Judith Miller & the "many dark actors" (Plame thread #9)

{1} "Two days after the hearing, he responded to a New York Times reporter who had e-mailed him offering encouragement. The reporter was Judith Miller. Kelly had been a source for her on WMD issues, and at 11:18 a.m. that Thursday, he sent her an e-mail that cryptically noted that there were ‘many dark actors playing games.’ He then thanked Miller for her support and friendship.

"It was the last e-mail Kelly ever sent." – Hubris; Isikoff & Corn; page 294

{2} "The newspaper that would be most affected by postinvasion reconsiderations was the New York Times, which for a year had resisted looking under the rock of Judith Miller’s coverage. …On the heels of her reckless prewar coverage of Iraqi WMD, Miller had traveled to Iraq and cut a wide swath. Embedding with an Army unit searching for weapons of mass destruction, she filed a series of articles in the spring of 2003 that suggested that large amounts of stockpiles were about to be uncovered. …. More than a half-dozen military officers said that Miller had played an extremely unusual role as an embedded reporter, effectively operating as a middleman between Chalabi’s organization and the Army unit, MET Alpha." – Fiasco; Thomas Ricks; pages 382-383

The Plame scandal is significant not only because of the crimes of the Bush-Cheney administration, but also because it involves the betrayal of the public’s trust by several members of the corporate media. No journalist comes off looking worse than Judith Miller.

There have been numerous discussions of her role in the Plame scandal, and – by no coincidence – other closely related scandals. And her involvement in the grand jury investigation ended up being appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court. Some people attempted to make her seem a noble protector of the 1st amendment; her friend Marie Brenner’s article in Vanity Fair (Lies and Consequences: Sixteen Words That Changed the World) grants poor Judith the status of martyr.

"I am not above the law, and do not view myself as above the law. I am here today because I believe in the rule of law," Judith told the judge who incarcerated her for breaking the law. After several months, St. Judith would write "My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room" (10-16-05) for the New York Times. The same day, her co-workers exposed her as a journalist who did not accept supervision from an editor, which raised questions about exactly who Judith really worked for.

Those questions will not be answered when she testifies in the Scooter Libby trial. Rather, Patrick Fitzgerald is focused upon a series of three interactions Judith had with Libby in the summer of 2003, in which Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, and parts of a classified, then declassified, NIE were discussed.

Mr. Fitzgerald’s position on Judith’s role is best defined by Exhibit B from the 10-30-06 Document 166, Libby’s "Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence and Argument Concerning Valerie Wilson’s Employment Status and Actual or Potential Damage Caused by Disclosure of That Status." Exhibit B was the 8-27-04 affidavit of Mr. Fitzgerald, that detailed how Miller’s testimony was needed to prove that Libby was purposefully lying to the FBI investigators and grand jury about the timing of his learning of Plame’s identity, and his discussions with journalists – including Miller.

I expect Judith to come across as "wishy-washy" on the witness stand. I do not believe that she wants to help the prosecutor. But I think that she still is angry that Libby allowed her to sit behind bars for an extended period.

There is a footnote on page 28 of Mr. Fitzgerald’s 37-page affidavit that is interesting: "15. If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame’s status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 if the information is considered ‘information respecting national defense’." It will be interesting to see if Mr. Fitzgerald or Team Libby have any surprises for Judith.

Would be the best thing on TV...the administration squirming. More importantly - everyone would see the truth finally coming out about the misleading into war...WAR CRIMES!!!

talking about Miller. He said she has "credibility issues." Team Libby may suggest that Miller told Libby about Plame.

but I'm not sure how that'll impact how Judy will testify. Seems like Fitz has the details of the converstations the 2 had. That'll be his focus, at least as far as I see it.

rides her white horse.

:hi:

Fitzgerald knows Miller very well. And then her and Libby have a bond too.

She needs to be exposed to the light of day.

Research Forum & Threads 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x192


The Relative Deprivation of Dick Cheney

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x47102


"Scooter's Black Op." (Plame Thread #8)

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x71523

:hi: I always find a little nugget that I had previously missed.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/30/the-publics-dilemma/#more-6907

The White House spin machinations have been exposed through the testimony of press flacks for the Vice President and President. The complicity of the media in granting anonymity in exchange for continued access, in granting control over message in exchange for not having to dig too hard for a quote…it is all likely to be laid bare by Judy Miller in some form.

I, for one, cannot think of a better person to be sitting on the hot seat and answering questions about her practices and the cover she may have provided for dark deeds and whispers from Dick Cheney's office and from all of his many neocon cronies. And, to be frank, I hope that this is only one of many more occasions that we will see Ms. Miller raising her hand to be sworn under oath to give testimony. Because she certainly has a lot to answer for in her shoddy, spoon-fed reporting the last few years. As do the public officials who used her to plant those stories in the first place.

the most obnoxious and dangerous of the people who masquerade as journalists.

... consistently delusional - amazingly incapable of accepting anything close to a balance of the realities with which she's been confronted. She's a zealot - adhering to some bizarre supranatural fiction giving her license to knowlingly peddle outright fictions and falsehoods. "Ass-pen" is an appropriate metaphor for the mightier-that-a-sword she wielded in malice against The People.

To many would people would become hip, huh?

and hopefully after today, Judith Miller slinks away forever.

might be of particular interest.

Her self given name says it all, and tells a story of someone out of control who was given too much influence and power. She has inserted herself into some of the most serious crimes committed against this country. She was involved in promulgating the war in Iraq, championing that awful Chalabi, she is involved in the Islamic Charity scandal, AIPAC and, Plame. I've always wondered about her connection with Dr. Kelly and what she was up to there, what was her role in that matter?

No, I don't think she will try to help Fitzgerald, but she won't be any help to Libby.

will help in that she shows, without dispute, that Libby was "sharing" NIE information in response to the Wilson problem.

Vincent Bugliosi used to say that the evidence in a good case makes a strong rope. Rather than being a "chain" that is destroyed if there is a weak link, the strong rope is made of individual strands that join together to support each other. Even if, by chance, one strand does break, the rope still holds.

Miller's testimony adds a few strong strands, and a couple that aren't quite so sturdy. But she adds to the case, or Mr. Fitzgerald wouldn't have brought her in. I do understand why people feel a bit repulsed by her; the good part of that is she is Scooter's pal. Libby turned to her when he needed someone he could rely on.

'Dame' Judy, and more of a 'gotcha' from Dr. Kelly. If ever there was a dark actor, it is our detestable Judy Miller.

Given his death and suspicions that it really wasn't suicide, it could be any one of several things. I could see it being either, you better be careful as you've involved yourself in some very serious matters or what were you thinking, do you know what you've done?

"I was right, dammit!"

No, you were WRONG. DEAD wrong to over 3,000 U.S. troops.

This woman should NEVER be given a media job ever again. She was not only "embedded" but "in bed" with the interests of the OVP, including Chalabi and Libby. She exhibits the same sort of divorce from reality that we have seen in Cheney's recent interviews.

And what gets me is the fact that, to this day, this woman sees NOTHING wrong with what she's done to help ruin this nation from the front page of the NYT. She honestly feels like *she* is the victim - not the Wilsons or the American people.

I'm stuck in meetings most of the day, but I look forward to updates from everyone here. I hope Fitzgerald nails her to the proverbial wall.

from FDL's web blogging
(snip)
Fitz: When we broke, published one exhibit, I'd like to publish one additional exhibit. Can you tell the jury what that is?

A: Subpoena from this court dated 1/22/2004, return date 2/6/2004.

Fitz: Attachment A describes all documents relating to discussion of the following (Addington to read).

A: 1) Wilson or his wife, 2) Valerie Plame Wilson or Plame, 3) stuff related to Wilson's trip including long list of reporters.
Fitz: Coversation about paperwork related to CIA employee spouse trip. Did you ever have a later occasion to discuss this.

A: Yes, right before investigation started.

Fitz: Describe what you recall.

A Larger office in OEOB, I knew it would have to do with the case. I reminded them that I was employee for the govt, our conversation wouldn't be privileged. He said, I just want to tell you I didn't do it.

F: What else was said?

A: He asked me how you would know if you met someone from CIA if they were undercover. I responded when I worked out there, you'd ask if someone if they were undercover. He asked if they introduced themselves how you'd know. I told him you wouldn't know unless you asked or saw a piece of paper that said it was classified. I volunteered to him I could get him a copy of IIPA that makes it a crime to reveal identity of covert agent. I took it to his office and gave it to him.

F Any further conversation with him about that?

A No.
(snip)

This is the first time the IIPA issue was raised in the trial. Is it possible that Fitz is setting the stage for further charges now that the issue of Valerie Plame's status at the CIA has been put out there?

GAWD, I certainly hope so!!!

I hate to think this whole sordid mess was nothing more than a "who said what and when" expedition! These people outed a covert American intelligence operation design to track WMDs through the very region our troops are fighting in! And it benefited "the terrorists"--the very people Bush went to war against! I don't see how this cannot be extended to punish those responsible for "aiding and abetting" the enemy!

It makes me acrimonious that the culprits, both inside and outside the government, including the "reporters," are not doing serious time for treason!

When Saddam was hung, a second noose should have been readied for the mastermind of this traitorous plot!

INVOLVED IN SOME WAY..WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION... i believe his family is entitled to the truth!!

that NASTY TRAITOROUS %$$@@$% was somehow involved ..and i want her ass on a platter!!

then fried slowly!! VERY SLOWLY..........

with aspens burning all around her!

fly

that could lead to further charges.

on that email info and gave a heads-up to whomever it was that Kelly called "Dark Actors." He was getting too close. JMCPO

I can't wait to see how Miller's testimony goes. This is gettting GOOD!

Thanks for another great essay. I really enjoy reading these and I've read them all.:)

I think that that DU is the best place for discussions of the Plame scandal. The whole cast of characters from this administration are looking pretty shady. I think that it is interesting that what is being revealed in court now, is pretty much what has been discussed on DU for several years now.

Is mentioned in Addington testimony! Interesting

W Review this document see whether that refreshes memory about reviewing doct prior to FBI interview.

A agrees he had reviewed

W It says Dept of Navy v Egan. Supreme Court Addington

W Two lines down declassify (it says AQ Khan in between)

W You recall reviewing these notes. You referred to Navy V Egan

Who do you think Ms. Miller is more peeved at? Patrick Fitzgerald because in her mind, it's his fault she was sent to jail...or Scooter Libby because he let her stay in that jail cell for months?

of criminals in my day, and most of them have more respect for an honest lawman, than for a partner-in-crime that will let them rot in jail. I suspect Scooter may come to appreciate that more fully as the years pass.

Comment #57 at http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/30/libby-live-david-addington-three/

and helped himself, but didn't. Maybe he is being a martyr for his own reasons. Supposedly he has always had a big attraction to get close to higher ups, even if they are complete dolts. And he lives in a fantasy world to a large extent. Very strange.

Wonder where that leaves the faithful who have anted up for I Liar's defense? Sort of holding the bag.

I feel confident that Scoots knows he'll be rewarded for being a 'good soldier' and punished if he's disloyal to the family regime. A Swiss bank account or a nice job for his family's well-being wouldn't be unimaginable. Insofar as "taking a bullet" ... there are bullets and there are bullets. A minimized sentence at a Club Fed like the Cumberland FCI where Abramoff is doing time is a lot different than Morgantown or Beckley. Furthermore, there's "life after prison" ... how much of the good life does Scoots want?

and then there are pardons.

If Bush waits till Libby is convicted of perjury and/or obstruction of justice he can deliver a limited pardon for just those offenses and not, instead, a blanket pardon for, say, "any and all offenses committed in regards the leaking of Ms. Plames's identity".

So, if you hauled Libby up on the stand, in order to investigate the conspiracy to punish the Wilson's, Libby would still be arguably in jeopardy and could plead the fifth.

I'm not a lawyer or a student of the law but I think there is such an issue here. Though I could easily have the details wrong.

I have such difficulty discerning where the questioner is taking the witness. I have absolutely no experience in this. I've read all of the Plame threads here, and also the wrap up and "takes" they have at FDL, which save my ass quite honestly in understanding this process. No wonder it takes a minimum of (IMO) a decade to understand this process. I'm surely a lurker who tries to offer anything I can once I have grasped/grabbed onto a concept, competently. I can only offer little to repay those of you, for the service you are affording us. Leads me to my point...

(Long story short) Thank you.

Haven't been on in a while. New job has me working like crazy. I had to check in and get the update on the trial.

Good to hear from you! I hope that you are enjoying the trial!

I am able to get snippets throughout the day. Enough to sate my curiosity until work slows down, at any rate. And of course I read the "Water Man Spouts" blog at least once a week. :-)

I do I do:loveya:

Maybe he is doing this to delay Judy. I would think jurors are most fresh in the morning.

The person who gave her that nickname must have known her very very well.

Chalabi's bitch.

to herself!

Even worse

And reveled in it.

He's simply the one who agreed to get her out.

But she refused to testify because she believed his waiver was forced and not of his free will. It took the length of her jail term for him to give her a waiver which relieved her of that "burden". The Aspens were in the shadows.

a scheme whereby her involvement could arguably be explained by a contact she had with libby.

Remember, we don't know what happened because most or all of the people involved are actively piecing together a cover-up. Miller is one of those people. Fitzgerald knows the piecing-together is going on, but I have no idea whether or not he knows who's involved.

If you read the aspens letter, it will remind you that Libby not only told Miller to talk, but told her what to say. The stuff about Libby being coerced is plain nonsense and does not fit into any logical process of social standards or law. Put yourself in Miller's shoes and read that letter.

Cheney is the key to all of this. The only reason he's so willing to lower his standard of executive privilege (it seems) is because he thinks he can take some heat off his people (including both Miller and Libby) while at the same time taking heat off himself. He's going to (try to) fit it all together.

What is "the aspens" a metaphor for?

Im not a native english speaker and the talk about the aspens "turning" or "in the shadows" is totally lost on me. Other than conjuring up scary images of dark forces i dont get it.

:nuke:

in another trial, where she is facing Mr. Fitzgerald. I think it is possible that she could face criminal charges in that case.

http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/index.html

Of particular interest are the Nixon-like "talking points" on DX1609.1 through 1609.4. These are responses to "FALSE ALLEGATION: (Hardball 7/14)" and are hilarious.

Also, those who are curious about Dr. Rice will enjoy DX1644, which isthe 7-11-03 "press gaggle" with Ari Fleischer and Condi. It's 13 pages; of interest in this scandal are pages 4 through 12.

OVP did not request the CIA send soeone to check it out, the 16 words were already in...

Court Exhibits from today. Fascinating material. Notes from the VP himself, and from Scooter.

The writer who can't spell: "rediculous" ???

And thanks! This was the passage I was looking for yesterday.



I guess no one wanted to buy her dead flowers that day.

In the "talking points" for July 14 2003, it states that "the Vice-President did not see Wilson's trip report until recently". But Cheney tells Russert on September 14, "And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back."

And Condi tells the gaggle that while she's not blaming the CIA, the CIA cleared the report, the CIA is responsible, the president relies on the CIA, go ask the CIA how this happened, but I'm not blaming them.

The lie: she says the NIE had other evidence about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa, in other countries, so the "16 words" might still be true. No such evidence has ever seen the light of day, or even been mentioned since.

Thanks for the heads up, H2O Man.

http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/29/44432.aspx#comments

The first response is from someone on DU; the second is a clown.

Shuster is doing a fabulous job, isn't he?

He is. I'm hoping that DUers are taking advantage of the links to the Court Exhibits, including those that show the way that the OVP was focused on MSNBC's Hardball. The American public has been betrayed by large segments of the Washington press corps; the few who have been providing both reporting and analysis of value should be recognized.

would really help explain things. It probably makes sense to wait until the court exhibits are posted, but it is so cool getting it live.

Love emptywheel's commentaries like Shuster's phone going off twice playing a fight song.

It sounds like Judith is burying Scooter.

Sounds like she's a wreck

for today's episode of Days of Our Lies. Can't wait for the next episode. This is getting real interesting. Bushco is being striped bare and I'm loving it.:rofl: :rofl:

yet she proudly read the competition. Meanwhile, she can't remember stuff but lights flash and sirens go off if she sees notes. She forgot a shopping bag full of notebooks necessitating her trip back before the GJ. Mata Judy forgets to inscribe a book to her littl;e buddy, Scooter, She is the gift that keeps on giving! :rofl:

:popcorn:

It might be interesting to note that Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 is NOT the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

It is Espionage.

:wtf: Now that is something interesting all right

Fitz has my attention on that one WHOAH

Wonder what other land mines FitzG. has buried.

putting this all together, there's only one other foreign govt. who had a "clear & present danger" attitude to Saddam and could possibly be conducting espionage within the US to ensure US entry into a war on Iraq to counter state-sponsored terrorist groups in the Middle East (Hizbollah) - and we're not talking Iran here. It's the other "I" in the region...

:kick:

:kick:

I'll have to remember that one. :-)

Pardon the pun, but that's where your OP made me think Judy Miller is. No wonder she's described in court as being stressed out, nobody likes her on either defense or prosecution. If she bothered to look in the mirror, she might not like herself.

and the nuggets that are coming out, while not directly related to the charges against Libby, are well worth keeping for future reference. One, in particular, is this one, imo, taken from the testimony blogging at Firedoglake Note: W = Wells; A = Addington:



W Bottom half in Cheney’s handwriting. Writes;

Has to happen today. Call out to key press saying same thing about Scooter as Karl. Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy.

W Can you make out what’s crossed out?

A I can’t tell.

Walton reminds people to talk to each other, maintain proper decorum.

A Now that it’s been expanded I can read it. Pres is scratched through. I read that as two words This Pres.

W This Pres was crossed out by VP and note goes on to read.

that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.



As a poster at firedoglake commented:

"Is it just me or does it sound like Cheney started to write: “…sacrifice the guy this President asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder …,” and then thought better of it, crossed out “this Pres” and wrote “that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder?” "

It certainly made me go "HMMMMMMM!"


Edited to add clarity to what the initials mean in the testimony.

I do not think anyone in MSM has a handle on this like Schuster - his quick rundown just now on Hardball was absolutely Emmy-type reportage/Analysis. Has a real good handle on the facts, can ad-lib and respond to Chris's questions succinctly and precisely. I think he will be telling his grandchildren about this trial. Hell, we all will, if this goes where it appears to be going. Whew!

He is doing outstanding work.

The more sympathetic the witless is to Cooties, the more memory-challenged they are.

then they go all fuzzy dice on the details. What has been interesting is the emphasis on turning Scooter into a White House pinata and how much pressure it is putting on Scooter to take the stand. Tema Libby's lawyers seem to be trying anything to try and not make that nightmare come true. Loving the juror's questions too. The OVP was run as a top down totalitarian shop with a meglomaniac dictating the policy. Meanwhile, one sees a certain evil symmetry in the manner Judy was allowed to operate at the NYT's. Now she is an instrument to incarcerate her source while melting into a pool on the stand - will Libby do the same, become wilted lettuce?

:popcorn:

If he doesn't testify, he's as good as convicted. The testimony has just been too damaging to him at this point.

6 witnesses have already testified that he knew and spoke about Plame/Wilson before the 10th which is the first time, as he testified, it came up and that Russert brought it up and told him. Clearly not true.

The defense hasn't been able to poke any effective holes in the case and we have scads of witnesses to come. The only defense left is the memory bit (which is also hanging by a thread) and to even get that in, he will have to testify and be crossed FitzG.

Wonder how many times his lawyers have already urged him to take the deal?

I'm sure that's what Fitzgerald is after. We all know Libby is pretty much done. But, as you illustrate, Libby's sole remaining *possible* defense is that he simply didn't remember because, gosh, he was so BUSY doing Very Important Stuff (i.e. the "dog ate my homework" defense). In order to prove that, he'd have to testify. That's his only hope at this point (and that's really no hope).

I'm sure Libby reads the writing on the wall, but he still seems unwilling to give up his boss.

He's going to jail. I suspect more indictments are coming down the pike after Lying Libby.

re Libby's obstruction and perjury charges, are an attempt to protect Cheney more so than Libby, imo. Libby threw sand in Fitzgerald's "eyes" more to protect Cheney than simply to protect himself although that, too, was part of it.

The whole post-tesimony exchange is fascinating - Wells wants to open the greymail gambit again, and Walton will not allow it. His last words were, in effect, to tell Wells he will rule against the asking of the broader question, and keep it to the more narrow line regarding sources who spoke about Wilson and/or Plame. He will not allow the fishing expedition. I wonder how much Wells can push this line before he gets slapped down.

On second thought, "Walton I don't have a problem if you ask her regarding sources on Wilson and Wilson's wife. I think that's going to be my ruling. It'd have to be impeached on an issue that's relevant to this litigation. I understand from Bennett that that would require her to reveal sources she is unwilling to reveal." (FDL)

Perhaps that WAS the slapdown...

Oh, that kind.... carry on :hi:

IF THE COURT WANTS JUDY TO TESTIFY...AGAINST LIBBY...

FROM MY FILES..THE ARTICLE IS OUT OF CIRCULATION..MUST BE PAID FOR NOW..YOU CAN PM ME IF YOU WANT IT ..OR WHAT I HAVE OF IT..FLY..



From E&P: Statement From Judith Miller After Testifying
Published: September 30, 2005 2:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Statement From Judith Miller After Testifying on September 30, 2005

SNIP:
I'm so happy to be free and finally able to talk to you all. Recently, I heard directly from my source that I should testify before the Grand Jury. This was in the form of a personal letter and, most important, a telephone
call to me at the jail. I concluded from this that my source genuinely wanted me to testify. These were not form waivers. They were not discussions among lawyers. They were given after the Special Counsel
assured us that such communication would not be regarded as obstructing justice.

SNIP:

Once I got a personal voluntary waiver, my lawyer, Mr. Bennett, approached the Special Counsel to see if my Grand Jury testimony could be limited to my communications with the source from whom I had received the personal and specific waiver. The Special Counsel agreed to this. This was very important to me. I served 85 days in jail because of my belief in the
importance of upholding the confidential relationship journalists have with their sources. Believe me, I did not want to be in jail. But I would have stayed even longer if I had not received these two things: the personal waiver and narrow testimony.

I could not have testified without those things. I said to the court before I was jailed that I did not believe I was above the law, and that I would have to go to jail because of my principles. But once I satisfied those principles I was prepared to fulfill my civic duty and testify. I am hopeful that my long stay in jail will serve to strengthen the bond between reporters and their sources. I hope that blanket waivers are a thing of the past. They do not count. They are not voluntary and should not be accepted by journalists. I am also hopeful that my time in jail will help pass a federal shield law so that the public's right to know will be protected.

It is one of the defense exhibits from yesterday and says the following, if I read Libby's less than clear writing, this sentence caught my attention:

"We'll still count on you to ride to our rescue whenever the going gets tough."

This was written either on July 10 or 16, 2003.

http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/jan29/DX1647.pdf

:rofl: Libby did the dirty work for Cheney

and expected others to do so too

I mean, I am on unknown territory, fast, exciting, absorbing... almost mezmerizing...

But I am surrounded by all these neon signs that all point in the same direction - even in all the confusion of details I have a distinct impression that Cheney, ultimately, is responsible for the leak itself, and he will need to lie on the stand to protect himself.

If one takes Fitz at his word, one must accept that he does not care by which method the administration of justice takes place: Remember, Al Capone got nailed for tax evasion.

Cheney lied to the GJ, and he will lie to the jury.

I'm a bit distressed tonight. The Nation and the world know Bush has lost it and Cheney has bad intentions, but they are intent on marching on. Congress doesn't seem to have the will to put a stop to this nonsense. It was horrifying at the STOTU to see all of our reps giving a standing ovation when he confronted Iran. How can they be stopped?

Can this trial bring Cheney down?

There is some news being reported that seems to suport the idea that a segment of the Bush administration wants to attack Iran. It does not mean that everyone in the administration does. But there is a core group that does. This core group is also largely the same group that advocated the invasion of Iraq as an alternative to finding bin Laden as part of the "war on terror." And it is the same group that was involved in the neocon/AIPAC espionage scandal. It's the same group that believes the Bill of Rights is not worthy of respect, and that does not recognize the balance of federal powers detailed in the US Constitution. I would think that it is the duty of every patriotic American to exercise the rights recognized by that Bill of Rights, and to demand that the Congress take the steps necessary to remove VP Cheney from power; the alternatives are stark.

I'm gonna be honest - I hope they all hang by the neck until dead.

the traitors are ready for war again against Iran this time. Lets hope they are jail by next month.

Let us hope they do end up in jail by next month! That would make my decade.

Ihope noy

FROM MY FILES ..WHEN THIS WAS ALL BREAKING...I HAVE KEPT ALL THE STUFF IN MY FILES FROM THE MOMENT THIS BROKE...
THESE ARE FROM DAVID CORN'S BLOG AT THE NATION ...

IF LINKS DON'T WORK PM ME..I CAN SEND THE FULL BLOG TO YOU..FLY

THIS FROM: THE NATIONS DAVID CORN
BLOG | Posted 07/16/2003 @ 4:13pm
A White House Smear


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=823

BLOG | Posted 07/16/2003 @ 4:13pm
A White House Smear


SNIP:

In a recent column on Nigergate, Novak examined the role of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV in the affair. Two weeks ago, Wilson went public, writing in The New York Times and telling The Washington Post about the trip he took to Niger in February 2002--at the request of the CIA--to check out allegations that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium for a nuclear weapons program from Niger. Wilson was a good pick for the job. He had been a State Department officer there in the mid-1970s. He was ambassador to Gabon in the early 1990s. And in 1997 and 1998, he was the senior director for Africa at the National Security Council and in that capacity spent a lot of time dealing with the Niger government. Wilson was also the last acting US ambassador in Iraq before the Gulf War, a military action he supported. In that post, he helped evacuate thousands of foreigners from Kuwait, worked to get over 120 American hostages out Iraq, and sheltered about 800 Americans in the embassy compound. At the time, Novak's then-partner, Rowland Evans, wrote that Wilson displayed "the stuff of heroism." And President George H. W. Bush commended Wilson: "Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq....The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job."

The current Bush administration has not been so appreciative of Wilson's more recent efforts. In Niger, he met with past and present government officials and persons involved in the uranium business and concluded that it was "highly doubtful" that Hussein had been able to purchase uranium from that nation. On June 12, The Washington Post revealed that an unnamed ambassador had traveled to Niger and had reported back that the Niger caper probably never happened. This article revved up the controversy over Bush's claim--which he made in the state of the union speech--that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program.

Critics were charging that this allegation had been part of a Bush effort to mislead the country to war, and the administration was maintaining that at the time of the speech the White House had no reason to suspect this particular sentence was based on faulty intelligence. "Maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said days before the Post article ran. "But no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions." Wilson's mission to Niger provided more reason to wonder if the administration's denials were on the level. And once Wilson went public, he prompted a new round of inconvenient and troubling questions for the White House. (Wilson, who opposed the latest war in Iraq, had not revealed his trip to Niger during the prewar months, when he was a key participant in the media debate over whether the country should go to war.)

Soon after Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad. the payback came. Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegation.

Wilson caused problems for the White House, and his wife was outed as an undercover CIA officer. Wilson says, "I will not answer questions about my wife. This is not about me and less so about my wife. It has always been about the facts underpinning the President's statement in the state of the union speech."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

NEXT BLOG FROM DAVID CORN AT THE NATION WHEN THIS WAS ALL BREAKING...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=845



BLOG | Posted 07/23/2003 @ 3:44pm
White House Ducks Smear Inquiry


As reported in this column, a July 14 article by conservative journalist Robert Novak indicated that two unnamed "senior administration officials" had undermined national security and perhaps broken the law by revealing to Novak that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV was a deep-cover CIA officer. Wilson is the envoy the CIA sent to Niger in February 2002 to check out the allegation that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium there. He reported back that the charge was probably false. Earlier this month, he went public and challenged the Bush administration's account of the Niger episode. The Novak article--which made public the name of Wilson's wife and reported she worked in the important area of weapons counterproliferation--had the stench of White House revenge and intimidation. It could be seen as a warning: take on this administration, and we'll hurt you and your family.

Wilson will not confirm whether his wife, who is known to friends as an energy analyst in a private firm, is a CIA officer. But if she is, these officials ruined her career (and possibly past and present counterproliferation operations presumably of importance to national security) and they may have violated a federal law that prohibits persons with access to classified information from identifying covert officials. If she is not CIA, they falsely branded a private citizen an agency employee. And it was not only Novak whom they tipped off. Time reported that "government officials" had said the same to its reporters.

Was the White House conducting a smear campaign against the Wilson family and using classified intelligence to do so? When a reporter asked Scott McClellan, the new White House press secretary, about these articles, he replied, "Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this president or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step."

Notice that he did not say that the White House was trying to find out if any of its people had engaged in this underhanded maneuver. McClellan said that he had seen no evidence, not that he (or anyone else in the White House) was looking for evidence.

"Is Novak lying?" McClellan was asked. "Do you think he's making it up?"

"I'm telling you our position. I'll let the columnist speak for himself."

Was McClellan saying "flatly" it did not happen?

"I'm telling you, flatly, that that is not the way this White House operates....I'm saying no one was certainly given any authority to do anything of that nature."

Did McClellan "want to get some more facts?"

"If I could go find 'anonymous,' Terry, I would."

And did Bush support "a criminal investigation"?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

CONTINUING THROUGH MY FILES..WAS THIS EMAIL FROM THE NATION POINTING OUT THAT DAVID CORN BLOGGED ABOUT THE PLAME CASE..TO BRING TO LIGHT THAT A CRIME MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY OUTTING VALERIE PLAME.....ABOVE I POSTED THE ORIGINAL BLOG...I HAD IN MY FILES...FLY

HERE IS THE NATIONS EMAIL:

Dear EmailNation Subscriber,

On July 16, 2003, Nation Washington editor David Corn wrote a piece in his
weblog, Capital Games, noting that the former US ambassador Joesph Wilson
and his wife, an undercover CIA agent, had been slimed by the Bush
Administration, and that this leak may well have harmed national security
and violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Corn's piece was the first article to report that the leak was a possible
White House crime. Few reporters in Washington paid attention to the
story, but the Nation web piece received a tremendous flood of traffic.
Not until two months later, when the news broke that the CIA had asked the
Justice Department to conduct an investigation, did the Wilson leak story
go big-time.

Now, Wilson is a well-known critic of Bush's foreign-policy with a new
book out, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and
Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity," detailing how the Bush team went after
him and his wife as payback for Wilson going public with his skepticism
that Saddam Hussein ever tried to buy enriched uranium from the small
African nation of Niger.

For more, read Corn's new interview with Wilson on the CIA leak, the White
House suspects, his wife-the-spy, the Iraq war, his former support for
Bush and his new book.

Capital Games by David Corn
An Interview with Joe Wilson
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1413

AND FROM MY FILES ...FROM THE GUARDIAN.........AND YOU MAY ASK..WHEWRE WAS OUR MEDIA?? THEY WERE PART AND PARCEL TO THE PLOT ...!!..FLY

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4714031-103681,00.html

The spies who pushed for war

Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in

Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force

Julian Borger

Thursday July 17, 2003

Guardian



SNIP:

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

The Israeli influence was revealed most clearly by a story floated by unnamed senior US officials in the American press, suggesting the reason that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq was that they had been smuggled into Syria. Intelligence sources say that the story came from the office of the Israeli prime minister.

The OSP absorbed this heady brew of raw intelligence, rumour and plain disinformation and made it a "product", a prodigious stream of reports with a guaranteed readership in the White House. The primary customers were Mr Cheney, Mr Libby and their closest ideological ally on the national security council, Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice's deputy.

In turn, they leaked some of the claims to the press, and used others as a stick with which to beat the CIA and the state department analysts, demanding they investigate the OSP leads.

The big question looming over Congress as Mr Tenet walked into his closed-door session yesterday was whether this shadow intelligence operation would survive national scrutiny and who would pay the price for allowing it to help steer the country into war.

A former senior CIA official insisted yesterday that Mr Feith, at least, was "finished" - but that may be wishful thinking by a rival organisation.

Thanks for posting this.

FROM MY FILES..MODS..THIS IS THE PRESS SECRETARIES PRESS RELEASE..SO I DO NOT SEE WHY IT CAN NOT BE PRINTED IN FULL..MODIFY IF YOU MUST..
FLY


Home > News & Policies > July 2003



For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 12, 2003

Press Gaggle with Ari Fleischer
The National Hospital
Abuja, Nigeria



9:20 A.M. (Local)

MR. FLEISCHER: The President this morning is receiving a briefing at the National Hospital. There is a representative of the press in there, we arranged for a print pooler to be in there. And then there will be a demonstration of the laboratory equipment that the President will see, focused on important health care issues here in Nigeria. Then the President will have his meeting with the President of Nigeria to talk about U.S.-Nigerian bilateral relations. I anticipate regional issues involving regional conflicts will arise, as well.

We will try to have a background briefer give you a readout after the meeting. I'm not sure of the logistics on that one yet, but we'll do our best to get that done. It may involve logistics -- dropping tape -- but we're going to move quickly and try to get that done.

Q You brief the pool, then, you're thinking?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's the only way to do it, because there won't be an opportunity to get the backgrounder to the filing center.

Then the President will make remarks in a speech at the Leon Sullivan Summit, and then return to the White House.

Q Does the President anticipate asking Nigeria to take even more of a role in solving the Liberian crisis, or does he anticipate making any sort of announcement about what the U.S. role in that might be?

MR. FLEISCHER: Nobody should be on the lookout for an announcement today. It will be a topic that is discussed. The United States has worked closely with Nigeria to resolve regional conflicts throughout Africa. Nigeria has received considerable training in its peacekeeping efforts, and its military has received considerable training from the United States. They have abilities, and we have worked with Nigeria to help them to put those abilities to good use.

Q Ari, what's the President's reaction to Mr. Tenet's statement -- a rather long one -- what was his reaction?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is pleased that the Director of Central Intelligence acknowledged what needed to be acknowledged, which was the circumstances surrounding the State of the Union speech. The President said that line because it was based on information from the intelligence community and the speech was vetted.

Q Does the President still have confidence in Director Tenet?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. President Bush has confidence in Director Tenet and President Bush has confidence in the CIA.

Q Ari, the President often speaks of accountability. Does he feel accountability is achieved in this circumstance? Or how do you address that issue?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me explain to you the President's thinking on this. A greater, more important truth is being lost in the flap over whether or not Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. The greater truth is that nobody, but nobody, denies that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. He was pursuing numerous ways to obtain nuclear weapons. The United States never said that he had nuclear weapons. We have said that he was pursuing them. It should surprise nobody that Saddam Hussein was seeking to acquire the means to produce from a variety of sources and a variety of ways.

He had previously obtained yellow cake from Africa. In fact, in one of the least known parts of this story, which is now, for the first time, public -- and you find this in Director Tenet's statement last night -- the official that -- lower-level official sent from the CIA to Niger to look into whether or not Saddam Hussein had sought yellow cake from Niger, Wilson, he -- and Director Tenet's statement last night states the same former official, Wilson, also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official, Wilson, meet an Iraqi delegation to discuss expanding commercial relations between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.

This is in Wilson's report back to the CIA. Wilson's own report, the very man who was on television saying Niger denies it, who never said anything about forged documents, reports himself that officials in Niger said that Iraq was seeking to contact officials in Niger about sales.

What did the President say in the State of the Union? He said: according to British reports, Iraq is seeking uranium from Africa. And the intelligence cited two other countries, in addition to Niger.

So, again, the larger truth, was Saddam Hussein a threat, in part because he was seeking nuclear weapons, in addition to what we know and have said about chemical and biological.

Now, if you ask, how is the President approaching this, what's the President's approach, the President sees this as much ado, that it's beside the point of the central threat that Saddam Hussein presented.

Q But doesn't that make it all the more important that some accountability be achieved that this flap over one fact can obscure his larger message?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President's larger message has not been obscured. The American people continue to agree that Saddam Hussein was a threat and --

Q You just said it was being obscured. You said there's a larger truth here that's being missed.

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, but the larger truth -- the larger truth being missed this week, but it's not been missed by the country on a longer-term basis.

Q So this is just another press problem? The President has often thought we go overboard. Is that the case here? Is the larger truth being obscured just by the media?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm not saying that, because there was a vetting issue on the speech, and that's a governmental issue. But I'm saying that this governmental issue needs to be put into a larger perspective, now that everybody has had one week's worth of chance to analyze this.

So, no, I can't say this is about the press. But I can say there is an important bigger picture here. And that bigger picture remains just as valid for the American people today as it was the day the President gave the State of the Union address.

Q On February 5th, Colin Powell did not have enough confidence in that statement to include it in his presentation to the U.N. There was some vetting that was done between the President's speech and Mr. Powell's presentation to the U.N. Why then, if that -- if at that point we knew, you knew, or the administration knew that the information was not good, why then was that very scary accusation allowed to stand through the through the war? I mean, we didn't get this corrected until after the war.

MR. FLEISCHER: It was corrected in March, when the part about yellow cake from Niger was looked into by the IAEA and that's when they reported it was based on forged documents.

But we still do not know whether or not Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. According to the intelligence, there were two other nations that were cited for where Iraq may have been seeking or was seeking uranium.

So what we have said is it should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech. People cannot conclude that the information was necessarily false. After all, why would it surprise anybody that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium. The more uranium you have, the fewer centrifuges you need to produce a nuclear weapon. So that, in and of itself, should not surprise anybody.

What is the issue here, in the President's judgment, is whether that information should have risen to his level and his giving the speech. And the administration, I think, to be fair to the administration, we did acknowledge that. We were the ones who were forthright and direct about it.

Q Well, after the IAEA brought up the forged documents. But on February -- if it wasn't substantiable enough to be presented in Mr. Powell's presentation, surely by then the White House realized that it wasn't substantiable enough to be put in the State of the Union. Why no public comment after February 5th? Why wait a month until the IAEA challenged the forged documents?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because this is the nature of intelligence information. This intelligence information was included in the NIE; it was part of the information that was being discussed widely in intelligence circles. There was a consensus agreement that supported the NIE with the footnoted objection from the State Department.

Q Does the President consider the matter closed now? With the President -- with Director Tenet's letter, does the President consider the matter closed?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the President has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on, as well.

Q This is the last day of the President's historic trip to Africa. Has this overshadowed what he has hoped to accomplish?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think you have to ask the American people that. I think that if you look at America's newspapers and America's TV shows, there has been ample reporting on both. I am not in a position to gauge which report the American people pay the most attention to. I think people probably pay attention to both. But again, I think when people hear about the trip to Africa and the focus on AIDS, the impression people have is we are, indeed, a compassionate nation, our tax dollars are going to a good purpose.

When people hear about the flap over whether or not Iraq did, indeed, seek uranium from Africa, the American people say, we didn't go to war because Iraq may or may not have been seeking uranium from Africa; we went to war because Saddam Hussein was a threat because of chemical and biological weapons and also because he was pursuing nuclear weapons, whether he did or did not seek uranium from Africa. So I think the American people have it in pretty good perspective.

Q Ari, did Dr. Rice ask Director Tenet to put out the statement, or did anybody else from the White House ask him to put out the statement?

MR. FLEISCHER: Discussions with Director Tenet about the statement have been going on for days, have been worked out previously. It's appropriate for the CIA to speak out.

Q Did he bring up the notion of addressing a statement, or did the White House ask him to?

MR. FLEISCHER: It was mutual. The discussion was, the CIA needs to explain what its role was in this. And the best way for any entity in the government to explain its role is to issue a statement.

Q Why, if he was going to if it has been talked about for several days, did Dr. Rice come out and brief yesterday? Why not just wait for Tenet to put out his announcement? I mean, was there any reluctance on the CIA to put out a statement?

MR. FLEISCHER: Dr. Rice was always scheduled to brief yesterday, just as Secretary Powell was scheduled to brief at the filing center the night before. So we actually, literally the day before the trip or the week before the trip -- sit down. She was scheduled to brief on the flight to Nigeria. It was moved up to the morning flight. It was easier to do it that way, frankly, and to disseminate whatever she said.

Q Any postmortem briefing to expect on the plane back?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, there will be no briefings on the plane back.

END 9:31 A.M. (Local)

Given the fact that scooter's defence is in tatters and the pathetically weak defence line of questioning, is it possible we're just watching a sham - on both sides? Maybe the entire point is to get Cheney on the stand, get him to perjure himself, then call Scooter up to denounce him? Is that at all possible legally? Or am I nuts (hey, I know the latter is true, I mean just on this issue...)