The Defense Department Inspector General's report may only spell the beginning of inquiries into the intelligence activities of Douglas Feith's office.
By Laura RozenWeb Exclusive: 02.12.07
This writer has reported extensively on a 2001 meeting in Rome between two then-members of the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, Iranian intelligence operatives, and the Italian intelligence service. Reading the DoD IG (Defense Department Inspector General) report on its investigation into the activities of Feith's office, and watching Friday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the report, were, therefore, somewhat surreal experiences. What was surreal was their narrow focus on the question of the Pentagon policy shop's alternative intelligence analysis alleging Iraq-al-Qaeda links, when few dispute that the array of activities engaged in by Feith's shop was broader than that and hardly limited to alternative intelligence analysis.
Both the hearing and the unclassified two-page DoD IG report (with an accompanying PowerPoint presentation) were narrowly focused on the question of whether members of Feith's policy shop were in fact conducting intelligence activities regarding Iraq that should have been reported to Congress; they determined that they were. The IG also determined that the policy shop behaved inappropriately but not without authorization or illegally when in 2002 it presented to then-vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and then-deputy national security advisor Stephen Hadley a slide presentation asserting links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. The policy office's presentation to the White House disagreed with the judgment of the U.S. intelligence community in several key respects, and was not cleared in advance with then-Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet.
But even given the report's narrow focus on these questions, it was the subject of intense, heated, and politicized jockeying by Senator Armed Services Committee members grilling acting DoD Inspector General Thomas Gimble in the Russell Senate office building on February 9. Gimble, a 35-year veteran of the DoD IG's office, seemed desperate not to get drawn into the partisan fray. As the questioning intensified, he appeared unsure of how to respond to queries that seemed to demand he offer his opinion about issues that went far beyond the scope of his office’s purview.
For instance, Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a former prosecutor, seemed to believe that Feith's office was perfectly within its rights to make an end run around the CIA to inform the White House that it had found evidence -- deemed unreliable by the intelligence community -- that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta allegedly had a meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in 2001. The CIA had early on determined that the source on the Prague meeting was unreliable, and the Czech intelligence service -- the United States' original source -- later fully recanted the claim. But listening to Sessions bear into Gimble, you might have thought that such facts were still in dispute.
The hearing also revealed seeming holes in the IG's powers to investigate even the narrow question of what Feith's shop channeled to the White House beyond the CIA's judgment on the Iraq-al-Qaeda matter. For instance, Gimble revealed under questioning, current national security advisor Stephen Hadley declined his office’s request to be interviewed. The IG interviewed more than 70 people as part of its review, but only Defense Department employees are apparently required to answer interview requests.
But what was most frustrating about the hearing was that the IG and the senators seemed to ignore instances -- such as the December 2001 Rome meeting involving Feith staff members, Ghorbanifar, and a foreign intelligence service -- that look far more like an intelligence collection operation -- even a covert action -- than the alternative intelligence analysis the IG report focused on. The Rome meeting was never mentioned in three hours of hearings at all, but it would certainly seem to be at the crux of a possible instance of an intelligence operation not reported to Congress -- although the meeting was authorized by the White House. While that meeting concerned Iran policy rather than Iraq, the IG has the ability to look at all intelligence issues pursued by Feith's office; the meeting's absence as a subject of investigation was mystifying.
At the hearing, Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and Vice Chairman John Warner both made statements indicating that their committee would pursue the matter of Feith's shop further, calling witnesses that the DoD IG could not get to testify. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence may also pursue the matter. But one possibility to keep in mind is that the DoD IG’s office may have other ongoing investigations related to Pentagon activities that may not have been reported to Congress. An office spokesman, Gary Comerford, wouldn't confirm or deny any other specific reviews. But it's worth noting that members of Congress have requested that the Defense Department Inspector General investigate other, related questions -- such as connections between the Iraqi National Congress and U.S. persons, and what work the Rendon Group did for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Other possible IG reviews notwithstanding, one is still left with the sense that the Defense Department internal review did not deliver what Congress needs to serve the public -- especially entering a fourth year of public agonizing over the war in Iraq. Across town, at the Libby trial, so much has been revealed that belies the central narrative of the Defense Department review -- that a Pentagon office that evaded congressional oversight and made end runs around the CIA to channel its alternative intelligence analysis to the White House is a phenomenon rising merely to the level of inappropriate, and that U.S. bureaucratic processes are resilient enough to filter out corrupted intelligence from the policymakers consuming it. The task of challenging that narrative with the truth has ever greater urgency as we now see signs of similar patterns leading towards an escalation with Iran.
Laura Rozen is a Prospect senior correspondent.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Arizona's Republicans: McCain Unstable.
Not shit, Sherlocks.
Has he really gone bonkers, is he being more, who he always has been...what the hell is up with John McCain?
John McCain is the last person on earth we need anywhere near the levers of power. Imagine a very bad combination of Hillary Clinton and George Bush.
Still, I would really be interested to know what particular thing sent him over the edge.
Just as the presidential nomination process begins in earnest, Senator John McCain has suffered a stinging defeat in his home state.
For the Republican media darling declared recently by Chris Matthews to be the one candidate who "deserves the presidency," it was an unlikely loss, and so far it has gone unheralded by the national press corps that McCain once half-jokingly called "my base."
This defeat was the handiwork of his presumed actual political base--a ragtag band of local conservative activists led by a 65-year-old retired IBM middle manager named Rob Haney.
Who is Rob Haney? He is the Republican state committeeman in Arizona's District 11, McCain's home district. In the past, Haney and his fellow committee members would meet from time to time to review their annual budget, vote on bylaws and pass resolutions. If anyone represents Arizona's Republican Party, advancing the causes of faith, family and freedom, it is the folks from District 11. Yet their importance, let alone their existence, seemed to matter little to their state's famous and ambitious senior senator.
All that changed when Haney organized a revolt that hardly needed encouragement. "People would be calling in to [state committee] headquarters every week, absolutely enraged, threatening to leave the party because of some comments McCain made," Haney told me. "The guy has no core, his only principle is winning the presidency. He likes to call his campaign the 'straight talk express.' Well, down here we call it the 'forked tongue express.'"
http://rawstroy.com (Read More)
....and the truth shall set us free.
Has he really gone bonkers, is he being more, who he always has been...what the hell is up with John McCain?
John McCain is the last person on earth we need anywhere near the levers of power. Imagine a very bad combination of Hillary Clinton and George Bush.
Still, I would really be interested to know what particular thing sent him over the edge.
Just as the presidential nomination process begins in earnest, Senator John McCain has suffered a stinging defeat in his home state.
For the Republican media darling declared recently by Chris Matthews to be the one candidate who "deserves the presidency," it was an unlikely loss, and so far it has gone unheralded by the national press corps that McCain once half-jokingly called "my base."
This defeat was the handiwork of his presumed actual political base--a ragtag band of local conservative activists led by a 65-year-old retired IBM middle manager named Rob Haney.
Who is Rob Haney? He is the Republican state committeeman in Arizona's District 11, McCain's home district. In the past, Haney and his fellow committee members would meet from time to time to review their annual budget, vote on bylaws and pass resolutions. If anyone represents Arizona's Republican Party, advancing the causes of faith, family and freedom, it is the folks from District 11. Yet their importance, let alone their existence, seemed to matter little to their state's famous and ambitious senior senator.
All that changed when Haney organized a revolt that hardly needed encouragement. "People would be calling in to [state committee] headquarters every week, absolutely enraged, threatening to leave the party because of some comments McCain made," Haney told me. "The guy has no core, his only principle is winning the presidency. He likes to call his campaign the 'straight talk express.' Well, down here we call it the 'forked tongue express.'"
http://rawstroy.com (Read More)
....and the truth shall set us free.
The Fog of Trial: Libby's Defense
Libby's cynical defense
In the courtroom, I watched Libby's lawyers grill Bob Woodward and Robert Novak, trying and failing to obscure the charges against the vice president's man.
By Sidney Blumenthal
Feb. 15, 2007 Throughout the anxious months before the trial of United States v. I. Lewis Libby, one of Scooter Libby's old mentors, a prominent Washington attorney and Republican with experience going back to the Watergate scandal and with intimate ties to neoconservatives, implored him repeatedly to stop covering up for Vice President Cheney and to cut a deal with the special prosecutor. Yet another distinguished Washington lawyer and personal friend of Libby's, privy to the mentor's counsel, reinforced his urgent advice and offered to provide Libby with introductions to former prosecutors who might help guide him. But Libby rebuffed them. He refused to listen. He insisted on the trial.
This Tuesday, Theodore Wells, Libby's chief defense lawyer, abruptly announced that neither Cheney nor Libby would testify on his behalf. In effect, the defense was resting. Did his own lawyers mistrust Libby on the stand? Would he lie and prompt another count of indictment? Would Cheney, indisputably the director of the campaign against former ambassador Joseph Wilson, be stepping into a perjury trap or open the door to conspiracy charges implicit from the beginning? Those questions, along with their testimony, remain moot.
According to prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Libby's case amounts to an attempt at "jury nullification." Libby is charged with five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about where he learned the identity of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame (Wilson's wife) and to whom he spread that information. Fitzgerald presented two government officials, former CIA officer Robert Grenier and State Department official Marc Grossman, who swore they were the first to inform Libby. Libby was in pursuit of that information, Fitzgerald further revealed through testimony from past and present Bush administration officials, because the vice president had tasked him to find and spread it. And Libby also passed on the information to Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, to get him to pass it on to the press. Two reporters, Matt Cooper (then at Time magazine) and Judith Miller (then at the New York Times), testified that Libby had conveyed to them the information about Plame. NBC's Tim Russert testified that he did not first inform Libby about her, as Libby had told the grand jury. Fitzgerald's prosecution was well honed, unadorned and a straight arrow.
Libby's defense was the legal equivalent of the fog of war. He sought to obfuscate the clarity of the prosecution's case by raising irrelevant issues, turning the jury's attention away from the charges themselves and creating doubt by getting witnesses to admit small lapses of memory, thereby underlining Libby's memory defense. So Libby's lawyers highlighted Cooper's incomplete note taking, whether Miller raised the issue of writing a piece based on Libby's information, and whether Russert followed strict journalistic protocol when he spoke freely to the FBI. Libby's team also summoned a parade of reporters to relate that Libby had not dropped Plame's name with them. By demonstrating a negative, Libby sought to dispute a positive. The intent to sow confusion among the jurors in order to raise a shadow of a doubt and produce an acquittal partly depended on their ignorance of Washington anthropology.
Fitzgerald's case elicited significant evidence of the planned and concerted attack on Wilson. Libby, along with a host of other White House aides, leaked Plame's secret identity to reporters. The methods of communications strategy were disclosed in the testimony of Cathie Martin, Cheney's deputy P.R. aide, who explained the art of talking points, and of Fleischer, among others. "It was decided that Scooter would call [reporters] to try to get into the story and correct the false information," Martin said. "That was [Cheney's] decision." Trial exhibits included the notes of Cheney's former communications advisor, Mary Matalin, who suggested that Libby call Russert to complain about MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews: "Tim hates Chris." Martin expressed awe of Matalin's skills, but Matalin's Heather-like remarks illuminated Republican Washington as "High School Confidential."
On Monday, I sat in the courtroom as the dapper, slightly built Libby took his place at the defense table, half smiling at his half-dozen attorneys while occasionally flicking his head to the side, betraying a wary glance. In the bench behind him sat his wife, Harriet Grant (herself a lawyer), and Barbara Comstock, a conservative operative hired as a P.R. specialist, playing with her BlackBerry during the testimony and chewing gum. The jurors marched to their seats were impassive; it was impossible to read anything from their immobile faces.
On that day, the busiest for the defense, the witnesses flew through the courtroom with speed. Every one called by the defense was a reporter whose presence was intended to contribute to the confusion of the jury and direct their gaze away from the actual charges. Walter Pincus of the Washington Post was the first one in the stand. He revealed that he had spoken with Libby but that it was Fleischer who disclosed to him Plame's name, as though that somehow proved exculpatory. Of course, it was Libby who told Fleischer about Plame -- "hush, hush" and "on the Q.T." Pincus is the reporter in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq who persistently wrote skeptical stories on administration claims about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Those stories were typically buried, earning Pincus the sobriquet among his friends of Walter "A-14" Pincus.
Fleischer told Pincus about Plame as a consequence of Pincus' diligence as he sought to get to the bottom of the Wilson smear. It was Pincus who called Fleischer. Pincus was not necessarily the person whom Libby himself would trust to leak to himself. Pincus was known within the White House as a skeptic of its disinformation and as a reporter with many independent sources in the intelligence community, which the neoconservatives regarded as an adversary. Pincus was not the sort of reporter whom Libby would provide with this "hush, hush" information. But if Fleischer did so, it was a different matter. In any case, Pincus did not publish Plame's name. Unlike Bob Novak, he had compunctions about the sensitivity of exposing a CIA operative.
Next up was Pincus' colleague Bob Woodward, who explained that then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had told him about Plame. A snippet of audiotape of their conversation, recorded by Woodward as part of his research for his book "Plan of Attack," was played. This was another attempt at exculpation by showing that it was not Libby who was the source, once again trying to cloud the accusations of perjury and obstruction. Armitage, Colin Powell's best friend, had been a source for Woodward for decades.
Libby would know that however useful Woodward might be as an outlet for leaks, as he demonstrated in "Bush at War," depicting President Bush and his team as decisive, prudent and courageous, he would ultimately tilt in Powell's direction. But there was another reason for Libby not to leak Plame's identity to Woodward that was even more basic. Woodward husbanded material for his bestselling books and did not dribble out his exclusives in the daily newspaper. Leaking to Woodward was pointless if one wanted to get a story published immediately.
Armitage's leak was at best mindless, at worst the trading of national security secrets to ingratiate himself with a star reporter. On the tape, Armitage's tough-guy, obscenity-spewing persona is coached along by an eager, laughing Woodward. The more Woodward laps it up, the more Armitage spills the beans. Woodward: "But why would they send him?" Armitage: "Because his wife's a fucking analyst at the agency." Woodward: "It's still weird." Armitage: It, it's perfect. This is what she does, she is a WMD analyst out there." Woodward: "Oh she is." Armitage: "Yeah." Woodward: "Oh, I see."
Armitage had learned of Plame from reading a State Department memo that conspicuously marked an "S" next to her name, indicating that her identity was top secret. Armitage, who had years of experience at high levels of government, was more intent on impressing Woodward than on keeping the secret. The tape ends with Armitage repeating with emphasis: "But his wife is in the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that shit?" Armitage's buffoonery about "that shit" had no bearing on the charges against Libby, but Libby's lawyers hoped it would provide a tawdry distraction, as it has for numerous Washington columnists and pundits.
Novak was the next witness. He spelled his last name and then his first: "B-O-B." He explained that his sources were Armitage and Karl Rove. "I wouldn't call him a good friend. I would call him a very good source," Novak said about Rove. "I talked to him two or three times a week at that point."
Unlike Rove, Libby was not a regular source. "I had no help and no confirmation from Mr. Libby on that issue," Novak said about the Plame story. Just when it appeared that Novak was done, a juror asked a question, read by Judge Reggie Walton, about whether Novak had spoken to anyone else about the information in his notorious column exposing Plame besides the two "senior administration officials" cited in it before its publication. Novak said that he had spoken with Bill Harlow, the public affairs officer at the CIA.
The judge prodded him on whether there was anyone else. Novak revealed that he gave a copy of his column to Richard Hohlt, whom he described as one of his "closest friends," and to whom he said he spoke daily. Hohlt, Novak went on, is a "lobbyist about town." (In fact, he's a little known but influential Republican lobbyist.) And, the judge wondered, did Mr. Hohlt share the column with anyone? Novak further revealed that Hohlt showed it to people at the White House. Thus, through Novak's cutout, or go-between, the White House was informed that Novak would publish Plame's identity. None of this had any bearing on Libby's guilt or innocence, but it was a fascinating glimpse at Novak's methods.
David Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, followed Novak in the witness chair. What Sanger had to offer is that he had spoken with Libby but that Libby had not told him about Plame. Sanger was another bit player in the Libby defense of distraction. Indeed, there was no cause to leak to Sanger. He was not the type of reporter with whom that sort of delicate political information would be shared. Indeed, Libby was working the New York Times through Judith Miller, the past reliable outlet for disinformation on WMD stories. Libby could not know that Miller would be thwarted in getting permission to write a Plame story. Going to someone like Sanger would only have undermined his attempt to use the Times. But none of that was drawn from the witness.
The next day, instead of calling Cheney, Libby's team put John Hannah, a neoconservative Middle East policy analyst on the vice president's staff, on the stand. For two hours, Hannah held forth on Libby's forgetfulness and the overwhelming crush of his job. Hannah was Cheney's stand-in, but without Cheney's enormous potential liabilities that might be explored through cross-examination. Hannah's role was to be the first-person witness to buttress Libby's memory defense.
Yet, under cross-examination by Fitzgerald, Hannah was cracked apart in a matter of minutes. Fitzgerald asked him whether defending Cheney in the media was an important part of Libby's job. "It would be important to push back on those issues, yes," Hannah said. Fitzgerald then got Hannah to acknowledge that getting Libby to give up an hour's worth of his time, given his heavy load of work, would be difficult. Fitzgerald zeroed in on Libby's two long meetings in the St. Regis Hotel's dining room on June 23 and July 8, 2003. "So, during the time of all these threats if he gave someone an hour or two of his time ... it was something Mr. Libby would think was important, correct?" Fitzgerald asked. Hannah answered that it was. "Is it fair to say that what was important to the vice president was important to Mr. Libby?" Fitzgerald asked. "Yes, that's correct," Hannah replied.
But the demolition of Hannah was not done. A juror had a question, posed to the witness by the judge: Aside from Libby's difficulty with memory, did it lead him to have concerns about his effectiveness? "Never," said Hannah. The barbed question was a sharp indication of at least one juror's cynicism about Libby's defense.
On Wednesday, the next day, Judge Walton ruled that Libby's lawyers had misled the court into believing that Libby would testify in his own behalf. Walton, therefore, disallowed admission into court of questioning of Libby's CIA briefers, who would supposedly show how busy Libby was, another element of his effort to confuse the jury. Undoubtedly, Walton's displeasure at Libby's refusal to testify will shape the instructions he gives to the jurors.
Closing statements will occur on Feb. 20. Judge Walton will charge the jury, and they will decide Libby's fate. Libby must hope that the testimony presented by Fitzgerald has been obscured enough to prevent his conviction. Then the advice he rejected from his concerned mentor and other friends will have been proved to be a gamble he never needed to accept. If declared not guilty, Libby can return to his White House office, where he can resume the vice president's campaigns of disinformation.
-- By Sidney Blumenthal
....and the truth shall set us free.
In the courtroom, I watched Libby's lawyers grill Bob Woodward and Robert Novak, trying and failing to obscure the charges against the vice president's man.
By Sidney Blumenthal
Feb. 15, 2007 Throughout the anxious months before the trial of United States v. I. Lewis Libby, one of Scooter Libby's old mentors, a prominent Washington attorney and Republican with experience going back to the Watergate scandal and with intimate ties to neoconservatives, implored him repeatedly to stop covering up for Vice President Cheney and to cut a deal with the special prosecutor. Yet another distinguished Washington lawyer and personal friend of Libby's, privy to the mentor's counsel, reinforced his urgent advice and offered to provide Libby with introductions to former prosecutors who might help guide him. But Libby rebuffed them. He refused to listen. He insisted on the trial.
This Tuesday, Theodore Wells, Libby's chief defense lawyer, abruptly announced that neither Cheney nor Libby would testify on his behalf. In effect, the defense was resting. Did his own lawyers mistrust Libby on the stand? Would he lie and prompt another count of indictment? Would Cheney, indisputably the director of the campaign against former ambassador Joseph Wilson, be stepping into a perjury trap or open the door to conspiracy charges implicit from the beginning? Those questions, along with their testimony, remain moot.
According to prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Libby's case amounts to an attempt at "jury nullification." Libby is charged with five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about where he learned the identity of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame (Wilson's wife) and to whom he spread that information. Fitzgerald presented two government officials, former CIA officer Robert Grenier and State Department official Marc Grossman, who swore they were the first to inform Libby. Libby was in pursuit of that information, Fitzgerald further revealed through testimony from past and present Bush administration officials, because the vice president had tasked him to find and spread it. And Libby also passed on the information to Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, to get him to pass it on to the press. Two reporters, Matt Cooper (then at Time magazine) and Judith Miller (then at the New York Times), testified that Libby had conveyed to them the information about Plame. NBC's Tim Russert testified that he did not first inform Libby about her, as Libby had told the grand jury. Fitzgerald's prosecution was well honed, unadorned and a straight arrow.
Libby's defense was the legal equivalent of the fog of war. He sought to obfuscate the clarity of the prosecution's case by raising irrelevant issues, turning the jury's attention away from the charges themselves and creating doubt by getting witnesses to admit small lapses of memory, thereby underlining Libby's memory defense. So Libby's lawyers highlighted Cooper's incomplete note taking, whether Miller raised the issue of writing a piece based on Libby's information, and whether Russert followed strict journalistic protocol when he spoke freely to the FBI. Libby's team also summoned a parade of reporters to relate that Libby had not dropped Plame's name with them. By demonstrating a negative, Libby sought to dispute a positive. The intent to sow confusion among the jurors in order to raise a shadow of a doubt and produce an acquittal partly depended on their ignorance of Washington anthropology.
Fitzgerald's case elicited significant evidence of the planned and concerted attack on Wilson. Libby, along with a host of other White House aides, leaked Plame's secret identity to reporters. The methods of communications strategy were disclosed in the testimony of Cathie Martin, Cheney's deputy P.R. aide, who explained the art of talking points, and of Fleischer, among others. "It was decided that Scooter would call [reporters] to try to get into the story and correct the false information," Martin said. "That was [Cheney's] decision." Trial exhibits included the notes of Cheney's former communications advisor, Mary Matalin, who suggested that Libby call Russert to complain about MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews: "Tim hates Chris." Martin expressed awe of Matalin's skills, but Matalin's Heather-like remarks illuminated Republican Washington as "High School Confidential."
On Monday, I sat in the courtroom as the dapper, slightly built Libby took his place at the defense table, half smiling at his half-dozen attorneys while occasionally flicking his head to the side, betraying a wary glance. In the bench behind him sat his wife, Harriet Grant (herself a lawyer), and Barbara Comstock, a conservative operative hired as a P.R. specialist, playing with her BlackBerry during the testimony and chewing gum. The jurors marched to their seats were impassive; it was impossible to read anything from their immobile faces.
On that day, the busiest for the defense, the witnesses flew through the courtroom with speed. Every one called by the defense was a reporter whose presence was intended to contribute to the confusion of the jury and direct their gaze away from the actual charges. Walter Pincus of the Washington Post was the first one in the stand. He revealed that he had spoken with Libby but that it was Fleischer who disclosed to him Plame's name, as though that somehow proved exculpatory. Of course, it was Libby who told Fleischer about Plame -- "hush, hush" and "on the Q.T." Pincus is the reporter in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq who persistently wrote skeptical stories on administration claims about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Those stories were typically buried, earning Pincus the sobriquet among his friends of Walter "A-14" Pincus.
Fleischer told Pincus about Plame as a consequence of Pincus' diligence as he sought to get to the bottom of the Wilson smear. It was Pincus who called Fleischer. Pincus was not necessarily the person whom Libby himself would trust to leak to himself. Pincus was known within the White House as a skeptic of its disinformation and as a reporter with many independent sources in the intelligence community, which the neoconservatives regarded as an adversary. Pincus was not the sort of reporter whom Libby would provide with this "hush, hush" information. But if Fleischer did so, it was a different matter. In any case, Pincus did not publish Plame's name. Unlike Bob Novak, he had compunctions about the sensitivity of exposing a CIA operative.
Next up was Pincus' colleague Bob Woodward, who explained that then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had told him about Plame. A snippet of audiotape of their conversation, recorded by Woodward as part of his research for his book "Plan of Attack," was played. This was another attempt at exculpation by showing that it was not Libby who was the source, once again trying to cloud the accusations of perjury and obstruction. Armitage, Colin Powell's best friend, had been a source for Woodward for decades.
Libby would know that however useful Woodward might be as an outlet for leaks, as he demonstrated in "Bush at War," depicting President Bush and his team as decisive, prudent and courageous, he would ultimately tilt in Powell's direction. But there was another reason for Libby not to leak Plame's identity to Woodward that was even more basic. Woodward husbanded material for his bestselling books and did not dribble out his exclusives in the daily newspaper. Leaking to Woodward was pointless if one wanted to get a story published immediately.
Armitage's leak was at best mindless, at worst the trading of national security secrets to ingratiate himself with a star reporter. On the tape, Armitage's tough-guy, obscenity-spewing persona is coached along by an eager, laughing Woodward. The more Woodward laps it up, the more Armitage spills the beans. Woodward: "But why would they send him?" Armitage: "Because his wife's a fucking analyst at the agency." Woodward: "It's still weird." Armitage: It, it's perfect. This is what she does, she is a WMD analyst out there." Woodward: "Oh she is." Armitage: "Yeah." Woodward: "Oh, I see."
Armitage had learned of Plame from reading a State Department memo that conspicuously marked an "S" next to her name, indicating that her identity was top secret. Armitage, who had years of experience at high levels of government, was more intent on impressing Woodward than on keeping the secret. The tape ends with Armitage repeating with emphasis: "But his wife is in the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that shit?" Armitage's buffoonery about "that shit" had no bearing on the charges against Libby, but Libby's lawyers hoped it would provide a tawdry distraction, as it has for numerous Washington columnists and pundits.
Novak was the next witness. He spelled his last name and then his first: "B-O-B." He explained that his sources were Armitage and Karl Rove. "I wouldn't call him a good friend. I would call him a very good source," Novak said about Rove. "I talked to him two or three times a week at that point."
Unlike Rove, Libby was not a regular source. "I had no help and no confirmation from Mr. Libby on that issue," Novak said about the Plame story. Just when it appeared that Novak was done, a juror asked a question, read by Judge Reggie Walton, about whether Novak had spoken to anyone else about the information in his notorious column exposing Plame besides the two "senior administration officials" cited in it before its publication. Novak said that he had spoken with Bill Harlow, the public affairs officer at the CIA.
The judge prodded him on whether there was anyone else. Novak revealed that he gave a copy of his column to Richard Hohlt, whom he described as one of his "closest friends," and to whom he said he spoke daily. Hohlt, Novak went on, is a "lobbyist about town." (In fact, he's a little known but influential Republican lobbyist.) And, the judge wondered, did Mr. Hohlt share the column with anyone? Novak further revealed that Hohlt showed it to people at the White House. Thus, through Novak's cutout, or go-between, the White House was informed that Novak would publish Plame's identity. None of this had any bearing on Libby's guilt or innocence, but it was a fascinating glimpse at Novak's methods.
David Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, followed Novak in the witness chair. What Sanger had to offer is that he had spoken with Libby but that Libby had not told him about Plame. Sanger was another bit player in the Libby defense of distraction. Indeed, there was no cause to leak to Sanger. He was not the type of reporter with whom that sort of delicate political information would be shared. Indeed, Libby was working the New York Times through Judith Miller, the past reliable outlet for disinformation on WMD stories. Libby could not know that Miller would be thwarted in getting permission to write a Plame story. Going to someone like Sanger would only have undermined his attempt to use the Times. But none of that was drawn from the witness.
The next day, instead of calling Cheney, Libby's team put John Hannah, a neoconservative Middle East policy analyst on the vice president's staff, on the stand. For two hours, Hannah held forth on Libby's forgetfulness and the overwhelming crush of his job. Hannah was Cheney's stand-in, but without Cheney's enormous potential liabilities that might be explored through cross-examination. Hannah's role was to be the first-person witness to buttress Libby's memory defense.
Yet, under cross-examination by Fitzgerald, Hannah was cracked apart in a matter of minutes. Fitzgerald asked him whether defending Cheney in the media was an important part of Libby's job. "It would be important to push back on those issues, yes," Hannah said. Fitzgerald then got Hannah to acknowledge that getting Libby to give up an hour's worth of his time, given his heavy load of work, would be difficult. Fitzgerald zeroed in on Libby's two long meetings in the St. Regis Hotel's dining room on June 23 and July 8, 2003. "So, during the time of all these threats if he gave someone an hour or two of his time ... it was something Mr. Libby would think was important, correct?" Fitzgerald asked. Hannah answered that it was. "Is it fair to say that what was important to the vice president was important to Mr. Libby?" Fitzgerald asked. "Yes, that's correct," Hannah replied.
But the demolition of Hannah was not done. A juror had a question, posed to the witness by the judge: Aside from Libby's difficulty with memory, did it lead him to have concerns about his effectiveness? "Never," said Hannah. The barbed question was a sharp indication of at least one juror's cynicism about Libby's defense.
On Wednesday, the next day, Judge Walton ruled that Libby's lawyers had misled the court into believing that Libby would testify in his own behalf. Walton, therefore, disallowed admission into court of questioning of Libby's CIA briefers, who would supposedly show how busy Libby was, another element of his effort to confuse the jury. Undoubtedly, Walton's displeasure at Libby's refusal to testify will shape the instructions he gives to the jurors.
Closing statements will occur on Feb. 20. Judge Walton will charge the jury, and they will decide Libby's fate. Libby must hope that the testimony presented by Fitzgerald has been obscured enough to prevent his conviction. Then the advice he rejected from his concerned mentor and other friends will have been proved to be a gamble he never needed to accept. If declared not guilty, Libby can return to his White House office, where he can resume the vice president's campaigns of disinformation.
-- By Sidney Blumenthal
....and the truth shall set us free.
IMPEACHMENT NOW!
Start with Cheney!
Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_carol_wo_070213_keep_your_eye_on_the.htm
February 13, 2007
Keep your eye on the ball- impeachment now!
By Carol Wolman
The real war on terror is being fought by We, the People against the terrorists who have hijacked our government. The hijackers, who fly the Skull and Bones of their Yale fraternity, have been striving to terrorize us with 9-11, to drive us into bankruptcy, to befuddle our minds with their lies and hypocrisy, and to prepare us for slavery under their fascist regime, which is now legally in place. The hijackers have corrupted the Congress that the Constitution mandates to represent our interests, the interests of We, the People. The hijackers have made a mockery of our Constitution, and somehow have rendered even the new Democratic Congress impotent to stop them.
Since the election of November '06, when We, the People turned out to register our disapproval of Bush, despite all the usual dirty tricks from his henchpeople in the GOP,- since the election, Bush has become steadily more aggressive. He evidently believes that a good offense is the best defense.
He has thumbed his nose at We, the People and our election, with his announcement that he'll open our mail at will, send more troops to Iraq over our strenuous objections, replace Federal Prosecuting Attorneys who are supposed to catch criminals for Us, the People with his own loyal mobsters, cut our public services and our safety net for the poor to fund his military adventures, etc., etc.
Above all, Bush is threatening all of us with all-out nuclear war by escalating the threat against Iran, which is closely allied with two major nuclear powers- China and Russia. By intimating that he feels free to use "mininukes" and "bunkerbusters" against a non-nuclear power, he is playing nuclear chicken with all life on the planet. Use of nuclear weapons against Iran would surely invite nuclear retaliation against the US.
We, the People are holding our own. We've kept the hijackers from achieving their goal of enslaving us up to now, through a combination of courage, truth-telling, and the heaven-sent internet. Although the hijackers have all the military might, control the media, and are ruthless against their enemies, the determined army of We the People, with our small salaries and keyboards and telephones have kept the worst from happening, so far.
We now need to confront the ugly fact that our new Congress, the one We, the People elected to stop the hijackers, is doing nothing of the sort. Although a few, like Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, are speaking out in various ways, the Democratic leadership will allow whatever funding Bush asks for his military aggressions.
Rather than restore habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, Pelosi's priority has been to strengthen the tools of fascism by "carrying out the recommendations of the 9-11 (coverup) Commission".
HR 1 orders more surveillance and tracking of Americans.
Despite the incredible revelations at the Libby trial that both Bush and Cheney were prime movers in the outing of Valerie Plame, Congress has not ordered an investigation. Since Plame headed up an international network of undercover agents, whose job it was to interdict WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists, outing her amounts to treason. What could give more aid and comfort to terrorists that getting rid of the key network that was keeping them from obtaining WMDs? And how many loyal CIA operatives were killed as a direct result of revealing Plame's identity? This makes Bush and Cheney guilty of murder as well.
Treason and murder, surely high crimes under the Constitution. Why is there no bill of impeachment on the floor of the 110th Congress?
The hijackers well know how vulnerable they are right now. They are using the media to distract Us, the People from keeping our eye on the ball with a variety of false leads.
The ball is in our court, and we need to impeach them all.
The battle over the Iraq "surge" is one false lead. It's a mere skirmish, but is taking up lots of progressive time and energy, and giving "progressives" in Congress a chance to posture and appear as opponents of the hijackers, without having any real effect.
Another diversion is the 2008 presidential circus. We'll be fortunate to make it to the end of 2007 without martial law and fascism- "bird flu" and a FEMA takeover, or war with Iran, or another false flag operation like 9-11. There may well be no election in 2008.
We need action NOW, not 2 years from now.
Are Obama, Kucinich and the rest aware that they are impeding impeachment by creating media events, or are they merely patsies?
There are lots of issues that need attention- global warming, torture, the media buildup for attacking Iran. Impeachment trumps them all. Get rid of the bad guys, and we can tackle the rest of it. Since Congress won't impeach, they're bad guys too.
We, the People are on our own.
Let's keep our eye on the ball. The Constitution doesn't tell We the People what to do if Congress fails us, so we need to devise new strategies. They have to be peaceful and legal, because all We the People really have is our righteousness. We should look into recalling Congress, bypassing Congress with our own impeachment hearings, arresting Congress for conspiracy to commit felonies under the RICO act. Or perhaps we can stage a massive sit-in in the halls of Congress, and force our so-called Representatives to impeach, by halting all their other business.Above all, we have to stay alert and continue to mobilize our energy and resources for this great battle against the evil which has befallen us.
The future of our country, the future of life on the planet, is at stake. We, the People, having been given sovereignty, self-rule, under our Constitution, have a grave responsibility to the rest of planet, and to posterity.Let's keep our eye on the ball.
Impeachment now! In the name of the Prince of Peace, Carol WolmanAuthors Website: http://voteCarolWolmanforCongress.com
Authors Bio: Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she has written extensively on the psychology of our times. She is actively working to impeach Bush and Cheney, and suggests you join or form a local group at
http://impeachbush.meetup.com/
She ran for Congress as a nonpartisan write-in candidate in CA district 1, and is a coordinator of The Longhouse Coalition.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Pelosi Says Bush Lacks Authority To Invade Iran
Don't be so sure, Nancy!
Congress needs to act to prevent it.
The way his lawyers interpret the Constitution, he thinks it's quite alright to invade Canada
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.
Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."
At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."
Pelosi spoke in an interview in the Capitol as the House moved through a third marathon day of debate on a nonbinding measure that disapproves of the military buildup in Iraq while expressing support for the troops.
Passage of the measure was expected Friday, and across the Capitol, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) unexpectedly announced plans to hold a test vote Saturday.
Partisan bickering has prevented a Senate vote on the troop increase, with Republicans insisting on equal treatment for an alternative rules out the "elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field."
Pelosi and other Democrats have said approval on the nonbinding measure would mark the first step in an effort by the new Democratic-controlled Congress to force Bush to change course in a war that has killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops.
Bush administration officials and their allies are resigned to House passage of the resolution and have worked in recent days to hold down defections by GOP lawmakers.
But Bush took a swipe at his critics during the day.
"This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle," the president said.
The Senate unanimously confirmed Lt. Gen David Petraeus last week to take over as the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Bush said at a news conference Wednesday there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American troops in Iraq. But he backed away from claims the top echelon of Iran's government was responsible.
Administration critics have accused the president of looking for a pretense to attack the Islamic republic, which is also at loggerheads with the United Nations about what Tehran says is a nuclear program aimed at developing energy for peaceful purposes.
Defending U.S. intelligence that has pinpointed Iran as a hostile arms supplier in Iraq, Bush said, "Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops."
Bush has asked Congress to approve $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congressional Democrats are hoping to insert provisions that would make it harder for the administration to follow through on its plan to deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops to Iraq.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who is leading the effort, has said the measure may be changed to require that any troops deployed must meet formal Army readiness standards.
Murtha also said the measure may be changed to prohibit any military action against Iran without specific congressional approval.
Asked about Murtha's remarks, Pelosi said, "I fully support that." She added that she would propose it as stand-alone legislation if it is not included in the bill that provides more money for the Iraq war.
Bush has said he intends to go ahead with the troop buildup regardless of nonbinding expressions of disapproval in Congress.
But, Pelosi said, "I don't think that the president can completely ignore it."
She spoke down the hall from the House chamber, where Republicans and Democrats alternated turns at the microphone in a debate on the war.
"The enemy wants our men and women in uniform to think their Congress doesn't care about them," said Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war during Vietnam. "We must learn from our mistakes. We cannot leave a job undone like we left in Korea, like we left in Vietnam, like we left in Somalia," Johnson said.
Added Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., a West Point graduate who was a flight commander with the Army's 82nd Airborne: "This nonbinding resolution serves no purpose other than pacifying the Democrats' political base and lowering morale in our military."
When his turn came to speak, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas., said,
"There is a better way of protecting our troops than sending more of them to be killed."
Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, a member of the Democratic leadership, said the victory to be won in Iraq "is not a military conquest."
"The victory we seek is earned through the restoration of America's role as peacemaker, not warmonger," he said.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Democrats Ramp Up Pressure, as Polls Show Americans Behind Them
By Richard Cowan and David Alexander
Reuters
Thursday, February 15, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats stepped up pressure on Thursday for President George W. Bush to halt his Iraq troop buildup, and the president warned Congress against undercutting his military strategy.
Rep. John Murtha, a war critic who chairs the House of Representatives panel that oversees military spending, said he planned to restrict war funding in a way that would effectively stop the 21,500 U.S. troop buildup, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid scheduled a new vote to confront Bush over Iraq.
The political maneuvering came as a new poll showed public support for the Iraq war continuing to fall, with 53 percent of Americans believing the United States should bring its troops home as soon as possible, a five percentage point jump in one month and the highest level since the war began.
Bush, in an address in Washington, warned U.S. lawmakers against taking action that would restrict his $93.4 billion emergency troop funding measure.
"Our men and women in uniform are counting on their elected leaders to provide them with the support they need to accomplish their mission," he said. "Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need."
With opposition to the Iraq war beginning to run deep in Congress, Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives and Senate are trying to assert their power of the purse in ways that they think could diminish the U.S. military involvement, while also providing funds to support troops already there.
Murtha hopes to choke off the 4-year-old war in Iraq by placing four conditions on combat funds through September 30. "We're trying to force a redeployment not by taking money away, by redirecting money," the Pennsylvania Democrat said.
The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are "fully combat ready" with training and equipment; troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments; combat assignments could not be extended beyond one year, and a "stop-loss" program forcing soldiers to extend their enlistment periods would be prohibited.
"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work," Murtha said.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, blasted Murtha's proposals.
"While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," Boehner said.
The House was expected to approve a resolution on Friday opposing Bush's 21,500-troop increase for Iraq. The House took up the measure, which does not force Bush to act, after the Senate failed in its initial effort to bring a similar resolution up for debate.
Reid announced he was scheduling an unusual Saturday Senate vote on whether to begin debate on the resolution. Congress had been scheduled to take its first recess of the new session beginning on Friday, so the decision would force the Senate to remain in Washington, increasing pressure on senators to act quickly.
But Senate Republicans said they would continue to oppose Democratic efforts unless votes on their proposals were allowed.
A new poll by the Pew Research Center found Americans are increasingly skeptical about success in Iraq, with 47 percent believing the United States is likely to achieve its goals and 46 percent disagreeing. Three months ago 53 percent thought success was probable and 41 percent did not.
The poll was conducted February 7 to February 11 among 1,509 Americans and a margin of error of three percentage points.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Steve Holland)
....and the truth shall set us free.
Reuters
Thursday, February 15, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats stepped up pressure on Thursday for President George W. Bush to halt his Iraq troop buildup, and the president warned Congress against undercutting his military strategy.
Rep. John Murtha, a war critic who chairs the House of Representatives panel that oversees military spending, said he planned to restrict war funding in a way that would effectively stop the 21,500 U.S. troop buildup, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid scheduled a new vote to confront Bush over Iraq.
The political maneuvering came as a new poll showed public support for the Iraq war continuing to fall, with 53 percent of Americans believing the United States should bring its troops home as soon as possible, a five percentage point jump in one month and the highest level since the war began.
Bush, in an address in Washington, warned U.S. lawmakers against taking action that would restrict his $93.4 billion emergency troop funding measure.
"Our men and women in uniform are counting on their elected leaders to provide them with the support they need to accomplish their mission," he said. "Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need."
With opposition to the Iraq war beginning to run deep in Congress, Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives and Senate are trying to assert their power of the purse in ways that they think could diminish the U.S. military involvement, while also providing funds to support troops already there.
Murtha hopes to choke off the 4-year-old war in Iraq by placing four conditions on combat funds through September 30. "We're trying to force a redeployment not by taking money away, by redirecting money," the Pennsylvania Democrat said.
The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are "fully combat ready" with training and equipment; troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments; combat assignments could not be extended beyond one year, and a "stop-loss" program forcing soldiers to extend their enlistment periods would be prohibited.
"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work," Murtha said.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, blasted Murtha's proposals.
"While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," Boehner said.
The House was expected to approve a resolution on Friday opposing Bush's 21,500-troop increase for Iraq. The House took up the measure, which does not force Bush to act, after the Senate failed in its initial effort to bring a similar resolution up for debate.
Reid announced he was scheduling an unusual Saturday Senate vote on whether to begin debate on the resolution. Congress had been scheduled to take its first recess of the new session beginning on Friday, so the decision would force the Senate to remain in Washington, increasing pressure on senators to act quickly.
But Senate Republicans said they would continue to oppose Democratic efforts unless votes on their proposals were allowed.
A new poll by the Pew Research Center found Americans are increasingly skeptical about success in Iraq, with 47 percent believing the United States is likely to achieve its goals and 46 percent disagreeing. Three months ago 53 percent thought success was probable and 41 percent did not.
The poll was conducted February 7 to February 11 among 1,509 Americans and a margin of error of three percentage points.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Steve Holland)
....and the truth shall set us free.
The Shadow Puppeteer
We say again, Impeach Cheney!
The Shadow Puppeteer - Los Angeles CityBeat:
“Did his wife send him on a junket?” With these words, scrawled angrily by our sitting vice president in the margins of a New York Times article, Dick Cheney set into motion a scandal with deep, lasting implications for the White House, and the fraud and incompetence that finally sent the U.S. stumbling into war with Iraq.
Unfortunately, Cheney will not be taking the stand this week in the perjury trial of his former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. He will not have to face federal prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. But the trial has already shone an embarrassing light on Cheney’s unique role in this dark period of American history.
When it was revealed that the classified identity of a CIA employee had been leaked to members of the press, President George W. Bush assured us that anyone who would participate in the outing of a CIA agent would no longer be part of his administration. Of course, we now know that, even as Bush said those words, Cheney and high-placed administration minions Libby, Karl Rove, Mary Matalin, Ari Fleischer, and many, many others had been actively involved. None of them was fired, and Libby exited only after being indicted.
DOUGLAS FEITH AND THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS
How much more must the American people learn before impeachment is back on the table and the name on the articles is Richard B. Cheney?
REAL SPECIAL... DOUGLAS FEITH AND THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS:
The inspector general at the Department of Defense has issued a report [.pdf] criticizing the intelligence disseminated to senior policymakers in the run-up to war:
'The Office of the tinder Undersecretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers. While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the intelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the various with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. This condition occurred because of an expanded role and mission of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy from policy formulation to alternative intelligence analysis and dissemination. As a result, the Office of the Undersecretary for Defense Policy did not provide 'the most accurate analysis of intelligence' to senior decision-makers.'
: Cheney on the Griddle by James Ridgeway
This shows one just how long Cheney has been on the griddle, so to speak, and zero has happened to him as a consequence.
Now he is again lying all over the place to get us into Iran; either he is lying or he is clearly delusional.
Either way, he has got to go!
village voice > news > Mondo Washington: Cheney on the Griddle by James Ridgeway:
Too hot to handle
The Bush administration has always insisted it did not know the uranium documents sent it from Italian intelligence were forgeries.
But La Repubblica, the Italian newspaper, last Tuesday revealed that the documents came from Nicolo Pollari, head of that nation's military intelligence service.
The paper said Pollari met secretly on September 9, 2002, with Hadley, at the time the deputy security adviser. A month later, forged papers were cabled to Washington from the U.S. embassy in Rome. They had been delivered to the embassy by an Italian reporter.
Last week a spokesman for the National Security Council told reporters that the meeting between Hadley and Pollari amounted to no more than a 15-minute courtesy call.
The spokesman then made this waffling statement: 'The subject of Iraq's supposed uranium deal with Niger is not believed to have come up.' He added, 'No one present has any recollection of yellowcake being discussed.'
The CIA had repeatedly warned Hadley that the uranium story was dubious. George Tenet, then head of the CIA, even called Hadley and told him to watch out for the suspicious story. Pollari reportedly also worked his ties within the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, run by Doug Feith, Rumsfeld's neocon in residence.
CHENEY BEING TARGETED FOR IMPEACHMENT
Let's hope so.
CHENEY BEING TARGETED FOR IMPEACHMENT:
Around the world, as a second carrier group moves toward the Persian Gulf, and White House threats against Iran are repeated on a daily basis, it is recognized that the only certain path to stopping the planned attack on Iran is the impeachment of Dick Cheney, who today, just as in the case of the Iraq War, is running the 'team' and the policy for 'regime change' in Iran:' Michele Steinberg / Executive Intelligence Review
Make no mistake about it ~ Lewis Libby took the fall for Cheney in the plamegate indictments. But the greatest crime of this administration is their crime against peace ~ for which they have yet to be indicted.
CHENEY BEING TARGETED FOR IMPEACHMENT:
Around the world, as a second carrier group moves toward the Persian Gulf, and White House threats against Iran are repeated on a daily basis, it is recognized that the only certain path to stopping the planned attack on Iran is the impeachment of Dick Cheney, who today, just as in the case of the Iraq War, is running the 'team' and the policy for 'regime change' in Iran:' Michele Steinberg / Executive Intelligence Review
Make no mistake about it ~ Lewis Libby took the fall for Cheney in the plamegate indictments. But the greatest crime of this administration is their crime against peace ~ for which they have yet to be indicted.
Poll: Most Doubt Iraq Peace, Iran Threat
Seems Americans have, indeed, awakened from their propaganda induced comas, and are at long last, paying attention.
wfrv.com - Poll: Most Doubt Iraq Peace, Iran Threat:
CBS News) NEW YORK - Two-thirds of Americans say the fighting in Iraq may be beyond the U.S. military's ability to control, according to the latest CBS News poll. Just 25 percent say the military can be effective in lessening the violence between Iraqis.
The war continues to take a toll on opinions about President Bush – his approval rating for handling Iraq is just 27 percent, and his overall job approval is just 32 percent – but the public is divided when it comes to what Congress should do about the war.
While 63 percent disapprove of the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq, there's a nearly even split on whether Congress should pass a nonbinding resolution expressing disapproval of the troop buildup: 44 percent favor passage of the measure and 45 percent are opposed.
wfrv.com - Poll: Most Doubt Iraq Peace, Iran Threat:
CBS News) NEW YORK - Two-thirds of Americans say the fighting in Iraq may be beyond the U.S. military's ability to control, according to the latest CBS News poll. Just 25 percent say the military can be effective in lessening the violence between Iraqis.
The war continues to take a toll on opinions about President Bush – his approval rating for handling Iraq is just 27 percent, and his overall job approval is just 32 percent – but the public is divided when it comes to what Congress should do about the war.
While 63 percent disapprove of the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq, there's a nearly even split on whether Congress should pass a nonbinding resolution expressing disapproval of the troop buildup: 44 percent favor passage of the measure and 45 percent are opposed.
Can This War-Mongering Maniac President Really Be Planning Military Action Against Iran?
To any rational mind, it is almost inconceivable that the Bush administration would gin up excuses for yet another war, when the last one, based on lies and exaggerations, has turned out to be such a stupendous flop, by anyone's calculations, except Cheney's, of course.
No matter how irrational the thought, it appears that is exactly what they are doing.
The only question is; "can we stop the damn fools before they start WWIII?"
The Ostroy Report:
Can This War-Mongering Maniac President Really Be Planning Military Action Against Iran? : "The supplying of weapons. The state-sponsoring of terrorists. The threat to America. Sound familiar? It ought to. It's President Bush waving the red flag again, only this time it's not about Iraq (which he was 100% wrong about) but Iran. And why not. The rhetoric is easy to regurgitate. And all he needs to do is change one little old letter and he's got a whole new target.
No matter how irrational the thought, it appears that is exactly what they are doing.
The only question is; "can we stop the damn fools before they start WWIII?"
The Ostroy Report:
Can This War-Mongering Maniac President Really Be Planning Military Action Against Iran? : "The supplying of weapons. The state-sponsoring of terrorists. The threat to America. Sound familiar? It ought to. It's President Bush waving the red flag again, only this time it's not about Iraq (which he was 100% wrong about) but Iran. And why not. The rhetoric is easy to regurgitate. And all he needs to do is change one little old letter and he's got a whole new target.
Neocons Hate Liberty As Much As They Love War
They aren't known as the 'effing crazies' for nothing.
Glenn Greenwald - Salon:
Frank Gaffney, one of the country's most influential and well-connected neoconservatives, has a column in today's Washington Times in which he argues that the debate taking place in Congress over the war in Iraq constitutes treason. Gaffney specifically argues that the condemnations of Douglas Feith from Sen. Rockefeller Levin 'really should be a hanging offense.'
Gaffney begins his column by purporting to quote Abraham Lincoln. Gaffney claims that Lincoln said:
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
Italy foils 'arms for Iraq plot'
Who are these people and why are they trying to make things worse in Iraq?
No names given? Wonder if we would recognize any of them?
BBC NEWS | Europe | Italy foils 'arms for Iraq plot':
Italian police say they have broken up a major arms trafficking ring that was planning to supply thousands of weapons to insurgents in Iraq.
They say the group involved had connections in Malta, Russia, Libya and China and some of those arrested were wealthy businessmen working in exports.
This began as a routine drugs investigation.
But soon police in the central Umbria region realised they had stumbled across something far more significant.
So far they have arrested 16 people - 12 on suspicion of drug dealing but four on allegations they were intending to supply arms.
Janis Karpinski: Sen. Lindsey Graham and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib
Graham is a bootlicker from way back.
He wouldn't know real integrity if it bit him in the ass, and it just might, before all this is over.
The Blog Janis Karpinski: Sen. Lindsey Graham and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib The Huffington Post:
"Tuesday night's private screening of Rory Kennedy's Ghosts of Abu Ghraib in Washington may serve to haunt Senator Lindsey Graham for many days to come. It was such a great opportunity and Senator Graham was such a great target, but he has only himself to thank. It is so sad and unfortunate for him to say the things he said, not so much because he thought he could simply say what he did against me not knowing I was there, but because it made everybody painfully aware of his inability to comprehend what he saw in the movie and his ignorance of the big picture.
He condemns the complicity of Miller, Sanchez, Rumsfeld et al., including a remark against the President, but sidesteps his responsibility in pinning medals on each one of them and letting them retire.
He wouldn't know real integrity if it bit him in the ass, and it just might, before all this is over.
The Blog Janis Karpinski: Sen. Lindsey Graham and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib The Huffington Post:
"Tuesday night's private screening of Rory Kennedy's Ghosts of Abu Ghraib in Washington may serve to haunt Senator Lindsey Graham for many days to come. It was such a great opportunity and Senator Graham was such a great target, but he has only himself to thank. It is so sad and unfortunate for him to say the things he said, not so much because he thought he could simply say what he did against me not knowing I was there, but because it made everybody painfully aware of his inability to comprehend what he saw in the movie and his ignorance of the big picture.
He condemns the complicity of Miller, Sanchez, Rumsfeld et al., including a remark against the President, but sidesteps his responsibility in pinning medals on each one of them and letting them retire.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Bush a pathetic drunk: Al Zawahiri
By Maamoun Youssef
ASSOCIATED PRESS02/14/07
AP" -- -- CAIRO, Egypt – Al-Qaeda's No. 2 said President Bush was an alcoholic and a lying gambler who wagered on Iraq and lost, according to a new audiotape released Tuesday by a U.S. group that tracks extremist messages. The Washington-based SITE Institute released a transcript of the audio by Ayman al-Zawahri, which it said it had intercepted from Islamic militant Web sites where his messages are usually posted. “
Bush suffers from an addictive personality, and was an alcoholic. I don't know his present condition ... but the one who examines his personality finds that he is addicted to two other faults – lying and gambling,” al-Zawahri said in the audiotape.
Bush, who is now 60, has acknowledged he had a problem with drinking but gave up alcohol when he was 40 years old.
The Associated Press could not immediately find the audiotape independently on Web sites but found messages on a number of them that said an al-Zawahri tape was expected to be aired shortly.
IntelCenter, a U.S. group that monitors terrorism communications, said it also obtained the audio and that it was accompanied by a video that showed a still picture of al-Zawahri. SITE said the multimedia arm of al-Qaeda, as-Sahab, claimed to have produced the 41-minute audiotape.
On the tape, al-Zawahri said Bush has gone down in history as one of the world's “most notorious liars.”
“So pay attention before it's too late, and beware of Bush's losing gambler's lie which claims that he, with the corpses of your killed and limbs of your wounded, is spreading democracy around the world,” said al-Zawahri, apparently addressing the American people.
Al-Zawahri also said recent congressional elections in the United States that elected a majority of Democrats would change nothing.
“The people chose you due to your opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq, but it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss,” al-Zawahri said of the Democrats according to the transcript.
He repeated an earlier condemnation of the Palestinian Fatah movement led by Mahmoud Abbas for seeking to establish a secular state. “I'm not asking them to join Hamas, the Islamic Jihad or al-Qaeda, but rather, I'm asking them to return to Islam, in order to fight for the establishment of an Islamic state over all of Palestine and not for the establishment of a secularist state which will please America,” al-Zawahri said.
It was the fourth message by Osama bin Laden's deputy since the beginning of the year. The last was on Jan. 22, when he mocked Bush's plan to send an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq.
Al-Zawahri called what he described as Bush' failure in Iraq and the growing Taliban resistance in Afghanistan the “most important events” of the past year.
He also said that “the people cooperating with the United States in Afghanistan and in Iraq would be abandoned by the Americans once they fail, the same way they did in Vietnam.”
Muslims around the world, he added, should go to “Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria and Somalia, because your brothers the Mujahedeen are in need of men, money, materiel, opinion, expertise and information.”
....and the truth shall set us free.
ASSOCIATED PRESS02/14/07
AP" -- -- CAIRO, Egypt – Al-Qaeda's No. 2 said President Bush was an alcoholic and a lying gambler who wagered on Iraq and lost, according to a new audiotape released Tuesday by a U.S. group that tracks extremist messages. The Washington-based SITE Institute released a transcript of the audio by Ayman al-Zawahri, which it said it had intercepted from Islamic militant Web sites where his messages are usually posted. “
Bush suffers from an addictive personality, and was an alcoholic. I don't know his present condition ... but the one who examines his personality finds that he is addicted to two other faults – lying and gambling,” al-Zawahri said in the audiotape.
Bush, who is now 60, has acknowledged he had a problem with drinking but gave up alcohol when he was 40 years old.
The Associated Press could not immediately find the audiotape independently on Web sites but found messages on a number of them that said an al-Zawahri tape was expected to be aired shortly.
IntelCenter, a U.S. group that monitors terrorism communications, said it also obtained the audio and that it was accompanied by a video that showed a still picture of al-Zawahri. SITE said the multimedia arm of al-Qaeda, as-Sahab, claimed to have produced the 41-minute audiotape.
On the tape, al-Zawahri said Bush has gone down in history as one of the world's “most notorious liars.”
“So pay attention before it's too late, and beware of Bush's losing gambler's lie which claims that he, with the corpses of your killed and limbs of your wounded, is spreading democracy around the world,” said al-Zawahri, apparently addressing the American people.
Al-Zawahri also said recent congressional elections in the United States that elected a majority of Democrats would change nothing.
“The people chose you due to your opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq, but it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss,” al-Zawahri said of the Democrats according to the transcript.
He repeated an earlier condemnation of the Palestinian Fatah movement led by Mahmoud Abbas for seeking to establish a secular state. “I'm not asking them to join Hamas, the Islamic Jihad or al-Qaeda, but rather, I'm asking them to return to Islam, in order to fight for the establishment of an Islamic state over all of Palestine and not for the establishment of a secularist state which will please America,” al-Zawahri said.
It was the fourth message by Osama bin Laden's deputy since the beginning of the year. The last was on Jan. 22, when he mocked Bush's plan to send an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq.
Al-Zawahri called what he described as Bush' failure in Iraq and the growing Taliban resistance in Afghanistan the “most important events” of the past year.
He also said that “the people cooperating with the United States in Afghanistan and in Iraq would be abandoned by the Americans once they fail, the same way they did in Vietnam.”
Muslims around the world, he added, should go to “Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria and Somalia, because your brothers the Mujahedeen are in need of men, money, materiel, opinion, expertise and information.”
....and the truth shall set us free.
Psycologists And The Bush Administration.
Why hasn't there been more of an outcry from professional psychologists about the practice of torture in the 'war on terror'?
By Peter Kinderman
02/14/07 "The Guardian" -- -- There is substantial evidence that the so-called "war on terror" has inveigled psychology and psychologists into its abusive systems. Last year's UN report on the abuse of detainees in Guantanamo Bay contained a reference to the extensive use of psychological methods and also referred to the role of psychologists and psychiatrists in interrogation techniques. It is profoundly worrying that such techniques are used, frightening to observe that they may be becoming more widely used, and depressing not to hear more condemnation of the involvement of professional psychologists and psychiatrists in their deployment.
CIA interrogation manuals written in the 1960s and 1980s describe the coercive techniques such as those used to mistreat detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and in Guantanamo Bay. The CIA manual, Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983, was originally obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Baltimore Sun in 1997. It lists a wide range of psychological techniques now widely observed in the "war on terror". The document is freely available in downloadable form from academic libraries in the US. It is clear that psychological expertise contributed to this "training manual". UK and US personnel trained in psychological techniques are involved in the R2I (resistance to interrogation) programmes taught to British and US military specialists. Psychologists, of course, study all aspects of human behaviour, including coercion and torture. Equally, members of the UK armed forces are likely to be exposed to danger and they should be prepared for that. But there are aspects of the present situation that are deeply troubling.
The US government has tried to excuse the CIA and the US military from laws prohibiting the use of torture, and defines torture in a very limited manner that refers explicitly to pain and tissue damage. And it is clear that American and other interrogators are abusing psychological knowledge. Terrorism suspects are disorientated and rendered anxious (even terrified). People are humiliated and degraded. Cunning plans appear to have been developed to use psychological approaches to adversely affect the victim.
One example given in the recent UN report involves a female interrogator sexually taunting an observant Muslim subject, including removing her clothes, then putting her hand down her knickers and removing what appeared to be menstrual blood, which she then smeared on the subject's face (it was, in fact, red marker-pen ink). For a clinical psychologist, this behaviour is psychological abuse, and is either designed to, or in any case will, harm the individually psychologically.
The psychological impact of psychological torture, degradation and abuse is well known. Indeed, the CIA itself has admitted as much, warning in its 1983 Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual that: "Extreme deprivation of sensory stimuli induces unbearable stress and anxiety and is a form of torture...there is a profound moral objection to applying duress beyond the point of irreversible psychological damage". The forms of psychological abuse reported as occurring in the "war on terror" can be devastating on the mental health of victims. Amnesty International has documented these consequences extensively, and academic mental health workers have commented on the severity of the possible consequences. In the UK, in a different context, it is possible to achieve a conviction for grievous bodily harm as a result of purely psychological abuse. It is highly likely - as indeed the CIA itself admits - that hooding, sensory deprivation, sexual humiliation and intense fear will harm the victim.
International law, of course, is clear. The Geneva Convention of 1949 bans "physical or mental torture, or any other form of coercion [...] threat[s], insult[s], or [...] any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind". The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlaws "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Psychological abuse such as that carried out at Guantanamo Bay will not only cause harm, it is illegal.
The US Government has attempted to hide from this fact. Alfred McCoy from the US History News Network has detailed the legal labyrinths that the administration has constructed to exempt such psychological abuse from their prefer definitions; such that "severe mental pain" is defined only as "drug injection drug injection; death threats; threats against another; and extreme physical pain". Clearly there are a vast number of unacceptable practices - physical practices such as stress positions and even "waterboarding" and psychological practices such as sexual humiliation, disorientation and the exploitation of phobias - that fail to meet this useful definition but remain abhorrent.
We are all aware of the failure of many governments to act appropriately to remove the scourge of torture. The prevalence of psychological techniques perhaps warrants particular attention. In addition to protecting people against physical harm, people's mental well-being must be protected. People must be protected against indefinite detention - itself testified to lead to serious mental health problems. People need protection from techniques such as routine hooding and sensory deprivation techniques. And people, of course, need protection from the techniques reported by the UN as being used in a variety of international facilities.
The impulse to resort to torture seems depressingly common. A recent BBCWorld Service poll found that up to a third of people think torture is justified under certain circumstances (the "ticking bomb suspect" scenario, for instance).
It's just this kind of dramatic circumstance that Jack Bauer portrays in the new series of 24 - so realistically that the US military has appealed to the producers to tone down the torture scenes because of the impact they are having on troops in the field and America's reputation.
Action is required by international bodies and governments. But relevant professionals must also do something. It is noticeable that there has been relatively little outcry from professional psychologists and psychiatrists about the trend. Most professional bodies require their members to repudiate torture, and forbid their involvement in torture.
The British Psychological Society is, in fact, a positive example in this regard. It would be naive to expect the US Government to change its practice following pressure from obscure professional groups, but it might help generate democratic pressure if mental health professionals were more out-spoken.
Copyright The Guardian
....and the truth shall set us free.
There has been an enormous outcry.
No one is listening!
More mental health professionals have spoken out, in warning, regarding this president and his co-conspirators than I have ever seen.
By Peter Kinderman
02/14/07 "The Guardian" -- -- There is substantial evidence that the so-called "war on terror" has inveigled psychology and psychologists into its abusive systems. Last year's UN report on the abuse of detainees in Guantanamo Bay contained a reference to the extensive use of psychological methods and also referred to the role of psychologists and psychiatrists in interrogation techniques. It is profoundly worrying that such techniques are used, frightening to observe that they may be becoming more widely used, and depressing not to hear more condemnation of the involvement of professional psychologists and psychiatrists in their deployment.
CIA interrogation manuals written in the 1960s and 1980s describe the coercive techniques such as those used to mistreat detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and in Guantanamo Bay. The CIA manual, Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983, was originally obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Baltimore Sun in 1997. It lists a wide range of psychological techniques now widely observed in the "war on terror". The document is freely available in downloadable form from academic libraries in the US. It is clear that psychological expertise contributed to this "training manual". UK and US personnel trained in psychological techniques are involved in the R2I (resistance to interrogation) programmes taught to British and US military specialists. Psychologists, of course, study all aspects of human behaviour, including coercion and torture. Equally, members of the UK armed forces are likely to be exposed to danger and they should be prepared for that. But there are aspects of the present situation that are deeply troubling.
The US government has tried to excuse the CIA and the US military from laws prohibiting the use of torture, and defines torture in a very limited manner that refers explicitly to pain and tissue damage. And it is clear that American and other interrogators are abusing psychological knowledge. Terrorism suspects are disorientated and rendered anxious (even terrified). People are humiliated and degraded. Cunning plans appear to have been developed to use psychological approaches to adversely affect the victim.
One example given in the recent UN report involves a female interrogator sexually taunting an observant Muslim subject, including removing her clothes, then putting her hand down her knickers and removing what appeared to be menstrual blood, which she then smeared on the subject's face (it was, in fact, red marker-pen ink). For a clinical psychologist, this behaviour is psychological abuse, and is either designed to, or in any case will, harm the individually psychologically.
The psychological impact of psychological torture, degradation and abuse is well known. Indeed, the CIA itself has admitted as much, warning in its 1983 Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual that: "Extreme deprivation of sensory stimuli induces unbearable stress and anxiety and is a form of torture...there is a profound moral objection to applying duress beyond the point of irreversible psychological damage". The forms of psychological abuse reported as occurring in the "war on terror" can be devastating on the mental health of victims. Amnesty International has documented these consequences extensively, and academic mental health workers have commented on the severity of the possible consequences. In the UK, in a different context, it is possible to achieve a conviction for grievous bodily harm as a result of purely psychological abuse. It is highly likely - as indeed the CIA itself admits - that hooding, sensory deprivation, sexual humiliation and intense fear will harm the victim.
International law, of course, is clear. The Geneva Convention of 1949 bans "physical or mental torture, or any other form of coercion [...] threat[s], insult[s], or [...] any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind". The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlaws "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Psychological abuse such as that carried out at Guantanamo Bay will not only cause harm, it is illegal.
The US Government has attempted to hide from this fact. Alfred McCoy from the US History News Network has detailed the legal labyrinths that the administration has constructed to exempt such psychological abuse from their prefer definitions; such that "severe mental pain" is defined only as "drug injection drug injection; death threats; threats against another; and extreme physical pain". Clearly there are a vast number of unacceptable practices - physical practices such as stress positions and even "waterboarding" and psychological practices such as sexual humiliation, disorientation and the exploitation of phobias - that fail to meet this useful definition but remain abhorrent.
We are all aware of the failure of many governments to act appropriately to remove the scourge of torture. The prevalence of psychological techniques perhaps warrants particular attention. In addition to protecting people against physical harm, people's mental well-being must be protected. People must be protected against indefinite detention - itself testified to lead to serious mental health problems. People need protection from techniques such as routine hooding and sensory deprivation techniques. And people, of course, need protection from the techniques reported by the UN as being used in a variety of international facilities.
The impulse to resort to torture seems depressingly common. A recent BBCWorld Service poll found that up to a third of people think torture is justified under certain circumstances (the "ticking bomb suspect" scenario, for instance).
It's just this kind of dramatic circumstance that Jack Bauer portrays in the new series of 24 - so realistically that the US military has appealed to the producers to tone down the torture scenes because of the impact they are having on troops in the field and America's reputation.
Action is required by international bodies and governments. But relevant professionals must also do something. It is noticeable that there has been relatively little outcry from professional psychologists and psychiatrists about the trend. Most professional bodies require their members to repudiate torture, and forbid their involvement in torture.
The British Psychological Society is, in fact, a positive example in this regard. It would be naive to expect the US Government to change its practice following pressure from obscure professional groups, but it might help generate democratic pressure if mental health professionals were more out-spoken.
Copyright The Guardian
....and the truth shall set us free.
Douglas Feith; Enemy of The State!
By Robert Scheer
02/14/07
"San Francisco Chronicle" -- -
SOMEDAY, you are going to read a whole lot about the shenanigans of one Douglas J. Feith and an elaborate scheme to get the United States to invade Iraq. That is because Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has been determined to get to the bottom of this sordid tale and is now, fortunately, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee and thereby empowered to get at the truth.
Last week, his focus led to the partial declassification of a report produced by the Pentagon's inspector general. Although its shocking revelations did not get the coverage it deserved -- what with a jealous astronaut on the loose and the death of a certain voluptuous stripper/heiress -- efforts such as Levin's eventually will uncover the full picture of why President Bush committed to a war costing tens of thousands of lives and an expected $1 trillion that served no valid national security purpose.
The tale begins with Feith, who was appointed undersecretary of defense for policy in the Pentagon by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after Bush was installed in the White House in 2000 by the Supreme Court.
In that capacity, Feith's office manufactured an "Alternative Analysis on the Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship," which ignored the consensus of the intelligence community that the two natural enemies -- one a secular Arab government, the other a fundamentalist terror group bent on destruction of same -- were not, nor ever had been, working together, despite a shared enmity for the United States.
Most important, as the Pentagon's independent inspector general noted, the intelligence did not support any connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and the brutal Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, such an apocryphal connection was asserted repeatedly by the Bush administration based largely on cherry-picked information (compiled and presented by Feith's highly ideological group within the Pentagon)."[I]ntelligence indicates cooperation in all categories" and a "mature symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, Feith conveniently reported to superiors who had already decided on the need to overthrow Hussein and were seeking a way to link it to Americans' rage at Osama bin Ladin.
These alleged "multiple areas of cooperation" included "shared interest and pursuit of [Weapons of Mass Destruction]" and "some indications of possible Iraq coordination with al Qaeda related to 9/11."
All of those claims were known by the intelligence community to be false or completely unproven, as documented by the nonpartisan 9/11 commission.
Yet, they were presented by Feith's office "unbeknownst to the Director of Central Intelligence," according to the report, were "not vetted by the Intelligence Community" and were "not supported by the available intelligence."The most glaring distortion was Feith's indefensible reliance on a shaky, discredited report from a Czech intelligence agent that said 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had a meeting with a top Iraqi diplomat in Prague five months before Sept. 11, 2001.
As the 9/11 commission reported, there was never any good evidence of such a meeting, yet Vice President Dick Cheney continued to assert it as true, long after the facts were known. Cheney even called Feith's report the "best source of information" on the alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda after it was leaked to the neoconservative Weekly StandardSo was the White House in on this hustle? It is hard to imagine it wasn't, because Feith was selected by Cheney and Rumsfeld to run the "alternative" intelligence operation precisely because they knew he was an inveterate hawk, long committed publicly to a rollback strategy that would ensure Israel's security through regime change in the Arab world, beginning with Iraq.
That radical and dangerous notion, based on a deep hostility to the Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts pursued by all previous presidents, had been clearly outlined by Feith in a 1996 report he co-wrote with Richard Perle and other prominent neoconservatives called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," issued by an Israeli think-tank. The report spelled out a rosy scenario in which a new post-Hussein Iraq with a Shia majority would support a pro-Israel position.
The absurdity of that expectation has been well demonstrated by the close ties of the Iraqi Shia leadership with an Iranian government that is publicly committed to eliminating Israel. Of course, as a private citizen, Feith had the right to endorse such deeply erroneous views -- but why was a man given to such bizarre analysis placed in a position of critical importance in the federal government?More important, why did the president raise Feith's analysis over that of the government's lavishly funded intelligence agencies? That is the basic question begged by the report, and one that truth-diggers such as Levin eventually may be able to answer
E-mail Rscheer@truthdig.
....and the truth shall set us free.
02/14/07
"San Francisco Chronicle" -- -
SOMEDAY, you are going to read a whole lot about the shenanigans of one Douglas J. Feith and an elaborate scheme to get the United States to invade Iraq. That is because Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has been determined to get to the bottom of this sordid tale and is now, fortunately, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee and thereby empowered to get at the truth.
Last week, his focus led to the partial declassification of a report produced by the Pentagon's inspector general. Although its shocking revelations did not get the coverage it deserved -- what with a jealous astronaut on the loose and the death of a certain voluptuous stripper/heiress -- efforts such as Levin's eventually will uncover the full picture of why President Bush committed to a war costing tens of thousands of lives and an expected $1 trillion that served no valid national security purpose.
The tale begins with Feith, who was appointed undersecretary of defense for policy in the Pentagon by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after Bush was installed in the White House in 2000 by the Supreme Court.
In that capacity, Feith's office manufactured an "Alternative Analysis on the Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship," which ignored the consensus of the intelligence community that the two natural enemies -- one a secular Arab government, the other a fundamentalist terror group bent on destruction of same -- were not, nor ever had been, working together, despite a shared enmity for the United States.
Most important, as the Pentagon's independent inspector general noted, the intelligence did not support any connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and the brutal Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, such an apocryphal connection was asserted repeatedly by the Bush administration based largely on cherry-picked information (compiled and presented by Feith's highly ideological group within the Pentagon)."[I]ntelligence indicates cooperation in all categories" and a "mature symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, Feith conveniently reported to superiors who had already decided on the need to overthrow Hussein and were seeking a way to link it to Americans' rage at Osama bin Ladin.
These alleged "multiple areas of cooperation" included "shared interest and pursuit of [Weapons of Mass Destruction]" and "some indications of possible Iraq coordination with al Qaeda related to 9/11."
All of those claims were known by the intelligence community to be false or completely unproven, as documented by the nonpartisan 9/11 commission.
Yet, they were presented by Feith's office "unbeknownst to the Director of Central Intelligence," according to the report, were "not vetted by the Intelligence Community" and were "not supported by the available intelligence."The most glaring distortion was Feith's indefensible reliance on a shaky, discredited report from a Czech intelligence agent that said 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had a meeting with a top Iraqi diplomat in Prague five months before Sept. 11, 2001.
As the 9/11 commission reported, there was never any good evidence of such a meeting, yet Vice President Dick Cheney continued to assert it as true, long after the facts were known. Cheney even called Feith's report the "best source of information" on the alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda after it was leaked to the neoconservative Weekly StandardSo was the White House in on this hustle? It is hard to imagine it wasn't, because Feith was selected by Cheney and Rumsfeld to run the "alternative" intelligence operation precisely because they knew he was an inveterate hawk, long committed publicly to a rollback strategy that would ensure Israel's security through regime change in the Arab world, beginning with Iraq.
That radical and dangerous notion, based on a deep hostility to the Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts pursued by all previous presidents, had been clearly outlined by Feith in a 1996 report he co-wrote with Richard Perle and other prominent neoconservatives called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," issued by an Israeli think-tank. The report spelled out a rosy scenario in which a new post-Hussein Iraq with a Shia majority would support a pro-Israel position.
The absurdity of that expectation has been well demonstrated by the close ties of the Iraqi Shia leadership with an Iranian government that is publicly committed to eliminating Israel. Of course, as a private citizen, Feith had the right to endorse such deeply erroneous views -- but why was a man given to such bizarre analysis placed in a position of critical importance in the federal government?More important, why did the president raise Feith's analysis over that of the government's lavishly funded intelligence agencies? That is the basic question begged by the report, and one that truth-diggers such as Levin eventually may be able to answer
E-mail Rscheer@truthdig.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Can The Military Really Come to Our Defense?
Not without civilian help!
Is the Military Our Last Hope?
By Paul Craig Roberts
Is the high command of the US military breaking ranks with the Bush Regime?
02/14/07 "ICH" -- -- With the “mainstream media,” that is, the government’s propaganda ministry, bombarding the American public with “news reports” from unidentified sources that the US government has proof that “the highest reaches of the Iranian government” is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency, Marine General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, demurred.
General Pace told the Voice of America on February 12 that he has no information indicating that Iran’s government is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency. General Pace said that “Iranians are involved,” but “what I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this . . . I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.”
Unlike the New York Times, Fox “news,” CNN, and the TV networks, General Pace refused to lie for the Bush Regime.Perhaps America could regain its reputation if General Pace would send a division of US Marines to arrest Bush, Cheney, the entire civilian contingent in the Pentagon, the neoconservative nazis, and the complicit members of Congress and send them off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes. But he did the best he could and refused to lie for warmongers.
There is absolutely no doubt that Bush-Cheney and the neoconservative nazis are planning revenge against General Pace. We can only hope the general does not have a wife who works for the CIA. Bush’s support stands at 30% or less of the American population; Cheney’s at 20% or less. How can “leaders” who are not supported by public opinion or by a single fact escalate a war that is entirely based on lies while starting a new war that is entirely based on lies?Is America any longer a democracy where failed leaders are held to account?
Obviously not.
What has America become while it has been in the hands of the Bush Regime?
How can any patriotic American support a regime that has shredded the US Constitution, ignored the separation of powers, violated the Geneva Conventions, forced through a law legalizing torture, launched a war of aggression that has produced 26,000 American military casualties in service of a lie, murdered tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians, destroyed an entire country, and planned an attack on Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons?
Patriotism is loyalty to country and to the US Constitution, not loyalty to a criminal regime.
This criminal regime is in the hands of a tiny cabal of fanatical ideologues who would risk the very existence of human life for their perverted ideology that has no higher value than American and Israeli hegemony.
Bush and the congressional sheep say “support the troops,” by which they mean, of course, “continue the war.” But Bush does not support the troops. On February 12 the Associated Press reported: “The Bush administration’s budget assumes cuts to funding for veterans’ health care two years from now--even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.”
Bush is an ignorant warmonger. He doesn’t care who pays the price as long as the American people let him sit in the Oval Office and play Napoleon.
MoveOn, an organization that, unlike the Bush Regime, has redeeming virtues, is making a terrible mistake in trying to collect half a million signatures in behalf of saving federal funding for NPR and PBS. I cannot imagine a surer way of adding NPR and PBS to the Bush Regime’s ministry of propaganda. NPR and PBS desperately need to be totally independent of government and dependent only on their listeners.
Any organization dependent on government money belongs to the government. Such an organization has no independence. Just ask the many physicists who cannot express doubts about the 9/11 Commission Report because their careers depend entirely on federal government grants.We have witnessed a decline in the integrity of NPR reporting over the past six years.
The Bush Regime put an ideological commissar in charge of NPR and the result is that NPR sounds increasingly like Fox “news.” The few people with integrity that America has left in the news business desperately need their independence.
On February 13, I listened for two hours to NPR and did not hear a single report of General Pace’s contradiction of Bush/Cheney propaganda about Iran’s leaders. But I did hear a neoconservative from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a propaganda institution in Washington D.C., push the buttons for war with Iran.
The Clinton Administration permitted the destruction of independent news in the US when it allowed the extraordinary concentration of the media.
The American media is no longer run by journalists with a commitment to truth but by advertising executives who seek to protect profits by avoiding “controversy” and who seek to protect the value of the conglomerates, a value that depends on government-granted broadcast licenses, by accommodating the government’s line, whatever it might be.The only free and independent media in the US is online.
The best thing that could possibly happen to NPR is to lose all federal funding and to become totally independent of Washington. Then we could trust it again.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Is the Military Our Last Hope?
By Paul Craig Roberts
Is the high command of the US military breaking ranks with the Bush Regime?
02/14/07 "ICH" -- -- With the “mainstream media,” that is, the government’s propaganda ministry, bombarding the American public with “news reports” from unidentified sources that the US government has proof that “the highest reaches of the Iranian government” is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency, Marine General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, demurred.
General Pace told the Voice of America on February 12 that he has no information indicating that Iran’s government is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency. General Pace said that “Iranians are involved,” but “what I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this . . . I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.”
Unlike the New York Times, Fox “news,” CNN, and the TV networks, General Pace refused to lie for the Bush Regime.Perhaps America could regain its reputation if General Pace would send a division of US Marines to arrest Bush, Cheney, the entire civilian contingent in the Pentagon, the neoconservative nazis, and the complicit members of Congress and send them off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes. But he did the best he could and refused to lie for warmongers.
There is absolutely no doubt that Bush-Cheney and the neoconservative nazis are planning revenge against General Pace. We can only hope the general does not have a wife who works for the CIA. Bush’s support stands at 30% or less of the American population; Cheney’s at 20% or less. How can “leaders” who are not supported by public opinion or by a single fact escalate a war that is entirely based on lies while starting a new war that is entirely based on lies?Is America any longer a democracy where failed leaders are held to account?
Obviously not.
What has America become while it has been in the hands of the Bush Regime?
How can any patriotic American support a regime that has shredded the US Constitution, ignored the separation of powers, violated the Geneva Conventions, forced through a law legalizing torture, launched a war of aggression that has produced 26,000 American military casualties in service of a lie, murdered tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians, destroyed an entire country, and planned an attack on Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons?
Patriotism is loyalty to country and to the US Constitution, not loyalty to a criminal regime.
This criminal regime is in the hands of a tiny cabal of fanatical ideologues who would risk the very existence of human life for their perverted ideology that has no higher value than American and Israeli hegemony.
Bush and the congressional sheep say “support the troops,” by which they mean, of course, “continue the war.” But Bush does not support the troops. On February 12 the Associated Press reported: “The Bush administration’s budget assumes cuts to funding for veterans’ health care two years from now--even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.”
Bush is an ignorant warmonger. He doesn’t care who pays the price as long as the American people let him sit in the Oval Office and play Napoleon.
MoveOn, an organization that, unlike the Bush Regime, has redeeming virtues, is making a terrible mistake in trying to collect half a million signatures in behalf of saving federal funding for NPR and PBS. I cannot imagine a surer way of adding NPR and PBS to the Bush Regime’s ministry of propaganda. NPR and PBS desperately need to be totally independent of government and dependent only on their listeners.
Any organization dependent on government money belongs to the government. Such an organization has no independence. Just ask the many physicists who cannot express doubts about the 9/11 Commission Report because their careers depend entirely on federal government grants.We have witnessed a decline in the integrity of NPR reporting over the past six years.
The Bush Regime put an ideological commissar in charge of NPR and the result is that NPR sounds increasingly like Fox “news.” The few people with integrity that America has left in the news business desperately need their independence.
On February 13, I listened for two hours to NPR and did not hear a single report of General Pace’s contradiction of Bush/Cheney propaganda about Iran’s leaders. But I did hear a neoconservative from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a propaganda institution in Washington D.C., push the buttons for war with Iran.
The Clinton Administration permitted the destruction of independent news in the US when it allowed the extraordinary concentration of the media.
The American media is no longer run by journalists with a commitment to truth but by advertising executives who seek to protect profits by avoiding “controversy” and who seek to protect the value of the conglomerates, a value that depends on government-granted broadcast licenses, by accommodating the government’s line, whatever it might be.The only free and independent media in the US is online.
The best thing that could possibly happen to NPR is to lose all federal funding and to become totally independent of Washington. Then we could trust it again.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Libby Trial: Looking forward to appeals and a pardon!
David Corn
The Nation -- Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss.
As the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby perjury trial headed toward a finale, Libby's attorneys on Wednesday made several last-minute stabs to bolster its defense--and federal district Judge Reggie Walton shot each down.
The defense wanted to bring Tim Russert, the Meet the Press star, back to the witness stand. Russert had appeared as a key witness for the prosecution. When Libby, then chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, was questioned in 2003 and 2004 by FBI agents and a grand jury investigating the leak that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer, he claimed that at the time of the leak he possessed no official information about Valerie Wilson and her CIA employment and that he had only heard gossip from Russert about her. In his indictment of Libby, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald claimed this was a lie, and Russert testified that he had told Libby nothing about Valerie Wilson because he knew nothing about her.
So Libby's lawyers were hoping to get another chance to attack Russert's credibility. As a prosecution witness, Russert had testified for twelve minutes before Wells cross-examined him for five hours, nicking but not truly wounding the newsman. That was not good enough for the defense. Libby's lawyers argued to Judge Walton--outside the presence of the jury--that they should be allowed to call Russert back to the stand. The issue at hand was a statement Russert made during his testimony in which he said he didn't realize a grand jury witness is not allowed to have a lawyer present when testifying before a grand jury. Libby's legal team--combing print and video archives--had found NBC News clips from the days of Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater when Russert had informed viewers that a grand jury witness couldn't have a lawyer by his or her side.
Why did a contradiction between Russert's recent testimony and a nine-year-old television clip matter?
Ted Wells, Libby's lead lawyer, argued that because Russert had been allowed to give a deposition to Fitzgerald in a lawyer's office with his own attorney present--rather than appear as grand jury witness with no lawyer to help him--Russert had received a favor from Fitzgerald and might have consequently crafted his testimony to benefit the prosecution. Wells asked to be allowed to call Russert back and play those Clinton-era tapes for the jury.
Walton said no. "It's a totally collateral matter," he declared.
Wells and his crew desired something else from the judge: permission to enter into the record a statement covering the details of the national security matters that Libby was working on at the time of the leak, his two FBI interviews, and his two grand jury appearances. This statement--based on classified information--was drafted before the trial, and the judge and relevant government agencies vetted the document and agreed it could be presented in court so Libby's defense would not reveal classified material. But Fitzgerald argued that the document had been drafted only for use if Libby testified--to allow him to show the jury what was on his mind at these times without disclosing secret information. If he won't testify, the prosecutor maintained, the statement shouldn't be presented to the jury. John Cline, a Libby attorney, argued vigorously. Walton was not persuaded, noting that the statement "was supposed to be a substitution" for Libby's testimony. Without Libby testifying, Walton said, putting the statement into evidence would not be fair.
Next, the Libby lawyers made a bid to introduce as evidence details from intelligence briefings that Libby received about terrorist threats. The point: Libby was so consumed by hair-raising news of threats he could not be expected to care about or remember the minor Valerie Wilson matter. Fitzgerald objected. He argued that the defense was trying to suggest Libby's (overwhelmed) state of mind to the jury without placing their client on the stand and subjecting him to cross-examination. He also maintained that if the details from these briefings were introduced without context--that is, without explaining that Libby received such information on a daily basis--the jurors would not be able to evaluate whether the material was out of the ordinary and truly mind-bending.
Again, Walton sided with Fitzgerald and ruled against Libby. If he doesn't testify, the judge explained, he can't use this information. Instead, Walton allowed Cline to read a stipulation to the jury that repeated information already introduced. This stipulation noted that at a June 14, 2003 intelligence briefing--during which Libby mentioned Joseph and Valerie Wilson to his CIA briefer--he was presented information about a bomb being defused in Yemen, the arrest of a terrorist suspect elsewhere, a possible al Qaeda attack in the United States, Iraq's porous borders, demonstrations in Iran, developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a possible airport hijacking in England by a group linked to al Qaeda, a variety of potential terrorist attacks around the world, the 1920 Mesopotamia insurrection and its relevancy to the Iraqi insurgency, and other matters. Libby, according to the stipulation, requested additional information on two of the two dozen topics in the briefing.
Shortly after the stipulation was read, Wells told the judge, "The defense on behalf of Lewis Libby rests."
Team Libby concluded its case without offering any witness who was a direct party to the events at issue. It finished its presentation without producing any testimony or evidence to back up its assertion that Libby was the victim of a CIA plot, a State Department plot, a White House plot, an NBC News plot or some combination of these get-Libby conspiracies. It supplied little evidence that Libby was particularly forgetful. It offered no testimony to back up the notion that Libby had no motive to lie to the FBI and the grand jury. During opening arguments, Wells claimed he would show that Libby had no reason to fear for his job when he was questioned by the FBI and the grand jury. Wells said he could show that Cheney would have stuck by Libby no matter what and, thus, Libby had no incentive to cover up his involvement in the leak episode.
Yet Wells put no one on the stand--say, Cheney--to support this claim. And he presented only one witness--New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson--to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness: Judith Miller, a former Times reporter. Abramson was on and off the stand within minutes. Most of Libby's witnesses testified about events that were not part of the case.
And Libby said nothing. It was as if Wells didn't dare put his client on the stand to repeat the gymnastics he performed during his grand jury appearance when he essentially said, I forgot to remember what I had known but forgotten about Valerie Wilson. And Wells would not give Fitzgerald a crack at Cheney.
Nothing in defense presentation buttressed the dramatic statements Wells made at the start of the case. Libby's lawyers mounted a bombastic but skimpy defense: a lot of hat, not much cattle. This is not unusual in a criminal case. The defense has no obligation to present a case. The burden is upon the government. A defense lawyer can simply claim the prosecution fell short and leave it at that. Which is practically what Wells and his team are doing. As Wells said after resting his case, "There is no box on the verdict sheet [used by jurors] that says...did you tell the full story? It says guilty or not guilty." When the trial began, Wells claimed he and Libby had a story to tell. It turns out they don't.
Closing arguments are scheduled for next Tuesday.
....and the truth shall set us free.
The Nation -- Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss.
As the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby perjury trial headed toward a finale, Libby's attorneys on Wednesday made several last-minute stabs to bolster its defense--and federal district Judge Reggie Walton shot each down.
The defense wanted to bring Tim Russert, the Meet the Press star, back to the witness stand. Russert had appeared as a key witness for the prosecution. When Libby, then chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, was questioned in 2003 and 2004 by FBI agents and a grand jury investigating the leak that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer, he claimed that at the time of the leak he possessed no official information about Valerie Wilson and her CIA employment and that he had only heard gossip from Russert about her. In his indictment of Libby, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald claimed this was a lie, and Russert testified that he had told Libby nothing about Valerie Wilson because he knew nothing about her.
So Libby's lawyers were hoping to get another chance to attack Russert's credibility. As a prosecution witness, Russert had testified for twelve minutes before Wells cross-examined him for five hours, nicking but not truly wounding the newsman. That was not good enough for the defense. Libby's lawyers argued to Judge Walton--outside the presence of the jury--that they should be allowed to call Russert back to the stand. The issue at hand was a statement Russert made during his testimony in which he said he didn't realize a grand jury witness is not allowed to have a lawyer present when testifying before a grand jury. Libby's legal team--combing print and video archives--had found NBC News clips from the days of Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater when Russert had informed viewers that a grand jury witness couldn't have a lawyer by his or her side.
Why did a contradiction between Russert's recent testimony and a nine-year-old television clip matter?
Ted Wells, Libby's lead lawyer, argued that because Russert had been allowed to give a deposition to Fitzgerald in a lawyer's office with his own attorney present--rather than appear as grand jury witness with no lawyer to help him--Russert had received a favor from Fitzgerald and might have consequently crafted his testimony to benefit the prosecution. Wells asked to be allowed to call Russert back and play those Clinton-era tapes for the jury.
Walton said no. "It's a totally collateral matter," he declared.
Wells and his crew desired something else from the judge: permission to enter into the record a statement covering the details of the national security matters that Libby was working on at the time of the leak, his two FBI interviews, and his two grand jury appearances. This statement--based on classified information--was drafted before the trial, and the judge and relevant government agencies vetted the document and agreed it could be presented in court so Libby's defense would not reveal classified material. But Fitzgerald argued that the document had been drafted only for use if Libby testified--to allow him to show the jury what was on his mind at these times without disclosing secret information. If he won't testify, the prosecutor maintained, the statement shouldn't be presented to the jury. John Cline, a Libby attorney, argued vigorously. Walton was not persuaded, noting that the statement "was supposed to be a substitution" for Libby's testimony. Without Libby testifying, Walton said, putting the statement into evidence would not be fair.
Next, the Libby lawyers made a bid to introduce as evidence details from intelligence briefings that Libby received about terrorist threats. The point: Libby was so consumed by hair-raising news of threats he could not be expected to care about or remember the minor Valerie Wilson matter. Fitzgerald objected. He argued that the defense was trying to suggest Libby's (overwhelmed) state of mind to the jury without placing their client on the stand and subjecting him to cross-examination. He also maintained that if the details from these briefings were introduced without context--that is, without explaining that Libby received such information on a daily basis--the jurors would not be able to evaluate whether the material was out of the ordinary and truly mind-bending.
Again, Walton sided with Fitzgerald and ruled against Libby. If he doesn't testify, the judge explained, he can't use this information. Instead, Walton allowed Cline to read a stipulation to the jury that repeated information already introduced. This stipulation noted that at a June 14, 2003 intelligence briefing--during which Libby mentioned Joseph and Valerie Wilson to his CIA briefer--he was presented information about a bomb being defused in Yemen, the arrest of a terrorist suspect elsewhere, a possible al Qaeda attack in the United States, Iraq's porous borders, demonstrations in Iran, developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a possible airport hijacking in England by a group linked to al Qaeda, a variety of potential terrorist attacks around the world, the 1920 Mesopotamia insurrection and its relevancy to the Iraqi insurgency, and other matters. Libby, according to the stipulation, requested additional information on two of the two dozen topics in the briefing.
Shortly after the stipulation was read, Wells told the judge, "The defense on behalf of Lewis Libby rests."
Team Libby concluded its case without offering any witness who was a direct party to the events at issue. It finished its presentation without producing any testimony or evidence to back up its assertion that Libby was the victim of a CIA plot, a State Department plot, a White House plot, an NBC News plot or some combination of these get-Libby conspiracies. It supplied little evidence that Libby was particularly forgetful. It offered no testimony to back up the notion that Libby had no motive to lie to the FBI and the grand jury. During opening arguments, Wells claimed he would show that Libby had no reason to fear for his job when he was questioned by the FBI and the grand jury. Wells said he could show that Cheney would have stuck by Libby no matter what and, thus, Libby had no incentive to cover up his involvement in the leak episode.
Yet Wells put no one on the stand--say, Cheney--to support this claim. And he presented only one witness--New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson--to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness: Judith Miller, a former Times reporter. Abramson was on and off the stand within minutes. Most of Libby's witnesses testified about events that were not part of the case.
And Libby said nothing. It was as if Wells didn't dare put his client on the stand to repeat the gymnastics he performed during his grand jury appearance when he essentially said, I forgot to remember what I had known but forgotten about Valerie Wilson. And Wells would not give Fitzgerald a crack at Cheney.
Nothing in defense presentation buttressed the dramatic statements Wells made at the start of the case. Libby's lawyers mounted a bombastic but skimpy defense: a lot of hat, not much cattle. This is not unusual in a criminal case. The defense has no obligation to present a case. The burden is upon the government. A defense lawyer can simply claim the prosecution fell short and leave it at that. Which is practically what Wells and his team are doing. As Wells said after resting his case, "There is no box on the verdict sheet [used by jurors] that says...did you tell the full story? It says guilty or not guilty." When the trial began, Wells claimed he and Libby had a story to tell. It turns out they don't.
Closing arguments are scheduled for next Tuesday.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Scooter's un-testimony
Yet another conspiracy of silence!
Wednesday February 14, 2007 11:31 PM
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense attorneys misled the court into thinking that former White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby would testify in his CIA leak trial, a federal judge said Wednesday, as he blocked Libby from using some classified evidence in the case.
Libby is accused of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity. His attorneys have said for months in court papers that Libby would testify that he had important national security issues on his mind and that he simply forgot details about his conversations regarding the CIA employee, Valerie Plame.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald agreed to tell jurors about the terrorist threats, war planning and other secret issues that Libby faced at the time. The prosecutor said that he agreed to do this on the condition that he could cross-examine Libby at some point on just how seriously he considered these threats.
When defense attorneys abruptly announced Wednesday that Libby no longer planned to testify, however, Fitzgerald said that jurors hearing the case therefore should not be given a prewritten statement about Libby's briefings.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton agreed, and reversed an earlier ruling that the evidence could be admitted.
"My absolute understanding was that Mr. Libby was going to testify,'' the judge said. ``My ruling was based on the fact that he was going to testify.''
Walton appeared upset and seemed to stake his reputation on the decision. Libby's attorneys indicated they would appeal the decision if Libby is convicted.
"If that's what the Supreme Court is going to say (in any ruling on an appeal), they might as well say the government's not entitled to a fair trial and the defendant is,'' Walton said. "I think both sides are entitled to a fair trial. If I get reversed on that, maybe I need to hang up my spurs.''
Walton said he would consider allowing three CIA briefers to testify about what they told Libby during the mid-2003 intelligence briefings. Fitzgerald said that, too, should be excluded now that Libby isn't going to testify.
Walton said he would rule on that issue later Wednesday. He also was weighing whether to put NBC newsman Tim Russert back on the witness stand so Libby's attorneys could continue attacking his credibility.
Russert, who testified last week, is a key witness in case. Libby's attorneys want to show jurors three video clips that seem to contradict some of Russert's testimony.
Russert testified last week that he never discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame with Libby. Libby told investigators that Russert asked about Plame and said ``all the reporters'' knew she worked at the CIA. That dispute is at the heart of the case. Libby is accused of making up the Russert call to cover up other conversations he had with reporters and of obstructing the investigation into the leak of Plame's name.
The most recent effort to discredit Russert does not directly undercut his story. Rather it involves testimony over the arrangements prosecutors made in exchange for Russert's cooperation.
Russert was not put before a grand jury. Rather, he was allowed to testify in an interview alongside his lawyer. As Libby's attorneys tried last week to cast that as favorable treatment, Russert - a law school graduate and former Senate counsel - said he was unaware that grand jury witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys present.
Libby's attorneys found three old television clips that suggest Russert did know. In those clips, Russert describes the grand jury that was investigating members of the Clinton administration. In them, he notes that witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys in the room when they testify.
"His credibility, it seems to me, is crucial to this case,'' Walton said. ``He's probably, if not the most important, one of the most important witnesses.''
Fitzgerald said Libby's attorneys had their chance to cross-examine Russert and wanted a "do over.''
Russert was cross-examined for five hours after offering 12 minutes of direct testimony. Fitzgerald said it doesn't matter what Russert knew about grand jury procedure.
Defense attorney Theodore Wells said Russert got special treatment and he wants to use the tapes to show Russert was trying to conceal that.
Russert and Libby tell different stories about a July 2003 phone conversation. Libby says at the end of the call, Russert told him that Plame, the wife of prominent war critic Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA. Russert said that part of the conversation never occurred.
Libby subsequently repeated the information about Plame to other journalists, always with the caveat that he had heard it from reporters, he has said. Prosecutors say Libby concocted the Russert conversation to shield him from prosecution for revealing classified information from government sources.
^---
Associated Press writer Michael J. Sniffen contributed to this report.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Wednesday February 14, 2007 11:31 PM
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense attorneys misled the court into thinking that former White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby would testify in his CIA leak trial, a federal judge said Wednesday, as he blocked Libby from using some classified evidence in the case.
Libby is accused of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity. His attorneys have said for months in court papers that Libby would testify that he had important national security issues on his mind and that he simply forgot details about his conversations regarding the CIA employee, Valerie Plame.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald agreed to tell jurors about the terrorist threats, war planning and other secret issues that Libby faced at the time. The prosecutor said that he agreed to do this on the condition that he could cross-examine Libby at some point on just how seriously he considered these threats.
When defense attorneys abruptly announced Wednesday that Libby no longer planned to testify, however, Fitzgerald said that jurors hearing the case therefore should not be given a prewritten statement about Libby's briefings.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton agreed, and reversed an earlier ruling that the evidence could be admitted.
"My absolute understanding was that Mr. Libby was going to testify,'' the judge said. ``My ruling was based on the fact that he was going to testify.''
Walton appeared upset and seemed to stake his reputation on the decision. Libby's attorneys indicated they would appeal the decision if Libby is convicted.
"If that's what the Supreme Court is going to say (in any ruling on an appeal), they might as well say the government's not entitled to a fair trial and the defendant is,'' Walton said. "I think both sides are entitled to a fair trial. If I get reversed on that, maybe I need to hang up my spurs.''
Walton said he would consider allowing three CIA briefers to testify about what they told Libby during the mid-2003 intelligence briefings. Fitzgerald said that, too, should be excluded now that Libby isn't going to testify.
Walton said he would rule on that issue later Wednesday. He also was weighing whether to put NBC newsman Tim Russert back on the witness stand so Libby's attorneys could continue attacking his credibility.
Russert, who testified last week, is a key witness in case. Libby's attorneys want to show jurors three video clips that seem to contradict some of Russert's testimony.
Russert testified last week that he never discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame with Libby. Libby told investigators that Russert asked about Plame and said ``all the reporters'' knew she worked at the CIA. That dispute is at the heart of the case. Libby is accused of making up the Russert call to cover up other conversations he had with reporters and of obstructing the investigation into the leak of Plame's name.
The most recent effort to discredit Russert does not directly undercut his story. Rather it involves testimony over the arrangements prosecutors made in exchange for Russert's cooperation.
Russert was not put before a grand jury. Rather, he was allowed to testify in an interview alongside his lawyer. As Libby's attorneys tried last week to cast that as favorable treatment, Russert - a law school graduate and former Senate counsel - said he was unaware that grand jury witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys present.
Libby's attorneys found three old television clips that suggest Russert did know. In those clips, Russert describes the grand jury that was investigating members of the Clinton administration. In them, he notes that witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys in the room when they testify.
"His credibility, it seems to me, is crucial to this case,'' Walton said. ``He's probably, if not the most important, one of the most important witnesses.''
Fitzgerald said Libby's attorneys had their chance to cross-examine Russert and wanted a "do over.''
Russert was cross-examined for five hours after offering 12 minutes of direct testimony. Fitzgerald said it doesn't matter what Russert knew about grand jury procedure.
Defense attorney Theodore Wells said Russert got special treatment and he wants to use the tapes to show Russert was trying to conceal that.
Russert and Libby tell different stories about a July 2003 phone conversation. Libby says at the end of the call, Russert told him that Plame, the wife of prominent war critic Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA. Russert said that part of the conversation never occurred.
Libby subsequently repeated the information about Plame to other journalists, always with the caveat that he had heard it from reporters, he has said. Prosecutors say Libby concocted the Russert conversation to shield him from prosecution for revealing classified information from government sources.
^---
Associated Press writer Michael J. Sniffen contributed to this report.
....and the truth shall set us free.
Rice Lies About Iran Overture!
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Controversy over a possible missed U.S. opportunity for rapprochement with Iran grew on Wednesday as former aide accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of misleading Congress on the issue.
Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, said a proposal vetted by Tehran's most senior leaders was sent to the United States in May 2003 and was akin to the 1972 U.S. opening to China.
Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."
Reuters Pictures
Rice's spokesman denied she misled Congress and reiterated that she did not see the proposal.
Separately, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns warned Iran it risked further U.N. and other sanctions if it did not halt uranium enrichment as the U.N. Security Council demanded.
He stressed there was still time for diplomacy before Iran reached a critical point in its nuclear capability and said conflict with Iran was not inevitable.
Washington remains patient and committed to negotiations with Tehran and its carrot-and-stick approach with other major powers is influencing Iran's internal debate, Burns told the Brookings Institution think tank. Continued...
....and the truth shall set us free.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Controversy over a possible missed U.S. opportunity for rapprochement with Iran grew on Wednesday as former aide accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of misleading Congress on the issue.
Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, said a proposal vetted by Tehran's most senior leaders was sent to the United States in May 2003 and was akin to the 1972 U.S. opening to China.
Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."
Reuters Pictures
Rice's spokesman denied she misled Congress and reiterated that she did not see the proposal.
Separately, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns warned Iran it risked further U.N. and other sanctions if it did not halt uranium enrichment as the U.N. Security Council demanded.
He stressed there was still time for diplomacy before Iran reached a critical point in its nuclear capability and said conflict with Iran was not inevitable.
Washington remains patient and committed to negotiations with Tehran and its carrot-and-stick approach with other major powers is influencing Iran's internal debate, Burns told the Brookings Institution think tank. Continued...
....and the truth shall set us free.
Clinton on Iran and Bush
It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization.
Nor should the president think that the 2002 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.
The question remains. Will Congress roll over on Iran like they did in Iraq if this ever comes up. Everybody should contact their representatives now and demand that attacking Iran is unacceptable…
....and the truth shall set us free.
Nor should the president think that the 2002 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.
The question remains. Will Congress roll over on Iran like they did in Iraq if this ever comes up. Everybody should contact their representatives now and demand that attacking Iran is unacceptable…
....and the truth shall set us free.
Nadler, On The Floor, Kicking Booty
The Iraq War is President Bush's war.
The President deceived the American people and Members of Congress when he made the case for war. Every reason we were given for invading Iraq was false.
Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not there.
Saddam Hussein working hand-in-glove with Al Qaeda? Not true.
And the more information that leaks out, the more apparent it becomes that these were not mistakes, but deliberate lies.
I ask you: if the President had gone to the American people and said we must invade a country that poses no imminent threat to us, and sacrifice thousands of lives in order to create a democratic government in Iraq, would we have assented? I think not.
And as the President now says to us that we should continue indefinitely to expend American blood and treasure to support one side in a sectarian civil war, should Congress continue to consent? I think not.
We need to say "Enough already!"
Enough with the lies, and the deceit and the evasions!
Enough with the useless bloodshed.
We must protect our troops and ensure their safety while they are in Iraq
....and the truth shall set us free.
The President deceived the American people and Members of Congress when he made the case for war. Every reason we were given for invading Iraq was false.
Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not there.
Saddam Hussein working hand-in-glove with Al Qaeda? Not true.
And the more information that leaks out, the more apparent it becomes that these were not mistakes, but deliberate lies.
I ask you: if the President had gone to the American people and said we must invade a country that poses no imminent threat to us, and sacrifice thousands of lives in order to create a democratic government in Iraq, would we have assented? I think not.
And as the President now says to us that we should continue indefinitely to expend American blood and treasure to support one side in a sectarian civil war, should Congress continue to consent? I think not.
We need to say "Enough already!"
Enough with the lies, and the deceit and the evasions!
Enough with the useless bloodshed.
We must protect our troops and ensure their safety while they are in Iraq
....and the truth shall set us free.
Veterans face consecutive budget cuts
Heckuva job, Georgie, way to support those troops!
Veterans face consecutive budget cuts - Yahoo! News:
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now — even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.
Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012.
After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.
The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends — its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office — sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.
....and the truth shall set us free
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Constitution Restoration Act of 2007
Now, here some fine news.
The Blog | John R. Bohrer: Senators Dodd & Menendez to Introduce Bill Banning Torture | The Huffington Post:
Over at Blue Jersey, we've just learned that tomorrow, Senators Chris Dodd and Bob Menendez will introduce legislation banning torture. The bill, titled The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007, will restore habeus corpus rights, ban torture and uphold the Geneva Conventions.
You may recall that a few months ago, Senator Menendez was one of the Democrats who voted for the Bush administration's Military Commissions Act, which eliminated habeas corpus and legalized torture.
Politico's Simon: Romney "up close ... is almost overpowering. He radiates vigor"
OMG!
Excuse me while I go blow my brains out!
Are we really sick enough, as a nation, to vote for a pretty package, again? Run right out and cast our vote for someone right out of central casting?
My God, look what it has gotten us in the last, almost three decades!
If we can't discern genuineness, sincerity, authenticity, and smarts, yes all kinds of smarts, we are all really too dumb to live, and we will deserve what we get.
Seems Cabal News is already doing its part in the election process. Saying stupid crap, so people will believe it.
If it's on TeeVee it must be true, right?
First things first!
Mr. Romney needs to get a damn name. Mit? What kind of name is that?
Is that the male version of Muffy, Buffy, Fluffy, or whatever.
Media Matters - Politico's Simon: Romney "up close ... is almost overpowering. He radiates vigor":
In a February 13 column for The Politico, chief political columnist Roger Simon claimed former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 'looks so much like a president would look if television picked our presidents (and it does) that sometimes you have to ask yourself if you are watching the real deal or a careful construction,' as noted by blogger Atrios (Media Matters for America senior fellow Duncan Black).
Simon continued:
Romney has chiseled-out-of-granite features, a full, dark head of hair going a distinguished gray at the temples, and a barrel chest. On the morning that he announced for president, I bumped into him in the lounge of the Marriott and up close he is almost overpowering. He radiates vigor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
