PDA

View Full Version : Cheney's Revenge


roadrambler2
04-11-2006, 12:10 PM
A item on CNN this morning says the guy who Cheney shot recently, in fact shot the curent VP a few years ago !Payback's a B**** !

roadrambler2
04-11-2006, 12:10 PM
A item on CNN this morning says the guy who Cheney shot recently, in fact shot the curent VP a few years ago !Payback's a B**** !

hm0504
04-11-2006, 12:13 PM
Sounds like they're both birds of a feather!

Daveinct
04-11-2006, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roadrambler2:
A item on CNN this morning says the guy who Cheney shot recently, in fact shot the curent VP a few years ago !Payback's a B**** ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Either they misspoke or you heard it incorrectly. It was either Carlsbad, NM Mayor Bob Forrest or his brother Dick that shot Cheney (the mayor isn't sure if it was he or his brother?). Cheney shot Harry Whittington.

Dave

nacktman
04-11-2006, 02:20 PM
Either way they weren't good marksmen ... Dickie's still here. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/no.gif

shomymojo
04-11-2006, 02:25 PM
Is there a season on shooting politians...and if so...whats the limit...LOL

Daveinct
04-11-2006, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
Is there a season on shooting politians...and if so...whats the limit...LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He'd certainly be over the size limit, wouldn't have to toss him back.

Dave

nacktman
04-11-2006, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Is there a season on shooting poiltians...and if so...whats the limit...LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are 2 seasons actually.
One in the late spring in May and early June with a bag limit of 2 politicians per Voter and the big one in November with NO bag limit per Voter.
There is a supplemental "Herd Culling" every fourth November season when there is a NO size limit and NO bag limit per Voter.

ncnudlady
04-12-2006, 05:09 AM
Just goes to show, you put guns in the hands of neo-cons and eventually we'd be rid of them because they'd kill each other off.

If they could learn to shoot that is. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

shomymojo
04-12-2006, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
Is there a season on shooting politians...and if so...whats the limit...LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...and I'm very accurate out to about 700 yards...LOL

Leon Cristopher
04-16-2006, 03:16 PM
Cheney got out going into the army where they would have given him orders and he could shoot people. Here Cheney pays to be given orders and gets to shoot a rich Republican donor.

usmc1
10-19-2006, 12:29 PM
Even the anti-christ has to answer to the Washington Post:

Judge Orders Cheney Visitor Logs Opened
Oct 19 12:53 PM US/Eastern

By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

A federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to release information about who visited Vice President Dick Cheney's office and personal residence, an order that could spark a late election season debate over lobbyists' White House access.
The Washington Post asked for two years of White House visitor logs in June but the Secret Service refused to process the request. Government attorneys called it "a fishing expedition into the most sensitive details of the vice presidency."

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina ruled Wednesday that, by the end of next week, the Secret Service must produce the records or at least identity them and justify why they are being withheld.

The newspaper sought logs for anyone visiting Cheney, his legal counsel, chief spokesman and other top aides and advisers.

The Secret Service had no comment on the ruling Thursday. In court documents, government attorneys said releasing the documents would infringe on Cheney's ability to seek advice.

"This case is about protecting the effective functioning of the vice presidency under the Constitution," attorneys wrote.

A lawsuit over similar records revealed last month that Republican activists Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed _ key figures in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal _ landed more than 100 meetings inside the Bush White House.

The Post cited those records, which were released to the Democratic Party and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, as evidence that the documents should be released.

usmc1
10-19-2006, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Patriot_Nudist:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Even the anti-christ has to answer to the Washington Post: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The "Washington Post" should be tried for treason. Liberals are terrorists' most effective weapon in destroying America. Just whose side are you guys on? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not yours for certain.

This has to be a gag, right? Someone put you up to this? It's not spring break already is it?

What, you didn't get rushed and are lapsing into despondency over being left out of the toga parties?

Someone call the manager! The Whack-A-Mole game has been tampered with by Diebold!

Fitz1980
10-19-2006, 02:25 PM
The "Washington Post" should be tried for treason. Liberals are terrorists' most effective weapon in destroying America. Just whose side are you guys on?

No terrorists are conservatives best weapon for taking over America.

usmc1
10-19-2006, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fitz1980:
The "Washington Post" should be tried for treason. Liberals are terrorists' most effective weapon in destroying America. Just whose side are you guys on?

No terrorists are conservatives best weapon for taking over America. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dang it! I missed that one! Good one!

nimrod
10-19-2006, 08:10 PM
I thought that the head terrorist was the president?

usmc1
10-29-2006, 04:47 AM
If George Will is bailing out...well

Togetherness In Baghdad
A surreal facet of the Iraq fiasco is the lag between when a fact becomes obvious and when the fiasco's architects acknowledge it.
By George F. Will
Newsweek
Nov. 6, 2006 issue - Many months ago it became obvious to all but the most ideologically blinkered that America is losing the war launched to deal with a chimeric problem (an arsenal of WMD) and to achieve a delusory goal (a democracy that would inspire emulation, transforming the region). Last week the president retired his mantra "stay the course" because it does not do justice to the nimbleness and subtlety of U.S. tactics for winning the war.

A surreal and ultimately disgusting facet of the Iraq fiasco is the lag between when a fact becomes obvious and when the fiasco's architects acknowledge that fact. Iraq's civil war has been raging for more than a year; so has the Washington debate about whether it is what it is.

In a recent interview with Vice President Cheney, Time magazine asked, "If you had to take back any one thing you'd said about Iraq, what would it be?" Selecting from what one hopes is a very long list, Cheney replied: "I thought that the elections that we went through in '05 would have had a bigger impact on the level of violence than they have ... I thought we were over the hump in terms of violence. I think that was premature."

He thinks so? Clearly, and weirdly, he implies that the elections had some positive impact on the level of violence. Worse, in the full transcript of the interview posted online he said the big impact he expected from the elections "hasn't happened yet." "Yet"? Doggedness can be admirable, but this is clinical.

Anyway, what Cheney actually said 17 months ago was that the insurgency was in its "last throes." That was much stronger than saying we were "over the hump" regarding violence. Beware of people who misquote themselves while purporting to display candor.

The latest plan to pacify Baghdad—announced in June, declared a failure in October—was called Operation Together Forward. But U.S.-Iraqi togetherness is a sometime thing. Last April, The Washington Post's Jonathan Finer reported from Hawijah, Iraq, on a joint patrol to search for roadside bombs. The Iraqis refused to ride in armored U.S. Humvees, preferring pickup trucks because a cleric told them that anyone killed in an "occupier vehicle" would not go to heaven. Eventually, after threatening them with jail, U.S. Army Lt. Aaron Tapalman browbeat them into Humvees:

"About an hour later, the patrol came across a white bag on the roadside that Tapalman suspected might contain a bomb. When he asked some Iraqi soldiers to move it off the road, their commander balked, saying it wasn't his job. 'It is your job to protect the people,' Tapalman said, increasingly exasperated. 'I can go and move it myself, and you know what? I will, but don't you think your people should see you doing that kind of stuff? Someday we're not going to be here anymore.' The Iraqi soldier declined again, apologetically, and drove away."



A mordant joke told during the Cold War concerned asking an Italian, a Frenchman, an Englishman and a Russian to each describe his most cherished dream. The Italian said, "I want my country to produce the greatest artists." The Frenchman said, "I want my nation to produce the greatest philosophers." The Englishman said, "I want my country to produce the greatest parliamentarians." The Russian said, "I want my neighbor's cow to die."

The joke was no laughing matter because it turned on this truth: A history of brutalizing tyranny had stunted the Russians' aptitude for collective aspirations. Which brings us back to Iraq, which Patrick J. McDonnell of the Los Angeles Times covered for two years following the 2003 invasion. He recently returned. His Oct. 23 report ( "Into the Abyss of Baghdad") begins:

"I keep seeing his face. He appears to be in his mid-20s, bespectacled, slightly bearded, and somehow his smile conveys a sense of prosperity to come. Perhaps he is set to marry, or enroll in graduate school, or launch a business—all these flights of ambition seem possible. In the next few images he is encased in plastic: His face is frozen in a ghoulish grimace. Blackened lesions blemish his neck. 'Drill holes,' says Col. Khaled Rasheed, an Iraqi commander who is showing me the set of photographs."


Electric drills are the death squads' preferred instruments of torture. McDonnell:

"One evening I accompanied a three-Humvee convoy of MPs through largely Shiite east Baghdad ... The objective that evening was to patrol with Iraqi police, but the Iraqi lawmen are hesitant to be seen with Americans, whom they regard as IED [improvised explosive device] magnets. The joint patrol never worked out ... The next night, an armor-piercing bomb hit the same squad, Gator 1-2. A sergeant with whom I had ridden the previous evening lost a leg; the gunner and driver suffered severe shrapnel wounds."

For what?

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15460708/site/newsweek/

hm0504
10-29-2006, 08:39 AM
Interesting read -- thanks for posting that, usmc1.

usmc1
01-19-2007, 02:16 PM
America Strikes Back
by Cenk Uygur | Jan 19 2007 - 9:26am |

Dick Cheney has been waging a quiet war against the United States of America for quite some time now. For several decades, although he moved in and out of positions of power, he could never really make a dent in the constitutional checks and balances inherent in our government. But over the last six years, he has won many battles and set back the Americans system of government significantly. But today, America struck back.

Since the Democrats won the Congress, Alberto Gonzales was forced to testify - under oath this time - about the illegal warrantless wiretapping program. He didn't want to lie under oath - I hear people get impeached for that type of thing. And the administration had already lost a case about their violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And that was also up for appeal - where they would suffer another rebuke.

So, with the two other branches of government united against their abuse of power, the administration had to give in. They have promised to bring the government back into compliance with the law. There are many caveats to the administration's promise to follow the FISA law from now on, but this was still a historic victory for the rule of law. Score one for America.

Unfortunately, we're down significantly to Team Cheney. They still have the destruction of the writ of habeas corpus, the illegal detention of United States citizens, ghost detainees, extraordinary renditions, torture, signing statements and secret military tribunals on their side. That's a lot to overcome. We have to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

You see, Dick Cheney has never believed in the American system. He believes democracies are too soft. He has lobbied for a strong executive to take nearly complete power. Some call it the "unitary executive authority." Some call it an authoritarian form of government. You say tomato, I say to-ma-to. Take your pick.

Either way, the cult of authority has never trusted the American form of government.

Judges and juries can't be trusted. We must have secret detentions and secret trials.

We can't follow rules of evidence. We must allow hearsay and evidence obtained through coercion.

American interrogation procedures don't work. We must use torture.

American Congress can't be trusted to pass wise laws. We must use signing statements to say the president is above the law.

The American justice system doesn't work. We must declare US citizens, residents and anyone else we deem necessary "enemy combatants" and take them outside of the system, so that we can detain them indefinitely without trial or evidence or justice.

Justice is too important to be left to the American justice system.

The people who believe these things - Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, David Addington, John Bolton, etc. - are profoundly un-American. I don't include George W. Bush here because he is an irrelevant member of his own administration in this regard. His mind is so pitifully under-equipped for this ideological debate that it would be unfair to charge him with having knowledge of something he can hardly comprehend.

I think it's fair to say these ideologues hate the idea of America. They are not for an open society with fair rules that trusts its citizens to be fair and to police themselves. They have never believed in the American experiment.

When I say they hate America, I don't mean that they hate the people who live here or that they lack false patriotic vigor. I am sure they would say that they love the state of Nebraska and the good people of Alaska. They salute the American flag and some of them would even do battle for this country (though almost none of them have - given plenty of opportunities).

I mean that they philosophically never bought into the concept behind the country. America isn't a bunch of rocks that happen to be on a certain longitude and latitude. America isn't a bunch of people who happen to live in certain states between 1776 and 2007. America is a noble and grand idea. And it is that idea the Dick Cheneys of the world work hard to tear down every day. It is that idea that they do not trust, do not believe in and that they commit ideological treason against.

So, it appears now that the great American system is beginning to strike back. We have arisen from our slumber and find rascals in our midst. They have awoken a sleeping giant. The giant does not move quickly and it's sometimes slow to react, but once it moves it take giant leaps for mankind.

And when we move this country back into the light, we will show again that we are not so small that we can be taken down by petty men with old, antiquated ideas. The American system will win. And we will once again become a nation of laws, and not men.

We will show the world that we are bigger and better than the small men that lead us now. Their reign is temporary. The American system is for good. This is not a country that can be taken over by the authoritarians. We will not go the way of the tin-pot dictators. We will prevail. We will drag Dick Cheney out of the shadows and bring him into the light. The idea of America is too strong to be taken down by men of little faith.

hm0504
01-19-2007, 02:45 PM
" Mondale rips Cheney for giving bad advice to Bush":
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/19/mondale.cheney.ap/index.html

usmc1
02-06-2007, 11:26 AM
Oh yeah! Them there chickens will come home to roost, Dang 'em!

Kristof to Cheney: Answer These Questions on Libby Case -- Or Resign

By E&P Staff

Published: February 05, 2007 11:15 PM ET

NEW YORK In his Tuesday column for The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof, last year's Pulitzer winner, lists several questions emerging from the Libby/CIA leak trial that Vice President Cheney should answer, before concluding: "I’m not accusing you of committing a crime. But there are serious questions here, and you owe the nation not legalisms, but that 'stiff dose of truth' If you continue to stonewall, then you don’t belong in office and you should resign."

Kristof had kicked off with, "So, Mr. Cheney, now that the Scooter Libby trial is raising doubts about your own integrity, you owe the nation an explanation."

Here are three of the six questions posed by Kristof in urging Cheney to "come clean." The rest of the column is available behind the pay wall at www.nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com).
-- Mr. Vice President, did you push Mr. Libby to dig into Joe Wilson’s background and discredit him? Mr. Libby made such a major effort to gather materials from the C.I.A. and State Department about Mr. Wilson — both before and after you told him on June 12, 2003, that his wife worked at the C.I.A. — that it seems likely that you commanded the effort. True?

-- What did you mean when you wrote, in a note to Scott McClellan that has been entered into evidence, “not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy [[the Pres.]] that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others.”

First, you wrote that it was “the Pres.” who had asked Mr. Libby to do this, and then you crossed out those two words. Did President Bush indeed ask that Mr. Libby take charge of the effort to discredit Ambassador Wilson? And is it true, as was hinted at in the trial, that the White House tried to block the release of this document?

-- When you discussed Joe Wilson with Mr. Libby on Air Force Two on July 12, 2003, what instructions did you give him?

Trial testimony indicates that on that flight, Mr. Libby looked over some questions a reporter had sent in about Mr. Wilson and then said: “Let me go talk to the boss and I’ll be back.” After consulting with you, Mr. Libby later called reporters to feed them a skewed version of Mr. Wilson’s trip.

Naturist Mark
02-06-2007, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kristof to Cheney: Answer These Questions on Libby Case -- Or Resign </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kristof's article has been reprinted here: What Did Cheney Know, and When Did He Know It? (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110105Z.shtml)

-Mark

usmc1
02-07-2007, 02:46 PM
Chickens are roosting and the buzzards are circling.

Russert says he didn't give Libby agent's ID
Story Highlights•
NEW: In taped testimony, Libby says Cheney gave him agent's name
• NEW: NBC's Tim Russert says he didn't give CIA agent's name to Libby
• Prosecution: Russert did not get any leniency in exchange for deposition to FBI
• Defense has requested to get details from that deposition

From Paul Courson
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- NBC's Tim Russert, the last prosecution witness in Lewis "Scooter" Libby's perjury trial, testified Wednesday he did not inform Libby of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, as Libby has claimed.

Libby, the former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, told FBI investigators and a grand jury he first learned Wilson's identity from Russert during a conversation on July 10, 2003. He later recanted, saying a note he found had jogged his memory, and that he initially heard the name from Cheney about a month before.

Russert was asked by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald whether the two discussed Wilson. "No, that would be impossible because I did not know who that person was until several days later," Russert said.

Asked whether Libby told him about Wilson, Russert responded, "No."

"If he had told me that, I would have asked him how he knew that, why he knew that, what is the relevance of that. And since a national security issue, my superiors (would) try to pursue it," the moderator of "Meet the Press" said.

Russert added that there would be some question whether they could broadcast the information, "because that would be a significant story."

Libby is charged with lying and obstructing the investigation into the leak of Plame's role as a covert CIA operative. He says he didn't lie but was so swamped with national security issues that he forgot details about her.

Plame's identity was revealed after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, alleged in a New York Times editorial that the Bush administration twisted facts to support an invasion of Iraq.

Wilson had gone to Africa to investigate claims that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had been trying to buy a raw material to be used to build nuclear weapons. Wilson said he told the CIA that he had found no evidence to support the claim but that the information later was repeated in President Bush's State of the Union address.

Earlier Wednesday, jurors heard tapes of Libby telling a grand jury that he learned of Plame's identity from Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby said in the audio recordings that he came across a note that indicated he first learned the information from Cheney.

"And so I went back to see him (Cheney) and said, 'You know I told you something wrong before. It turns out that I have a note that I had heard, heard about this earlier from you," Libby said in the recordings.

'I didn't want to leave you with the wrong statement that I heard it from Tim Russert. I had in fact heard it earlier, but I had forgotten it."

Asked about Cheney's response, Libby said, "He didn't say much. You know, something about 'from me,' something like that, and tilted his head."

Libby said that before he found the note, he thought Russert first told him about Plame.

That recording was among the last of eight hours of audio from Libby's 2004 testimony in a secret grand jury probe.

Libby's defense plans to question the credibility of Russert and has asked the prosecutor for notes relating to any leniency he received for his testimony.

The prosecution insists that Russert did not receive any special treatment as part of negotiations that led to his 2004 deposition with the FBI, in the criminal probe of Libby.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said "despite a diligent search," the government has not been able to locate additional notes from Russert's FBI interview on August 7, 2004. The defense is aware of all the accommodations offered to obtain Russert's deposition, he said.

In audio recordings played Tuesday dating to Libby's 2004 testimony in a secret grand jury probe, Libby said he was "surprised" to hear from Russert that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

"Is it your testimony under oath, you don't recall Wilson's wife working for the CIA -- between the sixth (of July) and your conversation with Russert?" Fitzgerald asked.

"That's correct, sir, I don't recall discussing it. I do recall being surprised when I talked to Russert on the 10th or 11th," Libby told Fitzgerald.

Libby and Russert talked on July 10, 2003; Russert has denied he told Libby anything about Wilson's wife.

Wilson's article appeared on July 6, 2003. His wife's CIA connection was revealed in a New York Times column written by Robert Novak, eight days later.

Novak's column caused a political firestorm, and two months later prompted an FBI probe.

During the past two weeks of testimony and evidence, prosecutors tried to establish Vice President Dick Cheney as the first source of Libby's knowledge that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and sent him on the trip.

Presenting on Thursday, Libby's defense team is expected to argue that any discrepancies in what Libby told investigators stem from his difficult role as a busy government official distracted by urgent national security matters.

usmc1
03-06-2007, 09:18 AM
<span class="ev_code_Red">GUILTY! - GUILTY! - GUILTY! - GUILTY!</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/stickdance.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

earthpassenger(Kevin)
03-06-2007, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<span class="ev_code_Red">GUILTY! - GUILTY! - GUILTY! - GUILTY!</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/stickdance.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It says "Libby's, Libby's, Libby's
On the label, label, label"
And GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY
Said the gavel, gavel, gavel!!

Peace,
Kevin

barenaked1
03-06-2007, 08:31 PM
Amen!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<span class="ev_code_Red">GUILTY! - GUILTY! - GUILTY! - GUILTY!</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/stickdance.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It says "Libby's, Libby's, Libby's
On the label, label, label"
And GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY
Said the gavel, gavel, gavel!!

Peace,
Kevin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm0504
03-07-2007, 02:46 PM
I'm betting Libby will get a Presidential pardon.

Also, David Frum, National Review, President Bush ex-speech writer. asks why the real criminal, Joe Wilson (the ambassador who stuck his neck out trying to show the Bush administration was full of **** re Iraq's WMDs) isn't being hung, drawn, and quartered:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2Q4NjczMTdmNzM1...YTBkYzIyMGQ4MGE1YmM= (http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2Q4NjczMTdmNzM1MDkwZDQ1YTBkYzIyMGQ4MGE1YmM=)

Naturist Mark
03-08-2007, 06:16 PM
OK folks, the MSM (mainstream media) is in full Libby obfuscation mode - trying to color him as a loyal victim deserving of a pardon. Meanwhile the media is totally avoiding what we have learned from this case, namely that there was indeed a concerted deliberate centrally organized administration effort to expose a covert CIA agent to the press as an act of political vengeance, a conspiracy that included Cheney, Libby, Rove, David Addington, Richard L. Armitage, and George W. Bush.

There is something else that was revealed by the testimony in the case that hasn't been analized by the MSM - the timeline proves that the outing was NOT in retaliation for Joseph Wilson's July 6, 2003, op-ed column, “ What I Didn’t Find in Africa. (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm) ” - the plot to expose Valerie Wilson began BEFORE the administration knew anything about Ambassador Wilson's article. <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> May 29, 2003 – Libby calls Marc Grossman, then an Under Secretary in the State Department, asking how and why Joe Wilson was sent to Niger about uranium.
<LI> “late May and early June, 2003” according to Grossman’s testimony --- Grossman gives oral interim reports to Libby that Wilson was the ambassador who went to Niger (mentioned but not named in a May 6 NYTimes piece by Nicholas Kristof, “Missing in Action: Truth”).
<LI> June 9, 2003, according to Grossman’s testimony – Grossman had a conversation with Wilson, who was “upset” about Condoleezza Rice’s claim the day before on Meet the Press that the White House was unaware of doubts about the Niger uranium story. (In his book, Wilson says this conversation “elicited the suggestion that I might have to write the story myself”; he got in touch with the NYTimes the same day. p.332.)
<LI> June 9, 2003 – classified documents from CIA are faxed to the Office of the Vice President to Libby and colleague John Hannah, mentioning the Wilson trip but not naming Wilson.
<LI> June 10, 2003 – a classified State Department memo written by State’s Bureau of Intelligence & Research (INR) gives Grossman the background on Wilson’s Niger trip, refers explicitly to Valerie Wilson as Wilson’s wife and “a CIA WMD manager.” The memo also strongly debunks the Niger uranium story.
<LI> June 11, 2003 – Robert L. Grenier, then “Iraq mission manager” and “point person for Iraq,” receives a phone call from Libby, then is summoned from a meeting with the CIA Director to talk with Libby about Wilson; tells Libby Wilson’s wife is in CIA. (Grenier is no longer with the CIA.)
<LI> June 11/12, 2003 – Marc Grossman has a “30-second discussion” about Mrs. Wilson with Libby, according to Grossman’s testimony.
<LI> June 12, 2003 – Libby is informed by Cheney in a phone call that Wilson’s wife is in CIA (handwritten note: “CP: his wife works in that div”).
<LI> June 12, 2003 – David Addington, Cheney’s government lawyer, receives the same notes from Libby’s office mentioning Wilson’s wife in CP (typed copy).
<LI> June 13, 2003 – Richard L. Armitage tells Bob Woodward, on tape, that Mrs. Wilson works for CIA, suggests that Mrs. Wilson sent Wilson on the Niger trip.
<LI> June 14, 2003 – CIA daily briefer Craig Schmall briefing of Libby at Libby’s home notes question about Wilson (“ex-amb”) and the Niger trip, notes Wilson and Valerie Wilson by name.
<LI> June 23, 2003 – Libby has a discussion with Judith Miller, mentions Wilson’s wife at “bureau” (CIA). (Miller had returned to the U.S. on June 8.)
<LI> July 6, 2003 – Joseph Wilson’s op-ed criticizing the Niger story finally appears in the NYTimes. Brad Blog (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4188)
[/list]

So why was the Cabal determined to punish Ambassador Wilson and burn Valerie Wilson-Plame even before Joe Wilson wrote his op-ed? Some suspect it was a pre-emptive strike. But it still begs the question - why burn Plame? Finding out that an ex-Ambassador's wife is a top American spy doesn't exactly discredit him, heck, it bolsters his credibility.

Why Burn Plame?

Valerie Plame ran an extensive CIA cover operation out of the Boston Blass Plate firm Brewster Jennings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster-Jennings_%26_Associates). Brewster Jennings cover was as an energy consulting firm, its role was to investigate, infiltrate, and compromise the trade in Weapons of Mass Destruction (CIA Counter-Proliferation Division).

Brewster Jennings was a NOC operation - meaning Non Official Cover - that means that the CIA employees working for Brewster did not have diplomatic cover, and if exposed would have no protection. These are your basic "mission impossible" rules where "if you are captured, you will be disavowed". In other words - dead meat.

By burning Plame, the White House also burned Brewster Jennings, and exposed all its overseas operatives, their contacts, and families to arrest and retaliation by foreign powers, mafias and terrorist networks. Unofficial reports are that the fallout in lives was extensive, and that prosecutor Fitzgerald received an detailed account of the cost of the backlash from the CIA, but was not permitted to use it or place it into evidence.

Why in the world would the White House deliberately destroy its premiere counter-proliferation operation?

Perhaps because the CIA operation had foiled a White House plot to salt Iraq with WMD's just prior to the war, in order to allow them to be found as "proof". <UL TYPE=SQUARE>November 11, 2005 -- New aspect of Valerie Plame/Brewster Jennings exposure revealed. According to U.S. intelligence sources, the White House exposure of Valerie Plame and her Brewster Jennings & Associates was intended to retaliate against the CIA's work in limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

WMR has reported in the past on this aspect of the scandal. In addition to identifying the involvement of individuals in the White House who were close to key players in nuclear proliferation, the CIA Counter-Proliferation Division prevented the shipment of binary VX nerve gas from Turkey into Iraq in November 2002.

The Brewster Jennings network in Turkey was able to intercept this shipment which was intended to be hidden in Iraq and later used as evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. intelligence sources revealed that this was a major reason the Bush White House targeted Plame and her network.

CIA counter-proliferation network prevented a WMD "salting" operation by Bush White House in Iraq.

In fact, U.S. intelligence sources report that the first shipment of VX nerve gas to Saddam Hussein was carried out between 1988 and 1989. The gas was shipped to Iraq by a U.S. company that was established in 1987 -- The Carlyle Group.

U.S. intelligence sources have also confirmed that Israeli military officers served unofficially with the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Baghdad. The Israelis were attached to the J2X (Joint Intelligence Liaison) in Baghdad. Their presence in Baghdad, according to the sources, was kept secret." Washington Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/11/civility_and_the_iraq_debate.html) [/list]

So ...

Who thinks the Plame story is all over now?

-Mark

barenaked1
03-08-2007, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Mark,

Wonderful reporting as always. Wonder what Plame will have to say in her upcoming hearing.
(snip)
So why was the Cabal determined to punish Ambassador Wilson and burn Valerie Wilson-Plame even before Joe Wilson wrote his op-ed? Some suspect it was a pre-emptive strike. But it still begs the question - why burn Plame? Finding out that an ex-Ambassador's wife is a top American spy doesn't exactly discredit him, heck, it bolsters his credibility.

Why Burn Plame?

Valerie Plame ran an extensive CIA cover operation out of the Boston Blass Plate firm Brewster Jennings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster-Jennings_%26_Associates). Brewster Jennings cover was as an energy consulting firm, its role was to investigate, infiltrate, and compromise the trade in Weapons of Mass Destruction (CIA Counter-Proliferation Division).

Brewster Jennings was a NOC operation - meaning Non Official Cover - that means that the CIA employees working for Brewster did not have diplomatic cover, and if exposed would have no protection. These are your basic "mission impossible" rules where "if you are captured, you will be disavowed". In other words - dead meat.

By burning Plame, the White House also burned Brewster Jennings, and exposed all its overseas operatives, their contacts, and families to arrest and retaliation by foreign powers, mafias and terrorist networks. Unofficial reports are that the fallout in lives was extensive, and that prosecutor Fitzgerald received an detailed account of the cost of the backlash from the CIA, but was not permitted to use it or place it into evidence.

Why in the world would the White House deliberately destroy its premiere counter-proliferation operation?

Perhaps because the CIA operation had foiled a White House plot to salt Iraq with WMD's just prior to the war, in order to allow them to be found as "proof". <UL TYPE=SQUARE>November 11, 2005 -- New aspect of Valerie Plame/Brewster Jennings exposure revealed. According to U.S. intelligence sources, the White House exposure of Valerie Plame and her Brewster Jennings & Associates was intended to retaliate against the CIA's work in limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

WMR has reported in the past on this aspect of the scandal. In addition to identifying the involvement of individuals in the White House who were close to key players in nuclear proliferation, the CIA Counter-Proliferation Division prevented the shipment of binary VX nerve gas from Turkey into Iraq in November 2002.

The Brewster Jennings network in Turkey was able to intercept this shipment which was intended to be hidden in Iraq and later used as evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. intelligence sources revealed that this was a major reason the Bush White House targeted Plame and her network.

CIA counter-proliferation network prevented a WMD "salting" operation by Bush White House in Iraq.

In fact, U.S. intelligence sources report that the first shipment of VX nerve gas to Saddam Hussein was carried out between 1988 and 1989. The gas was shipped to Iraq by a U.S. company that was established in 1987 -- The Carlyle Group.

U.S. intelligence sources have also confirmed that Israeli military officers served unofficially with the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Baghdad. The Israelis were attached to the J2X (Joint Intelligence Liaison) in Baghdad. Their presence in Baghdad, according to the sources, was kept secret." Washington Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/11/civility_and_the_iraq_debate.html) [/list]

So ...

Who thinks the Plame story is all over now?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naturist Mark
03-11-2007, 03:15 PM
Why Discredit Ambassador Wilson? (http://bluehorde.blogspot.com/2007/03/laffair-plame-it-doesnt-end-with-libby.html)

The official line in the Administration is that Ambassador Wilson had lied when he claimed the Vice President had sent him on his fact finding mission to Niger. Except that Wilson did not make that claim - he correctly stated that the Vice President's office had made an inquiry to the CIA, and that it was the CIA which then sent him to Africa. But that is such a minor detail that it is hardly worth wasting an official statement on, much less orchestrating career ending media leaks in retaliation. We should also note that Wilson was not the first to assert that the Niger yellowcake claim was bogus - that had been well known inside and outside the administration, and had been reported upon in media by Seymour Hersch and others. Wilson's voice was just another confirmation.

Why ignite a firestorm around discrediting Wilson? One of the basic tools in Karl Rove's tool chest is to bury an inconvenient story by creating a controversy on the periphery of the story - that controversy (http://mediamatters.org/items/200409150002) will focus all attention to itself, leaving the underlying inconvenient truth unexamined. We saw that tactic brilliantly played out in the Dan Rather epsiode where forged documents were created that revealed the truth about George W. Bush being AWOL during his National Guard service. The forgery and Dan Rather became the sole focus of all media attention, ignoring the truth of the AWOL allegations - even though they had been independently confirmed by other news sources ( US News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040920/20guard.htm) , and The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/) ) using only US Government documents.

One thing the attack on Wilson did was draw attention away from the forged Niger yellowcake document. That it was a forgery became a given, all reporting examinined the storm around Ambassador Wilson. Media attention was drawn away from the forgery itself - and its source. That is the essential element; no one should examine how and when the poorly forged document came into being.

We can trace this story back to January 1, 2001, when Niger's Rome embassy was broken into, but only inconsequential items were stolen, among them a wristwatch, perfume, worthless documents, embassy stationery, and some official stamps bearing the seal of the Republic of Niger. That break-in has been linked (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/61/20319) to former Italian intelligence operative Rocco Martino, who had close ties to Karl Rove's national security advisor Michael Ledeen (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7256) and has been alleged to have been working for him. Ledeen was an early point man in the Adminsitration's efforts to 'fix the facts' in favor of an Iraq war even before Bush took office. According to Italian sources the items Martino stole were used in making the forged Niger document.

In October 2001 Italian Prime Minister Silvio Burlusconi presented the forged document to George W. Bush - but the State Department and CIA immediately identified it as a fake. But Ledeen had a plan to make it useful - he convened a December 2001 meeting in Rome between his Italian connections and top Administration 'fact fixers':

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> This is where the plot thickens, though. A team of investigative reporters in Italy, working for the respected newspaper La Repubblica, learned that a group of people, allegedly including Michael Ledeen, Defense Department Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, Defense Intelligence Agency Middle East analyst Larry Franklin, Pentagon Office of Special Plans member Harold Rhode and convicted bank swindler and Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, met secretly in Rome. Also present, reportedly, were Pollari and the head of the Italian Department of Defense. The La Repubblica reporters, led by investigative reporter Carlo Bonini, claim that it was at this unusual meeting that a plan was hatched to recycle and launder the bogus and discredited Niger documents through British intelligence, so that they would come back to the White House as "new evidence" of Hussein's nuclear ambitions.
Dave Lindorff (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/49) [/list]

Clearly the Administration could not stand up to exposure of its role in manufacturing false evidence. By making Ambassador Wilson the center of the story attention was diverted from the White House's complicity in the creation and dissemination of the forgery. They were then able to stick to their story of being duped by the forgery, and of using it later by mistake - without confronting inconvenient evidence of their complicity in creating it.

So now we see, the Administration had powerful reasons to attack both Ambassador Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame Wilson.

-Mark

hm0504
03-12-2007, 12:10 PM
Anyone remember those really touching Halliburton commercials of a few years ago showing how it was proudly supporting America and America's troops? Apparently, they were getting some flak from the lefty, liberal mainstream media for getting untold gazillions and a red hot stock through Iraq thanks to Cheney and friends' war in Iraq.

Looks like they may need to run some new ads. Here's the latest on über-patriotic Halliburton...
"Halliburton to Move Headquarters from Houston to Dubai":
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Emirates-Halliburton.html?hp