Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Also from today`s Reuters...

Leak grand jury meets prosecutor
Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:04 AM ET

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative`s identity met on Wednesday with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald amid signs the prosecutor was preparing to seek criminal charges.

Fitzgerald, who have interviewed many senior White House figures as he seeks the source of the leak, declined comment as they began the grand jury session at about 9 a.m.

Any charges that are brought by the grand jury could be sealed, preventing a public announcement by the court or the prosecutor until possibly on Thursday or Friday, when the grand jury is scheduled to expire.

The secret grand jury session followed a last-minute flurry of interviews by investigators with CIA operative Valerie Plame`s neighbors and a former colleague of top White House adviser Karl Rove.

Plame`s identity was leaked after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of twisting prewar intelligence on Iraq.

White House officials were anxiously awaiting the outcome of the leak case since any indicted officials were expected to resign immediately. If indictments are brought, Bush was likely to make a public statement to try to reassure Americans that he is committed to honesty and integrity in government.

The White House has refused to answer questions about Vice President Dick Cheney`s role in the case.

According to a New York Times report, Cheney`s chief of staff, Lewis Libby, learned about Plame in a conversation with Cheney on June 12, 2003, weeks before her identity became public in a newspaper column by Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.

Libby`s notes indicate Cheney got his information about Plame from then-CIA Director George Tenet, according to the Times. The White House would neither confirm nor deny the account.

On Wednesday, both Rove and Libby were at the White House senior staff meeting in the morning as usual, a senior official said.

Fitzgerald`s investigation has centered on Libby and Rove, President George W. Bush`s top political adviser. Other aides may also be charged, lawyers said.

Lawyers involved in the case said it could be difficult for Fitzgerald to charge administration officials with knowingly revealing Plame`s identity.

They said Fitzgerald appeared more likely to seek charges for easier-to-prove crimes such as making false statements, obstruction of justice and disclosing classified information.

But there were 11th-hour signs that Fitzgerald could still bring charges for the leak itself.

FBI agents on Monday night questioned some of Plame`s neighbors about whether they knew about her CIA work before her identity was leaked to the press. The interviews could help Fitzgerald show that Plame`s status had been a closely-guarded secret.


© Reuters 2005. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

More of today`s news....please go to the URL for the entire report. mirmir

Preparing for a Bumpy Ride
By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real
Posted on October 26, 2005, Printed on October 26, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/27266/
If Bette Davis were still with us, she`d have a piece of advice for the American public: ``Better buckle up. It`s going to be a bumpy ride.``

Yes, all hell is about to break loose. As I said in an early column, I`ve been here before and I can tell you, it ain`t gonna be pretty. The process that is about to begin is a bit like the whole body politic getting a colonic. I remember how it left the nation weak and disoriented for a decade or more. I am, of course, speaking of Watergate -- different cast of characters, same crimes.

In the Watergate era we still had people in Congress, from both parties, with the integrity and backbone to pursue the matter on their own. But those folks have been replaced by the political equivalent of street gang members who make their judgments based on whether the other guy is wearing red or blue.

The following extract about the status of the CIA probe is from today`s ``The New York Times.``

Mohammad Gill

---

October 26, 2005
Leak Counsel Is Said to Press on Rove`s Role
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
and ANNE E. KORNBLUT
WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 - With the clock running out on his investigation, the special counsel in the leak case continued to seek information on Tuesday about Karl Rove`s discussions with reporters in the days before a C.I.A. officer`s identity was made public, lawyers and others involved in the investigation said.

Three days before the grand jury in the case expires and with the White House in a state of high anxiety, the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, appeared still to be trying to determine whether Mr. Rove had been fully forthcoming about his contacts with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist, in July 2003, they said.

Mr. Fitzgerald, who is the United States attorney in Chicago, spent the day in Washington and summoned his team, including his chief F.B.I. investigator, Jack Eckenrode, for what appeared to be a final round of discussions about how to proceed.

Lawyers involved in the case have said Mr. Rove, President Bush`s senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney`s chief of staff, face the possibility of indictment on perjury or other charges related to covering up their actions.

The flurry of last minute activity had White House officials anticipating an announcement as soon as Wednesday about whether the prosecutor would seek indictments. Indictments of Mr. Libby or Mr. Rove or both would leave Mr. Bush a political crisis with the potential to reshape the remainder of his second term. It is not clear whether anyone else might be charged in the case, which centers on what role administration officials played in the disclosure of a covert C.I.A. officer`s identity, first in Mr. Novak`s column on July 14, 2003.

Mr. Fitzgerald`s spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

The investigation was set off by questions about whether administration officials had leaked the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, in response to criticism by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Mr. Wilson, a former diplomat, said in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that the White House had ``twisted`` the intelligence it used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Mr. Wilson traveled to Africa on a mission sponsored by the C.I.A. in 2002 to look into reports that Iraq had acquired nuclear material in Niger.

In a sign that the prosecutor is continuing to build a case that Ms. Wilson`s covert status was ended when she was named in Mr. Novak`s column, F.B.I. agents questioned neighbors of the Wilsons in northwest Washington in the last few days, seeking to determine whether it was commonly known that she was a C.I.A. officer, a person involved in the case said. Ms. Wilson was identified in Mr. Novak`s column by her maiden name, Valerie Plame.

White House officials did not respond to questions about a report on Tuesday in The New York Times that Mr. Libby had first learned of the C.I.A. officer from Mr. Cheney several weeks before Mr. Novak`s column. On a day when the mood at the White House was described by one friend of the president as grim, Mr. Bush used his public appearances on Tuesday to show himself as focused on the nation`s business, most notably Iraq, and undeterred by what he has characterized as ``background noise.``

Twenty-two months after beginning his investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has assembled testimony from dozens of witnesses, secured the cooperation of journalists in helping to piece together what happened and delved deep into the workings of an administration that has always sought to keep its internal deliberations and its political tactics out of public view.

While not commenting on the report about Mr. Libby`s conversation with Mr. Cheney, the White House took issue with suggestions that Mr. Cheney had not been truthful several months later in a television interview when he said he did not know Mr. Wilson and did not know who had sent him on his mission.

Asked whether Mr. Cheney always told the truth to the American people, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, answered, ``Yes.``

At issue were remarks by Mr. Cheney in an appearance on NBC`s ``Meet the Press`` on Sept. 14, 2003. In response to a question about Mr. Wilson, Mr. Cheney said: ``I don`t know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when I came back.``

Mr. Cheney later added, ``I don`t know Joe Wilson,`` and said he had ``no idea who hired him.``

The Times report said Mr. Libby had taken notes of a conversation he had with Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, after Mr. Cheney had spoken to George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, about newspaper articles quoting an anonymous former diplomat taking issue with the administration`s use of intelligence about Iraq`s effort to acquire nuclear material in Niger.

The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney had learned the name of Mr. Wilson`s wife or her covert status, lawyers involved in the case said. But they do show that Mr. Cheney knew and told Mr. Libby that Mr. Wilson`s wife was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and may have helped arrange her husband`s trip, they said.

Republicans sympathetic to Mr. Cheney said there was no inconsistency between what the vice president is reported to have told Mr. Libby and what Mr. Cheney said on ``Meet the Press.`` They said there was nothing in the reported conversation to suggest that the vice president knew Mr. Wilson or knew who had sent him to Africa..............

warmongering beeyatches get what`s coming for them...

From GoP apologist and very gay Matt Drudge

``We have double sourced that the vice president`s chief of staff has been indicted,`` a reporter for ABCNEWS claimed to White House communications director Nicolle Wallace this afternoon... MORE...

ABCNEWS TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF `INDICTMENT`

michael mann is ideal (imo) given he made Insider, to film this thing.

Apropos of Arjun`s post #77, hereunder is a brief biographical description of Michael Ledeen. He is for regime change in the whole of Arab (Muslim) Middle East. Next in line seem to be Syria and Iran. The propaganda machinery against Syria is already in the top gear.

Mohammad Gill

---

Michael Ledeen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Michael Ledeen (born August 1, 1941) is an expert on U.S. foreign policy and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His political ideas, informed by his background in history and philosophy, have influenced or inspired the Bush administration. Ledeen is a contributing editor to the National Review and the Jewish World Review, and a resident scholar (Freedom Scholar) at the American Enterprise Institute. Ledeen was a founding member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and he continues to serve on the JINSA Board of Advisors. Leeden is also considered by many to be a U.S. neoconservative.

Ledeen holds a PhD from the University of Wisconsin, where he specialized in the comparative history of German and Italian fascism. One of Ledeen`s principal mentors was the German-born historian George Mosse. Another major influence on Ledeen was the Italian historian Renzo De Felice. Ledeen`s political ideas are said to have influenced or inspired the Bush administration.

Ledeen was a major figure in the biggest foreign policy scandal of the Ronald Reagan administration. As a secret agent of National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, Ledeen vouched for Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, and along with Oliver North, met with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and officers of Mossad and the CIA to arrange the illegal weapons-for-hostages deal with Iran that would become known as the Iran-Contra scandal.1

He was also a vocal proponent of the theory that the Bulgarian Secret Service was behind the plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II. The theory was later rejected by the Italian Courts. In early 2005 it was suggested that new evidence, in the form of East German Stasi documents, show that it was the Bulgarians in concert with the KGB and Stasi who were behind the plot. The former head of the Stasi, Marcus Wolf, and the Berlin office overseeing the Stasi archive, claim that the documents in question were sent to Italy in 1995 and do not implicate anyone in the attack on the Pope. [1]

Regarding regime change in the Middle East, in 2002 Ledeen criticized the views of former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, writing:

He fears that if we attack Iraq ``I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror.`` One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists. That`s our mission in the war against terror.2

Ledeen`s phrase, ``faster, please`` has become a signature meme in Ledeen`s writings and is often referenced by neoconservative writers advocating a more forceful and broader war on terror.

In September 2002, Ledeen`s book, The War Against the Terror Masters (ISBN: 031230644X) was published.

Earlier in his career, Ledeen authored Universal Fascism: The Theory and Practice of the Fascist International, 1928-1936, published in 1972 and now out of print. The book critiqued European fascism, particularly Italian fascism; Ledeen attempted to differentiate between the an ideal, revolutionary ``fascist movement,`` which he views in a positive light, and the failed, under-reaching ``fascist regime.``

In 2005, Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism operations at the CIA and the intelligence director at the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan, when asked by Ian Masters if Ledeen was the source of the forged memo that claimed that Iraq had sought to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger replied ``you`d be very close.``[2]

In an interview on July 26, 2005, Cannistraro`s business partner and columnist for the American Conservative magazine, former CIA counter terrorism officer Philip Giraldi, confirmed to Scott Horton that the forgeries were produced by ``a couple of former CIA officers who are familiar with that part of the world who are associated with a certain well-known neoconservative who has close connections with Italy.`` When Horton guessed whether that was Ledeen, Giraldi confirmed it and added that the ex-CIA officers, ``also had some equity interests, shall we say, with the operation. A lot of these people are in consulting positions, and they get various, shall we say, emoluments in overseas accounts, and that kind of thing.``[3]

Ledeen is also a member of Benador Associates [4] a combination ``public relations agency``, speaker`s bureau and blog with a long roster of neo-conservative clients.

[edit]
References
[5] FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS Volume I: ``Investigations and Prosecution``, Lawrence E. Walsh, Independent Counsel, 4 August 4 1993, Washington, D.C.
[6] Michael Ledeen, ``Scowcroft Strikes Out,`` National Review, 6 August 2002.
[7] John Laughland, ``Flirting with Fascism,`` The American Conservative, 30 June 2003.
[edit]

#76 by ferozk on October 25, 2005 7:15am PT

I`ll boil down the latest working theory on the left-leaning blogospheres and antiwar.com(which is antiwar, not leftleaning): Valeria Plame was somehow involved in exposing Michael Ledeen and Co. as the producers of the fake Niger-Yellowcake documents and her outing actually targeted her and not her husband(if both were the targets, she was the primary target).

Re: # 67

Arjun, thanks for the links. The article, was really interesting and informative. I will periodically visit that site, as it seems to be a good resource of information.

I still stand by my earlier statements and add that the lawyers will sculpt lucanas in the law and wriggle their clients out, as is the norm of political trials in the United States. The players in this drama are more subtle and sophisticated than most of us credit them and besides, there is alway another story waiting in the shadows to push this story away from the limelight. Another bomb blast in Iraq and a new progress report card on the economy released at the right time, with the wrong message can play wonders with the public` attention span and its lack thereof.

All, I fear and foresee is nothing more than some horse trading taking place Texas style at a ranch in Wyoming! :)

Ciao

Friends...

Josh Kalven notes the falsehoods (lies) propagated by members (or friends) of the Bush administration. He then examines each one of the claims in turn in some detail. This article ought to help clear up a lot of our confusion and doubts. For the entire article, please go here:

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/27281/

Josh Kalven is a member of the Research Department at Media Matters for America

The Top Nine Plamegate Lies
By Josh Kalven, Media Matters for America. Posted October 25, 2005.

Falsehood: It is legally significant whether the leakers disclosed Plame`s name in their conversations with reporters

Falsehood: Wilson said that Cheney sent him to Niger

Falsehood: Plame suggested Wilson for the trip to Niger

Falsehood: Wilson was not qualified to investigate the Niger claims}

Falsehood: Plame`s CIA employment was widely known

Falsehood: Fitzgerald must prove that Plame`s covert status was leaked

Falsehood: Fitzgerald`s investigation was originally limited to possible violation of 1982 law

Falsehood: Leak investigation is the result of partisan motivations

Falsehood: Leaks go on all the time in Washington

Re: # 71

Beej, please don`t try to steal the self-flattering skills away from women...what you consider as your ``sharp`` words are nothing but reflection of your BHOLA-pun....innocense. I hope I`m making a mistake by giving you a benefit of doubt here.

I`m sorry, I really am, but your blind admiration of Dubya is highly reminiscent of Monica Lewinsky`s gushing about Bill ``The Woody`` Clinton when she was describing the stain on her infamous blue dress.

Please find some nourishing sabji in the supermarket next time to improve your common sense and then analytical skills. Then we`ll talk about who was Saddam, where he came from, how he obtained power, why he fought with Iran, who helped him in that war, why he then invaded kuwait, and who imposed the sanctions on Iraq instead of taking him out in other fashions, who died as a result and why and how etc etc etc.

If we set out to do it now, then I`m afraid your sabji may not remain edible by the time we finish.

God I love meat!

Ciao. I`m gonna vanish again for a while now.

:-)~~

The CIA leak story is still unraveling. The following report is latest in this respect.

Mohammad Gill

---

Report: Cheney Cited as Source in CIA Leak 4 minutes ago

Notes in the hand of a federal prosecutor suggest the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney first heard of the covert CIA officer central to a leak investigation from Cheney himself, The New York Times reported.

The newspaper said notes of a previously undisclosed June 12, 2003, conversation between I. Lewis Libby and Cheney appear to differ from Libby`s grand jury testimony that he first heard of Valerie Plame from journalists.

The newspaper identified its sources in the story in Tuesday`s editions only as lawyers who are involved in the case.

Libby has emerged at the center of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald`s criminal investigation in recent weeks because of the Cheney aide`s conversations about Plame with Times reporter Judith Miller.

Miller said Libby spoke to her about Plame and her husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, on three occasions — although not necessarily by name and without indicating he knew she was undercover.

Libby`s notes show that Cheney knew Plame worked at the CIA more than a month before her identity was publicly exposed by columnist Robert Novak.

At the time of the Cheney-Libby conversation, Wilson had been referred to — but not by name — in the Times and on the morning of June 12, 2003 on the front page of The Washington Post.

The Times reported that Libby`s notes indicate Cheney got his information about Wilson from then-CIA Director George Tenet, but said there was no indication he knew her name.

The notes also contain no suggestion that Cheney or Libby knew at the time of their conversation of Plame`s undercover status or that her identity was classified, the paper said.

Disclosing the identify of a covert CIA agent can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent is classified as working undercover.

The Times quoted lawyers involved in the case as saying they had no indication Fitzgerald was considering charging Cheney with a crime.

But the paper said any efforts by Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Cheney might be viewed by a prosecutor as attempt to impede the inquiry, which could be a crime.

According to a former intelligence official close to Tenet, the former CIA chief has not been in touch with Fitzgerald`s staff for more than 15 months and was not asked to testify before the grand jury even though he was interviewed by Fitzgerald and his staff.

The official told the Times that Tenet declined to comment on the investigation.

Libby`s lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not return phone calls and e-mail to his office. The White House also did not return calls.

Fitzgerald is expected to decide this week whether to seek criminal indictments in the case. Lawyers involved in the case have said Libby and Karl Rove, President Bush`s senior adviser, both face the possibility of indictment.

Fitzgerald questioned Cheney under oath more than a year ago, but it is not known what the vice president told the prosecutor.

Cheney has said little in public about what he knew. In September 2003, he told NBC he did not know Wilson or who sent him on a trip to Niger in 2002 to check into intelligence — some of it later deemed unreliable — that Iraq may have been seeking to buy uranium there.

``I don`t know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back,`` Cheney said at the time. ``... I don`t know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn`t judge him. I have no idea who hired him.``

The Cheney-Libby conversation occurred the same day that The Washington Post published a front-page story about the CIA sending a retired diplomat to Africa, where he was unable to corroborate intelligence that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger. The diplomat was Wilson.

A year after Wilson`s trip, President Bush cited British intelligence in his State of the Union address as suggesting that Iraq was pursuing uranium in Africa.

Now, aren`t we all excited here?

Re#69 by ntsyed

NTSyed sahib,

Before beginning, let me say that I am sorry if my “sharp” words have hurt you (I believe you have the skin thickness of a rhino, but one never knows) – my intention was (and has always been, both in your case and in others) to shake people up (and apparently only sharp words have those effects) – people in general, but somehow the need always ends up appearing stronger on the Pakistani side (including the “liberal” Pakistanis) – because most of my Pakistani friends (if I may use the term) appear to be in some kind of stupor. I have no clue what the stupor results from – conditioning or blind devotion to what many think as their “cause”, or plain irrational fear! It does not matter – the end results appear to be the same.

Having said all that – as far as my positions are concerned, they remain absolutely un-budged – and if I had used less “provocative” words – the positions would still be the same – please recognize that fact!

Do you have ANY idea of how ridiculous you sound!!!

Let me give you just ONE namoona.

You try to give the impression that you care about the “dying children” of Iraq who, according to you, would be alive today – except for those darn sanctions!

If that were the case – if that were REALLY the case – and you REALLY cared about them – won’t you kneel down and pray to God that those sanctions be lifted – and thank God from heart were that to happen.

NTSyed sahib, are there any sanctions in place now?

And what was the only act that finally caused them to be lifted?

Don’t look away now, NTSyed sahib!

IT WAS THE INVASION!

Yes sir, sans the invasion, Saddam would still be in place, those sanctions would still be in place and those children would still be dying!

And that would have been just fine with you!?

You sir, are being highly hypocritical on this issue – you don’t care a fig for those children – except to USE them for making your own political point!

Therefore NTSyed sahib, with all respect due to your (chronological) age – this is my conclusion –

Dear sir, you are highly inconsistent – but your blind prejudice against non-muslims prevents you from seeing your own bias!

What other conclusion CAN one draw?

None other – because you were plumb caught red-handed – and (figuratively speaking) with your pants down – and it doesn’t look pretty!

Sincerely,
Beej.

Gill Sahib, I saw your Fo-two (mug shot) in your profile, and you resemble Colonel Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Keeping that in perspective, now I understand the meaning behind the title “Chickens coming home to roost”.

I am totally impressed.

Re: # 60

Dear Beej,

My reference to the suffering in Pakistan was in response to your comment on `helping hands`. Please review your own post first then mine to understand the link.

Furthermore it was no more insensitive and idiotic than your brazen claim that the US is there to stay in Iraq, which obliviates the fact that first US led sanctions killed millions of INNOCENT Iraqis, then their bombs obliterated more than 100,000 INNOCENT Iraqis again in a short period of time. Perhaps you`re talking in the vein as Ms Albright when she conceded that allowing half a million INNOCENT Iraqi children to die of hunger and lack of medicine was worth the price of weakening A CORRUPT Saddam...just so you could continue to drive your SUV.

So Shame on YOU, sir!

Thank you for the wishes. May you have a pleasant life too.

:-)~~

Re: # 59

``I had also said that the real reason of war was the fear that Iraq would fall to the terrorists. You have yet to provide any argument to discredit my theory which is not a theory but a fact. This view was shared by both Clinton and Bush admin and therefore, a view supported by both parties of the US and the US establishment.``

HP dear, all praises be to Allah that your theories are becoming compaQt.

I didn`t have to respond to your theory because someone had already blasted it long before I joined the board; that if SH was going to fall to the terrorists, as if he wasn`t one himself, he would have done that in the early 90`s or even before he invaded Kuwait to achieve his goals.

According to Gabriel Kolko (Another century of War?), when SH invaded Kuwait, OBL was still in the good books of the Saudis and their Western patrons. OBL had offered his services to the Kuwaities and the Saudies to remove SH from Kuwait using his experienced fighters, without the western help. But late Fahad yielded to the Americans instead, which pissed off OBL. So according to this western historian - not my murshid - OBL and SH never had a thing for each other.

Not to mention, it was virtually impossible for SH to collude with OBL or other terrorists considering almost 2/3 of his country -both north and south- wasn`t really in his control and the remaining part was infested with UN inspectors and spooks from the US, Europe, Israel and Russia.

A major correction is required in your last statement as quoted here. Clinton and GWB admins did not SHARE this view...they shoved it down everyone`s throat with the help of the news outlets like NYT. The independent analysts, experts, diplomats, and brass had discredited this allegation as soon as it was smoked out, and with more than sufficient evidence. That`s why GWB had to change his line to ``bringin` freedom to Iraqis`` before the stinky claims of `democratizing the middle east`.

Dear sir, as I suggested before, please read up on Israelis and their sinister behaviour inside the US govt before looking at me or my murshids. That study should make it clear to you that I never suggested Americans are playing both sides of the war. However, some in the high echelons of US govt were/are well aware of the clandestine Israeli operations inside the USA. For these individuals, WTC was probably a very high-risk investment as it is yielding very returns in terms of lucrative defense contracts various other benefits. Please do a research on Bush family, J Baker, Cheney, Rummy, and many others to see how many corporate boards they`re members of, what these corporations are about, and the kind the remuneration these individuals receive from these corportation. Then feel free to discredit your own theories to your heart`s desire.

Ciao
:-)~~