Bolton's Adagio in DU minor ......

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the reason."
-- Paul Wolfowitz; Vanity Fair; Jan 2004

In 1998, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton were among the neoconservatives who wrote an infamous letter to President Bill Clinton, demanding that the United States remove Saddam Hussein from power. This was to become an obsession with them. In "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by Ron Suskind, we find that in the very first National Security Council meeting (1-30-01), it was decided to make the removal of Saddam the primary focus of Middle Eastern policy.

O'Neil states that, "From the start, we were building the case against Hussein ans looking at how we could take him out ... It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President was saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"

On May 8, 2001, President Bush issued a statement called "Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction." In it, Bush noted, "Some non-state terrorist groups have ... demonstrated an interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction .... It is clear that the threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons being used against the United States -- while not immediate -- is very real."

In "Worse Than Watergate," John Dean notes that at this time, President Bush "asked Cheney 'to oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that e may do the very best possible job of protecting our people fromcatastrophic harm.'" Bush then created an Office of National Preparedness within FEMA to implement Cheney's recommendations. This was a way, Dean explains, to derail the Rudman-Hart commission's proposals. (see pages 108-110)

VP Cheney's plans to protect the USA apparently failed on 9-11. Richard Clarke, who had served in high-level positions for four presidents, would later detail being pressured by President Bush to connect 9-11 with Saddam. (See "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore for a film clip of Clarke, as well as numerous examples of Bush officials lying to the American public about the "threat" Saddam posed to this country with his WMDs.)

In "Losing America," Senator Robert Byrd tells of his frustration in trying to get the truth about Iraq and WMDs from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Thus, he requested that CIA Director "George Tenet brief us privately prior to the Iraq war, back when the administration was conjuring up visions of 'mushroom clouds' and death-dealing vials of germ warfare carried by missles aimed at U.S. cities. Tenet told us then, that no tangible evidence connected Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. He also had no hard evidence confirming development of a nuclear program in Iraq. There was virtually no link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the days before we created a hotbed for terrorist wrath by attacking Iraq." (pages71-2)

If no such evidence existed, who might have come up with all the lies fed to the American public? In "The Politics of Truth," Joe Wilson explains, "The neoconservatives who have taken us down this path are ... a small pack of zealots whoe dedication has spanned decades, and ...through years of recruitment has become a government cult with cells in most of the national security system. Among those cells are the secretive Office of Special Plans in the Department of Defense ... and a similar operation in the State Department that is managed in the office of Undersecretary for Disarmament John Bolton." (page 432)

In September of 2002, the first public mention of an Iraqi attempt to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger was made in a British "White Paper." However, as we know, Wilson had already investigated this, and concluded it was not true. Two other US investigators had reached the same conclusion before Wilson. (The UN's IAEA would soon call the documents the US provided them on the Niger uranium "forgeries.") And the UN weapons inspectors were finding no evidence of WMD production, which threatened to expose "the one issue that everyone could agree on," to quote Wolfowitz, as a fabrication.

So on December 19, 2002 the State Department issued a "fact sheet" of Iraqi WMD violations. Included in the first draft was "a reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger. The reference was apparently scrubbed soon after, and the Niger charged was removed -- at least for a time. News reports after the fact suggested that the neoconservative mole in the State Department, John Bolton, the under secretary for Arms Control, had slipped the reference into the first version, but someone at State had caught the mistake and deleted it." (Wilson; page 302.)

In time, Wilson would expose the Niger lie for what it was. The Bush administration reacted by exposing his wife's identity as a covert CIA agent. I believe that Bolton's role in that is indicated in the following, from page 445 of his book: "In fact, senior advisors close to the president may well have been clever enough to have used others to do the actual leaking, in order to keep their finger prints off the crime. John Hannah and David Wurmser, mid-level political appointees in the vice president's office, have both been suggested as sources of the leaks. I don't know either, though at the time of the leak, Wurmser, a prominent neoconservative, was working as a special assistant to John Bolton at the State Department. Mid-level officials, however, do not leak information without authority from a higher level. They would have been instruments, not the makers, of decisions."

I think that it is important that DUers take the time to write a LTTE of their local paper, explaining that the democratic opposition to John Bolton becoming UN Ambassador isn't based on him being a grumpy fellow. It's based on his being a criminal.

These guys are done and they don't even know it yet, the present has yet to catch up to their future. Their acts, thinking, being is so egregious that there is no way they will be able to escape judgment. Fate has a way of coming to call when you least expect it. And if Bolton had a hand in Plame that just adds weight to the scales.

that no one would even read this!

But it happens to the best of us now and then. (grin)

:thumbsup:

waking up way too early, and listening to Albinoni's Adagio in G Minor, from The Doors Box Set (disc #1, song 13) while reading DU at 4 am.

It struck me that when the neocons were determined to take Saddam out, they didn't say, "He's a mean and grumpy man, who is opposed to democracy." Rather, they lied about him being connected to 9/11, and made up some things about WMDs. Then, once Saddam was out of power, and it turned out there were no WMD programs, Bolton makes a statement in london that WMD "isn't really the issue. The issue, I think, has been the capability that Iraq sought to have ....WMD programs." (Wilson; page 374)

There really is no lie these people will not tell. And once caught in one lie, they have a second and a third lie at their fingertips. Bolton has no shame.

We need to look closely at their tactics. I am not suggested we copy them. But we can't let their lies stand. They are planning to have Bush sneak him in the back door while the senate is in recess. And they are telling the public that democrats oppose Bolton because he is grumpy. Baloney. We need to work hard in the next week, and get LTTE out with a clear message: we oppose Bolton because he is a criminal who lies and manipulates "evidence" in order to further his agenda. And he does not care how many human beings suffer or die; he just wants power.

you jest!

But there is rarely anything else us mere mortals can add to your posts!
:yourock:

what people in other countries think of the USA. Not the ruling classes of Europe, Asia, South America, or Africa. And not the military or para-military. Just the average citizens, who struggle to get by, who want to enjoy their family, who have to worry about putting food on their tables, and who have to worry about tanks and machine guns and IED. What must they think about Americans, who would possibly allow the administration to send the most vile criminal to the UN to serve as an ambassador?

I appreciate your compliment. Let's hope that we can make our voices heard on this issue. And let us always remember that we are speaking for those who have no other voice here, but who are the victims of an American aggression that threatens world peace.

from the OP:

If no such evidence existed, who might have come up with all the lies fed to the American public? In "The Politics of Truth," Joe Wilson explains, "The neoconservatives who have taken us down this path are ... a small pack of zealots whoe dedication has spanned decades, and ...through years of recruitment has become a government cult with cells in most of the national security system. Among those cells are the secretive Office of Special Plans in the Department of Defense ... and a similar operation in the State Department that is managed in the office of Undersecretary for Disarmament John Bolton." (page 432)

nominated

Damn, but that's a perfect way to put it!

is why the administration is working so hard to push Bolton in as UN ambassador. Not onlt to reward him for his criminal activity, which common sense would indicate included participating in the cover-up of the Plame exposure. Bolton's intel group is part of the group that brought us the "neocon spy scandal," which has shades of Iran-Contra, and he has been a key player in advocating Cheney's policies. The goal of putting him in at the UN is to put him in a position to advance the aggressive neoconservative policies while neutralizing UN opposition.

But maybe it should be a Requiem?

I would be willing to bet money I don't have (thanks to Bush's economy) that Valerie Plame is one of the names on that list Bush is witholding.

I'm sure Bolton was Novak's contact.

(and I believe that Hannah admitted this to the grand jury) then I think Wilson is correct in saying these two could not have known Plame's identity without a high-level official telling them -- and giving them "permission" (an order) to leak it to Novak. However, Novak's article was specific in describing two high-level officials; Hannah and Wurmser are technically mid-level. I think Bolton is one of Novak's contacts. I think others are willing to fall on their swords to protect him.

Recommended. This entire cabal is criminal, I hope justice is served ...

Martin Luther King Jr noted, "Power is not the white man's birthright; it will not be legislated for us and delivered in neat government packages. It is a social force any group can utilize by accumulating its elements in a planned, deliberate campaign to organize it under its own control." I think the democratic left, especially at the grass roots level, is becoming organized, and beginning to utilize its power. I hope we can help to lobby the congress to start investigating the criminals in this administration.

there's certainly got to be an organized way to effect change today.

I think the democratic left, especially at the grass roots level, is becoming organized, and beginning to utilize its power. I hope we can help to lobby the congress to start investigating the criminals in this administration.

I agree, and I am so thankful for the internet as it has been key in helping to inform and organize.

I do not think that the advantages the internet have provided the democratic left were anticipated.

Speaking of slow tempo, I guess there's nothing new on the Plame front these days?

Thank you for providing all the ammo for a greeat LTTE, maestro.

is supposed to consider the appeal by Miller this month. Very slow process.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1119344732543

The cases are scheduled for review at the Court's Thursday private conference, the last of the term.

snip

Miller is represented by First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams while Cooper and Time turned to former Solicitor General Theodore Olson and his Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Miguel Estrada. In addition, attorneys general from 34 states and the District submitted an amicus brief asking the Court to clarify the law.

------

Olson and Estrada. Must be important to the usurpers. :evilgrin:

It's almost as if they are trying to send a subtle message, eh?

Abrams is someone I have a good deal of respect for. Years ago, NYT's reporter Selwyn Raab was being pressured by New Jersey officials who were upset by his role in uncovering police misconduct in the Rubin Carter case. He was being asked to testify, and Abrams was prepared to fight it. Raab was a "first class" man, and he decided to testify.

I can't help but think if defendants were simply contesting this on the constitutional issues involved, they would only need Abrams. The addition of Olson seemed to be for reasons other than that.

"Some non-state terrorist groups have ... demonstrated an interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction .... It is clear that the threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons being used against the United States -- while not immediate -- is very real."

Is it just me, or does this sound like someone saying, "Please stand by for a 'terrorist' attack".???

Yes, I'm big into conspiracy theories, and if there's one thing I've learned from DUH-bya, you can be the biggest lying piece of crap in the world, and still get your own way in the end.

If there was definitive proof of the WTC and Pentagon attacks being orchestrated by the lunatics running the circus, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, but rather relieved the truth was finally out...

in a strange presentation. I do not subscribe to either MIHOP or LIHOP, though I keep an open mind. I think that move on the administration's part was odd. Though I believe it was an ill-advised attempt by Cheney to consolidate power within the White House (not unlike Nixon), I can see how others would view it in a different context.

Who was the administration hack that wrote in the summer of 2001 in response to the idea that Osama bin Laden was a threat to the United States that "Osama doesn't have any missiles" or something like that?

This is a very important post that all DUers should read.

:kick:

It is a sin some so called journalist in the USA can not make this same connection and make it front page. Thank you for your fine work and I hope as Joe Wilson said before the last selection, he gets to see these fuckers exposed. (My words not his. I believe he used the word retribution.)