Scowcroft On The Iraq War

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

The online version of The New Yorker carries an interesting article about former NSA chair (under Bush I) Brent Scowcroft, and his recent anti-Dubya criticism.  Here’s a taste:

The first Gulf War was a success, Scowcroft said, because the President knew better than to set unachievable goals. “I’m not a pacifist,” he said. “I believe in the use of force. But there has to be a good reason for using force. And you have to know when to stop using force.”

Scowcroft does not believe that the promotion of American-style democracy abroad is a sufficiently good reason to use force. “I thought we ought to make it our duty to help make the world friendlier for the growth of liberal regimes,” he said. “You encourage democracy over time, with assistance, and aid, the traditional way. Not how the neocons do it.”

The neoconservatives—the Republicans who argued most fervently for the second Gulf war—believe in the export of democracy, by violence if that is required, Scowcroft said. “How do the neocons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelize.” And now, Scowcroft said, America is suffering from the consequences of that brand of revolutionary utopianism. “This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism,” he said.

***

On the face of it, this is remarkable: Scowcroft’s best friend’s son is the President; his friend Dick Cheney is the Vice-President; Condoleezza Rice, who was the national-security adviser, and is now the Secretary of State, was once a Scowcroft protégée; and the current national-security adviser, Stephen Hadley, is another protégé and a former principal at the Scowcroft Group.

Remarkable indeed.

Younger Alito Liked Privacy Rights, Sodomy

Ken AshfordSupreme CourtLeave a Comment

Interesting thing uncovered by the Boston Globe:

As a senior at Princeton University, Samuel A. Alito Jr. chaired an undergraduate task force that recommended the decriminalization of sodomy, accused the CIA and the FBI of invading the privacy of citizens, and said discrimination against gays in hiring ”should be forbidden."

The report, issued in 1971 by Alito and 16 other Princeton students, stemmed from a class assignment to study the ”boundaries of privacy in American society" and to recommend ways to protect individual rights.

The far-ranging report, which satisfied a requirement for public policy students and which was stored in the university’s Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, provided a glimpse of a more liberal Alito than the jurist is now perceived.

”We sense a great threat to privacy in modern America," Alito wrote in a foreword to the report, in 1971. ”We all believe that privacy is too often sacrificed to other values; we all believe that the threat to privacy is steadily and rapidly mounting; we all believe that action must be taken on many fronts now to preserve privacy."

You can read the actual 1971 report here (PDF format).

Operation Rage

Ken AshfordCongress, RepublicansLeave a Comment

We all remember Frist’s embarrassing diagnosis of Terri Schiavo without examining her (a diagnosis that turned out to be 100% wrong).

Now he’s revealing his skills as a surgeon:

Frist was now sputtering. "This is an affront to me personally. It’s an affront to our leadership. It’s an affront to the United States of America!" Turning sorrowful, he vowed that "for the next year and a half, I can’t trust Senator Reid."

"Mr. Leader," one stunned journalist observed, "I don’t remember you being so exercised over something before."

"You’ve never seen me in heart surgery," the senator, a transplant specialist, replied.

Dr. Frist’s patients — not to mention the Tennessee medical licensing board — may be surprised to learn that he had operating-room rage.

Yikes.  Remind me never to have Frist perform surgery on me. 

Fighting Dems

Ken AshfordDemocratsLeave a Comment

The Fighting Dems series is meant to highlight men and women who have worn the uniform and have chosen to run on the Democratic ticket. Turns out — contrary to what you might think — there’s a heck of a lot more on our side than theirs. Check it out here — they are currently featuring Iraq War vets running for political office throughout the country.

Faux Outrage And Real Hypocrisy

Ken AshfordCongress, RepublicansLeave a Comment

The Carpetbagger (via Kevin Drum) points to the hypocrisy of the Republican "outrage" over Senator Reid’s "stunt" yesterday.  He explains why:

It’s more than a little amusing to hear congressional Republicans worrying about such niceties. Which party likes to hold open five-minute votes indefinitely until the get the results they want? Which party prevents the minority from offering amendments (.pdf) to legislation? Which party forbids the minority from participating in conference committees? Which party shuts down committee hearings when they start to become politically inconvenient? Which party decided that the Senate leader of one party could campaign against the Senate leader of the other party for the first time in American political history?

Republicans want to lecture Dems about decorum and polite floor tactics? Are they kidding?

Worse Than Abu Ghraib

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

TortureWe all know now what happens at U.S. detention facilities — like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo — that are known and work (in theory) within the law. 

Can you imagine the torture that goes on in the recently-revealed "secret" prisons?

The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA’s unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA’s covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities — referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents — are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the chief executive and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.

Oy.

Smearing Wilson

Ken AshfordIraq, PlamegateLeave a Comment

I honestly don’t give a crap about Joe Wilson.  What he did or didn’t do is irrelevant.  It’s certainly not an excuse to out his wife as a covert CIA agent.  I know this because I’ve read the statutes and there is no "Joe Wilson Is A Liar" exception.

Still, Bush supporters somehow think that Libby’s behavior can be justified because Wilson is a "liar".  You see these editorials all over the place.  They start out talking about Libby, and in a matter of paragraphs, the piece turns into a smear piece on Joe Wilson, as if one had to do with the other.

Here is a typical example.

The Boot editorial is mindboggling facile in its irrelevant attacks on Wilson.  For example, (after starting out about the Libby indictments, Boot writes:

Joseph C. Wilson IV has retailed more whoppers than Burger King.

The least consequential of these fibs was his denial that it was his wife who got him sent to Niger in February 2002 to check out claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later stated, in a bipartisan report, that evidence indicated it was Mrs. Wilson who "had suggested his name for the trip." By leaking this fact to the news media, Libby and other White House officials were merely setting the record straight — not, as Wilson would have it, punishing his Mata Hari wife.

Really?  So the White House — Libby, Rove, etc. — went into full court press mode, and called up reporters left and right, merely to correct a "least consequential" "fib" about how Wilson got the Niger gig?  That doesn’t pass the laugh test.  Let’s not pretend that the White House was going all out to make sure the media (which hadn’t reported the story yet) was going to this very inconsequential fact correct.

Boot continues:

Much more egregious were the ways in which Wilson misrepresented his findings. In his famous New York Times Op-Ed article (July 6, 2003), Wilson gave the impression that his eight-day jaunt proved that Iraq was not trying to acquire uranium in Africa. Therefore, when administration officials nevertheless cited concerns about Hussein’s nuclear ambitions, Wilson claimed that they had "twisted" evidence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." The Senate Intelligence Committee was not kind to this claim either.

That simply is untrue, or at least a gross overstatement.  It’s straight from the Rove talking points about Wilson.  But, according to Bloomberg:

Yet the Senate panel conclusions didn’t discredit Wilson. The committee concluded that the Niger intelligence information wasn’t solid enough to be included in the State of the Union speech. It added that Wilson’s report didn’t change the minds of analysts on either side of the issue, while also concluding that an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate "overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq’s possible procurement attempts.”

Boot’s swarthiness continues:

The panel’s report found that, far from discrediting the Iraq-Niger uranium link, Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger’s prime minister and an Iraqi delegation. Beyond that, he had not supplied new information.

That’s right.  And the meeting between Niger’s prime minister and an Iraqi delegation does not mean uranium was changing hands.  Countries meet all the time.  Hell, Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam in 1985.  So was Ronald Reagan in cahoots with Saddam?

But what Boot and his cohorts seem to forget is this: in July 2003, the White House conceded that the uranium assertion should not have been included in the president’s speech. Several administration officials have accepted responsibility for allowing it into the speech, including Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser and now secretary of state; Stephen Hadley, then Rice’s deputy and now the national security adviser; and then-CIA Director George Tenet.

Doesn’t that end the debate?  Doesn’t the White House admission close down the debate?  Wasn’t the crux of Wilson’s criticism that the White House overstated the Niger-Iraq correction, you know, shown to be correct?

UPDATE:  I’ve only scratched the surface.  There’s waaay more to this that meets the eye.  If you want to wade deep into this, go here.

Ignoring Whig

Ken AshfordBush & Co., Iraq, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

My jaw dropped when I read this crap from Glenn Reynolds at MSNBC:

Perhaps Reid should look at this Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraqi WMD, which found that errors in intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction didn’t stem from White House pressure, but from groupthink and systematic failure within the Intelligence Community:

The Committee found significant short-comings in almost every aspect of the Intelligence Community’s human intelligence collection efforts against Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction activities, in particular that the Community had no sources collecting against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after 1998.  Most, if not all, of these problems, stem from a broken corporate culture and poor management, and will not be solved by additional funding and personnel.

Glenn apparently is happy to leave his analysis at that.   

What he ignores is that the Senate Intelligence Committee Report to which he refers pertained only to Phase One of the Senate’s investigation.  It’s only PART of the inquiry!!  And the focus of Phase One was limited to the problems within the Intelligence Community (and nobody is denying that there were problems). 

Phase Two, which Republicans have been stonewalling, was supposed to investigate The Bush Administration and its role in the manipulation, poor management, groupthinkity of intelligence.  It’s that phase that Reid is hopping mad about, because it isn’t going forward.

Glenn — intentionally, I think — pretends that the Senate Intelligence Committee’s work is done, and their Phase One report is the beginning and the end of the inquiry.  (Glenn, the report is entitled "Report on The Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments of Iraq".  That should tip you off that it was NOT a report about the Bush Administration’s use of intelligence).

So Glenn (intentionally) also avoids the obvious questions:

If the Intelligence Community had "no sources collecting against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after 1998", then on what basis did the White House claim (in 2002) that Saddam posed an "imminent threat"?  How did old intelligence data suddenly render Saddam’s threat as being "imminent"?

To what extent was the White House complicit in, or fostered, the "groupthink" mentality of the Intelligence Community?

To what extent was the White House aware of the aforesaid problems in the Intelligence Community, and how much did it inform the American people of those problems?  For example, if the White House was aware that Intelligence Community information regarding WMD was from way back in 1998, was this fact converyed to the public, or was it kept hidden?

In a nutshell, this is really about WHIG, explained as follows by Wikipedia (internal link removed):

The White House Iraq Group (aka, White House Information Group or WHIG) was the marketing arm of the Republican Party whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The task force was set up in August 2002 by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG’s functions and influence is the "escalation of rhetoric about the danger that Iraq posed to the US, including the introduction of the term ‘mushroom cloud’".

I’m Not Buying It

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

From CNN:

A man once considered a top al Qaeda operative escaped from a U.S.-run detention facility in Afghanistan . . .

Come on.  He just escaped?  From a U.S. detention facility?  How does that happen?  There has to be more to this story.

. . . and cannot testify against the soldier who allegedly mistreated him, a defense lawyer involved in a prison abuse case said Tuesday.

Ah!!  The light dawns.  He’s going to testify about prison abuse, and suddenly, he just "disappears".  He "escaped" and can’t be found.  Riiiiiight (wink, wink).

UPDATE: Emptywheel at The Next Hurrah smells the same rat.

“What Does Bush Keep In His Pockets?”

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

That was the question asked by CNN (What?  Has it been a slow news week or something, guys?).

Okay, an intriguing question, I suppose.  Let’s see.  What could the answer be?  A small copy of the Constitution?  A bible verse?  A letter from a U.S. soldier stationed in Iraq?   A picture of his family, or Barney?

Any of these things I would find suitable for Dubya to carry around in his pockets (since he is, you know, Dubya).

I’ll remove the suspense:

When the reporter from La Nacion asked Bush to show him what he carries, the president stood up, fished in his pockets, then dramatically pulled his hands out holding nothing but a white handkerchief that he waved playfully in the air.

"Es todo," Bush told the Spanish-speaking reporter, meaning the handkerchief was all. "No dinero, no mas. No wallet."

Come to think of it, THAT is an appropriate answer as well — nothing but the waiving of a white handkerchief.

Science Fiction Double Feature?

Ken AshfordForeign Affairs1 Comment

Ufo1957As if this planet doesn’t have enough problems already, we now have to contend with those damn aliens:

In Washington on Sunday night (registration required – but the "bugmenot" method works):

For a few seconds Sunday night, the dark, cloudless north state sky lit up. Not like a lightning strike. And not like a shooting star.

Like three seconds of daylight, said Dennis Weissenfluh, 41, of Washougal, Wash. He was southbound on Interstate 5 a few miles north of Weed when the mysterious light appeared.

It lit everything up from horizon to horizon as far as I could see," Weissenfluh said Monday.

Traffic on the citizens band radio picked up with drivers all wondering what they saw, he said.

"(It was) one of those unexplainable kind of things," Weissenfluh said.

Karin Hastings, 74, of Mountain Gate was walking her dog when a bright glow lit up everything around her.

"It was very unusual, and it was so amazing to have this light surround me," Hastings said.

She turned toward the northwest. A huge, oval-shaped object, gold in color, dropped out of the sky with what appeared to be smoke trailing behind, she said.

"It disappeared very quickly," Hastings said.

Sandy Lynch, 67, who lives off Placer Road near Centerville, said she was talking on the phone when she saw a sparkling object through her window.

It was brighter and whiter than the moon with a distinct trail that glowed orange.

"It was beautiful," Lynch said. "It kind of scared me, though."

All of these witnesses reported seeing the intense, glowing light between 7:10 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.

In Virginia on Monday:

Dana Coleman was anxious to know what was behind the "extraordinary bright light" seen last night in Richmond and as far away as Goochland and Dinwiddie counties.

"It was really, really strange," Coleman said, minutes after the sighting.

Coleman lives near Libbie and Grove avenues. She and three friends were chatting outside about 9:25 p.m. when "the whole backyard suddenly illuminated."

She said the bright blue light moved south with an orange and white streak. It then exploded and disappeared, she said.

"We weren’t afraid," Coleman said. "We were more in awe."

This Is An Important Post Because This Is What It Is All About

Ken AshfordBush & Co., Congress, Iraq, Plamegate, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Neo-cons were certainly thrown today by Senator Reid’s invocation of a rule calling for a closed session of the Senate.  Mostly, they just said that Reid was throwing a "temper tantrum", which is of course, bullshit.  Not to mention a childish response to a serious concern.

In order for the Senate to discuss matters of intelligence, it is prudent — and probably mandated by law — for the Senate to close its doors.  Republicans, who care about their party more than issues of national security (witness their constant pooh-poohing of Plamegate), simply refuse to acknowledge that basic truth.

Anyway, Reid wanted to discuss manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the war.  Frankly, I think neo-cons should be happy that these matters were, at least initially, discussed in private.  But to get a sense of what Reid was referring to, let me link to Matt Yglesius, and shamelessly blogwhore what he writes (although you should, as the kids say, read the whole thing):

In case you’re looking for examples of the sort of manipulation of intelligence Harry Reid is talking about, a few are remarkably easy to find and clear-cut. This is a report entitled "Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs" released before the war as an unclassified document. It was based, we were told, on a classified National Intelligence Estimate. Over here, you can read some portions of the original NIE that have since been declassified. Mostly, the declassified bits of the document and the unclassified document are the same. But here are a few salient points that were left out of the unclassified release.

State/INR Alternative View of Iraq’s Nuclear Program

The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.

In INR’s view Iraq’s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to concluded that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq’s nuclear weapon program.

Hmm. And:

INR’s Alternative View: Iraq’s Attempts to Acquire Aluminum Tubes

Some of the specialized but dual-use items being sought are, by all indications, bound for Iraq’s missile program. Other cases are ambiguous, such as that of a planned magnet-production line whose suitability for centrifuge operations remains unknown. Some efforts involve non-controlled industrial material and equipment – including a variety of machine tools – and are troubling because they would help establish the infrastructure for a renewed nuclear program. But such efforts (which began well before the inspectors departed) are not clearly linked to a nuclear end-use. Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.

Now a couple of points. First, the White House obviously has perfectly good reasons for keeping some of the intelligence it sees classified. Nevertheless, it’s hard to see what about these INR dissents had to be kept secret. Second, when intelligence agencies disagree (as they do now and again) the White House is perfectly within its rights to choose to believe what one agency says and disagree with the INR’s take. Nevertheless, people outside the White House would seem to have a right to know that controversy exists. What the White House did here was manipulate the classification process to cover-up the existence of disagreement, and deny people opposed to its policy potentially valuable arguments.

Exactly, Matt.  THAT’S what we’ve (or at least I’ve) been talking about.  In a democracy, ultimate power rests with the people.  The people, as well as their elected representatives in Congress (who, constitutionally, have the power to commit the nation to war), require complete information.  That way, a reasoned national debate takes place, and informed decisions get made.  But when the Executive Branch only deals the cards that it wants from a stacked deck, it does a disservice to the country.

Matt continues:

Another point. The classified NIE said this:

Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks – more likely with biological than chemical agents – probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.

  • The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.

Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa’ida – with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States – would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.

  • In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.

In other words, Saddam was unlikely to use whatever WMD he had or might in the future acquire unless the United States attacked him first. Meanwhile, during his infamous speech, "President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat", the threat was described thusly:

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

This is plainly at odds with the consensus view of the Intelligence Community, as expressed in the classified NIE. Again, the White House is entitled to ignore the Intelligence Community and put forward some other beliefs. But the unclassified version of the NIE simply omits the stuff about how Iraq wouldn’t launch an unprovoked terrorist attack on the United States. There was no legitimate national security rationale for denying the public access to this information. Rather, there was a clear-cut political rationale — the White House wanted to obscure the extent to which their argument for war was based on claims that were unsupported by professional analysis.

Those are only two examples, but there are many more. An investigation into the matter is long overdue.

This is what Senator Reid wants to know.  This is exactly why an investigation is needed.  Why wasn’t this information — the dissents of the intelligence community — made known?  Why was it hidden from us?  Why were the American people given an incomplete and one-sided picture of what our government knew?

These questions were supposed to be part of a Congressional investigation.  The Republican-controlled Senate has been dragging its feet, probably until after the 2006 elections. 

Political stunt or not, Reid just put the matter on the front burner, forcing Frist’s hand.  The Senate is now moving forward with Phase II of their investigation, which seeks to asks the following question (again, via Matt):

The subject of dispute is the phase two report, which Pat Roberts has been refusing to produce. I’ve been writing about this for months; Laura Rozen has an article in our current print issue on the subject. Items designated for phase two include:

Whether public statements, reports, and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information.

Along with "prewar intelligence assessments about postwar Iraq" and a couple of other things.

2,025 U.S. soldiers are dead.  Aren’t these issues worthy of an investigation?  For their sake, if not for the sake of our nation’s soul?

UPDATE: A Daily Kos contributor explains how Reid’s victory turned the political landscape "on a dime".  I think that is true.  Read it here.

For Once, I’m Ahead Of The Curve

Ken AshfordHealth Care, Sex/Morality/Family Values, Women's IssuesLeave a Comment

Everyone on the right and left seems to be blogging today about something I wrote about twice before (here and here), i.e., the religious right’s opposition to a 100% effective vaccine that prevents cervical cancer, a terrible illness that kills over 10,000 American woman per year.  The reason for the fundamentalist rejection?  They think that this vaccine will cause women to have more sex.

To which I say . . . so?

Anyway, I’m glad that the story is finally getting some well-deserved attention.  I’m even gladder that nearly everyone on the right and the left rejects the religious opposition to the vaccine.  Heck, even the blog Blogs4God thinks the religious right has gone too far:

Folks, I have to agree on this one. This isn’t like handing out condoms to under-aged kids without their parent’s knowledge and/or consent. This is a reasonable preventative measure for an opportunistic killer – specifically the second most common cancer in women worldwide and the leading cause of cancer-related death in women in underdeveloped countries.

Mice Try To Emulate Barry White

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

Not sure what to make of this:

ST. LOUIS, Missouri (AP) — Songbirds may be the Sinatras of the animal world, but male mice can carry a tune too, say Washington University researchers who were surprised by what they heard.

Scientists have known for decades that male lab mice produce high-frequency sounds — undetectable by human ears — when they pick up the scent of a female mouse. This high-pitched babble is presumably for courtship, although scientists are not certain.

But it turns out those sounds are more complex and interesting than previously thought.

"It soon became … apparent that these vocalizations were not random twitterings but songs," said researcher Timothy Holy. "There was a pattern to them. They sounded a lot like bird songs."

To make their point, the researchers provided audio recordings of the sounds, which have been modified for human ears. The recordings do indeed sound birdlike.

So what is it the male mice sing?  My guess:

Mighty_mouse_adMr. Trouble never hangs around,
when he hears this Mighty sound,

Here I come to save the day!
That means that Mighty Mouse is on the way!

Yes sir, when there is a wrong to right,
Mighty Mouse will join the fight!

On the sea or on the land,
He’s got the situation well in hand!

Harry Reid: Kicking Ass

Ken AshfordCongress, Democrats, IraqLeave a Comment

Whaa?!?  The hot breaking buzz is on Senator Harry Reid, and his surprise invocation of a rare closed door session of the Senate to discuss Iraq and the faulty intelligence during the run-up.  Frist is pissed, talking about the lack of senatorial courtesy (something which Republicans feel they have not been obligated to give, since they have a majority).

CNN has the story.

Via Pandagon, Reid’s booty-busting speech just prior to the session is posted below the fold.

Read More