Sep 14 2006

Time To Investigate Valerie Wilson’s Lies To America

Published by at 12:15 am under All General Discussions,Plame Game

I have kept my eye on a little noticed Wilson-Niger story from Knight Ridder that came out on June 12th, 2003. The source of this story may now be very clear. This story is so unknown it is not listed on the gold standard timeline reference at Tom Maguire’s JOM site. What is important to note is how it fits into the new timeline. On May 6th, 2003 Joe Wilson made his anonymous debut in a Nicholos Kristof story slamming Bush and Co. for knowingly using faked documents to lead America to war. On June 12th, Walter Pincus writes a story addressing the anonymous Wilson – a story which Pincus has claimed was not sourced by Wilson. On June 13th, 2003, Kristof did a follow up story on the still anonymous Ambassador who had debunked the forged documents in Feb-March 2002.

The first break in the timeline and contacts comes from Joe Wilson himself, who states in his own words on June 14, 2003 that he is the source for the Post and Times articles and he will be coming out in public soon. So much for the Pincus claim. But before we go farther lets also recall that on June 13th Richard Armitage hosts Bob Woodward and conveniently leaks information supposedly in an INR memo dated June 10th. Problem is, on June 10th, the only article out there is the Kristof article. But simultaneous to the Woodward leak come the Pincus and Kristof stories – and this Knight-Ridder article (now McClacthy) which appeared June 12th.

Remember that stories do not get printed overnight. Especially one where you are accusing the President of knowingly using forged documents to fake the country into a war. So in a span of a few days we have three articles and a leak from Armitage to Woodward. Before I go into the article (which is clearly also source by Wilson as can now be shown) let’s look what happened next. It is not until June 23 that LIbby has his meeting with Judith Miller (also of the NY Times), but it seems Libby did not bring up Valerie – Miller did. She also knew of Wilson (and had his phone number) before meeting Libby. The next meeting with Libby was on July 8th, which marks another round of simultaneous activity now involving an invitation by Armitage to meet Novak – the second person Armitage details Wilson’s wife’s details to. I deal with this part of the timeline in this post. But now back to the Knight Ridder story.

It is clear Wilson was on a planned media blitz in early June, which did not take off, and then again in early July, which did take off per his expectations he expressed in that June 14th convention at EPIC. Let’s review this little known article and identify some sources.

A senior CIA official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the intelligence agency informed the White House on March 9, 2002 – 10 months before Bush’s nationally televised speech – that an agency source who had traveled to Niger couldn’t confirm European intelligence reports that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from the West African country.

Who is the only senior CIA official to claim Joe Wilson debunked the idea of Iraqi overtures to Niger? Valerie. We know now she was the head of the CIA’s Iraq group and later the Joint Task Force on Iraq. And she was with Joe Wilson at his debrief at their home (according to the Senate Iraq Report). And this is consistent with the spin Joe Wilson was pushing at this time that the WH and Cheney knew about Wilson’s report.

Three senior administration officials said Vice President Dick Cheney and some officials on the National Security Council staff and at the Pentagon ignored the CIA’s reservations and argued that the president and others should include the allegation in their case against Saddam.

The claim later turned out to be based on crude forgeries that an African diplomat had sold to Italian intelligence officials.

We know have three ‘administrative source’ prior to June 12th (Mr Fitzgerald – where are you on this?) who had information on the trip. And it is clear everyone with accurate information on the trip knew about Valerie’s role. And only a handfull would push the Niger line. Is this Grossman and Armitage and Fingar??? It is NOT Rove or Libby or Cheney. None of them would take the anti-war stance with the media. More from the source for this story – which has to be Valerie Plame:

The CIA’s March 2002 warning about Iraq’s alleged uranium-shopping expedition in Niger was sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Justice Department and the FBI the same day it went to the White House, the senior CIA official said.

Much later Wilson would adopt this line of argument to spin his claim Bush and Cheney must have known about his report. But at this time this CIA source is very knowledgeable about where the report went. Recall Valerie introduced Joe to her joint task force or another one, and therefore she knew were the results would go. But anyone on the up and up would know Wilson did not make a report. He was verbally debriefed in front of Val by two DO agents (who worked for Val???).

n the months before Bush’s State of the Union speech, the senior CIA official said, agency officials also told the State Department, National Security Council staffers and members of Congress that they doubted that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium from Niger.

One senior administration official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity because the intelligence reports remain classified, said the CIA’s doubts were well known and widely shared throughout the government before Bush’s speech.

The INR memo came out in its first form TWO DAYS prior to this article. How close are the two documents? They only differ with regard to Joe’s spin about false intel. The Carl Ford INR memo is dated June 10th to Marc Grossman – life long Wilson friend. Same time comes this story. Is this only coincidence? Only someone who knows about the initial INR memo would have these facts outside the CIA. And this story includes such sources. That senior administration official who is confirming the CIA source? Sounds like Grossman confirming Plame (who could have used an alias or the Plame name for this story). Finally, we know these sources are planning a false story because their claims of fraud have been proven wrong:

The use of the false evidence despite the CIA warning raises questions about why some officials chose to believe the story despite the widespread skepticism in the intelligence community.

This is all pure fiction. The fact is the the IC felt there was a strong case for Iraw overtures – including Wilson’s report from Niger. The forgeries did not show up until very late and they were leaked from the CIA to the IAEA (and not to the US IC). Finally, more details in this story that only a few would know about (like Valerie, Grossman and Armitage):

The senior CIA official said the agency first heard about an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal in reports from unidentified European intelligence services in late 2001 and early 2002.

“There were people who had questions about the overall story. It didn’t make sense. It was sketchy information that was not validated by other means,” he said.

Nevertheless, continued interest in Cheney’s office, the NSC, the State Department and other agencies prompted the CIA to ask a retired U.S. ambassador to Niger to go there in February 2002 to inquire into the alleged deal, he said.

The CIA kept any reference to the former diplomat’s identity out of its March 2002 message to the White House.

The message quoted a CIA “source” as saying he had spoken to people close to the Niger government, former senior officials and people involved in the country’s mining industry, who all rejected the reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. The former ambassador said he believed what they were telling him.

The message contained the names of people to whom the source spoke, said the senior CIA official.

Who else knew Wilson’s name was held from the report? The four people at the debriefing of course. But these details have always amazed me at this time during events. This story is more detailed than the INR which came out two days prior, but is also highly consistent with the INR (minus the Valerie Plame role). This to me tells me the Wilsons were working to make a media splash together, and its failure to draw headlines caused their friends at State to help them in the second round of media blitz which included Novak. One final note:

It wasn’t until February 2003 that the CIA obtained the original Iraq-Niger documents on which the uranium story was based, he said.

This is in fact wrong. The CIA (Plame’s area in the CIA) obtained the forgeries in Oct 2002. They stayed in a safe until they were found at the IAEA. This is reported in the Senate report. I don’t think this is accidentally wrong. I think this is deliberately misleading. If Valerie is the source for this story as I suspect she is, this obvious attempt to clear the CIA of any connection to the forgeries is too obvious. Who cares when the CIA learned of the forgeries? Why add this completely wrong data item (but which also conveniently clearing Plame’s CIA group)? I think it is time the government counter sue the Wilsons and investigate them for publicizing classified material. Because, as the sources in this story note, what is reported here was classified at the time of this story.

Addendum: I should be clear here because this article has multiple sources. There is the CIA source (which I think is Valerie and not and outsider like a VIP), then three supportive administration sources and then when administration source who is tending to defend the administration. One of the administration sources is probably Joe Wilson. When I list other possible pro-Wilson sources like Armitage or Grossman they round out the remaining two sources in the article. There are clear phasings to the story. The initial media attempt with the Kristof article, to give the story a debut (who knows, maybe the Wilson’s targetted Kristof when they ‘ran into him’ at a Democrat party get-together). Then there is the second media round in early June with Pincus, Kristof, this article and one in The Gaurdian (which Joe also admits to being the source). We know Joe is doing the Guardian, NY Times and WaPo – we have audio with him saying this. He also does the EPIC conference at this time and, as TM points out, there is the Andrea Mitchell quote. Not to mention Woodward getting the tip from Armitage. This second flury ativity doesn’t get the national attention yet. So Armitage invites Novak to come by around this time frame, before round three of the media plan. Round three is Wilson’s NY Times Op-Ed, the simultaneous second Pincus article (with Joe as the source) and the Andrea Mitchell Meet the Press interview. All staged together with the well timed leak by Armitage to Novak.

Three distinct phases with well layed out steps in a clear media staged event. So why wouldn’t any reasonably skeptical person see Armitage’s leaks timed right with these phases as an element of the plan? Who did Wilson talk to prior to his media event in State? Did Val talk to the media? We can find out fron government phone records which are public records. Someone in the State and CIA need to review phone logs. Wilson calls people at state prior to all this, then memo’s magically appear in the office of Grossman to supply cover priot to both of Armitage’s well timed leaks? How all very convenient!

33 responses so far

33 Responses to “Time To Investigate Valerie Wilson’s Lies To America”

  1. Enlightened says:

    And I know this has been covered – JW in his Op Ed said the VPO wanted more info re the memo etc.

    However, in the missing article above the “source” ie VP said:

    “Nevertheless, continued interest in Cheney’s office, the NSC, the State Department and other agencies prompted the CIA to ask a retired U.S. ambassador to Niger to go there in February 2002 to inquire into the alleged deal, he said. ”

    So between VP leaking CIA classified info on June 12, to his Op Ed on July 6, JW and VP refined the lie to a bullseye on Cheney.

  2. owl says:

    Very impressive AJ. This thing takes on a different slant when you lay out these new dates with the addition of Armitage. I have always thought Val was the driving force with Joe as the errand boy. Sure explains Rice to State and Gross to CIA.

    And everyone at the WH better pay attention to clarice’s alert. Loved it and correct.

  3. topsecretk9@AJ says:

    –So how does a trip to Niger in Feb 2002, refute an alleged sale in late 1990, become a rebuttal to the CIA FIRST FINDING out in late 2001, early 2002 (see above) and the POTUS claim of ” recently sought” (ie new sale) in the SOTU in 03?–

    Pretty sure the WAS a sale in 1989 or 1990, so I don’t get it.

  4. elendil says:

    The Path to Plamegate: A Docu-Drama

    The overall context of Plamegate has been largely, if not ignored, not taken with sufficient seriousness. The context is/was the war on terror, and more specifically the invasion of Iraq. Politically, there was what Byron York has called a “war” within the Administration regarding the legal aspects of the war on terror. CIA, as is well known, was at war against the Administration. That war involved nonsense like sending Joe Wilson to Niger and leaking constantly to the MSM. But the State Department, under Secretary of State Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, with William Taft IV as their legal flack, was also at very serious at odds with the Administration–and, if we are to credit Lanny Davis’ statement on the Michael Medved Show, Armitage & Co. reserved their major wrath for VP Cheney’s office and staff. Last but far from least, Justice was also at war with the Administration. The legal hot button issues for all of these bureaucratic combatants included: “torture” and interrogation, FISA and the Patriot Act, and the NSA Program (obviously related to FISA). Keeping this in mind, let’s turn to the development of Plamegate.

    It was in this context that political operatives at CIA and the New York Times, with a little help from a friend who had been an ambassador (and maybe another friend at State), staged a disinformation operation that they hoped just might bring down a president. The precise details may remain murky, but the general outline is clear enought. At this stage the Plame kerfuffle was still a bit of a tempest in a teapot, but then Armitage blundered into the mix, “outing” Valerie Plame’s role in sending her husband Joe Wilson to Niger.

    I’m willing to assume that Armitage’s motive for leaking to Novak about the Plame/Wilson connection had to do with CIA and a former ambassador stepping on State’s toes in this matter. He may well have felt that these clowns were trespassing on Department of State turf. But, probably very much to Armitage’s surprise, far from being taken aback by the revelation of their plot, the Wilsons and their fellow plotters saw in this turn of events a golden opportunity. They could now charge the White House–their original target, after all–with a crime, however inherently dubious the charge and misguided the target.

    The very dubious nature of the Wilson’s claims assured that the buildup would be gradual. We have to assume that CIA knows who their “covert” officers are at any given time–after all, CIA has to provide elaborate backstopping to maintain their officers’ cover as well as security. So it’s a given that CIA knew there was no crime, since Plame clearly did not fit the legal criteria for coverage under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Nevertheless, CIA twice referred the Plame matter to Justice and, finally, at Tenet’s personal insistence, Justice agreed to investigate, on 9/30/2003. We can only speculate as to Tenet’s motives; we can assume that the goofball Wilsons quite possibly thought they truly had Karl Rove in their sights, that Rove really was responsible for the “leak.” Unfortunately for inquisitive minds, the CIA’s actual referral letter appears to be the single most leakproof document in the entire government.

    Once word got out about the DOJ investigation, Armitage quickly consulted with Powell and Taft, and the three of them ran off to Justice–to have Armitage confess, if we’re to believe Isikoff/Corn. Let’s pause for a moment to admire the adroitness of this maneuver. The President of the United States had been loudly and publicly demanding that the “leaker” come forward. So what did Powell do? Call President Bush and say, “Y’know that Plame leak business? Well it turns out that Deputy Dick over here really stepped on his whatchamajigger.” Nooooo. He called the President and said, “Oh, something happened over here and we’re going to cooperate with DOJ’s investigation.” Now, what was the President supposed to do at that point? Demand that Powell hustle his ass over to the White House and tell all? Bush surely knew that any such move would be immediately leaked by State and trumpeted far and wide as proof that Bush was going to try to tamper with the investigation–or so the White House would have feared. So Powell and Armitage were free to go over to Justice with Taft.

    Who is William Taft IV?

    Taft has had a fairly long history in Republican administrations, but in the second Bush administration Taft, as Colin Powell’s legal counsel, was involved in all the important intra-Administration legal debates concerning the war on terror (as noted by John Yoo). Taft was vociferously opposed to the legal structure of the GWOT, as it had been formulated by David Addington (Cheney’s counsel), as well as by John Yoo (and a few others) at Justice, supervised by Alberto Gonzalez, who was then White House counsel. John Yoo has recently described Taft (charitably) as very “accommodating” to the internationalization of US law–certainly a disposition that Yoo does not share. Here’s a sample of Taft’s attitude, from an article by Jane Mayer:

    “The State Department, determined to uphold the Geneva Conventions, fought against Bush’s lawyers and lost. In a forty-page memo to Yoo, dated January 11, 2002 (which has not been publicly released), William Taft IV, the State Department legal adviser, argued that Yoo’s analysis was “seriously flawed.” Taft told Yoo that his contention that the President could disregard the Geneva Conventions was “untenable,” “incorrect,” and “confused.” Taft disputed Yoo’s argument that Afghanistan, as a “failed state,” was not covered by the Conventions. “The official United States position before, during, and after the emergence of the Taliban was that Afghanistan constituted a state,” he wrote. Taft also warned Yoo that if the U.S. took the war on terrorism outside the Geneva Conventions, not only could U.S. soldiers be denied the protections of the Conventions—and therefore be prosecuted for crimes, including murder—but President Bush could be accused of a “grave breach” by other countries, and be prosecuted for war crimes. Taft sent a copy of his memo to Gonzales, hoping that his dissent would reach the President. Within days, Yoo sent Taft a lengthy rebuttal.

    “Others in the Administration worried that the President’s lawyers were wayward. “Lawyers have to be the voice of reason and sometimes have to put the brakes on, no matter how much the client wants to hear something else,” the former State Department lawyer said. “Our job is to keep the train on the tracks. It’s not to tell the President, ‘Here are the ways to avoid the law.’ ” He went on, “There is no such thing as a non-covered person under the Geneva Conventions. It’s nonsense. The protocols cover fighters in everything from world wars to local rebellions.” The lawyer said that Taft urged Yoo and Gonzales to warn President Bush that he would “be seen as a war criminal by the rest of the world,” but Taft was ignored. This may be because President Bush had already made up his mind. According to top State Department officials, Bush decided to suspend the Geneva Conventions on January 8, 2002—three days before Taft sent his memo to Yoo.”

    You get the picture. Taft, in early 2002, had fought with the White House (and not least Cheney’s staff) and lost. And in Taft’s mind the White House was a train that was off the tracks, espousing legal “nonsense”, an administration of war criminals. Wow.

    So this was the Taft who went with Powell and Armitage over to Justice. Why go to Justice in the first place? As is well known, Attorney General John Ashcroft was embittered against the Administration, his ego slighted. He thought he should be the most important legal voice in the Administration but Bush consistently favored people like Gonzalez, and Ashcroft’s deputies were pushed aside by Cheney’s aggressive counsel, Addington, who had even tried to get John Yoo into a key legal policy position at DOJ: head of the Office Legal Counsel. That threat was headed off by getting Jack Goldsmith, a determined opponent of the Addington/Yoo crowd, into OLC. But how to fight back on the day to day level, to get off the defensive and carry the battle to the enemy, i.e., the White House and Cheney’s shop? Answer: get a junk yard dog of a prosecutor as Deputy AG, Jim Comey, slayer of Martha Stewart, specialist in super creative and aggressive tactics like–prosecuting for procedural crimes (perjury, obstruction, etc.) in the absence of substantive offenses. Comey was nominated on October 3, 2003, and unanimously confirmed in December, 2003.

    We don’t know who the folks from State met with–apparently Isikoff considered that an unimportant detail–but let’s just suppose that Powell, Armitage and Taft called ahead and arranged a meeting. I doubt whether Powell was about to deal with flunkies, Ashcroft’s secretary or the duty AUSA. No, he must have met with some pretty high up people over at Justice, because this was a sensitive matter concerning the career of his best friend. Taft, of course, would have had allies at Justice, careerists like himself who had sided with him (and lost) in the legal debates over managing the war on terror. I’m guessing that the State delegation got a very sympathetic audience at Justice. “In a little trouble, Dick, Colin? Worried about bad press, loss of credibility with a White House that has no sense of humor about leaking? Not to worry, these are all manageable problems.” Powell, Armitage and Taft may not have realized at first how this would be managed, but with their decided dislike for the Administration they ostensibly served, they would have been receptive to a solution that not only kept them off the hook but caused the Administration a little grief into the bargain. That must have seemed like killing two birds with one stone to them. The “pissants” so detested by Armitage–prominently including Lewis Libby, one of the architects of Middle East policy–would get their come-uppance while Deputy Dick skated.

    Is it credible that a cabinet secretary (Powell), his deputy (Armitage) and his legal counsel (Taft) came to Justice to be debriefed on a potentially explosive scandal, and that Ashcroft was unaware? I have to say: no. If that was indeed the case, and Ashcroft knew of Armitage’s role in the Plame affair, what followed amounted to a political decision on Ashcroft’s part to cut the President off at the knees.

    What came from this conference or–may we guess–series of conferences? Well, Armitage didn’t bother retaining counsel, so he must have felt very, very reassured after talking to the folks at Justice. At the beginning of October, 2003, Fitzgerald wasn’t on board yet to instruct Armitage that mum was to be the word, but since the FBI (at Justice’s direction) quickly began to interview White House employees (possibly that same week), it’s reasonable to assume that someone at Justice asked Armitage not to inform the President. Consider the alternative: we tell the President that Armitage had ‘fessed up and then send the FBI in to grill the White House staff about the non-crime in which they had no involvement–not likely! After talking the matter over with Justice, Taft was selected or volunteered to handle Gonzalez. That was a necessary step. Taft undoubtedly knew that Gonzalez didn’t trust the leakers at State or Justice, so Gonzalez could be easily maneuvered into declining to demand the nitty gritty details because he would have wanted to avoid any appearance of manipulating the investigation–which he had every reason to believe would surely have been leaked by State, Justice, or both. With that, Plamegate began in earnest. But other things quickly began to happen at Justice.

    With the Plame investigation under way, clearly targeting Justice’s key antagonists at the White House, Justice went on the offensive against the legal GWOT, seeking to avenge the series of stinging defeats it suffered in the aftermath of 9/11 (the Silberman decision on the Patriot Act/FISA, a slap from OIG, etc.). Goldsmith began reviewing the GWOT legal memos in October 2003. Also in October, FBI agents began interviewing White House officials about Plame, despite the fact that Armitage had turned himself in and Justice knew that no one but Armitage had any responsibility for the non-crime. In December things began happening fast: Comey was confirmed, Goldsmith told DOD that they could no longer rely on Yoo’s GWOT opinions, Ashcroft recused himself from Plamegate–exactly why? given that he knew the identity of the leaker?–and Comey appointed his butt buddy Fitzgerald, a slavish imitator of Comey’s own abusive prosecutorial techniques, as Special Prosecutor with a mandate that put Fitzgerald beyond any hint of supervision and accountability.

    The rest is history: Rove, Libby, Addington, Gonzalez, etc., etc. They were all dragged in front of the grand jury through the Spring and Summer of 2004 and grilled about a non-crime, and all along Justice/Fitzgerald knew who the responsible party was. But Comey had cleverly exempted Fitzgerald from virtually any supervision or need to follow DOJ guidelines. This was a fishing expedition like no other: the President of the United States, in time of war (and in the run up to a hotly contested Presidential election), was grilled in the Oval Office about this non-crime, while Armitage, Powell, Taft, Comey, Fitzgerald, Ashcroft and others laughed up their sleeves because they knew that President Bush had no involvement whatsoever. Of course, later Comey and Fitz submitted their famous affidavits in which they claimed that they had an unwritten, unspoken, unsmoke-signalled, understanding that Fitz was under DOJ supervision–blowing smoke in the face of an utterly fatuous federal judge. Remarkable. The enormity of all this is simply remarkable.

    All the while, Comey continued the legal offensive against the White House’s GWOT policies:

    In Feb – March 2004 OIPR targeted the post Patriot Act FISA rules once again, trying (in collusion with Judge Kollar-Kotelly) to do an end run around Silberman’s “in re Sealed Case” decision.

    In March 2004 Comey and Goldsmith threatened to shut down the NSA Program entirely, unless concessions were made [per a Newsweek article, but also alluded to by Victoria Toensing on the Bill Bennet Show].

    In June 2004 the “torture memo” was leaked, and Goldsmith formally repudiated it–as the MSM trumpeted another defeat for the President (and the rest of us).

    But the Bushies fought back as best they could–in between multiple GJ appearances, conferences with lawyers, compliance with a blizzard of subpoenas, press outcries and slander. A corner was undoubtedly turned when, at the beginning of President Bush’s second term, Alberto Gonzalez became the AG. Goldsmith and Comey saw the handwriting on the wall and left for cushy adademic sinecures.

    What am I suggesting? Simply this: I suspect that there was a conscious decision within the Department of Justice (but with the willing collusion of officials at State and the CIA) to use Plamegate as a tactic to neutralize the Administration’s GWOT policy, at least as that involved the legal interpretation of sensitive issues. What other explanation could possibly make sense of the known facts? This neutralization would be accomplished not through argumentation but by knowingly abusing the criminal justice system to tie key members of the Administration in knots, using Fitzgerald, the FBI and, above all, Fitzgerald’s grand jury. Plamegate was a political-ops put up job from start to finish–at least once the CIA/State/Justice cabal got their hands on it. But because it used the FBI and a Federal GJ to hound persons who the cabal knew had committed no crime or misconduct whatsoever, it was also a gross and knowing abuse of the criminal justice system, and that’s an important matter that deserves far wider publicity than it has yet received. This goes far beyond just one overzealous prosecutor. Moreover, this entire prosecutorial style, championed by the likes of Comey, Fitzgerald, needs to be subjected to serious scrutiny.

    What then is to be done? How about this: a criminal investigation into the entire handling of the Plame matter. Call a grand jury, subpoena all relevant records, interview, interview, interview. Ashcroft, Powell, Taft, Comey, Tenet, Fitzgerald, and lots of alios. Oh yeah. Turn this whole thing inside out and issue a report. Let justice be done.

    Now, some might ask: just how plausible is all this. To which I respond, is it more or less plausible than the following proposition: I know beyond a reasonable doubt that Lewis “Scooter” Libby obstructed justice, because his recollection of a purely innocent conversation differs in a minor respect from a reporter’s recollection. Uh huh. Uh huh.

  5. topsecretk9@AJ says:

    WOW, elendil

    Yipes, it’s stunning.

  6. elendil says:

    I had to, um, fill in a few blanks–that’s the drama part. 🙂

    But, seriously, I have a hard time fitting the known facts (and we all know there are a surprising number of those) into a more benign narrative.

  7. Barbara says:

    After reading the link to Free Republic, I am convinced that Valerie sent Joe because they could not afford to let the CIA send anyone else. Someone who might uncover Joe’s ties to France and the Oil for Food Program and maybe, just maybe, actual ties to Saddam. I have wondered who else in the US was involved in this scandal. Probably people in high places in the democrat party. They have been corrupt from day one. I put nothing past the democrats because they have even to this day worked against US safety. Evidently we have many, many traitors working against US interests and feathering their own beds.
    These people should be investigated and brought to trial to find out the truth. It probably will never happen

  8. MerlinOS2 says:


    Your read my mind.

    Well now getting beyond that obvious self serving BS that nobody in their right mind would buy into, your post is one of those “the light goes on turners”.

    Have you considered becoming a poster at American Thinker, I believe Clarice may give you an attaboy recommendation. Clarice give us an opinion please.

    You do more to wrap up and clarify the ins and outs than hundreds of column inches by the MSM coverage has been able to do over all these years.

    In other news

    I note that Armitage and Colin Powel are now both among the McCain team. Many implications there and none are pretty.

  9. MerlinOS2 says:


    If I can make a suggestion, read up on the ATC (American Turkish Commitee or maybe it is council) and look at who are members of that group. There is also another Turkish parallel group. When I first came across this link I was shocked by all the movers and shakers in that gaggle. They have a website, but I don’t have the link in front of me at the moment and it is late in the morning. When I see so many power pros concentrated in one place, my radar starts ticking.

  10. MerlinOS2 says:

    Fedoras post and Elendils go to illustrate that many factors are at work on our political scene.

    Too many people hope for the simplistic answer, a few go for the complex conspiracy theory whatever agenda.

    In politics the simple is the most unlikely the complex is the most destroyed.

    The remaining question, is how can the average voter sort this out?

    They do not have the advantage of what we see and what we have heard.

    Too often the message has to be destilled down to attract the majority, a sad but contemptable fate.

    We have political parties and significant members who should know better playing power play games in a time that we are not at peace.

    This is not a chinese checkers game or a bingo card choice.

    They are playing with serious consequences.

    Perhaps we can understand politicians giving in to or sucking up as your choice of view to lobbiests suggesting some point of view, but where does that come into national security issues v contracts to influence or grants et al?

    Overall common sense has a lot of enemies and everyone wishing to devolve it to an entire mishmash.

    Contribution to demise is much more functional than doing an advance.

    Ok I got that, why can’t I agree with it?

  11. clarice says:

    Elendil, I have just come to read your brilliant comment. Perhaps someone here would post it on F R so more people could see it. And once the week’s posts get filed it will remain unseen.

    It is a masterful piece of work.

  12. AJStrata says:


    I posted Elendil’s comment in its won post so people can link to it.


  13. wickedpinto says:

    Hell, I just rechecked some of my experiences, It’s almost 2 years ago in many cases.

    I so suck at chronological recognition.