Libby Trial: Lawyers Clash Over Motive

Scooter Libby was thrown under the bus. No, Scooter Libby gave the bus driver false directions.

On Thursday, the prosecution and the defense in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby spent much of the day clashing over evidentiary matters, but, as they battled, each side laid out its core theory.

The initial dispute concerned special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's effort to enter into evidence video clips of White House press briefings held in October 2003 shortly after the news broke that the Justice Department, at the CIA's request, was launching a criminal investigation of the leak that outed Valerie Wilson, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, as a CIA officer.

Here's the background: in mid-September 2003, White House press secretary Scott McClellan responded to a remark made by Joe Wilson, in which the former diplomat said he looked forward to the day when Karl Rove would be "frog-marched" out of the White House for having been involved in the CIA leak. It was "totally ridiculous," McClellan said, to suggest that Rove was a party to this leak. (Reality break: as was revealed years later, Rove had slipped information on Valerie Wilson's CIA connection to rightwing columnist Robert Novak and Time's Matt Cooper.) After the criminal investigation became public in late September 2003, McClellan again told reporters Rove had nothing to do with the leak. But when he was asked about Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, McClellan declined to offer a similar denial.

Libby freaked out. According to Ted Wells, one of Libby's attorneys, Libby went to McClellan and White House chief of staff Andrew Card asking for the same treatment that Rove got. They "blew him off," Wells exclaimed in court. Then Libby went to his boss, with talking points he wanted McClellan to recite:

I've talked to Libby. I said it was ridiculous about Karl and it is ridiculous about Libby. Libby was not the source of the Novak story. And he did not leak classified information.

Cheney took the paper on which Libby had written these lines and added his own note:

Has to happen today. Call out to key press saying same thing about Scooter as Karl. Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy that we asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.

Lo and behold, during press briefings on October 7 and 10, McClellan declared that Libby, like Rove, was "not involved" in the CIA leak. A reporter asked if either had "told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." McClellan replied, "they assured me that they were not involved in this." He also said that any White House official who had leaked classified information would be booted out of the administration.

Fitzgerald wanted to play the video clips of these and another White House press briefing for the jury. Libby's legal team objected--vociferously.

The McClellan statements, Fitzgerald argued, were important because they provided Libby a motive to lie. Libby, Fitzgerald contended, had "put down a marker." He went to Cheney and had the White House issue a statement that he had not leaked classified information. Days later, he was interviewed by the FBI. He couldn't contradict what he had just forced McClellan to say. So, Fitzgerald maintained, Libby lied. Libby told the agents that he had merely picked up scuttlebutt about Valerie Wilson and her CIA connection from Tim Russert of Meet the Press and had passed that gossip to other reporters. No big deal.

During the trial, though, Fitzgerald has presented testimony and evidence indicating that at least five government officials--including Cheney--had provided Libby with official information about Wilson's wife. Former press secretary Ari Fleischer, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Matt Cooper have testified that Libby shared this information with them. (And Fitzgerald pointed out in his indictment of Libby that Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA was "classified.") But, Fitzgerald said on Thursday, when questioned by the FBI, Libby had "to say that what he leaked to reporters was not [from] an official source....He [had] to tell a story that is consistent with what he just had the White House tell the world." Thus, he cooked up a false account: Russert had been his source and at the time of the leak he possessed no certain and official (a.k.a. classified) information about Wilson's wife. And because McClellan had said that anyone involved in the leak would be canned, Fitzgerald maintained, Libby had further cause to concoct a cover story.

There's a weird wrinkle. At his first FBI interview, which happened on October 14, 2003, Libby acknowledged that in early June 2003--before the Wilson affair erupted and the leak occurred--the vice president had told him that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA's Counterproliferation Division, which was part of the agency's clandestine operations directorate. There are notes of that call--and Libby shared them with the FBI. Yet Libby told the FBI that shortly after speaking to Cheney about Wilson's wife he completely forgot that conversation and that when weeks later he heard about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment from Russert, he believed he was learning about it for the first time. (Russert denies saying anything to Libby about Valerie Wilson). This is a hard-to-believe scenario. But it tracks with Fitzgerald's theory: Libby lied to hide the fact that he had possessed and spread official information about Wilson's wife.

The prosecutor wanted the McClellan statements entered into the record to demonstrate that Libby had reasons to mislead the investigators.

No, its just the opposite, declared Wells, who opposed showing the jurors these McClellan clips. Libby, he claimed, was not concerned about losing his job: "he was concerned they were scapegoating him." They? Wells meant the White House. Who in the White House? Wells hasn't said, but he's hinted that Rove was at the center of a get-Libby conspiracy that was trying to turn Libby into Washington-scandal roadkill. "The government," Wells argued, "says what motivated him to lie was that he thought he would be fired.....My response is that he didn't care [about losing his job]...He acted like an innocent person...Only an innocent person would go to the vice president and say what they're doing is unfair," regarding clearing Rove but not Libby. And Bill Jeffress, another Libby lawyer, maintained that the clips of McClellan would be prejudicial to his client, for they show reporters fiercely grilling McClellan and suggesting that serious wrongdoing had occurred.

Fitzgerald counter-argued: the fact that McClellan did clear Libby indicates there "was no effort to throw him under the bus...Mr. McClellan was standing in front of the bus."

After much back and forth, federal district Judge Reggie Walton ruled that excerpts of McClellan's press briefings could be shown to the jury. Fitzgerald had won this skirmish. And once more, Wells and Jeffress had telegraphed the case they may try to present when the prosecution concludes. The logic of Wells' argument is not yet evident. Libby feared he was being hung out to dry. Perhaps. Even if that were true, though, the White House publicly cleared him before he spoke to the FBI. So why would a White House plot against Libby (that apparently failed--if it existed) affect what Libby would say to the FBI regarding what he had known and said about Valerie Wilson three months earlier?

It doesn't track. But if the defense calls Cheney to the stand--as it has said it might--jurors, no doubt, will want to hear the vice president discuss this sacrifice-Libby-for-Rove skullduggery. They may also want to learn more about the phone call in which Cheney clued in Libby on Valerie Wilson's gig at the CIA. What was Cheney doing gathering information on Wilson at that early point? (Libby told the FBI that he believed Cheney had obtained this information from CIA chief George Tenet.) And after Deborah Bond, an FBI agent, testified for the prosecution on Thursday, there was another matter a juror might want Cheney to explain.

Bond disclosed that during Libby's second FBI interview he said he believed that after he had spoken to Russert (and supposedly had learned anew that Wilson's wife was CIA) he and Cheney discussed whether to disclose Valerie Wilson's CIA connection to the press. But Libby told the FBI he wasn't sure such a conversation had happened.

Still, this was news. That statement probably caused FBI agents and Fitzgerald to wonder during the investigation if Cheney and Libby had conspired to leak information on Joseph Wilson's wife. If Cheney takes the stand, a sharp juror ought to be interested in hearing whether the vice president has anything to say about this. (The safe bet: no.)

On Thursday evening, as the court recessed for the week, Fitzgerald noted that once Bond finishes testifying on Monday, he will play for the jury the seven hours of testimony Libby gave the grand jury. After that, he will call Russert and perhaps one other (unnamed) witness before concluding his case.

Wells and Jeffress then will present their witnesses (should they choose to do so). Will Rove be called to the stand, so they can question him about the plot against Libby? Will Cheney be called to bolster the Single Scapegoat Theory (and to explain other mysteries)? Will Libby's lawyers trot out witnesses who testify about the bitter feuding that went on between the White House and the CIA over the WMD controversy, so they can suggest Libby was an innocent caught in this crossfire? Will they present witnesses who claim the intelligence Wilson attacked was really correct, so Wells and Jeffress can depict Libby as a defender of the truth? Will they offer witnesses who testify that Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, was the guy who first leaked to Novak, so the defense can argue that Armitage, not Libby, should be the fall guy in this caper?

Maybe Wells and Jeffress will merely stick to witnesses who challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses. Then again, they might turn toward the jurors and blast them with paint guns--that is, overwhelm the jury with a mess of confusion. Libby's lawyers have presented a foundation for doing anything and everything. The bus could go flying off the road.

*****

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (189)

1. The MOTIVE for all of the lies is always ultimately the creation of Eretz Israel.

   The ONLY reason the Neocons infiltrated the US government was for the advancement of Israel at the expense of us all.

   It's time to expose the corporate media for the government operatives that they are.

   It started a few days ago with UFO reports, then we heard about Iran killing US Troops in Iraq about five times an hour, then last night we had the total hit piece by Paula Zahn against Christopher Bollyn, and now this morning there is purportedly a plot to kidnap and behead (nice touch) citizens in London.

   Every single story is parroted by the talking heads as though it were fact - with virtually NO confirmation.

   As soon as the goveernment puts out the story - ANY STORY - the mouthpieces read it - and it becomes gospel - accepted as fact.

   CNN's hit piece last night on Paula Zahn's show was reprehensible - unbalanced and factually inaccurate.

   The show proclaimed that "Conspiracy Theorists claim Jews were behind 9/11." The vast majority of postings on this subject point to mainstream news reports linking Israel's MOSSAD to 9/11 - as a direct result of the fact that nearly 200 Mossad agents were arrrested in the US in that time frame (five on the day of the atttack) - and ALL were subsequently deported without charges.

   These stories are not "theory" - these are factual events. Only the ADL, AIPAC, Hasbara, MEMRI, CAMERA and other disinformation experts paint this story with the "Jew Brush."

   The entire piece last night was a direct attempt to paint ALL discussion of ISRAEL'S role in 9/11 as "Racist & antiSemitic." Judaism is a RELIGION - not a race or a country. If an Italian can also be Jewish, how can it possibly be racist to discuss either Judaism OR Israel - regardless of the subject?

   It is PATRIOTIC to seek the truth of 9/11 and bring the guilty to justice - regardless of their affiliations. These over the top efforts by the JDL to portray this discussion as racist and "anti-Semitic" is indicative of the fact that they fear this discussion FOR THE FACTUAL NATURE OF ITS CONTENT - not for any other reason.

   CNN is in the coverup & disinformation business. Blitzer = AIPAC. They have become co-conspirators in the 9/11 coverup. They are the enemy of this Republic.

   Fox News: Israeli Spy ring

   Fox News, alone of all the media, actually ran the story as a four part broadcast, and put the story up on its web site. Then, without explanation, Fox News erased the story from their web site and have never mentioned it again.

   http://100777.com/node/180

   Now a local FOX affiliate has again provided air time to expose the truth about 9/11:

   http://www.wicz.com/fox40/video.asp?video=%2F12%2D02+Terror%2DConspiracy %2Ewmv

   These are the organizations that caused CNN to produce the Paula Zahn hit piece on Christopher Bollyn last night:

   For detailed studies of the fabrications of groups like CAMERA and MEMRI, visit:

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.ht ml http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1869.shtml http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article445.shtml http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7.shtml http://www.abunimah.org/features/020815memri.html http://electronicintifada.net/features/mediaonmedia/20010821camera.html http://www.abunimah.org/features/000403camera.html http://santacruz.indymedia.org/feature/display/13401/index.php

   This is the true story they fear most:

   http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Artstudents.htm http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column100.html FOX News 4-Part Investigative Series: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=86989

   It is they who wish to criminalize Freedom Of Speech in the United States under the False Flag of "Racism."

   Seek the truth. Let freedom ring.

   Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 06:22am

2. Have you seen this AIPAC promotional video?

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5t_55OWbo

   Any question about who controls US Policy?

   "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

   "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

   -- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting, 1981)

   JINSA presents an annual Distinguished Service Award, named in honor of the late-Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson to U.S. government leaders.

   Last year the recipient was General Peter Pace.

   This years recipient is none other the AIPAC Butt Boy and USS Liberty Coverup Specialist, JOHN McCain.

   http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/Hughes0712.htm

   Tuesday December 5th, JINSA is proud to honor Senator John McCain with the 24th annual "Scoop Jackson Distinguished Service Award...sponsored by Rolls Royce.

   DO THE MATH FOLKS!

   http://www.jinsa.org/home/home.html

   McCain / Lieberman is your future.

   DO THE MATH

   Possible McCain-Lieberman Alliance

   Introducing McCain to a packed ball room of pro-Israel business executives, defense contractors, and Washington insiders, was Sen. Joseph Lieberman, fresh from being re-elected as an independent after losing the Democratic Party primary in Connecticut.

   Lieberman's glowing tribute to his Republican colleague did not go unnoticed. "McCain-Lieberman? There's something to that," JINSA board member Morris J. Amitay told the crowd.

   http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/12/6/111221.shtml?s=lh

   Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 06:27am

3. Closing down our best source of covert intelligence on WMD in the Middle East by making its covert status public - during a time of war - is akin to revealing troop movements and positions to the enemy - during a time of war.

   It's TREASON on it's face.

   Doing so for POLITICAL reasons is IMPEACHABLE.

   BUSH, CHENEY, ROVE & LIBBY all knew that Plame was a covert agent - and a key enemy if their lies were to succeed. Everyone in the WHIG knew. They all conspired to prevent the truth about WMD from being made public

   When referring to Wilson, each of them at one time or another referred to him as "a Democrat."

   That's POLITICAL.

   That's ILLEGAL.

   In pushing this nation into a war of choice for ISRAEL - on a PACK OF LIES - these bastards ALL COMMITTED TREASON.

   Deport AIPAC.

   Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 06:30am

4. Ledeen = Evil For Israel

   Many neocons can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss' books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli's philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsy; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld.

   They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

   If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in "A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm."

   They have been amazingly successful in their efforts to control the debate over what Western values are and by what methods they will be spread throughout the world.

   In 1999, Michael Ledeen's book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, was passed out to Members of Congress at just about the time A Clean Break was issued. In The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs:

   "They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."

   War is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. There's a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for "…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders."

   Ledeen explains: "In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.' This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten,". "It's true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led."

   The question Ledeen doesn't answer is: "Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?"

   http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

   Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 06:31am

5. Now Michael Ledeen is calling for regime change beyond Iraq. In an address entitled "Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern Terrorism," for the policy forum of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) on April 30, he declared, "the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon."

   With a group of other conservatives, Ledeen recently set up the Center for Democracy in Iran (CDI), an action group focusing on producing regime change in Iran.

   Quotes from Ledeen's works reveal a peculiar set of beliefs about American attitudes toward violence. "Change -- above all violent change -- is the essence of human history," he proclaims in his book, "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago." In an influential essay in the National Review Online he asserts, "Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again to export the democratic revolution."

   Iraq, Iran and Syria are the first and foremost nations where this should happen, according to Ledeen. The process by which this should be achieved is a violent one, termed "total war," a concept pioneered by the 19th century Prussian general, Karl von Clausewitz in his classic book "On War."

   Ledeen's take on this idea is wedded to ideology. In summarizing his book "The War Against the Terror Masters" on the American Enterprise Institute Web site, he writes: "We wage total war because we fight in the name of an idea, and ideas either triumph or fail ... totally." In his reckoning, force is the only reliable strategy to enforce our ideology on our enemies. In the same summary he claims, drawing inspiration from Machiavelli: "We can lead by the force of high moral example ... [but] fear is much more reliable, and lasts longer. Once we show that we are capable of dealing out terrible punishment to our enemies, our power will be far greater."

   http://www.alternet.org/story/15860/

   Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 06:33am

6. Joe Lieberman is the FACE OF AIPAC.

   When Lieberman lost in the primary to Lamont, it wasn't 36 hours later that Rove launched the False - False Flag Terror Threat in London.

   During the next 24 hour news cycle while the headlines falsely screamed:

   "TERROR IN THE SKIES"

   The media quietly released two Israel-related stories under the radar ...

   The first was that a US Submariner named Ariel Joseph Weinmann had been arrested 6 MONTHS EARLIER for Espionage on behalf of "a foreign country."

   12 hours later, the story broke that the Two AIPAC Officials charged with Espionage in the Franklin/AIPAC spy scandal were still going to face trial, despite their attorney's best efforts to have the case thrown out.

   These three matters, Lamont's victory over AIPAC's Lieberman, the revelation of yet another Israeli spy caught passing naval secrets to Israel, and the AIPAC Spy trial moving forward ALL hit the news at the same time - and were ALL quickly buried by a fully-complicit "news" media.

   If you think these events are unrelated - in light of the subsequent admission that the entire scare was a hoax - you've already got the government you deserve.

   Lieberman = AIPAC.

   AIPAC = Espionage, Blackmail and Democracy Lost.

   http://theunjustmedia.com/Jewish%20Zionists/Israel's%20Sacred%20Terroris m.htm

   http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_plan_for_the_m iddle_east.htm

   http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHI20050 920&articleId=982

   http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=242

   http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring2.html

   http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315296.shtml

   http://www.counterpunch.com/rajiva02252006.html

   http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1476913/posts

   http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/184FCB4A-39BD-4A0A-B38B-81FCFBD95 1BE.htm

   Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 06:36am

7. Bush works for the Likud Party. His father, Poppy, did a deal with Likud during the Clinton Administration to ensnare Clinton in a tryst with a Mossad "Swallow" (Monica) in order to ensure GHW's control of the agenda going forward. Poppy did a deal with the devil to bring down an American President using a foreign spy service to do it. This is called a CONSPIRACY. GHW Bush, Cheney and Ken Lay then conspired to create the California Energy Crisis in the year prior to the elections in order to set the stage for the OIL EXPERTS to take the White House in 2000. The Co-Conspirators then set their sites on working together to pull off their agenda, using elements of Poppy's CIA and Likud's Mossad to plan and implement 9/11 - the PNAC proscribed PRETEXT for the acquisition of the resources and territory of the Middle East. One Problem. Israel double-crossed the Bush Cabal and is blackmailing them BIG TIME. Israel controls everything inside the US. They have every single phone wiretapped and have their software running every vital system. Israel actually controls the launch and targeting codes of the entire US Nuclear arsenal. Chertoff controls Homeland security on Israel's behalf. He is Mossad. Cheney ran the 9/11 operation, and used Mossad operatives to pull it off. Then Israel threatened to expose the Bush Administration's role in it unless Bush and the rest of his cabal did exactly as Israel demands. Bottom line - Israel owns the United States - thanks to GHW Bush. None of this is speculation. These are facts.

   Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 06:39am

8. "The CDI's Ledeen, Amitay and Sobhani were featured speakers at a May 2003 forum on "the future of Iran' sponsored by AEI, the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The forum, chaired by the Hudson Institute's Meyrav Wurmser, the Israeli-born wife of David Wurmser (he serves as Cheney's leading expert on Iran and Syria), included a presentation by Un Lubrani of Israel's Ministry of Defense.

   Summarizing the sentiment of neoconservative ideologues and strategists, Meyrav Wurmser said: "Our fight against Iraq was only a battle in a long war. It would be ill-conceived to think we can deal with Iraq alone. We must move on, and faster."

   JINSA, a neoconservative organization established in 1976 that fosters closer strategic and military ties between the United States and Israel, also has its sights on Iran. At a JINSA policy forum in April 2003 titled "Time to Focus on Iran-The Mother of Modern Terrorism," Ledeen declared, "The time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon."

   JINSA, along with CSP, serves as one of the main institutional links to the military-industrial complex for neoconservatives. Ledeen served as JINSA's first executive director and was JINSA's "Godfather," according to Amitay. Amitay is a JINSA vice chair. JINSA board members or advisers also include former CIA director James Woolsey, former Rep. Jack Kemp and the AEI's Joshua Muravchik. After he joined the administration, Feith resigned from JINSA.'s board of advisers, as did Vice President Dick Cheney and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton."

   http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_Asia_watch/Is_Iran_Next.html

   EVERY assertion that IRAN is operating inside Iraq - killing US troops - is an UNSUBSTANTIATED LIE - WITH VIRTUALLY NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

   Who put the word out to the media talking heads to parrot the lie without question?

   Where are the JOURNALISTS?

   Who dares ask for the EVIDENCE?

   Don't believe a fucking word the government says if the word "IRAN" is included in the sentence.

   Israel has blackmailed this administration into attacking Iran - and all of these gyrations are an effort to contrive a PRETEXT.

   Iran is not the enemy of the "American People" (which is not a reference to those who govern us).

   Those in this administration, and in Congress, who put themselves in compromised positions to enable themselves to be blackmailed - THEY are the true enemies of the American people - who are sending their sons and daughters to fight and die in order to protect the behinds of their own "leaders" rather than reveal their treason on Israel's behalf.

   Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 06:53am

9. like so much associated with this aministration, the more you dig, the more dirt will fly...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/02/2007 @ 07:13am

10. Why is the Department of Homeland Security spending hundreds of millions of dollars to construct Concentration Camps in the United States?

    Did you vote for that?

    Why is the Department of Homeland Security assembling a totally separate National Police Force (ICE)?

    Did you vote for that?

    Why was our National Guard sent under-prepared into the kill zone with no way home other than a body bag?

    Did you vote for that?

    Why has our treasury been looted, leaving us vulnerable and exposed to the blackmail of our bankers?

    Did you vote for that?

    "Somethin's happenin' here, what it is ain't exactly clear, there's a man with a gun over there, tellin' me, I've got to beware."

    STOP.

    THINK.

    Swift Luck Greens: http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=297

    http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-bloggers/1607403/posts

    Latitude: 41.92 Longitude: -106.521944

    Civilian Inmate Labor Program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Inmate_Labor_Program

    Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs' http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17936

    Hanna Coal Basin "RAG Shoshone 1" facility stopped production of 1 million-plus tons of coal per year as of 2001:

    http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:gNcoT3lrnlsJ:www.wma-minelife.com/co al/coalfrm/coaldat.htm+coal+shoshone+1&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

    Did the government close the mine only to TAKE it for their use? Interview their former CEO and ask him. http://www.fmshrc.gov/decisions/commission/west199934202042004.html

    What is the mine used for? Are they storing nasty stuff there? Is it legal for the Army and DHS to jointly run this facility? What about the Posse Comitatus Act? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

    What about the 15,000 foot military runway? What's that for?

    Read this guy's take: http://tinyurl.com/y48vxo

    Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'

    By Nat Parry February 21, 2006

    Not that George W. Bush needs much encouragement, but Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration's domestic operations -- Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy.

    Detention Centers

    Plus, there was that curious development in January when the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers somewhere in the United States, to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs," KBR said. [Market Watch, Jan. 26, 2006]

    Later, the New York Times reported that "KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space." [Feb. 4, 2006]

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/022106a.html

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 07:52am

11. DID MICHAEL CHERTOFF PERSONALLY ORDER THE ATTACK BY DHS ON AN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST?

    Was Homeland Security Behind Attack On 911 Investigative Journalist Bollyn?

    Christopher Bollyn | September 1 2006

    The "undercover tactical unit" involved in the assault and TASERing of a 9/11 investigative journalist at his Chicago-area home was most likely an operation ordered by the Department of Homeland Security, according to a former high-ranking police official.

    Since the bizarre and brutal attack against me by three heavily-armed agents at my family home in Hoffman Estates , Illinois , a number of people have commented on the seemingly odd use of an "undercover tactical unit" to respond to a non-emergency 911 call.

    Some of the most insightful comments have come from a former senior police official from Illinois , who spoke to a source close to AFP. The former police chief was familiar with the details of the incident when he made his comments.

    In the opinion of the former police chief, the operation appears to have been ordered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the leadership of the Israeli-American dual national Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, who has been the subject of several of my articles about 9/11 and the failure of his department to respond to Hurricane Katrina, is the son of Livia Eisen, one of the first agents of Israel's military intelligence agency, the Mossad.

    http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/September2006/010906Bollyn.htm

    BOLLYN'S ACCOUNT OF THE ATTACK:

    http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bollynbeaten.htm

    BOLLYN'S ARTICLES ABOUT CHERTOFF AND MOSSAD:

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66175

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=91721

    http://www.rense.com/general64/moss.htm

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=68463

    http://americanfreepress.net/html/ally_backs_assassination_netwo.html

    http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-9-11-Controlling-the-Message.html

    CHERTOFF DOES NOT WORK FOR YOU.

    WHY IS HE ATTACKING JOURNALISTS WHO SEEK THE TRUTH OF 9/11?

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 07:52am

12. I'd like to hear what you believe to be the most plausible explanation for the story of the "Dancing Israelis" who were caught filming and celebrating the impact on the Twin Towers on 9/11, turned out to be Mossad Agents with expertise in explosives and communications, failed seven polygraph tests, etc. They worked for Urban Movers, a known Mossad front in New Jersey.

    They were held for over two months.

    Their story was buried by the media.

    The tape they shot was never publicly released.

    They were quietly deported to Israel without charges being filed (imagine if they had been of Arabic descent).

    They were deported by Michael Chertoff, the man who was also supposed to be in charge of tracking down the money that paid for the 9/11 operation (Operation Greenquest), the final report from which has never been released.

    Chertoff is an Israel-First Zionist who actually defended the man who was found to have been responsible for funding the first WTC attack.

    To me this signifies that they:

    A. Had foreknowledge of the impending attack and the target.

    B. May have played an earlier role setting charges within the Towers themselves.

    C. May have been involved in helping Israeli company Zim Shipping move their offices out of the WTC in the days preceding 9/11 (which would also have provided cover for their other activities within the towers).

    D. Committed the most egregious breach of Mossad conduct by acting so childishly in the midst of an operation - leading myself and others to question everything else we were being told about 9/11.

    E. Were part of the broader Mossad Spy ring that had infiltrated the US preceeding the 9/11 attacks (known as the "Israeli Art Students Spy Ring).

    My take on all of this is that Cheney outsourced the implementation of the 9/11 False Flag attacks to the False Flag experts...Mossad.

    Cheney was in control of NORAD throughout the operation, and according to Norm Minneta, was monitoring the approach of an aircraft all the way into the Pentagon, and gave specific orders to a subordinate to let it happen.

    Why was Daniel Lewin, a Mossad Agent, seated within mere inches of Mohamad Atta on that suicide flight?

    What is your most plausible explanation for the behavior of these five Mossad Agents on the morning of 9/11?

    What does it all mean to you?

    Why were they celebrating just like a demolition team would be when watching their handy work as the building falls?

    http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm

    http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column100.html

    http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.15/news2.html

    http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=5303

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/forget.html

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/12/WTC_Mysteries3.html

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j062402.html.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/sears.html

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/06/Israel/spies7.html

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/03/Tampa050302.html

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/01/WTC_Israelis5.html

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00133.htm

    http://www.911-strike.com/dea-il-spy.htm

    http://www.antiwar.com/israeli-files.php

    http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=162902&c

    http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/16/110443.shtml

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5133.htm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&con

    http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&co

    http://www.antiwar.com/rep/lemonde1.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2294487.stm

    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j072602.html

    http://www.crimelynx.com/dozens.html

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deareportisraelispying.html

    http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Artstudents.htm

    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html

    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7127

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11385.htm

    http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15114089&BRD=1672&PAG=46 1&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

    http://www.selvesandothers.org/article_print.php?id_article=13772

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1744960,00.html?gusrc=rss

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 07:55am

13. That story about Halliburton acquiring the asbestos liabilities of Dresser Industries raises an interesting point...

    Cheney KNEW that Dresser had the most massive liability issue on planet earth (he had to have known) yet decided to pay good money to bring Dresser's problems under Halliburton's tent.

    This raises the question...who were the largest shareholders of Dresser - in need of a lifeboat to save their own personal bacon? Anyone named Bush? Anyone named Carlyle?

    The deal went like this:

    Cheney agrees for Halliburton to take on the Dresser asbestos liability.

    It is determined that Bush and Cheney will be (s)elected, and that the PNAC plan will be implemented - using 9/11 as the essential pretext.

    Ken Lay plays his role using his Enron smoke and mirrors tactics to create a faux energy crisis in California, causing the public to demand an energy-savvy administration be elected.

    With the asbestos liability and other matters hanging in the balance, the election of 2000 simply had to be rigged in order for the plan to go in to effect.

    Following the appointment of Bush and Cheney, the secret energy planning meeting established which oil companies would reap the rewards of the pending invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

    The timing and the pretext were predetermined, and 9/11 was greenlighted for 9/11/2001. Cheney outsourced the implementation to Mossad, and ran the show from his bunker on D Day under the cover of preplanned drills simulating the exact attack that was proscribed, with NORAD as coconspirator. At least 50 administration officials and countless foreign agents were in on it.

    Once the entire charade was concluded, the Administration generally, and Cheney specifically, had every reason in the world to blame Iraq.

    The Afghanistan mission could not provide Halliburton with enough revenue to offset the massive asbestos liability claim. Iraq and Iran are essential wars in order to provide cover for the infusion of the billion of TAX DOLLARS necessary to both profit Halliburton for its actual work AND cover the massive asbestos liability claims.

    Now you know why Halliburton was awarded the contracts without the need to bid for them. This was all prearranged.

    NOTE: Private enterprise pushed its legal/financial obligations onto tax payers using war as the excuse.

    The asbestos liability claims of Dresser Industries were ultimately paid by you and me, and our troops in the field, all to ensure that the investors in Dresser didn't take the multibillion dollar loss.

    Just one piece of a very large chessboard.

    Hang them for TREASON.

    Given what we know about VP Cheney's direct financial ties to Haliburton, isn't it clear that he has committed a fraud against the United States for the purpose of illegal financial gain, in accordance with the following statute? Couldn't the same be said of any US official who knowingly made false statements to advance the cause of war, while owning shares of companies that stood to gain substantially from that war? Cheney was acting specifically on behalf of the Contractor, Haliburton, to ensure no-bid contracts were awarded, based on knowingly fraudulent information generated by his own Office Of Special Plans. It might also be construed that any official who had a relationship to the Carlyle Group was also lying on their behalf - for their own financial benefit.

    Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States

    (a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent - (1) to defraud the United States; or (2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    (1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or

    (2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.

    The financial links between those who lied, and those who benefited as a direct result of the lies (primarily in the oil and military industries) are clear. The evidence that the President's speech knowingly included a lie about the Niger Yellow Cake is proveable in a court of law under oath.

    That the Vice President knew for a fact that the claim was based on a forgery in advance of the President's speech is a given. That he instructed others to ensure that the sentence made it into the speech is also a given. What did the Vice President know, and when did he know it?

    Every time the Vice President knowingly lied to the American People to advance the cause of war, he committed a crime against the United States which both directly harmed other US citizens and directly enriched himself.

    Indict Dick Cheney for Fraud.

    The outing of Valarie Plame falls into precisely the same category, as it was specifically designed to ensure that the lead up to war continued apace...

    Consummate diplomats like Wilson typically do not speak of "lies." So outraged was Wilson, though, that this bogus story had been used to "justify" an unprovoked war, that he made a point to note that the already proven dishonesty begs the question regarding "what else they are lying about."

    It was a double whammy. And, as is now well known, the White House moved swiftly-if clumsily (and apparently illegally)-to retaliate.

    It was clear from the start that Vice President Dick Cheney and Kemosabe (Amer. Indian for "Scotter") Libby, as well as Karl Rove, were taking the lead in this operation to make an object lesson of Wilson and his wife.

    But there is abundant evidence that senior White House officials were aware of the CIA's doubts regarding the Niger story long before the State of the Union. Nearly a year earlier, in February 2002, the CIA had dispatched former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the claim about uranium purchases. When the CIA debriefed him in March, his findings were emphatic: As Wilson explained in a New York Times op-ed on July 6, "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." CIA Director George Tenet claimed on July 11 that Wilson was sent to Niger by junior nonproliferation experts at the CIA acting "on their own initiative" and that senior administration officials were unaware of his mission. But this is not true. Wilson was told by CIA officials that the mission had been specifically requested by the office of the vice president. Indeed, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told Time magazine that Cheney had "asked a question about the implication of the [uranium] report." And, as Wilson tells The New Republic, "When an executive agency is tasked to find something out and it gets an answer, it goes back to the person who requested it." For the White House to suggest that Cheney's office was unaware of the results of Wilson's inquiry strains credulity.

    Moreover, there is strong evidence that the CIA clearly conveyed its doubts about the Niger allegation to the White House on more than one occasion prior to the State of the Union. When Bush wanted to include the claim in an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Tenet personally intervened, imploring Condoleezza Rice's National Security Council (NSC) deputy, Stephen Hadley, to cut the allegation from the speech, which he did. The idea that no one involved with the State of the Union was aware of this earlier, emphatic intervention is implausible. And when the latter speech was being written, the CIA again raised questions about the Niger assertion. According to The New York Times, when NSC proliferation staffer Robert G. Joseph called his CIA counterpart, Alan Foley, to ask about including the allegation in the State of the Union, Foley told Joseph the CIA was not confident about the information.

    Indict Vice President Cheney. Put him under oath.

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 07:57am

14. Mel Sembler heads up Scooter Libby's Legal defense Fund. Mel is a lifelong Republican with a very checkered past:

    http://alternet.org/story/27725/ http://www.thestraights.com/index.htm

    "In February 1989, President George H.W. Bush appointed Sembler United States Ambassador to Australia and Nauru"

    "In 1998 Sembler and his wife went to Israel with George and Laura Bush. Sembler has close personal ties to both George W. and Jeb Bush. Sembler's wife Betty was a fundraiser for Jeb's gubernatorial campaign. As a gesture of gratitude, Jeb declared August 8, 2000 "Betty Sembler Day" in Florida."

    AND THIS:

    US Representative Michael Bilirakis escorting Vice President George H. W. Bush and Barbara to a Straight Open Meeting in 1988.

    http://www.thestraights.com/news/charlie-crist.htm

    How's this for coincidence? Mel just happened to be the Ambassador to Italy (of all places, in that he didn't even speak the language) at the same time that Ledeen makes a trip to Rome to meet with him and others - then magically - the purported Niger Yellow Cake document appears in Italy.

    Even more interesting, when Lieberman loses to Lamont in the DEMOCRATIC primary, it is Republican Sembler who hosts a fundraiser for Lieberman to run as an Independent (with the full support of the White House and Karl Rove).

    Now if you always keep the PNAC in mind, and remember the AGENDA that is being pursued on Israel's behalf, it becomes very clear that a massive conspiracy to SELL THE INVASION OF IRAQ was in play.

    I believe that the only explanation is that GHW Bush and the agents of Israel (including Lieberman) formed a CONSPIRACY (each for their own reasons) to work together to take down Clinton with Sexpionage (and that alliance continued through 9/11 and the invasion of the Middle East):

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2189 http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/mossad/israeli_sexpion age.htm http://www.heretical.com/costello/12sexspy.html http://vancouver.indymedia.org/?q=node/1254

    and to then implement the PNAC - to the benefit of Bush 41's "Poppy Interests" in Afghanistan, Big Oil's interests throughout the Middle East (and resolving the overhanging ($15 billion) Asbestos liability of Halliburton, represented by the Twin Towers), the Military Industrial Complex (Carlyle) and Israel - whose primary interest is the acquisition of resources and territory to create "Greater Israel."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

    GHW Bush, Cheney, Lay and Rumsfeld planned it all during the Clinton administration, and used Lay's FAKE energy crisis as the platform to INSTALL the purported "energy experts" in the White House.

    Sembler/Israel is in business with GHW's CIA. Bush's CIA has a fleet of Gulfstream Jets in Florida used primarily to transport drugs. The kids are just fronting for their dad's business.

    Cheney + Mossad = 9/11 (the PRETEXT / NEW PERLE HARBOR). The 9/11 operation was botched big time and they've been covering their tracks ever since.

    All that has followed is ON-PLAN, including the intentional Mayhem in Iraq to justify Genocide and the acquisition of resources and territory. There was no exit strategy - as there is NO GOAL to exit - EVER. Rummy threatened to fire any General who worked on the post invasion plan:

    What more proof do you require? Iraq is perfectly "ON-PLAN."

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB198/index.htm http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Future_of_Iraq_Project http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php

    LESS THAN ONE MONTH AFTER 9/11:

    "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

    (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon IS CORRECT.)

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

    Do the math - it's all the same conspiracy.

    Look - here's the deal:

    The biggest problem we face (a coup by a foreign power and treason within) cannot be openly discussed. The "special relationship" IS the problem. Dov Zakheim stole $7 trillion from the DOD and sent it to Israel. Want to know why Bush is unafraid of the supposed "power of the purse" and the threat by Congress not to fund his escalation? The money is not needed. They stole it in advance of 9/11 (witness Rumsfeld's admission of $2.3 trillion missing on 9/10/2001). The entire campaign is ALREADY FUNDED.

    Zakheim stole the money on behalf of the co-conspirators in the coup (the Bush Cabinet and Likud - in concert with The Crown). They looted the US Treasury IN ADVANCE OF 9/11.

    They did it because it was all part of the master plan. Chaos in Iraq is PART OF THE PLAN. The funding for the escalation is NOT coming from any budget that Congress has ANY CONTROL OVER. The money was already sent to Israel in advance of PNAC's "NEW PERLE HARBOR" and will now be tapped on an as needed basis - having lost the backing of the American people and congress.

    This ALL planned for.

    Ask Dov Zakheim about the $7 trillion.

    He and Kobi Alexander (former CEO of Comverse) were co-conspirators in the implementation of 9/11. Zakheim's "Sysplan" provided the fly-by-wire technology and Comverse / Ptech provided the software and wiretapping / blackmail capabilities.

    Why is Kobi Alexander (wanted on Federal Charges) under the cover of the Witness Protection Program in the United States?

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 07:58am

15. Sexpionage and Blackmail.

    Two explanations for EVERYTHING that is wrong in American Politics and Foreign Policy:

    Of Swallows and Ravens

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2189

    Israeli Sexpionage in the McGreevey, Condit and Clinton Affairs

    http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/mossad/israeli_sexpion age.htm

    Love, Sex and War

    Black Propaganda and Sexpionage

    http://www.heretical.com/costello/12sexspy.html

    The History of "Sexpionage"

    http://www.theinternetcollege.com/26.htm

    Sexual Blackmail:

    http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/sex.html

    Sexual blackmail gridlock in Washington today

    http://vancouver.indymedia.org/?q=node/1254

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 07:59am

16. The Globalist Banksters figured out how to take Congress completely out of the oversight function of the US Government.

    Congress was said to have "The Power Of The Purse."

    Rumsfeld and Zakheim depleted the Pentagon's budget of $2.3 TRILLION - with Rummy announcing it less than 24 hours before the 9/11 attacks.

    This meant that Congress would have no choice but to dump in a massive amount of money to fight the BOGUS WAR ON TERROR, which Rumsfeld himself created along with his Zionist Co-Conspirators.

    Well prior to that time - prior to the Iran Contra Scandal, The INTELLIGENCE Complex figured out that that could completely circumvent Congress and accomplish any goal they chose by trafficking in cocaine and heroine - and using the profits to fund their operations.

    A Shadow Government was created with these funds - with its own objectives - in concert with Israel and the Crown.

    Congress is essentially powerless as long as the funding for the Shadow Government's Operations comes from drug sale headed by one GHW Bush.

    CNN -- SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT

    November 17, 1991

    In the United States of America there is a hidden government about which YOU KNOW NOTHING.

    Tom Golden, Chief of Counter Intelligence Strategic Defense Command: "It is highly classified and the largest program of it's kind that I had ever become involved in"

    In the United States Federal Government there is a super-secret agency which controls this Shadow Government.

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/shadow/doomsday.htm

    "There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy,its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."

    -- Senator Daniel K. Inouye at the Iran Contra Hearings

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/shadow.htm

    THE SECRET SHADOW GOVERNMENT

    A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS By Richard Boylan Ph.D. page 1 of 2

    The secret "shadow" government is the large organisational network which operates alongside the officially elected and appointed government of the United States of America. Just as with the official government, the secret government has functional branches.

    In the Shadow Government five branches may be identified. These branches are: the Executive Branch, the Intelligence Branch, the War Department, the Weapons Industry Branch, and the Financial Department.

    An analysis of the overall purposes of these five branches suggests that the overall purpose of the Shadow Government is to exercise covert control by:

    * Collecting comprehensive institutional and personal information

    * By establishing national and international policy independently of the established Government

    * By developing high-tech arms and equipment, and, with these, establishing small, specialized, highly mobile, elite military units to effect these covert policies, when need arises, without having to rely on the official (and "unreliable") Armed Services, (whose subservience to the Shadow Government is reasonably suspect)

    * By developing an armed capability to repel any threat to the status quo, (including the uncertain ontological, social, and economic impacts of any revelation of the reality of UFO and extraterrestrial presence) through the development of a Star Wars/BMDO ground and space-based surveillance and SDI weapons network

    * By denying information compromising to the Shadow Government from all those outside "need-to-know" policy-making levels

    * By exercising control on the money supply, availability of credit, and the worth of money, through policy decisions made outside of the official Government

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/secgov.html

    Did Cheney Lie in Wait for Power? The Trojan Course

    It turns out Dick Cheney has long been on the list of people who might step into the presidency in the case of catastrophe. Even as a member of Congress, the up-and-coming Cheney was a maid-in-waiting.

    "Acting outside the Constitution in the early 1980s, a secret federal agency established a line of succession to the presidency to assure continued government in the event of a devastating nuclear attack, current and former United States officials said today," The New York Times reported on November 18, 1991.

    CNN reported the list grew to 17 names and included Richard Helms, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Thornberg, Edwin Meese, Tip O'Neill, and Dick Cheney, who was a Republican congressman during the 1980s.

    http://villagevoice.com/news/0211,ridgeway,33050,6.html#cheney

    Four years ago the Council on Foreign Relations began working on the restructuring of America's Constitutional framework of government, without regard for Constitutional parameters and ignoring the required process for amending the Constitution as specified in Article V. For those of you who aren't interested in reading the entire report, we've summarized and excerpted relevant quotes from the report itself.

    The "Final Draft Report" is dated January 31, 2001. The first sentence of the first paragraph in the preface tells us the Commission began its study sometime in 1998 (more than two years prior to the final report).

    Further on, we learn of its progress up to this Phase III (obviously completed on or before January 2001) nine months prior to the tragedy of 9-11-01 at the World Trade Center in New York City.

    Miraculously, the Commission's worst nightmare came true (a terrorist attack on the 'homeland') and the plan for restructuring American government is now well under way, beginning with the Department of Homeland Security -- under which all governmental agencies will be controlled. The Czar of Homeland Security? A name, face and figure those of us living in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania know all too well. . . former Governor, Tom Ridge.

    Do you recall at the beginning of the presidential campaign that Tom Ridge's name was tossed around as a possible running mate fairly early in the selection process (as noted in the press and electronic news media)? Do you recall, then, after announing his choice of Dick Cheney, that G.W. publicly announced he "had other plans for Tom Ridge"?

    We assert that: Cheney was the choice made for G.W. when G.W. was selected by the world's trouble makers to become the next president of the U.S.; the so-called 'attack' on the WTC was premeditated murder and destruction in order to justify the restructuring of American government via the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century; and the entire process was planned to kick off World War III -- the neverendingwar ala George Orwell's 'fantasy' novel titled 1984.

    Before you shrug it off as 'conspiracy paranoia', hold the assertions in mind as you read the excerpts of the Phase III Report and see if you change your mind. Maybe you'll realize it is not paranoia at all, but rather a heightened sense of awareness.

    "The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century was born more than two years ago out of a conviction that the entire range of U.S. national security policies and processes required reexamination. . .

    Phase I concluded in September 1999 with the publication of New World Coming: American Security in the 21st Century.

    ...in Phase I the Commission stressed that mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern. It therefore proposed in Phase II a strategy that prioritizes deterring, defending against, and responding effectively to such dangers.

    Thus, in Phase III, it recommends a new National Homeland Security Agency to consolidate and refine the missions of the nearly two dozen disparate departments and agencies that have a role in U.S. homeland security today.

    Phase III aims to reform government structures and processes to enable the U.S. government to implement that strategy, or, indeed, any strategy that would depart from the embedded routines of the last half-century.

    Many of the recommendations made herein require legislation to come into being.

    Securing the American Homeland? We are being told by political leaders and the CFR experts almost daily on the controlled media to expect attacks more violent than the WTC tragedy. No 'maybe' about it! Possibly a nuclear attack! In other words: "We don't know when, we don't know where, we don't know how... but we know something terrible is going to happen".

    Securing the American Homeland? No! The Department of Homeland Security in reality is designed to secure total control over the American people who live in this Orwellian newspeak Homeland: Finger-printing, micro-chipping, face scanning, iris reading, DNA gathering, cameras everywhere watching our every move, monitoring phone calls, e-mails and faxes, redefining the very word 'terrorism' so that petty theft or assault in the first degree will be termed terroristic acts. . . and finally, a spy system that has strangers, friends, and even family spying and reporting on one another.

    Reorganizing Congress's role in national security affairs? Take a look at the Homeland Defense power structure flow-chart published by the New York Times. You'll see that the restructuring in fact has restructured the U.S. Congress out of the picture. The pecking order starts with the dictatorial president, to his Homeland Defense Czar, to FEMA. Every single department and agency thereunder is connected to FEMA, while in the top left corner of the chart -- off the chart -- disconnected from the entire system, is the U.S. Congress.

    "NHSA (National Homeland Security Agency) would be built upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency"

    Piece by piece, information is surfacing which makes it clear that the so-called terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was itself the plan of government insiders (many non-elected) to kick off the restructuring of our entire governmental system.

    This is being implemented by executive decisions; intrusive, unconstitutional laws being passed at the state and local levels of government; and a shadow government (the Doomsday Plan - Continuity of Government) of non-elected people that we're told was implemented by the president on the day of infamy. . . 9-11-01.

    In fact, it is NOT a plan for the Continuity of Government. It is a plan for the Continuity of the Executive Office -- one branch of government.

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/homeland/phaseiii.htm

    How ironic it is that their greatest fear is the legalization of drugs.

    The DEA is actually just a protection racket to ensure that the Bush/CIA Crime Family remains the number one drug trafficker on earth.

    Ask talking head / operative General Barry McCaffrey all about it.

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 08:01am

17. CIA

    At least four of those named to the 9/11 Commission and staff have links to the intelligence apparatus.

    Several years ago, Zgibniew Brzezinski talked about Operation Cyclone, which he initiated in 1979 at the end of Jimmy Carter's presidential term. The CIA helped foster Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan to destabilize the region because of the Soviet Union -- and oil.

    The program continued throughout the 1980's when G.W. H. Bush was vice president and CIA assets like bin Laden and Saddam Hussein directly or indirectly carried out U.S. covert activities and shadow government policies.

    Council on Foreign Relations

    Half of those named to the Commission -- Kissinger, Mitchell, Kean, Hamilton, Lehman, and Gorelick -- are members of the CFR. Rice was on the nominating committee in 1991.

    As part of the shadow government, the Council has influenced national security policy so that its titular head has profited in arms and oil.

    Since 1950, the Council on Foreign Relations has been David Rockefeller's child. The CFR serves the interests of Rockefeller's global empire of oil and financial interests (Exxon, Chase Manhattan Bank, JP Morgan Chase).

    While the Council has 2,000 to 3,000 members -- movers and shakers in politics, media, and corporate board rooms, the Historical Rosters of Directors and Officers show key CFR players are key players on the global scene: Allen W. Dulles, the first CIA director, was a primary CFR participant from 1927 to 1969; William (McGeorge) Bundy, National Security Advisor in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and an architect of the Vietnam War, was editor of the Council's publication, Foreign Affairs, from 1972 to 1984. Others notables include Averill Harriman; Brzezinski; George H.W. Bush; Kissinger; Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and Dick Cheney.

    Photos from the CFR 1991 annual report near the end of the first Bush administration portray a snapshot of the Council near the end of the first Bush administration. David Rockefeller's picture is prominent throughout the report. Photographs include Cheney in Paris, October 1990; the President of Mexico and David Rockefeller, and Cyrus Vance with the Security General of the U.N. and David Rockefeller. That 1991 meeting was prescient looking at the Gulf and the Future of the U.N.

    Another photo is of Ahmed Chalabi, founder and former chair of Petra Bank, at a March 1991 round table discussion on the topic For Democracy in Iraq. He gave the current Bush administration misleading and fabricated information before the U.S. invaded Iraq last year.

    http://www.communitycurrency.org/joycelynn.html

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 08:11am

18. Both of these are Brief – important viewing

    David Rockefeller – American Traitor:

    Founder of Council On Foreign Relations:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ensmPJm5B5A&NR

    David Rockefeller & Dick Cheney:

    American Traitors…

    Cheney laughs about lying to his constituents in order to get elected:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdxLYuvvbgs&NR

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 08:11am

19. READ EVERY WORD

    THIS WOMAN WAS ON THE INSIDE

    SHE KNOWS THE TRUTH

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski159.html

    Are We Mice or Men?

    by Karen Kwiatkowski

    In 2002, I worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Many of the same men I observed rolling out the red carpet for an unwarranted, unnecessary and lie-based invasion of Iraq remain inside the Pentagon. These include former director of the Iraq-oriented Office of Special Plans between August 2002 and August 2003, Dr. Abram Shulsky. That mission accomplished, Dr. Shulsky remains in the employ of the American people.

    So too, serving the people, are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Stephen Cambone. Shulsky's one-time supervisor managing Middle East policy concerns, Bill Luti, left the Pentagon for a position in the National Security Council. George W. Bush remains wholly submerged in his prudence deprivation chamber, wondering exactly which day Armageddon will start. Impatient and immoral child that he is, he demands it be soon.

    The chickenhawks are at it again. They may tragically succeed in their quest, this time Operation Target Iran. Perhaps it was always about Iran. Will we ever really know?

    The October edition of Harper's contains a powerful piece by Daniel Ellsberg. He calls on real Americans who love this country, those who value constitutional process over neoconservative wet dreams, true and dedicated public servants to bring forth the primary evidence of illegalities into the light. Evidence, plans and papers showing that the invasion of Iran, using Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Pakistan, Turkey, Kurdistan, Iraqis and American soldiers and Marines in a battle is not only planned, but is indeed underway. Illegally underway.

    The information we need from valiant reporters with outstanding contacts on the inside of the Pentagon is already available. Read anything by the McClatchey Newspapers, especially anything covered by the former Knight-Ridder national security team. Read news from the Christian Science Monitor, Ha'aretz, any of a variety of European and Asian media giants. Read the plucky and rarely wrong Seymour Hersh. Read the acutely observant if righteously angry Antiwar.com, and follow their links. Word is out about what is happening. One more unwarranted invasion. If Israel, with American support and without much trouble, could obliterate southern Lebanon's infrastructure and a thousand civilians, then America, with Israel's support, can obliterate the productive infrastructure of northern and southern Iran, and kill several thousand Iranians and get away with it.

    If there are any innocents left in America, they may ask, "How can foreign policy be arbitrarily pursued without serious intelligence and diplomatic involvement? Without consent of an alert and well-informed Congress, the oversight of a judiciary set to preserve the law of the land over the prurient desires of the powerful and well connected?"

    How, indeed.

    About January 2003, I ran into a Naval officer I had known from the Office of the Secretary of Defense staff in a Pentagon hallway. I hadn't seen him for months and asked where he had been. He told me that he had been pulled to the Navy staff the previous spring and had been working 14 hour days ever since. I asked what he was working on. He told me logistics to the Gulf. Boatloads of supplies moving into the theater to support the Iraq invasion. Materials moving nearly a year in advance. That's what he'll tell his grandchildren about what he did in the war – long before it was a war.

    This is, of course, one of the chief benefits of boutique wars, wars of choice, wars directed by the powerful on the weak. These engagements must wait – not for the matériel already moved by executive order – but for an uninvolved, ill-informed, and unreasoning democratic public to be brought around. In 2002 and 2003, that was the assignment of Abe Shulsky, Richard Perle, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi, Dick and Dubya. It was the mission of lesser mortals like Bill Luti and Scooter Libby, and even lesser ones like reporters Judith Miller and Robert Novak.

    Only last month, Steven Clemons blogged about a youtube video entitled "UAV Hunter Payload." Seems as if when viewers watched this video, at least one noticed the coordinates placed the drone over Iran. Illegally, by the way. An act of war, by any measure. By the time I got there, one day later, the video had been "removed by user." Porn clips on Youtube have a longer shelflife than proof of acts of war committed by Washington elites and simple-minded Presidents.

    It's all very interesting. We can wait and wonder, or we can heed Daniel Ellsberg's call. If you can't be inside the Pentagon, encourage those you know inside that system to do the right thing, the constitutional thing, the productive thing. The American people don't want war or the destruction of Iran. We don't want to be responsible for even more hatred and rage in a strange and alien place most never intend to retire to, or even visit. We certainly don't want to be sent the bill for this administration's desire for destruction and the nervously salivating Congress's desire to be seen as something, anything, but what they are.

    I hope that multitudinous stray forces for good will change what has become the American way of war – lie, bomb, embezzle, repeat. I hope that perhaps before or after November, we the people will be able to say the administration's designs have been "removed by user." I'd like to think an outpouring of truth will begin to restore our country's heart and soul.

    I hope like a mouse hopes, to find a bite to eat while not becoming one. It seems to me we need to ask ourselves, as Daniel Ellsberg has effectively asked, "Are we mice?" Or are we men? Sadly, we shall see.

    September 25, 2006

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 08:12am

20. According to Bob Woodward's newest book "State Of Denial" Henry Kissinger has been advising President Bush and Vice President Cheney about Iraq, telling them that "victory is the only meaningful exit strategy,"

    No "Victory" – No "Exit" – Ever. As long as you never define "victory." Get it?

    Kissinger was nearly the head of the CFR Whitewash 911 commission before Zelikow was installed to guard the evidence, and protect the guilty.

    Today, Kissinger still continues to serve as a trustee of the powerful Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as a counselor to Rockefellers' Chase Manhattan Bank, and as a member of Chase's International Advisory Committee. Kissinger's media influence is evident from his having served on the board of CBS, Inc., and having been a paid consultant to both NBC News and ABC News. That takes care of all three networks.

    the Rockefellers run our political system, as well as our banking system (the Fed) our oil companies (Exxon Mobil) the Big Pharma companies, and most of the Airline industry… The list goes on.

    With Heinz Kissinger over-lording the white house, & James Baker III (the Carlyle Group – and Bush family consigliere) sitting at the Oval Office desk (He has an un-official office there full time, but the media goes along with his story that he is just now climbing out of his bunker, and hasn't had a hand in politics since he sealed the stolen "selection" in 2000…)

    Does anyone still doubt that Poppy Bush (or his controllers) are still in power? A good case can be made that these people have been in power since the coup forged by the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

    LBJ was known in the Press as "The Brown & Root" (Skull & Bones / Halliburton) candidate. The prime benefactor in Vietnam was KBR.

    Carter was quickly absorbed by the Trilateral Commission (AKA the new Council on Foreign relations – founded by David Rockefeller who is still the honorary chairman) The TC was "founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR member and founding member of the Trilateral Commission, and National Security Advisor to five presidents….) who called for a Pearl Harbor style event to secure the Globalist agenda in his book "The Grand Chessboard" that reared its ugly head again with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) many years later.

    Clinton was allegedly from the Rockefeller bloodline (Winthrop Rockefeller his real daddy). As a Rhodes Scholar Clinton would've been conditioned to the same Globalist agenda as the Bush(s) at Yale, where by the way John Kerry and Hillary Clinton attended - for future reference… Bill Clinton rose to power from the state of Arkansas which was, and is completely controlled by the Rockefellers. He was known to be a business partner of Poppy Bush, something that isn't a secret anymore. Most important of all Clinton completely covered up for the Crimes of Poppy Bush.

    http://thebloodreport.blogspot.com/2006/10/heinz-kissinger-still-acting- as-white.html

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 08:14am

21. McCain Says Major Financiers Will Back His 2008 Bid December 15, 2006

    One of the most prominent on the list of finance committee co-chairmen is the head of the New York Stock Exchange, John Thain. Mr. Thain, whose title is CEO of NYSE Group, Inc., previously served as president and CEO of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

    A New Jersey-based investment banker deeply involved in fund-raising efforts for the 2004 Republican convention, Lewis Eisenberg, is signing on with Mr. McCain. Mr. Eisenberg is a former Goldman Sachs partner who served as chairman of the Port Authority board at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    WHAT A COINCIDENCE!

    It was Eisenberg who passed the $15 billion Asbestos Liability represented by the Twin Towers onto Larry Silverstein, the man who confessed publicly to having Building 7 "PULLED" by explosives – despite the fact that no plane struck it:

    Rescuer 2: "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

    LISTEN to the firefighters and police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

    Listen to the owner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYaUeGvYYxc

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm

    COLLEGE STUDENTS DYING FROM INHALED ASBESTOS: http://www.bupipedream.com/pipeline_web/display_article.php?id=3259

    ALL SO HALLIBURTON COULD REMOVE THE WTC ASBESTOS LIABILITY FROM ITS BOOKS - HALLIBURTON HAD ACQUIRED DRESSER TO SAVE THE BUSH FAMILY FROM THE LOSING POSITION IT WAS STUCK IN…all because of the pending Asbestos law suits

    Planning days in advance to bring down WTC7 by planting explosives inside it implies only ONE THING...FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTACK ON 9/11. Google: "Dancing Israelis"

    The Zionists did it. McCain is in their employ. Lieberman is absolutely his running mate. Apparently McCain doesn't realize that once they are "installed" in the White House, his own days on planet earth are numbered by dark forces who will not rest until Israel has installed a Zionist as President in YOUR White House.

    Follow the money. Google: Greenquest

    The conquest of the Middle East is being conducted at Israel's INSISTENCE - via BLACKMAIL.

    Their espionage has resulted in Israel controlling the nuclear targeting and launch codes of our US nuclear arsenal. As Sharon stated clearly "Israel CONTROLS the US."

    Expose the criminals in the Bush Cabal who are so guilty on so many levels that they have allowed the United States to fall into foreign control. Expose the blackmail. EVERYTHING that is happening is under the direct control of Israel. If the new hate crimes legislation passes, it will be illegal to even discuss it. THAT is the reason ISRAEL is promoting it through their AIPAC-owned puppets in Congress.

    Freedom of Speech is on the line. EXPOSE IT!

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 08:15am

22. This Forbes article quoting Cheney is interesting:

    'It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11,' Cheney said in an interview with ABC's 'Nightline' program."

    Mr. Cheney and Mr. Forbes have something in common...

    Now ask yourself what interest Mr. Forbes might have in providing cover for the Administration...give up?

    Let's take a look at the list of signatories to the PNAC, shall we?

    Steve Forbes actively participated in the following events:

    September 2000: PNAC Report Recommends Policies That Need New Pearl Harbor for Quick Implementation:

    PNAC drafts a strategy document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century," for George W. Bush's team before the 2000 Presidential election. The document was commissioned by future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor Jeb Bush (Bush's brother), and future Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby. [Sources: Rebuilding America's Defenses]

    The document outlines a "blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."

    PNAC states further: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

    PNAC calls for the control of space through a new "US Space Forces," the political control of the Internet, and the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates "regime change" in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and other countries.

    It also mentions that "advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

    However, PNAC complains that these changes are likely to take a long time, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor." [Los Angeles Times, 1/12/03] Notably, while Cheney commissioned this plan (along with other future key leaders of the Bush administration), he defends Bush's position of maintaining Clinton's policy not to attack Iraq during an NBC interview in the midst of the 2000 presidential campaign, asserting that the US should not act as though "we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments." [Washington Post, 1/12/02] A British member of Parliament will later say of the report: "This is a blueprint for US world domination--a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world." [Sunday Herald, 9/7/02] Both PNAC and its strategy plan for Bush are almost virtually ignored by the media until a few weeks before the start of the Iraq war (see February-March 20, 2003).

    People and organizations involved: Aaron Friedberg, Steve Forbes, Elliott Abrams, Francis Fukuyama, Norman Podhoretz, Henry S. Rowen, Vin Weber, Eliot A. Cohen, Hasam Amin, William J. Bennett, Midge Decter, George Weigel, John Ellis ("Jeb") Bush, Lewis ("Scooter") Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard ("Dick") Cheney, Project for the New American Century, Paula J. Dobriansky, Frank Gaffney, Donald Kagan, Steve Rosen, Saddam Hussein, Peter Rodman, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, Dan Quayle, Syria, China, United States, Lybia, North Korea, Iraq, Fred C. Ikle

    Well lookie there!

    Mr. Cheney and Mr. Forbes BOTH signed the strategic document which, when implemented, enabled the largest build up in the history of defense contracting, while simultaneously implementing the Energy Strategy plan that was secretly developed in the company of none other than Ken Lay.

    And what a coincidence that ABC News is playing its part in helping to push the Cheney agenda. Actually, it didn't even require wiretapping to catch some of the coconspirators with foreknowledge of 9/11, and ABC News' crack 20/20 investigative team knows the entire story:

    http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm

    Oh look! We've come full-circle to the DANCING ISRAELIS! Any coincidence theorists on the board?

    Karl Rove INVENTED the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) for one purpose. TOTAL MESSAGE CONTROL.

    Rove is a genious...an evil genious.

    He can only be effective when he knows literally everything. He is the REALITY CREATION ARCHITECT.

    At any given time he can take a set of actual facts and use each of them to stitch together a totally false reality.

    Rove knew that the truth was the enemy of their conspiracy to conquer the Middle East (the PNAC plan). His job, every single day, is to convince you, me and the rest of the world that you didn't just see and hear what you just saw and heard...or if you did, it doesn't mean what your logical mind is attempting to tell you - because "we're in a post-9/11 world now" and black is white.

    Karl Rove is the single most destructive force in the US Government...the enabler of the entire evil scheme...THE ARCHITECT.

    The scheme includes 9/11 as the essential pretext. "9/11" ... how clever, Karl! Only someone with American sensibilities would select the number we have all memorized to call in the event of life threatening emergency as the date for this evil....

    KARL ROVE.

    The war plan to invade Iraq was written BEFORE 9/11. The Secret Energy Task Force meetings that Cheney had with Ken Lay and the other OIL HOGS during which they all decided how to divide up the oil fields of the Middle East...all of that was BEFORE 9/11.

    Now you see why Cheney insisted the substance of those talks remain SECRET.

    All of their schemes and conspiracies REQUIRED 9/11 as the essential trigger.

    Cheney outsourced the implementation of the FALSE FLAG OPERATION to Mossad...the FALSE FLAG experts. This explains why over 200 Mossad agents were operating in the United States prior to 9/11. This explains why five of them were arrested, having been observed filming the planes hitting the towers and their subsequent collapse - celebrating our worst nightmare.

    9/11 was not a bad day for those involved in the Conspiracy. It was their shining moment...their PRETEXT.

    One of them washed out...couldn't cope with the guilt. Ari Fleisher had to be replaced, and disappeared. Not dead, but out of sight.

    The outing of Plame was designed to destroy the best WMD intelligence the US had at its disposal regarding Iraq. Plame knew for a FACT that Iraq had no WMD. It was HER JOB to know. Therefore Rove perceived Plame (the truth) as his WORST ENEMY, and conceived of a plan to silence her. Rove is the individual who insisted that Wilson be sent to Niger.

    GUARANTEED.

    This was the only way to launch a smear program which appeared to be aimed at Wilson, but was intended solely to shut down the entire Brewster Jennings operation and bury their WMD evidence.

    THAT IS ALL ROVE.

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 08:18am

23. Chandra Levy and Monica Lewinsky - "Swallows" for Israel.

    Isn't it interesting that Lieberman's name pops up in the case of two similar-looking tarts, who were "Honey Pots" (or "Swallows" - the term used to describe women in the employ of Israel whose job is to compromise US Officials) for Israel's Mossad?

    Note that his article dated less than TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO 9/11.

    Police to return to parks in Levy case Experts: Condit damaged own reputation

    July 22, 2001 Posted: 6:07 PM EDT (2207 GMT)

    Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, said it wouldn't be productive to focus on Condit's conduct. In 1998, Lieberman was the first prominent Democrat to criticize Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

    Lieberman said the two matters are different and he declined to say whether Condit should resign, as two Republican lawmakers have said.

    "The Chandra Levy case is a missing persons case. And I think we all ought to let the law-enforcement authorities focus on finding Chandra Levy and relieving the terrible trauma and nightmare that her family and friends have gone through," Lieberman told Fox News Sunday. "And when that is over, politicians can begin to speak out."

    Saturday, a spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney, said Cheney met with Condit around the same time Levy was logging off her computer in her apartment May 1.

    Juleanna Glover Weiss said the meeting happened between 12:30 p.m. and 12:50 p.m. in Cheney's office in the House of Representatives. The meeting was "at Condit's request," she said, and included Cheney and some of Cheney's staff discussing the California energy crisis.

    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/21/missing.intern/index.html

    CHENEY ORDERED THE HIT TO PROTECT THE 9/11 OPERATION?

    http://www.aztlan.net/israeli_sexpionage.htm

    Israeli Sexpionage : The McGreevey, Condit and Clinton Affairs

    Chandra Levy and Monica Lewinsky, which I will discuss later, can be called "Swallows".

    All 9/11 Airports Serviced by One Israeli Owned Company

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ICTS.html

    Who provided protective coverage for 9/11 operation?

    General Hamid Gul, a former Director of Pakistani Intelligence hit the nail on the head with his analysis:

    "The attacks against New York and Washington were Israeli engineered."

    So who tipped off Zim? Who tipped off Odigo? Who tipped off those Pentagon officials? Who tipped off those Israeli workers in New York? I think it's safe to say it wasn't Osama Bin Laden.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id

    http://adlusa.us/israelis_evacuate.htm

    Scores dead in three Amman hotel bombings; Israelis evacuated before attack

    Explosions In London - Who Stands To Gain? Israel Warned, Cover-up In Progress

    Propaganda Matrix | July 7 2005

    BREAKING: Scrambled cover-up to try and change prior knowledge story.

    Original reports stated that Binyamin Netanyahu was warned BEFORE the first blast, now all the Associated Press reports are being changed to say he was warned AFTER the first blast, for example this article.

    The article linked below that we saved in our own format (and the website that carried it has strangely since crashed) said that Netanyahu was warned before the first blast.

    Israel are now denying they got a warning.

    http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2005/070705standstogai

    LONDON SUBWAY BOMBINGS 2005 - "FALSE FLAG" TERROR?

    http://www.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/839272.shtml

    RECENT BOMBINGS IN EGYPT - "FALSE FLAG" TERROR?

    EGYPTIAN ANALYST: CAN'T RULE OUT THAT MOSSAD WAS INVOLVED IN ATTACK http://www.ynetnews.com/...506,L-3243397,00.html http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPrevi

    "The Mossad's ability to penetrate the Bedouins in Sinai is known," Salim said in an interview with al-Jazeera. (Roee Nahmias)

    General Allam, former deputy head of the Egyptian Domestic Security Agency says the group behind yesterday's deadly bombings in Dahab is not Arab Terrorists -- it's Israel.

    AT LEAST 7 OF THE 9/11 HIJACKERS ARE STILL ALIVE http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

    WHO GAVE THE LIST OF "19 MUSLIM HIJACKERS" (PHONY BY AT LEAST 7 NAMES) TO OUR FBI JUST DAYS AFTER 9/11? In the Scottish Sunday Herald, Nov, 2, 2003, Neil Mackay investigated... http://ww1.sundayherald.com/print37707 Excerpt only... "In August, 2001, the Israelis handed over a list of terrorist suspects - on it were the names of four of the September 11 hijackers."

    ON 9/11, CHENEY CONFUSED AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS AND NORAD BY RUNNING WAR GAMES DRILLS WITH MULTIPLE HIJACKED AIRLINERS - RUNNING AT SAME TIME AS THE REAL ATTACKS WITH HIJACKED AIRLINERS! http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamesco

    A number of people apparently knew to stay clear of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001.

    Privileged Companies

    Another group of people that received warnings in advance of the attack were employees of Odigo, the instant messaging service. Two employees received e-mail messages two hours before the first World Trade Center assault, predicting the attack. 7

    According to reporter Christopher Bollyn, Zim American Israeli Shipping Co. broke a lease in order to vacate the World Trade Center just days before the attack. Bollyn's source claims that Zim's lease extended through the end of the year and that the termination cost $50,000.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/warnings.html

    Israeli Owned Odigo says workers were warned of attack By Yuval Dror

    Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/haaretz_odigo.html

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html

    http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_I

    http://ww1.sundayherald.com/print37707

    Now can you help me out with a plausible explanation for this:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

    And this official DEA report:

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deareportisraelispying.html

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

    http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Artstudents.htm

    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html

    .

    The disinformation continues...

    Alleged spy's target 'not Israel' The "foreign nation" cited in espionage charges against a U.S. Navy sailor is "definitely not Israel," a Navy official said.

    The official told JTA on Wednesday that the country named in a charge recommended against Ariel Joseph Weinmann, a 3rd class petty officer, is not Israel.

    CNN named the country as Russia. The Navy concluded its investigation against Weinmann on July 26, and its Judge Advocate General is considering what, if any, of its recommended charges to bring against Weinmann, 21.

    The Navy concluded that Weinmann, who allegedly deserted in July 2005, attempted to sell sensitive information to a foreign nation. The maximum penalty is death.

    Once papers in Norfolk, Va., reported the case, which is being treated with unusual secrecy, Arab media reports and conspiracy theory blogs immediately speculated that the target nation was Israel, apparently because of Weinmann's name.

    http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=4111

    Yes, of course, no clear minded individual could possibly deduce that someone named "Ariel Joseph Weinmann" might just be Jewish.

    You'd need to belong to some "conspiracy theory blog" to come up with that wacky conclusion.

    I watched the report on CNN - and when they said that RUSSIA was the country that "Ariel Weimann" was caught spying for - I laughed out loud - did a Google search - and found that in Israel - they know that Weinmann was spying for Israel.

    Report: US sailor spied for Israel David Keyes, THE JERUSALEM POST

    Aug. 9, 2006

    A US Navy sailor, Ariel J. Weinmann, is suspected of spying for Israel and has been held in prison for four months, according to an article published Monday in the Saudi daily Al-Watan. It reported that Weinmann is being held at a military base in Virginia on suspicion of espionage and desertion.

    According to the navy, Weinmann was apprehended on March 26 "after it was learned that he had been listed as a deserter by his command." Though initial information released by the navy makes no mention of it, Al-Watan reported that he was returning from an undisclosed "foreign country." American sources close to the Defense Department told Al-Watan that Israel was the country in question.

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 08:20am

24. 202-456-1111 -White House Comment Line Call and say that you fully SUPPORT George Bush's NEW PLAN FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF 20,000 MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ!!!! Comment by Sir Greg Nevins -- January 11, 2007 @ 5:43 am

    This is an Israeli Hasbara Operative - take that to the bank. This is 100% Israel's War. The online "Hasbara" program is a Mossad Operation. Read and learn:

    HELP!!!!!!!! I'm SURROUNDED by NAZI'S over at the "UN VETO" thread! I can REALLY use some SUPPORT there. By: bluestateman on November 12, 2006 at 05:11am

    Note the emphasis of the word SUPPORT above? As in: Give Israel Your United SUPPORT (GIYUS). YOU'RE TOTALLY BUSTED Look at this:

    "We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel's supporters.

    Do it now. For Israel. Amir Gissin - Director Public Affairs (Hasbara) Department. GIYUS currently claims 24,000 Megaphone users." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/06/giyus_megaphone/

    Click here: http://www.eretz.com/NEW/ Scroll down to this: GIYUS.ORG - Give Israel Your United Support

    "Many of us recognize that the internet is the new battleground for Israel's image. Now is the time to improve our efforts on this front by better coordinating our on-line efforts. An Israeli software company has developed a free, safe, and useful tool for this purpose: the Internet Megaphone. Please go to www.giyus.org and download the megaphone. You will then receive daily updates with links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a response, and more."

    "PROBLEMATIC ARTICLES?" Oh - you mean TRUTHFUL! Yeah, that's a problem - when you're a FALSE FLAG TERRORIST. There is no way to trust any news out of Israel - or the US Government for that matter.

    Hasbara is specifically designed to promote the Likud's goals - not advance the truth: Nathan Guttman has characterized hasbara as "pro-Israel propaganda, " while Avi Hyman has said "while propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara

    HASBARA IN ACTION: For detailed studies of the fabrications of groups like CAMERA and MEMRI, visit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.ht ml This is must reading about MEMRI and its "credibility" http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1869.shtml http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article445.shtml http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7.shtml http://www.abunimah.org/features/020815memri.html http://electronicintifada.net/features/mediaonmedia/20010821camera.html http://www.abunimah.org/features/000403camera.html http://santacruz.indymedia.org/feature/display/13401/index.php

    MEGAPHONE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 08:22am

25. In the final analysis, it will be Israel, a tiny country with a population equal to that of Wisconsin, that controls all of the oil in the Middle East.

    They will have accomplished this feat at the expense of US tax payers, who since 1943, have provided Israel with $100 billion in foreign aid - the net result of which is the world's oil resources in the hands of Israel, and a bankrupt and defenseless United States.

    Every Bush Cabinet Official who has knowledge of or participated in the false flag 9/11 attacks on America is guilty of Treason, and should be hung by the neck until they are dead - in accordance with US LAW.

    Israel's Mossad is hard at work in Iraq, ensuring that death and mayhem reign.

    Through its surrogates, Israel is looting the US Treasury while degrading our military and our country's ability to defend itself.

    Rumsfeld has sent the military AND the National Guard into a shooting gallery - to die there. They are sitting ducks, surrounded by an increasingly hostile population that Israel enrages more every day by its actions.

    Israel is going to nuke Iran within the next ten days, and they have blackmailed all of the criminals in the Bush Administration - who are now powerless to stop Israel from doing any damn thing it pleases.

    These are facts.

    It's going nuclear, right now, and our troops in Iraq are trapped there.

    Israel wants to rule the entire world, and they want America's Jews to be left with little choice but to emigrate to "ERETZ ISRAEL" in order to escape the inevitable blowback against Jews, which Israel itself has intentionally caused.

    Here is the map of the NEW ISRAEL:

    http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_plan_for_the_m iddle_east.htm

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 08:24am

26. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/02/2007 @ 07:13am

    like so much associated with this aministration, the more you dig, the more dirt will fly...

    Or the less, until you find yourself with an investigation about nothing, and a trial about less. But what the hell, if it can be used to partisan advantage, the Dems are all for it.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 08:39am

27. Sorta getting dull, Mr Corn.

    There are really only going to be TWO "exciting events" upcoming in the Libby trial.

    1. Cheney in the witness box. Along with the inevitable rejoinder from Mr Corn, endless blog postings on "Why didn't Fitzgerald ask him about...." (insert everything from the Halliburton no-bid contracts to "last throes of the insurgency" to Harry Whittington's shooting).

    and 2. The verdict. Guilty, the start-up of "Maybe Libby will cut a deal and rat out Rove, maybe Cheney" (or more logically "When will he get pardoned" football pools). Not Guilty and Fitzgerald goes bats .000 and it becomes a "Despite no convictions, questions still remain" story for the next 25 years.

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2007 @ 08:47am

28. I posted this response at the previous thread on this trial, but I'll post it here in case the other thread is dead.

    Posted by CRABWALK 02/01/2007 @ 8:56pm Quickly forgotten, as sometimes occurs when hamsters eat their young, is that not long ago Fitz was successfully prosecuting the dem machine in Chicago. In circles occupied by normal people, Fitz is considered a non-partisan professional. This excludes the Nationalists that forget that the CIA asked for the special prosecutor, not Michael Moore. And those that don't realize that Delay has not been to trial yet.

    *********************************

    Unfortunately, what this prosecution proves is that politics and career ambition can and will trump justice. Common sense, fairness, and any person's rational sense of justice should have dictated to Fitz that the investigation should have been stillborn when he discovered that no crime had been committed. Nevertheless, a hanging had been scheduled by the Democrats, and the crowd was not to be disappointed. Fitz, possibly with promises of future considerations, obliged.

    And by the way, the CIA was gutted by Clinton, who placed his stooges throughout the Agency. Always a hated institution by the left, the CIA has been effectively neutered in terms of usefulness to the country (e.g., preventing 9/11). It is, however, a reliable source of leaks and political intrigue aimed at any Republican administration. Kudos to the left for their victory, although some might say it's a shame that Americans had to die for it.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 01:21am

    ***************************

    See if you can follow logic and facts (I'm not betting on it, but I feel it my civic duty to try to enlighten you):

    It is clear from testimony so far, from witnesses with ties to both sides of the aisle, that Scooter Libby most likely knew about Valerie Plame's status and identity before the date he claims he did...

    which means that Libby most likely was lying when he gave his testimony to the Grand Jury...

    which means that Libby, according to several witnesses, is most likely guilty of committing perjury...

    which means that Fitzgerald is well within his bounds as a prosecutor to go forward with this case...

    which means that when lemmings call this case a non-issue, it apparently means that they only believe that Democrats should be prosecuted for perjury, even if the lemming prosecution involves actions damaging to national interests, OR they think that everybody else involved in the case, regardless of political persuasion, is lying, and the only one telling the truth is Libby.

    Well, which is it?

    Posted by TURK33 02/02/2007 @ 08:32am

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/02/2007 @ 08:49am

29. Posted by TURK33 02/02/2007 @ 08:49am

    It is clear from testimony so far, from witnesses with ties to both sides of the aisle, that Scooter Libby most likely knew about Valerie Plame's status and identity before the date he claims he did...

    which means that Libby most likely was lying when he gave his testimony to the Grand Jury...

    which means that Libby, according to several witnesses, is most likely guilty of committing perjury...

    Perhaps you can explain to us all why someone could commit perjury in a case where there was no crime to cover up.

    Conversely, you might want to comment on why someone, say a former National Security Advisor, would commit a felony by stealing and destroying original and classified uncatalogued documents if there was NOT something to cover up.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 09:01am

30. Oh, and perhaps you could also explain why a Special Prosecutor was conducting an investigation in a case in which he knew a priori that no crime had been committed.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 09:07am

31. Ponti,

    Perhaps Berger wanted to write a book.....not that it has ANYTHING to do with whether or not Libby systematically wanted to discredit Wilson. Used high level contacts and relationships and clearance to discover that his bosses adversay, Wilson, was married to a WMD counter proliferation CIA agent then used his media contacts to reveal the information.

    And when the heat came....ol' Scooter didn't want to fess up so he thought he'd lie about what he'd done. He thought he was smarter than Fitzgerald. If it wasn't illegal (which it might not have been) he damn well knew it was unethical, otherwise why would he lie Pontificus?

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/02/2007 @ 09:10am

32. Ponti:

    In the words of the White House Spokesman, Scott McClellan, "THE ISSUE was that someone leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION." At the time, McClellan insisted that it was NOT Libby or Rove. However - he did reiterate that the ISSUE was the outing of a COVERT AGENT, whose status was, according to McClellan, CLASSIFIED at the time it was intentionally leaked.

    THAT IS A CRIME.

    The contention that Bush had somehow declassified Plame's status is laughable on its face, and McClellan's own words put the lie to that.

    A crime was in fact committed. It was committed during a time of war. It served to blind the US to the FACTS pertaining directly to Iraq's (purported) WMD program - which was being sold like so much laundry soap as the PRETEXT FOR INVADING A SOVEREIGN WHO WAS CLEARLY NO THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES. The skies over Iraq were controlled by US. There was no threat. That fact has been proven by no less than the Downing Street Memo - and the ABSENCE OF WMDs in Iraq.

    The CLEAR INTENT of outing the entire Brewster Jennings operation was to blind US Intelligence - rendering them incapable of refuting the assertions that were being made as a direct result of the MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE (the fake Niger letter) being sold by Cheney.

    THIS IS TREASON.

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 09:26am

33. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-4.html

    Office of the Press Secretary October 7, 2003

    NOTE THREE MONTHS AFTER THE STORY FIRST BROKE:

    Q Scott, in October of 2001, the President hit the roof over a classified leak of information from Congress. Yet, on this particular leak that you're dealing with now, he was silent from the 14th of July until 10 days ago. Why did he choose to hit the roof over one leak of classified information, but say nothing about another?

    MR. McCLELLAN: We spoke about this the other day, and I'll be glad to go back through it. One, when this report was published, there was -- well, keep in mind, first, that there's a process in place for reporting the leaking of classified information, and that process worked in this instance.

    HE ACKNOWLEDGES THE INFORMATION WAS CLASSIFIED.

    Q Well, it was followed in the last instance, too, but he saw fit to hit the roof about it, to shrink the circle of people who were -- had access to classified information. And in this particular case, the leak of the CIA agent's name, equally as sensitive information as was leaked out of the Senate Intelligence Committee in October, the President says nothing about it.

    THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THIS INFORMATION LEAK IS "EQUALLY SENSITIVE."

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 09:27am

34. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/02/2007 @ 09:10am

    Perhaps Berger wanted to write a book...

    That's your explanation for why he was willing to commit a felony? Call me skeptical. I'll call myself rational.

    otherwise why would he lie Pontificus?

    Your question presumes the answer. As I explained to JR yesterday, lots of statements are false without being lies. Lies implies and intent to deceive. We all (Fitz included) know, or should know, that it was Armitage who revealed Plame's identity, and that it was not criminal in any case. So, to re-ask the question which you ignored, what was the basis of an investigation in a case where the investigator knew a priori that no crime had been committed?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 09:32am

35. Here is what Scott McClellan had to say on July 18, 2003:

    Q: When was it [the NIE Report] actually declassified?

    MR. McCLELLAN: It was officially declassified today.

    According to Fitzgerald's court paper - Libby disclosed information from the NIE to Judith Miller on July 8, 2003 - ten days earlier.

    So, what was the official status of the report for those 10 days? If it was declassified prior to or on July 8, why was it only shared with Judy Miller, and not released "officially" until July 18?

    the president hugely abused his authority and powers, wrongfully, and he stood in front of cameras and reporters and lied about it, willfully, repeatedly. he engaged in a willful conspiracy to go after Joe Wilson for debunking the lie about uranium, and he happily burned down a CIA operative and her operations with a LEAK of information. if there was a declassification, it was certainly not recorded or documented or communicated, and, in all likelihood, was made up after the fact once the Fitzgerald investigation got going.

    Donald Rumsfeld on Leakers of Secret Information:

    ... No, I'll tell you about leaks. When a person takes classified information and gives it to someone who is not cleared for classified information, whether the person's from the Pentagon or any department of government, they're violating federal criminal law. And they ought to go to jail. That's not complicated.

    Kalb: What are the laws they are violating? Just --

    Rumsfeld: The laws relating to classified information are quite strict as to who may be given access to that information. And so to the extent that people violate the rules with respect to classified information, they are breaking federal criminal law.

    Now, they are also potentially putting people's lives at risk, and that's a very -- it's a terrible thing to do ...

    http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t04102002_t0410sd.html...

    Scott McClellan, lying about Bush's leak:

    "If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates."

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 09:33am

36. Perhaps Berger wanted to write a book.....

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/02/2007 @ 09:10am

    Sorry FREE, got to go wiht PONTI on that.

    "Wanting to write a book" is a valid excuse for stealing national security documents?!??!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2007 @ 09:37am

37. it was Armitage who revealed Plame's identity, and that it was not criminal in any case. So, to re-ask the question which you ignored, what was the basis of an investigation in a case where the investigator knew a priori that no crime had been committed?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 09:32am

    You are making statements without proof. It was Armitage who SAID he was the one to reveal Plame's identity.

    Look what Armitage received for falling on his sword:

    ARMITAGE KNIGHTED BY THE CROWN:

    http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1294

    4/25/2006 OMG: Meet Richard Armitage, Knight Commander

    Richard Armitage, the number two man at Colin Powell's state department, has been knighted "for services to US-UK relations." Presumably this is a reference to his diplomatic exertions on behalf of the invasion of Iraq.

    Armitage, one of the innumerable Bush administration graduates of the Reagan era Iran-Contra school of murderous skullduggery, was made a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George (KCMG).

    He was joined on the honours list by several US military officers, including Captain John Peterson.

    Peterson's claim to fame? "Peterson, chief of staff to the commander of the US navy in the Middle East, was awarded a CBE (Commander of the British Empire) for - according to the Pentagon - leading British and American forces "in the campaign to secure Iraqi oil assets" at the start of the 2003 invasion."

    Absent his outstanding service, Iraq might be a shambles.

    The news comes to us courtesy of Chris Floyd, who notes Armitage's efforts on behalf of US-drug dealing terrorist relations during the Iran-Contra affair, and wonders whether even higher honors might be in store for the future former president, assuming that happy designation ever applies.

    " If Armitage gets this kind of gilded wheeze for mere minioning in some of the most murderous operations of the past half-century, then great googily-moogily, what's George W. going to get, when he retires, for actually being the trigger-man for the world-convulsing killing spree in Iraq? Not to mention his relentless and ruthless gutting of the U.S. Constitution? What honor would suffice for this sterling service? No mere knighthood or baronage will do; Lizzie will have to adopt him into the royal family or something, name him heir to the throne.

    After all, his whole life's work has been aimed at overthrowing the American Revolution and restoring feudal rule by aristocrats, warlords, religious cranks and simpering courtiers. Why not just bring the whole thing full circle back to Buckingham Palace?"

    Armitage -- whose former boss, Powell, was made a Knight Commander of The Most Honourable Order of the Bath (KCB), one letter less but one notch above Armitage's KCMG, for his services in the first Gulf War -- was nominated for the honor by British foreign minister Jack Straw, who is no doubt in line for recognition of his own role in facilitating the Mother of All Train Wrecks in Iraq.

    Michael Isikoff is part of the attempted coverup.

    His sloganeering on behalf of the Administration includes that "Armitage is known to be a Gossip."

    He repeated that slogan constantly in recent interviews.

    That is a pure Rovian Talking Point.

    A "Gossip" about highly Classified matters of national security?

    That Plame's covert status was revealed is PEANUTS as compared to the revelation and subsequent closure of a highly valued INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM.

    It was the Brewster Jennings PROGRAM that was outed.

    Remember when Bush went bat shit over the outing of his NSA DOMESTIC WIRE TAPPING PROGRAM?

    The Administration is threatening to imprison those at the New York Times who revealed this "CLASSIFIED COVERT PROGRAM."

    Which PROGRAM was of the greatest value to our national security?

    I thought the threat of WMD was the greatest threat - at least according to this administration.

    Got DOUBLE STANDARD?

    Armitage, considered to be a conservative "neo con" (neo-conservative), is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    http://www.foreignpolicy2000.org/convention/

    He is one of the signers of the January 26, 1998, Project for the New American Century PNAC letter to President William Jefferson Clinton.

    http://theindependentvoice.tripod.com/theindependentvoice/index.blog?ent ry_id=417960

    http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/pnacletter.html

    He is also a former board member for CACI International, the private military contractor, which "is being investigated by no less than 5 US agencies for possible contract violations" and "employed four interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison" in Iraq, one of whom was singled out by General Taguba in his report on abuses of Iraqi detainees at the prison.

    http://counterpunch.org/palmer06152004.html

    (snip)

    "Richard Armitage, one of the Iran-Contra plotters, was a board member of Database Technologies (DBT)/ChoicePoint Inc before taking office under George Bush Jr. ... Choicepoint is a partner of data mining company SAIC whose web site proclaims it has "developed a strategic alliance with ChoicePoint Incorporated to provide our clients with quick and effortless information retrieval from public records data. ChoicePoint Incorporated maintains thousands of gigabytes of public records data.""

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 09:38am

38. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 09:01am

    Sandy Berger - that's not the point of this thread. See if you can stick to the point. This is the point:

    Her (Valerie Plame) career postings are classified, but she was one of the elite clandestine spies -- an officer with nonofficial cover who works overseas in business or other jobs and has no diplomatic protection if detected or arrested.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR200510 2801172.html (too long to post a link)

    For the nth time, how is outing a "secret agent" not a crime?

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/02/2007 @ 09:54am

39. Posted by TURK33 02/02/2007 @ 09:54am

    For the nth time, how is outing a "secret agent" not a crime?

    And for the nth time, I'll remind you that Fitz knew before the investigation started that it was Armitage who first 'revealed' Plame's identity (it was arguably already known) and that it was not a crime. And if that was the case, why was he investigating Libby in the first place?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 10:10am

40. Mask,

    Not really, but I'd do it for the book reason (personal greed)before I'd do it to cover up an inaction by my former boss which is the ridiculous theory that the pntificus wants you to believe!

    Would you steal national security documents to help the vanity of a former employer??????????

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/02/2007 @ 10:14am

41. Posted by TURK33 02/02/2007 @ 09:54am

    Sandy Berger - that's not the point of this thread. See if you can stick to the point.

    Well, I was using Sandy as the counterpoint to your implicit contention that someone would put themselves in peril by committing perjury in a case where there was no crime to cover up. As an illustration, I was asking if it made sense that Sandy would commit a felony if there wasn't a pretty darn good reason. Perhaps you subscribe to FREE's theory that he wanted to write a book, or for some other reason you might not want to discuss that. Certainly I can understand that.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 10:15am

42. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/02/2007 @ 10:14am

    Would you steal national security documents to help the vanity of a former employer??????????

    One of the more plausible theories I have heard is that Sandy Berger stole and destroyed the original of a letter (and other memos referring to it) from the Sudanese intelligence agency offering to deliver Osama Bin Laden to US custody. The motive, being, of course, that Sandy wanted to a) wipe the record clean of a monumental blunder and b) put himself in a good position for a top job in a future Clinton Administration.

    But hey, you stick to your book theory.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 10:19am

43. The Vice President's Office knowlingly inserted FALSE INFORMATION in the President's State Of The Union Speech - the Very speech that pushed this country into war. Cheney Directly Profitted financially (through his Halliburton and other investments) as a result of his own actions.

    Cheney lied this country into war - committing FRAUD and TREASON:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/01/cheney.halliburton/

    Given what we know about VP Cheney's direct financial ties to Haliburton, isn't it clear that he has committed a fraud against the United States for the purpose of illegal financial gain, in accordance with the following statute? Couldn't the same be said of any US official who knowingly made false statements to advance the cause of war, while owning shares of companies that stood to gain substantially from that war? Cheney was acting specifically on behalf of the Contractor, Haliburton, to ensure no-bid contracts were awarded, based on knowingly fraudulent information generated by his own Office Of Special Plans. It might also be construed that any official who had a relationship to the Carlyle Group was also lying on their behalf - for their own financial benefit.

    Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States

    (a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent - (1) to defraud the United States; or (2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    (1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or

    (2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/47/se ctions/section_1031.html

    The financial links between those who lied, and those who benefitted as a direct result of the lies (primarily in the oil and military industries) are clear. The evidence that the President's speech knowingly included a lie about the Niger Yellow Cake is proveable in a court of law under oath.

    That the Vice President knew for a fact that the claim was based on a forgery in advance of the President's speech is a given. That he instructed others to ensure that the sentence made it into the speech is also a given. What did the Vice President know, and when did he know it?

    Everytime the Vice President knowingly lied to the American People to advance the cause of war, he committed a crime against the United States which both directly harmed other US citizens and directly enriched himself.

    Indict Dick Cheney for Fraud.

    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030711-7.html

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-4.html

    The outing of Valarie Plame falls into precisely the same category, as it was specifically designed to ensure that the lead up to war continued apace...

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031001-6.html

    Consummate diplomats like Wilson typically do not speak of "lies." So outraged was Wilson, though, that this bogus story had been used to "justify" an unprovoked war, that he made a point to note that the already proven dishonesty begs the question regarding "what else they are lying about."

    It was a double whammy. And, as is now well known, the White House moved swiftly-if clumsily (and apparently illegally)-to retaliate.

    It was clear from the start that Vice President Dick Cheney and Kemosabe (Amer. Indian for "Scotter") Libby, as well as Karl Rove, were taking the lead in this operation to make an object lesson of Wilson and his wife.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern10202005.html

    But there is abundant evidence that senior White House officials were aware of the CIA's doubts regarding the Niger story long before the State of the Union. Nearly a year earlier, in February 2002, the CIA had dispatched former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the claim about uranium purchases. When the CIA debriefed him in March, his findings were emphatic: As Wilson explained in a New York Times op-ed on July 6, "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." CIA Director George Tenet claimed on July 11 that Wilson was sent to Niger by junior nonproliferation experts at the CIA acting "on their own initiative" and that senior administration officials were unaware of his mission. But this is not true. Wilson was told by CIA officials that the mission had been specifically requested by the office of the vice president. Indeed, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told Time magazine that Cheney had "asked a question about the implication of the [uranium] report." And, as Wilson tells The New Republic, "When an executive agency is tasked to find something out and it gets an answer, it goes back to the person who requested it." For the White House to suggest that Cheney's office was unaware of the results of Wilson's inquiry strains credulity.

    Moreover, there is strong evidence that the CIA clearly conveyed its doubts about the Niger allegation to the White House on more than one occasion prior to the State of the Union. When Bush wanted to include the claim in an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Tenet personally intervened, imploring Condoleezza Rice's National Security Council (NSC) deputy, Stephen Hadley, to cut the allegation from the speech, which he did. The idea that no one involved with the State of the Union was aware of this earlier, emphatic intervention is implausible. And when the latter speech was being written, the CIA again raised questions about the Niger assertion. According to The New York Times, when NSC proliferation staffer Robert G. Joseph called his CIA counterpart, Alan Foley, to ask about including the allegation in the State of the Union, Foley told Joseph the CIA was not confident about the information.

    http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030728&s=editorial072803

    Indict Vice President Cheney. Put him under oath.

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 10:27am

44. BIN LADEN WAS NOT INVOLVED IN 9/11.

    The Post knows that there is an actual Bin Laden statement that was issued in the aftermath of 9/11 during which Bin Laden stated emphatically that he had nothing to do with 9/11.

    The Post is performing Government PsyOps with this story - further evidence of the Administration's complicity in 9/11.

    It's not going to work, Karl.

    We know.

    Have you actually LOOKED at the person in the fake Bin Laden video?

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

    The FBI declines to confirm its authenticity.

    http://www.physics911.net/kevinbarrett.htm

    Top Bin Laden Expert: The Tapes are Fakes Kevin Barrett

    As a PhD in Islamic and Arabic Studies, I hate to say this, but I'll say it anyway. The events of 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror itself is as phony as the latest "Bin Laden tape."

    Compare the nose of the actor in the video tape with that of Bin Laden:

    http://www.911blimp.net/vid_fakeOsamaVideo.shtml

    This is NOT BIN LADEN.

    Repeat this information often.

    LOOK AT THE VIDEO - IT'S FAKE.

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 10:31am

45. Would you steal national security documents to help the vanity of a former employer??????????

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/02/2007 @ 10:14am

    What if his WIFE was putting you on the "short list" for Secretary of State in 2009?

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2007 @ 10:33am

46. IF YOU DON'T WANT THE WHOLE TRUTH, DON'T READ THIS

    CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH?

    ARE YOU REALLY READY FOR IT?

    THE PURPORTED "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" EXPLAINED.

    COPY THIS – SAVE IT.

    SHARE IT WITH AMERICAN PATRIOTS

    It is not a secret who did this, PNAC spells it out and shows it off.

    911 is undeniably tied to the war in Iraq. It is obvious to any thinking person how the 911 tragedy was used to justify by deception the war in Iraq. We know that the WMDs claims were lies not just mistaken intelligence. Now the question arises, who lied? Who set up and makes up the OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS?

    All roads lead to Israel.

    Here is a map of where Iraq's oil is going. (SCROLL DOWN TO MAP)

    http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1388&start=0&postd ays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

    Here's the best guest so far of what happened on 9/11/2001...

    Osama bin Laden is a high level agent operated by the Israeli Mossad in cooperation with the CIA. OBL and his inner circle recruited the hijackers for 911, with the naive recruitees having little idea of what they were really getting into or about whom was pulling their strings (this was the false flag component of the operation).

    Now the government is engaged in a massive propaganda campaign to suppress any reasonable questions about 911. If the cover-up starts to fall apart, it is likely that more and worse terrorist incidents will be engineered, martial law will be declared, and any skeptics and dissidents will be imprisoned or murdered.

    Now, if none of this true, why is the government doing its level best to make it appear to be true by its bungling and provocative behavior? Doesn't this entire operation -- both 911 and post-911 -- have a keystone cops quality about it that is highly redolent of Iran-Contra?

    Anyone who thinks Israel is incapable of this kind of behavior should thoroughly research the Lavon Affair. Start by doing a simple Google search on "lavon affair".

    http://www.rense.com/general21/was911mossad.htm

    Corporations have obviously profiteered from the wars, that has been made quite clear. But did they write, implement, and use deception, to start this war or was that the Zionists? Who got caught spying on the US Halliburton or Israel? Israel that is who. The profiteering is a by product of the war as in any war. They are all in bed together because of overlapping interests between the military related corporations and the Zionists.

    The Neocons Made it happen with the assistance of a foreign government, the same government where PNAC was first written, and who we have caught spies from who have been stealing secrets from us about Iran, and who made up the shadow government of the OSP which is who cherry picked and fabricated the lies told about Iraq in order to start the war. The Wars in the middle east were for separate reasons, Afghanistan was about a few pipelines as noted but more so about controlling large quantities of un-tapped uranium (a reason for both the Russian and US invasions) and secondly for controlling opium as the CIA funds it's off the books black operation such as the now known massive secret prison systems, (torture camps) and coupled with other color coded revolutions to circle China and Russia with US bases, (add to that the lesser known negotiations with Japan to allow nuclear subs into the Japanese Sea [pointed at China] in exchange for moving troops from Okinawa to Guam). The main goal however which PNAC states is to keep the eye on the pie, Iran (which Afghanistan and Iraq both boarder.) The invasion of Iraq was to solve Israel's oil crisis and stop the threat of a secular Middle East which would become a true economic player and was a threat to the aggressive state of Israel.

    Now you ready to get pulled out of the rabbit hole some more? I will come back to just who forged these documents. (Ahmad Chalabi , Francis Brookes, Dewey Clarridge, and Michael Ledeen. ) First let's see how they got into the presidents hands. Bush said, these known false claims, as if they were true in his State of the Union Address. It has now been called is infamous 16 words, which he could be impeached for if we had an actual opposition party.

    The disinformation was stove piped straight to Cheney/Bush by a little known shadow government called the OSP the Office of Special Plans, headed under Cheney and Rumsfeld and a pack of Zionists underling, yes the same ones who co-authored PNAC and the Clean Break for Israel.

    Andreas von Bulow the former German Defense Minister said on April 21, 2006 on the Alex Jones show that this false flag operation had to be carried out by a very small group of people Alex asked him 100? 40? he said less than that. Right after the second break (which on the QuickTime bar would be right in line with Andreas vo Bulow's right ear) Alex talks about the picture getting more clear as the truth about the wars come out. He then talks about the 25 Neocons who wrote PNAC were in high positions in the DOD and white house and Andreas von Bulow says "sure and part of them wrote the government program for Benjamin Netanyahu... "(Former Prime Minister of Israel). Alex goes on to say who could have done this? Bulow says it was not the CIA and Alex jumps in saying your talking about black ops. Than Alex says we know only a MAJOR STATE could have carried this out? Andreas says it must have been done from high up and it had to be done by a few people. Alex says would you say 100-200, AVB says less, Alex askes 50 people and AVB says less. Alex can not say it was the zionists on the air.

    http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1388&start=0&postd ays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

    100% official proof: Body Doubles at work on 911

    Atta was a Mossad agent that's why he was seen on the Abramoff casino ships and why the Mossad lived next door to his house, why they found his stolen pass port at ground Zero (the mossad planted it for the FBI) and why Atta could not speak German to his flight instructor.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/180806Doubles.htm

    THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS EXPOSED:

    http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=550

    This case with Rove, Miller, Libby, and so on, is linked to another scandal in the DOD. The Larry Franklin/AIPAC scandal. Where Israel was using DOD officials to hand over classified information to their Israeli lobby group who then passed it to the Israeli government. Now just how does it all fit together?

    KEEP READING…

    http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-graham-admits.htm

    PBS Interview:

    Senator: At Least One Foreign Country Assisted the 9/11 Terrorists

    GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?

    SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.

    GWEN IFILL: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you're talking about?

    SEN. BOB GRAHAM: It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.

    So which nation(s) was it? We mere mortals don't know, but we can make an educated guess about which countries it wasn't. It obviously wasn't any nation that the US government hates and would love to demonize. If it had been Iraq, for example, the report would not have been classified; it would've been personally faxed by Donald Rumsfeld to every reporter in the nation. No, the one or more facilitators of 9/11 were obviously allies, friendly countries, nations that the US doesn't want to alienate....

    I S R A E L

    D I D

    I T

    BEFORE 9/11...

    THE 200 ISRAELIS

    JANUARY – 2001

    Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students at DEA Facilities

    Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Security June, 2001

    Backgound:

    In January, 2001, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Office of Security Programs (IS), began to receive reports of Israeli art students attempting to penetrate several DEA Field Offices in the continental United States. Additionally, there have been reports of Israeli art students visiting the homes of numerous DEA employees. These incidents have occurred since at least the beginning of 2000.

    THEY TURNED OUT TO BE MOSSAD AGENTS.

    200 MOSSAD AGENTS.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deareportisraelispying.html

    Libby was in on it - as was Feith, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wurmser, Zakheim, Alexander, Rice, Fleisher, Myers, Bush Senior, Lay and about 50 others.

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 10:34am

47. Ponti,

    I'll get into the meat of your theory later (deadline right now). But if I'm Sandy Berger I could give a toss if there are poloroids of Clinton taking a shit on Lewinsky....while Bill's wearing the stained blue dress!!!! Not my problem!

    You've half come around to a greed motive but do you think that a promise of a government job (low paying), in an Admin that isn't even a candidate, much less a certainty is a motivating force?

    Yeah right!

    Look there are tons of reasons you could think of as to why he did what he did....like he was going to blackmail Clinton (with said poloroid) or he was going to pass something along to a tabloid (for money).

    But hey, you stick to the theory that he broke the law because he's a nice guy if that's what works for you!!!

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/02/2007 @ 10:39am

48. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/02/2007 @ 10:39am

    But hey, you stick to the theory that he broke the law because he's a nice guy if that's what works for you!!!

    Well, I have to admit that that post didn't make much sense to me. I never said Berger was a nice guy, quite the opposite I would think. Perhaps someone else can enlighten me on FREE's rationale.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 10:41am

49. .

    CHIEF 9/11 SUSPECT CAPTURED:

    Dancing Israeli's Boss Indicted On 9/11 "Put" Options by hex • Friday, Oct. 06, 2006 at 9:24 PM

    http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/181875_comment.php

    A warrant by the U.S. Justice Dept. and an Interpol Red Notice has been issued for Israeli Mossad agent Jacob Kobi Alexander. Alexander linked to the noted Urban Moving Systems/Odigo Mossad Group which operated in the New Jersey, New York area pre-9/11.

    An SEC case issued against Alexander (Docket 19796 Aug.9/06) has accused Alexander of backdating Put Options on United Airlines and American Airlines. Alexander has also been accused of using his company Odigo, an Israeli espionage operation, for the purpose of making these illegal trades.

    The SEC has now fingered Alexander in wiring 57 million dollars to Israel, two weeks after 9-11.

    Within two weeks after the 9-11 Attack on America, Odigo was taken over by Converse Technology, and it was during this takeover period that the backdating of the Put Options took place.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/business/29fugitive.html?ex=1161489600 &en=f8494c0b692bd525&ei=5070

    U.S. Fugitive in Options Case Displeased by His African Jail.

    On Thursday, Mr. Alexander, former chief executive of the software communications company Comverse Technology, made his first appearance in front of a magistrate in Windhoek, the Namibian capital.

    Chief Inspector William Lloyd said Mr. Alexander remained calm when a preliminary warrant from the Justice Department, forwarded to the local Interpol office, was read to him. "But he got very nervous when we handcuffed him," Inspector Lloyd recalled. "He could see there was something serious coming at him."

    ABC NEWS STORY ABOUT 9/11:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20021003225412/http://abcnews.go.com/sections /2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html

    FOX NEWS EXPOSE:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

    TIMES HERALD:

    http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15114089&BRD=1672&PAG=46 1&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

    BBC:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2294487.stm

    DEA REPORT:

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deareportisraelispying.html

    You want to solve the entire crime?

    Force the media to repeatedly ask one simple question:

    "WHERE IS KOBI ALEXANDER?"

    Ask the question ever single day until the US Government answers the question.

    "WHERE IS KOBI ALEXANDER?"

    He is wanted in America on Federal Charges.

    "WHERE IS KOBI ALEXANDER?"

    Make them answer the question specifically.

    "WHERE IS KOBI ALEXANDER?"

    Once you learn that he is IN THE UNITED STATES - but NOT IN ANY PRISON...

    THEN WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

    He's in the Witness Protection Program - despite being under indictment on Federal Charges.

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 10:41am

50. The big question is why the hell did our officials spend so much time going after Wilson? Is that why we pay them? NOT! Did Plame send Joe? No. Were the documents forgeries? Yes. Did McClellan spread falsehoods to the America n people as the spokesman for the President of The United States? Yes.

    The left hates the CIA? that must be news to the LUVVY types, who swear that the CIA is infiltrated by liberals. The FBI says Libby lied. The Justice Dept says he lied. These same organizations can do no wrong when jailing terrorists, but when it comes to libby, they are Anti-American liberals? Bizarre!!

    Pontis arguments can be squashed with one simple fact. The Grand Jury thought there was enough evidence to indict Libby. The judge said the trial of Libby could go ahead. This isn't some poor guy picked up at an airport, kidnapped and held without trial due to an anonymous tip. This is the VP's Chief of Staff. There is not a shred of evidence to support the myth that Fitz is doing this for political gain. Just the opposite. Once again the neo's show their complete contempt for the American system of jurisprudence.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 10:45am

51. Why Was Kobi Allowed To Flee?

    http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Kobi-Alexander.html

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3359501,00.html

    Posted by plunger at 02/02/2007 @ 10:50am

52. Remember these guys? Big bad terrorists that need to be jailed. Another successful anti-terrorism effort.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR200702 0101377.html?nav=rss_print/asection

    By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, February 2, 2007; Page A01

    ..."The prosecution of Ashqar and Salah was deemed so important to the Justice Department that the 2004 indictments were announced in a news conference by then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. But the outcome of the three-month trial is decidedly mixed."

    A federal jury in Chicago acquitted two men yesterday of charges that they were part of a long-running conspiracy to finance Hamas activities in Israel -- marking the latest defeat for the Justice Department in cases involving support for radical Palestinian groups.

    BUT WAIT, they will go to jail for....obstruction of justice. I guess the judge should have thrown out the case because the "original" crime never happened.

    "But the two men were found guilty of lesser charges: Ashqar was convicted of obstruction of justice and criminal contempt for refusing to testify in front of a grand jury, while Salah was convicted of obstruction for providing false answers in a civil lawsuit."

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 10:51am

53. One of the more plausible theories I have heard is that Sandy Berger stole and destroyed the original of a letter[...]

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 10:19am

    Berger took copies. But don't let that stop you from parroting right wing talking points. I suspect it won't...

    From the Department of Justice:

    On September 2, 2003, and again on October 2nd, Berger concealed and removed a total of five copies of classified documents from the Archives.

    Posted by dlg at 02/02/2007 @ 10:53am

54. But hey, nice try on the deflection ponti. Maybe you should bring up the war of 1812 next time. I am sure there is something there that would support your ideas.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 10:54am

55. LOL....checked the posts before Logging In....PLUNGER takes on Mr Corn's writing partner!

    Michael Isikoff is part of the attempted coverup.---Posted by PLUNGER 02/02/2007 @ 09:38am

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2007 @ 10:55am

56. Posted by DLG 02/02/2007 @ 10:53am

    On September 2, 2003, and again on October 2nd, Berger concealed and removed a total of five copies of classified documents from the Archives.

    Those were annotated copies. In other words, all copies of the same memorandum in which different people had made notes in the margins. Clear now?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 10:56am

57. "Classified". Well, there you go. Those documents were not "covert". No harm, no foul.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 10:57am

58. Nice dodge, Crabbie.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 11:01am

59. Posted by CRABWALK 02/02/2007 @ 10:57am

    January 15, 2007 Sandy Berger: What Did He Take and Why Did He Take It? By Ronald A. Cass ... At President Clinton's request, he reviewed highly confidential material during four visits to the Archives over four months. Only Mr. Berger knows what transpired on his first two visits, when he reviewed collections of confidential memos, e-mails, and handwritten notes, including materials taken from counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's office - all of which were not catalogued at the individual item level.

    On Mr. Berger's third visit Archives employees became suspicious that he might be removing classified material. Rather than directly confront a former Cabinet-level official, Archives officials simply took steps to identify further theft on succeeding visits. That is how Mr. Berger's thefts on his fourth and last visit were documented.

    We don't know what Mr. Berger might have removed from the uncatalogued materials reviewed in his earlier visits, but we know his last visit focused on a memorandum called the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR). Copies of this report were made available to the 9/11 Commission, but the information in those copies undoubtedly is not what interested Berger most. Berger took five copies of the report and later destroyed three of them.

    What was on the copies he destroyed? Handwritten notes from Berger, the President, or some other official? Observations that would be embarrassing to them, evidence they missed an important threat or considered or recommended actions - or decisions not to act - they wouldn't want to defend in public? Evidence, perhaps, that would have supported the Bush Administration? We don't know, and no one who does is saying, but the evidence must have been terribly damning for Berger to take the risks he did. ... Mr. Cass, Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law and Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, served Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as Commissioner and Vice-Chairman of the US International Trade Commission. http://tinyurl.com/y9q7gp

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 11:03am

60. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 11:03am

    What's your point, oh deflector? what harm was done to our national security by Bergers crimes? (BTW, no one here is claiming Berger didn't do something illegal, in case you missed it) Were any ongoing investigations into Iraqs wmd programs ruined by Berger?

    do you think the charges against Ashgar and Salah should have been dropped because the original charges went unproven?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 11:09am

61. sorry, that should read "Do you think the penalties against Ashgar and Salah should be dropped because the original charges went unproven? "

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 11:10am

62. On September 2, 2003, and again on October 2nd, Berger concealed and removed a total of five copies of classified documents from the Archives.

    Posted by DLG 02/02/2007 @ 10:53am

    Those were annotated copies. In other words, all copies of the same memorandum in which different people had made notes in the margins. Clear now?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 10:56am

    But they were not originals as you had stated previously:

    One of the more plausible theories I have heard is that Sandy Berger stole and destroyed the original of a letter[...]

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 10:19am

    Posted by dlg at 02/02/2007 @ 11:11am

63. Keeping the nation safe is just another pawn in the political game for the Democratic Party. Because liberal/leftist/progressive dogma is that there are no threats in the world, just poor downtrodden people reacting to the big bad capitalistic US, national security is just another issue to play politics with. And if in hindsight these attitudes cause thousands of Americans to be killed, a little scrubbing of the historical record will make it all good again.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 11:12am

64. And, if why do you think the judge let the trial of Libby go ahead? Is he a liberal plant?

    "Judge Reggie B. Walton assumed his position as a United States District Judge for the District of Columbia on October 29, 2001, after being nominated to the position by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Judge Walton was also appointed by President Bush in June of 2004 to serve as the Chairperson of the National Prison Rape Reduction Commission, a two-year commission created by the United States Congress that is tasked with the mission of identifying methods to curb the incidents of prison rape. Former Chief Justice Rehnquist appointed Judge Walton to the federal judiciary's Criminal Law Committee, effective October 1, 2005. Judge Walton previously served as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia from 1981 to 1989 and 1991 to 2001, having been appointed to that position by Presidents Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George H. W. Bush in 1991. While serving on the Superior Court, Judge Walton was the court's Presiding Judge of the Family Division, Presiding Judge of the Domestic Violence Unit and Deputy Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division. Between 1989 and 1991, Judge Walton served as President George H. W. Bush's Associate Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Executive Office of the President and as President Bush's Senior White House Advisor for Crime."

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 11:13am

65. Oh, and perhaps you could also explain why a Special Prosecutor was conducting an investigation in a case in which he knew a priori that no crime had been committed.

    Nice try Ponti, but the fact is that there were leaks to Cooper and Miller as well, so the Armitage admission could not have established, by itself, that no crime was committed.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2007 @ 11:13am

66. Posted by DLG 02/02/2007 @ 11:11am

    But they were not originals as you had stated previously

    When a document is altered by annotation, it becomes an original document in and of itself. That's why they kept the five copies in the National Archives in the first place. And remember, those are only the documents that he stole and destroyed that we know about. The staff only became convinced he was stealing stuff on the third visit, thus they were able to track his theft on the fourth visit. What did he steal up til then?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 11:16am

67. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 11:12am

    I feel sorry for you. you're so full of dookey you need an intestinal expectorant.

    "Because liberal/leftist/progressive dogma is that there are no threats in the world"

    Complete disconnect from reality. But that is what you do when your arguments meet reality.

    How goes the war?

    "A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document."

    "The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus."-WP

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 11:18am

68. Posted by BRUNOWE 02/02/2007 @ 11:13am

    Nice try Ponti, but the fact is that there were leaks to Cooper and Miller as well, so the Armitage admission could not have established, by itself, that no crime was committed.

    So if the 'leaks' by Armitage and these speculative others were criminal, why then is Armitage not being prosecuted?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 11:18am

69. I shall return. Must look busy for a while.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 11:19am

70. Please answer this while I am away.

    sorry, that should read "Do you think the penalties against Ashgar and Salah should be dropped because the original charges went unproven? "

    Posted by CRABWALK 02/02/2007 @ 11:10am

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 11:21am

71. Posted by CRABWALK 02/02/2007 @ 11:18am

    How goes the war?

    Not as good as we might have hoped, but that doesn't mean we have a choice other than to fight it. I'm sure glad people like you were ignored after Pearl Harbor though. Too bad we don't have that kind of sense nowadays.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 11:21am

72. Also, should Padilla be released because no charges of "dirty bomb" have been filed?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 11:22am

73. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 11:21am

    War of 1812.

    look up Pearl Harbor, you will find Japan attacked us. Look up 9/11, you will find Iraq did not attack us. Old news, but you need to be reminded.

    I go now.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 11:23am

74. Posted by CRABWALK 02/02/2007 @ 11:23am

    look up Pearl Harbor, you will find Japan attacked us. Look up 9/11, you will find Iraq did not attack us. Old news, but you need to be reminded.

    Neither did Germany or Italy. And yet we fought them anyway.

    Crabby, your bad faith arguments grow tiresome.

    I go now.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 11:31am

75. FBI agent Deborah S. Bond also testified that Libby said that, while he was preparing to be interviewed by investigators in the fall of 2003, he came across a handwritten note he had made during a phone conversation with Vice President Cheney. The note made it clear that, shortly before June 12, 2003, Cheney had told Libby that Plame worked at the CIA's counterproliferation division and was married to an outspoken critic of the Iraq war.

    Libby's conversation with Cheney took place nearly a month before Libby telephoned Tim Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief.

    Libby has pleaded not guilty to all five felony counts. He and his attorneys contend that he misremembered the conversations he had with reporters about Plame amid the crush of his work on national security issues.

    http://tinyurl.com/2frbcd

    The only "crush of work" that Cheney and Libby had was the White House's program to swiftly retaliate against anyone who questioned the forged and faked evidence that they used to lie America into war. Not national security issues- Republican security issues.

    They, and their party, think it's OK to expose the identity of an American CIA agent tasked with WMD counterproliferation if it benefits their personal political interests.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2007 @ 11:34am

76. So if the 'leaks' by Armitage and these speculative others were criminal, why then is Armitage not being prosecuted?

    Your statement was the Fitzgerald knew, as a result of the Armitage admission, that no crime had been committed. This statement is non-responsive. Further, Armitage isn't being prosecuted because Fitzgerald probably can't prove the requisite mens rea. That doesn't invalidate the investigation since there were other leaks to look at, and therefore doesn't invalidate the charges against Libby.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2007 @ 11:36am

77. look up Pearl Harbor, you will find Japan attacked us. Look up 9/11, you will find Iraq did not attack us. Old news, but you need to be reminded.

    Neither did Germany or Italy. And yet we fought them anyway.

    Ah, but Germany and Italy declared war on us, Iraq didn't. Further, Germany and Italy were allies of Japan, al-Qaida wasn't an ally of Iraq.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2007 @ 11:37am

78. Posted by BRUNOWE 02/02/2007 @ 11:37am

    Ah, but Germany and Italy declared war on us, Iraq didn't.

    At the time we invaded Iraq, a state of war still existed stemming from the first Gulf War. There were technical grounds for the invasion because the treaty that ended that war had been violated, ie., Saddam was refusing to comply with the provisions of that treaty.

    Further, it was the judgement of the chief executive (as well as those who supported his decisions and continue to do so, as validated by the election of 2004) that sufficient grounds existed to believe the while Iraq and Al Quaida were not allies in the same sense that America was allies with say, Great Britain, in WWII, Iraq was and remains a part of the nexus of evil that threatens us and our interests. In fact, there exist many important parallels between the type of axis that exists between the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere and the relationships between the gangster states of German, Japan, and Italy. There was little if any operational coordination, for example, between Germany and Japan during WWII, but nobody doubted then that they represented the same collective threat. Different aims, perhaps, but all representing the same quality of threat.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 11:47am

79. Posted by BRUNOWE 02/02/2007 @ 11:36am

    Your statement was the Fitzgerald knew, as a result of the Armitage admission, that no crime had been committed. This statement is non-responsive. Further, Armitage isn't being prosecuted because Fitzgerald probably can't prove the requisite mens rea. That doesn't invalidate the investigation since there were other leaks to look at, and therefore doesn't invalidate the charges against Libby.

    That's all very well, Brunowe, and very techical, too. My statement would be that if you can't explain this investigation in simpler terms than that to the vast majority of people in this country, you're using legal technicalities to justify a witch-hunt.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 11:51am

80. Look at PONTI reeling off his little cracker-barrel philosophy. "We didn't have a choice other than to fight it." This is the logic of a true lickspittle, following the pied piper like so many rats. But ask any apparatchik like PONTI what their response would be if other countries applied the same standards of reality to their worldview that the US applies to its own, he'd call them crazy. People like this are dead, plain and simple. They do not see the world, they only repeat the versions they are told to believe, refusing to understand that there are 193 countries in the world, not just one.

    Because americanos have no idea what their own history is, they fail miserably to comprehend the context in which the blowback they're seeing is being carried out. But what is worse, because their eyes have been put out and they rush to find someone to lead them through the miamsa of dread and confusion, they know nothing but what they are told by their seers, thus making them complicit in the crimes committed by the latter in their very name against the ghosts who haunt them, almost invariably real people who suffer real slayings at the end of the day. You trust in liars and the lies they whip you with. Don't try to excuse yourself, just fess up and go on with your lives as employees and consumers - and make sure you look under the bed for Al-Qaeda before tucking yourselves in...

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2007 @ 12:02pm

81. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/02/2007 @ 12:02am

    Spoke like a true America-hater, Chimi. Where did you say you were posting from? Venezuela? Cuba?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 12:10pm

82. if you can't explain this investigation in simpler terms than that to the vast majority of people in this country ...

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 11:51am

    Okay, how's this for simple?

    1) If someone works for the CIA, it should be kept a secret. 2) Bush was lying his ass off when he said Saddam had WMD. 3) This war sucks so bad, someone ought to be in jail by now.

    That, my pontificating friend, is how the "vast majority" sees it.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/02/2007 @ 12:11pm

83. That's all very well, Brunowe, and very techical, too. My statement would be that if you can't explain this investigation in simpler terms than that to the vast majority of people in this country, you're using legal technicalities to justify a witch-hunt.?

    That's a complete non-sequitur. The point is that there was a concerted effort to take out Plame to go after Wilson. That effort involved leaking her status to various reporters. In the course of the investigation of whether a crime was committed in the course of those leaks, Libby allegedly committed another crime, for which he is being prosecuted. That should be simple even for Dubya's amen choir.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2007 @ 12:12pm

84. Was there a conspiracy in the WH to save Rove and throw Libby under the bus, as Libby claims?

    Rove got McLellan to annouce that Rove did not leak Plame's identity. Libby tried to get McLellan to do the same for him. Mcllellan refused. Libby got Cheney to get Mclellan to do the same for Libby. Most importantly howener, recognize this evidence clearly indicates that atleast three senior WH officials, including the VP, thought they needed to cover their own asses for leaking classified information, namely Plame's identify as a CIA NOC. Instead of covering their asses, they laid down a marker for which they must account.

    Libby has not been charged with the disclosure of classified info, only lying under oath to the GJ, lying to FBI investigators and obstrcting justice. However, the "being thrownunder the bus" backstory tells us that Rove, Libby and Cheney all believed there was a serious (reads criminal) vulnerability that needed to be plugged, and that breach was to disclosure of classified information to the press, a result of their efforts to counter a critics claim about Uranium and WMDs.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 02/02/2007 @ 12:14pm

85. Look at PONTI reeling off his little cracker-barrel philosophy. "We didn't have a choice other than to fight it." This is the logic of a true lickspittle, following the pied piper like so many rats.

    I have no idea where you're coming from on this, Chimi. There was an election held in 2004 in this country, where your ideas were presented and our ideas were presented. Our ideas carried the day. Nobody told the majority of America what to do, they weighed the alternatives and our ideas, in the form of GWB, came out on top. That's what democracy is all about. Why are you such a sore loser?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 12:14pm

86. Ponti,

    Here is the 121 page

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/berger.pdf

    National Archives and Records Administration investigative report on the matter of Berger. It's heavily redacted.

    You seem to imply that because former President Clinton signed the letter to provide clearance to the archives that in some way Berger was working on behalf of Clinton.

    In fact, Sandy Berger's clearance into the records was to provide information to the 9/11 commission. Given that the records being archived were the records of the Clinton Admin...the only person that could grant that access was former President Clinton.

    Once given access there is nothing to suggest that Berger was working for or on behalf of Clinton.

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/02/2007 @ 12:15pm

87. At the time we invaded Iraq, a state of war still existed stemming from the first Gulf War. There were technical grounds for the invasion because the treaty that ended that war had been violated, ie., Saddam was refusing to comply with the provisions of that treaty.

    Except that, in UN Security Council resolution 1441, which made that finding, the Council had "remained seized of the matter." Meaning, from the technical standpoint you claim to be arguing from, it was the UNs call on if Iraq's actions justified hostilities, not Bush's.

    Iraq was and remains a part of the nexus of evil that threatens us and our interests.

    That is simply not true. There was no operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida or other Islamist militant organizations. The existence of such a relationship wasn't the judgement of the President, it was a lie told by him. The fact that he got reelected in 2004 doesn't make it less of a lie.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2007 @ 12:18pm

88. Great Scott!! PONTI must have taken his Centrum today, for he continues to disembogue this drivel about hoards of terrorists casting shadows all over the world, all crossing paths at a point called Al-Qaeda, which of course is led by a man in the most elaborate cave ever known to man, so elaborate it's invisible to the eyes of "America's best" and their newfangled machinery. This is just as bad as the Reaganites believing that the USSR directed if not spawned the IRA, FARC, Shining Path, Tupamaros, Tamil Tigers, ect. PONTI, do some research about Islamic Jihad and the fate this little band of bad-asses met in Algiers, Egypt and Afghanistan. What a crock of shit. How long until you blame the next teenage school-shooter in your Eden on Al-Qaeda?

    Nowhere else in the world exists a people so afraid of shadows. And nowhere else in the world are there people who claim to be so strong, yet so quick to collapse in utter fear at the first cry of "wolf". The real danger is prokaryotes like PONTI, who pump life into dead enemies and erect bigger and badder threats out of the ashes of the few ragtag idiots who threaten to huff and puff and blow down the USA, as if such a thing were possible by termites. PONTI and his ilk have thrown not only kerosene, but torches to the ashes left by the little brush fires extinguished as soon as they cropped up, granting them new life. Then cannonade the public with fantastic plots about blowing up bridges, buildings, poisoning food and water, crashing planes, ect. and everyone is trying to move into a brick house before the Big Bad Wolf comes to town...

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2007 @ 12:21pm

89. Posted by BRUNOWE 02/02/2007 @ 12:12am

    The point is that there was a concerted effort to take out Plame to go after Wilson.

    That's not a point, it's an unproven accusation. Try not confuse opinion with reality, it really helps.

    That effort involved leaking her status to various reporters. In the course of the investigation of whether a crime was committed in the course of those leaks, Libby allegedly committed another crime, for which he is being prosecuted. That should be simple even for Dubya's amen choir.

    Simple, but wrong. There is no evidence that Armitage coordinated with anybody his 'leak'. And while Libby may or may not have made misstatements, it's a long leap of faith to say without evidence that they were lies.

    And yes, CIA agents' identities should not be leaked, but the fact is that is that classified information is released quite frequently by the left-leaning media in this country. It's only an issue when an agent is covert, and leftist delusions aside, I think we all know by now that Ms. Plame was not a covert agent and that no prosecutions pursuant to that will be forthcoming.

    Brunowe, you do start to get a little panicky when you start to feel a little insecure, don't you? I can see it when your accusations start to get a little wild. Go calm down and collect yourself, then you may make sense again.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 12:22pm

90. Posted by BRUNOWE 02/02/2007 @ 12:18am

    Iraq was and remains a part of the nexus of evil that threatens us and our interests.

    That is simply not true. There was no operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida or other Islamist militant organizations. The existence of such a relationship wasn't the judgement of the President, it was a lie told by him. The fact that he got reelected in 2004 doesn't make it less of a lie.

    You missed the point. As I said previously, there was little or no operational coordination between Japan and Germany in WWII. That does not mean they were not 'allies'. Is that clearer?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 12:24pm

91. Bush never won an election by more than 51% of the vote. His majority is as weak as it gets. In his six years, Republicans wnet from controilling the executive, the Seante and the House, to controlling the executive. Now that's a testimony to riding Bush's coat tails. In 2006, Bush was so toxic Republican incumbents asked him to stay away.

    I'll refer you to another election, the 2006 mid terms. How many senate and house races did Republican candidates win? Less than a few.

    Look at Bush's approval rating. The only President with a lower approval rating was Nixon, right before he resigned. There is no mandate. Take your ineffective, incompetent Presdent BUSH and 'YOUR IDEAS' to the scrapheap of history. George W Bush, among the worst of Presidents ever.

    It still doesn't bother you he took this country too war on false pretenses, does it?

    Posted by NeilSagan at 02/02/2007 @ 12:25pm

92. Your statement was the Fitzgerald knew, as a result of the Armitage admission, that no crime had been committed. This statement is non-responsive. Further, Armitage isn't being prosecuted because Fitzgerald probably can't prove the requisite mens rea. That doesn't invalidate the investigation since there were other leaks to look at, and therefore doesn't invalidate the charges against Libby.

    That's all very well, Brunowe, and very techical, too. My statement would be that if you can't explain this investigation in simpler terms than that to the vast majority of people in this country, you're using legal technicalities to justify a witch-hunt.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 11:51am

    Ok, let me 'splain...no, you want "simple language" - let me sum up (paraphrasing courtesy of "The Princess Bride"): Fitzgerald doesn't have the proof of Armitage's criminal intent, but that lack does not by itself invalidate other investigations into other sources of the leak. Or are you arguing that there was only one source of the leak? And if so, where's your proof?

    There have been several credible witnesses (again, with different political leanings) who have made credible cases that Libby has lied when giving his account of the situation (that's called "perjury" and the US population should learn it, as it will become a pervasive part of the American lexicon as more and more details become known about the machinations of this adminstration).

    If Berger destroyed classified documents, then I guess he should be tried - oh wait, he was! Then he should be hung as a traitor - oh wait, he was fined and his security clearance was taken away! The liberals in charge at the Justice Department must have been lenient on him - oh wait, the Justice Department is crawling with Republican lemmings! Hmmmmm, this doesn not compute as spun by the lemmings. They must be smarter than everybody else! (Or not!)

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/02/2007 @ 12:26pm

93. SOS, diff day.

    bush lied.

    Libby Lied.

    MClellan lied.

    Cheney lied.

    Clinton lied.

    Clinton never got us into a dead end war by lying and creating fear in his constituency.

    the war may not be going "as well as WE hoped". But it is going as bad as many thought it would. We were called traitors, un-American, cowards. We were right. You were wrong. iran is more powerful than 3 years ago, N. korea has a nuke, dozens of republicans are either in jail or under indictment. many more are now working as lobbyists because they lost elections. There isn't a single repub candidate with a decent shot at the WH at this time.

    how 'bout them apples?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 12:28pm

94. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 12:24am

    no.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 12:29pm

95. Pontificus - DEAL OR NO DEAL!

    If you agree that Libby (and any other adminstration official) who is part of the leak and/or cover-up should be investigated and tried, then I will agree that Sandy Berger should be investigated and tried. Shoot, I can't help but agree with the second statement; it already happened. You're turn!

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/02/2007 @ 12:29pm

96. (paraphrasing courtesy of "The Princess Bride")-TURK.

    "don't get involved in a land war in Asia."

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 12:30pm

97. Brunowe, you do start to get a little panicky when you start to feel a little insecure, don't you? I can see it when your accusations start to get a little wild. Go calm down and collect yourself, then you may make sense again.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 12:22am | ignore this person

    Do you believe this rube? This from someone living in a land where even the slightest concern is magnified 1000 times and confected into paranoia and panic. Red Scare? Anthrax? Razor blades in Halloween candy? Killer bees? Hungry sharks in Florida?

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2007 @ 12:31pm

98. Brunowe, you do start to get a little panicky when you start to feel a little insecure, don't you? I can see it when your accusations start to get a little wild. Go calm down and collect yourself, then you may make sense again.

    I'm not the one who's making overly broad statements about witch-hunts. The idea that there was a plan to out Plame is being proven with every bit of testimony in this trial (that is reality--something which I know you neo-cons universally disdain). Whether specific crimes were committed is another matter.

    Simple, but wrong. There is no evidence that Armitage coordinated with anybody his 'leak'.

    I never said that he did, but why would you bother with an accurate characterization my arguments when you're not bothering with accuracy anywhere else?

    And while Libby may or may not have made misstatements, it's a long leap of faith to say without evidence that they were lies.

    The evidence that they were lies was good enough for a grand jury, and may be good enough for the trial jury. Misrepresenting when you received information about Plame when her husband's op-ed piece was in the news isn't just a slip of the tongue.

    I think we all know by now that Ms. Plame was not a covert agent

    To "know" something, it has to be a fact. Ms. Plame was operating under non-official cover, that makes it covert.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2007 @ 12:33pm

99. Posted by NEILSAGAN 02/02/2007 @ 12:25am

    Bush never won an election by more than 51% of the vote. His majority is as weak as it gets.

    What's your point? Clinton never even won a simple majority. Are you saying that Clinton was even less legitimate than Bush?

    In his six years, Republicans wnet from controilling the executive, the Seante and the House, to controlling the executive. Now that's a testimony to riding Bush's coat tails. In 2006, Bush was so toxic Republican incumbents asked him to stay away.

    I'll refer you to another election, the 2006 mid terms. How many senate and house races did Republican candidates win? Less than a few.

    Look at Bush's approval rating. The only President with a lower approval rating was Nixon, right before he resigned. There is no mandate. Take your ineffective, incompetent Presdent BUSH and 'YOUR IDEAS' to the scrapheap of history. George W Bush, among the worst of Presidents ever.

    Again, so what? Clinton was at least as radioactive, and his Presidency was even more disastrous for Dems in Congress than Bush has been for Reps.

    It still doesn't bother you he took this country too war on false pretenses, does it?

    I don't agree with the premise of your question. Does it bother you that most of the posters at the Nation are America-hating leftists?

    Go wipe your nose little boy, you're out of your league here. Go get a little more indoctrination from your leftist media and/or 'intellectuals' in academia.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 12:33pm

100. there was little or no operational coordination between Japan and Germany in WWII. That does not mean they were not 'allies'. Is that clearer?

     Japan and Germany agreed by treaty that any country who was at war with one, was at war with the other.

     Pontificus doesn't let actual facts get in the way of making an argument. He is an idealogue without an idea, who argues for the sake of argument. His hero is Bill O'Reilly. How he ended up posting in the comments section at The Nation is still unknown.

     Posted by NeilSagan at 02/02/2007 @ 12:35pm

101. (paraphrasing courtesy of "The Princess Bride")-TURK.

     "don't get involved in a land war in Asia."

     Posted by CRABWALK 02/02/2007 @ 12:30am

     And continuing with the Princess Bride...

     CIA: Iraq probably doesn't have WMD

     Bush: Inconceivable!

     UN: Iraq probably doesn't have WMD

     Bush: Inconceivable!

     General Shinseki: We'll need at least 300,000 troops to successfully control Iraq

     Bush: Inconceivable!

     Majority of Americans: The war is wrong, there is no end in sight, we want it to end

     Bush: Inconceivable!

     Colin Powell: I don't think that word means what you think it means.

     Posted by Turk33 at 02/02/2007 @ 12:39pm

102. You missed the point. As I said previously, there was little or no operational coordination between Japan and Germany in WWII. That does not mean they were not 'allies'. Is that clearer?

     Yes, but they actually had an alliance treaty, the Tripartite Pact of 1936. Further, one of the main aims of this treaty was to deter US intervention by threatening her with a two-ocean war, so there was coordination in grand strategy, if not operationally (although there were technology swaps). Iraq and al-Qaida had neither an operation relationship nor any indication of a formal alliance.

     Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2007 @ 12:41pm

103. As usual, the discussion degenerates into a name-calling contest. Brunowe, you may have some valid points and I'll think about them, but the rest of you sound like a bunch of idiots, to be frank. See you later.

     Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2007 @ 12:41pm

104. Yeah, I'd have to say PONTI is about as bright as a jar of pickles, but that doesn't prevent him from telling the other residents in the fridge what's going on in the backyard, as told to him by the spice rack.

     Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2007 @ 12:42pm

105. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 12:41am | ignore this person

     Sounds like someone's wearing diapers that leak.

     Posted by chimichenga at 02/02/2007 @ 12:43pm

106. Killer bees? Hungry sharks in Florida?

     Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/02/2007 @ 12:31

     Don't forget little Boston billboards made out of Lite-Brite toys. Quick! Call Homeland Security!

     Posted by MyParadigm at 02/02/2007 @ 12:45pm

107. Posted by TURK33 02/02/2007 @ 12:39am

     hehehe.

     Iran- "What you don't know is that we are not left handed".

     Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/02/2007 @ 12:42am

     LOL!

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 12:41am

     It devolved into name calling long ago. See: Librool traitors. Plus, facts don't seem to matter too much to you, so why should we not have fun?

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 12:47pm

108. The Bush Amen Choir. I like that.

     So many Americans, even so many loyal Republicans, have changed their minds about supporting Bush's policies and practices because they feel Bush is going in the wrong direction on so many issues. Thats not just my opinion, that's the opinion of fully two-thirds of the country.

     How is it that with Bush's approval ratings down around his ankles, The Nation's comment section attracts this small minority of yahoo's and true-believers that will follow Bush to armegedon? The statistical odds that any one of them would show up here is so low, it's surprising. Day after day, they come back and post their protestations, "It's not like this, it's not like that. No you are wrong."

     Posted by NeilSagan at 02/02/2007 @ 12:49pm

109. Sorry you left, ponti. You have left my questions unanswered. do you think the penalties against the Palestinians and charges against Padilla should be dropped because the original crimes were not present? Same argument you are making about libby.

     Sticks and stones, but name calling seems to hurt the neo-cons feelings. Poor scared, sensitive neo-cons.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 12:50pm

110. i will say I appreciate the neo's showing up here. I enjoy the give and take. No reason we shouldn't have our opinions challenged. I just wish these Tough Guys had thicker skin. Perfectly OK to drop a bomb on a village, but call someone a name and they can't take it.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 12:53pm

111. Damn, we spooked the lemming with too many irrefutable facts.

     Posted by Turk33 at 02/02/2007 @ 12:54pm

112. "Mr. McClellan was standing in front of the bus." Quite true -- he had no credibility in the briefing room after it was exposed that he was just being fed lies to cover for Rove.

     Cheney's note is very shocking. I'd love to hear him testify about the phrase "the guy that we asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder." Who is "we," and what did "we" ask Libby to do? The defense is not about to put this hot-tempered lunatic on the stand, even if they did manage to find the few jurors in Washington who are not already convinced that the man is without principle.

     How many witnesses have testified to a pre-Russert date for either telling Libby about Plame or hearing about Plame from Libby? At least five or six, right? Grossman, Grenier, Martin, Fleischer, Miller, plus the fellow who had the "Tom Cruise" document with Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson's names on it. Oh, and Addington, who testified that Libby asked him what kind of files the CIA would keep if a CIA employee had sent a spouse on a trip, and whether the president had authority to declassify information on his own. [Quite shocking again.]

     Then, next week, the jury's going to hear six or seven hours of Libby's peculiar story in his own (audiotaped) voice. And, for dessert: the only celebrity witness, Tim Russert.

     It looks like Fitzgerald isn't a bad bus driver himself.

     Posted by RLawrence at 02/02/2007 @ 12:54pm

113. Ponti is lurking like the chickenshit he is. He is not intersted in reasoned debate. His last post is priceless, and a good example of his hypocritical accusations. He would have you believe that the reason the thread had degenerated into name-calling is because of others, not him:

     Neil Sagan: It still doesn't bother you he took this country too war on false pretenses, does it? Ponti: I don't agree with the premise of your question. Does it bother you that most of the posters at the Nation are America-hating leftists? Go wipe your nose little boy, you're out of your league here. Go get a little more indoctrination from your leftist media and/or 'intellectuals' in academia. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 12:33am

     AND THEN...

     Ponti: As usual, the discussion degenerates into a name-calling contest. Brunowe, you may have some valid points and I'll think about them, but the rest of you sound like a bunch of idiots, to be frank. See you later. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 12:41am

     Posted by NeilSagan at 02/02/2007 @ 1:03pm

114. It looks like Fitzgerald isn't a bad bus driver himself.

     Posted by RLAWRENCE 02/02/2007 @ 12:54am

     And let's hope that after this cross-town trip, he gets to drive the bus thousands of miles to the end of the line - for Bush, Cheney, etc, etc...!

     Posted by Turk33 at 02/02/2007 @ 1:05pm

115. I'd like to declare Ponti the winner of the name-calling contest but not because the name-calling he does is particularly clever or original but because he does it more than enyone.

     Whoever, coined this one "Bush Amen Choir" wins an award too.

     Posted by NeilSagan at 02/02/2007 @ 1:07pm

116. And let's hope that after this cross-town trip, he gets to drive the bus thousands of miles to the end of the line - for Bush, Cheney, etc, etc...!

     Posted by TURK33 02/02/2007 @ 1:05pm |

     That's the BIG question. Is the Libby prosecution a prelude to a feast.

     Posted by NeilSagan at 02/02/2007 @ 1:08pm

117. Now he tells us

     In an otherwise unremarkable interview with the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, the president explained a bit about how he came to realize his strategy in Iraq wasn't working.

     WSJ: Was there a moment in the war when you said we have to make a major change in the way we're doing things in Iraq?

     GWB: Yes, there was.

     WSJ: When was that?

     GWB: September/October.

     WSJ: Why?

     GWB: Violence. It looked like it was uncontrollable.

     Now, there are a couple of things wrong with this, not the least of which is the fact that "September/October" is not a "moment" (though, for a man who sees three years of costly war as a "comma," maybe his timing is a little off).

     The more serious problem is what Bush and his top aides were saying in "September/October," when they insisted we didn't need to make a major change.

     TP gives us the rundown:

     QUESTION: Are we winning? BUSH: Absolutely we're winning. … We're winning and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done. And the crucial battle, right now, is Iraq. [10/25/06]

     BUSH: But I believe that the military strategy we have is going to work. That's what I believe. [10/25/06]

     QUESTION: But just to be clear: When the commanders on the ground tell the president, in the large picture, we are stepping closer to chaos, he believes that can also be a picture of winning? SNOW: Yes. [11/1/06]

     BUSH: We've got a lot going for us. We got a strategy that helps us achieve victory, and we got a military that is the finest military any country has ever assembled. [11/3/06]

     In September and October, to suggest that the current strategy was failing was to be a defeatist. To argue for a major change in policy was to be foolish, if not dangerous. All the while, however, according to the president, he was convinced that the criticisms were absolutely right. How convenient for him to acknowledge that now.

     This is no small admission. Bush is effectively admitting, on the record, that he was blatantly lying before the midterm elections, in all likelihood for partisan political purposes.

     How in the world does anyone still find the president credible?

     link [thecarpetbaggerreport.com]

     Posted by NeilSagan at 02/02/2007 @ 1:12pm

118. More proof that the world is not black and white, like Chimpy, Rush and Bubba Oh'Really(?) would like their sheep to believe. Plus it is more proof that ChimpCo has a bad history of picking bad allies. (see also Halliburton/Saddam, Halliburtn/Iran business ties)

     http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/world/asia/02afghan.html?ex=1328072400 &en=5311a28f06cf69cd&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 1:26pm

119. So, let's see, by my count in testimony and other evidence of which we are aware in the public domain, we have Cheney giving talking points and/or marching orders on the following occasions: (1) To Libby and Martin on Air Force II on July 12, 2003, regarding the response to media inquiries about Wilson, wherein there is discussion about exposing Wilson's wife working for the CIA; (2) On July 7,2003, when Cheney called Martin up to Capitol Hill and dictated notes as to what her media response ought to be and then had her forward those notes to Ari Fleischer; and (3) the infamous Cheney handwritten notes in the margins of the original Wilson op-ed in the NYTimes giving Scooter some marching orders on a Wilson response. And that's just off the top of my head -- is it me, or are you seeing a pattern of behavior from Vice President Cheney in having a very strong hand in silencing a critic that, according to Team Libby, was simply "a sliver," according to Ted Wells' opening statement.

     That "Libby a firewall for Cheney" theory has a whole lot more bricks in it as of this week, doesn't it? Why do I find the "Wilson story was a sliver" less and less believable the more and more hands-on interest and obsession we hear about Cheney and Libby attaching to the political pushback on the questions about Cheney's credibility?

     Libby Trial: Where everbody knows your name

     LINK [tinyurl.com]

     Posted by NeilSagan at 02/02/2007 @ 1:28pm

120. Back in SEpt/Oct his staff was still using the phrase "ivil-cay ar-way" around Chimpy. It took the poor guy a while to catch on.

     Poor Chimpy.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 1:29pm

121. Whoever, coined this one "Bush Amen Choir" wins an award too.

     Posted by NEILSAGAN 02/02/2007 @ 1:07pm

     Dubya's amen choir.

     Posted by BRUNOWE 02/02/2007 @ 12:12am

     Thanks. It's actually derived from a Pat Buchanan comment in 1991 when he referred to Israel having an "amen choir"

     Posted by brunowe at 02/02/2007 @ 1:30pm

122. Thanks. It's actually derived from a Pat Buchanan comment in 1991 when he referred to Israel having an "amen choir"

     Posted by BRUNOWE 02/02/2007 @ 1:30pm

     That's right, and earned Pat the perhaps deserved label of "anti-Semite".

     Now of course say something against Israel and....you're probably on the LEFT, not Buchanan Right!

     Posted by Mask at 02/02/2007 @ 1:32pm

123. BTW, love this hypocrisy...

     "More proof that the world is not black and white, like Chimpy, Rush and Bubba Oh'Really(?) would like their sheep to believe."

     Posted by CRABWALK 02/02/2007 @ 1:26pm

     From a guy who believes that everybody to the "left of Cheney" is "good" and to the right is "evil"! Sounds pretty "black and white" to me.

     LOL

     Posted by Mask at 02/02/2007 @ 1:33pm

124. I've followed this case fairly closely and at this point I am wondering exactly why this thing is being tried.

     It looks like there is an overwhelming case against Libby. Wouldn't he have been better off at some point just admitting this and going for the best deal he could get? Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers to prove that two plus two equals three seems like an amazing waste of money to me.

     What would be the ramifications of a Libby mea culpa at this point?

     Posted by davefoc at 02/02/2007 @ 1:41pm

125. As usual, the discussion degenerates into a name-calling contest. Brunowe, you may have some valid points and I'll think about them, but the rest of you sound like a bunch of idiots, to be frank. See you later.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 12:41am

     This, coming from you, Ponti? What a joke.

     Still never heard you prove any of your accusations about me, or even apologize for trying to whitewash me.

     Let me remind you who and what you are, you mouthy bitch, since you run and duck and weave and backtrack with the best (worst) of them. Let me remind you of some of your own comments here, and how you hypocritically project onto others your own shortcomings, given that you ran like a chickenshit bitch from the last couple of threads after I outed you:

     -----------------------

     Well, well, well, look what we have here - Pontifitard still running his ignorant, obfuscating mouth on a whole new thread.

     What else are you running from, Pussyficus? Allow me to refresh your memory.

     I posted a post outlining all of the venemous rhetoric you opened with, and the fact that this is an ongoing trial. You excerpted a line of mine from that post (The trial is ongoing - I'd suggest you slow down on your chicken-counting.) and soon began drawing all kinds of (baseless) conclusions about me, including that what I said above meant "It's not over yet! We can still get'em! You'll see!". I never said that or anything like it.

     When I challenged you to prove I had ever said anything like that (which you still cannot do), you merely said you had summed up my position nicely and that I should "deal with it", even though I hadn't even outlined any position but that this is an ongoing trial (which is a simple fact).

     There's more:

     Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 5:06pm

     "The sane segment of society (and the world at large) disapproves of your president, his party, and of perjury."

     ND, you see here's the problem - you ask me to take you seriously - but at the same time you post bad faith arguments like this. I mean, come on - I'm talking about the moral idiocy that the Plame investigation has devolved into, and you try to redirect the argument to polls. And which perjury are you talking about? Libby's so-called perjury, which honestly looks like nothing more than misstatements under oath, and in any case has yet to be proven? And while we're on the subject of perjury, shall we even begin to discuss the hordes of programmed leftist morons who refuse to acknowledge Clinton's lying under oath, by trying to trivialize it as 'lying about sex'?

     Now Pretzel and JR don't even ask to be taken seriously - that's what makes them such fun, and so much fun to make fun of.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 9:09pm

     Now, Pontifidiot, here's your continuing problem.

     The folks on this series of threads were discussing a subject - the Scooter Libby trial (surely you've heard of it) - seems that a bunch of prosecutors and judges and citizens agreed that Scooter Libby should be indicted for five counts of criminal behavior.

     Here's how you entered the last thread on this topic:

     Jesus, you liberals are still talking about all this Plame stuff? Seriously, folks...get a job, or a life, or both.

     Or better yet, why don't we discuss what it was that Sandy Berger stole and destroyed from the National Archives - now there's something the moonbats are eager to forget.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 04:44am | ignore this person

     Clue you in, Ponti - you were the one who redirected the conversation from Plame to Berger, a man who has already been prosecuted for his crime. You used this distraction apropos of nothing, although I do understand how you were trying to couch it in a deeper discussion of moral equivalence.

     The problem is, that isn't really why you do all of this distracting, now, is it?

     You're still attempting to detract from that line of conversation any way you can. And you accuse others of bad faith arguments?

     Newsflash for you, Ponti: 70% of the world does disagree with your president and and most of the beliefs you espouse here, just like I said before. That's why I brought up the figure - when you go pasting opinion pieces instead of facts to support your arguments, you are proving nothing more than you say I am. All I see working on your behalf is baseless accusations of other posters, your smart mouth, and someone else's opinion hit-piece.

     You expect folks to take you seriously when you post your own venemous rhetoric:

     piffle moonbats get a job get a life fantasphere plame in a teapot much ado about nothing truth second in the fever swamps of the left resident raving specialists slavering rabid, demented hounds of the left-wing blogosphere lunatics

     Really, you expect anyone to take you seriously?

     I thought long and hard about devolving all the way to schoolyard language with you the other day and outing you as the mouthy bitch you are (and nothing more), but I've since come to the conclusion that that's the only level of language you really understand.

     Opinion sustains you, and facts clearly upset you - I still have yet to see you prove a single one of your unsubstantiated accusations about me.

     You mouthy bitch.

     Posted by NEW DAWN 01/31/2007 @ 2:44pm | ignore this person

     Oh, and Ponti -

     Just to deflate another of the stupid arguments with which you like to paint as many liberals as you can:

     Yes, it is a clearly established fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath, and I don't "excuse" him for doing so, for any reason. I do understand that lying is lying, period - however, I also know that lies to cover up sex are not the same as lies about imminent threats from other countries that bring us into wars. Anyone who argues differently is confusing the consequences to our country of telling said lies. One shames the dignified office of the presidency - the other shames the office AND includes the added bonus of wasting billions of dollars and American lives in the failing adventure that is Iraq.

     Now, with that entirely irrelevant point addressed, what else you got to distract from actually backing up your baseless accusations about me?

     Posted by NEW DAWN 01/31/2007 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person

     Oh, come on, ND, if you keep posting stuff like that I'm going to have to address you seriously. I know perfectly well there are some well-reasoned liberals in the world, and even here, namely, perhaps yourself and HMAN. Brunowe also seems to have a valid point here and there too. But surely you don't expect anyone intelligent to take guys like JR, Will, and FRB seriously. Like I said, I just come here for the entertainment. If you insist on an actual dialogue, I'd have to put all those guys on ignore, thus spoiling half the fun. I love this guy BRANT above, by the way. "Chavez isn't a dictator, he's just a President with an unlimited term." Where else am I gonna get that? Huh? Huh?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/31/2007 @ 5:33pm

     So, you get your rocks off by coming here for no other purpose to insult and mock those you perceive to be your inferiors. I see.

     You are an even more pathetic human being than I thought, Pontificus.

     If that is the case, then you acknowledge that you serve no useful purpose here. You add nothing useful to the discussion, and in fact, strongly detract from the conversation for the MANY well-reasoned liberals here.

     You're right, there is an ignore button here, and I could also use it on you. But as long as you keep making an ass of yourself in here, I'd rather help you do it. You amuse me, too, just not in the way that you'd like.

     Perhaps it would be better for everyone involved if you just leave and don't come back, Pontificus. You could use the newfound free time to learn some humility and decency. Maybe learn to fact-check, stick to a subject, and provide links to your right-wing rag articles so people know you aren't making shit up out of whole cloth, like you do with your accusations of other posters and liberals in general.

     We'll still be here when you grow up.

     Posted by NEW DAWN 01/31/2007 @ 5:56pm

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2007 @ 1:42pm

126. Bushites and NEOCONs have no decency. Pontificus has no integrity.

     Posted by NeilSagan at 02/02/2007 @ 1:55pm

127. Apologies to everyone who has read the above posts from me multiple times - I wouldn't chase the guy if he didn't run.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2007 @ 2:00pm

128. ...his mouth

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2007 @ 2:10pm

129. Posted by MASK 02/02/2007 @ 1:33pm |

     As you live here, I know you have seen the previous five postings where i admit to my hypocrisy. And, as usual, you put things in quotes that I never said. i think you will be going back into the iggy pile with Rese/Plunger.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 2:14pm

130. I've followed this case fairly closely and at this point I am wondering exactly why this thing is being tried ...

     Posted by DAVEFOC 02/02/2007 @ 1:41pm

     That would be because the smart thing to do would be to say, I'm sorry, I obviously screwed up, I have no business working for the American people, I resign.

     But the self-involved little pricks that Bush and Cheney are so fond of ... aren't too damned smart.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 02/02/2007 @ 2:19pm

131. God, I love your honesty, Crab.

     So refreshing. :)

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2007 @ 2:20pm

132. Plus, the right of Cheney crowd is a small and thinning group. So far, many of them have been jailed or outed as pedophiles, drug addicts, gambling addicts or gay hooker chasers. Or they support dictators, drug lords or American Taliban. What a fine side of the line to reside on.

     I'll stick with the lefty kooks for now, having lived with the right for 20 years and found it to be a dark place indeed. puppets and chants may not end terrorism, but neither has an ill conceived war.

     How many libertarians are in congress now? That is your representation. Zip.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 2:21pm

133. Thanks, ND.

     Miss ya, I think we have been here at different times lately. Hope you are well. Slappin the mendicants is a fun little hobby, no? Any idiot can plainly see the writing on the wall. Cheese dip all around.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 2:24pm

134. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/02/2007 @ 1:42pm

     Pontificus is Latin for "unworthy of response."

     I still enjoyed the post.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 02/02/2007 @ 2:25pm

135. I love the guys screen name though. He beat me to it, for that I have to give him credit. Maybe I will change mine to Hypocritus Maximus to avoid any more confusion on Masks part.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 2:29pm

136. Back atcha, Crab. And yes, I can plainly see that.

     Just been busy (working on more movies - still trying to finish that death row series)... Also find it more and more frustrating to come here and hear the apologists and deniers of basic common sense.

     This White House regularly performs character assassinations and hit jobs on its detractors.

     Any idiot can plainly see that, too.

     --------------------

     And thanks to Mypara, too - I hate to come across as a pain in the ass with the Rese-length posts, so I appreciate the support.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2007 @ 2:29pm

137. He has a wife you knooow.... Do you know what her name is Centurion?

     Speaking of slappin, I better go, the wife will be home soon and I have done nothing she will see as progress. She views this little hobby as a waste of time. Silly girl.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 2:33pm

138. Catch all ya'll tonight.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 2:38pm

139. Peace, Crab.

     "This is the hidden message".

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2007 @ 2:45pm

140. More proof that the world is not black and white, like Chimpy, Rush and Bubba Oh'Really(?) would like their sheep to believe.

     Posted by CRABWALK 02/02/2007 @ 1:26pm

     Plus, the right of Cheney crowd is a small and thinning group. So far, many of them have been jailed or outed as pedophiles, drug addicts, gambling addicts or gay hooker chasers. Or they support dictators, drug lords or American Taliban. What a fine side of the line to reside on.

     Posted by CRABWALK 02/02/2007 @ 2:21pm

     Sounds pretty black or white to me....or am I putting words in your mouth?

     Posted by Mask at 02/02/2007 @ 3:35pm

141. look up Pearl Harbor, you will find Japan attacked us. Look up 9/11, you will find Iraq did not attack us. Old news, but you need to be reminded.

     Neither did Germany or Italy. And yet we fought them anyway.

     Germany had also conquered most of europe by that time and was threatening, I mean really threatening, our closest ally england.

     ponti and cpt and their ilk come here with the story that the sun rises in the west. that is the basis of everyone of their posts.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2007 @ 3:37pm

142. and was threatening, I mean really threatening, our closest ally england.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/02/2007 @ 3:37pm

     JR, I'll only point out that you may have given them AMMO, trying to "disarm" them with THAT comment.

     Their natural come-back will be "So? Iran is threatening our 'closest ally' in the region, Israel!"

     Posted by Mask at 02/02/2007 @ 3:48pm

143. Hello, Johannes.

     Wie hängt es?

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 5:05pm

144. I'm lovin' it. the Libby trial I mean.it brings a little sunshine into my humdrum life EVERYDAY. and no end in sight. this must really burn them up over at the white, I mean blood house. there is a famous painting by Goya of Maximilian before a firing squad. I will say no more and leave the rest up to your imagination.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2007 @ 5:59pm

145. Hello, Johannes.

     Wie hängt es?

     Posted by CRABWALK 02/02/2007 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person

     off topic alert

     I have been studying Renaissance Festival books online. fascinating, some with wonderful illustrations. many libraries have been digitizing these rare books. the british library and the french national library have some marvelous virtual exhibits. only some of the books have illustrations, so it does take some looking, but the rewards are there.

     the festivals the books commemorate were huge, very costly affairs, somewhat like $100 million Hollywood productions, but bigger and better. if anyone is interested I can suggest some I've looked at.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2007 @ 6:12pm

146. Lay it on me. If anybody objects we can move to another thread.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 6:25pm

147. things Chimpy could've said:

     "I am here to gather intelligence. Groo is in great need of intelligence!"

     "He who laughs at Groo's brains will find there is nothing to laugh about!"

     I do believe we are on the cusp of a new nickname.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 6:38pm

148. special-1.bl.uk/treasures/festivalbooks/BookDetails.aspx?strFest=0262

     try this, and let me know if that works.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2007 @ 6:43pm

149. http://special-1.bl.uk/treasures/festivalbooks/BookDetails.aspx?strFest= 0070

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2007 @ 6:48pm

150. things Chimpy could've said:

     "I am here to gather intelligence. Groo is in great need of intelligence!"

     "He who laughs at Groo's brains will find there is nothing to laugh about!"

     I do believe we are on the cusp of a new nickname.

     Posted by CRABWALK 02/02/2007 @ 6:38pm

     Or "Groo is no halfwit... Groo is not even half a halfwit!"

     I'd have started calling G-Dubs "Groo" a long time ago, but that's an insult to Groo.

     At least we can excuse Groo's mindlessness because he's a fictional character - would that we should be so lucky with George.

     Other notable Groo-nicknames, some of which fit G-Dubs most fine:

     Anteater head Anteater's nose Antskull Antskulled nimrod Ape-face Ape-snout Bat-eyed cretin Beetle-brained scourge of the world Blithering fool Boar-brain Brainless warthog Buffoon Bughead Bumbler of the first order Camel innards Cheesehead Chowder-brain Clam-brain Clothhead Clown Cretin Dimwit Dog-haired mouth-breather Dolt Drunk Duckfooted beast Ducknosed worm Dumb Dummy Fish-faced jackass Flybrain Fly-headed walking nose Fool Froghead Gnatmind Halfwit Hen-headed warthog Horse-bladder Human Plague Idiot Idiot of idiots Incompetent Incredibly stupid Imbecile Jackass Jerk Lackey Lardbrain Liar Loathesome, disgusting toad Lunkhead Mannequin-mind Mental midget Mindless barbarian Mindless, moronic, inept toad of a pig Mongrel's tonsils Moosefaced walking disaster Moron Mudheaded enemy of the people Mule-brain Numbskull Ox-head Ox-nose Parrot's ass Pathetic wretch Pig Pigeon dropping Pignosed blight on the land Pimple on the back of a pig Potato face Potato-nosed yarnhead Rat Rat-bait Rear of a goat Rhinocerous-faced whelp Rock-brained gooney bird Rube Savage Scaramouch Sheep-faced worm Sheep-lipped plague of millions Simpleton Sissy Slave Slow of mind Sludgeheap Slug Smelly Snail brain Squirrel-brain Stranger Stupid Stupid-looking, ugly and altogether insipid Swine The most destructive barbarian of all Toad Toad-brain Toad-face Ugliest of uglies Ugly Unfit to eat with pigs Unkempt wretch Utterly inept moron, wholly devoid of worth as a human being Very stupid Wart Warthog-buttocks Warthog nostrils Wartpuss "Wise Gent" (sarcasm) Without a mind Wood-skull Worm Wormskull

     (With many thanks to Wiki)

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2007 @ 6:49pm

151. .bl.uk/treasures/festivalbooks/BookDetails.aspx?strFest=0229

     this one is the peak. very often they had huge floats, like at our parades, but this one took place in Venice and they turned their boats into gigantic fanciful floats that floated.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2007 @ 6:53pm

152. One unusual thing in this trial: allowing the jurors to ask questions of witnesses. Lawyers say it's rare in federal courtrooms but occurring more in some federal trials.

     The presiding judge, Reggie Walton, is a former superior court judge where this practice is more common. Some lawyers say there is a lot of discussion about this type of activity to try to get the jury more involved and to allow them to address any doubts they might have.

     Jurors have so far posed several questions for most of the witnesses.

     When prosecutors and defense attorneys are finished with the witness, the jurors are given the chance to write questions on note cards which are handed to the judge. He and the lawyers on both sides then have a conference to decide if the questions are appropriate for this witness or if they ask for speculation, whether they involve classified information, or whether they are asking about issues too far afield.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2007 @ 7:07pm

153. Jr, neither of browsers can locate the server you posted. Waaa.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 7:12pm

154. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/02/2007 @ 7:07pm

     This is something that I think is long overdue in our system. With the judge there to act as sieve for any truly dumb questions, I think it can do nothing but good. It has always struck me as bizarre that jurors are not allowed to ask questions, or even in many cases, take notes.

     Wouldn't it be grand to be able to pose questions to Cheney while his smoking hands are under oath?

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 7:16pm

155. try google. when I copy and paste to google the book comes up. try that.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2007 @ 7:17pm

156. try google. when I copy and paste to google the book comes up. try that. start the URL with bl.

     bl.uk/treasures/festivalbooks/BookDetails.aspx?strFest=0262

     bl.uk/treasures/festivalbooks/BookDetails.aspx?strFest= 0070

     bl.uk/treasures/festivalbooks/BookDetails.aspx?strFest=0229

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2007 @ 7:22pm

157. Things dubys has said:

     You know, I went to Washington to solve problems, not to pass them on to future Presidents and future generations.

     They're nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers. You've just got to understand that about the nature of the enemy. They hate us because we love. They hate, we love freedom, is why they hate us, and we're not going to quit loving freedom.

     He's a good man. -- Comment about his dog Barney

     The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain aggression and evil by force.

     And one of the things we've got to make sure that we do is anything.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 7:28pm

158. AHA!

     The figures of flattery, resentment, falsity and deceit.

     Could be a political convention!!

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 7:38pm

159. Thank you kind sir. I earned 2 spousal points.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 7:46pm

160. JR, this is the type of work I do. If you get a close look at the pic on the right/top, I made most of the components. All of the Genko leaves. Master designed it, and made it all look pretty. I still have the back injury from that job.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 7:55pm

161. ahh, you may need this.

     http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0764311069/ref=dp_image_0/102-87 23643-6604157?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2007 @ 7:56pm

162. these were indeed political events. sometimes at the end they blew everything up. after mount Vesuvius erupted, it became the in thing to build your own volcano in your backyard, and then have it erupt. this lives on in our fireworks display on fourth of July, also political statements.

     here are many other sites that have this kind of material. as I said be sure to check the french national library.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2007 @ 8:08pm

163. this is the type of work I do

     cool.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2007 @ 8:09pm

164. did you see the panorama shot of Venice? be sure to blow it up large, and the boats/floats are truly magical.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2007 @ 8:18pm

165. ah i missed pompissifous. still pushing treason in his inimitably stupid fashion, i see.

     Posted by pretzel at 02/02/2007 @ 8:50pm

166. Pompissifous. I like it.

     Pompousass?

     That reminds me.

     Hey, Ponti - come back and answer my liberal-piffle-moonbat-get-a-job-get-a-life-fantasphere-much-ado-about-n othing-truth-second-in-the-fever-swamps-of-the-left-resident-raving-spec ialist-slavering-rabid-demented-hound-of-the-left-wing-blogosphere-lunat ic questions. Address the meat of ANY post I have posted here in the last two years and try to make any of those accusations about me.

     Try it. I seek proof of the whitewash accusations you make about me and other liberals.

     I've been asking you for five days to back up your big mouth. But somehow, I keep "just missing" you.

     You drop off the thread (only to begin ranting anew on another) the moment I confront you on your hypocrisies and your ill-informed statements, accusing me of "accusing anyone who doesn't agree with me" of being "ill-informed".

     I'm not accusing anyone else - I'm accusing you.

     I'm tired of "just missing" you.

     I'd rather hit you dead on, solid, and in the center of what you are.

     You around?

     You owe me and the liberals you whitewash an apology.

     Step up.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2007 @ 10:17pm

167. It is also fun to watch the media squirm as their names come up in the trial. Interesting to see them have to confirm that they don't really tell us half of what goes on.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2007 @ 12:02am

168. Until the Clinton debacle and this recent presidency, Crab, I never thought too much about media biases. Was too busy with the wife and the studio and the job and the kid and and and and

     Now, I'm a junkie. Dozen newspapers, all the internet I can find time to scour, news every night...

     And sadly, there is more noise than news these days than ever. Screening it has become heavy work, given the number of outlets and the fact that every outlet has someone else calling it biased.

     Tell us half of what goes on? Not a chance.

     I'm not sure we could hear the real story through all the noise, anyway. You have to listen soooooo hard.

     Know what I mean?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/03/2007 @ 01:09am

169. I see the problem as not too many outlets, but too few inlets. While there are a lot of places that carry "news", there are few that really practice journalism. News rooms are being slashed in favor of more ad reps and to keep revenue up.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2007 @ 01:15am

170. Bears or Colts?

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2007 @ 01:17am

171. haha. At least a copy editor in DC has a sense of humor, From WP headline feed:

     "Yesterday was the first cattle call of the Democratic presidential campaign and -- holy cow! -- these candidates can moo."

     HAR!

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2007 @ 01:22am

172. woops, sorry, I guess Dana Milbank wrote that himself. Still funny.

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2007 @ 01:27am

173. Bears or Colts?

     Posted by CRABWALK 02/03/2007 @ 01:17am

     Commercials (he says with a sheepish grin).

     Since my Niners sucked tailpipe all year (again) and have been out of it, I tuned out. Until Sunday, that is...

     I'm more looking forward more to Saturday and the UFC...And a live cage match next weekend... yes!

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/03/2007 @ 01:57am

174. more looking forward more

     dee-dee-dee

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/03/2007 @ 01:58am

175. David,

     This whole Libby "Yes, he did...No, he didn't" seems a perfect display of "Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations...." A bunch of bs about not much of anything!

     Bottom line, was Ms. Plame such a national asset counter-proliferating WMDs' that her outing, by her hubby, deserved so much tabloid exposure? All that manpower wasted while those of us that think "It's the economy, stupid", is where the productive part of our time should be spent!

     Is Corn.com's Comment Section ever coming back, to accepting Happy comments like this?

     Posted by Happy at 02/03/2007 @ 12:28pm

176. HAPP, when did Joe out Plame?

     Would the CIA have asked for a special prosecutor if she was a janitor (which she has been compared to often here)? Would the judge have let the trial go through if it was "much ado..."?

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2007 @ 1:17pm

177. Posted by BRUNOWE 02/02/2007 @ 12:12am

     That's a complete non-sequitur.

     How so?

     The point is that there was a concerted effort to take out Plame to go after Wilson. That effort involved leaking her status to various reporters.

     Yes, but if Plame was not a covert agent (and no one with any legal standing has alleged that she was; for good reason), and her status had already been revealed by Armitage anywyay, and people had been authorized by the President to reveal her classified status (which he legally has the right to do), where was the crime?

     Given the nature of Ed Wilson (and his wife; see my previous posts about how Clinton's minions had permeated the CIA with partisan hacks like her) as an anti-Bush mole, this falls under the rubric of 'fighting fire with fire'. Seems fair to me.

     In the course of the investigation of whether a crime was committed in the course of those leaks, Libby allegedly committed another crime, for which he is being prosecuted.

     Again, you put your cart before the horse, betraying a bias that in turn betrays yourself. Libby may or my not have committed a crime, that remains to be seen.

     Posted by pontificus at 02/03/2007 @ 3:15pm

178. Whattsa matter Ponti, why won't you answer my questions?

     Why should anybody charged with obstruction (or in England, perversion) of justice not be set free if the original crime proves nt to have happened?

     Posted by crabwalk at 02/03/2007 @ 4:35pm

179. "It's the economy, stupid", is where the productive part of our time should be spent!

     Is Corn.com's Comment Section ever coming back, to accepting Happy comments like this?

     Posted by HAPPY 02/03/2007 @ 12:28am | ignore this person

     NO

     the Libby trial has one more defendant in the dock, the war in Iraq.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2007 @ 4:50pm

180. Posted by CRABWALK 02/03/2007 @ 4:35pm

     Why should anybody charged with obstruction (or in England, perversion) of justice not be set free if the original crime proves nt to have happened?

     That's question is not pertinent to my original point, which was: if Fitz knew before grilling Libby and others (the basis for his current prosecution) that Armitage was the source of the Plame 'leak', the purported purpose of his investigation, why did he continue with the investigation?

     Brunowe seems to say it was because Plame was either 'classified' or 'covert', or some muddy middle ground between the two, and that there was 'a concerted attempt to discredit Wilson by releasing her identity'. If she was 'classified', then any 'concerted' effort involving the Pres or Vice Pres was entirely legal, since they have the authority to declassify at will. If she was 'covert', then why wasn't Armitage prosecuted?

     Posted by pontificus at 02/03/2007 @ 5:56pm

181. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/02/2007 @ 1:42pm

     Yes, it is a clearly established fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath, and I don't "excuse" him for doing so, for any reason. I do understand that lying is lying, period - however, I also know that lies to cover up sex are not the same as lies about imminent threats from other countries that bring us into wars.

     Well congratulations ND that little revelation puts you light years ahead of half of the shitheads on this site in terms of credibility and integrity. Yet having opened the door to reason wide enough to admit this vanishlingly small shaft of light, you let your partisanship slam it shut once more. In trivializing Clinton's lies under oath as a 'lie about sex', you trivialize every sexual harassment investigation ever conducted in this country, not to mention the standards of office that Clinton violated, and the harassment and character assasination by his minions of every woman who dared to step forward to verify those accounts.

     Next you'll be telling me that although it was certainly wrong for Berger to steal and destroy uncatalogued and original documents from the National Archives dealing with the Clinton's efforts against terrorism, that it's all okay because he was probably just trying to write a book.

     Anyone who argues differently is confusing the consequences to our country of telling said lies. One shames the dignified office of the presidency - the other shames the office AND includes the added bonus of wasting billions of dollars and American lives in the failing adventure that is Iraq.

     The problem here is your accusation presupposes a conclusion that is not proven: that Bush lied to bring this country to war. Despite the ravings on this site and thousands of similar ones throughout the country and the world, no proof has ever been offered for this.

     Posted by pontificus at 02/03/2007 @ 6:08pm

182. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/02/2007 @ 12:21am

     Nowhere else in the world exists a people so afraid of shadows. And nowhere else in the world are there people who claim to be so strong, yet so quick to collapse in utter fear at the first cry of "wolf". The real danger is prokaryotes like PONTI, who pump life into dead enemies and erect bigger and badder threats out of the ashes of the few ragtag idiots who threaten to huff and puff and blow down the USA, as if such a thing were possible by termites. PONTI and his ilk have thrown not only kerosene, but torches to the ashes left by the little brush fires extinguished as soon as they cropped up, granting them new life. Then cannonade the public with fantastic plots about blowing up bridges, buildings, poisoning food and water, crashing planes, ect. and everyone is trying to move into a brick house before the Big Bad Wolf comes to town...

     Hey Pedro that's all very brave when you're posting from some third world latin american shithole that's so poverty-stricken even the terrorists don't bother to bomb it. Talk to me after you've had 3,000 of your people incinerated by Islamic thugs, til then you're just noise.

     Posted by pontificus at 02/03/2007 @ 7:01pm

183. In the course of the investigation of whether a crime was committed in the course of those leaks, Libby allegedly committed another crime, for which he is being prosecuted.

     Again, you put your cart before the horse, betraying a bias that in turn betrays yourself. Libby may or my not have committed a crime, that remains to be seen.

     You need to read what I write. I said "allegedly" for a reason. That's what "may or my[sic] not have committed a crime" means.

     Yes, but if Plame was not a covert agent (and no one with any legal standing has alleged that she was; for good reason), and her status had already been revealed by Armitage anywyay, and people had been authorized by the President to reveal her classified status (which he legally has the right to do), where was the crime?

     Plame certainly had been a covert agent. I don't know whether she had done any overseas work with the five-years prior to the disclosure (which is the relevant law's definition of "covert agent", but she definitely been clandestine before that. Further, the disclosure compromised the front company, any other CIA people involved in that and anyone recruited by it.

     Libby met w/Miller prior to the publication of the Novak story; likewise, Cooper spoke to Rove prior to its publication. The fact that Armitage spoke to Novak prior to that doesn't exonerate what they did. The issues there would be proving the requisite intent (and knowledge of covert status). That would explain why Armitage wasn't prosecuted but the question certainly justified Fitzgerald's investigation.

     Finally, Bush is within his right to declassify information but he isn't within his right to ignore the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If revealing Plame's name violated that law, it doesn't cease to be a violation just because the President authorized it.

     Given the nature of Ed Wilson (and his wife; see my previous posts about how Clinton's minions had permeated the CIA with partisan hacks like her) as an anti-Bush mole, this falls under the rubric of 'fighting fire with fire'. Seems fair to me.

     Yea, but that's absolute nonsense. Plame wasn't a hack, she was a career CIA officer who had served since 1985-86 (that's under three Republican administrations in addition to the Democractic one). Neither was Wilson, he had been a career Foreign Service officer from 1976-98.

     That's all very well, Brunowe, and very techical, too. My statement would be that if you can't explain this investigation in simpler terms than that to the vast majority of people in this country, you're using legal technicalities to justify a witch-hunt.?

     Because the fact that I use legal terms to justify the investigation doesn't speak to the merits of the argument.

     Posted by brunowe at 02/04/2007 @ 12:32am

184. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/03/2007 @ 6:08pm

     Back for more, Ponti? At least you seem to have toned down your smart mouth a bit and tried to offer some actual discussion. It's still pretty miserable, but you're clearly trying. Kudos.

     I notice that you still fail to answer for any of your accusations about me and the whitewash you spray over other liberals, instead just trying to slither on like nothing happened, and like I didn't call you out as the mouthy bitch that you are.

     Okay, I'll let you keep your pinhead in the sand on that note, and just try to politely retort.

     I said, in response to your constant accusations that liberals like myself refuse to acknowledge Bill Clinton's shameful actions:

     "Yes, it is a clearly established fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath, and I don't "excuse" him for doing so, for any reason. I do understand that lying is lying, period - however, I also know that lies to cover up sex are not the same as lies about imminent threats from other countries that bring us into wars."

     You reply:

     Well congratulations ND that little revelation puts you light years ahead of half of the shitheads on this site in terms of credibility and integrity. Yet having opened the door to reason wide enough to admit this vanishlingly small shaft of light, you let your partisanship slam it shut once more. In trivializing Clinton's lies under oath as a 'lie about sex', you trivialize every sexual harassment investigation ever conducted in this country, not to mention the standards of office that Clinton violated, and the harassment and character assasination by his minions of every woman who dared to step forward to verify those accounts.

     But Bill Clinton did not "sexually harass" Monica Lewinsky, Ponti, and she was a legal and consenting adult. Right there is where the hollow and weak premise of your argument falls apart. No, I do not do any injustice to victims of sexual harrassment or assault with my statement.

     A sexual harassment case, in any case, is still not the same as taking a country to war under false pretenses. Apples and hand grenades. You simply have no argument.

     You blather on, putting more words in my mouth that I never spoke, words that, in fact, you got from another poster who neither speaks for me nor for liberalism in general:

     Next you'll be telling me that although it was certainly wrong for Berger to steal and destroy uncatalogued and original documents from the National Archives dealing with the Clinton's efforts against terrorism, that it's all okay because he was probably just trying to write a book.

     Once again, I never said nor implied that I believe or think any such thing. Your track record for putting words in my mouth is astonishingly inaccurate and pervasive, Pontificus. Outright fabrications will not shelter your weak arguments any more than your misrepresentations.

     I did actually say:

     "Anyone who argues differently is confusing the consequences to our country of telling said lies. One shames the dignified office of the presidency - the other shames the office AND includes the added bonus of wasting billions of dollars and American lives in the failing adventure that is Iraq."

     You reply:

     "The problem here is your accusation presupposes a conclusion that is not proven: that Bush lied to bring this country to war. Despite the ravings on this site and thousands of similar ones throughout the country and the world, no proof has ever been offered for this."

     I see you don't like the word "lie", and I can see why - the truth hurts (hurts you, anyway - you ever going to apologize for misrepresenting me and my positions or just keep misrepresenting me?)

     Maybe you missed Joe Scarborough's article, even though I've posted it several times, so I'll use his words to help you understand, one more time:

     "Even if you agree with me that this war was worth fighting as long as we believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's aimed at America, at some point you have to face the facts: the Bush administration was wrong about those weapons, wrong about the nuclear program, wrong about their refusal to quell rioting early, wrong about Bremer's gutting of the Iraqi army and police force, wrong about refusing to kill or capture al Sadr in 2003, wrong to tell the generals not speak of the coming insurgency, wrong to stubbornly refuse to give generals the troops they needed to win this war, wrong to make the "Mission Accomplished" declaration, wrong for the VP to claim that the insurgency was in its death throes and wrong to push a surge plan that the president's top generals opposed.

     The list could continue for pages but I will be generous to the White House and leave it at that."

     Now, if Bush was "wrong" about all those things, then, at the very least, Bush and his administration were grossly, monstrously incompetent in every regard. Either that, or they have intentionally lied and twisted and spun information all along, cherry-picking only what Bush wants to hear and carefully speechcrafting bumper-sticker Band-Aids like "cakewalks" and "last throes" in order, like a slimy used-car huckster, to shuck-and-jive American taxpayers into buying the Iraq lemon.

     And no testimony under oath regarding such matters has ever been uttered by this President, has it, Ponti? Darth Cheney even had to hold his widdle hand the last time serious questions were put to him.

     I believe that Geroge W. Bush and his administration clearly manipulated and spun the evidence that was used to take us to war in Iraq. You refuse to do so. So be it. You and the other 30% are still wrong, and you've been wrong all along - every day, a few more Americans wake up from their long slumber and come to that conclusion. You just go on with your bad self slumber on, though.

     I will hold out hope for further investigations and see what they uncover. I won't count on them, but I will count on this: Bush is history in two years, anyway, and 70% of the world still disagrees with you.

     While I can't imagine a worse president than G-Dub, the "Republican evangelical compassionate conservatives" crowd has never once failed to amaze me in the last six years.

     Hell, with willing dupes like you, who knows what they can accomplish?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2007 @ 03:22am

185. Because the fact that I use legal terms to justify the investigation doesn't speak to the merits of the argument.

     Posted by BRUNOWE 02/04/2007 @ 12:32am | ignore this person

     you didn't use tipso factor

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/04/2007 @ 5:57pm

186. Look at PONTI reeling off his little cracker-barrel philosophy. "We didn't have a choice other than to fight it." This is the logic of a true lickspittle, following the pied piper like so many rats.

     I have no idea where you're coming from on this, Chimi. There was an election held in 2004 in this country, where your ideas were presented and our ideas were presented. Our ideas carried the day. Nobody told the majority of America what to do, they weighed the alternatives and our ideas, in the form of GWB, came out on top. That's what democracy is all about. Why are you such a sore loser?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 12:14am | ignore this person

     Pont.,

     Your "ideas" were revealed to preside in the domain of ignorance. Prior to the 2004 election, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland teamed up with the polling firm Knowledge Networks (KN) to survey the issues of Iraq and the role of the media. The study focused on three key misperceptions promoted among the American population:

     1.Weapons of mass destruction being found. 2. Clear evidence that Saddam Hussein was working closey with al-Qaeda. 3.Global public opinion favored the U.S. going to war in Iraq.

     The PIPA study found strong correlation between one's media source and the likelihood to misperceive one of the above. 80% of Fox News viewers held at least one misperception. The polling continued to show a majority of voters likely to vote for Bush as having these erroneous views regarding the issue that was central to the 2004 election.

     The PIPA poll also asked the American public the following question: "Do you think the Bush administration did imply that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11th attacks?"

     The response was 71% of the respondents answered yes. Just in case you attempt to claim Bush innocent of the propaganda campaign leading to so many misinformed American voters.

     You and your fellow Bush boot lickers were of course, terribly uneducated and/or naive. Fortunately, there are few of you dead-enders remaining.

     By the way, how many Democrats do you recall during the Clinton era, using the Stalinist tactic of labeling those with whom they disagree, as haters of their own nation, ie., "America Haters"?

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/05/2007 @ 8:18pm

187. if you can't explain this investigation in simpler terms than that to the vast majority of people in this country, you're using legal technicalities to justify a witch-hunt. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 11:51am |

     Keep it simple. Explain it to him like he's four years old.

     Posted by NeilSagan at 02/06/2007 @ 4:19pm

188. Berger, Berger, blah, blah, blah. braindead, call Dr. Frist.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/06/2007 @ 4:31pm

189. Bottom line here is the roof of libbys house is about to land on him, how many more of gw's spin meisters will get caught up trying to run from their involvement ?

     The wankers with ponti in the lead are obviously hiding in the dark whilst going to sleep with their radios on listening to their god rush limpdick & co spout the usual rationalizations about reality only problem for them is those of us who actually live in the light of day and follow current events aren't buying their BS.

     Question is this libby trial the first pebble and will gw & co get swept up in the landslide created by the revelation of their incompetences.

     Posted by dycel8r at 02/07/2007 @ 12:24am