Why don't the washington post cover the cost to airline passengers for the Denver
boondoggle. The airlines knew Denver was
closed to flights but they insisted they could make it. If I were from Denver I wouldn't have minded but the airlines knew they were flying individuals into harms way and stranding them. ticket holders
would have appreciated being able to get off the flights going to Denver and bypass that boondoogle. This to me shows the incompenance of the management of the airlines to fly passengers into harms way.
Abondonment at Denver was a discrace by all ethical standards

NSA was bugging Diana the night she died? What are the odds of that happening by chance? Which means this is probably more common than anyone would like to believe.

Throw another log on the Diana conspiracy fire. Maybe some gasoline while you're at it.

Diana was the face of the international fight against weapons like landmines.
She also lent her face to the UN and added credibility to their different agencies.
Of course this made her a target for US interest.

While one can argue a "reason" for listening in on Princess Diana (govt impacts on an ally who won't do the listening but wants to know what happened), the sad thing is that we waste far more on lies about Iraq and the massive Quagmire we still spend billions on there, when we all knew the WMD were a lie.

If we'd spent the $500 billion (or estimated $2 trillion total cost) on BUILDING US energy sources of wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and clean coal, we could entirely ignore the Middle East since they wouldn't matter any more.

But that's using your head.

SULLY 12/11 @3:53pm

All of what you laid out is possible and even believable as motives for some of the players. Bush, however, isn't really playing with a full deck so any reasoning from what he says or does is futile because he doesn't operate from reason.

I think that there probably were as many motives as there were people pushing the invasion. Foreinstance, Bill Kristol wrote a letter to Clinton in '98 advocating military action in Iraq, which pretty well takes care of the neocons in general. (Their motive, however, mystifies me because Iran is the real thorn in their side.)

It has been suggested that Cheney's motivation was to clean up what he (and others) left undone under Bush I, something for which, at the time, they got a lot of negative flack from the bellicose crowd.

Rumsfeld? Apparently he suffers from intense ennui if he doesn't have a project so the possibility of re-forming the entire American military definitely qualified as a busy-work project and what better than to do it and use it by invading some country - any country. All in all, very sad.

All are indeed wondering the why of all that has transpired..heard this am one spin on it that semi makes some neo-con sense...The invasion of Afghanistan was easy, could justify easily with Osama link(thou NOT the real reason there either if any check deeply, that oil pipeline was a major goal and Taliban would NOT co-operat, were proffered a "carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs"...) Once Afghanistan "taken" 9so they "thought, but proven so wrong these days as well...) the next logical was Irag...which had a number of reasonings..We'd been informed we DID have to get our feet off sacred Saudi soil(the Royals attempt to appease their fanatical elements/maintain semblance/order) Iraq holding the #2 largesse of oil, Saddam factor of Bush family grudge(Poppy ridiculed long for NOT taking him out in first war, son attempt to show "dad" a bit and etc in the mix--a thought perhaps switch, Poppy usually had to bail junior, in this case Junior wanted to return the favor and figured would win admiration) but a neocon pushed the notion that Iran was a factor they figured could be marginalized by being boxed in if the West controlled or was major influence on either side(Afghanistan/Iraq)abd therewith by becoming so established in the region, a major world empowered influencer...Things may have lloked good on paper, within the theories but proven now so truly woefully unexecutable by those that wanted to "try" due to their own actual incompetence which was infect with an arrogant eliticism...ironic for they had scorned/scorched "others" for being "elitists" and out of touch with reality but were so themselves !!!!

No money for armored vehicles, but plenty of spare time and technology resources to bug Princess D's conversations -- wait, there is a consistent factor, confusion over mission, priorities, boundaries, what's right or wrong.

I think back to the story (perhaps urban legend) of campus students organizing a coordinated flush at the same time, bursting sewer lines.

What would happen to the NSA computers if ten million Americans picked up their phones at the same time and recited a selected list of scripted catchwords? Interesting to imagine.

I'm not sure which is sadder: me actually commenting on an article about the Royal Twit (Charles) and the Royal Airhead (Diana) or that we as a Nation have some perverse curiosity of a haplass, dysfunctional family.

Dear WP,

I think people should start thinking about their own problems and not fantasize the thing they don't know or they think they could know. Nowdays everyone who claims to know something about Dianna does it exclusively for money... Let her rest in pease, finally...
Andreas Ahlen, Ancona, Italy

ALL THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES REGARDING DIANA THE DEAD, ARE $NOT NEAR-LIE ASS JUICY ASS... WHO FATHERED HER CHILDREN, PRINCE WILLIAM AND PRINCE HARRY? A SUPER $ECRET DNA TEST ALSO RUN BY AN AMERIKAN ESPY AGENCY REVEALS THAT THE WIMP WINKY OF PRINCE CHARLES DIDN'T DO THE DEED TO SEED THE SECOND PRINCE.

AND I SHOULD KNOW. I WORK FREE LANCE FOR THE HORSE'S MOUTH... ESPEAKING MORE THAN IDLE GOSSIP.

==But, we live in an era when people vastly overestimate governmental power/abilities, thanks to Hollywood and spy novels...and for some reason keep using Pre-Church commission frames of references for their arguments, even when, in reality, governments are becoming less and less powerful, relatively speaking.==

That's right, people, move on, there is nothing to see here, just old, weak, hapless government trying to do its job protecting you, in a post-Church reference frame, move on, move on...

Interested Guy,

good points

You're the head honcho of the NSA, charged with scoping out and eavesdropping on potential terrorist threats to the country buried somewhere amongst countless millions of phone conversations every day.
Someone--we don't know who--calls you up and says he/she wants you to spy on, er, 'monitor' the phone conversations of the ex-wife of the Prince of Wales. Think about that. Take your tax dollars and mine to spy on Di.
I cannot conjure up any conceivable legitimate rationale for the NSA to spend one nano-second listening to 'Her Highness' talking on the phone. Was it because Dodi Fayed was from the Middle-East and thus a potential terrorist? Is that it? Sounds like a Dick Cheney thing.
Are we sure this 'story' wasn't 'leaked' by The Colbert Report or The Daily Show or The Onion? Or Eric Idle? Or Benny Hill? Or The Mad Hatter?
About the time you think you've heard absolutely everything . . .

To the first poster - the CIA and the NSA are not the same thing. There are 16 or so members of the intelligence community, and in case you've missed the reports, they aren't exactly talking well to each other...

Regarding ECHELON - intercepting electronic communications is something you can do in your very own home. Those comms propogate all around the world and can be intercepted by anybody with the right gear. Although cell phones aren't covered by this, U.S. courts have repeatedly ruled that HF and VHF comms are not considered "private communications," since all you need is an antenna. Secondly, intercepting is not the same thing as analyzing. Do you really think they can process all that information? (If you do, then you've got no idea the type of processing power that would require, never mind that 99% of it would be junk anyway).

Finally, the poster who noted the connections to terrorism financing is probably right on the money.

He might not be. Perhaps something fishy IS going on. But I'm betting it was for that potential link to terrorism.

But, we live in an era when people vastly overestimate governmental power/abilities, thanks to Hollywood and spy novels...and for some reason keep using Pre-Church commission frames of references for their arguments, even when, in reality, governments are becoming less and less powerful, relatively speaking.

Either the CIA and the British secret service has a reciprocal agreement -- we spy on your people and you can spy on ours; or, some CIA agents were entertaining themselves listening in on Diana. It tells us a lot about what the CIA was preoccupied with before 9-11. This outrageous situation needs to be thoroughly investigated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

I am surprised that no one has mentioned ECHELON.
I spent some time in Ireland from 97 through 99 and if you read the newspaper you knew about Echelon and the NSA listening to ALL electronic communication, except those on American soil, the Constitution and all that.
Fill us in on the back story, will ya Mr Arkin?

George Bush liberated Iraq and Afghanistan. Bill Clinton liberated his penis.

I'm glad to hear that the NSA is doing it's job well. Celebrity gossip and the tabloid factor are not what the NSA would be looking at with Princess Diana. Rather anything to do with Dodi Fayed (sp?)and his family would be what the NSA would be looking at. The Fayed family has old connections to the financial support of worldwide terrorist organizations. So, it would be nice if everyone would move past the "standing in the grocery line" National Enquirer media blurb mentality that seems to purvaded this country.

KISS (Keeping It Simple Stupid)

A newly elected Democrat (Chris Carney) and 3-Star General Michael Delong are both saying there is additional prewar intelligence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda??

Sure looks like it..
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/12/what_does_congressman_elect_ch/
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/09/3star_general_reveals_addition/

Maybe the Senate Intel committee should have looked a little harder than just questioning Saddam and his cronies on the issue

Great point. What the hell are we wasting intelligence assets on watching Princess Di for?

Maybe it was just some perv with a crush on her...

Observer wrote:
--U.S. Intel monitored Princess Diana because they were asked to do so by U.K. Intel Agencies...off the record of course.
The question we should ask is: For Whom the Quid Pro Quo???--

The question we should ask is why not "monitor" Hilary Clinton, or Nancy Polosi, or you or me. Who was the "decider" when it came to allowing the monitoring? What oversight did it receive, if any? If anything it should give this new Congress, and all of us, something to wonder about and investigate.

felicity wrote:
--Don't you remember Georgie told us why, "He (Saddam) tried to kill my daddy."

That doesnt explain why the rest of the administration went along with it, why Cheney lied, etc... Maybe it helped Bush to go along with PNAC's stated wish, but there had to be more to it than that. An assassin would have been more logical and more lethal if that was all Bush was interested in. No, I think Bush not only wanted Saddam out, he wanted our troops to be there for the long haul, maybe to provide a frontline to Iran or anyone who wanted to threaten future oil supplies. We're building bases there for the long term, and they ain't there to be a deterrent to AQ or any other nut case group. Maybe Bush really thought he could bring democracy to a land that had never seen it and make friends after bombing their families and tribesmen into pieces. I just cannot put myself into his head, but that's actually ok with me.

Sully said

I'm not completely sure what Bush thought he'd get out of it though.

Silly, silly, Sully. Don't you remember Georgie told us why, "He (Saddam) tried to kill my daddy." (Afterall, WWI was kicked off when some archduke and his wife were killed by some crazy Serb.)

felicity wrote:
--Conspiratorial lying or just flat-out incompetency - probably an admixture of both.--

Incompetence breeds lying and other deceit to cope with the incompetence when it cannot be admitted.

TJ wrote:
--So if Bush was lying then according to the same logic the deception must have begun with the Clintonistas who were making alarmist claims about Iraqi WMDs long before W came on the scene.--

Clinton cooperated with the UN inspectors, Bush waved them off and told them to get out of the way. I don't think anyone is saying there was no conflicting intelligence, but it is the case that Clinton did not invade Iraq due to it being an imminent threat and Bush did. Clinton worked with the weapons inspectors and Bush did not.

You'll need to explain why the Bush administration would ignore UN weapons inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ and at the same time say that he KNEW they had WMD and he KNEW where they were. If he had invaded and Saddam actually had chemical and biological weapons and used them, it would have been Bush that would be blamed for not allowing the weapons inspectors to properly remove those weapons. If Hussein had them thousands, mostly civilians, would have died. Either way Bush did not do the right thing in invading Iraq while weapons inspectors were on the ground. The only conclusion I can come to is that Bush was sure there was no WMD, lied to keep the hype up, and hurried the invasion before the weapons inspectors could prove it. I'm still not conpletely sure what Bush thought he'd get out of it though. That is confusing to me. Maybe he was hoping Chalabi would be president of Iraq and Bush could have a winter on the Tigres. Who knows what goes through his little mind.

Get a cognitive grip Arkin,
U.S. Intel monitored Princess Diana because they were asked to do so by U.K. Intel Agencies...off the record of course.
The question we should ask is: For Whom the Quid Pro Quo???

Who's going to give Franks the $15 million? And why? There lies a tale.

When it comes to the maneuverings of government? Conspiratorial lying or just flat-out incompetency - probably an admixture of both. The former has to be ruled out of it involves more than three people, the standard limit necessary for a secret to stay secret. The latter is inherent to our species, no matter the august sounds of our job descriptions, titles, or pay scale.

There was never an Intelligence failure, but there was a disinformation operation to convince Americans that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the U.S. Many countries have chemical weapons including America. Richard Clarke, in his book, Against all Enemies, relates how Colin Powell reacted to the possible use of chemical weapons in the first Gulf War. He said, "We will just button up our tanks and keep on going."
Iraq didn't have a working nuclear power plant. It was not anywhere near having deliverable nuclear weapons. WMD was a fantasy designed to get us into Iraq. Making the Middle East democratic is another fantasy designed to keep us there. They are flat lying about Syria and Iran. They are not saints, but they pose no real threat to the homeland. If the Bush Administration keeps pushing them into a corner, they might pose a threat to American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need these people. They hate al-Qaida, and al-Qaida is our only real enemy in the Islamic World. Most of these other terrorist groups have national goals that do not effect U.S. vital interest.
As for Israel, for those who are interested, They could have had peace along time ago if they and the Bush administration would have talked to Arafat, Syria, and Lebanon. Because they wouldn't talk to Arafat, Hamas replaced the PLO. The first invasion of Lebanon brought about the rise of Hizbollah. They got rockets from Hizbollah during the latest war, and rockets from Hamas and Islamic Jihad from the Gaza strip. If they mess with Syria or Iran, they will get conventional missiles from them. If Bush messes with Iran, Israel will be the first target.
Force has its limits, and you need to talk to people.

Why are Clinton, Gore, Albright and Berger consistently excused by this paper for their part in spinning up and lying to the public about Hussein's WMDs? The first administration to warn us repeatedly about SH's chemical weapons came from the same administration that decided to spy on British Royalty instead of looking for Bin Ladin. The history of WMDs in Iraq did not begin in the year 2000 when W took office. It began in the mid-90's with repeated warnings from Clinton and company about the threat that Hussein supposedly posed. So if Bush was lying then according to the same logic the deception must have begun with the Clintonistas who were making alarmist claims about Iraqi WMDs long before W came on the scene.

Arkin wrote:
--Second there is a suggestion of an omniscient government. Domestically, the impact of this fantasy has its own effect: People believe that Bush and company indeed "knew" the truth about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or know the truth about the end of Iraq, but choose to ignore the truth. They may indeed have ignored any evidence that didn't fit with their agenda, but they no more knew the "truth" before March 2003 anymore than they know or can see the truth today.--

I think it is really amazing that after all these years, folks are still pushing the "we didn't know" business. Everyone who wasn't spending all their time in soiled underwear after 9/11 (apparently this doesn't include most members of Congress, the media and the ever-brave "pundits") would quickly come to the logical conclusion that whatever shenanigans Iraqis were up to with their WWI WMD "efforts" or efforts posed a minimal threat to the security of the West. That was the conclustion of most spy agencies outside CIA/MOssad. They accepted that SH could have some WMDs (can't conclusively prove a negative), but that they were minimal and non-threatening, given the current condition of Iraq and the disposition of its government. Everyone knew that, including the administration.

What they were doing was wipping up the public hysteria over SH's WMD as an only way to get the country to back this insane war. WMD was only a propaganda weapon and not in the hands of the Iraqis. The so called "failure to find WMDs" were only a failure in a sense that some small quantity of "live" WMDs were not there - causing the embarassment to the propaganda effort. The "hunt for WMDs" was at no time an effort to find dangerous weapons that threaten this country. It was always simply a way to justify the propaganda campaign to start a war. "The lie" was really much more pernicious than claiming Saddam had WMDs. It was to claim that whatever he had was a threat to us. Just think, the congressional fools got a briefing before the war claiming Saddam was going to sail some UAVs to the Eastern seaboard and spray anthrax over NYC and Boston - and they BELIEVED it!

Living in Europe it was common knowledge that those weapons the weasel bush claimed existed, that is why there were so many demonstrations opposing the war,
BUT Bush and Buddies wanted to be a war time President for the Glory,
just ego, but then EGO stands for easing God out!

Clinton Administration spying on someone he didn't grope? Hard to believe, and doesn't scare a waterboy like Bill Arkin. Too busy taking a 52% democratic congressional victory and warping it into insults to 48% of Americans. Kinda like Kofi Annan praising Peace, bahing Bush and honoring Truman, omitting the whole atomic bomb thing. The truly nutting DNC hacks that run the media. And we wonder why the WaPo publisher is crying to the NY Times that this is the worst year for newspaper. Hey, we vote with our pocketbook, and toads like Billy Arkin make us sick.

Arkin wrote:
--Second there is a suggestion of an omniscient government. Domestically, the impact of this fantasy has its own effect: People believe that Bush and company indeed "knew" the truth about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or know the truth about the end of Iraq, but choose to ignore the truth. They may indeed have ignored any evidence that didn't fit with their agenda, but they no more knew the "truth" before March 2003 anymore than they know or can see the truth today.--

Well Arkin you'll need to explain to me why, in the months before the invasion while UN inspectors were on the ground looking for WMD, and while Cheney was saying we not only knew they had WMD but we knew where they were, we did not give that information to the UN inspectors even after they asked for it. If anything damns this administration as liars it is that.

American Foreign Policy...

It can be summed up in a simple statement, America can do whatever it wants, other nations are not as priveleged and are to be constrained by any means neccessary!

Britain the USA and others have forever, it seems, spied/surveilled upon both their friends and their enemies, even parabolically.

U.N. members have been spied upon since the inception of the U.N. right down until today. American has spied on all of its friends including old friends like Sadat and Mubarak, and we supply on other heads-of-state even today.

As far we are concerned, and not America alone, there is no such thing as a border or privacy. We believe in freedom of speech and freedom to listen or intercept communications. Is it any wonder that we have more satellites in space than any other nation in the world. And no nation, not even Russian or CHina are at a close second?

Having said that, I still do not get the tie-in between the two, Diana and Tommy. The U.S.A. was probably hoping to garner some information about the Prince that she was dating.

Anyone upset about Cointelpro, amd that the U.S.A. government spied on Doctor King and the other freedom fighters in the U.S.A.. Now that was criminal!