TraitorGate: More BOMBSHELLS Coming, Guaranteed

The CIA are THE experts at this. They got the ball rolling and they would not have done so without all their ducks in a row. They would not have done this half-assed, without backup and with no plan. That is just INCONCEIVABLE. They are three moves ahead. Do you think they didn't know that Bush would come out and say essentially "We're going to get to the bottom of this!" and try to act like the "straight shooter"? Of course they knew. They also know for sure who the leaker is, and guess what, I'm willing to bet they have incontrovertible evidence. They're just waiting for the right moment to plunk it in the DOJ's lap and defy them to ignore it. Remember at least six reporters were approached. Reporters TAPE EVERYTHING!

Think of all this in the big picture of the last few months. We have seen a coordinated and orchestrated series of leaks that have lead to a web of inerconnected scandals. These are combination punches we're seeing here being orchestrated by the CIA. This Wilson/Plame story is merely one piece.

The CIA knows exactly what they are doing. They know that to keep this alive and to have it really be effective they need a steady stream of new, fresh info to be fed to the press. They know this more than anyone and it would be foolish to think they don't have stuff just waiting to be released. There will be more bombshells released at strategically important junctures, I can practically guarantee it. This ain't over, not by a long shot.

The CIA is pissed. This leak cost them dearly. Plame was apparently a high level operative running a major network AND she was doing incredibly important work hunting WMD's. 3 decades of work down the tubes. National Security BADLY and IRREVERSIBLY COMPROMISED. At the very least her contacts and sources are utterly destroyed, some possibly "terminated". There NOTHING the admin. can do for the CIA to make up for this. There's no bargaining, there's no buying them off, there's no truce and no going back. The admin. crossed a line, BIG TIME.

There are literally a thousand different directions and fronts the next revelation can come from. The mendacity and criminality of this admin. is breathtaking. I would expect it to be on something more related to this story though. Who knows? Maybe evidence of another bad intel leak? Maybe confirmation of the leaker? Maybe we'll find out assets were "terminated" as a result of this leak? It could come from any direction. My personal bet is they have incontrovertable evidence about the leaker(s). Remember at least six reporters were approached. Reporters TAPE EVERYTHING! Bushco. should be very afraid.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Too many assume that this administration is as smart as it is evil. It is thoroughly evil - but they're not that bright.

Really. No message.

<SNIP>
PITT: Is there a great deal of unrest and unease within the CIA at this point?

McG: Not a great deal, but an incredible amount of unease and disarray. There are a lot of people who feel as strongly as I do about integrity. It was not some sort of an extra thing with us. We took it seriously, and we had a big advantage, of course. We could tell it like it was. To the degree that esprit de corps exists, and I know it does among the folks we talk to, there is great, great turmoil there. In the coming weeks, we're going to be seeing folks coming out and coming forth with what they know, and it is going to be very embarrassing for the Bush administration.
<SNIP>
Interview: 27-Year CIA Veteran by Will Pitt June 26th, 2003
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062603B.shtml

but g*d-dammed if they'll do it twice.

I wonder if those 6 reporters will be getting unpleasant visits soon. Sooner or later, one of them will cough up the info. One way or another.

:nuke:

Glad you're using TraitorGate (not RevengeGate). Why? Motive was not revenge, nor a warning to others. But a way to discredit Wilson by implying his inspection trip to Niger was self-initiated. ("His wife at CIA sent him.")

It might make a better story as revenge, but we are less likely to point in the right direction (Rove? Liddy?) if we thingk the motive was primarily revenge. It was a quick and hasty shot to discredit Wilson after he disputed the President's State of the Union Message.

It was a decision made by Rove to "fuck him like he's never been fucked before". I think it was a knee-jerk decision by Rove for revenge AND discreditation, but these types of actions by Rove are done for the over-arching purpose of giving warning to everyone not to cross the admin. That's why he has this attitude to begin with. It's a vicious vindictive streak that's meant as revenge AND a warning to others AND discreditation. They are not mutually exclusive. They actually go hand in hand. A couple of good threads that discuss this:

Rove is a MORON:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=436436

And Will Pitts thread on the subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=440733&mesg_id=440733

overarching motive was to show him as a Maverick (that's what Novak would be interested in, after all) who was, with his trip, actively trying to slow down the administration's rush to war with Iraq. They could imply that Wilson SOUGHT the opportunity to deflate the yellow-cake rumors, since if his wife sent him, he could have put her up to it.

The revenge and the warning were extra cherries on top. (Novak "presumably" not interested in abetting either.)

The intention was to float a suggestion of nepotism, and no other thing was considered.

These are really very simple-minded people, when all is said and done. They are constitutionally incapable of sensing the full scope of what they do, and its possible consequences.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

These low class hoodlums are not of a calibre to function at the levels reguired of their positions. The very idea that some dim-witted individual would dash off, half-cocked, and out a CIA operative is laughable - if it weren't so potentially deadly. You can almost see the slack-faced comprehension, dawning on the rotund Mr. Rove as he realizes that he has made a terrible mistake. No amount a "circling the wagons" will save him and his creature, this time. At least I can hope - surely, this time.

You wrote: "The intention was to float a suggestion of nepotism, and no other thing was considered."

In an administration led by an ex-president's son who was boosted into office through the machinations of another son, where the sons (Michael Powell) and daughters (Ms. Rehnquist) are appointed to high-level positions, nepotism is a dangerous allegation that can and would quickly be turned on them. They aren't that stupid; they see nothing wrong with nepotism whatsoever; it's a routine way of doing business and, like cutting inheritance taxes, a delightfully feudal way of keeping all the wealth in the family.

If anything, I think they may have thought that they were painting Wilson as something less than a real man because he had to rely on his wife to get him a job. Masculinity is a big thing for this sock-crotched bunch; remember how the epithet "wimp" stung Poppy Bush??

Personally, I think the allegation regarding Wilson and his wife, regardless who made it, was an instinctive one, made in an unthinking moment, and I don't doubt that the person who let it slip has lost a lot of sleep over the past few months wishing to have those words back. As with Watergate, the crime itself was one thing, but the cover-up/follow-up is the worst. Had the leaker been dealt with back in July, quietly and honestly, this whole thing might not have blown up.


You also wrote: "These are really very simple-minded people, when all is said and done. They are constitutionally incapable of sensing the full scope of what they do, and its possible consequences."

I thoroughly disagree. I think their success has been due to their SINGLE-mindedness, their constant focus on what they want to achieve and how best to achieve it. I think they calculate the risks right down to parsing the claims word by word so there is always a tiny crack of ambiguity that can be spun to catch the light from whichever way it shines. This administration is packed with hold-overs from the 1980s and 1990s, and I don't think that's because of any generosity to old folks -- it's part of their long-term plan, which they have engineered very carefully for a very long time.

But the best laid plans of rats and men gang aft a-gley, and I think it's very possible that when the original leaker realized his/her mistake, like the Watergate folks the Awol folks did their best to sweep it under the carpet. I think it happened in a moment of panic, because someone somewhere realized that all those wonderful plans hadn't been quite as fool-proof as expected, and indeed some fool was ruining everything. Loose lips, and all that.

The house of cards that is this administration has been built on scrupulous attention to detail, but not to scruples. Like a novel whose plot is built on absurd coincidences and bizarre contrivances, the believability soon starts to crumble. They can't fix the foundation without admitting its imperfections -- the WMD claims, the connections to al Qaida, voting irregularities, lies about issues, everything -- and they will never admit those imperfections.

In the grand scheme of things, the outing of Valerie Plame is not a major event. I don't think it was engineered by those in power -- Cheney, Rove, or anyone else -- but was let slip by someone who was cracking under the pressure of maintaining the aforementioned house of cards, someone who may not even have been on the radar screen. In order to prop up the faltering castle, those in charge did take action, but it may have been too late, and their actions may have had, to bring in another game metaphor, a domino effect.

There is a big difference between simple-minded and single-minded, and I believe the administration power sources are both clever and blind. They've planned carefully and plugged many holes in their defenses, but I think they have been blinded perhaps by their own success.

But I also think there are those who have been waiting for the opportunity to bring down the whole structure and who may have found that opportunity. Why they didn't -- or couldn't -- take advantage of earlier scandals and lies, I don't know. If there have been operatives in the CIA who were angered at their treatment at the hands of the bushies, why not bring forth some of the information earlier, before the war, before even the assault on Afghanistan? Why not come out right after Sept. 11?

The usual answer is that the media wouldn't support it, and I think I probably fell into that mentality for a while, too. But now that this whole Plame/Wilson thing is getting some attention, do we really think that if a CIA operative, the equivalent of Bernstein and Woodward's Deep Throat, had come forward in Oct. 2001 with solid information that Cheney or Rove, Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz, Perle or Poppy had a hand in engineering or allowing the hijackings, the media wouldn't have paid attention? There were pundits and reporters who had doubts and were looking for answers. The information about the Aug 6 briefing didn't stay buried forever, nor the mystery of the airline stock put options.

The scandals of the administration, from the lies about Kyoto and the energy task force to the lies about Valerie Plame, were and are bone-dry tinder waiting for a match. Colleen Rowley and Sherron Watkins couldn't elicit more than a brief smoldering. Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling still haven't gone up in flames. If someone has that spark that will light this fire, why haven't they come forward before? Why wait until now? Why is this scandal so different from the others? Because it involves the intelligence community and they have a bitter axe to grind? Hmmm, so did all the Enron penshioners and the 9/11 families and the Arthur Andersen employees. . . .

I watch this unravel and I dare to hope that something will happen, but I remain skeptical and pessimistic. "They" are not stupid and they are not incompetent. They are dedicated to a very nefarious mission and they have succeeded beyond the fears of many. We'll see if anything comes of this.

Tansy Gold, who really has better things to do this morning than speculate but is nonetheless fascinated by it all.

(edited for typo)

And my own morning is rather passing me by as well; you have my sympathies in that regard.

The point of disparaging Amb. Wilson's man-hood is certainly sound, and well in accord with the way these reptiles think.

Immersion in vice has never stopped any from accusing some other of what they themselves practice. Indeed, being so steeped in that vice themselves, they will be readier to discern its signs in, and impute it to, others. It is difficult to accuse another without opening a window to your own soul.

Single-minded concentration, which these reptiles do indeed display, seldom in my experience translates to a sound consideration of the full range of possible consequences flowing from action. Rather, it tends to produce a conviction that what is intended to happen will happen. Single-minded people, in the long run, make poor strategists for precisely this reason; a plan must have branches to succeed, and if it does not, it will turn out a barren pole in the end. Nor is single-minded concentration incompatible with a simple mind: the one is likely to follow from the other.

It certainly seems to me, Ma'am, that intelligence services are better situated to see to it that, as they grind their axe, the sparks land in tinder and kindle flame, than are a rabble of pensioners and employees, however just the latter's grievances. Our system is based on disregarding the grievances of that sort of people, after all. Doing so is the secret of creating wealth.

Immersion in vice has never stopped any from accusing some other of what they themselves practice. Indeed, being so steeped in that vice themselves, they will be readier to discern its signs in, and impute it to, others.

Who floated the word "Treason" first in the national discourse? Ann Coulter. Good people don't even dream of such dirty tactics and such labels never even occur to them; the neocons are often one step away from betraying everything our country stands for (the call for "a new Pearl Harbor" in the PNAC report is the most striking example I've seen of that treachery) and they jump the gun trying to pin their crimes on the innocent.

In an offhanded way I may say "Did you know his wife is CIA?"

But to say "Did you know his wife is CIA,uses her maiden name,is an operative, and works on tracking terrorists and WMD?"

Who knows this detail? Who would give it to the leaker ?

He was over at CIA regularly talking with their WMD people.
And more than this was said: "She sent him to Niger" of "She had him sent to Niger." Which is NOT emphasizing the nepotism angle necessarily, no matter how Novak "reads" it.


I keep pushing my pet purpose, but let me lay out all four commonly referred to:

1. Revenge on Wilson.

2. Warning to any others with similar information or gripes.

3. To indicate nepotism, and thus discredit Wilson.

4. To imply the trip was self-initiated (Wilson got wife to send him) and thus discredit Wilson.


These are not, as is often pointed out, mutually exclusive. But the primary one is #4. If the
administration could show that Wilson was chomping at the bit to get to Niger, they could paint him
and his investigation as partisan. The story would run: Here's Wilson yelling about the false
information in the President's speech, but no one could really believe his investigation in Niger was
objective since he was a Clinton man, got himself assigned to Niger the previous fall, then found
what he WANTED, and reported to the CIA. It is little wonder that the President gave no credence to
Wilson's report. We've seen him as a maverick all along.

The nepotism "take" (3) was thick-headed Novak's, who simply didn't "read" the leak in the manner
intended.

#1-2 are side benefits, only, not the primary reasons IMHO.

Once we see #4 as primary, we see another kind of mind working. One which is intelligent, cold and
dispassionately calculating, trying to substitute one narrative to undercut another. Not a mind given
to firebombing opponents (like Rove?), but one which tries to quickly and surely relegate Wilson to
the junkpile of history. Nothing personal; he's just gone. No credibility. No more editorials. Nada.

To my mind, this places it in Cheney's lap.


#1-2 (revenge and warning) make better stories, but they might draw us away from the true
leakers.

IMHO

This wasn't just about Wilson...this was a msg to all CIA people, "screw with us (the WH) and you just might end up DEAD." They targeted her for DEATH.

It very well could have lead to her being terminated.

I keep pushing my pet purpose, but let me lay out the four commonly referred to:

1. Revenge on Wilson.

2. Warning to any others with similar information or gripes.

3. To indicate nepotism, and thus discredit Wilson.

4. To imply the trip was self-initiated (Wilson got wife to send him) and thus discredit Wilson.


These are not, as is often pointed out, mutually exclusive. But the primary one is #4. If the
administration could show that Wilson was chomping at the bit to get to Niger, they could paint him
and his investigation as partisan. The story would run: Here's Wilson yelling about the false
information in the President's speech, but no one could really believe his investigation in Niger was
objective since he was a Clinton man, got himself assigned to Niger the previous fall, then found
what he WANTED, and reported to the CIA. It is little wonder that the President gave no credence to
Wilson's report. We've seen him as a maverick all along.

The nepotism "take" (3) was thick-headed Novak's, who simply didn't "read" the leak in the manner
intended.

#1-2 are side benefits, only, not the primary reasons IMHO.

Once we see #4 as primary, we see another kind of mind working. One which is intelligent, cold and
dispassionately calculating, trying to substitute one narrative to undercut another. Not a mind given
to firebombing opponents (like Rove?), but one which tries to quickly and surely relegate Wilson to
the junkpile of history. Nothing personal; he's just gone. No credibility. No more editorials. Nada.

To my mind, this places it in Cheney's lap.


#1-2 (revenge and warning) make better stories, but they might draw us away from the true
leakers.

IMHO

It was a warning -- a very, very visible death threat. And if she ended up dead herself? Well, "Wilson's wife is fair game."

Eloriel

this scandal would be one hundred fold what it is now.

Although now that I write this, I am reminded that I thought the same thing about David Kelly before HE died.

that the bombshells COULD come from any direction. Among others, the CIA certainly has choice information on:
1. Who prevented them from following up leads before 9/11
2. Boy George's wastoid past
3. Republican election chicanery
4. A whole range of BFEE shady activities
My guess is that this is why Tenet was not fired in July---he has too many goods on them.
That said, the CIA might have a buy-out price, a "If so-and-so goes, then we'll drop it" sort of thing. In this case, if the sacrificial lamb is sufficiently big, we'll get no more bombshells.
(On edit) And who would be a big enough lamb? My guess would be Cheney. All roads lead through him in this administration, he has actively hassled the CIA for 2 years, and had a hand in the distortion of the CIA product which went on at the DOD.

They got really upset when Cheney started hanging out at CIA headquarters trying to cook up intelligence:

The prospect of the Secretary of State and Condoleezza Rice and Cheney convening in CIA headquarters to sit around a table and help with the analysis - give me a break! You don’t have policy-makers at the table when you’re doing analysis. That’s antithetical to the whole ethic of analysis. You’re divorced from policy as soon as you do your analysis, and when you’re finished, you serve it up to them, and they can do what they want with it. To be sure, that’s the other part of the game. But when they get it, they get it in unexpurgated virgin form, and that was heady and important work. It was the only place in town, in the Foreign Affairs realm, that could and did do that work.

CIA veteran Ray McGovern being interviewed by Will Pitt:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_062603B.shtml

n/t

A mere tuning up for the overture of a three-penny opera....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARD!"

yelling..about someone..."we are gonna F...him hard" to someone in his office?

I never heard the time frame on that Rove comment.

That was a while ago. Wilson's Op Ed ran this past July.

actual reportage in past issues may actually come forth.

They've gotten away with so much already, why would this be any different. Besides, so what if a top official gets booted, it probably won't affect Bush. Also, the official will probably get immunity or pardoned by the next repub pres.

Sorry to be a pessimist but that's the way it's been.

It certainly can't help him, that's for sure. A top member of his staff is guilty of TREASON. That's not good, no matter how you slice it.

What planet are you from?

Funny how they know exactly what they are doing when it's in our favor.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

AND they have the dirt on everyone. The reason they been looking so imcompetent is because the White House has gotten in their way.
There's been leaks about how before 9/11, they were not allowed to investigate the Saudis or the Bin Ladens.

It's obvious to me. I used to work in a large corporation - and I know poltics. These people are in the big leagues.

scapegoat.

The CIA do not have emotions. They reported this because they have to . They could not care less about charactors in office. They do their job for whomever. The CIA does as it is told, political ,economic or subversive manipulations globalley.

The CIA is it's own entity. They protect their own.

when a country loses a war there is going to be a coup t'ta (I know that's mis-spelled) of this administration. Despite the media blackout - we've lost the war in Afghanistan and are losing in Iraq. I'm reminded of the saying that nothing happens in politics by accident (that isn't known). They've screwed up big time before but the powers that be made sure it was covered up (9/11 being a prime example). For something as huge as 9/11 - they sure made ALOT of stupid mistakes which are known and easily discoverable but without a media, many are none the wiser. Somebody is ready to take this administration down, whether its the CIA, the elite, the Illuminati, or whoever. Personally I'd like to think it is just the regular joe's who are sick of this shit.

Although the admin. has pissed off some very powerful people and not just one's in the CIA. There are many in the Pentagon who are quite pissed off as well.

last night. the former CIA agent that was in the panel discussion was livid! There was a great deal of genuine emotion in this former agent. The institution may be staid and emotionless, but the agents have a real vested interest in covering each other's backs. This is not going down well at Langley - bet on it.

he was ashamed to be a republican:)

His rage at Bush* was barely under control. Those guys see what Smirky is doing and you can tell they are furious with his gang.

I also think Cheney is the snake in this nest that worked to out Ms Wilson......he spent a lot of time and energy cooking up the Niger fraud. He's ticked the CIA is blowing the whistle on his nefarious schemes.

In this matter, there is an urgency running far deeper: the C.I.A. cannot allow there to be no consequence for revealing their agents and their networks. That is very bad for business. Someone, and the right someone to boot, has to go under a train or out a window for it. You cannot continue such an enterprise otherwise.

Consider the effect on intelligence in the future if someone ISN'T held accountable for this:
1) Future informants will think twice, maybe three times, before contacting any American agents.
2) Intelligence sharing agreements with other countries could likely be threatened and/or ruined. If you were with MI-6, would you want any sensitive information to go to the CIA now, knowing that someone in the White House might unthinkingly disclose it for some petty reason?
3) And of course all of the agents and informants developed by Ms. Palme over the course of her 30 year career (cf. Larry Johnson on PBS) are now exposed, ruining them as a source, and potentially endangering their lives.

They HAVE to make someone responsible for this, or the CIA might as well close it's 'Humint' divisions.

It's inconceivable. It would literally destroy their ability to build informant networks and recruit sources.

Minor correction: Plame's career spanned 3 decades. I don't think she's been in the CIA for thirty years.

quote: Plame was apparently a high level operative running a major network AND she was doing incredibly important work hunting WMD's.

I never realized how many people are actually CIA insiders. The rightwingnuts say that Plame was just a "secretary type" who sat at a table cutting out Chess Playing sections of newspapers looking for coded messages.

Ummm....another question. Who funds the CIA? And how is it funded?

Finally......

Democrats continue to call for a special counsel, but President Bush says he is "absolutely confident" that the Justice Department can do a good job." Attorney General John Ashcroft won't say if he's considering appointing a special counsel, but a spokesman says it has not been ruled out.

Law enforcement sources say regardless of who's in charge, the chances of this investigation going anywhere are next to none, reports CBS News Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts. A year after it happened, the FBI is still investigating a leak of classified information about Osama Bin Laden from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"It's always difficult to prosecute leak cases because the person who leaked it almost never admits that he did it, and absent a confession it's almost impossible to find out who did it," Jeffrey Smith, former Justice Department general counsel, tells CBS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/27/national/main575449.shtml

I would like nothing more than to see Bush* hung by his balls...err correct that, he has no balls....hung by his ears over a pit of fire. But I'm also trying to see this story in the light of it's total context. Since we're all hedging bets on this, I'll bet that Bush* already knows EVERYTHING there is to know about this issue and has a laundry list of actions that will be taken. For every action there is already a planned reaction.

Just my opinion and I'm usually wrong.

Read the reports on this and you can piece together a lot of information.

The problem with whatever Bushco. has planned is that they are REACTING. As I said, I would fully expect the CIA to be a few moves ahead. This type of game is pretty much what they (the CIA) are the experts at. Bushcos possible reaction are pretty limited in scope AND they have no idea what's coming next and from which direction it will be coming.

Congress controls the purse strings of the whole gov't, including the CIA. If you think that congress is going to try to fuck w/ the CIA's funding in order to hush them up, all I can tell you is, the CIA would not react very kindly to that. It would escalate this thing to an even more vicious level. Additionally, I'm sure there are quite a few Republican members of congress who would most definitely NOT allow that to happen.

I will agree that Bush* is on the defensive. Currently they are not in control of this issue, but I fear that they soon will be. Forgive me for being cynical but since 9/11 there have been a number of issues that have just slipped slided away.......

And you keep implying what the CIA seems to know and how they will act. I certainly don't have a fucking clue what the CIA is going to do, so how is it that you do?

Congress only allocates "general" blocks of funds and the Executive Branch certainly has the power to redirect or change how the funds are spent. And unlike when the Bushies* fucked with the GAO, the CIA would have a real hard time presenting information that would prove that Bush* was fucking with their money. Although.......if Bush* did fuck with their money and they COULD prove it....that nail in the coffin thingee.......

Just my opinion and I'm usually wrong.

I too share it to some extent. I in no way make any definite predictions about the outcome of this little episode. I merely state my own interpretation and read of the events using pieces gathered from here and there. It's purely intuitive on my part. Just my opinion as well for the most part! ;-) I emphatically state for the record that nothing I say is in any way absolute (even though I "guarantee" more bombshells, I go on record now saying that's hyperbole although w/ a high probability of occurring! ;-)).

"Congress only allocates "general" blocks of funds and the Executive Branch certainly has the power to redirect or change how the funds are spent."

Nope. Agencies like the CIA have budgets that they themselves create (with influence from the others including the WH I'm sure) but the executive branch does not have the level of power that you suggest in redirecting spending. They can certainly influence it to some degree before it's allocated through their influence on the spending and allocation bills and on their presentation of federal budgets to congress. Additionally executive orders can limit funding for certain activities by making funding for them prohibited (like abortion for example), but congress approves the allocations and once the president signs off and the agencies get their funds, it is the director of that agency that really controls where the money goes. The executive can't just willy-nilly cut funding for the CIA after it's been allocated unless there's a VERY compelling reason to do so. He could leave the money out of next years budget request, but that would open a can of worms and lead in a direction in which they probably really don't want to go. I don't think it's as easy as you seem to imply.

Rove is just a bit of semi-molton metal cipped off by blows of that hammer. The piece that is being worked between hammer and anvil would be bigger.

in here somewhere also.

Novak apparently is trying to claim that he didn't get the info about her being a spy from the same source (Rove) that talked about the nepotism. That info came out a day or two later in Newsday. So...

I see the spin proceeding like this: Rove will say he only talked about the nepotism- he had no idea she was a spy. The "intelligence sources" who talked to Newsday are the real culprits, but they could be anybody- not too senior.

But my sense is that it very well might have been coordinated. Rove tried to cover his ass by dividing up the tasks like this, but he would have had to find a willing intelligence officer to play the second card. If they can find out who that was, then they would want to look for a reason why they would have burned Plame.

to the spy charge. If she wasn't in the CIA, how could she influence their decision on who to pick?

For those who've followed the Prince Of Darkness, his Pan-Arab sympathies are well-known. He was critical of Irangate, anything Israel (my late father considered him the biggest anti-semite in America) and was lukewarm at best in "support" of Gulf Oil War I.

It was apparent from watching him on Crossfire and Cap Gang, he wasn't in favor of this invasion and that, except for tax cuts (his ultimate passion) he hasn't been that supportive of the Bush/Rove/Chenney machine.

That said, I don't understand why Novak would serve as a toady for Rove. Maybe someone can connect the dots here. Novak is surely not on the A-List to leak stuff (most of his "dish" is from Capitol Hill), considering Rove has so many other conduits to use. The GOOP is really good at their MOD...especially when it comes to slowly oozing a rumor/smear attack.

Rove could have planted it with a Hannity (with his Faux connections) or an Ingraham or in the Washington Times. Thus, again, why Novak? Especially since Novak looks with disdain on many of the "upstarts" he shares the Conservative hive with.

Now, I can see why Novak would want to hurt this regime for it's invasion, that if he supported, he did so begrudingly. Now this brings up this question:

1.) Was Novak set up by Rove by misleading him into publishing Plame's name to discredit him as well as her?

Any thoughts?

Rove has used Novak as a repository for his leaks before. There's a story out now that he was fired from Poppy's admin. in 1992 for doing just that.

Remember, it wasn't just Novak who was approached with this info. There were at least 6 others apparently. They wanted theis smear of Wilson to get out so they spread the info around because they definitely wanted someone to print it. Maybe the went to the others first and they refused to do it and Novak was the only one who took them up on it...

I can see the admin. trying to turn this into an issue about Novak and making him somewhat of a fall guy to deflect attention away from themselves. They can demand his source and accomplish a couple of things: 1. it makes it look like they really care and are doing something and 2. they would love to be able to set a precedent by doing so. It would be in their best interest to give leakers something to worry about before they leak to reporters. If they successfully squeeze Novak and hold him accountable, it would be a blow to journalism, but a boon for a fascist regime...

I don't think that this was the plan all along though...

Damn fine questions you raise.

:toast:

This Administration is brilliant at propaganda and media manipulation. What they can't do is administrate -- actually executing anything resembling a rational foreign or domestic policy is way over their heads.

There is one way the Bushies can come out of this clean, but I suspect it is the last thing they will do. If the White House were to announce the leaker and prosecute that person, even Karl Rove himself, Bush would come out of this just fine. However, he's not going to do that, because that would require an ounce of integrity.

So what we can expect is a story continuing to twist and turn and stir up all kinds of muck we don't even know about yet.

Interesting to me, this shit is hitting the fan at the exact moment that some Republicans, including neocons, are signalling independence from the Bushies. The neocons are pissed that Bush went to the UN, and increasing numbers of ordinary Republicans are furious about the deficit.

If they acted quickly and turned over the leaker it would neutralize alot of the fallout. Any other route can only, at best, have a neutral effect and that is unlikely.

the pattern has worked for them. Why should bush do the right thing and announce the leaker and prosecute?

For one thing, the leaker's probably a VERY close friend/ally of his and he would want to keep them in place to help with his (re)election campaign.

For another, so far, EVERY F-ING scandal in this White House has been swept under the rug and made to disappear. EVERY DAMNED ONE!!!! So why would he think this could be any different. He's used to getting his way. He's spent an ENTIRE LIFETIME being bailed out after he's screwed up. That's his pattern - over his WHOLE LIFETIME. So I suspect he just assumes the same dynamics are at work here, too, and he'll wriggle out of this one without having to pay for it. Like he always has.

Remember Nicole Brown Simpson's words about her ex-husband? "he's going to kill me and he's going to get away with it, because he's OJ Simpson and OJ Simpson never has to pay for anything."

Same thing here. But I think his luck may have run out. Especially since he screwed with the CIA.

When I watch bush saying he wants to get to the bottom of this and insists if there are leaks they will be dealt with - yet the day before he wasn't even going to ask anyone on his staff about it.:eyes: And this 75+ days AFTER an undercover CIA operative was outed and major national security violation occurred. Yup - dubya sure smacks of wanting to find the "real killer" now.:eyes:

I got the same feeling watching Novak whine and lie and weasel-word and twist in the wind over his original statement and intent back in July and completey change his story now that his ass is in a sling over it. :eyes: Just like the ever changing OJ alibi's.

I think I'm going like the ending to this one a lot better.:D

He's out of tricks.

The story broke back in July, that was the time to come clean because that is when they knew the crime took place. They went into cover up mode instead because they thought they could fend off the CIA investigation and keep it quiet, which WAS initiated back in July. It didn't work - the CIA got their ducks in a row and passed it on to DOJ. The CIA put pressure on DOJ when they leaked it to the press.

Bushies have been covering up since July and obviously and my gawd as of a few days ago bush* was saying he wasn't even going to ASK any of his senior officials about it. These crooks aren't used to having their asses handed to them, and they are going to keep digging themselves into a deeper hole. Maybe it hasn't even occurred to them yet that they are not going to win this battle in the end.

... those of us who are politics junkies have been talking this up since July, but most Americans are just now learning about it. So I don't think Bush's grace period is up yet. He's got maybe a week, ten days at the most, though.

The cover up has already happened. The CIA has already started the ball rolling and the DOJ has been forced to open an investigation. This is ALREADY a Watergate, there is no turning back now, no grace period. The ignorant masses nor the bush* crime regime no longer have a choice.

And how could bush* come clean anyway? There was a serious breach of that jeopardized national security 75+ days ago known to be committed by TWO MEMBERS AMONG HIS CLOSEST INNER CIRCLE. An CIA agent working undercover on WMD's was burned, her life put in danger, her career ruined, at least 30 years of contacts, sources and methods, and operations burned, and everyone she came in contact over that time burned and in danger as well.

Afterall, isn't the whole reason they sold this fucking war to us because of the threat of WMD's?? And then they just fucked the undercover operation tracking WMD's over a vindictive political motive to get even with Wilson for telling the truth about the trumped up Niger report in the State of the Union Address? Aren't we in MORE danger now that these operations have been compromised? A LOT more?

So, how can bush* possibly come clean all of a sudden? The cat is out of the bag now and the fact that he DID NOTHING in July when it came out that two people in his inner circle burned Plame's cover PROOVES that he is PART of the COVERUP.

Beetwasher is right, the CIA is not going to let this die. The CIA started their investigation immediately when this happened and they have their ducks in a row. The bushies chose to cover it up and thought they could ride it out. They've got Asscroft in their back pocket so they probably still think they can ride out the DOJ investigation as well. But the CIA is pulling the strings on this, and the momentum is building, and I agree with Beetwasher, I think this dog will hunt.

I just don't see Rove/Card/Cheney, or whomever, being THAT sloppy.

last night. My SO and I were talking about it and it occurred to us both at about the same time that they have something, or it wouldn't have made it this far.

And, considering this actually is getting press now, rather than in July when it happened, I suspect that some in the press at least sense the same thing and maybe even have knowledge that there is more to come.

This actually makes me want to watch the media whores. Should these suspicions actually play out, it will be interesting to watch the misadminstration's credibility with the people crash.

I mean, really. This is one of my pet peeves.

You make a good point though. Everything is documented somewhere...

Now we just need someone willing to find it....

That word has got to be a thorn in the side of the Repubs. Bringing back bad old memories and all....

Not much that I personally can do about it... :shrug:

A lot of people conjecture Tenet has the goods on how W let 9/11 happen on purpose (LIHOP).

I think the CIA has a pile of evidence against this Admin, but they recognized that there's only certain narrative structures that have traction with the media and the public. They waited until they had something with staying power. Mystery and treason are narratives that fit the bill.

Narratives that don't have staying power include:
- Votes got miscounted, computer programs bumped legal voters off the rolls, voters were disenfranchised, and an election was stolen. (Florida 2000, etc.)
- Energy policies and war plans were crafted in secret behind closed doors by a cabal of fossil-fuel companies and their PNAC cronies. (Cheney's secret energy task force with people who called for a "new Pearl Harbor and his pre-9/11 Iraqi oil field maps)
- Warnings about hijackings went unheeded. (9/11)
- A few leading Democrats (and a reporter with interesting info on the President's private life) got anthraxed.
- Forged documents were used to justify a war. (Iraq's missing WMD)

Narratives that do have staying power include sex and mysteries:
- The President had sex with an intern in the Oval Office (Bill and Monica).
- A young woman disappeared and the body can't be found. (Chandra Levy).
- Someone in the White House aided and abetted the enemy by outing a veteran undercover CIA WMD operative. Whodunnit?

The right often tries to say "get over it" or "move on" - and it can work in some cases. But it's harder for the public to "move on" when there's an element of sex or mystery involved.

The only way to "move on" and "get over it" in this case would be to resolve the mystery - say who outed the CIA operative. There's a law on the books, praised by W's father, saying that any such "outer" is a traitor who has to serve 3 to 10 years in jail.

So at a MINIMUM the crock about "restoring honor and dignity to the White House" is gonna be out the window. The White House can take its pick: they're either gonna be under a cloud of mystery (which will never go away) or under a cloud of treason.

Actually, treason has staying power too. Someone on one of these threads pointed out: "Many people don't remember who Herbert Hoover was. But everyone remembers who Benedict Arnold was."

I also think timing has a lot to do with why this one may have staying power. Nothing like kicking a man when he's down, and Bush is not the "popular" guy he once was. We're seeing the culmination and accumulation of many things including the economy, the bad situation in Iraq, and now these interconnected scandals...At some point a critical mass is reached...Are we there yet? Possibly...

I've said for two years now that the CIA (and FBI) must be livid at having to play the kicking post for the grand ineptness of the Bush administration. Bush felt he could blame them for everything from 9/11 to his "oppps no WMDs" and that they could do nothing about it since the secretive nature of their business. And then came the Wilson affair. Since this is the run up to election '04, I'm waiting to see if other "info" and "scandles" begin to emerge say from the beginning of next year onward. If I start seeing things pop up that breed scandle for this administration, then I will smile and say "just the CIA reaching out and touching Bush on the throat".

Joe Biden (on Hardball) JUST stated that Wilson's wife WAS a covert operative until the article was published. So if Biden, who is on the Foreign Relations committee, says it was so, then it is a Federal crime for Novak to out her. He also said there were only a few people who knew this, and it was not common knowledge as Rush and others are trying to portray.

All the spin is falling flat. This is too serious a charge and too serious a crime. I loved his explanation about how we already know for certain a crime was committed. A very serious, federal crime, the ONLY question is who did it. It was great how they pointed out that it seems Bush is not all that concerned because he hasn't even questioned his own staff and that it could only be a very small group of people responsible. These rats are cornered...And now Johnson brings it right to Cheney's feet with his Buchanan and Press appearance. Things are happening hard and fast...

Why did it only come out now? If Bush is such an honest and decent human being (not in my eyes, btw) why was the misadministration's hand forced on this issue????