PLAME INDICTMENTS #13 High Crimes & Misdemeanors-"The Tip Of The Iceberg"

[Pallas180]

The Waterman Paper (as published on the Home Page of Democratic Underground July 24, 2004)

The Waterman Paper July 24, 2004
By H2O Man


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.

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.

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)

The Leakers' 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 and Eliot 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."

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 analysts 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 oversight, 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.

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.

"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.
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)


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.

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 realize 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.
At the time of publishing, the most recent message board thread on this subject can be found here:



PLAME INDICTMENTS - "HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS- THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG"


These links seem to work better if you open them in "Open In New Window"

Plame Indictments Thread 1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Plame Indictments Thread 2
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...

Plame Indictments Thread 12
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Pallas180]

1. SCENES FROM THE LAST EPISODE

.
64. robertpaulsen Waterman, this is EXCELLENT!

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!
****************************************************************

75. What I mean is...

All of the speculation and theories put forth by H@O Man have been answered in Lefthander's post...here:

"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."

IOW...they are in consensus.

And what I mean is...We're back to square one with the same question..

Who in a high government position outed the CIA agent Plame?
********************************************************************

131. scottxyz (1000+ posts)
Tellurian's post is incorrect

Tellurian claims that "All of the speculation and theories put forth by H2O Man have been answered" and then goes on to quote an argument by Lefthander to the effect that "Cheney needed excellent reasons to invade a country. The Niger Yellow Cake was one of those reasons... Wilson was the unwitting pawn in a sting by Plame and Cheney's coverup."

This is totally incorrect. As we all know, the most exciting piece of "speculation" put forth by H2O Man is precisely the questions that go BEYOND the conventional wisdom about yellowcake, Niger and Iraq. H2O Man's speculations are MUCH more wide-ranging that mere yellowcake, Niger, and Iraq - and anyone (such as
Tellurian) who misses this has missed the main point of this massive series of threads.


H2O Man has speculated that Valerie Plame, as an undercover agent investigation WMD trading networks, may have been getting close to exposing sales of WMDs by Cheney/Halliburton to members of the "Axis of Evil."

This is an explosive speculation - an allegation of trading with the enemy no less, and then exposing a CIA
operative in an attempt to do a cover-up. But this speculation makes some sense: exposing an undercover CIA operative would bring down the biggest scandal on the Administration, but if Cheney was trying to cover-up an investigation into his own treason, then that might make it worth it.

Of course, this speculation is nowhere near proven yet - but the bits about Adeer Khan's nuclear Wal-Mart, and Halliburton's alleged illegal sales of WMDs to Iran are some of the pieces of evidence that support it.

It is quite disingenuous, to say the least, for Tellurian to claim that a post rehashing the conventional wisdom about Niger and Yellowcake and payback to Wilson has somehow "answered" the much more serious speculation H2O Man actually raised: speculation about Cheney trading with the enemy and then exposing a covert operative's cover in order to cover up his trading with the enemy. Quite to the contrary - the old Yellowcake/Payback theory does NOT answer the much more serious speculations raised by H2O Man -

H2O Man's speculations are MUCH more wide-ranging that mere yellowcake, Niger, and Iraq - and anyone (such as Tellurian) who misses this has missed the main point of this massive series of threads.

H2O Man has speculated that Valerie Plame, as an undercover agent investigation WMD trading networks, may have been getting close to exposing sales of WMDs by Cheney/Halliburton to members of the "Axis of Evil."

This is an explosive speculation - an allegation of trading with the enemy no less, and then exposing a CIA operative in an attempt to do a cover-up. But this speculation makes some sense: exposing an undercover CIA operative would bring down the biggest scandal on the Administration, but if Cheney was trying to cover-up an investigation into his own treason, then that might make it worth it.

Of course, this speculation is nowhere near proven yet - but the bits about Adeer Khan's nuclear Wal-Mart, and Halliburton's alleged illegal sales of WMDs to Iran are some of the pieces of evidence that support it.

It is quite disingenuous, to say the least, for Tellurian to claim that a post rehashing the conventional wisdom about Niger and Yellowcake and payback to Wilson has somehow "answered" the much more serious speculation H2O Man actually raised: speculation about Cheney trading with the enemy and then exposing a covert operative's cover in order to cover up his trading with the enemy. Quite to the contrary - the old Yellowcake/Payback theory does NOT answer the much more serious speculations raised by H2O Man -


*******************************************************************

115. Pallas180 (1000+ posts) H20 is right. When you start asking WHY, the motivation for their moves,
it answers so much.

Actually what we are doing is moving backwards from the "result"
to the "cause....reading their minds, their reasons for their
actions.

That WHY tends to get very revealing I think.


*******************************************************************

67.Tellurian H2O...Your third identified goal is impossible for you to investigate..

because you will never know what Plame's activities were and who her contacts were that would constitute enough of a threat to Cheney to out her under the guise of punishing her husband.

The only person who can accomplish a perfect fit to your allegations is Valerie Plame herself.. not you.

As I mentioned yesterday, these things take time. People have to be sent out into the field..Things have to be verified, documented, witnesses interviewed and deposed..and on and on.. <sheesh>

I'm sure she has received your information by now. Unfortunately, you seem to want instant results. A yes or no answer on the spot...Otherwise you are want to cry how you've been insulted and your trust violated by putting forth this idea and going unrewarded for your thoughtful thoughts. Are you afraid someone is stealing your ideas? Are you afraid someone is going to take credit for your theory?

I thought the important thing was getting enough evidence together to help Wilson..I mean what is your goal anyway?

*****************************************************************


80. Me. Why the need to be confrontational?

It can't add to the validity of your points if you deride those of others.


*********************************************************************



137. scottxyz (1000+ posts) Actually, the validity of many of your points IS in question, Tellurian


I find it quite ironic that you claim that the validity of your points are {sic} not in question - when your positions and points have been some of the most (subtly) contrarian on these threads. (I couldn't help rebutting many of Tellurian's most erroneous points in other posts within this thread. Tellurian's errors and omissions were so glaring, it was like shooting fish in a barrel.)

Or, perhaps "contrarian" isn't the right word. These threads themselves are presenting a contrarian viewpoint: that Cheney may have outed Plame to derail her investigation into his trading WMDs with the enemy.

You, Tellurian, are the contrarian within the contrarian thread, you are presenting the "conventional wisdom" which we can read in any of our trusty media outlets, namely: Not much to see here, just some payback for Wilson exposing Bush's phoney yellowcake claims.

Tellurian is the main voice trying to drown out the contrarian speculation in this thread and bring us all back to the boring conventional wisdom.

I have read most of these threads and I have found that the posts whose validity is precisely MOST EASILY called into question are none other than Tellurian's - who has, if I recall correctly, on several times made rather depressing, dead-end suggestions to the effect that we should abandon this novel and serious line of speculation, or that we're somehow back at square one, or that we should go and watch The Grid, or there's nothing new being discussed here. (Forgive me if these dreary suggestions were made by somone other than Tellurian - feel free to speak up and I will credit you other counter-contrarians!)

There is something VERY new being discussed here: the possibility that Cheney may have outed a CIA agent who may have been investigating his trading with the enemy. Many of Tellurian's posts have quite lamely attempted to quash this highly speculative but potentially rewarding line of inquiry - and for that reason their validity is indeed very much in question.


*******************************************************************


141.Scottxyz H2O Man's third point is NOT impossible to investigate

Tellurian takes the pessimistic view that for some reason ONLY Valerie Plame could have investigated H2O Man's third speculative point.

This is incorrect. H2O Man's third point simply heads in the direction of asking whether Cheney may have been trading WMDs with our enemies. If such trading were taking place, Plame, as a specialist in WMD trading networks, might have had some leads. But why does Tellurian go so far as to claim that ONLY Plame could have had any leads?

It is quite misleading for Tellurian to suggest that because Valerie Plame's status as an undercover operative has been revealed, the answer to this serious speculative question can never be known.

Is Tellurian cliaming to know that nobody else might be able to provide us with this information?

Is Tellurian quite certain that no contact of Adeer Khan perhaps, no disaffected employee of Halliburton, no member of one of a foreign government, no US or foreign intelligence operative might have gotten wind of such alleged trading with the enemy?

Wow, Tellurian must have an awful lot of contacts out there in the underground arms-dealing milieu, if he knows all that!

*********************************************************************


H20. 213. A Waterman Note: A Letter from a Region of my Mind


On Thursday, July 22, a contributor to the Plame Indictment Thread #12 posted a concern that I would like to examine closely. Tellurian noted that I am unabled to investigate and prove a theory that VP Dick Cheney may have played a significant role in exposing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. The Waterman Paper, posted on 7-22, outlined a theory that VP Cheney may have manipulated events from behind the scenes in the White House, in order to derail an investigation that potentially threatened to expose some of Cheney's business deals.

Tellurian indicated that because I am not able to investigate, prove, or prosecute this theory, that it should not be advanced on the DU Plame Threads. Further, Tellurian noted that others could be embarassed if they repeated this unproven theory.

This note will attempt to address those concerns. First, I share Tellurian's concerns that it would be both irresponsible and reckless to advance wild charges against any public official, without having some direct and/or circumstantial evidence to build a proper foundation.

However, the "lack" of proof from the DU Plame Threads Think Tank should not be equated with a weakness in the theory. Nor should our perceived inability to "investigate" be reason to stop our efforts to pass this information on to other grass-roots political groups, to elected officials, and/or to other media sources.

In support of this position, I offer the following: In 2001, EPA director Christine Todd Whitman was attempting to prepare to participate in global discussions on regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Due to the significance of the Kyoto Protocol, CTW attempted to get advice from her boss, President Bush.

Frustrated by her inability to discuss this issue with the president, CTW instead had meetings with three other key officials: Andrew Card, Paul O'Neill, and Condoleeza Rice. They prepared a strategy based in part upon George Bush's campaign promises regard the threat to the environment from unregulated carbon dioxide emissions. Before meeting with the international community, EPA Director Whitman spoke about her positions on CNN's Crossfire.

Within days, four right-wing republicans (Chuck Hagel-Neb; Jesse Helms- S.C.; Larry Craig - Ida; and Pat Roberts- Kent) sent a letter to President Bush, demanding "clarification" on his position. The letter received significant publicity.

Furious, Whitman scheduled a meeting with President Bush. He did not allow her to speak at the meeting. Rather, he showed her a letter that he said was going to be the White House position, and then motioned her to leave.

On her way out, she noted VP Cheney was there to take the letter to the senators. A NYTs article would refer to this as, "the most immediate and visible loss of clout ever for a cabinet officer." ("Hostile Environment"; 8-19-01)

Paul O'Neill was sure that VP Cheney prompted and likely wrote the senators' letter to President Bush. Both O'Neill and Whitman were convinced Cheney wrote the letter that President Bush sent the senators.

These beliefs are found in two books: "The Price of Loyalty," by Ron Suskind (pgs 102-122) and "Crimes Against Nature," by Robert Kennedy, Jr, (pgs 50-52).

I do not consider it either weak or reckless for O'Neill to have discussed his beliefs about the underhanded, controlling, vicious, and pro-business actions of VP Cheney. I do not think he embarassed himself.

I think that DU Plame Threads participants may notice a pattern in the behaviors attributed to VP Cheney by a wide range of people.

H2O Man


*********************************************************************

103. Kohodog- Patterns of Behavior-Two Articles on Cheney/Haliburton

From the Independent, via Common Dreams

Grand Jury Probes Cheney's Role in 'Illegal' Iran Trade
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0722-03.htm

Cheney Lobbied Congress To Ease Sanctions Against Terrorist Countries While He Was CEO Of Halliburton
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0722-02.htm

[kohodog]

3. Good Morning Pallas

Something happened to your post...nithing there.

[Pallas180]

5. Good Morning, you giant brain think tanks!

I must say it just took me 2 hours and 45 minutes to transplant
all those posts to "Scenes from the Last Episode".

H20 is going to have to buy me a lobster dinner and the mate
is banging around in the kitchen. I think H20 is going to have to
buy him 2 or 3 grey goose vodka martinis before he'll calm down.

Gotta go for now - there's a rebellion going on in my own household
which I need to take care of. LOL. Big grin.

[Pallas180]

6. RobertPaulsen or KOHO, would you please

post the 5 or 6 theories Robert posted from the previous thread
on this one below.

And also Calimary's free 800 toll number to the Senate, but not
the listings of contacts to the Congress. They don't seem to work

If one of you can post a general Senate.house.gov site for people
to contact, I think we would all really be appreciative.

Thanks - see ya later.

[calimary]

39. Here's the simplest:

1 (800) 839 - 5276 - TOLL FREE TO CAPITOL HILL (it's always in my sig line, too), and www.congress.org - for a directory to ANYBODY on the Hill, AND their local/regional offices.

[Pallas180]

42. Great CALIMARY. Thanks once again for that free phone #

1 (800) 839 - 5276 - TOLL FREE TO CAPITOL HILL


and

www.congress.org - for a directory to ANYBODY on the Hill, AND their local/regional offices.

[Beam Me Up]

7. Plame-Indictments Threads in MS Word format (easier download)

All 12 can be found here as MSWord ".doc"s:

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

[Beam Me Up]

8. Does anyone have the PDF FILES??

For a time another DUer was putting these threads in PDF format, both as text and as archives--the latter kept all the external links to documentation within the files in tact (which the MSWord documents do not). I intended to mirror these files but they became unavailable before I could do so. If anyone has these files, or, better yet, if anyone can create them from the originals, please let me know. I'll find somewhere to host them.

Please private me.

Thank you!

BMU

[Pallas180]

15. Thanks Beam Me Up.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I felt this paper was so good

and had such important news that I emailed the link to many folks, including our local peace group.

I really think that Reason #3 has more to do with things than most people have thought about. Sure, it was 'fun' to out Plame so as to punish Wilson and stifle dissent, but I'm thinking that protecting corporate interests is the top of the Cheney agenda.

[Pallas180]

27. Hi Ayesha. That's great. People need to know what has taken over

our government.

[wolfgirl]

4. Another theory

to explain the Admin's actions - they are so damn arrogant they thought they could get away with it...like Clinton admitted, no reason for his actions (re: Monica) except he knew he could do it.

That would be the worse scenario in my mind. Not that the others aren't despicable.

[Pallas180]

28. Wolfgirl, could be, but these are into money & power bigtime.

[TacticalPeek]

9. David Corn asks his own 'why?' about the Get Wilson Gang.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/19328

The Get-Wilson Crusade

By David Corn, The Nation. Posted July 23, 2004.


Want to know why the conservatives are going after Joe Wilson? Just read the Wall Street Journal.

So this is what the campaign against former ambassador Joseph Wilson is about? In a long editorial yesterday, the hawks of The Wall Street Journal called for Patrick Fitzgerald, the US attorney investigating the Bush administration leak that identified Wilson's wife as a CIA officer, to "fold up his tent." The goal of the WSJ conservatives - and perhaps that of the other GOPers who have been bashing Wilson - is to get the Bush White House off the hook for the leak that outed Valerie Wilson (nee Plame).


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



David Corn is on a run of excellent work in this matter, and at personal risk of becoming a hero, IMHO.

[Me.]

10. Has Anyone Sent The Waterman Paper to the Kerry Campaign?

According to this Yahoo article the Kerry people have a one word answer to everything the *ushies say and that word is Haliburton

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&e=...

[Me.]

11. Wofowitz & Perle Are Being Invetigated by the FBI

From over at DU

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

[RebelYell]

14. All the current administration needs

is a good stiff breeze to blow them out of the water. I hope that story makes the light of day.

[Pallas180]

22. Me. Now that's a REALLY interesting development...hmmm

things are breaking open aren't they?

[kohodog]

45. Is that about the Chalabi/Iran connection?

I forgot about that one...But classsified info was leaked to Iran through Chalabi if I remember. I remember talk of an investigation...but something else must have diverted my attention. They're pretty good at that, eh?

Thanks Me for mentioningt it.

[Pallas180]

21. Hi ME. I thought of it, but couldn't figure out a contact..they have

lots of letters coming to my email box asking for various things,
but nothing with an e mail back.

Maybe the best would be to send to his DC office and Boston
rep office.

And how about Senator Kennedy too.

And Senator Edwards offices too.

[Pallas180]

16. TACTICAL -R U telling me the "Corporations" , Cheney's buddies are orderin

a US Attorney to stop digging?

Oops. And what do they have to hide?

[snippy]

12. I think that if goal #3 was a factor the CIA would have leaked that fact.

In part because the CIA hasn't been hesitant to leak information about this matter. Of course, if H20 Man IS leaking for the CIA, I obviously am wrong. But I think the main reason to reveal Plame's status was just part of the broad strategy to conceal the criminal strategy of the Bush administration to market the invasion of Iraq through an endless series of lies.

There was a conscious and deliberate decision made in the Bush administration to base the invasion of Iraq on a series of lies. Cheney has had wet dreams about invading Iraq for years. So did all of the rest of PNAC. In February 2001, Cheney had Bush instruct the participants at Bush's first National Security Council meeting to find a rationale for invading Iraq. Immediately after the attacks of September 11, several people in the administration talked about using the attacks as a reason to invade Iraq. Bush and the rest of his administration began publicly lying about the plan to invade Iraq shortly thereafter.

In early 2002, neither the public nor the republican party was very enthusiastic about invading Iraq. So Bush kept lying about his intention to invade, even as the planning for the invasion was being done. Then the White House Iraq Group ("WHIG") was formed in the summer of 2002 to market the invasion and devise ways for the republican party to benefit from the invasion and the debate preceeding it. All of the lies surrounding the invasion of Iraq, including the Niger-uranium lies, were developed and coordinated by the WHIG.

Here is an excellent article about the WHIG. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic...

Here is a longer post about the WHIG involvement in the Plame affair. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Pallas180]

18. Mr. Waterman aka H20 is a published author on other subjects

far removed from anything like this.

For those of you who think there's some great mystery.

I wouldn't doubt there are all "kinds" reading these threads,
attached to government, but Mr. Waterman is not one
of them.


For that matter, as has been repeated here, and as has been
posted by "Democratic Underground" site itself in the rules, there are certain things that may be posted and certain things that it would not be wise or permissible to post.

We might all keep that in mind.

[Pallas180]

19. "If goal #3 was a factor "the CIA would have leaked the fact" ahem -

there is an ongoing criminal investigation of Cheney/Halliburton's
business practices outside of this country - so somebody must have
leaked something.

Duh.

[snippy]

38. The CIA has leaked quite a bit about the Bush administration. n/t

[RebelYell]

13. I sent the paper to Greg Palast

But I'm unable to find a contact email for David Corn. I went to The Nation website and his personal website and there's no email!

I'll keep looking.

Congrats, H2O, on making the front page!

[Pallas180]

20. Great Reb. You always seem to get through. You have to give

the rest of us your secret!

[daria_g]

43. did you try

dcorn at thenation.com? That's the one listed here -

http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/bio.mhtml?id=48

[RebelYell]

80. Thanks, daria_g.......

Paper sent today to him

[loudsue]

17. Relevant to the Plame thread, and the Sibel Edmonds story....

There's a great thread here on GD about Henry Kissinger.

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

I'm copying my post from that thread here:

loudsue (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-24-04 01:07 PM
Response to Original message

21. Dynamite work, Octafish!!! Thanks!!


Great thread!

Kissinger is, without a doubt, the global "follow the money" end game. He is a blight on the peace-loving, family-loving people of the world, in favor of all that is greedy, slimy, obscenely rich and drunk with power.

This world would be A FAR BETTER PLACE if Kissinger got Wellstoned, or just moved on of natural causes. He and his helpers are the power brokers for globalization, and impending enslavement of honest workers around the world, being subordinated by a capitalist/corporatist oligarchy.

There is no dictator repugnant enough that Kissinger won't put him in office, for the goal of privatizing governments. He's far more than a war criminal. He's Satan's right hand.

_______________________


When we're looking at Cheney/Halliburton, we also need to look at the bush I & II administration's snuggly relationship with Kissinger and his demonic helpers: they are the "brokers", brokering arms/oil deals with governments of every stripe....they're the guys that help get Halliburton/Carlyle the $$.

They've been doing this since Nixon, and are only more well-connected every day to despots world-wide.

Sibel Edmonds connected all this, and she KNOWS who the players are. That's why she's been muzzled.

Here's Sibel Edmonds article:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/s-edmonds.php?articleid=315...

<snip>

"This puzzles me, having firsthand knowledge of ongoing intelligence received and processed by the FBI since 1997, which contained specific information implicating certain high level government and elected officials in criminal activities directly and indirectly related to terrorist money laundering, narcotics, and illegal arms sales. It is highly curious that the report omitted all this information, knowing that others in the Congress have been briefed on these issues and have been given the names of targets involved, special agents, translators, field offices, and files. I am highly puzzled and curious.

After the many public hearing shows, in which the Commissioners very skillfully played their good cop/bad cop routine and displayed their lifelong mastery of the political art of saying but not saying, and asking but not asking, all parties and all agencies have readily accepted this report. The president apparently considered the report rosy and appropriately symbolized its presentation in his rose garden. The previous administration sighed with relief, having scored a negative 4, compared to the current administration's negative 6, in the blame game. Notorious Attorney General John Ashcroft left his over-secrecy and classification guns in their holsters. In fact, this report ended up being blessed by all those responsible for our nation's security and interests, which were severely violated on September 11. I, for one, am highly puzzled and curious. How about you?"

<snip>


comments on this article?
send them to backtalk!

Back to the Antiwar.com Home Page






Archives

The Puzzling 9/11 Report
7/24/2004

Our Broken System
7/9/2004

Gagging Congress
5/21/2004

Sibel Edmonds began working for the FBI shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. Until the spring of 2002 she worked in the FBI's Washington field office translating top-secret documents pertaining to suspected terrorists. She first gained wide public attention in October of that year when she appeared on '60 Minutes' on CBS and charged that the FBI, State Department, and Pentagon had been infiltrated by agents of a Turkish intelligence officer suspected of ties to terrorism. She also accused members of the FBI's translation services of sabotage, intimidation, corruption and incompetence. On October 18, 2002, at the request of FBI Director Robert Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft imposed a gag order on Ms. Edmonds, citing possible damage to diplomatic relations or national security.

[shraby]

23. The Present Danger, Neocons attempt a comeback

The newly reconstituted Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), the War Party's latest high-profile front group, is off to a rocky start. In the face of incoming fire from independent journalist Laura Rozen, what the CPD's founders characterize as "an army of citizens" was forced into an ignominious retreat on the first day of its official reincarnation, as its managing director, Peter Hannaford, was forced to step down.

(snip)

The third incarnation of the CPD – shall we call it CPD-3? – resurrects all the familiar rhetoric, and even many of CPD-2's original personnel, although no survivors from CPD-1 have been unearthed. Under the nominal leadership of Senators John Kyl and Joe Lieberman, this latest effort to revive the flagging spirits of the War Party claims to be bipartisan, but is heavily weighted toward the Republicans, reflecting the radical role reversal effected in the last fifty years. The neocons may have long since moved their base of operations into the GOP, but that doesn't mean they feel any partisan loyalty, or even allegiance to George W. Bush: both Kyl and Lieberman have declared their intent to build a "bipartisan" "citizens' army" to "win the war on terrorism" – and keep the pressure on the president, whomever that might be, to "stay the course" and not try to sneak out of Iraq by the back door.

At a mid-June symposium co-sponsored and paid for by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), Lieberman set the tone for the occasion in his keynote address:

"The terrorists can never defeat us militarily. But they can divide us and defeat us politically if the American people become disappointed and disengaged, because they don't appreciate and support the overriding principles that require us to take military action. The same, of course, is true for our allies in Europe, Asia and throughout the Muslim world. They need to better understand and embrace our purpose and what it means for them

(more)

<http://antiwar.com/justin />

hmmmmmmmm

[Pallas180]

31. Schraby-I doubt Lieberman would get re-elected this time with the

people he's hanging out with.

It's a shame, because that will leave the seat open to another
thuglican.

I hope he retires (doubtful) or some other democrat runs against
him. He's an embarrassment and a hindrance. IMHO

[shraby]

34. It looks to me like he's not

only an embarrassment and hindrance, but also collaborating with people who are trying their best to bring America down by subversive means.

[Pallas180]

36. Schraby-Lieberman and his ilk seem to forget they are Americans First

and give a whole nationality a bad name, although the Liebermans
are sincere, stupid and duped IMHO, but sincere.

The others aim (purportedly in the WH) is to help Israel, or
rather that's their excuse.

Don't believe it for a minute.

Israel aint got no oil.

Don;t ever forget what James Baker 111 said in the family campaigns
"F- -k the Jews, they never vote for us anyway" and we know the
dimson family lawyer and former Sec of State represents Saudi Arabia.

Are we to think all of a sudden the dimson group has found a deep
fondness for all things Jewish? Naaaah. I don't think soooo.

Israel, I repeat, aint got no oil.

[kohodog]

40. Lieberman has no competition...yet

Connecticut is a divided state, but more liberal/dem than republican. the support you saw was because everyone loves a favorite son (ie a vp from your State), but there are no challengers on the horizon. Some of us see him as another Zell Miller.

[Pallas180]

41. KOHO You have a great Attorney General in Ct-is he dem?

cause if he was a dem, he'd probably be a fantastic candidate.

[kohodog]

66. Blumenthal is a Dem,

Reportedly he didn't run for Governor because he has his eyes on the Senate. He's done a lot environmentally and been good on many other issues (Enron, etc), but it will be tough to unseat Lieberman. the incumbent thing.

[SilasSoule]

24. Tip of the Iceberg indeed!!!!

[Pallas180]

29. Silas Sue - nice picture..thanks :)

[Pallas180]

25. Coincidence?on cable:movies about Bradley tank costing 14 Billion &

another about an energy formula the scientist decides to give
to the world for free.

Then the question I thought : Why isn't energy free?

Apparently HBO hasn't been bought by "the" corporations yet.

[Pallas180]

26. a kick for the Constitution

[hedda_foil]

30. And another for the Declaration of Indepence.

[skip fox]

32. Speculation in prev. DU thread: But motive was different!!!

This is a repost and contains decent (but not as good as above) information. The one major difference with this is the suggestion that the motive was one no one else mentions: To discredit Wilson!!!! (The logic: Cheney/Libby figure they can suggest that Valerie Plame HAD her husband sent to Niger as a political set-up designed to discredit Bush. So they try to discredit Wilson, implying he was not only predisposed to find no Niger connection but that he wanted to undercut Bush'd war against Iraq and possibly avoid the war. Now isn't this what we've seen OVER AND OVER??? DISCREDIT THE MESSENGER!!! . . . . Looking at discrediting as the prime motive might make a major difference in the investigation, and will certainly have a different political impact if it does point to Cheney/Libby.) Herewith the earlier post:


Reports originally said (erroneously, as it turned out) that Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of the Vice-President's Office. Who would Novak have called first in those days following Wilson's July 6, 2003 Op-Ed in _The NY Times_? The Office of the Vice-President, naturally.

Immediately after his July 6 op-ed in the _New York Times_, Joseph C. Wilson was thought to have been sent to Niger in February of 2002 at the behest of the Vice President (later vigorously denied by Dick Cheney, September 14 th on Meet the Press, see link #1, below). (This misunderstanding may have arisen from a clumsy reading of Wilson's Op-Ed, in which he wrote that he "was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report." and "The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer." See quotations in next paragraph that indicate mistaken in early July that Wilson was sent directly at behest of Cheney.) Robert Novak, _Chicago Sun Times_ columnist and televison commentator, by his own admission "was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council was given this assignment" (link #5). Those are the facts. From those facts, can we deduce who Novak would have called first? The Vice-President's office, of course.

Some proof of misconception in second week of July 2003 that VP sent Wilson: Ray McGovern reflects this misconception in a July 14 open memorandum to Bush: "There is just too much evidence that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of Vice President Cheney's office, and that Wilson's findings were duly reported not only to that office but to others as well." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4107.ht... . As does Will Pitt when he writes on July 11: "Wilson was dispatched in February of 2002 at the behest of Dick Cheney to investigate the veracity of the Niger evidence." http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20030711_pitt_bush_you... . Ian Macpherson writes, similarly, "Now it appears that Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of none other than Vice President Cheney's department" http://www.netnacs.com/downunder/archive/du-0026.htm . Steve Perry continues the error even at the end of the month: "It was Wilson who traveled to Africa in 2002 at Dick Cheney's behest" http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/sperry/stories/stor... .

So . . . Novak would have called Cheney or, more likely, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney's Chief-of-Staff (or, perhaps a staff member directly below Scooter). To find out "why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council was given this assignment," Novak would have gone to the presumptive "assigner."

How would the conversation have gone (using Scooter Libby as the contact)? They would talked about Wilson's editorial, why the State-of-the-Union Speech referred to Nigerian yellow-cake uranium and why Powell didn't mention it at the UN, and how Cheney had never sent Wilson on any mission. Then Scooter explains, telling Novak that Cheney, the previous winter (Feb. 2002) had asked the CIA to look into the reports of uranium sales to Iraq from Niger and that it was the CIA at the VP's behest who had sent Wilson. Then Scooter lets it drop, "Well, did you know Wilson's wife works for the Company? Let's see . . . yeah, right Valerie Plame. Word is that she was the one who had him sent to Niger." Novak's ears perk up (all he hears is "nepotism," missing the real insinuation: that Wilson put his wife up to having him sent because he had an anti-War agenda or because he was anti-administration and wanted to put the breaks on the early momentum toward the Iraqi war). Novak checks spelling ("P-L-A-M-E"), thanks Scooter, hangs up. Checks second source, etc.

It's important to realize the purpose was to discredit Wilson as a maverick-with-an-agenda, getting his wife to send him on a mission the results of which would undercut Bush's designs on Iraq.

Paul Krugman, as he so often does, gets to the marrow: "both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative."
( http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg... ) The purpose, therefore, was NOT revenge, NOR punishment, but to undercut Wilson's credibility. (To be fair, Krugman later, inexplicability concludes: "So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message.") IN the July 22 Newsday item (see link in Timeline) Wilson also admits to befuddlement: "They were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be."

Given the circumstance of the following summer (2003) when everyone was questioning the existence of WMDs, considering that someone who had investigated one of the claims Bush made in his State-of-the-Union Speech just undercut him in a July 6 NY Times op-ed piece, Scooter's plant was artful and effective, despite Novak's dull-witted interpretation (nepotism). It was clever about crushing anyone (Libby is more circumspect and pragmatic than Rove). The purpose was not primarily to inflict revenge upon Wilson, nor was it necessarily a warning to others who might take similar public stands, but to undercut an opponent who had momentarily risen in their midst. Bloodlessly, swiftly.

I know that if the purpose of the leak was revenge or a warning to others, the political damage to the administration would be worse. Since no one is likely to go to jail since bar for conviction under the operant law is rather high, all we can hope for is political damage. But mistaking the motive may well lead us in the wrong direction and allow the entire story to gradually dissipate in the short-shelf life of public attention. As it is, the administration will have to account for a coordinated attempt (2 leakers) to discredit a man who has ably served five administrations and was even labeled "courageous" by George Walker Bush. Perhaps those charged will tell investigators who else was in on the meetings where the strategy to discredit Wilson was hatched. (It was certainly coordinated and continuous, as attested to by the July 17 and 22 similar stories in Time and Newsweek–see timeline, below) Perhaps not.




TIMELINE:


(More detailed and much fuller timelines, distracting for our purpose, can be found at: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/US/uranium030714_t... and http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=... )

ca. 2001

Wilson: "I was invited out to meet with a group of people at the CIA who were interested in this subject. None I knew more than casually. They asked me about my understanding of the uranium business and my familiarity with the people in the Niger government at the time. And they asked, 'what would you do?' We gamed it out--what I would be looking for. Nothing was concluded at that time. I told them if they wanted me to go to Niger I would clear my schedule. Then they got back to me and said, 'yes, we want you to go'" (qtd. in link #2).

2002

February: Joseph C. Wilson is sent to Niger to investigate rumors of sales of yellow-cake uranium to Iraq. His trip lasts eight days: "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place" (from NY Times, 6 July 2003, qtd. in http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/cia-gate.htm ).

March 9: "CIA reportedly sends cable that does not name Wilson but says Nigerien officials denied the allegations," according to ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/US/uranium030714_t...

2003

January 28: George W. Bush's State of the Union Address.

June 12: Walter Pincus reports in the _The Washington Post_ that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report concerning uranium sales from Niger to Iraq. ( http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Bush-Iraqi-Uranium-F... )

July 6: Joseph Wilson publishes his Op-Ed in _The New York Times_ , criticizing the administration for allowing Bush to make the Niger-uranium claim in the State of the Union Address. (Link #4 for the Op-Ed.) Richard Leiby and Walter Pincus write an article discussing Wilson's work in Niger and quoting his unfavorable administration comments: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/13517480...

July 13: Robert Novak publishes his column in _The Chicago Sun-Times_ in which Valerie Plame is identified as a CIA agent. Novak writes: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him" (qtd. in link #3).

July 17: Time magazine publishes the same basic story, also attributing it to "government officials."

July 22, Newsday also confirms "that Valerie Plame ... works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity." Link:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/iraq/ny-uscia07...

Sept. 14: Dick Cheney on Meet the Press denies knowing Wilson and seemingly goes out of his way to say "I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea wh hired him and it never came..." Russert interposes: "The CIA did." And Cheney responds, "Who in the CIA, I don't know." (Link #3) (Why is Cheney going out of his way to volunteer this information? Wilson seems similarly perplexed; in an interview with Ann Goodman, also in link #3, after Goodman says "He (Cheney) also said that he didn't know who had sent you, raising questions about the whole legitimacy of your mission to Niger," Wilson says, "I heard that. I don't know what the Vice President was trying to get at in that. )

Oct. 1: Robert Novak publishes his column in _The Chicago Sun-Times_ recounting the entire story from his vantage. (Link #5)



* * * * * * Laws * * * * *

1917: Espionage Act (thrice amended since).

1982: The Intelligence Identities and Protection Act

Both are discussed by John Dean at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html




* * * * * * Links * * * * *


Link #1: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/155...
Link #2: http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3...
Link #3: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/155...
Link #4: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
or http://truthout.org/docs_03/100203B.shtml
Link #5: http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak01.ht...



* * * * * Bibliographies * * * * *

http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/cia-gate.htm (a bibliog. of articles criticizing the admin.)

[Pallas180]

35. Hi SKIP FOX. one assertion doesn't fit tho. Wilson was from Bush1

administration and much trusted by the elder Bush. Cheney would
have had knowledge of Wilson from his days as Secretary of Defense
under Bush 1. Wilson was an advisor to Bush1 - so characterizing
him as "why would they have called a leftover from the Clinton
administration" doesn't really fit.

Furthermore, Cheney both through his years with Bush 1, and his
top secret clearance back then and currently, well knew Plame's
job.

Our theory is, as is reported in numerous places, Cheney was back and forth to CIA HQ numerous times. His topic was WMD. Find a reason
to say there are WMD in Iraq. That is thought to be Valerie
Plame's covert position - illegal and/or blackmarket WMD tracker,

Certainly Cheney would have been advised of her position and gone
to her "desk" with his clearance. Let's suppose she advised
Robert G. Joseph, who had worked with her previously at CIA but who
was now in the inner circle of the neo-cons, and/or Cheney directly
what she was working on.

Red flag goes up.

Then H20's and Dean's reports of meetings of the neo-cons picks up the story from there.

If Cheney Halliburton have sold countries on the unsanctioned list,
which we know they have in the case of Libya, and for which they were
fined 2.1 million $, and for which they are being investigated now in
relation to Swiss Bank accounts and Bribes, he would have an excellent reason to "de-rail" her investigation by leaking her name,
and endangering everyone in every foreign country who had worked with her; thus shutting down the entire WMD sting operation.

I think if we look at your theory, we have to say Dick Cheney is not
a cold and calculating man, but just clumsy and stupid when bent on
revenge.

He doesn't strike me as a clumsy and stupid businessman, or a person
who doesn't know revenge is a dish best served cold.

What tripped him up was underlings Rove and whomever Rove and/or Cheney gave the job to the press.

[skip fox]

33. Palla180 . . . This is very good work, th ekind DU used to be famous for .

Maybe you should post it in Editorials a few times over the next several months (til Nov.). That way, it stays on the first page longer and a reporter scooting through may see it and begin asking questions . . .

[Pallas180]

37. SKIP, feel free to send it around. Waterman will like that I'm sure.

[Occulus]

49. Pallas, about that idea I floated to you

about a flowchart... well, looking over these threads, there's just too much information for it to fit on a single chart! What I'd really need is a comprehensive summary of everything we've discussed. A software solution would be nice, but... good Lord, how on Earth should I start?!?

I think I'm going to need some help with that one. Ooh, a hyperlinked flowchart would be even better, but like I said, I haven't the slightest idea where to start. Center of the page: Wilson/Plame or Bush/Cheney, for example?

Or would they go on top?

[SilasSoule]

44. Sunday Morning Kick

I'm really keeping on eye on these threads now.

[H2O Man]

46. The Revolutionary Presidency vs The Bill of Rights

1) Introduction

This paper will examine the dangers to constitutional democracy posed by the Bush Administration. It will review the concepts of separation of federal powers, the practice of the balancing of those powers, and scrutinize several areas where Bush/Cheney have corrupted this constitutional system that our democracy is based upon.

This paper will focus primarily on how the growing menace of an Imperial Presidency of the Nixon era has become the threatening reality of the Revolutionary Presidency today.

2) The Balance of Powers

A- The theories behind the constitutional democracy of the United States are the "distinctive American contribution(s) to the art of government." (The Imperial Presidency; Schelsinger; pg vii)

The idea of the 13 Colonies forming a confederate federal state came directly from meetings between Founding Fathers, primarily Ben Franklin, and the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. Jefferson was influenced by the Iroquois' concepts of the freedoms of individuals; these, along with the contributions of progressive European thought (found primarily in France), led to the Bill of Rights.

However, in European history, governments had assumed a unified authority that allowed them to control, and deny, basic human rights to citizens of the state. Jefferson and Madison and others created the more perfect union, which allowed citizens to control the government through a series of checks and balances implied in the separation of powers on the federal level.

B- The three branches of the federal government are the executive, legislative, and judiciary. These three are intended to form a balanced triangle. The separation of powers is not intended to make all three to be locked into an equal status; rather, it offers checks and balances that creates an inertia that keeps any one branch from assuming unlimited powers. The goal, according to Justice Brandis (Myers v US 1926) is "not to promote efficiency, but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power."

The executive, or the office of the president, has the implied power to provide leadership in emergency situations. In our early history, from the Revolutionary to the Civil War, this power was used only to respond to threats to the safety of citizens ( re: pirate attacks, which generally came from Tripoli, and which share important parallels with today's situation) and wars with foreign nations.

In these cases, these emergency powers were onlyintended for a brief period, before congressional controls took over. The Senate is the seat of the actual war powers. Further, according to Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, "The House of Representatives ... forms the grand inquest of the state. They will dilegently inquire into grievences, arising both from men and things." (Grand Inquest; New York; 1961; pgs 22-30)

C- The history of democracy has been imperfect in the United States. The most basic rights have been denied to both groups and individuals, based upon their sex, age, race, and religion. Issues including gay marriage show that we still have a long way to go.

Yet, for all of its faults, our constitutional democracy has shown the greatest of promise. The efforts of each generation of Americans has brought us closer to providing the rights of free people to a larger, more inclusive population. This is a great nation.

From the Revolutionary to the Civil War was known as the "Golden Age" of the congress.Also, the sequence of presidents, and the series of federal courts moved the nation towards the promise of the Founding Fathers, found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The reasons were found not only in those great documents, but in that separation and balance of powers at the federal level. These insured the Bill of Rights was a living entity. In fact, while many today note that President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil war, there "was no effective censorship, no Sedition Act, no Espiionage Act." (Schlesinger; pg 335)

However, after the Civil War, changes in the economy which were a result of the change from an agrarian to industrial national base, led directly to unprecedented influence of business on the national politics. This new level of extreme corruption led Mark Twain to refer to the phenomenon as the "Gilded Age" of politics.

It is important to note that all of industry would be connected, either directly or indirectly, to the production of oil. By 1870, all of the economies of the industrialized nations were based on oil. The significance of this is explored in greater detail in the book, "Farewell America."

D- Business interest rapidly became central to the decision-making processes of (1) citizens electing officials to the legislative and executive branches; and (2) the domestic and foreign policies of those elected officials in both branches. While the federal courts are defined as the branch that is supposed to "do the least harm to democracy," the changes in the executive and legislative branches created changes in the judiciary, just as surely as the pulling of two sides of a triangular mobile suspende above the crib of democracy.

Thus: (1) the president begins to increasingly dominate the legislative process; (2) the congress increasingly delegates its authority to the president; and (3) the federal courts tend to become "activist" to offset congressional impotence. And despite the best of intentions, and while acknowledging the value of many progressive decisions, the federal courts should not be "activist," as the dangers posed by current federal courts demonstrate.

3) Threats to our Constitutional Democracy

The deteriorative influences of business interests on the separation of federal powers accelerated during WW2. If we examine the relationship of the competition of the world economy on American political life, we can note a progression in the executive branch (including FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, & LBJ) moving towards the Imperial Presidency of the Nixon Era. The two areas where this threat to our constitutional democracy were concentrated were (a) the war powers, and (b) secrecy. (Schlesinger)

The history of the war powers in terms of the president responding to a threat to the nation's security evolved significantly after WW2. This was due to the influence of the military industrial complex. All American foreign policy, with the exception of some initial attempts by JFK which ended on 11-22-1963, equated the access to foreign resources with national security, and domestic security with bureaucratic secrecy.

This was in opposition to the 64th Federalist Paper, in which John Jay interpreted the Constitution to recognize but two needs for federal secrecy: (1) diplomatic negotiations, and (2) intelligence.

Democracy by its very nature demands the disclosure of information by all three branches of government. Even among the widely varying opinions of the Founding Fathers, there was complete agreement that the free diffusion of information was vital to insure a stable federal government.

Yet as the executive branch created an elastic definition of "national security," the presidents began a more undemocratic relationship with the bureaucracies of the military indistrial complex. And the instinct of bureaucracy is "to increase the superiority of the professionally informed by keeping their knowledge and intentions secret." (Max Weber: Essays in Sociology; Grath & Mills; New York; 1946)

4) External Threats to our Constitutional Democracy

The external threats to the USA from WW2 to the prsent tend to fit into three groups: the Nazi/ Axis powers; the communist menace; and the Islamic terrorist/"axis of evil" group of today. With the exceptions of Pearl Harbor and 9-11, all defined threats to our national interest tended to be defined as occuring in other countries, either to American business interests, or to trading partners. The cultural implications of Pearl Harbor and 9-11 are obvious.

Another external threat to our national security has become known to a large segment of our population through a cultural phenomenon, Michael Moore's movie "F 9-11." The threat is posed by foreign investments going beyond a few acres of land, or shares in a corporate stock. F 9-11 demonstrates clearly that a significant segment of our economy is controlled by foreign governments. One, for example, is Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family shows no appreciation for constitutional democracy.

Moore's movie demonstrates that the Saudi royal family is able to compromise the balance of powers in our federal government. Their influence with the Bush administration has stopped a serious investigation into what role they played in the 9-11 attack on the USA; allows them to manipulate what information becomes known to the American public; and interferes with the legal system, when James Baker represents the Saudis in a court action filed by the families of 9-11 victims.

5) The Revolutionary Presidency

The danger to our constitutional democracy could be measured in 2003 by the following: (a) the Bush administration was comprised almost exclusively by people with ties to business that define "conflicts of interest;" (b) both houses of congress, if not impotent, had at least agreed to a legislative abstinence of duty; the only elected representitives who attempted to stand up to the executive were from "minority" populations; and (c) the US Supreme Court had disgraced the judicial institution with its 2000 selection of Bush for president, based entirely upon political and economic interests.

The dangers of an imperial presidency pales in comparison to the current threat posed by the revolutionary presidency. Consider that: (a) George Bush has become the most absolute monarch of any world power in today's world. Add to that the fact that VP Cheney has more concentrated power than any dictator in world history, including Mao Tse-tung; (b)the congress is divided and weakened. The Senate has lost any control over the White House urge for increased war-making, and the House of Representatives no longer enquires into grievences, unless they concern issues such as oral sex rather than Enron, 9-11, the Plame exposure, or the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of black citizens in Florida; and (c) the idea of 13 Colonies demanding freedom of speech is disgraced by 13 states having "libel" laws making it illegal to express concerns about food farms, or the safety of related "agro-business" food products. (Crimes Against Nature; Robery Kennedy, Jr)

6) You Reap What You Sow

The Bush administration rules through fear, the "threats" to national security that they define, through manipulating the 9-11 national emergency, and through secrecy. Their policies pose a threat to individual liberties in order to benefit business interests, and they are the greatest threat to constitutional democracy today. The extent of this threat is exposed by a series of books associated with John Dean, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Robery Kennedy, Jr., and many others. It is also exposed to grass-roots America by the movie "F 9-11."

The reaction of the administration is to attempt to discredit the individuals involved in exposing the political corruption of this administration. This is not a new tactic. Before the FBI focused on Martin Luther King's sex life, before the COINTELPRO operations of the 1960s and '70s, we remember the efforts of two congressional leaders in the mid-50s. Senator Thomas Hennings, Jr. and Rep. John Moss questioned the bureaucratic secrecy that threatened the democratic system, by discussing why the government labled a Pentagon study of the bow & arrow ("Silent Flashless Weapons") as "top secret."
They were accused of threatening national security.

This administration and its corporate sponsors, including the news media, are involved in a similar campaign to discredit critics. This campaign includes Ambassador Joseph Wilson. (see Plame Indictment Threads #1-12)

An unintended consequence of the high level of bureaucratic secrecy is that it leads to no respect for individual secrecy. This is evident from a reading of the Patriot Act: things like medical and library records, which should be protected by the US Constitution, are no longer private.

Further, the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative stands as the moststark example of the administration's contempt for the rights to privacy implied by the Constitution.

7) Conclusion

At the time of the American Revolution, the "founding fathers" met in secret. They were almost exclusively from the "upper class," and needed to keep their actions secret from King George. While they may have spoken more openly as individuals, their group efforts were not known to the upper class, including the newspapers of the day.

However, the middle class and the poor spread the word. They were aware of King George's spies, so they spread the word on a democratic underground. It took root -- and grass roots democracy has been the most important part of the foundation for this country ever since. The grass roots are more powerful than those three branches of the federal government.

We're in similar circumstances today. Our president is no more in favor of democracy than old King George was. We have two chances of kicking him out of power. The most obvious is the election in November. But there's also the Plame Indictments.

If there is any life breath in the balance of powers, the legislative and judiciary must do their jobs. This is a criminal outfit. There are now numerous "upper class" people organizing to hold this administration liable for their crimes. It's not just democrats hoping to reclaim the presidency in 2004. It's a wide range of citizens who know that Bush and Cheney intend to fully destroy the constitutional democracy we should enjoy.

You and I aren't meeting in their secret get-togethers. We're that grass-roots democratic power. Our primary job is to continue to educate the public, register voters, and increase participation in those treasures defined by the Bill of Rights. Please work to spread the message about the Plame Indictments. We've seen a preview of the administration's late summer counter-offensive.

Let's expose them as totally offensive.

Thank you,
H2O Man
2004 Delegate of the Mississippi Freedom Party
Democratic Underground Grass Roots Convention

[H2O Man]

47. P.S. : on pms......

A number of people have asked me questions on the DU e-mail about the mild conflict that took place last week on these threads. They were not as a result of the dark forces of the republican extreme right invading our space. It was actually a disagreement on tactics. In the "rev.pres. vs bill o'rights" thread, I mentioned that the upper class forces on our side do things secretly. And they have to. I appreciate that. But I'm from the bottom class .... I am among the grass roots masses. So we have different tactics.

I said that to say this: the work that has been done on these threads is making significant progress. But don't look for it to be expressed by those in the upper class. Keep focused on the grass roots.

[robertpaulsen]

84. Just wondering about that "upper class"

It sounded to Pallas and I like you were talking about the "upper class" in more than just economic terms. I'm sure most of them are filthy rich, but their distinguishing trait, if I read you correctly, is the power and control they wield as an "elite class". It doesn't necessarily hold fast to a particular ideology, but despises any people or school of thought that threatens the power structure, the structure that enables the "elite class" to control the voiceless masses.

Am I on the right track, or making a mountain out of a molehill?

[kohodog]

85. Did you see the NYT Magazine today?

It talks about a progressive movement to counter the conservative machine. But (albeit with good intentions), it is be
ing created by big money donors who hope to counter the right and stimulate the grass roots. But it also has the same smell of "upper class" who feel they should control things. A long article, but worth a read.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/magazine/25DEMOCRATS....

[H2O Man]

87. I'm not talking about economics .....

rather, a state of mind.

[kohodog]

91. Thanks for clarifying that, I read it too quickly

Money talks, but there is a difference between those who use it to oppress and those who use it to promote social justice. In this context I wouldn'd mind having a couple of billion!

[Pallas180]

96. KOHO It's a very interesting article - one wonders

though, if we will end up, eventually, with the same thing we are
fighting now. Instead of takeover of the country from the right's
business interests, takeover of the country from the left's business
interests.

One begins to feel like the citizen caught between the war of the
"Hatfields and McCoys"- only these are ober riche Hatfields and McCoys.

In the case of Soros though, it may be different. He lived through
the fascist takeover of his country and said he recognized it happening here.

Page 4 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/magazine/25DEMOCRATS....

[Pallas180]

97. If they just buy back the media corporations

and return to the Fair Media doctrine, it would be a good
start.

They are trying to replicate the infiltration and long term campaign that the rethuglican's started after Nixon was impeached and which
the republicans have totally succeeded in after 30 years.

Perhaps they can do it in less time.

[shraby]

99. The media has to be broken down into

smaller elements and the newspapers and radio have to be independent of the t.v. moguls. Fair Media doctrine will help, but they have to go all the way with it.

[Pallas180]

104. Agreed Shraby. They better have a lot of money to

get media out of the grips of Rupert Murdoch and Texas'
Clear Channel.

[shraby]

98. Soros is rich and can

do wonders with his money, hopefully what we see is what we get and he has no ulterior motives besides beating shrub.

[Pallas180]

103. H20 - I guess that with KOHO's post #85 NYTimes article

what they are doing is not a secret anymore. But that is
for long term change counteracting what the ultra conservatives
have done in the last 30 years.

Am I to understand that the unwelcome attacks and shadows here
were aligned with that group?

Then why try to stop these threads?

If the goal is to remove the biggest threat to this democracy since the rise of the Third Reich; whether the defeat comes at the election with the influence of new progressive money or whether it comes from grassroot efforts to have "them" criminally charged and removed from the offices all over government, why should there be
efforts to hinder the grassrooters???

If the monied progressives' intent still is to move to One World
Government, then the populace of America and the Constitution and Bill of Rights still are in no better condition than it was with the intent of the Ultra Right Wing and Neo-Cons.

Perhaps I'm dense, but this intrigue is over my head.

Exactly Which group tried to shut down these threads and WHY?

[Occulus]

48. Very nicely written, H20!

Bonus points if you answer the following question:

Why, in your opinion, are our young people not taught the words directly following "...life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence in their schools? (This also applies to the not-so-young, by the way.)

Discuss.

[H2O Man]

50. In my opinion.....

because a lot of people would take that wonderful message from Jefferson, and translate it into something very similar to what I posted this morning. And more: it would translate into action.

After reading your post, I pulled out my copy of The American Reader, (edited by Diane Ravitch) and re-read Jefferson's words. They send a chill up my spine. That body of work is as important and relevant today as it was then. Old King George sounds pretty familiar!

[shockingelk]

178. a question ...

Why would a CIA agent specializing in WMD be investigating Dick Cheney? And if she was, would she not be in possession of information she could leak?

[H2O Man]

198. Interesting question.....

Unique, too, in the sense that the idea .... that a CIA agent was investigating Dick Cheney .... hasn't been mentioned here that I am aware of. And it doesn't seem to fit here. But if you had some evidence of it, please do post it.

[kohodog]

68. Good Afternoon H20 and all

Good points, H20,

The "grass roots" have changed the tide a few times in our History. I think of the struggle for workers rights and civil rights as examples. Vietnam (and the end of the war), Nixon's resignation,and I'm sure there are more, Perhaps our current struggle for human rights and the rights of citizens vs corporations in our "democracy" will be another.

[TacticalPeek]

72. Write on!

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









"I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired."

[robertpaulsen]

77. Beautiful!

I feel like this paper encapsulates the history of democratic thought within our country and applies it to the force of statist opposition that constantly seeks to undermine it.

The words We Shall Overcome spring to mind as I finish this paper.

Thanks H20 Man! Good Sunday inspiration!

[robertpaulsen]

51. I'm back & I'm still trying to catch up.

I'm going to read all my mail and read everything on thread 12 before I post anything new here or respond to any questions. But I see my friend Pallas has made a request for a reprint of the theories.

So, along with Joe Klein's Time article, here they are!

[robertpaulsen]

52. Plenty More to Swear About - a focus on the question: why?

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?

[shraby]

54. Here is some more good information

and theories on the Plame case. I'm adding the link so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle of threads.

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

[H2O Man]

59. Good afternoon, shraby !

I had read the link that you put on here. It has some interesting information.

[shraby]

61. Good afternoon to you too H20

I thought it had some interesting info also concerning the rat- infested White House. Just wish Fitzgerald would bring out the Rid-Rat and clean it up we already have fleas from them, fleas spread the black death and I fear this country is succumbing.

[robertpaulsen]

55. RECAP-PALLAS THEORY OF WHY PLAME>CHENEY>HALLLIBURTON

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

[robertpaulsen]

56. PALLAS THEORY - WHY BRIT INTEL WONT SHOW THEIR EVIDENCE

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.

[robertpaulsen]

57. H20 THEORY - RECAP

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 re