Important update from Carl Levin's Committee hearing

Lori Perdue just called me from a hearing room in the Senate. She will call back with more info, but she said "SOMEONE JUST TESTIFIED THAT THE INFORMATION ON THE LEADUP TO THE WAR WAS COOKED."

This was Carl Levin's Committee hearing. Lori said she just burst into tears.

She said to me, "Look what we did." With all our work we made them tell the truth.

She is going to call me back with the name of the person who gave the testimony.


Posted by: karen at February 9, 2007 11:51 AM

http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2007/02/i_have_reverted.html#comments

About Lori:

http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2007/02/meet_lori_perdu.html

*snif* Recommending.

at least not that I can find including the Committee's website. :shrug:

You'd think some honest soul would come fortha at some point with an inkling of truth.

Maybe there were no honest souls.

You're only passing this along, and many thanks. From Lori, it might be nice to get a few more details.

Reporting on the OSP
http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=2538

UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

_________________________________________________

There will be a meeting of the Committee on

ARMED SERVICES

Friday, February 9, 2007

9:30 AM

Room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building

OPEN/CLOSED*



To receive a briefing on the Department of Defense Inspector
General’s report on the activities of the Office of Special Plans prior
to the war in Iraq.


Mr. Thomas F. Gimble
Acting Inspector General
Department of Defense

* There will be a CLOSED session in SR-232A,
following the OPEN session.

A closed hearing? Does that mean it won't be covered by the media?

unclassified. NO?

But...gee, some "reporter" might have to read something to cover that. If it's on the TeeVee, it's real. :sarcasm:

Still, I'm hoping. Charlie Gibson surprises me pleasantly sometimes. I hear NBC has done some good work lately. Never mind La Couric.

said was that lies were told about the build up of this war, and they did nothing illigal in telling us the lies. How do you like that reporting?

"My eyes glaze over."

...still complicit after all these years...

That came to mind to the melody of Paul Simon's Still crazy after all these years

:argh:

even if you're not under oath.

And what is truth anyway ? Whatever Bushco and it's MSM tells you.

When Libby was indicted for perjury, she called it a "technicality"

However, when Clinton was charged with the same thing, it was HUGH!!!!! I'm SERIES.

The Federal Transcript service (or one of them) is releasing the hearing as fast as they can get it transcribed. I have been reading it as the parts get put up on the proprietary sites.

Gimble is providing COVER for these repukes if you haven't figured it out by now. Besides, Gimble himself was 'auditing' the DOD and doing a bunged up job of it since DoD can't find a missing $2.3 TRILLION (per CBS news War on Waste article at their website

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

Don't try telling me this shill Gimble or his predecessor Joseph Schmitz are anything but shills for this administration. It's all just 'damage control' for them.

It's in the WaPo article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387_pf.html

I imagine this live testimony goes into more detail. Great news!!

K&R

:kick:

Oh yeah..and it's about damn time! k&r

:applause:

pre-recorded programming!!!!!!

He may be slow and quiet. But he is persistent like no other. While I may be disappointed with a lot of Dem representatives, Carl has never truly let me down. I am proud to shake his hand every year.

I have a great deal of respect for the man.

what we all knew all along. Good news. Kick!

I guess this is why the white house did not want to lose Congress.

what a bunch of war criminals I wish they the Congress would just say it.

Details, details, details... need more details.. C'monnnnnn details.....

and has taken steps to see it doesn't happen again. :eyes: Like what? Planting WMD's in advance?

Huge difference.. I know YOU know, but I just had to say it anyway. I am on the edge of my seat here waiting for what will come next.

1. Cook intel in a private office to justify an illegal but profitable war.
2. Use cooked intel after it's revealed as such to justify consolidation of all intel efforts under a single Czar
3. Repeat, replacing Czar as necessary.

-Hoot

I just logged on and I'm seeing what we've all been waiting for for four and five years - and on TV I've got footage of microphones waiting for Anna Nichole andnow I've got pictures of friggin' snow.

AAAAARRRGGH!!!!

Are we mobilizing a media blitz? If we ever needed everyboy acting as one, it's RIGHT NOW.

I thought it was just me jumping up and down screaming!


Need more recs! This ought to be on top.

A Casino, nice hotel, and captivating scenery to boot!

in with the WaPo to see if anyone was even there today.

This is the spin the Repubs were giving it:

We've heard this before.
This is just a turf war between the intelligence agencies.
Nothing new here, keep on moving...

it won't play big unless we make it big--by telling folks the truth.

Maybe we can create an outline, where people can take the data they need and fill in with their own words. Can Tela help? She seems the best at getting points that will get published. Then we can just keep making posts and sending letters to get this covered.

And what about this, United States Code, Fraud & False Statements

18 U.S.C. §§ 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Go Carl! Please keep us updated as I am trapped at work and have occasional access to the internet.

motherfuckers.

:kick: ya bastards. :kick:

dammitalltohell.

and poster#24 above said transcripts are comint across the wire? Where would that be?

the link

Then they went into closed session. So something's being discussed folks.

More as we know it...

Posted by: karen at February 9, 2007 12:53 PM

btw... the spin is nauseating.

.

behind closed doors.

(Note Levin's conclusions)

LEVIN: We will put in the record the request, if it's not already in the record, of Chairman Roberts, of September 9, asking you, or your predecessor, to know whether -- to ascertain whether the personnel assigned to the Office of Special Plans, which was part of the Feith operation, at any time conducted inappropriate intelligence activities.

LEVIN: Your finding is clear that they did.

As to why they did not do what the process required them to do in making an intelligence assessment is something that we will find out, either with the Intelligence Committee or on our own. If they're looking into that aspect of it, we're not going to duplicate that aspect of it.

But the why these inappropriate activities were undertaken is an important question.

It was not the question you looked at because that gets into motive. You focused on whether or not the activities were inappropriate. You reached your conclusion. I think the evidence is overwhelming that your conclusion is correct.

We will now do the following: Any of us who have questions of you will put those questions in writing that can be answered in open. We're now going to go to a closed session, but we will have a period of, let's say, 48 hours to put together questions for you for the open record.

In addition, we will be talking to witnesses who presented that slide presentation to the Vice President's Office and to the National Security Council. So if you would supply us with the names of the people from the Feith office that did make this presentation, we will be interviewing those folks.

We will also seek interviews with Mr. Hadley, Mr. Libby, and see whether or not they will be willing to meet with us.

You said that Mr. Hadley declined to meet with you?

GIMBLE: The counsel over there declined to make him available.

LEVIN: All right.

Did you seek to talk to Mr. Libby as well?

GIMBLE: No, sir, we did not.

LEVIN: OK, since the presentation was to his staff, we will try to either talk to him or to his staff.

LEVIN: I believe he was, though, at the presentation, if I'm not -- is that correct, Mr. Libby was there?

GIMBLE: He was at the presentation.

LEVIN: So we will seek to talk to then, both Mr. Hadley, Mr. Libby. And we would appreciate your letting us know who it was, on behalf of the Feith office, that made this presentation.

We're now going to remove to the classified portion. It will not take long.

For crying out loud: it sounds like illicit sex, instead of treason.

(Note Levin's conclusions)

LEVIN: We will put in the record the request, if it's not already in the record, of Chairman Roberts, of September 9, asking you, or your predecessor, to know whether -- to ascertain whether the personnel assigned to the Office of Special Plans, which was part of the Feith operation, at any time conducted inappropriate intelligence activities.

LEVIN: Your finding is clear that they did.

As to why they did not do what the process required them to do in making an intelligence assessment is something that we will find out, either with the Intelligence Committee or on our own. If they're looking into that aspect of it, we're not going to duplicate that aspect of it.

But the why these inappropriate activities were undertaken is an important question.

It was not the question you looked at because that gets into motive. You focused on whether or not the activities were inappropriate. You reached your conclusion. I think the evidence is overwhelming that your conclusion is correct.

We will now do the following: Any of us who have questions of you will put those questions in writing that can be answered in open. We're now going to go to a closed session, but we will have a period of, let's say, 48 hours to put together questions for you for the open record.

In addition, we will be talking to witnesses who presented that slide presentation to the Vice President's Office and to the National Security Council. So if you would supply us with the names of the people from the Feith office that did make this presentation, we will be interviewing those folks.

We will also seek interviews with Mr. Hadley, Mr. Libby, and see whether or not they will be willing to meet with us.

You said that Mr. Hadley declined to meet with you?

GIMBLE: The counsel over there declined to make him available.

LEVIN: All right.

Did you seek to talk to Mr. Libby as well?

GIMBLE: No, sir, we did not.

LEVIN: OK, since the presentation was to his staff, we will try to either talk to him or to his staff.

LEVIN: I believe he was, though, at the presentation, if I'm not -- is that correct, Mr. Libby was there?

GIMBLE: He was at the presentation.

LEVIN: So we will seek to talk to then, both Mr. Hadley, Mr. Libby. And we would appreciate your letting us know who it was, on behalf of the Feith office, that made this presentation.

We're now going to remove to the classified portion. It will not take long.

.

Wolf had Feith on earlier helping him spin the story silly. Isn't it amazing how quickly Wolf worked to get Feith on the air? :sarcasm:

That Moron, Brooks, tried to minimize the whole thing. Said, in substance, it wasn't important.

I thought Mark Shields was going to jump out of his chair. He said (paraphrasing) it sure was important. It was about taking the country to war on a lie.

uncompassion, greed, and stupidy exists! that's why at least 50% who supported Bush in 02 did so. They couldn't imagine anyone so evil as to start a war on lies.

talking point. "Beating a dead horse." "Nothing new."

How about "Explosive." or "Impeachable."

They spent more time showing the republican saying "why do we have to beat a dead horse?", than analyzing what this means.

and avoid the black hole of news coming to the fore late Fridday afternoon.

:kick:

dp