November 17, 2003 by s.z.

A few things in passing, and then I'm going to collapse on my sick bed: First, from Justice Roy Moore Mulls Next Step: Moore said that under the Tenth Amendment, "the federal district court had no authority to come into the State of Alabama, and tell us that we could not establish our justice system on God, as the constitution says we [must] do. And that's what this issue is about." So, Roy is saying that since the Constitution doesn't prohibit the states from establishing a judicial system based on "God," the Tenth Ammendment says that Alabama can, nay, MUST do this.  Remember back in October when came up with the Improved Official State Religion List, and we gave the Royites South Dakota?  Well, now that we know that Roy is also going to establish a state judicial system based on the lump of stone he calls "god," I don't know if it's fair to require the Moonies to share that state.  I'm hereby cutting the state in half: Roy and his followers can have East South Dakota, and the Moonies can have West South Dakota.  I don't know which part contains Mt. Rushmore (the main reason we gave the Royites that state), but I figure they can work it out amongst themselves. 2.  From a NYT Interview with Roberta Combs, new president of the Christian Coalition of America and a friend of George's: What do you think American foreign policy should aim for in Iraq? In the new country, under the new democracy, why should the official religion be Muslim? I think as Iraq becomes a democracy, there are going to be a lot of churches springing up. Would you like to see American products like television shows flourish in Baghdad as well? Oh, no. I hope they don't show ''The Osbournes'' over there.  The Osbournes are definitely not a typical American family. Their language is so offensive. Shows like that wouldn't exist if mothers stayed home with their kids and supervised what they watched.    But you yourself are a working mother. Do you think you could have been happy as a full-time housewife? Probably not. Probably it would not have been enough for me. I always had a desire to make a difference. That is why I love the legislative process, where you can make a difference. One voice and one vote can make all the difference in the world.   Yes, the most important job in the world is being a stay-at-home mother, where you can make all the difference to a child, by keeping him or her from watching bad TV shows".  Well, it's the most important job in the world women you aren't Roberta, 'cause she has REAL imporant work to do, picking up where Pat Roberts left off and REALLY nuking the State Department this time.  3.  Be sure to check out Ivan's latest hilarious installment in the ongoing pop culture/political pundit sit-com"I Love Jessica."  You will find it in the comments section for the entry from Saturday called "My Fox News Channel Evening." In Ivan's honor, I have come up with a potential theme song for the show -- you already know the tune, but here are the words:  It's the story of a lovely airhead Who thought it was poultry if called '"Chicken of the Sea." She needed a husband to help and guide her And not one from MTV. It's the story of a man called Tucker Who was dealing with problems of his own. Everyone thought he was smarmy and obnoxious, A George W. clone. So, one day when the lady met the fellow They knew that it was a pretty good plan, If they starred in a a sitcom where they were married and he had a PBS talk show And that's how we came up with the "I Love Jessica" show, man. Anyway, come up with our own theme songs if you don't like this one.  Or new state judidical systems, or plans to keep children from watching MTV shows, or whatever you feel like.  I'm going to gargle and then take more Sudafed. 4:10:09 AM

Leaking, the Politicization of Intelligence,Etc: The Story Which Andrew Sullivan Says Musn't Die Well, I wasn't going to comment on the Weekly Standard's big "Conclusive Proof that Saddam was Behind 9/11" story until I was off the drugs, but who am I to go against Andrew Sullivan's command to tell the world: "Keep watching the skies!  They're here already! You're next! You're next, You're next..." THIS STORY MUSTN'T DIE: What to make of the Weekly Standard's publication of a leaked memo from neocon Pentagon official, Douglas Feith, to the Senate Intelligence Committee? Well, I'm not someone used to reading classified CIA documents and being able to separate the wheat from the chaff.  But reading Stephen Hayes' summary of the document, I have to say this strikes me as a Big Deal. Yeah, Sullivan's complete lack of training or experience in doing intelligence analysis convinces ME that his belief that Hayes's summary of a summary of a handful of documents picked to support one point of view is indeed a "Big Deal," and that the liberal media is ignoring it for some nefarious reason. Earlier in the day, Sullivan said: I cannot independently judge this material. But others can. All I know is that we shouldn't rest until the case debunking these claims has been effectively made. We need to be told: Why is this intelligence faulty? How? Has it been cherry-picked? By whom? Why? While I'm not one of the people Sullivan asks to judge this material or debunk these claims, I think I can answer some of his questions:  Has this intelligence been cherry-picked?  Of COURSE it has.  By whom? By Douglas J. Feith.  Why?  To support his claim that Saddam was supporting al Qaida. I would suggest that Sullivan read DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections, which says in part: A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony.    One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee.  These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida. The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community. The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. See, Sullivan, Feith chose some intelligence he liked to make a speech to the Senate Intelligence Committee, in which he claimed there were links between Saddam and al Qaida, and so the administration had no choice but to go to war.  The Committee said, "Well, not that we don't believe you, Doug, but we'd like to see some proof."  So, DOD got permission from CIA and NSA to release summaries of their reports to the Committee.  And then somebody leaked those summaries to the Weekly Standard.  So, Mr. Sullivan, lets deal with the questions that you probably MEANT to ask next: Who leaked this report, and why?  While a Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee is a logical guess (maybe the same person who leaked the Democratic SSCI "strategy" memo to Sean Hannity), I think that we have to ask ourselves, "If this was leaked by somebody from the Senate, why would he give this memo to the Weekly Standard, instead of a U.S. paper, or Sean Hannity again?'  That suggests it was leaked by somebody who wanted to make things easier for the President during his upcoming visit to the UK (where they all seem to hate him), and to keep Tony Blair from being thrown out by his own people for ever having agreed to back the U.S. in this invasion thing.  So, who would have such a goal in mind?  And who has shown already that they have no regard about endagering intelligence sources and methods by leaking stuff in order to score some political points?  Yes, a Senior Administration Official.  Which one?  That's for the FBI to find out.  Because I'm sure the CIA and NSA are preparing (if they haven't already been sent) crimes report about this leak, and they will hit DOJ any day now. Oh, and in regard to your questions, "Why is this intelligence faulty? How?", Mr, Sullivan, my guess would be that it conflicts with information obtained from other sources, or wasn't confirmed by any other sources.  But we'll probably never know, because this information is CLASSIFIED, and so shouldn't be appearing in newspapers, even if you really, really want to know about it.  After all, the DOD did say: Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal. So, let's move on. Sullivan's admitted lack of expertise doesn't stop him from declaring one tidbit from the leaked info (a senior al Qaeda operative reportedly saying that an associate told him that he was "tasked" to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence, in order to obtain poisons and gases training), " the smoking vial, the intelligence that a link-up between the maniacs of al Qaeda with the resources of the Baathist terror-state was real, and that it could lead to attacks more devastating than 9/11."  Of course, in intelligence analysis circles, one guy saying that some other guy told him something doesn't count as a "smoking" anything, but Sullivan is covered because he admitted up front that he doesn't actually know anything about this.  And he does say at the conclusion of this post, "Again, all this is amazing stuff: a phenomenally important story, if true. " Yeah, it's just that "if true" part that we have to worry about.  It really is too bad that we need highly trained, well-educated analysts who devote their working lives to studying one particular aspect of an intelligence issue to evaluate this stuff, because it's so much more fun if we just let Sullivan do his own precis of Hayes' precis of cherry-picked raw data, and then declare that the White House was right when it said that Saddam posed an imminent threat, and was likely to kill each and every one of us if not stopped.  Anyway, Sullivan goes on to disparage a piece by Walter Pincus (CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists).  Well, not really the whole piece -- just the part where Pincus quotes a "senior administration official" who, talking about the leaked report, said that the "classified annex summarized raw intelligence reports but did not analyze them or address their accuracy."  Sullivan discounts this because he doesn't trust Pinchus.  Um, and I guess that means that any senior administration official who talks to Pinchus is a Commie by association, and we shouldn't trust them either.  Of course, the DOD, in their official statement on the matter, also said the material was raw data, and that it"was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions."  But they're probably on Pincus's payroll too. But oddly enough, Sullivan doesn't mention this quote in the Pincus piece: Last Thursday, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith defended the administration’s prewar position at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The idea that we didn’t have specific proof that he was planning to give a biological agent to a terrorist group,” he said, “doesn’t really lead you to anything, because you wouldn’t expect to have that information even if it were true. And our intelligence is just not at the point where if Saddam had that intention that we would necessarily know it.” So, Feith is saying that we didn't have any proof that Saddam was planning to give bio-weapons to al Qaida (and you wouldn't expect us to, even if were true, which it may or may not be).  So, no smoking vials, Sullivan.  Feith says so.  (Of course, Feith is implying that the fact that we have no proof means that it WAS true, because that's just what we'd expect to have if it was true, but let Sullivan work that out for himself.) Well, I doubted that helped Sullivan very much, but at least I'm keeping the story from dying, as ordered. I hope he appreciates it, because I wouldn't have tried working while under the influence of Sudafed for anyone else. 3:14:16 AM

The Chinese Are Brainwashing Our Young Via Walmart Crib Toys!  Per a story reported exclusively by WorldNetDaily back in January, Wal-mart was selling a crib toy that tells kids that it hates them.  This week WorldNet has updated the story in a piece called Wal-Mart covering up 'I hate you' baby toy?  Yes, it seems that Wal-mart has pulled the toys, but refuses to admit to paranoid parents that they ever were part of a ChiCom plot to brainwash kids into assinating the President! Here's some info from this latest Worldnet scoop: WorldNetDaily reported a Vancouver, Wash., family discovered the toy they unsuspectingly attached to their 6-month-old son's crib utters the words "I hate you" amid the rhythmic ocean sounds designed to lull the baby asleep. "The voice has a softness to it. It sounds hypnotizing. ... I think it's creepy," Blanche Skelton told WorldNetDaily. "My husband thought I was crazy until he heard it." Skelton's in-laws and everyone who has visited the house since have heard it. [snip] The toy's box bears the Wal-Mart brand label Kid Connection, with a tiny set of footprints and "Step Ahead" logo. The box also indicates the toy was made in China. "You know China is not friends with us," Skelton said, speculating about the explanation for what she fears is a subliminal message hidden in the toy. "They're trying to get back at us. What's the best way? Teach kids when they're young to hate. It's scary." Skelton's story sparked endless discussion and mocking on several online discussion forums.  People mocked this story?  I find that very hard to believe.  Anyway, six other parents said they heard the same thing after they read the WorldNet story, and they too complained to Wal-Mart.  And Wal-Mart did take action, but they are refusing to admit their complicity in this dastardly plot. Wal-Mart's Burk said the matter was investigated and officials working with the supplier concluded there were faint "beeps" in the background of the ambient ocean sounds.  "We weren't able to determine what the beeps were," she said, "but because of customer concern, we removed the product off of our shelves." After this author explained she heard the toy first-hand and concurs with parents that the sound appears to be a voice speaking the words, "I hate you," Burk dismissed it as the "power of suggestion." "A lot of times the power of suggestion is there," she told WND. "If someone says they hear the toy say, 'I love you' then that's what you think you hear. Or if someone thinks it says 'I hate you,' that's what you're going to hear."   Sure, that sounds reasonable.  A little TOO reasonable -- so I don't believe a word of it.   Wal-Mart has pulled the toys for "not being up to Wal-mart's quality standards," and will give refunds to anyone who wants them, but that's just not good enough for the concerned parents whom World Net talked to, like Sean Pento: I consider this an assault on my infant. He's been listening to this message his whole life," Sean Bento of Murrieta, Calif., told WorldNetDaily. "This is something someone did on purpose. Their intent is pernicious. There's nothing funny about an infant being exposed to something like that." So Bento is considering suing Wal-Mart for inflicting psychological harm on his baby.  While his infant is probably programed to be a Chinese killing machine by now, some money would probably help Sean feel better about this. And just what is the goverment doing about these insidious brain-washing toys? WND checked with the Consumer Product Safety Commission and learned officials there don't deal with these kind of issues. "As far as subliminal messages are concerned, that wouldn't be the jurisdiction of the commission," explained CPSC spokesperson Kim Dulic, "unless it was thought that the message could somehow cause physical injury or harm to the child." Dulic could not recommend any other agency that would handle the matter.   Well. then we damned well need to start a new agency that WILL handle subliminal issues! It should probably fall under the Homeland Security.  Hey, Scott and I, who have great experience in subliminal issues could head it.  I will await a call from our President. And I also think that Donald Rumsfeld should consider using this subliminal technology in his "Department of 'Just Say No to Terrorism.'"  Toys that lull kids to sleep with the repeated message "Mass murder isn't nice" could be just what we need to win young hearts and minds. 1:33:46 AM