Libby Testimony Ties Bush, Cheney to Leak Plot

In tapes, Libby tells of plan to leak secrets
Jurors hear new details of efforts to discredit Wilson
Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Washington -- Former White House official Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury in 2004 that Vice President Dick Cheney was upset by an ambassador's public questioning of the Iraq war and that President Bush, Cheney and Libby were involved in a plan -- kept secret from other senior White House officials -- to leak previously classified intelligence to counter the criticism.

......................

Libby can be heard describing how Cheney was upset when Wilson went public with allegations that the White House had twisted intelligence to make the case for war. In an op-ed article, Wilson said he had been sent to investigate a key claim -- that Iraq was seeking uranium from the African nation of Niger -- and found it untrue, months before President Bush included the allegation in his 2003 State of the Union speech.

"It was a serious accusation," Libby said. "It was a very serious attack." It also quickly became a "topic that was discussed on a daily basis" in the White House.

Libby said that Cheney "thought we should get some of these facts out to the press. He then undertook to get permission from the president to talk about this" to reporters.

........................

more at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/0...

-----------------------------------------

Court Hears Libby Describe Cheney as 'Upset' at Critic
Grand Jury Tapes Bolster Case Against Former Aide

By Amy Goldstein and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 7, 2007; Page A03

Vice President Cheney and other senior White House officials regarded a former ambassador's accusations that President Bush misled the nation in going to war in Iraq as an unparalleled political assault and, early in the summer of 2003, held daily discussions about how to debunk them, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a federal grand jury.

more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

will there FINALLY be enough evidence that the people DEMAND resignation? Impeachment will take too long.

Like Bush gives a shit about what the public thinks. He's all but admitted that he doesn't.

him to be a king! WHICH he is most definitely NOT!!!!

There's plenty enough people that want to put an end to *'s shenanigan's....yet, we AS A PEOPLE don't DEMAND it forcefully enough.

Why not?

Cowardice? Belief in 'rule of law'?

Combination of cowardice to ACT and 'belief in the "rule of law" ' to correct corruption....mostly cowardice, methinks.

Maybe more people will realize what a tool Cheney is.

"President Bush, Cheney and Libby were involved in a plan -- kept secret from other senior White House officials -- to leak previously classified intelligence to counter the criticism."

"Libby said that Cheney "thought we should get some of these facts out to the press. He then undertook to get permission from the president to talk about this" to reporters."


-------------
Anticipated response from the Oval Office: "Nyah, Nyah, Did Not!"

was being said at the press conferences. He said something along the lines of he would fire the person if they broke the law or fire the person if he found out who did it. This is not a lie because he knows he will never find out who did it because he already knew he did. And in terms of law he thinks there is no law for the pResident.

or was kept in one of those porous "plausible deniability" bubbles the Puggies like so much.

you just hit the bullseye

bush pulled one of his (or rove's) word tricks on that one. It's where we the listener hear what we want to hear, but what he says is actually twisted and a double entandre. His words were "they would be taken care of" and if proven guilty would be fired. Well he didn't lie, he's taking care of them !!!

Because he knows _HE_ will not be proven guilty of anything (at least he hopes). That is why that language was used. The minute he used (or the press secretary, don't remember which) it put a big bullseye right on Bush's forehead. It is the only reason for the use of strange language like that.

Something along the line of we will never find out because reporters don't give up their sources.
That sounded like a threat to the press to me.

Can we impeach now? Holy crap what a lying POS.

And what, pray tell, is this previously classified stuff mean? You can't declassify someone's covert status without OKing it with the CIA first.

It's conviction in the Senate that will be difficult. Will you be satisfied with having Bush impeached, not convicted, and then finish out his term? I want the case against Bush to keep being made until conviction is at least a possibility. Set him up for the knockout, or at least give him a Floyd Patterson humiliation beating until the end of his term. Just because Bush deserved to be impeached and convicted does not mean it will happen. Life does not work that way.

That's impossible to me.

If impeachment occurs at all, there will not be multiple chances at it with the time remaining in Bush's term. I don't know for sure, but I am doubtful that Bush or Cheney could be re-impeached on the same charges, so this is a one shot deal. If there is no chance of conviction is it worth it for Bush to claim that he was exonerated by the Senate and finishes out his term?

We only impeach for lying about a blow-job. The "Murikan" people expected, and even wanted Das Fuhrer to out a CIA agent and undermine our counter-terrorism efforts. Impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" is sooooo 1970's.

With apologies to Mel Brooks...Bush didn't get a "Harrumph"! from that Joe Wilson guy. This is what happens when Bush doesn't get a "Harrumoph"!

He's the Decider and there's the Clinton penis issue.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It was the one time Bush rose to a Clintonesque moment. It will be compared to those other famous words, "I did not have sex with that woman."

The big difference is that I didn't give a two-bit damn what transpired between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Outing a CIA operative for purely political purposes is another matter.

And then we'll get to the matter of how to declassify secrets in secret. Only Bush could think of something like that.

This has been known and in the media before as a result of Fitz's pretrial filings which included portions of Libby's testimony. Cheney told Libby to leak still classified stuff from the NIE, the ostensible reason for talking to Judy Miller on July 8. Then the WH also declassified it using the regular channels and procedures.

Boy that made me angry.

Then Tenet must have

I was just catching up on this at Huffington Post.

Marcy Wheeler on Cheney's Talking Points: Cheney's Talking Points
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcy-wheeler/cheneys-tal...
(Heard an interview with Marcy Wheeler on NPR the other day; she knows her stuff.)

Jane Hamsher (firedoglake): Scooter Agonistes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/scooter-agon...
(Good article about how Scooter is realizing just how screwed he is...)

The only 2 things I come up with are:

1. The Agent is retired

2. For Revenge!

Being that Valarie Plame was not retired, it seem that Cheney and Libby are "DAMN GUILTY" of "TREASON"!

It was the National Intelligence report that was declassified so they could leak it.

There was also the leaking of the Brewster Jennings cover company. Leaking that threatened the lives of other NOCs as well. It has also hampered our knowledge of what is going on in Iran regarding Nukes.

Maybe the Republican geniuses can grasp this in fictional terms:

It would be as if "M" revealed that Commander James Bond was really Agent 007, licensed to kill, WHILE a covert Bond operation---albeit not still with his presence---was yet operative, thereby dooming both the operation AND ANYBODY involved in it.

TREASON and MURDER.

WTH are we WAITING FOR???

When do we impeach?

sure which committee and chairperson this falls under.

The Chairman is the Honorable Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI).

can review the process by which information becomes declassified and if declassifying something for partisan political purposes ONLY threatens national security.

All the while that the President, the Vice President and their top aides were discussing ways to leak classified information, the President was out saying he knew nothing about this and he wanted to stop the leaks. Now we know that these were bald-faced lies. The President dragged this nation through Justice Department, FBI, and Special Prosecutor investigations for over two years and the gods know how many dollars, when he could have ended it at the very beginning by just saying he knew all about it and it was his affair. So on top of leaking classified material to smear a critic (which IS ILLEGAL) he also lied about it repeatedly to the nation and congress. Now don't we already have a precedent for impeachment when a President lies?

But I'm afraid that remedy is no longer a remedy for the American people until there is a democratic president and a republican congress.

Correct if this is wrong, but I don't believe a president can "leak" classified information; if a president discloses something, then that action declassifies the information.

Now, doing it to smear a critic is another ethical/moral matter entirely though, that could and should be brought up for impeachment. I'm just not sure if the "president leaked classified intel" thing itself can stick.

"leaking" to declassify material, I think that someone in congress should ask why that is the case. There is an established procedure for declassifying material. If the President is not following that procedure someone should find out why.

because a President would want safeguards to prevent himself from making a mistake or not understand the implications of disclosing a seemingly minor detail.

lied to the federal investigators who were looking into the leak. Remember that they refused to be interviewed under oath? But lying to a federal investigator is a felony, whether one is under oath or not.

special prosecutors dream come true!!!! I smell resignation or more likely impeachment in the air.

I mean, after the Libby trial & all he wouldn't have to do a whole lot of prep before getting this one going.

As evidenced by this trial, he already has the goods on Bush and Cheney... can he still prosecute them?

leak. His purview is limited to that scope, although he has a wide berth for his investigation. We don't know who, if anyone, he plans to indict next, but his case against Libby has been methodical and brilliant. Who knows where the Libby trial will lead us.

It is up to the Judiciary Committee in the House to draw up Articles of Impeachment.

Ken Starr got a foothold? Oh yeah, Whitewater.

This is the phrasing that has been infuriating me since the whole freaking mess began, and what I wish someone would take a hammer to these bastards' knuckles for saying. It's a matter of public record now that Wilson was right — the Niger story was bogus.

You can't "debunk" a factual statement. Attempting to do so anyway does not qualify for usage of the verb "debunk"; the proper word is defraud.

-- then he made one idiotic statement that he was "the decider" and everyone immediately dropped "Leaker-in-Chief" to go with "the Decider-in-Chief." Whatever else they are, Bushco are certainly masters of distraction.

One day it's "if there's a leaker in my administration, he'll be taken care of," and the next it's "Fooled you! Har, har, the leaker was me."

It was like Osama "dead or alive" and then, "Oh, why bother?"

LMFAO!

out of the way to 'involve' Bush?

Do we have to wait (for decades) to learn what the Fitzgerald - Cheney Bush transcripts say?

Does anyone think that Cheney and Bush would have ever allowed themselves to be sworn in when they were 'interviewed' by Fitzgerald?

Did the GJ hear this testimony?

Is conspiring to discredit and close down a CIA operation a criminal act or an act of treason - legally?

in a federal investigation, as I understand it. Testimony to the FBI is not sworn, but I believe it is against the law to lie to them during an investigation. I think this may be one of the counts against Libby. GJ testimony is formally sworn in. And of course trial testimony.

------------------------

Irrelevant?

Do you realize you made this comment at: 2-7-07 at 7:27.

I don't know why I noticed this. Are you actually Bush begging to be caught and punished and saved from a life of crime? You do, after all, call yourself "Higher Class." Isn't 7 the Bush Cartel magic number? (7 years of plague and all that...)

(Just kidding.)

...think you'll be okay. 7 years of good harvests to you! Really!

2 x 7 = 14. 28 divided by 2 = 14.

This is getting silly. Sorry I brought it up. Keep you name.

Not specifically lying to an investigator, but if that lie obsteucts a legal investigation then I think you have obstruction of justice and hindrance of prosecution right there.

Above the fold.

Damn librul media.


Edit- To fix typo in subject

They can only report on blowj*bs and love-crazed astronauts?

only would it be the lead story on every corporate whore newscast, headlines would be screaming from the front pages of every rag masquerading as a newspaper. There would be a raft of "Nightline" type programs at night to feed the populice every juicy morsel implicating everybody involved and the trial itself would be broadcast on every network during the day.

The public outcry would be deafening and the president would resign long before the impeachment process kicked in.

up. How can anyone question the involvement of the top dogs? Come on Dems, get moving on this!

and recommending.

I mean really. Pelosi and Conyers are mumbling about how it would take too long, but really... There's already ample evidence, some from Bush's and Cheney's own mouths, implicating them in felony after felony, including TREASON!!! If we can get a few of the Republicans to jump the fence, the House could vote to impeach in the morning, and the Senate could vote to convict in the afternoon.

Impeach Impeach Impeach

because I have cleaning - and am curious about how they cover the Cheney-Bush crime/treason re Plame/CIA operation shutdown. You can all be assured that they are sticking with crime, sex, and scandal. They are true to their origins - to create a network to get Clinton by crime, sex, and scandal.

The Plame/CIA operations shutdown has crims and scandal - but because it's missing sex - NO COVERAGE!!!!!

Brought to you (or not brought to you) by GE and Microsoft.

Meanwhile, back in Iraq.....
Meanwhile, in Congress today....
Meanwhile, in the Libby Liar trial.....

I've got a spare pitchfork if anyone needs to borrow it, and my torches are all ready.

I'm still a little upset that you guys took tar and feathers off the table! I think there's plenty of time for that.

they stain the table cloth. LOL

And this reply should cause this thread to pop back up...in case it needs it.

We could just stew them up.

It doesn't matter what these clowns do, they will not be impeached, and their egos won't allow resignation. <sigh> I guess it really does take sex to get the attention of the media and the public.

or broadcast does not determine how this case ends up
they make a lot of noise when they want to (and are criminally complicit in their silence on many issues)
BUT they are not running this prosecution - they are only not reporting it

i understand that the public needs informing and the media are the ones who are supposed to do that but we know that isnt going to happen
just hang in there and read the relevant blogs and sites as im sure you are and participate in getting the information out any way you think best
as the case unfolds they will eventually be unable to bury it any longer

take good care
and please make sure to take breaks from all this whenever you need since as you know this is going to take some time

but as joseph wilson said - the wheels of justice grind slowly but they grind very very fine
and theres reason to believe that will be the case

He lied under oath about where he got the information.

Bush and Cheney? Well they will just sit back and smirk. They committed no crime, they will say.

Bush "declassified" the information, so Cheney had Libby disseminate it to the public.

It was a blatant act of politically driven assassination of character, but the president can declassify anything he wants.

So what are the ultimate consequences for Bush and Cheney? Nothing more than a continual decline in favoribility ratings. There is a wonderful case that this is an impeachable offense, but the GOP will simply scream that the president was trying to get his side of the story out there, and anyway, there is no crime!

They will have Rush and O'Reilly on message as well. I can hear it now:

"Look folks, the president committed no crime. The vice president committed no crime. What you have here is a political witch hunt. The Democrat Party just hates the idea that the president is protecting you and me from the terrorist and that he wanted to let people know that Joe Wilson was given a plush assignment from the CIA because his wife worked there. Frankly, I want to know when the husband of a CIA agent is given a cushy vacation to Niger! You will hear the Democrats and the liberal media screaming about this, but make no mistake my well informed friends, the President and Vice President were doing what was necessary to protect you and me from the terrorists. I know that the Democrats would rather let the terrorists win and that they don't care that 9/11 happened, but real men like Bush and Cheney will stand up for what is right. OK...let's take some calls....Braindead from Juno, you are on."

My question to my fellow DUers is this, "What can we do with this information that will bring down the Bushies?"

Great post. Don't have an immediate answer to your question, but I would bet that Fitzgerald does.

and I had to take a shower after writing the post!

If I'm not mistaken, Bush and Cheney both spoke with Fitzgerald... if it can be proven that either/both lied to Fitzgerald, it could at least be lying to a federal officer. I'm pretty sure they did not go under oath, which means no perjury.

Sure, Plame's name may have been declassified by Bush, and then Cheney, but that doesn't mean they can lie about it.

Am I wrong on their testimony, or with my thinking?

Excellent post, by the way.

to decend on our democratic majority legislature.
Or maybe on our society as a whole.

That is what Pelosi said. Perhaps, the revelation of Bush and CHeny being directly involved in this will give Nancy a reason to put it back on the table.

One can hope.

that was sealed, you think it could be the information pointing at Cheney, and Fitz is just sitting on it?

When I read Wilson's piece in the NY Times, I knew there would be blowback of the highest order. I could just imagine * and Cheney deliberating on how they could not only punish Wilson but also deter any other public figures from coming forward with criticism of the war, the administration, or anything else that the administration did. Plame's situation allowed them the perfect response: Who would dare be bold enough to oppose an administration that would play such a game of hardball, endangering the critic's wife, ruining her career, casually "declassifying" information of the most relevant and secret nature - proliferation and movement of WMDs? The message was clear: don't mess with us, because there is nothing we will not do.

Yes -- most of us who have doubted this admin since day one have known all along that Bush/Cheney were the master conspirators of the Plame outing and the intentional derailing of the CIA's counterproliferation operation (Plame's unit). But the Plame leak and all its treasonous implications have been all but swept under the rug, thanks entirely to the lack of any responsible national U.S. media and to the omnipresent and seemingly omnipotent "disinfo" propaganda machine the neocons have created and installed over the past 30+ years.

To gain the attention--let alone the outrage -- of our great sleeping nation, Bush & Cheney will have to don diapers and set out across country with evil intentions of kidnap and murder. Until then, the media will continue to act as co-conspirators in this crime of treason.

We all know Bush & Cheney have the evil intentions -- hell, with them kidnapping and murder are just "business as usual" -- all they lack are the diapers.

Perhaps we should all buy a box of Depends, or just dig some soiled ones out of the nearest nursing home's dumpster, and send them, en masse to the WH, "care of" El Presidemento and his VP, Deadeye Dick.

Impeach. Indict. Imprison. BOTH OF THE BASTARDS!!

U da man, Jack Rabbit!

say things like it (Wilson's debunking of the Niger allegation) was a "serious accusation" ... a "serious attack" ... an "unparalleled political assault."

It has a tone of exaggeration. As if they were all that worried about the war profiteering corporate news monopoly newsstream. If they'd let it alone, it probably would have drowned in the muddy river of rightwing propaganda. Remember the "news" climate in 2003?

Granted, fanatics sometimes react this way. But, you know what? I have NEVER considered Cheney or any of Bush's puppetmasters to be fanatics. Cold, calculating, greedy beyond belief. But fanatics? Fanatics BELIEVE in something. I don't think they do. Ergo, with Cheney anyway, I never attribute his actions/statements to fanaticism, but instead analyze them as to their impact on his financial portfolio and those of his super-rich pals.

Libby might be a true believer, but he was pleasing his boss, and so, would have taken Cheney's tone and "concern" as his own. Also possible that Libby is as bad as Cheney, re war profiteering, and they were in it together...along with others...

In what? What's really going on here, if this language--"unparalleled political assault," etc.--has been planted or seeded (scripted)? If you put all the actions of top Bushites together, in the June-July 2003 period, and especially in the July 6-22 period--Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove, Armitage, Fleischer, and all those to whom the AF-1 memo was circulated, and Bushite reporter/operatives Miller and Novak--you get an overwhelming picture of PANIC. What were they panicked about? That their prewar veracity was being challenged by someone--an ex-diplomat--in a newsstream that they had almost complete control over? They had their war, at that point (5 months in). They had their election guaranteed. (The Diebold/ES&S coup was well under way.) They only had to manipulate the newsstream a bit--to maintain certain illusions and talking points--and they were assured years and years of war that no one could stop. What were they so panicked about that they outed not just one CIA agent--Wilson's wife--but went ON to out the entire CIA WMD counter-proliferation network--(on 7/22, in a second column by Novak, which named the front company, Brewster-Jennings)--a worldwide network of deep cover agents/contacts whose job it was to detect and prevent dangerous and illicit weapon movements?

Top Bushites called at least SIX reporters (journalist witnesses to treason) in one week--to get Plame outed (or assist the cover story that "everybody knew" her identity)! Why take such risks--all in a rush, in all ill-thought-out way--when Wilson could have been, a) ignored, or b) punished some other way? You can surmise that it might be to frighten whistleblowers. But was it? Or was that just part of it? And whistleblowers about WHAT? Trumped up WMD allegations? Well, everybody pretty much knew that was the case, when no WMDs were found. And the Bushites immediately switched to "Iraqi freedom" as their motive (for slaughtering 100,000 innocent people). And none of this--none of the criticism of the war--was going to change the Bush Junta war policy, nor prompt the Bush "pod people" Congress even to ask questions about the massive Halliburton and other looting that was going on (let alone question or stop the war).

They were worried about CRITICISM?! I'm just not buying it. I think they were worried about a deeper and harder to see crime--something beyond the issue of their truthfulness on the prewar WMD intel. What I strongly suspect is that the Niger/Iraq nuke forgeries were to be followed by the planting of nukes on Saddam after the invasion, to be "found" by the U.S.troops who were "hunting" for them, that that scheme failed (was foiled), and that, in July 2003, what they were really worried about was exposure of that nefarious scheme--an item that would be extremely difficult to control, news-wise, depending on who exposed them.

And they had reason to be panicked, with Wilson whistleblowing on this side of the Atlantic--a Niger expert, whose wife worked in covert counter-proliferation (which I think they had known for some time), and David Kelly, the British WMD expert, whistleblowing in the UK on the same matter, at the same time--Kelly who turned up dead, under highly suspicious circumstances, four days after Plame was outed. (His office and computers were searched, and, four days later, the entire Brewster-Jennings network was ADDITIONALLY outed.) With two serious, highly knowledgeable whistleblowers--both of whom COULD know about a scheme to plant the weapons--they would have GREAT reason to panic and to act precipitously, as they did, IF they were covering up something far worse than mere lies. The outing of the entire B-J network would NOT be an overreaction in that case. It would, at last, make sense.

I'm not sure if this theory is correct. There could have been some other cause of their panic. Or maybe what appears to me to be a second layer cover story--that Cheney did it for political reasons--is true. (The first layer was that Rove did it for political reasons--the layer that Fitzgerald was able to penetrate.) I'm just saying: BE CAUTIOUS and BE WARY of anything Dick Cheney or his aide Libby says or writes, especially with regard to this particular crime. I think there's something very bad at the center of an onion of cover stories, and that they were much more worried about that--whatever it was--than about being called liars.

Imeachment is too good for these B*tards.

I've always felt if it was just being called liars over Niger, they would have just ignored the NY Times piece and it would have died.

I mean, the NY Times ran a story that Saddam was ready to completely give up everything a day or two before the invasion. That story was ignored and hardly anybody even remembers it now. And, we can't question Saddam on that now - he's dead.

Do we know anything, or suspect anything, about the planting of WMDs? I think many people were shocked that this didn't happen.

Paint a picture of how the outing of Plame foiled such a plot?

Also, considering that Plame (et al) were deeply involved in watching the nuke story in Iran, and that the blowing of the Plame-Brewster Jennings cover would have serious consequences there as well, it could be that that particular angle is also coming home to roost about now (meaning: the White House can pretty much say with impunity whatever it wants to about Iran, knowing that the effective counter-proliferation network that was watching has been damaged if not neutralized)

The first rumor I heard about this was three years ago. It suggested that special ops forces had bumped into US soldiers while trying to plant WMD, and were killed. It may refer to a separate incident or it might be an extrapolation from the Raw Story article.

But there's another story along the same lines that's far more sinister in its dimensions and ties many loose ends together, including why Plame was outed and Sibel Edmonds gagged. For that you need to google "BOX PLOT" PLAME.

Knowing what we do of the neocons/AIPAC and British involvement in the Iraq invasion, and bearing in mind that simple answers like "payback" don't cut it, it's obvious there's a big stinky onion here. The truth is bound to be complex and multi-layered, and the Plame outing is just a whiff of it.

I wish I could believe that we'd cut through the many layers and see convictions, but this is much bigger than Iran-Contra (and involves many of the same players), with tentacles everywhere. We'd basically have to convict most of our government to rid ourselves of the traitors.

I didn't fully check that out before adding it to my post, and it turns out to be a load of crap. My bad.

You are so right on with this line of thinking. It never made sense to out not only Plame but Brewster Jennings, too. They may be slimeballs but they're not stupid; they knew exactly what they were doing and the risks that action entailed. It seems highly doubtful they would go to this extreme just to try to discredit Joe Wilson, its just not logical. Oh, there's more to this story alright.

making money from illegal sales of nuclear teachnology, so that he might have needed to "get" Plame and her network to protect himself from discovery. Or they might have needed to shut down B-J to make sure we didn't have enough intelligence on Iran to prevent their push to go to war over Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program.

NO question, in my mind.

put it this way you don't want to be seen as knowing what Plame was doing or else you will end up like Dr Kelly. I'm not sure if this trial is going to go anywhere near it? The centre of the onion is probably very sinister.

Perhaps too close to the Kelly death to seem "natural." Criminals, all.

your theory explains it better than anything else I've heard, including the theory that his death was suicide (laughable on its face).

With a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge".

though he has a number of the outers by the short hairs--Cheney, Libby, Rove, Armitage, Novak--COULD be that he is either suspicious of the story (political revenge) or already knows that it is a cover story.

And that points to Rumsfeld, in my book. Official of Special Plans.

Look at this way: This conspiracy--if it was, indeed, a conspiracy to plant the nukes in Iraq after the invasion--would have two tracks, political and operational. Cheney in the charge of the political end. Rumsfeld in charge of the operational end. Cheney segues the forged docs into a full-scale allegation against Iraq on nukes, and insures that it gets into Bush's SOTU speech (against advice from several agencies). He continues to adamantly defend that charge no matter how often it is totally and completely debunked. Why doesn't he temper it--show a bit of caution (considering the evidence)? Nope. It has got to be THAT charge--over and over. In addition, the whole Junta goes into summer '03 still maintaining that WMDs will be found (--although many will soon switch to "Iraqi freedom" as motive for the war). It's all set up for the phony "find"--and a triumphant Bush-Blair announcement that will smother all criticism, and all talk of "sexed up" prewar intel, and will cement their political positions with their FIRST and foremost justification for the war: WMDs.

Rumsfeld (if this theory is true) has meanwhile got several black ops teams (possibly connected to the notorious Iran/Contra arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, who was present at the Rome meeting of Pentagon Neo-Cons and SISMI in late 2001, where many suspect the Niger forgeries were cooked up) moving nukes illicitly into (or on their way to) Iraq. He's got NYT WMD propagandist Judith Miller "embedded" with the U.S. troops who were "hunting" for WMDs (and, according to reports, actually directing, or trying to direct, their efforts), ready to get the "big scoop" of a WMD "find." (She said she had an "embed" contract signed by Donald Rumsfeld. Whether it's true or not, why would she claim it? It's like saying: "...but they TOLD me there WOULD BE a story"! She had Rumsfeld's word--or the word of someone speaking for him.) And Rumsfeld furthermore permitted the creation of chaos in Iraq--in his failure to stop the looting and the breakdown of all order (in fact laughing at). Civil chaos was a prime condition for planting WMDs in Iraq and then "finding" them. It was also a prime condition for setting up a puppet government to sign the oil contracts, giving away Iraqis' interest in their only resource (--and for massive looting by corps like Halliburton).

Anyway, that's how it would be: Cheney covering the political front--and scrambling to cover up the "incompetence of others" (as he put it in his memo on not wanting Libby to be the fall guy) when the shit started hitting the fan. No WMDs. Nuke allegation based on forgeries. Wilson calling them out on the false allegation. And David Kelly, in England, whistleblowing to the BBC about the "sexed up" prewar intel. It would have been RUMSFELD's responsibility to get those WMDs planted and "discovered." What we are seeing may be the political fallout of his failure to do so. (We are also seeing him gone--with no change in Iraq War policy. Was it the midterm elections? Or was it that he was operational head of this attempted massive deceit--a phony "find" of weapons--which Cheney in now having to cover for--politically and legally?)

Back in early July 2003, Kelly, under interrogation at a "safe house" --after he had been outed to his bosses (late June 2003)--revealed that he knew something MORE (--Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things," is how it was reported to Tony Blair on July 7, 2003 (Hutton report))-- but he promised not to speak of it publicly ("I wasn't about to give away any government secrets" is how Kelly put it).

I suspect that THIS was the trigger for the Plame/B-J outingS. Not Wilson's article of July 6, but rather the report to Blair on July 7 that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things." (He was already whistleblowing, so it wasn't something that he HAD said--i.e., the "sexed up" the prewar intel--it was something that he COULD say. What ELSE did he know?) He had friends in Iraq--from his visits there as UN weapons inspector. He had told them that if they cooperate with the UN inspections, there would be no invasion. (And he then told a friend that if there WAS an invasion, he would be "found dead in the woods"--a truly haunting prefiguration.) IF there was a scheme to plant the weapons, he was in a good position to hear about it (--and my distant judgment of his character--excellent scientist, true believer in his mission of stopping WMD proliferation--is that he would have been offended by it; this could even have been the trigger for his own whistleblowing--it pissed him off that such deception was attempted or planned.)

IF the WMD-planting theory is true, the Blairites discovery that Kelly knew about this nefarious scheme would have put tremendous pressure on the Bushites (and the Blairites), because it would appear to them that the plot was in imminent danger of being exposed--whether it was or not. How far had it gone? Who all knew? There were a couple of reports in the Islamic press about botched US efforts to plant WMDs in Iraq (--and what happened to THOSE people (local observers)--Abu Ghraib?). Was the CIA itself about to expose them (contrary to their tradition of secrecy)? But mainly, WHO ELSE knew? If the Brits couldn't keep a lid on it, how many people, from how many directions, could come at them, with facts and evidence about this audacious effort to deceive?

So, in their panic, they outed EVERYBODY--the entire network of deep cover foreign agents and contacts, built up over the years, of friends of the US and friends of humanity, whose job it was to keep us all safe from illicit traffic in weapons of mass destruction. The multiple-outing was because they DIDN'T KNOW--who had foiled them, and who knew. Their purpose: 1) to punish and disable anybody who had foiled their scheme (including getting them killed by their own governments or by other bad actors); or (if they were still trying to plant the nukes or other WMDs, in July 2003) to destroy the network of WMD detectors and foilers that was slowing things up. By fall 2003, with the CIA enraged at the assault on its own agents, and calling for an investigation, they had to give it up--and switch to "Iraqi freedom" as the motive for the war (which is just about the time that that "talking point" was brought forward).

Someone upthread asked, why did they kill Kelly, and not Wilson and Plame? I imagine that Wilson and Plame have lived with that fear. But the critical difference between Plame and Kelly may be that Plame, as a NOC and a high-placed CIA operative, is sworn to a lifetime of keeping government secrets, and Kelly was not. He was a scientist on loan to different agencies (including the UN weapons inspection team). He was not a spy (that we know of). He was already whistleblowing. He was "off the reservation," and could not be trusted, when he promised, under interrogation, not to disclose "government secrets."

Also, she has the protection of the CIA--which, if it kills its own, likes to make that decision itself, I would imagine. And Kelly did not have any such protection. The Blair government and British intel agencies cut him loose. They outed him to the press, and sent him home without protection and apparently without surveillance. And if he WAS under surveillance, they let him bleed to death all night under a tree near his house. (--doesn't add up--none of it adds up).

As for Wilson, he, a) comes under CIA protection as the husband of a NOC, I would imagine, and b) sought the protection of widespread publicity for his dissent. Kelly, too, was the subject of a blazing public controversy in England--one caused by his government's deliberate outing of him to the press. He did not seek publicity. In fact, he backed down somewhat under the kleig lights. It may have been his fatal mistake, allowing the "many dark actors playing games"* around him to spin a web of deceit around his assassination. If he had stuck to his allegation 100% (re: the "sexed up" prewar intel--which turned out, of course, to be 100% true), and had not tried to backpedal a bit, and get himself out of the way of the Blairites' pointed guns, his murder might have been significantly more difficult to cover up, and the plan to kill him abandoned. It also may be a measure of the how dangerous he was to the Bushites/Blairites that they had him killed in the midst of the publicity. One more thought: Kelly's murder may have saved the Wilson's. Three WMD-related murders in one week was too much to cover up.

----------

*(On the day he died, Kelly wrote an email to none other than Judith Miller--an old colleague of his--in which he expressed concern about the "many dark actors playing games." She had emailed him, stating that a "fan" of his had told her that he did well in the hearing that week (note: by all accounts, except this one, he did NOT do well--he was severely stressed during the parliamentary hearing at which he backpedaled on his whistleblowing accusations). He wrote back to her that he would know more by the end of the week, and that there were "many dark actors playing games." He added "thank you for your friendship and support at this time." I've recently begun to wonder if that was an ironical tag. Did he suspect her of being one of the "dark actors"? Of how he got outed to his bosses? His emails to other friends of his that day were upbeat and forward-looking--about his daughter's upcoming wedding, and plans to return to Iraq. He may have been worried about "dark actors," but he was not suicidal. He thought the storm had blown over.) (Note: Miller had used him as a major quoted source in her book "Germs" about bioweapons, published just after 9/11.)

*(Notably, Miller has refused to disclose the OTHER topics of conversation between her and Libby (besides Wilson/Plame and the NIE). Fitzgerald had to agree to this, to get her testimony against Libby on his perjury/obstruction. A week after her first conversation with Libby (mid-June) about Wilson/Plame and the NIE, Kelly was outed to his bosses (as the BBC whistleblower)--initiating the train of events that led to his death several weeks later (three days after Plame was outed). And the other thing that Miller has been secretive about is the "dark actors" email itself. She wrote the NYT news obit on Kelly's death, and did not disclose this email, or her close connection to the subject of the article. It was his family who later disclosed the email.)

---------


So--does Fitzgerald suspect or know that there is something much worse behind the Plame/B-J outingS, beyond Cheney and the political coverup, that has caused him to grant immunity to the actual outers (political operatives), and to be digging deeper into this onion, in his stated purpose of understanding WHY these outings occurred? And is it this--that the Niger forgeries were just Part 1 of a yet more nefarious scheme to plant the weapons--a scheme hatched out of the Pentagon, by Donald Rumsfeld, that Cheney is now covering up?

Dunno. And Rumsfeld name hasn't come up at all, so far, in this case (that I know of). Fitzgerald appears to be building a conspiracy case against Cheney. But when you add up all the people whom Fitzgerald has NOT indicted--and the lack of indictments on the outing crime itself (despite a lot of evidence against certain people, just in the available info)--you have to wonder if he isn't trying to go deeper. The non-indictments (so far) could be part of the strategy of nailing Cheney for conspiracy. But the WHY of that conspiracy is still not known, except on a superficial level (effort to silence dissent--political motive).

What excuse can she give now, in light of this, to "take impeachment off the table."

Do your jobs, Congress!

personal lawsuit?

Heeheehee

attention and at least make a freegin comment!!

That is what I love about this trial. They are being exposed for the dirt bags that they are, and that is the scenic route to the perjury, obstruction of justice charge. No shortcuts Fitz!!!

that "we" didn't know it all along. Finally.

She'd be happier than a biscuit in gravy to see all this come out at last.

CERTAINLY be cause for dc reps to consider investigation impeachment hearings.

This stuff, in a vacuum, shows sleazy (probably illegal) manipulation of facts and media in order to keep alive a lie to the public; this alone should provoke outrage and action in dc. The fact that this stuff has a lot to do with getting us into a tragic, disastrous war SHOULD ENRAGE THE PUBLIC AND OUR REPRESENTATIVES sufficiently to immediately impeach. Bring back EVERYTHING: DSM, pre-invasion lies in private briefings to congress, deliberate mis-management of war aftermath to ensure chaos, illegal transfer to 700 million from afganistan to Iraq, secret energy meetings discussing Iraq....all of it.

This cannot stand any longer. For our representatives to be passive (including focus on compromise non-binding resolutions expressing friendly disagreement) means they are enablers and not part of the solution.

Investigations at the very, very least.

The neocons not only placed bad intell, they placed offices to promote it. The CIA told them to take it out, they did, and then they put it back in again. They knew, especially Cheney knew, that he was lying to the public. But Feith and the OSP had to have their war, I mean, what was the point of putting this crime family into power if you couldn't get what you paid for?

If you robbed a 7-11, they'd hunt you down and throw you in jail. But if you hijack the nation into a false cause for war... geez, those nice people in Washington want to move on.

...it was a precurser to the prosecuter purge just recently.

And the Clintons were keel-hauled over firing WH travel staff in travelgate?

I feel like the anxious child in the back of the station wagon.

Now can we get these treasonous bastards out of our White House?!

....Bush/Cheney fate sealed, impeach both now

population, to actually sit there and think, "Ummm....WHY are we invading Iraq, again?"- and then, of all things, to CALL them on it!

Right.

K&R

1) Cheney and Bush are both directly implicated in outing Valerie Plame.

2) The motive for blowing Plame's cover is critical to defining it as a crime.

3) Cheney and/or Bush have very possibly lied to a federal prosecutor under oath.

And I don't expect Fitzgerald to look the other way.

But it is still a felony to lie to a fedearal investigator.

Maybe we ought to send some not-so-subtle reminders to Pelosi, et.al. in Congress. Slap some bumper stickers on their thick-skinned foreheads.



The "I" Word Bumper Sticker


And...



The "I" Word Bush Dart Game: From the White House...to the Big House (darts not included)

How much more plain and simple do the facts have to be to start investigating the President and VP. ???

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6400402 ...

Wednesday February 7, 2007 7:31 PM

By PETE YOST

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney seemed surprised in 2003 when told where his chief of staff had learned the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

``From me?'' Cheney asked, tilting his head, according to the grand jury testimony of the aide, I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, who is on trial on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.

Libby's account of the conversation came near the end of nearly eight hours of audiotapes of his 2004 grand jury testimony that prosecutors finished playing at his trial Wednesday.

Libby describes finding in his own handwritten notes a reference to Cheney saying in mid-June 2003 that the wife of war critic Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA. The reference by Cheney was more than a month before Plame was outed in a newspaper column.

~snip~


"Who, ME?!"

There are a few things I don't understand about this whole thing. How, for instance, does exposing Valerie Plame's employment as an undercover CIA agent, discredit her husband's negative report about the Bush lies? What has one thing got to do with the other?
And why is everyone so shocked at all the lies proliferating here? Lying is what politicians do. That's their job, their metier. I would think we'd all be shocked if there was a sudden outbreak of Truth among these intellectual pygmies (otherwise known as politicians). Now, THAT would shock me!

it's pure revenge/pressure mafia-style : "we know where your wife and kids live... you wouldn't want that an accident happens to them, wouldn't you ?". Simple as that, and a warning to others : "see what happened to Wilson..."

Rather than talking about repeating known incorrect intelligence, people instead focused on "who Leaked?"

Turned a damning story of a Presidents bald faced lie into a glancing blow. That's all they needed, for a week later another scandal (with it's own glancing blow) would be revealed and remove this one from the front pages. Rinse and repeat.

That's been their tactic for these last 6 years.

it's not revenge, just a setup for Iran. Revenge is the "first" motive and possibly true, but the bigger game is served by this action.