Billmon:
Back to Main
July 4, 2006
WB: Buffers
Comments
Billmon
Do you really think whatever these little cunts say, think, or do, makes one god-damned existential bit of difference?
Posted by: DM | Jul 4 2006 12:48 utc | 1
i’m still interested in this story. the confirmation that bush instructed cheney to discredit wilson represents the circling of the wagons. i have faith once the noose is in place fitz will do his thing and tighten it w/competency.
DM, do i think any of this makes one god-damned existential bit of difference?… maybe now it seems it won’t, but eventually, i do think there will be some fallout. the culmination of events surrounding the administration ( this being just one aspect of the drama) once unfolded may produce some fireworks.
the buffers may not hold up under scrutiny.
Posted by: annie | Jul 4 2006 15:27 utc | 2
bush wasn’t formally deposed. i’m not a lawyer, but that’s significant. also:
And Libby “testified that he spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom [Libby] considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that presidential Authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of a document.”
in the end, bush does what he wants. maybe the plame thing embarrasses bush, but that’s about it.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 4 2006 16:25 utc | 3
I have never understood how revealing that Plame was CIA and either stating or insinuating that Plame ‘arranged’ the Niger trip for Wilson discredited, or smeared, Wilson. Even the wildest of wingnuts had a hard time jelling that into a coherent, pro-Gov. narrative. In fact the story generated sympathy for gal Val and her husband. And if the move was a matter of personal revenge, and not propaganda oriented, then the move was pointed to the CIA, not directly at Wilson. If that was the case, the move failed publically (as it was spun as anti-Wilson only) but, I suppose, may have had hidden effects.
There were easier ways of discrediting Wilson; and with all lies about WMD, AlQ, Saddam, etc. sort of letting the Niger yellacake matter fade away, or even admitting genuine error – after all, rumors and reports (even if invented) about Saddam having interest in Nigerian uranium had been floating about since at least the late nineties -if i recall correctly-.. who could judge the matter with certainty? The yellacake story was more credible, both in its history and international scope, than nonsense about Germ Doctors and a vial of botulism forgotten in the back of some nonchalant scientists’ fridge? But then, it is likely that the relative ‘importance’ of the story, involving several foreign Gvmts., false documents, el Baradei, etc., gave it legs, and more importantly, provided a wedge, an issue, for various parties to call BS or Foul!
(I’m left with the brilliant idea that somebody goofed.)
So someone had to clean it up. Fitz to the rescue! As we see, the clean up focusses on the outing of Plame – properly so, as that is treason. However, most of the other aspects of the story have quietly faded away.
Posted by: Noisette | Jul 4 2006 16:34 utc | 4
testified that he spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President,
there is an excellent article b posted recently from the 7/03 newyorker( i don’t have the link, i read my paper copy, too lazy to search sorry) that flushes out what a slimy bastard addington is. addington tends to disreagard protocals he deems unnecessary and stacks the decks for the executives interpreting the constitution in a way some consider illegal (scotus for example). quite likely addington has been question by investigators. the question of when the portions cherry picked from the nie for the purpose of leaking them to counter wilson could be more important than we guesstimate at this point.
rice was interviewed at one point and claimed the leak was declassified a week after libbys meeting w/miller. to get around that libby then claimed he consulted addington who claimed it was authorized simply by way of bush saying so. this is all probably bs. anyway, it may be addington is wrong . when something is declassified there is a proceedure, some record. there is no record. all of this is just heresay meant to cover their asses.the formal declassification didn’t happen for a few weeks down the road. is ‘my lawyer said it was ok and he just made a mistake’ a defense?
I have never understood how revealing that Plame was CIA and either stating or insinuating that Plame ‘arranged’ the Niger trip for Wilson discredited, or smeared, Wilson.
this is the way the defense has framed the issue. perhaps there was an opening, an opportunity to put a huge knife in the back of the cia byway of outing plame. imho there were two intended birds for the stone
1. portions of the nie were leaked to discredit wilson.
2. framing it as a junket set up by plame was directed at discrediting the cia.
this wasn’t cooked up in an hr. libby admits it was discussed daily. whig put quite a lot of energy into this outing. what was the final most negatve effect of the outing?
disbanding the wmd cia operations in iran. don’t loose sight of the big picture. i doubt fitz has. the cia repeatedly countered the info the pentagon via cheny tried to produce to lie our way to iraq. whats the best way to make sure that didn’t happen for iran. the new hersh article makes it clear no one has evidence of iran developing a nuclear weapons program. who at the cia is responsible for assessing irans threat? why shut them down? why did fitz request the transcripts of the franklin trial? why was a prosecutor who specializes in terrorism assigned to this case ? why was cheney stabbing the cia’s iran program?
Posted by: annie | Jul 4 2006 17:11 utc | 5
i just took a little jaunt over to the next hurrah
Now, I have spent a lot of time recently explaining why Libby’s whole story about leaking the NIE doesn’t make any sense. He has basically argued that he went out of his way to get Addington to excuse leaking he did in anticipation of leaking to Judy, even though he had already leaked it to Woodward without that specific authorization. Which says that the instruction in Libby’s notes to leak something to Judy probably pertains to Plame’s identity, not the NIE.
this somewhat confirms my 2 birds w/one stone theory..
Posted by: annie | Jul 4 2006 17:47 utc | 6
I have never understood how revealing that Plame was CIA and either stating or insinuating that Plame ‘arranged’ the Niger trip for Wilson discredited, or smeared, Wilson.
Just a side effect.
The main attempt we know was to silent the CIA critics. Like showing the instruments as the first stage of torture. “We can get you!”
The real main attempt we do not know of is somehow related to Plames work. Nuke proliferation in the ME, maybe in Iran but also maybe in Saudi Arabi. If its the later you have an immediate connection to the White House and helping some friends.
If its the later you have an immediate connection to the White House and helping some friends.
some friends
Rhode would travel to Paris in June 2003 to meet with Ghorbanifar again a meeting the Pentagon later claimed was unplanned. Also in June 2003, three months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a CIA case officer was sent to meet in Baghdad with a Ghorbanifar associate known to U.S. intelligence officials as a London-based fraudster. As Newsdays Knut Roycewho first broke the story of the Rome meeting in 2003discovered, Ghorbanifar and his associate claimed to have information about a secret cache of weapons-grade uranium in Iraq that Iranian intelligence had allegedly discovered and stolen part of.
At their tense meeting in Iraq, the CIA officer gave the associate a series of test questions, all of which he flunked. Then the officer asked him to provide a small sample of the uranium. He refused and walked out. Hes a fabricator, a former U.S. intelligence official told Royce. These fabricators were produced by Ghorbanifar. They read headlines, try to cater to your fears, and they draw from real facts.
there was a lot going on in june 03
the decision to out plame was unlikely to have been made in the vacum of discrediting her husband.
Posted by: annie | Jul 4 2006 19:32 utc | 9
yes b. something like that. yes.
Note that Joe and Val have both directly and indirectly supported the interpretation that was presented for public consumption. In their best interests, I suppose.
Posted by: Noisette | Jul 5 2006 15:08 utc | 10