DU Street Memo (Top Secret)

[H2O Man]

"Americans trust the Republicans to do a better job of keeping our community and families safe. We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America."
-- Karl Rove; RNC meeting in Austin, Texas; January 19, 2002

Within hours of Karl Rove being exposed as a weasal willing to expose the identity of a CIA operative who worked to keep our communities and families safe, in order to protect other criminal misdeeds that occured in bringing our nation into an unnecessary war, the neocon/far right republican machine went into high gear. Their goal was to confuse the issues involved in the Plame scandal. Their tactics were the "old reliables" that Rove himself has perfected over the years: distort, distract, misinform, and lie.

Dozens of "reliable liars" were brought out of the attic, dusted off, and sent with orders to appear on Fox, CNN, and other networks. They began talking to reporters in an effort to keep the American public from recognizing that this administration is more corrupt than the Nixon White House, and more criminal than the Iran-Contra gang.

A memo of republican "talking points" has been posted and commented upon by several alert and insightful DUers. Yet, sadly, we still have witnessed a number of threads which repeat what are, in fact, the neocon talking points. These include the "Did Wilson say Cheney sent him?" and "Is Wilson a Liar?" things that can only serve to distort, distract, misinform, and promote the outright lies of the extreme right wing republicans. (See: "Flies and the Lying Liars Who Eat Them" for more information.)

Mark Twain once said that the problem with our society was not one of ignorance .... rather, it was one of people knowing so darned much that just wasn't true. Keeping that in mind, I have attempted to organize a few things that are true -- but which involve the worst damned liars in our nation's history -- in such a way that we can focus on why those "16 words" that Joe Wilson exposed as damned lies are so important.

Simply put, the lie about Iraq attempting to acquire yellow cake uranium from Niger was the "icing on the cake" of lies the administration sold the American public, in order to justify their invasion of Iraq. More: Wilson's brave and entirely accurate essay in the NYT's op-ed section was the first time someone had the balls to publicly call the administration on their purposeful lying.

Let's take a closer look at this, using two primary sources: Senator Robert C. Byrd's "Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency," and John W. Dean's "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush." (Note that even in "double-extra-top-secret DU Street Memo's, we identify sources!)

The neocon position that the USA had the right, and the need, to forcefully remove Saddam Hussein can be traced to those who felt betrayed by President Bush1's decision not to at the end of the Gulf War. Paul Wolfowitz in 1992 would begin to advocate "preemption" to curb the threat posed by the proliferation of WMDs, and this began to be blended with the call to remove Saddam.

In 1998, Wolfowitz and his buddy-buddies in PNAC ( Project for a New American Century) called the Bush1 policy of containment in Iraq a "failure." That same year, Bush1 and his former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft co-authored "A World Transformed," a book that included a detailed analysis of why it would have been a serious mistake to try to take Saddam out and occupy Iraq: "Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' .... Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nation's mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be the occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."

Yet, as we know, on January 26, 1998, the PNACers sent President Clinton a letter advocating that he use his upcoming State of the Union address to announce plans to remove Saddam: "We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy to remove Saddam's regime from power." Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 11 would be given posts in the Bush2 administration.

The neocons began to plan the Iraqi war from "day one" of the Bush2 presidency. From a number of sources, including republicans Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill, we know that a war on Iraq was on the agenda from the very first NSC meeting in January 2001. These are not the "angry democrats from MoveOn" the republican talking points mention -- they are (ex-)members of Bush's administration.

Yet they faced a harsh reality: there was no lawful way to justify a war in Iraq. The 1973 War Powers Resolution didn't allow Bush/Cheney to attack Iraq. The 1990 UN Security Control Resolution 678 didn't. Nor did the 1991 Gulf War resolution.

Then came 9-11. The administration saw an opportunity to use S.J. Resolution 23 (passed on 9-14-02), along with the "national emergency" clause of the War Powers Resolution, to justify invading Iraq. To do so, they needed an "emergency threat."

In the Jan 2004 edition of Vanity Fair, Paul Wolfowitz notes, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was the weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." And so it was. The administration began lying to the public, and making it seem like there was a real threat of Iraq using WMDs to attack America.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," VP Dick Cheney told the 103rd National Convention of the VFW on August 26, 2002. On page 102 of Dean's book, we find more information about Cheney in this telling footnote: "Investigative journalist Sy Hersh has reported at some length in the New Yorker -- for example, 'Who lied to Whom' (Mar.3,2003) and 'The Stovepipe' ()ct 27, 2003) -- about Cheney's out-of-channels intelligence-gathering operations. In addition, the information about Cheney's hidden intelligence-collection operations has been further puzzled together by Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest in Mother Jones (in 'The Lie Factory' jan-Feb 2004). Dreyfuss and Vest reported that dubious and untested intelligence was assembled by the Office of Special Plans, set up in the Pentagon (a 'shadow agency within an agency') and composed largely of neoconservative ideologues, assembled to make the case for war in Iraq, and did so when others in the government's intelligence community had no information justifying the cas that Cheney and Bush wanted to make."

Thus, in early September of 2002, President Bush told the UN, "We cannot stand by and do nothing while danger gathers." However, the September 23, 2002 edition of Newsweek revealed that in the mid-1980s, the Reagan/Bush administration had sent Iraq viruses, bacteria, fungi, and protozoa which included the anthrax and botulinum that the administration now accused Saddam of having. Senator Byrd confronted Donald Rumsfeld with this article at an Armed Services Committee hearing that month; Rumsfeld denied ther acuracy of the article. Byrd countered by saying he personally knew of US shipments of West Nile fever virus and dengue fever to Iraq. But the rush to war crushed the truth into the ground, as that very day Bush sent Congress the first draft of his resolution for war against Iraq.

A media consultant quoted by Byrd on page 143 notes that the networks fell in line behind Bush. Of 414 stories that followed, all but 34 originated in the White House, the Pentagon, or the State Department. Byrd notes that networks were advised that they could find it "expensive" to cover anti-war news events.

It remained important to pretend Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons. Byrd notes on page 175: "Vice President Cheney had warned that Iraq verged on having nuclear weapons, directly contradicting the CIA view..." In order to support his lie to America, Cheney relied upon the forgeries known as the "yellow cake documents." And, although the administration knew they were discredited, John Bolton slipped the lie into the 12-19-02 State Department "fact sheet" justifying an invasion of Iraq. Someone saw the lie, and removed it, proving the State Department was aware of the two memos and one phone call from DCI Tenet saying the charge was not true.

Yet, in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush would lie to America. Byrd describes it on pages 180-181: "Then the president's voice took on a different tone. He began to detail the horrible substances Saddam Hussein had not accounted for. To a hushed chamber, Bush recited the poisons: anthrax, enough to kill several million people; botulin toxin, enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure; sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent, enough to kill untold thousands. He went on to summon visions of prohibited munitions; mobile biological weapons labs designed to produce germ warfare; and an 'advanced nuclear weapons development program,' citing intelligence dating back to the 1990s.

"Then came the fateful and now famous sixteen words, 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quanties of uranium from Africa.' That statement was false, and known to be false by key advisors to Bush at the time he made it -- a desperate ploy by agenda-driven zealots to justify and lead the country into an unnecessary war."

While Byrd goes on to describe Bush as a theatrical scoutmaster scaring children with ghost stories in hushed tones around a camp fire, the truth is that the yellow cake lie was essential in convincing the public that there was a reason to go to war in Iraq. When Wilson blasted this lie out of the water, the neocons began a savage attack. It included exposing the identity of a CIA operative who had dedicated her life to protecting our communities and families from dangerous enemies.

And that, my friends, is my DU Street Memo for today. I look forward to your comments.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

1. My only comment? Thank you very much! :-)

[H2O Man]

4. And thank you! n/t

[Celebration]

2. Great

You need to be a talking head!!

[H2O Man]

3. Oh,

I would enjoy the opportunity to sit opposite any neocon in America on any talk show and debate this issue. Not to promote myself: I'm an old man who has had many moments in the sun, and in a very real sense would prefer to live the remainder of my life in a private manner. But I would enjoy an opportunity to promote the truth on this issue. And while there are a number of people (TruthOut, etc) who are honest and exposing the administration, there are a few things that I think need to be said!

[coeur_de_lion]

6. Itsjustme is right, H2O

You need a more public persona. You are one of the few who can knowledgeably argue the finer points of this issue. It's a shame we don't have you as a spokesperson -- in a public arena. I'd like to see you up there on TV arguing with the republican paid liars.

Or maybe even just the radio. NPR? Would you do it?

[H2O Man]

15. Years ago

I was frequently on tv and radio. I studied the techniques of Malcolm, from numerous books and old LPs I have.I remember Malcolm saying that one never needed to fear the intellect of those who tried to defend the criminal practices of the government. I used to enjoy those debates as much as I liked boxing as a young man. (grin)

[coeur_de_lion]

22. SO?

What is stopping you? Go for it. You might not be able to do it as a full time thing, but maybe you should do it once a month or something.

[H2O Man]

23. Well

in answer to "what is stopping you?", I'd say the absolute lack of invitations would rank high. (grin)

[troubleinwinter]

74. How's about we start introducing you to Olberman, for a start?

[H2O Man]

85. Here's an idea:

People could e-mail the Imus show. Today he had a guest, from Newsweek. Imus asked who sent Wilson to Niger, and why? The guest said he thought it was because after the US invaded Iraq, no WMD were being found, and the CIA wanted to check the information it had used.

This is, of course, an error. Wilson went to Niger in early 2002. It was a year later that Bush used the 16 words to justify his planned invasion. The time-line is important.

The show can be reached at: [email protected]

[CAcyclist]

157. My email to the Imus Show

Dear Mr. Imus,

Yesterday your guest from Newsweek made a very large error in response to your question re: who sent Wilson to Niger, and why?

The guest said he thought it was because after the US invaded Iraq, no WMD were being found, and the CIA wanted to check the information it had used.

A Google search will show that Wilson actually went to Niger in early 2002 and briefed the CIA on it in March 2002 . It was a year later (January 23, 2003) that Bush used the uranium rumor to justify his planned invasion.

I would like to know why this person made that error. This is a very important story. I would expect reporters from national news sources to have the major facts down. In fact, I am positive that they do, which leaves me with the conclusion that this person was deliberately confusing the public.

Joesph Wilson states in his book, The Politics of Truth, that the reason he finally went public about his report is that he knew that someone had to be lying about how the uranium charge got into the the State of the Union address.

Wilson knew that the Bush administration had available not just his, but two other reports that confirmed that the Niger charge was false. He says on page 7 that " it should have been the administration's priority to find out who had betrayed the president by putting lies in his mouth, rather than to attack someone who had brought the truth to him."

Wilson clearly states that the CIA got a request from Cheney's office to investigate the Niger charge. The CIA selected Wilson. The only part that his wife played was that she relayed the message to him asking him if he would meet with the CIA. At the meeting, he was briefed on the concern and provided his own intelligence. He states on page 15 " Since my most recent visit to Niger had been 2 years earlier, the background I could supply was not about the current situation. However, the former Nigerian minister of mines, the man overseeing the industry at the time of the alleged sale, was a friend of mine. "

Also he states: "At the end of the briefing... I was asked if I would be willing to travel to Niger to check out the report in question."

As for why Wilson was selected to travel to Niger, his history includes the fact that he "had served as a junior diplomatic officer in Niger in the mid-70's, a period that happened to coincide with the growth of the uranium business there. We had followed this issue closely from the American Embassy in Niamey, Niger's capital, just as my staff and I had when I was ambassador to Gabon, another uranium-producing country , from 1992-1995. When I worked on the National Security Council in the Clinton Administration two years later, among my areas of responsibility was the African uranium industry. Rarely did conversations with Africans from uranium- producing countries fail to touch on the subject. Niger, where I had traveled frequently over the years, was always of particular interest." page 8

[H2O Man]

158. Well done.

Hopefully it gets a response.

[CAcyclist]

161. Thank you!

And thank you for providing the item.

[myrna minx]

5. Another wonderful and succinct essay from h2o man.

Nominated.

[Coexist]

7. You have a way with words, sir

great memo.

[Al-CIAda]

8. Rec'd.

[merh]

9. Nominated of course.

Thank you for this "memo". I agree with the others, you should be on the radio or sitting across from the fundie tv talking heads, explaining the facts to them.

Thanks so much! :hug:

[H2O Man]

17. My good friend Merh ....

...always eager to stir up trouble! Thank you for your compliments.

[merh]

20. Who, me?

;-) I am grateful you so readily share your talents with us. Having debated you, I know your skills and relish the notion of you using them on the other guy. Maybe you will send this on to the papers as an LTTE.

Speak the truth for us, you do it so well. :thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

24. Oh .....

that WAS you .... I'd hoped you might have forgotten.

I don't get many invitations to debate these days. Actually, none. And since I have no connections and no role -- other than being a grumpy old man on DU --I don't expect that there will be any in today's mail, either.

[merh]

34. Grumpy old man indeed!

And if you would let one of us win a debate once in a while, we might engage you more often. I have a brother that trounces me at scrabble and has ever since we were children, I won't play him any more. I have learned to recognize my limitations. :hi:

[Just Me]

10. Succinct and informative memo.

Wow!!! :hi:

I recently picked up Byrd's book. I look forward to finishing it. I picked up Wilson's book at the same time and have been working through the chapters that most interest me.

[understandinglife]

11. Excellent. Recommended. Thank you.

WATCH IT; SPREAD IT http://www.bushflash.com/right.html

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - How ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists their cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."

[ultraist]

12. Excellent! You should submit that as a LTTE to the NYT and other papers!

Very well written and concise. I also love the term, "reliable liars." :rofl:

[H2O Man]

Thanks.

I had thought about it last night. I thought of an outline, and then thought if the rough draft came out okay on DU, I might send it as a LTTE of a couple local newspapers.

[snot]

98. WE NEED your thoughtful, well-written words to reach more other people!

I foist my much-inferior product upon literally hundreds of acquaintances and media outlets as well as my governmental representatives. I don't do it for fun and I assume I'm more likely to be taken for a crackpot than to impress anyone--I do it out of duty.

And I am convinced it helps.

At the minimum, send your writings to the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, and NPR, as well as to your locals.

[H2O Man]

26. "dupe" n/t

[Mandate My Ass]

13. This whole scenario is so irony rich

I'm in danger of an overdose. Their use and abuse of the CIA, both before and after the Plame outing is stupendously arrogant. Their use of Rove dirty tricks to save Rove from his dirtiest trick is -- yes again -- stupendously arrogant. The flimsiness of their talking points as well as the unabashed announcement that they would disseminate and blast talking points now that the cat is out of the bag is SA.

Defending Rove's innocence for two years against a smear that is exactly like every other smear campaign he's ever engaged in, except for its massive collateral damage as well as damage to their reputation as defenders of national security is SA.

Everything they say and do now that they're in damage control mode only underscores their lies, partisan motives, moral relativism or blatant strategic blunders somewhere else in the buildup of the massive fraud they perpetrated to get their war on. The war that is going so incredibly badly due to their own mismanagement. It boggles the mind.

[fooj]

14. You speak TRUTH, H20 Man!!!

Thank you for your tireless efforts...


Peace.

[MGKrebs]

16. Jerry Springer did a pretty good job today

(for the few minutes I heard him. A caller was trying to talk about Wilson's "credibility" and Springer shut him down, saying that had nothing to do with Rove outing an undercover operative.

Thanks.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Good stuff

[dogday]

19. I love Senator Byrd

he keeps that little constitution on him at all times to get on their asses in the Senate. Oh but he speaks the truth....

[H2O Man]

91. We should all

carry a copy of the Constitution. On another part of this thread, a person asked me a question about the neocons; to answer, I quoted some information from Dean's book, including a description of neocons from a Texas republican congressman. He pointed out that the neocons do not value arguments based on Constititional points.

Perhaps it's like garlic or a cross with vampires. Carry a Constitution to ward off evil neocons.

(Byrd is the most honest man in the senate today. He may be the most honest person there.)

[The White Tree]

21. I'm curious -

What was the PNAC strategy here -

Yet, as we know, on January 26, 1998, the PNACers sent President Clinton a letter advocating that he use his upcoming State of the Union address to announce plans to remove Saddam: "We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy to remove Saddam's regime from power." Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 11 would be given posts in the Bush2 administration.

What would they have done if Clinton had embraced them, hook line and sinker and started developing war plans? Did they know (which is what I would guess) that he would flatly refuse to do this and were just grandstanding or laying the groundwork for this with hopes on the 2000 election.

Also what would they have done if Gore had become president?

I don't know much about these guys and would appreciate your perspective.

[H2O Man]

28. Interesting question.

I suspect that they simply wanted to control the Clinton presidency much in the manner they do Bush2. And that means an agressive agenda.

In his book,"Worse Than Watergate," Dean identifies some things that libertarian Texas Congressman Ron Paul noted as neocon values & beliefs:

- They agree with Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution.
- They identify strongly with the writings of Leo Strauss.
- They believe in a strong federal government.
- They subscribe to "the ends justify the means" and believe that "hardball" in politics is essential.
- They believe that lying is justified to promote and protect their goals.
- They believe that a "political elite" should keep important information from the uneducated masses.
-They believe in preemptive war to achieve their goals.
- They openly endorse the concept of "empire."
- They call unapologetically for imperialism as a foreign policy.
- They believe that the use of military force is a good way to meet their need to intimidate opposition in other countries.
- They scoff at the Founding Father's belief in neutrality in foreign affairs.
-They believe that 9-11 was the result of a lack of foreign entanglements in the Middle East, rather than too many.
- They seek to re-draw the map of the Middle East, in a manner advocated by the Likud Party of Israel.
- They view civil liberties with suspicion.
- They dismiss arguments based on the Constitution out of hand, because they do not believe in it.

These "values" are theirs, regardless of who may be president.

[The White Tree]

36. Interesting - Thanks for the info - Some of these are just amazing

For example - They believe in a strong federal government.

If Republicans beleive in limited federal government why would they vote twice for this administration when it relies on people who beleive the opposite of them.

- They view civil liberties with suspicion.
- They dismiss arguments based on the Constitution out of hand, because they do not believe in it.

Again, wouldn't these things be core fears of a majority of Republicans? Why would they vote for a government that embraced these ideals that are so opposed to what Republican voters feel are their core beleif's. It boggles the mind.

[kohodog]

67. Sad thing is, most "Republicans" think these pretenders are Republicans.

Another well written piece. For the time being, I think I'll drop the word republican from my vocabulary and call them what they are--neocons. It's quite effective and doesn't require explanation.

[stevietheman]

131. Is "neocon" the new "liberal"?

It would appear (probably obviously) that "our side" has found a useful derogatory term to throw at these far-right creeps at every turn. If they want to destroy the term "liberal" (and the fine tradition of liberalism), we have the same right to destroy the idea of neoconservatism, which, at its core, is an anti-constitutional, unpatriotic, opaque, inhumane, anti-liberty political approach to issues. And it's our blessing that the term ends with "con"--this meme could do a lot of great work for us.

Many of us have figured out how memes work from those who have mastered them in the GOP: Memes are like Scrubbing Bubbles... they work so you don't have to (as much). If we learn anything from the enemy, it should be that "words matter."

[LizW]

25. Excellent summary, H2O Man!

I have Byrd's book, but haven't read it yet. I have to move it up on my list.

[BurtWorm]

27. About the 16 words

According to Bob Somerby, the British government apparently claimed to have info, not about Niger, but about Congo and South Africa. The 16 words, in other words, seem not to have been about Niger at all.

Blair, in a speech to Parliament on Sep. 24, 2002, said: “We know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful.”

The next day, the Guardian reported on the specifics of the charge:

"Iraqi agents have been negotiating with criminal gangs in the Democratic Republic of Congo to trade Iraqi military weapons and training for high-grade minerals, possibly including uranium, according to evidence obtained by the Guardian.
It comes as the dossier unveiled by Tony Blair accused Saddam Hussein of trying to buy African uranium to give Iraq’s weapons programme a nuclear capability. The dossier did not identify any country allegedly approached by Baghdad but security analysts said the Congo was the likeliest, followed by South Africa.

“We know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful,” Mr Blair said. A delegation of five Iraqis was arrested in Nairobi by the Kenyan secret service last November while travelling to eastern Congo on fake Indian passports, a western intelligence officer said.

Documents seen by the Guardian show that leaders of the Mayi-Mayi, a brutal militia embroiled in the country’s civil war, visited Baghdad twice and offered diamonds and gold to the Iraqis. Uranium was not mentioned in the documents but the intelligence officer said the Mayi-Mayi would be able to obtain the material in areas it controlled.


Interestingly, though Somerby is unusually sharp in his criticism of Wilson's integrity for a lefty, he also points out that Tenet and Rumsfeld both agreed that the 16 words “did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches.” But Somerby is more focused on whether Wilson was on or off base bringing Niger into the equation. Somerby says he was off base. I say, so what? If there was any doubt at all before the war in Iraq's ability to deliver an attack against the US or any enemy, then the burden of proof on Bush and Blair's "evidence" should have been extremely high--and it WAS in most courts of opinion. I think that was Wilson's point, and it was well-taken. And even if he was off-base about bringing Niger into the picture, that certainly doesn't justify the Bushists' vindictive response to it.

[H2O Man]

29. I would put all this

in the waste-paper basket. It's nothing but a distraction. The debate is about Niger. The US sent three people to do three separate investigations of the Niger documents. The UN's IAEA noted that the Niger documents were forgeries. Pretending the African statement is not based on the Niger documents is a sad bit of misinformation.

[BurtWorm]

32. What did Blair's statement mean, then? What was the Congo story about?

The debate is not restricted to Niger, but to every instance in which the Blair and Bush people fixed the facts around the policy. Niger was just one instance.

The 16 words, it seems pretty clear to me, had nothing whatsoever to do with Niger. They echo Blair's words precisely, though they leave off Blair's admission at the end that there was no evidence the Iraqis succeeded in getting what they were looking for. The 16 words are still scandalous, but not because of anything to do with Niger.

Furthermore, whether they were or weren't, outing Valerie Plame in retaliation for Joe Wilson's Times editorial was criminal, whether anyone in the Bush administration pays for it or not.

[Me.]

38. Why Because It Is Written Or Spoken

does it have to mean anything, especially anything approaching the truth? Except more lies? According to the OP most of the articles written after 9-11 came from directly from the administration, which was (and is, at least according to the signatures on the document) infested with neocons. Why would anyone even think we would or ever were given the truth? The same applies to the poodle and now these justifications.

And frankly, I don't even understand why this issue is even being raised. The forged documents were about Niger. Don't you think if they thought they had the goods, or could pull it off, they would have the forged documents as coming from the Congo? This is so bloody typical of the "put a lie out and then backtrack on it when it's revealed as a lie strategy"; oh, wmds weren't really the reason we chose to go to war, what we meant was that if someone was convicted they'd be fired not just if they were responsible or did reveal classified into to journalists, the economy is fine, our school children are being well educated, the environment is safe, our national parks aren't being ravaged, **sh won both elections fair and square, on and on and on. The 16 words were a lie, the French know it, the Italians know it, the Israelis know it, the British know it. The only ones who don't know it are the ones who don't want to know it.

[BurtWorm]

40. The forged docs were about Niger. The 16 words apparently were not.

But they were a lie in any case, another fact being fixed around the policy.

I point it out because if we are outraged by falsehoods, then we have to be faithful to the truth. In this case, it's not true that the 16 words were about Niger. But they were a lie, nevertheless.

[H2O Man]

41. Sure they were.

You are in mighty limited company when you say they weren't. It's simply not true.

[BurtWorm]

43. What makes you say they were about the Niger docs?

Besides Wilson's word? What did the British have to do with the Niger docs?

[H2O Man]

46. "What did the British have to do

with the Niger docs?" Please. Don't take Wilson's word. Take the time to find out for yourself. And, when you can identify what the British had to do with those forgeries, we can continue an intelligent conversation.

[BurtWorm]

49. Please. If you have the info share it.

Be a mensch. ;)

[BurtWorm]

56. Still waiting for your secret info.

;)

(I'm guessing it must be some conspiracy theory you and the Gannonites hashed out? Or is there an actual external link to this information you're hoarding?)

[H2O Man]

61. Please.

It's summer vacation, and I just watched my daughters swimming. You really are being funny now.

[BurtWorm]

65. When you're finished with that task, maybe you can attend to this one.

I'm not asking for a lot. Just a pointer on why you think the 16 words were about the Niger documents. It's a very simple request, really. Nothing funny about it.

[H2O Man]

68. In post #60

I answered that. You are entitled to your opinion. I think that very few people will agree with you. I do not think that what you are saying on this issue should be taken seriously. Most people who watch the news about the Plame scandal know that the president was talking about the Niger business. But, if it's something you feel strongly about, maybe you could start another thread.

[BurtWorm]

72. I don't care how many people agree with me.

I only care about the facts, and the fact is, you seem to be wrong about what those 16 words meant.

Oddly enough, we agree that those 16 words were full of shit. :wtf:

[H2O Man]

77. You are entitled

to believe what you want. Your interpretation of events is clearly in conflict with that of people including Wilson and Dean. I find their interpretation far more credible than yours, with no offense, and am pleased to see that journalists such as Matthews, Gregory, and Olbermann do, too.

[BurtWorm]

84. You're entitled to be pleased that Chris Matthews agrees with you.

;)

[H2O Man]

165. More do, too.

See:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050719/cheney_and_plame.php

Now, I'm sure that Ray McGovern doesn't seem as credible a source as yours .... at least not to you. But I think he might be a better source for democrats interested in the Plame scandal.

[CAcyclist]

182. Maybe You Haven't Heard of Google After All

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Niger_uranium

Italian Intelligence Reports
The Niger Embassy in Rome, Italy, was burglarized on the evening of Jan. 1, 2001. Along with a few minor valuables, Italian police believe the thieves also took blank letterhead stationery and official seals of the government of Niger.

In late 2001, the Italian Military Intelligence and Security Service, SISMI, sent reports to the CIA claiming that the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican, Wissam al-Zahawie, had visited Niger in February 1999 to attempt to arrange the purchase of "yellowcake" uranium from Niger. The trip was public knowledge at the time, but the implication that a uranium purchase was discussed had never been made before. Because the report contained no documents to back it up, it was not given much credibility in the American intelligence community. But the information was nonetheless given to Vice President Dick Cheney, whose office repeatedly put pressure on the CIA to investigate the possibility that Iraq was trying to restart its nuclear program.

[Me.]

52. Yes Truth Is The Issue & It Seems It Is In Short Quantity

There were no WMDs, the neocons knew but thought they could get away with it, the people at the DSM meeting knew that and that the intelligence was being fixed, there was no credible case for war. All of it was a pack of lies, and nothing anyone says, or now decries that this is now the truth is going to change that or the lives lost or blood spilled. But I am not surprised because truth as it used to be known is now a casualty of the neos and their war too. And while there are still those who are trying to make their case for them, it still doesn't change lies into the truth.

[BurtWorm]

53. I find it most disturbing that the Blairites were such enablers.

The Blairites unaccountably knew and said they knew that the war was not going to be an easy sell. But they threw their weight onto the Bushist juggernaut. Why? They weren't neocons. What good has this war done Britain or the Labour Party? What has it accomplished for anyone?

I was just reading somewhere today--I forget where--that this war was "easy in, difficult out." Why didn't these "brilliant" Brits foresee that? How did they let themselves get used this way?

I'm sure someone is going to claim Blair was tempted by a big juicy job at the Carlyle Group. Doesn't seem like a sufficiently juicy enticement to me, considering to get there, he destroyed his credibility, his place in history, and maybe even sturck a fatal blow to his party as well.

[Me.]

57. Don't Care What His Motive Was

any more than I care about what the motivation of any other criminal was. Just like them, he sought some gain at the expense of other's lives and livelihoods and no amount of justification will bring back any of the dead.

[BurtWorm]

59. I do care about motivation.

Different strokes for different folks.

[H2O Man]

62. I think it can be good

to question motivation. Blair's is of no particular interest.

[BurtWorm]

64. The Lord hath thpoken.

Mutht not be of any particular interest. :eyes:

[H2O Man]

73. At long last, you make sense.

Now the Water Man will direct you to appendix #1 of John Dean's "Worse Than Watergate." Please turn to page 204, and note "Purported Bush Fact 7." This appendix is Dean's answer to eight "purported facts" that your president "conspicuously distorted." Now, BurtWorm, please read with me for those DUers who do not have the book at hand:

"Countless news media accounts have now shown that the uranium story was untrue -- and that at least some members of the Bush administration knew it to be false. I shall highlight only the relevant information. Cheney had questions about the Niger uranium story, so the CIA dispatched Joe Wilson, a former ambassador knowledgeable about Africa (and whose wife was a CIA covert agent dealing with weapons of mass destruction), to learn the truth and he found it was counterfeit information. Wilson advised the CIA and State Department that the Niger story appeared untrue. Presumably, Cheney learned these facts. Bush's use of the Niger uranium claim was removed from an October 7, 2002, speech because it was believed unreliable, but come the State of the Union, it had risen from the grave. No new evidence contradicting Wilson's assessment had emerged. Indeed, only days after Bush's State of the Union, Colin Powell refused to use this information in his United Nations speech -- although he was reportedly pushed to do so by Cheney's staff -- because he did not deem it reliable. It is hard not to believe that Bush's top advisors were unaware of this hoax but assumed they could get away with it."

I find Dean to be an accurate source of information on this topic. I believe him far more than the sources you are promoting. I think his interpretation makes more sense than yours.

[BurtWorm]

75. Dean is overstating Wilson's role.

Even Wilson said his role was small. Nothing earthshattering in what he found out, he said. (Though he did apparently find out that some Iraqis approached former Niger PM Mayaki in 1999, and Mayaki assumed it was for yellowcake. Still, they didn't get the yellow cake; as Wilson was told by another former official, no contracts for Nigerien yellowcake had been signed by "rogue states" since the 1980s.)

H20 Man, you keep ignoring the Congo bit of the British intelligence. Is that because you're unaware of it, or because John Dean didn't mention it? Or is there some other reason?

[CAcyclist]

181. There Were Three Reports Proving The Uranium-Niger Connection False

Three reports, not just Wilson's - all saying the same thing -
Niger couldn't have suddenly ramped up production of uranium
as alleged without people knowing about it and some evidence
being found. The allegations concerned 500 tons of uranium
yellowcake , not something easily hidable in Niger.

What Wilson has to say about the "Mayaki" incident
is this: (page 28, The Politics of Truth):(Wilson does not
name his Nigerian source)

 "Before I left Niger, I provide a member of the American
Embassy staff with an extensive briefing. In it, I outlined
all that I learned about the uranium operations. 

Additionally, I described a conversation with one of my
sources. He had mentioned to me that on the margins of a
ministerial meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU)
in 1999, a Nigerian businessman had asked him to meet with an
Iraqi official to discuss trade. My contact said that alarm
bells had immediately gone off in his mind.Well aware of
United Nations sanctions on Iraq, he met with the Iraqi only
briefly and avoided any substantive issues.As he told me this,
he hesitated and looked up at the sky as if plumbing the
depths of his memeory, then offered that perhaps the Iraqi
might(emphasis)  have wanted to talk about uranium.But since
there had been no discussion of uranium- my contact was idly
speculating-there was no story. 

I spoke with this Nigerian friend again in January 2004 and he
recollected our conversation in 2002.He told me that while he
was watching coverage of press conferences in Baghdad prior to
the second Gulf War, he recognized the Iraqi information
minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, known to Americans as
"Baghdad Bob" as the person who he had met in
algiers. He had not known the name of the Iraqi at the time he
told me about the conversation in 2002, and so this had not
been included in my report"

The documents submitted to the IAEA were all faked documents
of Niger officials, with signatures that were of the wrong
official for the time or obvious fakes. Clearly, the story was
about Niger.

For someone who seems to want to find out the truth, you seem
curiously reluctant to do a simple google search. 

[BurtWorm]

184. I appreciate your taking the time to explain your position.

(I wonder why H20 Man thought it was beneath him. Does this make you beneath H20 Man too?)

I was reading other sources that were leading me in a different direction. That's the simple explanation.

[Me.]

79. And How Will That Help?

Will a nice cushy job for Tony, maybe looking more macho to Cherie, or a "message" from God justify his actions? Can we then all understand and forgive? Will ruling the world do?

[BurtWorm]

81. It would help explain how really awful political decisions get made.

Could be a useful piece of information.

[Me.]

88. Awful Political Decisions

get made because people like **sh, Blair, Cheney, and the neocons are willing to make awful decisions that will empower and enrich the few at the expense of the many. I have heard that in private the **sh family refer to American citizens as fodder, perhaps now we are just collateral damage in jr. & the neos plan for America to rule the world at the same time as giving the **sh and Cheney families control of the oil.

[CAcyclist]

170. Yes They Were

The Bush Administration submitted the fake document to the IAEA to investigate after the speech, so it is exactly clear that this report was supposed to provide the evidence for the charge. The fake document was declared a fake by the IAEA .Bush's speech was January 2003. The IAEA got the document from the State Dept. early February 2003. The IAEA went on record March 7,2003.

Yes, exactly, we have to be faithful to the truth. The truth can be substantiated - this document was about Niger.

Not the mention the fact that before Wilson knew this report was about Niger, he also considered all the uranium - producing countries in Africa could be the subject of the report - Niger, Gabon,South Africa and Namibia. According to this, if these are the four uranium-producing African nations, the Congo isn't one of them. I will do a google search to confirm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1076794.stm - country profile - nothing said about producing uranium.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1076399.stm - othe country profile - again nothing about producing uranium.

[BurtWorm]

179. This information would have been helpful to me yesterday.

Thanks.

[CAcyclist]

185. You Could Have Gotten It By doing a 1 Minute Google Search.

I get annoyed by people who get huffy when others don't provide "proof" for their reasonable conclusions but who fail to do basic research before advancing bizarre allegations.

[H2O Man]

193. Actually

as the person doing the complaining knows, all of this has been presented, actually numerous times, over the past 14 months in the "Plame Threads." And, if he has decided that I am someone he wishes to try to paint as an unreliable source, surely he must be familiar with the fine work -- which covers ALL of this in great detail (and which is well documented) -- by others, including RobertP. and SLaD.

He then goes so far as to accuse me of grand-standing. Gosh! I could have provided him with a much better quote, had he asked politely .... "Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious, vain, cruel, verbose, a show-off. I have been called all of these. Of course, I am." -- Howard Cosell

[Me.]

186. Exactly!

Good post. Also post #95 provides a link to google pages with links regarding the Niger as the source of the speech controversy.

[H2O Man]

194. But!!!!

Wilson drinks mint tea! Surprised that hasn't been brought up.

[H2O Man]

39. I hope you are joking.

It's hard to tell sometimes. But, on the tiny chance you're not, I would simply remind you that the British refused to share their copies of the infamous Niger yellow cake documents with the IAEA, as mandated by international agreement. I suspect that the reason is obvious -- they were aware that their "documents" were forgeries.

Pretending that the administration has, in a noble effort to protect the public, kept this little piece of information secret is weak. As Dean notes in his book (page xi), William Rogers, the former Secretary of State, has said that "the public should view excessive secrecy among government officials as parents view sudden quiet where youngsters are playing. It is a sign of trouble." More, as Woodrow Wilson noted, "everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places, avoids public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety."

If there was any evidence that was stronger than the Niger forgeries, than I'd think it's a safe bet they would have been brought out by now. I believe it is a fair presumption that these attempts to distract and distort are simply more neocon corruption. We need to be on guard for their attempts, no matter where they pop up.

[BurtWorm]

42. You're confusing two separate issues--two separate lies, if you will.

One is the Niger issue, which was sparked by a document leaked to an Italian journalist. This is the document the IAEA found to be bogus without much effort at all. This is the document Cheney's office nudged CIA to check out, the one Wilson was sent to Niger to look into.

The other is the 16 words issue. Bush's words make clear he was referring to what Blair referred to in his Sept. 24 speech. The words are almost the same. The Guardian and other British media reported that that "intelligence" referred to reports that Iraq was seeking something--it was never determined what, but Blair strongly hinted it was uranium--from Congo.

The bottom line in both branches of the "uranium in Africa" story is that there was never any evidence that the Iraqis succeeded in getting what the Brits and Bushists claimed they were looking for.

PS: Why would you think I'm joking about this? Have you looked into the Congo angle? You don't seem to be aware of it.

[H2O Man]

45. You're confused.

Actually, I think you're playing. I know that you are taking the position for fun. Now, as others have talked about the Water Man debating the neocons, if I were to ... and one tried such a neocomical line .... I'd go back to a quote from Malcolm's autobiography (page 290) where he describes his experience debating people who seek to distort or distract with similar nonsense.

" 'You must be a law student, aren't you?' They had to say either yes, or no. And I'd say, 'I though you were. You defend this criminal white man harder than he defends his guilty self!'"

[BurtWorm]

48. Now you've gone ad hominem.

How disappointing. I'm not even debating you. I'm correcting your bad information. The Butler report says the British did not learn of the fake Niger documents until early 2003. You keep insisting that the 16 Words were about these documents. Where's your evidence for that?

[H2O Man]

60. Well, BurtWorm

you must not have read what I said: I made clear my answer was what I would say if I were debating a person who was pushing the nonsense you keep repeating. I assume that you are not serious. But, just to clarify, are you actually telling us today that Joseph Wilson is wrong, and that you are right? Are those on DU, who know that the IAEA determined that the Niger documents were forgeries on March 7, 03 and that the following day, a State Department rep said, "We fell for it," would you seriously expect that your new version -- that this had nothing to do with the president's State of the Union speech -- to be taken as serious? That when George Tenet took responsibility for the error in the speech; and then Hadley admitted that he had two memos and a phone call from CI saying the Niger claim was weak, and both said it should have been removed from the president's speech, were they wrong? When Condi Rice appeared on the 6-8-03 Meet the Press, and denied that she had any knowledge of the dubious Niger uranium claim that was the foundation for those 16 words, do you really expect anyone to believe your version that this had nothing to do with the State of the Union speech?

I hope you aren't serious. But if you are, can you please explain the two memos and the phone call Tenet placed to Hadley, in which he spoke specifically about the Niger yellow cake controversy?

[BurtWorm]

70. In a word, yes.

As I pointed out above, the language of the 16 words clearly echoes the language of Blair's declaration in the September 2002 speech. The Butler report--maybe you have evidence that it's mistaken?--states on page 123, "We have been told that it was not until early 2003 that the British Government became aware that the US (and other states) had received from a journalistic source a number of documents alleged to cover the Iraqi procurement of uranium from Niger. Those documents were passed to the IAEA, which in its update report to the United Nations Security Council in March 2003 determined that the papers were forgeries...."

Of course the Butler commission may have been lied to, but if they weren't, then there is no way the 16 words could refer to the Niger documents. Do you have evidence they were lied to? I'm open to it, honestly.

The Butler report is here:

http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/898.pdf

The Butler report also states: <<We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy
uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," was well-founded.>>

Yet, Tenet and Rumsfeld both admitted that the intelligence did not meet the standards for being included in a presidential statement. In other words, it was a lie. They were not referring only to the Niger side of it, but to the Congo side as well.

Furthermore, H20 Man, according to the Senate Intelligence Report, Wilson himself was told by former Niger PM Miyaki that an Iraqi delegation visited him and it was clear they were interested in yellowcake. See pages 42-44 of the Report:

http://yuricareport.com/OverSight/SenateReportOnIntellOnNiger.pdf

The first paragraph on page 46 might be of interest.

[H2O Man]

76. Easily to correct your error:

See page 28 of Wilson's book. He notes: "Before I left Niger, I provided a member of the American Embassy staff with an extensive briefing. In it, I outlined all that I had learned about the uranium operations. Additionally, I described a conversation with on of my sources. He had mentioned to me that on the margins of a ministerial meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1999, a Nigerian businessman had asked him to meet with an Iraqi official to discuss trade. My contact said that alarm bells had immediately gone off in his mind. Well aware of United Nations sanctions on Iraq, he met with the Iraqi only briefly and avoided any substantive issues. As he told me this, he hesitated and looked up to the sky as if plumbing the depths of his memory, then offered that perhaps the Iraqi might have wanted to talk about uranium. But since there had been no discussion of uranium -- my contact was idly speculating when he mentioned it -- there was no story. ....

"I also mentioned in my briefing that, while I was satisfied personally that there was nothing to support allegations either that Iraq had tried to obtain or had succeeded in purchasing uranium from Niger, if there was interest in investigating the matter further, my suggestion was simple: approach the French uranium company, COGEMA, that had direct responsibility for the mining operation, since it would have had to have been party to any irregular increase in production, or to a transaction with a customer outside the consortium.

"I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick before leaving the country and shared with her what I had learned. She offered again that my conclusions mirrored hers, as well as those of General Fulford.

"Within an hour of my return to Washington in early March 2002, a CIA reports officer, at my request, arrived at my home. .... I gave him the same details of my trip and conclusions that I had provided Owens-Kirkpatrick in Niamey before my departure. These included the account of the meeting between my Nigerian contact and the Iraqi official on the margins of the OAU meeting ..."

Of course, you may choose not to believe Wilson. You may find the S.I.R. more to your liking. That's your right. I believe Wilson.

[BurtWorm]

80. What he says there does not contradict the SIR.

Except on the matter of whether or not Wilson gave CIA the info on the contact. You have to wonder why the Nigerien would say alarm bells immediately went off in his mind, but then he had to plumb the depths of his memory to speculate that maybe the Iraqi wanted to talk about uranium. It's a slightly peculiar story, isn't it?

Whether or not I believe Wilson 100% (and I think it would be foolish to believe anybody 100%), I believe he had reason to think the Bushists were misusing the Niger info, and reason to be angry about it. I know that in March 2003, Wilson was feeling queasy watching the rush to war, so I do believe he felt betrayed. He may have even been honestly mistaken to believe the 16 words were about the Niger documents. It didn't come out until midsummer that Tenet had warned Bush not to refer to African uranium in his Cleveland speech because of the faulty Niger documents. I doubt Wilson could have known about Tenet's warning on that.

But the 16 words, again, make a different statement, about what British intelligence "knew"--not about what the CIA knew.

[robertpaulsen]

78. WARNING! RNC TALKING POINT ALERT! RNC TALKING POINT ALERT!

BurtWorm, I was waiting, watching, and you finally did it:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html

Perhaps if you answered more of H2O Man's questions in the previous post, you'd understand that there is no Congo angle except in your mind AND THE RNC!

[BurtWorm]

83. Is The Guardian a REPUBLICAN rag?

The Congo angle was explained by The Guardian after Blair's speech.

The Butler report also mentions it, and despite saying that Bush's 16 words line was "well-founded," admits that there's no more evidence Iraq got any further in the Congo than in Niger, if yellowcake procurement really was their aim.

I am not arguing that Wilson lied. I'm arguing that the 16 words was about something else. I'm arguing that it was still a lie, but it wasn't about what Wilson found or didn't find in Africa.

[H2O Man]

86. A simple point:

Wilson wrote his op-ed, which was published in the NYTs. He was then on Meet the Press. The discussion was the 16 words and what Wilson did not find in Niger. He was then profiled in the Washington Post.

"Twenty-four hours later, the White House acknowledged that the sixteen words did 'not rise to the level that we would put in a presidential speech. .... Astonishly, when the administration officials finally did tell the truth, they quickly regretted it and began to backtrack. Almost as soon as the White House acknowledgement was announced, Walter Pincus told me he began to receive phone cals from members of the administration trying to take it back. One official told Walter that telling the truth 'was the biggest mistake the administration had made.'" (Wilson; page 335)

Thus, BurtWorm really isn't the only one attempting to distort this. The 16 words were specifically about the Niger documents. The effort to say otherwise began when the White House officials realized how damaging it was to tell the truth about this. They have been spreading lies such as the Congo baloney ever since. I'm saddened to think anyone would believe that obvious a lie.

[BurtWorm]

92. No they were not, H20 Man. They were not specificially about those

documents. You have yet to explain what the term "British intelligence" was doing at the beginning of the 16 words. Could you try to explain that? Did Bush just pull that phrase out of his ass? Of course that is possible. But considering Blair used exactly the same words in September, it does seem that he's referring to actual *British* intelligence, however flimsy or sexed up. (Why would he refer to the CIA's intelligence about Niger as British? I don't get that leap. Or can you show that the Brits, in addition to the CIA and DIA, set about working on the documents? In which case, why does the Butler report say the Brits didn't know about those docs until early 2003?)

It all boils down, in any case, to the Bushists trying to sneak spurious scary stories about African uranium into their case for war.

PS: This is not a simple point, I admit, but the truth is usually much more complex than most people are comfortable with. It would be nice if everything tied up neatly.

[H2O Man]

93. You are being silly.

Perhaps it's best to be silly when trying to promote the misinformation you are clinging to. Thanks, though.

[BurtWorm]

99. Good point.

:eyes:

You are being thick, but we're all entitled to be thick sometime.

I wonder why you think it's soooo very necessary that the 16 Words refer to Joe Wilson. If you were to suddenly realize that the words "British Intelligence" might actually suggest a different reading of those words, would you suddenly lose faith in the fact that the Bushists lied to get us into Iraq? Do you need Joe Wilson to believe the Bushists are liars? Explain that to me. Because the evidence is overwhelming that the Bushists and the Blairites lied and lied and lied and would have done with or without Joe Wilson.

[Me.]

95. Oh For Heavens Sake

<<<snip>>>

“Yellowcake and Niger

The allegations at the center of the dispute stem from documents purportedly showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium oxide, also known as yellowcake, from Niger as part of its drive to build nuclear weapons. Intelligence officials now concede those documents were forgeries.

The inclusion of the charge in Bush's State of the Union address has set off a political firestorm in Washington. Some Democrats who were opposed to the war in Iraq accused the president of deliberately misleading the American people to build support for military action.” Cont…

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/sprj.irq.wmdspeech/

The google page:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=source+of+bush%27s+%2216+words%22+%2B+Niger&btnG=Search

[H2O Man]

96. Yes but ....

you continue to ignore the fact that Wilson drank mint tea. And you can't find a single Gannon article that confirms he didn't. You're wrong.

[BurtWorm]

102. Incidentally, Dennis Hans totally demolishes the British intelligence

that actually was cited in the State of the Union.

http://counterpunch.org/hans07242004.html

So don't worry, H20 Man. Even if Wilson's "small role" didn't include influencing the 16 Words controversy (until after the war was "over"), it's still safe to believe the 16 words were a lie. You really don't need Joe Wilson to believe that. It's okay to go with the rational reading. You don't need the myth. ;)

[BurtWorm]

100. So?

You want me to take CNN's word for it?

What were the 16 words, Me.?

PS: You can find them here:

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

[Me.]

105. And....

What's your point? The Brits and the US cooked the books and used each other for confirmation. It's like relying on liars to attest to the credibility of a liar. JW was sent to Niger, not the Congo, it was the Niger forgeries not the Congolese forgeries. Further at this point wanting and doing are still two separate matters. Saddam H may have wanted to get his hands on yellowcake once upon a time, just as **sh wanted to invade Iraq even before he got into office. The difference being SH didn't buy yellowcake from Niger, nor had wmds. **sh did get what he wanted.

[BurtWorm]

107. You and H20 Man are not addressing my points.

What did Bush mean by "British intelligence?" How do you get a reference to Wilson, who is an American, from the phrase "British intelligence?" Please answer that. Thank you.

[H2O Man]

108. That's simple ...

But, of course, you already know the answer: the VP's office focus on the Niger documents -- which the US got from Britain -- was because even after two US investigations which were pre-Wilson, British intelligence insisted the Iraqi attempt to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger was real. That's what Bush meant by British intelligence.

[BurtWorm]

109. Why did the Butler report say Britain was unaware of those docs

until early 2003? Please answer that. Where did you get the information that those documents were from British intelligence?

[BurtWorm]

112. Not so simple, I guess.

;)

[H2O Man]

114. Sure it is.

I assume you are simply trying to argue for some reason that is of no interest to me. But, if you want to believe your little butler's report, please do. I'm more impressed by the fact that, despite the IAEA's attempts to get the British copies of the Niger forgeries, the British refused to share them. And that was well before the IAEA's public statement (3-7-03) that the American copies of these British documents were crude forgeries.

The issue in conversing with you is not one of if I can "prove" anything to you. I've had e-mails from more than a dozen people asking why you are so intent on trying to discredit Wilson and inserting misinformation in the discussion. Obviously, I do not know you, and could only speculate. But that is what it appears to me that you are stubbornly attempting to do: discredit Wilson, and insert misinformation into the discussion here. At first, I thought you were joking; now, it appears that you believe the things you are saying. That's fine. Your point, that people like John Dean are horribly mistaken, that Wilson is everything Karl Rove says, and that people should trust Tony Blair, is something that I don't expect will be accepted by many here. But thanks for sticking with it.

[BurtWorm]

116. I don't care how it appears to you or your fans.

It seems to be your problem that you can't deal with simple questions without appealing to an expert like John Dean or Chris Matthews who are not experts in this case but by-standers, just like you or me; or to the popularity of an opinion among your PM club; or to red herrings or straw men or nonsequiturs or ad hominems; in short to any fallacy that will keep you from addressing the plain questions I'm putting to you about an anomaly in The Story.

Who had the idea you could debate the neocons? You can't even dialogue with someone who essentially agrees with you! :eyes:

[H2O Man]

118. My goodness.

Now you are being cranky. Perhaps it's from the frustration you feel in not being recognized as the expert you are. Losers like Dean and Matthews -- mere by-standers -- get all the attention that you so rightly deserve.

We are, of course, not in a place where we can "debate" or "diologue" freely. But, even in the context of our polite discussion, I think that the only point you have made is that you are driven to cling to some odd goals -- all of which are based on your need to discredit Wilson. Hence, we "essentially agree" on nothing.

It's interesting that you ask for sources, and then find it necessary to resort to tactics such as "...you can't deal with simple questions without appealing to an expert..." I see no shame in quoting John Dean. I think that most people would consider him to have far greater insight into the workings of White House scandals than you. You are free to believe that you know more than Dean. Good luck.

[BurtWorm]

120. I have no need to discredit Wilson. I have a need for plain truth.

Your citations of Dean or even Wilson don't even begin to deal with the questions I've put to you.

Why does the Butler report say the Brits didn't see the document you claim the 16 words are about until "early 2003" i.e., until around the time you claim they were being cited for that document in the State of the Union address?

Dismissing the "little" Butler report with a little epithet is not a serious addressing of the question. If you can't answer the question, it's really your loss. You've got a giant hole in your story and it won't go away, no matter what your roster of politically acceptable pundits have to say about it. Maybe you should consult them again to see if they answer the question, because you don't seem capable of even thinking about it for yourself.

There's a phrase that comes to mind when people don't deal with holes in their stories. It's called "fixing the facts around the policy."

[H2O Man]

122. Exactly.

They are fixing the facts around their policy. I've answered it several times. The IAEA attempted to get the British copies of the "yellow cake dcuments" pre-2003. The British intelligence refused to turn them over. You can insist that I'm not meeting your needs by pointing that out. Your problem, not mine. Rational people will see your insisting the British didn't have those documents versus the fact that the IAEA, which under the UN's policies is entitled to them, was refused them by the British intelligence agencies long before you insist the British had them. You can't expect to be taken seriously.

[BurtWorm]

123. Just tell me where you got that information.

Please.

Incidentally, there is no reason why, if I'm right about the 16 words, that should be taken to discredit Wilson. It doesn't contradict his basic point, which was that the Bush administration lied, hyped, sexed up--however you want to say it--the phony evidence to build a phony case for their war. That is the real bottom line here. And it sure as hell doesn't justify the Bushist's retaliation against him.

It just makes the pretty little story a little less pretty. It makes it not just about Ambassador Wilson vs the Bushists, but about the hole stinking mess.

[BurtWorm]

124. Wikipedia on the origin of the document

The documents were given to US intelligence, not British. There's no mention of Britain not giving over evidence to IAEA.

So it's your word against Wikipedia, the Butler report, the SIR, etc. Who to believe....? :shrug:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery


Soon thereafter, the documents became generally accepted by the press as falsified. In July 2003, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan stated, "he truth now, we know, is that a forgery was put together to get this country into a war with Iraq, that forgery found its way into our intelligence agencies, it found its way into the State of the Union, and the president of the United States should show more indignation and outrage that this was done." Buchanan added, "Somebody in our own government knew very well that was a forgery, and they advanced it on up the line." <2>

By late 2003, the trail of the documents had been partially uncovered. They were obtained by a "security consultant" (and former agent of the precursor agency to SISMI, the SID), Rocco Martino, from Italian military intelligence (SISMI). An article in The Times (London) quoted Martino as having received the documents from a woman on the staff of the Niger embassy, after a meeting was arranged by a serving SISMI agent. ("Tracked down," by Nicholas Rufford and Nick Fielding, Sunday Times (London), Aug. 1, 2004.) Martino later recanted and said he had been misquoted, and that SISMI had not facilitated the meeting where he obtained the documents.

Martino, in turn, offered them to Italian journalist Elizabetta Burba. On instructions from her editor at Panorama, Burba offered them to the U.S. Embassy in Rome in October, 2002. <3>

It is as yet unknown how Italian intelligence came by the documents and why they were not given directly to the U.S. In 2005, Vincent Cannistaro, the former head of counterterrorism operations at the CIA and the intelligence director at the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan, expressed the opinion that the documents had been produced in the United States and funneled through the Italians:

The documents were fabricated by supporters of the policy in the United States. The policy being that you had to invade Iraq in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein . . . . <4>

In an interview published April 7, 2005, Cannistaro was asked by Ian Masters what he would say if it was asserted that the source of the forgery was former National Security Council and State Department consultant Michael Ledeen. (Ledeen had also allegedly been a liaison between the American Intelligence Community and SISMI two decades earlier.) Cannistraro answered by saying: "you'd be very close." <5>

In March 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice-chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, agreed not to open a Congressional investigation of the matter, but rather asked the FBI to conduct the investigation. As of September 2004, the FBI had not yet interviewed Martino, claiming they were awaiting permission from the Italian government to do so. <6> However, Martino is known to have been in New York in August 2004. <7>

On July 14, 2004 the British Government released a report called "A Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction" commonly referred to as the Butler Report. The report calls President Bush's statement regarding Niger "well founded." The Butler Review made the following conclusions on page 139:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in
1999.
b. The British Government had intelligence from several different
sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring
uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of
Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as
opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government
did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British
Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact
of the forgery does not undermine it.
In September 2004, the CBS News program 60 Minutes decided to delay a major story on the forgeries because such a broadcast might influence the 2004 U.S. presidential election. A CBS spokesman stated, "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election." <8>

[H2O Man]

125. Wilson, page 340.

I know you don't like Wilson. I do.

[BurtWorm]

126. I like Wilson.

But liking has nothing to do with anything.

I don't believe Wilson could have gotten a simple fact like the origin of the documents wrong. Double check that, will you? It seems clear the US got them from the Italian journalist.

[Me.]

128. Fans?

Hmmm, well okay if that is your definition of people who agree with each other's point of view or thoughts on a particular matter. This isn't the first time in the last couple of weeks that you've questioned Wilson's credibility which leads me to ask, who are you a fan of?

[BurtWorm]

132. I think Wilson is wrong if he, like you, thinks the 16 words are about him

I don't think that makes him a bad person. In fact I am certain he was wronged by truly bad people in the Bush administration.

I'll tell you what I'm not a big fan of. There are certain people here at DU who cannot abide any disagreement about even the most trivial things, and who take any disagreement as a sign of apostasy. People who think like that you can find anywhere on the political spectrum. They're called group thinkers. We're in Iraq because of group thinkers on the right. I'm in this quagmire because of you group thinkers on the "left."

[H2O Man]

135. You're not in any

"quagmire." You think one way. Others think differently.

More than a year ago, on what may have been the first Plame Thread, I suggested that people would do well to consider "why?" even more than "how?" On this series of points, you have said things that appear to show a distain for Wilson (though I note you say you like him); you say some disrespectful things about people who agree with me, as if they are limited to "group think" or "fan club" if they read your posts and mine, and agree with me; and you mock my ability to debate, even to the point you hink you score a debating point if I take an hour to watch my young children and their friends swimming on a 89 degree afternoon (gosh, I'm afraid to admit I made the evening meal for my wife -- had to be a way to avoid your questions!).

So, people may be looking not only at what you say, but why you say it as well. I don't think that's a quagmire. If they agreed with you, I doubt that you would call it a quagmire, either. It's a difference of opinion, and a difference in values.

Who knows? Maybe we'll all get some real surprises in October. Time will tell. But having disagreements, even when we have very different values, need not be a problem.

[BurtWorm]

147. We're still having this discussion

because instead of dealing with my points you asked if I was joking, suggested I toss them in the waste basket and made a nonsequitur about Malcolm and his response to "lawyers." And the bottom line is that I've shown you through several documents why I believe what I believe, and you haven't reciprocated.

[CAcyclist]

190. No You Haven't

No links, no quotes that can be double-checked for your conclusions. You truly are not worth debating.

[BurtWorm]

191. Your loyalty to one another is admirable.

To be fair, though, I did provide links and quotes. A few examples:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4128617&mesg_id=4129474

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4128617&mesg_id=4131310

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4128617&mesg_id=4131310

[Me.]

139. You & I Are Going To Have To Agree To Disagree

We totally disagree on Wilson, and the 16 words. As for being on the left, you got me! As to group think, I was spouting off on the Plame matter when everyone was saying it would never come to anything or see the light of day. As far as I'm concerned the denizens in the WH are quite capable of providing their own false justifications and don't need to rely on the British or anyone else to create their scandals, which is why the Plame matter is an issue in the first place.

[BurtWorm]

148. I've been spouting on the Plame matter on DU since at least Oct. 3

2003.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/10/03_first.html

It doesn't make me a better person than you, but just so you don't think you were all alone in the world ruminating about the Plame matter. ;)

[H2O Man]

149. Speaking of the Congo .....

many older DUers will remember when UN troops were sent in to supposedly help resolve the tensions and violence in that land. An interesting character in African history was the leader of the Congo. His name was Patrice Lumumba. In March of 1959, at an international seminar held at the Ibaden University in Nigeria, he stated, "Our only objective is to rid Africa of colonialism and imperialism. We have suffered long enough; today, we want to breathe the air of liberty. This portion of the earth -- the African continent -- belongs to us and we are, in fact, its only masters."( La Pensee Politique de Patrice Lumumba; edited by Jean Van Lierde; France; 1963; page 26.)

As we know, the British assisted the Americans in creating an increase in tensions that led to Lumumba's death. The US and British intelligence then attempted to make Moise Tshombe their puppet leader, and to make him acceptable to the world.

Malcolm X often used this historic example to show people how the government and their mouthpieces tried to make people mistrust those who should be their friends, and trust those who were actually their enemy. So I do think that we can look at the Congo, and find an example to illustrate what is happening with the organized effort to discredit Ambassador Wilson. Just as it was necessary to destroy Lumumba to justify the imperial policies in the Congo, it is today necessary to discredit Wilson in order to cover up what the Downing Street Memo describes as fixing the intelligence around WMD.

[BurtWorm]

156. Nonsequitur.

Creative detour, but fallacious, nonetheless if you were trying to add substance to your argument.

[H2O Man]

159. Thanks.

Glad you think so.

[BurtWorm]

169. I have been operating under the mistaken impression

that the Burba document was the one Wilson was sent to Niger to look into. As Wilson went in February 2002 and Burba didn't give her document to the US Embassy until eight months later in Oct. 2002, of course Wilson was not looking into the veracity of that document, but of some other one that he never saw that "first came to the attention of the US Intelligence Community on Oct. 21, 2001," according to the SIR.

In Wilson's July 6, 2003 Times piece, he wrote this:

"(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)"

The only memorandum I know of that was found to be forged was the Burba document. I'm not sure if the Burba doc was prepared to stand in for the phony piece of info that sparked the inquiry by the CIA, or if it was a piece of phoniness entirely unto itself.

H20 Man, if you had this information yesterday that I gathered myself today with zero assistance from you, is there some reason why you withheld it? Is there some reason why it was more appropriate to ask if I was joking than to explain that the reason you disagreed with me was that there was no document in Feb. 2002?

I have to conclude that you didn't share it because you didn't know it. There's no shame in that. It just would have made it soooo much easier if you had known it and could have said simply, "There was no document that sent Wilson to Niger. The document was made up later."

[H2O Man]

172. Sure.

If you're wrong, clearly I must be even more mistaken. No other possibility exists.

From Wilson, page 14: "A report purporting to be a memorandum of sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq had roused the interest of Vice President Dick Cheney. His office, I was told, had tasked the CIA to determine if there was any truth to the report. .... The report, AS IT WAS DESCRIBED TO ME (my emphasis), was not very detailed. .... It would have been of keen interest to me to know who might have signed the contract on behalf of the Niger government, but no information was provided on this either."

Obviously, I had no idea. Ha!!!

[BurtWorm]

174. Why didn't you say this yesterday?

Why didn't you just spit it out? That would have been the end of it.

[H2O Man]

176. Why would I want to end it? n/t

[DemonFighterLives]

140. Burt, I can't believe you

Generally your arguments make sense, but here you are going over the line.
This Group Thinker thinks that the 16 words are just that. They are words that were placed in the SOTU to sell the Neocon agenda. "British Intelligence" in this instance is just a way to brush a little of the crap on Britain.
The entire speech was crap and therefore getting stuck on those 2 words is like debating the meaning of the word "IS".
As has been said here, if the Congo was so important, the noise machine would be Congo, Congo, congo 24/7.

[BurtWorm]

142. I am not arguing that they were not put there to mislead

the nation into war. Let me say that again so that I'm not mistaken (I've already said basically the same many times before): I am NOT arguing that the 16 words were not intended to mislead the nation into war. Shall I say it one more time, or does everyone who's following this follow me so far?

The disagreement is precisely this: H20 Man claims that the 16 words refer to the bogus Niger documents that led to Wilson's being sent to check them out. Let me repeat this again so it's not misunderstood: There is no question that the documents that had Wilson sent to Niger were clearly found to be bogus.

However: the 16 words seem to be referring to something else entirely. This is the very heart of the disagreement. I have explained a thousand times why they seem to be about something else. Do you want me to explain again?

[DemonFighterLives]

155. Maybe you could explain better

You seem to be going around in circles. Where is all the proof that the words were related to something else. I'm not talking about the Butler repore either which seems to be a favorite of the righties and doesn't seem to hold up.
Now, I will tell you in advance that I don't know everything, but this sure seems like a lot of energy being wasted over the B*sh Regime's war lies. No point to dissect dubby's blather.
:shrug:

[BurtWorm]

127. Here is an example of your making me into a straw man.

"Your point, that people like John Dean are horribly mistaken, that Wilson is everything Karl Rove says, and that people should trust Tony Blair, is something that I don't expect will be accepted by many here."

My point is that John Dean may be mistaken if he thinks the 16 Words were about the forged documents. How is that "horribly mistaken?" Please explain that.

As for the rest of that dreck you pretend to be attributing to me, you'll have to duke those points out with your strawman. Good luck. :eyes:

[coeur_de_lion]

168. Burtworm, I have a question

I am a fairly frequent poster on the Plame threads but I've been busy a few days -- then I come back and see a heated discussion between you and H2O.

So since H2O is a good friend of mine, and I have a deep interest in this Plame issue, I hope you don't mind my asking you some questions.

What is the purpose of your discussion here? What outcome did you want to see? Were you wanting to change H2O's mind, are you mad at him for some unknown reason, do you simply enjoy a good argument? Do you feel so deeply about those 16 words that you must engage in debate over them for a couple days?

I hope you don't mind my asking. I've seen your posts elsewhere on the board and always enjoyed reading your point of view. But I have to admit your seeming antagonism toward H2O in particular has left me a little puzzled. I thought it might help if you just said what you want.

:hi:

[BurtWorm]

173. We had a disagreement over the source of the 16 Words.

He seemed to think it was a document Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate. I was hung up on the phrase "British Intelligence" in the 16 words, which would mean it had nothing to do with whatever document Wilson was sent to investigate.

Today, while researching my questions on my own, I discovered an error I've made that has thrown me off for two years. I always assumed the Burba document, the one given to the Italian reporter that the IAEA later famously quickly ruled an amateurish forgery, was the document that sent Wilson and others to Niger to look into. But it couldn't have been that document, of course, because the US Embassy didn't receive that one until October 2002, eight months after Wilson went to Niger. I may be slow, but it finally sunk in that the Wilson document probably never actually existed.

If H20 Man had said to me yesterday, "There was no document that Wilson was sent to investigate; it didn't exist until just before it was given to the Italian reporter," this would never have gone on as long as it did. Why didn't H20 Man say this to me? I don't know. I hope it's because he didn't know that. I hope it isn't because he knew it and somehow thought that asking if I was joking or quoting Malcolm X's biography was an intelligent way of imparting it, or, worse, felt he had some proprietary claim to it.

[coeur_de_lion]

203. Now see here Young Man

I'm assuming I am older than you are. I have known H2O for over a year, and I don't find him at all difficult. What I do find is that you've got this bug somewhere that causes you to want to argue over the finer points of this issue, and that is what I don't understand.

From my perspective it seems like you decided to challenge a nice guy who knows a heckuva lot about this issue for some reason. It is this reason that I would like to know. I don't doubt that you are knowledgeable on the subject or that you are interested in it. But I think the document in question is probably irrelevant when you consider the amount of time that you spent arguing over it. There is a deeper issue here.

The way I see it we all care deeply about what is going on in this country, and the minute details are not important compared to that.

It is curious to me that you seem so angry with H2O. Even though you've seen a flaw in your own argument, instead of being annoyed with yourself you are angry with H2O. Why is that? I think it's more important to figure out what is bothering you than to figure out what document was referred to in the 16 words, or to figure out what Joe Wilson meant when he referred to the 16 words. The 16 words were said, they've been dissected to death on this and many other Plame threads. The 16 words were said by other people. H2O didn't say them and neither did you.

My question still remains. What did you hope to accomplish with your conversation? Are you angry with Mr. Waterman for some reason? What outcome were you looking for? It doesn't seem to me as if you got what you are looking for -- whatever that is.

What is bothering Burtworm? I am honestly a little worried about you. I'm not being facetious.

[CAcyclist]

187. Not True

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Niger_uranium

Claims Used Anyway
Despite the determination by its own intelligence analysts, two months earlier, that the documents were fake, on Dec. 19, 2002, the State Department issued a fact sheet entitled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council" which listed Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Niger as evidence that Iraq was misleading the Security Council.

[BurtWorm]

188. Where were you yesterday?

Thanks for being a mensch. This is how people are supposed to dialogue in these fora. If you have information, you share it.

Again, thank you.

[BurtWorm]

175. Your first chance to spit it out.

Blown. Right here you could have said "There was no actual document until October 2002." Why didn't you say it here? Beats me.

[CAcyclist]

166. This Is Nuts

Do a google search - the story is about Niger, not any other country.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml

[H2O Man]

167. It's complete nonsense.

If you read Ray McGovern's article on "TomPaine" today, he makes it very clear it is entirely about Niger. Of course, some people would say we should not believe sources like McGovern and Dean, and instead trust the British intelligence used by Tony Blair.

[BurtWorm]

177. Who said we should not believe McGovern and Dean?

Who said we should trust British intelligence?

If you think I said either, show me where.

[H2O Man]

178. I feel no need

to "prove" anything to you. People can read this thread and decide for themselves. I certainly respect your right to your opinion, just as I do everyone else having that same right. My goal isn't to be the external source of anyone's decision-making or opinion-forming.

[BurtWorm]

180. You do feel a need

to grandstand, though, don't you. ;)

I assume you blog for a reason other than to bloviate. You seem to believe in sharing information, explaining your thought processes, making connections for an audience. Whether or not your goal is to be an external source, such is the nature of communication, isn't it?

Yesterday I asked you to be a mensch and let me in on what you knew. Maybe you don't know what a mensch is?

[ewagner]

30. Thank you

for another very thoughtful post...

it's bookmarked.

[im10ashus]

31. Per usual, another amazing Memo from H2O Man!

If only those who speak on "behalf" of Democrats in public had half of your acumen, savvy and forthrightness that is so lacking in our MSM. There is so much that is NOT being said because the MSM is so busy chasing their tails in a circle over Rovegate and they are being played as fools by the right-wing spin masters. How is it that this administration can get away with such well documented lies to promote their own agenda? I just don't get it. We are living in a very peculiar time - and I am not sure that is such a good thing. Thanks, H2O Man! :yourock: is the only comment I can currently muster.

[H2O Man]

33. Thank you.

I think that time is better spent looking for the truth on the internet than in the halls of congress or in the corporate media. I appreciate your kind words.

[im10ashus]

37. My kind words are the least I can offer.

The White House has completely obfuscated their "justifications" for going into Iraq, and they have done so on a daily basis, depending on the talking point du jour. How in the world the public and congress has continued to support such criminal activity goes beyond the pale. Keep up the good work, H2O Man! I get some great talking points from you. :-)

[proud patriot]

35. Concise

:thumbsup:

[Tommymac]

44. Well Done!!!!

Thanks! Bookmarked and saved.

[Melodybe]

47. Bravo! Big Kick!

[hootinholler]

50. Pretty good crack at parts of the what and how...

Now can you fill in some gaps for me in the why?

-Hoot

[GoneOffShore]

51. Excellent precis

Have to keep this kicked.

[BeHereNow]

54. This is "da'bomb!" H20 man! (no pun intended)

When I think back on the various dates
that various rats jumped the rotting ship,
it all coincides.
-George Tenet
-Ari Flie-shitter
-Richard Perle
-Herr AssKKKroft
-Colin Powerless

Just to name a few,
who knew.

BHN

[H2O Man]

55. I like puns .....

I think that some of the rats jumped ship for good reasons. But that doesn't mean they can swim against the strong currents of history.

[im10ashus]

58. What ever happened to Hans Blix?

Wasn't he one of the first to publicly dispute the WMD lies? I haven't heard mention of him in quite a while, so I hope I am not getting to far off point here.

[H2O Man]

63. My feeling was

that the administration's rush to war has to be viewed in the context of the UN inspections: after Rumsfeld and Cheney said that we knew where the WMDs were, but the UN was not finding any, the president said we didn't have time for wild goose chases. The invasion had to be started before the UN inspection showed the Bush claims to be false.

[im10ashus]

66. Wilde goose chase indeed.

To quote Ian McEwan: "It's only children, in fact, only infants who feel a wish and its fulfillment as one; perhaps this is what gives tyrants their childish air. They reach back for what they can't have. When they meet frustration, the man-slaying tantrum is never far away." Rummy, Cheney et al. were so eager to have their "justification" they wished for the WMD's to be there.

[kohodog]

69. And they still are saying that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in.

They are so caught up in their twisted reality that they believe in their fictionalized version. Thankfull they have not been able to create that new reality for everyone.

Every day they seem to be trying, which is why an article like this needs to go mainstream.

[im10ashus]

89. We owe it to ourselves to continue focusing on the lies.

Rovegate is a nice distraction for them, considering the REAL lies that have been told, and we need to continue pointing that out in our LTTE's.

[H2O Man]

90. That is right.

The more we focus on the truth, the more reactive and obnoxious they become. The public can see who is rational, and who is attempting to pull the wool over their eyes.

[im10ashus]

101. That's what I keep telling myself, H2O Man!

I hope it's working because this is one tired fight. Trying to get the truth out in the open should never be this difficult. Look at all the businesses that have made millions off this war already and you can see the money trail that led us to our "war on terror." And still no Osama. He, just like so many of the other players from our build-up to Iraq, have faded into the web of lies they have woven.

[H2O Man]

110. I've spoken at times

about the legal case of my friend Rubin Carter. It took twenty years. I was involved in the defense for twelve of those years. Also, I have spoken of an EPA/SuperFund Site case (Richardson Hill/Sidney Landfill) which I worked on for twenty years before any positive results occured.

I remember some friends asking Onondaga Chief Oren Lyons about when we could expect "results" in some of the projects we were working on. We were kids at the time. He said he figured our grandchildren might see some results, but that he would not expect any in our life-times.

Our society moves at a pace where that response could discourage a person. But it shouldn't. It should be encouraging. It means that all of our efforts are a part of something much bigger. This is our turn. The Plame scandal is going to be known as a Watergate and Iran-Contra type scandal. But it is different in that it involves a more significant degree of grass-roots citizen participation. And that is exactly what democracy is all about. It's part of what Oren's grandfather's grandfathers taught men like Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin about establishing a democracy here on this land.

[im10ashus]

115. I've read somewhere that this will be a LONG time to resolve.

That more than likely 9/11 set off a chain of events that were a long time in the making that the far right would latch onto. As a result, this would become a 100 year war on "terror" and that several generations would be fighting this war, and we will never see the end in our lifetime. That can discourage those of us whose resolve is limited. I vow to fight the good fight to at least see some of the truths come to light.

[melissinha]

71. I would really give for his commentary

I mean Wilson yellow cake report was just a corroboration of UN Weapon's Inspector's previously drawn conclusion. Furthermore as you point out, he said Saddam let them in, and there was nothing and there still is nothing.

Han Blix was right all along.. there was CORRECT information at the time that Bush got his supposed faulty intelligence (doctored if you ask me) So it really doesn't make Wilson's information that damning, btu the fact that WIlson went public pissed the HELL out of them!

[thinkingwoman]

82. I have run out of adjectives

I'll settle for wowie.

And thanks.

[H2O Man]

87. Thank you! n/t

[B Calm]

94. kick

[H2O Man]

97. Important Quote (Double Top Secret)

This comes from page x of the preface of John Dean's book, "Worse Than Watergate."

"...For one such column, in which I discussed the potential impeachment if the Bush administration had intentionally manipulated government intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, an editor at Salon, which reprinted the column, used the title 'Worse Than Watergate'-- drawing his own conclusion from the material. (July 11, 2003) Three months later, Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball described the Bush administration's revengeful act of leaking the name and CIA identity of the wife of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, as 'worse than Watergate' (for the leak was potentially life-threatening, given her undercover status, as well as against the law). Matthews made this comment in an exchange with the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ed Gillespie, who to my surprise did not disagree.(Sept. 30, 2003)"

I like discussions that include thoughts on impeachment.

[im10ashus]

103. And THAT my friend is the truth.

Worse than Watergate! More was at stake here than their political careers. Lives were at stake, and given their own response to the right for life, it's disingenuous to a criminal degree.

[Octafish]

104. BushCo told the MEDIA it would be 'expensive' to report the TRUTH?

The Truth about war.

The Lie Factory

News: This special Mother Jones investigation late last year detailed how, only weeks after 9/11, the Bush administration set up a secret Pentagon unit to create the case for invading Iraq.

Here is the inside story of how they pushed disinformation and bogus intelligence and led the nation to war.

By Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest
January/February 2004 Issue

It's a crisp fall day in western Virginia, a hundred miles from Washington, D.C., and a breeze is rustling the red and gold leaves of the Shenandoah hills. On the weather-beaten wood porch of a ramshackle 90-year-old farmhouse, at the end of a winding dirt-and-gravel road, Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski is perched on a plastic chair, wearing shorts, a purple sweatshirt, and muddy sneakers. Two scrawny dogs and a lone cat are on the prowl, and the air is filled with swarms of ladybugs.

So far, she says, no investigators have come knocking. Not from the Central Intelligence Agency, which conducted an internal inquiry into intelligence on Iraq, not from the congressional intelligence committees, not from the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. All of those bodies are ostensibly looking into the Bush administration's prewar Iraq intelligence, amid charges that the White House and the Pentagon exaggerated, distorted, or just plain lied about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda terrorists and its possession of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. In her hands, Kwiatkowski holds several pieces of the puzzle. Yet she, along with a score of other career officers recently retired or shuffled off to other jobs, has not been approached by anyone.

SNIP...

The reports, virtually all false, of Iraqi weapons and terrorism ties emanated from an apparatus that began to gestate almost as soon as the Bush administration took power. In the very first meeting of the Bush national-security team, one day after President Bush took the oath of office in January 2001, the issue of invading Iraq was raised, according to one of the participants in the meeting‚ -- and officials all the way down the line started to get the message, long before 9/11. Indeed, the Bush team at the Pentagon hadn't even been formally installed before Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense, and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy, began putting together what would become the vanguard for regime change in Iraq.

Both Wolfowitz and Feith have deep roots in the neoconservative movement. One of the most influential Washington neo- conservatives in the foreign-policy establishment during the Republicans' wilderness years of the 1990s, Wolfowitz has long held that not taking Baghdad in 1991 was a grievous mistake. He and others now prominent in the administration said so repeatedly over the past decade in a slew of letters and policy papers from neoconservative groups like the Project for the New American Century and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Feith, a former aide to Richard Perle at the Pentagon in the 1980s and an activist in far-right Zionist circles, held the view that there was no difference between U.S. and Israeli security policy and that the best way to secure both countries' future was to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem not by serving as a broker, but with the United States as a force for "regime change" in the region.

Called in to help organize the Iraq war-planning team was a longtime Pentagon official, Harold Rhode, a specialist on Islam who speaks Hebrew, Arabic, Turkish, and Farsi. Though Feith would not be officially confirmed until July 2001, career military and civilian officials in NESA began to watch his office with concern after Rhode set up shop in Feith's office in early January. Rhode, seen by many veteran staffers as an ideological gadfly, was officially assigned to the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, an in-house Pentagon think tank headed by fellow neocon Andrew Marshall. Rhode helped Feith lay down the law about the department's new anti-Iraq, and broadly anti-Arab, orientation. In one telling incident, Rhode accosted and harangued a visiting senior Arab diplomat, telling him that there would be no "bartering in the bazaar anymore. You're going to have to sit up and pay attention when we say so."

Rhode refused to be interviewed for this story, saying cryptically, "Those who speak, pay."

CONTINUED...

Thank you for an outstanding post, H20 Man. Top shelf.

[H2O Man]

111. Thank you!

Hey, have you read Woodward's new book? I normally do not read "historical fiction," but my wife bought it for me, and I have to say it was hard to put down. He speaks of Tom Charles Huston, who Felt considered a Nazi.

[Octafish]

121. Wow. No. For the Nixon WH, that's some praise from Felt.

Nixon's sub-stooges liked to speak in German and watch films of the NAZI rallies, according to G Gordon Nazi.

Just part of a disturbing pattern:

Is Bush Really Good for Israel?

By Edward Olshaker

EXCERPT

This administration's indifference to Israeli security (especially during non-election years) and other concerns of Jewish voters is nothing new, but rather the continuation of a pattern. Although it is not a pleasant thing to acknowledge, the reality is that every elected Republican president since the 1960s has ended up showing contempt for Jewish citizens in some vividly repugnant way. Understandably, most continue to feel more comfortable on the Democratic side because of painful memories of:

* Richard Nixon's rants about "Jewboys" and a "Jewish cabal" on tapes released years ago, and his declaration on a 1972 White House tape released in 2002: "The Jews are an irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards...The lawyers in government are damn Jews." That same day, the Reverend Billy Graham told Nixon that if he could win re-election, "Then we might be about to do something" about the Jews, or else "the country's going down the drain." (Ironically, Nixon significantly increased his percentage of the Jewish vote in his landslide victory that same year, having wisely followed his own advice to Graham: "Never let them know.") Not surprisingly, Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy felt free to name his secret Nixon White House unit "Odessa" in honor of the organization that helped Hitler's war criminals escape justice (or, as he strangely called it, "a World War II German veterans organization belonged to by some acquaintances of mine"), and boasted of having the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will shown in the White House.

* Ronald Reagan's declaration that Nazi SS murderers he insisted on paying homage to at Bitburg cemetery were "victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." Jewish voters--and a lot of non-Jews--felt that Reagan picked an odd and highly revealing occasion to turn into a bleeding heart.

* George H.W. Bush's September 1991 appeal to the American people to rally behind him to do battle with the pro-Israel lobby ("…a thousand lobbyists on the Hill…We've got one lonely little guy…I know the American people will be with me"), as though Israel were something other than an ally. The senior Bush claimed to be shocked at the flood of anti-Semitic mail that poured into the White House following that specially called press conference. His secretary of state, James Baker, was more blunt, declaring in one meeting, "F--- the Jews. They won't vote for us anyway."

CONTINUED...

http://hnn.us/articles/8198.html

Yours is a mighty post, H20 Man.

New DUers! This is how the Truth spreads.



Possible future home of the BFEE.

[AuntiBush]

106. Question for H2O Man: Will our Nation be Saved from the Neo-Cons?

Or has the America we knew pre-2000 be gone forever more, sir?

[H2O Man]

113. My opinion:

The United States had a premonition of the human potential in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At some point, we are going to recognize that the people who make up the administration (and most of the congress) are just the kids we couldn't stand, now grown up.

We will come to our senses as a nation. We will "wake up." (And I mean "wake up" in the most literal sense.)

My boys are draft age. If Hitler told them to kill a Jewish person, they would not. If Manson told them to butcher a pregnant woman, they would not. If the governor of NY told them to save democracy, they have to invade PA and kill people, they would recognize that that the governor is as morally ill as Hitler or Manson. So why should they -- or anyone else -- consider it their patriotic duty to kill Iraqi people for the benefit of Dick Cheney and Halliburton?

All my life, I have been in awe of the United States' Constitution. I have no less than 8 copies of it in my home right now. I am aware that the neocons consider the Constitution to be history, and that while they publicly feign respect for it, in private they snicker about it, and feel they can use it as a tool to manipulate the public. The time is rapidly approaching when the public will recognize the threat the neocons pose to that Constitution. That will be the alarm clock going off in America. People will wake up to their own humanity, and to the hman worth of others.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

117. I think I know what you mean by the premonition of human potential

I think I am probably around your age and I do remember that "I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke" phase. I am saying that without an ounce of irony or cynicism. There was a brief flickering moment when there was a sense of brotherhood, a fight for civil rights, a rejection of materialism for materialism's sake, the Peace Corps, great music, great books, an intellectual flowering. But, it was brief.

"Freedom" is the word I think most Americans would use to define our country. It is almost built into our genetic code as is a sense of fair play and right and wrong. The uneasy undercurrent out there even in the Red States, is that we sense that our freedoms are being eroded. Our sense of fairness is being violated constantly - the Supreme Court oking seizing land for private interest is but one of the latest examples.

Our leaders do not represent us - and I mean Democrats as well as Republicans. They have lost the sensation of what "representational" government is - not for them to look out for themselves, but for them to look out for ME. The only person that I see consistently looking out for the welfare and general well being of the American people on multiple fronts is John Conyers. Where are the rest of them? Don't they realize that this is an amazing moment in American history where we can actually lose all that has come before?

H2O, I admire your optimism that we will wake up, because right now all the alarms are going off and we are oversleeping.

Fitzgerald is a man that the flow of history has put in a critical position at a critical time. The only thing that can stop the onslaught is what we have left of the rule of law.

[H2O Man]

119. Yes, I remember

that commercial. And it was, in a funny way, supporting the idea of a "culture of life," at a time when the "culture of death" was lurking in the shadows. Your post opens an interesting topic: the influence of art (including music) on people's outlook. Having the Beatles sing "All You Need Is Love" helped people to believe that all things were possible .... and, indeed, they are.

You might enjoy this quote from Oren Lyons, the Onondaga chief: "We must seek out the spiritual people because only that is going to help us survive. We have a great force -- a great brotherhood. This brotherhood involves all living things. And that, of course, includes us all. We are talking about the natural world, the natural force, all the trees, everthing that grows, the water. That is part of our force.

"But when you gather spiritual force in one place, you also gather the negative force. We begin to perceive the enemy now, the power and presence of the negative force.

"There is a great battle coming."

Now, by no strange coincidence, if you read this thread in it's entirety, you see exactly what he was speaking of. We have the good force, and a negative force attempting to undermine that good force.

[PurgedVoter]

144. Ghandi said it best!

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always.

[AuntiBush]

202. I've Awoken. And that's saying alot. If I can, other's will/are as well.

Thanks H2O MAN. Thanks from the bottom of this ole' heart.

[PurgedVoter]

129. A few more points for the memo.

The militant chicken hawk right was also trying to prove that our military could invade multiple countries at once and win fights on multiple fronts. They are being very quiet about their total failure. They did show that they could terrorize by bombing and then mobilize and secure a few locations. they failed utterly when they tried to hold onto what they had stolen militarily.

Behind the PNAC militant mob is the PNAC political mob. They have been more successful. Enough American people have nodded as we committed terrorism, incarcerated human beings and then committed cruel and unusual punishments those same people. People who are only guilty of looking to some neocon stooge like they might do something someday. Not merely innocent until proven guilty. Innocent of even planning a crime. These are people we torture? Neocons are the worst terrorists in existence today. "Shock and Awe" means terrorism.

Behind the PNAC political mob is the PNAC business and money mob. They have been wildly successful. Our county has gone from record surplus to record debt. The hands behind the neocon movement have made more money on this haul than has ever been made on any haul before. We the people of the United States of America have been looted. The same bastards who set this crime up, now have a huge war chest. Remember the movies before 911 when terrorists were always a cover for theft? The theft has been made. Now the news and lawmakers can continue to be bought. The villains don't even have to escape.

Throughout all of this, our very language has been shifted. Now when we think, we are often thinking in terms they have set. Liberal, Special Interest Group, and Activist are all words that have been targeted to change meaning. And if you remove all of these from the picture, the remaining political influence is big money.

Our security, our money, our honor, our dignity, our name, our language, our truth and our bravest and best have all been stolen from us.

[H2O Man]

133. I agree.

You raise some very important points, and they really expose the Rove claim that the republicans are more worthy of the public's trust on military issues as a cruel hoax. I come from an extended "military" family. I've had relatives in every conflict from the Revolutionary War to the current ones. That, of course, does not give me any particular insight into wars per say ... but I think that it puts me with the majority of Americans, who no matter what they think about the reasons for American involvement, always are concerned for the safety and well-being of the soldiers who are put in harm's way.

This war in Iraq is beginning to look a lot like Vietnam. The difference is that, no matter how wrong they actually were -- and no matter how much ignorance, racism, and religious hatred infected their judgement -- the vast majority of those who got the US into Vietnam really believed they were doing the right thing. Last night, I heard that the old General Westmoreland died .... he was a divisive character, and certainly was the target of left-wing distain in the Vietnam era. But, looking back, he was surely doing what he thought was right, even when he was invested in a lie.

I don't think any of these 'chickenhawks' have any of the decency that he had. And they don't have respect for the military he lived for. They betray the troops every day.

[DemonFighterLives]

137. Good Post!

Welcome to DU!
:hi:

[Oilwellian]

130. Here's another point to consider

It would make no sense for Saddam to attempt to buy uranium from Africa when he had a supply of it in his own country. At the same time the so-called "British intelligence" was surfacing, the UN and IAEA had pulled out of Iraq, leaving Saddam's uranium unchecked. From 1998 until our invasion of Iraq, his supply of uranium was there for the taking, hence why would he try and purchase it elsewhere? If the proliferation of uranium was of such concern to this administration, why, after they invaded Iraq, didn't they immediately secure the uranium we KNEW Saddam had?

Good work water man. :thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

136. Thanks for reminding us

of that most important point.

[Just Me]

138. I think that proves their lack of concern with either the WMDs or,...

,...the security of our nation or the nations surrounding the M.E.

They KNEW that Saddam was no danger to the U.S. They KNEW what weapons he had and didn't have. That's why they HAD to misrepresent the real (absence) of danger Saddam actually presented. Meanwhile, they don't even bother to deal with what weapons were in Iraq. Instead, they protect the oil fields.

[Oilwellian]

152. Indeed

The very same weapons and explosives that are now maiming and killing our kids and Iraqis. I can't recall the exact number of the hundreds of tons of plastic explosives left unprotected and hence in the hands of the insurgents and who knows how many other black markets.

The irony is this is the very same type of operation that Valerie Plame monitored. I find it incredible that no one has been held accountable for this major tactical error.

[Nothing Without Hope]

134. Thank you, H20 Man. Again. n/t

[DemonFighterLives]

141. Good Job H2O Man

It has taken me a while to work through this thread, but it all seems worthwhile.

:dem:

Revealing the Neocon agenda is very important.

[H2O Man]

146. It is.

The neocon agenda rears it's ugly head in many manners. They are so practiced at the art of deception that they often confuse people of good will. We should confront them whenever it is to our advantage, rather than every time they try to start a fight with us. Rove is a perfect example, though he is only one.

[PurgedVoter]

143. I just checked out Water's blog site, this man has depth.

definitely check out his blog, he wanders all over the field and still remains focused.
http://h2oman.blogspot.com/

Thanks H20 Man, Ideas are my sustenance and you have just given me several meals.

[H2O Man]

145. Well, thank you.

I need to put a bit more work into that blog.

[Radical Rick]

150. This is my first post..I just HAD to

...add a comment after reading that great thread. I have been visiting here for a few weeks after finding the site on a link, and it is refreshing to find intelligent minds that are as concerned as I am about the horror show currently playing at the White House.

I am appalled at the temerity of the Bushites and the boldness with which they assert their crimes and cover ups are really something else altogether!! But the very sad fact is that most Americans are too fat, lazy and spoiled to care a whit about what the reality is until the electric goes off or the game is postponed. Only crises get the attention of the slumbering masses who get their opinions from O'Reilly or Rush and their ilk and their news from sources that simply repeat the lies of the Bush minions without challenge or comment.

I firmly believe that the evidence shows unequivocally that the Bush gang perpetrated 9-11 and deserve trial and execution for their many high crimes and treacheries. Calling that gang traitors is one of the most favorable labels they deserve . The " new Reichstag fire " in New York was the new Pearl Harbor that the PNAC crowd had to have and got. The Commission was a farce. Aye, don't get me going!!!

I thank so many of you for so much good reading and the chance to learn and participate. I look forward to lively debate!!

[paineinthearse]

151. Radical Rick

Welcome to DU! :hi:

You're not the first to propose that, you may wish to seek out the LIHOP / 9/11 group.

p.s. to H2O Man, WELL DONE!!!!

[Oilwellian]

153. Great first post Radical Rick

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[DemonFighterLives]

154. Welcome to the mix

Good first post too!
:nuke:

[Me.]

200. Hey There RR

Welcome

[Imagevision]

160. As it's been pointed out-Rove isn't the story-the administartion is

It's just a matter of time before they all fall like dominoe's.

[H2O Man]

163. There was a very interesting article

found today at:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050719/cheney_and_plame.php

It is by Ray McGovern, retired CIA analyst. The article, along with the one he did yesterday, are very clear in identifying why the White House went after Wilson and Plame after he exposed the "16 words" as a lie. If anyone was confused by an attempt elsewhere on this thread to distort that fact with nonsense about the Congo, Ray's article is worth reading.

[underpants]

Kicking, bookmarking

Well done.

[underpants]

162. Kicking, bookmarking

Well done.

[King Cozumel]

164. I posted this on my blog...

I made sure to link back to this thread. Great stuff. Everyone should read this.

KCoz

[I_Make_Mistakes]

171. From the tompaine article

"They knew (and Wilson confirmed) that all the uranium mined in Niger is controlled by a French-led international consortium that exercises super-strict control over exports from Niger. It just couldn’t happen."

I didn't get the Freedom Fries etc, French-bashing from this gov't.
I maybe slow, but the Rove attack machine used their tactics against France. Why didn't the French just come out and say, oh forget it.

[Me.]

192. Why Not Indeed?

I haven't really understood, either, why this country's "leaders" insist on treating France like the idiot bastard cousin. From my reading I understand their intelligence help has been invaluable, so why they continue to help us is beyond me. The attitude of the admin and their pug mouthpieces as well as their slams may well have to do with the fact that the French have an ongoing investigation of Cheney and his involvement (while at Halliburton) with the selling of components for wmds to countries like Iran. There as been no news on this lately, but a very determined judge is in charge of the case so we may yet see some joy out of this.

[blackspade]

183. Sweet!

Great article.
Keep them coming!

[H2O Man]

195. Thanks.

I think that now, as the president tries to shift the national focus with his choice for the Supreme Court, it is extremely important that DUers keep this issue in the public's consciousness. I'm honored to play a small role, especially with the team mates here on DU!

[lonestarnot]

189. Fact Fixers and Leaker Tweekers!

[Me.]

196. We Ain't Done Yet

They rushed the SC nominee through to misdirect the eye from Plame. Keep the focus and heat on this subject.

[robertpaulsen]

197. Excellent idea. Here's an interesting perspective from John Dean.

If Rove tries to claim he didn't "knowingly" out Plame, he can still get nailed:

The Jonathan Randel Leak Prosecution Precedent

I am referring to the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel. Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a PhD in history, working in the Atlanta office of the DEA. Randel was convinced that British Lord Michael Ashcroft (a major contributor to Britain's Conservative Party, as well as American conservative causes) was being ignored by DEA, and its investigation of money laundering. (Lord Ashcroft is based in South Florida and the off-shore tax haven of Belize.)

Randel leaked the fact that Lord Ashcroft's name was in the DEA files, and this fact soon surfaced in the London news media. Ashcroft sued, and learned the source of the information was Randel. Using his clout, soon Ashcroft had the US Attorney in pursuit of Randel for his leak.

By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft's name. It was an eighteen count "kitchen sink" indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel. Most relevant for Karl Rove's situation, Court One of Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions.

Randel, faced with a life sentence (actually, 500 years) if convicted on all counts, on the advice of his attorney, pleaded guilty to violating Section 641. On January 9, 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the US Attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush Administration would handle leakers.

The Randel Precedent - If Followed - Bodes Ill for Rove

more...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071505E.shtml

Do you think Dean knows what he's talking about? :)

[H2O Man]

198. I find Dean an interesting study.

When I was young, I learned that people who were "bad" when they were young could change, and become among the best people in society. In Haudenosaunee culture, for example, the first Tadodaho (circa 500 ad) was a brutal, evil man. But he was changed by the Power of the Good Mind. This power allowed him to change from a feared man, known for his cruelty, to a gentle and compassionate leader who advocated peace.

Carl Sagan called the Autobiography of Malcolm X the most important book in American history. He noted that Malcolm went from being a snake who lurked in the gutters, to becoming a spiritual leader who helped to transform others' lives.

When I was young, Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman told me how some people must first be "so bad" so that they can then become "so good."In many ways, I think this is the case with John Dean. While he is not in the same group as the Tadodaho or Malcolm in many areas, he is in many others.

This is why, when his book "Worse Than Watergate" came out, Sean Hannity told him that he felt betrayed. People like Sean would prefer that Dean remained the snake he once was, because Sean finds comfort in the snake pit. Dean shed that skin. He has changed. And, as you note in your understated manner, we can trust him!

[robertpaulsen]

205. HA! I wish I could have seen the look on Hannity's face.

Thank you for your words on the Power of the Good Mind. I think Dean got so close to the darkness that he saw how it was affecting and corrupting his own nature. I've read the transcripts of many of Nixon's tapes, I can definitely see a change in Dean as he sees the evil trap being set. But Worse than Watergate shows an even deeper moral transformation.

Funny you should mention The Autobiography of Malcolm X. I just passed a used book store last week and bought a copy. I loved Spike Lee's movie, so I'll let you know what I think of the book when I'm finished.

[H2O Man]

206. It's a great book.

I've read it at least once a year since 1974.

[Me.]

199. Also

I read somewhere that the espionage charge that condemned Julius & Ethel Rosenberg could be in play here, and that the burden of proof is much lower than the '82 law.

[H2O Man]

201. espionage

I think we will hear that word a lot come October.

[H2O Man]

204. I would like to thank

all of the DUers who read and enjoyed this OP & thread. I have not taken the opportunity to respond to each and every kind comment for two reasons: first, it would have lengthened the thread unnecessarily; and second, for a single reason, I was busy resonding to some surprisingly negative comments about my perception of the case.

I think we have put the nonsense behind us. The Water Man did not lie or err in what was presented to you on the OP.

The important thing is to continue to lobby the press and elected officials regarding this scandal. I am considering a short, ten question poll of some of the elected officials, which could be published here on DU and on blogs, etc.