Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Md Troopers Assoc #20 & Westminster Md Fire Dept Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Showing posts with label National Security qv Military Natl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Security qv Military Natl. Show all posts

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Patrick J Buchanan: Blowback From Bear Baiting


Patrick J Buchanan: Blowback From Bear Baiting

August 16, 2008


One of the wonders of the internet is the ability and opportunity to gather more than one point of view about current events. If one were to take the time to read accounts of the Russo-Georgian conflict from non-Western news sourses, you get a point of view that is not being reported in the U. S. media.

Pat Buchanan’s version and take on the events appear to be much closer to what really happened in a series of events that began August 7, 2008 – when Georgia foolishly started military actions that were obviously arrogantly oblivious of the possible consequences.

And then when Georgia’s efforts began to go awry, they wanted to cry foul…

See also: 20080812 Stratfor: The Russo Georgian War and the Balance of Power

20080807 Russo-Georgian War, Military Intel Watch - Stratfor, Military National Security Intel Watch, World Middle East Georgia, World Russia

_____

Patrick J. Buchanan: Blowback From Bear-Baiting

08/15/2008


Mikheil Saakashvili's decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia's invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser's decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser's blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili's blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili's army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America's lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.

Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight -- Russia finished it. People who start wars don't get to decide how and when they end.

Russia's response was "disproportionate" and "brutal," wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more "disproportionate"?

Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?

Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?

When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated…

[…]

Read the rest here:
Blowback From Bear-Baiting


20080815 Patrick J Buchanan: Blowback From Bear Baiting

Stratfor: The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power




By George Friedman

Related Special Topic Pages

Crisis in South Ossetia
U.S. Weakness and Russia’s Window of Opportunity
The Russian Resurgence
Kosovo, Russia and the West

The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted.

The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery.

This, as we have argued, has opened a
window of opportunity for the Russians to reassert their influence in the former Soviet sphere. Moscow did not have to concern itself with the potential response of the United States or Europe; hence, the invasion did not shift the balance of power.

The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public.

They did that Aug. 8.

Let’s begin simply by reviewing the last few days.

On the night of Thursday, Aug. 7, forces of the Republic of
Georgia drove across the border of South Ossetia, a secessionist region of Georgia that has functioned as an independent entity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia.

On the morning of Aug. 8,
Russian forces entered South Ossetia, using armored and motorized infantry forces along with air power. South Ossetia was informally aligned with Russia, and Russia acted to prevent the region’s absorption by Georgia. Given the speed with which the Russians responded — within hours of the Georgian attack — the Russians were expecting the Georgian attack and were themselves at their jumping-off points. The counterattack was carefully planned and competently executed, and over the next 48 hours, the Russians succeeded in defeating the main Georgian force and forcing a retreat. By Sunday, Aug. 10, the Russians had consolidated their position in South Ossetia.





(click image to enlarge)

On Monday, the
Russians extended their offensive into Georgia proper, attacking on two axes. One was south from South Ossetia to the Georgian city of Gori. The other drive was from Abkhazia, another secessionist region of Georgia aligned with the Russians. This drive was designed to cut the road between the Georgian capital of Tbilisi and its ports. By this point, the Russians had bombed the military airfields at Marneuli and Vaziani and appeared to have disabled radars at the international airport in Tbilisi. These moves brought Russian forces to within 40 miles of the Georgian capital, while making outside reinforcement and resupply of Georgian forces extremely difficult should anyone wish to undertake it.

The Mystery Behind the Georgian Invasion

In this simple chronicle, there is something quite mysterious: Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on Thursday night? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, artillery exchanges were routine. The Georgians might not have fought well, but they committed fairly substantial forces that must have taken at the very least several days to deploy and supply. Georgia’s move was deliberate.

The
United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?

It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. The second is that the United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen
Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.

If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The
Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well — indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow’s calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.

The Western Encirclement of Russia

To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the
Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire.

That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO’s expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.





The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia’s national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.

The second and lesser event was the decision by
Europe and the United States to back Kosovo’s separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts — including demands by various regions for independence from Russia — might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia’s requests were ignored.

From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.

Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster. This didn’t mean that he wanted to retain the Soviet state; rather, it meant that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had created a situation in which Russian national security was threatened by Western interests. As an example, consider that during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China.

Resurrecting the Russian Sphere

Putin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to
re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power. He did not want to confront NATO directly, but he did want to confront and defeat a power that was closely aligned with the United States, had U.S. support, aid and advisers and was widely seen as being under American protection. Georgia was the perfect choice.

By
invading Georgia as Russia did (competently if not brilliantly), Putin re-established the credibility of the Russian army. But far more importantly, by doing this Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security.

The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.

The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and
Iran is particularly important. The United States wants the Russians to participate in sanctions against Iran. Even more importantly, they do not want the Russians to sell weapons to Iran, particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system. Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue. The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria.

Therefore, the United States has a problem — it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran — and possibly in Afghanistan (even though Moscow’s interests there are currently aligned with those of Washington).

In other words, the Russians have backed the Americans into a corner. The Europeans, who for the most part lack expeditionary militaries and are
dependent upon Russian energy exports, have even fewer options. If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn’t all too shabby at the moment. It has also compelled every state on the Russian periphery to re-evaluate its position relative to Moscow. As for Georgia, the Russians appear ready to demand the resignation of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Militarily, that is their option. That is all they wanted to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated it.

The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia’s public return to great power status. This is not something that just happened — it has been unfolding ever since Putin took power, and with growing intensity in the past five years. Part of it has to do with the increase of Russian power, but a great deal of it has to do with the fact that the Middle Eastern wars have left the United States off-balance and short on resources. As we have written, this conflict created a window of opportunity. The Russian goal is to use that window to assert a new reality throughout the region while the Americans are tied down elsewhere and dependent on the Russians. The war was far from a surprise; it has been building for months. But the geopolitical foundations of the war have been building since 1992. Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.


Tell Stratfor What You Think

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to
http://www.stratfor.com/
20080812 Stratfor: The Russo Georgian War and the Balance of Power

Julia Child part of WWII era spy ring

Julia Child part of WWII era spy ring

Photo caption: It is not known as to whether or not Carrie Ann Knauer, pictured above interviewing Ms. Child in an undated photograph, followed in Ms. Child’s footsteps. She is indeed not only an excellent writer and cook - - but was she also once a secret agent? Kevin Dayhoff - File photo circa 2000.

Julia Child part of WWII era spy ring. Reports unsubstantiated that
Carrie Ann Knauer was also once a secret agent

August 13, 2008

As many folks who follow the news are aware, it was recently revealed that Julia Child was part of a WWII-era spy ring

As you can read in the Associated Press story: “Other notables identified in the files include John Hemingway, son of author Ernest Hemingway; Quentin and Kermit Roosevelt, sons of President Theodore Roosevelt, and Miles Copeland, father of Stewart Copeland, drummer for the band The Police.”

However it has not been confirmed as to whether or not Carroll County’s very own “Rachael Ray” was ever a spy. We all know
Carrie Ann Knauer’s work; she’s the prolific writer with the Carroll County Times who well known for her excellent coverage of Carroll County’s number one industry, agriculture, the environment and Carroll County’s number one love – food.

Did indeed, Ms. Knauer, pictured above interviewing Ms. Child in an undated photograph, follow in Ms. Child’s footsteps – and is indeed not only an excellent writer and cook - - but was also a secret agent.

Perhaps we’ll never know.

What is known is that Ms. Knauer first burst into the news media when she came to the
Carroll County Times in February 2002. Of course this coincides well with fact that Ms. Childs moved to a retirement community in Santa Barbara, California, in 2001…

We are also aware that Ms. Knauer has been known to disappear for periods of time in which her locational whereabouts are not disclosed

Hmmm, makes you wonder, now doesn’t it.

####
Documents: Julia Child part of WWII-era spy ring

Related Searches:
CIA Director William Casey
Office of Strategic Services
Kermit Roosevelt
military plans
Slideshow: International spy ring revealed

By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and RANDY HERSCHAFT, Associated Press Writers Wed Aug 13, 11:10 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Famed chef Julia Child shared a secret with Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg and Chicago White Sox catcher Moe Berg at a time when the Nazis threatened the world.

They served in an international spy ring managed by the Office of Strategic Services, an early version of the CIA created in World War II by President Franklin Roosevelt.

The full secret comes out Thursday, all of the names and previously classified files identifying nearly 24,000 spies who formed the first centralized intelligence effort by the United States. The National Archives, which this week released a list of the names found in the records, will make available for the first time all 750,000 pages identifying the vast spy network of military and civilian operatives.

They were soldiers, actors, historians, lawyers, athletes, professors, reporters. But for several years during World War II, they were known simply as the OSS. They studied military plans, created propaganda, infiltrated enemy ranks and stirred resistance among foreign troops.

[…]

Other notables identified in the files include John Hemingway, son of author Ernest Hemingway; Quentin and Kermit Roosevelt, sons of President Theodore Roosevelt, and Miles Copeland, father of Stewart Copeland, drummer for the band The Police.


Read the entire article here:
Julia Child part of WWII-era spy ring
20080813 Julia Child part of WWII era spy ring

Friday, January 04, 2008

20080104 Wall Street: Journal Criminalizing the CIA

Wall Street: Journal Criminalizing the CIA

I could not agree more… “So here we go again, ringing up CIA agents who thought they were acting in good faith to keep the country safe… But why should any future agent take any risks to gather information, or pursue an enemy, if he thinks he is likely to have to answer to some future prosecutor for his every action?”

Criminalizing the CIA

January 4, 2008; Page A10

REVIEW & OUTLOOK by The Wall Street Journal

When news broke that the CIA had destroyed videotapes of a couple of early terrorist interrogations, Democrats in Congress demanded a criminal investigation. Now that Attorney General Michael Mukasey is obliging, they still aren't satisfied. So here we go again, ringing up CIA agents who thought they were acting in good faith to keep the country safe.

On Wednesday Mr. Mukasey assigned prosecutor John Durham, a 25-year Justice Department veteran, to investigate if CIA agents committed a crime when they destroyed the tapes in 2005 under orders from the then-head of the covert Directorate of Operations. But that isn't enough for John Conyers (D., Mich.), who wants a full-blown "special counsel" to wade into the CIA's covert-ops division and deliver a public excavation…

[…]

The interrogations also took place at a time -- starting in 2002 -- when some Members of Congress were regularly briefed on the CIA practices, including "waterboarding." Among those briefed were Jay Rockefeller IV and Nancy Pelosi, neither of whom saw fit to object to the methods. We are now in a different political place, and in a different election year, and these same Democrats want to join the left in accusing the Bush Administration of "torture" and a cover-up.

The Bush Administration is already on its way out, so the real damage here may be to our ability to gather future intelligence no matter who is President…

[…]

One of the stock criticisms of the CIA after 9/11 is that the agency played it too safe in pursuing al Qaeda. But why should any future agent take any risks to gather information, or pursue an enemy, if he thinks he is likely to have to answer to some future prosecutor for his every action?

As for the tapes, no doubt the agency now wishes they had never been made, much less destroyed. But the irony is that their destruction might well have saved the U.S. from the embarrassment of having them leaked to the world and turned into a propaganda victory for our enemies…

[…]

Yet instead, we are now unleashing prosecutors against agents who on the evidence so far were acting not to pursue some political agenda but to defend the nation against its most ruthless enemies. We hope Mr. Durham understands the difference, and that we don't cripple the very spooks we need to fight the war on terror.

Read the entire opinion here: Criminalizing the CIA

####

Monday, December 31, 2007

20071231 HNN: Charlie Wilson’s War

Charlie Wilson’s War, the Culture of Imperialism and the Distortion of History

12-31-07

I have not seen the movie, “Charlie Wilson’s War,” although it is on my short list of movies of which I speculate may be worth the time – in a year in which most of the Hollywood movies were not worth the time.

I stumbled across this review and piqued my curiosity.

Has anyone seen the movie – and if so, what did you think?

Charlie Wilson’s War, the Culture of Imperialism and the Distortion of History

By Jeremy Kuzmarov, George Mason University’s History News Network

Mr. Kuzmarov is Visiting Assistant Professor of History at Bucknell University. His first book, The Myth of the Addicted Army: Vietnam and the Modern War on Drugs, will be published by the University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.

In his provocative 1993 book, Culture and Imperialism, Edward W. Said examines how cultural representations in the West have historically helped to stereotype Third World peoples as being passively reliant on foreign aid for their social and political uplift, thus engendering support for imperial interventions ostensibly undertaken for humanitarian purposes. This was true, he argued, even in works critical of Western interventions, like Joseph Conrad’s The Heart of Darkness and Graham Greene’s The Quiet American, where the indigenous characters appear to be either incidental to the story or dependent on Westerners (as is exemplified in the Vietnamese character Phuong who latches onto the “quiet American” Alden Pyle as a means of escaping a life of poverty and prostitution).

Said’s final chapters focus on Hollywood’s promotion of demeaning stereotypes of Arabs as religious fanatics and terrorists and universally oppressive towards women. He highlights, further, how the Vietnamese people in most American films on the war have been deprived of human agency, with the U.S. defeat frequently blamed on ineffectual liberal bureaucrats and incompetent senior officers rather than the strength of Vietnamese nationalism and mobilizing abilities of the revolutionary leadership. Said would likely argue that Charlie Wilson’s War is the latest Hollywood blockbuster to promote underlying cultural stereotypes of Third World peoples and Muslims, while sanitizing the American record and its promotion of imperial violence.

Based loosely on true events, the film focuses on the efforts of a Congressional representative from Texas, Charlie Wilson, to raise funds for mujahadin “freedom fighters” seeking to “liberate” Afghanistan from the Soviets. A playboy renowned for his womanizing and high-lifestyle, Wilson becomes a lonely voice in support of the CIA’s covert war.

[…]

Read the entire essay here: Charlie Wilson’s War

####

Thursday, December 13, 2007

20071213 Cleaning off the computer Reading Notes

Cleaning off the computer Reading Notes
December 13, 2007

Investigating the holiday's most tabooed treat by Jordan Bartel

http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/articles/2007/11/29/features/encore/columns/jordan_bartel/bartel865.txt

By Jordan Bartel, Times Staff Writer Thursday, November 29, 2007

I've never had fruitcake and lately I was wondering why.

It's been almost ingrained in my mind that I shouldn't try fruitcake or like fruitcake. It's like some kind of holiday taboo treat. You have to keep it on the downlow if you like it and it's popular to make fun of it.

####

BBC: Led Zeppelin return to the stage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7135200.stm

Tuesday, 11 December 2007

Led Zeppelin have played their first concert in 19 years, before nearly 20,000 fans at London's 02 arena.

Their set, lasting about two hours, opened with Good Times Bad Times, the first track of their debut album.

Original band members Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones were joined on stage by Jason Bonham, the son of their late drummer John Bonham.

####

Led Zeppelin to confirm reunion 12 Sep 07 Entertainment

Zeppelin fans warned off 'touts' 03 Sep 07 Entertainment

Zeppelin star tops festival bill 19 Aug 07 Mid Wales

Led Zeppelin make UK Hall of Fame 12 Sep 06 Entertainment

Award for 'pioneers' Led Zeppelin 23 May 06 Entertainment

RELATED INTERNET LINKS

Led Zeppelin

Stairway to Heaven backwards

TOP ENTERTAINMENT STORIES

Compass not so golden in US chart

Hollywood workers urge strike end

US orchestra to make N Korea trip

####

BBC: The legend of Led Zeppelin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6989929.stm

Wednesday, 12 September 2007

Led Zeppelin, who reformed for a one-off concert at London's O2 arena, were one of the most influential bands of the 20th Century.

Many say Led Zeppelin invented heavy metal, and their sound wafted out of thousands of guitar shops worldwide during the 1970s.

Budding guitarists world try out their skills on Stairway to Heaven - but that is only the tip of the Led Zeppelin story.

Many critics loathed them, but for a generation of fans, their complex sounds and love of mythology gave them an aura which remains undimmed today.

Led Zeppelin split in 1980 and reunions have been rare. But the huge scramble for tickets for their London gig shows they still have a large fanbase. Just what lies behind the Led Zeppelin legend?

IN THE BEGINNING...

Led Zeppelin formed from the ashes of 1960s band The Yardbirds, the one-time home of Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck. Guitarist Jimmy Page joined the group for their final album and stayed with the band as it disintegrated in 1968.

####

CIA director to testify about destroyed tapes

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN09337668

Sun Dec 9, 2007 6:25pm EST

Senators at odds on special probe of CIA tapes

Democrats’ fury grows over destroyed tapes

CIA says it made and destroyed interrogation tapes

CIA erred and had tapes in September 11 conspirator case

White House ordered to keep backup copies of e-mail

WASHINGTON, Dec 9 (Reuters) - CIA Director Michael Hayden will testify before Congress on Tuesday amid Democratic fury over the spy agency's destruction of videotapes that showed terrorism suspects being interrogated using harsh techniques.

####

C.I.A. Chief Admits Failure to Inform Congress

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/washington/12cnd-intel.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=login

By MARK MAZZETTI

Published: December 12, 2007

WASHINGTON — Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, acknowledged Wednesday that the C.I.A. had failed to keep members of Congress fully informed of the facts that the agency had videotaped the interrogations of Al Qaeda detainees and destroyed the tapes three years later.

####

To burn or not to burn by Carrie Ann Knauer

County commissioners to hold panel on waste recommendations By Carrie Ann Knauer, Times Staff Writer Monday, December 10, 2007

Carroll County’s Board of Commissioners has yet to debate among themselves whether they want to go forward with a waste-to-energy incinerator, but they may be watching a debate on the positives and negatives of the technology Thursday.

The commissioners heard two proposals with differing visions of how the county should tackle trash in November, and have been waiting for more information before deciding which plan to go forward with, said Cindy Parr, county director of administrative services.

On Thursday, members of the EAC will be at the commissioners’ meeting to represent their position, and Public Works staff, and representatives from the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority and Maryland Environmental Services will explain their perspectives.

The plan is to have an interactive discussion, Parr said, where the commissioners can ask their unanswered questions and hear facts and opinions from both sides.

####


Tuesday, July 03, 2007

20070702 Grant of Executive Clemency for Libby by President Bush

Grant of Executive Clemency for Libby by President Bush

July 2nd, 2007

GRANT OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Home > News & Policies > Proclamation Archives

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-4.html

Statement by the President On Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby

Hat Tip: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11658207

WHEREAS Lewis Libby was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Libby, Crim. No. 05-394 (RBW), for which a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment, 2 years' supervised release, a fine of $250,000, and a special assessment of $400 was imposed on June 22, 2007;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby commute the prison terms imposed by the sentence upon the said Lewis Libby to expire immediately, leaving intact and in effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and all other components of the sentence.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand and seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

For additional information:

On “Soundtrack” click on: Plame Wilson Novak Libby CIA Leak Case

Timeline: CIA Leak Case: Follow the twists and turns in the CIA leak investigation that resulted in Libby's conviction — and in a sentence commutation from President Bush.

Read Libby's appeal denial (pdf file)

Libby becomes inmate No. 28301-016

Libby seeks delay of prison term

Read Bush's full statement on Libby

Libby denied request to remain free on bond

Bush spares Libby from 2 1/2-year prison term

The latest on Bush commuting Libby

MAIN REPORT PAGE

Bush Decision on Libby Draws Fire

Wilson: Commuting Libby's Sentence Is 'Corrupt'

President's Move on Libby Risks Fallout

Comment: Bush had nothing to lose over Libby

Timeline: 'Scooter' Libby trial

Libby suffers new court defeat

July 2, 2007: Libby Won't Go to Prison; Fine, Probation Remain

June 5, 2007: Libby Sentenced to 2 1/2 Years in CIA Leak Case

March 6, 2007: Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Found Guilty of Lying

Feb. 20, 2007: Final Arguments Made in Libby Perjury Case

July 2, 2007: The Trial of Lewis Libby

Feb. 8, 2007: Prosecution Rests Case in Libby Trial

Jan. 16, 2007: Jury Selection to Begin in Libby Trial

20070702 Full text of Bush statement on Libby decision

Full text of Bush statement on Libby decision

July 2nd, 2007

References: Grant of Executive Clemency

Statement by the President On Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby

Read president's text on commuting ex-White House aide's prison sentence

Hat Tip: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19570172/

July 2, 2007

President Bush's released a statement Monday sparing former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term. The following is the full text of the document.

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

####

For additional information:

On “Soundtrack” click on: Plame Wilson Novak Libby CIA Leak Case

Timeline: CIA Leak Case: Follow the twists and turns in the CIA leak investigation that resulted in Libby's conviction — and in a sentence commutation from President Bush.

Read Libby's appeal denial (pdf file)

Libby becomes inmate No. 28301-016

Libby seeks delay of prison term

Read Bush's full statement on Libby

Libby denied request to remain free on bond

Bush spares Libby from 2 1/2-year prison term

The latest on Bush commuting Libby

MAIN REPORT PAGE

Bush Decision on Libby Draws Fire

Wilson: Commuting Libby's Sentence Is 'Corrupt'

President's Move on Libby Risks Fallout

Comment: Bush had nothing to lose over Libby

Timeline: 'Scooter' Libby trial

Libby suffers new court defeat

July 2, 2007: Libby Won't Go to Prison; Fine, Probation Remain

June 5, 2007: Libby Sentenced to 2 1/2 Years in CIA Leak Case

March 6, 2007: Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Found Guilty of Lying

Feb. 20, 2007: Final Arguments Made in Libby Perjury Case

July 2, 2007: The Trial of Lewis Libby

Feb. 8, 2007: Prosecution Rests Case in Libby Trial

Jan. 16, 2007: Jury Selection to Begin in Libby Trial

Monday, January 15, 2007

200701113 A commentary on the new director of national intelligence





A commentary on the new director of national intelligence Mike McConnell

For other related posts click hereor here.


For a bit more information, click here…


This photo: Rear Admiral John McConnell, 1990


Nation

New Intel Chief: Wrong for the Job , Jan. 10, 2007 | By Robert Baer


...Baer says the CIA needs to stop its overreliance on technology and outsourcing of intelligence. But that's not likely to happen under Mike McConnell...


[Related Where Does Negroponte Leave Intelligence? The director's surprising move to the State Department raises new questions about much-needed reforms in the spy community]



_____

Robert Baer, (“a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.”) has gone to what many consider to be the “unusual task” of writing a dissent about appointing retired Rear Admiral John Michael "Mike" McConnell - - and then having it published in “Time” magazine.



Among the important points that need to be called to your attention:


[…]

“…The CIA is hemorrhaging people, with the vast majority leaving to work for contractors, like Booz Allen. They're lured by higher salaries and double dipping (on top of their government retirement packages). They often end back up at the CIA with a green contractor's badge, doing pretty much the same job. The important difference is they answer to the company they work for, not the CIA.


“I'm told that today contractors outnumber staff employees. As one CIA officer told me, ‘You walk in the building and all you see is green badges, all doing the retiree shuffle, keeping their heads down, focusing on holding on to their jobs.’ ”


[…]


"You know as well as I do," he said. "Contractors won't take risks. You can't send them out into the field to recruit new sources. They know they make a mistake and they're gone." He's right. It's a lot easier to replace a contractor than it is to fire a government employee.”


[…]


“Rank and file at the CIA will look at McConnell's appointment as part of a trend shifting intelligence away from human sources, the CIA's bread and butter, to the Pentagon, the NSA, technology and outsourcing.”


[…]


“But bin Laden, like most terrorists, has dropped off the digital grid. To find him you need a warm body, not just cool gear.” (my emphasis)


Read the entire piece here: New Intel Chief: Wrong for the Job


####

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

20061204 John Negroponte transcript posted on Joisting for Justice

John Negroponte transcript posted on Joisting for Justice

Cross posted here / 20070113 ked

December 4th, 2006

Stephanie Dray, over at Joisting for Justice was kind enough to post the entire “C-Span Question and Answer with John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence,” for us.

It is a lengthy transcript but well worth the time for an excellent snapshot of many of the issues we face and for a glimpse at the man who currently heads-up the Office of National Intelligence.

This was terrible nice of Ms. Dray to do this and we owe her a big thank you and big container of spiced walnuts.

And oh, Ms. Dray, please say hi to Ammar and Maryam from the peripatetic gerbils at the Soundtrack Division.

Please see my previous post here.

####