More Notes of a Native Son

"The questions which one asks oneself begin, at last to illuminate the world, and become one's key to the experience of others. One can only face in others what one can face in oneself. On this confrontation depends the measure of our wisdom and compassion. This energy is all that one finds in the rubble of vanished civilizations, and the only hope for ours."
--James Baldwin; Nobody Knows My Name; 1961; page 13

In late April, I noted in an essay that the people associated with the OVP/WHIG were prepared to conduct an intense media-based "perception management" campaign, to distract the public's attention from the issues in the Plame scandal. Of particular significance at that time was the growing amount of information being made public from pretrial documents in the Libby case, which absolutely connected VP Dick Cheney to the operation to "discredit" Joseph Wilson.

In the weeks since, in a number of the "debates" on DU regarding various issues, including the case of Karl Rove, I have suggested that we should concentrate on what is most important in the case. It is worth mentioning that Ambassador Wilson has always said the Plame scandal is significant because it is a part of the larger, more important story of how VP Cheney and a group of neoconservative operatives brought this nation to war in Iraq based upon lies.

In the two and a half years that I have posted on DU, my primary focus has been the Plame scandal. From the beginning, I expressed my belief that VP Cheney played the central role in the scandal. Readers not familiar can read a copy of "The Waterman Paper" on my blog; this paper was one of my early statements that clearly expresses my beliefs on the VP's role in the scandal.

The war in Iraq has cost over 2500 American soldiers their lives. Thousands more have suffered serious physical injury. Many others will deal with psychological problems for decades to come. And we have no idea how many innocent Iraqis have suffered and died because of the violence in their country.

The war in Iraq has not made America "safer." It has not brought stability to the Middle East. It has done severe damage to Iraq and to the United States. Our economy is being drained to pay for this war. Yet I recognize that one group is reaping the benefits: Dick Cheney's friends in the Halliburton circles.

In the past month, there have been a large number of threads on DU that are focused on what I believe is a minor, insignificant sideshow in the Plame scandal. It involves a report found on one internet news source regarding Karl Rove. I am not concerned if people believe the story is 100% true, or 100% false, or any % in between. I had thought Rove would be indicted in early May, and he was not. Why or why not were interesting issues to discuss, but not worthy of our getting "stuck" on, at the expense of keeping our eyes on the prize.

We are entering the summer months of one of the most important election years in our nation's history. One of the most important issues in the country is the war in Iraq. The war is very unpopular. Dick Cheney is even more unpopular. Cheney and the war need to be combined in the public debates as people decide who they are going to vote for. Or vote against.

Dick Cheney's role in the Plame scandal prove that he did not want the American public to hear the truth about the lies his administration -- indeed, the "shadow government" -- used to fool them into believing that Saddam had WMD. This scandal gives us an idea how far these jackals will go to destroy any attempt to bring the truth to the American people.

It was not, of course, their only attempt. As I noted in April, they were gearing up for another round. Those who read the various political forums on the internet have been exposed to many of the same dishonest tactics and lies as those who consume the corporate media's "reporting." Right now, for example, they are trying to plant the idea the Plame scandal was no big deal, that it was merely a political tussle, and that an ambitious prosecutor and some foolish journalists have blown it ourt of proportion. They are even calling for President Bush to pardon Scooter Libby.

Our job, as I noted in my last essay, is to begin a campaign of our own, to help the public focus on what is actually important. And that is that the VP headed an operation that used lies and disinformation to fool he public, and to bring us to war in Iraq. More, the pretrial documents from the Libby case show without any question that Dick Cheney played a leading role in the operation to damage the Wilsons.

I have not forgotten Karl Rove. The first action that I would recommend DUers take is to write a brief LTTE of a local newspaper. It is important to note that "small town" papers are just as important as the larger, city papers. I suggest keeping it simple. For example:

"Editor:

President Bush had promised to fire anyone in his administration involved with outing a CIA agent. Although Karl Rove told the country he was not involved, the investigation by the FBI and grand jury showed that he was. Rove talked to both Bob Novak and Matt Cooper about Valerie Plame. Why hasn't President Bush fired him?"

As these get printed, we can coordinate our next step, which will be having others respond, just as surely as our republican counterparts will respond.

Next, I had suggested sending 5 to 10 question surveys to elected officials. The results of these can be used in a number of creative ways, in newspapers and on the internet. A number of people expressed support for this idea.

What I have decided to do is to mail a cover letter & survey to about 100 representatives and senators. I would like DUers to suggest both democrats and republicans who I should target. I will keep DUers up to date on the results as they come in. We will make them available to as many news organizations as might be interested.

I will be interested in DUers responses, including suggestions on what questions to ask, and what politicians to send them to. Thank you for your consideration.

The Waterman Paper
July 24, 2004
By H2O Man

This paper examines the possibility that Vice President Dick Cheney orchestrated the "leaking" of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the news media in the summer of 2003, in order to accomplish three goals.

These include (1) to punish Joseph Wilson for challenging "16 words" in President Bush's 1-28-03 State of the Union address; and (2) to intimidate other sources from publicly challenging the White House's version of events involving the "war on terrorism" and the US invasion of Iraq. Both of these goals are well-known from numerous reports on this White House scandal.

The other, (3) is that VP Cheney was attempting to derail an investigation that Plame may have been involved in at the time that her identity was exposed. This third potential goal has not been the subject of any major media attention.

The author of this paper put it forward on an internet forum, the Democratic Underground, in early July, 2004. The resulting eleven DU "threads," which consist of over 3,000 posts from interested citizens across the country, is the only known forum debating this theory.

Besides the eleven DU "Plame Indictment" threads, the information in this paper comes from the following four sources: The Politics of Truth, by Joseph Wilson; Worse Than Watergate, by John Dean; Don't Tread on Joseph Wilson, NYT book review by John Dean on 5-23-04; and Plenty to Swear About, by Joe Klein, Time, 7-5-04.

Time Line
While the case involving Wilson's investigation in Niger, and the White House's efforts to expose Plame is long and complicated, this paper will focus on a "time line" established by Wilson in his book.

1. Jan '02: The first reports of a Niger-Iraq uranium connection surface in the White House.
2. Feb '02: Wilson is asked to investigate by the CIA.
3. March '02: Wilson returns from Niger and briefs the CIA on the investigation. His conclusion supports those of two others that there was no Niger-Iraq connection.
4. Jan '03: Bush includes the "16 words" in his State of the Union address.
5. On or about March 5, '03: the CIA gives VP Cheney an oral report, informing him of Wilson's conclusions.
6. March 7, '03: the IAEA announces the US's documents on Niger-Iraq are forgeries.
7. March 8, '03: (a) a State Department spokesperson admits, "We fell for it" in regard to the forged document; (b) Wilson tells CNN that the State Department has more information on the subject; and (c) a workshop meeting is held in VP Cheney's office. It is attended by top republican officials, possibly including Cheney, Scooter Libby, and Newt Gingrich. The group discusses ways to discredit Wilson.
8. June 8, '03: Condoleeza Rice denies knowledge of the weakness of the Niger uranium claim on Meet The Press. She states, "Maybe someone down in the bowels of the Agency knew about this, but nobody in my circles."
9. July 6, '03: Wilson's NYT op-ed is published. By the following day, two senior White House officials began contacting at least six reporters, informing them of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative.
10. July 8, '03: Reporter Robert Novak tells a complete stranger on a Washington street: "Wilson's an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him." In the following days, Novak would ask the CIA for confirmation of Plame's identity. He was asked not to print her name or identity in any article regarding Wilson.
11. July 14, '03: Novak's article exposes Plame.
12. July 20, '03: NBC's Andrea Mitchell tells Wilson that senior White House officials told her that the "real story" was not the 16 words, but was Wilson and his wife.
13. July 21, '03: NBC's Chris Matthews tells Wilson that Karl Rove called him and said," Wilson's wife is fair game." Matthews said he would confirm that if asked.

This time line indicates that while the exposing of Plame's identity was a result of Wilson's op-ed, it was also part of a larger strategy that had been planned in VP Cheney's office since March 8. It clearly confirms goal #1: by exposing Plame, and putting her safety at risk, the White House had severely punished Joseph Wilson.

It also supports goal #2: the White House had a strategy to intimidate any other potential intelligence operatives from exposing the administration for distorting information regarding Iraq.

Likewise, the exposing of Plame supports goal #3: exposing Plame put an immediate end to any activities that Plame was participating in at the time. This is supported by Wilson (pg 345): "She immediately began to prepare a checklist of things she needed to do to minimize the fall-out to the projects she was working on."

Also, Wilson notes: "Compromising the officer means compromising a career, a network, and every person with who the officer might have ever worked. Slips of the tongue cost people their lives." (pg 13)

The Leakers' Identities

Robert Novak sourced his story to two senior White House officials. Other reporters, including Andrea Mitchell, made mention of the two unidentified senior White House officials. These two are among the at least six reporters contacted by these two officials.
Chris Matthew's call identifies Karl Rove as being involved in the efforts to make "Wilson's wife ... fair game." This call took place after the calls from the senior officials to the six reporters.

Wilson's book indicates a belief that the two senior officials were Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Eliot Abrams. Abrams is no stranger to White House disgrace, having been convicted on two charges during the Iran-Contra scandal.

There is evidence the three were operating with the knowledge of, and perhaps under the direction of VP Cheney. The March 8 "workshop" in VP Cheney's office indicates that this was a long-standing, well-organized effort to discredit Wilson. As Wilson notes (pg 387) : "... a plan to attack me had been formed before the moment. It was cocked and ready to fire .... an organized smear campaign directed from the highest reaches of the White House."

Cheney and Pre-War Intelligence

Those involved in the "workshop" to discredit Wilson were also active in efforts to influence pre-war intelligence reports. On page 6, Wilson discusses "leaks" that Cheney, Libby, and Newt Gingrich pressured the intelligence community "to skew intelligence analysists" to fit their own needs.

On page 338, Wilson notes that these three reportedly intimidated analysts by implying, "if you do a 'Wilson' on us, we will do worse to you."

Wilson notes (pg 434) that VP Cheney runs a "parallel national security office," which has no congressional oversight, and hence can "circumvent long-standing and accepted reporting structures and to skew decision-making practices."

As a result, as reported by Joe Klein in Time (7-5-04) "the intelligence community is at war with the White House." Klein notes that "multiple intelligence sources" indicated to him their belief that Cheny strong-armed out-going CIA Director George Tenet, to make him support Cheney and Rumsfeld's positions on Iraq.

Cheney, Niger, and Wilson's Trip

Wilson notes a report on a possible Niger-Iraq yellow cake uranium transaction had "aroused the interests of Vice President Dick Cheney." (pg 14) Cheney's office "had tasked the CIA to determine if there was any truth to the report." (pg 14)

It is clear that Cheney was aware of the Niger report, and had directed his office to have the CIA do an investigation of it. There is evidence that on March 5, the CIA gave VP Cheney an oral report on Wilson's findings. This was three days before the State Department spokesperson told the media, "We fell for it," and that Wilson told CNN that the State Department had more information on that subject. March 8 was also the day that the "workshop" to discredit Wilson was held in Cheney's office.

"What I Didn't Find" vs "16 Words"

The White House retracted President Bush's infamous 16 words immediately after Wilson's op-ed appeared in the New York Times.

On 7-13-03, Condi Rice told Fox News Sunday that, "It is ludicrous to suggest that the president of the United States went to war on the question of whether Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa."

On 7-14-03, Robert Novak exposed Valerie Plame's identity. It is important to recognize that Novak was aware that Plame was an operative who specialized in WMDs, and that he had been asked by the CIA not to reveal her identity, or even print her name, in an article on Wilson.

The White House continued to engage in efforts to discredit Wilson, including sending three identical e-mails of "talking points" to Keith Olbermann when Wilson was appearing on MSNBC's Countdown.

1982 Intelligence Identity Protection Act

Wilson notes that the administration had already acknowledged the Niger-Iraq link was unsubstantiated, and that logically, they should have focused attention on how the 16 words made their way into the president's State of the Union address. The effort to expose Plame's identity made little sense. (pg 7)

Later, he continues with, "The White House gained nothing by publicizing Valerie's name..." (pg 7)

"Then it struck me that the attack by Rove and the administration on my wife had little to do with her, but a lot to do with others who might be tempted to speak out." (pgs 5-6)
"The decision of the president's people to come after me .... arose from no concerns over the emergence of secrets from my mission -- there weren't any." (pg 339)

"However offensive, there was a certain logic to it. If you have something to hide, one way to keep it secret is to threaten anyone who might expose it. But it was too late to silence me." (pg 338)

Goal #3: Why Cheney Exposed Plame

Wilson notes that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor, pointed out that since the Bush people had never backed down before, the fact that they had been "so quick to admit their error this time meant they must have something more important to protect." (pg 4)

In Worse Than Watergate, John Dean calls the exposing of Plame the "Dirtiest of Dirty Tricks." He writes that "revealing her identity damaged the national security and her career, and resulted in the loss of a valuable government asset." He called this action "literally life-threatening." (pgs 170-171)

What could have possibly been so important to VP Cheney that he oversaw the violating of the 1982 IIPA, and risked a White House scandal? The answer clearly can not be found in goals #1 or #2.

The answer, which supports goal #3, appears in Klein's article: "Furthermore, there is intense anger over the White House's revealing the identity of Plame, who may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components. ..... 'Only a very high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge that Plame was on the payroll' of the CIA, an intelligence source told me."

And that very high-ranking official may have known through his parallel national security office about the activities that Plame was involved with at that time. The answer to goal #3 likely is to be found in the checklist of things Valerie Plame did to mitigate the damage done by Novak's article immediately after she read it.

Conclusions

This paper presents direct evidence that the intelligence group that operates out of VP Cheney's office orchestrated the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, in order to realize goal #1, the "punishing" of Joseph Wilson for publicly challenging President Bush.

It includes both direct and circumstantial evidence from sources including Wilson, Dean, Klein, and others, that indicates they also had goal #2 in mind: to intimidate any other potential sources that could challenge their reasons for invading Iraq, as well as other measures in their "war on terorism."

Yet these two goals alone do not explain why VP Cheney would (1) take part in a measure that would violate a federal law against exposing a CIA operative, or (2) risk a serious scandal for the Bush Administration.

The possibility that VP Cheney was hoping to derail a sting operation involving Valerie Plame, which is our identified goal #3, does explain why VP Cheney would condone the breaking of the federal law, and risk the most serious scandal that this administration faces.

Further research by an ad hoc DU "think tank" has identified possible connections between businesses connected to VP Cheney that may be associated with the sale of WMD components to countries in the Middle East. It is our belief that this theory and the evidence that supports it needs a more in-depth investigation.

repug who was "annointed" by Cheney to run for Senate. They are grooming him. (Cheney and Bush should have received frequent flyer miles for their trips to Minnesota during the last election. Suburban mid America in this former bastion of Democrats has resulted in lots more "reds.") He is very aware of how he is seen, and while savvy to currying favor with the WH, is not altogether stupid.

I like it. Thank you!

Now *there's* an assignment! (Conjuring up visions of needles and haystacks..........)

OkeeDokeee, then, will begin hard thinking....

BTW, thanks for a previous thread which named some interesting books. I was finally able to locate The Last President, through interlibrary loan, and it's really intriguing. I appreciating the book suggestions!

still wishing I was big enough to recommend.....

The plan for selling the war to the American people started within the confines of that group, the same group who has been distracting the eye of the American people since 2000.

Great beginning, the survey. Suggestions as to who to send the survey to: Clinton, Hagel, Nadler, Rockefeller, Harman, Levin, Voinivic and Spector, for starters.

For the record, not only did I think Rove would be indicted in May, I thought, without the promptings of JL, it would happen that week.

*shadow government*

should we decide to accept it, will be to educate the public that the WHIG and OSP are part of the OVP's corporate operation, AKA the shadow government.

to target. He is always looking for a way to appear responsible.

I think so, too.

All candidates for president with the exception of Gingrich, who as part of WHIG already is complicit in the crimes, and Allen who seems rather dense and not at all interested in saving the country.

*shadow government*

It might be best right now to focus on those either running for, or in, the House and Senate. They are the ones who will decide if there is a congressional investigation. They could, for example, examine Karl Rove's role. While he was not indicted for a criminal offense, it still is important for congress to consider if he should have access to classified information.

including the white house john.

*shadow government*

and ick! (good one)

*shadow government*

me no choice.

Next you'll be saying Cheney...erm the devil... made you do it.

*shadow government*

is your ability to stay focused, to know what is important and what is not, the way you don't allow yourself to be distracted by side issues or petty connivances that detract from the crucial matters at hand. Because wandering off into sideshows can make one a real Nowhere Man. So let the focus remain where it should.

*shadow government*

by its fruit. If we were discussing Watergate, and some people insisted that the single most important issue in the entire scandal was that Woodward & Bernstein may have made an error when reporting on something Hugh Sloan Jr may have said to the grand jury, you were know they simply didn't "get it." If they were to attack those who said that the most important thing in Watergate was that the president and his top advisors broke the law, and engaged in an attempted cover-up, and threatened the Constitutional balance of federal power, then you would know they were Nixonites.

In the Plame scandal, the most important issue is the OVP/OSP/WHIG efforts to lie our country to war, and destroy those who attempt to tell the truth.

*shadow government*

how about Arlen Specter. He seems to be a big figure for the republicans, and maybe he has a conscience in there somewhere.

Are you looking for certain types of politicians to send survey to? For instance the middle of the road ones or the republicans with horns growing from their heads like Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin?

I want to have results that allow us to place a glass of cool, clear water next to a glass with murky, warm water, and allow as many thirsty citizens the choice.

To be fair, we should allow republican candidates the opportunity to reject Cheney publicly. But, to quote Minister Malcolm X, "they probably won't take it -- the snakes!"

I don't know how "reasonable" she is, but I know she's facing a rather tough reelection. Or, at least the last time I heard, her seat wasn't "safe".

I can't imagine how she'd respond, but it could be quite interesting.

Great assignment!

will get a copy of the survey. Thank you!

He gets responsible spending issues at least and though he is not my congressman (Hastert is :eyes:), he has always struck me as honestly trying to make a difference and represent his constituency which is northern Chicagoland area.

This last is something my congressman wouldn't understand and I wouldn't recommend sending him anything as he won't respond. His standard response to all letters from the 14th District and elsewhere is a terse little memo stating that if I live in his district, he will take my opinion into consideration. If I don't, tough luck.

http://www.house.gov/kirk/

My list continues to grow.

competition. However, she's about as "reasonable" as Tancredo, who is being challenged by Bill Winter. Winter's ad is on D.U. right now.
http://musgrave.house.gov/

Actually, a part of me would like to see Tancredo get a lot of questioning about his support of Cheney, et al, because a friend of mine wrote to him about the budget cutbacks and got a letter back saying Tancredo was *not* in favor of cutting Medicaid. Of course, he then voted for the cutbacks, but it's interesting he wrote that, and I wonder how much he is open to pressure on various issues. (Obviously not on immigration!)

... may be the question we'll want every American asking Bu$h, Cheney and their neoconster minions and Republican Congressional enablers ... come Monday morning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1500482&mesg_id=1500482


Peace.

Sam Brownback, Kansas senator and neo-con minion, and Chuck Grassley, loyal but not rabid senator from Iowa.

And Cheney's Energy Policy Group and its early stage involvement in Iraq war planning might be a question of interest. Perhaps framed as, "Do you think that taxpayers deserve to know whether or not VP Cheney's secret energy task force was involved in planning an Iraq war before 9/11?"

In "American Theocracy," Kevin Phillips includes some mighty interesting information on the group, and their agenda.

Grass roots activists will be glad to know that DU now has a "Precinct-level Politics Group." My good friend "Wildeyed" brought this to my attention. I have certainly added it to my selection for DU forums! I hope that you will, too.

what Obama has to say to your "questionnaire"... he seems sneaky to me somehow.

Perhaps Clinton? But only because people need to be reminded where she actually stands on things...

Definately Byrd, he's dumbfounding sometimes...

Goodluck!

K&R

Thank you.

I had planned to send one to Senator Clinton, as I am from New York. Both Obama and Byrd are important choices, too.

One question of many would be - Who do you think bears the greatest responsibility for keeping the President honest with regard to reasons for entering into a war? the Senate, the intelligence officers, the President's counselors?

It would be nice to have enough money to make a commercial that features the highlights about how Cheney and Rumsfeld bullied us into a war, that was on Frontline recently. And show the pictures of all those who were complicit in this deadly lie, Tenet, Rice, Powell. They all held up the lie so they could be players.

Wilson was the exception and he got shot down.

Burns is weak due to Abramoff & other lobbyist/pandering issues. He blew off the debate sponsored by Montana Newspapers so he could attend a fat-cat golf weekend fund raiser in VA. We need to make it clear just who he supports with his time and much touted seniority

Rehberg is just a 'toe the line bush-bot' who needs to have his feet held to the heat for it. Montana deserves better from its one House Rep than a boy who just carries water for bush/cheney.

MT wants to go bluer...

Ask them if they support legislation that will really derail the K-Street $$$ Express that assures the US government is working for big-money corporations instead of working for the good of Americans.

Ask them why they have been a rubber stamp for the destructive policies of the bush administration instead of exerting proper oversight as the free and equal branch of government.

Ask them if the answer to the second question has anything to do with the answer to the first.

And, yeah, we WILL get more LTTE in papers all over America. It's our country. We need to take it back on every Main Street of every town across America. We have to ask the hard questions Corporate Media won't. We have to set the debate and FORCE the GOP to talk substance and issues instead of echo chamber sound bites and Rove generated talking points.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.
Don't expect 'somebody to do something' about what is happening.
Somebody is us, WE THE PEOPLE! We do it or it doesn't get done

He has been known to work well with Ron Wyden, although sometimes it seems Ron is the one who does most of the compromising.

In my opinion, Smith's record is abysmal, but Oregon is a blue state. I do not yet know how the brutal death of Tucker, from Oregon, will factor into this state's overall perception of the war and whatever position Smith will take. He seems to be lockstep Repub, though. Party over country.

But, I think he is worth contacting, especially with Wyden's recent vote in favor of the Kerry-Feingold resolution.

Thanks, H20Man. You should be president. :patriot:

often tells me that I would like that state better than New York. He lives in Corvalis, which he describes as being similar to Ithaca, NY.

I'll put Smith on the list. Thank you.

Oregon is breathtakingly beautiful, a wonderful climate (if you can tolerate rain) and for the most part, peopled with progressives. We lived there for too short a while.

which gets more rain than the rest of the world combined. (grin)

The discussion here prompted me to call my brother last night. It was nice to talk to him.

we vacationed a few times along the coast when I worked for a company that put me in Oregon a few times a year. The people are amazingly polite and friendly. The only bad thing we could think to not recommend about the state, is that they are not very good drivers - remarkably so! The concept of 'merge' is not something that is generally understood on the freeways.

All of our representatives need to hear from their constituents on the Plame affair. Unfortunately Smith is loyal to the party and I sincerely doubt that he would speak out during the election cycle.

On a side note I was at UO during his first Senate campaign and he attempted a Q & A with the student body. After a brief introduction he was asked a tough question regarding environmental abuses his company had been fined for. He left immediately without answering the question or even saying a word.

:kick:

for the most progressive democrats in the House and Senate, too.

I hope to get the cover letter and survey typed up today. I'll bring it to town to have copied on Monday, and get it out in the mail as soon as possible. I have two college students working for me this summer -- so this is a perfect project for them, is it not?

Thank you all!

Peter King,(NY) Although he has tied himself to this Whitehouse and has been rewarded with the DHS post; he is in a very Blue corner of the State, and was recently burned publicly, by the WH's cutting of DHS funds to NY.

King is someone who should be included. Thanks.

It might be interesting to contrast Rep. Diana DeGette, D-CO, and new Sen. Ken Salazar, D-CO. DeGette is quite progressive (not as much as the Rep she replaced--Pat Schroeder!), but I've not heard her say much about the invasion and occupation. Salazar has spoken recently about it with the typical DLC stance.

Of course, comparing Senators, Allard R-CO, is about as lock-step conservative as they come.

Looking forward to to seeing your cover letter, and survey questions!

That there is a secret mortality report, being kept secret by the Bush admin, should be reported over and over.

Fat chance in a RW media huh?

A pardon should cost that little twerp.

He took a stand on the Patriot Act reauthorization, which is a welcome surprise from someone so loyal to the party.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/17/politics/main1054934.shtml

I'd also try the Mayor of Salt Lake, Rocky Anderson. He's very vocal about his opposition on Iraq.