""Watergate-level event" is about to occur in

by **dbeach** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:41 pm

ANTI I though the Dowd read was a lil tooo romantic for me not that I don't love ROMANCE but really.. Judi is an eccentric lass and really a good kid and please excuse her TREASON and the rest of the NYT imes staff is a bunch of hard workin reporters.. OH PLEASE! With that rant aimed only at the MM .Its worth a re -read .Dowd has been a left darling for yrs she makes some good pts but I wonder if her mocking bird can sing????

by **Jen** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:48 pm

"...and please excuse her TREASON..." Snerk. That IS pretty much what they're asking us to do about her and the rest of them. Fuck that. I'm still reserving some hope for the best and most shocking of all possible outcomes of this thing.

by **seemslikeadream** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:36 pm

<img src="http://www.bartcop.com/judith-miller-pail.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **dbeach** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:52 pm

U BET YA LIFE she is one giant maddi hairy and she gonna lie til they squeeze the lemon..BUT thats the SWEETEST Lemonade in HISTORY .or is that HERSTORY?? SAVE that photo cuz we gonna sell t shirtts in the soon future

by **firstimer** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:06 am

I don't watch much TV, but I caught some panel of journalists discussing 1st amendment stuff and low and behold, there is Judy in all her glory. It was Thursday, but it was filmed on Tuesday of same week, October 18. As I watched, they zoomed in on everybody but her until a question came up about protection for journalists vs. bloggers and invariably citizens. I couldn't believe the crassness of her answer which I will try to paraphrase simply: The 1st amendment isn't really for anybody but journalists. They are the ones that need the protection and they are the ones that have the credentials and experience to warrant such protections. Bloggers and ordinary citizens don't really need or utilize such protections. I confess that I might be reading a little into what she said. But then she started talking about her notebooks and how now: she may consider not keeping them from now on. Something about how any prosecutor could go "fishing in them and find things that were unrelated to the original investigation" Forget about Claudius's records of the Roman empire and all of the stories of Caligula. Just throw those notes away. Don't want anybody getting into them that shouldn't. Right after she was praised for standing up for 1st amenement rights. She says I don't think I will keep any more notebooks. Nope no responsibility goes with that protection, nope just protect yourself I was shocked and also I was shocked that there weren't any protests from the audience. It was some society of journalists or whatever, but godamn, It was like the Stepford Press. all hail the internet, the only place where thought can play and do its magic since it has been banned from print. firstimer

by **chiggerbit** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:07 am

Miller has just hung herself if Fitzy decides to charge her now. She claims she can't remember how the name Valerie Flame jumped in her notebook, but she is going to now stop using notebooks and rely on her memory. Seems to have a lot of confidence in her memory. Fitzy should order her back in for more testimony on that one. Or just charge her. What is with the journalism establishment today? Have they really no clue why so many people disrespect them, and now they want to worship another journalist who has added even further to the dimishment of their credibility? All I want is a hard-hitting, non-partisan news source that does not have idiots like Miller writing their news.

by **heath7** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:21 pm

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9787693/site/newsweek/" target="top">The Media: Miller's Crossing</a> From Newsweek, at the very end: Late last week she(Miller) told NEWSWEEK she had every intention of returning to work. She also did some digging of her own. "Are you hearing anything about Fitzgerald?" she asked, before quickly hanging up. Judith Miller is a BITCH! I hope to God Fitzgerald reads that. Hopefully he's not compromised. Though if a BITCH! like Miller can act so brazenly, she must know something.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:15 pm

I stole this from fdl comments. No link but it's the NYT <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Mr. Libby was also part of the network of Iraq hawks within the administration. He is a protégé of Mr. Wolfowitz, perhaps the leading neoconservative in the administration until he left to head the World Bank. Mr. Libby's deputy, John Hannah, had close ties to John R. Bolton, then the undersecretary of state for arms control; David Wurmser, a Bolton aide who later joined Mr. Cheney's office; and Robert Joseph, then the senior director for nonproliferation on the National Security Council. Mr. Bolton is now ambassador to the United Nations, and Mr. Joseph has taken over as undersecretary of state, where he has retained as his executive assistant Frederick Fleitz, a C.I.A. officer who had served as Mr. Bolton's chief of staff. Some of those officials, including Mr. Hannah and Mr. Joseph, have been questioned in the leak case. "<hr></blockquote> So which one am I excited about? Robert Joseph. (Please) correct me if I'm wrong, but Joseph features in only one place in this story. The White House and the CIA were at loggerheads before the SOTU over the uranium reference. Each side sent their "top guy" to fight it out. Alan foley of the CIA shot down every effort to validate the intelligence. Then his antagonist asked if he could shoot down the form of words actually used, viz "The british Government has learned..." Of course he could not. So it was into the address. It was Robert Joseph who put forward those words. Can there be any other reason to question him?

by **chiggerbit** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:02 pm

Alan Foley is discussed int this 2003 Amy Goodwin interview": <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/17/1543215">www.democracynow.org/arti...17/1543215</a> snip, emphasis mine <blockquote>Quote:<hr>.....You talk about October, and this was before the war. George Tenet has the suggestion taken out of George Bush’s speech, a major address he gave at that time. But then the famous 16-word statement in the State of the Union address, which brings us to one of the people who is leaving Intelligence. Can you talk about him and the role that he played? RAY MCGOVERN: Alan Foley? Alan announced just three days ago that he was leaving, and he was head of the analytic section that had purview over weapons of mass destruction. It was he who suggested that those sixteen offending words not be included in the president’s State of the Union address. He was finally arm twisted into condoning that, with the assurance that it would be blamed on the British. AMY GOODMAN: Well explain that. He says, and he testifies before Congress… RAY MCGOVERN: Yes, he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that in discussions with a Mr. Joseph of the NSC, he suggested that since the agency didn’t vouch for the business about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger, that it ought not to be used in the President’s Sate of the Union address, and indeed they had managed to get it out of previous presidential speeches. So why did they want to put it back in there? Well, finally he was persuaded that well, let’s blame it on the British. Let’s say, according to a British report. And Foley said, I suppose that would be alright to blame it on the British. Now, they didn’t even say ‘according to a British report’. What the President said was ‘the British have learned’. That’s a lot different. We are pretty careful with words in the intelligence community, but that is what the President said, ‘the British have learned that Iraq was seeking uranium from an African country.. Now, Foley took the fall with that, along with Tenet, but it was really sort of Tenet saying ‘I confess, she did it’. Because Tenet doesn’t write these speeches. Condeleezza Rice is responsible for that. So what is Tenet was confessing? He’s confessing to being a lousy proofreader. He didn’t read the final draft, and there it was. AMY GOODMAN: But Alan Foley said ‘we know this not to be true’. And they said well, why don’t we just leave that part out and say that the British say it’s true? RAY MCGOVERN: We’ll use it anyway and we’ll pin it on the British report. I watched the speech. We all watched the speech. When the President says the British have learned something, the presumption is the President is telling the truth. But the President was not telling the truth and everyone knew that. AMY GOODMAN: So Alan Foley is leaving. How significant is that, David MacMichael? DAVID MACMICHAEL:I think it’s significant. The man cannot continue to identified, whether he supports the policy or not, as an intelligence professional. He can’ continue to be identified with a process that had been and is being corrupted. I don’t like to use these terms but this is an ethical dilemma that officers in these institutions frequently face. You may recall the official state dept report following Iran-Contra on El Salvador. The language is indicative. State Department officers were torn between their desire to tell the truth and their need to support the policy. So these things do come up, and it’s very difficult for people pursuing careers in these bureaucracies to stand up and be counted at the cost of their careers. And that is just a fact of life. AMY GOODMAN: Which brings us to Cheney’s visits to the CIA. When people hear that they might say, well, he’s the Vice President, he can go to the agencies that are under him. RAY MCGOVERN: Well, people have asked me in my 27 years, has this had happened before, whether it was unusual? And I tell them, this is not unusual, this is unprecedented. The Vice President of the United States never during those 27 years came out to the CIA headquarters for a working visit. Not even George Bush the first came out under those circumstances. He did come out once to supervise or to be in attendance at an awards ceremony, but never on a working visit. That is not how it works. How it works is we go down in the early morning, and we brief these senior officials, five of them: Vice President, Secretaries of State and Defense, the Assistant to the President for the Security of National Affairs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. That is how we did business. If there were questions, and they needed more expertise, we would bring down the specialists. But we wouldn’t invite them to down to headquarters. This is like inviting money-changers into the temple. It’s the inner sanctum, you don’t have policy makers sitting at the table as you are, Amy, helping us come up with the correct conclusions, and that is the only explanation as to why Dick Cheney would be making multiple visits out there. ‘Are you sure you thought about this? What about this uranium? Send somebody down there to find all this stuff out.’ It’s very clear. You’re a mid-level official, and you’re trying to be a professional, and your boss is sitting behind you. There is a lot of pressure there. And let me add just one other thing, and that is, Colin Powell brags to this day, very recently he said, and I quote: ‘I spent four days and four nights at CIA headquarters before I made that speech on Feb the 5th, pouring over the evidence, making sure that..’ Well, to anyone who knows how the system works, that is bizarre. The Secretary of State shouldn’t be going out to CIA headquarters to analyze the evidence and make sure the… the evidence by that time, by god, should have been well analyzed, should have been presented in a document to which most people agree and footnotes for those who don’t agree, and presented to the Secretary of State in his office on the 7th floor of the State Department, and if he had questions, analysts would come down and see him. The prospect of the Secretary of State and Condeleezza Rice who joined that group, coming out to the agency and saying. OK, where are we at now, five days before his major speech to the UN, is bizarre in the extreme. Of course we know how that speech came out. All the evidence that was deduced. Where are the 25,000 liters of anthrax? None of that information has been borne out in reality. And soo we have a Secretary of State who picked what he thought was the best evidence, and who said some really interesting things, if you look at that speech....<hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 10/23/05 3:11 pm

by **dbeach** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:07 pm

Wolfie moves closer to the cash and will soon be loan or is that loan sharking 3rd world nations who get ravaged by the globalist schemes. ANTI SO FAR the fierdoglake post is slammed by about 2 and one with a vicious RI attack and ignored by most.. I think CS blog would be more welcoming BUT Iam glad you posted it there . THANX

by **chiggerbit** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:22 pm

The two crucial, defining lies are Powell's UN speech and the president's 2003 State of the Union Address: Bush <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html">www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...28-19.html</a> Powell <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html">www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...205-1.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:09 pm

This helps put Miller's status in focus (sorry if mentioned before). <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Judith Miller's Unusual Relationship With Iraq Grp Thursday, 20 October 2005, 11:15 am Opinion: Jason Leopold Times Reporter Entangled In Leak Case Had Unusual Relationship With Military, Iraqi Group By Jason Leopold Embattled New York Times reporter Judith Miller acted as a "middleman" between an American military unit and the Iraqi National Congress while she was embedded with the U.S. armed forces searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in April 2003, and "took custody" of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, one of 55 most wanted Iraqis, RAW STORY has found. Moreover, in one of the most highly unusual arrangements between a news organization and the Department of Defense, Miller sat in on the initial debriefing of Jamal Sultan Tikriti, according to a June 25, 2003 article published in the Washington Post The Post article sheds some light on her unusual arrangement in obtaining a special security clearance from the Department of Defense which is now the subject of a Democratic congressional inquiry. On Monday, Reps. John Conyers and Ira Skelton, the ranking Democrats on the House Judiciary and Armed Services committees sent Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a letter demanding an explanation to Miller's top secret security clearance, which Rumsfeld reportedly personally authorized. What's interesting about the 2003 Post article is that two days before it was published and two weeks after she was contacted by a Post reporter who said he was going to call into question her reporting tactics, Miller met with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, to discuss allegations that President Bush twisted intelligence information in his State of the Union address to win public support for the war in Iraq. In Miller's "tell-all" published in the Times Sunday, she said she met with Libby "on the afternoon of June 23, 2003.at the Old Executive Office Building to interview Mr. Libby, who was known to be an avid consumer of prewar intelligence assessments, which were already coming under fierce criticism." While it's true that the Bush administration was criticized for relying on questionable intelligence reports prior to launching the Iraq war, it was in fact Miller and The New York Times who were coming under fire for a series of explosive articles she wrote leading up to the war claiming that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, which many critics believe laid the groundwork for an attack, and have since turned out to be wrong. The Post article raises an important question about her role in the outing of a covert CIA agent: was Miller, whose flawed reporting on the existence of WMD's was scrutinized in mainstream newspapers, truly meeting with Libby in the hopes of pursuing a hot story or was she trying to get information out of him that would help restore her credibility and cover up her errors? Consider the evidence. "More than a half-dozen military officers said that Miller acted as a middleman between the Army unit with which she was embedded and Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, on one occasion accompanying Army officers to Chalabi's headquarters, where they took custody of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law," the Post reported. "She also sat in on the initial debriefing of the son-in-law, these sources say." Miller's intimate role with the MET Alpha nearly endangered the mission, according to several soldiers. "This was totally out of their lane, getting involved with human intelligence," according to one military interviewed by the Post. "This woman came in with a plan. She was leading them. . . . She ended up almost hijacking the mission." On April 21, 2003 Miller, in a handwritten note, objected to an order handed down to the MET Alpha team that said it had to withdraw to the southern Iraqi town of Talil. Miller objected in a handwritten note to two public affairs officers. "I see no reason for me to waste time (or MET Alpha, for that matter) in Talil. . . . Request permission to stay on here with colleagues at the Palestine Hotel til MET Alpha returns or order to return is rescinded. I intend to write about this decision in the NY Times to send a successful team back home just as progress on WMD is being made." One military officer, who says that Miller sometimes "intimidated" Army soldiers by invoking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or Undersecretary Douglas Feith, was sharply critical of the note. "Essentially, she threatened them," the officer said, describing the threat as that "she would publish a negative story."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0510/S00247.htm">www.scoop.co.nz/stories/p...S00247.htm</a> Now Leopold is doing little more than re-interpreting an old story in the light of new information. And more power to him. It's an important point. I myself remembered this story. I've been wondering why it has not been mentioned. We have the DC press corps wandering around saying Miller's status is a mystery, yet there it is. SHE was telling the MILITARY what to do. SHE debriefed Saddam's son-in-law. SHE acted as intermediary between Chalabi (now identified as the source of the Niger forgeries) and Kaye's WMD hunt. I have to speculate this story caused Keller to pull Miller off national security. It was a high profile story. But it seems to have been "disappeared".

by **firstimer** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:14 pm

Here is a recent article suggesting the timing and the route of the forged papers to the US: <a href="http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051023-104217-9679r">www.upi.com/International...4217-9679r</a> "The letterheads and official seals that appeared to authenticate the documents apparently came from a burglary at the Niger Embassy in Rome in 2001. At this point, the facts start dribbling away into conspiracy theories that involve membership of shadowy Masonic lodges, Iranian go-betweens, right-wing cabals inside Italian Intelligence and so on. It is not yet known how far Fitzgerald, in his two years of inquiries, has fished in these murky waters." Every intrigue in Italy involves the Masons, just ask Umberto Eco, but i'm interested in the date of the Niger embassy break-in. I believe that could indicate pre-9/11 intention that isn't classified like the Energy Policy meetings of Cheney. All of these things are starting to point to Cheney (the Mason?) premeditated plans for war support the case for MIHOP in my opinion and may be the thread that leads to the exposure of the blanket coverup constructed by Western Governments. Hopefully each country could become implicated in the crime and reveal links that will expose the whole thing. Remember, nobody thought that Cheney et al would be called to testify before a grand jury, anything can happen in your life, and probably will. firstimer

by **dqueue** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:30 pm

Well, hell... we have NYTimes <a href="http://nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24cnd-leak.html?hp&ex=1130212800&en=db7d02c93e5913ef&ei=5094&partner=homepage">reporting tonight</a> that Libby's source was his boss, Cheney. More well-timed notes have emerged from an early June, 2003 meeting between Libby & Cheney... WTF?!

by **antiaristo** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:41 pm

Firstimer, Hi there. Let me tell you something, then I'm off to bed. Recorded in the logbook of the Thames Valley Police is a twenty-four hour exercise ending at 9am on the morning of 18 July 2003. Thames Valley is the jurisdiction within which David Kelly lived, and within which his body was found on the morning of 18 July 2003. The exercise was in the logbook as "Operation Mason".

""Watergate-level event" is about to occur in

Re: watergate on steroids about to hatch

TREASON

Re:But can the mockingbird carry water dbeach?

Re: Re:But can the mockingbird carry water dbeach?

cspan on tuesday

Re: cspan on tuesday

Miller Threatens Fitzgerald?!

Re: ""Watergate-level event" is about to occu

Re: ""Watergate-level event" is about to occu

Re: ""Watergate-level event" is about to occu

Re: ""Watergate-level event" is about to occu

Re: ""Watergate-level event" is about to occu

when were the the Niger papers dreamt up?

full circle?

Re: when were the the Niger papers dreamt up?

Who is online