Vyan

Saturday, February 17

They truly think we're Stupid!

This weeks Iraq debate in the House has if nothing been highly illuminating. Republican after Republican came forward and proved without a shadow of a doubt - that they truly think the American public is fucking stupid.

Non-binding though it may be, this resolution - which ultimately passed 246 to 196 - forced both Democrats and Republicans to put their cards on the table, and the Repubs had nothing in their hand but empty rhetoric, outright lies and paranoid delusions.

But then again we've come to expect nothing less from the party of perpetual bullshit have we not?

This time, as they have so frequently in the past, they did not fail to disappoint our lowest possible expectations.

First off we have the hypocracy that this resolution, being non-binding is "meaningless" while at the same time it would send a "devastating message" to the troops and our enemies - demoralizing the former while emboldening the latter.

Sorry guys but both of these opinions can not be true at the same time.

And specifically when it comes to "Supporting the Troops" the Bill actually states the following.

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq;

But it also says...

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

During the debate we had Rep Don Young (R-AK) who insisted on using a quote from Lincoln condemning congressmen who criticize the war.

"Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."

Too bad that Lincoln never said that. PNAC/Neo-con Frank Gaffney falsely attributed the quote to Lincoln in the Mooney Times and Young, so far, refuses to take it back because the Times has yet to admit Gaffney's fuck up.

Typical.

Then we had Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) who decided it would be a good idea to quote Larry the Cable Guy and say we need to "Get 'er Done" in Iraq. Well yes, Ginny we do - problem is sending 20,000 more troops into a Civil War meat grinder without first working out a diplomatic solution and without proper equipment is only going to Get THEM Done, not help Iraq or our troops.

And then of course we had Rep Virgil Goode (R-VA) who claimed...

supporting the anti-escalation resolution would "aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country." Moreover, he said, "I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see ‘In God We Trust’ stricken from our money and replaced with ‘In Muhammad We Trust'

Ok, so not only is this guy a raging bigot - he's a nitwit too. Muhammad is not the equivelent for God in Islam - he's the equivelent for Jesus, whom Muslims also revere as a wise profit. The correct analogy would have been "In Allah We Trust" - but since Allah is merely the Islamic word for "God", and the God of Islam is actually the same God worshipped by both Jesus and Abraham it would really make no significant difference in meaning. It's would just be a translation, like saying it in Spanish or German.

And we all do remember that Virgil Goode is the Representative who also attacked the election of Muslim Rep Keith Ellison (D MN) to the House, right?

"I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America."

You mean "traditional" beliefs such as freedom of religion ala the 1st Amendment of the Constitution? Aparently not.

Dumbass.

And it's not just the Republicans in the House who think the American public has an IQ lower than a puddle of phlem - it's also Michele Malkan who's "skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it".

And Sean Hannity whose decided he's going to prove that Al Gore is a Big Fat Carbon Poluting Hypocrit - even if he has to make shit up to prove it.

But all of this is just a prelude to the real battle brewing just over the horizon. The fight over the so-called "Slow Bleed" strategy. At least according to the RNC.

The Democrat [sic] strategy on Iraq is finally clear.

We've known all along that they want to cut and run before the job is done. But they've been afraid to confront President Bush directly. [Yeah, right! They just did that yesterday!] Today, Democrat [sic] Rep. John Murtha let slip what he and Nancy Pelosi really intend to do, and it is genuinely frightening.

They call it their 'slow-bleed' plan. Instead of supporting the troops in Iraq, or simply bringing them home, the Democrats intend to gradually make it harder and harder for them to do their jobs.

'Slow-bleed' is exactly the right name for this incredibly irresponsible and dangerous strategy. Cutting and running is bad enough. But the Murtha-Pelosi 'slow-bleed' plan is far worse. It is a cynical and dangerous erosion of our ability to fight the terrorists while we still have men and women on the ground in Iraq. It will put their lives in far greater danger, as resources slowly dry up. How can our troops operate without bases? How can they fight without backup?

'Slow-bleed' cannot become law. Luckily, we have an opportunity to stop it. The Murtha plan depended on stealth. Now, however, the press has broken the story. And now we can act.

Contary to the RNC's bullcrap - Nancy Pelosi has signed on the John Murth'a binding resolution to require that our troops have the proper training, equipment and rest between tours that they need to do their jobs effectively and safely -- and that they shouldn't and can't be deployed without all the above.

Now, just who in their right mind would want our troops deployed without proper equipement for extended periods without proper rest or healthcare or...? Wait, hold on - I think I know the answer to that one and being in their "right mind" certainly has nothing to do with it.

At least five Republicans repeated this "Slow Bleed" smear on the House floor during the debate. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), and Adam Putnam (R-FL).

But when it comes to actually supporting the troop not with empty rhetoric but with actually useful items such as armor and healthcare Republicans have fallen shamefully short. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran for America (IAVA) ranks most Republicans very badly according to their voting records for helping provide the troops with what they need to do their jobs.

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite has a "C" ranking.
Rep. Virgil Goode has a "C".
Rep. Don Young has a "C+".

And the smearers?

Deborah Pryce - C+
Roy Blunt - C
Thaddeus McCotter - C+
Jeb Hensarling - D+
Adam Putnam - C+

These guys are "Supporting the Troops?" Really? Too Bad The Troops don't seem to think so.

Meanwhile...

Rep. Nancy Pelosi has an "B+" and Rep. John Murtha has a "B" rating from IAVA.

But the real test is to look at the IAVA "F-Troop" which is all Republicans (including Patrick McHenry, and former FBI Director Jeff Sessions) compared to their "A Team" which - you guessed it - is nearly all Democrats (including Steny Hoyer, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton).

Now we can see why Mitch McConnell was so desperate not to have this debate in the Senate.

The American People have stopped buying this snake-oil for some time now, but the Republicans - to their eternal detriment - continue to keep peddling it. Probably because, they simply haven't got anything better to offer but fear-mongering, hate, paranoia and lies.

Well, based on last November it's clear we've had enough - but you guys are just digging the grave of the Republican Party Brand deeper and deeper now, aren't you? Isn't the definition of insanity something about repeating something that doesn't F-ing work over and over again? Yeah, maybe you should look that one up between the scholarly works of Larry the Cable Guy and Frank (the Liar Guy) Gaffney.

Oh, and for the record - we're not stupid.

Vyan

Friday, February 16

System of a Down - B.Y.O.B.

System of a Down - B.Y.O.B.

Living Colour - Type

Type by Living Colour

Thursday, February 15

Libby and the Addington Question

Yesterday both the Prosecution and Defense rested in the Scooter Libby perjury trial. Exactly how the case will turn out is still anyones guess. With the defense arguing that "Libby was a busy man" and "simply couldn't remember" - it's possible that some of the jurors could buy his story even though at least seven people contradicted what he told the grand jury about when and where he first heard about CIA agent Valerie Plame-Wilson.

It's possible... except for one bit of testimony. One question that Libby put to White House Counsel David Addington that puts a match to his house of cards defense case.

The issue as I last discussed concerning the Libby trial is - what is his motivation to lie be? The most obvious answer to that question is the likelyhood that he realized that an CIA employee working in the Counter Proliferation Division just might be an undercover operative, and that revealing their identity was a crime.

Did Libby consider this after he'd revealed Plame's identify to both Judith Miller and Matt Cooper?

Yes he did, because he asked David Addington about it.

A: He asked me how you would know if you met someone from CIA if they were undercover. I responded when I worked out there, you'd ask if someone if they were undercover. He asked if they introduced themselves how you'd know. I told him you wouldn't know unless you asked or saw a piece of paper that said it was classified. (Like the INR Report!) I volunteered to him I could get him a copy of IIPA that makes it a crime to reveal identity of covert agent. I took it to his office and gave it to him.

From this we can see that Libby knew it was a crime and that he had clearly considered the possibility that Wilson's wife was undercover even if he didn't mention her specifically, just like Robert Grenier the CIA's Iraq Mission Manager who was the second person tell Libby about "Wilson's wife" following Marc Grossmam who had mentioned it earlier in the day on June 11th based on information he read in the INR Report on Wilson's trip.

Q. Some time after you testified in the GJ in January 2004. Did you continue to think about that question?

I was going over it in my mind. I was hoping that I hadn't mentioned anything to Mr. Libby, I really didn't remember anything new. But what I did remember was the way I felt immediately after.

I briefly felt guilty, that I had relayed too much information. I was going through a mental justification about why it was alright to have relayed this to Mr. Libby.

Q. What part were you having concerns about. Having mentioned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, revealing the identity of an agency officer, although it was indirect.

I didn't know her name, so I didn't give her name, but by saying Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, I was revealing the identity of a CIA officer. It wasn't absolutely necessary, that is information that we guard pretty closely, and if we don't have to say it, we don't.

Q. You went through a mental justification. Senior Govt official, has every security clearance known to man. He may have met this person in the course of his business, this person may have briefed him. Did you come to any conclusions?

It wasn't as if one day I had a revelation. But as I thought about it over time, as I remembered specifically I developed a growing conviction that I had said it, I said to myself wake up and smell the coffee.

During defense cross examination Grenier went even further.

Z If the person at the CPD that you spoke to did not tell you Wilson's wife was covert. Why were you feeling uncomfortable.

G Because I knew that that person could be undercover. We were talking about a unit in DO the vast majority of whose employees are undercover.

It's clear that much of the prosecution's case depend on this issue particular based on this exchange between counsel and Judge Walton.

Walton: I just talked to a security expert. And I think if jury doesn't have somebody who explains this, they'll be confused about whether there was a violation. As I understand it there was a violation of 5A, if they start looking at those, they'll become confused. Even given what was explained to me, I'd have to have some testimony in order to make the assessment you're asking for.

B: The jury is not going to be asked to assess whether there was a violation, only

Walton: Only whether he thought there was a violation.

Walton: What he did, is it from Govt's idea that he could have violated something without also violating 5A?

B: No, he would also violate 5A, including paragraph 3.

W: The issue they have to focus on is whether defendant would have thought that conceivably there was a problem,he would have obligation to check. It seems to me they focus on his mental state. If he had concerns about whether it was appropriate to reveal this.

B: The real issue here is that the defendant made up a story that took the classified nature of information out of the picture.

W: You're saying he did that because he throught there was a violation.

J There's no evidence he is worried about this.

B There's already BEEN evidence–the question to Addington.

W: Conceivably, maybe it was only the political revelation, but maybe it did. And I don't think that that determination can be made. Question is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record that he didn't want that out there. If he knows he signed a nondisclosure, that seems relevant. The jury has a right to be able to take that into consideration.

What Judge Walton is describing are the requirements of the Classified Information Non-Disclosure Agreement that anyone with a Security Clearance is required to sign. That agreement requires that a person in possesion of classified information must first verify the level of security of that information prior to sharing it even with other cleared persons. You have to ensure they have a need to know.

Addington had given him a copy of the IIPA which makes it a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of covert agent (but not a crime to do so unwittingly) - so Libby made sure that he never really knew if Plame was covert or not, that way he wouldn't be liable for violating that law - but by sharing information about Wilson's Wife which came from the classified INR with reporters, Libby (as well as Fleischer, Rove and Armatage) violated the NDA.

Fliescher to his credit figured it out as soon as the CIA began their investigation.

Fl As I recall it was Amb Joseph Wilson's wife. I was absolutely horrified. I thought I may have played a role in outing, oh my god did I play a role in outing a CIA officer, even though I had no idea that she was classifed or covert,

The odds that Libby didn't also figure this out are somewhere between slim and nil. He knew what he'd done and unlike the others he choose to come up with a cockamamie story about Tim Russert telling him about Plame.

It's possible that admit all the smoke and mirrors of the defense, the false promises that Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and Libby would testify, the jury just might become confused on this point as it appears Judge Walton is somewhat confused.

If so, Libby will walk.

If not, he's be convicted and immediately appeal waiting for President Bush to pardon him on his way out of office in 2009.

Not exactly a satisfying ending either way. He's to hoping we get the latter, rather than than the former outcome.

Vyan

Tuesday, February 13

Torture Porn for the Arm-Chair Warrior

Yes, I've decided after reading this article on Firedoglake, to return to one of my favorite whipping posts.

The Fox Show "24".

This time we're discussing a New Yorker Article that describes how the Brigidier General Patrick Finnegan, the Dean of West Point, has become so concerned by the influence of the show on his students in regards to the laws of war that he flew to the set to tell them to "Knock it Off!"

In fact, Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. "I’d like them to stop," Finnegan said of the show’s producers. "They should do a show where torture backfires."

"24" Co-Creator Joel Surnow wasn't able to attend the meeting with the West Point Commanders - he was busy in a meeting with Roger Ailes to discuss a new "Right-Wing Daily Show" for the Fox News Channel.

For all its fictional liberties, "24" depicts the fight against Islamist extremism much as the Bush Administration has defined it: as an all-consuming struggle for America’s survival that demands the toughest of tactics. Not long after September 11th, Vice-President Dick Cheney alluded vaguely to the fact that America must begin working through the "dark side" in countering terrorism. On "24," the dark side is on full view. Surnow, who has jokingly called himself a "right-wing nut job," shares his show’s hard-line perspective. Speaking of torture, he said, "Isn’t it obvious that if there was a nuke in New York City that was about to blow—or any other city in this country—that, even if you were going to go to jail, it would be the right thing to do?"

Maybe it would be Joel, but you'd still be going to jail. Maybe you should do the right thing and save those lives, but then you should also pay the price for the consquences of your actions - something that never happens on "24".

Problem is, those people would probably still die since torture doesn't work - and you'd still be going to jail.

To be fair not everyone on the "24" Staff is a "right-wing nut-job" like Surnow, Howard Gordon who had previously worked as a producer on "The X-Files" is a so-called moderate Democrat. He just likes the torture, just as much as he liked the horror and paranoia on X-Files.

Gordon, who is a "moderate Democrat," said that it worries him when "critics say that we’ve enabled and reflected the public’s appetite for torture. Nobody wants to be the handmaid to a relaxed policy that accepts torture as a legitimate means of interrogation." He went on, "But the premise of ‘24’ is the ticking time bomb. It takes an unusual situation and turns it into the meat and potatoes of the show." He paused. "I think people can differentiate between a television show and reality."

Of course most rational people know that "24" is just a television show. Most of them don't think that it has anything what-so-ever to do with real life, or fact, or the law --- well, most people isn't everyone.

Before the meeting, Stuart Herrington, one of the three veteran interrogators, had prepared a list of seventeen effective techniques, none of which were abusive. He and the others described various tactics, such as giving suspects a postcard to send home, thereby learning the name and address of their next of kin. After Howard Gordon, the lead writer, listened to some of Herrington’s suggestions, he slammed his fist on the table and joked, "You’re hired!" He also excitedly asked the West Point delegation if they knew of any effective truth serums.

At other moments, the discussion was more strained. Finnegan told the producers that "24," by suggesting that the U.S. government perpetrates myriad forms of torture, hurts the country’s image internationally. Finnegan, who is a lawyer, has for a number of years taught a course on the laws of war to West Point seniors—cadets who would soon be commanders in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. He always tries, he said, to get his students to sort out not just what is legal but what is right. However, it had become increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, he suggested, was misperceptions spread by "24," which was exceptionally popular with his students. As he told me, "The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about "24"?’ " He continued, "The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do."

Now I've mentioned before that a great many voices and perspectives are displayed on "24". One of the current plot-lines includes President Wayne Palmer's rejection of the hardline internment policies of one of his main advisors in favor of a more "liberal" direction of negotiation and persuasian with moderate muslims - which has apparently led to a right-wing plot to assasinate him just as his brother was assasinated.

In the latest episodes we've actually had dueling torture going on - where we see Jack torture his brother Graeme, since throttling him last episode didn't completely work, now using a chemical designed to induce a heart attack, which resulted in causing his brother to admit to being part of the plot to release nuclear suitcase bombs to terrorists (as well as having ordered the assasination at the beginning of last season of President David Palmer).

Meanwhile the terrorists have captured CTU technician O'Brien and have used various techniques including a basball bat and powerdrill to convince him to arm their nukes - which he does.

Unfortunately there's always a twist. In this case it's the fact that Jack's brother was actually working on the orders of their father - who slips into the room where Graem is still strapped down and finishes him off while Jack is out of the room to keep him from talking any further.

Naturally the bad guys actions are always much worse because they feel no remorse. Jack on the other hand, will be wracked with guilt and blame himself from Graeme's death, that's the kind of noble guy he is - but the truth is that this is idle nobility. If they actually followed the law he'd be tried for Murder and War Crimes, even though he didn't actually kill his brother - he admits that he wanted to - and was grossly negligent to leave him alone with their father.

Either way, he's responsible. But will he pay for what he's done? Not a chance.

And it's not exactly like our future military commanders coming through West Point are getting the point.

Gary Solis, a retired law professor who designed and taught the Law of War for Commanders curriculum at West Point, told me that he had similar arguments with his students. He said that, under both U.S. and international law, "Jack Bauer is a criminal. In real life, he would be prosecuted." Yet the motto of many of his students was identical to Jack Bauer’s: "Whatever it takes." His students were particularly impressed by a scene in which Bauer barges into a room where a stubborn suspect is being held, shoots him in one leg, and threatens to shoot the other if he doesn’t talk. In less than ten seconds, the suspect reveals that his associates plan to assassinate the Secretary of Defense. Solis told me, "I tried to impress on them that this technique would open the wrong doors, but it was like trying to stomp out an anthill."

But the most effectively issue, which is actually reflected in the CIA Kubark manuals, is that fact that torture is generally ineffective.

At the meeting, Cochran demanded to know what the interrogators would do if they faced the imminent threat of a nuclear blast in New York City, and had custody of a suspect who knew how to stop it. One interrogator said that he would apply physical coercion only if he received a personal directive from the President. But Navarro, who estimates that he has conducted some twelve thousand interrogations, replied that torture was not an effective response. "These are very determined people, and they won’t turn just because you pull a fingernail out," he told me. And Finnegan argued that torturing fanatical Islamist terrorists is particularly pointless. "They almost welcome torture," he said. "They expect it. They want to be martyred." A ticking time bomb, he pointed out, would make a suspect only more unwilling to talk. "They know if they can simply hold out several hours, all the more glory—the ticking time bomb will go off!"

Kubark States that inflicting Pain is often ineffective:

Interrogates who are withholding but feel qualms of guilt and a secret desire to yeild are likely to become intractable if made to endure pain. The reason is that they can interpret the pain as punishment and hence expiation.

Intense pain is likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping distress. A time-consuming delay results, while an investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue.

And we already know that the facts are something that Neo-Cons in the Bush Administration simply have little time or patience for.

The notion that physical coercion in interrogations is unreliable, although widespread among military intelligence officers and F.B.I. agents, has been firmly rejected by the Bush Administration. Last September, President Bush defended the C.I.A.’s use of "an alternative set of procedures." In order to "save innocent lives," he said, the agency needed to be able to use "enhanced" measures to extract "vital information" from "dangerous" detainees who were aware of "terrorist plans we could not get anywhere else."

Besides the clear fact that these are War Crimes - the public finds these actions more and more acceptable, and "24" helps with that. Meanwhile, Life imitates Art in Iraq.

Although reports of abuses by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have angered much of the world, the response of Americans has been more tepid. Finnegan attributes the fact that "we are generally more comfortable and more accepting of this," in part, to the popularity of "24," which has a weekly audience of fifteen million viewers, and has reached millions more through DVD sales.

The third expert at the meeting was Tony Lagouranis, a former Army interrogator in the war in Iraq. He told the show’s staff that DVDs of shows such as "24" circulate widely among soldiers stationed in Iraq. Lagouranis said to me, "People watch the shows, and then walk into the interrogation booths and do the same things they’ve just seen." He recalled that some men he had worked with in Iraq watched a television program in which a suspect was forced to hear tortured screams from a neighboring cell; the men later tried to persuade their Iraqi translator to act the part of a torture "victim," in a similar intimidation ploy. Lagouranis intervened: such scenarios constitute psychological torture.

So now not only is "24" acting as justification for Bush brutal policies and helping to pacify public outcry, it's actually inspiring more crimes in the field.

And oh by the way - that shit doesn't work!

"In Iraq, I never saw pain produce intelligence," Lagouranis told me. "I worked with someone who used waterboarding"—an interrogation method involving the repeated near-drowning of a suspect. "I used severe hypothermia, dogs, and sleep deprivation. I saw suspects after soldiers had gone into their homes and broken their bones, or made them sit on a Humvee’s hot exhaust pipes until they got third-degree burns. Nothing happened." Some people, he said, "gave confessions. But they just told us what we already knew. It never opened up a stream of new information." If anything, he said, "physical pain can strengthen the resolve to clam up."

"24" isn't the first time that Surnow has used this type of theme. He was also a writer for the short-lived Police/Monter/Buffy-wannabe show "SU2 (Special Unit 2)" where brutal techniques and torture were regularly used against the Supernatural "(Missing) Links" that were the primary villians on the program. Anything goes when you're bad guys aren't human, eh?

On "24" not too much has changed - they just look human.

Fortunately it appears that Sutherland "gets it" - it's just too bad neither he nor anyone else as Fox is likely to upset the cash-cow cart.

"They were receptive. But they have a format that works. They have won a lot of awards. Why would they want to play with a No. 1 show?" Lagouranis said of the "24" team, "They were a bit prickly. They have this money-making machine, and we were telling them it’s immoral."

Afterward, Danzig and Finnegan had an on-set exchange with Kiefer Sutherland, who is reportedly paid ten million dollars a year to play Jack Bauer. Sutherland, the grandson of Tommy Douglas, a former socialist leader in Canada, has described his own political views as anti-torture, and "leaning toward the left." According to Danzig, Sutherland was "really upset, really intense" and stressed that he tries to tell people that the show "is just entertainment." But Sutherland, who claimed to be bored with playing torture scenes, admitted that he worried about the "unintended consequences of the show." Danzig proposed that Sutherland participate in a panel at West Point or appear in a training film in which he made clear that the show’s torture scenes are not to be emulated.

Good for Keifer. But what about Surnow?

(Surnow, when asked whether he would participate in the video, responded, "No way." Gordon, however, agreed to be filmed.)

Sutherland didn't speak to the New Yorker but he has previously spoken out about how he feels about torture.

...in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose, his ambivalence about his character’s methods was palpable. He condemned the abuse of U.S.-held detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, in Iraq, as "absolutely criminal," particularly for a country that tells others that "democracy and freedom" are the "way to go." He also said, "You can torture someone and they’ll basically tell you exactly what you want to hear. . . . Torture is not a way of procuring information." But things operate differently, he said, on television: "24," he said, is "a fantastical show. . . . Torture is a dramatic device."

Although there have been some "liberal friendly" plotlines in "24" including last years story involving President Logan's plot to allow terrorists access to nerve gas in order to justify a war (sound familiar?) that still doesn't change the over-arching political direction of the show coming from Joel Surnow.

Yet David Nevins, the former Fox Television network official who, in 2000, bought the pilot on the spot after hearing a pitch from Surnow and Cochran, and who maintains an executive role in "24," is candid about the show’s core message. "There’s definitely a political attitude of the show, which is that extreme measures are sometimes necessary for the greater good," he says. "The show doesn’t have much patience for the niceties of civil liberties or due process. It’s clearly coming from somewhere. Joel’s politics suffuse the whole show."

Surnow, for his part, revels in his minority status inside the left-leaning entertainment industry. "Conservatives are the new oppressed class," he joked in his office. "Isn’t it bizarre that in Hollywood it’s easier to come out as gay than as conservative?" His success with "24," he said, has protected him from the more righteous elements of the Hollywood establishment. "Right now, they have to be nice to me," he said. "But if the show tanks I’m sure they’ll kill me." He spoke of his new conservative comedy show as an even bigger risk than "24." "I’ll be front and center on the new show," he said, then joked, "I’m ruining my chances of ever working again in Hollywood."

We can only hope Joel, we can only hope.

Whether you like the show or not, whether you believe that that art should or shouldn't be held accountable for the impressions it leaves on those who are most vulnerable (or willing), the evidence is mounting that it is presenting a completely unbalanced view of Counter-terrorism -- a view that is clearly deliberate and intended via Mr. Surnow and other Conservatives -- and that it may take quite a bit of time and effort to undue this misperception not only among the public, but also among our future Military leaders which is a seriously dangerous situation for us internationally The "Whatever it takes" attitude expressed by "24" which is used to justify and excuse torture simply doesn't work and undermines our moral authority.

It can and has only made things worse - not better.

Vyan

Asshole Nation

Y'know I just got over the flu and haven't posted in the past week - but one thing strikes me as I look out into the passive uncaring faces of my fellow citizens. I am bewildered.

This nation is in the midst of a false war, started by lies which destroyed a CIA front operation, and where more of our citizens have died than did on 9/11, The very existences of our species is at risk as a result of climate change. We are being spied on by our own government without legal cause.

Where is the outrage? Where is the shock?

And then Anna Nicole Smith dies and people suddenly find their "Oh My God" button.

Pathetic.

This disconnect between reality and people's personal priorities is of course, exactly what the Bush Administration has been depending on all along. And even when Bush is long gone, we'll still be dealing with this problem and these people.

Reading the Libby Trial transcripts, it's unfathomable to me that there aren't riots in front of the White House. All reasonable indications are that the Vice President committed an act of treason by outing a CIA operative.

While bed-ridden I tried to watch the 24-News stations for info on the trail and it was nothing but "What did Hillary Say - What did Obama say - What did Kucinich Say..." all day long on f'Tucker, Hardball and Scumborough.

That was last week, this week it's all about Anna.

Who's her baby daddy now? Whose gonna get that $500 Billion?

On one level I do admit to understanding it. I try to talk to co-workers and customers about real issues occasionally and generally they seem just completely defeated. It's not just apathy, it's completely cynicism. They don't feel that anything they say or do will make a difference in City Hall, the State Capitol or Washington. Better to obsess about the Superbowl, World Series, All Star Game... the Bread and Circus Du Jour or Astronaut Pampers.

Meanwhile...

The Pelosi Plane Story is totally and completely bogus?

Yeah, ok. Whatever.

The Obama/Osama Madrossa smear is a bunch of hooey? Ok, sure, but it's still Hillaries fault.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11? Oh sure, except not to Doug Feith who still thinks he did.

How long ago was it when we were hearing this drum beat of "Up or down Vote, Up or Down Vote" followed by the Nuclear Option and then last week every moderate Republican in the Senate does a double back flip with a full-twisting gainer to support a filibuster against a non-binding anti-surge resolution. Even Senator Warner and it was HIS Bill?

Where do these ASSHOLES COME FROM?

And As bad as some of that behavior has been, what's with the rest of us who just shrug and nod and let this bullshit stand?

Obviously I'm not talking about people on this site, I'm talking about the rest of the couch potatoes out there.

It's hard to blame someone for paying more attention to their kids, to their jobs, to thier recreation, or to their laundry. LIfe is tough all over. I get that.

But I keep wondering, at what point will people finally start to realize what they're being sold?

And then I have to realize that the real problem isn't just those assholes in Washington - it's the Assholes on Main Street. The reason that Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly and Rush Limbaugh get people to pay attention to them is the fact that they say exactly what tons and tons of Americans want to hear.

People want to believe that America would never fuck up this badly. They want to believe each and everyone one of our soldiers is brave, strong and true and honest. And like a four year-old they'll through a Michele Malkin hissy fit at the suggestion that even one of them them might not be.

They want to believe exactly what it is the GOP is selling. It's warm. It's comforting. It's not the terribly frightening world that so many of us who are actually paying attention live in where Modern Day Concentration Camps have become a reality. Where Torture is a portion of us U.S. War policy. Where Habaus Corpus is optional. Where we stand on the brink of a possible Nuclear Showdown not just one country - but Two.

Better to go back to the Beer and Football and Cheerleaders.

It's safer (deep in self=delusion) there -- for now.

The Asshole Nation is out there, we know it - we've ridden with it in carpools. Some of them are our parents. Our Brothers. Our Sisters. Our Bosses. They are the reason George Bush is in the White House and the reason he isn't Impeached and Prosecuted right this second. The very suggestion is too dark, too real, for their "Beatiful Minds".

Exactly what's it's going to take to blast Joe and Janine-Six Pack off the couch is something I'm not sure I even want to witness. But it's coming and it won't be anwhere near as pretty as Anna was.

Count on it.

Vyan

Wednesday, January 31

When Did Libby/Cheney realize that Plame was Covert?

This is the question of the year, and a core issue for the ramifications of the Libby Perjury Case.

Unfortunately the issue of Plame's status has so far been left off-the-plate since this isn't an espionage or treason case (as it should be).

Still, based on much of the testimony that has been given so far quite a few clues can be gleaned. Libby's principle defense is that he simply forgot that he already knew Valerie Plame-Wilson worked at the CIA and that'd had already told several people including Judy Miller, the VP's chief media person (Cathie Martin) and Ari Fleischer days before the conversation where he claims Tim Russert told him about Plame on July 10th.

So is he forgetful or just an f-ing liar? And if he's lying - why?

As I discussed in this diary, the revelation of the covert CIA operative is serious business. As far as I'm concerned it's Treason,. Classified information - except by a Whistleblower when a Crime has been committed - should not be shared with persons without the proper clearance and a specific need to know.

Sharing classifed information with people who have a proper clearance isn't a problem - but clearly at some point someone who shouldn't have known about Valerie's status found out about it, that conversation is our breach point.

Further under Federal Law.

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

But exactly where was the breach? Much like a suspense novel, this story has many twists and turns - this is my own attempt to try and straighten some of this pretzel out if only for my own understanding.

June 10th

In trying to find out who had gone to Niger based on the Nicholas Kristof article Libby first contacted Marc Grossman at the State Dept, who told him that the person who went was Joe Wilson in late May.

From emptywheel on FDL.

Went to ask Armitage about it first.

Armitage said he didn't know a thing about it either.

Sent an email to Asst Secretary for Intelligence and Research [Ford] and African Affairs [Kansteiner]

African Affairs and INR both said they knew all about it. Got both of these emails back.

[Grossman seems almost sheepish, his shoulders raised, soft-spoken]

They said they knew it was Wilson, they knew he had reported back to the government.

Grossman went to Armitage with the information. Grossman then called Libby to give him "some of the answer."

I told him that "yes, actually people at State did know about such a trip."

Gave him Wilson's name. May have apologized that he didn't know. I told him that I had these two emails, fuller story yet to be told, I'd give a fuller story.

Reached out to Wilson, did it on the same day.

"I happen to know Joe Wilson, is it okay to just call him up"

Now isn't this an interesting and novel idea - why not just give Wilson a call, eh? Grossman did exactly that and Wilson told him that he thought that the Office of the Vice President had initiated the request for his trip, only because that's what the CIA told him.

Grossman's inquiry itself seems to be what produced the INR Report which mentioned the trip as well as Wilson's wife Valerie.

Information about Joseph Wilson's wife?

I recall reading Valerie Wilson was employed at CIA.

Mrs. Wilson was in the Chair of those meetings. Plame described as WMD manager type.

According to the report, she was the organizer of the Ambassador Wilson's trip.

"I thought this was pretty interesting. Odd that she worked at the agency and was involved in the organization of the trip."

Grossman thought it was not appropriate.

He remembers telling Libby about it the next time he attended a Deputies meeting at WH. June 11, 12:00-12:45 Afghanistan Deputies committee meeting

So here we have the first possible breach. The problem here is that the INR report was a) Wrong because Valerie did not "Chair" the meeting, she didn't even attend the meeting except for a brief introduction and b) ot didn't mention her covert status.

Still the INR memo itself was classified, so even mentioning any involvement by Valerie at all was by extension also classified. This is something that should have been mentioned by Grossman but may or may not have been.

From the Wapo.

The material in the memo about Wilson's wife was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson's intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.

The memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR's opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

The description of Wilson's wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered "a footnote" in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.

It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.

I've often wondered why this analyst included this information in his notes at all. Valerie's involvement in the trip was peripheral at best, she had introduced her husband to others at CPD but didn't herself attend the meeting between them and Joseph where it was ultimately decided that he should go to Niger and investigate the claims made by the forged documents.

The analyst met Plame at the start of the meeting, but quite possibly didn't know she was a covert operative when the wrote his own notes.

June 11th

What also seems to have occured so far based on the testimony is that a second breach actually occured directly between the CIA and OVP. Specifically between Robert Grenier the CIA's top man on Iraq, (their "Mission Manager") and Scooter Libby.

Grenier himself found out after Libby contacted him about the Kristof article which hinted at Wilson's Niger trip, and was actually somewhat flustered to receive a call directly from the Office of the Vice President

Grenier's testimony...

June 11 phone message that Scooter Libby called.

I wouldn't have recalled the message. But I recall I got a message at my office.

202 456-9000 was Libby's number.

The message is up, he identifies the writing of his secretary.

That was the first time this had ever happened that he got a call from Libby.

I placed the call to Mr. Libby.

He told me that there was an individual by name of Wilson "was going around town speaking to the people in the press" and claiming that he had been sent by the CIA. What else did he tell you.

He also said that Wilson was "claiming" that Wilson had been told that the only reason they were dispatching him was bc of interest expressed by OVP.

Did he tell you what he wanted.

He wanted me to verify for him whether or not there was truth to that story.

And whether it was true that CIA had done so was because of interest expressed by VP.

How did Libby refer to individual. By name or title?

By name. Joe Wilson, as I recall.

Did he say what Wilson's basis of knowledge for claim that VP had sent him.

People in CIA had told him this.

Q. What was Libby's tone of voice?

Even, serious, concerned about this.

He sounded a little aggreived. A certain accusatory tone when he stated this.

So Grenier is now tasked with finding out about Wilson and his trip.

Q. What did you know of the trip.

It was the first I had heard of it.

Libby didn't say, but it was clear he wanted answers right away.

This was the first time he called me, it was probable that I would see him in the next day or two. To me it was the way he reacted when he said Wilson was speaking to the press, it suggested that he needed the info sooner rather than later so he could get out in front of this story.

I attempted to call an info who I thought would have info.

This individual was working in CounterProliferation Division.

Who was it?

Kevin (using just first name)

There was a unit devoted to Iraq WMD. Keving was Deputy Chief of that unit.

Q. What happened when you called Kevin.

I spoke to someone besides Kevin. Since I also knew the Chief of that unit, I may have asked to speak to him. I asked this individual to convey these questions to Kevin. I don't recall who I was speaking to, I don't think it was anyone I knew.

I got a response shortly thereafter.

I'm very wobbly on sequence in time.

It was probably within a couple of hours.

I don't recall who I spoke to when they called back. I didn't know that person either. The person was fully knowledgable.

This person explained that in fact we, CIA, had sent Wilson to Niger to get info to determine whether or not Iraq attempted to purchase uranium.

Q. Did they give any more info?

Explained in a fair amount of detail when he went where he went, those kind of details.

While in fact OVP had been very interested in this, interest had been expressed also by State and Defense.

I felt I had all the information and more to respond to the request by Mr. Libby.

Q. The individual at CPD, did they also bring up Wilson's wife.

Mentioned to me that she was working within the unit at CPD that had sent Wilson.

That's why they knew about Wilson and why he was sent.

Q. Did the Ambassador's wife's name come up?

No, I'm certain that person did not tell.

Was that info that was new to you?

Yes.

So yet again, this time from the CIA side Plame is mentioned in connection with Wilson's trip - but neither her covert status or her name were brought up. Grenier didn't know Wilson or her or her status, but Libby wasn't very patient getting his answers.

I didn't speak to Libby right away, I may have attempted to call his office. I had a following meeting at 4:15 that afternoon. I didn't get through to him.

What type of meeting. One of our regular Iraq update meetings where we briefed DCI the latest from Iraq.

I was concerned about not getting back to Libby before my 4:15 meeting.

Q. What happened at the meeting.

Someone came to the door and beckoned for me to come out. Had a note from Libby to call him right away.

I had never been pulled out of a meeting with DCI before.

I thought oh dear, I had wanted to initiate the contact. I wanted to appear forthcoming.

Two reasons to be concerned about getting back to him.

  1. Senior Admin official, want to be as forthcoming as possible.
  1. it appeared that Libby thought CIA may have behaved badly wrt Wilson trip.

Called him back.

Got him on the phone.

Told him that it was true, CIA had sent Wilson.

How much else I said I don't recall. I may have mentioned debrief was written up.

Second major point I made the people had verified that not only OVP, but also requests as well from State and Defense.

Q. What was his response to hearing that State and Defense had also been interested.

Asked if CIA would be willing to release that publicly.

I believe I did mention only in passing about Wilson's wife. In fact Wilson's wife works there and that's where the idea came from.

Oops!!

But here's the thing, Grenier originally didn't remember telling Libby that "Wilson's wife works at CPD". He forgot to tell the FBI once the investigation into the leak began.

Q. When you were first interviewed by FBI. Were you asked if you had discussed Wilson's wife with Libby. I'm sure the topic came up.

My response was that I didn't clearly remember.

I believe, thinking back that I probably had said I relayed this information to Libby. But I couldn't say for certain.

In connection with your GJ testimony 2004, do you recall what you said what your memory was about saying about Wilson's wife.

I said I may have.

Q. Some time after you testified in the GJ in January 2004. Did you continue to think about that question?

I was going over it in my mind. I was hoping that I hadn't mentioned anything to Mr. Libby, I really didn't remember anything new. But what I did remember was the way I felt immediately after.

I briefly felt guilty, that I had relayed too much information. I was going through a mental justification about why it was alright to have relayed this to Mr. Libby.

Q. What part were you having concerns about. Having mentioned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, revealing the identity of an agency officer, although it was indirect.

I didn't know her name, so I didn't give her name, but by saying Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, I was revealing the identity of a CIA officer. It wasn't absolutely necessary, that is information that we guard pretty closely, and if we don't have to say it, we don't.

Q. You went through a mental justification. Senior Govt official, has every security clearance known to man. He may have met this person in the course of his business, this person may have briefed him. Did you come to any conclusions?

It wasn't as if one day I had a revelation. But as I thought about it over time, as I remembered specifically I developed a growing conviction that I had said it, I said to myself wake up and smell the coffee.

That's some strong brew I would think. Since Libby's defense is based on "faulty memory" the defense attorney's had a field day with this point.

The Defense also grilled Grenier over whether he knew, or told Libby that Plame was a covert operative.

J You didn't mention the name of Mr. Wilson's wife. You didn't mention anything to Mr. Libby whether Mr. Wilson's wife was covert.

G No

J Covert in simple terms means undercover.

G Yes.

J CIA has lots of employees who are not covert.

G Yes

J You heard she was a "staff person" correct?

G No, I heard she was working in that unit. Could have meant staffer, an analyst on loan, could have meant a number of different things, didn't ask for clarification.

J THe person you talked to gave no indication that Wilson's wife was covert. Correct?

G Yes.

And Libby wasn't the only one Grenier told about Wilson's wife.

J You testified you spoke with someone named Cathie.

G Yes

J You're certain that this conversation with Harlow [CIA Pubic Affairs] and Cathie happened on June 11.

More on Harlow and Cathie later.

On redirect Fitz's team dug out the crucial nugget.

Z If the person at the CPD that you spoke to did not tell you Wilson's wife was covert. Why were you feeling uncomfortable.

G Because I knew that that person could be undercover. We were talking about a unit in DO the vast majority of whose employees are undercover.

Let's repeat that point the vast majority of people at CPD - are Undercover.

Grenier knew it, that's why he started feeling guilty - he didn't know for sure, but he knew damn well it was a possibility. Chances are so did Libby and so did Cheney.

Now we've had two seperate people confirm Wilson's trip and confirm his Wife's involvment in it, although both were somewhat wrong. She didn't send him, but he did go because she introduced him to others at CPD. The distinction was lost on many.

Now that Libby has gathered his facts the OVP began to formulate it's counter-spin strategy. Enter Vice Presidential Assistant of Public Affairs Cathie Martin.

She describes quite a bit of conversations concening Joseph Wilson going all the way back to May 6th.

F Did there come a time when you learned who the former ambassador was?

M learned it to be Joe Wilson from Bill Harlow. He's [the CIA] equivalent of Public Affair or Comm director. Or was, sorry.

F Can you place an exact date.

M No precise date, I believe it happened bt May 6 and the time he appeared on MTP and identified himself as Joe Wilson on July 6. I specifically remember not being surprised by who he was on MTP. I knew his name already.

Martin was apparently told by Harlow about Plame's connection to Wilson's trip.

H First was pleasant [emphasizes] I had never spoken to him before, talked about press reports, I was asking him, "we didn't send him." so I was saying to him, you must have sent him, who is this guy, what are you saying to the press, they're not taking my word for it. I remember him being, I didn't know who he [Wilson] was either, but apparently his name is Joe Wilson he was a charge in Baghdad, and his wife works over here. I understand charge to be diplomat who works overseas. Had been a charge, former is my recollection of what that meant. Has notes, but the notes don't have a precise date.

Martin then reported what she'd heard from Harlow to Cheney and Libby - and Libby confirms Harlow.

Asked to see VP and shortly thereafter told him and Scooter was there as well, told them what I had learned. It was the same day. I remember going into VP's office Scooter was there which was pretty normal. He told me Ambassador's name and apparently he was a charge and his wife works at CIA. Don't remember any specific response.

This means that Wilson's Wife being at CIA was now becoming common knowledge among the Veeps office, including Cheney who was in the room when Scooter told Martin.

Martin then used Harlow to find out which reporters were working on this story in order see where to best plant their own version of events, but first they had to put together their talking points.

M Week of July 7, meeting with VP on the Hill, we had another staff meeting, so we were in on Capitol Hill. Talked to VP about press inquiries and reports related to Wilson matter. He dictated to me what he wanted me to say.

Published on board.

1. Not clear who authorized travel
2. Did not travel at my request
3. A0parently unpaid
4. Never saw document allegedly trying to verify
5. He was convinced Niger could not have provided uranium to Iraq but in fact they did in 1980s 200 tons under IAEA seal
6. No written report
7. VP unaware of trip, conclusions, until Spring 03
8. As late as October considered judgment was that SH [Saddam Hussein] had indeed undertaken vigorous effort to acquire uranium from Africa–according to NIE.

There's a question mark in the margin, F asks, did he dictate question mark.

M I didn't know if I could use that (#8) because it was classified.

If Martin knew what was in the NIE, she too must have had clearance - and it's very interesting that she questioned a) whether classified material could be released and b) that the links to Plame weren't included in thier official talking points indicating that they knew it was too classifed to publically reveal.

But during this period between May 7th and July 7th as the OVP was setting up it's push back plan -- Scooter Libby met with Judith Miller.

June 23rd.

So far in the trial everyone involved who has heard of Ms. Wilson has a security clearance - we haven't gone from what we used to call at my old defense contractor job "Black World to White World".

That didn't last.

F Did there come a time when you met with Libby

Miller: In OEOB, June 23. (Voice waivers)

M Mr. Libby appeared agitated and frustrated and angry

F HOw could you tell

M He's a lowkey and controlled guy, what he said made me think I was correct. He was concerned that CIA was beginning to backpdal to distance self from unequivocal estimates it provided before the war through a "perverted war of leaks."

F Did the topic of Joseph Wilson come up

F What do you recall was said

M His office had learned that he had been sent overseas, initially referred to as clandestine guy. VP had asked about a report in Winter 2002, in Africa, CIA hd sent Mr Wilson out to investigate claim.

F Was Libby saying VP sent WIlson

M the contrary. He said that VP did not know that Mr Wilson had been sent.

2:29

F What he said about Winter 2002 and how it related to trip.

M There had been reports, a report had gone up to the Hill indicating that Iraq hunting for uranium in Niger. VP had asked about those reporters, agency had taken upon itself to find out more. In the beginning he referred to Wilson as clandestine guy.

F Mr. Wilson's wife (voice not in great shape)

M Yes, when he was discussing intell reporting, he said his wife (referring to Wilson) worked in the bureau

F What did you understand bureau to mean

M I was a little unsure, My understanding was FBI, but the context it was clear he was referring to CIA.

F Any particular bureau?

M I thought he was using bureau to refer to Non proliferation bureau, but I wasn't sure.

Ladies and Gentlemen - we have an offical breach. Classified info has been passed to an unauthorized source. Technically it doesn't matter if Plame were covert or not, the document that originally linked her involvment, the INR, is classified. But if she were - and she was - this is much worse but did Libby (or Cheney) know this? Did they like Grenier have a guilty suspicion? The preverbal "Holy Sheep Shit" moment? Stay tuned.

July 6th

Wilson's NYT Op-ed "What I didn't find in Africa" is published.

July 7th

The Press is going postal and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer is getting a flurry of questions. He stuck to the talking points.

P Monday July 7, were you asked questions that morning regarding the charges, can you tell us about that?

Fl in that gaggle, a reporter asked "what's the WH's reaction." There's zero, nada nothing new here, other than we now know the name. I added the VP did not send this person, CIA sent on his own volition.

P further questions about 16 words?

Fl later, given this oped, on that question I had been previously told not to repeat the WH's "we're standing by the 16 words." I knew the ground was shifting, the worst place to stand as PS is where the ground is shifting. I punted, I said sort of yes and no. And said I'd have to get back to him.

On the very same day, the day after Wilson's Op-ed, Fleischer who had already announced has departure, had lunch with Libby for the very first time.

Fl I had announced I was going to be leaving, "Spend time with family." Shortly after Mr. Libby asked to go to lunch.

P enters govt. exhibit, schedule for that day.

12:00 lunch with Libby

P was it routine to have lunch engagemnts.

Fl typically I would eat at my desk.

P had you ever had lunch with Mr. Libby

Fl no sir

Fl our relationship good, I liked Mr Libby, I did not consider him as a source, when I asked him questions, he would tell me to ask Dr. Rice NSA.

P notwithstanding your relationship with Libby was good.

Fl yes

P where and who was present?

Fl just Libby and me

P was anything discussed

Fl my plans what I was going to do in the private sector. Talked about sports, football, both fans of the Dolphins. I don't remember if I brought up or Libby brought up the briefing. I said I got asked about Wilson. I said what I was asked by the OVP to say. What I recall Libby saying to me, reiterated that VP did not send Wilson. Amabssador Wilson got sent by his wife, she works at CIA, Works in CPD, I recall that he told me her name. This is hush hush this is on the QT.

Fleischer, not having the same security clearance as Libby and not being familiar with the inner-workings of CIA didn't realize the significance of "She works in CPD" where The Vast Majority of People are Undercover.

Libby wasn't normally a source for Fleischer, and in this case he interpreted the "This is hush hush on the QT" language to mean - "Leak it to reporters, don't let them know where it comes from".

P what did you understand Libby to mean by hush hush

Fl I thought it was kind of odd. My sense was Libby was saying it was kind of newsie, no one knows.

P did you understand that it was classified

Fl absolutely not. There's a very strict protocol when classified info is spread, my experience, when someone conveyed info that I was authorized to hear, it was always, "this is classified you're authorized to hear." When it's oral, people always say, "this is classified you cannot use it."

That night the WH delegation took off in AF1 & 2 on a trip to Africa. Eventually a copy of the INR Memo written in response to Libby's query to the state dept via Marc Grossman is faxed to the plane and received by Colin Powell.

July 8th

Normally Cathie Martin would be the one to make calls to reporters and begin pushing the VP's talking points, but in this case Libby personally took the lead instead - leaving Martin on the sidelines.

M Going to VP to give an update, it was an unscheduled visit, talked to VP and Scooter, I wasn't getting any calls directly, Mitchell and Martin doing pieces for Evening News. Discussed with them should we try to talk to them and make sure they don't repeat the things we think are false. Should we make sure we're part of the story. General consensus was "yes" and Scooter would call them back. And Libby would call them back. VP made the decision to have Scooter call them back. Went into VP ante-office, Scooter has a little office there. Scooter called one of the reporters, I was there for the portion of one of the calls. I believe this was July 8. I left, I had a lot of phone calls I still needed to return. I was still not certain about NIE and was a little uncomfortable talking about the NIE and I was aggravated that Scooter that I was calling reporters and I wasn't.

So exactly why was it that Cheney decided to have Libby take charge and directly contact reporters? Was it because he wanted Libby to push the "Wilson's wife sent him" meme out to Reporters unwittingly through Fleischer and others knowing Martin's obvious qualms information from classified sources and that it was quite possible, although not yet confirmed yet in the trial, that they knew she was possibly, probably covert?

Was this Cheney's idea since he was the one who decidered Libby into this position?

The answer to those questions just might be found in David Addington's Testimony. Three key points - first, Libby wanted to know if the President could declassify something.

F were you aware controversy on SOTU

A I wouldn't say spring

F Were you involved

A Yes. Took place in COS office to VP, West Wing, larger office in OEB. Very small office, probably about the size of your table. Question asked, did Pres have authority to declassify information. The answer was yes. It's clear a President has authority, I cited a specific case. In that case, court said Dept of Navy v. Egan. Pres by virtue of role as Commander in Chief. Flows directly from Constitution and therefore I said Pres does have the authority even though there is a separate provision, although there are procedures, that would not prevent Pres from declassifying something. It's open and shut. Libby didn't give context. he just asked question about Pres' power.

F DId Libby give you an idea of what he was going to do with info

A No.

Since portions of the NIE and INR were still at this point classified, not to mention Valerie Wilson's CIA status, Libby has thus confirmed that they could be released by the White House if the President chooses to declassify them. This authority was extended to the VP under executive order in late March 2003.

Second, Libby also asked Addington, since he'd previously worked at CIA about CIA employees.

F Conversation about CIA paperwork

A Asked if someone worked at CIA, would there be records. Normal for him to ask me bc he knew I worked at the CIA. Kind of paperwork would depend on whether you were on the Operations or Analytical side. On operational side, CIA officers are not just free to use whoever they want, need to get approval, requesting permission to use someone, would generate paperwork approval. On analytical side there'd be a letter of instruction or contract. In any case, this is the govt, when you spend money, there's a money trail. I did tell him also it had been 20 years since I worked at the CIA.

This indicates to me that Libby was still fishing for info on how Wilson was sent, and the answer was that it couldn't be simply on a whim or as a result of nepotism - it had to be approved. He had to know, or at least suspect, at this point that the core of the entire smear on Joe and Valerie Wilson was baseless. There was no way that Plame could have personally dispatched her Husband to Niger to look for uranium as if she was asking him to take out the garbage or put down the toilet seat.

Not that such he thing has ever really stopped people in the Vice President's Office.

Third, did Libby suspect that Valerie might be undercover? Yes he did, since he asked Addington about it.

A: He asked me how you would know if you met someone from CIA if they were undercover. I responded when I worked out there, you'd ask if someone if they were undercover. He asked if they introduced themselves how you'd know. I told him you wouldn't know unless you asked or saw a piece of paper that said it was classified. (Like the INR Report!) I volunteered to him I could get him a copy of IIPA that makes it a crime to reveal identity of covert agent. I took it to his office and gave it to him.

Simply by asking the question Libby has shown that he suspects that Valerie Wilson might be undercover - and Addington has informed him that revealing the ID of a covert operative is a Crime, he even gave him a copy of the law.

Ohhhh shit-burger.

Exactly when these conversations with Addington took place wasn't clear from the testimony I read, but the timing could be crucial - particularly since on this very same day July 8th, we had our second breach.

Libby talked to Judy Miller Again.

F Discussion about Mr. Wilson's wife on this occasion.

M Two streams of reporting on uranium and efforst by Iraq to aquire uranium, first stream reports like Wilson, –then made an aside, Wilson's wife works at WINPAC Weapons Intelligence Nonproliferation and Arms Control, specifically focused on WMD.

F Before June 23, had you ever heard that Wilson's wife worked at CIA.

M Not before that meeting

F On July 8, any new info

M WINPAC was new

WINPAC was also a Lie By this point Libby has personally been told twice that Wilson's Wife worked at CPD, not WINPAC. CPD is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations where the Spy's work, WINPAC is not.

This deception may have been a way for Libby to distance himself from this breach, if Plame was covert, it's something that might be better for a reporter like Miller (or her collegues) to discover on their own once they'd gotten wind of it.

Did Libby tell Judy he'd gotten his information from other reporters? Nope.

F Any discussion of learnign this from other newspaper reporters.

F discussion about NIE

M Defended NIE, based on reporting from many different sources He said classified version even stronger, it was not at all equivocal. Said if anything classified was stronger.

Ok, yet again - a total f-ling lie. The classified version of the NIE has very significant doubts about the Niger Yellowcake from State, doubts which were part of why they didn't think Wilson even needed to go to Africa.

F Any qualification, any place where a doubt would be expressed

M Yes, didn't know classified or unclassified, said INR had expressed doubts about uranium hunting, alleged uranium hunting activities, had been included in appendix. What he was saying was that these doubts not prominently featured. He said policy makers had not seen them

Ok, well that's true - but oh by the way - all this shit was still classified!

In for a penny (with Plame) in for pound with the INR I guess.

On the same day that Libby was meeting and leaking to Miller about Plame for the second time, Richard Armitage (who wouldn't have even known about Wilson's Wife if not for Libby's call to his deputy, sat down and created breach number three with Robert Novak.

July 10th

Libby and Russert have a phone coversation, Libby says "Russert told me that Wilson's Wife works at CIA" - Russerts says the subject never came up.

Somebody is a LIAR.

July 11th

Air Force One, still in mid trip. The Press is still going balistic over Wilson's Op-ed. From Flieschers testimony.

P July 11, Dr. Rice, press gaggle on same subject.

Fl On a trip abroad, I'd ask NSA to go to the back of the plane to address press. Dr. Rice came to the back. That was contentious, Press asking how could this happen? You're the WH, mistakes like this shouldn't happen. Dr. Rice said something that had not been previously said, Had DCI wanted those words to come out, it would have come out. Now WH seems to be blaming CIA for words not getting taken out.

In point of fact the DCI (George Tenet) did want those words to come out, and they had been taken out of the President's Cincinati Speach, only to be re-inserted allegedly by Rice's then deputy Stephen Hadley.

Later on Air Force One, Fleischer heard a second reference to Wilson's Wife, this time from WH Communications Director Dan Barlett (I would surmise based on the INR which had been faxed to the plane)

P Did you hear someone on AF1 make another reference to Wilson's wife.

Fl Staff cabin, Dan Bartlett, Comm Dir, reading a different document. He said, "I can't believe he or they are saying that the VP sent Amb Wilson to Niger, his wife sent him, she works at CIA. He said this in front of me.

P Would you characterize this as a conversation?

Fl Dan was venting. That became the second reference I learned, I overheard. I don't recall who was there.

P What was your reaction?

Fl I heard all this before. Never seemed very newsie. The one thing it backed up my statement, VP didn't send Ambassador, he was sent by his wife. I had one more nugget to back up that statement.

So now having heard about Wilson's Wife twice, and without any indication that this was classified information - Fleischer passed it on to reporters, just as Libby had hinted he should do.

P Were you in Uganda. Can you tell us if you had an occasion to talk to reporters by the side of the road.

Fl President walking toward second event. Meeting with young children who were going to sing songs. A group of reporters on the side of the road. I recall I said to these reporters, If you want to know who sent Amb Wilson to Niger, it was his wife, she works there. Tamara Lippert Newsweek, David Gregory and John Dickerson, Time Magazine.

P was this a formal interview?

Fl One of the many conversations I had with the press, the event was not one I had to be there. You sidle up to reporters and chat what was on their mind. Maybe this will address some of these issues about how people got sent. This backs up WH statement.

That's breach number four.

July 12th

Libby and Miller speak again.

F what do you remember

M I remember telling him that I didn't think I was going to write a story about it, the NYT wasn't interested in pursuing Plame story. We talked about retraction of 16 words. It was more following up on other two conversations. Don't have specific memory of other things

Breach Five!

Seeing that Judy is the nail in the coffin for Libby - his defense team went after her with a Hockey Mask and Meat Cleaver on her various Memory Issues.

July 14th

Robert Novak's Column revealing Valerie Plame's CIA connection was published.

At the WH the issue of Wilson's Wife came up yet again between Libby and his CIA briefer Craig Schmall. Normally the briefings were written and provided in binders to Libby and the Vice President. When questions would arise, if Schmall couldn't answer it immediately he would make a note in his copy of the binders's table of contents.

F has introduced this TOC, We've gone over the Tom Cruise [about Germany and the Scientologist] and complaint about the briefing

Schmall reads from the TOC: "Why was the [ex. Schmall explains] Amb told this was VP office question? Joe Wilson Valerie Wilson."

S Just Libby and myself were in the room that day.

S No recollection of this conversation independently.

F Stipulation July 14 2003 was a Monday.

This time though the question is coming from Libby wondering who in CIA told Wilson that the Vice President requested his trip.

Like Grenier, Schmall had a great deal of missing information. Much of this is understandable since he briefed Libby and sometimes Cheney six times a week for months. Recalling any specific conversation is like asking when the last time you asked your wife to pass the salt.

Again the defense went to town on that, even suggesting that Schmall lack of recollection may have been a ruse of some kind.

The 14th was also Ari Fleischer's last day at the White House. Two months later once the CIA investigation of the leak began, Fleischer freaked. Then lawyered up.

Fl I saw article in NYT that CIA asked DOJ into investigation of identity of covert CIA agent. Went online at WaPo, read very big story about CIA asking for criminal investigation. I read that article.

P Was the person identified?

Fl As I recall it was Amb Joseph Wilson's wife. I was absolutely horrified. I thought I may have played a role in outing, oh my god did I play a role in outing a CIA officer, even though I had no idea that she was classifed or covert,

P What did you do?

Fl I contacted counsel.

Eventually Fleischer cut an immunity deal with Patrick Fitzgerald, and did so without offering a standard "proffer" indicating what he had to trade. Essentially he arranged to skate on having been part of the leak - telling David Gregory about Plame working at CIA - in exchange for promising to tell the truth.

Both Grenier and Fleischer's reactions to realizing they may have aided in blowing the cover of covert CIA officer stands in very stark Contrast to Libby's - which was to go and run behind his "Tim Russert and/or Matt Cooper Told Me" line after being essentially warned of the potential consequences by Addington and IIPA and his own briefer who stated...

"I thought there was a very grave danger to leaking the name of a CIA officer," the briefer from Langley, Craig Schmall, said he told Messrs. Cheney and Libby during a morning session at the vice president's residence. "Foreign intelligence services where she served now have the opportunity to investigate everyone whom she had come in contact with. They could be arrested, tortured, or killed."

Both Grossman and Grenier have admitted to telling Libby about "Wilson's Wife" working at CPD under oath. Martin, Fleischer and Miller all heard Libby repeat this information before the alleged conversation with Russert.

Everyone involved has said he was aggitated and/or aggrieved over the issue - shoving his own press person out of the way to handle the issue personally. It was eating away at him, and quite likely the Vice President.

It's possible that Libby and Cheney, like Fleischer, Armitage, Grossman and Grenier didn't specifically know that Plame was a covert operative - but it's clear by their actions, leaving her out of the official talking points yet using her as a talking point anyway at every possible oppurtunity, that like Grenier they suspected it.

Libby's conversations with Addington practically clinch this, and it's from this point that their subsequent actions and deliberate lies make the best sense especially if the Plame smear was directed by the Vice President himself, which based the sidelining of Martin - it just might have been.

Libby's lies to the Grand Jury were likely an act of Sepuku designed to shield the Vice President, and possibly even the President who atually did declassify part of the NIE to rebut Wilson at Libby's request. This also makes sense with the defense strategy to toss Stephan Hadley and Karl Rove under the boss rather than the Veep - both of them have already been connected to the 2004 pre-election coverup that Bush was warned that his Uranium claims were not true prior to the SOTU, so they're easy targets for redirecting blame without getting too much blow-back all over the Veep.

Of course there's still the possibility the Libby has a swiss cheese memory, but even though the trial has some ways to go I'm betting on the former. Maybe that's just me.

Vyan

P.S. Go Buy Anatomy of Deceit

Monday, January 29

Extreme - Cynical Fuck

Extreme - Cynical Fuck (Low quality sound)

Probably the last video, and absolutely the best song by the sorely underrated band.




"I must have stepped over my four leaf clover,
and someone drank my half-filled cup of water."

I know the feeling.

Vyan