House Reps Release Opinion Reacting to Majority’s Reluctance to hear testimony on the Valerie Plame CIA Leak Case

From The Dissenting Views to Accompany H.420, penned by Rep. John Conyers and released today. H.420 was issued as a means to get members of the Bush administration to testify to Congress in regards to the Valerie Plame Wilson leak. The House majority shot it down. The entire text is HERE, or click here for the dirt!

Judith Miller

Judy Miller

Nice to see her back in the news – if ANYTHING should be an eye opener it is this. Miller has just spent her 75th day behind bars for, as Mediachannel.org put it standing on a principle protected by the laws of 49 states and the District of Columbia – honoring the promise of confidentiality made to a source.

While this story elicits a sensation of shock and dismay everytime it pops on my screen, Editor and Publisher printed it like-it-is today:

Miller is one of several reporters sought by Fitzgerald as part of his long-running investigation into who leaked the name of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose identity was first revealed by columnist Robert Novak in 2003. Miller, who never wrote a story about Plame’s identity, had been subpoenaed along with Time magazine writer Matthew Cooper last year.

Cooper avoided jail after revealing that his source was White House aide Karl Rove, a revelation that came about after Rove consented to be identified. Miller, however, has continued to decline to name her source or sources.

Judy Miller will most likely be set free when the jury closes its case in late October, however, Peter Fitzgerald has not let up on his investigation and one could only hope that he stands up to his reputation as a tough prosecutor and U.S. district attorney stickler and blow up this case in the name of justice and free speech. Unfortunately, he seems to be sidetracked by what appear to be more urgent matters closer to home, those being (but hardly represent what the Miller / Plame / Rove / Novak case does to the country and world) the corruption trials of former Illinois Governor George Ryan and current Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich .

Paul McMasters opines. He is the ombudsman of the First Amendment Center.

And Daniel Schorr, in the September 23 Christian Science Monitor.

Meanwhile, this past weekend marked one year in a Beijing jail for New York Times reporter Zhao Yang, who reported that a Chinese politician was stepping down before the official announcement.

another day in Iraq

In FURTHER New York Times news, An Iraqi journalist working for The New York Times was killed after men claiming to be police officers abducted him from his home in the southern city of Basra, the newspaper announced Monday

Pentagon Bars the Military from Testifying regarding September 11, Sharon Olds turns down Bushie

The officers and intelligence analysts that had been scheduled to testify on Wednesday about the Pentagon’s Able Danger program, which is known to contain information regarding the 9/11 terrorists, were silenced today by the Defense Department.

Philip Shenon of the NY Times wonders how the Pentagon can possibly hold back any potential link in uncovering the intelligence inconsistencies that made it possible for 19 hijackers to slip through the system and blow up the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Supposedly the documents reveal an official cover-up regarding Mohammad Atta.

All intelligence officials are barred from testimony and the Able Danger documents have been long destroyed, (mention of Able Danger was previously censored from the 9/11 Commission Report).

The “we didn’t do it” Department of Rummy apparently feels its in the nation’s best interests to conceal details regarding American victims. The 9/11 investigation should be an open book as long any information released is not a threat to national security. As long as these documents are censored, we should only assume the worst form of betrayal.

—————

Sharon Olds turned down an invite to the White House because she couldn’t bear to “break bread” with Laura Bush. Read the letter she wrote.

Gallup: 75% of Americans believe Bin Laden is planning an attack

Interesting results from a Gallup Poll released today:

Roughly three-fourths (76%) of Americans think that “bin Laden himself is currently planning a significant terrorist attack against the United States.” Of these, slightly more than half think he will succeed. All told, then, 40% of Americans believe bin Laden is planning an attack that will succeed, 36% believe he is planning an attack that will not succeed, and 20% do not believe he is planning an attack.

In the fall of 2001, how many Americans would have guessed that bin Laden would still be at large four years later? In late November 2001, 78% of Americans felt it was “very” (34%) or “somewhat” (44%) likely that the United States would be able to capture or kill bin Laden. Today, Americans express a more tempered optimism — 55% believe bin Laden’s capture or demise is very (17%) or somewhat (38%) likely. Results on this question have varied substantially over the past four years. The current very/somewhat likely percentage is the same as the low measured in March 2002. Optimism was highest in the first few months after the terrorist attacks.

Eliminating bin Laden would undoubtedly be a major blow to al Qaeda, but Americans are by no means under the impression that getting rid of bin Laden would mean the end of the terrorist organization he masterminded. Ninety-two percent of Americans say that if even if bin Laden is captured or killed, al Qaeda will remain a threat to the United States.

That said, nearly two-thirds (63%) of Americans think it is either “extremely” (37%) or “very” (26%) important to the United States that bin Laden be captured or killed, with an additional 24% saying “somewhat important.”