Plame Target All Along?

Wow. This one's a little out there. TPMCafe has the take. It answers the question: why didn't the administration just plant a bunch of fake WMD? According to Wayne Madsen, they tried. But Brewster Jennings (Plame's front company) intercepted the shipment. And that's what the retribution was about. $Q: According to U.S. intelligence sources, the White House exposure of Valerie Plame and her Brewster Jennings & Associates was intended to retaliate against the CIA's work in limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. WMR has reported in the past on this aspect of the scandal. In addition to identifying the involvement of individuals in the White House who were close to key players in nuclear proliferation, the CIA Counter-Proliferation Division prevented the shipment of binary VX nerve gas from Turkey into Iraq in November 2002. The Brewster Jennings network in Turkey was able to intercept this shipment which was intended to be hidden in Iraq and later used as evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. intelligence sources revealed that this was a major reason the Bush White House targeted Plame and her network. Most of the background stories that have come out of the White House indicate a serious fixation on Wilson (his wife's name is only mentioned in the context of conversations about him). It's unlikely she was the primary target. On the other hand stranger things have happened.

Fitzgerald Indicts Black

On Thursday Patrick Fitzgerald leveled an eight count indictment against former newspaper baron Conrad Black. According to Fitzgerald: "All in all what has happened here has been a gross abuse by the officers and directors and insiders who decided to line their pockets" It’s the same mix of righteous indignation and homey metaphor that keeps administration officials tossing and turning at night. The investigation was pure Fitzgerald: he has no patience for arrogance in the rich and powerful and takes it personally when he’s lied to in the course of his investigations. Typically he keeps his powder dry, flips the underlings (Radler in Black’s case), works hard and says little before detonating an explosion of hardcore indictments. And Bob Woodward has given him more kindling. Fitzgerald’s intention to bring fresh evidence before a new grand jury can only be a bad turn of events for the President. Be sure the Special Prosecutor's angry: at Woodward; at Woodward's source; at all the other administration officials who recklessly contributed to the destruction of one woman’s career. He has a genuine concern for the little guy and won’t rest until wrongs inflicted on him or her by the elites are punished. Black’s facing forty years, and the prosecutor has made it clear he will pursue extradition if he doesn’t show to answer the charges. Radler was sentenced to over two years, and that’s after cooperating. Fitzgerald threw all of his weight into this because average shareholders were bilked. Does anyone believe he’ll be less inclined to swing for the fence when national security is the concern?

Where's McClellan?

The White House Press Secretary hasn't given a briefing since Nov. 9. He was painted into an impossible corner when Rove and Libby assured him they were not involved in Plamegate and now his credibility- unfairly - is in tatters. He also went out on a limb by promising he'd answer all questions pertaining to the leak when the investigation has run it's course. If he's removed, both problems are mitigated. A new face's strategy could be to take a "can't speak to what Scott said" angle and launch a fresh defense when the stonewall comes tumbling down. Of course such a strategy would have to be limited to a very few specific points - Scott McClellan puts the White House on record when he talks from the podium. Or maybe it's just a vacation.

Swift-Boating Comes out of the Closet

(see MSNBC for details and video on the House rumble today) Earlier this week Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa made waves with a resolution… that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq “at the earliest practicable date.” It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy. The GOP response? A call for a quick vote on the following: “It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.” The implication, of course, is that both resolutions are the same, but nobody is fooled by the same type of word games that led to the Iraq Mistake in the first place. Rep. Murtha's credentials on military matters are impeccable, yet Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, stood in the House today and passed on this message from a Marine colonel: "cowards cut and run" (Rep. Murtha has thirty-seven years of Marine service—Rep. Jean Schmidt has none). In the past, the administration and GOP lawmakers have removed themselves a few degrees when destroying someone's character. Now they've dispensed with the surrogates and are proudly flying their true colors. Starting at the top, the President accuses those who question his administration's disastrous sales pitch of undermining the troops. Serial fabulist Cheney labels criticism of his pre-war creative fiction "reprehensible". The White House Press Secretary issues a release comparing Rep. Murtha to Michael Moore and accusing him of advocating surrender. In the House the same respected veteran is smeared by at least one member and has his position distorted by the GOP leadership en masse. They've lost the agenda and don't have the time to plant a fake grassroots movement for every front and foe that arises; without the puppets, the Swift-Boat masters have no choice but to drop the strings and rush into the breech on their own. It's hardly a sign of strength.

Hadley Hints he's not Woodward's Source

From Reuters. $Q: "I've also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources," he said, declining to comment further because the case is under investigation. "It is what it is," Hadley said when a reporter pressed him on the subject. It is what it is. Thanks for clearing that up. If Hadley isn't the source it'll be an all you can eat buffet for conspiracy theorists. Woodward has achieved unparalleled access through his unparalleled lack of criticism. He's had cozy chats with all the players, right up to POTUS himself. And of course it's the original leak, pre-dating the rash of WHIG plumbing problems.

BBC Watching Fitzgerald

BBC News has the story on Patrick Fitzgerald's intention to bring evidence before a new grand jury. It's being reported domestically, but it's interesting that even relatively small developments in Plamegate are closely monitored across the pond.

The Missing Voice

This is London reports an interview will be broadcast next month featuring John Lennon harping about McCartney. It's doubtful any new light will be shed on the fractured relationship - he said it all in How Do You Sleep?: So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise You better see right through that mother’s eyes Those freaks was right when they said you was dead The one mistake you made was in your head How do you sleep at night? You live with straights who tell you you was king Jump when your momma tell you anything The only thing you done was yesterday And since you’re gone you’re just another day How do you sleep at night? But the story sure is a reminder of how much his voice is missed in the current national conversation. Imagine (no pun intended) a sixty-five year old Lennon's take on Iraq. Chapman took a lot more than his music from all of us.

Incoming from Drudge

GOP to Dems: Pull Troops Now? Okay, then let's vote...Troop resolution Tonight. 7 p.m. in House...Ultimate showdown... Seems like a fairly important issue to rush into on a moment's notice. Update(4:40 pm): vote's a go.

Tortured Rationale

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the President maintains "we don't torture". To properly evaluate Cheney's pitch for a CIA exemption, it's only fair to put it in context. After all, how many people really do know what has or hasn't been the spook norm for the last few decades? It's the reason this next piece is so important. ITV has former CIA director Stansfield Turner's take on the Vice President. $Q: "We have crossed the line into dangerous territory".

House Divided

The WaPo has the story. More than a score of Republicans broke ranks and helped the Democrats defeat the huge health and education bill. Kudos to Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) for being honest: "It's our own damned fault. We get members hooked on pork. Then we scream when we go into withdrawal. It's a sad commentary on what we've become here, Republicans and Democrats." There were other factors involved, but there's no doubt it's a bad sign for the President. If his drag continues to weaken as 2006 approaches it's going to be every R for him or her self. And as they break away it'll put even more downward pressure on the administration's numbers. The ball's in George Bush's court and it remains to be seen if he can break the cycle. Division has always worked for him because his base is so passionately loyal (it's no accident he's been using it the last week). But is he going to the well once too often?

McClellan Recruited

On the White House site, a blurb from the Press Secretary: Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled -- nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer. Poor Scott. They're heaping the indignities on him. First they lie to him about the Plame affair, now they're using him as an attack dog in the War Against Common Sense. Everyone knows 'Michael Moore' is code for 'Traitor' in the administration's Orwellian vocabulary [See surrender - calling for the end of a mismanaged and ill-begotten war of choice]. He's going to look like Rocky at the end of fifteen when Helen gets done with him.

Architect Under Pressure

Karl Rove must be thrilled the heat's temporarily off him now that the President has launched his War on Fair Questions. But not so fast - here comes the Boston Globe with an article about a letter signed by sixteen intelligence vets. Yes it was sent to the White House and yes, they aren't commenting because of the ongoing investigation. $Q: ''We are asking that you immediately suspend the clearances of all White House personnel who spoke to reporters about [Wilson's] affiliation with the CIA. They have mishandled classified information and no longer deserve the level of trust required to have access to this nation's secrets," the former officials, some of whom were covert operatives, wrote to Bush. Looks like the old Ethics Course trick didn't throw the bloodhounds off the trail.

Hadley was Woodward's Source

Raw Story reports: At the time, Hadley was working under then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Who was of course a member of the White House Iraq Group. Hardly an astounding coincidence - all the paths to the leaks wend their way back to WHIG. It was their job to sell the war. Destroying Plame's career was just another day at the office.

Cheney Rant Link Up

The War on Fair Questions continues. Newsday has the story. Classic Cheney. Speaks for itself. Graph that jumped out: The Republican National Committee also posted on its Web site a video compilation of past statements by prominent Democrats -- including several 2008 presidential hopefuls -- supporting a hard line against Saddam. There are many Democrats who should be ashamed. But let's give credit where credit is due - the administration did a masterful job of whipping up a false sense of crisis. And none did it better than Cheney. No wonder he's so upset.

Confirmed: Woodward Member of 'Axis of Access'

If someone has a spare Tardis laying around do us all a favor - go to the ‘70s, get Watergate Bob Woodward and bring him back to the present so he can kick his sorry current ass. He’s been up to his neck in the Plame affair from the beginning and has neglected to tell his editor or Patrick Fitzgerald, let alone the public. All for fear of a subpoena. Disappointing, but hardly surprising – we all know Woodward joined the Axis of Access long ago. Q: What difference is there between Judith Miller selling the administration’s “product” and Sean Hannity giving yet another fellatial “interview” with the Vice President? A: Precious little. Q: What difference is there between Bob Woodward and Larry King? A: The former’s ignorance is feigned. Of course the line is it’s all about protecting the sources. But stenographers shouldn’t be protected if they’re obstructing an investigation – the privilege should be reserved for that dying breed, the real investigative journalist. A big attraction of the whole Watergate story was how the gruff but lovable Ben Bradlee stuck his neck out for W&B when the experienced writers tried to take the story away from them. And how he did likewise when the full weight of the administration was bearing down on WaPo. Now we find Woodward spreading White House gossip for them, compromising colleagues (Pincus: "He asked me to keep him out of the reporting and I agreed to do that" ), and possibly obstructing an investigation targeted at his beloved meal tickets. Shameful. See AMERICAblog for the implications Woodward’s belated testimony has on the investigation.

Cheney Poised to Rip into Critics

In a speech tonight Cheney will call Senate allegations of twisted intel 'reprehensible' as he joins POTUS in his latest offensive in the War on Truth. Developing...

Lame Attack on Fitzgerald Fizzles

In an article mistitled Analyzing Patrick Fitzgerald's Doublespeak Renew America columnist Chris Adamo attempts to attack the Special Prosecutor. Watch him boldly roll out the groundwork: After only a few weeks of investigation, the ostensible "outing" of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent was clearly established as a non-crime. Thereafter, the entire effort degenerated into a strategy of calling enough witnesses and asking enough questions to trip somebody... anybody. Strong stuff. Only problem is he made it up. Unsourced for a reason. Forging ahead... To begin with, Fitzgerald emphatically characterized Plame's status at the CIA as "classified," and then equated this to being "unknown." Certainly, the two terms carry vastly different connotations, and Fitzgerald well knows it. Thus his deliberate interweaving of the two concepts can only be construed as evidence of severe prejudice in the pursuit of this case. Semantic obfuscation - sure sign your argument is leaking oil. Fitzgerald was as clear as the proverbial bell at his press conference. Secondly, while stating on multiple occasions that no crime against any covert CIA agent had been committed or suggested, Fitzgerald simultaneously asserted that the indictments he handed down would prevent any recurrence of that very crime which had not been committed. Potentially devastating if anyone could understand WTF he's talking about. So far he's done a better job at revealing his own doublespeak than Fitzgerald's. The coup de grace? There isn't one. That's all he's got on Fitz. The remainder of the nine-hundred word article is spent spilling ink on Clinton, Wilson, and liberal spin. It's an entertaining read, a veritable satire of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

MSM Growing Suspicious of Spin

An article in Wednesday's WaPo reports on Sen. Hagel's criticism of the president's shabby rhetoric of late. The sharpness of his comments is stunning - all the more so because he's articulate and in complete control of his faculties. The un-Zell Miller if you will. It's so remarkable, in fact, it's easy to miss something else in the piece. Later on, after being told Rumsfeld read quotes from Clinton, Gore, Albright, etc... on WMD we get this: However, many of the comments cited by Rumsfeld were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it. Moreover, the Clinton administration officials did not cite the problematic intelligence that formed the core of the Bush administration's case for an invasion, such as allegations that Iraq sought uranium in Africa and tried to obtain aluminum tubes as part of a resurgent nuclear program. Then it's reported Rumsfeld pointed to congressional actions calling for Saddam's ouster. In the same paragraph: But the 1998 law, signed by Clinton, said, "nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to use of United States Armed Forces" to implement it. It seems the papers are no longer willing to take the administration line at face value (there's a reason this president's speeches are reserved for vetted audiences - an unarmored Humvee could drive through the gaping holes in the script). It's been building for some time now. The MSM ain't buying it anymore.

Questions from Iraq

(The following are all questions from a Department of Defense Briefing given in Baghdad, Nov. 14, 2005 by Brigadier General Donald Alston. It's an interesting glimpse at the concerns of those in Iraq. Does the White House Press Corps ever read these? For the answers, check out the full briefing here) Q (Through interpreter.) Radah al-Zawi (sp) from the Iraqi Television. Sorry to get you back to the past. In the military operations in Fallujah on November last year, there have been some reports about the American forces using phosphorous bombs against the civilians in Fallujah, and the media talked about that. And now, five days ago, an Italian news agency reported this news, according to admissions and confessions of American military who confessed that they used these weapons. In reaction to photos of Iraqis burnt by these weapons, the Pentagon denied this and said that these -- this information is misleading. But the pictures cannot lie. How can you reply to this? This is the first question. I have another question. Q (Through interpreter.) There are some American military soldiers who confessed they used these weapons. Every day we hear about a Zarqawi lieutenant being captured or a number of al Qaeda members captured. Can you tell us, please, aren't you capable of knowing how many lieutenants Zarqawi has? If really you have captured these -- and I have no doubt that you have captured them -- why don't you put them on TV? Q (Through interpreter.) (Name and affiliation inaudible.) For how long the terrorist actions will continue in this country, not only in one place? Are you able to keep law and order in Iraq according to Geneva Conventions? Q (Through interpreter.) Asafa Mousa (ph) from Al Iraq Al Hurrh (ph). After Iron Curtain, will you be able to secure the Iraqi- Syrian borders? Are there any other military operations other than this operation? Q ...[second question] The Iraqi forces are targeted more than the American forces. How did you help the Iraqi army, as you do for the American soldiers? We see a difference in arming these forces to enable them to combat terrorism. Q (Through interpreter.) You talked about the Iraqi security forces taking more responsibility. When do you expect these forces to assume their full responsibilities? And what about the news about -- that 2007 will be the beginning to hand over responsibility to the Iraqi forces? Q (Through interpreter.) Ahmed Jamil (sp) from Al-Sharqiya. Many military operations which you have carried out, especially in troubled areas, but when you announced the end of these military operations, the insurgents came back to these areas as if these insurgents have got more strength. Now, what's wrong with this operation? When the military operations came to an end, the insurgents came back to these areas.

Rift Between W and Father

www.insightmag.com has the article here. The story reveals the Scowcroft interview was the breaking point. This is entirely believable. There is a thread of decency in the old man that is entirely absent in his son. Scowcroft would not have been so candid without some form of cooperation - however tacit - from his old friend George Senior. Now: "The atmosphere in the Oval Office has become unbearable," a source said. Even the family is split. The number of trusted (all women) has dwindled to a handful: The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr.Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions. Oedipus Bush? The powerful male figures have apparently fallen by the wayside (his father, Cheney, and now Rove). The four most influential people in his life are currently his wife, his mother, a sycophant, and a World Class Liar. It's hard to picture him reversing his political misfortunes with their advice driving the action.

George W. Bush: "I want to lead"

Dwight D. Eisenhower: You do not lead by hitting people over the head - that's assault, not leadership. Faye Wattleton: Whoever is providing leadership needs to be as fresh and thoughtful and reflective as possible to make the very best fight. James Kouzes and Barry Posner: There's nothing more demoralizing than a leader who can't clearly articulate why we're doing what we're doing. Margaret Chase Smith: Leadership is not manifested by coercion, even against the resented. Greatness is not manifested by unlimited pragmatism, which places such a high premium on the end justifying any means and any measures. Peter F. Drucker: Leaders shouldn't attach moral significance to their ideas: Do that, and you can't compromise. Winston Churchill: The price of greatness is responsibility.

Hannity Busted Again

Who do Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly et al hate more than libs, terrorists or gay marriage? Here's a hint: you won't find these people working for the Factor. The answer is of course: fact-checkers. Heard Hannity today drag out his tired old line about Ginsburg advocating twelve as the age of consent. Fortunately, Media Matters has long since debunked the smear: A 1974 report co-authored by Ginsburg did address the constitutionality of prohibitions on prostitution and did refer to legislation that set the age of consent at 12 years. But Ginsburg did not assert a position on either issue.. Won't stop them, of course. But it is sure fun to see the anger (especially from O'Reilly) when they're confronted by their nemesis - the unvarnished truth.

Chalabi: the Phoenix Rises

From AP: Rumsfeld Meets With Iraq's Chalabi It's curious the headline didn't mention he also met with Cheney. It's in the story, as well as a refresher for everyone who finds the name familiar: Last year, U.S. forces raided Chalabi's Baghdad office after he was accused of giving U.S. intelligence information to Iran. He is still under investigation regarding those allegations. And this is on top of him being the point man for exile misinformation in the run-up to the war. No doubt Cheney has a good reason for ignoring this shady past. If VPOTUS was accountable, he'd actually have to share it with Congress or God forbid have a press conference. But as usual when it comes to Cheney, there's nothing to do but hope for the best and expect the worst.

Bin Laden in English

The first collection of all Bin Laden's public statements in English is now available. Mary Braid has the story. $Q: ...It reveals why he thinks one of his biggest assets is the foreign policy of the Bush White House; the point at which his revolutionary Islamic fervour tipped over into megalomania; and answers the question that constantly nags away at Western security services: do his messages to his followers contain coded messages? It should be required reading for administration officials. Required because President Bush wears his ignorance of the enemy like a badge. As Pat Buchanan noted, OBL didn't all of a sudden stumble across the Declaration of Independence and go berserk. Studies of suicide bombing show it is inevitably a reaction to an occupation, real or perceived. Of course the "terrorist sympathizer" spit-ball will be tossed at anyone who dares cut deeper than the Darth Vader/Luke Skywalker model the administration favors to describe the struggle. Let them toss away. To dismiss the enemy's core motivations when they are right under your nose is careless, irresponsible, and self-defeating. And it's becoming more apparent everyday.

Santorum Makeover in Progress

The Beaver County Times reports Senator Santorum as saying Intelligent Design does not belong in the science classroom. He also dismisses Pat Robertson's prophesy of abandonment for Pennsylvania heretics. Steering clear of Bush's visit. Criticizing the semantically silly "War on Terror" tag. Saying "mistakes were made" in the prosecution of the war. Nothing like a set of plummeting poll numbers to clear the mind.

Crooks and Liars Mehlman Vid Up

Crooks and Liars, as always, comes through with this morning's Meet the Press video. Mehlman did the usual variation on his "we planned to go to hell all along and a hand-basket is the very best way to travel" spin when confronted with his party's woes. Forget that the Iraq line isn't working anymore - what's really going to hurt them is Plamegate. Because they aren't addressing the problem - only pushing it down the line. Ziegler's old fashioned 70's "I won't dignify that question with a response" has given way to the more modern "investigation under way" dodge. But the pressure is mounting everyday as the MSM types away to the soundtrack of "Won't Get Fooled Again". Before long it'll segue into "When the Walls Come Tumbling Down".

Now Dean

Flip-side of the Mehlman interview. Russert pretty much the same with Dean as he was with Mehlman - tough questions backed up by stats and caps, but no follow-up to speak of. The thrust of Russert's questioning is fair. The Democrats need a clear and salable agenda if they are to take advantage of the slow-motion train wreck the GOP has become.

Mehlman on Meet the Press

Watching it right now. The usual non-answers by K.M. and the usual non-follow-ups by Russert. Dean's next. More on it later...

Frank Rich Hammers White House

Beat the NYT firewall here. $Q: So when you watch the president stand there with a straight face and say, "We do not torture" - a full year and a half after the first photos from Abu Ghraib - you have to wonder how we arrived at this ludicrous moment. The answer is not complicated. When people in power get away with telling bigger and bigger lies, they naturally think they can keep getting away with it. And for a long time, Mr. Bush and his cronies did. Not anymore. But there's much more, all of it required reading. The RNC would have to clone a hundred Mehlmans to even begin to knock down the facts woven into his powerful argument. Rich slams the door in disgust with the final line: The Qaeda suicide bombings of three hotels in Amman on 11/9, like the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London before them, speak louder than anything else of the price we are paying for the lies that diverted us from the war against the suicide bombers of 9/11 to the war in Iraq. Go get 'em Frank.

Keeping the Pressure on Phase II

In Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument the Washington Post tackles some of the half-truths that littered Bush's shabby Veteran's Day performance. As the White House well knows, the charge that they deliberately manipulated intel has never been investigated: But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry." Phase II of the investigation should look directly at the White House Iraq Group. This All-Star Liar's Club was tasked with spewing Bunyonesque bilge about Iraq at a time when publicly the administration was saying no decision had been made. They were enormously successful. All who were misinformed by them have a right to know why and how. Republican resistance to turning over the right rocks should be fought with the same vigorous spirit Harry Reid used to get them off them the dime with Phase II in the first place.