Cheney's role in outing of CIA agent under examination

by **marykmusic** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:22 pm

The thing to visualize about Cheney's heart is that it's only got three chambers... All together now! --MaryK

by **dbeach** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:38 pm

I read last yr that poppy o was non-plussed with sauron cheney and that if the palace of sand began to disintegrate that poppy o would leave cheney holding the empty body bags while jr waltzes to the next safe haven. the bush history thus far is very simple.. the bush criminals are ALWAYS near the crimes but NEVER the indicted criminals I am looking for the MM to turn vicious on the rover.,libby, card involvement..tarnish cheney and absolve jr cuz he is a nice guy who got taken advantage of by the older meaner cheny and his cutthroats. Poppy o got lots more tricks than sauron cheny..thus far...

by **firstimer** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:15 pm

Anybody making the connection between the roles of Kelley them British suicided naysayer and Wilson the lucky naysayer who miraculously eluded his own suicide. I know a recent piece connected Miller and Kelley. I didn't feel that the article made the connection. I think she set him up. There was too much of her ass at stake for JUDEith not to assist/arrange in his demise. I could be mistaken since I'm a firstimer. It's beyond me why Wilson didn't meet the same fate. Was his wife's position enough to make it too difficult. They both would have had to be eliminated. But, sometimes that is easier. Is the above connection implied in those other articles explaning JUDEith and David Kelly's relationship? Maybe I didn't get the whole jist of the article. I'm gonna look it up again, was it citizen spook or something like frogfoxlake, these damn blogs are starting to sound like spy operations themselves. The above is all just loose satirical speculation with nothing but humor intended. Its not my fault if truth is funnier than fiction. firstimer

by **chiggerbit** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:54 pm

What's with this? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>JUDEith<hr></blockquote>

by **chiggerbit** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:58 pm

DKos had a great article on Miller. Looks like she has been at this same kind of thing for three decades, almost like an agent: <a href="http://dailykos.com/story/2005/7/8/16033/61733">dailykos.com/story/2005/7/8/16033/61733</a>

by **dbeach** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:55 pm

<a href="http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/08/treasongate-in-cahoots-how-white-house.html">citizenspook.blogspot.com...house.html</a> CS has speculated that the whole gang is in on the TREASON including miller,corn,plame herself and of course wilson[hows his book sales??].. its all the privleged elites capitalizing on their own crimes or tragedys of their own creation.. This did not go over well at DU where Wilson is attainng hero status..Me not so sure of wilson..

by **antiaristo** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:42 pm

My favourite hobbyhorse is finally coming into focus over there. I just hope this leads to some questions about how, exactly, Britain is governed. ======================== The heart of the matter By Swopa Oct 15 2005 - 9:12am Atrios muses this morning about Plamemania: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm struck by something -- exactly why was it so necessary to "get" Wilson? It can't simply be the simply be about the "sixteen words" in the SOTU speech. It must be what all that pointed to - where those obviously forged documents came from...<hr></blockquote> Anyone with an almost-photographic recall of what I've posted at Needlenose for the past year and a half would know that I made this point long ago. But, uh, since that definition likely doesn't include anyone besides me, let's refresh some memories. As other observers have long since noted, what turned the Niger uranium story into a feeding frenzy in July 2003 wasn't that Joseph Wilson accused Dubya of saying something that wasn't true in his State of the Union speech -- it was that the Orwell Bush administration admitted it, something they had never done before and promptly decided never to do again. So what prompted that isolated (and promptly orphaned) lapse of apparent honesty? The place to start looking is the precise moment it occurred, in a July 7th Ari Fleischer press briefing helpfully preserved by Joshua Marshall. Ari starts off in typically positive fashion, endorsing the State of the Union claim about uranium: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Q: Do you hold that the President -- when you look at the totality of the sentence that the President uttered that day on the subject, are you confident that he was correct? FLEISCHER: Yes, I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President's broader statement. But specifically on the yellow cake, the yellow cake for Niger, we've acknowledged that that information did turn out to be a forgery. Q: The President's statement was accurate? FLEISCHER: We see nothing that would dissuade us from the President's broader statement. Q: Ari, that means that, indeed, you all believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain uranium from an African nation; is that correct? FLEISCHER: What the President said in his statement was that according to a British report they were trying to obtain uranium. When I answered the question it was, again, specifically about the Niger piece involving yellow cake. Q: So you believe the British report that he was trying to obtain uranium from an African nation is true? FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?<hr></blockquote> (Note: Insert sound effect of screeching brakes here, followed by car slamming into a brick wall.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Q: If you're hanging on the British report, you believe that that British report was true, you have no reason to believe -- FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, I see what David is asking. Let me back up on that and explain the President's statement again, or the answer to it. The President's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake from Niger. The President made a broad statement. So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the President's broader statement, David. So, yes, the President' broader statement was based and predicated on the yellow cake from Niger. Q: So it was wrong? FLEISCHER: That's what we've acknowledged with the information on -- Q: The President's statement at the State of the Union was incorrect? FLEISCHER: Because it was based on the yellow cake from Niger.<hr></blockquote> You can tell how stunned the reporters are Ari's sudden change. Eventually, the one leading the questioning (David Sanger of the New York Times) all but pleads in disbelief for him to get back on the script: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Q: But, Ari, even if you said that the Niger thing was wrong, the next line has usually been that the President's statement was deliberately broader than Niger, it referred to all of Africa. The national intelligence estimate discusses other countries in Africa that there were attempts to purchase yellow cake from, or other sources of uranium -- FLEISCHER: Let me do this, David. On your specific question I'm going to come back and post the specific answer on the broader statement on the speech<hr></blockquote>. The "specific answer" that was posted later, as Josh Marshall's subsequent post explained, was the admission that the uranium sentence "should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." I wrote in June 2004 about the question that stopped Ari cold, asking if the U.S. believed the British intelligence: The stonewalling answer to give here would have been "yes" -- but apparently Fleischer knew that was a line he couldn't cross. And this wasn't just a momentary slip-up in the press briefing; Fleischer eventually escaped the subject by saying he'd check with his superiors and respond later. The result of that consultation (which, again, could have been a stonewalling "We stand by our statements") was the admission that the uranium claim shouldn't have been in the State of the Union speech Dubya gave in 2003. So, why were the Bushites so terrified of anyone taking a close look at "the British report" . . . would discovering the source of the British information be even more damaging -- in terms of revealing the intentional let's-go-to-war scam -- than the "sixteen words" admission was? That's still the question. Giving in to Wilson's criticism started a media firestorm about how the sentence got into the speech in the first place -- but apparently the Bushites preferred that to having people take a closer look at the "British report." Maybe, then, you'd think that we ought to browbeat the press into going ahead and taking a closer look at it anyway. <a href="http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2097">www.needlenose.com/node/view/2097</a> ================== What's so terrifying? I'll tell you what's so terrifying. That the British Government will be found to have laundered the "intelligence" on behalf of the Bush administration. Bush said that "The British Government has learned...". We all know he was referring to the first "dossier" published in September, which did indeed cover so called efforts by Iraq to obtain uranium. That dossier was written by Alastair Campbell. They'll tell you it was written by John Scarlett but that's not true. Campbell even chaired the crucial meeting of the Joint Intelligence Committee on 9 September 2002*. And don't forget that Campbell was vested with royal prerogative powers, which gave him the legal right to order around all government employees in the name of Her Majesty. But look at what was happening that summer. Propaganda units were set up on both sides of the Atlantic, headed by Rove and Campbell. The co-ordination between the two was intense. Is it really surprising that Campbell put into the British dossier was what was required over the other side of the pond? In other words, the WHIG knew EXACTLY what was the provenance of the uranium information in that document. So when they were checked by the CIA they simply did an end run around them WITH EXACTLY THE SAME INFORMATION, by citing the "British Government". Same data; TWO authorities; one authority (United States) taken down by the CIA; one authority (British Government) remains standing; British Government cited in SOTU. It's so obvious. *There is lots of contemporary data in my letters in data dump. See especially what I wrote to Andrew Gilligan ("Brian Hutton's Phoney Circus") and to Janice Kelly, David's widow. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 10/15/05 3:45 pm

by **rapt** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:37 pm

Very interesting CS piece dbeach. Long as usual. I give the guy a lot of credit, but this will be a hard sell. Counting on Fitz to see thru the shit and I'm sure he can. Perhaps this "new twist" and all the ramifications have something to to with the reputed request for extension of grand jury. In any case, if and when the regime collapses, there will be time to clean up some of the subplots.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:11 pm

rapt, I found this thought provoking when we first saw it. The more time has gone by, the more I am confident he is in the right direction. I was struck by the Vanity Fair photo thing. Why did they do that? Then I remembered our joking about never leaving the Agency (Bob Kiley tried and look what happened). How better to get out once and for all than by being "burned"? You know she was tracking A Q Khan? The man who partnered BCCI? The nuke salesman? Then I saw some material from the Butler Report on pre-war WMD intelligence. There was a whole section on AQK All the others were countries: only AQK was an individual. The report intrigued me. It implied that AQK's activities had been allowed to continue for some years (the usual rationale - "to learn more". Barf!). Clearly this was the Plame operation. But it said that by January 2003 things had got so far out of hand they were simply forced to move in (more pressure from the rank and file?). If Valerie had been a naughty girl these years, and had actively aided the Anglo-American racketeers in their proliferation activities, then she would damn well WANT her network to be dismantled. She would damn well want to be burned to get out of the Agency. She would jump at the chance to take that other feminine option and start a family. Like I say, I think it more likely CS is right than that he is wrong. THANX for the reminder, dbeach.

by **dbeach** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:57 pm

I read the key bush books;"American Dynasty", 'Price of Loyalty",'bush /Cheny' NWO" by Mark crispen,"One way ticket to Crawford' and '"Time Loop" Icke and 'Universal Seduction" by Angelico Tapestra last yr... plus some others plus blogged around absorbing much. Putting this different research together in my mind was a bit overwhleming.. BUT my conclusion remains the same.. and to the non-believers maybe too way out..But the conclusion is the bush criminals and other international criminals are now trying to lock us down into a 1984 police state ..with the bush family connections an integral and pivot part... Regardless of if wilson is a good guy,bad guy or a double agent..the bushies are going to be forced to expose more of their veils ..and must take action to prevent the ultimate disclosure which is easy for me to conceptual and that is that the bushies did 9/11 and all related crimes since 11/22/63 as poppy o ascended in the ranks to the top of his crime syndicate. I apologize for this rant.. but the descent of the Kennedy family has been eclipsed by the rise of family bush.. I get laffed at BUT how many laffers have read all the info about the bush criminals..VERY FEW.. Thus I will side with CS..Bush sold nukes to our enemies and Plame is in on the gig..Not very popular at DU. elites covering for their own is hardly a new concept..ask the French in 1814

by **rapt** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:21 pm

I put forth this case in short form over at Moon of A the other day, and was shot down by the boss. I was disappointed - I like the site - but it is undestandable. Very scary to have your snuggle-rug yanked out from under you, even if it is filthy and flea-infested.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:24 pm

dbeach, Tell those fucking snobs over there to take a look at the Butler Report (HMSO - good enough Democratic Underground?). Tell them to take a close look at the section devoted to AQ Khan, and to bear in mind that this was Plame's target`proliferation network. Look at how much damage that woman has done your country. What sort of career did she have left at the CIA? Wouldn't she welcome the "exit card" exposure brings? She's got two kids, born in 2003. She's tied up with them for how many years? Her identity is exposed. The CIA has no further use for her. She's got all the money she ever needs. She and Joe can go wherever they want, riding off into the sunset, all-American heroes. What's not to like?

by **dbeach** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:01 pm

In my book wilson/plame have both exited for their own gains but for the larger causes of theri corporata masters BUT most do not want these unproven speculations.. the layers of criminal activities are too mind bogglin so the denial and rationalization defense mechanisms kick in and the wilsons get a HERO card as long as the masses don't connect the corporata dots.. BUT still their possible crimes were ordered by the big players and my bet is still on viceroy ghwbush..and the trails that lead to a certain quennie and all those jewels and gold.. yes the missing stolen gold from WW II the stuff of myth,legend and fantasy

by **antiaristo** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:23 am

dbeach, Don't those Dicks over there realise that Valerie Plame was PREGNANT when Bob Novak gave out her name? NO DAMAGE WAS DONE TO PLAME. THE DAMAGE WAS TO THE NETWORK; WHICH WAS NO LONGER AROUND TO TELL US WHAT SHE HAD BEEN DOING. I'm absolutely sure that this is a big part of what Tenet has to defend himself from Porter Goss. TOTAL CIA HUMILIATION. rapt, Same deal at MOA.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:01 am

Look at the timing here. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>George Bush told the Prime Minister two months before the invasion of Iraq that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea may also be dealt with over weapons of mass destruction, a top secret Downing Street memo shows. The US President told Tony Blair, in a secret telephone conversation in January 2003 that he "wanted to go beyond Iraq". He implied that the military action against Saddam Hussein was only a first step in the battle against WMD proliferation in a series of countries. Mr Bush said he "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation", says the letter on Downing Street paper, marked secret and personal. No 10 said yesterday it would "not comment on leaked documents". But the revelation that Mr Bush was considering tackling other countries over WMD before the Iraq war has shocked MPs. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been close allies of the US in the war against terror and have not been considered targets in relation to WMD. The confidential memo recording the President's explosive remarks was written by Michael Rycroft, then the Prime Minister's private secretary and foreign policy adviser. He sent the two-page letter recording the conversation between the two leaders on 30 January 2003 to Simon McDonald, who was then private secretary to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary. Mr Rycroft said it "must only be shown to those with a real need to know ".<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article319993.ece">news.independent.co.uk/wo...319993.ece</a> Now look at my comments on the Butler report above <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The report intrigued me. It implied that AQK's activities had been allowed to continue for some years (the usual rationale - "to learn more". Barf!). Clearly this was the Plame operation. But it said that by January 2003 things had got so far out of hand they were simply forced to move in (more pressure from the rank and file?).<hr></blockquote> So by January 2003 the CIA had allowed AQ Khan to go as far as it could allow in furthering proliferation. And George tells Tony that it's time to cash in on all those opportunities that had been created by Valerie's operation. Anybody know WHEN the Wilsons' twins were born?

Cheney's role in outing of CIA agent under examination

Re: ok

Re: ok

Kelley=Wilson

Re: Kelley=Wilson

Re: Kelley=Wilson

Re: Kelley=Wilson

Focus on the Brits

Wilson a perp?

Re: Wilson a perp?

Re: Wilson a perp?

Wilson

Re: Wilson a perp?

Re: Wilson a perp?

Re: Wilson a perp?

Re: Cheney's role in outing of CIA agent under examination

Who is online