Woodward/Bradlee, Armitage, Plame Outing: Mystery Subterfuge

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Woodward/Bradlee, Armitage, Plame Outing: Mystery Subterfuge

Postby cointelpro » Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:08 am

Who is playing for which team here? What is really happening here?:<br><br>(1) Ben Bradlee, former editor of the Washington Post, has tried to pin the Valerie Plame Leak on Richard Armitage, former State Department Secretary and assistant to Colin Powell:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=132636">www.libertypost.org/cgi-b...Num=132636</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Bradlee's statement suggests a ridiculously transparent motive of trying to blame (frame?) Armitage in order to protect Bradlee's crony Bob Woodward.<br><br>More can be found here:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031301904.html?nav=rss_nation">www.washingtonpost.com/wp...rss_nation</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>(2) During the 1990s it was revealed that <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">Bradlee had been a CIA operative in Paris in the 1950s</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END-->. (Once a Company man, always a Company man). This in itself suggests alternative dimensions to the Watergate story.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.rense.com/politics5/mole.htm">www.rense.com/politics5/mole.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>(3) Libby's defense team has subpoenaed Richard Armitage, in an attempt to use Bradlee/Woodward's cover (sacrifice?) for the Bush Administration's act of treason. <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060318/ts_nm/bush_leak_dc_3">news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060..._leak_dc_3</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>(4) Armitage famously called the Neocon component of the Bush Administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Bolton, Libby, etc.) "the fascists," as a regular appellation for referring to them, according to Colin Powell's ex-Chief of Staff, Lawrence Wilkerson.<br><br>However, <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">Armitage is a signatory</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> to the Project for a New American Century:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro...an_Century</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>(5) From the Washington Post, also: Does the following sound like the action of a PNAC signatory?<br><br>"Larry Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, said Armitage was furious about a provocative speech Bolton gave on North Korea in July 2003, though the State Department noted that Armitage's office had approved it. Armitage also ordered the delay of congressional testimony Bolton planned on Syria's weapons programs at the time, he added. Wilkerson said Armitage delayed the Syria testimony because of its content and its timing in July 2003, coming after the invasion of Iraq."<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901155.html">www.washingtonpost.com/wp...01155.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> * * * * * * * <br><br>Is Richard Armitage being set up to take the fall to protect Libby/Cheney/Rove?<br><br>Is Richard Armitage, given his contradictory narrative, making a willing sacrifice here?<br><br>What is the nature of the Woodward last-minute "Deus Ex Machina" revelations? Is Woodward so transparently attempting to provide an exoneration for the Neocons? Why? Who is Bob Woodward?<br><br>Who is Ben Bradlee? Does the real identity of Ben Bradlee as a CIA agent or operative inherently suggest an alternative dimension to the official Watergate story?<br><br>Worth keeping in mind is Carl Bernstein's first (bombshell) journalism piece after Watergate, "The CIA & The Media," Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977. (It can be found here: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://danwismar.com/uploads/Bernstein%20-%20CIA%20and%20Media.htm">danwismar.com/uploads/Ber...0Media.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
cointelpro
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Woodward/Bradlee, Armitage, Plame Outing: Mystery Subter

Postby StarmanSkye » Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:06 am

Just wanted to say --<br>It's really not that complicated:<br>You're either with the Fascists, or with the Freedom Fighters.<br><br>( :<br><br>Whether Bradlee was a deep-cover CIA agent or 'just' a newsman asset doing occasional counterintel 'favours' for the Company (ie., feeding European news bureaus in his job with the USIE with pro-American anti-communist propaganda re: dirt on the Rosenblums as out-and-out traitors/spies selling atomic secrets), it's certain at the least that had valuable spook and deep-background contacts and navy intelligence experience and friendships with key national security people that would have made him a valuable asset.<br><br>The most important thing here IMO is that Bradlee ISN'T even asking important questions about whether Plame had perhaps gotton too close to US, Russian, Balkans, Pakistan and/or Turkish links to arms-and-drug smuggling networks, and especially re: nuclear technology/secrets and Muslim Brotherhood/Al(CIA)Queda and longtime CIA assets, and so perhaps THAT'S why her deep-cover and networks were blown -- with the convenient cover-story for mass-consumption that her cover was accidently-leaked on-purpose out of fanatic Bush Inc. devotional-pique over Wilson's fake-Niger-yellowcake expose blah-blah-blah.<br><br>It's certainly possible Bradlee may think he's rescuing Woodward (returning a 'favor', or a goodwill gesture?) <br><br>Certainly Armitage is a thoroughly repugnant fellow who's saturated with plenty of neocon dirt -- <br><br>It seems, Bradlee is above all an insider's insider who's shown he is dependable and discreet, can be very useful to the elite, can and does keep secrets and has demonstrated his loyalty to and trust by some of the most influential beltway movers and shakers.<br><br>In addition to the revelations below by Deborah Davis (author of 'Katherine the Great') of Bradlees' suspected links to Operation Mockingbird and his keeping numerous fantastical details about Kennedy secret, the provided link features additional tidbits about Bradlee, his friends and associates in high places, and assorted trivia re: Leary providing LSD to Kennedy, his long love affair with Mary Meyers (Bradlee's sister-in-law), her 'lost' private diary, and her suspicious yet-unsolved murder (thought by many to be by the CIA, to clean-up loose ends).<br><br>(More on Ben Bradlee's involvement in the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3520)">educationforum.ipbhost.co...opic=3520)</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>John Simkin siggests:<br>"Bradlee is often portrayed as someone who was responsible for exposing corrupt American governments. In reality, he used his position to cover up corruption. There are suggestions that he became a key CIA asset in the late 1940s and was heavily involved in Operation Mockingbird. <br><br>"However, there's no doubt that Bradlee did help to remove Nixon. Therefore, it is possible that the CIA was involved in ditching Nixon. Why?"<br><br>More info by Simpkins on Bradlee re: JFK assassination, Operation Mockingbird, the murder of Mary Meyers and suspected Bradlee/CIA's running Watergate as damage-control:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmeyerM.htm">www.spartacus.schoolnet.c...meyerM.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmeyerC.htm">www.spartacus.schoolnet.c...meyerC.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm">www.spartacus.schoolnet.c...ngbird.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>Starman<br>******<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbradleeB.htm">www.spartacus.schoolnet.c...adleeB.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>(4) Deborah Davis, interviewed (<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1415/pg1/)by">www.disinfo.com/archive/p...15/pg1/)by</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> Kenn Thomas of Steamshovel Press (1992)<br><br>--quote--<br>Kenn Thomas: Let's get back to Ben Bradlee. I know part of what's in the book and part of what upset those forces that caused the withdrawal of its first publication is what you've said about Ben Bradlee and his connection to the Ethyl and Julius Rosenberg trial. Would you talk about that a bit?<br><br>Deborah Davis: In the first edition, the one that was recalled and shredded, I looked in State Department lists for '52 and '53 when Bradlee was serving as a press attache supposedly in the American embassy in Paris. This was during the Marshall Plan when the United States over in Europe had hundreds of thousands of people making an intensive effort to keep Western Europe from going Communist. Bradlee wanted to be part of that effort. So he was over in the American embassy in Paris and the embassy list had these letters after his name that said USIE. And I asked the State Department what that meant and it said United States Information Exchange. It was the forerunner of the USIA, the United States Information Agency. It was the propaganda arm of the embassy. They produced propaganda that was then disseminated by the CIA all over Europe. They planted newspaper stories. They had a lot of reporters on their payrolls. They routinely would produce stories out of the embassy and give them to these reporters and they would appear in the papers in Europe. It's very important to understand how influential newspaper stories are to people because this is what people think of as their essential source of facts about what is going on. They don't question it, and even if they do question it they have nowhere else to go to find out anything else. So Bradlee was involved in producing this propaganda. But at that point in the story I didn't know exactly what he was doing.<br><br>I published the first book just saying that he worked for USIE and that this agency produced propaganda for the CIA. He went totally crazy after the book came out. One person who knew him told me then that he was going all up and down the East Coast having lunch with every editor he could think of saying that it was not true, he did not produce any propaganda. And he attacked me viciously and he said that I had falsely accused him of being a CIA agent. And the reaction was totally out of proportion to what I had said.<br><br>Kenn Thomas: You make a good point in the book that other people who have had similar kinds of--I don't even know if you want to call them accusations--but reports that they in some way cooperated with the CIA in the '5Os, that the times were different and people were expected to do that kind of thing out of a sense of patriotism and they blow it off.<br><br>Deborah Davis : That's right. People say, yeah, this is what I did back then, you know. But Bradlee doesn't want to be defined that way because, I don't know, somehow he thinks it's just too revealing of him, of who he is. He doesn't want to admit a true fact about his past because somehow he doesn't want it known that this is where he came from. Because this is the beginning of his journalistic career. This is how he made it big.<br><br>Subsequent to my book being shredded in 1979, early 1980, I got some documents through the Freedom of Information Act and they revealed that Bradlee had been the person who was running an entire propaganda operation against Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg that covered forty countries on four continents. He always claimed that he had been a low level press flack in the embassy in Paris, just a press flack, nothing more. Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg had already been convicted of being atomic spies and they were on death row waiting to be executed. And the purpose of Bradlee's propaganda operation was to convince the Europeans that they really were spies, they really had given the secret of the atomic bomb to the Russians and therefore they did deserve to be put to death.<br><br>The Europeans, having just very few years before defeated Hitler, were very concerned that the United States was going fascist the way their countries had. And this was a very real fear to the Europeans. They saw the same thing happening in the United States that had happened in their own countries. And so Bradlee used the Rosenberg case to say, "No this isn't what you think it is. These people really did this bad thing and they really do deserve to die. It doesn't mean that the United States is becoming fascist." So he had a very key role in creating European public opinion and it was very, very important. This was the key issue that was going to determine how the Europeans felt about the United States.<br><br>Some of the documents that I had showed him writing letters to the prosecutors of the Rosenbergs saying "I'm working for the head of the CIA in Paris and he wants me to come and look at your files." And this kind of thing. So in the second edition, which came out in 1987, I reprinted those documents, the actual documents, the readers can see them and it's got his signature and it's very, very interesting. He subsequently has said nothing about it at all. He won't talk about it all. He won't answer any questions about it. So I guess the point about Bradlee is that he went from this job to being European bureau chief for Newsweek magazine and to the executive editorship of the Post. So this is how he got where he is. It's very clear line of succession. Philip Graham was Katharine Graham's husband, who ran the Post in the '50s and he committed suicide in 1963. That's when Katharine Graham took over. Bradlee was close friends with Allen Dulles and Phil Graham. The paper wasn't doing very well for a while and he was looking for a way to pay foreign correspondents and Allen Dulles was looking for a cover. Allen Dulles was head of the CIA back then and he was looking for a cover for some of his operatives so that they could get in and out of places without arousing suspicion. So the two of them hit on a plan: Allen Dulles would pay for the reporters and they would give the CIA the information that they found as well as give it to the Post. So he helped to develop this operation and it subsequently spread to other newspapers and magazines. And it was called Operation Mockingbird. This operation, I believe, was revealed for the first time in my book.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Woodward/Bradlee, Armitage, Plame Outing: Mystery Subter

Postby chiggerbit » Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:23 pm

Wow, great thread!<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The identity of Woodward's source emerged as one of the big mysteries of the CIA case after he disclosed last year that a government official with no ax to grind had told him about Plame, an undercover operative, a month before her name was revealed by columnist Robert D. Novak. Since then, guessing Woodward's source has been a Washington parlor game.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>As for Woodward, he's lied before, hasn't he? Why conclude that he is being truthful now? <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Woodward/Bradlee, Armitage, Plame Outing: Mystery Subter

Postby marykmusic » Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:30 pm

I had a book that came out in the '70's, <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">The Powers That Be</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END-->, that chronicled the rise of CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and one other media giant (can't remember now; been several years since I loane the book out.) Thick, articulate book, much amazing information. Totally changed how I felt about the media.<br><br>I'll bet a whole 'nuther one can be written about what's happened since then. Thanks for this thread, and bringing this subject up. --MaryK <p></p><i></i>
marykmusic
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Central Arizona
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Woodward/Bradlee, Armitage, Plame Outing: Mystery Subter

Postby Dreams End » Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:42 pm

Woodward worked as an "information officer" for Naval Intelligence. Then, after a very brief stint at some little paper, he ends up at the Post.<br><br>Now, do we need to debate whether Woodward is on the up and up? I think not:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0743244613.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Woodward/Bradlee, Armitage, Plame Outing: Mystery Subter

Postby chiggerbit » Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:03 pm

Exactly. Woodward, we're led to believe, and his pal wrote <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>All the President's Men</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> based on information supposedly provided by an inside whistleblower who is ratting out the establishment. Then he "turns around" and writes book based on information provided by.....the establishment. How likely is it that he would do that kind of aboutface? BOTH books, I suspect,are based on information provided by the cabal that has been running this country since the eighties, for the most part.<br><br>I've been suspicious for a long time about the timing and coincidental nature of Agnew's de-throning. He swore to the end that he was set up. I've been more willing to consider that possibility of recent years. It all looks so convenient, too convenient, considering how useful that must have been to the ambitious GHW Bush, while Nixon was being taken down. Was Woodward's "bust" part of a complicated plan?<br><br>Anybody have any interesting links on the Agnew thing? All I can find is the old, pre-chewed food. Poor fool, he blamed the liberal MSM. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 3/19/06 3:08 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Woodward/Bradlee, Armitage, Plame Outing: Mystery Subter

Postby chiggerbit » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:52 pm

(Emphasis mine)<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Libbys_new_filing_0319.html">www.rawstory.com/news/200..._0319.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Libby's new filing: Hadley and Armitage named, press ignores Hadley <br><br>Larisa Alexandrovna<br>Published: Sunday March 19, 2006 <br><br><br><br><br><br>In a late night Friday filing (made available by RAW STORY here,) attorneys for Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, named key witnesses in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. <br><br>Included for the first time in formal documents was National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley.<br><br>In the documents, Libby’s team listed former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, current National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow all as potential witnesses for the defense.<br><br>Plame's status as a CIA operative first became known to the public when her identity was disclosed by conservative columnist Robert Novak in a July 14, 2003 column. The piece ran just one week after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, had written an op-ed for the New York Times asserting that White House officials twisted pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Some believe that her outing was retaliation for her husband’s public criticism of the war-bent White House.<br><br>Libby, who was indicted on five counts of perjury and false statements in the case late last year, is hoping to demonstrate that he was not the first government official to leak Plame Wilson's name to reporters by revealing the sources of journalist Bob Woodward.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Woodward’s source, however, has become as much a source of intrigue as the leak case itself. While there has been much speculation that the new anti-Deep Throat may be Richard Armitage, RAW STORY confirmed late last year that, according to attorneys close to the investigation, Woodward’s source was actually Stephen Hadley, who at the time of the Plame Wilson outing was serving as Deputy National Security Advisor under Condoleezza Rice.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>The attorneys provided RAW STORY with a rare glimpse into the secretive Grand Jury proceedings in which Woodward had testified as to his own involvement in the leak case and how he came to learn of Plame Wilson’s identity:<br><br>“Testifying under oath Monday to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Woodward recounted a casual conversation he had with Hadley, these sources say. Hadley did not return a call seeking comment.”<br><br>According to attorneys close to the case, Woodward had been given access to classified National Security Council documents for his book Plan of Attack, something Woodward also confirms in the book. He worked closely with Hadley and Rice during that period of time.<br><br>The Sunday London Times later confirmed that Hadley was Woodward’s source, becoming the only mainstream publication to do so:<br><br>“If so, according to Woodward’s timeline, he will have disclosed the information in mid-June 2003, roughly a week before Libby talked to other reporters on June 23. Supporters of Cheney’s disgraced aide are jubilant that this casts doubt on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s contention that Libby was the first to spread the word about Plame.”<br>Others in the media have focused almost entirely on former Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, claiming that Hadley has publicly denied that he was Woodward's source.<br><br>But Hadley’s denial is hardly that; rather, it is a cryptic answer, a non-denial denial. In response to RAW STORY’s article fingering him as Woodward’s source, Hadley replied that he had heard from White House officials that he was not:<br><br>“I’ve also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources,” Hadley said with a smile. Asked if this was a yes or no he replied: “It is what it is.” <br><br>This cryptic statement was made even more mysterious by a spokesperson for the National Security Council, who would not go on the record to issue a formal denial and, more bizarre still, wanted very specific attribution:<br><br>“The spokesperson asked that RAW STORY attribute denials of Hadley’s role in the leak case to a White House official instead of a National Security Council spokesperson.<br><br>“RAW STORY refused, telling the official that our policy does not allow the attribution of quotes to sources in a way that might be considered as misconstruing the source's identity.”<br><br>Armitage, Hadley and the Press<br><br>Although Armitage and Hadley both appear as potential witnesses in the filing by Libby’s defense team, both appearing seven times each, only Armitage is mentioned by most press accounts. <br><br>Moreover, the context in which Armitage is mentioned is itself strange. The filing cites a recent Vanity Fair article as having reported that Armitage was Woodward’s source, through a comment made by the Washington Post’s former executive editor, Ben Bradlee.<br><br>“This week, Vanity Fair, the Washington Post and The New York Times, as well as other media outlets, reported that Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, told Bob Woodward of the Washington Post that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA. There has been media speculation that Mr. Woodward’s source and Mr. Novak’s source are the same person. If the facts ultimately show that Mr. Armitage or someone else from the State Department was also Mr. Novak’s primary source, then the State Department (and certainly not Mr. Libby) bears responsibility for the “leak” that led to the public disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s CIA identity. Mr. Grossman worked closely with Mr. Armitage, who was then the second-highest ranking official in the State Department.” <br>(Libby filing)<br><br>The Vanity Fair article, which was written by Marie Brenner, a close friend of scandalized New York Times reporter Judith Miller, alleges that Bradlee said that it was a "fair assumption" that Armitage was Woodward’s "likely source."<br><br>Judith Miller made headlines when she was jailed for refusing to disclose that Libby was her source.<br><br>In addition to citing the Vanity Fair article as having identified Woodward’s source, the filing by Libby’s attorneys references the Washington Post and the New York Times as “having reported” that Woodward’s source was Armitage. <br><br>The reality is that the two publications reported on the Vanity Fair piece, not through their own separate investigations. Furthermore, the Post article actually may have defused the Bradlee Vanity Fair story, when Woodward commented for the article that he had not told Bradlee who his source was, and Bradlee even denied having told Vanity Fair who Woodward’s source was.<br><br>The near-total silence by the press on Hadley’s involvement, even when he is finally named in a legal filing for the case, is perplexing considering Hadley’s alleged involvement in so much of the pre-war intelligence on Iraq.<br><br>Hadley, the War, and the Sell<br><br>Hadley was part of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), an ensemble put together by White House chief of staff, Andrew Card, to sell propaganda on Iraq’s threat to US national security in the form of a “mushroom cloud.” Armitage, like his then boss Secretary of State Colin Powell, was an outsider in this administration and as such was not part of WHIG.<br><br>Hadley was intimately implicated in the trips taken by one-time foreign policy advisor to Karl Rove, Michael Ledeen, Pentagon Iran expert Harold Rhode, and DIA analyst Larry Franklin. Franklin has since pleaded guilty in an espionage case involving an Israeli lobby. <br><br>In a recent interview with RAW STORY, Michael Ledeen confirmed that Hadley had approved the trip (and subsequent trips by Rhode and Franklin). While Hadley at first denied approving the trips and later claimed not to have known what their purpose was, Ledeen points out that Hadley would have had to authorize the trips and do so with approval from his higher ups:<br><br>“Obviously Hadley did not unilaterally do anything. The Pentagon paid for the expenses of the two DOD officials, and the American ambassador in Rome was fully briefed both before and after the meetings,” said Ledeen.<br><br>In the lead up to the Iraq war it was Stephen Hadley who met with the head of Italian intelligence (SISMI), Nicolo Pollari, in the fall of 2002 to discuss allegations that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger. Armitage was not part of this meeting.<br><br>During the President’s 2003 State of the Union Address, he cited as evidence the Iraq/Niger uranium claim. When Wilson wrote his NYT op-ed about his own trip to Niger and disputed the White House’s story on the evidence, it was Hadley who took responsibility for the President’s references in the SOTU. Again, Armitage was not in the picture.<br><br>Yet in all mainstream press accounts, Hadley is not even discussed as a potential source for Woodward.<br> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Woodward/Bradlee, Armitage, Plame Outing: Mystery Subter

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:37 am

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/031906.html">www.consortiumnews.com/2006/031906.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Marykmusic / 70s book "The Powers That Be"

Postby cointelpro » Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:20 am

Factoid: "The Powers That Be" was written by David Halberstam, who's also written a number of other well-written, informative yet "compromised" books.<br><br>Halberstam won a Pulitzer at a young age for the milestone book "The Best & The Brightest," an early tome about the Vietnam War which had some social impact for its tone and grim narrative outlook.<br><br>However, across the years since that time, Halberstam has gone to bat to protect a number of shady interests & characters, including taking potshots at the Iran-Contra hearings, supporting some of the nice folks involved in the Central American wars of the '80s, and mysteriously, he's an "old family friend" of ....<br><br>... none other than Bob Woodward.<br><br>I haven't had time to research the backgrounds of Woodward (I see above that he was Naval Intelligence? Explains a lot) & Halberstam, but the entire "Family Friend Old-Money Network" that seems to reoccur deserves more attention.<br><br>P.S.<br>StarmanSkye & Chiggerbit, thanks for the great info <p></p><i></i>
cointelpro
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cointelpro (!) asks "who is playing for which team?

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:02 pm

'Cointelpro' wrote-<br><br> <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Who is playing for which team here? What is really happening here?:<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Jeff's rules for posting here include not accusing others of being agents of some kind.<br><br>Question: does that include picking a username that accuses yourself of this? lol....ahem.<br><br>Cointelpro, have you considered the possibility that this username is counterproductive? I ask only because the Pentagon has recently publicly declared infowar on the internet to sow confusion and doubt, the great neutralizers.<br><br>Rumsfeld used the same tactic when the Pentagon announced a disinfo campaign for the invasion of Iraq and then withdrew it thereby accomplishing the goal of sowing confusion and doubt.<br><br>Thanks for the info and addressing the important topic of state-controlled press and info war games, a very important topic. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/20/06 1:05 pm<br></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cointelpro (!) asks "who is playing for which team?

Postby dbeach » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:09 pm

"state-controlled press and info war games, a very important topic. "<br><br>Operation mockingbird still chirping with chickenhawk chorus:<br><br>more war <br>more tax cuts for uber rich.<br>.more war..less freedom<br><br>more war<br>more college aid cuts...<br><br>more war<br>go shoppin<br><br>more war TRUST US!<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Hugh Manatee Wins

Postby cointelpro » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:35 pm

Hugh writes:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Cointelpro, have you considered the possibility that this username is counterproductive?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Hugh, good point. I've used this name for years on other boards with the purpose of consciousness-raising of that term.<br><br>Obviously, that's not necessary here.<br><br>I shall forthwith dispense of the name "Cointelpro" and re-register, adopting the name "Saint Pancreas."<br><br>Thanks for the constructive advice. <p></p><i></i>
cointelpro
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Postby * » Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:15 pm

<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=2655">THE PLACE OF DEEP THROAT IN AMERICAN HISTORY </a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br> <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"...There have been speculations that Katherine Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, was not only a Nixon enemy; she had placed a private eye in Washington who actually was the first person to discover the Watergate burglars breaking into Democrat offices in 1972. I have no credible confirmations on this at the moment.<br><br> Graham was known to associate with David Rockefeller, who had his own powerful reasons for wanting Nixon gone from the presidency.<br><br> Keeping all of the above in mind, here is my June 2003 article on the downfall of Richard Nixon:<br><br> Richard Nixon was a loose cannon on several fronts. The operation that ousted him as president has always had several tantalizing aspects.<br><br> In 1977, Jeff Frieden wrote an essay called THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION: ECONOMICS AND POLITICS IN THE 1970s. Frieden described several actions Nixon took in August of 1971, actions which were described by his outraged colleagues as the ”Nixon shocks.”<br><br> The president “suspended the convertibility of the dollar into gold and other reserves,” Frieden writes. This gave American exporters of goods a sudden leg up, as the dollar was devaluated and foreign buyers were able to purchase these goods at automatically cheaper price. It also offered a measure of protection against cheap goods coming into the US from overseas.<br><br> Nixon then “slapped a ten percent surcharge on most imports into the United States.” The obvious motive was to offer the same kind of protection to US manufacturers selling these same products inside the US.<br><br> Nixon successfully bullied Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, convincing them to cut down on the quantity of super-cheap textiles they were shipping to America. More protection for US manufacturers.<br><br> However, Nixon, who had come back from political oblivion to occupy the White House, was, in his new incarnation, supposed to be a front man for Rockefeller interests.<br><br> Those interests were trying to eliminate all economic protectionism in favor of their “free trade” agenda, which meant freedom for money and transnational corporations to move and roam freely across the whole planet, like locusts, consuming whatever lands and resources and labor and companies they fancied.<br><br> Nixon had suddenly dealt a groin-kick to these ambitions.<br><br> In elite economic publications, the labels “isolationist” and “protectionist” began to be used to describe the president.<br><br> David Rockefeller’s 1973 creation of the Trilateral Commission was motivated, in part, by Nixon’s turnaround. The TC would do everything it could to restore “free trade.”<br><br> There is pretty much where Frieden’s analysis ends and mine picks up the thread.<br><br> Enter the scandal called WATERGATE. A mystery man called Deep Throat began to whisper into the ear of a former naval intelligence man who was now a reporter, Bob Woodward. And in relatively short order, Nixon was on a helicopter and out of the White House for good.<br><br> Gerald Ford, the new president, reached into his bag on August 19, 1974, and came out with the name, Nelson Rockefeller, for his appointed vice-president.<br><br> Free trade was back on track.<br><br> Frieden quotes a tidbit from a speech David Rockefeller gave a little over a year later, in October, 1975, before the Chamber of Commerce of the European Community:<br><br> “I share your concern over the number of petitions which have already been filed under the anti-dumping…provisions of the 1974 Trade Act [these provisions were anti-“free trade”]. I am equally distressed, both as a free trader and an executive in an industry as vulnerable to reciprocity as banking, by the large number of bills in Congress that would impede the flow of foreign investments into this country…most [of the bills] are protectionist and should be killed in committee [translation: banks/investors should have the license to move capital anywhere in the world and intervene in the economies of nations with no limits]…Fortunately, there are no signs that these anti-trade measures are supported by the Administration [under Gerald Ford, my brother is now vice-president]…”<br><br>Nixon had been torpedoed and was gone.<br><br>Watergate had succeeded..."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br> **<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.reformation.org/rockefeller-file.html">Was Nixon Watergated?</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br> <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"..In 1968, Nelson made a half-hearted attempt to wrest the nomination from Nixon. But the handwriting was on the wailing wall. "The old avidity is gone," groaned Nelson. Once again, he had to settle for owning the team instead of starting as quarterback.<br><br> Nixon's appointments to policy-making positions confirmed that the House of Rockefeller did indeed own the team: they went almost entirely to Rockefeller men. In his inner circle, however, Nixon tried to surround himself with men like H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, who were personally loyal to him, not to Rockefeller. The two most notable exceptions were Kissinger and General Alexander Haig. Both men were known Rockefeller agents, and it is these two men who may have masterminded Nixon’s early retirement.<br><br> If Nixon was an obedient Rockefeller man—if not necessarily a loyal one—why then did the Rockefeller controlled media orchestrate the campaign to dispose him? Several possible explanations have been advanced. One is that Nixon grew too accustomed to the prerogatives of power, and believed that he had become an equal partner in the deal There are some hints that Nixon himself may have initiated some of the in-fighting between the two factions. The forced resignation of Spiro Agnew, brought about by a combination of pressure from the Executive Branch and prosecution by Executive departments, may have been part of this.<br><br> Another suggestion is that Rockefeller gave the nudge that toppled Agnew from the White House, counting on Nixon to appoint him to the Vice Presidency. When Nixon refused, and appointed Ford instead, the media dropped on him like a piano from the top of a ten-story building.<br><br> We may never know the full story of what started the internecine warfare. But we do know what was the decisive encounter in the battle: Watergate. And as we unravel the twisting threads of this strange saga, we find that each tug that ultimately toppled Nixon from the throne can be traced to Rockefeller..."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
*
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:43 pm

Interesting article, 1tal. <br><br>It's not that I think Agnew was necessarily innocent of the charges against him, it is my discomfort with the coincidental nature of the troika-- Kennedy's assassination, Agnew's demise, and Nixon's Watergate-- that leave me suspicious. Well, it was more than a troika, wasn't it, when you consider Bobby Kennedy? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 3/20/06 7:44 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Postby * » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:27 pm

<br> Another interesting quote from <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn05-4">here</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br>though this guy uses too much 'illuminati' for my taste, he has some interesting quotes: <br><br><br> <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"...Two years later, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme would attempt to shoot Gerald Ford on September 5, 1975; and on September 22, 1975, Sara Jane Moore would also attempt to shoot Ford. Moore said she was trying to expose the nation's "phony system of government" by elevating "Nelson Rockefeller to the Presidency." In a June, 1976, Playboy interview, she said that there was<br><br> <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"... a part that I don't think I can talk about. I just haven't figured out a way to talk about it and protect everyone. I'm not saying that anyone helped me plan it. I'm not just saying that there are other things... which means there are other people, though not in terms of a conspiracy. There are areas I'm not willing to talk about for a lot of reasons."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br> The article also said that U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti, "added to the air of mystery surrounding her case (and) sealed all the trial evidence." .."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <p></p><i></i>
*
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Plame Investigation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest