Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What the F**K?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
razors edge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:06 PM
Original message
What the F**K?
can anyone make better sense of this, I been up since 4AM, but this looks to be possibly big.

http://www.atlargely.com/2007/01/aq_kahn_and_the.html

AQ Kahn and The Libby Trial?

fyi, I rewrote this from my original post so it makes more sense
--

Okay folks, this may be something or it may be nothing or it may be everything.

I was just reading the Marcy Wheeler's transcribed (not officially, she is doing her best in real time) court proceedings in the Libby trial.

Then out of no-where something was said and just as quickly ignored by everyone. I had to read it a few times to try to understand why this would be relevant and declassified even (emph. mine):

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

snip:

2). This is important because of the October 2003 shipment to Libya. If you have studied anything about Cheney, you know he has strong ties to Libya. So what was going on, really, here? This may be the motive.

That said, why is Team Libby mentioning AQ Khan in any case and what is the context of the rest of the document which Addington is being asked about? Because not only would this indicate that early in July not only did Libby and/or Addington, if not both, appear to know that Plame worked for the CIA, and where specifically, but they appear to note AQ Khan in their discussions of this, which means, they knew what Plame was working on by July 8.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think the "snip" is missing--you've intrigued me--please put it in!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razors edge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. here

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

A I cited it, I didn't hand him a copy of it. He has ADD, but I'm sure that must refer to me.

Not that this is relevant to Libby's trial in particular, but it may be related to the leak and the motives. I have no way of knowning without more context regarding the above exchange. Suffice it to say that Khan's name appearing remotely anywhere near discussion of this time frame should be paid attention to.

AQ Khan is the father of Pakistan's nuclear program and his gang are almost exclusively responsible for proliferation to two key countries: Iran and N. Korea. Note, two key countries that are now in direct Cold War like confrontation with us.

Moreover, this is important given the time frame of the above notes (summer of 2003) and the below (Global Security, emph, mine):

"The change in position for A.Q. Khan did not necessarily end proliferation concerns. Indeed, while in Pakistan in October 2003, a US delegation led by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage reportedly briefed Gen. Musharraf on A.Q. Khan activities. Gen. Abizaid, then head of US Central Command, repotedly conducted similar concerns to Pakistani political and military leaders.

With the international inspections of Iran's nuclear operations and the October 2003 interception of a ship headed for Libya and carrying centrifuge parts, Pakistan began seriously investigating A.Q. Khan.

The United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency in November 2003 itself warned Pakistan of possible nuclear leaks. After two months of investigations, in late January 2004 Pakistani officials concluded that two of the country's most senior nuclear scientists had black market contacts that supplied sensitive technology to Iran and Libya.

Pakistani intelligence officials said the scientists - A.Q. Khan and Mohammed Farooq - provided the help both directly and through a black market based in the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai. Dr. Khan and Dr. Farooq were longtime colleagues at A.Q. Khan Research Laboratories. President Musharraf acknowledged that some scientists may have acted for their own personal gain, but he denied any government involvement and pledged harsh punishment for any person implicated in the scandal."

Now, there are two very important issues here:

1). There is the allowed leak (that is to say, without threats of going to jail) with regard to the peripheral work done by Plame on Iraq. There is also the leak that is not sanctioned (sources could go to jail) with regard to Plame's work on Iran. This particular aspect is of interest to me for obvious reason:

"While many have speculated that Plame was involved in monitoring the nuclear proliferation black market, specifically the proliferation activities of Pakistan's nuclear "father," A.Q. Khan, intelligence sources say that her team provided only minimal support in that area, focusing almost entirely on Iran."

(Source)
Remember I had to write that a certain way. So I urge you to read "between the lines" of this article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. I've always had a strange feeling that Valerie Wilson was the actual target
she was in a position to deepsix the Cheney gang, more than her husband. The whole thing was (IS) a distraction from the destruction of her operation,which has opened the field to more trade in nukes, no doubt. At least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Once her cover was blown
nd you found out what she didi - yes, I agree w/ you. I also, believe she was the target. She had the goods to fuck up all the cabal's plans for the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elidor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm no legal expert
But it looks to me like Libby's goose is being slowly cooked, a little more each day. And Ari better hope he didn't perjure himself yesterday. And Judy, Judy, Judy...what a train wreck! Delicious.

AQ Khan? Interesting, if true.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razors edge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Feels like we are about to head down the rabbit hole. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. So even with his agreement with the prosecuter
he could still be prosecuted for perjury?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 05:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Hell yes
What's the point of giving someone immunity in order to get their testimony if you give them the ability to lie in that testimony with impunity? Give someone protection against lying and they're going to most likely lie.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowdogmi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. As I understand it, part of Scooter's defense is that he was
watching many boiling pots and doesn't really recall the time line on plame. This is probably just illustrating the things he was involved with at the time. I think fitzmas ought to offer him immunity if he rolls on Dick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razors edge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Agreed. Chop off the Dick first. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowdogmi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. ouch!!!
Did you have to phrase it that way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC