« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The Daily Muck
Rudolph Giuliani has resigned as head of Giuliani Partners, a position that earned him $4 million last year. Rudolph claims that "everything I did at Giuliani Partners was totally legal, totally ethical," yet just yesterday the New York Times “identified one client as the Persian Gulf country of Qatar, which was accused of sheltering suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.” (Boston Globe)
Guantanamo Bay has its own perverted sense of innocence. Shortly after a 19-year old German was taken from Pakistan to Guantanamo Bay in 2002, American officials determined that he was not a terrorist. But over the next four years, “two U.S. military tribunals that were responsible for determining whether Guantanamo Bay detainees were enemy fighters declared him a dangerous al-Qaeda ally who should remain in prison.” (Washington Post)
Meanwhile, as prisoners as Guantanamo Bay wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the legitimacy of military tribunals today, a prisoner cut his throat with his own fingernail so severely that it caused a substantial loss of blood. Those concerned about the detainees say that such acts are not unusual. (New York Times)
Current and former intelligence officials say much of the 2005 Iran report is solid, but they acknowledge that some of its conclusions appear to have been thinly sourced and were based on less rigorous methods that were later revised. The 2005 report said Iran’s leaders were working tirelessly to acquire a nuclear weapon, a claim that is contradicted by the 2007 version of the report released yesterday. The 2005 Iran report was also written by some of the same team that had produced key parts of the overstated Iraq threat estimate, which was similarly acknowledged to have been wrong in one of its main conclusions. (New York Times)
Mike Huckabee, surging in the polls, has faced his Willie Horton moment. Murray Waas reports that confidential Arkansas state government records show that as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee aggressively pushed for the early release of a rapist who went on to rape and murder again. (Huffington Post)
Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) has accepted what could turn out to be thousands of dollars worth of free flight time (sub. req.) in a vintage airplane owned by a contracting firm in his district that also is a major source of funds for Graves, contributing more than $200,000 to his campaigns at the state and federal levels.Ethics experts say Graves’ failure to disclose the flights as a gift may be a violation of House ethics rules. (Roll Call)
House Democratic and Republican leaders will be called to testify before a committee that is investigating (sub. req.) an August vote (on an agricultural bill) that is in dispute. Republicans say the vote count announced by the Democratic majority was inaccurate and that the motion had in fact passed. (Roll Call)
Mitt Romney has fired the landscaper at his suburban Boston home “after learning for a second time about undocumented workers laboring on the property.” Romney has made the war on illegal immigration a “core theme” in his campaign so it is probably a good idea that he has his own house in order. (AP)
It must be the war on Christmas that Fox has been following for a couple of years now. New congressional ethics rules mean that many members of Congress and their staffers will decline invites to holiday parties because “Someone could get nailed for two beers and a bacon wrap.” Meanwhile, lobbyists are nervous too but will employ the “personal friendship” loophole and host intimate parties at their homes instead. (Politico)





How about some congressional hearing on these Iran NIE's? I know they will be in closed session, but we have to figure out what the F is going on. This is so outrageous, it is indescribable.
December 5, 2007 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Giuliani (or his staff) says it, "totally" does not mean what it usually means.
Also "completely."
December 5, 2007 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
That 'totally ethiccal' sound an awful lot like a mob boss insisting that he's just a 'respectable businessman'.
December 5, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling the Huckabee story his "Willie Horton moment" sends the wrong message. It fails to point out that Huckabee actively sought the release of Dumond. Willie Horton escaped from a weekend furlough.
Totally different situations.
December 5, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Fred. It's similar to the all-too-common use of "Swift-boating" to refer to any smear campaign, rather than one that is patently false.
December 5, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Suppose I, as a therapist, am treating someone for a specific disorder, and then it becomes obvious that some new research is out - that may explain the disorder as not due to psychological factors at all - but genetic or medical.
Would it not be malpractice on my part to go ahead with psychotherapy - if I know that there is something in the works, which might discredit the treatment I'm pursuing? Or that I might need to change horses and pursue an entirely different kind of treatment, if at all?
bush, in expecting us to believe that he simply ignored information, that they asked him to "wait" - but he simply went ahead with bellicose statements and outright lies, instead of holding back - has done the equivalent. Executive malpractice!
Or if a CEO was notified that some bonds were worthless, that had been thought to be of high value, and that person went ahead and either bought or sold them, with that knowledge, would they not be liable to being fired? Or prosecuted?
bush is expecting a pass! he's expecting to be congratulated! when he deserves to be excoriated!
I'm so tired of this narcissistic man, possibly a sociopath, being allowed to skate free, unchallenged. It's a travesty! When others, doing something similar, would lose their license or be disbarred, or fired.
This is just one in a long line of lies, obfuscations, and war crimes.
December 5, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: the WaPo story -
Guantanamo Bay has its own perverted sense of innocence. (no link included btw)
The reasoning for this is very simple and it is behind all the CSRT (combatant status review tribunal) determinations and the papering of all the files even before the CSRT hearings.
IF someone who is not a combatant is kidnapped out of their country and disappeared off into blackhole abuse in a foreign country - - that is prima facie a "severe breach" of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime. No ifs ands ors nors or buts about it. So by the time of the decision to hold the CSRTs, a lot of innocent people, purchased off bounty hunters like slaves, had already been "disappeared" for more than a year. Well beyond any "grace period" for an oops factor.
Plus most were abused in their interrogations before being shipped to GITMO. The experiences of war and in particular the mass shipments of civilians to concentration camps in other countries, made the drafters of the Geneva Conventions very sensitive to that issue and it is very crystal clear. Subjecting civilians, aka protected persons, to being disappeared and shipped like livestock out of their country is a war crime.
The minute someone admits that ANY of these people were civilians/protected persons instead of combatants, the war crime status is irrefutable. That's why even those they did release relatively early were found to be "no longer" enemy combatants as opposed to "never" enemy combatants.
December 5, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too would love to see a Congressional investigation into how the 2005 and 2007 NIEs differ and why.
December 5, 2007 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Bolton was on CBC's As It Happens this evening, and he argued that the current NIE about Iran should be ignored in favor of still pressing Iran on what it's doing with its nuclear materials (invasion should be the last resort, he said). When interviewer Carol Off reminded Bolton of the misinformation in the NIE that took the US into Iraq, he basically said, "See? That was so bad that we should ignore this one."
To her positing that the compilers of the NIE were probably much more careful this time, he dismissed that with his opinion that intelligence produced is unreliable. Note that he did not mention a different team compiling this report (is this the case? It's what your snippet implies, and so does the NYT, but it's not explicit), and it is likely that Carol Off wouldn't realize this (Canadian, eh?).
None of the Admin is going to back down from pushing a confrontation with Iran. This report was not what they wanted to hear, so it's hands over the ears time again, with a loud chorus of "la la la la la."
December 5, 2007 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Curious, only took them 4 years after 2003 botched Iraq invasion to revisit the Iran assumptions: "2005 Iran report was also written by some of the same team that had produced key parts of the overstated Iraq threat estimate, which was similarly acknowledged to have been wrong in one of its main conclusions. "
- What took so long?
- What was/has DoD been targeting after it knew in 2003 that Iran had not been involved with nuclear weapons?
- DoD admits that nothing was a legiimate target seince 2003. What non-military related targets in Ian (a war crime) was DoD planning to strike?
- What's the plan for Congress to review teh DoD targeting plan in light of Geneva (prohibition against targeting non-military targets)?
- - - - - - - - -
The US appears to have been planning an illegal war of aggression agaisnt Iran.
What actions has the US Govt taken since 2003 to destroy the evidence related to this illegal war crimes planning?
What efforts has the US Govt taken (illegally) to suppress evidence of this unlawful war crimes planning?
Which evidence -- already before the court related to these war crimes allegations -- has been illegally suppressed on the grounds it was "illegally obtained"?
How much evidence do the lawyers working for WH-DoD-DoJ hope to suppress using claims of "illegally released" to dissaude legal action against clients in re war crimes?
December 5, 2007 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink