurate and no one has debunked
even one word of it.
And....Mr. Sullivan is still not responding to me
"Tomorrow we will probably be laughing at a lot of
these data. Let's talk about it then.": Me, talking
about the political polls the day before the New Hampshire
Now it is the day after the primary. Am I laughing? Are you
First, a reminder of what the poll data told us:
Based on the final data, Barack Obama won the New Hampshire primary by
an average of 8%. The averaged results of all polls combined had Senator
Obama at 27%, Senator Clinton at 29%, and former ambulance chaser turned Senator
Edwards at 19%.
Individually, every polling organization had Mr. Obama the winner.
Rasmussen had him ahead by 10%. So did Reuters/C-Span/Zogby.
USAToday/Gallup had him up by 13%. Politically, Hillary Clinton was being
fitted for a sarcophagus.
Funny thing, though. Senator Clinton won. She wound up with 39%
of the New Hampshire primary vote to 36% for Obama, with Edwards at
17%. Bill Richardson got 5%, which I would call a pleasant surprise
for him. Dennis Kukucinich managed 1%, thus proving that his LAMB message
was largely pre-empted by the big guys.
In fairness, on the Republican side the average results were a lot closer to
reality. The poll average showed Senator McCain the winner with 34%,
former Governor Mitt Romney with 29%, former Governor Mike Huckabee at 11%,
former Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 9%, current congressman ron paul at 7% and current
TV actor (if there weren't a writer's strike)/former Senator Fred Thompson at an
The reality, though not statistically perfect, was close. And, on average, was in correct
order. McCain won with 37%, Romney was second at 32%, Huckabee was at 11%,
Giuliani at 9%, paul at 8% and Thompson nearly flatlined at 1%.
I watched Today this morning. They had Senators Clinton and Obama on in
that order. There was little doubt about who won and lost:
-Clinton had all the bravado and swagger back, as if to say "let the
coronation march continue".
-Obama was wan, tight-lipped, barely could get out a smile, and looked like
someone who was just kicked hard in the gonads -- which, in a political sense,
is exactly what happened.
The Republican fight will change now, because we are getting to the states
Giuliani has not conceded and must - MUST - do well in to survive.
On the Democratic side, the gloves will now come off and this is going to be
a street fight. I have a feeling Clinton's people (not her, the Bill
Clintonesque people around her) are more adept at it than the people around
In the immortal words of Arte Johnson on Laugh-in, this is about to become