Look at Cheney's scrawl on Joe Wilson's Times op-ed piece

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/cheney-notes/

Look at what he underlines. Does anyone seriously believe he was making these notes *for himself?*

I was just about to post it myself. While others are consumed with Rove, THIS is the Friday Fitzgerald bombshell.

As Josh says...



This is what I call some real drip...drip...drip. This kinda makes one wonder if all the Rove noise is a smoke screen for something bigger...

;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1185077&mesg_id=1185077

And yeah, it is something that people are distracted by what may be a nonstory. I'd rather see Cheney busted, if we have a choice. Both would be great, but Cheney is the prize I hope Fitzgerald has his eyes on.

I just watched him nail George Ryan...it took several years and he had to indict several of his underlings until they gave up the big fish. Methinks this may be the game plan here as well.

This may take as long.

I wouldn't be surprised if Fitz is basing his charges along the RICO guidelines...that the booosh regime are like mafia racketeers. Methinks it's a big Crashcart that may eventually end up in Fitz's net...how deliciously ironic.

Cheers...

:hi:

the "ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq - and that she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington." (Cheney's underscored part is the part enclosed by my using quotation marks, the quotation marks aren't in the article itself)

Isn't it interesting Cheney didn't ask any questions related to this in his notated questions at the top of the article. One would think, if they didn't already know the allegation was bogus, that he would have posited the question, "What reports, why weren't we made aware of these?"

The only reason this part is underscored, imo, is further proof that they already knew and Cheney was directing his little henchmen to find ways to discredit the ambassador mentioned in this article by Wilson.

the fact in an attempt to manufacture evidence.

send him on a junket?") straight from Dick Cheney's desk to your eyes.

It seems too exactly like the spin that the war profiteering corporate news monopolies compliantly spun, in gratitude for their fat war profits.

I thought Karl wrote those scripts. THAT wouldn't surprise me--that this was Karl writing. But Dick? Seems like a lowly task for the Dick.

What would this scribble have been manufactured to accomplish?

Guess: To give plausibility to the narrative that all this (outing of Plame/Brewster-Jennings) was mainly about Joe Wilson, to punish him for his dissenting article--and not, say, a deliberate, long-planned set up to destroy the CIA WMD counter-proliferation network, in order to, a) implement a scheme to plant WMDs in Iraq after the invasion, or, b) remove that obstacle (the CIA) to manufacturing a war with Iran, or, c) to more freely engage in dirty arms dealings around the world.

Outing a CIA agent and the entire WMD counter-proliferation network that she headed, for political reasons--as political punishment of Wilson--is, in other words, the least of what they did/are doing, re WMDs. So Cheney leaves a breadcrumb trail to it.

Although you still have to wonder why he would leave such a large breadcrumb to himself. Why write this at all, and leave it lying about your office on a newspaper? Why not just TELL somebody "or did his wife send him on a junket?" (Hubris--thinking they will never be caught--aside...)

Guess: Again, it smells. It's as if they too fervently want us to believe that Cheney was marking up the article, and formulating the political attack (not incidentally using top secret information to do so).

I don't know. I'm thinking Rumsfeld, as mastermind. Rumsfeld set the whole, long term scheme up--starting way back with the Rome meeting in 2001 (where the Niger forgeries were likely cooked up, along with a scheme to then plant the nukes in Iraq), and Cheney was in some sense Rumsfeld's errand boy, not a "decider" on the main crimes, but put to the task of political spin of one part of the scheme. Maybe Cheney thought that that's what he was really doing--"getting" a junta enemy (Wilson)--and maybe didn't realize that that was all a front story? Maybe Cheney was set up in this way--by Rumsfeld--to be caught out front holding the bag. (Payback for that missile that hit the Pentagon? Was it meant to kill Rumsfeld?) A bit of a novelizaton here, I know--but you really have to get down to potboiler level to figure these people out. What would be the motives in a crime gang? Keeping the world safe for democracy would not be one of them. Stabbing your old crime buds in the back, and grabbing all the power, fits them.)

Niger trip.

Oh come on. Something is wrong with this picture.

Cheney's NSA boys (and girls*) keep tabs on everybody. They knew when Wilson blew his nose probably.

I am amazed how quickly people will continue to take the bait from indidividuals who have tricked us, lied to us, manipulated us, for as long as I have been awake (and long before when I was asleep).

Think about it. Do the notes make sense? Who benefits? Why has it taken so long to publish these "notes"?

"Have they done this sort of thing before?
Send an Ambr to answer a question?
Do we ordinariy send people out
pro bono to work for us?

Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

handwriting? Just anticipating the doubting freepers.

has been relentlessly, for more than a year, promulgating the junta's lies about Iraq WMDs on its front pages, via its ace reporter Judith Miller, who was also engaging in clandestine, 'Mata Hari' meetings with Libby about how best to smear Wilson, and continue lying to the American people.

Strange doings. I'm inclined to think that Part One of the WMD-planting theory of Traitorgate is true: That the "crude" Niger forgeries were meant to be quickly discovered as forgeries, that Wilson was lured into stating the CIA's anti-Iraq-nukes position in public*, and that the trump card--for destroying the CIA--was to be the "find" of the planted nukes in Iraq (by Judith Miller, who was leading the US troops around "hunting" for them, with--according to her--a special embed contract signed by Donald Rumsfeld). But something went wrong. SOMEBODY foiled the planting of the nukes. Part Two of the scheme (whose chief aims were to permanently discredit the CIA, and cement Bush/Blair's political position) didn't come off. And who would have been in the best position to track illicit weapons into Iraq, if not our own, farflung, WMD counter-proliferation network--a secret network that had been 20 years in the making--whose purpose was to STOP illicit nuke and other WMD proliferation? They may not even have known WHO they were stopping. And when you think about Manucher Ghorbanifar's presence at the Rome meeting (along with Michael Ladeen and other Neo-Cons and the Italian fascists)--Ghorbanifar, the notorious Iran-Contra arms dealer, and known liar and persona non grata at the CIA--you have to figure, a) he wasn't there to cook up "crude" forgeries, and b) the CIA likely had a permanent button on him, via its counter-proliferation network, and would have automatically acted to curtail/prevent his movement of illicit weapons.

*(This part of the scheme would be why the NYT editorial page would print Wilson's article, when both its editorial and 'news' policy had, up to that point, been dictated by the White House. They were clued in by someone that it was 'okay' to print it.) (Bear in mind that this is a news rag that withheld the info on massive domestic spying for one year--until after the 2004 election--at the behest of the Bush junta. Would they have printed this Wilson bombshell, in the hot summer of pursuit of the WMDs, without getting permission from the junta?)

-----

Well, we'll see. It's a pretty good theory, but mostly speculation. It seems to hold up well as more facts come out. It was initially inspired by the death of the Brits WMD expert, David Kelly, under highly suspicious circumstances, four days after Plame was outed. Kelly's office and computers were searched after his death. Four days after that, Novak ADDITIONALLY outed the entire Brewster-Jennings network. What could Kelly have known that could have gotten him killed? It would certainly have been more that what he had been whistbleblowing about to the BBC (late May 2003--he was the anonymous source about the "sexed up" prewar Iran intel). Positing his knowledge of a Bushite scheme to plant nukes in Iraq helps make sense of a lot of mysteries about his last weeks on earth and his death--as well as the resonant coincidence of dates with the Plame outing. Also, there was a July 7 report to Blair on the results of interrogation of Kelly, which may have been the true "trigger" of the Plame outing, rather than the July 6 publication of Wilson's article. Wilson's article was likely anticipated; whereas Kelly's knowledge of their WMD-planting scheme may have come as a surprise, and may have startled the Bushites into the stupidest thing they ever did, involving at least six reporters (in one week) in the outing of a CIA agent, whose honest work to PREVENT war (rather than manufacture it) had long been a target, but who now--in their minds--posed a grave threat of exposure. It doesn't even matter whether or not Plame/BJ had actually been the ones who foiled their scheme--the Bushites THOUGHT they had. And if the Brits whistleblower Kelly knew--how far had it gone? Who else knew? Was exposure imminent? Panic on Air Force One. That's the theory.

Given the planted fake Bush National Guard / CBS fiasco, I'm not willing to believe this piece of paper until we have thorough and independent confirmation from numerous handwriting experts that the scrawl is Cheney's. And, even if it is, I want to know when it was written. Before or after the shit hit the fan?

J