Reply #193: In working on this theory, I was also struck particularly by the risks...

[Peace Patriot]

...that the Bushites took, especially in that July 7-14 period, so many top Bushites involved, so much outside contact (at least six journalist witnesses to treason). Yes, they wanted to "get" the CIA. Yes, they undoubtedly hated Wilson. But why risk the entire regime by such precipitous action? It may not explain all of the Treasongate, but it focuses on the trigger for the Plame outing--what caused them to make so many mistakes--and, by trying to see the arc of the plot, from the wild goose chase to Niger and the Niger forgeries (and the SOTU speech plant), to the Wilson article, to a possible conclusion, discrediting of the CIA when the phantom weapons were "found," you begin to see why they may have done certain things, and how a Blair report on the interrogation of Kelly might fit in.

We shouldn't assume that THEY (the Bush Cartel) always has control of all the pieces of whatever they're doing and plotting, nor of their own emotions. Think of it from THEIR point of view. Say, Blair called them and told them Kelly knew (of the weapons planting plot and its foiling). Who else knows? How far has this gone? How much control do the Brits have over Kelly? WHO foiled their plot? And what OTHER devious, war profiteering crap might the revelation of this plot lead to? What if Blair was toppled? And on and on. They'd just pulled off a huge and awful coup--the invasion of Iraq--and had many devious plans for the occupation. All of that already was endangered by the failure to find WMDs. They were using pure bludgeon power--with virtually the entire world, including the majorities in both home countries, against their war. And here they find out that an insider (and a whistleblower) knows one of their worst secrets.

A WMD planting scheme that was foiled, as I see it, includes the long term plot to "get" the CIA--to shut it down, especially its WMD information gathering capability (for various reasons including Cheney arms dealings, and future wars they wanted to instigate)--AND why they foolishly outed Plame in a goddamned newspaper, with tracks back to top Bushites, Cheney and the WHIGs, and tracks all over DC in major news organizations. The Bush Cartel is capable of hiding its tracks. They've been suspected of it in many other plots. Why did they not do it this time?

Because it was urgent. It was big. And they were panicked.

Explain why they didn't cover their tracks better. That is the conundrum. And that is why this theory is better than the "revenge" theory.

There ARE arguments against the WMD-planting plot, as the plot behind the plot of Treasongate--and more in favor of the "revenge" motivation. For instance, one reason they may not have covered their tracks was to specifically send an ice dagger into the hearts of all who opposed them, especially in U.S. and other intelligence communities, and also the diplomatic services (U.S. and other), and the U.S. military. This is something that Wilson and others have dwelt upon. And Wilson himself has said nothing at all about WMD planting or David Kelly--a point against the WMD planting theory (although Wilson may be under constraints--for instance, fear for his wife's safety).

So, cold calculation--rather than panic--might explain their spreading of this treason all over DC; and hubris might explain why they were so careless of their own hides.

It doesn't satisfy ME, partly because of the coincidence of the Plame and Kelly dates. And, as to their precipitous, risky actions--why the rush? They could continue to attack and purge the CIA, and/or do any number of things to squash dissent, inside and outside, over a period of time, where it would look like normal politics (more or less), and do many ice pick in the skull type of black ops to punish specific people and "send messages." What was the hurry in the week of July 7-14, 2003? (And they extended the "hunt" for WMDs for months--on into the next year--spinning, spinning, spinning the "news," while their buds cleaned out the U.S. taxpayers in Iraq. Why bother about an op-ed or two, or a few BBC reports--to that extent, to the extent of all of them being put at risk of treason charges?)

Whatever the truth is, I think one thing is fairly certain: simple revenge for a dissenting article, and general suppression of dissent, does not seem sufficient to explain the draconian action that was taken, outing and disabling the entire CIA WMD monitoring project, 20 years in the making, putting its coverts at great risk of death. The SECOND Plame outing--of Brewster/Jennings, on July 22--may be more important than the first, in understanding what was really going on. (The first can be explained as "punishment" of Wilson? What of the second?)