Scribes Unlimited

Well, why not? We're a two-person crew of writers, researchers, editors, online publishers, mortgage and investment counselors. Not bad for just two people, hmmm? These are our ramblings and we hope you find them relatively more exciting than our work. No, we're kidding, we LOVE the work! (But we do miss the steady paychecks *wistful sighs* ) Anyway, enjoy and look us up sometime at http://www.scribesunlimited.com

Name:
Location: Cleveland Heights, Ohio, United States

Friday, April 27, 2007

George Tenet will Kill Dick Cheney

It's a given.

The former head of the CIA says without a doubt that the vice-president of this country, Senor Dead-Eye Dick "Everyone's a Quail to me" Cheney, rushed this country to war with Iraq.

No ifs, ands or buts.

Let the impeachments begin!

Monday, April 23, 2007

Words to live by, right Dubya?

We're thankful to the archives for keeping this for us. Never forget what this asshole said once just before the elections of 2000. RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP. Bore it into your brains, Americans.




�Responsible Leadership�
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Thursday, October 26, 2000
Before I begin, I want to note the presence of some distinguished guests. We all know that the presidency is the highest office in the land - but there is an even greater distinction that our country bestows: and that is the Congressional Medal of Honor. It is the �highest award for valor in action against an enemy force.�

Only 151 living Americans hold the Medal of Honor. When you meet one of them, remember the moment - because you have just met one of the bravest men in your country�s history. Three are here today. May I ask them to please stand and be recognized.

From the first day of this campaign, I have talked about the goal of a responsibility era.

And even before that, it was my concern as a governor. For too long, our culture has sent the message, �If it feels good, do it. If you�ve got a problem, blame somebody else.� Each of us must understand we are responsible for the choices we make in life.

Usually, in the political season, you hear promises. From my opponent, you have heard eight years of them. The responsibility era is not merely a set of political promises - it is a set of challenges, for the American people and their government. It is not something a president can do alone. It is something we must do together.

Each citizen is responsible for loving the children he or she brings into this world - to love them and teach them right from wrong. The character of our children is the destiny of our country.

Churches and synagogues and mosques are responsible, not only to worship, but also to serve. Charities and community groups are not our last resort; they are our best hope.

Communities are responsible to educate children of every background, and to help those in need.

This is the kind of country we want to be - a country of strong communities and self-governing citizens.

And this is the kind of country our government should encourage. In helping families and communities, we should give them options, not orders. We should trust people with responsibility. We should help them live their lives, not try to run their lives.

On every major issue before America, this is the choice.

I believe younger workers should be trusted to invest some of their payroll tax for their own retirement, as part of a stronger Social Security system that builds personal wealth and independence. My opponent is opposed to it.

I believe education is a national priority, but a local responsibility. I want to give schools the resources and authority to chart their own path to excellence. My opponent thinks Washington knows best.

I believe that when low-income children are trapped in failing schools, their parents should be trusted to make other choices. My opponent would deny them those options.

I believe that seniors should have a better Medicare system, with prescription drugs, access to the latest medical technology, and more control over their health care. My opponent has a one-size-fits-all answer, dictated by Washington, from Washington.

I believe every American deserves a tax cut. My opponent offers tax cuts only for the few and the favored, for those he calls the �right� people.

And even his �right� people only get tax cuts when they do what government says.

I do not believe a President should choose right Americans - all Americans are the right people.

I believe in supporting the good work of churches and charities in communities across America. My opponent calls their work the �crumbs of compassion� and looks to government instead.

I trust people and communities with responsibility, and my proposals help them meet those responsibilities in practical ways.

My opponent would expand government more than we�ve seen in 35 years. And that�s a threat to our prosperity. But the problem runs deeper. Even if we could afford to pay for the Vice President�s ideas, they would still be the wrong ideas. They would still be the failed policies of the past.

For decades, we have tried to solve problem with rules and mandates from distant bureaucracies and theories from far away federal experts. But this doesn�t solve communities� problems. It doesn�t answer the need. Vice President Gore is promoting a big build-up of big government -- more spending, more programs, more of Washington talking down to us and thinking on our behalf.

I believe government works best when it relies on the good judgment and common sense of the people themselves. Americans are not asking for a bigger, more intrusive government. They deserve a government that gives them the tools to dream and build and prosper on their own.

In a responsibility era, government should trust the people. And in a responsibility era, people should also be able to trust their government.

Public officials should call on Americans to be responsible. But lectures don�t replace leadership. Leaders lead by example.

Leaders must be responsible, and in our great democracy, the top responsibility rests with the President of the United States. I am prepared to assume this awesome responsibility, and I will be guided by principles and convictions that will not change.

When I ran for Governor of Texas, I told my fellow Texans that I would be guided by four fundamental principles - they shaped every decision I made as Governor, and they will shape every decision I make as President. I believe government should be limited and efficient. I believe in local control, because local people know better than anyone else the needs of their schools and their communities.

I believe all laws and public policy should support strong families. And I believe in individual responsibility - that all individuals are responsible for their actions and decisions.

Responsible leadership is the most important task of an American president - and it should be the most important question Americans ask before they vote: what kind of leader will a potential president be?

A responsible leader sets a clear agenda and brings people together to achieve it. A leader accepts responsibility and shares credit. A leader stands on principle, a good leader is predictable - he doesn�t try to be all things to all people, or change personalities, say, for different debates.

Leaders get things done -they realize they can�t do that alone, so they surround themselves with good people and build a strong team. Responsible leaders confront problems - they don�t pass them along to others. Leaders are never content with the status quo - they look down the road, anticipate and prepare for new challenges and new opportunities. And good leaders create a climate of honesty and integrity.

Our nation needs leadership. Because even in these good times, we face some big challenges.

On Social Security, the crisis is coming - in the red within two decades, bankrupt by 2037. On education, the crisis is here - stagnating scores and American students who perform near the bottom among industrialized nations.

On both these issues, the Clinton/Gore administration has left faint footprints - marking time, not making progress. And on both of these issues, my opponent would add four years of drift to eight years of failed leadership.

His idea is to issue government IOUs to fill the Social Security trust fund - a massive transfer from one government pocket to another. These IOUs amount to $40 trillion. But IOUs don�t pay benefits, and eventually they will come due. Our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay them, with massive new taxes or major cuts in benefits.

It is not responsible leadership to deny future generations a chance to have a secure retirement - all for the purpose of frightening the greatest generation into believing that reform is their enemy. Pitting grandparents against grandchildren is the worst kind of old style politics. More importantly, it is a failure of leadership.

There was a time when leaders spoke of passing the torch to a new generation of Americans. On Social Security, my opponent would pass the buck and the bill to the next generation of Americans- leaving trillions in debt to voters he will never face.

Education is a similar story. My opponent talks about reform. And talks, and talks. But for eight years there has been little progress - few results - and his current proposals don�t require any.

Now Vice President Gore is attacking our success in boosting student achievement in Texas - aligning himself with the voices of the status quo and those who oppose testing - and revealing his true stripes.

During our debate, he claimed to support accountability. But unless you measure, unless you test every child, every year from third to eighth grade, reform is an illusion. The Vice President and the forces of the status quo find lots of excuses to avoid accountability. But without accountability, standards are just scraps of paper and parents won�t ever know if their children are learning. Vice President Gore�s plan has no new accountability, and in too many schools, this will mean another generation of children lost to the soft bigotry of low expectations.

That is not my idea of leadership.

When you govern by focus groups, and act for interest groups, you can�t confront the real problems. When you wait for the latest polls to point the way, you can�t lead.

When you hold your finger to the wind, you can�t put your finger on a problem. And when you hold on to power for power�s sake, you cannot govern.
My opponent�s campaign is a fitting close to the Clinton/Gore years. They are going out as they came in: Their guide, the nightly polls. Their goal, the morning headlines. Their legacy, the fruitless search for a legacy.

Should I be elected president, I�m going to confront the hard issues. I�m not going to leave Social Security as a problem for others to solve.

My plan strengthens Social Security by increasing the rate of return that younger workers get on payroll taxes they pay into the system. We will create real assets, and a more secure retirement, for the next generation.

I know this is supposed to be the third rail of American politics - the one that shocks you when you touch it. Some advised me to stay away from this issue. But if you don�t touch it, you can�t fix it. And I intend to fix it.

I will also lead on education. We will no longer fund failure, year after year. We will test every year, and require results for our children.

I believe our public schools will rise to the occasion, as they have in Texas. But if schools do not teach and will not change, parents will be given better options. That is what accountability means. And that is what leadership demands.

Responsible leadership sets a tone of civility and bipartisanship that gets things done.

In recent years, there�s been too much argument in Washington and not enough discussion. Too many standoffs and showdowns and shutdowns. Too much deadlock and gridlock.

And Americans don�t like what they see.

My opponent has set a negative tone. He talked of �ripping the lungs out� of political adversaries. Part of his campaign headquarters is called �the slaughterhouse.� And his staff proudly calls itself a band of �killers.�

This is a sample of what we could expect from a Gore administration - a bitter, negative tone that has nearly destroyed bipartisanship in Washington. The same attack politics that have disillusioned so many Americans, especially young people, who want to believe in a cause larger than themselves.

I will change the tone of Washington. I�ll bring good people to our nation�s Capitol, and surround myself with a strong team of capable leaders.

I sent a clear signal of my intentions when I named a great citizen to be my running mate: Dick Cheney.

It would be presumptuous for me to name other names before the people have spoken, but I have great respect for the man who introduced me today -- and I hope his greatest days of service to his country might still lie ahead.

Should I earn your confidence, I intend to work with Republicans and Democrats to get things done for the American people that both parties represent.

We won�t always agree, but I�ll work to keep our disagreements respectful and I�ll work to find common ground. I will do everything I can to restore civility to our national politics - a respect for honest differences, and decent regard for one another.

I know you can�t take the politics out of politics. I�m a realist. But I�m convinced our government can show more courage in confronting hard problems; more good will toward the other side; more integrity in the exercise of power.

This isn�t always easy, but it is always important. It is what people expect of their leaders, and what leaders must require of themselves. My administration will provide responsible leadership.

Finally, a leader upholds the dignity and honor of his office. In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal, but also what is right - not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves.

In my administration we will make it clear there is the controlling authority of conscience. We will make people proud again - so that Americans who love their country can once again respect their government.

Thank you.


No, shit for brains, thank YOU. For helping America remember that a man will do and say anything to get inside that mansion for 8 years, with no further responsibilities needed.

...TheScribes...

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Lost in the Don Imus shuffle, a South Park gem...

N _ G G E R S
---------------------

What a brilliant, funny, shocking South Park show last month.

Those that missed it skipped out on an important life lesson. We're betting Don Imus may have missed this one for sure, and it's a pity, because maybe he would have thought twice before inserting his feet into his mouth last week when he put down the incredible efforts of Rutgers Women's College Basketball Team, who fell one game shy of national status.

Or did they? Seems like the Tennessee Lady Volunteers' remarkable efforts have been completely cast aside. Maybe Imus should have talked about them too.

In the South Park episode "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson", Stan's dad Randy Marsh is picked to go on the gameshow "Wheel of Fortune". He's in the bonus round and the clue is "People that Annoy You". The letters stated in the beginning of this post above were picked for him, but Randy still doesn't want to say what he THINKS the word is...

Finally, his greed for money squelching all other rational thought, (like it so often does to us all), he screams out the word, "NIGGERS!"...

You could have heard a pin drop. In fact, anyone watching this South Park episode probably did get awfully quiet for a minute there. The despicable "n-word"? Used so frequently and fluently throughout this episode?? How dare they!

BZZZT. Sorry, readers. The word was actually "N A G G E R S". But I'll bet you not one single solitary one of you readers thought that was the word either...

And the racial ball suddenly rolls down the hill again. Randy is accused of being a racist, and ends up apologizing to the whole world for his actions, including a funny moment when he is asked to kiss Reverend Jesse Jackson's ass on national television. Randy really, really does seem to understand the severity of his actions, and it looks like perhaps he can live his life normally again.

But when he later finds himself the focus of hate and mockery, and is branded a "nigger guy", Randy soon realizes the show's not over, and he needs to continue repenting for his cruel slur, over and over again. But Randy, as in so many episodes of this wonderful show, doesn't QUITE catch the drift. :-)

Even when he's speaking before black people, and doing wonderful things for the African American community, Randy still does not GET it. He seems more convinced that he must forsake apologies to prove to everyone he is not a "nigger guy". Unfortunately, Randy never does understand what he did wrong, and it only leads him into a deeper hole.

Even Stan Marsh is forced to deal with his own issues with the black kid "Token". (The token black child, get it?) Token continues to tell Stan, despite all his apologizing and begging for forgiveness for the actions of his father, that he still doesn't GET it.

And in a weird, morbid sense, we all DON'T get it, which is exactly what we should have been saying all along for the past 200 to 300 years.

"It's wrong to call a black person a nigger? I DON'T GET IT!"

GOOD! You're not supposed to. ;-)

Bravo, South Park, for hitting another nail on the head!

Okay, Mr. Imus, do you GET it now?

Let's hope not...

...TheScribes...

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Sixteen Words...4 Years...

WP: How phony letter drove Iraq war
Intelligence failures surrounded inquiry on Iraq-Niger uranium claim
By Peter Eisner
The Washington Post
Updated: 6:43 a.m. ET April 3, 2007

It was 3 a.m. in Italy on Jan. 29, 2003, when President Bush in Washington began reading his State of the Union address that included the now famous -- later retracted -- 16 words: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Like most Europeans, Elisabetta Burba, an investigative reporter for the Italian newsweekly Panorama, waited until the next day to read the newspaper accounts of Bush's remarks. But when she came to the 16 words, she recalled, she got a sudden sinking feeling in her stomach. She wondered: How could the American president have mentioned a uranium sale from Africa?

Burba felt uneasy because more than three months earlier, she had turned over to the U.S. Embassy in Rome documents about an alleged uranium sale by the central African nation of Niger. And she knew now that the documents were fraudulent and the 16 words wrong.

Nonetheless, the uranium claim would become a crucial justification for the invasion of Iraq that began less than two months later. When occupying troops found no nuclear program, the 16 words and how they came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war.

Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available to them at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable.

In February 2002, the CIA received the verbatim text of one of the documents, filled with errors easily identifiable through a simple Internet search, the interviews show. Many low- and mid-level intelligence officials were already skeptical that Iraq was in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The interviews also showed that France, berated by the Bush administration for opposing the Iraq war, honored a U.S. intelligence request to investigate the uranium claim. It determined that its former colony had not sold uranium to Iraq.

Burba, who had no special expertise in Africa or nuclear technology, was able to quickly unravel the fraud. Yet the claims clung to life within the Bush administration for months, eventually finding their way into the State of the Union address.

As a result of the CIA's failure to firmly discredit the document text it received in February 2002, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was called in to investigate the claim. That decision eventually led to the special counsel's investigation that exposed inner workings of the White House and ended with the criminal conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was forced to resign as chief of staff to Vice President Cheney.

"You know I feel bad about it," Burba said later, discussing her frustrations about her role in giving the dossier to the Americans. "You know the fact is that my documents, with the documents I brought to them, they justified the war."

The tip
In early October of 2002, a man mysteriously contacted Elisabetta Burba at her Milan office.

"Do you remember me?" the deep voice said, without identifying himself outright. It was Rocco Martino, an old source who had proved reliable in the past. He was once again trying to sell her information.

Martino said he had some very interesting documents to show her, and asked whether she could fly down to Rome right away.

They met at a restaurant in Rome on Oct. 7, where Martino showed Burba a folder filled with documents, most of them in French. One of the documents was purportedly sent by the president of Niger to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, confirming a deal to sell 500 tons of uranium to Iraq annually. This was the smoking gun in the package, claiming to show the formal approval of Niger's president to supply Iraq with a commodity that would in all likelihood only be used for a nuclear weapons program: Iraq had no nuclear power plants.

Though the document was in French it would later come to be known as "The Italian Letter." It was written in all capital letters, in the form of an old telex, and bore the letterhead of the Republic of Niger. The letter was dated July 27, 2000, and included an odd shield on the top, a shining sun surrounded by a horned animal head, a star and a bird. The letter was stamped Confidential and Urgent.

The letter said that "500 tons of pure uranium per year will be delivered in two phases." A seal at the bottom of the page read "The Office of the President of the Republic of Niger." Superimposed over the seal was a barely legible signature bearing the name of the president of Niger, Mamadou Tandja.

Burba listened without saying much as she took a first look at the documents. She recognized right away that the material was hot, if authentic. But confirming the origin would be difficult, she recalled thinking at the time. She didn't want to fall into a trap.

Burba and Martino made an agreement; she would take the documents, and if they checked out as authentic, then they could talk about money.

'Let's go to the Americans'
Back in her magazine's Milan newsroom, Burba told her editors she thought it would make sense to fly to Niger and check around for confirmation. The editor of the magazine, Carlo Rossella, agreed. He then suggested they simultaneously pursue another tack.

"Let's go to the Americans," Rossella said, "because they are focused on looking for weapons of mass destruction more than anyone else. Let's see if they can authenticate the documents." Rossella called the U.S. Embassy in Rome and alerted officials to expect a visit from Burba.

On Wednesday morning, Oct. 9, Burba returned to Rome and took a cab to the U.S. Embassy, which is housed at the old Palazzo Margherita.

Burba came to a security gate and walked through a magnetometer, where an Italian employee of the embassy press department came down to meet her.

After a few formalities, an Italian aide introduced her to Ian Kelly, the embassy press spokesman. Kelly and Burba walked across the embassy's walled grounds and sat down for a cup of coffee in the cafeteria.

Burba told Kelly that she had some documents about Iraq and uranium shipments and needed help in confirming their authenticity and accuracy.

Kelly interrupted her, realizing he needed help. He made a phone call summoning someone else from his staff as well as a political officer. Burba recalled a third person being invited, possibly a U.S. military attache. She didn't get their names.

"Let's go to my office," Kelly said. They walked past antiquities, a tranquil fountain, steps and pieces of marble, all set in a tree-lined patio garden.

The Italian journalist's chat with Kelly and his colleagues was brief. She handed over the papers; Kelly told her the embassy would look into the matter. But Kelly had not been briefed on what others in the embassy knew.

CIA role
One person who refused to meet with Burba was the CIA chief of station. A few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Sismi, the Italian intelligence agency, had sent along information about the alleged sale of uranium to Iraq. The station chief asked for more information and would later consider it far-fetched.

On Oct. 15, 2001, the CIA reports officer at the embassy wrote a brief summary based on the Sismi intelligence, signed and dated it, and routed it to CIA's Operations Directorate in Langley, with copies going to the clandestine service's European and Near East divisions. The reports officer had limited its distribution because the intelligence was uncorroborated; she was aware of Sismi's questionable track record and did not believe the report merited wider dissemination.

The Operations Directorate then passed the raw intelligence to the CIA's Intelligence Directorate and to sister agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency. A more polished document, called a Senior Executive Intelligence Brief, was written at Langley three days later in which the CIA mentioned the new intelligence but added important caveats. The classified document, whose distribution was limited to senior policymakers and the congressional intelligence committees, said there was no corroboration and noted that Iraq had "no known facilities for processing or enriching the material."

Pushing the Africa claim
Almost four months later, on Feb. 5, 2002, the CIA received more information from Sismi, including the verbatim text of one of the documents. The CIA failed to recognize that it was riddled with errors, including misspellings and the wrong names for key officials. But it was a separate DIA report about the claims that would lead Cheney to demand further investigation. In response, the CIA dispatched Wilson to Niger.

Martino's approach to Burba eight months later with the Italian letter coincided with accelerating U.S. preparations for war. On Oct. 7, 2002, the same day Martino gave Burba the dossier, President Bush launched a new hard-line PR campaign on Iraq. In a speech in Cincinnati, he declared that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a "grave threat" to U.S. national security.

"It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons," the president warned.

CIA Director George J. Tenet had vetted the text of Bush's speech and was able to persuade the White House to drop one questionable claim: that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa. The information was too fishy, Tenet explained to the National Security Council and Bush's speechwriters.

Bush dropped the shopping-for-uranium claim, but ratcheted up the bomb threat. He said in Cincinnati that if Hussein obtained bomb-grade uranium the size of a softball, he would have a nuclear bomb within a year. This particular doomsday scenario had first been unveiled several weeks earlier, on Aug. 26, by Cheney. In a speech in Nashville to the 103rd national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he declared with no equivocation that Hussein had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."

On Oct. 16, Burba sat on a plane on her way to Niger, while in Washington, copies of the Italian letter and the accompanying dossier were placed on the table at an interagency nuclear proliferation meeting hosted by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

At this point, State Department analysts had determined the documents were phony, and had produced by far the most accurate assessment of Iraq's weapons program of the 16 agencies that make up the intelligence community. But the department's small intelligence unit operated in a bubble. Few administration officials -- not even Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- paid much attention to its analytical product, much of which clashed with the White House's assumptions.

The State Department bureau, nevertheless, shared the bogus documents with those intelligence officials attending the meeting, including representatives of the Energy Department, National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency. Four CIA officials attended, but only one, a clandestine service officer, bothered to take a copy of the Italian letter.

He returned to his office, filed the material in a safe and forgot about it.

The Niger uranium matter was not uppermost in the minds of the CIA analysts. Some of them had to deal with the issue in any case, largely because Cheney, his aide Libby and some aides at the National Security Council had repeatedly demanded more information and more analysis.

A fraud unravels
Burba arrived in Niamey, Niger's capital, on Oct. 17 and began tracking down leads on the Italian letter. Burba's investigation followed a series of similar inquiries by Wilson, the former ambassador, who investigated on behalf of the CIA eight months earlier. It became clear that Niger was not capable of secretly shipping yellowcake uranium to Iraq or anywhere else.

Burba found that a French company controlled the uranium trade, and any shipment of uranium would have been noticed. If a uranium sale had taken place, the logistics would have been daunting. "They would have needed hundreds of trucks," she said -- a large percentage of all the trucks in Niger. It would have been impossible to conceal.

Burba returned to Milan and reported her findings to her bosses in detail. She didn't believe the evidence provided by Martino; it was impossible. Her editors agreed. There was no story.

Five months later, on March 7, 2003, as preparations for the Iraq invasion were in their final stages, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, told the U.N. Security Council that the report that Iraq had been shopping for uranium in Niger was based on forged documents. The agency had received the document from the United States a few weeks earlier.

Not long after the invasion, other news media in Italy, elsewhere in Europe and then in the United States reported that the source of the information about a Niger yellowcake uranium deal had been a batch of bogus letters and other documents passed along several months earlier to an unnamed Italian reporter, who in turn handed the information over to the United States.

Although Burba knew that the Bush administration had also received information about the forged documents from Italian intelligence, she wished she could have acted earlier to reveal the fraud.

It remains unclear who fabricated the documents. Intelligence officials say most likely it was rogue elements in Sismi who wanted to make money selling them.