Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Simple Q and A inspired by the "complicated" Libby case...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Sir Jeffrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:03 PM
Original message
Simple Q and A inspired by the "complicated" Libby case...
I got sick of explaining this case to friends and family in bits and pieces.

Copy and paste if you like:

A simplified Q and A about the Scooter Libby/CIA leak investigation.

1. So what is this thing all about? Why is it all over the news?

Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, was caught lying to the special prosecutor about his role in outing a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame.

2. Why is that such a big deal?

Valerie Plame was a NOC agent working on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and material. Outing her exposed not only her, but her company, Brewster-Jennings, to the world.

3. What is Brewster-Jennings? You just said she worked for the CIA.

Brewster-Jennings was a CIA front company. The CIA spent about 20 years and millions of dollars establishing this front company in Boston. Brewster-Jennings was involved in what is called counter-proliferation, which is very important to the security of the world. Once their cover was blown, they could no longer operate.

4. Does the CIA have a lot of front companies?

Yes. Airplane companies are probably the most popular, but by no means are they the only type.

5. Why did Libby lie about an investigation involving someone in counter-proliferation? It seems like they would want to find out who outed Valerie Plame and Brewster-Jennings.

Yes it would seem that way. The problem is that Dick Cheney, Libby's boss, was the guy that orchestrated the outing.

6. Wait. Dick Cheney orchestrated the outing of a CIA front company involved in counter-proliferation?

Yes.

7. Why?

Because he is an evil fucker.

8. No seriously, why?

Besides his being a evil fucker, he was pissed off at Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson.

9. Why was he mad at Joe Wilson?

Because Joe Wilson was sent by the CIA to investigate the lie that Bush told us in his 2002 State of the Union speech about Saddam Hussein seeking to purchase large quantities of yellowcake uranium from Niger. Joe Wilson came back and told the CIA that it was a bullshit story and that the "evidence" used to justify Bush's claims was an obvious forgery. Joe Wilson, upset that Bush lied in the State of the Union speech even after being told it was a lie, published his thoughts in a op-ed in the New York Times. Cheney had to shut Joe Wilson up.

10. So Cheney, in an effort to get back at Joe Wilson, outed not only Wilson's wife, a NOC agent working to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology and material to rogue states, but also outed an entire counter-proliferation network that took 20 years for the CIA to establish?

Yes.

11. That seems a bit much for petty political revenge. Is there more to it?

Of course! The area of expertise for Brewster-Jennings was the spread of nuclear weapons technology and material from former Soviet Union Republics like those in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

12. Wait, the Middle East?

Yes. That includes countries like, um, well, Iraq and Iran.

13. So Dick Cheney blew Brewster-Jennings entire working intelligence on the very area we are trying to keep from acquiring nuclear weapons?

Yes. While we were bitching about Iraq and Iran getting nukes, Dick Cheney was busy making it that much easier for them to get nukes should they want them (side note: no vetted intelligence has EVER been produced that Iraq had or Iran has a nuclear weapons program...just lies and obfuscation).

14. That seems like a pretty drastic measure to take just for petty political revenge. Is there anything else to it?

Take a look at this story from the BBC in late 2002 (during the run up to the Iraq War):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2286597.stm

This story involves highly enriched uranium stolen from Eastern Europe with the intent of being smuggled through Turkey into Iraq. Hmmm...lets look at the context here...

a country that shares a border with Iraq, two guys arrested for smuggling highly enriched uranium, a company involved with counter-proliferation whose specialty was the Middle East, Bush et al claiming Iraq had WMD stockpiles and had reconstituted their nuclear weapons program when there was absolutely no credible evidence to the contrary, within nine months of the seizure in Turkey a counter-proliferation front company is exposed...hmmm...

To me, it makes much more sense that both Joe Wilson AND Valerie Plame were involved in trying to expose the WMD myth perpetrated by the Bush Administration in the run up to war. Valerie (and probably some of her associates at Brewster-Jennings) had the inside knowledge on Cheney's plan to plant highly enriched uranium in Iraq to retroactively justify the war in Iraq. That explains why they would keep trotting out their line that Saddam had weapons when they KNEW he never did. Once Americans saw pictures of highly enriched uranium canisters found in Iraq, the war would be justified.

15. Nice theory, but why wouldn't they just plant something after that bust?

Once the cover was blown, there was no way to plant anything in Iraq after that. Turkey was under a spotlight as a known smuggling route. Other countries would closely monitor Turkey and the risk of exposure was very high.

Also, keep in mind that this is one story of a bust that made it through to a major news source. There are probably other instances out there that were not reported. My theory is that Brewster-Jennings probably stopped several attempts to plant uranium in Iraq.

15. Final question: So why isn't Dick Cheney under arrest for treason right now? Why was Scooter Libby the only guy convicted in this sordid affair?

Because Scooter Libby lied to the federal investigators and has to this date refused to give up the information he has on Cheney. So long as Libby keeps his mouth shut, the special prosecutor has no case against Cheney.

BTW expect Bush to pardon Libby before he leaves office in 2009.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. kicking truth to justice
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kicking and putting link to it in my sig line. Suggest others do same
Make people aware of the REAL reasons. It wasn't just a snit-fit on cheney's part. It was about the $$ to be made on war. It's ALWAYS about the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. K & R. Excellant. But on answer #1, wasn't he caught lying to the grand jury too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sir Jeffrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yes...
But I have noticed if you get into too much legal stuff people's eyes glaze over.

"Simplified" is important if we want to get people paying attention to the actual crime instead of the Libby crap. The media is not going to help us...we'll need to spread the word ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. gotcha. thx n/t
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scriptor Ignotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. nice summary
can you address the dick armitage - bob woodward conversation? i never was able to understand how they fit into this entire jigsaw puzzle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sir Jeffrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Sure...
Armitage's role is minor, but your question needs to be addressed because a lot of right wing types are saying that Armitage was the primary leaker, and therefore why wasn't Armitage charged.

Basically, Armitage was the first to say the name to a reporter, but he wasn't the first one disclosing her covert status. Valerie worked openly at the CIA, but she also had covert status at Brewster-Jennings.

Fitz looked into Armitage's role, but ultimately concluded that Armitage leaked the name but did so without knowledge of her covert status. The actual "leak" law has one element requiring intent i.e. knowingly leaking the name of a covert agent. Without intent, Armitage was just gossiping about someone's wife.

I am not saying that Armitage is clean. What I am saying is that Fitz had no evidence against Armitage to prove he had "scienter" (knowledge that what you have done is unlawful). No sense indicting Armitage if you know you won't be able to prove each element of the crime.

Besides, Fitz had all kinds of evidence against Libby and a ton of circumstantial evidence against Cheney. I think Fitz is waiting for Libby to flip and testify against Cheney. I also think Fitz knows that Libby will not flip so the criminal investigation ends there.

Of course, the Congress should be investigating this shit beginning yesterday. This is serious stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scriptor Ignotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. ok
I think that gels with what I know about it too. thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. Excellent article.
Thank you for laying it out so succinctly. K&R! :kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hwmnbn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
9. I cracked up at answer #7
7. Why?

Because he is an evil fucker. :rofl:


That pretty much sums it all up. The rest is icing on the cake. Thanks for taking the time to simplify this case so even freeper relatives like mine can understand it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sir Jeffrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I suppose I could have used that one line...
along with Havocmom's "Treason for profit" line from another thread.

Sadly, that basically sums up the last six years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
13. A slight correction to #9
Great Q&A btw.

I believe that before Wilson wrote his op-ed the 16 words were already in question and the admin was being pressed about it. Darth Cheney maintained that they did not discovery it was not true until after the SOTU address. That is when Joe Wilson wrote his op-ed to dispute the fact and say that the government was informed BEFORE the SOTU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sir Jeffrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Dammit...
you're right. I worded it to make it sound like Joe went to Africa after the SOTU when he actually went before.

It went:

Niger intel
Joe sent
Joe returns and tells them it is bullshit
Bush says it anyway
Joe leaks info to Kristof
Someone outs Joe as Kristof's source
Joe writes the Op-ed
Novakula outs Plame big time
Novakula outs Brewster-Jennings big time
Fitz begins investigating
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. close
Edited on Thu Mar-08-07 08:42 PM by never cry wolf
Niger intel
Joe sent
Joe returns and tells them it is bullshit
Bush says it anyway

(not sure about the Kristof connection, was he the one Wilson spoke to on background, not attributed, who stated the 13 words were a lie? I do know that about the time the admin was coming back from africa shit was hitting the fan that the 13 words were BS and Cheney was claiming the OVP and the OP did not know until after the SOTU address... Wilson's op-ed destroyed that Cheney lie just days after, compounding and validating that the original supposition was a lie, and Cheney later lied to cover up that he knew the truth before the SOTU...


Joe leaks info to Kristof
Someone outs Joe as Kristof's source
Joe writes the Op-ed
Novakula outs Plame big time
Novakula outs Brewster-Jennings big time
Fitz begins investigating

Serioulsy, Wilson's op-ed did not expose the 13 words, they were already exposed... Wilson's op-ed exposed the admin's excuse that they did not know the Niger uranium story was not valid before the state of the union address.... THAT is what Wilson exposed, that they knew damn well and they lied...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
15. Beautiful!
Just a small framing note: I'd change "outing a covert CIA operative" to "blowing the cover on a U.S. agent." Just sounds more evil.

Thanks. I'll use this.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC