Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Come Together Plame: Part II/Cont'd.

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 03:06 AM
Original message
Come Together Plame: Part II/Cont'd.
In the interests of the non-DSL crowd, I started this new thread continuing the former one which can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2296320&mesg_id=2296320


This is a very important issue which needs to continue to be kept at teh forefront in DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. More info
Last year a lot of info on Plame was posted here at DU. I found this in my bookmarks from RainDog a year ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=427990


History of the Plame/Wilson story in links


identities protection act

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/CIA/50usc421.htm

(background on identities protection act)

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/19/mooney-c.html

here's how the story broke-

Novak's article

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak14.ht...

David Corn's article

http://thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid...

newsday covers it

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia...
ht

And Time

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,0...

More Nation, later on this topic

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3...

John Dean WHA (white house administration) smackdown

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html

Cancer on the White House

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/134261_ambassed.h...

St. Pete Times

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/10/Perspective/Blown_cov...

now picked up by The Guardian, UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1015320,00....


it gets covered in Asia

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH12Ak03.html

White House striking back?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/942095.asp?0cv=CA01

Schumer Urges FBI Probe Into Iraq Leaks
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030...

Probes Expected in ID of CIA Officer
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia...


video of Wilson

http://www.house.gov/inslee/meetings.htm

and


http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Co...





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coeur_de_lion Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Lots of good info here! Thanks for posting this. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Great!
And wonderful news. Matt Cooper and TIME have been served with new subpoenas. Must be they forgot to testify fully. Bad move to get caught in a distortion, especially with a Special Prosecutor and Judge who have expressed a willingness to throw reporters in jail. There are 10 stories about this found at google news (Plame). See:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=584522§ions=news
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coeur_de_lion Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. So Fitzgerald must have gotten information from someone else
which told him that Cooper and TIME did not tell him everything they knew.

So fill me in -- why exactly is this good news?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Two options:
(1) Fitzgerald has a documented need to question Cooper about an issue beyond the limited scope of the first interview.

(2) Mr. Cooper was not fully honest in his first testimony.

All concerned are convinced that the White House is extremely unhappy that they ended up with Fitzgerald on this case. There is a tendency for the right person to show up at the right time in our nation's history. And it's not the individual -- personality cults miss the bigger picture. It's the role the person fulfills. Fitzgerald is the best person for this job. The administration is held in check from attacking him on a personal basis, because the Attorney General's assistant picked him. It's a long and difficult game of strategy, but we are seeing enough of the republican pieces being taken off the board to be sure that "eschec mat" is not far away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. This Is Terrific Linazelle n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. More on Perle Shenanigans
<<snip>>Richard Perle, a foreign policy guru who has oozed his way through Republican administrations for two decades making a fortune as he went, has met his match in Conrad Black, the former head of Hollinger International, the U.S.-based newspaper conglomerate. Black stepped down as Hollinger CEO after being accused by shareholders of being a crook.

As Black goes down, Perle, who worked for the Bush administration and deserves as much credit for the Iraq war as anyone, is going with him. A special committee investigating Hollinger's financial losses accuses both men of corruption.<<cont.>>



http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040913/news_mz1e13golds.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. Judge Hogan rejects Miller's claim!
Edited on Thu Sep-16-04 05:34 PM by H2O Man
US District Judge Thomas Hogan rejected NYT reporter Judith Miller's claims regarding why she didn't want to testify to the Plame grand jury. He ruled her testimony "is necessary for completion of this investigation .... and is expected to constitute direct evidence of innocence or guilt. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4500047,00.html

found at news at google (Plame)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Hogan's decision comes after
the White House official who leaked the Plame information to the Washington Post's Walter Pincus admitted his/her role to Fitzgerald's grand jury. See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24536-2004Se15.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Pincus & Cooper Targeted Again!
This is one of more than 45 related stories found at news at google for Plame:

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000631445
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. The "left" struggles with supporting the CIA....
Old Dog, Same Tricks? The CIA Then & Now, by Engles and Varon. See:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0915-10.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. "Meet the New Villians:
the Neocons Threaten Syria" by Saul Landau and Farrah Hassen. See:

http://www.counterpunch.org/landau09162004.html

also found at news at google for Plame
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coeur_de_lion Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. The Waterman Paper
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 analysis" 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 Cheney 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 terrorism."

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:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Nice To See Waterman in View Again
A question...I am assuming that Joesph Wilson IS aware that his wife's identity was betrayed for a different reason than retribution for his article?

Also...what are the chances the neos will be successful in their quest for another warr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coeur_de_lion Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. The Revolutionary Presidency vs. The Bill of Rights
The Revolutionary Presidency vs. The Bill of Rights
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; Schlesinger; 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 only intended 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 diligently inquire into grievances, 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 have 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 Espionage 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 suspended 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 industrial 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 present 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 occurring 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 representatives 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 grievances, 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; Robert 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, Robert 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 labeled 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 most stark 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




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. "Oldies But Moldies" !!!
Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
17. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 04:13 AM
Response to Original message
18. More on 9-9 court decision...
...which was released yesterday. This article explains why Judith Miller will be testifying about her conversations with a specific White House official. Several federal employees signed forms releasing journalists from any pledge of confidentiality. NYTimes attorney Freeman says that, " ... the consent was coerced ... So those waivers do not affect the essence of the confidential relationship." See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/politics/17leak.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Neocons go bananas over AIPAC spy scandal,
by Justin Raimondo. See:

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3363

found at news at google for Plame
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coeur_de_lion Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. excellent article, I wish that the general public could read and
understand it; but I don't see that happening. I talk to friends about the Plame case and the Israeli Spy scandal and I can see their eyes roll into the back of their heads. Mention AIPAC or PNAC or Plame or Franklin and they have no clue what I'm talking about. It almost seems like we are in on some "secret." We're watching the neocons take over the country and everyone but us is blind to it.

A lot of my non-political friends think I've taken to drink when I talk about this kind of stuff. I keep making the point to them that I would love to be wrong -- but I'm not. There really is a plan to democratize the world through force, there really is widespread corruption in the * administration, and this country really is in serious, constitution-threatening, trouble.

Most of the country is sound asleep where the corruption of the * regime is concerned. The point the author made about Kerry averting his eyes is all too true. Why wouldn't he make an issue of this? If he could talk simply enough the public would understand it. But none of it is ever mentioned. You would think it should be a major talking point for the Kerry campaign. Why isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Interesting post......
First, it's not important in terms of the election that your friends all read the same articiles. All that matters is that you tell 19 friends, and insure that they vote correctly in November. That's known as the "1 in 20" factor, and although I'm sure everyone here is familiar with it, I'll give a brief history.

It's something our military learned way back when, from the Asian cultures. In instances such as war, when they had prisoners, they would put them into groups of 20. Always, one person of the 20 would become the agent for organization geared towards escape. So the captures would kill him, and be left with 19 docile prisoners.

Now your second statement was about spreading democracy around the globe. Good they are suspicious of that. It simply isn't true. The Bush administration isn't interested in democracy in Florida, much less Iraq. How do we know that? Well, they disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters in Florida in 2000 for being black.

And in Iraq, when anyone has said "one person-one vote," which would seem like democracy, the administration has said no, can't happen. They've said it wouldn't be fair. And that's funny, because that's what they based their Supreme Court case on in the 2000 election: it wouldn't be fair to George W. to count the votes.

What they are looking to do is to secure the ability to access foreign resources, and to expand the playing field for the benefit of investment capitalism. Look at Halliburton: it's investing American kids' lives in Iraq; it's investing in foreign resources; and it's investing your tax dollars in their pockets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coeur_de_lion Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. okay -- H I think you got the wrong idea about my post.
Edited on Fri Sep-17-04 10:53 AM by arbustochupa
RE: Paragraph 1 -- I didn't mean to imply that my friends should read every article I read. What I meant was that they seem to be sound asleep (as I once was) to what is really happening in this country. I don't think it is realistic to want people to read all the stuff posted here on DU that I read -- I don't expect that. But it blows my mind that no one is even *thinking* about what GWB* is doing -- and when I start to tell them about it they think I'm being "silly." They are not curious enough to do any research.

Also, my "democratization" remark was sarcasm. I know full well that * is not remotely interested in forming democracies in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter. He is interested in exploiting the resources of those countries and having companies like Halliburton make money to rebuild what he bombs. He just wants control. You should know me better than to think I believe * about this issue, H2O. Maybe I should have been more clear -- it was early this AM when I wrote that.

People I talk to are buying the GOP spiel about wanting to spread "freedom." Not just the Republicans. Some Democrats I know actually believe this too. I pray for them.

I think I do a decent job of sending emails, spreading the word. I've contacted way more than 20 people. But I live in Republican Land. So when I go to parties or out with friends and I bring up this stuff a lot of them go cross-eyed. They can't take it in. They believe what they read in the mainstream media. Democrats and Republicans alike. I offer to send them information that confirms my position and they are not that interested -- most of them. They want to believe what they see on TV.

Apathy. That is what I'm talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. This & That
A poll of Americans think AIPAC should register as a foreign agency.

http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/news2004/2004_09/086.html

Late last night (very late) I saw a post about a letter to the editor Joe Wilson wrote to the Washington Post. Can't find it now. Has anyone else seen it?

Arby- Jumping in here for this has much been on my mind for months. Everyday we ask ourselves, how can this be? I know exactly how you feel, it continually flummoxes me. It goes to the discussion on part one, but it has never been explained to my satisfaction. Even here in NYC, that bastion of liberalness, eyes glaze over. I CANNOT get people to pay attention or believe me, much less write letters. What's even worse it's in my very own family. I spent an hour the other night explaining Plame & AIPAC etc. to a family member only to learn the next day that he was still undecided. The young people ARE getting it. My brother told me his son, a very bright 13 year old came down to dinner one night and asked, "What idiot could have possibly voted for *ush?" His mother admitted she did.

I don't know if it's fatigue or being overwhelmed with their own lives that is creating dissociation or a deeply rooted fear. The really discouraging thing is that these are good, well meaning, intelligent people. One friend has a theory that the dem party insiders want *ush to win and have to face the mess the next four years will bring. How's that for cynical?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Interesting Take on the Neocons
Wii the October surprise be an attack on Iran? Would that wake the people of this country up?


Faster, Neocons! Kill! Kill! Commentary by Martin Kelly
September 16, 2004

<<snip>>
Beginning in 1922, the British boys’ comics Wizard and Hotspur carried a story called ‘The Wolf of Kabul’. The Wolf, British intelligence agent Bill Sampson, was a typical end of Empire type, happiest when kicking ten bells out to the locals. He had an Afghan sidekick, Chung, whose weapon of choice was a cricket bat, which he called ‘Clicky-ba’. Chung’s catchphrase after using lethal force was to say to The Wolf, ‘Lord, I am full of humble sorrow – I did not mean to knock down these men – Clicky-ba merely turned in my hand’.

Clicky-ba was turning in the hands of neocon commentator Jed Babbin in a September 13th article called ‘Did We Lose The War?’ in The American Spectator on the Web. I like TAS, think it’s a great site, second only to The Washington Dispatch. In the current difficult climate, it has the courage to publish the widest range of opinion of any conservative site affiliated to print media, with steady authors ranging from the sublime James Bowman to the ridiculous Babbin. They’ve published a lot of my letters, so I write this with some regret, as they’ll probably never do so again.<<snip>>

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10080.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. This Speech by Bill Moyers is SOOOO Powerful

“So the Internet may indeed engage us in a new conversation of democracy. Even as it does, you and I will in no way be relieved from wrestling with what it means ethically to be a professional journalist. I believe Tom Rosenthiel got it right in that Boston Globe article when he said that the proper question is not whether you call yourself a journalist but whether your own work constitutes journalism. And what is that? I like his answer: “A journalist tries to get the facts right,” tries to get “as close as possible to the verifiable truth”—not to help one side win or lose but “to inspire public discussion.” Neutrality, he concludes, is not a core principle of journalism, “but the commitment to facts, to public consideration, and to independence from faction, is.”

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/journalism_under_fire.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. You bounder, you!
I've heard that you're vicious! But I never expected this out of a person your heighth.

Oh, okay. I must have misread your post. I think it was about 4am when I responded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coeur_de_lion Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. listen, you, you, rapscallion you!
I'll have you know I'm tall for my height. And worth every inch. And every inch of me is as vicious as the first inch! }(

Yeah, I was unclear when I wrote it too -- just writing away at 6 or 7 this AM like I knew what I was talking about. Hadn't even had my second cup of coffee! I should have known better.

I've never been very eloquent at 6:00AM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coeur_de_lion Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Oh, this is too funny.
We've become a party of three. Just noticed that we're the only ones posting to the new thread. Is it possible that folks are good and sick of the Plame Thread?:o

Does this mean that we'll be the only ones around when the "Plame Indictments" finally come down?:cry:

LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgadorSparticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #29
52. i doubt that very much. i think there are plenty of people keeping
tabs on what is going on. just waiting for it to bust wide open, i guess. i very much enjoy reading everyone's posts on this subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
artslave43 Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
57. general public
Hi, I was really struck by your description of the people "asleep" and concur....it is weird, it is beyond description (however, I am posting a good description from Paul Levy). It is as if we are living in concurrent parallel universes. Here is what Paul Levy wrote: http://www.awakeninthedream.com/bushsupporters.html

 By looking away from what Bush is doing and naively supporting him, people are complicit in and feeding Bush’s malignant psychosis. There is something about the depth of depravity, though, that is enacting itself through the Axis of Evil represented by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice, Rove and others that is so dark that it induces in some of us a tendency to pretend that it isn’t really happening. The malevolent energy that is playing itself out through Bush is very hard to look at. People look away, as it is too horrific. The intensity of the evil provokes people to rationalize it, to justify it, to explain it away. It triggers a tendency in people to fall asleep. We like to imagine that people couldn’t be THAT corrupt, THAT two-faced, THAT evil. It is truly shocking to see the depth of depravity a human being can fall into. It is doubly shocking when we realize that these criminally insane individuals control the most powerful nation on earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bokanist Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-04 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #19
31. Where's Kerry on this?
These graphs from Raimondo are key:

"In any case, how weird is it that a major spy operation has been uncovered in the midst of the most hotly contested election since the Civil War era, and the challenger has not a word to say about it?

If "the Pentagon is chock full of spies," as Yglesias puts it, then why oh why is the Democratic presidential candidate averting his eyes? John Kerry can read dozens of detailed policy reports, and listen to his learned advisors spin nuance after nuance all he wants, but if he is struck dumb by the sight of treason in the camp of his ostensible enemies, then what are we to make of him? As far as I’m concerned, his silence is complicity."

Why is Kerry holding his fire on this? Why isn't he tarring Bush for tolerating traitors in his administration? Enough about the Plame and Franklin affairs is public for Kerry to go after Bush on them. And if Kerry just mentioned Plame and Franklin it might wake up the snoozing press. I don't get it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-04 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Good Question bokanist
I'd like an answer to that too. The only thing I can think of is that until there are indictments he may consider it going too far on a limb. After all, yesterday Kerry said *ush had plans to call up more soldiers if he was elected. We know that it's true but the WH put out that old "conspiracy" (read wacko) charge in response. H.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-04 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. Good question.
Separtation of powers. A person in the legislative branch (or executive) is not allowed to speak out on a case being reviewed in a court setting from the judicial branch. One example that comes to mind is when President Nixon said mass-murderer Charles Manson was "guilty," it made headlines, and could easily have caused a mistrial.

Kerry needs to have someone else comment on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coeur_de_lion Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
23. CIA chief nominee faces past statements before panel
By WES ALLISON, Times Staff Writer
Published September 15, 2004

CIA chief nominee faces past statements before panel
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/15/Worldandnation/CIA_chief_nominee_fac.shtml

<<snip>>
WASHINGTON - Florida Rep. Porter Goss had some explaining to do. No, he acknowledged, it was hardly his finest moment when he said he needed a "a blue dress and some DNA" - a reference to former President Clinton's sex scandal - before he would investigate the outing of a CIA agent by someone in the Bush administration.

And as the U.S. senators listened intently, Goss, R-Sanibel, insisted he was only kidding when he called the Senate investigation into prison abuses in Iraq "a circus."

And he no longer supports his own proposal to allow the CIA to arrest U.S. citizens on American soil.

On the opening day of hearings on Goss' nomination as head of the Central Intelligence Agency, Senate Democrats used his past statements and proposals to question his political independence and his commitment to reforming the intelligence system.
<<snip>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #23
30. KICK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-04 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Newton's Law and War with Iran
"Of course, you do know that now the Bush administration and the neocons are setting America up for a war with Iran. Right?

With George W. Bush as your next president, go ahead, America, attack Iran. But, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, you will be forced to pay the piper. And it will, most certainly, be a catastrophically heavy price.

Please don't send me mail arguing with me about this observation. Argue instead with Ying and Yang – or, better yet, argue with Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion"


http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers74.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-04 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ramblin_dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-04 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
36. Josh Marshall: No investigation into Niger docs
Josh Marshall update:

In recent days there have been a run of stories about the byzantine, or rather sovietological, new twists and turns in the Plame investigation. And whenever this story pops up into the news, there’s a rush of speculation about that other investigation.

That, of course, would be the investigation into just who forged the notorious Niger-uranium documents that purported to show that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger --- the underlying issue that led to the Plame investigation in the first place.

It’s even been suggested in the press that the two investigations might have been consolidated into one.

The truth, though, the dirty little secret, is that there’s never been any real investigation into where those documents came from. Don't look for status updates on it because it doesn't exist.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_19.php#003490
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-04 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. The reason that people are
hoping to consolidate the two investigations is, of course, because there has been no effort to find out who forged the Niger yellow cake uranium documents. Even though there is good reason to suspect who was behind their creation -- and why -- there has been no serious effort made to determine their origin. The FBI has done some serious investigation into the neocon spy scandal, but some of the political appointees at "the top" have done their best to stop them from bringing indictments. Clearly, just as in Plame, some officials need to recuse themselves due to conflicts of interest. And that can perhaps best be remedied with a special prosecutor. Hence the call to consolidate the investigations.

What is of great interest is the fact that the call for this consolidation recognizes that the group involved in the neocon scandal, (partiularly the Israeli front group) forged the documents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-04 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. Pame is in Pravda for God's Sake !
<<<snip>>>
The White House is stonewalling the investigation - as usual. Meridith outlines that only people on the "inside" could have the clearances to know who is doing what. The CIA can be discounted because they never talk to anyone - we can leave the CIA out of this. Our focus turns to the White House itself. My questions start with why Robert Novak published the story. Punishment for disclosure of such information is rather nasty.

Among some of the other words that can be applied is TREASON. Novak stuck his neck out and literally threw it in the noose himself. A true, law abiding, journalist is supposed to be above this sort of thing - it is one thing to criticize ones country, but to hand out highly classified material is quite another. To quote:

Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, codified as 50 U.S.C., Section 421 Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.<<<snip>>>

The last paragraph mentions a strategy I never even considered:

<<<snip>>>
Now, to level the playing field flatter than a pancake - the Anti-Terrorist Act and the Patriot Act rushed through congress by the four horse"s asses of the apocalypse - the act that authorizes the Central Intelligenc<<<snipe Agency to investigate American citizens. According to those two acts, the CIA does not need Ashcroft to turn the FBI loose - the CIA can do the investigation themselves. This could make for some very interesting times ahead. You see, the CIA does not like people messin' with their own.<<<snip>>>

Michael Berglin


http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/399/14259_Plame.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. That Should Read Plame n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-04 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. "Bush Team Knows How To Play the Media in Spy Crime Cover-Up
<<snip>>>
The obvious ironic subtext of this investigation is the enforced complicity between the hyper-secret Bush administration and these media titans who ought to be demanding exposure of a criminal leaker. The media's devotion to First Amendment principles has co-opted their other obligations of investigative scrutiny and editorial commentary.

Instead of helping the administration keep a major scandal under public radar, the media ought to demand that the background leaker of Plame's identity be treated the same as was national security aide Richard Clarke when Fox News correspondent Jim Angle helped the White House discredit his testimony about security deficiencies prior to 9/11.<<<snip>>


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0918-23.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-04 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. It's amazing that the country
is focused on the CBS "controversy" to the extent it is. First, it seems that the Bush documents are in a kind of "purgitory": they are not either true or false, because our culture has become immune to the true meaning of words.

The fact that the president based part of his position on Iraq on a series of documents that were absolutely forged, and the people who were behind the forgeries are tied in with both the neocon-Israeli spy ring and the exposing of Valerie Plame, gets far less attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-04 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
40. I guess it would be nice to give this a little
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
43. "Maybe Dan Rather killed Vince Foster"
Binghamton's Press & Sun-Bulletin editorial by award-winning writer David Rossie takes a closer look at the press attention to CBS vs Plame. See:

http://www.pressconnects.com/today/opinion/stories/op092204s118251.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. If This Mess Wasn't So Sad
It'd be downright funny
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. The Question of the Day
<<<snip>>>

"But the larger question is: Why is Bush still listening to these people? These were the propagandists and agitators for the war in Iraq that may yet cost him his presidency. Nothing they promised has been delivered. They constantly undercut relations with our European allies with their insults. They persuaded Bush to outsource Middle East policy to Sharon, to our national detriment.

Now, they are pushing Bush to distance ourselves from, if not to destabilize, Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Why does Bush continue to heed men whose policies have radicalized the Middle East and converted much of the Islamic world into a giant recruiting station for Osama bin Laden?"

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=3618


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCentepedeShoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. Because Bush has no choice
He's not the "President" (and not just because Gore beat him in '00).
He's a puppet who does what he's told. Cheney pulls the strings in accordance with the neo-con agenda. But maybe Buchanan can't bring himself to look in that direction. IMO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Now We Know The Reason For The Rather Sting
Posted by Synnical (17 posts) On LBN list Wed Sep-22-04 09:18 PM

Original message
Newsweek: The Story That Didn’t Run

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6073449/site/newsweek /

Here’s the piece that ‘60 Minutes’ killed for its report on the Bush Guard documents


Sept. 22 - In its rush to air its now discredited story about President George W. Bush’s National Guard service, CBS bumped another sensitive piece slated for the same “60 Minutes” broadcast: a half-hour segment about how the U.S. government was snookered by forged documents purporting to show Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium from Niger.

<snip>

A team of “60 Minutes” correspondents and consulting reporters spent more than six months investigating the Niger uranium documents fraud, CBS sources tell NEWSWEEK. The group landed the first ever on-camera interview with Elisabetta Burba, the Italian journalist who first obtained the phony documents, as well as her elusive source, Rocco Martino, a mysterious Roman businessman with longstanding ties to European intelligence agencies.


<snip>

The delay of the CBS report comes at a time when there have been significant new developments in the case—although virtually none of them have been reported in the United States. According to Italian and British press reports, Martino-the Rome middleman at the center of the case—was questioned last week by an Italian investigating magistrate for two hours about the circumstances surrounding his acquisition of the documents. Martino could not be reached for comment, but his lawyer is reportedly planning a press conference in the next few days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. This is important enough
that it should get its own post, Me. I'd hope that people who read it would then participate on this thread. But not enough people are likely to see it here. It's extremely important information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kohodog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. I have a feeling
that something good (for all of us peeps) is about to erupt. The ground is beginning to tremble!!

Feel it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. I'm Holding On For Dear Life! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Just so you all don't think you are talking in an empty barrel-
all alone by yourselves... There are many of us looking over your shoulders and breathing in your ears-didn't you notice? I think many are kind of standing in stunned silence; I certainly am. Your majestic stature casts such a shadow that we are fair invisible. Good work. Nap time. Morning soon. By the way, the suspicions about Kerry's commitment to the continued control by Israel appear to be solidly founded. I have spent several hours googling everything by him going back to eighty four, and don't have a lot to show for it. I still just don't get it. Vague...uncomfortable...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
53. We are getting down to the wire......
The election is getting closer and closer, and it's time for us to attempt to kick into a higher gear. The report about what story CBS tabled to carry the Bush N.G. documents gives us a pretty clear picture what news story the administration fears most of all. It can be broken down into a few simple parts:

(1) A group of neocons working within the executive branch of government were coordinating efforts to change the political/economic map of the Middle East -- this includes the war in Iraq and the plans for a broader war, likely including Iran;

(2) They were working with other countries, specifically England and Israel, and this coordinated effort included the illegal passing of documents to the Israeli front group in Washington -- this is the "neocon/Israeli spy scandal;"

(3) A combination of the efforts in #1 and 2 led to the forging of the Niger yellow cake uranium documents, which were part of the foundation of lies that the administration built upon in order to justify the invasion of Iraq -- these are the documents that Joseph Wilson investigated in Niger.

(4) The neocons in the administrationbecame aware that Wilson had exposed the Niger documents as forgeries. They were also aware of a larger CIA investigation that included examining the source(s) of the forged documents -- this is why the VP's office "exposed" Plame's identity.

Thus, the neocon spy scandal, the forged Niger documents, and the White House officials exposing Plame are as closely related as the three leafs on a clover. It is the area that the administration is most vulnerable upon. It's a central issue, that we can connect almost every other scandal to.

The White House did not want CBS to carry J.M.'s story, because they are aware that it would discredit them with the middle-class, main stream American voting public. We still have time to bring the story to that public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. To add to (1)
1.1 "A group of neocons working within the executive branch of government were coordinating efforts to change the political/economic map of the Middle East ..."
1.2 A group of neocons working within the executive branch of government were coordinating efforts to change the political/economic/democratic structure of the US. Some important characteristics of an ideal democracy are extinct now, social inequalities are more pronounced than ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #53
55. "Wilson, Plame steal some of Kelley’s Thunder"
At a book signing for Kelley, the ambassador and his wife were as much an attraction as the author. Interesting, how just by going to a bookstore they can attract a crowd of people who know the story.

"Wilson told The Hill that he expects the federal grand jury investigating the leaking of his wife’s name “to finish its work soon,” but added, “I don’t know whether there will be any indictments.” He said the ordeal “has been a great distraction for both of us, but there’s nothing we can do about it. It’s been a long year.”

http://www.thehill.com/under_dome/092304.aspx
""
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. “Why Do Bush Supporters Deny The Obvious?”
<<<snip>>>

To quote Stanley Hilton, Bob Dole’s former chief of staff and a long-time Republican, “George Bush makes Benedict Arnold look like a patriot. He makes Benedict Arnold look like George Washington. I mean that’s what we have- a criminal and traitor sitting in the White House pretending he is a patriot, wrapping himself in the flag.” The evidence of Bush and Company’s corruptness and duplicity is beyond overwhelming, and it is literally everywhere, staring us in the face. Why are so many people looking away and not noticing? I find myself no longer interested in trying to convince anyone of what a madman, criminal and traitor Bush is, though it’s not for lack of trying. What I find more fruitful is to contemplate why people who are supporting Bush are both unwilling and seemingly unable to see the evil that is playing out through him. People who follow Bush are in denial about something that to the overwhelming majority of the world could not be more obvious.”…cont.

<<<snip>>>
For people who are not seeing the evil of Bush and Co, the great doctor of the soul, psychiatrist C. G. Jung would point out that it is not a matter of preaching the light to them, for they are unable to see, as if they are blind. Rather it is a question of teaching people the art of seeing. In order to teach people how to see the absolute evil that is playing itself out through George Bush and Co, we must come to terms with the darkness inside of ourselves that Bush is a reflection of. This involves seeing the fascist in ourselves. This is where we see our potential for being, unwittingly or otherwise, an instrument of evil ourselves, based on our own capacity for self-deception, our own greed, our own lust for power, our own fear, anger and hatred, our own delusion, ignorance and unconsciousness. For archetypal evil is a power, or a principality that exists within God’s totality, which is to say, ourselves. Archetypal evil is something we are all capable of. It is an awe-full, shocking and humbling experience to look into the dark side of our nature, to see the monstrousness of our totality, to see what we are capable of. In other words, in order to teach people how to see we must be able to see ourselves….cont.

http://www.awakeninthedream.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. I just posted
a short clip on GD about the Democratic Underground being mentioned in the top story in this week's TIME magazine. "Blue Truth, Red Truth" by Nancy Gibbs mentions the DU in reference to the diverse opinions about this campaign season. (see page 29) Cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. kick n/t
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, 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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