Plame Threads: A Spaniard in the Works

[H2O Man]

As the administration of the second Bush-Cheney term begins to take form, the participants of the Plame Threads series recognize that a number of familiar names are among those being promoted. This post-election, pre-indictment thread will examine a few of those characters.

The question for this phase of the Plame drama is what exactly have these Bushites done to deserve these promotions? Let's examine two characters, Stephan Hadley and Condi Rice.

Both were involved in the run-up to President Bush using those infamous 16 words in his State of the Union speech, where he said that there was evidence that Iraq had bought yellow cake uranium from Niger.

Ambassador Joseph Wilson would expose this as an absolute untruth in an op-ed in the New York Times. Shortly after this, of course, Robert Novak would expose Wilson's wife as a covert CI agent who specialized in the sale of WMD components.

Thus began the scandal that will result in indictments and convictions of White House officials.

Condi Rice would be questioned about why her office allowed President Bush to include what they knew was an outright lie to the public in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. Let's count off five statements:

{1} "Maybe somebody in the bowels of the Agency know something about this, but nobody in my circle." - Condi Rice; 6-8 Meet The Press

{2} "If there were doubters about the underlying intelligence to that National Intelligence Estimates, those doubts were not communicated to the president, vice president, or me." - Condi Rice to reporters, 7-11.

{3} "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." - Condi Rice; 7-13 Fox News Sunday

{4} "The high standards the president set were not met." - Deputy NSA Stephan Hadley; 7-22 press statement admitting that CI Director Tenet had sent 2 memos and made a phone call to specifically say the yellow cake information was faulty.

{5} "I can tell you, I either didn't see the memo, or I don't remember seeing the memo." - Condi Rice; 7-30 to press.

What did Ambassador Wilson write about Condi's changing story? "That was a lie, and I knew it. She had to have known it as well."

[kohodog]

1. When the indictments come down...

The new promotions may make it even harder for Bush to remain in office. He will try to make sure the indictments never happen but I wonder if it's too late.

There's an old expression: The wheels of justice may turn slowly, but they turn finely.

I believe that justice will prevail.

[TexasChick]

2. But how will they be indicted? Don't the Repuketards own all three

branches of the Senate? I just don't see how anybody can stop these felons now!

[Doohickie]

12. I didn't know the Senate had three branches.

I know the main branch is located in DC. Where are the other branches?

[Jackpine Radical]

51. How 'bout a slightly gentler reading?

I think she meant to say three branches of government, or maybe both houses of Congress.

[TacticalPeek]

3. Two birds in one.

The Watergate cover-up only incarcerated one US Attorney General, John Mitchell.

Could the Plame cover-up nail two - Ashcroft and Gonzales? Or can they beat the rap?

It may seem far-fetched, but once started down the justice road, sometimes the thing happens, for whatever reasons. McCord and Sirica for example.

[H2O Man]

17. I suspect that the target

in this case is not the Attorney General(s). However, you are absolutely right in saying that this case has the potential of building momentum.

[Occulus]

167. Would your suspicion be in regards to that comment made

by the judge, I think, who said that the investigation had taken an "unexpected turn"?

That phrasing of the issue really jumped out at me. What sort of "unexpected turn" could this take?

[Me.]

4. We've Been Skunked & Dunked

but not sunk. Maybe the beautiful Valerie will be Fitz's Trojan Horse, or at least ***H's Achilles heel. There have been a spate of articles lately relating, one way or the other, to Plame. Here's One

Bush’s Cabinet moves are about loyalty and control

<<<snip>>>
“But a more discerning look at the flurry of firings and appointments over the past two weeks paints a different picture. The president isn’t moving to the right or the center and certainly not to the left. That’s the wrong metric: each new appointment is designed to assert more control and quiet dissident voices in the executive branch. Cont.


“But in truth Gonzales is no favorite of the right wing. If anything, conservatives find his appointment to Justice a source of relief because it seems to put him out of the running for a soon-to-open seat on the Supreme Court. Rather, what Gonzales brings to the job at Justice is reliability, absolute loyalty to Bush.

That quality will be particularly valued with the string of investigations under the new AG’s purview. Though none of them popped before the November election, there are still a slew of ongoing criminal investigations that could prove embarrassing to the administration.

First is the Plame investigation. But the list goes on from there. It includes the inquiry into Larry Franklin and possibly others at the Pentagon for providing classified intelligence to employees of American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the investigation of Ahmed Chalabi and who provided him with highly classified U.S. intelligence he apparently passed on to the Iranians. And lest we forget, there is even the long-moribund investigation into who whipped up those forged Iraq-Niger uranium documents that played a role in driving the country to war.” Cont.


http://www.thehill.com/marshall/111804.aspx

[Me.]

5. Another...

Leahy Says Gonzales Nomination on Track

<<<snip>>>
“WASHINGTON (AP) - Alberto Gonzales will face tough questioning during hearings on his nomination to become the next attorney general but is on track to be confirmed, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat said Wednesday.” Cont.

To cite one high-profile example, Gonzales - if confirmed - will have to decide whether to recuse himself from the investigation into the leak to the press of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame. Outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft did step aside under pressure, and Gonzales testified in June before a grand jury hearing evidence in that case.

``I think this is an issue that will be raised at the confirmation hearings,'' Leahy said.” Cont.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4621546,00.html

[Me.]

6. And Another...

Cooking With Goss
The new CIA chief's shakeups are bad news.
By Fred Kaplan

<<<snip>>>
“Today's New York Times, in a story headlined "New C.I.A. Chief Tells Workers to Back Administration Policies," reports on a leaked memo that Goss circulated on Monday within the CIA "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road," as the new director put it. The pertinent passage is this: "As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies." Cont.

“This directive reinforces a general uneasiness about Goss, who after all auditioned for his current job by doing political hackwork for the president. In June 2003, when Sen. Kerry—who was clearly running for president already—gave "a major speech" on national-security issues, the Bush-Cheney campaign tapped Goss to write the official critique. And he wrote a blazer, denouncing the speech as "political 'me-tooism' " and complaining that Kerry "neglected the president's historic achievements" and "remarkable progress" at combating terrorism.” Cont.

Goss also helped Bush during the early days of the Joseph Wilson-Valerie Plame scandal. As chairman of a Senate oversight committee and as a former CIA case officer himself, Goss should have been dismayed that a White House aide might have exposed the identity of an undercover agent as an act of political retaliation against the agent's spouse. But, although the Justice Department took the reports seriously enough to mount a grand-jury probe, Goss dismissed them as "wild and unsubstantiated" and added, as a jab at the Democrats, "Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation." Cont.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109870/

[TexasChick]

8. Oh, Please! Read this:

"neglected the president's historic achievements" and "remarkable progress" at combating terrorism.


Please. I guess creating fake documents to to illegally invade a sovereign nation who posed no threat to the US is an historical achievement! I guess presiding over the worse intelligence failures of 9/11 is an historical achievement! I guess presiding over the most net job losses since Hoover is an historical achievement! And, the list could go on!

Porter Goss, go Cheney yourself!

[Me.]

7. And One More...

Healing? Unity?
Let There Be Conflict!

<<<snip>>>
“Libertarian Justin Raimondo, on antiwar.com, proffers reasons for hope in the ongoing investigations of administration duplicity and venality. Citing the example of Richard Nixon, overwhelmingly reelected in 1972 and driven from office in disgrace two years later, he suggests that the Plame Affair, and investigations into administration lies preparatory to the Iraq invasion, might lead Bush-Cheney to a similar end. http://antiwar.com/justin/ I have been thinking and hoping the same thing. That's a very happy scenario, but I'd prefer a rapid intensification of social conflict like that which occurred in the heroic Sixties, producing a necessary polarization, radicalization, genuine debate, and the disillusionment with institutions that has to precede real change.” Cont…

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp11062004.html

[TexasChick]

9. Me, thanks for the links, especially this one. But the question still

remains "How will they be indicted"? The neocon Repukes own all branches of the Senate. Maybe a few moderate Repukes, here and there, but enough to bring impeachment?

[Me.]

10. This Is Only A Guess Mind You

But I would think that once a grand jury has been formed I don't think you can stop it or indictments if they decide to hand them down. You can wage a PR campaign and cast aspersions, but the fact is Fitzgerald was appointed by Repugs during a pug administration.

[H2O Man]

13. As a person noted earlier

there is only one branch of the senate on the federal level. I believe that you are refering to the three branches of government on the federal level: the executive (president & administration); the legislative (both house of congress:the Senate and House of Representatives); and the judicial (the federal courts, including the Supreme Court). And you are correct that the republican party, and actually a relatively small part of that party, has a firm grip on the reins of power in each of the three.

Patrick "the Bulldog" Fitzgerald is a federal prosecutor from Chicago. He was appointed special prosecutor in this case when the Attorney General recused himself a year ago. Now, where does that put the case?

First, not at all under the congress. The constitution requires that the House of Representatives serve as investigator in these types of cases. But it does not fulfill its roll in a case involving the national security; it did work overtime on the infamous blue dress case. The Senate does have an Intel Committee with "oversight" of intelligence issues. They want to investigate, but have become so cowed by the powers that rule America that at this point, I would expect that Barney Fife will come out of retirement from the old Andy Griffith shows and solve this case before the Senate will get off its dead ass and take some action that would be vaguely senatorial.

Second, the executive branch had control until that moment when Fitzgerald was appointed. It is safe to say that they were convinced the Bulldog would hold four months of secret hearings, and then give a nod and a wink and say, "No smoking gun, nothing illegal." Surprise, surprise. History has numerous examples of people who rise to a higher level when their country needs them, and rather than sinking in the mire as expected, Fitzgerald has actually investigated the case.

Third, it is now in the federal court system. Now, in general, the federal courts are associated with appeals. A prison inmate who was frustrated in state courts often found relief in the federal system, for example. And many of the famous civil cases have taken place in the federal district courts. In theory, these are supposed to be beyond politics.

Yet people are understandably concerned in the USA, because in 2000, we saw the US Supreme Court betray this country, and deliver what may rank as the most politically-motivated decision that had no foundation in law. The idea of over-turning a state supreme court is always one that is taken with caution .... state supreme courts often are as good as the federal courts. Some, like that supreme and supreme appellate in NYS, are notoriously political. Others, like New Jersey's, are known as having the highest quality jurists. Florida in 2000 ranked closer to the NJ supreme court of the 1970-80s, and no one could find a flaw in their legal reasoning.

So your question, if I am not mistaken, is will the federal court system allow -- much less insure -- a serious trial for these crimes? Valid question. Very valid. Very valid question. One can only speculate. And that is the purpose of this thread .... to speculate on how the administration is preparing to deal with this case.

I am assuming that two or more indictments will be handed down soon. Will President Bush pardon people? Will his CI director squash any efforts to assist the prosecution? Will the FBI? Have the good people in these agencies been intimidated by what they have seen in the last 18 months? Or 2 months?

Truth and justice is the underdog in this case. But not only do I almost always go with the underdog, but in this instance, this case may be the best bet for helping to remove the national cancer that has been growing within the federal system.

[Rockerdem]

33. Good assessment -nt

[TexasChick]

35. Thanks for the info, H2O Man! Ha! I guess they didn't think Fitzgerald

was going to do his job! But, you stated in your reply:

Will President Bush pardon people?

Okay, let's assume indictments come down, what if the Chimp pardons people? Chimp's still there, isn't he? The asshats are free to go, right, without punishment? How are we going to get rid of the cancer in our government and federal system if Chimp is still there and pardons these asshats? Or, are you just saying indictments will come down on most of the cancer and kind of "clean it up" a bit, say like "Go Cheney yourself" Cheney or maybe General Asscrack even? I guess what I'm trying to ask is, who do you think will be implicated?

[H2O Man]

44. Good questions.

I'll start by saying as far as pardons go, it's a tough call. I have an extremely low opinion of this administration, and have had a low opinion of George W. Bush since before he was elected. Two people I know well had contact with him as governor of Texas; one was a state employee who headed a department, another was an advocate for stopping the death penalty. Both have said that from their contact with Bush, they found him to be a disturbed and disturbing person.

Could Bush go beyond the acceptable boundries in order to protect his own? Yes. Would that create a crisis in his relationship with the congress? Most likely. Does he care? I think not, and I have to say that even among the presidents I didn't care for, Bush stands alone in his contempt for the separation of powers in the federal government. Keep in mind what senator Byrd wrote in his book about the "shadow government."

Now, who will possibly be indicted? I'm going to break that into two groups: first, the "leakers;" and second, those involved in the "cover-up." There could be over-lap in this. Also, I am being "inclusive," and putting a larger number, as I believe that as time goes on, the number of crimes will grow.

Leakers: John Hannah is the canary. His attorney has tried to make a deal with the DoJ. David Wurmser, who is connected to the forged yellow cake documents and Larry Franklin. Also, John Bolton and Eliot Abrams. These characters are all connected to Scooter Libby, and the private "intelligence" group under VP Dick Cheney.

There is no doubt that Karl Rove was involved. He spoke to Chris Matthews, who has been open in identifying Rove. Look for Rove to point fingers at Libby and other Cheneyites.

Cover-up: All of the leakers. The VP's "intelligence" group, up to and including Cheney. Also, there are people like Newt Gingrich who are working with Cheney in an "unofficial" status. There are others.

Could it reach outside the White House, into the Department of Justice? Possibly on the cover-up. More likely there could be obstruction charges related to the Franklin case. And, once the bottom starts falling out, look for an investigation into who forged the yellow cake documents.

[TexasChick]

47. Thanks, H2O Man! You rock! Your contempt for this administration is

mutually shared! Oh, BTW, he absolutely sucked as governor of our state! I want Ann Richards back!!

[H2O Man]

50. Ann Richards is a great lady.

Her sense of humor alone separates her from most politicians.

Thank you for the compliment. I do appreciate that. I note that a person cannot have a contempt for the horrible things Bush is doing, without having a corresponding deep affection for the good things about America.

[TexasChick]

52. Have you heard this yet from Ann Richards about Chimp Bush:

"Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth!"



That had me rollin'!

[H2O Man]

54. It was a classic line.

I also think very highly of Molly Ivans, who is able to make people laugh at the president. There is a wonderful power in that type of humor.

[prairie populist]

67. Wouldn't Richards and Ivins make a dream ticket?

[KoKo]

138. Why was Bush emboldened to move Condi into place, Hadley into place

Gonzalez and I think Bolton is somewhere in the mix. If Fitzgerald investigation is hot on the trail (and Bush and Rove know exactly what is going on with Fitzgerald, I fear) then why would he flaunt the worst folks in his administration by moving them even tighter around him?

Sadly, I've given up on Fitzgerald...much as I truly want to believe in him...he missed his timing. This needed to break before a "second selection" when he had a chance of being heard.

I think you summed it up by saying:

"I am assuming that two or more indictments will be handed down soon. Will President Bush pardon people? Will his CI director squash any efforts to assist the prosecution? Will the FBI? Have the good people in these agencies been intimidated by what they have seen in the last 18 months? Or 2 months?"

I think the answers to the questions about indictments being handed down soon...is probably a "no." It's been quashed. I'm not saying Fitzgerald might not try to indict, but Bush/Rove/etc. will be forewarned and will head it off with bribes, threats or whatever else they use to stop anything disadvantageous to them from hitting the fan. With a total media lockdown, and Novak and Miller and the rest of their little toys like Issikoff at Newsweek and Kurtz and Woodward at WaPo and the Cables completely sucking up...there's no way any leak would get out before the Bushies get to Fitzgerald. I don't think it will ever reach the "pardon" stage.

It's very quiet out there. Given all the hooplah with CIA/FBI and the rest leaking, writing books and whistle blowing. There's silence. Perhaps its the "silence before the storm" but at the furious rate the Bushies are proceeding in dismantiling over government...I don't know what efforts will be left to blow them out with "shocking news." We've had enough "shocking news," and nothing seems to have made a dent in them.

I'm waiting for the "trains with the masses" locked inside to be moving across our Amtrack rails where out "disappearing neighbors" are transported silently to the "Camps." Unless this "selection" is overturned I don't see any breaks for us. I've never seen it this bad, even under Nixon. The lack of reporting on the "Selection II" has convinced me, whereas before I had hope.

Michael Ruppert is probably correct. We must find a spot with water, arible land, plenty of wood for construction and fuel if one becomes desperate in an area with those who are "like us" where we can create a community to try to have some sort of self sufficiency. Solar/wind/rainwater storage.

And...just a month ago, I would never have been saying this...

I hope I am very wrong...and just still in the grip of shock and depression after November 2nd. But, my head and gut are saying that our dark days are ahead we were having a picnic before.

[kohodog]

140. KoKo01, I hope you're wrong,

But there is a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Even if they are exposed and indictments are forthcoming, and even dare I say, impeachment, I wonder if the damage has been done and we are too far gone.

Those are my dark thoughts and I try to stay optomistic. But whatever comes to pass, I will teach my children well and take up the fight. I will refuse to go silently into the night.

[mountainvue]

38. "Senate branches"

don't indict, grand juries do. This has nothing to do with the Senate. Please brush up on your civics.

[bobbieinok]

39. I think you mean 'all 3 branches of govt--executive, legislative, judicial

[TexasChick]

41. Yeah, I'm not too keen on this sort of stuff. Sorry.

[prairie populist]

66. It's all good. You're obviously very sharp. Keep on posting.

[TexasChick]

69. LOL! Thanks, prairie populist! I knew what I was talking about but didn't

know how to put it!

[NewJeffCT]

24. the only problem with the Nixon-Bush comparisons

Is that Democrats had control of the Congress back then and there were some honest Republicans at the Watergate hearings (where have you gone, Lowell Weicker?) If Plame/Cheney/Franklin/Feith, etc ever reaches that level, will we have a real investigation by Congress, or will it be something chaired by Rick Santorum or Sam Brownshirt?

[H2O Man]

25. The case is being heard in federal court.

The comparison isn't about where it is being heard. It's about the potential consequences.

[NewJeffCT]

26. I understand, but...

If Franklin indicts a few people, will Congress be almost obligated to hold their own hearings?

Watergate was so big because the hearings were on TV every day. Same with Iran-Contra.

[H2O Man]

27. Congress should be holding

hearings now. I had heard that in the Senate, there was an agreement to wait until after the elections. It would be nice to think that the House and Senate would function as they are supposed to.

But the Franklin case is being investigated by the FBI. And that appears at this time to have greater potential for bringing indictments and then trials within the court system.

Would it increase the chances of Congress holding hearings? I think so. There are some congressional representatives that may be more likely to move on this than others. And so that brings us to an important issue: should DUers be preparing to lobby specific members of the House of Representatives and Senate about the three inter-related scandals? I think we should be.

[Occulus]

168. Squeaky wheel strategy, anyone?

Having been a government employee (well, USPS employee- we're only government employees when it's convenient for the USPS for us to be government employees, but that's a different ball o' wax) for some years now, I know that the old adage "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" is around because it's true, at least in a bureaucracy like our government. All too often, the only way to bring attention to a problem in this type of system is to make noise... and keep making it.

I think your suggestion of targeted civilian lobbying- NOT by a paid group, NOT by a corporate interest, but by US, people all over the country, regarding a specific issue related to national security, would certainly have some lasting effect. This is not an issue many people delve into very often; some of this may be due to its complexity, and some may be due to the "Fear Factor" marathon SHOWING NOW! on TNT. :)

Which people should we contact about this? And not a big laundry list, mind... you said "specific". ;) Certainly, the intel committee. Who else?

[TacticalPeek]

11. Drip

washingtonpost.com
Grand Jury Subpoena Stands for Time Magazine Reporter



Thursday, November 18, 2004; Page A06

A federal judge yesterday refused to quash a subpoena seeking the testimony of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and ordered him to answer questions before a grand jury investigating whether Bush administration officials illegally leaked the identity of a CIA operative to the news media.

...

Cooper's lawyers said Fitzgerald's demand for a second chance to question Cooper was "unreasonable and oppressive." But U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan said the focus of Fitzgerald's investigation has shifted unexpectedly since that interview and he rightly seeks to ask other questions.

-- Carol D. Leonnig

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58484-2004Nov17?language=printer


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1000844

[Mandate My Ass]

14. an unexpected shift in the focus of the investigation

hhhhhhmmmmmmmmm, could we have had a canary singing in that grand jury room recently? One who was trying to save his own tail feathers?

[QC]

15. Anybody else here ever read Waiting for Godot? n/t

[H2O Man]

16. No. Never read it.

I do understand that it make's clever comments on people's absurd hopes, and is considered by people with little minds to be an insightful statement on mankind's insignificance. Perhaps the silliest thing is that those who fancy themselves deep mistake Lucky's long and rambling speech to be comperable to Finnegan's Wake.

I do enjoy theater.

I especially enjoy the day to day theater when folks act like they are somehow smarter and far more clever than they are. For example, to compare the Plame case, (which is being investigated by a federal grand jury, with a federal judge making a ruling in a long and complicated case that favors Fitzgerald) to Waiting for Godot is much like someone pretending that they understand James Joyce, when they have no idea what he was saying.

Ever read Joyce?

[Me.]

18. Hope

Buck Up, You Lefties!
There's reason for hope by Justin Raimondo

<<<snip>>>
“While history never repeats itself in quite the same way, the possibility that Bush could wind up disgraced looms larger today than it did for Nixon in the winter of 1972. cont…


While the issue has largely been lost sight of on account of special prosecutor Patrick J. "Bulldog" Fitzgerald's bulldoggish tactics – threatening to jail reporters for refusing to divulge their sources – his probe into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame by Washington neocons eager to discredit her husband, diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, is likely to reach into the vice president's office – and, from there, insinuate its way into the White House. It's the cover-up, not the crime, that gets them every time…

A related investigation into the basis of the infamous "16 words" of the president's 2002 State of the Union address is also percolating, and this should be even more interesting – and potentially damaging to the administration. Because this probes into the question of how so much blatantly false information made its way into the White House and onto the president's desk – including an outright forgery that was so crude it took the IAEA's scientists a matter of minutes with Google to debunk it.cont.

Yet another looming legal case is the upcoming trial of neocon ideologue Larry Franklin, a specialist on Iran working in Douglas Feith's Pentagon policy shop, who was caught red-handed turning over highly sensitive top secret documents to two Israeli government officials and two top employees of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group. In a fascinating piece on the sociology of the neoconservative movement, social anthropologist Janine R. Wedel characterizes them as an "informal" faction:” cont.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3912

[Me.]

19. "Bush's agenda may face hurdles"

Bush's agenda may face hurdles

“At the same time, Bush has to contend with a daunting historical precedent: From Nixon to Reagan to Clinton, two-term presidents have often endured their darkest hours in the latter half of their tenure. Even before the election, the White House faced ongoing investigations into the energy firm Halliburton and the leaked name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame, and critics see an opportunity for more. "Their essentially turning the keys over to the special interests is almost certainly going to result in investigations and scandals," said John Podesta, who was chief of staff in the second Clinton administration.

In the early days of his second term, at least, political analysts said they think Bush will enjoy a brief honeymoon and they suggest he move quickly to take advantage of that rapidly closing window.”

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/07/bushs_agenda_may_face_hurdles/

[Me.]

20. But Not Denied

Justice Delayed - George Bush and Prosecutorial Politics

by Juan Cole

“Several high-profile FBI investigations, in which substantial progress have been made, may well have been put on hold by the Bush administration for political reasons. That is, it has been alleged to me that the White House may have leaned on the FBI-- not to drop the investigations but to postpone some key arrests until after the November elections. Cont.

<<<snip>>>
It has been being leaked for many months now that the FBI believes the leak came from persons in Cheney's circle, possibly John Hannah and/or Scooter Libby. The FBI could well be ready to move in the case. But I have been told that it has orders from the White House to back off until later this fall.cont.

There has likewise been no arrest of Franklin, though one was expected by now. This is not, as the Neoconservatives and their supporters in the press are beginning to allege, because the case against Franklin is week. Rumors are flying in Washington that the FBI found a whole cache of classified documents in his house. If this is true, it was illegal for him to keep them there. We know that the evidence against Franklin was so air tight that Franklin was turned by the FBI, and was attempting to gather incriminating evidence against other Neoconservatives on their behalf. At some point the FBI as a courtesy let Franklin's boss, Douglas Feith, know of their investigation, and apparently soon after the story was leaked to the press.

Is it possible that Franklin hasn't been charged yet not because the case is weak, but because the White House does not want to anger the powerful AIPAC lobbying organization just before an election, and does not want to risk alienating Neoconservative voters in swing states like Florida? Indeed, isn't it likely that the Franklin investigation was leaked to the press by persons in the Pentagon who feared they were under investigation, and who knew very well that such a story leaked in late August before the election would get the investigation squelched or much delayed?”


http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040930Cole.shtml

[H2O Man]

22. Tighten your seat belts, America

the ride is about to begin.

[TexasChick]

37. OMG! Now that's just juicy! Maybe there's hope for this country after

all and we can get rid of these neocons before they do more harm to us and others!

[H2O Man]

23. a break in the clouds .....

and a ray of sunlight for democrats who have felt downcast since 11-2.

[Me.]

76. “unanticipated shift”

Federal judge won't quash subpoena for Time reporter

By The Associated Press
11.19.04

"WASHINGTON — A federal judge has refused to quash a subpoena that requires a Time magazine reporter to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of an undercover CIA officer’s identity.

Lawyers for reporter Matthew Cooper argued that he already had testified in a deposition in the case on Aug. 23, when he discussed a conversation he had had with Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said he needed additional information due to an “unanticipated shift” in the grand jury’s investigation.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said the prosecutor’s latest request is not “unreasonable or oppressive” conduct.

“The fact that Special Counsel did not exhaust all relevant subject matter during Mr. Cooper’s first deposition shows that Mr. Fitzgerald was proceeding in the investigation with great deference to Cooper’s status as a member of the press,” Hogan said in a Nov. 10 order, which was made public on Nov. 17." cont.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14399

[H2O Man]

77. Trivial pursuit:

I'm curious what people think the "unanticipated shift" involves?

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

78. great idea, W-man

May I suggest that you start a thread that addresses the same ... when DUers see H2O in the header, they'll bite.

[Me.]

79. Broadening the Scope?

1. Tying it in with the niger/Franklin situations?

2. Going for the Dick?

BTW is there is prize beyond satisfaction? A getaway home in Canada?

[Occulus]

169. Unexpected shift. That was the wording!

I posted on this earlier and misremembered the phrase. :) My bad.

Hmmmm... as to the 'who' of this.......

BUSH: "Karl, I really, really don't want this Niger thing getting out. Is there anything at all you can do about this?"

ROVE: "Well, I suppose I could, if I knew more about his wife..."

And so it goes.

We know it was someone very high up the chain. Why not go all the way?

"Bush knew."

Maybe it's true about more than one thing.

[H2O Man]

21. These three are so closely related

that they are part of the same clover: the Plame/Franklin/ yellow cake forgery sacandal is the trinity that has the best bet of crippling this administration.

[Me.]

30. Just Saw Israeli Knesset member Sneh

Interviewed by Leslie on CNN. Great concern about Iran's nukes. Says the window for the world to stop them is very small, 2 years at most. If the world, principally the Us, doesn't stop them, Israel will, is my interpretation of what he was saying. I thought the likuds and neos timetable was sooner than that, within the next year?

Plame /reporters matter up next on Lou Dobbs.

[Me.]

31. Well Watching Lou Dobbs Was Like Watching

an episode of the Twilight Zone" Neo-con sweetheart Judy Miller, Mort Zuckerman & attorney Abrahms were on there wringing hands about the poor, poor journalists, whose very professional lives were being threatened. How poor Judy never even wrote an article, while the guy who started this mess, Novakula, hasn't been involved in the fray. How will they protect whistle blowers and tell the truth about what has been happening in government if this continues?

The argument was so surreal it had an element of insanity to it. Plame did not commit a crime and the people who exposed her identity were not whistle blowers but the criminals committing the crime.

[H2O Man]

32. These people are experts

at making the victim look like the criminal, and the criminals look like victims.

[lthuedk]

56. Lock Miller up and toss the key. She is a traitor.

[Me.]

74. I Agree

This is the email I sent to Lou Dobbs after the egregious segment on his show yesterday.

"Watching Your Segment with J. Miller and others tonight was like watching an episode of the "Twilight Zone". The argument was so surreal it had an element of insanity It was disappointing in it's lack of clarity about the situation. The actual situation is one where members of the administration committed treason by leaking the name of an undercover agent. This is a crime. Then journalists became accomplices to the crime by publishing the info, and/or discussing this secret info with others. The whistle blowers law was enacted to protect people who were aware of government wrong doing and wanted to bring it to the attention of the public. In the Plame case, the government officials who committed the crime are being protected by journalists. As for Judy Miller's protests of innocence and warnings against government secrecy, that neo-con sweetheart was, with her writing, responsible for helping to make a case for war, based on spurious information.
Lest we forget her "aluminum tube" story and how they were certainly components of WMD. Miss Miller made the neo-con case until it was proven that it was all a pack of lies. Where were her journalistic ethics when she was urging our nation to war based on that pack of lies? And, once again she is lockstep with her government compadres in their campaign against the truth being told, and traitors (as defined by the first President Bush) being exposed, in the Plame matter.

Finally...Plame did not commit a crime, a crime was committed against her, and the people who exposed her identity are not whistle blowers but the criminals who committed the crime. If Miss Miller wants to protect traitors, she is welcome to do so. Let her do so from jail."

[H2O Man]

75. Good letter!

We look forward to hearing any response that you get.

[Hephaistos]

73. Whoa! A sharp intellect is a dangerous weapon...

please remember to use it for good deeds only ;-)

[QC]

90. Yes.

Have you ever thought about not being so insufferably pompous for a moment?

Probably not, given your track record here.

Aside from the condescending froufrou about "little minds" and about what comments the play "make's," I think it is important to keep in mind here that the Busheviks control all branches of our government, to say nothing of the press, and that Bush has been busy using his "mandate" to consolidate his control even more firmly. Do you believe for a moment that a Justice Department headed by one of his most loyal toadies is going to allow a mere criminal case to bring the whole Bush Machine down?

Yes, I was hopeful once, too, and even followed some of the fifteen or twenty endless Plame threads that kept popping up like mushrooms in a pasture, but here we are, after months of assurances that the indictments were going to come down in five or ten minutes, looking at Bush in an even stronger position than before, and we are once again being assured that--no, really--seriously--it's gonna happen this time, dude--trust me--the indictments are coming any moment now.

Perhaps I'm just tired of having my hopes dashed, or perhaps I just have don't have such an expansive mind as yours. But I do think that sitting around waiting for a deus ex machina to descend in the form of Valerie Plame and set everything right is not a particularly good strategy for opposing these crooks.

[H2O Man]

91. Pompous? Good Lord, at first I thought

you were addressing me.

You're probably right. The Plame Threads were likely a distraction from all of the far more important things that you were adding to the political discussion. Speaking of pompous .....

An option for anyone who finds a case such as this, which involves issues including the Plame outing; the Franklin "neocon" scandal; and some forged "yellow cake" documents, to be too much of an emotional experience .... perhaps a roller coaster for the more fragile among us.... should consider inhabiting orbits where instant gratification is more likely. A deck of cards, and a few hands of solitaire, may be more satisfactory than politics.

Clearly, sitting here waiting for the second coming of Valerie Plame only appeals to us mental midgets who voted for her as a write-in candidate for .... well .... everything. You got us pegged. We did nothing else. Our lives are empty. It's either waiting for Plame, or trying to figure out what really happened to Paul McCartney in '67.

[QC]

92. Golly. Now I feel...

like Joe Gillis when he told Norma Desmond that Max wrote all her fan letters.

But enough of that. There's no need for us to be a-fussin' and a-fightin'. Please forgive me my presumption in expressing an opinion at odds with your own and take this opportunity to educate me.

Explain to me how it is that in a time when Bush and his fellow crooks control the entire government and enjoy the benefit of a fawning, sycophantic press corps that Stalin himself could only have dreamed of, this investigation is going to bring Bush down. I really do want to believe, and Lord knows I have put my faith in so many magic bullets before: the yellowcake lies, Clarke's book, proof that Powell lied to the UN, the new national guard documents, Bush's pathetic debate performances, Plame, etc. Each of those seemed to be the one thing that would surely bring an end to the whole nightmare, and yet the press ignored them and Bush sailed on to newer and bigger outrages.

Why will this be any different? Given the institutional power that Bush commands, I'm afraid that the only thing that will rid of us him and his party is for them to overreach, as we know they will, and make such a mess of things that the public turns against them. I don't especially like the thought of it, but that seems to be the most likely end of this bunch, as much as I would prefer something quick and relatively painless.

[H2O Man]

95. I have no desire to convince you

of anything. If you are unable to comprehend the difference between "so many magic bullets" such as Clarke's book, and a grand jury investigation being held in a federal court, you might consider educating yourself .... or you might prefer to think that a book is just as likely to cause the administration trouble as the grand jury proceedings. That's your choice.

One of the wonderful things about the larger variety of forums is that people who feel that the Clarke book is on the very verge of altering the path this administration takes us on in the next few years have room to go at it. You may be right: there is indeed a chance that the grand jury is in reality a book club. I've long suspected that Fitzgerald's true goal is to force Judith Miller to testify on her thoughts on "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man." Though I can't prove it, my goal is to use the Plame Threads to advance that theory.

Another wonderful thing about the larger variety of forums is that you need not waste your time on this one.

[QC]

97. Pretty much what I expected.

More self-important bluster but nothing approaching an honest answer. Honestly, you sound like a graduate student.

Your unwillingness to defend your position and your insistence on misrepresenting objections confirm what I have long suspected about the Plame business--it has become a matter of the purest faith.

Still, though, I do have to admit that I find your trust in Bush's judiciary very touching. I wish I could share it.

[H2O Man]

100. I'm crushed.

My essence as a person -- my entire purpose for being -- has always been in sort of a preparation, consciously or unconsciously anticipating the day when I would have an opportunity to "defend (my) position" to you. How utterly pompous of me! And then to fail to make the grade, in such a publicly humiliating way! Honestly, to sound like .... a graduate student! Likely I'll prepare my Last Will & Testicle today, and end this suffering.

Or, on the other hand, I might simply conclude that you own the error in thinking here. Because, in fact, you said that you have had your hopes raised and dashed a half dozen times, and your high expectations were not met. Utter disappointment can make peoples' perception, and hence judgement, be less than accurate ..... and this is especially true for those who believe that all power resides outside of themselves .... and who when times are tough, take sancuary in their weakness and resent anyone and everyone who says we must move forward.

My goal isn't to try to communicate with those who think that power lies somewhere other than in themselves .... in part, because I have no need or desire to surround myself with those looking for the Great Pumpkin to come from the sky and "save them" .... or who think that the media will finally come 'round and tell the truth about Bush, when the most obvious thing in the world is that they couldn't, even if they wanted to -- but that doesn't lessen your responsibility to find the truth yourself, and then act upon it.

As I wrote on post #124 on GD: politics on a thread by Merh about NOT GIVING UP, my own view of the problem we face is not the republicans any where near as much as it is a segment of people -- and you are #1 on my list -- who know very little about the Measure of Thought, and who do not believe in the Power of Ideas, and so they have very little internally to support themselves with. This fight against what the Bush administration is doing is NOT new .... it is an on-going war that past generations have fought, at times quite succesfully, at other times with lesser results .... but there is a combination of old bumps-on-a-log and sticks-in-the-mud, along with a younger generation that is unfortunately unable to comprehend what is happening to their world, because as I said to Merh, minds with very little to compare, simply cannot find find much understanding ....

You have perhaps read most of the Plame threads, but you have understood little, if anything, of what I've said .... or you could not write the things that you have. I have no faith in either the main stream media, or the Bush judiciary. The chances of you finding a single piece of evidence that I have ever expressed such thoughts is zero; on the other hand, anyone with an open mind who has read these same threads, would know that just the opposite is true. I have expressed a great admiration for the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. And I've expressed a great admiration for American history, and yes, for America today. And my only goal on here is to communicate with others of like mind ..... those who believe that it is important that we do our little part. From your words, it would be impossible to include you in that group, and hence the lack of desire on my part to convince your part of anything .... because those who are "convinced" from without simply ain't "convinced" at all.

[indigobusiness]

156. I'm still...

waiting for Godot.

[coeur_de_lion]

157. Indigo, you just sit there and wait. In fact, why don't you hold your

breath, and by the time you pass out maybe this whole Plame thing will have resolved itself.

That would be about as useful as what you are doing instead; which is to go onto threads and say something sarcastic and try to piss everybody off. I've seen your handiwork on other threads today. You're having a crummy day, is that it? So you want to come here and pick a fight.

We are not Fitzgerald; it isn't in our power to prosecute (or not) the perpetrators of this crime. We are following the proceedings with interest. We can try and guess what is really going on from the sketchy information that we have. We can hope for the best possible outcome. We can even think positive and say that justice will prevail and this will be the downfall of * & company. These are all useful things to do.

What isn't useful is grumble and gripe and be negative about everything. You remind me of Eeyore on Winnie the Pooh.

We are all disgusted with the Bush administration. We are all worried sick about the state of our country. We have all had our hopes dashed time and time again. So we have all felt the way you do. The difference is that we don't take it out on each other. We recognize that we are on the same side and we're supportive of one another. That is what works, not this discontented back biting that you like to engage in.

That's all I have to say about that.
:hi:

[indigobusiness]

159. Well...

I wasn't being sarcastic, I was asking a sincere question about something that had been mentioned. I was just hoping for an answer.
But not a diatribe that is laughable in its breadth and scope.

You sound like the style police, but I'm sure you believe what you said. Yet, I can't help but wonder if you might not be the one with the negativity problem, here.

I don't know who you think you are, but you have grumbled and griped more, on a personal level, in your post than I ever have.

Hypocrisy comes in many forms, I guess. But while you are noticing things, why don't you notice how people are so often prone to misinterpretation and reading things into others words...or to jumping to unfounded conclusions.

I can accept fair criticism, and If you have a problem with an opinion of mine I'll debate the point, but if you are going to attack me personally you can go jump in the lake.

I've never read Fitzgerald. I wasn't being pretentious or sarcastic.

I'll wager my thoughts are at least as positive as yours, but I really don't care to know.

Next time you want to come at me personally, do it privately. You are out of bounds.

[coeur_de_lion]

160. okay so I'll send you a PM

I guess I was reacting more to other posts of yours I saw today that were upsetting to me. I assumed that you were trying to do the same thing here that I saw you do in another thread.

AND I assumed that the "Waiting for Godot" remark, when taken in the context of all the other remarks by the person who initially made it, was intentionally sarcastic. You correct me if I'm wrong. In fact when I read over the thread I see that the guy who made the remark initially had a running argument with the author of the thread a few days ago.

So set me straight, Indigo. Did you mean to be sarcastic or did I just read you wrong?

Your own advice, Indigo, is "Judge not lest ye be judged." I may have failed miserably, but what I was trying to say was let's not argue about this. We are all on the same side.

I wasn't trying to start an argument. Were you?

[indigobusiness]

161. No, I wasn't.

And I wasn't being sarcastic, I clearly said that.

My second Godot post rested just atop my first, until you jumped in.

I was curious if that was what he meant.

[coeur_de_lion]

162. you lost me

"I was curious if that was what he meant."

[indigobusiness]

163. Look, believe what you wish.

Let's drop it. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

My first post about Godot. Now good day and goodnight. Lost or not.

[coeur_de_lion]

164. ok I will.

I believe that you are a very obnoxious man -- at least today you are.

I don't care for your tone and you're going to be the first person (ever) on my ignore list.

[indigobusiness]

166. You could've saved a lot of grief if you'd used it earlier.

You big baby.

[indigobusiness]

34. He never shows...Is that the upshot? n/t

[AlabamaYankee]

28. Do you mean a "SPANNER" in the works?

Since I didn't see any mention of a citizen of Spain, and the phrase, "to put a spanner in the works" means to obstruct progress. A spanner is a British wrench, so it's akin to the American phrase, "to throw a monkey wrench in the works."

I'll put my grammar and usage maven back in the basement now.

[H2O Man]

29. Okay, now jokes

are never funny when you have to explain them. But: the Plame threads have used the titles of Beatle works, particularly John and George's efforts. A number of us are Beatle fans, and use them in tongue-and-cheek ways.

Beatle John wrote a book he titled "A Spaniard in the Works" at a specific time and for a specific purpose. And a few of the participants in these threads understand fully why I used this. For a better answer, buy John Lennon's books.

[mondohondo]

36. I was wondering

Good Mr. Waterman, do you have a blog of your own dealing with the Plame case?

[Me.]

40. Good Question

How about it?

[bobbieinok]

42. good idea; is it possible?????

[H2O Man]

46. Interesting question.

A "blog," eh? No. But let me try to answer that with a little explanation. When I first became involved in a discussion about Plame on DU in the late spring, I expected that the indictments would come down in mid-July. I did not expect to be engaged in any long discussions on this forum beyond that.

There are people with their own blogs that do a good job with this case. And there are good books. I'm not sure that I have anything of particular interest to add .... although I get a bit frustrated that the other sources do not cover it in terms of constitutional issues to anywhere near the extent that I think is justified. I'm also not sure that there is any organized effort to reach the general public through letter-writing campaigns, etc. I've attempted to do that a few times on DU, with limited success.

A few younger associates have suggested the "blog" idea to me. I don't know enough about what it entails to rule it out.

[mmonk]

43. Well let's hope this keeps going

with no way the admin can slow it down. This is the only check and balance left in our government.

[H2O Man]

45. I think it is.

I'm not saying that the case is important because I'm interested in it; I'm interested in it because I think it offers the best chance of derailing an administration that poses an extreme threat to America and the world.

[kohodog]

48. The plame threads have a history on DU

They actually drew me into this community. In a sense they are a blog of there own and have in fact made it to the top of google search for Plame. I haven't taken the time to check out the DU archives to see if they're still available, but there have been thousands of posts on the subject.

All of a sudden there are tidbits springing up in the media, all over the place. When the Cooper (reporter) matter is settled, and that may still take a while, we will see some fireworks.

Threads like this that bring information together provide a service to reporters and others as well as to those of us who still believe this matters and will ultimately make a difference.

We've marched, we've organized, we've written letters, we've voted, and yet Plame may be the straw that breaks their back. I really think their own actions will lead to their undoing.

edited: spelling

[H2O Man]

49. Yes, that's right ....

There are many thousands of posts, and even in an edited version would be long and highly detailed. If there was a college student looking for a subject for a good research paper, they could do it from the Plame Threads.

I think it may be one of the most significant cases in American political history. John Dean has pointed out that even as criminal and unethical as the Nixon administration was, it never did something as low as exposing a CI operative. I do not see how even republicans can ignore -- much less justify -- an administration that betrays our intelligence agencies and put this nation at increased risk.

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

53. Novak's column today reminds us of the uphill struggle ...

Bob Novak, the epitome of betrayal of the CIA, weighed in today about what a great guy Porter Goss is in snuffing out the incorrigible Bush-hating, Kerry-loving liberals at the agency. In his 750 or so words, somehow Bob couldn't squeeze in the fact that he played the significant role in ruining, for nothing but political gain, the career of a distinguished agent.

Here's to the success of Patrick Fitzgerald in righting the up-is-down world that Novak and his cronies have created.

[H2O Man]

55. Very well said.

Novak is a disgusting human being.

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

58. On a personal level, he's also an asshole ...

I've seen him in his non-TV persona. When it comes to those who serve him -- cashiers, waitresses, etc. -- he is as one would expect: completely lacking in warmth, devoid of even a speck of recognition that there are other human beings in this world worthy of respect.

Waterman: I wonder whether you think the Matt Cooper judge's words about surprising developments in the case since August may be a hint that there could be good reason to believe Fitzgerald had some choice(r) questions for Rove when he appeared in October.

[H2O Man]

60. Yes.

Absolutely.

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

59. On a personal level, he's also an asshole ...

I've seen Novak in his non-TV persona. When it comes to those who serve him -- cashiers, waitresses, etc. -- he is as one would expect: completely lacking in warmth, devoid of even a speck of recognition that there are other human beings in this world worthy of respect.

Waterman: I wonder whether you think the Matt Cooper judge's words about surprising developments in the case since August may be a hint that there could be good reason to believe Fitzgerald had some choice(r) questions for Rove when he appeared in October.

[lthuedk]

57. Treason is actually patriotism. Lock'em up.

[chookie]

70. HA HA HA HA more irony

Novak predicted that the NeoCons would be gone in a second Bush adminstration.

HA HA HA HA HA.

I can't figure out why he still has a job, let alone why he is not in jail yet. Ooops, I forgot, we're living in a dictatorship now.

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

61. Laying the groundwork for post-indictment fervor ...

There are tens of millions in this country who don't recognize the names Valerie Plame or Patrick Fitzgerald. Even folks who read the newspaper fairly regularly know close to nothing about this case.

Therefore, the initial reaction by the media and the White House to whatever Fitzgerald issues is going to be critical; it will frame the argument.

I'm hoping his uncertainty about what will happen is keeping up Karl & Co. In the meantime, the patriots must be prepared to stand up to whatever Rove feeds to Fox News in the immediate aftermath of the indictments. Be looking for them to pull out all the stops, even getting Ashcroft and Goss to go on the air and talk about how Fitzgerald has "exceeded his mandate" or some such nonsense.

[H2O Man]

62. You are right .....

A friend who visited me two weeks ago said, "Well, if this Plame business is really true, why isn't it in the news?" The fact that there are hundreds of newspaper articles, numerous magazine articles that mention it, and a few books that deal with it doesn't matter: unless a talking head on Fox, etc, says it's important, many citizens just don't get it.

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

63. I consider it a test for Thanksgiving

The 25 or so people I usually see at Thanksgiving are generally very bright people who are as up on the news as you could imagine.

After discerning that none of them truly understands the case, I am planning to hijack the dinner table conversation at the appropriate point and provide them all with my gift for this holiday season: a thorough rundown of Plamegate, so that at least I will be able to say that I prepared them whenever the postindictment obfuscations, diversions and outright lies ooze out of the miasma of misinformation that defines our so-called liberal press, to say nothing of surrendered-to-Red-State-thinking TV.

I plan to take about 20 minutes of their time as they gobble away, and I really don't care whether they tell me afterward that it was inappropriate to do so. It is that important.

[Me.]

65. This Might Help Your Case

A link to the PDF of the original threads.

http://s93118771.onlinehome.us/DU/PlameIndictments.html

[sangh0]

64. Speaking of Hadley

In today's NY Times, there's an article that says that Hadley worked on the BCCI investigation. Does anyone have any info about what his involvement was?

[H2O Man]

105. It would seem

a potentially very important thing for us to know. I have not been able to find out what his involvement was. It seems interesting that this fellow, who is being promoted from a powerful position to an even more powerful one, remains relatively unknown. The ability to rise to power and yet remain relatively unknown and unnoticed is a skill that suggests superior skills in today's world.

[Me.]

108. Some Info On Hadley

But overall there does seem to be a dearth of info about him.

"Through their website, law firm Shea & Gardner, they represented "a key United Technologies employee in a criminal investigation of alleged improper payments to members of the Saudi Arabian royal family".

Shea & Gardner was also James Woolsey's first business of choice after he left the CIA in 1995.

Current Deputy National Security Adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, was a partner there prior to joining the Bush Administration. The ties between Shea & Gardner and the US Government are strong and obvious.

Interestingly, Shea & Gardner is registered as a "Foreign Agent" for the Iraqi National Congress.

Among their current clients are Bank of America, Boeing Company, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, CSX, Dana Corporation, Ernst & Young, General Electric, ITT Industries, Janus, Lockheed Martin, Rockwell Automation, SAKS, United States Aviation Underwriters and Veriz."

http://www.thementalmilitia.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=177&mode=thread




"Analysts also said Hadley's long and deep background in government and private work - he, along with Kanter, were co-founders of the Scowcroft Group, an international consulting firm headed by the former national security adviser - as providing him with crucial Washington management experience of the sort Rice lacked when she joined the White House four years ago, after serving as provost of Stanford University."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/shared/news/politics/stories/11/17hadley.html

[H2O Man]

109. some more

Some of this may be the same, but here goes:

Hadley was Counsel of the Special Review Board (Tower Commission) in 1986-87, which was established by Ronald Reagan after the public became aware of the sale of arms to Iran. In 1989-93, he served as Assistant Secretary of defense for the International Security Policy, with responsibilities for nuclear weapons policy and arms control; he was Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney's personal representative in meeting with Russia and the Ukraine and other parts of the former Soviet Union.

There is an interesting article with numerous other links found at:

http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/000535.php

This contains one sentence regarding a subject that Sangh0 and I discussed earlier that readers may find interesting: "And such extremists as Stephen J. Hadley and John R. Bolton are likely to assume even more power in the (second George W.) Bush administration." This indicates, as the article notes, the consolidation of power for Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rove.

John Bolton, as DUers may recall, was the subject of a touching tribute by Jesse Helmes in January 2001: "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armagedden, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world."

[TexasChick]

68. Kick! n/t

:kick:

[TexasChick]

71. And, here's another question: Why does Condasleaza Rice always has

a problem with memos?

{5} "I can tell you, I either didn't see the memo, or I don't remember seeing the memo." - Condi Rice; 7-30 to press.



Didn't she like have a problem with the August president's intelligence briefing right before the terrorist attacks?

I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

[H2O Man]

72. It's a problem that

falls over into other areas of her life. She is a paid liar. And she is not particularly gifted at it.

[H2O Man]

80. The court's decision ....

let's see if this works .....

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-ms-460.pdf

[H2O Man]

81. Now what do you

think about THAT ????

[Me.]

82. Prison Stripes For Judy!

Too bad it won't be Attica. Bye the bye, Abrams lied on the Dobbs show. He said that Fitzgerald promised there would only be one interview with Coper and that he wouldn't pursue additional information. The court documents say that isn't so.

[H2O Man]

83. There is a secondary struggle going on.

Many in the media are advocating a federal "shield" law to protect reporters' sources. They are confusing the idea of whistle blowers with the White House criminals who exposed Plame. Perhaps we need to think about how to make the distinction in a public manner.

[Me.]

84. Is The Source Of This "Struggle"

the white house or their friends? Are they using the journalists as unwitting dupes? With the law that is being discussed, there could be a lot more Plames and no recourse.

[TexasChick]

86. Oh, man! Now that's not a comforting thought at all!!! n/t

[H2O Man]

88. A quick review

may be in order. Every major "mainstream" media in the county has at least one intelligence resource on its staff. That doesn't mean that it's a specific position that isgoing to be found in the "help wanted" ads.

It can include a dick dripping like Robert Novak, who is one step above the feeble-minded stooges that are the first on the scene of an accident, pretending to be a fireman, or the guys who buy the fake police badges. When the VP's office called, and asked Novak to expose a CIA operative, it didn't matter to Bob that the CIA asked him NOT to print her name or employment. Bob was proud to be a traitor to this nation, so long as Dick Cheney's boys said,"You're an ace, Bob!"

There are other types. They could be a person who actually is more of an IA with a cover. Overseas, they may be employed at an embassy; in the US, they are a reporter. But their actual "job" is to serve as the eyes and ears of another agency. And, on occassion, to spread either information or misinformation. Perhaps they coordinate efforts with people in the White House, and even their unofficial intel units.

Such a "reporter" might act outraged that she was being called to testify by the Plame grand jury. Editors around the country might even say, "Judith didn't even write a story about the Plame case!" But, if for example there was a person under the cover of being a reporter who was spreading misinformation for the VP's intel units, and her name WAS Judith ..... maybe Fitzgerald wants to ask some questions that are about issues other than that article she didn't write.

At the same time, there are other cases involving whistle blowers, where there are serious constitutional issues. The two are being confused, because -- again -- these people are experts at making the victim look like the criminal, and the criminal look like victims. And so there are a combination of jackels and anxious reporters who are requesting a federal shield law that protects whistle blowers and reporters, but which has been manipulated into covering the most criminal of government agents, too.

[TexasChick]

85. Uh..oh, H2O Man, it looks like Time magazine is being ordered to spill

the beans! I love this thread by the way. I'm very interested in this case. And, you will be there to help me understand the judicial process because, as you can see from my previous posts, I'm not too keen on how Congress and the judicial process works! LOL! Thanks, again!

[H2O Man]

89. If you are not

too sure how Congress and the judicial process works, it might be because neither the senate nor House of representatives has worked as it is supposed to since the mid-1970s ..... and the judicial system has always worked in a strange and rarely consistent manner .... and though the court system is supposed to be the least corrupt, the truth is exactly what Vince Bugliosi stated in his book "The Betrayal of America," about the theft of the 2000 election: though we tend to respect judges, most are merely lawyers who become politicians to win a judgeship .... and lawyers and politicians are often as corrupt as any other type of criminals.

The Plame Threads are as a rule good, because a number of insightful people contribute .... and because a number of people interested in learning more about the case ask fantastic questions.

[TexasChick]

87. Kick!

:kick:

[H2O Man]

93. Judith Miller on treason .....

See:

http://www.newshounds.us/2004/11/19/first_amendment_under_fire.php

[TexasChick]

94. Mort raises a very good question:

But on the fact, for example, that one of the other people who did publish this information, at least to the public knowledge, we don't know whether he has been interrogated by the special prosecutor or not.

Why the hell isn't Novak in jail? I do not understand that? It's ludicrous!



But, I'm still a little unclear. What is Abrams trying to say? That he doesn't want journalists protected so that they would have to cooperate if ever subpoenad to testify?

ABRAMS: Thank you. No, all we've got is the courts and the Congress, the only place we can go. And if we don't win in one of them, then the world is going to change. Because we really can't go on with a system where the law is clear, and it's not now. But it's clear that journalists can't promise confidentiality. If they really can't, they won't.


Really sounds like Abrams is not to keen on this administration, or Miller for that matter:

MILLER: Especially, in an environment of growing secrecy.

[H2O Man]

96. Abrams, like many professional liars,

is blurring issues: "shield laws" for journalists are intended to protect whistle-blowers .... those in government who inform a reporter of some illegal activity within government, that the reporter then exposes for the public good. At present, most states have laws that protect media sources like these. In federal courts, and in civil courts in some states, a reporter can be forced to reveal a source, but it almost never is done in the case of a whistle-blower. In federal grand jury actions, a judge always reviews any potential conflict between the constitutional rights of the press, and the need for the testimony: it has to meet the guidelines of being the only option for getting the information.

Abrams wants the congress to make a federal law protecting reporters in ALL situations. He knows that Novak and Miller are not protecting any "whistle-blower" who exposed a crime in government. Rather, this is a case of reporters helping to cover up a federal offense commited by high-ranking government officials.

Miller is speaking of the administration's "environment of secrecy." What is particularly insulting about this is that Miller is one of the administration's tools in keeping the truth secret, while spreading lies. She is no better than Novak. In fact, she is in some ways far worse.

[TexasChick]

98. Okay, I hope I can question this appropriately without confusing you,

H20 Man. Okay, the federal and civil courts don't make journalist divulge information if someone gives him the information, i.e. by a whistleblower, unless there is no other way to get the information, right? So, if a journalist sniffs around and gets the information himself, then he must divulge the information?

Where does this leave Miller? I guess they are trying to find out if she talked to a whistleblower or not?


And, how dare these people talking about how the American public needs to know! Well, duh, we've been needed to know certain things from journalists for the last four years!

[H2O Man]

102. I'll explain what little I know:

In some states, I believe about 16, a reporter is considered about like anyone else, and must obey a subpoena to be deposed and to testify in civil cases.

In the federal system, when a grand jury is investigating a case, a reporter must obey a subpoena ad testificandum, and/or subpoena duces tecum; these are written commands from the court to either testify or produce written documents.

There was a case three decades ago in federal court, discussed on one of the links on this thread, that set a precedent where a judge will review any subpoena of a reporter, to make sure that it is absolutely necessary for that person to testify and/or produce specific documents. If, for example, the person leading the grand jury (in this case Patrick "the Bulldog" Fitzgerald) has another avenue for finding out the same information, the judge will compel him or her to exhaust those first, before requiring the reporter to testify. Also, the judge can weight the value of the potential evidence against the potential conflict with the generally agreed constitutional protections reporters enjoy regarding sources.

In this case, the judge is fully aware that the reporters in question are not protecting a "whistle-blower." There is no whistle-blower in this case. Rather, the reporters are protecting the identities of at very least two administration officials who committed a crime. (Whistle-blowers expose officials who commit crimes. Very different.) Miller not only is saying she will refuse to testify, but will refuse to produce "notes" she has that apparently outline the White House plans to destroy Ambassador Wilson and his wife.

These cases take time, in part because Miller's attorneys are appealing the federal judge's decision to the next level. They are hoping to have a pro-Bush federal court rule against 30+ years of precedent, and allow Judith to protect the criminals from VP Cheney's office.

[TexasChick]

106. Thank you! That was very clear! I understand her position now! It

is very frightening that they (these dumbass attorneys) are trying to get the courts friendly to them so they don't have to divulge evidence of foul play! Good god, what has happened to America! I really hope they fail at this!

You are right, Judith Miller is low as you can go! Does she not understand that this put America at risk when Plame's identity was exposed? If she has got evidence to put some of Chimp's evil administration behind bars, she needs to come forward with it! I'm convinced that these people absolutely do not care about America any more!

[troubleinwinter]

99. I have never read such a revolting crock as that transcript.

Then, to add insult to injury, they manage to throw some bits of truth into their lies to cover their filthy asses. I say, INDICTMENTS ALL AROUND!

ZUCKERMAN: ...at a time when the role of journalists, in exposing wrongdoing on the part of government officials or at least concealed policies on the part of government officials is absolutely necessary and essential.

ABRAMS: ...this arises at a time in our history when we've never needed an alive, vibrant, inquiring press more. And in which it may be that the press has never been more disliked by the public.

DOBBS: ...talented, energetic journalists digging for truth have never perhaps been scarcer in our craft.

[H2O Man]

101. One occassionally wonders ....

are half-truths the highest potential of half-wits? Or are they all simply lying snakes? Likely a combination of the two.

[Me.]

103. One Also Wonders

if Cooper is done with appeals or if they will take this to the Supremes?

[H2O Man]

104. I think their goal

was to take it to the Supreme Court. There really is no case that has been decided in other than the way of the precedent case from the '70s. Although the republicans "hate" activist courts, but sure as heck want the High Court to again make a decision based on something other than an interpetation of the law.

[coeur_de_lion]

107. H2O, would it be beneficial

to mount an email campaign against CNN? Tell them that Novak should not still be on the air after outing a covert CIA agent? Boycott the station?

Or would it be a total waste of time? I mean, how could we get our point of view in print or on the air? What could we do that might really aggravate them?

It seems so ridiculous that they are still carrying on about Miller and Cooper when CNN employs the reporter who started this whole thing. Miller and Cooper should be forced to testify, for sure. But we need to bring it to light -- what Novak did. Not many folks who watch mainstream media know what is going on with Novak and this case.

[H2O Man]

110. That is an interesting idea ....

I think we should open up a discussion on how this might be best approached .... and consider what our options are. Novak clearly has a "lightening rod" manner about him. People seem to either hold him in total contempt, or simply hate him; there's little room in between. Is that something CNN believes works to their advantage? What are the options for boycotts? The station? Or those who advertise on it?

Coeur de lion? Did I ever tell you that I can trace my family back to the lion in the Lizard of Oz? Absolutely true.

[coeur_de_lion]

111. LOL. I can trace mine back to the Kings in Ireland Hell, we have our

own castle over there. So it is uninhabitable. So what? It still has out name on it. It is 600 years old, but it still looks good to us.
BUT, I can't trace us all the way back to the lions, dash it all. You got me there. Curses, foiled again.

So let's open up a dialog. How would we go about this? What can we do to make them cry? Or at least to get the word out about Novak? He ought to be shamed before the world, exposed as the traitor he is.

Email campaign comes to mind, but it will have to be huge. It has to be enough to wake them up. Get the press -- or what is left of them -- to pay attention and write about it.

Treason. It ought to be enough to make them pay attention -- but it isn't. We'll have to resort to GOP tactics. Can anybody here think like a Republican?

[kohodog]

112. I suppose we could just make up a bunch of lies

They do it quite effectively and quite regularly. You know, we could make up a fake email implicating Rove and Cheney. Broadcast it through our plant at Fox. Get the echo machine going and even though it is proven to be fake the damage will be done and it will echo through the vast left wing media for weeks and the whole group of liars will be frog marched out of Washington!

What do you think?

[Me.]

129. Calling All Strategies

Bush Heads for the Bunker

<<<snip>>>

"Unless the Democrats can get their political strategy together, and devote the funds and energy necessary to build an infrastructure for success (including more think-tanks, media outlets, training of younger up-and-comers, etc.), there will be little in the way of stopping the Bush forces from those goals. (Unless, of course, Iraq totally collapses, and/or the scandals roiling just below the surface (9/11 pre-knowledge, CIA agent Valerie Plame's outing, the authorization of torture, Enron/Halliburton, Iraq incompetence, etc.) pop up and bite BushCheney&Co. in the new year.)
The situation can't be any more clear. We are in deep you-know-what and we're not going to be able to climb our way out unless we get ourselves organized properly (including the possible development of a viable, win-oriented third party if the Dems can't do it), come up with the creative tactics and strategies and candidates to create a true and effective opposition, and spend lots of money to build that oppositional infrastructure. (Hello, George Soros and Hollywood liberals! It ain't gonna happen without you.)
In short, how and whether we liberals/progressive/moderate-conservatives survive and grow as an effective opposition is up to us. Each of us."

http://www.opednews.com/weiner_112204_bunker.htm

[H2O Man]

113. Always remember:

the same three groups I mention over and over in all political campaigns: {1} those who always support you; {2} those who always oppose you; and {3} the undecided folks in the middle.

Think about something as simple as the use of the word "treason." Think of it being used by either our side vs Novak, or for sake of example, the right describing Bill Clinton. It has an emotional "appeal" that tends to reach either group #1 or 2, (depending on the case) but only appeals to group #3 in strictly limited circumstance. Likely, neither Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica nor the Novak story as it needs to be introduced to reach group #3 is going to fit the description. Not yet.

Instead, and this is merely a suggestion, the words to be used should include "patriotism," and "national security." We equate Plame's work on investigating WMD components with the flag. Then we speak to the fact that Novak and Cheney's zealots exposed her, and put our security at risk. Always remember that Cheney has very high negatives; people in group #3 naturally dislike him.

Does that make sense?

[kohodog]

114. The focus has rarely been on the damage done.

I think that's a great point. The outing took down a large CIA operation that was working on the illegal trade of WMD components. By shutting down Plame's work the country is less safe. The outing itself may not really bother too many people, but the damage done is unknown by most people, many of whom might be more likley to speak out if they knew that it was damaging to our National security. Maybe this will also put more pressure on CNN to do something about Novak.

[H2O Man]

115. As a rule

always survey your resources. In Valerie Plame, we have a person who is serving her country in the highest, most respectable capacities. I have two daughters: Plame is a role model. My suspicion is that we can frame this issue in a manner that puts our best foot forward, and reveals the opposition as heels.

[coeur_de_lion]

116. How much is actually known about the effect on Plame's operation?

How did it hurt us? How many agents were involved? If we can get specifics (or at least something close) we can expose those facts. We need to think like Republicans, but we don't have to lie like Republicans. We don't need to. It will be the truth. We can wrap ourselves in the flag, and patriotism, with as much zeal as they do, and with more justification. We actually *are* patriots. They are just liars. We have never committed treason; but they have. If the folks in category 3 really knew the facts they would be outraged. We don't have to do much more than tell the facts, but it needs to reach a wide audience.

Isn't there someone in DU who works for the AP? Who do we know in the press?

Our efforts to date have been to target our congressmen, and write some LTTE. This time we need a wider distribution. How do we accomplish that? How do we reach folks in category 3? :shrug:

[kohodog]

117. I hope you understand

that my post on lying was tongue and cheek. The facts about the operation, number of possible deaths, etc are difficult to confirm, but Time magazine has mentioned it along with a number of other outlets.

H20, is the Waterman Paper still available? It still resonates, and while we are farther down the road I think it is still very relevant.

[coeur_de_lion]

118. I knew that your tongue was firmly lodged in your cheek, Kohodog

I still would like to know the real facts about this. The story needs to have a "new" angle. We know that the effect had to be tremendous, but we don't know concrete facts, or at least I don't.

I would really like to know. H2O, do you know how we can find out?

I have the "Waterman Paper" saved as a Word file. Let me know if you need it.

[kohodog]

119. Hi Arby!

Just noticed the new nom de plume! Wouldn't have had to start my post that way if I had been more observant.

I agree that there has been lots of speculation about the fallout in the real world because of this leak, and I don't know how to prove anything in this regard. Only the insiders know what really happened. Like Contra and other CIA activities, we may only get hints down the road.

[coeur_de_lion]

124. Hi Kohodog. Yup, changed me name

Didn't want "arbusto" in my name anymore, even as a joke. Arbusto Chupa literally means "Bush Sucks" in Spanish.

I don't want to talk about that devil incarnate, or have anything to do with his name.

[H2O Man]

120. It may be likely to complicate

what we want to do if we try to explain exactly what her job entailed. It is more important to explain that it was at the highest level of cover that intelligence agents ever work at. It takes more than a decade to train and move a person into the levels she was at for over another decade: twenty years down the drain.

Every project she worked on for a decade is compromised. Every person she was in contact with has had their cover compromised.

Plame worked at investigating the sale of WMD components. Americans can use their imaginations. By giving a general outline, rather than addressing specific issues, we may do better.

At one point on an early Plame thread, a person said something that went largely unnoticed. My understanding is that she may have been investigating the forgery of some documents that attempted to tie Iraq to yellow cake uranium in Niger. Small world.

[TexasChick]

127. Holy cats! I wonder if she is indeed tied to the yellow cake uranium

forgeries by having info on that? This is very interesting to hear!

[coeur_de_lion]

121. Did you guys see this? In LBN

Sen. introduces bill to protect reporters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1006075

What fabulous timing.

[H2O Man]

122. Yes.

It is not a good thing, but it will be unlikely to have any impact on the Plame case.

[coeur_de_lion]

123. Whew! (I think) Why unlikely?

[H2O Man]

125. Laws are not

retroactive, generally. Further, the federal courts have ruled consistently on this issue, and it seems very unlikely that even if the law is passed, that it will hold up in federal court.

[coeur_de_lion]

126. Got it. Sure hope not. Want to go to that thread and explain this to

those poor folks?

[H2O Man]

134. Which thread?

Did you do that?

[coeur_de_lion]

143. This one:

And no, I didn't. I don't have your powers of persuasion, brother.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1006075

[H2O Man]

144. I think you do.

I'm trying to persuade you, but I can't!

[coeur_de_lion]

145. Ah, now I've never been able to persuade *you* to do a darn thing, H

:evilgrin:

So what makes you think I can persuade other folks?

Don't be hiding your light under a bushel, lovey. Go out there and do that magic thang you do.

Silly H2O.

[TexasChick]

128. Kick! n/t

:kick:

[Me.]

130. The Crux Of The Journalist Matter

Defending First Amendment rights is sometimes hard to swallow.


“Similarly, it is difficult to defend the First Amendment rights in the Valerie Plame case of syndicated columnist Robert Novak and New York Times Reporter Judith Miller, both of whom have been used over and over again by the Bush Administration to sell unpopular policies, against all ethical journalistic practices. When Plame was "outed" in Novak's column as a Central Intelligence Agency officer, the columnist was chastised by people in and out of the journalistic profession for allowing the Bush Administration to take revenge on Plame's husband, Retired Diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, through him. (Wilson revealed the lie behind Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase materials to build nuclear weapons from Niger.) As a statement by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting argued, Novak and Miller should not be protected because they allowed themselves to be used by the government to punish their opposition. Cont.


In the case of Novak and Miller, defending their rights as journalists goes against most of our sense of ethics. The question is: Are they really journalists, or just government dupes? Cont….

The issue of defending First Amendment rights seems to come down to an absolute: if you open the door for interpretation, you open the door for abuse of the privilege. From my point of view, one must allow the Nazis and the Novaks to slip in under the coverage if one wants to defend First Amendment rights. The only redress I can think of is for responsible journalism groups like The Newspaper Guild, the Society of Professional Journalists, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and FAIR to make these distinctions and make it clear that people like Robert Novak seriously compromise journalistic ethics by their actions and should be drummed out of all professional journalism organizations.”

http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1065&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[H2O Man]

131. The First Amendment

says nothing about the right of a reporter to keep their sources confidential. There is a significant body of case law that results from years of interpretation of how that amendment applies to the "free press." Included in those cases are court decisions about reporters and confidential sources. Most agree that reporters can protect the identities of "whistle blowers," who reveal criminal activities within government agencies, etc.

In the Plame case, we have a reporter (Novak) who cooperated with government officials who were committing a crime. Judith Miller's role remains somewhat unclear. She does not want to testify, or to have her notes regarding the activities surrounding the outing of Plame reviewed. Neither of the two are trying to protect the identity of a whistle blower. Neither can claim any constitutional or case law that justifies refusing to cooperate in an investigation of a federal offense. The law is actually quite clear in requiring their cooperation when it is requested by a federal grand jury.

As far as the First Amendment, there are other cases with less clear-cut issues that should be evaluated. Also, I think the media has the right to hire whoever they want, even Novak or Miller. But I think that we have the right -- even obligation -- to question who else Miller actually works for, and to say to advertisers that we will not buy their products if they support any program Novak appears on. That's another benefit of a "free press."

[Me.]

132. The Other Scandals

Washington Report, November 2004, pages 26-27

New Spy Investigation Suppressed at Crucial Juncture

<<<snip>>>
"About three years ago Franklin transferred to the staff of Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, who has spent most of his career looking out for the interests of Israel.
Interestingly, Feith’s father, Dalck, was an Israeli extremist and a long-time protégé of Zev Jabotinsky. Dalck Feith, who now lives in the United States, is just as extreme today as he was all those years ago in Israel. His son Douglas, as the person in charge of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), for some time has worked on compiling any material, no matter how vague or extreme, to make the case for military action in Iraq."cont.

"Lawrence Franklin “was very close to the anti-Iranian dissidents.”

"Franklin also participated in secret meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian arms dealer who acted as a middleman in the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan administration. The secret meetings, first held in Rome in December 2001, were brokered by Michael Ledeen, a leading neocon and long-time supporter of Israel. Ledeen said he arranged the meetings to put the Bush administration in closer contact with Iranian dissidents who could provide information on the war on terrorism. But he said that Franklin was always skeptical about the usefulness of the back-channel meetings" cont....


"Investigators believe that the AIPAC officials turned over Franklin’s information to the Israelis, although the exact nature of their contacts with Israel remains unclear, and it is uncertain if Franklin knew of their discussions with Israel. “It is not illegal for employees of AIPAC to meet with Pentagon officials or representatives of the Israeli government, which has wide-ranging information-sharing with the United States,” wrote New York Times correspondent David Johnson. “But knowingly passing classified materials to a foreign power could be a crime under American espionage statutes.”cont...


"Others expected to be interviewed will probably include Iraq and Iran specialist Harold Rhode, former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, and Iran specialist David Wurmser, Cheney’s principal deputy assistant for national security affairs, according to sources familiar with or involved in the case." cont...

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2004/0411026.html

[H2O Man]

133. This is why

I was surprised the Kerry campaign did not hit hard on the administration's Iran-Contra scandal connections. It is in large part the same cast of characters, doing the same illegal activities.

[H2O Man]

135. Help.

There is a thread that was recently started on DU GD. It is entitled "Juan Cole needs help ....." He is one of the best authors on the Plame, Niger forgeries, and neocon scandal case. He is being threatened with a law suit. I am going to ask the poster to put it on this thread. Please help. This is important.

[kohodog]

136. Please post the link

So we can help!

[H2O Man]

137. I had hoped that

Career Prole would re-post the information from "Juan Cole needs some help, folks. The 'Informed Comment' blog author." Until then, please see:

http://www.juancole.com/2004/11/intimidation-by-israeli-linked.html

[KoKo]

139. This is another sad example of what's going on. I doubt we will have

our Google or even parts of the internet functioning to communicate with each other in this way, much longer. I think the Juan Cole plea was what finally led me to realize how truly lost we are.

[Career Prole]

141. H2O Man graciously invited me to post a brief request for Juan Cole.

Sorry for the interruption, but he's our friend, and a widely read voice for the truth...and they're trying to shut him up.
(Side note: I can't believe I missed this thread. :thumbsup:)

Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Intimidation by Israeli-Linked Organization Aimed at US Academic
MEMRI tries a SLAPP

I just checked my campus mail and found a letter in it from Colonel Yigal Carmon, late of Israeli military intelligence, now an official at the Middle East Media Research Organization, or MEMRI. He threatened me with a lawsuit over blog comments I made here at Informed Comment. This technique of the SLAPP or Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation had already been pioneered by polluting industries against environmental activists, and now the pro-Likud lobby in the US has apparently decided to try it out against people like me.

I urge all readers to send messages of protest to [email protected]. Please be polite, and simply urge MEMRI, which has a major Web presence, to withdraw the lawsuit threat and to respect the spirit of the free sharing of ideas that makes the internet possible.

Details Here at "Informed Comment"

[Me.]

142. Done n/t

[Me.]

146. Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

Maybe by next Thanksgiving the Plame conspirators goose will be cooked.

[loritooker]

147. On Bush making enemies at the CIA

This is the first time I've read a Plame thread at DU--I'm new. I've read the Wayne Madsen article that came out in June 2004. I am understanding from that article that Valerie Plame was a deep cover agent working on WMD information. And the company she worked for was also a CIA "proprietary" company (does that mean a "front"?). She purportedly had to work years to acquire that level of trust. Anyway, so if someone in the Bush administration blew years of CIA work in one fell swoop by exposing this sensitive, important operation it seems to me that they would be more than a little angry. On the surface, it seems to me that what the Bushies did was the height of stupidity. Why would they make enemies of the CIA like this? I admit I don't know much about this, but how do you guys look at the ramification of what they've done in terms of CIA response?

[H2O Man]

148. Good question.

Generally, in any agency, from a city department to a state or federal agency, there are different "sub-groups" with very different interests. And that is the same at CI. For a good explanation about what is going on right now, buy this week's TIME magazine, and read the story on Goss and the internal conflicts at CI, or "google" Goss, etc. One of the single best sources of information on the "good guys" at the agency, read anything by Michael Scheuer.

The Plame Threads do not have all the answers, of course, but there are a good group of people that add a lot of good information. The threads date back to around June, and there have been thousands of posts.

[loritooker]

149. Thanks, I'll check those sources.

[H2O Man]

150. Big story!

See this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13258-2004Nov25.html

[Me.]

151. Follow Up

New Twist in Plame Game: When Did Novak Column Move on the Wires?


“NEW YORK An article by Susan Schmidt in Friday’s Washington Post introduced a new twist in the federal probe of the leaking to the press of the name of undercover CIA operative Vlaerie Plame.

According to Schmidt, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has gotten bogged down in trying to determine exactly when several journalists learned about Plame’s identity, most likely from someone at the White House. The focus has been on whether White House aides leaked the name before it appeared anywhere in the press or merely spread the news after it surfaced.” Cont.


“But wait. There is a catch. According to Schmidt, “While Novak's column did not run until Monday, July 14, it could have been seen by people in the White House or the media as early as Friday, July 11, when Creators Syndicate distributed it over the Associated Press wire.”

Schmidt continues: “The timing could be a critical element in assessing whether classified information was illegally disclosed. If White House aides directed reporters to information that had already been published by Novak, they may not have disclosed classified information….” Cont.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000727193

[coeur_de_lion]

152. "Spy Another Day" Village Voice, 11-24-04

by Jarrett Murphy
Spy Another Day
Are spooks getting purged for others' leaks? Inside the white house war on information
November 24 - 30, 2004

<<snip>>
The shakeup at the CIA is being painted as a crusade against agency employees who leaked secret information to the media. If so, it's another front in the wider Bush administration campaign against unauthorized disclosures of inconvenient facts.

Four CIA officials have departed since the election and others may follow. New York Times columnist William Safire last week called them "pouting spooks at Langley who bet on a Kerry victory." A memo to agency employees from new spy director Porter Goss calls on them to "scrupulously honor our secrecy oath." Newsday reports that the lancing of leakers came at White House request.
<<snip>>

<<snip>>
Not everyone buys the theory that the CIA purge is a hunt for leakers. "My own impression is that most leaks don't come out of the CIA," says Michael Scheuer, the veteran agent who anonymously penned Imperial Hubris, a book critical of the conduct of the war on terrorism since the mid 1990s. Scheuer, who retired on November 12, believes most leaks spring from the Defense Department or the White House. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the Senate ethics committee is probing Alabama Republican Richard Shelby for allegedly leaking details of suspicious phone calls the National Security Agency intercepted on September 10, 2001.
<<snip>>

<<snip>>
The administration's crackdown on leaks began last year, when a July 2003 syndicated Robert Novak column reported that the wife of WMD whistleblower Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, was a CIA officer. The release of her identity might have violated federal law, and the Justice Department launched a probe.

But the investigation has raised eyebrows for its broad attack on the use of confidential sourcing. Some White House employees, at Democratic senator Chuck Schumer's suggestion, have been asked to waive any confidentiality agreements with reporters. Investigators have sought records of phone calls to a long list of journalists. And several reporters—including at least one who never wrote about Wilson's wife—have been threatened with jail time for not discussing their sources.
<<snip>>
more . . . .
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0447/murphy.php

[coeur_de_lion]

154. H2O, this article seems to suggest that

there might not have been any crime committed by the White House -- confusing --
"The timing could be a critical element in assessing whether classified information was illegally disclosed. If White House aides directed reporters to information that had already been published by Novak, they may not have disclosed classified information."

That doesn't make sense to me -- the White House is the source for Novak's article! How could they have leaked info "that had already been leaked by Novak" when they were the ones who told Novak about Plame?

[H2O Man]

155. I think that

perhaps it would be best if I attempt to answer that very question in a new Plame Thread, to be unveiled -- hopefully -- at about 8:30 pm est.

[TexasChick]

158. H2O Man, the link doesn't work. Is there another one you can find?

Thanks a million!!

[H2O Man]

165. Look on the new Plame Thread

which is on GD. It has a couple links. It will have a number of things added in the next couple of days. But it might have some material on it that you will find interesting now.

[TexasChick]

170. Thanks! n/t

[coeur_de_lion]

153. Off-topic: Atty. Gen. Nominee Gonzalez Fought to Hide Bush Drunk Driving

Off topic, but interesting . . . .

Bush Atty. Gen. Nominee Gonzalez Fought to Hide Bush Drunk Driving Arrest

November 16, 2004 By: Joe Strupp Editor and Publisher

<<snip>>
NEW YORK A new report from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press paints a picture of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales -- who has been nominated to replace U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft -- as someone who has worked tirelessly to keep information from the press and public if he believes it could hurt the president, and does not appear ready to change.

"Every attorney general has a significant impact on the media's ability to gather and report news, as well as the public's right to know what its government is doing," the report states. With that in mind, the Reporters Committee staff researched Gonzales' performance both in Texas, where he was a top adviser to then-Gov. Bush before serving on the state's Supreme Court, and as White House counsel since January 2001.

"Based on what I've seen, I don't think concerns about the media enter into his thinking," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee. "I think he is going to be even more aggressive than Ashcroft in making sure the executive right to keep secrets is protected."

One interesting item the reprot found from Gonzales' time in Texas: "Gonzales was instrumental in getting Bush excused from jury duty in 1996 -- a move that allowed the governor to avoid having to disclose that he had been arrested for drunken driving in Maine in 1976, the Houston Chronicle reported. Bush was able to keep it a secret until the final days of his 2000 presidential campaign."
<<snip>>

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9866&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported