Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

CIA Leak Scandal Goes to the Top

By Jason Leopold, TruthOut.org. Posted February 10, 2006.


Bush administration officials reveal that the Vice President spearheaded the White House's efforts to discredit Joseph Wilson.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
What if People Actually Treated Religion as Just a Metaphor (Like Trekkies and Secular Jews)?
Greta Christina

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
15 Signs American Society Is Coming Apart at the Seams
David DeGraw

DrugReporter:
When It’s Crunch Time at College, Students Turn to Adderall
Erik Hayden

Environment:
20 Weird, Crazy Ideas for Helping the Earth

Food:
The War on Soy: Why the 'Miracle Food' May Be a Health Risk and Environmental Nightmare
Tara Lohan

Health and Wellness:
Pharmaceutical Giant Paid $500,000 to Psychiatrist Who Used Chicago's Poor as Guinea Pigs
Christina Jewett and Sam Roe

Immigration:
Dobbs' Resignation Was Long Overdue
Janet Murguía

Media and Technology:
Is Right-Wing Media Hustler Trying to "Blackmail" the Obama's Attorney General over ACORN Videos?
David Edwards, Muriel Kane

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
New Right-Wing Craze: Using Bible Quote to Pray That Obama’s 'Days Be Few'
Amanda Terkel

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Hey Guys, Don't Want Kids? A Vascetomy Is Probably the Way to Go
Anna Clark

Rights and Liberties:
Economic Crisis Is Getting Bloody -- Violent Deaths Are Now Following Evictions, Foreclosures and Job Losses
Nick Turse

Sex and Relationships:
How Abstinence-Only Programs Perpetuate Dangerous Stereotypes
Martha Kempner

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Poseidon's Financial Shell Game: Why Is a Private Desalination Plant Asking for Public Money?
Peter Gleick

World:
Army Sends Mom to Afghanistan, Infant to Protective Services
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Jason Leopold

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley led a campaign beginning in March 2003 to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson for publicly criticizing the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, according to current and former administration officials.

The officials work or had worked in the State Department, the CIA and the National Security Council in a senior capacity and had direct knowledge of the Vice President's campaign to discredit Wilson.

In interviews over the course of two days this week, these officials were urged to speak on the record for this story. But they resisted, saying they had already testified before a grand jury investigating the leak of Wilson's wife, covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, and added that speaking out against the administration and specifically Vice President Cheney would cause them to lose their jobs and subject their families to vitriolic attacks by the White House.

The officials said they decided to speak out now because they have become disillusioned with the Bush administration's policies regarding Iraq and the flawed intelligence that led to the war.

They said their roles, along with several others at the CIA and State Department, included digging up or "inventing" embarrassing information on the former Ambassador that could be used against him, preparing memos and classified material on Wilson for Cheney and the National Security Council, and attending meetings in Cheney's office to discuss with Cheney, Hadley, and others the efforts that would be taken to discredit Wilson.

A former CIA official who has worked in the counter-proliferation division, and is familiar with the undercover work Wilson's wife did for the agency, said Cheney and Hadley visited CIA headquarters a day or two after Joseph Wilson was interviewed on CNN.

These were the first public comments Wilson had made about Iraq. He said the administration was more interested in redrawing the map of the Middle East to pursue its own foreign policy objectives than in dealing with the so-called terrorist threat.

"The underlying objective, as I see it, the more I look at this, is less and less disarmament, and it really has little to do with terrorism, because everybody knows that a war to invade and conquer and occupy Iraq is going to spawn a new generation of terrorists," Wilson said in a March 2, 2003, interview with CNN.

"So you look at what's underpinning this, and you go back and you take a look at who's been influencing the process. And it's been those who really believe that our objective must be far grander, and that is to redraw the political map of the Middle East," Wilson added.

This was the first time that Wilson had spoken out publicly against the administration's policies. It was two and a half weeks before the start of the Iraq war.

But it wasn't Wilson who Cheney was so upset about when he visited the CIA in March 2003.

During the same CNN segment in which Wilson was interviewed, former United Nations weapons inspector David Albright made similar comments about the rationale for the Iraq war and added that he believed UN weapons inspectors should be given more time to search the country for weapons of mass destruction.

The National Security Council and CIA officials said Cheney had visited CIA headquarters and asked several CIA officials to dig up dirt on Albright, and to put together a dossier that would discredit his work that could be distributed to the media.

"Vice President Cheney was more concerned with Mr. Albright," the CIA official said. "The international community had been saying that inspectors should have more time, that the US should not set a deadline. The Vice President felt Mr. Albright's remarks would fuel the debate."

The officials said a "binder" was sent to the Vice President's office that contained material that could be used by the White House to discredit Albright if he continued to comment on the administration's war plans. However, it's unclear whether Cheney or other White House officials used the information against Albright.

A week later, Wilson was interviewed on CNN again. This was the first time Wilson ridiculed the Bush administration's intelligence that claimed Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.

"Well, this particular case is outrageous. We know a lot about the uranium business in Niger, and for something like this to go unchallenged by US -- the US government -- is just simply stupid. It would have taken a couple of phone calls. We have had an embassy there since the early '60s. All this stuff is open. It's a restricted market of buyers and sellers," Wilson said in the March 8, 2003, CNN interview. "For this to have gotten to the IAEA is on the face of it dumb, but more to the point, it taints the whole rest of the case that the government is trying to build against Iraq."

What Wilson wasn't at liberty to disclose during that interview, because the information was still classified, was that he had personally traveled to Niger a year earlier on behalf of the CIA to investigate whether Iraq had in fact tried to purchase uranium from the African country. Cheney had asked the CIA in 2002 to look into the allegation, which turned out to be based on forged documents, but was included in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address nonetheless.

Wilson's comments enraged Cheney, all of the officials said, because they were seen as a personal attack against the Vice President, who was instrumental in getting the intelligence community to cite the Niger claims in government reports to build a case for war against Iraq.

The former Ambassador's stinging rebuke also caught the attention of Stephen Hadley, who played an even bigger role in the Niger controversy, having been responsible for allowing President Bush to cite the allegations in his State of the Union address.

At this time, the international community, various media outlets, and the International Atomic Energy Association had called into question the veracity of the Niger documents. Mohammed ElBaradei, head of IAEA, told the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003, that the Niger documents were forgeries and could not be used to prove Iraq was a nuclear threat.

Wilson's comments in addition to ElBaradei's UN report were seen as a threat to the administration's attack plans against Iraq, the officials said, which would take place 11 days later.

Hadley had avoided making public comments about the veracity of the Niger documents, going as far as ignoring a written request by IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei to share the intelligence with his agency so his inspectors could verify the claims. Hadley is said to have known the Niger documents were crude forgeries, but pushed the administration to cite it as evidence that Iraq was a nuclear threat, according to the State Department officials, who said they personally told Hadley in a written report that the documents were bogus.

The CIA and State Department officials said that a day after Wilson's March 8, 2003, CNN appearance, they attended a meeting at the Vice President's office chaired by Cheney, and it was there that a decision was made to discredit Wilson. Those who attended the meeting included I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff who was indicted in October for lying to investigators, perjury and obstruction of justice related to his role in the Plame Wilson leak, Hadley, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and John Hannah, Cheney's deputy national security adviser, the officials said.

"The way I remember it," the CIA official said about that first meeting he attended in Cheney's office, "is that the vice president was obsessed with Wilson. He called him an 'asshole,' a son-of-a-bitch. He took his comments very personally. He wanted us to do everything in our power to destroy his reputation and he wanted to be kept up to date about the progress."

A spokeswoman for Cheney would not comment for this story, saying the investigation into the leak is ongoing. The spokeswoman refused to give her name. Additional calls made to Cheney's office were not returned.

The CIA, State Department and National Security Council officials said that early on they had passed on information about Wilson to Cheney and Libby that purportedly showed Wilson as being a "womanizer" and that he had dabbled in drugs during his youth, allegations that are apparently false, they said.

The officials said that during the meeting, Hadley said he would respond to Wilson's comments by writing an editorial about the Iraqi threat, which it was hoped would be a first step in overshadowing Wilson's CNN appearance.

A column written by Hadley that appeared in the Chicago Tribune on February 16, 2003, was redistributed to newspaper editors by the State Department on March 10, 2003, two days after Wilson was interviewed on CNN. The column, "Two Potent Iraqi Weapons: Denial and Deception" once again raised the issue that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger.

Cheney appeared on Meet the Press on March 16, 2003, to respond to ElBaradei's assertion that the Niger documents were forgeries.

"I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," Cheney said during the interview. "[The IAEA] has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past."

Cheney knew the State Department had prepared a report saying the Niger claims were false, but he thought the report had no merit, the two State Department officials said. Meanwhile, the CIA was preparing information for the vice president and his senior aides on Wilson should the former ambassador decide to speak out against the administration again.

Behind the scenes, Wilson had been speaking to various members of Congress about the administration's use of the Niger documents and had said the intelligence the White House relied upon was flawed, said one of the State Department officials who had a conversation with Wilson. Wilson's criticism of the administration's intelligence eventually leaked out to reporters, but with the Iraq war just a week away, the story was never covered.

It's unclear whether anyone disseminated information on Wilson in March 2003, following the meeting in Cheney's office. Although the officials said they helped prepare negative information on Wilson about his personal and professional life and had given it to Libby and Cheney, Wilson seemed to drop off the radar once the Iraq war started on March 19, 2003.

With no sign of weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq, news accounts started to call into question the credibility of the administration's pre-war intelligence. In May 2003, Wilson re-emerged at a political conference in Washington sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. There he told the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff that he had been the special envoy who traveled to Niger in February 2002 to check out allegations that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from the country. He told Kristoff he briefed a CIA analyst that the claims were untrue. Wilson said he believed the administration had ignored his report and were dishonest with Congress and the American people.

When Kristoff's column was published in the Times, the CIA official said, "a request came in from Cheney that was passed to me that said 'the vice president wants to know whether Joe Wilson went to Niger.' I'm paraphrasing. But that's more or less what I was asked to find out."

In his column, Kristoff Had accused Cheney of allowing the truth about the Niger documents the administration used to build a case for war to go "missing in action." The failure of US armed forces to find any WMDs in Iraq in two months following the start of the war had been blamed on Cheney.

What in the previous months had been a request to gather information that could be used to discredit Wilson now turned into a full-scale effort involving the Office of the Vice President, the National Security Council, and the State Department to find out how Wilson came to be chosen to investigate the Niger uranium allegations.

"Cheney and Libby made it clear that Wilson had to be shut down," the CIA official said. "This wasn't just about protecting the credibility of the White House. For the vice president, going after Wilson was purely personal, in my opinion."

Cheney was personally involved in this aspect of the information gathering process as well, visiting CIA headquarters to inquire about Wilson, the CIA official said. Hadley had also raised questions about Wilson during this month with the State Department officials and asked that information regarding Wilson's trip to Niger be sent to his attention at the National Security Council.

That's when Valerie Plame Wilson's name popped up showing that she was a covert CIA operative. The former CIA official who works in the counter-proliferation division said another meeting about Wilson took place in Cheney's office, attended by the same individuals who were there in March. But Cheney didn't take part in it, the officials said.

"Libby led the meeting," one of the State Department officials said. "But he was just as upset about Wilson as Cheney was."

The officials said that as of late May 2003 the only correspondence they had had was with Libby and Hadley. They said they were unaware who had made the decision to unmask Plame Wilson's undercover CIA status to a handful of reporters.

George Tenet, the former director of the CIA, took responsibility for allowing what is widely referred to as the infamous "sixteen words" to be included in Bush's State of the Union address. Tenet's mea culpa came one day after Wilson penned an op-ed for the New York Times in which he accused the administration of "twisting" intelligence on Iraq. In the column, Wilson revealed that he was the special envoy who traveled to Niger to investigate the uranium claims.

Tenet is working on a book titled At the Center of the Storm with former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, which it is expected will be published later this year. Tenet will reportedly come clean on how the "sixteen words made it into the President's State of the Union speech, according to publishersmarketplace.com, an industry newsletter.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame Wilson leak for more than two years, questioned Cheney about his role in the leak in 2004. Cheney did not testify under oath, and it's unknown what he told the special prosecutor.

On September 14, 2003, during an interview with Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney maintained that he didn't know Wilson or have any knowledge about his Niger trip or who was responsible for leaking his wife's name to the media.

"I don't know Joe Wilson," Cheney said, in response to Russert, who quoted Wilson as saying there was no truth to the Niger uranium claims. "I've never met Joe Wilson. And Joe Wilson -- I don't who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back … I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Jason Leopold, a regular contributor to TruthOut, spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not surprising
Posted by: condenser on Feb 10, 2006 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At what point does this web of lies translate into someone actually going to jail? Maybe I'm misinterpreting things. Is this proof that Cheney would be a fine President? What a bunch of losers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What really is surprising Posted by: hotar
portly
Posted by: portly on Feb 10, 2006 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i'd like to know what the heck Fitzgerald is DOING! Why all the delay?? Is there any source or place to go to see the CURRENT status of his work?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: portly Posted by: allblue
» RE: portly Posted by: dikaiosyne
» RE: portly Posted by: adp3d
» RE: Dikaiosyne Posted by: lyndoc
Wow...
Posted by: Zen on Feb 10, 2006 1:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Combine this with the recent journal article by former CIA official Paul Pillar, coordinator of Middle East intelligence from 2000 - 2005, that the Bush Administration knowingly "cherry-picked" intelligence and is now making a scapegoat of the intelligence community to cover it all up, and it becomes alarmingly clear - The American people were lied to, and we must demand action.

According to Pillar, there was nothing inherantly wrong with the intelligence. It simply didn't "say" what the administration wanted. In Pillar's words, the administration "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," and "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention." But there was NO connection to be made.

These claims are NOT coming from outsiders or fringe "liberals". Pillar is a 28-year veteran of the CIA who spearheaded intelligence gathering on Iraq for Bush. He is the SOURCE. And now he is blowing the whistle too.

Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, we deserve and must demand the truth be told. Otherwise the blood is on our hands too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow... Delusions Posted by: IanA
What is the precedent?
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Feb 11, 2006 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When did it become legal or customary for high ranking officials to testify without being sworn in? Since when are they permitted to lie without committing perjury? Are they assumed to be more honest than the "ordinary" citizen? We have a new royalty and I don't like it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» LYING NOT UNDER OATH Posted by: JayBee
What exactly is impeachable?
Posted by: zoza on Feb 11, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A blowjob in the oval office sent the Republicans into a tizzy. Yet when a cabal takes place in the White House that kills thousands American child/soldiers and many more thousands of innocent children in Iraq, there is no semblance of outrage. These goons have destroyed all vestiges of integrity that America once had, both here and abroad and are still ripping away at all that was once good about this country. The only way for us, as a nation to regain a hint of our former selves, is to send these fools packing.... NOW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nobody cares
Posted by: thecynic on Feb 11, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is that the public really does not care. It took 10 years of lies and death and incompetence before the U S finally was forced to call it quits in Viet Nam. And that was with a draft. Now with a volunteer army we will probably be in Iraq until the country goes bankrupt. That is probably what it will take.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nobody cares Posted by: mguss
This is such great theatre
Posted by: tkwilson on Feb 11, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad I'm not reading this 200 years in the future, because it's not funny right now. "Et tu, Brute' ?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing But The Truth
Posted by: the islander on Feb 11, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush cabal has nothing to fear but the truth. Truth is their enemy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, so what? Will anything come of it?!
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 11, 2006 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The officials who have implicated Veep Cheney in outing Valerie Plame, clearly an impeachable offense, resisted speaking on the record for this article, yet they have testified , presumably under oath, to authorities. So, did they tell the same story? If so, will these new revelations FINALLY result in someone in the Bush administration paying for their crimes? I'd like to think so, but considering the avalanche of lawlessness from the Bush criminals that has gone unpunished so far, I doubt it.

It seems that no one, in Washington or elsewhere, has the balls to bring these fascists to justice. What else can it mean except that we are in a dictatorship but are too afraid to admit it? It has become a tired litany of people in Washington "being outraged" and then doing nothing about it. Without action accompanying words, who cares?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only answer is to impeach Busheny
Posted by: katinmn on Feb 11, 2006 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rhode Island U.S. Senate candidate Carl Sheeler is ready to stop our "Weapons of Misdirection" (BushCo)

Just last weekend he took out a billboard saying "Be Patriotic,
Impeach Bush" overlaid on the Bill of Rights. www.carlsheeler.com

While we have our own battles to fight in every state, we know that every Senate seat is precious and key to stopping the rogue government. There are only 100 of them representing 300 million of us! I hope you'll join in helping to get the word out about Carl Sheeler's campaign, and perhaps send a couple dollars, sign the Bring the Troops Home petition, and help bring his message to Rhode Island voters as well as progressives across the country.

The Right Wing has bungled our foreign policy, made the entire world less safe, trashed our budgets, made access to health care even harder, outsourced our jobs, failed to respond in a national emergency, pitted American against American through "divide and conquer" propaganda, and gives tax breaks to the wealthiest while cutting funds for our vulnerable kids, elderly, veterans, college students, anyone and everyone who isn't part of the "investment class."

We can't afford the Right Wingers anymore. November is our chance to elect true patriots who will effectively challenge the Right Wing's destruction of our democracy.

Sheeler is a former Marine, father of five, business person,
community activist, and adjunct professor at Bryant University. His previous campaign experience was as a latecomer in May 2004 when he ran as an Independent against a four-term Republican state senator,
garnering 41% of the vote. He can win in Rhode Island if he can bring his message directly to people. Corporate media won't do that.

P.S. Impeachment is not an impossible dream.

Did you know 24 members of Congress are now on record as supporting a probe that could lead to impeachment or resignation? John Conyers' H.RES.635 has 23 co-sponsors and the list is growing by the week.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE00635:@@...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Untouchable villain
Posted by: Slowburn on Feb 11, 2006 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Character assassination is the very lest of this villains sins. With his hand up the ass of a brainless puppet president this scourge
is as responsible for the innocent blood soaked sand as the so called pro lifers that enabled them, what a tragic irony it is. His halliburton job awaits him and think of the power of wealth he will command when he is back in charge there. dick will never answer for his sins on this earth, but god has a special place for those that lust for world domination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Untouchable villain Posted by: goldennugget
» RE: Untouchable villain Posted by: ng1944
» Huh? Posted by: mcbride
» RE: Untouchable villain Posted by: Iconoclast421
ricksahm
Posted by: ricksahm on Feb 11, 2006 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have never seen it questioned exactly why the administration thought it would damage Joe Wilson's credibility to out his wife's undercover CIA status?

And I am mystified how they could think that outing a CIA agent would not be against the national security interest. What world do they inhabit? Even though they believe they are above the law, and even though they believe that attacking the family of a dissident is OK, how can these people "forget" that outing an undercover CIA agent is harmful to the country, and to their cause of creating an "ordered state" (in which they give the orders)?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ricksahm Posted by: Lincoln fan
'Taint fear, 'tis money
Posted by: Riverside on Feb 11, 2006 6:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't assume that the cabal has instilled fear in the hearts of the press and the Congress. It is the power of money that has all of them bullied. The link between this administration and corporate America, which as we have seen, has become corrupt, is so tight they squeek!. Calls to leading news organizations (Print and Media) from their biggest corporate sponsors pretty well stifles a free press. The Justice Department has a "yes man" as its leader and an honest prosecutor like Fitzgerald is in a tight spot from the get go.

As for the Congress, I am sure there are many who are not on the take, but there are enough who are or have been to totally destroy its integrity. The Abramoff scandal is just the tip of a very large and ugly iceberg.

We need to encourage a bi-partisan band of brothers of the good guys in the Congress and then help them clean house. WE must do it right, do it legally, and keep our civil rights and the Constitution free and in place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 'Taint fear, 'tis money Posted by: Lincoln fan
1,2,3,4,5
Posted by: saywhat? on Feb 11, 2006 6:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it just gets more and more pitiful
first there are the tax cuts for the wealthy, then a prememptive war based on lies, then there is libby, abhramoff, delay under inditement, then there is racist neglect with hurricane katrina, no osama, a war looming in iran, an arrest at the SOTU for a tshirt, an unloyal opposition, a humogous deficit, raising oil and gas prices, a bleep of rolling stones lyrics that have been played for 30 years on the airwaves, a supreme court judge(s) who thinks the president should be given unchecked powers, a figurehead who can't think, and a vice president who is evil, oh and torture and wiretapping and oh geese.......infinity!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 1,2,3,4,5 Posted by: Envi
clinker
Posted by: cottontail on Feb 11, 2006 9:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And who in hell is going to stop them? The big question is will the Republic survive three more years of official criminality. A nation of sheep, run by wolves, and owned by pigs. Welcome to the farm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nobody Posted by: The Butcher
» RE: Nobody Posted by: ng1944
» RE: The Antichrist is here Posted by: cold2touch
The Albright case may turn into a nastier issue for Bush and Cheney
Posted by: Conan the Younger on Feb 11, 2006 10:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are loose bits of information that has been coming to light concerning the knowledge of No WMD before the war started. Albright is one of those bits. Another is the report that CIA analysts were so surprised by the lack of any evidence of WMD at the sites the CIA had told the UN weapons inspectors to search, the CIA analysts were changing their evaluations of any WMD in Iraq prior to the start of the invasion. This report was made by CNN the week before the war, but there was no follow up report because the war started with the cruise missile attack on the supposed location of Saddam Hussein almost a day earlier than the planned start of the war. These bits and pieces of information could prove the White House was being told before the war even started there was NO WMD in Iraq. And the White House ordered the missile attack to force the CIA into suppressing the report. The White House gave the reason for the missile attack before the scheduled start of hostilities was "battlefield intelligence" pinpointed Saddam at a location found by an intercepted cell phone call. The suspicion is the "battlefield intelligence" came from Douglas J. Feith's special intelligence dept that was operating independent of the CIA. Feith's dept is under investigation by the Pentagon's inspector general for "engaging in illegal or inappropriate intelligence activities before the Iraq war." The investigation was requested by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. (AP 051119) Remember, only the President, the Vice President, and the members of the cabinet are allowed to see those reports. Those reports do not go to Congress or even the intelligence committee members unless the President shows it to them.

Another bit has just been added to the pile when Paul Pillar (CIA - national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia 2000-2005 and responsible for coordinating Iraq assessments from all 15 US intelligence agencies [except Feith's].) stated in Foreign Affairs; "Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war". (AP 060210) He goes on to say a number of related items that indicate the CIA analysts were not being listened to just before the war began. It will be interesting to see if he will inform the American people what the analysts were saying to the White House just before the war began.

These bits and pieces are forming a pattern that says the White House was being told by the CIA there was no WMD in Iraq before the war began. This means that Bush and Cheney had and are lying today to the American people, Congress, and the world about the primary reason for invading Iraq. This is why Bush and Cheney started the PR campaign to change the reason for the war from WMD to spreading democracy in the Middle East even before the reports came in from the battlefield the US military could not find any WMD. This is an open and shut case for impeachment, conviction, and removal from office for both of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Corruption Posted by: The Butcher
a Canadian perspective on its sleeping neighbour
Posted by: concerned Canadian on Feb 12, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is little wonder that the current attempts by the Chinese to boldly use Google to tweak the Chinese internet sites in order to basically disallow users to access the truth when this truth puts the government into a bad light. The Chinese are looking to the West and see that such kind of bold action is 'no problem' as the leader of the Western democracies is carrying this out at its highest level. Is there anybody home in the US government system? Is there really nothing that will be done?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

unnamed offficials?
Posted by: coyote on Feb 12, 2006 8:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If these guys really did testify to a grand jury and this is the story they told, then Fitzgerald would have indicted Cheney by now. I want to see Cheney run out of Washinton on a rail as much as the next guy, but, unless the unnamed officials or the reporter step up and start naming names, this is just a ghost story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ImpeachBush.org should spend money on TV ads
Posted by: Envi on Feb 15, 2006 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As we know that most people (80%) get their news from TV, it seems it would do better to advertise the Impeach Bush campaign on TV rather in the NY Times. Too bad they didn't/couldn't/wouldn't buy a 30 second spot during the Super Bowl! Now THAT's how one gets attention! Unfortunately, they do not have a "contact us" link on their website, so maybe one of those in charge there will read this. For those who lament that the word is not getting out, maybe you should go to their website and make a donation to support the NY Times ads. By and by, people will come around, one key to successful advertising is repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Executive Order 13292
Posted by: nicurn on Feb 16, 2006 6:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Heard Cheney using his right to declassify classified information as authorized by Executive Order 13292 - signed by Bush MARCH 25, 2003 - as giving him the right to give classified information out. Basically, giving out sections of the NIE to fight against claims that the administration falsified info going into the Iraq war is ok as far as Cheney is concerned. Interesting date on the Executive Order.. Thank you, NPR!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement