The most extraordinary part of the story today about Israel’s decision to kill Mustafa Zibri was to my mind the accuracy of the missile and the confidence of the Israelis in its use. This amazing weapon was fired by a helicopter into the third floor of a building and was so accurate it actually decapitated its target. Americans and other innocents in the same building were completely unharmed. Amazing. But talk about an invasion of privacy! This must be the most high-tech assassination ever, and makes me wonder how anyone is truly safe. The less extraordinary part is the way in which the Bush administration urged Israel to calm down. It seems pretty clear to me that we are in the early stages of a real war. At this point, Israel has little choice but to seize the initiative. But if Sharon doles this strategy out piece-meal, he will surely die a slow death in international opinion. Far better to invade far more extensively, retrench quickly and build a new wall to defend the Jewish state in one fell swoop. If that means large parts of the West Bank are simply ceded, along with Israeli settlers, so be it. But the invasion had better be bolder and swifter than this phony war if Israel is to get away with it. And getting away with it now could well be critical for the long-term survival of Israel.
HOW PREGNANT WAS CHANDRA?: Bob Somerby is on a roll at the Daily Howler. He pinpoints something that, I think, tells you quite a lot. It’s been a recurring theme of the Condit lynching that Chandra was pregnant when she disappeared. That’s what the now-authoritative National Enquirer reported. That’s the implication behind Chandra’s statement on her last recorded phone message to her aunt: “And I have some big news ? Call me.” It’s also a critical piece of information that lends suspicion to Condit. If Levy was pregnant, he has a motive for something drastic, like murder. Now Vanity Fair’s Judy Bachrach tells Paula “Psychic News Network” Zahn that Levy wasn’t pregnant:
“BACHRACH: Finally, I think something has to be said. [Condit] is constantly accused of having made Chandra Levy disappear because she was pregnant. She was not pregnant. Her own mother says Chandra Levy was not pregnant at the time of her disappearance. She had just had her period a week or two before her disappearance.
ZAHN: All right, you know I heard you say that on another program, I’m like, you know, who talks to their mothers about their cycles? But-
BACHRACH (interrupting): They had it at the same time, and they had it over Passover [April 8], when the daughter was visiting the mother.”
So the mother clearly knew her daughter wasn’t pregnant (and the Levy family is obviously one of those where menstrual cycles are discussed over dinner). So why did she let the press continue with this charade? Susan Levy told Talk’s Lisa DePaulo in June that “we don’t think she was pregnant.” In mid-July, the Levys’ hatchet-man Billy Martin said, “We do not yet have a final answer on that.” What’s the point of this deception except to leave Condit hanging in the wind? Either Judy Bachrach is lying or the Levys are lying. I believe Bachrach.
WHO WAS REALLY IMPEDING THE INVESTIGATION?: When did the cops first respond seriously to the disappearance of Chandra Levy? The answer is May 7, after they were called by Michael Dayton, Condit’s top aide. If it weren’t for Condit, even more time would have been lost. And the cops are accusing Condit of impeding the search for Chandra? According to a recent story in the Washington Times, “‘It was the congressman’s staff that finally got the police interested, when a member of his staff called police on Monday, May 7, and said a constituent was missing. He called both the D.C. police and the FBI,’ the source said.” The only critical lost time in this investigation was the first few days, when security cameras in Levy’s apartment still had the tapes that could have given a real clue to what happened. Whose fault? The cops. And they still won’t answer relevant questions. Here’s the damning extract from the Times: “Questions from The Times that neither Chief Ramsey nor his deputies would answer include the possible effect of the department’s having abolished a missing persons squad when it decentralized detective bureaus during the past five years. The chief also would not say whether Detectives Durant and Kennedy are among detectives who, as he testified in January before the D.C. Council, were promoted without passing merit exams. Nor would the department describe their qualifications to lead such an investigation.” I’ve insisted all along that the real story here is police incompetence. But that wouldn’t help the ratings, would it?
NO IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS?: One of the more damning “facts” to have emerged during the Condit lynching is the notion that Levy’s lack of baggage or even i.d. when she disappeared implicates Condit because he allegedly always asked his tricks to leave any identifying marks behind. But the same story in the Washington Times by reporter, Frank Murray, states that “Police also are said to no longer credit a report by Miss Levy’s aunt, Linda Zamsky, that Mr. Condit told Miss Levy not to carry identification when she was with him.” Hmmm. There goes another theory. I wonder what other Zamsky theories the police don’t buy. But, as Somerby notes, I won’t hold my breath waiting for the press corps to follow up.
The Dish 