PLAME INDICTMENT THREAD #12- HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS

PLAME INDICTMENT THREAD #12-High Crimes & Misdemeanors




If and when indictments come down in the Plame case,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

300+ DU thread now as MSWord.doc (easier download)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

If and when indictments come down in the Plame case-thread2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame indictments.....Thread 3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame indictments.....Thread 4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame indictments.....Thread 5
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame indictments......thread 6
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame indictments .... thread 7
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame indictments..... thread 8
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame indictments..... thread 9
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame indictments..... thread 10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Plame indictments..... thread 11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
_____________________________________________________________________

BELOW ARE LETTERS/GUIDES TO FAX/EMAIL/SNAIL MAIL TO CONGRESS & MEDIA TO JOG THEM INTO ACTION & INCLUDING A TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBER

278. CONTACT CONGRESS & LEADERSHIP ADDRESSES:


Fax Numbers of US Congress

http://www.no-smoking.org/feb97/2-17-97-01.html


Congressional Leadership

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/leadership.cg ...


Congressional Committees & Subcommittees

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/committee_lis ...


Misc. Contact Congress

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/search.html


CALIMARY MEDIA & EDITORS CONTACT LIST


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...


Updated Calimary list

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...


Individual Reporters & Newspaper List

forgive me, it's on the drudge rag site, but it's useful

http://www.drudgereport.com /
_______________________________________________________________
1 (800) 839 - 5276 - TOLL FREE Capitol Hill Switchboard number! They'll transfer you to any House/Senate office you name!



H20's SUGGESTED LETTER TO MEDIA & CONGRESS

for you to copy or use as a guide to send:
Here's a suggestion ......


Dear _________;

I am writing to express my concerns about on-going efforts to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson. In his NYT Op-Ed article "What I Didn't Find In Africa," Wilson exposed a claim by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union Address to be untrue. Since that time, the White House has been involved in an effort to destroy Wilson's reputation, which included exposing his wife as a CIA operative.

In John Dean's review of Wilson's book (NYT Book Review; 5-23-04; pg9) he documents that two days after the op-ed article ran, journalist Robert Novak was telling people that Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was a CIS "weapons of mass destruction specialist."

Novak exposed Plame's identity in a 7-14-03 column. He sourced his story to two "senior administration officials." These two senior White House officials had lobbied at least six journalists to expose Plame in what Dean calls a "you-hurt-us-we-will-hurt-you warning" to those tempted to expose administration "misinformation."

When Wilson appeared on MSNBC's "Countdown," host Keith Olbermann held up three identical e-mails from the White House. Olbermann explained their intent was to discredit Wilson with their "talking points."

Wilson has noted that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor pointed out that since the Bush people never back down, the fact that they had admitted an error after the op-ed article indicated "they must have something more important to protect." (The Politics of Truth, by Wilson; pg4)

Joseph Klein's 7-5-04 article in Time (Plenty More to Swear About; pg 21) reveals that Plame was "active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components" when her identity was exposed by the White House. "Only a high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge that Plame was on the pay-roll," an intelligence source told Klein.

There is clearly more to this story than the White House and senate republicans are willing to tell the public. What investigation by Plame needed to be derailed by the White House? I hope that national leaders and the media will focus attention on this important issue.

Sincerely,


____________________________________________________________________

KOHO'S SHORT & SWEET SUGGESTED LETTER TO SEND


Dear_________;

I am writing about the outing of CIA Agent Valerie Plame. It seems that the Grand jury Investigation has wrapped up or will soon, but little has been mentioned of late. What may have been political payback to Joe Wilson for refuting the Niger yellowcake claims in the State of the Union address could have actually made this country a great deal less safe. According to Joseph Klein (Time 7-5-04--Plenty More to Swear About), Plame may have been "active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components." If this is true (or even a possibility, those responsible must be brought to justice. I submit that underground trafficking of WMD components presents a far more imminent threat to our country than Saddam Hussein did. In my mind this certainly achieves the status of "High Crimes," and I urge you to not let this issue fall by the wayside. The security of our country may have been irretrievably harmed by a few high ranking officials and they must be brought to task.

Sincerely,


_____________________________________________________________________
PALLAS' 'GIVE EM HELL' SUGGESTED LETTER

Dear ____________


Concerning Time magazine's Joe Klein's July 5 article, page 21 revealed that Valerie Plame was "active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of Weapons of Mass Destruction components"" when her identity was exposed by the White House. It also said" Only a high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge" that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent.

1) Our study group has found that Vice President Cheney since 1995 as CEO of Halliburton was fined 1.2 milion dollars for illegal sales of similar components to Libya. Shortly before becoming Vice President he bitterly assailed US policy against selling such components to Syrria and Iran, which apparently hurt Halliburton's bottom line.

2) Our study group has also found that there is an investigation of Vice President Cheney in other countries for illegal bribery and various other offenses connected to Halliburton as well as paying amounts to secret Swiss bank accounts

3)The Atomic Energy Commission has said a North American company is one of 20 being investigated for black market sales of WMD materials.

Our study group suspects there is more to the White House revealing Valerie Plame's covert CIA status since the Republicans refuse to hold investigations on the matter.

Frankly, it would appear to us that possibly Valerie Plame was stopped in her tracks and the CIA sting operation was exposed because it was coming close to discovering another violation of the laws by our own Vice President and the Hallibuton company he has awarded billions of US taxpayer dollars to in non-bid contracts.

There is a question of where the Vice President's and President's loyalty lies: to their Corporate friends and company's bottom line or to the security and wellbeing of the America.n people?

In any case, the exposure of Valerie Plame by the White House was and is treasonous.

The responsibility of the Media and Congress is to expose these wrong doings, investigate and safeguard against this type of occurrence for the American people.

WHY are you not fulfilling your role to me, to my study group, and the rest of the American people in this country and WHEN will you start ?


Sincerely

___________________________________________________________________
Arbustochupa's lettter

Dear _________;

I am writing to express my concerns about on-going efforts to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson. In his NYT Op-Ed article "What I Didn't Find In Africa," Wilson exposed a claim by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union Address to be untrue. Since that time, the White House has been involved in an effort to destroy Wilson's reputation, which included exposing his wife as a CIA operative.

In John Dean's review of Wilson's book (NYT Book Review; 5-23-04; pg9) he documents that two days after the op-ed article ran, journalist Robert Novak was telling people that Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was a CIS "weapons of mass destruction specialist."

Novak exposed Plame's identity in a 7-14-03 column. He sourced his story to two "senior administration officials." These two senior White House officials had lobbied at least six journalists to expose Plame in what Dean calls a "you-hurt-us-we-will-hurt-you warning" to those tempted to expose administration "misinformation."

When Wilson appeared on MSNBC's "Countdown," host Keith Olbermann held up three identical e-mails from the White House. Olbermann explained their intent was to discredit Wilson with their "talking points."

Wilson has noted that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor pointed out that since the Bush people never back down, the fact that they had admitted an error after the op-ed article indicated "they must have something more important to protect." (The Politics of Truth, by Wilson; pg4)

Joseph Klein's 7-5-04 article in Time (Plenty More to Swear About; pg 21) reveals that Plame was "active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components" when her identity was exposed by the White House. "Only a high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge that Plame was on the pay-roll," an intelligence source told Klein.

There is clearly more to this story than the White House and senate republicans are willing to tell the public. What investigation by Plame needed to be derailed by the White House? I hope that national leaders and the media will focus attention on this important issue.

Sincerely,

We're sending them to Judiciary Committee, Dem Senators,

Senate Intell Committee, Dem Senators, Committee Heads, Dems of course, but if you know a decent republican - ahem - try them.

Black Caucus, all

And every possible decent newscaster and newspaper.

Chuckle From our point of view, that's greatly limiting.

Many addressess and fax numbers plus a free 800 number to the

Congress are up above or can be found by googling Congress or

Senate. gov

If we want goverment by the people, as H20 says, it's up to us.

Go for it.

You can find them here:

http://www.aeschatech.com/dumpster/plame /

Anyone know what happened to the PDF version of the earlier threads? I don't have them but would be happy to host them somewhere if I did. If you have those PDF files or if you have the ability to CREATE them, please private me.

Thanks,

BMU

As posted in thread 11 by FrustratedDeminNC

http://www.cbcfinc.org/Members.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... - Updated as of Thursday, July 22nd.

Thanks - a VERY worthy contribution! We should have their group's name on our lips EVERY time we consider the STOLEN ELECTION and the BBV issue, or complain about it, or send complaints about it, or phone complaints about it, or argue/lobby about it with our friends. They were the ONLY ones to speak out and voice the outrage, and while the Senate couldn't hear them, WE certainly did. We need to make sure OTHERS will have heard about them, so that ALL votes are counted, and no vote is counted out.

A ROVE SPECIAL : Hide the Cheney Criminal Probe-Leak Sandy Berger


ROVE SPECIAL Shell Game: Distract from Cheney Criminal Probe
CONCERNING SANDY BERGER

THIS IS A "ROVE SPECIAL" SHELL GAME. SAME DAY PAPER ANNOUNCES CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF CHENEY BUT if you put all the attention on SAndy Berger stealing "state" secrets that he himself wrote, then whose going to notice that Dick Cheney and Halliburton are under criminal investigation for their offshore company selling to Libya, Iran, Iraq and Syrria on the "forbidden list" for a US Company, and profits hidden in Swiss BAnk Accounts- which is why Treasury is investigating - the "Al Capone" move -
get em on taxes when you can't get em on anything else.

What was Halliburton/Cheney selling? components that could be converted for nuclear use..like caps to
set of THE bomb or at least a dirty bomb.
here's the story, NOTICE THE DATE, same day as Berger investigation announced & leaked from Asscroft's
faux Justice Dept.

"HALLIBURTON ADMITS TO CRIMINAL PROBE ON IRAN JULY 20 2004"

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.co ... (FinancialTimes.com) London paper
Business / Middle East & Africa Print article | Email

Halliburton admits to criminal probe on Iran By Joshua Chaffin in Washington
Published: July 20 2004 18:22 | Last Updated: July 20 2004 18:22

Halliburton, the oilfield services company formerly headed by US vice-president Dick Cheney, has disclosed that a Treasury department probe into its business dealings with Iran had been elevated to a criminal investigation.The company acknowledged that it had been subpoenaed by a grand jury in the southern district of Texas to present documents related to a Cayman Islands subsidiary that serves the Iranian National Oil Company.Halliburton said it would co-operate with the investigation, and that it believed it had complied with US trade restrictions against Iran.

The subpoena has emerged at a time when Iran has come under fresh scrutiny in Washington for its possible links to al-Qaeda.

President George W. Bush, who has dubbed Iran a member of the "axis of evil", on Monday said he would investigate claims in a forthcoming report on the September 11 terrorist attacks that the country might have offered safe passage to some of the hijackers who carried out the plot. The existence of the grand jury will add to the legal woes for Halliburton, which is also being investigated for possibly overcharging the US military for meals and fuel importation in Iraq.

The company's ties to the vice-president have made it an appealing target in Congress for critics of the Bush administration. Senator Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey, yesterday insisted that the investigation consider any role played by Mr Cheney when he headed the company from 1995 to 2000. Halliburton is also expected to be the focal point of a hearing tomorrow that will examine cost overruns and other problems with Iraq contracts, of which Halliburton has the largest share.

Wendy Hall, a Halliburton spokesperson, said: "It is important to understand, especially in the current political environment, that this is not a condemnation of the company, but a method of further studying the facts.
"We continue to believe that Halliburton's business in Iran is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations."The US imposed sanctions on Iran following the 1979 revolution that led to the seizure of American hostages for more than a year.Halliburton's work there, which has raised complaints from shareholders, amounts to about $80m a year - less than 1 per cent of its total revenues.

The Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control first requested information from Halliburton in mid-2001.

You have to start from scratch and copy the original threads into your post. Doesn't work when you copy from an old post -- teh ends get cut off.

investigations about Halliburton when Cheney ran it and all that is mentioned are oil dealings..nothing about wmd transactions. S'pose we are on the wrong track about wmd's concerning Plame and Cheney, or is something slipping under the radar on the investigations.

caps that could be used for setting off the bomb, if I remember
correctly.

It's back through thread 8,9,10

I knew there must have been a reason to come to that conclusion.

how are you?

Same story posted by daria_g on the previous thread:

Halliburton Subpoenaed Over Unit's Iran Work

By Matt Daily
HOUSTON (Reuters) - A grand jury issued a subpoena to oil field services company Halliburton Co. seeking information about its Cayman Islands unit's work in Iran, where it is illegal for U.S. companies to operate, Halliburton said on Monday.

The company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, said it understood the investigation of its subsidiary's work in Iran had been transferred to the U.S. Department of Justice from the Treasury Department, which first initiated an inquiry in 2001.

"In July 2004, Halliburton received from an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas a grand jury subpoena requesting the production of documents. We intend to cooperate with the government's investigation," Halliburton said in a filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

more...

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&s...

Not exactly the same article you posted, doesn't cite Lautenberg specifically, but pretty much the same story. Lautenberg definitely sounds like he's on the money. We should all mail or fax letters to him, I think he's willing to listen!

If they can't identify a leaker an indictment will be impossible.

Another unfortunate possibility is that the indictments will come in January 2005. We feel an urgency that Fitzgerald does not.

they probably wouldn't have questioned the pres. and v. pres.

25 years ago, he's still liable.

The problem may be that those who know, and can testify to the identity of the criminal, aren't giving it up. The long interview with the chimp may just have been one last gasp of the investigation.

The chimp's smirk is back-big time. That is a fairly good barometer of how well or poorly things are going behind the scenes.

Someone who knows did "give it up." This is, of course, what John dean has "hinted" at .... and his hint was specific enough to include a general date of when that occured.

Many people -- and I don't mean you, Timefortruth; I'm speaking generically -- do not understand what the rules on "confidentiality" are, and what they are not. A newspaper reporter, a doctor, a minister .... they all have certain duties to protect sources of information. But that duty is not a 100% obligation to never tell certain information. There are "need to know" exceptions. Federal grand juries may, in specific circumstances, fit that need to know definition.

The amount of time this is taking should not be equated with bad news for our side. Quite to the contrary.

But, I have no confidence in the system since the Iran Contra days when criminal Ollie North was treated as a national hero for wrapping himself in the flag. Since the 80s, the Republicans have gotten away with just about everything, and Bush seems to be even more Teflon coated than Reagan ever was... at least in the 80s, we had a few last gasps of integrity from the mainstream media.

in this system .... and question if it has the ability to behave in a just manner. There is no question that it is not in the bush administration's nature to produce a just result .... we would be as foolish as a man hoping that his male dog would give birth to kittens, as to think that these criminals can give birth to honesty or integrity.

But the attorney now leading the investigation appears to be of a different breed. There are honest and decent people, even in corrupt systems. Let's hope that Fitzgerald is a man in the mold of Frank Serpico.

Our primary goal has to be to get this administration out of the power they now have in the executive office. The results of this grand jury are very likely to help with that. The administration is going to be discredited.

After that, it's true -- just as you say -- that the system will likely not hold these criminals to as much punishment as a 16- year old shop-lifter. And that is because, even when they pack their bags and leave Washington, DC .... they still control the businesses that have an obscene amount of power and influence.

But we can't begin to deal with that .... until we've dealt with this! That is why we should be satisfied to do exactly what we are supposed to be doing today -- with the faith that this will allow us to do next week, month, and year, that which must be done then.

duty they feel they have to keep sources confidential. They may not talk, based on that responsibility or maybe they can find a national security-grand jury exception. We just don't know yet.

I'm talking about the gang of criminals in the WH. Every decent American has a responsibility to testify honestly when the national security has been compromised for solely self-serving reasons. But there isn't a single decent American over there so it is probable that no one at the WH flipped for the prosecutors, the result of that failure to cooperate could hinder the investigation severely.

he said. He made a reference to a Supreme Court ruling that, as he briefly described it, said reporters have to divulge their sources to a grand jury if the grand jury asks. And the other hint was the timing, in connection with ashcroft having to recuse himself. Dean said he suspects that some mid-level person cracked over the 2003 Christmas holidays, and the FBI told ashcroft, which meant he then knew, which meant he formally became Mr. Conflict-of-Interest, and had to step away from it and appoint Fitzgerald. And as Dean put it - "ashcroft probably prefered that he (Fitzgerald) NOT be there."

When I was a reporter, I was quite conscious, at all times, of the notion that I'd have to go to jail rather than divulge a source. But I did news for local rock radio stations much of the time, and who on earth does any muckraking from there? You barely even HAVE a "news" room in the first place (you, by yourself, ARE the newsroom at those stations). But at the AP, where some people did do some digging, it never reached that point where somebody was gonna face jail time or appeal to our local/regional news support organizations or any company lawyers. I didn't ever get even near the same planet of that kind of journalism on the Hollywood beat. So I don't know all the in's and out's. There WAS an LA Times reporter, Bill Farr (I think), who did. But that was quite a long time ago, and I'm not familiar with the details.

Hi Plame thread researchers!!! Just woke up, and have to go to the Dr. & take dog to the vet today, so I'll be in & out of this discussion.

It is too obvious to many of us that this is standard operating procedure for the right wing-controlled government and press; to hide SERIOUS wrongdoings by the repukes behind "old news" small infractions by the Dems. It's been happening since Amerika fell to the rulers on the dark side, and it will continue to happen until we put the whole lot of them (the republican mafia) on trial and in jail.

They're going to hammer Berger until they've "clintoned" him to death.

I'll check back in later!

I like to start my day with a reflection of the postive force. It is possible, when one focuses attention on the negative force -- which includes war, violence, and hatred -- to lose the proper perspective. Some people feel overwhelmed, and just give up. It's tempting fot all of us to become distracted .... to lose our responsibilities as conscious individuals to the psychic novacaines of tv, bright lights, loud music, alcohol abuse, and other distractions. But we have come a long ways on these threads, and as our friends have said, we aren't going back now.

I read Gandhi in the morning: "I count no sacrifice too great for seeing God face to face. The whole of my activity, whether it be called social, political, humanitarian, or ethical, is directed to that end. And as I know that God is found more often in the lowliest of his creatures than in the high and mighty, I am struggling to reach the status of these. I cannot do so without their service. Hence, my passion for the service of the suppressed classes. And as I cannot render this service without entering politics, I find myself in them"

Also: "Truth is God."

On the last thread, Tellurian advocated that we not move forward on our mission. He or she, if I understand correctly, wants us to stop looking into the possibility -- perhaps likelyhood -- that the exposing of Plame had a deeper meaning than simply punishing Joseph Wilson for his NYT op-ed article on what he didn't find in Africa. He or she appears to believe that our reality should be defined for us by "experts." If I am mistaken, than I politely request that he/she explain his/her position that we stop with this thread, and watch a fictional tv show.

I prefer to go forward with what we are doing. I want to be up-front and honest with the readers here: I have never in my life been terribly impressed with "experts" or celebrities. I look up to people who, no matter what their station in life, look for the truth, and try to live it to the best of their ability.

Thus, I am more concerned with spreading the message that is found in these threads to other grass-roots level people. I've put together a little paper outlining part of that message, which I think Pallas is going to post on this thread. If you copy it and send it to people in the media or in elected office, that's okay. And if you send it to other people at the grass-roots level who are capable of weighing facts and deciding for themselves, well then, brothers and sisters, that is great.

such an inspiration in all aspects of life - I couldn't agree more with your philosophy and look forward to hearing more from you as we continue this journey.

"I look up to people who, no matter what their station in life, look for the truth, and try to live it to the best of their ability." H20

That is a powerful statement and I would love to use it as my sig line with your permission.

Thank you. I do not think that ideas are personal property, so please feel free to use that line .... I am happy that you would even consider using it. (smile)

My only concern is when people attempt to mis-use our ideas .... and we've witnessed that a few times on these threads. But we have a wonderful group of people here, and I don't think it's likely that anyone is going to pull the wool over our eyes.

This is a unique group - we have our eyes open constantly for those who choose to cause harm.

That blows me away -- I'm having a hard time understanding how that could happen!!! Yikes!

Did someone take ideas from these threads and post a news story that twisted the facts?

over the course of the last few weeks, a few people have tried to interfere in the way these threads have been going. I'm not pointing fingers, and I feel no need to question motives. But I will say that I think the Man X question of "why?" is always valid ..... and by nature, I do not trust anyone who attempts to move us away from that question.

"Freeper" (republican) infiltration of the thread. What made you think that?

When you said that the info contained on the thread was misused that is what I thought you were referring to -- that some nefarious person was somehow listening in on the conversations on the thread.

we have had a couple people who fit that description.

I think that there is also the possibility that someone who, for very different reasons, wants to keep our conversations away from the "why?" and the possibility that the exposing of Plame was aimed in part at derailing whatever investigation she was involved in at that time.

There could be two reasons that I can think of for a person doing that. One would be that this theory is currently being investigated, and is in a highly sensitive phase. If that were so, I would agree to immediately suspend any discussion that could jeapardize the said investigation. But no credible person has asked me to do this, or responded to my question about this.

The other reason may be found in something related to a person asking if it were okay to use a sentence I wrote in a post today. (I do NOT mean that person, as that was a nice compliment.) But there are people who think they own ideas. They deal in the peddling of ideas, which isn't really in line with the open and frank discussion that I enjoy taking part in on here. And so while they may share our general view of the case we are discussing, they may want to capitalize on these ideas in the realm of the experts and self-defined upper class. And that just might explain why I used the Gandhi quote that I did this morning.

I've been a little too busy lately, but wanted to check in and say hi! Along with our letters, there are a few good candidates running and it's also worth taking time to support them. My district has a Dem running who will accept no special interest money, but by developing a true grass roots strategy. And it's in a district that is winnable.

H20 mentioned the shadows crossing the thread in an earlier post. Some are subtle, others more obvious and some I'm sure unseen. I'm hoping to be able to download these threads before going on vacation so I can read through them again and look for the pattern or direction our research is taking us. Ultimately I think we are going beyond this specific issue and getting to glimpse the mechanisms of Government and Corporatism that the Military Industrial Complex is fostering. It is not a friendly game and far from democratic.

I also think that it is the awakening of the populous that may be the only thing that can turn the tide. MLK certainly awakened many Americans and brought their support to the Civil Rights movement. Vietnam policy would not have changed were it not for the outrage of the people.

H20, I agree that along with our letters we should get the message out to people we know and encourage them to act. I look forward to seeing what you have put together.

Finally, I want to say that some of the tangents the thread has dealt with have added important insight so we should think outside the box and look for the patterns and connections. We are no where near ready to close the book in my opinion.

You say -- "They deal in the peddling of ideas, which isn't really in line with the open and frank discussion that I enjoy taking part in on here. And so while they may share our general view of the case we are discussing, they may want to capitalize on these ideas in the realm of the experts and self-defined upper class."

And I don't understand what you mean by this. Loved the Ghandi quote, by the way. Maybe I didn't drink enough coffee this morning, but I have no idea what you mean by this. Particularly the "self-defined upper class" bit. So I hope you'll enlighten me.

I know you realize that I hold you and your opinions in very high esteem. I have so enjoyed asking questions, learning, and exchanging ideas with the folks on this board, yourself especially. So I hope you'll take this the right way when I say that I've noticed a definite trend toward "group-think." It seems to me as if there might be leaders or frequent posters on the thread who discourage opinions that differ from theirs, and discourage the asking of questions in an odd and rather paranoid way. I am not referring to you of course.

I don't have a comfort level on the thread as I used to. I once enjoyed expressing my opinions and asking questions. Especially asking questions! But not so much anymore.

Knowing you only outside the "realm of the physical" I confess that I do not know you well at all. But what little I know tells me that you would not want the thread to fall victim to group-think. I think you are far too intelligent and thoughtful for that.

If you think I am way off base I certainly hope you will tell me so. I don't mind it when people disagree with me -- not at all.

On the last thread, an individual asked me to accept a private e-mail....something I hesitated to do, but after a second request ... I did. And that is my own fault, because I opened myself up for deceit and insult .... but perhaps we all would benefit if I let go of that, and let it be water under the bridge.

Are you a Beatle fan? On one of the post-Beatle albums, "Imagine" by John, there is a song called "How Do You Sleep?" John sings a few pointed lyrics at an old fiancee named Paul. In a sense, it seems strange on that album .... which is about truth and love and nice things. If a great artist like John answered a few ugly digs, you'll just have to excuse me -- a mere finger painter -- making a few smudges.

But let's move on. Please read the "Waterman Paper" I've posted below, and let me know what you think of it.

use this forum to deceive and insult. I am very sorry that you experienced this. I hope that it doesn't prevent you from trusting and communicating with the rest of us.

I am indeed a Beatle fan. I never really noticed the lyrics to that song, even though I've heard the album many times. Those two (Paul & John) had obvious artistic and personal differences, which makes me sad. They were excellent together, and very good apart. I am a huge John Lennon fan, I've read everything I could find about him for years. If you ever get a chance to read the Playboy interviews he gave just before he died, I think you would enjoy them tremendously -- they have been published in book form. Even when I don't agree with the ideas he expresses I unabashedly and shamelessly admire him for expressing them. Quite a man, he was -- I love his mind. I had just moved to NYC when he died and I'll never forget it. All those crusty New Yorkers -- and not a dry eye on the train going to work the next morning. But I digress.

Yes, I most happily will read your Waterman Paper, and after digesting it overnight, let you know what I think of it. I'm looking forward to reading it very much. I won't be online after a few hours today, so I'll post in the morning about it. And thank you so much for doing that for us. We're blessed to have you.

I think it was my comment about group-think that you were responding to in your post to Merh. I did not mean to imply that you yourself were guilty of group-think, but I did feel that in general the thread was drifting that way. Just an honest observation after taking a break for a few days. I hope you were not offended.

questioning, "Who benefits?" Never. It's in my blood. Our government lies. They're hypocrites, calling themselves Christians. I find hypocrisy intolerable, and dishonesty a cardinal sin. I also don't believe Man can govern without hypocrisy or dishonesty.

I'll give up searching for Truth the day I die.

Thanks again, H2O.

And I still owe you an answer to a question you posed on the last thread ..... regarding the president's mental make-up ..... I did see it, and am going to answer it, of course .... but want to give a serious response to a serious question.

in these threads to other grass-roots level people, yet, you challenge posters because their thinking is not in step with you or the other posters that dominate these threads.

I am not speaking for Tellurian, I am just making an observation regarding his posts that have been attacked and commented on by you and others that thrive on these threads. You post "On the last thread, Tellurian advocated that we not move forward on our mission." and reading his/her posts, I do not see where he advocates that at all. It appears that Tellurian is of the opine that the "why" has been discussed, analyzed and dissected and then discussed again to the point that the "why" has been answered and that stepping back from things for a time might not be a bad idea. He/She never advocated not moving forward only "not a bad idea to step away, refresh and grow." You may not agree with his/her opinion, but to attack it or ridicule it is not necessary. No one had to respond to it at all or a simple "maybe it is something that should be considered or we can discuss" would have been more appropriate.

Then you take offense that he/she recommended that folks watch the Grid and you post "If I am mistaken, than I politely request that he/she explain his/her position that we stop with this thread, and watch a fictional tv show." When did Tellurian ever suggest that the thread be stopped? Tellurian just suggested that folks watch the Grid in an effort to help folks garner an idea as to how complicated intelligence is in this day and age. "The reason I'm recommending the GRID is because it's an apolitical look at how much more difficult intelligence has become over the last 4 yrs." What was wrong with that and why does that cause you such a problem that you challenge Tellurian? Again, a simple, thanks for the post would suffice or no response at all. Instead there is ridicule and attacks on someone trying to add their opinions to the thread, but the opinions do not fit into the box that you all have formed in these threads.

Please do not get me wrong, I do appreciate the facts that have been shared, the opinions expressed, the links provided and the efforts of many to enlighten many non-DUers and members of congress and the media to the relevant issues discussed in this thread. I acknowledge and applaud the efforts and encourage that they continue.

However, having been attacked and ridiculed when posting in these threads because my opinion is different than your's or other dominate posters' opinions, I feel compelled to point out the unfairness and air of superiority that has turned many away from participating in these threads. Go back over the last 5 or 6 threads and you will see that new ideas have not really been put forth. Maybe it is because as "Telluran put it the thread topic seems to be spent.. not a bad idea to step away, refresh and grow".

You are wise and well read H2O and your contributions appreciated and valued. I simply make this post to add a different perspective on the substance and attitudes of the latest threads.

You state God is truth. I have always heard God is love, so truth is love and it is out of an appreciation and respect for those that are the dominate posters in these threads and those that have tried to post, only to be ridiculed or "talked down to" that I make this post. We all have a right to post our opinions, even if they do not fit into the box you all have created. If you don't like the opinions, then ignore them. Ridicule and attacks are not necessary.
IMHO
=======================================
Tellurian (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-19-04 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #39

44. I'm not suggesting anything..
just responding to your last post.

I don't watch the news, Pallas, except for my local news and weather. I am very selective about the programs, I do watch because I'd rather come away from spending a few hours of my time learning something than the constant propaganda bombardment from the talking heads.

The reason I'm recommending the GRID is because it's an apolitical look at how much more difficult intelligence has become over the last 4 yrs. and the escalation of the danger is more real than ever. The GRID is a raw, hard look, at the turf wars going on between interagency intelligence egos with the safety of American lives hanging in the balance. The movie which will be a continuing limited series on Monday nights @ 9pm is pretty much a recreation of what is going on in the world today. I find nothing gratuitous about it.

=================================
Tellurian (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-22-04 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #286

288. For now, the thread topic seems to be spent..
not a bad idea to step away, refresh and grow.

I will certainly give them serious thought ..... because no one person knows all ..... or should ever fool themselves into thinking they do..... and so I do thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention.

I will say this: if you go back to the last thread, and examine the person's posts regarding the Klein article .... and some back-and-forth that occured between two other people .... I think you will find the source of at least some of my concerns .... I believe that it is important not to distort a paragraph in the manner in which it was done.

But rather than try to defend myself ..... because I do respect and admire the information and opinions that you place on here .... I will spend the next couple of hours looking within to see if I have erred. Because, after all, I am sad and weakly human .... and thus prone to making mistakes! I owe to it this discussion to make sure that some of the undercurrents -- including some that are not taking place on the surface of this thread -- have carried me adrift.

As you may -- or may not -- know, there were a series of DU e-mails .... these occured in the last few days .... and have obviously spilled over onto these threads.

I do not think that I have encouraged "group-think" on here ..... my goal would be quite the opposite ..... I think that I have been very clear that every person should think for themselves.

What I have tried to encourage, actually, comes down to two things: first, that people consider the "Man X" questions about "Why?" .... and this requires us to go beyond the explanations given by elected officials, respected journalists, as well as anything that any one of us posts on here. Second, I have encouraged us to try to get 100 individuals to write a letter (or more) to the elected officials or news media that they feel most appropriate.

If an individual feels that the discussion of "why?" is complete, and that it needs to be given a rest, that is surely their right. There are hundreds of other threads, and thousands of other internet sites. And there are books, tv, all types of things.

But there are many other people on here who feel the "why" questions are the explanation of why this series of threads has been as popular as it has. And we want to continue to move forward with this, both the question why and the letters, without any balls and chains that continue to say let's stop. That's all.

So my question is: if a person is not interested in talking about the issues that this particular series of threads deals with, and wants to stop and give it a rest, would you agree with me that they should simply stop, take that rest, and go somewhere else?

"But rather than try to defend myself ..... because I do respect and admire the information and opinions that you place on here .... I will spend the next couple of hours looking within to see if I have erred."

H2O, there is no need to look within, just review the threads to see if there is any legitimacy to my concerns regarding attacks being made on posters that post different opinions. Review them and determine whether or not there have been some varied opinions overlooked because they do not comport with the majority.

Yes, a person has the right not to continue in this thread if they want to rest, that is a given. I believe that my post was simply suggesting that instead of attacking the poster, one simply overlook or state "that is your opinion and I do not agree" or "that might be something we may want to consider" and not “hey gang he wants to leave, do you have any problems with not hearing from him again? (paraphrased to reflect perceived tone).

You are correct, I know nothing of your personal communications. My post was in direct response to your attacks on Tallurian relative to his comments regarding rest and a television program. When I read your replies, I thought it was the perfect opportunity to point out that sometimes the folks that post opinions that differ from the majority on these threads are ridiculed, chastised and/or attacked. As was pointed out to you by another poster, I did not make the “group think” comment yet you chose to respond to my posts accusing me of having done so and by defending your position. Let us not confuse the issue.

I simply responded to your posts in the hopes that you, as a respected leader on these threads, would encourage others to be more tolerant of people that express views that are outside of the box. I was hoping that the teacher could try to teach some tolerance. Guests should be welcomed, not heckled. Apparently that is not something you find is necessary so I must accept that.

What is sad is that for all of the good you all think you have accomplished, for all of the facts you believe you have uncovered, for all of the motives discovered, just imagine how much more you could learn, discover and accomplish if you considered the varied views of other posters instead of chasing them off. You are all stuck in a rut and “group think” does now seem appropriate.

The “why” has been repeated over and over and over and over again. The “what to do” is courageous and to be applauded. The turning away of posters with a different point of view should be mourned.

You’re either with us or against us! Sound familiar?

....I hope you will respectfully read my post at the bottom of this thread. I ask for a reconciliation on here, to what extent possible. And I do admit that, after giving your thoughts serious consideration, I must make a greater effort to not react negatively to the deceit and insults of others ... especially when they occured on a DU e-mail.

I also think that it is not uncommon for a group of people to have some points where tempers flare a bit. I'm not sure that this is a bad thing. We are human beings, and it is perhaps unrealistic to think that people will not disagree -- sometimes strongly.

I also think that it is possible, and in fact, important, to be able to differentiate between discouraging a open discussion with many different schools of thought -- which is healthy -- and not wanting someone with an different agenda, as opposed to different opinion, from trying to interfere. Perhaps you would have to be privy to a series of private conversations, but I think it's time to drop this dark and dreary topic, and move on.

I will be careful not to raise it again, and hope that you will do the same.

information is encouraged and that respect and tolerance of differing opinions be practiced. Fret not teacher, I have grown weary of these threads and this topic. The ennui is frustrating and the tail chasing has become old and tiring. I will probably monitor things in the hopes that new thoughts are shared and I am delighted that LeftHander has been able to express a different hypothesis without being ridiculed. That is indeed encouraging.

Syndrome has been found to exist in most Americans since
the events of 911.

Almost everyone, as the 911 Commission has just repeated, is
aware that there will be another attack.

IMHO We would be served better if a film were made instructing people
exactly where to go or what to do in their own homes to protect
themselves and their families in the case of another attack.
That has not been done.

I commented before, and I repeat the comment, it is the belief of
many that this current administration is purposely keeping the
populace in a state of fear.

The suggested movie seems to propagandize, in addition to being violent, the helplessness of the population to protect itself.

The comment was made to the effect, paraphrasing "it'll toughen you
up to survive".

I watched the movie. I disliked the gratuitous violence. And it has nothing to do with the everyday life of normal posters here. We are not spys ( is it spelled spys or spies?) who are involved in such machinations.

It also occurred to me later that it was a pure propaganda movie to
put fear in the hearts of the populace. And it reminded me of
Henry Kissinger's statement..

""Today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their World Government."

- Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.
Circa time when PNAC first written for Bush 1"

I also wondered if this was not a propaganda movie put out by
Poindexter's and Rumsfeld's office of OSP. They now have radio stations, tv, and as their stated goal is to influence thought and
countermand "their enemy" liberal Hollywood, there is no reason to
think that they are not capable of putting out propaganda movies.

My tastes don't run to the violent. Anyone is free to watch the
GRID and pretend they're living in the "spy world".

Anyone is free to post on any thread or almost anyplace on the internet, whether they are republican or democrat. The "dominant" posters here are the wonderful people who have researched again and again and posted pieces of the puzzle which have added to several different theories of the "WHY"

Anyone is free to disagree with another's theories,ideas, and usually explains why, or says, "Look at it this way".

Generally, a tone is set by the majority posters of a thread.

The tone here generally has been quite civil and polite with few exceptions which has made it a delight.

When a poster "feels" attacked, humiliated,and talked down to - that may well be their personal problem, and not discernible through typewritten words. When a poster states that's how they feel and is apologized to, but insists on hanging onto the alleged "hurt", then
one has to wonder WHY?

As a person who has been made fun of, and been the receipient of pointed accusations, I choose to let it go and keep my focus on the goal.

Through these threads I have learned more about my government in the past 2 or 3 weeks than I have known in my entire life and I can only
say thank you to H20 and all of you who have educated me.

Thank you.

who have known about our government flaws and have seen them misused to destroy people for over 20 years, but your new found excitement tries to quiet those individuals who would only share what they know and have experienced. Your loss.

post to H2O, then why did you respond to my post directed to H2O regarding posts made by him about another? Just curious.

was shouting at you, among other things, and I distinctly answered in a lengthy post which contained an apology if you felt that way.

One mea culpa is enough.

May I suggest you ignore any post I place, and in that way
you will not be irritated by my enthusiasm, and I shall do the same.

I release you to your highest good.

enough. Unfortunately, you make a habit of it and when called on it, instead of an apology you attack. I would ignore your posts if they were not made in response to my posts and I only respond to your obnoxious replies. Again, I ask you to refer to your previous response and recognize that you replied to my post directed specifically to H2O.

There is no need for you to release me - you have no control over me, though apparently I have unknowingly been punching your buttons. Every time you respond to my posts you chose to respond with contempt, snide comments, condescending remarks and/or the "holier than thou" comments that are not necessary and are not really responsive to my posts.

I would suggest in the future that you ignore my posts.

And again, it is merh not mehr (for the 3rd time)

"Generally, a tone is set by the majority posters of a thread."

Ain't that the truth.

You and I have had private conversations, so I think you know how I feel about most things -- or maybe you don't. Judging by our last conversation I am going to say that you absolutely do not understand where I'm coming from.

It is my considered opinion that you do not like it when people disagree with you -- no, not at all. And you can be vindictive about it when they do.

I saw the exchange between yourself and Tellurian yesterday. Tellurian can stand to be more tactful at times, that is for sure. But if I were a new poster to this thread I would have surmised that the two of you had some long-standing feud that I didn't understand. In actuality the two of you have strongly disagreed a few times -- nothing major. But yesterday you gave Tellurian hell for no reason.

I know from our private conversations that at times you can be unnecessarily paranoid. And that you are truly offended when someone disagrees with you or wants to do things in a different way. I think you like to think of yourself as "den mother." When this is done in a positive and protective way it is very comforting, and rather sweet. But when you demand that things are done a certain way, when you refuse to answer innocent questions, and when you attack someone who has disagreed with you previously, so sorry and with all due respect -- this is wrong.

I know that you are a kind-hearted person and truly do not mean to offend. I am telling you that sometimes you do offend, if unintentionally. Perhaps you need to examine your motives -- and make sure that they are not self-serving.

I think you know I'm not trying to hurt you. I'm trying to tell you that you have buried yourself so deep in this thread that you are no longer thinking clearly. Nor are utilizing that fine brain of yours for the purposes God intended.

A week or so ago when I told you that you needed to go to bed and take a break I meant it in the kindest way -- and I mean it that way now. Take a break. Spend time with your sweetie. Relax. Don't make this thread your life. Go and find your smile.

we all have the same objective here...to discern why. If we all go at it in the same manner, some things will (not may) be overlooked. We all have to bring our ideas to the table and sift.
Let's all bury the hatchet and quit shooting at each other like typical democrats..it accomplishes nothing and disrupts much. This much we agree on.

1. Plame was outed because of what she may have known or been close to finding out, not because her husband investigated yellowcake.

2. She was working on tracking WMDs.

3. Cheney sold and was fined for selling WMD components.

4. Cheney has been in government employ for decades, and not just rank and file positions.

5. Kahn of Pakistan was conducting a WMD Wal-Mart.

6. Kahn was pardoned when it became known before any questioning could be conducted.

7. Why

You are, of course right. And while I may not agree with you on some of the finer points of your analysis I certainly can appreciate and support the idea of burying the hatchet. Sheesh, I didn't know I was carrying a hatchet. I better put that thing down.

I'm laughing because I just remembered a line from a very old Pink Floyd song -- "Careful with that axe, Eugene."

You started this thread and I know I've thanked you a time or two. But I'll thank you again anyway, and I swear to concentrate on the issues more than the personalities.

how about others filling in? Put your theory or known in the place it needs to go with a renumbering of the list and the word theory or known after the entry. Then after everyone who wants to, contributes their list, I will make a master with everyone's contribution and renumber. Then we will know where we stand.

to you, which belonged to another, causes you to post such vitriol
with regard to my character and actions.

As I would not reveal that person's confidence to you or any other, which you call " a refusal to answer innocent questions" neither would I or will I reveal any other confidence I possess.

I believe that is called integrity.

Thank you.

that I was not spewing vitriol. I gave you an honest assessment of what I could see happening. And I complimented you on your fine mind, and told you that I thought you needed to take a break and have some fun with your sweetie. In truth I was trying as hard as I could to say something not so nice -- in a nice way. I may have failed miserably. But if you will accuse me of deliberate vitriol I submit that you already know better than that. And shame on you for saying it when you know it isn't true. I know you are not that damn stupid that you would think me spiteful. A republican response to those who disagree with them is to smear that person. Is that what you are up to?

When someone disagrees with you it is not necessarily cause to go on the offensive. It just means that they disagree. I don't know if this is your normal nature or not. But right now you are having a hard time swallowing the fact that people disagree with you. You have to listen with an objective ear. Then take a break and think about it. If I were the only person saying this I might consider that I could be a little too sensitive. But I am not the only person.

I am not angry with you for respecting a confidence. No, not at all. In fact I wish and hope that you've respected mine, but I strongly suspect that you have not. What made me angry was that you were evasive in a way that caused me to believe you were lying to me. When I questioned this you behaved as if I was trying to pry a confidence out of you. Your reaction was paranoid. Indeed the entire conversation was rather paranoid, as several of our other conversations were. I was trying to determine if indeed there was a threat made to people on this thread, as you indicated. I am one of the people. I wanted to know. I asked. All you had to do was answer "no." You would not.

You've got a proprietary attitude toward this thread. It does not belong to you. You are a valued and respected contributor, and you need to respect all others who wish to contribute. Right now you don't. I am officially requesting that you respect all others who wish to post on the thread, and all others who might have ideas for which direction to go in. Even those who have ideas that differ from yours.

You have to give respect to get respect, Pallas. Try it.

I'm not going to waste time "spewing vitriol" or defending myself from future attacks from you. I don't think anyone else should have to either. I once again, with all due respect, and not in any way vindictively, suggest that you take a little break. You need your rest to be at your best. Today you are most definitely not at your best. I hope that soon you'll go back to the kind hearted and imaginatively intelligent person who I was beginning to like. I sure would like to see THAT Pallas again. What have you done with her?

I'm just catching up and posted some responses to the old thread! CYE!

I'm anxious to continue with the "why" discussions and letter writing campaign until we've exhausted every avenue. The spin from the Rove department will not stop us from our original goal.

Lots of great new info posted on Berger, Halliburton, Cheney and Iran. Excellent work!

From Philadelphia Inquirer(?), getting reproduced around:

Posted on Thu, Jul. 22, 2004
Wake me up when real news arrives

By Trudy Rubin

The Philadelphia Inquirer

snip

The new focus on Joe Wilson is simply a distraction. Last July, the respected Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce quoted a "senior intelligence officer" as saying it was other CIA officers, not Plame, who recommended Wilson for the job. Maybe the Senate source got it wrong. My point is: Who cares?

Wilson had strong qualifications for the mission. He was a former U.S. ambassador to Gabon who had served as Africa expert on the National Security Council, and he knew Niger and its leaders.

If this was nepotism, Plame hardly did her husband a favor. We are not talking trips to Paris here. And there obviously were no CIA rules against sending an agent's relative on a non-secret mission -- otherwise, Wilson wouldn't have been cleared.

In other words, the new story line is a flop. The debate on Iraq and WMD will continue. And so will the investigation into who leaked Plame's name.

TRUDY RUBIN is a columnist and editorial board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Write to her at trubin@phillynews.com or at Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8262, Philadelphia, PA 19101.


http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/erubin22_2004072...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Thanks for posting it. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to send her letters, e-mails, etc. I'd bet that Pallas180 might post a paper of interest.

but I'll still be here

My mail box is always open to all of you.

While not related to the Plame affair (seemingly) I can't seem to get this incident out of my mind. First of all, boy do I wish he had shown better judgment. Surely he knows what these people are like and to slip up like that...

This being said I think it's important to keep pointing out that he took COPIES, not the originals.

Also, if he did persuade the guards to abandon their protocol and leave him alone in the room, and there were no cameras, who was there to see him stuff the documents down his pants and socks? Also, if someone saw him do this why didn't they say "Hey, what are you doing?" or report the matter immediately to a superior?

WHY did they suddenly leak it to the press?

Did you see my post of the published report of Halliburton under
criminal investigation being released the same day they started
the hullabaloo about Berger?

That's my theory.

Full REpublican spin machine and talking heads to distract from
the published announcement of Halli-Cheney criminal investigation.

Courtesy of David Gergen on CNN's "Newsnight," earlier this week:

I call it "Dr. Gergen's SANDY BERGER VACCINE." It bears repeating, here, AND to your friends and your friendly Letters-to-the-Editor column...

I saw David Gergen on “Newsnight” on CNN (Tuesday, July 20th, 2004) with Aaron Brown. I found myself wondering how soon the republi-CONS are going to put a hit out on David Gergen. Gotta be some dirt in there that they can use to discredit him with. He's their worst enemy in this. He OBVIOUSLY did NOT get their memo. He said all the wrong things (at least from their point of view). ALL the wrong things:

About the timing which he bald-facedly said could be regarded as suspicious, and for the reason he also specified - to draw fire away from Thursday's expected release of the 9/11 Commission's report.

About the character of Sandy Berger - unimpeachable, says he knows him well, respects the heck out of him, AND THEN proceeded to spell out in some detail how Sandy Berger worked almost literally around the clock during what we now know as the run-up to the Millennium terrorist threats, and Gergen REPEATEDLY stated that Berger "STOPPED THE ATTACKS." He must have repeated that maybe three or four times.

And to add insult to injury, he flat-out stated that "these people should be THANKING Sandy Berger for all his hard work because (repeating yet again) HE STOPPED THE ATTACKS.

FURTHERMORE, Gergen referred back to ALL the republi-CON puffing, which is, I think, the phrase he used, or maybe even "unnecessary puffing" by those who had just been shown in videotaped clips, fulminating about how awful this was and how it was such a serious breach of national security - you could see all the usual suspects, Dennis Hastert coming to the mike with the coterie of gop henchmen - tom delay, and others, all really indignant and frowny-looking, and then the senators - including rick santorum and - our dear darling Georgia CHICKENHAWK saxby "I'm more patriotic having skirted Vietnam than Max Cleland who lost three limbs in the war there" chambliss. And then, here's David Gergen, referring back to those same people he says were hyperventilating about it (my phrase) when he said a) a second time that they should be THANKING Sandy Berger because he - repeat yet again - STOPPED THE MILLENNIUM ATTACK.

He specifically described all the uproar as just that, uproar, and much ado about nothing. He said they were going way overboard and that there's "a lot less here than meets the eye." Those were, in fact, his closing comments, and those, too, were a repeat from earlier in the interview.

He not only vouched vigorously for Sandy Berger's character, but he gave himself a little bit of a ribbing when he pointed out that this was certainly sloppy, and mentioned that he himself ought to know because he had that problem, being sloppy. He said he could understand how you have papers all over the desk and at the end you scoop 'em all up and put 'em away in your folder and then - Gergen said - he probably LOST a couple of 'em. He pointed out again that he thought this was just sloppy.

He further said that Berger was there, to begin with, because as part of what was then his anticipated testimony before the 9/11 Commission, that the commission asked him to go back and thoroughly review his notes of the Millennium threat and what was done - (to do what, class?) STOP THE ATTACK. So he was carrying out instructions he'd been given from the panel.

AND - Gergen also pointed out, repeatedly, that these were copies. COPIES. C-O-P-I-E-S of stuff that is STILL in the National Archives, stuff that was ALL seen by the 9/11 Commission, and ALL made available, and all still there, now. Gergen said there was NEVER anything out of any of this that was kept back from, or hidden from, or disallowed to the 9/11 Commission, and that they'd seen everything there. This, he said, and the missing papers, were copies of stuff that the commission absolutely did get to see. So basically no damage done - GERGEN SAID.

As for Aaron Brown, he introduced Gergen as somebody who ought to know, having advised four presidents, Nixon, Reagan, bush 1 and Clinton. The CLEAR inference here was that this, like with Richard Clarke, presents a picture of someone who is very non-partisan, having worked for both camps, and presidents of both parties.

So, all in all, I thought it was rather even-handed, even excellent for Sandy Berger. David Gergen was really definite about these things. No hemming and hawing and parsing his words and grasping about, verbally, for "a way to put this" that would shade it with other meanings in any way. He was very straightforward, and the republi-CONS probably hate his guts this evening. Probably revoked his VIP pass to their convention next month. EVERYTHING David Gergen said HURT their case. EVERYTHING. If Sandy Berger's attorney was at trial about this, he'd have David Gergen as his star witness.

Sorry for the length, but these are GREAT Talking Points if you want to write a letter to the editor, or to your UNfavorite TV reporter or anchor or spin doctor. EXTREMELY valuable and useful.

For TWO reasons:

1) It reinforces the good about Sandy Berger smack in the face of these would-be terrorist experts. Gergen REPEATED "HE STOPPED THE ATTACK" maybe four or five times during those few interview minutes. He must have thought that, alone, was a HUGELY significant point, about which people NEED TO BE reminded.

2) It turns the glare back on the republi-CONS - in this time when we're waiting for the 9/11 Commission report that - try as they might to deflect the blame from THIS White House - will still show that THIS White House at least SHARES the blame. AND it provides a wickedly good opportunity to remind about the PLAME outing, and how - ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT - that outing of an undercover CIA operative IS a crime. It IS a violation of law. It IS a blow to our national security. And it goes STRAIGHT TO THEIR FRONT DOOR. Let them try to pawn THAT one off on Berger and Clinton.

Sunday, Jun. 27, 2004
Plenty More to Swear About
By JOE KLEIN
The Vulcans — a campaign 2000 nickname for George W. Bush's hawkish national security team — went Krakatoa last week. Dick Cheney erupted on the Senate floor, deploying the F word against Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, who had been belaboring the Vice President over the no-bid deals that Cheney's old company, Halliburton, had scored in Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz suffered a meltdown in a House Armed Services Committee hearing, blasting the press for "sitting in Baghdad" and "printing rumors." (He later apologized.) And the White House was forced to acknowledge that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had approved, at least for a while, the use of dogs, nudity, stress positions — that is, torture — against enemy combatants. Indeed, Rumsfeld, who works at a stand-up desk, indicated a desire for at least one more strenuous stress position: "I stand 8-10 hours a day," he scrawled on a memo. "Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

Presumably the Secretary of Defense doesn't do his standing naked, continuously, in the middle of the night, surrounded by hostile guards and attack dogs. But then, Rumsfeld's blustery testosteronics are at the heart of what has gone wrong with the Bush foreign policy — and last week the assorted temper tantrums appeared to be a leading indicator of a gathering summer storm confronting this presidency.


The torture investigation is one of four major defensive battles the Administration is facing. In the weeks to come, the White House will also have to deal with the 9/11 commission's final report, the congressional investigations into the CIA's bungled assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and a special prosecutor's hunt for the White House leakers who blew the cover of CIA secret operative Valerie Plame. Not only is the Administration defending itself against the Democrats, the investigators and the media. Two other serious, surreptitious — and quite possibly unprecedented — battles are going on: the intelligence community is at war with the White House, and the uniformed military is at war with the civilian leadership of the Pentagon. The first conflict went public last week with news of the impending publication of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terrorism, a book by an anonymous author who is known to be a senior CIA official and former chief of the agency's Osama bin Laden station. The invasion of Iraq was "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," the author writes. "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq."

Michael Moore couldn't have said it any better — and this book was vetted by CIA censors. In fact, the views of Anonymous are an accurate reflection of the opinions I've heard from multiple intelligence sources. The spooks seem to believe that outgoing CIA Director George Tenet was strong-armed by Cheney and Rumsfeld into overassessing Iraq's WMD capacity. This may or may not be true, but it is the conventional wisdom in the intelligence community. Furthermore, there is intense anger over the White House's revealing the identity of Plame, who may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components. Plame was outed in a White House attempt to discredit the finding of her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that there was no evidence that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. "Only a very high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge that Plame was on the payroll" of the CIA, an intelligence source told me.

more...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,11010...

I reprint this article that we have been referencing since the first thread because the knowledge of this "sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components" provides us with clues for a MOTIVE to blow Valerie Plame's cover. Exploring the reasons "why" gives us a clearer understanding of the scope of this treasonous act and leads to the next logical query in any criminal investigation: who benefited?

3. A THEORY ON THE WHY - Plame -> Cheney->Halliburton


repost

A THEORY ON THE WHY - Plame -> Cheney->Halliburton

On my way home today, as I thought about the why the outing of Valerie Plame was necessary, I was so engrossed I drove 4 exits past my exit.

Here's what we know:

1) Valerie Plame was "active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of Weapons of Mass Destruction components"" when her identity was exposed by the White House. It also said" Only a high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge" that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent.

2) Vice President Cheney since 1995 as CEO of Halliburton was fined 1.2 milion dollars for illegal sales of components to Libya which could be used for nuclear purposes. Shortly before becoming Vice President he bitterly assailed US policy against selling such components to Syrria and Iran, which apparently hurt Halliburton's bottom line.

3) There is an investigation of Vice President Cheney in other countries for illegal bribery and various other offenses connected to Halliburton as well as paying amounts to secret Swiss bank accounts

4)The Atomic Energy Commission has said a North American company is one of 20 being investigated for black market sales of WMD materials.

Here's the theory:

Valerie Plame was stopped in her tracks and the biggest treasonous taboo of revealing a CIA sting operation was done because she/it was coming close to discovering even more serious violations of the laws against trading nuclear materials with certain countries by our own Vice President and the Hallibuton company he has awarded billions of US taxpayer dollars to in non-bid contracts after he became VP.

Recently Libya was accused of having WMD components and the US threat
ened to invade unless Quaddaffi gave the WMD components to the US.
Bush 2 was seen on TV this week inspecting the cases of returned materials from Iraq triumphantly. The fact that Quaddafi received these illegal shipments of components from Cheney/Halliburton was not
mentioned in the victory video.

Dick Cheney, even after the Senate Intel Committee, The Atomic Commission and numerous other agencies have said no WMD exist in Iraq,
insists Iraq has WMD even in the last week.

Why? Because Dick Cheney knows he, through an offshore Halliburton company with a PO Box, at some time in the past sold Saddam Hussein WMD or components of WMD. In the same way "they" under Bush 1 adminstration sold Hussein lethal gas which he used, and then attacked him for using it saying he was a threat to the community.

Why do Cheney and Bush insist they must attack Syrria and Iran as the next step in making the world safe and that Syrria and Iran have
WMD? Cheney-Halliburton know that Syrria and Iran have WMD components because Cheney illegally sold the WMD components to Syrria and Iran.

Why did Bush Cheney know that North Korea had WMD and where did they gget the components?

Why were Pakistan and India able to test and develop nuclear weapons undetected by the CIA's "big eye in the sky" or any agency's seismic
discovery? And where did India and Pakistan purchase the components
for WMD which were illegal for any company to sell them?

What was Valerie Plame investigating?


good spooks vs the bad spooks in the FBI and CIA becomes very confusing to most, I think.



Not to add confusion to my "theory " above, but I also thought:

When Saudi Arabia asked Junior and Company to get out of Saudi Arabia
afer we had built a monstrous and expensive base armed with the newest weaponry - one might call it a home base -why would they do that, when they had wanted US to protect them and their oil fields for years???

The reason given for asking us to vacate was to calm the anti-American element. Hmmm. But if they needed our protection from that very element, WHY would they ask their protector to leave.
BECAUSE they "likely" also received WMD from certain parties.

So now, we can guess, the entire Middle East is armed with illegal components of WMD...supplied by whom?hmmm

And I agree with you ROBERTPAULSEN- it's a great racket. Supply them
with the components, collect payment. Shuttle back and forth between
private employment and government employment, selling WMD for your company's bottom line while a private CEO, earning large bonuses and
deferred "payment" plus increased stock option value, go back into government, create a war on those countries who have the WMD you have sold them, then you have created a situation where your company and the other companies you hold stock in, or which belong to your other associates, can supply the army with munitions, destroy the country you have sold WMD to, and then the very same companies who supplied the munitions for destruction, go in and rebuild the country.


So. Now how many times have you profiteered?
1) illegal selling of WMD
2) earn bonus, increase value of stock options
3) Supply Army Munitions on no bid contracts
4) Rebuild the country on no bid contracts

everyone is assuming that the Brit Intel is the same Intel that the
CIA had. (on yellowcake)

You're right about one thing...the intel agencies all share their info.BUT you are forgetting that the French have been investigating CHeney Halliburton illegalities for some time, and Cheney Halliburton
did not sell yellowcake (to our knowledge), they sold equipment that could be used for dual use - and one of the uses was for a nuklar bomb.

So there is nothing to say that the Brit Intel was the same Niger info.In fact it may not be.

WHY would they not share with the world what information they had about Iraq having WMD? And why have they suddenly changed their mindsagain saying it was bogus after all - after insisting for 1 1/2 years they had separate proof of Iraq having WMD?

Theory: because it would cause a great deal of embarrassment to "he who calls himself president of VICE ! !! a-ha!

Could be one of Halliburton's subsidiaries or offshores, whose name and connection was not recognized immediately was in the hands of Brit Intel so they said they had separate verifying proof of WMD in Iraq - only to realize the proof traced back to a company named Halliburton or Brown Root - and so they shut up. (TOP SECRET - CANNOT BE REVEALED, of course while every intel agency in the world knows, but the general public date not know becaue we would hang the perpetrator)

Highly plausible . First they say they have proof of WMD in Iraq.but refuse to show it.......now they suddenly say the proof is bogus - and still refuse to reveal it.

H2O Man (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-17-04 02:01 PM




We know that Valerie Plame was involved in a sting operation involving the components for WMDs. This is verfied in J. Klein's article in Time, 7-5-04. Remember also that when Novak called CI for confirmation of Plame's status -- and Robert NoFacts had told a total stranger on a public street on the day afterWilson's NYT op-ed article that she was a WMD specialist -- the CIA requested that he not only should NOT mention Wilson's wife was an operative with the Agency, but that her name should not ever be printed.

One of the things to keep in mind is that by revealing Plame's identity, it insured that at very least, a half-dozen operatives (American and other-wise) were exposed to the last people on earth that they should have been exposed to. Let's just say, for example, that there was a person who was working in the Pakistan area ... and he had worked in deep cover for over a decade, and was very, very close to accessing information on the sale of not only technology, but also components, that went to Iran .... and he had a known link to Plame .... then he would be dead 24 hours after Novak's article was printed. Further, no one in the USA would be at liberty to discuss the fact that he existed.

You will recall that I've referred to this as high stakes chess. A board game where the removal of one player compromises the safety and value of several others.

Listen: if they wanted to call Wilson's conclusions into question, they could create confusion with a series of bullshit documents from England, etc. They could have said that his was one of three US reports, and that there were the British papers that were still open to question, considering that Wilson had not viewed them. They could have even said, yes, we tend to agree with Wilson.

But they didn't. They had been waiting to reveal information on Plame for some time. The fact that Iran is sharing he focus in the recent days, along with Wilson, is a clue .... a big clue.

Pallas180 (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-17-04 05:43 PM


71. I am convinced Valerie Plame was the target, & they thought
they would do a 'Rosenberg' on them. Two for the price of one.
Set them up.Traitors to the country, electric chair, the whole bit.




calimary (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-17-04 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #71

143. That would fit in conveniently with the message they evidently wanted to put out to the intel community: the "do not cheney with us" message. Wilson has, many times, mentioned that what happened to his wife, whether to her directly or indirectly to him, was to seriously discourage others from getting "out of line." Wouldn't that just be the decisive little coup de grace - to "Rosenberg" one or both of them, to put a chill on anybody else who might be getting too dangerously close? If they knew they were not only going to be ruined, but they also faced the electric chair or some other kind of EXTREMELY final punishment, there'd be icicles hanging off all of them before you could say "BOO!"

And for awhile, they've seemed invincible, haven't they? So who would dare...

But things are a lot stickier and more complicated now. Their anticipated free ride is starting to get seriously mucked up as more people know, and talk, and spread out, and start asking questions, and some guy like Fitzgerald gets involved (who couldn't be counted on to be a "good" republi-CON after all. And, as someone else mentioned either here or on Thread 8 - they misunderestimated the internet. They thought we'd all just shut up and go to our corner and suck our thumbs and mope and cower and give up, didn't they? They didn't know we'd (literally, here) go underground...

As Martha Stewart would say - it's a VERY good thing. And it's gaining traction.

Which is what our efforts in all these arenas should do, as well. GAIN TRACTION.

robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-19-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #216

234. WHOA!!! Could this be circumstantial evidence of a Khan/Plame link?!


When I first read this article, I decided to post it here because of the dirt it has on a Musharraf/Khan/Bin Laden connection.

A. Q. KHAN & OSAMA BIN LADEN

snip
These accounts of three of the travels of Dr.A.Q.Khan establish conclusively the following facts:

He had kept the Pakistani Foreign Office informed of his travels. The Foreign Office had instructed the Pakistani diplomatic missions in the countries visited by him to accord the due honours of protocol to him.
In all the countries, he was received by officers of the Pakistani diplomatic missions and entertained by the heads of missions.
In Sudan, he was accorded the honours of protocol generally given to a member of the Cabinet and called on the President of the country.
He was accompanied by senior serving scientists of Pakistan's nuclear establishment, who were among those responsible for Pakistan's military nuclear development. They could not have gone abroad and remained absent for days without the knowledge and clearance of the Government.
At least one Lt.Gen. belonging to the Pakistan Army's Medical Corps, who had headed it, and two Brigadiers had accompanied him. They could not have gone and remained away from the country without the knowledge and clearance of the Military Headquarters.
The uranium enriched at KRL, Kahuta, used to come from Africa, mainly Niger. This partly explains the frequent travels of A.Q.Khan to Africa. From the accounts given by the Pakistani author, two intriguing questions arise:

Why did Khan consider it necessary to visit the site of a factory in Sudan, which became the target of US Cruise missile attacks after the explosions outside the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam by Al Qaeda in August 1998? The Americans had alleged at that time that this factory belonged to Osama bin Laden and was producing chemicals for weaponisation purposes. Denying this, the Sudanese authorities had claimed that it was producing anti-malaria drugs.
Why was he visiting frequently Timbuktu, which has apparently no importance from the nuclear point of view? Pakistani officials have alleged that he had illegally constructed a hotel there ( Hotel La Colombe?) in the name of his wife. If he was going there to supervise the construction of the hotel, he should have been accompanied by experts in building construction and the hotel industry. No such person accompanied him. He was always accompanied by scientists and Army officers associated with KRL and Tahir Mian, who was helping him in the procurement of centrifuges.
It is reliably learnt from well-placed observers that it also came out during the recent interrogation of the associates of Khan in Pakistan's nuclear establishment that after Osama bin Laden shifted from Khartoum to Afghanistan in 1996, Dr.Khan was also looking after bin Laden's extensive investments in the mining industry in many African countries and that the money invested in the Timbuktu hotel had come from these investments of bin Laden. The Pakistani authorities have reportedly suppressed this information and not shared it with the US.

http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/khanandbin...

Sooooo....

Khan, with the assistance of the Pakistani government and military, looked after bin Laden investments in Africa. Pretty bad on its own merits. But then this sentence caught my eye.


The uranium enriched at KRL, Kahuta, used to come from Africa, mainly Niger. This partly explains the frequent travels of A.Q.Khan to Africa.


What a coincidence. The enriched uranium that Khan had access to came mainly from NIGER!

Now, when Cheney sent Wilson to Niger, wasn't he aware of Plame's WMD "sting operation" in the Middle East?!

No wonder Musharraf had this reaction:

"In one of his statements, he has even blamed the US intelligence agencies for not uncovering this network earlier than October last year and asserted that if they had done so, he would have acted against it even earlier."

I know this is not direct proof of a smoking gun, but I think this information could be an extremely important piece of the puzzle. If the WMD trafficking that Plame's "sting operation" covered is linked to Khan, who got his enriched uranium mainly from Niger, and we can verify Cheney had access to this intelligence, then we are getting even closer to H20 Man and Prouty's big question: why?

if you read Robert's post above carefully, you see that
Pakistani scientist Khan was running a Nuclear Walmart.

1)He sold the secrets of the nuclear bomb world wide. This is fact.
2)He had access to yellow cake by his trips to Africa/Niger
3)He was OBL's overseer of finances and properties, with the help
of the secret service ISI of Pakistan.

The ISI of Pakistan was also the supporter and installer of the TAliban in Afghanistan (and current protector/hider of OBL)

When Khan was exposed as the merchant of death ofa ring selling nuclear materials world wide, he was immediately pardoned by
Musharaf, PM of of Pakistan. Pardoned so fast that none of the US
Intel agencies would be able to question him.

WHY? H20 always tells us to ask WHY? Why was Khan immediately pardoned? Because to try him for criminality would have exposed
who gave him nuclear components, what corporations sold illegally,
what country and high officials were involved.

WHERE did Khan get the components which are necessary to set off
a nuclear device?

WHO? do we know who has illegally been selling nuclear dual components?

Some of these answers go back to the administration in 1988 when it
was known that administration gave other countries the miniaturized
nuke W88. Hmmmm. What current officials were in the same administration?

What was the name of the President at the time?

Subject: Why go to the elaborate scenarios: to stop investigations into WMD sales
Message:
Pallas180 (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-18-04 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #59

71. They're not called the Mayberry Machiavellis for nothing - I think

in a way it was the other way around, they weren't after Wilson, they were after Plame. Two for the price of one. Rosenberg them.

Cheney has been in govt since Nixon, that we know of, then Ford.
He's been around a long time with access to top security items.
To recap, we also knew he made at least 10 trips to CI HQ and would
have, could have, pinpointed who was working blackmarket WMD which
would have been of great interest to him. He would also have access
to CI files, would know of or remember Ambassador Wilson. Bingo -
the plot is hatched.

Ask her would her husband be interested in helping? Of course.
Discredit him, expose/discredit her operation and put a stop to her work and the work of the entire spy group/cell she had set up worldwide which MAY have been hot on the trail of Halliburton/Brown Root/et al illegal black market sales of components which could be used for WMD, which as we all know was Valerie's job.

He figures he's home free, no more fines, no discovery of the double dealing, but the Mayberrys call Novak and committ a treasonous act which leads right back to the WH and darth vader.

___________________________________________________________________


Pallas180 (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-18-04 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #102

117. If Pappy gave the mini nuke W88 to China,as widely reported, there is nothing to say Pappy and darth vader didn't give the same or similar components to Khan. And your theory sounds just about right - Khan would have had to be pardoned immediately because not to pardon him, the good FBI would be over there asking him where he got the WMD and the arrow would point right back to the 1988 administration # 1 and/or the current WH.

Another reason why junior sealed Pappy's records.

Nice, huh. It still sounds like treason to me at the highest levels
__________________________________________________________

robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-18-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #117

138. Glad you agree!


The extent of treason is pretty scary. Gives me nightmares sometimes. I woke up this morning with the memory of seeing a news report: "Bush prepares for upcoming Iran invasion". That's one nightmare I'm afraid might come true.

But I take comfort in knowing we're all on the side of righteousness in this struggle

Thursday, July 22
by Stephen Pizzo

published by Tom Paine

Nixon's Children


This has a ton of info, well worth the read!

-snip-

Both Cheney and Rumsfeld had front-row seats from which to watch the self-destruction of the Nixon presidency. Finding themselves in power again, both men well understood that it was not what Nixon and his cronies did that got them thrown out of office, but the evidence of what they did—the tapes, the memos, the testimony.

snip-

Lesson learned: Once information gets loose it's too late. To make sure nothing like happens to this administration the whole operation has been virtually hermetically sealed. The power to classify information as Secret and Top Secret was expanded to every nook and cranny, including Agriculture and the EPA. Even within the Bush administration itself, information has become available strictly on a "need to know" basis. There would be no Daniel Ellsbergs leaving this administration with anything sensitive but what was in their heads—and therefore deniable.

After failing to stop further publication of the Pentagon Papers—which for those too young to remember, put the entire basis for and execution of the Vietnam War in doubt—Nixon's first instinct was to kill the messenger by turning one of the war's chief architects, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, loose on Ellsberg. Kissinger started spreading the word that Ellsberg had shot at peasants from helicopters while in Vietnam and, furthermore, that Ellsberg was gay. When neither rumor stuck Nixon went looking for real dirt, organizing a break-in at the offices of Ellsberg's psychiatrist.

-snip-

Lesson NOT learned: The Bush administration had its own Ellsberg on its hands this year when former ambassador Joe Wilson publicly contradicted the Bush administration's oft-stated claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. The White House response was a ham-handed attempt to discredit Wilson by leaking to the press that Wilson's wife was a covert CIA agent who operated overseas undercover as an energy analyst.

Inevitably the smear blew back on the Bush White House, just as the Ellsberg break-in had, and now the administration is stuck with an investigation into just who leaked the story. It is illegal to reveal the identity of covert CIA operatives—for obvious, and often deadly, reasons.

-more-

http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040205Pizzo.shtml

email: feedback@progressivetrail.org

The Waterman Paper

A: Introduction

This paper examines the possibility that Vice President Dick Cheney orchestrated the "leaking" of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the news media in the summer of 2003, in order to accomplish three goals.

These include (1) to punish Joseph Wilson for challenging "16 words" in President Bush's 1-28-03 State of the Union address; and (2) to intimidate other sources from publicly challenging the White House's version of events involving the "war on terrorism" and the US invasion of Iraq. Both of these goals are well-known from numerous reports on this White House scandal.

The other, (3) is that VP Cheney was attempting to derail an investigation that Plame may have been involved in at the time that her identity was exposed. This third potential goal has not been the subject of any major media attention.

The author of this paper put it forward on an internet forum, the Democratic Underground, in early July, 2004. The resulting eleven DU "threads," which consist of over 3,000 posts from interested citizens across the country, is the only known forum debating this theory.

B: Sources

Besides the eleven DU "Plame Indictment" threads, the information in this paper comes from the following four sources: The Politics of Truth, by Joseph Wilson; Worse Than Watergate, by John Dean; Don't Tread on Joseph Wilson, NYT book review by John Dean on 5-23-04; and Plenty to Swear About, by Joe Klein, Time, 7-5-04.

C: Time Line

While the case involving Wilson's investigation in Niger, and the White House's efforts to expose Plame is long and complicated, this paper will focus on a "time line" established by Wilson in his book.

1-Jan'02: The first reports of a Niger-Iraq uranium connection surface in the White House.

2-Feb'02: Wilson is asked to investigate by the CIA.

3-March'02: Wilson returns from Niger and briefs the CIA on the investigation. His conclusion supports those of two others that there was no Niger-Iraq connection.

4-Jan'03: Bush includes the "16 words" in his State of the Union address.

5- On or about March 5,'03: the CIA gives VP Cheney an oral report, informing him of Wilson's conclusions.

6-March 7, '03: the IAEA announces the US's documents on Niger-Iraq are forgeries.

7- March 8,'03: (a) a State Department spokesperson admits, "We fell for it" in regard to the forged document; (b) Wilson tells CNN that the State Department has more information on the subject; and (c) a workshop meeting is held in VP Cheney's office. It is attended by top republican officials, possibly including Cheney, Scooter Libby, and Newt Gingrich. The group discusses ways to discredit Wilson.

8-June 8, '03: Condoleeza Rice denies knowledge of the weakness of the Niger uranium claim on Meet The Press. She states, "Maybe someone down in the bowels of the Agency knew about this, but nobody in my circles."

9- July 6, '03: Wilson's NYT op-ed is published. By the following day, two senior White House officials began contacting at least six reporters, informing them of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative.

10- July 8, '03: Reporter Robert Novak tells a complete stranger on a Washington street: "Wilson's an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him."
In the following days, Novak would ask the CIA for confirmation of Plame's identity. He was asked not to print her name or identity in any article regarding Wilson.

11- July 14,'03: Novak's article exposes Plame.

12: July 20, '03: NBC's Andrea Mitchell tells Wilson that senior White House officials told her that the "real story" was not the 16 words, but was Wilson and his wife.

13-July 21, '03: NBC's Chris Matthews tells Wilson that Karl Rove called him and said," Wilson's wife is fair game." Matthews said he would confirm that if asked.

This time line indicates that while the exposing of Plame's identity was a result of Wilson's op-ed, it was also part of a larger strategy that had been planned in VP Cheney's office since March 8. It clearly confirms goal #1: by exposing Plame, and putting her safety at risk, the White House had severely punished Joseph Wilson.

It also supports goal #2: the White House had a strategy to intimidate any other potential intelligence operatives from exposing the administration for distorting information regarding Iraq.

Likewise, the exposing of Plame supports goal #3: exposing Plame put an immediate end to any activities that Plame was participating in at the time. This is supported by Wilson (pg 345) : "She immediately began to prepare a checklist of things she needed to do to minimize the fall-out to the projects she was working on."

Also, Wilson notes: "Compromising the officer means compromising a career, a network, and every person with who the officer might have ever worked. Slips of the tongue cost people their lives." (pg 13)

D: The Leaker's Identities

Robert Novak sourced his story to two senior White House officials. Other reporters, including Andrea Mitchell, made mention of the two unidentified senior White House officials. These two are among the at least six reporters contacted by these two officials.

Chris Matthew's call identifies Karl Rove as being involved in the efforts to make "Wilson's wife ...fair game." This call took place after the calls from the senior officials to the six reporters.

Wilson's book indicates a belief that the two senior officials were Lewis "Scooter" Libby andEliot Abrams. Abrams is no stranger to White House disgrace, having been convicted on two charges during the Iran-Contra scandal.

There is evidence the three were operating with the knowledge of, and perhaps under the direction of VP Cheney. The March 8 "workshop" in VP Cheney's office indicates that this was a long-standing, well-organized effort to discredit Wilson. As Wilson notes (pg 387) : "... a plan to attack me had been formed before the moment. It was cocked and ready to fire .... an organized smear campaign directed from the highest reaches of the White House."

E: VP Cheney and pre-war intelligence

Those involved in the "workshop" to discredit Wilson were also active in efforts to influence pre-war intelligence reports. On page 6, Wilson discusses "leaks" that Cheney, Libby, and Newt Gingrich pressured the intelligence community "to skew intelligence analysists" to fit their own needs.

On page 338, Wilson notes that these three reportedly intimidated analysists by implying, "if you do a 'Wilson' on us, we will do worse to you."

Wilson notes (pg 434) that VP Cheney runs a "parallel national security office," which has no congressional oversite, and hence can "circumvent long-standing and accepted reporting structures and to skew decision-making practices."

As a result, as reported by Joe Klein in Time (7-5-04) "the intelligence community is at war with the White House." Klein notes that "multiple intelligence sources" indicated to him their belief that Cheny strong-armed out-going CIA Director George Tenet, to make him support Cheney and Rumsfeld's positions on Iraq.

F: Cheney, Niger, and Wilson's Trip

Wilson notes a report on a possible Niger-Iraq yellow cake uranium transaction had "aroused the interests of Vice President Dick Cheney." (pg 14) Cheney's office "had tasked the CIA to determine if there was any truth to the report." (pg 14)

It is clear that Cheney was aware of the Niger report, and had directed his office to have the CIA do an investigation of it. There is evidence that on March 5, the CIA gave VP Cheney an oral report on Wilson's findings. This was three days before the State Department spokesperson told the media, "We fell for it," and that Wilson told CNN that the State Department had more information on that subject. March 8 was also the day that the "workshop" to discredit Wilson was held in Cheney's office.

G: "What I Didn't Find" vs "16 Words"

The White House retracted President Bush's infamous 16 words immediately after Wilson's op-ed appeared in the New York Times.

On 7-13-03, Condi Rice told Fox News Sunday that, "It is ludicrous to suggest that the president of the United States went to war on the question of whether Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa."

On 7-14-03, Robert Novak exposed Valerie Plame's identity. It is important to recognize that Novak was aware that Plame was an operative who specialized in WMDs, and that he had been asked by the CIA not to reveal her identity, or even print her name, in an article on Wilson.

The White House continued to engage in efforts to discredit Wilson, including sending three identical e-mails of "talking points" to Keith Olbermann when Wilson was appearing on MSNBC's Countdown.

H: 1982 Intelligence Identity Protection Act

Wilson notes that the administration had already acknowledged the Niger-Iraq link was unsubstantiated, and that logically, they should have focused attention on how the 16 words made their way into the president's State of the Union address. The effort to expose Plame's identity made little sense. (pg 7)

Later, he continues with, "The White House gained nothing by publicizing Valerie's name..." (pg 7)

"Then it struck me that the attack by Rove and the administration on my wife had little to do with her, but a lot to do with others who might be tempted to speak out." (pgs 5-6)

"The decision of the president's people to come after me .... arose from no concerns over the emergence of secrets from my mission -- there weren't any." (pg 339)

"However offensive, there was a certain logic to it. If you have something to hide, one way to keep it secret is to threaten anyone who might expose it. But it was too late to silence me." (pg 338)

I: Goal #3: Why Cheney Exposed Plame

Wilson notes that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor, pointed out that since the Bush people had never backed down before, the fact that they had been "so quick to admit their error this time meant they must have something more important to protect." (pg 4)

In "Worse Than Watergate," John Dean calls the exposing of Plame the "Dirtiest of Dirty Tricks." He writes that "revealing her identity damaged the national security and her career, and resulted in the loss of a valuable government asset." He called this action "literally life-threatening." (pgs 170-171)

What could have possibly been so important to VP Cheney that he oversaw the violating of the 1982 IIPA, and risked a White House scandal? The answer clearly can not be found in goals #1 or #2.

The answer, which supports goal #3, appears in Klein's article: "Furthermore, there is intense anger over the White House's revealing the identity of Plame, who may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components. ..... 'Only a very high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge that Plame was on the payroll' of the CIA, an intelligence source told me."

And that very high-ranking official may have known through his parallel national security office about the activities that Plame was involved with at that time. The answer to goal #3 likely is to be found in the checklist of things Valerie Plame did to mitigate the damage done by Novak's article immediately after she read it.

J: Conclusions

This paper presents direct evidence that the intelligence group that operates out of VP Cheney's office orchestrated the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, in order to real goal #1, the "punishing" of Joseph Wilson for publicly challenging President Bush.

It includes both direct and circumstantial evidence from sources including Wilson, Dean, Klein, and others, that indicates they also had goal #2 in mind: to intimidate any other potential sources that could challenge their reasons for invading Iraq, as well as other measures in their "war on terorism."

Yet these two goals alone do not explain why VP Cheney would (1) take part in a measure that would violate a federal law against exposing a CIA operative, or (2) risk a serious scandal for the Bush Administration.

The possibility that VP Cheney was hoping to derail a sting operation involving Valerie Plame, which is our identified goal #3, does explain why VP Cheney would condone the breaking of the federal law, and risk the most serious scandal that this administration faces.

Further research by an ad hoc DU "think tank" has identified possible connections between businesses connected to VP Cheney that may be associated with the sale of WMD components to countries in the Middle East. It is our belief that this theory and the evidence that supports it needs a more in-depth investigation.

When all the points from other researchers are brought to the table as I suggested, I will put them in some sort of order and then it can be added to your paper on the subject. Maybe between the two papers, we will have a full, comprehensive, but not complete because of the unknown unknowns (as yet), theory of why. Condensed as such, other members can read it, understand all that has been done so far and maybe get ideas on where to look for more.

A good idea would be to put the two papers together on a separate thread and keep it kicked with instructions to go to this thread for comments and additions to the theory. Leave the papers as they are until enough additional information becomes available to make a third paper to add to the thread.

edited to add.

I appreciate the thoroughness of your research, especially with your timeline, which is very helpful in helping people understand the root of our research.

Today, I was perusing through several of the Plame threads thinking that I should do something similar to what you just did. Kind of a recap to send to people to say, "This is where my research has lead me so far. Would you please look deeper into this matter?"

The way The Waterman Paper is constructed is an excellent template for any other Plame Thread researcher who is considering compiling their own ideas to disseminate to the people who can help us in our investigation.

Thank you Waterman for blazing the trail!

you are very kind. I think that it is important to give credit to my friend Pallas180, who urged me to go foreward with this paper.

These are utter perfection in terms of fodder for your LETTER-WRITING sprees. Talk about a writing staff! Sheesh!

These summaries are valuable because they encapsulate a reeeeeeeeeeeaaaalllyyy long thread which may seem too daunting and demanding to get through. All the nuggets are in these summaries. It's like Cliff's Notes.

There are MANY instances in these various summaries that are gorgeously written, VERY impressively written, and VERY sleek and cut-to-the-chase in nature.

Strolling through any of these will give you TONS of ideas for things to say and points to make and ways to word them all. Plus, they are great motivational tools - a little calcium supplement for the spine. We give such supplements to our reps when we call to give them support or correct their strayings. Many times we can use those boosters, ourselves.

Good job, these!

I proposed a while ago that the Iraq war was started to create a cash flow source to protect Halliburton for Cheney's failings as a CEO in aquiring Dresser Industries - (Harbison-Walker name familiar?)

Heres the theory...

Actually Cheney orchestrated the aquisition per request from GHW Bush. The plan was to aquire Dresser absorb the asbestos liability. try to influence congress to limit liability on asbestoes claims. 200,000 claims would destroy Dresser. The aquisition created a much larger company with the resources to handle the asbestos claims if it went south for Halliburton. Knowing this was the plan all along to save Dresser, Cheney laid out plans to frame Iraq for purchasing nuke materials after things got desparate when Halliburton was wallowing at $9 a share in July of 2002.

To go to war and win the big cash cow prize called war and oil revenue. Cheney needed excellent reasons to invade a country. The Niger Yellow Cake was one of those reasons....The Niger Yellow Cake was real. Almost. It was a sting set up by Plames group. And Cheney and the rest fell for it. Wilson probably had no knowlege of the sting . Cheney caught wind that the Niger yellow cake deal was going to surface. He sent a independant third party to investigate to find planted bogus documents to cast the light that the Yellow cake was not real. Even though it really was a sting. Thus Wilson. Wilson was the unwitting pawn in a sting by Plame and Cheney's coverup.

Cheney had every expectation to cover the actual deal with falsified documents planted as a cover that the actual transaction occured.
the yellow cake was intially purchased to have looked like Iraq was buying it. And would of ended up in Iraq.

Sometime after Wilson returned and reported Cheney found out about the sting and who Plame was. Thinking fast he outed plame and attacked Wilson. Cheney has been toast for sometime. And so is Bush.

They have been scrambling ever since. The leak of the name accomplished the reasons from the Waterman paper. Discredit Wilson, put the skids on Plames sting, get several undercover people killed so evidence can dissappear. Cheney is digging himself deeper and deeper and dragging Bush with him.

So. A personal favor from a ex-President GHW Bush to CEO Dick Cheney in the mid-nineties to save the family fortune somehow tied up in Dresser and Harbison-Walker. Cheney commits treason and puts lives on the line, invades a country and teeters a global company on the edge of precipice that could result in a drastic effect in the U.S. economy if it fell. Enron is a punk compared to Halliburton.


Halliburtons Disclosure of 2002

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/halliburton.ht...