|
...think that they had to have been up to more than forging documents. Also, the crudeness of the forgeries still bothers me. They seem like bait--to the CIA? To get them to debunk the claim?
Why?
Then there's the SOTU speech allegation. They took so much trouble to get it in that speech (and tried to force Powell to use it, too). Was it just the orchestration of lies (with that nice echo effect from the Brits)? Or yet more bait? (Or both?)
And if these things were bait--to invite a debunking--what was the object of that scheme?
It keeps coming back to, and confirming, the WMD-planting theory of Traitorgate--that Traitorgate was a coverup of their plan to PLANT nukes (or other WMDs, but probably nukes, or nuke materials or components) in Iraq--to be "found" by Miller--a wicked scheme that was foiled--with the outing of Plame and Brewster-Jennings (especially the way they did it--in such haste, putting so many of their own at risk of treason charges), and maybe even the assassination of David Kelly as elements of the coverup (and possibly as punishment for foiling them).
If this theory is correct, then the crudeness of the Niger forgeries, and the insistence that Bush tell a baldfaced, provable lie in his SOTU speech, begin to make sense. The forgeries were meant to draw the CIA out, and the SOTU speech allegation to draw them out further, possibly with the object of getting the CIA to commit to a public position of "no nukes in Iraq," then to discredit them forever--and reap enormous political benefit--when the planted nukes were "found." (Is this why Ghorbanifar was at the Rome meeting? Technical expertise in weapons and illicit weapons movement?)
They were trying to egg the CIA to oppose them publicly--throwing ridiculous forgeries in their faces and ignoring their analysis. But the CIA isn't free to publicly oppose even the most dreadful acts (leading the country to war on manufactured lies), and many of them are not free to do that even after they retire. But, guess what? They discovered they had the next best thing--someone MARRIED to a covert CIA agent (and a WMD expert)!--someone the CIA, in responding to Cheney's request, had asked to undertake the trip to Niger--which had to be done by a knowledgeable diplomat acting on behalf of our gov't because of the nature of the inquiries (--couldn't be done covertly).
I was wondering if Cheney/Rumsfeld knew of the Plame/Wilson marriage way back then, and somehow influenced the CIA's choice. Cheney undoubtedly has boffo secret dossiers of everybody in gov't. But I think it's likely that the CIA was protecting its own, back then, and maybe he couldn't penetrate that experienced and protective bureaucracy--and only found out a bit later, to his evil delight, that he had his hook. They would completely piss off the CIA and Wilson--and then Wilson, who wasn't CIA, would go public with it. And the coup de grace would be Miller's "find" of nukes in Iraq.
Flytrap meet flytrap. Somebody in BJ's extensive network of covert eyes and ears on WMDs throughout the world spotted it, and the illicit weapons were stopped or destroyed. This is where David Kelly comes in--in the WMD-planting theory--the Brits chief WMD expert who had been whistleblowing to the BBC about the "sexed up" WMD intel (5/03). He found out about it (is the theory), and, after he was mysteriously outed to his bosses and interrogated, Blair was informed that Kelly knew (7/7/03); he alerts Bush; thence to the rushed, panicky Plame outing (7/14/03), and after Kelly's death three days after the Plame outing (7/17/03) and his computers are searched, the BJ outing (7/22/03).
Whether this theory is correct or not (or generally correct, with many details yet to be discovered and understood), it sure does give you pause about the many mysteries of Traitorgate--for instance, re the crude, laughable Niger forgeries and their true purpose. And the logic of it leaps out at you--that, OF COURSE, the Bushites would plant WMDs in Iraq, after setting Miller all up to "find" them (special "embed" contract from Rumsfeld), and priming the public! (Were they just sitting around HOPING that Miller and the US troops would find some WMDs in Iraq--WMDs they all knew weren't there, and that they had been lying about for a year? Not likely!)
(Same logic as with the 2004 election. They SET UP the capability to steal it electronically, by Bushite electronic voting corporations gaining control of the vote tabulation with SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code--and they didn't USE it to re-install Junior?!) (I mean, come on...).
----------------------
Anyway, I found the Libby "aspens" letter very disturbing reading. What I parsed in that paragraph was assurances to Miller that the covert "dirty tricks" capabilities that they had tried to use to "get" the CIA and to justify the war, are deeply rooted, and will be used at least against Iran (he mentions Iran nukes as one of the stories she should "come back to work--and life" to cover), if not Syria. And he is talking the fall--will be vacationing in jail, like she did--to protect these capabilities and their goals.*
*(The "goal" seems to me to be a frigging holocaust in the Middle East--one that will engulf us all, and destroy all life on earth, if Carl Sagan was right about the impacts of even a limited nuclear exchange--but I guess we can't rule out that the neocon/Likud cabal is just plane insane, which can happen to people who are drunk with power, and on whom there are NO "checks and balances.")
It looks to me as if Fitzgerald was facing an entrenched, stonewalling gang of mass murderers, thieves, and congenital liars, which he couldn't penetrate--a gang that includes their pet clowns and lapdogs in the corporate news media--and got his first break when Miller started cracking (in jail), and the cabal had to come up with a plan. The plan was either Libby falling on his sword (which his letter to Miller seems to suggest) or being thrown to the wolves (perhaps with promise of full legal support, Rove's P.R. services and future benefits).
Although the prime movers of this junta are the war profiteers (including Cheney), some of the neocons are rabid true-believers (who, in my view, are just the window dressing for the looters--and, also, are good at creating the chaos that makes looting so easy). (Remember, Rumsfeld: freedom = the freedom to loot.) So it's possible that Libby thinks of himself as a hero, sacrificing for the cause.
The question--as to this prosecution--is whether or not Fitzgerald can use this opportunity, this small crack in the stonewall (his slamdunk against Libby) to get at the larger conspiracy (which his indictment clearly points to, for all its careful legal framing). These are not petty gangsters, or even big gangsters. They are the most powerful criminals on earth--guilty of multiple hanging offenses just on the things we can see; and being protected by the corporate news monopolies. It's a tall order; and, while I think Fitzgerald is a formidable prosecutor and an extraordinarily intelligent man, and while I think that the majority of Americans desperately want this cabal to be busted, it's touch and go.
-----------------
Understanding the true believers
The underlying belief of the neocons is that western civilization must rally to destroy a new Islamic caliphate. This ancient itch to slaughter Arabs, steal their land and control their resources, has returned, in history's spiral, from a time that is so dark we have almost no written records of the doings of Europeans. And the neocons are quite blatant about it: they are on a "Crusade." To them--and to the rightwing minority that buys into this underlying belief (whether consciously or unconsciously)--there is NOTHING--no law, no ethical principle, no moral constraint--that they will not violate in pursuit of the salvation of western civilization (as they see it). That is why they and those who work for them, or are in their thrall, tell such egregious lies with a straight face, and commit such awful atrocities without batting an eyelid.
There may be some truth to an east-west conflict of this kind--especially as to the intent of the Islamic jihadists and some of the mullahs--but I personally think that it is critically important to understand what that intent derives from: poverty and devastation, brought about by western INTERFERENCE with the development and modernization of the Islamic countries (for instance, our destruction of Iranian democracy and installation of the horrible Shah; or our centuries of meddling in Afghanistan). Virtually the only wealth in the Islamic world, certainly in the Mideast, is oil, and the wealth from that is being horded by the rich, and it is running out. And what they will be left with is a vast desert--once the "cradle" of OUR civilization and the epitome of our wanton destruction of forests and the fertility of the land.
For the neocons, this war on Iraq was not just a pre-emptive strike on Iraq--it was a pre-emptive strike on a potential Islamic caliphate, in defense of western civilization. But in striking at an as yet non-existent caliphate, they are striking at the people themselves, who have every right to develop their countries and their alliances as they see fit, and are only in the very early stages of recovering from centuries and centuries of exploitation and bad rulers.
Strike one against the neocons: They simply do not understand that there is a democracy movement in Iran. They have no respect for it, and no wish to further it. It is Islamic and therefore must be destroyed, and replaced with yet another imposition of western-chosen surrogate rulers who will erode and demolish the local development that Islamic communities can accomplish. They further had no understanding of the strong civil society in Iraq, despite its ruler's mad war on Iran and then Kuwait--and they did everything they could to demolish this civil society the minute they set foot in Iraq. It was the most highly developed and successful in the Middle East.
Worst of all, though, the neocon agenda isn't pure. It is sullied through and through with war profiteering. If it were pure--a political idea that could be democratically disclosed and discussed--then we might come up with some better solutions than slaughtering Arabs and Muslims, torturing them, stealing their resources, and imposing surrogate rulers on them once again--a project that is CREATING inflamed jihad against the west, and threatening us all with nuclear holocaust.
Libby seems to think this is just fine. He'll take a hit for his cause, and the neocon project will go on. He may feel self-righteous, but he is undoubtedly caught in a web of self-deceptions that even he can't sort out any more--lies that go very deep; that he is saving democracy (by destroying it); that he is giving them democracy (via killing and torture); that our god is superior to theirs; that we have a right to their oil; that the rest of us are stupid peons who can't understand this millenium-old imperative that 'we' must 'win' (conquer the Infidel, seize his property, prevent his triumph--the 'Infidel" being babies and old people and other innocents, and vast populations of the poor, who get in the way of our self-image as 'Crusaders').
Maybe we should write him letters, saying, "Scooter, you really blew it. Better take stock of yourself. Think a couple of things through. You know that whatever support you have is artificially created--by Karl Rove and the controlled media. People are NOT flocking to your cause. Why? Because our democracy is actually still working, and people are pretty smart and wise, and know a con when they see one. They know that western civilization is in more danger from YOU than from any caliphate. You lost PERSPECTIVE, buddy, and you better wake up to the consequences, pronto!"
He's been a devious operative for war profiteers for a long time, so he might be too corrupt to understand the truth about himself. In either case, though, he must be asking himself: Does he want to spend 30 years (or even 5 to 10 years) in jail for a cause that almost nobody supports, or for the war profiteers who will be living it up with the billions and billions and billions of dollars that he helped them loot from the American people--while he rots in prison?
His is a dark world, I think--with no clear answers at the moment. He may have concerns about life and limb (and family).
Whether Padre Fitzgerald can get through to this sinner, help him untangle this web of lies, and find his way to the light, is the iffy proposition upon which may depend the future of the human race.
Stay tuned.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
