“If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: ‘The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’”

“In the past, attempts to impeach presidents for war crimes have sunk like a stone in the Potomac.”

Yep. And that’s just what’s going to happen this time.

“If this time is going to be different, we need to get to work—organizing around the country—making the case for a thorough public inquiry and creating a groundswell that emerges as a powerful force from the grassroots.”

Nice buzzwords, but note the shortage of concrete proposals. The short answer is that stirring the apathetic TV-watching consumers that comprise the bulk of the electorate into action is about as likely as them unplugging their TV sets.

Preoccupation with unrealistic goals like impeaching a President whose party controls all three branches of government distracts from long-term objectives that are probably more achievable – such as working to ensure the GOP doesn’t win in the next election.

I agree with Shogo!

A more instant approach would be for one to sacrifice for the many in a single moment of a crack pop and a small puff of smoke. Cross hairs on GW’s face and he will receive JFK’s fate.

BUT!!! It’s not going to happen.

Don’t hold your breath trying to oust a powerful politician who speaks of peace and yet wages war. His goons are on him like white on rice.

I stongly suggest the Democrats get behind New YorK Senator Hillery Clinton to run for presidency in 2008. I believe she can win, especially if she campaigns on repealing the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution and bringing the troops home. GW’s war has become unpopular and all the NeoCons will have to change their ulterior plans and goals.

I love it, LOL.

But we could proceed to light a fire under congressional Democrats.

Not really, since they’re obviously in cahoots (that’s right I said cahoots) with the Republicans.

is cahoots a real word??
i tend to agree with shogo because of my agreement with EG…. but i really don’t want to agree…. there must be a way to wake people up! if another “deep throat” is inspired by the original, then maybe, just maybe, things will get done.. i mean, not is impossible, but somethings are highly unlikely..

is cahoots a real word??

cahoots

Interesting commentary, not unlike a bohemian sewing-circle.

You can complain about a lack of “concrete proposals”, which builds a modest head of rhetorical steam, but we (quite reasonably) expect you to follow up that critique with an inspired sermon, full of such substantive insights as you lament the lack of.

Unfortunately, I have no panacea for your woes. But I do have an interesting experiment.

Send emails summarizing the ‘Downing Street Memo’ story to the following:

1.) The Congressional Representative (assuming you live in the States) of the district you live in.
(If you’re not entirely sure who that person is, follow this link:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
then, once you know the representative of your district, find the email of your representative by clicking here.)

2.) An individual of merit and/or noteriety, professionally affiliated with National Public Radio, or another professional news service.
(List of media contacts: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=111)

3.) Any other noteworthy personage employed by a national newspaper (e.g., The New York Times, Washington Post, Seattle Times).

4.) A progressive member of the religious studies department at the nearest university.

5.) The editor(s) of a local independent/alternative press publication with modest-yet-respectable circulation.

6.) Your closest radical-whacko friends, or maybe the local chapter of Young Republicans.

I promise, at the very least the responses you get won’t be boring. I certainly haven’t been IGNORED. At least this way you can say you did something, which is infinitely more dignified than cynical ambivalence.

Cheers.

DDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe all we have to do is show that GW is in Cahoots with one of his interns.

Who would this leave?...would it be anyone capable of leading a country in a time of war or withdrawel?

My dog would be more capable of leading the country (justly) in a time of war than the yahoos we’re discussing. Let’s not keep assuming the sky is falling – it’s a hallucination brought on by the Strong Leader meme-virus – a fever-dream (nightmare).

Remember there’s still a massive National Security apparatus in operation. Cycling to a new batch of upper echelons does nothing to reduce its effectiveness.

table={border:3px solid turquoise;background:tan;padding:20px;width:220px}. |

A more instant approach would be for one to sacrifice for the many in a single moment of a crack pop and a small puff of smoke. Cross hairs on GW’s face and he will receive JFK’s fate. ~~ “US_Dissident“:http://www.gnn.tv/forum/thread.php?id=5755#60542 |

Please tell me presidential death threats are at least grounds for an ineffectual warning.

i agree w/ fenec and iod3k. we can’t be threatening to kill the president here….come on people.

as for iod, amen! i like your style. i hate when people sit on their hands, complaining about a lack of pursuable actions. sure, they may not make much of a difference, but they’re SOMETHING. always better than nothing.

“but they’re SOMETHING. always better than nothing.”

Dumbass – who said that “nothing” is the alternative?

Oh right, YOU did.

Let me reprint some of my post since you obviously didn’t read it:

“Preoccupation with unrealistic goals like impeaching a President whose party controls all three branches of government distracts from long-term objectives that are probably more achievable – such as working to ensure the GOP doesn’t win in the next election.”

Articles must be wholly original content written by GNN users and NOT republished from other sources.

i agree with hj – he’s absolutely right… i’ve been reprimanded for posting articles that are not my own… and when i wrote to anthony for an explanation… no reply… then when i post my own article it seems to get ripped apart… in the vein of intellectual absurdity… or an elitist pov of squashing anyone trying to participate in this section of GNN... noticing the preponderance of articles posted by anthony makes me wonder about the democratic process v. autocratic hierarchical infrastructure… so on that note i’ve moved on… found Wikinews to be more appreciative of my writing and input on news stories… including audio reports…

the problem with GNN is that the suggestions and comments end up being more like a chat room… which is unnerving and often times defeating the purpose of offering editorial support for the story itself… in comparison, Wikinews has a talk section where you can toss around ideas… in helpful and constructive process of publishing news stories… this boils down to more of a collaborative newsroom that for me reaps more satisfaction in volunteering my efforts… and certainly is more sophisticated in the manner i like to be held to as quality assurance – not arbitary criticisms…

also, Wikinews is very clear about the rules, content style, formating, and maintaining a neutrality with the news pieces… which provides accountability for ALL involved…

having said that, i am appreciative of GNN... what it is doing for the community at large… it’s a wonderful platform for news gathering and has brought me into a new reality of Internet browsing and posting… a great tool in bringing people together who are concerned about the world’s current events, and writing… at GNN you can be a quasi journalist… and hone your writing skills… but, as hurricane jim pointed out… there are blatant inconsistencies that make me feel nonplussed… and less inspired to participate…

Is Mother Nature showing signs of a Fever and being angered by the World Government Spearheaded by GWB?

Well since I can’t organize the newz into individual threads, I will change my way activism tactiks. I’m Fed up with vandals, thread destroyers, etc….....

Those few who don’t care or do like what I find, and provide through hard work my postion on things.

Since most aren’t in step with rest of the world I was hoping to bring more people up to speed on things.

Maybe I can get your attention Anthony, And hope to see if even this thread
will be destroyed by my Enemies.

I will use this thread from now on to provide my Updates.

Since I’m not allowed to take credit for collecting the info here by others,\
I’m sure that this form of journalism will be evidence when the staged events in the future do occur.

Here is another clue too
“Quake may be ‘imminent’, warns tsunami expert”:http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3308084a12,00.html

Thursday, 09 June 2005

By RICHARD MACE

A scientist who predicted the second Indonesian earthquake fears a
third devastating jolt, powerful enough to cause another major
tsunami, is “imminent”.

The waves could sweep north-western Australia, reaching as far as
Perth.

John McCloskey, of the University of Ulster, said building the Indian
Ocean tsunami warning system was “an urgent priority”.

“Don’t take the foot off the gas. This is very urgent work.”

In mid March, Professor McCloskey warned that the Boxing Day quake,
which triggered the tsunami that killed 300,000 people, had shifted
tectonic stresses to another spot on Sumatra’s geological fault line.

He predicted a second strong quake, noting many did not believe
lightning could strike twice. “But with earthquakes it’s exactly the
opposite … I quite honestly hope we’re completely wrong.”

He wasn’t. The second quake, measuring 8.3, struck on March 28 near
the Simeulue and Nias islands, killing 2000 people.

In a new study, published in Nature, Professor McCloskey’s team
reports that “stresses imposed by the second rupture have brought
closer to failure” another zone “immediately to the south, under the
Batu and Mentawai islands”.

“The historical record and the experience of the Sumatra-Andaman and
Simeulue-Nias events indicate that a tsunami could be a possibility.”

Professor McCloskey told the Sydney Morning Herald it would likely
strike near the Mentawai islands, triggering a repeat performance of
the 8.5 quake of 1833. “The 1833 earthquake is probably a reasonable
model. It did trigger a tsunami and there were many casualties.
That’s the type of earthquake we fear it definitely could be.”

Professor McCloskey noted that the 1833 tsunami reached north-western
Australia. Next time “the waves would be felt in Perth,” he said,
adding he could not say how strong they would be.

It was impossible to say when it would happen, but the evidence,
including historical data, showed it could be within 30 years,
following the pattern of the 1833 and 1861 Sumatra quakes.

“It may be sooner. We must assume it’s imminent and behave
accordingly. We can’t bury our heads in the sand.”

Commenting on his last prediction, Professor McCloskey said: “I’ve
very mixed feelings.”

He had “a sense of professional satisfaction that our science has
started to understand well” earthquakes. “I hope I am wrong this
time, but I don’t think so. It’s not something you get any pleasure
out of … even though with the last one we were very accurate.”

While a “high tech” warning system would protect people around the
Indian Ocean, there would be no time to alert Sumatra. A program was
needed to teach them how to save themselves.

“People need to plan what to do in Sumatra when they feel the earth
shake. You have 15 to 20 minutes to get yourself into a position safe
from the tsunami.”

“Mexican volcano’s eruptions largest on record”:http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/06/08/volcano.ap/

SAN MARCOS, Mexico (AP) — Mexico’s Volcano of Fire has been hurling hot lava into the air and dusting surrounding towns with ash, forcing evacuations and raising concerns of a much larger explosion.

The eruptions are the strongest recorded since scientific monitoring began 20 years ago, and even long-skeptical residents acknowledged Wednesday a newfound fear of the peak that straddles the line between Colima and Jalisco states, 690 kilometers (430 miles) west of Mexico City.

The volcano has had six spectacular eruptions in the past three weeks. The largest, late Monday, shot glowing lava five kilometers (three miles) above the crater of the 3,820-meter (12,533-foot) volcano and showered ash over the nearby city of Colima.

The War Party on Trial – The upcoming trial of the AIPAC defendants will flush plenty of rats out of the woodwork

June 6, 2005
The War Party on Trial
The upcoming trial of the AIPAC defendants will flush plenty of rats out of the woodwork
by Justin Raimondo
The discovery of a labyrinth of underground bunkers used by the insurgency – complete with air-conditioning, shower facilities, and furnished living space – in western Iraq yielded a rich arsenal of sophisticated weaponry, including:

“Mortars, rockets, machine guns, night-vision goggles, compasses, ski masks and cell phones. Marines also found at least 59 surface-to-air missiles, some 29,000 AK-47 rounds, more than 350 pounds of plastic explosives and an unspecified amount of TNT in a five-mile area around the bunkers.”

No wonder the reality-based community is having some rather large doubts about the administration’s Soviet-style we have over-fulfilled the quota set by the Five Year Plan optimism about the course of the Iraq war, which increasingly resembles the “socialist realism” of Brezhnev-era Kremlin propaganda. Contra Dick Cheney, it doesn’t sound like the insurgency is in its last throes to me. And, hey, look what other goodies the insurgents have gotten their hands on, according to this less-widely noted little item from the Washington Times:

“U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA.

“Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.”

Agent provocateurs? The CIA? The Mossad? I won’t even try to analyze or interpret what this is supposed to mean, except to say that it implies a much murkier and more nuanced picture of what is going on in Iraq, as opposed to the simple two-sided conflict pitting occupiers against insurgents, than most imagine. The situation is more complicated than the dualistic imagery that suffuses the president’s rhetoric – “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html – starting with the number of players contending on the battlefields of Iraq. And stepping back, we can see the outlines of a much more complex larger picture, in which we are fighting a “war on terrorism” not only against Muslim fanatics, but also – on another front – fanatics of a different breed…

Speaking of the Mossad, the Larry Franklin spy scandal is continuing to attract attention. A recent piece by Bidisha Banerjee lifted Slate.com’s interdict against mentioning The American Conservative beyond the inaugural issue to the extent of noting:

“Many bloggers are linking to this piece by the American Conservative’s Justin Raimondo, who calls this ‘one of the biggest, most far-reaching espionage investigations since the Cold War,’ and insists that ‘the case involves not only the theft of vital U.S. secrets but a concerted effort to influence American foreign policy on behalf of a foreign power.’ Criticizing the U.S. media for ignoring this story, Sabbah’s Blog’s Haitham Sabbah, a Jordanian of Palestinian origin, fulminates, ‘It is of note that AIPAC is paying to defend these two and denies any wrong doing.’”

Anyone who points out, I suppose, that Slate – for just one example – has only mentioned this burgeoning scandal on a :“single”:http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:miZTgnX9BcAJ:find.slate.com/id/2105794/+aipac+site:slate.com&hl=en occasion, is fulminating – almost frothing at the mouth. And as for that Justin Raimondo, he is merely insisting – without evidence, mind you! – that the Franklin affair isn’t the journalistic equivalent of Oakland – about which, as you’ll no doubt remember, Gertrude Stein famously complained that “there isn’t any there there.”

Coupled with Ms. Banerjee’s disdain for anyone who takes this affair seriously is her skeptical lead-in, which links to this article in Ha’aretz, most of which is devoted to running AIPAC’s party line up the flagpole: it was all a setup, a “sting” operation in which two innocent babes-in-the-woods, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman – the two top AIPAC officials accused of passing secrets to Israel – were led to believe that Israeli lives might be in danger if they didn’t act. And besides, while “AIPAC will presumably be discussed in the actual trials,” we are told, “right now, at least, it does not appear the organization itself will be charged.”

Unless one expects that all 65,000 members of AIPAC will be individually charged, Banerjee is technically correct: but surely the leadership of the organization will have to be held accountable. After all, it’s not as if either Rosen or Weissman came to the organization only recently, or were merely marginal figures in AIPAC’s powerful Washington operation. As David Twersky, director of international affairs at the American Jewish Congress, said of Rosen in an interview with The Forward

“Regardless of one’s judgment on the outcomes, this is the guy who more than anyone else shaped the institution as it currently exists.”

If Rosen was part of Israel’s spy nest in our nation’s capital, as the FBI contends, then surely it is not entirely unreasonable to assume he shaped one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington into an engine of espionage. If AIPAC isn’t being charged as an organization, and either closed down or else forced to register as a foreign agent, then one has to ask why not. One also has to wonder at the following rather startling tidbit embedded toward the end of the Ha’aretz article:

“Sources close to the case say the prosecution posed four conditions to AIPAC, which would guarantee that it would not be involved in the indictments: a change of working methods to ensure that such incidents don’t happen again; the firing of the two officials and public disassociation from them; no offers of high severance or anything else to make it appear the two quit of their own volition; and no financing of their legal defense.”

Here we have a unique answer to the problem of how to guard U.S. national security secrets: simply get the spies, once caught, to promise never to do it again. How is it that we never thought of such an elegantly simple solution before? All the American Communist Party had to do, during the Cold War years, was rid themselves of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and they would have been above suspicion.

Gee, I wonder how many exposed Soviet moles got severance pay from their former employers in the Kremlin. Having disassociated AIPAC from Rosen and Weissman – basically admitting that they’re guilty – the once-invulnerable lobbying group is not only rewarding them financially, it is also footing the bill for their defense, as Ha’aretz reports

“AIPAC has abided by the first three conditions – and the severance pay offered the two was considered very low, considering the many years they worked for the lobby. But it is said to be helping with their legal fees, indirectly, through its own law firm.”

By keeping AIPAC open for business, as if it were an ordinary lobbying group to be considered in the same way as the tobacco lobby, the textiles lobby, the drug companies, etc., the Justice Department is not only compromising the national security, it is also underscoring an otherwise brazen double standard when it comes to cracking down on organizations that supposedly had a hand in subverting it. How many Islamic “charities” and other groups have been shut down, had their doors locked and their officers arrested and deported on the mere suspicion of collaboration with groups even vaguely associated with alleged terrorists? Yet here we have AIPAC’s top Washington operatives at the center of an investigation into espionage on behalf of Israel, and the organization is being treated with kid gloves.

AIPAC is even allowed to break the supposed “deal” made with prosecutor Paul McNulty about funding the defense. Unlike McNulty, Plato Cacheris doesn’t come cheap – and neither does Abbe Lowell. His last high-profile client – Gary Condit – left Washington under similarly murky circumstances. Chandra Levy’s remains were found in a Washington park three years ago this past May 22, and yet Condit has to this day gotten off virtually scot free, in spite of widespread and well-founded suspicions. The AIPAC defendants and their supporters – who are just now beginning to come out of the woodwork – are hoping for the same sort of outcome.

I noted previously that Israel’s most vocal champions, who are usually quick to counterattack when the Lobby has been crossed, have been unusually silent, beyond an initial exclamation of skepticism when the charges were first aired last year. Now the blogger Roger L. Simon, a mid-list novelist and screenwriter who has become a minor-league Charles Krauthammer of the blogosphere, has deigned to comment on the widening scandal.

“One of the more interesting cases moving somewhat under the radar is the report that espionage charges will soon be filed against two officials of AIPAC – American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The charges, as I understand them, are somewhat vague and also unprecedented. Thomas Lifson, channeling (he says via email) the title of my first Moses Wine novel, thinks there has been a set-up. My question is why.”

It’s all a conspiracy against AIPAC, you see, with the clear implication that the FBI and the Justice Department have been taken over by neo-Nazis who are conducting an anti-Semitic pogrom: it’s Kristallnacht in the streets of Washington, D.C. Or so we are not-so-subtly led to assume. However, if Simon wants to know why Rosen and Weissman are facing charges of espionage, perhaps he ought to ask AIPAC’s lawyer, Nathan Lewin, who, according to Eli Lake in the New York Sun:

“Heard the highly classified case against them and advised the organization to sever its relationship with the two. The charges against Messrs. Rosen and Weissman, which have yet to be made publicly, were so secret that Mr. Lewin needed security clearance just to hear them.”

But of course Simon doesn’t really want to know why the Franklin affair is exploding into a Chernobyl catastrophe for Israel and its amen corner in the U.S. – which is why he’s reduced to emitting paranoid conspiracy theories about ethno-religious persecution where none exists. The pundits who relentlessly hew to the Israeli party line as assiduously as any Communist of the 1930s adhered to the latest dictums from the Kremlin are hiding behind a massive persecution complex that blinds them to the emerging truth. Like squid emitting clouds of obfuscating ink, they just burrow deeper into the sand – anything is preferable to coming out into the open with their sympathy for AIPAC’s treason. Without actually saying it, AIPAC’s defenders – like Michael Ledeen, David Frum, and Joel Mowbray, to take only a few of the more well-known examples – believe Rosen and Weissman were right to hand over highly sensitive U.S. secrets to Israel, and only regret that the spies were caught. Also without saying it, they know that the Franklin-Rosen-Weissman case will inevitably lead investigators to the very core of Israel’s Washington spy nest. As the Washington Post reported last September:

“FBI counterintelligence investigators have in recent weeks questioned current and former U.S. officials about whether a small group of Iran specialists at the Pentagon and in Vice President Cheney’s office may have been involved in passing classified information to an Iraqi politician or a U.S. lobbying group allied with Israel, according to sources familiar with or involved in the case.”

Aside from asking about two Israeli diplomats, investigators have focused their probe on the War Party’s Washington headquarters:

“Investigators have specifically asked about a group of neoconservatives involved in defense issues, including Feith, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, Iraq and Iran specialist Harold Rhode and others at the Pentagon. FBI agents also have asked current and former officials about Richard Perle of the defense board and David Wurmser, an Iran specialist and principal deputy assistant for national security affairs in Cheney’s office, according to sources familiar with or involved in the case.

“‘The initial interest was: Do you believe certain people would spy for Israel and pass secret information?’ said one source interviewed by the FBI about the defense officials.”

One can easily imagine these guys in the dock alongside Rosen, Weissman, and Franklin, while their supporters outside the courtroom champion their cause: imagine Richard Perle as a sort of neocon Mumia Abu Jamal! The wonderful irony of David Horowitz types, who were once Commies crusading to Free Bobby Seale!, campaigning to “Free Paul Wolfowitz – and all political prisoners!” is almost too delicious for words.

– Justin Raimondo

Editorial: Bush & Blair/Iraq denials raise questions

June 9, 2005

On the subject of when, why and how the United States decided to attack Iraq, American citizens’ recent seeming lack of interest has been a puzzle to many in the rest of the world. As the Bush administration’s stated reasons for war shifted, ebbed and flowed, many simply went with the flow, finding each succeeding reason — well, reason enough. Some became more and more skeptical, even cynical; others just didn’t know what to believe. But whatever their reasons, Americans have shown much less interest than the British in a bombshell of a memo leaked last month in London.

Tuesday provided a moment when top leaders could have helped them sort it all out, yet little was clarified — which can only lead to increased skepticism on the part of anyone paying close attention.

When the so-called Downing Street memo came up in a question directed to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush at their joint news conference in Washington, the two leaders answered in such a way as to spur headlines like the one on Page 1 of Wednesday’s Star Tribune: “A joint denial of Iraq memo.” People who’ve paid casual attention to news of the secret document might variously assume now that Bush and Blair had dismissed the memo as a forgery or denied that its contents were true — or both. A careful reading of the two men’s words, however, shows that they denied much less than one might think; it also brings up pertinent questions that the president should be pressed to answer.

The memo is actually the minutes of a meeting of Blair and his highest officials on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq. Leaked to the Sunday Times of London, it was printed on May 1. The memo contained this description of what was said by Sir Richard Dearlove, or “C,” the head of Britain’s foreign intelligence service: “C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam [Hussein], through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

Bush and Blair were asked of this part, “Is this an accurate reflection of what happened?” Blair, saying he could respond very easily said, “No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all,” and went on to say that military action had to be taken because Saddam didn’t comply with international law. Bush said, among other comments, “There’s nothing farther from the truth,” implying that C was wrong, without going into detail.

Neither addressed the intelligence and whether it was being concocted to provide a justification for removing Saddam. Blair, who was more specific than Bush, didn’t address other key parts of the minutes, such as when Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is summarized as saying, “The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.”

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith explained in the meeting that, as the memo relates, “the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation.”

How could one of those occur? Blair did not address his own response to Straw and Goldsmith as described in the memo: “The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors.”

This is stunning. As Mark Danner wrote in Sunday’s New York Review of Books, “Thus the idea of UN inspectors was introduced not as a means to avoid war, as President Bush repeatedly assured Americans, but as a means to make war possible.”

These and other points make the Downing Street memo one more in a string of accounts that undercut the administration’s version of events. Tuesday’s brief, narrow denials may have generated the desired headlines, but they did little to set the record straight.