Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

On Armitage, Woodward, and Leaks.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 09:24 AM
Original message
On Armitage, Woodward, and Leaks.
Because of the recent interest in who leaked Valerie Plame's name to Bob Woodward, I thought DUers might be interested in an essay I first posted on July 27, 2005. I think it is important to remember that Woodward, who had pretended to be an objective observer of the scandal, had failed to inform either his editors or audience that he was in the thick of things.

The corporate media had flashed photos of Dick Armitage when reporting on Woodward's inside knowledge about Plame. Yet they offered no proof that Armitage was Bob's source. Raw Story reported that it was Steve Hadley, and based their report on several sources.

I find the timing odd: Judge Walton recently ruled that the identity of Woodward's source was not important to Libby's defense. Suddenly, along with some curious stories about how easy it is to uncover covert CIA agents' identities, Ben Bradlee is quoted as saying it is "a reasonable assumption" that Armitage was Woodward's source. I've been told that Bradlee would not be likely to either confirm or deny something like this.

Was it Armitage? Hadley? Both? Neither? It is an interesting question. Here is something I wrote that speaks to the neoconservatives' dislike of Dick Armitage, and -- curiously -- Woodward is my source.


The Unknown Soldier
"For all the speculation about Rove's fate and despite a failed attempt by Senate Democrats to have Rove's security clearance revoked, within the White House there was little sign of panic. 'They think Karl is bulletproof,' says a former Administration official who is familiar with the issue and the players. 'They think, "We won a second term. We control Congress." They don't think Karl is any real jeapardy."-- "The Rove Problem"; Nancy Gibbs; Time; 7-25-05; pages 32 & 34

.In a White House that takes great pride in its ability to "control" the news, at least in the corporate media, the above quote -- from an "unnamed" former Administration official -- has raised the hair on the back of many necks. While the general public, reading the full article, would take little or no special notice of such a comment, those in the cross-hairs of Fitzgerald's investigation know that there is a man outside of their control .... who is talking. He's talking to the press, and he's talking to other sources.This morning, I thought that we could examine a fellow who poses a serious problem for those Bush administration officials who are beginning to feel the pressure that Nixon administration felt 32 years ago. To keep this little essay simple -- so simple that even a republican could understand it -- I thought we should rely primarily upon a single source of information. So grab your copy of Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," the self-proclaimed "definitive account of the decision to invade Iraq," and let's have some fun examing what the book tells us about Dick Armitage

.Woodward understands Dick Armitage quite well. Dick graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1967. He served four tours in Vietnam, which made him a rarity in the Bush2 administration. He taught counterinsurgency, in programs which resulted from President Kennedy's beliefs in the future of armed conflict. In the 1980s, he served in the Reagan administration, under the criminal "leadership" of Casper Weinberger, as the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. It was during this time that he bacame best friends with Colin Powell. Woodward notes that the two began talking to each other several times each day, something he compared to teen-aged pals. He calls Armitage "Powell's best friend, adviser, and most outspoken advocate." (page 20)

In the early months of the Bush administration, Armitage often joked to Powell that the two of them were "being kept in the freezer," because they were at odds with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Cheney and Rumsfeld certainly had complete access to Bush and Karl Rove. Powell had to go through Condi Rice in order to reach the president, something that was unprecedented considering his position.A week before 9-11, Time magazine ran a cover story, "Where Have You Gone, Colin Powell?" The story was clearly based upon information given to Time by someone in the White House who, for the sake of this essay, we will call "Karl Rove." The story was an obvious attempt by Rove to pressure Powell to toe the Cheney line. In my opinion, it marked a the beginning of a significant trend: Powell seems to have become weaker, and more willing to humiliate himself, while Armitage becomes the stronger of the two, despite his official position as being his friend's assistant

.Just after 9-11, the New York Times ran an article, "Bush's Advisors Split on Scope of Retaliation." The topic was the talk of targeting Iraq for posing a threat to the USA, in relationship to 9-11. The article made clear that Powell was strongly opposed to targeting Iraq, while Wolfowitz and "Scooter" Libby were advocating an attack on Iraq.Those who have followed the Plame Threads will recall my saying from "thread one" on that, even within the administration, there are those who perform from behind a curtain of complete secrecy. Libby is one of those people. When he saw his name in print on this, he told Woodward he considered it "scandalous." He immediately went to confront Armitage. Woodward describes Armitage as looking like a cross between Daddy Warbucks and a professional wrestling champion. He is a large man, who though 56 when this book was published, is aware of his strengths. A man who served four tours in Vietnam is not intimidated by those in the administration who found ways to avoid serving in the military. The situation, described on page 50 of "Plan of Attack," marks the point when Armitage is no longer considered trustworthy by the neocons.The neocons' "plan of attack" is to go to a friend at the New York Times, and plant a story about how while Rumsfeld is a tough man, looking to protect American interests, Colin Powell is "soft," and doesn't recognize the need to take agressive actions to keep Americans safe.

Yet, as noted, Armitage specialized in "counterinsurgency." He intervened and had some changes made in the 12-1-02 NYT's article. He laughed about how this upset the neocons; Woodward quotes him as saying, "Oh, State, they're in the game. They want to get these fuckers." (pages 38-9)In the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, Powell continued to oppose the Cheney blueprint. Woodward's book includes a number of quotes, such as this one from page 183: "So Powell and Cheney went at it yet again in a blistering argument." When Powell had wrote his book, "My American Journey," he had experienced some difficulty in telling about the cold shoulder that Cheney had always turned towards him. Armitage had helped him with that section.

Now Dick advised Powell to talk directly to President Bush.Armitage and Powell had discussed the "pottery barn rule" of "you break it, you own it," as it applied to Iraq. Armitage in particular was unimpressed with Douglas Feith's plans for post-Saddam Iraq. Many of the people with military experience found the "high-pitched" Feith annoying; DUers will remember General Tommy Franks told his friends about Feith: "I have to deal with the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day." The neocons were not pleased with Armitage's influence on Powell. They had resented a NYT's article that noted Karl Rove having increasing involvement in foreign affairs. Rove had wanted to exercise control over Powell. The neocons saw Powell doing things like putting three "career people" in jobs that usually went to "political appointees" .... meaning those were jobs Rove had planned to fill. The three that Powell put in place, without consulting Rove, included a democrat under Armitage."We're never going to say no to you," Rove wrote to Powell. "(Now) what are you going to do for us?" (page 127)

As the build-up to the invasion of Iraq built strength, the neocons decided to try to draw Dick Armitage in. The White House "Communications" had come up with a document they called "Apparatus of Lies." It was 33 pages of information about Saddam's hidden WMD programs and capacities. Armitage, who was aware that the vast majority of the information was from the pre-Gulf War era, told Woodward that the document was "bullshit." (page 286) The White House pressured Armitage to use the document for a speech, in coordination for one being given by Wolfowitz."This is awful. I'm not going to touch it," Armitage told them. However, the pressure increased -- meaning that the man in charge, Dick Cheney, was demanding he use it in a speech. Finally, he agreed, upon the condition thatr he would not accept White House "clearance" for his speech.On January 21, 2003, Armitage addressed the US Institute of Peace. He told this group, established by Congress to promote peace, that he had recently addressed alma mater, the US Naval Academy. He said of the 4000 midshipmen he had spoken to, "I sincerely hope that not one of those young men or young women -- or any of our other service members -- is sent into harm's way in Iraq. That is what we at the Department of State -- and indeed across the government -- are working hard to avoid." At the end of his speech, Armitage noted that the document "Apparatus of Lies" was avaliable in the back of the room. "I recommend it to you to the extent that the past is prologue."(pages 286-7)

Four days later, Armitage was one of the White House officials that listened to a presentation by Scooter Libby on the dangers posed to the USA by Saddam. Woodward notes: "Armitage was appalled at what he considered overreaching and hyperbole. Libby was drawing only the worst conclusions from fragments and silky threads." (page 290)Colin Powell, in preparing to present the administration's case for war to the United Nations, spent Saturday, February 1st, at the CIA. There, analysts showed him what they actually knew about Iraq. Powell was stunned. That night, he called Armitage, who agreed to go with him to CIA headquarters the next day. (page 299)Woodward notes: "At times, Powell thought Chalabi was the biggest problem they had in Iraq. From the reports Armitage received from Iraq, most Iraqis thought Chalabi was a knucklehead. And though it was denied by others in the administration, Armitage believed that Chalabi had provided hyped WMD intelligence that made its way to Bush and Cheney before the war." (page 433) Armitage wanted the CIA and Congress to investigate Chalabi's role. (Speaking of Judith Miller.....)By this time, Woodward reports that Armitage realized Powell and he were not able to exert any positive influence on the administration. He recognized they were enabling the administration. A close friend from Congress told Armitage that he and Powell had failed in their attempts to do what was right.A new co-worker, who had been employed in a right-wing think tank, told Armitage he could serve as a bridge to the neocons. "You're on our team. You don't bridge shit. I've known those fuckers for thirty years. You ain't bridging shit," Armitage told him.Three weeks later, the guy told Armitage that he was right. "I had no idea," he said. "It's mind-numbing." (page 433)

Armitage knew he would be leaving the administration. But he wouldn't go before Powell. However, he did take a new approach. Throughout the remainder of his service, when Powell approached him about a problem with the neocons, Armitage would say, "Tell these people to fuck themselves." (page 414)Condi Rice was sent to talk to Armitage about his "all-too-apparent distress." He outlined his views. On October 12, 2003, the Washington Post had a front-page article, "Rice Fails to Repair Repair Rifts, Officials Say; Cabinet Rivalries Complicate Her Role." The article was by the paper's two State Department reporters, and it read very similar to the opinions Armitage had outlined to Rice.Rice went to Powell to express her concerns that Armitage was the "unnamed source" of the information. Powell brushed her off. He realized, he later told Woodward, that Rice was more interested in finding someone to blame for saying there was a problem publicly, than in addressing the problem. (pages 414-5)And thus ended the neocons' relationship with Dick Armitage .... at least for the time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Who Were The Reporters On "Armitage Leaked"
What are their creds? "I'm not buying it, it doesn't make sense that Armitage would be the one. He wasn't an earthmover and had nothing to gain from this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. I always figured Armitage was a willing witness in the investigation,....
,...eg whistle-blower. I also believed Powell may have been cooperating.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Binka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. I Had That Essay BookMarked And Read It Last Night!
After we had a brief conversation about Armitage I went to reread that piece. My favorite line from the article is this..."You're on our team. You don't bridge shit. I've known those fuckers for thirty years. You ain't bridging shit," Armitage told him.

That is why I said there is no way Armitage leaked ANYTHING to ANYONE who was tight with these fuckers. Armitage knew than that NONE of these SOBs could be trusted. That includes Woodward.

Thanks again for all your diligence and attention to this crucial and critical issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. No wonder I thought
about it this morning.

This is something a little off topic, but: yesterday a childhood friend stopped by. He is an electrician, and I needed his talents. (Old houses being what they are.) Anyhow, he had been a marine for many years. He started talking about Iraq, and Bush, and the shape our country is in. And he said that he wonders now about the investment he made, of his adult life, because he believes this administration has betrayed the country. He was upset by the deaths of American kids in Iraq. I was thinking about the kid I knew, who went to school and scouts with my son, and I thought about kids like Ben, who were seriously injured. And as my old friend said, for what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. K & R
and bookmarked, again with many thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
6. The thawing of Dick Armitage
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 10:35 AM by seemslikeadream


Are you ready Colin? Right behind you Dick.

Oh BTW did you ever "Tell these people to fuck themselves."?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaLynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
7. Informative and brilliant as always.
K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
8. lol H2O Man see what I said about Armitage here in LBN
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 10:59 AM by stop the bleeding
link for LBN thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2164922#2165688






"Armitage makes a stronger case for Fitz to get Rice, Rove and Cheney"

see this thread and in particular starting at 06/10/2003 and then Armitage comes in at the next date.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=501914&mesg_id=508795

This article(VF/WP) is trying to make it sound like Fitz's case against Fibby is weak.

Oh no no no no...

Fibby is charged with Obstruction of Justice, Lying, and Perjury when the leak happened and who the source has nothing to do with this case.

Now look at the Armitage/memo/Rice time line - Armitage makes a pretty good witness for Fitz's case if you ask me.

If you are really interested read the whole counterpunch article it is full of details, also the thread that this response is on is also worth reading.







After reading your piece it sounds like my thinking is correct, thanks again Waterman you have added even more details on how Armitage fits into this puzzle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
9. K&R. Thank you H20 man for your wonderful essays.
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
10. Woodward's intell background ... and Ben Bradlee's too...
""Benjamin Bradlee was born in Boston on 26th August, 1921. One of his closest friends as a child was Richard Helms. While at Harvard University Bradlee married Jean Saltonstall, the daughter of Senator Leverett Saltonstall. After graduating in 1943 Bradlee joined naval intelligence and worked as a communications officer. His duties included handling classified and coded cables...
According to a Justice Department memo from a assistant U.S. attorney in the Rosenberg Trial Bradlee was helping the CIA to manage European propaganda regarding the spying conviction and the execution of Ethel Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg on on 19th June, 1953. Bradlee was officially employed by USIE until 1953, when he began working for Newsweek. While based in France, Bradlee divorced his first wife and married Antoinette Pinchot. At the time of the marriage, Antoinette's sister, Mary Pinchot Meyer, was married to Cord Meyer, a key figure in Operation MB, a CIA program to influence the American media...""

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbradleeB.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Thank you for this link
I remember a few years ago reading something about Bradlee being a Mockingbird. I needed the reminder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'll keep reading and waiting for the answer
In the meantime, I still want Colin to write that book. Perhaps Armitage can "ghost" for him. :)

Hadley, in the Lounge, with the wrench. My .02 :)

I've also often wondered about the specificity of the statement that Hadley had "nothing to do with the leak" because I'm pretty sure he had a lot to do with the cover-up -- and that's what always gets you.

To continue the theme:

Instant Karmas's gonna get you
Gonna knock you right on the head

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
12. "Armitage realized Powell and he were not able to exert any positive
influence on the administration. He recognized they were enabling the administration."

Surprisingly, I think some of us here may have had that epiphany before Armitage and Powell.

Thank you for another excellent piece, H2O Man.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Burried News Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
13. Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these it might
have been ...

But it wasn't, and over 2400 US Troops are dead and pasty ass Rumsfeld wants to blame our lack of enthusiasm for war on the media. The media that fails to tell the truth about all the good things going on in Iwreck.

Yea Rummy - tell it to Bob Woodruff

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. This quote by Rummy tells it all
"Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war."-- Donald Rumsfeld
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Well That's Corporate Understatement For You!
What I still don't understand is why Hadley is part of this admin? Is it Condi? Cause I will put money on it being him rather than Armitage and that being the case they know it too. Or, could it be some kind of blackmail going on here? Also, haven't things been exceptionally quiet regarding Hannah and Wurmser?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. It's the Cheney connection. Hadley goes back to the time when Cheney
was Sect of Defense. (He goes back further than that, of course, but definitely there's a strong Cheney connection.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Right.
Guys like Hadley aren't there by coincidence. They didn't get tossed into the mix in 2000.

Hadley is, in ways, like Hannah. Always watch the quiet guys. Just one example, though imperfect: many, if not most, DUers were disappointed that Libby was indicted, rather than Rove. Few really knew enough about Libby to appreciate that the Iraq war is his offspring. Rove is public, and so obnoxious, that people know and despise him. But Rove has never been a foreign policy expert. Ever. Not close. Indicting the quiet Libby was far more important, at the moment, than nailing the loud mouthed Rove.

People should also remember that last July, there was a brief campaign to imply that Powell was the leaker? Because he was seen with the secret documents on AF1? Well, Armitage had e-mailed them to Powell, care of Rice. But the media made people think Powell was a player in the scandal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
17. An answer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
18. Thanks for writing this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
19. Author of Vanity Fair piece is Marie Brenner, friend & defender of Judy
Miller. WaPo says Bradlee doesn't recall making the precise statement he is quoted as saying in the VF article and he says he has not told anyone the identity of Woody's source:

"I don't think I said it," Bradlee said. "I know who his source is, and I don't want to get into it. . . . I have not told a soul who it is." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031301904.html

Regardless, Armitage is a diversion. That this alleged "bombshell" apparently is contained in a Plamegate piece by Judy Miller's buddy and defender makes it even more suspect IMO.

FWIW Ariana Huffington critiques Brenner's VF article as revisionist history and primarily an attempt to rehab Miller's image: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/vanity-fairs-judy_b_17242.html Apparently Brenner is as sloppy and agenda oriented in her reporting as her friend Judy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Thank you.
I think that it is unlikely Bradlee would have either confirmed or denied Woodward's source. I found the claim made in the article curious, and while it is possible that Armitage was the one, or one of the ones, I would caution people that this article is suspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Yes. Lots of diverting stories in the media lately re: Plamegate.
Diverting from what, revealing drippings from motions in Scooter's case or one or more new shoes perhaps soon to hit the floor from the Fitzgerald shoe emporium? Just interesting timing for such stories. Allegedly anyone can "out" a CIA NOC via google (only, however, if one first knows his/her identity of course) and now this dropping from Judy's buddy.

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if Armitage had a revelvant chat with Woody. But Armitage was not one of the "cabal" and if he mentioned the Plame matter I'd be more inclined to wonder if it was in reference to what the Cheney gang was up to, their "plan of attack" on Wilson. If so, and this is just pure speculation out of my behind (although apparently Armitage had previously bitched about the cabal to Woody), that would put Woody's subsequent public derision and criticism of the Plame investigation in an even worse light than it already is.

At any rate, the Armitage issue IMO is a diversion and Libby et. al. have need of diversions. That they could use Armitage in such a fashion would be a particularly ironic icing on the cake to them, I would think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Burried News Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. I agree. By the CONfusion you will know them. They have a unique
sulfurous smell. Reminds me of Giant tube worms around a thermal vent.



"At any rate, the Armitage issue IMO is a diversion and Libby et. al. have need of diversions. That they could use Armitage in such a fashion would be a particularly ironic icing on the cake to them, I would think."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
24. K&R
Thanks for a reprint of another great essay, H2OMan!

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
26. K & R
:patriot:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
27. For what it's worth, where Plamegate, the NSA scandal and 9-11 converge
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 11:41 PM by EVDebs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2466336

""After Bush took office, he said, "there was a major policy shift" at the National Security Agency. Investigators were ordered to "back off" from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks, especially if they touched on Saudi royals and their retainers.""

Folks, this was pre-9/11.

Also, the old invasion plans for Iraq were really just Nixon's old '73 plans for Saudi Arabia, dusted off the shelf and tweaked for another set of oil fields.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catzies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Wasn't Nixon Rumsfeld's & Cheney's boss in 1973?
BFEE SOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. One of the quotes
I used a couple days ago in my essay about Condi Rice seemed pretty significant to me. No one else commented on it -- maybe because it was at the end of a long article. But I think it is telling (and I think that you more than most will understand the significance), and so I will again quote from Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" (page 442):

"As the WMD controversy grew in 2004, the president expressed his concerns to Rice. To air all of the CIA's problems could have two negatives that he wanted to avoid. First, the controversy would lead to congressional investigations like the Church and Pike Committees in 1975-76 that revealed CIA spying on U.S. citizens, ...."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Thats if we win some seats back in fall of 2006- if not then this is moot
"As the WMD controversy grew in 2004, the president expressed his concerns to Rice. To air all of the CIA's problems could have two negatives that he wanted to avoid. First, the controversy would lead to congressional investigations like the Church and Pike Committees in 1975-76 that revealed CIA spying on U.S. citizens, ...."

We have already seen based on lala's reporting that Sen. Roberts and company have the Intel Committee all locked down. Arlen gave us a little hope with the NSA questioning but that also seemed to evaporate in light of the Robert's deal.

In order for there to be true justice when need to have some sort of power shift in Congress then we need leaders(Feingold & Conyers) in key positions to stand up and demand these investigations, our only other hope rests on the son of an Irish immigrant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Not so fast. Even Republicans can see when they've screwed up
I note the recent spate of those jumping ship: Wm F. Buckley, Jr's column It Didn't Work, in the new National Review, along with the book Impostor : How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, by Bruce Bartlett. Some have been aware of how screwed up things are since the git-go, as was Gen Zinni ("They've Screwed Up" CBS News article, the source of the 'wrong war, wrong time.." etc quote Kerry used in the election), and Paul Craig Robert's columns are a virtual drumbeat of Republican insider dissent in their own party.

The self-evident incompetence and incoherence of this administration's last six years have the public demanding a breath of fresh air. Fitz may or may not 'come through' for us, but have no fear that the Truth Will Out !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I'm sorry I don't hold the same faith as you do in regards to the
Republican's doing what they are morally and legally bound to do when they swore their oaths when they took office, cause we would have seen it by now. See wiretap, prison torture, & phase II of Pre-War intel

I appreciate the people that you quoted, but as far as I can tell none of them hold the power to investigate much less remove a sitting president.

Look at Abramoof and lobbying they did not do anything until shit hit fan and even then it was weak at best.

No I am not waiting on the bastards of hell to bring justice, we need justice brought from Fitz or new members in Congress these old ones gotta go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. In my opinion,
we might get better results if we begin to pressure for hearings that can lead to VP Cheney's impeachment, rather than targeting the president. It may be that more conservative democrats and republicans in the congress would be willing to address Cheney's criminal behaviors, than focus on the presidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. I agree the VP is an easier case to make, but until the morally corrupt
people are not in control of the committee's nor the Congress in general we are just holding are collective breath(s) for some republicans to get a shred integrity and moral decency to do what is right for the Country. Right now they are all still about party unity and $$$$.

We are road blocked in regards to any real investigations happening outside of Fitzgerald's, Abramoff, and the Israel Spy Case.

Maybe some Republicans will wake up but I am not betting on it, and if they do I am gonna check hell first to see if it dropped below freezing there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. I understand that the
republicans are not going to go after VP Cheney for the right reasons. They are snakes. Their actions are thus only going to be those of snakes. But at this time, it is important to remove Dick Cheney from his position of power, in order to begin reversing the damage he has done (and continues to do) to the people of the earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. That removal has the best chance of happening with the Fibby/Plame
case/investigation that is happening.

Gonzo's 250 emails from the VP and Oval Office is one of the keys to how fast Cheney has to retire for health reasons or to spend more time with his family. This may happen sometime between April and Fall of 2006 depending on how the details come out from the testimonies from certain reporters in April.

This should be a very telling time indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Just look at the similarities of Nixon's '73 Saudi oilfield seizure plans
Edited on Wed Mar-15-06 02:29 PM by EVDebs
and what has taken place in Iraq. They just dusted off those old plans and off they merrily went. For neocons to even try to defend THAT is ludicrous,

Britain Says U.S. Planned to Seize Oil in '73 Crisis
byLizette Alvarez
JANUARY 2, 2004 ~ THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.publicexposure.tv/oil_1973.html

The JudicialWatch maps on their website,

http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtm

match the Quaker's website map of the so-called '14 Permanent Bases' in Iraq,

If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases?
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

and the fact that these permanent bases are perhaps THE driving force behind Iraqi support for attacks on US forces,

Nearly Half of Iraqis Support Attacks on U.S. Troops, Poll Finds
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0131-10.htm

shows the obvious fact that THEY GOT IT ALL WRONG. Neocon vulcans have gotten the country into a terrible mess and THAT is beyond dispute. If rational minds, mostly non-neocons of all political stripes advised against Iraq invastion, and I remind you that even GHWB and Brent Scowcroft advised against any Iraq invasion, for obvious reasons

""Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (1998), pp. 489-90""
http://fuller.mit.edu/peace/dad_knows_best.html

not to mention a complete shit-canning of the Powell Doctrine, by Powell himself (ahem...)

"Essentially, the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/powelldoctrine_short_3-21.html

shows us that despite Republican hypocrisy, the truth essentially becomes known. Blowback is this administration's supposed 'worst enemy' but is the country's best friend ! Take a look at the extent of whistleblowers out there right now. The Ibsen play An Enemy Of The People tells us that "the strongest people in the world are those who stand most alone". That is no truer in 1890 Norway than it is today. We simply need to get the truth out to the people, who will not be fooled all the time, despite Republican proclivities to be deceived themselves and to encourage deceit.

Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do. Many of the rats are already jumping ship on this failed administration. The incompetence and the deceptions are all too self-evident. Like Mr X in the movie JFK says to Jim Garrison, people are essentially suckers for the truth, and they know it when they see it. The real deal will never be associated with this administration. They are what they are; no one wants to be associated with that now.

Justice will be done only when the Dems get control of Congress again,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=659430&mesg_id=668344





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Removing Cheney Would Be A Good First Strike
It would de-fang this admin and their corporate sponsors. It would also (I hope?) put paid to that ghastly shadow government who is just looking for a chance to take over. I would also contend that once a new veep is in place it might lead to the possibilioty of junior resigning, pleading stresses of the office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
29. another keeper
I always enjoy reading your work. Thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #29
40. Thanks H2O Man.
I have been posting for months that Cheney should be Impeached first. Then shrub.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
41. Larry Johnson wrote a reply about the article
on Valerie Plame, by the Chicago Tribune writer Crewdson, that anyone could have googled her status on the internet. In researching Crewdson, he worked on the Watergate case and would have known Woodward very well.


http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/27747
By Larry Johnson -
""""Well, the theater of the absurd that tries to pass for journalism has gone to new lows with a goofy story in today's Chicago Tribune. The article, Internet Blows CIA Cover claims, "It's easy to track America's covert operatives. All you need to know is how to navigate the Internet."

Oh really? Okay Mr. Crewdson (the author of this nonsense). Please search the internet and identify 100 CIA officers for me. Go ahead. Give it a shot. Oh, I forgot, first you need a name. You do not just enter a random name and come up with a flashing sign that says, "this guy is CIA". So really what you are saying is that if I tell you someone works for the CIA you can do a search and find out that someone, who is a private consultant, once worked for the U.S. State Department? In other words, you first have to be tipped off to look at a particular person."""""

 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 12th 2024, 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC