Big doin’s in town this weekend. No, we’re not talking about Memphis In May Musicfest. We’re talking about Rodney Herenton’s birthday bash, er, bashes. An e-mail from Rodney’s wife Andrea says there’s a tuneup party at the Silver Spoon, then a blow-it-all-out “party of the year” for the Mayor’s son at Senses on Saturday night. Rock on, Rodney.
“It really does look like some sort of personal wet-feet [issue],” says Baltimore Sun reporter Michael Hill, whose newsroom desk was near Thomas’. “I got to know her a bit, and we had nice talks about Baltimore … and she seemed, you know, quite interested and engaged.” When he arrived at his desk Monday afternoon, Hill noticed on his desk a pair of Baltimore-history books he had lent Thomas. “It was almost poignant.”
The Baltimore City Paper has more scoop on the Wendi Thomas saga. Read it here.
While Memphis is undisputedly the home of the blues, you might be surprised
to learn there are some fine fiddle and banjo players around too. They turn
out in droves for the annual bluegrass fest this weekend at the Bartlett
Performing Arts and Conference Center. The 4th Annual Pickin’ Picnic
Bluegrass Festival runs from 6 to 10 p.m. Friday, and Saturday, 10 a.m. to 6
p.m.
Bring out your fiddle and jam, or pull up a lawn chair and enjoy the
show. It’s free. Indoor concert Saturday night features Laurie Lewis and Tom
Rozum. Show’s at 8 p.m. $20.
It now seems beyond question that, at the very least, Karl
Rove will be indicted for perjury, false statements and/or obstruction of
justice in what’s come to be known as “Plamegate” (the outing of a CIA agent to
extract revenge against her husband, Ambassador Wilson, for challenging the
President’s assertion that Saddam was buying nuclear materials from Africa). The
corporate media and the blogosphere are
abuzz, speculating on the timing of Rove’s indictment, and laying the
foundation for such an indictment
I have been on record for some time as being convinced that
the real crime involved in Plamegate isn’t lying about it (though that, of
course, is a crime), but
the revelation of Valerie Plame’s identity itself. For several months the
pundits have been pooh-poohing the entire investigation, suggesting that since
no crime was committed by outing Plame’s identity,
no foul was committed either, and that it’s a
feeble fallback on Patrick Fitzgerald’s part to go after people for lying
about something that wasn’t a crime in the first place.
We now know, however, thanks to the reporting of David
Shuster on MSNBC, not only that Plame was a covert operative, but that she was
working on issues involving Iran’s nuclear weapons program., a fact to which
even the somnolent Congress has awakened, with Senator Frank Lautenberg
requesting a damage assessment from the CIA regarding
the effect of the Plame outing on our Iran-related intelligence efforts.
Fitzgerald, you may recall, was particularly outspoken at
the
press conference where he announced the Libby indictment about the damage to national security
inflicted by the leak. He said:
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s
security.
The Libby indictment makes it clear that Cheney told Libby about Plame’s
status at the CIA. Paragraph 9 of the indictment says:
Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United
States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the
Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had
learned this information from the CIA.
And, as I said in one of my earlier stories,
Anyone with knowledge of the CIA’s organizational chart (but particularly Cheney and Libby) knows that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations (i.e., where the spooks are), and not where the more benign employees (e.g., analysts) are assigned.
That view was confirmed by a former CIA operative during
the course of the David Shuster report on Plame’s Iran-related duties.
We also know that the original outing of Plame’s identity,
at the hands of Robert Novak, followed his (Novak’s) conversation with a CIA
official who warned him not to reveal Plame’s identity. We also know that
Novak was warned not to reveal Plame’s identity by another CIA operative, who
told him (Novak) that Plame was a specialist in weapons of mass destruction at
the CIA. And, we know from the Libby indictment (Paragraph 11) that he discussed
Plame directly with a “CIA briefer.”
Given the fact that Cheney learned of Plame’s identity (and
role) from the CIA, and that both of them were well aware of the sensitive
nature of Plame’s role at the CIA, is there really any doubt that either or
both of them knew she was covered by the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act?
When you work at the CIA, you’re either an undercover
agent, or you’re not, and anyone who knows anything about that entity’s
organization structure knows that the division Plame worked in was an undercover
operation. If that isn’t enough, there is no doubt that every contact between
Libby, Cheney and the CIA (and between Novak and the CIA) about Plame included a
warning, explicit or implicit, that Plame was a covert agent. So, Cheney and
Libby either knew Plame was undercover, or they should have (i.e., they are
chargeable with that knowledge). There is no “oops, I didn’t know she was
undercover” defense available here.
I remain convinced that Fitzgerald, who has, by now, spoken
with whomever it was at the CIA that told Cheney about Plame (and her role), has
got the goods on Cheney, and on Libby, with regard to the underlying crime. It
still remains open to him, and to the grand jury, to seek a superceding
indictment of Libby, and to indict Cheney, who, unlike the President, does’t
enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution. I think the reason he hasn’t indicted
Cheney, or superceded the original Libby indictment is because he’s using the
Libby indictment as a crow bar to get additional damaging information, and
because he’s using that indictment to get Libby to turn on Cheney and others
(which he—Libby—already has started doing in some of the filings his legal
team has made in the document-discovery-related controversies in the case, most
notably the one where he reveals that the President, through Cheney,
authorized him to reveal classified intelligence to debunk Ambassador Wilson’s
attack).
You may recall Fitzgerald’s explanation for why he couldn’t
indict anyone for the underlying crime when he announced the Libby indictment:
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of
justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what
happened and somebody blocked their view.
I think the umpire has finally cleared the sand from his
eyes, and is about to call the pitch as he now clearly sees it, and at least two
batters are about to be called out on strikes.
It now seems beyond question that, at the very least, Karl
Rove will be indicted for perjury, false statements and/or obstruction of
justice in what’s come to be known as “Plamegate” (the outing of a CIA agent to
extract revenge against her husband, Ambassador Wilson, for challenging the
President’s assertion that Saddam was buying nuclear materials from Africa). The
corporate media and the blogosphere are
abuzz, speculating on the timing of Rove’s indictment, and laying the
foundation for such an indictment
I have been on record for some time as being convinced that
the real crime involved in Plamegate isn’t lying about it (though that, of
course, is a crime), but
the revelation of Valerie Plame’s identity itself. For several months the
pundits have been pooh-poohing the entire investigation, suggesting that since
no crime was committed by outing Plame’s identity,
no foul was committed either, and that it’s a
feeble fallback on Patrick Fitzgerald’s part to go after people for lying
about something that wasn’t a crime in the first place.
We now know, however, thanks to the reporting of David
Shuster on MSNBC, not only that Plame was a covert operative, but that she was
working on issues involving Iran’s nuclear weapons program., a fact to which
even the somnolent Congress has awakened, with Senator Frank Lautenberg
requesting a damage assessment from the CIA regarding
the effect of the Plame outing on our Iran-related intelligence efforts.
Fitzgerald, you may recall, was particularly outspoken at
the press conference http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html
where he announced the Libby indictment about the damage to national security
inflicted by the leak. He said:
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s
security.
The Libby indictment makes it clear that Cheney told Libby about Plame’s
status at the CIA. Paragraph 9 of the indictment says:
Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United
States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the
Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had
learned this information from the CIA.
And, as I said in one of my earlier stories,
Anyone with knowledge of the CIA’s organizational chart (but particularly Cheney and Libby) knows that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations (i.e., where the spooks are), and not where the more benign employees (e.g., analysts) are assigned.
That view was confirmed by a former CIA operative during
the course of the David Shuster report on Plame’s Iran-related duties.
We also know that the original outing of Plame’s identity,
at the hands of Robert Novak, followed his (Novak’s) conversation with a CIA
official who warned him not to reveal Plame’s identity. We also know that
Novak was warned not to reveal Plame’s identity by another CIA operative, who
told him (Novak) that Plame was a specialist in weapons of mass destruction at
the CIA. And, we know from the Libby indictment (Paragraph 11) that he discussed
Plame directly with a “CIA briefer.”
Given the fact that Cheney learned of Plame’s identity (and
role) from the CIA, and that both of them were well aware of the sensitive
nature of Plame’s role at the CIA, is there really any doubt that either or
both of them knew she was covered by the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act?
When you work at the CIA, you’re either an undercover
agent, or you’re not, and anyone who knows anything about that entity’s
organization structure knows that the division Plame worked in was an undercover
operation. If that isn’t enough, there is no doubt that every contact between
Libby, Cheney and the CIA (and between Novak and the CIA) about Plame included a
warning, explicit or implicit, that Plame was a covert agent. So, Cheney and
Libby either knew Plame was undercover, or they should have (i.e., they are
chargeable with that knowledge). There is no “oops, I didn’t know she was
undercover” defense available here.
I remain convinced that Fitzgerald, who has, by now, spoken
with whomever it was at the CIA that told Cheney about Plame (and her role), has
got the goods on Cheney, and on Libby, with regard to the underlying crime. It
still remains open to him, and to the grand jury, to seek a superceding
indictment of Libby, and to indict Cheney, who, unlike the President, does’t
enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution. I think the reason he hasn’t indicted
Cheney, or superceded the original Libby indictment is because he’s using the
Libby indictment as a crow bar to get additional damaging information, and
because he’s using that indictment to get Libby to turn on Cheney and others
(which he—Libby—already has started doing in some of the filings his legal
team has made in the document-discovery-related controversies in the case, most
notably the one where he reveals that the President, through Cheney,
authorized him to reveal classified intelligence to debunk Ambassador Wilson’s
attack).
You may recall Fitzgerald’s explanation for why he couldn’t
indict anyone for the underlying crime when he announced the Libby indictment:
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of
justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what
happened and somebody blocked their view.
I think the umpire has finally cleared the sand from his
eyes, and is about to call the pitch as he now clearly sees it, and at least two
batters are about to be called out on strikes.
Thanks to the Memphis Public Library & Information Center, you can now
download 700 e-audio books (whole or in-part) onto your computer, PDA, or a CD. The charge is $5 per title, and the “check-out” period is 21 days. (“Returns” are automatic: no late fees.) According to the library’s Lillian Johnson, the service is a convenience for those who normally borrow audio books. But the library also sees it as a way to reach impaired Memphians who cannot read a traditional book. What you’ll need: a library card, a PIN, a Visa or MasterCard, access to the Internet, and free software off the library’s e-books Web page. For more info, go here. or call LINC at 415-2700.
A new medical clinic in Gallatin, Tennessee, just outside Nashville is modeled after the Church Health Center in Memphis.
The Salvus Center is operated by a former United Methodist physician who has “reclaimed his call from God” and opened a faith-based health clinic for working people who have no health insurance coverage. “Salvus” is Greek for “salvation.”
Fees range from $5 to $30, depending on a person’s income. For people below the poverty level, prescription drugs are issued on a sliding scale, from $1 (generic) to $3.
The Church Health, which opened 17 years ago by Dr. Scott Morris, a former Methodist minister, sees 40,000 patients a year and has an annual budget of $10 million.For more about the Salvus Center, go here.
It wouldn’t be a good week here at the Buzz without a Cameron/Justin story. And we’ll throw in Lindsay Lohan and Scarlett Johansen just for good measure, ’cause that’s how we roll.
It seems Lindsay is battling Justin’s gal Cameron Diaz over jealousy about their mutual former heartthrob Jared Leto.The battle took place inside the VIP section of Shag club (wherever that is).
Scarlett Johansson, Lindsay Lohan, and Cameron Diaz have a lot in common – including dating Jared Leto!
Read all about the catfights, the writing on bathroom walls, the “please don’t smoke” tiff, and more here.
For what it’s worth (no pun intended), here are the latest financial disclosures of 9th District congressional candidates, from the Federal Election Commission Web site.
And, oh yes, one of those 9th District candidates (you know which one) is actually running for the U.S. Senate and has been getting and spending with some abandon.
Charley Reese’s Viewpoint in the Memphis Flyer (April 20th issue) is an affront not only to American Jews but to all Americans of good faith and most especially those of us who love and believe in democracy.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has made it eminently clear that his goal in developing a nuclear arsenal is to annihilate the state of Israel. When dictators speak, it is wise to listen. Had the world taken Mein Kampf more seriously and not written it off as the benign musings of a little Austrian house painter, perhaps the millions of casualties of World War II might have met a different fate. Moreover, when anyone, be he a despot or a local skinhead, advocates the annihilation of the state of Israel, he is ipso facto attacking all Jews and Judaism itself. The Jewish state came into being not just to establish a new political entity but to create a haven for Jews. At no time since the Holocaust have there been more calls for the genocide of the Jews. To threaten the existence of the state is to question the right of Jews to exist at all.
The use of the word “roach” by Reese, i.e. cockroach, is particularly horrendous, having been used not long ago in Rwanda to incite the slaughter of the Tutsis there. In March 1993, an article appeared in an extremist Hutu newspaper titled “The Cockroach Cannot Give Birth to a Butterfly.” By dehumanizing the enemy and suggesting that future generations will be no better, the article rallied the forces of hatred just as the Nazis did in Der Sturmer. The implication that now Israel is the roach in the American salad carries heinous undertones.
The American alliance with the state of Israel is based on kindred political beliefs, primarily in democracy and the sanctity of human life. The “roach” in the salad, if that terminology is to be utilized at all, is the radical dictator who leads citizens into poverty, unwanted wars, and misery.
There is no historical evidence to the claim that populations support their dictators when those despots come under attack. Quite the opposite is true. The tributes to Lenin and Stalin could not crumble fast enough in the former Soviet Union. When Idi Amin came under attack in Uganda in 1979, his people forced him into exile and subsequently labeled him a war criminal. Democracies do not go to war against other democracies because their elected leaders are driven by the will of the people. And dictatorships lose wars when they fight democracies because their people are not fighting to save a way of life that they have chosen and cherish.
Reese’s view of the Middle East is so distorted that it would be futile to undertake a rational and comprehensive response. However, where his language and claims are most insidious lie in his accusations regarding a so-called Israeli lobby. In truth, people of all faiths in this country who support Israel do so for its strategic value, its friendship with the United States and the free world, and a host of other reasons. No country on earth has willingly relinquished territory for the sake of peace when there is no partner with whom to negotiate, and yet Prime Minister Ariel Sharon did just that when he withdrew Israeli troops and citizens from Gaza in the summer of 2005. Americans of all religious pursuits recognize such efforts for the sake of peace and applaud them.
Finally, in recalling the anti-Semitic slur of the French ambassador to London, M. Bernard, who labeled Israel “a (expletive deleted) little country,” Reese exposes himself as a man of questionable values and an obvious lack of good judgment. That same French diplomat was chastised by his government for his indiscretion. Recently, under the guise of criticism of Israeli politics, anti-Semites have comfortably spewed Jew hatred publicly in the media with no misgivings. Since the end of World War II and the Gentleman’s Agreement era, never have anti-Semites been so comfortable taking their egregious slander out of the back rooms and bringing it into the heart of “genteel company.”
Perhaps in a democratic society (unlike those with whom Reese would have us align ourselves), the press must engage the likes of a Charley Reese to express his opinion. However, it is appalling that the Memphis Flyer would carry such a column without a disclaimer advising its readership that the editorial staff does not agree, nay, that it unequivocally abhors, the hateful venom espoused therein.