Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

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
:-)~~

#66 by ferozk on October 24, 2005 8:08am PT

For more info on which laws might be used, read today`s Justin Raimondo column

Let Justice Be Done

There are plenty of violations of federal law to be found around the Niger
uranium forgeries, and I expect Fitzgerald has found most if not all of them by
now. When the president made his 2003
State of the Union address, and referred to Iraq`s efforts to procure
uranium in ``an African country,`` the source of his allegation was a cache of
documents that had been turned over to the American embassy in Rome under mysterious
circumstances. Less than a month after the president`s speech, these documents
were proved
to be fakes, crude forgeries that could have been debunked by an amateur
with a few hours to spend on Google.

Whoever forged these documents and introduced them into the American
intelligence stream is guilty of violating this law:

``Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States,
knowingly and willfully– (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious,
or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false
writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.``

And this
law:

``If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the
United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any
manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect
the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.``

Re: # 28

Mohammad sahib, the case hinges on the legality of intent and as much as we may wish the legality away, it will only entrench itself. I need a second opinion on this, but my recollection is that it is a crime to identify a CIA operative, but it is not a crime to identify their family members. The law allows, indirectly, to name the operative without actually naming the operative and the law on this issue might be so construed as to offer a plausible deniability.

The second consideration is, what was the intention of the remark made, which identified Valerie Palmer. I do not think that there is sufficient evidence present to make the argument that the remark was made in bad faith to jeapordize Valerie Palmer`s cover on purpose. The point to remember is that Ms. Judith Miller was forced to make the confession on the identity of the person, who gave her Valerie Palmer`s name because of the laws passed by the Bush adminisration itself to force reporters to identify their sources if such sources provided material evidence in the successful prosecution of GWOT.

The basic issue, as you have stated, was if Karl Rove, ``Scooter`` Libby and other officials had crossed the legal boundaries by naming Valerie Plame. The evidence would suggest that they have not, because the law itself is murky on the issue. The law requires solid evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and not a presumption of guilt, as many seem to be hoping. I think that Karl Rove and ``Scooter`` Libby were well within the legal penumbera of the law and though they may have flexed the bounderies of the law; they did not breach such bounderies by their actions. The evidence or its lack thereof, would suggest that this was more a case of irregularity than mal-intentions on the part of Rove, Libby et al. The difference being that irregularity would suggest that the understanding on the confidentiality of the sources and the need to protect the identities of the government officals engaged in intelligence operations for the United States` government was compromised, but there was no criminal intent. Mal-intention would, on the other hand pre-suppose, a criminal intent and so far, to the best of my understanding, no criminal intent has been proven.

The basis of the case rests on the understanding of the law itself on the issue and such, that law being unclear, gives credence to the defense argument of Libby, Rove et al that there was no criminal intent in naming Valerie Palmer. Before we put on our masks of judge, jury and executioner on this issue, it would be wise to wait and see if the government actually has evidence to prove the existence of a mal-intent on part of the accused in this case. Chances are, that given the gravity of the situation, the accused will resign and will be pardoned by Bush, which will negate any future legal action against them.

Ciao

#42 by ntsyed on October 23, 2005 2:52pm PT


And if there were Muslims aboard those planes, who is to counter the argument that they were the culprits?


Someone with a stick strong enough to stop the US from invading Afghanistan and killing the terrorists?

What? No such entity exists? Tough luck....

Richard A. Clarke has a new book (billed as fiction) called “The Scorpion’s Gate” to go along with his first offering “Against All Enemies.” Both books should be interesting reading for those contributing here. The man is getting his revenge. mirmir

Mohammed Gill: If you want the latest information on this topic, go to antiwar.com.

I am not very political, but I have not read a single account in any of the major media about any of the Bathist (or its apologists) for the mass graves discovered in Iraq. Our pseudo intellectuals like the writer of this piece are banging their drums loud about “Iraq saying no WMDs”. There have been (to date) 141 Mass Graves uncovered (totaling 80 K Plus dead, Shias and Kurds). Have you guys every heard Saddam or his puppies (including you guys) ever coming forward to admit that it was their doing? I am sorry, I forgot, killing Shias and gassing Kurds was their “internal” issue.

I hope and pray to Satan that the Chickens come home to roost, but only Wahabi inspired Saudi financed Sunni chicken crossing Syrian Iraqi border, not only should they come to roost, but it will make me happy to see them get roasted.

Excellent piece of garbage Mr. Gill. As always.

Virginia`s senate-critter breaks from the koolaid crown on Pennsylvania avenue...and confirms that he`s running for president in 08..

Resignations May Follow Charges
Senators Discuss Leak Case

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 24, 2005; A03

Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) said yesterday that he expects White House officials will step down if they are indicted this week but stressed that speculation should cease until special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald announces the results of his investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Re#55 by ntsyed

NTSyed Sahib,

Arre, yeh kya mamla hai – lagta hai aap hum pe naraj ho gaye hain! Yeh brain straining stuff kya cheez hoti hai?

First it is Ms. Ana – and now it’s you! As of today – my score appears to be two strikes and no balls! (Drop that last part!)

And this comes after I send to you my hearty best wishes – to keep that beard flowing gracefully! I must agree with Dr. Gill that some of us are becoming too worn-out to retain our cool – alas!

Regarding your post – as far as I know, GWB served in the Texas National Guard quite honorably. Since neither I nor you did that – I think he did quite well! The last person who made a joke and tried to belittle that service was a guy named Rather – you may have heard of him – I wonder what he is up to – he has not been seen too often lately! I don’t know much about Mr. Rumsfeld’s record – it’s my understanding that he has been a secretary of defense virtually for ever – long before many of the contemporary political personalities came into the picture!

Now, the following paragraph is written in a serious vein therefore, please pay attention:

I do not fully get the drift of your remark about “insufficient aid” for the Pakistani earthquake and all the rest you say here – but it appears to reveal a very troubling state of mind. As somebody pointed out on the “Scream” board, the tragedy is real but so is the unfortunate fact that most victims of such disasters – everywhere – end up dealing with their situation by themselves – be it Pakistan or Louisiana. The pain and suffering is always on an individual basis and knows no caste, creed or religion. It is the bottom of utter, utter idiocy to drop in mentions of the very real sufferings of victims of natural disasters in a trivial inane “political” discussion, which this board signifies, to score a couple of moronic points. In my view, it is sacrilegious. Shame on you! That’s all, SIR!

To borrow from the Gill,

Wishing you well,
(but convinced that I will have to wish REALLY hard)
Beej.