THE LEAKER-IN-CHIEF

"If someone leaked classified information," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on October 7, 2003, "the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business."

"I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information," said Bush on October 28, 2003. On this same day, Bush said, "I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."

The Valerie Plame Case
To refresh readers' memories: On Target wrote of the 2003 "outing" of undercover CIA analyst Valerie Plame in earlier issues. Valerie Plame is the wife of a former American ambassador by the name of Joseph Wilson. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been investigating the matter for the last two years.
Just recently Patrick Fitzgerald stated in a court filing that his investigators have obtained evidence during the course of the two-year-old probe that proves several White House officials conspired to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence. Read on:

Americans have found out who the leaker is:
TruthOut investigative reporter Jason Leopold wrote in the first of two reports that, "Attorneys and current and former White House officials close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson said that President Bush gave Vice President Dick Cheney the authorization in mid-June 2003 to disclose a portion of the highly sensitive National Intelligence Estimate to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller."
In the second of Leopold's reports, he writes, "Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald stated in a court filing late Wednesday in the CIA leak case that his investigators have obtained evidence during the course of the two-year-old probe that proves several White House officials conspired to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence. This is the first time the special counsel has acknowledged that White House officials are alleged to have engaged in a coordinated effort to undercut the former ambassador's credibility by disseminating classified intelligence information that would have contradicted Wilson's public statements."

So there it is:
We have Bush authorizing the disclosure of classified information, and we have that disclosure taking place for no other reason than to discredit an administration critic. Bush is often fond of defending his wildly inappropriate and often illegal activities by claiming that he has every right to do whatever he wants because America is "at war."
Never mind that no war has actually been declared. If we take his premise that we are in fact at war, than the disclosure of classified information for political gain must be defined simply and directly.

It is treason:
Representative Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, made the following statement on Thursday. "Leaking classified information to the press when you want to get your side out or silence your critics is not appropriate. The reason we classify things is to protect our sources - those who risk their lives to give us secrets. Who knows how many sources were burned by giving Libby this 'license to leak?' If I had leaked the information, I'd be in jail. Why should the President be above the law?"
"The President has the legal authority to declassify information," continued Harman, "but there are normal channels for doing so. Telling an aide to leak classified information to the New York Times is not a normal channel. A normal declassification procedure would involve going back to the originating agency, such as the CIA, and then putting out a public, declassified version of the document. I am stunned that the President won't tell the full the Intelligence Committee about the NSA program because he's allegedly concerned about leaks, when it turns out that he is the Leaker-in-Chief."
We can even take this a step further. The name of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame was all over the classified National Intelligence Estimate Bush ordered to be leaked.

The pertinent text of the 1947 National Security Act reads as follows:
SEC. 601. (50 U.S.C. 421) (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years or both.

George W. Bush and his people:
· lied with their bare faces hanging out about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
· lied about connections between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government,
· lied about Iraqi connections to September 11, and further
· lied about the threat to America posed by Iraq.
· made a decision to invade that had nothing to do with those weapons, and even conspired with their British counterparts to goad Hussein into a war regardless of whether the weapons were there or not.
· used September 11 against the American people to frighten them into a fearfully subservient acceptance of the invasion.
· bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to spy illegally on thousands of American citizens.
· leaked classified intelligence information in order to destroy a political foe, and in the process annihilated an intelligence network run by Valerie Plame. That network, it should be noted, was dedicated to tracking any person, nation or group that would deliver weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
· Every time they broke the law, their cronies in Congress manipulated those laws to make the actions taken legal.

Lies have consequences:-
· Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead.
· Tens of thousands more Iraqi civilians have been maimed.
· Millions of Iraqis live with the wretched deprivations caused by this war.
· The new Shia-dominated government wants no part of American involvement in this, and their so-called armed forces are in truth death squads masquerading as police and soldiers.
· 2,345 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, with 17 of those deaths coming in the first six days of April alone.
· Tens of thousands more American soldiers have been grievously wounded; nearly two thirds of all injuries suffered by American soldiers in Iraq are brain injuries, and amount to permanent debilitation.
We will be generations digging out from under the vomitous refuse left behind by this administration. From this day forward, any politician who claims that censure is not appropriate and impeachment is a waste of time should have their head examined by a whole team of medical experts. Bush and his people have committed treason, and did so for the lowest of reasons: personal gain and political protection.
"The dead cannot cry out for justice," said Lois McMaster Bujold. "It is a duty of the living to do so for them." So very many have died at the hands of this administration, its lies, and its crimes. If there is to be no reckoning for this, even after all this time, there will never again be a person in America who can speak of justice while keeping a straight face.
From truthout/Perspective 7/4/06 by William Rivers Pitt: William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence".

LOOKING BACK TO TRASH

by James Reed
The Weekend Australian Magazine (March 18-19/3/06, p.6) devoted an article to Oz magazine which in 1971 featured in Britain's longest obscenity case. In the middle of the "sexual revolution" Oz magazine was typical of the counter culture of the time. All of this doesn't concern me as much as the spirit behind Oz.

Here is the opening paragraph of The WEA Magazine article:
"Oz was born in the bland, conservative world of the early '60s. it was the Menzies era: Australia was white Anglo Saxon, culturally barren and very, very insular. The Queen, the Church and the RSL ruled the day. If you did anything radical, you were a communist. To call for the White Australia policy to end was a betrayal of our boys killed by the Japanese. Like lots of young people, we wanted to take the place by the scruff of the neck and change it."

Change it they, and others like them, did. Now we are the fringe dwellers and the dispossessed majority. As I pen this article I have before me an email about some of my criticisms of women. Although I have responded to this in another article, ladies may like to consider this offering from The Weekend Australian 18-19/3/06 in an article by Gary Shteyngart, celebrating the literary works of Jewish writer Philip Roth. Here are the opening paragraphs:
"Shiksa (shik' suh) n. "gentile girl", from Yiddish shikse from Hebrew siqsa, from sheqes, "a detested thing" + fem. suffix-a.
To fly away on the wings of a shiksa. To be near a shiksa, hold her, feel the warm downy mouth of one traditionally detested by my own people. To touch a shiksa, there, there and especially there. To be beloved by another kind. Essentially, to be free.
I read Philip Roth's "Portnoy's Complaint" as a teenage member of the last Jewish migration to America (the Soviet one) and came down with shiksa fever the same night I got the humour, believe me, the humour nearly gave me a kidney infection. But what I remember most was the longing. The longing of a 15-year-old boy educated at a Queens Hebrew school, taught not to eat his beloved ham, to tie phylacteries around his arm and head and thank the Lord each day that he was not born a woman, a longing for what my college professors would later tell me was "the other".
There they were, alive, real and oh so fleshy on the page. Kay Campbell, the Antioch College shiksa of Alexander Portnoy's youth, 'a robust genial, large-hearted, large-assed girl with a sweet baby face'.
Eventually I went to a college in Ohio just to find her (and find her I did). Then there was the angry, abusive working-class parents (she spells the word "dear" d-i-r): how many Monkeys I try to save and reform a la Portnoy?"

There you have it: cultured writing for today. That is how far we have come, when an author whose key work focuses primarily upon such grotty themes is hailed as a genius. Give me the bland, conservative world of Anglo Saxon's of old, any day. And by the way, did any gentle ladies see the above paragraphs and make the appropriate complaints? Remember, criticism and debate, as well as complaint, is the lifeblood of democracy.

PORNO CULTURE

by James Reed
Christians decisively lost the battle for modesty. The 1960s revolution was a full-blown attack upon the old conservative order by cultural Marxism. Anti-racism, immigration, multiculturalism and miscegenation would take care of the future of the White race; feminism will destroy the family, corrupt women and crush manhood and economic globalisation will finish off the economic structure that generations had slaved to build. The subtlest attack though was on Christian modesty. The sexual revolution was to deal with that. What was once a sin was now in.

Sexual liberation was pushed in the 1960s soon after the contraceptive pill was introduced but did not cause sexual libertarianism. That could have been achieved if condoms were promoted, as the liberating mechanism, as was done in the post-AIDS era. (AIDS by the way being another product of sexual promiscuity and "liberation".) Homosexualism, women's "liberation" and the acceptance of sexual standards that once would be unthinkable, all followed.

Following degenerate icons such as the Italian dyed blonde (the sex "goddesses"/witches must all be blonde, the archetypical Aryan, to produce maximum degeneracy) Madonna, girls started wearing underwear as outer wear. The wages of the sexual revolution has been spiralling disease rates, crashing birth rates and antagonism between the sexes. If this was our only problem, it alone would be sufficient to threaten the sustainability of Western civilisation.

However it is not the only such problem and those working to destroy Northern European (Nordic) people have left no poisonous pot uncovered. Balance and fairness requires: Although I have written a number of articles critical of Islamism, balance and fairness requires admitting points where the Islamists have clearly identified problems with the West. An article by Mark Forbes ("Flesh Gets the Flick in Indonesian Porn War," The Age, 25/2/06, p.19) claims that radical Muslims have won a major battle against free expression as the Indonesian parliament is set to introduce comprehensive anti-pornography laws.

Police in Jakarta have seized hundreds of thousands of pornographic magazines. Forbes says that the "same groups" staging violent demonstrations against the West over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad are targeting pornography in their battle to transform Indonesia into a strict Islamic nation. The Indonesian revolt against porno culture is much wider than Forbes says and it must to have influenced the Indonesian parliament.
Yes, radical Islamists have used this issue as they have used other issues. But the protests against porn have a deeper cultural root.

Balkan KapLale who heads the parliamentary committee which is finalising the pornography bill, which will halt the sale of Playboy magazine has said: "Playboy would place a time bomb in Indonesia. What guarantee is there that it will not arrive in the hands of our children? Playboy is an American magazine. Please, don't play this game with Indonesians, we have dignity."
If you think that this is "over the top" then just watch the music-video TV Shows Hollywood poisons our children with. Playboy and similar magazines have degraded the women of our race (the nude women are usually Nordic/Northern Europeans). Radical feminists are right: these magazines treat women as whores. This is not liberation: it is degeneracy and devolution.

Porno culture is defended by libertarians on freedom of speech grounds. Yet it is the West which imprisons the likes of Zundel and Irving for raising academic questions (however correct or incorrect) about the Holocaust - not Indonesia.
It is a measure of the dark degeneracy and decadence of "our" culture, that Christians like myself, find themselves in agreement with Islamists and some radical feminists on the issue of porno culture.

SEYMOUR HERSH ASKS: WOULD PRESIDENT BUSH ATTACK IRAN?

In the April, 2006 New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh asks is the U.S. Looking Seriously At Nuking Iran?
He writes: "The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred. There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush's ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change.

Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be "wiped off the map." Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' "

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was "absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb" if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy." One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." He added, "I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?'…"

THE MYTHS OF ZIONISM

by Brian Simpson
John Rose, a Sociology lecturer at Southwark College and London Metropolitan University published "The Myths of Zionism," with left-wing Pluto Press, London in 2004. The book sets out to expose various false notions underlining Zionism from a religious and historical perspective.
Thus: the Bible does not give a mandate for declaring a Jewish State in Palestine, as the image of "ancient Israel" is fast being undermined by archaeology. Israel was not a powerful nation. At the time of the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem, about 2,000 years ago most of the Jews were living outside Palestine. The book debunks the Zionist myth of "a land without a people for a people without land".
Thriving Arab peasant communities populated Palestine long before the Zionists came in the 19th century. This book also seems to support a thesis that Eric Butler once argued for. Rose argued that Zionism was willing to 'incorporate European anti-Semitism's views about Jews'. To put it bluntly, Zionist leaders were too ready to say to reactionary European politicians: Too many Jews in your country? Help us to dump them in Palestine?
The paperback version of this book is quite pricy costing around $46.00. It is still worth getting a copy before all books like this disappear down the memory hole.

ON AGREEING WITH SALMAN

REVENGE IS SWEET